Southwire MC Cable

[Jamesco]

I admit I am a member of the cult of the red bushing. They got me when I was a green apprentice. I am too far gone, pray for me.

Add me to the list.
It only take a few callbacks, during the one year warranty period, for a tripped circuit breaker that won't reset because of ground fault condition.


NEC says 13 duplex receptacles can be installed on a 20 branch circuit. (I wouldn't do it but it's code.) That means there could be 13 receptacle outlet boxes. The ceiling might be a hard ceiling, no access.

After you determine there is a hot to ground, ground fault, its time to start looking. IF you know how the MC was ran that helps. How many of the 13 outlet boxes will you pull the duplex receptacle, breakdown the pigtailed hot joints, to try and isolate the ground fault? Time, time ,time. Time is money.

So you isolate the length of MC cable that has the fault. Which end is it? Maybe you are lucky and laying on the floor looking up at the MC connector you see some black carbon. Or maybe you can pull down on the conductors enough to expose the cut THHN insulation enough on the hot wire for a look. Maybe..... But lets say you are lucky you find the faulted end!

Whats next? Repair.... Remember the ceiling is a hard ceiling. Even if it is lay-in tile there is a good chance the branch circuit MC is fed though the wall studs. So now you are cutting a hole in the finished drywall. Hopefully it's only painted drywall. Time, time, time. Time is money.

So sure enough the THHN insulation was cut by the armor sheath and the Hot conductor went to ground. How are you going to repair it? How bad is the CU wire damaged?
Time, time, time. Time is money.

By now those little red insulators are looking pretty cheap.

Code is bare minimum.

The Code is not a target you’d like to hit. It is the minimum you can do.


Jim

 

[ramsy]

..Fittings used with Type MC Cable are required to be listed per 330.40 of the NEC. .. these listed MC fittings do not require an additional anti-short bushing.

Anti-short bushings that may be supplied by MC Cable manufacturers are for optional use by the installer, however they are not required.

ROP #7-116 ..Anti-short bushings are not required for Type MC cable.. Type MC termination
fittings perform the same function for Type MC cable as Type AC terminations plus the
anti-short bushing do for Type AC cable. ..Section 330.40 requires that the fitting be listed, but does not mandate the use of an anti-short bushing..

Nice find, good information for MC connectors listed with such features.

However the most prolific MC fittings may not be Listed to exclude Redheads.

Much less, can I find MC Connectors so Listed for outdoor use, in damp or wet locations.

 

[jumper]

However the most prolific MC fittings may not be Listed to exclude Redheads.

Much less, can I find MC Connectors so Listed for outdoor use, in damp or wet locations.

If the electrician uses the wrong fittings, his problem.

Wet location MC fittings are not that hard to find and you cannot use regular MC in wet locations. Gotta use the PVC coated stuff.

 

[electrofelon]

Code is bare minimum.

The Code is not a target you’d like to hit. It is the minimum you can do.


Jim

But I don't think you can generalize and say one should always go above code. I very much disagreed with you on what you were proposing in that 300' service thread. Code minimum is perfectly fine for many things and anything beyond is a waste of money. Not everyone is going to agree on which things should be done above code, but don't say always go above code min.

 

[jumper]

But I don't think you can generalize and say one should always go above code. I very much disagreed with you on what you were proposing in that 300' service thread. Code minimum is perfectly fine for many things and anything beyond is a waste of money. Not everyone is going to agree on which things should be done above code, but don't say always go above code min.

I will generalize:

As long as code is met and customer is happy, do whatever you like.

 

[ActionDave]

But I don't think you can generalize and say one should always go above code. I very much disagreed with you on what you were proposing in that 300' service thread. Code minimum is perfectly fine for many things and anything beyond is a waste of money. Not everyone is going to agree on which things should be done above code, but don't say always go above code min.

I agree. Nothing wrong with code minimum most of the time. I have a code minimum truck. Anything above code minimum would be silly. It's a good, safe, truck. It's all I need.

 

[ActionDave]

So sure enough the THHN insulation was cut by the armor sheath and the Hot conductor went to ground. How are you going to repair it? How bad is the CU wire damaged?
Time, time, time. Time is money.

By now those little red insulators are looking pretty cheap.

Code is bare minimum.

The Code is not a target you’d like to hit. It is the minimum you can do.


Jim

Like I said, I have seen exactly one case of insulation being cut at the fitting with MC and it was at the mouth of the fitting, not at the sheath.

 

[Coppersmith]

:blink: I too use red heads.
:huh: I know they are not required.
:happysad: I don't even want to use them.
:rant: But I fear the inspectors thinking they are required and having to redo a lot of work.
It's an extra 5 seconds of work per end using something that comes free with the cable so I do it.
:weeping: But I really don't want to.

 

[jumper]

:blink: I too use red heads.
:huh:I know they are not required.
:happysad:I don't even want to use them.
:rant:But I fear the inspectors thinking they are required and having to redo a lot of work.
It's an extra 5 seconds of work per end using something that comes free with the cable so I do it.
:weeping:But I really don't want to.

:thumbsup:

 

[Jamesco]

:blink: I too use red heads.
:huh:I know they are not required.
:happysad:I don't even want to use them.
:rant:But I fear the inspectors thinking they are required and having to redo a lot of work.
It's an extra 5 seconds of work per end using something that comes free with the cable so I do it.
:weeping:But I really don't want to.

:rant:But I fear the inspectors thinking they are required and having to redo a lot of work.

It could be a requirement of the AHJ. Have you ever asked the electrical inspector if it is required?

Jim

 

[jumper]

I have a code minimum truck. Anything above code minimum would be silly. It's a good, safe, truck. It's all I need.

What kinda mileage ya getting these days?

 

[Coppersmith]

It could be a requirement of the AHJ. Have you ever asked the electrical inspector if it is required?

No, and I don't think it would help. I do jobs in three counties with 18 distinct jurisdictions. Within each of those jurisdictions there are one and six electrical inspectors each with their own knowledge, experience, and opinions. I would have to ask every one of them to be assured of not getting into a time-consuming battle which I may lose even though I am right. They all tell you just follow the NEC, but then stuff happens.

 

[Jamesco]

I agree. Nothing wrong with code minimum most of the time. I have a code minimum truck. Anything above code minimum would be silly. It's a good, safe, truck. It's all I need.

LOL, If you are ever named as a defendant in a lawsuit, because of something electrical you installed, I would recommend you don't tell the Judge your wiring installation met bare minimum NEC code.

 

[Jamesco]

No, and I don't think it would help. I do jobs in three counties with 18 distinct jurisdictions. Within each of those jurisdictions there are one and six electrical inspectors each with their own knowledge, experience, and opinions. I would have to ask every one of them to be assured of not getting into a time-consuming battle which I may lose even though I am right. They all tell you just follow the NEC, but then stuff happens.

The AHJ has the final say. That pretty much includes the electrical inspector.

Sure, you can challenge the ruling of an inspector and you might even win. But in the end you'll end up losing.

Jim

 

[jumper]

LOL, If you are ever named as a defendant in a lawsuit, because of something electrical you installed, I would recommend you don't tell the Judge your wiring installation met bare minimum NEC code.

The AHJ has the final say. That pretty much includes the electrical inspector.

Sure, you can challenge the ruling of an inspector and you might even win. But in the end you'll end up losing.

Jim

Jim, bit of friendly advice.

FWIW, telling experienced ECs on this forum that they should go beyond what is required by law and the NEC is pretty much like painting this on yourself:

 

[Jamesco]

Jim, bit of friendly advice.

FWIW, telling experienced ECs on this forum that they should go beyond what is required by law and the NEC is pretty much like painting this on yourself:

View attachment 19611

Experienced ECs know if they are named as a defendant in a law suit, NOT to use NEC in their defense. Especially a building electrical fire.

 

[K8MHZ]

I agree. Nothing wrong with code minimum most of the time. I have a code minimum truck. Anything above code minimum would be silly. It's a good, safe, truck. It's all I need.

I will bet if you were to look close, your truck exceeds many of the minimum standards.

 

[electrofelon]

LOL, If you are ever named as a defendant in a lawsuit, because of something electrical you installed, I would recommend you don't tell the Judge your wiring installation met bare minimum NEC code.

Im not trying to get in a pissing match or put you down, but honestly the first thing that comes to mind when I hear this broad stroking brush of always go above code is lack of experience. Imo part of being a good electrician is knowing what is adaquate and sufficient, what is not, and what is overkill. If I were to hire a professional, I don't want them spending my money on things I don't need. I don't need more work, I am happy to talk a client out of something stupid like a 400 amp resi service.

 

[LarryFine]

NEC says 13 duplex receptacles can be installed on a 20 branch circuit.

I've often heard that interpretation, but never seen it in the NEC. Care to point it out? :?

 

[K8MHZ]

Jim, bit of friendly advice.

FWIW, telling experienced ECs on this forum that they should go beyond what is required by law and the NEC is pretty much like painting this on yourself:

View attachment 19611

Been there, done that.

Let's try it again.

In a code class one year, the instructor asked how many electricians in the room followed the code to the letter. About half raised their hands. The instructor then told them that makes them the worst electricians allowed by law. FWIW, I was not one of the electricians that raised my hand. I saw this coming as the inspector and I were, and still are, friends and I knew what he was up to.

His point was two fold. One, the code IS a MINIMUM standard, and two, using the code to design an installation is actually not allowed by the code itself.

If anyone wants me to do a code minimum job, I will staunchly refuse even if the result is having to put in an extra staple at my own expense. I have a reputation to uphold. That single staple could be the sole distinction between using the code as a design manual, which is not allowed, and a minimum standard, which is required.

Yes, I was trained by Code Nazis.