raised cover on 1900 box

Status
Not open for further replies.
jumper said:
Can I use a mud ring on a 4" x 4" box and mount a t-stat or other device on it?
Click to expand...

If you can't than every building we have sent out for the last 8 to 10 years has been a violation. All T'stat's mount on a 4 in. square with a 1/4 in. rise single device plaster ring.
 
jumper said:
Ever tried to wall mount a t-stat in a mechanical room with all walls being concrete filled block?

4 x4 with mud ring is way better than a handy box.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying I wouldn't do it... but if the AHJ made an issue of it, I wouldn't have any grounds to fight it IMO. I'd have to get inventive on a workaround. :happyyes:
 
Smart $ said:
I'm not saying I wouldn't do it... but if the AHJ made an issue of it, I wouldn't have any grounds to fight it IMO. I'd have to get inventive on a workaround. :happyyes:
Click to expand...

You, in my opinion, have plenty of support from 110.3(B). The product is listed and labeled and when you go to the information associated with it in the UL White Book you will find instructions and information, but you will also find a "silence" about either surface or flush use in Outlet Box assemblies, so there is no restriction. If you go to the Manufacturer's catalog page you will find all raised and flat mud rings under the category of "covers" that are "used for mounting switches or receptacles," and, again, a silence about either surface or flush use.

Mud20Rings_zpsloovf4b7.jpg
 
al hildenbrand said:
You, in my opinion, have plenty of support from 110.3(B). The product is listed and labeled and when you go to the information associated with it in the UL White Book you will find instructions and information, but you will also find a "silence" about either surface or flush use in Outlet Box assemblies, so there is no restriction. If you go to the Manufacturer's catalog page you will find all raised and flat mud rings under the category of "covers" that are "used for mounting switches or receptacles," and, again, a silence about either surface or flush use.
Click to expand...
Slap a smidgeon of mud on a mud ring and we're all good to go on that. From there, I'd just have to battle the AHJ on where the wall is when using a wall plate.... :D
 
Smart $ said:
No way. I have more grounds to stand on than either of you... and neither of you are going to con me into believing otherwise. :happyno:
Click to expand...

You have nothing, you have presented no evidence to support your personal view.

On the other hand Al and I have a permissive code on our side.

I agree that these items may have been conceived with recessed use in mind but there is no restriction on using them surface mounted.

This is not a con, it is just where we are unless you find some documentation to support your view.
 
iwire said:
You have nothing, you have presented no evidence to support your personal view.

On the other hand Al and I have a permissive code on our side.

I agree that these items may have been conceived with recessed use in mind but there is no restriction on using them surface mounted.

This is not a con, it is just where we are unless you find some documentation to support your view.
Click to expand...
Putting the same rhetoric in different words does not change the fact these items design use can easily be discerned from the product label. Then we have actual use being one and the same. I'd bet that the design use is the actual use over 98% of all instances. Any AHJ is at liberty to make a determination based on this evidence and reject usage in a surface mount assembly.

I have solid ground(s). Permissive Code takes a back seat where an AHJ determination sides with my so-called opinionated facts.
 
Smart $ said:
. . . these items design use can easily be discerned from the product label. Then we have actual use being one and the same. . . . I have solid ground(s).
Click to expand...
Your "opinion" of what the product label leads one to "discern" just isn't supported by the UL White Book. Try it.

Go to the White Book index and look up "plaster ring" where you will be referred to "see Metallic Outlet Boxes (QCIT)".

In category QCIT you will learn this product label is Mud Ring.

Now, is there really ANY "mud" involved. No. The only way this "product label" is "discernible" is through the filter of Trade Jargon. Easy. . . I think not.

The White Book's label just doesn't support even this part of your opinion. . . in my opinion.
 
al hildenbrand said:
Your "opinion" of what the product label leads one to "discern" just isn't supported by the UL White Book. Try it.

Go to the White Book index and look up "plaster ring" where you will be referred to "see Metallic Outlet Boxes (QCIT)".

In category QCIT you will learn this product label is Mud Ring.

Now, is there really ANY "mud" involved. No. The only way this "product label" is "discernible" is through the filter of Trade Jargon. Easy. . . I think not.

The White Book's label just doesn't support even this part of you opinion. . . in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Hmmm.... "mud" is involved in most installation instances that I'm aware of. If it wasn't added after installation of the ring in "mud" form, it was "mud" in the making of the wallboard and since dehydrated.

Ohhh, and BTW the simple concept of UL recognizing it as a "mud" ring exemplifies the fact that trade jargon does in fact play a role in design use... because as you know, mud refers to plaster, gypsum, or similar wall forming materials... and not soil mixed with water "mud".

Interpreting the design use of a Mud Ring vs. your opinion... How could I ever top that. :sleep:

FWIW, this is actually a worse debate than using a rigid coupling and connectors to transition from one wiring method to another.
 
Last edited:
al hildenbrand said:
With ANY documentation . . .
Click to expand...
You are actually noting the documentation. You are reading between the lines and forgetting about titles and their meaning relative to subject matter. Believe it or not, everything in the electrical trade is NOT documented explicitly to the point of minutia to suit your needs.
 
Smart $ said:
Believe it or not, everything in the electrical trade is NOT documented explicitly to the point of minutia to suit your needs.
Click to expand...
As, evidently, it is evinced by the paucity of documentation on your side of this banter.
 
Smart $ said:
Hmmm.... "mud" is involved in most installation instances that I'm aware of. If it wasn't added after installation of the ring in "mud" form, it was "mud" in the making of the wallboard and since dehydrated.

Ohhh, and BTW the simple concept of UL recognizing it as a "mud" ring exemplifies the fact that trade jargon does in fact play a role in design use... because as you know, mud refers to plaster, gypsum, or similar wall forming materials... and not soil mixed with water "mud".
Click to expand...

How do you mud over a flat plate? You don't.

And anyone with a lick of commonsense knows those 'non-raised' plaster rings are made for exposed work.


FWIW, this is actually a worse debate than using a rigid coupling and connectors to transition from one wiring method to another.
Click to expand...

What I find worse abut this is suddenly you, one of the members that brings documentation and outside sources to threads regularly all of sudden says we don't need those things when it is clear you simply cannot find any to support your view.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top