crossman gary
Senior Member
Good thread.
I agree with Al's reasoning and believe it is the intention of the CMP.
I agree with Al's reasoning and believe it is the intention of the CMP.
I don't think the word parallel really has anything to do with the panel's "intent". I don't have any ROPs or ROCs to back this up, but it is my opinion that the intent is to keep the NM 1 1/4" from the framing member or provide a nail plate. I think a proposal for the 2014 code to remove the word parallel would clear this issue up...either way we would have a panel statement....
Rob and Don, you state that this cable is "parallel" when it is obviously at an angle of some number of degrees to the plane it is "parallel" to. What document determines the +/- degrees off parallel that is still "parallel" at the "intent" of the CMPs?
Since nobody else asked, I will: What's with the 9v batteries? :-?
For everyone's edification, the "Cables and Raceways Parallel To . . . ." passage of 300.4 was first introduced into the NEC in the 1990 edition.I don't have any ROPs or ROCs to back this up, . . .
If the word parallel (two instances) is removed from 300.4(D) then the installation shown in 300.4(D) Exhibit 300.2 requires nail plates at every crossing of a 2 x 12 ceiling joist, unless one says that the 2 x 12 is not likely to have screws or nails put in it.I think a proposal for the 2014 code to remove the word parallel would clear this issue up . . .
The dropping of "parallel" in 300.4(D) also creates conflict with 300.4(A) and the long accepted practice of nail plating only the framing member, and not the air on the sides of the framing member.
:grin:Ok, Al,
I will amend my proposal to say: "adopt the Chicago code".
I do not agree with the short section parallel assessment. I would argue that you could make the turn into the box without being parallel...calculus included.No matter how you draw it or install it, there is a section, maybe a very very short section, at the KO that is parallel to the framing member...you can't use the KO next to the framing member unless you use a nail plate to protect the NM.
Only if you have inspectors taking liberties with interpretations and common sense would you need some clarification...so maybe we need it (even though I have never seen a ridiculous KO ruling like that).I agree with Don. If you were to follow the actually wording of the code you would need a protective plate at each plastic box using a KO less than 1.25" from the stud. Seems pretty ridiculous to me. Maybe a proposal is in order. :smile:
I agree. When you have to use multiple extremes to get your point to stick, you are forcing your argument....What document determines the +/- degrees off parallel that is still "parallel" at the "intent" of the CMPs?