Stackers

Status
Not open for further replies.
don_resqcapt19 said:
They hold the NM away from the framing member. In my opinion that is not closely following the building surface.
Don
Click to expand...

Following this reasoning, it's only logical to assume that an installer cannot staple a 12/2 on top of another 12/2 because the cable on the top will not follow the building surface closely enough; or to ty-wrap cables to a stapled cable, since none but the stapled cable would follow the building surface closely enough. :confused: :)
 
Following this reasoning, it's only logical to assume that an installer cannot staple a 12/2 on top of another 12/2 because the cable on the top will not follow the building surface closely enough; or to ty-wrap cables to a stapled cable, since none but the stapled cable would follow the building surface closely enough.
Click to expand...
That would be fine with me. Also ty-wrapping one cable to another is a violation of 300.11(C).
Don
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
That would be fine with me. Also ty-wrapping one cable to another is a violation of 300.11(C).
Don
Click to expand...

I'm trying to imagine what an installation would look like where you use stackers coming down a stud bay, then after exiting the last stacker, you have to "secure" each NM- I'm guessing by staples- yet the NM is not stapled one flat one on top of another, so they must "fan out" to such an extent they would then violate the 1 1/4 " from the plane of the surface of the stud rule 300.4(D). :confused: :smile:
 
First I would like to say that I, like most here, have the utmost respect and admiration for Don and his awesome contributions to the site and our industry.
I am going to follow that with:
I know Don has stressed that it is his opinion (usually a very good thing), but here..."closely following the building structure", it is definitely his opinion.
I would say that the problem with this type of installation/requirement is it is VERY subjective. What is the definition of "closely" or "closely following the building surface"?????

So...with that said the best way to deal with any topic that is SUBJECTIVE in nature is to call your local AHJ/electrical inspector.


Yes I disagree with Don (in regards to the stacker issue), that is not a bad thing, some controversy is good. :wink:


I want to reiterate that I think Don is very intelligent and has contributed here a ton... and I have not lost my faith or trust in him. I just happen to disagree on the one point.
 
I agree with you, Pierre. I am not trying to diminish anyone's standing, credibility, etc., etc., etc. I'm only developing his (Don's and other's)interpretations and test-driving those interpretations out in the field to see how they impact electricians and inspectors in the field who have for a long while been at variance with the interpretations suggested here.

I can see how Don can interpret the way he does by reading what he cites. It's what the code says. It's just fascinating to see the impact when taken so precisely. :smile:
 
Frist if we all agreed there would be no need for this forum. Part of what I do is point out the language of the code. What it says is often not how it is applied or even what was intended.
Don
 
I think sometimes just because Don says "that's how it is" doesn't necessarily mean he agrees with it, either.

I seem to recall some issue with the amperage capacity of #12 conductors.:smile:

As Larry Fine pointed out though, ... what are you supposed to do with the situation in the picture he posted? The stackers are no good?!?:confused:
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
Frist if we all agreed there would be no need for this forum. Part of what I do is point out the language of the code. What it says is often not how it is applied or even what was intended.
Don
Click to expand...

First, as I have mentioned, we know how well you read the actual wording of the NEC. That is not what I am disagreeing with, even in this thread.


In this instance, the language of the code is not defined well enough to let us all agree what is "closely following the surface" really mean.

The term "closely" is relative, therefore what dimension do we give to it?
 
Pierre,
In this instance, the language of the code is not defined well enough to let us all agree what is "closely following the surface" really mean.
Click to expand...

When the code language is not clearly defined, the reader gets to define it. The only real issue is how the reader with the authority to enforce the code defines it and that is not me.
Don
 
Sometimes, when the code is this ambiguous, I think we have to step back and decide how important is the issue anyway. If the stackers were used we need to say "what harm will really come from it. Even with the wire running parallel to the beam and stapled every 3 feet, it would still be easy for someone to insert a hanger over the wire and hang clothes.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
Frist if we all agreed there would be no need for this forum. Part of what I do is point out the language of the code. What it says is often not how it is applied or even what was intended.
Don
Click to expand...

Due in large part to the way the code panel members are selected. :mad:
I wonder at times if some can read, spell and write, let alone have firm backgrounds in the english language. Some are there because of corporate politics...one has only to attend to arrive at that conclusion. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top