Re-poll

Learn the NEC with Mike Holt now!

Re-poll

  • Total voters
    77
Status
Not open for further replies.
iwire said:
I do not know what you mean.

Here on this NEC web site I preach the NEC regardless if I choose to exceed it or not on the job.

In my opinion to be good at the job we should know exactly what the NEC requires and what the job specs require.

With that info we can then make informed decesions about how we will do the job. If people are paying for Kia they will get a Kia from me, if they are paying for Rolls then that is what they will get.
Click to expand...

when it comes to workmanship and craftsmanship they always get a Rolls from me, regardless how much they pay or how many 'ands' they decide to use in a sentence. As for the strait conduit run, I consider that to fall under the workmanship portion of the code :)
 
jusme123 said:
when it comes to workmanship and craftsmanship they always get a Rolls from me, regardless how much they pay or how many 'ands' they decide to use in a sentence. As for the strait conduit run, I consider that to fall under the workmanship portion of the code :)
Click to expand...

Do you work in residential, commercial, industrial or some in all?

Roger
 
jusme123 said:
it makes a difference, comm and indust if it does
Click to expand...

So, when your competitors are using Nema 3R enclosures you use Nema 4 stainless steel enclosures, when the specs allow a Cooper or Lithonia fixture you voluntarily supply Halophane, when the plans call for 5,000 commercial grade receptacles you supply Hospital Grade Receptacles, when you can use EMT you use RMC, etc... I just want to be sure I understand what you mean when you say you give your customers a Rolls.

Roger
 
jusme123 said:
when it comes to workmanship and craftsmanship they always get a Rolls from me, regardless how much they pay or how many 'ands' they decide to use in a sentence. As for the strait conduit run, I consider that to fall under the workmanship portion of the code :)
Click to expand...

So you never use aluminum wire for anything ? Solder all splices
 
roger said:
So, when your competitors are using Nema 3R enclosures you use Nema 4 stainless steel enclosures, when the specs allow a Cooper or Lithonia fixture you voluntarily supply Halophane, when the plans call for 5,000 commercial grade receptacles you supply Hospital Grade Receptacles, when you can use EMT you use RMC, etc... I just want to be sure I understand what you mean when you say you give your customers a Rolls.

Roger
Click to expand...


twist it anyway you would like, that is not what I meant, but you know that
 
jusme123 said:
when it comes to workmanship and craftsmanship they always get a Rolls from me, regardless how much they pay or how many 'ands' they decide to use in a sentence. As for the strait conduit run, I consider that to fall under the workmanship portion of the code :)
Click to expand...

'workmanship and craftsmanship '
 
jusme123 said:
twist it anyway you would like, that is not what I meant, but you know that
Click to expand...

And the same can be said about you insinuations. Nobody here has said to install less than code and nobody has said or "preached" to only install per code requirements. If it makes you happy, put straps every where you can and add steel between the framing members so you can add more straps, but that is not what the conversation is about, it is about what the code requires.

Roger
 
jusme123 said:
'workmanship and craftsmanship '
Click to expand...


110.12 Mechanical Execution of Work. Electrical equipment
shall be installed in a neat and workmanlike manner.
Click to expand...

The following is from the NFPA manual of style.

PossibleUnenforceableandVague.jpg
 
roger said:
And the same can be said about you insinuations. Nobody here has said to install less than code and nobody has said or "preached" to only install per code requirements. If it makes you happy, put straps every where you can and add steel between the framing members so you can add more straps, but that is not what the conversation is about, it is about what the code requires.

Roger
Click to expand...

Roger, I have already stated that I do not agree with majority on this issue, and if I have to support EMT going through framing members across a building, it certainly will not be with tie raps. It will, however, be securely supported with either beam clamp and maywest hanger, kindolf and straps, or a bang on!
 
jusme123 said:
Roger, I have already stated that I do not agree with majority on this issue, and if I have to support EMT going through framing members across a building, it certainly will not be with tie raps. It will, however, be securely supported with either beam clamp and maywest hanger, kindolf and straps, or a bang on!
Click to expand...

And I say have a party, but for those who don't share your views, I say, if the EMT is supported per the discussion there is no need to add straps, tie wire, tie wraps, or anything else.

Roger
 
roger said:
And I say have a party, but for those who don't share your views, I say, if the EMT is supported per the discussion there is no need to add straps, tie wire, tie wraps, or anything else.

Roger
Click to expand...

And i say it's asking for conduit to come apart at couplings on long runs if it get's pushed out of the way accidently or on purpose. Set screws will not stay on under pressure from being pulled apart and that could easily happen.

Our opinions really are not the issue here. NEC must be followed to the letter as written.
Will admit often inspectors apply opinion over the actual words.
 
Jim W in Tampa said:
And i say it's asking for conduit to come apart at couplings on long runs if it get's pushed out of the way accidently or on purpose. Set screws will not stay on under pressure from being pulled apart and that could easily happen.
Click to expand...

Which has nothing at all to do with what the NEC requires.
Our opinions really are not the issue here. NEC must be followed to the letter as written.
Click to expand...


Don has told you, go look at the start in the 1996 NEC and it is clear and he has posted the ROP saying that even though the wording has changed for the 1999 the intent remained the same

It is done, you where wrong,, just accept it or put in for a code change but please drop the nonsense.
 
iwire said:
Which has nothing at all to do with what the NEC requires.



Don has told you, go look at the start in the 1996 NEC and it is clear and he has posted the ROP saying that even though the wording has changed for the 1999 the intent remained the same

It is done, you where wrong,, just accept it or put in for a code change but please drop the nonsense.
Click to expand...

I am not convinced that i am wrong. By the words in the 08 i am correct. The CMP intent is not the issue. We can only go by what is written and nothing else. I still hold strong on the issue of the AND word. A AND B. Change it to OR and i agree with you.
Highlite the words in B that you think say A can be ignored. All it says in B is it is permitted as SUPPORT not SECURED.
I am not alone on this issue. Majority is not always right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top