Chester the Cheetah

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Chester the Cheetah

Originally posted by raider1:

I don't see an exception for a switch that is all plastic or doesn't have a ground terminal. I think this section is pretty specific that all switches must be grounded.

Chris
Click to expand...
So if neither condition (1) nor (2) can be met in 404-9(B),A switch without a grounding connection are still to be grounded?
 
Re: Chester the Cheetah

Yes, all switches must meet either (1) or (2) of 404.9(B).

The shop I use to work for has boxes of residential switches that didn't have grounding terminals on them, but you can only use them using the exception to 404.9(B). These switches were 30 years old.

The problem with using (1) in this case, is that this section states "A nonmetallic box with integral means for grounding devices. The boxes you must use for this system don't have integral grounding means.

Chris
 
Re: Chester the Cheetah

First, thank you for the reply.


Originally posted by raider1:

I don't see an exception for a switch that is all plastic or doesn't have a ground terminal. I think this section is pretty specific that all switches must be grounded.

Chris
Click to expand...
Jump back to this for a second. I didn't say exception, did I?
This is what I did say:
Originally posted by throttlebody:

The switch would be UL listed for no grounding means since it is an all plastic device and there is no means to terminate a ground. The faceplate is plastic. This goes without say that a ground shall be provided to ground metal objects (metal straps and metal faceplates), none of which we have that is integral.
Click to expand...
since it is an all plastic device and there is no means to terminate a ground
Click to expand...
This would be a reason why it would be UL listed for no grounding means, not pointing to an exception, but the rest of the paragraph goes on to mention the other parts of the assembly. The words highlighted in bold text, in the previous post, were the building blocks to my presentation of the assembly, then the final summary, which you apparently thought was an exception.

The switches in the shop you are referring to are equipment, but not an assembly.

I think what is being singled out here is each piece in it's singular form. This is not the case. The parts are made to NOT be interchangeable with NON-PROPRIETARY parts, making it an assembly and would be listed as such.


So, I took it a step further for this.
I called for a short meeting this morning at the local Building and Development Electrical Dept. On the diagram board, I drew a picture of the box, the device, and the plate, to the best of my poor freehanded drawing abilities. I presented everyone there with a "What if I use this product, it doesn't seem to be a grounded switch device?" There were alot of, "No, it has to be grounded." "Where's the ground terminal?" "I don't see any means of bonding."

The electrical inspectors office, consisting of 17 electrical inspectors, 2 assistant chiefs, and 2 electrical plans reviewers, visit the website, analyzed pictures of the equipment, read the pdfs and FAQs, then watched the video. They ALL had the same answer, based on the information that they were able to obtain about the product being offered, within 30 seconds of finishing the video.

1) It's listed for its application.

2) It is a listed equipment assembly.

3) Listed equipment assemblies from the manufacturer are not superceeded by the NEC.

I have even complete a phone conversation this evening, with Dave Clair V.P and Brent Kidman, Leading Engineer to go over the UL specifications. These two gentlemen were more than willing to answer any questions presented to them. They also will be changing the website within the next few days to cover the assembly. Hats off to them!

I have presented my case to an exhausted extent, with the exception of showing a live feed from the office meeting, which I would if I had thought of it. :p


:cool:
 
Re: Chester the Cheetah

Originally posted by raider1:
A listed product must still meet the requirements of the NEC.
Click to expand...
No, not really.

Do we use 310.16 to size the wires in listed products?

There are many things in listed equipment that do not follow the NEC.

As the device in question can only accept one type of plate (plastic) there is no reason it has to be grounded.
 
Re: Chester the Cheetah

As a follow up to my last post I was directed to this document available here.

If you read the section on grounding of switches it refers you to 90.4 for reasoning behind not needing to comply with 404.9(B).

Found this really interesting.

Chris
 
Re: Chester the Cheetah

iwire,

Sorry, you posted while I was typing (slow at typing) :D

I can see where a plastic switch probably does not need to be grounded, I am just wondering if the NEC allows for a switch to not conform to 404.9(B).

If you look at the document that I posted, the company seems to think that you need to use 90.4 to allow the switch to be ungrounded.

I am curious to see what others think.

Chris
 
Re: Chester the Cheetah

I think there should be a code change that addresses it, but for now I cam comfortable using 90.4, if, and only if, nonconductive plates are the only types of plates that can be physically installed.
 
Re: Chester the Cheetah

Ryan, I agree, but there will always be inspectors that flash a 90.4 in a blink of an eye.

Electrician says, "Sir this meets or exceeds the NEC as an alternate wiring method."

I can see the inspectors thoughts literally tripping over the amount of 90.4s running through their heads. Inspectors abuse 90.4 to a point where it needs to be regulated........oh wait.....it is. The inspector is more than likely to be on a "technician" level, along with numerous other inspectors, that by their state law, works UNDER the Building Official. The AHJ belongs to the Official, not the inspector, unless he/she is both.

Then again, there will be some inspector having the electrician modify a product, that was listed to the applicable standards, now voiding it, by drilling a hole in it or adding a strap that could cause more harm than good.
 
Re: Chester the Cheetah

Robert. I feel that You have had some "let's say" "bad" experiences with Inspectors? let Me Know. Thank's
 
Re: Chester the Cheetah

Robert,

I hope you do not feel that I am trying to over step my bounds as an inspector. I relize that as an inspector that I am not the AHJ and that is why I wanted to have clarification of the NEC intent of this product.

I don't have the authority to accept this product per 90.4 only the building official does. I always use applicable code sections when I write a violation. As for modifying a listed product I would never have an electrician do this, and cite them if they did.

I strive to be fair when I inspect and that is the reason for my questioning of this product and it's relationship to the NEC.

Chris
 
Re: Chester the Cheetah

Originally posted by triphase:
Robert. I feel that You have had some "let's say" "bad" experiences with Inspectors?
Click to expand...
Who hasn't?

Who hasn't had bad experiences with someone of any walk of life?

It's just a crime to let the uninformed (and perhaps pig-headed) actions of a few, cast a shadow over all inspectors. Most of the inspector-members of this forum are willing to eat as much crow as the lowest apprentice among us.

The only crime is a closed mind. We can all be guilty of that from time to time.
 
Re: Chester the Cheetah

Originally posted by triphase:
Robert. I feel that You have had some "let's say" "bad" experiences with Inspectors? let Me Know. Thank's
Click to expand...
Greg, thank you. :)

I can tell you, from after nearly 15 years working in the field and being very passionate about my work, I have bent over backwards to do what the inspectors said they "wanted", when , in fact I knew I could do something a certain way. I knew that by posting my case with the inspector in the field, if I proved myself correct, I would be scrutinized against. I know this because it has happened to me numerous times, too many to even bring up. I have presented cases upon cases to local inspectors, throughout various regions of 3 states.
I literally gave up the concept that if I provide a solid case, then they would say "okay". I have had inspectors so mad that they have said to me "I AM GOD", "take your companys arses back across the river", "I am not showing you where that says to do it that way, I am the inspector here and what I say goes". "You need another Smoke Detector here", but 1/4 of mile away, still in the same project but different builder, I am not required to have one with the same scenario. (I made it a point for the job superintendent to ask him if I needed another SD installed, while I stayed out of sight in an inconspicuous way, while he walked the house.) Same inspector, This time "NO" was his answer. I then walked around the corner with both sets of blueprints, mfr installation instructions, and a code book and asked him why I had to in another house with the same scenario, suprising him. He was dumbfounded by my question. "Because I feel that one needed it."

My most recent was an inspector who walked into the house, looked around, pet the family dog and on his way out, he said to replace the romex on the heat pumps with grey uf. He didn't even look at the wire. It was white uf that had the embedded stamp throughout the plastic extrusion. He said it wasn't sunlight resistant, I pointed out that it was stamped sunlight resistant. He said, "I don't care, I want grey uf installed." The H.O. told him we would replace it with grey to make him happy. It goes on and on.

I have met more inspectors with the 90-4 syndrome than I care to shake a stick at.


Wake up Greg! Stay with me on this. :D


I am not bashing inspectors, but there needs to be a line that they acknowledge. Some believe if the electrician don't know better, he don't need to know. I have heard it from the "mouth of babes".


I have, for years, told myself that if I ever went into the inspections field, I would not be like them.
I would:
1) judge fairly
2) help them acheive at the goals they are trying to reach
3) be open to new wiring methods
4) present newly approved wiring methods when current ones are not acheiving their goals
5) try to the best of my ability to help the electrician or consumer
6) let cases be presented
7) help them to understand why

I have been on the other side of the fence for a few years now. :cool:

Very seldom when you go out of your way to help someone, do they acknowledge it, although an occassional "thank you" letter will will make its way to the office; but if you PO someone by telling them they are in violation, you better believe that you will hear about it the next morning. Then a case gets to be presented to the chief. :eek:
 
Re: Chester the Cheetah

We cannot process your posting, because you have exceeded the maximum number of images allowed per post. The current maximum is 8.

DOH! I type too much, but I had alot to say, so here is the conclusion of the replies.

Originally posted by raider1:
Robert,

I hope you do not feel that I am trying to over step my bounds as an inspector. I relize that as an inspector that I am not the AHJ and that is why I wanted to have clarification of the NEC intent of this product.

I don't have the authority to accept this product per 90.4 only the building official does. I always use applicable code sections when I write a violation. As for modifying a listed product I would never have an electrician do this, and cite them if they did.

I strive to be fair when I inspect and that is the reason for my questioning of this product and it's relationship to the NEC.

Chris
Click to expand...
Chris, thank you.
:eek:

Only after I contacted the product mfr, did they inform me that they would update their site to present more information about said product. It appears our office has almost accepted the new product offered, as an alternate wiring method, not saying that yours will though.

As far as overstepping your boundaries, I have not accused you of such. We both know the process and respect it. That is why I called for a meeting, to introduce it to 3 levels of "technicians" and administration, and get input from each one of them, then a final say from the head. It appears that we need 1 last signature and it is approved(based on our state law). A mandate will then be issued to each electrical inspector.

The previous post was not of presentation, but I was merely pointing out what could happen if an inspector with a "because I said so" attitude ran into that issue of "no bonding means". (And yes, they are out there.) Talk about a bad situation and making it worse. :eek:
 
Re: Chester the Cheetah

Awhile back I saw a product at the supply house counter that was a tap system for NM.Basically a non set screw tap system that allowed installers,service to tap into Nm and add what they wanted without a seperate junction box.Has anyone else seen these and if so what was your opinion.Mine was at the time CHEEZY but in a pinch it could be a savior.Not sure if they were UL approved as I have not seen them since.
 
Re: Chester the Cheetah

Actually George is was advertized to be used in all Nm applications.It was like a self contained device that mobile homes use in that there were the same forks that make the same type of connection.When I saw it the first thought was that service crews would love this since a piece of NM that had no slack could be used when an add was needed.I haven`t seen it since and was wondering if anyone else has come across it ??
 
Re: Chester the Cheetah

Originally posted by allenwayne:
Awhile back I saw a product at the supply house counter that was a tap system for NM.
Click to expand...
I remember them too. I was at my big box yesterday and looked for them, but couldn't find any. I think they were made by Gardner - Bender.
 
Re: Chester the Cheetah

I am a wholesaller for the Cheetah product. If anyone has any specific question on them please feel free to email me or call. I would be happy to answer any questions.

Just a little bit about this system. Each device comes with the screw anchor allready attached to it. This makes for a fast and easy installation. If you find that the sheetrockers have place a ton of mud in your box you would need to clean it out just as before. The mud that is in the receiving hole for the anchors is easily cleaned out by pushing a screwdriver through the hole. After that the screw anchor will push the rest out of the back side of the box. Each anchor is rated to hold approx 100 pounds of pressure. Ample pressure to hold your device securely to your electrical box. Each device is also equiped with the ability to either stab your wire or to turn and screws your wire into the back. As typical with most devices. The bueaty with this system is that all the wall plates are completey screwless. They snap right into the devices.


If anyone would like a sample of these devices to see what they look like please let me know.

Thanks

Roger Beckman
National Sales Director
www.NoMoreScrews.com


Note: I edited out Rogers email. If you need to contact him, send a PM.
One of the reasons why we don't post an email is there are "bots" that scour the internet for the @ sign, then harvest the email address for spam.
I had my email harvestd and had over 40,000 spam emails at my ISP. I confirmed this with the webmaster recently as why we don't post the email address.
Its nothing personal. Be thankfull for it.

[ February 08, 2006, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: tom baker ]
 
Re: Chester the Cheetah

Originally posted by NoScrews:
If anyone has any specific question on them please feel free to email me or call. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Click to expand...
I appreciate you dropping in!

I think we'd all benefit from your answers to our concerns. If you could go through this thread and quote our statements and address them, that would be spectacular. :)

One that I am curious about is what Ryan brought up. How do you install spark rings in your boxes, for cabinets and tile and whatnot, where the box is roughed in farther than 1/4" from the surface of the wall?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top