NM home run to gas furnace

Status
Not open for further replies.
ActionDave said:
It is funny, flex offers no greater flexibility in the code in context of "exposed to physical damage" than NM. People are uncomfortable seeing exposed romex though. ...
Click to expand...

Flex , Greenfield , Old steel type too ... Is inherently more protection when exposed to physical damage than NM is .
Also i thought that there is a " height requirement " as to exposed NM when not in the eves of attics , or in the joist so many feet from an access hole to attic .

As stated before , NM exposed to WH or furnace is Non Compliant . It is always boxed and a whip in Greenfield when I do it .

I do know of Furnaces being Hard wired with a cord , so when power is lost , portable Gen can power the furnace . I think this is a good idea in cold climates . I would hate to forget to drain or have to drain all water pipes during extended power outage. Or deny Heat to the residents .



Don
 
ActionDave said:
It is funny, flex offers no greater flexibility in the code in context of "exposed to physical damage" than NM. People are uncomfortable seeing exposed romex though.

It's like seeing that hairy guy at the beach. You know the one I'm talking about. He's heavy set, has black hair on his head, chest, arms, legs, and back. If you were to shave him you could stuff a mattress......Dude! Put on a t-shirt. It won't change the reality of the situation, but at least I don't have to see it.
Click to expand...

Not many rodents nibble on metallic flex -- there are many reasons for protection from physical damage & not all are addressed by code. But then I usually hardwire a dishwasher directly with NM & no conduit sleeve. :blink:
 
Last edited:
dielectricunion said:
Exposed romex definitely adds a "yuck factor". Looking through the code, it seems like the requirements to hide and protect NM are a lot more open to interpretation than I had thought.
Click to expand...

Not according to these sections...

According to 334.15(A) NM cable shall closely follow the building surface where exposed.

334.30(B)(2) allows unsupported lengths up to 4 1/2 feet if within a accessible ceiling.
 
shortcircuit2 said:
Not according to these sections...

According to 334.15(A) NM cable shall closely follow the building surface where exposed.

334.30(B)(2) allows unsupported lengths up to 4 1/2 feet if within a accessible ceiling.
Click to expand...

That basically says if properly stapled and following the surface of a wall that I can have surface mounted romex, right? Then, depending on how you interpret 334.15(B), you would just have to keep it away from areas where it's subject to physical damage. It's not as explicit as I think it should be
 
All I can add is that my gas furnace is a dedicated 20A circuit wired to a single receptacle and the furnace plugs into that. No need for much amperage on a gas furnace, just control power and fans, so no need for big wire. I would not wire it with exposed romex even if it was legal. Looks like crap. :happyno:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top