"John Grossbohlin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Since there are frequently discussions about electrical wiring here maybe
> it's not OT?
>
> I thought this was kind of amusing... in twisted kind of way. ;~)
>
> http://cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10104.html
>
> About 951,000 units... wonder how many projects went bad??
You would think that with that many sales, they would make sure the
information is correct and safe. Apparently not.
Look at those numbers, somebody made some money here. Those books go
straight to the shelf. I bet not that many are still around.
Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> I have one of the books they're recalling and see absolutely nothing
> in it which could be construed as bad or dangerous wiring advice. The
> Sunset _Complete Patios_ book had one pic showing direct-bury
> low-voltage cable, as it is normally installed, GFCI breakers and
> receptacles. It also had several paragraphs paraphrasing code
> requirements for keeping transformers at least a foot off the ground.
> I have no idea what caused the recall of that particular book.
>
> WTF,O? Freakin' Nanny State.
>
> When I'm King, Darwin will be re-released and the stupid shall get
> their just rewards. Look at the foolish society that attorneys have
> created.
>
I've got the Sunset Home Repair Handbook, but as far as I can tell it's
not among the recalled ones. The ISBNs don't match. My look through the
wiring section doesn't show anything wrong, but I'm not a household or
commercial electrician. (I stick to the low voltage stuff.)
Oh well, I'd rather have the $10 than the book. It takes up much less
space on the shelf. :-)
Puckdropper
On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 02:09:54 -0800, "CW" <[email protected]>
>> About 951,000 units... wonder how many projects went bad??
>Also took them 35 years to figure out that they were passing bad info.
And, have to wonder how many injuries, deaths or fire destroyed homes
happened in those 35 years due to these book errors?
Is there a time limitation on lawsuits for this kind of error?
On Jan 9, 1:57=A0pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> Larry Jaques wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > As I said, I own one of the recalled books and, as far as I can tell,
> > it is not in error.
>
> ...
>
> Out of curiosity, which version/date of NEC does it reference?
>
> I don't suppose it predate 3-wire circuits being Standard does it?
>
> Undoubtedly it won't have many newer things such as the mandates for
> GFIs, 4-wire dryer outlets, etc., which would be my guess is the basis.
>
> If that were to be so, seems more than extreme reaction...
>
> Went to CPSC site and followed link to Oxmoor--their FAQ has no
> information at all on what specifically might be wrong.
>
> There's a follow-up phone number; I'm tempted to call and say I followed
> their instructions and what specific diagram(s) and instruction(s) are
> considered so hazardous that they deserve this action so I can find out
> where I may have erred in following their advice and correct same?
>
> :)
>
> --
I doubt it pre-dates three wire as standard, two wire plus ground. A
friend and I rewired a small extension to my mother's attic in '62,
and, at least in Westchester County, NY, a ground wire was code.
Actually, it was illegal for an unlicensed electrician to work in the
home, or so we were told, even back then. Because my friend is an
electrical engineer, again according to them, they gave us a bye on
that one.
Of course, things are different here. When this house was built--
again, 1962--there were NO building codes in Bedford County, Virginia.
I once rented an old farmhouse where all new wiring was run around the
outside of the house, snugged up under clapboards for protection. It
was standard indoor cable stapled in place. The house was half log
structure, half rough cut framing lumber, with plaster over wood lath
interior walls and clapboard exterior. The logs were white oak, as
were the logs used as floor joists on the first floor. I could
understand a shortcut or two, as it would be a real mess to open up
those walls to run new cable, but I moved not too long after I got
really familiar with the wiring layout.
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 02:09:54 -0800, "CW" <[email protected]>
>>> About 951,000 units... wonder how many projects went bad??
>
>> Also took them 35 years to figure out that they were passing bad
>> info.
>
> And, have to wonder how many injuries, deaths or fire destroyed homes
> happened in those 35 years due to these book errors?
>
> Is there a time limitation on lawsuits for this kind of error?
"Incidents/Injuries: None reported"
Can't even say "It's for the children" because the children have all grown
up and have children of their own.
On 1/9/10 11:03 AM, "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote:
> IIRC, BX cable used to not have a neutral. Two wires.
Do you mean no ground wire? I know that BX cable was used for the ground
connection in the past, but was it really used in the "return" current path
of the neutral?
On 1/9/2010 4:18 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 02:09:54 -0800, "CW"<[email protected]>
>>> About 951,000 units... wonder how many projects went bad??
>
>> Also took them 35 years to figure out that they were passing bad info.
>
> And, have to wonder how many injuries, deaths or fire destroyed homes
> happened in those 35 years due to these book errors?
>
> Is there a time limitation on lawsuits for this kind of error?
Yeah ... you can't be too careful with "polarity"? :(
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"John Grossbohlin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Since there are frequently discussions about electrical wiring here maybe
> it's not OT?
>
> I thought this was kind of amusing... in twisted kind of way. ;~)
>
> http://cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10104.html
>
> About 951,000 units... wonder how many projects went bad??
Also took them 35 years to figure out that they were passing bad info.
On Jan 9, 12:53=A0pm, Robert Haar <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 1/9/10 11:03 AM, "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > IIRC, BX cable used to not have a neutral. Two wires.
>
> Do you mean no ground wire? I know that BX cable was used for the ground
> connection in the past, but was it really used in the "return" current pa=
th
> of the neutral?
Yeah. It was too early in the a.m. or too late in the afternoon for me.
On Jan 9, 10:50=A0am, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> Doug Miller wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, dpb <[email protected]=
> wrote:
>
> >> Trying to imagine what would be so flagrantly wrong that could justify
> >> such a recall but not be obvious enough it simply wouldn't have worked
> >> in reality, anyway.
>
> > Here's an example of that, from my first house, discovered when I remod=
eled
> > the bathroom. Entire house was wired with BX. Medicine cabinet in bathr=
oom had
> > fluorescent lights and an outlet for plugging in an electric razor. Lig=
hts
> > controlled by wall switch, outlet hot all the time. Only one 14-2 BX ca=
ble
> > entering the medicine cabinet -- it had been wired using the cable armo=
r as
> > the neutral. Worked, but obviously hazardous.
>
> What was the neutral of the cable used for?
>
> But did the subject book show/recommend such an installation is the
> question?
>
> --
IIRC, BX cable used to not have a neutral. Two wires. Some may have,
but I never saw it. A friend once told me that knob and tube wiring
was the safest ever, even though it never ran a neutral. I dunno, but
I worked with it once and it's an eerie experience in some ways.
The later stuff comes from poor research, using secondary, tertiary
and even further back sources as if they were original research. In
other words, one guy made the goof in '75, and all the others picked
it up from there. You can almost bet on that. Too under-budgeted
originally to check the NEC for whatever it was. No complaints for
10-15-20-25-30 years, so it MUST be OK. Only it's not.
On 10 Jan 2010 03:23:14 GMT, the infamous Puckdropper
<puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> scrawled the following:
>Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>>
>> I have one of the books they're recalling and see absolutely nothing
>> in it which could be construed as bad or dangerous wiring advice. The
>> Sunset _Complete Patios_ book had one pic showing direct-bury
>> low-voltage cable, as it is normally installed, GFCI breakers and
>> receptacles. It also had several paragraphs paraphrasing code
>> requirements for keeping transformers at least a foot off the ground.
>> I have no idea what caused the recall of that particular book.
>>
>> WTF,O? Freakin' Nanny State.
>>
>> When I'm King, Darwin will be re-released and the stupid shall get
>> their just rewards. Look at the foolish society that attorneys have
>> created.
>>
>
>I've got the Sunset Home Repair Handbook, but as far as I can tell it's
>not among the recalled ones. The ISBNs don't match. My look through the
>wiring section doesn't show anything wrong, but I'm not a household or
>commercial electrician. (I stick to the low voltage stuff.)
>
>Oh well, I'd rather have the $10 than the book. It takes up much less
>space on the shelf. :-)
I sure hope you're not serious. That's taking advantage of a company
after a stinking speaking weasel got them down in the bent-over
position. Bad karma, dude.
--============================================--
Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional.
---
http://diversify.com/handypouches.html ToolyRoo(tm)
and Possum(tm) Handy Pouches NOW AVAILABLE!
On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 23:35:26 -0500, the infamous "John Grossbohlin"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>Since there are frequently discussions about electrical wiring here maybe
>it's not OT?
>
>I thought this was kind of amusing... in twisted kind of way. ;~)
>
>http://cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10104.html
>
>About 951,000 units... wonder how many projects went bad??
I have one of the books they're recalling and see absolutely nothing
in it which could be construed as bad or dangerous wiring advice. The
Sunset _Complete Patios_ book had one pic showing direct-bury
low-voltage cable, as it is normally installed, GFCI breakers and
receptacles. It also had several paragraphs paraphrasing code
requirements for keeping transformers at least a foot off the ground.
I have no idea what caused the recall of that particular book.
WTF,O? Freakin' Nanny State.
When I'm King, Darwin will be re-released and the stupid shall get
their just rewards. Look at the foolish society that attorneys have
created.
--============================================--
Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional.
---
http://diversify.com/handypouches.html ToolyRoo(tm)
and Possum(tm) Handy Pouches NOW AVAILABLE!
On Jan 9, 11:03=A0am, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jan 9, 10:50=A0am, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Doug Miller wrote:
> > > In article <[email protected]>, dpb <[email protected]=
et> wrote:
>
> > >> Trying to imagine what would be so flagrantly wrong that could justi=
fy
> > >> such a recall but not be obvious enough it simply wouldn't have work=
ed
> > >> in reality, anyway.
>
> > > Here's an example of that, from my first house, discovered when I rem=
odeled
> > > the bathroom. Entire house was wired with BX. Medicine cabinet in bat=
hroom had
> > > fluorescent lights and an outlet for plugging in an electric razor. L=
ights
> > > controlled by wall switch, outlet hot all the time. Only one 14-2 BX =
cable
> > > entering the medicine cabinet -- it had been wired using the cable ar=
mor as
> > > the neutral. Worked, but obviously hazardous.
>
> > What was the neutral of the cable used for?
>
> > But did the subject book show/recommend such an installation is the
> > question?
>
> > --
>
> IIRC, BX cable used to not have a neutral. Two wires. =A0Some may have,
> but I never saw it. A friend once told me that knob and tube wiring
> was the safest ever, even though it never ran a neutral. I dunno, but
> I worked with it once and it's an eerie experience in some ways.
>
> The later stuff comes from poor research, using secondary, tertiary
> and even further back sources as if they were original research. In
> other words, one guy made the goof in '75, and all the others picked
> it up from there.
That happens a lot.
Dr. Melik: This morning for breakfast he requested something called
"wheat germ, organic honey and tiger's milk."
Dr. Aragon: [chuckling] Oh, yes. Those are the charmed substances that
some years ago were thought to contain life-preserving properties.
Dr. Melik: You mean there was no deep fat? No steak or cream pies
or... hot fudge?
Dr. Aragon: Those were thought to be unhealthy... precisely the
opposite of what we now know to be true.
Dr. Melik: Incredible.
- from Woody Allen's movie, Sleeper
R
On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 11:33:04 -0800, the infamous "CW"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On 1/8/2010 10:35 PM, John Grossbohlin wrote:
>>> Since there are frequently discussions about electrical wiring here
>>> maybe it's not OT?
>>>
>>> I thought this was kind of amusing... in twisted kind of way. ;~)
>>>
>>> http://cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10104.html
>>>
>>> About 951,000 units... wonder how many projects went bad??
>>
>> "Caution! The Surgeon General Has Determined That Electricity Can Be A
>> Hazard To Your Health - Do Not Use If Pregnant"
>>
>> Is missing?
>>
>The information in this book is known to the state of California to cause
>cancer.
"Caution: Do not ingest more than 3 color pages of this book in one
sitting or 5 in one calendar day or 21 in one calendar week."
--============================================--
Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional.
---
http://diversify.com/handypouches.html ToolyRoo(tm)
and Possum(tm) Handy Pouches NOW AVAILABLE!
"John Grossbohlin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Since there are frequently discussions about electrical wiring here maybe
> it's not OT?
>
> I thought this was kind of amusing... in twisted kind of way. ;~)
>
> http://cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10104.html
>
> About 951,000 units... wonder how many projects went bad??
Wow! Wonder if the lawyers are lining up?
Don't recall a book recall, ever. Lowes, Sunset, clear back to 1975!
And a full refund! There'll be a run on e-bay, Amazon and used book stores
...
John Grossbohlin wrote:
> Since there are frequently discussions about electrical wiring here
> maybe it's not OT?
>
> I thought this was kind of amusing... in twisted kind of way. ;~)
>
> http://cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10104.html
>
> About 951,000 units... wonder how many projects went bad??
Wonder what, specifically, was the error?
Possibly simply not consistent w/ current NEC and somebody got their
knickers in a wad?
Trying to imagine what would be so flagrantly wrong that could justify
such a recall but not be obvious enough it simply wouldn't have worked
in reality, anyway.
--
In article <[email protected]>, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>Trying to imagine what would be so flagrantly wrong that could justify
>such a recall but not be obvious enough it simply wouldn't have worked
>in reality, anyway.
Here's an example of that, from my first house, discovered when I remodeled
the bathroom. Entire house was wired with BX. Medicine cabinet in bathroom had
fluorescent lights and an outlet for plugging in an electric razor. Lights
controlled by wall switch, outlet hot all the time. Only one 14-2 BX cable
entering the medicine cabinet -- it had been wired using the cable armor as
the neutral. Worked, but obviously hazardous.
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Trying to imagine what would be so flagrantly wrong that could justify
>> such a recall but not be obvious enough it simply wouldn't have worked
>> in reality, anyway.
>
> Here's an example of that, from my first house, discovered when I remodeled
> the bathroom. Entire house was wired with BX. Medicine cabinet in bathroom had
> fluorescent lights and an outlet for plugging in an electric razor. Lights
> controlled by wall switch, outlet hot all the time. Only one 14-2 BX cable
> entering the medicine cabinet -- it had been wired using the cable armor as
> the neutral. Worked, but obviously hazardous.
What was the neutral of the cable used for?
But did the subject book show/recommend such an installation is the
question?
--
In article <[email protected]>, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, dpb <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>
>>> Trying to imagine what would be so flagrantly wrong that could justify
>>> such a recall but not be obvious enough it simply wouldn't have worked
>>> in reality, anyway.
>>
>> Here's an example of that, from my first house, discovered when I remodeled
>> the bathroom. Entire house was wired with BX. Medicine cabinet in bathroom had
>> fluorescent lights and an outlet for plugging in an electric razor. Lights
>> controlled by wall switch, outlet hot all the time. Only one 14-2 BX cable
>> entering the medicine cabinet -- it had been wired using the cable armor as
>> the neutral. Worked, but obviously hazardous.
>
>What was the neutral of the cable used for?
The white wire was used for the switched hot to the lights, and the black wire
for the unswitched hot to the outlet.
>
>But did the subject book show/recommend such an installation is the
>question?
>
I have no idea. You indicated you were having difficulty imagining something
so flagrantly wrong as to justify a recall that would still work in reality; I
provided an example from personal experience of just that: something
flagrantly wrong that worked in reality.
In article <c3a50987-7683-4d62-a90b-17c47914bc46@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
>IIRC, BX cable used to not have a neutral.
Of course it did.
>Two wires.
Right, one hot and one neutral.
>Some may have,
>but I never saw it. A friend once told me that knob and tube wiring
>was the safest ever, even though it never ran a neutral.
*All* circuits have a neutral, regardless of wiring method. In North America,
anyway. The UK has some sort of unusual setup that I don't pretend to
understand.
>I dunno, but
>I worked with it once and it's an eerie experience in some ways.
You appear to be confusing neutral with ground.
Doug Miller wrote:
...
> I have no idea. You indicated you were having difficulty imagining something
> so flagrantly wrong as to justify a recall that would still work in reality; I
> provided an example from personal experience of just that: something
> flagrantly wrong that worked in reality.
No, I was trying to imagine something that would have been
_published_in_the_book_under_question_ that would be so (since the
thread was about the recall I presumed that would be the obvious context
w/o saying so absolutely specifically. I know, it's usenet... :( )
--
Larry Jaques wrote:
...
> As I said, I own one of the recalled books and, as far as I can tell,
> it is not in error.
...
Out of curiosity, which version/date of NEC does it reference?
I don't suppose it predate 3-wire circuits being Standard does it?
Undoubtedly it won't have many newer things such as the mandates for
GFIs, 4-wire dryer outlets, etc., which would be my guess is the basis.
If that were to be so, seems more than extreme reaction...
Went to CPSC site and followed link to Oxmoor--their FAQ has no
information at all on what specifically might be wrong.
There's a follow-up phone number; I'm tempted to call and say I followed
their instructions and what specific diagram(s) and instruction(s) are
considered so hazardous that they deserve this action so I can find out
where I may have erred in following their advice and correct same?
:)
--
In article <C76E2CDA.484E58%[email protected]>, Robert Haar <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 1/9/10 11:03 AM, "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> IIRC, BX cable used to not have a neutral. Two wires.
>
>Do you mean no ground wire? I know that BX cable was used for the ground
>connection in the past,
Still is, per 2008 NEC Article 250.118 (8).
>but was it really used in the "return" current path
>of the neutral?
Not by any competent electrician. That was *never* approved by Code AFAIK.
On 1/8/2010 10:35 PM, John Grossbohlin wrote:
> Since there are frequently discussions about electrical wiring here
> maybe it's not OT?
>
> I thought this was kind of amusing... in twisted kind of way. ;~)
>
> http://cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10104.html
>
> About 951,000 units... wonder how many projects went bad??
"Caution! The Surgeon General Has Determined That Electricity Can Be A
Hazard To Your Health - Do Not Use If Pregnant"
Is missing?
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 05:18:54 -0500, the infamous [email protected]
scrawled the following:
>On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 02:09:54 -0800, "CW" <[email protected]>
>>> About 951,000 units... wonder how many projects went bad??
>
>>Also took them 35 years to figure out that they were passing bad info.
>
>And, have to wonder how many injuries, deaths or fire destroyed homes
>happened in those 35 years due to these book errors?
>
>Is there a time limitation on lawsuits for this kind of error?
The convenient thing for the publisher is that the book burned up with
the fire. ;)
I'm thinking that it was a couple idiots who didn't know squat about
installing a wire who burned down their garage or something. Some
smart attorney decided that he'd make his entire living off this one
and the result is a bogus recall and nightmare for the publishers.
As I said, I own one of the recalled books and, as far as I can tell,
it is not in error.
--============================================--
Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional.
---
http://diversify.com/handypouches.html ToolyRoo(tm)
and Possum(tm) Handy Pouches NOW AVAILABLE!
Charlie Self <[email protected]> writes:
>On Jan 9, 10:50=A0am, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Doug Miller wrote:
>> > In article <[email protected]>, dpb <[email protected]=
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> Trying to imagine what would be so flagrantly wrong that could justify
>> >> such a recall but not be obvious enough it simply wouldn't have worked
>> >> in reality, anyway.
>>
>> > Here's an example of that, from my first house, discovered when I remod=
>eled
>> > the bathroom. Entire house was wired with BX. Medicine cabinet in bathr=
>oom had
>> > fluorescent lights and an outlet for plugging in an electric razor. Lig=
>hts
>> > controlled by wall switch, outlet hot all the time. Only one 14-2 BX ca=
>ble
>> > entering the medicine cabinet -- it had been wired using the cable armo=
>r as
>> > the neutral. Worked, but obviously hazardous.
>>
>> What was the neutral of the cable used for?
>>
>> But did the subject book show/recommend such an installation is the
>> question?
>>
>> --
>
>IIRC, BX cable used to not have a neutral. Two wires. Some may have,
>but I never saw it. A friend once told me that knob and tube wiring
>was the safest ever, even though it never ran a neutral. I dunno, but
>I worked with it once and it's an eerie experience in some ways.
methinks you're confusing a neutral (grounded conductor) with a ground
(grounding conductor).
In Miller's setup, both conductors in the BX were used to supply the
hot side of the circuit to the light and the outlet, with the armor
providing the return path (grounded conductor). This violates
pretty much every version of the NEC I've ever seen.
Using the armor as a grounding conductor used to be ok per code, but now
only EMT or solid metallic conduit can be used as a grounding conductor,
however neither AL flex conduit nor BX may be used as the grounding conductor.
scott
On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 12:57:22 -0600, the infamous dpb <[email protected]>
scrawled the following:
>Larry Jaques wrote:
>...
>
>> As I said, I own one of the recalled books and, as far as I can tell,
>> it is not in error.
>
>...
>
>Out of curiosity, which version/date of NEC does it reference?
The book is from 1998 and doesn't list any version of the NEC. It has
literally nothing electrical in it, hence my wondering WTF was wrong
to have it recalled.
>I don't suppose it predate 3-wire circuits being Standard does it?
None of them does.
>Undoubtedly it won't have many newer things such as the mandates for
>GFIs, 4-wire dryer outlets, etc., which would be my guess is the basis.
>
>If that were to be so, seems more than extreme reaction...
>
>Went to CPSC site and followed link to Oxmoor--their FAQ has no
>information at all on what specifically might be wrong.
>
>There's a follow-up phone number; I'm tempted to call and say I followed
>their instructions and what specific diagram(s) and instruction(s) are
>considered so hazardous that they deserve this action so I can find out
>where I may have erred in following their advice and correct same?
>
>:)
Yeah, go ahead and do that. I hope they have Internet in STIR!
--============================================--
Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional.
---
http://diversify.com/handypouches.html ToolyRoo(tm)
and Possum(tm) Handy Pouches NOW AVAILABLE!
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 1/8/2010 10:35 PM, John Grossbohlin wrote:
>> Since there are frequently discussions about electrical wiring here
>> maybe it's not OT?
>>
>> I thought this was kind of amusing... in twisted kind of way. ;~)
>>
>> http://cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10104.html
>>
>> About 951,000 units... wonder how many projects went bad??
>
> "Caution! The Surgeon General Has Determined That Electricity Can Be A
> Hazard To Your Health - Do Not Use If Pregnant"
>
> Is missing?
>
The information in this book is known to the state of California to cause
cancer.