I couldn't verify if this message made it to the group, so I am reposting.
Still curious about the question at the top if anyone would care to comment.
Thanks! Bill
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:...
>A few months ago, the idea of a "quad in a box" go-anywhere power source
>was brought up.
>
> :: sheepishly I am asking::
>
> Is it fine to power this by plugging it into a wall outlet???
>
> Trying to answer the question myself, I'm pretty sure it's not even ok to
> be able to step
> on nm cable, so, at the very minimum, more durable insulation is required.
>
>
> Swingman offered me a good piece of advice, which is never to do anything
> (electrical) that
> you don't feel confident about (and I'm following that).
>
> I've learned even more since he mentioned that--learning to appreciate for
> instance the importance
> of being very careful not to even nick any of the conducting wires (which
> might result in a short for instance),
> and in installing a panel with a level. Attention to detail.
>
> Bill
>
>
>
On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 11:26:16 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> In article <[email protected]>, "Bill"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>"Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>> Top of what?
>>>>>
>>>>I apologize for not wording my question more effectively. Here's another
>>>>try:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>A few months ago, the idea of a "quad in a box" as a go-anywhere power
>>>>source
>>>>was brought up.
>>>>
>>>>Can one power this configuration by plugging it into a wall outlet without
>>>>violating the NEC?
>>>
>>> Yes, of course. The NEC is concerned with services, feeders, and branch
>>> circuits -- basically, everything between the service drop and the outlet.
>>> What's on *your* side of the outlet is of no concern to the NEC.
>>
>>Josephi - You read my mind. A pair of duplex outlets was what I had in mind
>>by "quad in a box". I honestly did not intend to be vague.
>>
>>Doug -- Wouldn't this be considered an extension of the branch
>>circuit/outlet since it is an outlet itself?
>
>No -- because it's *not* an outlet. It's an extension cord.
>
>>Maybe it's gets omitted for
>>being temporary.
>
>It's not covered by the Code because it's not part of the premises wiring
>system.
>
>>This same mechanism seems like the best way to add
>>outlets underneath the table of a workbench. Do you think that this is this
>>just as permissable?
>
>Certainly. As I said before, it's just an extension cord.
>>
>>I had a question concerning the ground wires in wiring a quad box in a
>>branch circuit (both outlets to be run in series from the same hot).
>
>Parallel, actually, not series.
>
>>Resources I have found have been vague. My understanding includes that a
>>wire attached to the ground terminal of the first duplex outlet would be
>>pigtailed with the upstream ground wire and a wire which is screwed to the
>>box, and that the wire attached to the ground terminal of the second duplex
>>outlet would be pigtailed with the downstream ground wire and a wire which
>>is screwed to the (metal) box.
>
>That's one way to do it, but certainly not the only way. The Code requires
>that both grounding wires, and the grounding terminals of each outlet, and the
>metal box, are all electrically connected. How you achieve that is up to you.
>A more common installation would be to wire-nut together pigtails from each
>outlet, both grounding conductors, and a pigtail fastened to the box.
>
>>So the box would contain exactly 2
>>connectors and two wires would be screwed to the box,
>
>Yes
>
>>possibly at the same place.
>
>NO. At different places. One wire per screw terminal.
>
>>Does this seem like the best way to you? I can think of equivalent
>>configurations, but this one seems good. Another possibility seems to be to
>>use a 3rd pigtail connecting the first two pigtail connections and connect
>>them to the box that way instead. Which way seems preferable to you?
>
>Not the second one you mention here. Why use an extra pigtail if you don't
>need to?
>>
>>BTW, using 12-3 cable for my run, every wire I mentioned connecting in the
>>paragraph above would be bare (right?).
>
>Every wire you mentioned *must* be bare, regardless of what type of cable
>you're using -- but why are you using 12-3 cable? (12-3 has *four* conductors:
>black, red, white, and bare.)
>
>The NEC mandates that the grounding conductor be either:
>a) uninsulated, or
>b) covered with insulation which is green, or green with a yellow stripe.
>NM cable is manufactured *only* with bare grounding conductors.
>
>
Only requirement for the use of it as Doug describes is that
everything be UL(or equal) listed. Even when we've hard wired them
into ceiling boxes in commercial installations the only requirement
was the use of heavy duty cord and strain relief connectors at both
ends.
Mike M
"Bill" wrote:
>A few months ago, the idea of a "quad in a box" as a go-anywhere
>power
>source
>was brought up.
----------------------------------
Cut to the chase.
Go back and reread and understand my post a long time ago on this
subject.
Buy a 12-3 (black, white, green), 25 ft molded cord set, chop off
receptacle, wire in a 2-gang, extra deep box with a double duplex
cover plate and a couple of receptacles.
Time for a beer.
It's only a silly extension cord.
Lew
On 06/07/2010 09:44 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Bill" wrote:
>> A few months ago, the idea of a "quad in a box" as a go-anywhere
>> power
>> source
>> was brought up.
> ----------------------------------
> Cut to the chase.
>
> Go back and reread and understand my post a long time ago on this
> subject.
>
> Buy a 12-3 (black, white, green), 25 ft molded cord set, chop off
> receptacle, wire in a 2-gang, extra deep box with a double duplex
> cover plate and a couple of receptacles.
>
> Time for a beer.
>
> It's only a silly extension cord.
>
> Lew
>
>
Or easier yet, buy something like this:
<http://www.supremehardware.com/servlet/the-25248/ACE-MULTI-OUTLET-ADAPTER/Detail>
Google "multi outlet adapter"
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
*snip*
>
> I could run my two 120v branch circuits from one 12-3 cable and a
> tandem breaker. Is there much
> advantage to two cables and two breakers?
>
*snip*
If you're running 2 120V circuits from a 12-3 cable, consider that the
neutral would have to carry twice as much current as it would in most
situations.
Two single breakers gives you the capability to move or replace just one,
should the need arise.
Puckdropper
--
Never teach your apprentice everything you know.
[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> In article <[email protected]>, Puckdropper
> <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>>If you're running 2 120V circuits from a 12-3 cable, consider that the
>>neutral would have to carry twice as much current as it would in most
>>situations.
>
> No, it doesn't, unless it's installed improperly. Properly installed
> (with the two hot conductors on opposite legs of the service), the
> current in the neutral conductor is the *difference* of the currents
> in the two hots, not their sum. For example, with 11 amps on one leg,
> and 7 amps on the other, the current in the neutral is 4 amps, not 18.
Bill, I'm sorry for the incorrect information. After much thought, I
think I can explain why Doug's right. (On opposite legs, the current
draws are going two different directions (on a plot). That's why they
subtract and not add.)
Doug, thanks for the correction.
Puckdropper
--
Never teach your apprentice everything you know.
"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote:
> Anyway - most 3-phase apartment house services are in fact 180 split
> windings.
> e.g. delta with centers of the delta sides are grounded. You don't
> get
> multiple phases for normal home use.
---------------------------------
HUH?
Residential construction in the USA is provided with the following:
Either 120/240, 3 wire Edison from a single phase utility x'fmr
or
240V, 3 phase, 3 wire with one leg center tapped and grounded.
This is known as "Wild leg delta".
If you grab the wrong leg, you get 167V (Remember vector addition?) to
ground.
Heard more than a few "war" stories about wild leg delta.
At one time was used by the small RECs as a means of reducing the
amount of equipment req'd, but fortunately is being replaced, but you
still might find some in the boonies.
The 3rd configuration found in light commercial such as shopping
centers and some apartment complexes is 208Y/120/3PH/4Wire.
You get 208V leg to leg, 120V any leg to ground.
Utility x'fmr is 3 PH.
You need to be careful to select equipment rated for 208V, not 240V,
or you will need a buck-boost x'fmr.
Lew
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> Thank you. I am hoping this renovation gives me a chance to remove a
> cable that truely
> shouldn't be lying where it is. I really want a electrical
> configuration I don't have to
> apologize for, one that was completed with a little craftsmanship...
>
> Bill
>
>
With that attitude, you're likely to succeed. Remember to label as you
go, and label everything. I had to replace a switch today and wound up
shutting off every 120V breaker in the unlabeled panel to get the power
shut off.
(What's really irritating this was a new panel and the old one was
sufficiently labeled.)
Puckdropper
--
Never teach your apprentice everything you know.
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
>
> When I submitted a purchase agreement, I requested that the seller's
> add labels
> to the 3 year old main panel. It didn't have a single one! I was
> glad I did, because
> I learned that each ceiling fan had a breaker, for instance, and I
> would probably still
> be guessing what the breaker for for the sump pump was for!
>
> Do you label any of the wires themselves (or anything else along those
> lines)?
>
> Bill
>
I would. I'd label them at several points, especially around an access
point to a chase or other area where there are several cables running
near each other.
On our club model railroad, we had two bus runs (basically circuits) next
to each other. It was extremely difficult to distinguish between them,
and the wire that wasn't supposed to be tapped in to was. Labeled wires
probably would have prevented that problem. (There's now a permanent
marker stripe down one wire as well as several labels.)
Puckdropper
--
Never teach your apprentice everything you know.
On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 01:46:21 -0400, "Bill" <[email protected]>
wrote the following:
>
>"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>
>> Buy a 12-3 (black, white, green), 25 ft molded cord set, chop off
>> receptacle, wire in a 2-gang, extra deep box with a double duplex cover
>> plate and a couple of receptacles.
>>
>> It's only a silly extension cord.
>
>Perhaps so, but surely it's an extension cord that merits much more care.
>Thank you for your patience.
Um, why would one extension cord require/merit more care than another
extension cord, Bill? Am I missing something from the original
thread?
--
Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what
to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.
-- George S. Patton
Bill wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>
>> Buy a 12-3 (black, white, green), 25 ft molded cord set, chop off
>> receptacle, wire in a 2-gang, extra deep box with a double duplex
>> cover plate and a couple of receptacles.
>>
>> Time for a beer.
>>
>
>
>> It's only a silly extension cord.
>>
>
> Perhaps so, but surely it's an extension cord that merits much more
> care. Thank you for your patience.
>
Why?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Actually, the currents are added. The effect is subtraction.
One leg has a -1 vector tagged to it so when adding it becomes subtraction.
Remember in the US and many other places the two voltages are 180 degrees
out of phase with the other.
Martin
Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
"Our Republic and the Press will Rise or Fall Together": Joseph Pulitzer
TSRA: Endowed; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member. http://lufkinced.com/
On 6/9/2010 8:38 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
> [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> In article<[email protected]>, Puckdropper
>> <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>>> If you're running 2 120V circuits from a 12-3 cable, consider that the
>>> neutral would have to carry twice as much current as it would in most
>>> situations.
>>
>> No, it doesn't, unless it's installed improperly. Properly installed
>> (with the two hot conductors on opposite legs of the service), the
>> current in the neutral conductor is the *difference* of the currents
>> in the two hots, not their sum. For example, with 11 amps on one leg,
>> and 7 amps on the other, the current in the neutral is 4 amps, not 18.
>
> Bill, I'm sorry for the incorrect information. After much thought, I
> think I can explain why Doug's right. (On opposite legs, the current
> draws are going two different directions (on a plot). That's why they
> subtract and not add.)
>
> Doug, thanks for the correction.
>
> Puckdropper
Bill wrote:
>
> Maybe I can describe my design in my application for a building
> permit with just
> enough generality to give me some flexibility.
>
You probably do not have to describe your design at all in your permit
application. Most building permits do not require any detailed electrical
design - just an inspection by an electrical inspector. Why bother
detailing more information than required?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
I am not under the US NEC but I thought it only applied to electrical codes?
Now I have to run build a pergola, in the rain, about 100 miles away...LOL
hmmmm... bathing suit or not?
Nahh! wouldn't look good up on a ladder with my construction boots.
fun? yuk!
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
The city seems to to have comingled several facets
(building/heating/cooling/plumbing/electrical) into
The Dept of Community Development. My assumption about the requirement was
based upon the NEC. Part of my project includes the installation of a new
subpanel.
One will be able to see if from the street and I don't want to ever have to
answer any
hard questions about how it got there. In different circumstances, I might
be more cavalier.
Bill
So.. you like your car really warm in the winter and need a lot of
receptacles for all the heaters!!
Or
You are wiring for the new all electric cars coming out and not sure what
kind of receptacle will be needed?
LOL
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Thank you for your suggestion. I may do something along those lines.
I'm already proposing 6 duplex outlets on one wall, 3 on another, and 3
240v outlets on the first wall. I've already had more than one salesperson
look at me incredulously and ask why I needed so much power...lol.
I hope none of this worries anyone who issues permits.
I learned a new word today, "cube-tap". Google showed me.
Bill wrote:
>
> Because if you fling it around or drop it, it may become a fire
> hazard.
Bill - you think about things too much. Nix the fire hazard idea.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Bill wrote:
> I bought some "grounding pigtails" to screw into my (obviously metal)
> electrical boxes.
>
> The pigtails are #12 stranded wire (I stripped the loose end), but the
> three ground wires I intended to connect to them are solid wire.
>
> My wiring book, "Stanley: Complete Wiring" provides the idea of
> twisting the solid wires and then wrapping the stranded wire about,
> leaving an 1/8" of the stranded wire extending beyond the end of the
> solid wire (before attaching a wire nut and electrical tape)--however
> they are not working with three #12 wires in their example.
>
> I was wondering whether it might be preferable to attach a piece of
> solid copper wire to the box instead so that stranded wire is not
> involved in the wire connection. It seems this may result in a more
> robust connection (but I recognize that this is an opinion based upon
> my intuition).
>
> Bill
Either way will work. One advantage to the stranded wire is its flexibility
which can make it easier to tuck into the box when you're done. It's not
much of an advantage though, because the down side is that it sometimes
wants to spring back. Solid wire folds and stays in place quite nicely.
Properly done, both connections are equally robust.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
>
> If you would have had to make a fire-related claim with your home
> owners insurance company
> you may have been up a creek (worth the risk?).
>
> I don't want to waste the approximately $600/yr I spend for my
> coverage. Where I live, the permit is $25--cheaper than pills to help
> me sleep. Not only that, the idea pleases SWMBO! : ) Not only that,
> I've never worked through the process
> before so I will learn something from it. From my perspective, I don't
> see a big downside.
> I want to emphasize: YMMV!
>
> Bill
Insurance issues aside, $25 for an inspection is cheap. Assuming you
have a good inspector, getting your work looked at by a professional for
$25 is cheap.
Puckdropper
--
Never teach your apprentice everything you know.
Bill wrote:
>
> I bought some "grounding pigtails" to screw into my (obviously metal)
> electrical boxes.
>
> The pigtails are #12 stranded wire (I stripped the loose end), but the
> three ground wires I intended to connect to them are solid wire.
>
> My wiring book, "Stanley: Complete Wiring" provides the idea of twisting
> the solid wires and then wrapping the stranded wire about, leaving an
> 1/8" of the stranded wire extending beyond the end of the solid wire
> (before attaching a wire nut and electrical tape)--however they are not
> working with three #12 wires in their example.
>
> I was wondering whether it might be preferable to attach a piece of
> solid copper wire to the box instead so that stranded wire is not
> involved in the wire connection. It seems this may result in a more
> robust connection (but I recognize that this is an opinion based upon my
> intuition).
>
> Bill
I prefer to use the green wire nuts for this application. See:
http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/items/6LU54?cm_mmc=Google%20Base-_-Electrical-_-Wire%20Connectors-_-6LU54
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]
Josepi wrote:
> Here what happens with the insurance companies, typically.
>
> - You have a fire
> - Fire Marshal (Chief Fire Inspector with insurance company hanging
> on his every word...waiting) checks in and says "Careless smoking!",
> You reply "No, nobody smokes here!".
> - Fire Marshal then states "Official cause of fire is bad wiring"
> **BIG STAMP ON PAGE** (before all the nonsense boys double their
> ritalin injections - I have been there)
> - Your insurance company looks into permit records and finds no
> record of wiring permit to add recent updates. They don't want to
> pay, readily. May drag out for a few years plus a few sleepless
> nights.
> - Your insurance company has to pay, probably by law
> - Your insurance comes up for renewal and they won't look at you.
> - You run to other insurance compaines and they share records.
> - You live without insuance and your mortgage company theatens you to
> pay-up now.
> - You reach deep into investments and get a second job.
> - You post here and they all laugh at you.
>
> BTW: The $75 fee will totally break the budget on your $20,000 update,
> cancel the whole deal and, you will live in shame for the rest of
> your life, wishing for Alzheimers so you can forget.
>
> If anybody has proof otherwise, post the link. Shame is so hard to
> prove these days. Perhaps we have some dimentia experts??
>
Good lord you have an active imagination.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 08:46:21 -0400, "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> To make a long story short I am not sure why you would get the building
>> inspection people involved. Electrical? yes. (maybe they are one and the
>> same there) I assume you have made your "feeler" calls to the governing
>> bodies to see what the desired rules are.
>
>
>The city seems to to have comingled several facets
>(building/heating/cooling/plumbing/electrical) into
>The Dept of Community Development. My assumption about the requirement was
>based upon the NEC. Part of my project includes the installation of a new
>subpanel.
>One will be able to see if from the street and I don't want to ever have to
>answer any
>hard questions about how it got there. In different circumstances, I might
>be more cavalier.
I didn't pull a permit to add my electrical panel, nor am I for the finishing
job on the room above the garage (my shop, some day). I did when I added a
garage, twenty years ago and that included a sub panel.
Josepi wrote:
> Will show you how to get around the Inspector...LOL
>
You've clearly never really read Doug's posts on wiring. Oh well..
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Jul 10, 9:45=A0pm, "Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Perhaps his troll lists to disclse his communication failures?
>
What language is that? (Speaking of failing to communicate)
In article <[email protected]>, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote:
[major snippage]
>Bill - you are trying to cheat your way out of real learning. That does not
>seem consistent with what I see in you here - but for some reason, you
>resist actually learing what you are trying to undertake. You need to
>invest in that learning. You're not getting it - not in the least. You're
>taking false securities in meaningless things like box heights, and you have
>no clue what you're doing with the real threat - current. You can make
>yourself feel comfortable with terms like "workmanlike manner",
Note: I was the first to use that phrase in this thread, not Bill.
>or by being
>stupid in the degree to which you hang a panel level, or the manner in which
>you insist on hanging a metal box, but in the end that stuff is completely
>meaningless. Absolutely meaningless. At this point Bill - you are more
>dangerous than you are accomplished. Call Doug.
>
Mike, I don't read it that way at all. My take on this is that Bill is
probably -- like me -- something of a perfectionist. He's savvy enough to know
that electricity can be damned dangerous when misused. He's never done this
before. And because of those two facts, he wants to make sure that he does it
exactly right the first time.
What you see as "trying to cheat [his] way out of real learning" and "taking
false securities in meaningless things", *I* see as Bill simply not knowing
enough about the subject -- yet -- to be able to distinguish between things
that are done a particular way just because they should be done that way, and
things that are done a particular way because doing them any other way creates
a deadly hazard.
Bill, I have two suggestions for you. First, give me a call. I'm only about 20
minutes up the road from you, and I'm free most of the weekend. Email me at
'doug at milmac dot com' and I'll give you my phone number. Second, there's a
difference between safe and Code-compliant on the one hand, and
textbook-perfect on the other. I think you're trying to do textbook-perfect.
That's not necessary, and I think I can help you see the difference.
I want to give Doug Miller a public thank you for his willingness to
stop by my house today to inspect my electrical configuration/project.
He showed me some new tools and a trick or two with romex cable (that I
will have to practice before I employ). I showed him my small but
growing antique plane collection. He is obviously very knowledgeable,
and also a kind and articulate person (for the sake of those of you who
have not had the opportunity to meet him). Thank you Doug!
Bill
In article <[email protected]>, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>I want to give Doug Miller a public thank you for his willingness to
>stop by my house today to inspect my electrical configuration/project.
>He showed me some new tools and a trick or two with romex cable (that I
>will have to practice before I employ). I showed him my small but
>growing antique plane collection. He is obviously very knowledgeable,
>and also a kind and articulate person (for the sake of those of you who
>have not had the opportunity to meet him). Thank you Doug!
Thanks, Bill, I had a pleasant afternoon as well, and I'm glad I was able to
give you a little help.
Will show you how to get around the Inspector...LOL
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
In article <[email protected]>, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
[major snippage]
>Bill - you are trying to cheat your way out of real learning. That does
>not
>seem consistent with what I see in you here - but for some reason, you
>resist actually learing what you are trying to undertake. You need to
>invest in that learning. You're not getting it - not in the least. You're
>taking false securities in meaningless things like box heights, and you
>have
>no clue what you're doing with the real threat - current. You can make
>yourself feel comfortable with terms like "workmanlike manner",
Note: I was the first to use that phrase in this thread, not Bill.
>or by being
>stupid in the degree to which you hang a panel level, or the manner in
>which
>you insist on hanging a metal box, but in the end that stuff is completely
>meaningless. Absolutely meaningless. At this point Bill - you are more
>dangerous than you are accomplished. Call Doug.
>
Mike, I don't read it that way at all. My take on this is that Bill is
probably -- like me -- something of a perfectionist. He's savvy enough to
know
that electricity can be damned dangerous when misused. He's never done this
before. And because of those two facts, he wants to make sure that he does
it
exactly right the first time.
What you see as "trying to cheat [his] way out of real learning" and "taking
false securities in meaningless things", *I* see as Bill simply not knowing
enough about the subject -- yet -- to be able to distinguish between things
that are done a particular way just because they should be done that way,
and
things that are done a particular way because doing them any other way
creates
a deadly hazard.
Bill, I have two suggestions for you. First, give me a call. I'm only about
20
minutes up the road from you, and I'm free most of the weekend. Email me at
'doug at milmac dot com' and I'll give you my phone number. Second, there's
a
difference between safe and Code-compliant on the one hand, and
textbook-perfect on the other. I think you're trying to do textbook-perfect.
That's not necessary, and I think I can help you see the difference.
Are those the one that tell you not to worry about 120 volts 'cause they
really can't hurt you or one of his many other moronic posts?
Perhaps his troll lists to disclse his communication failures?
Pehaps his list of names he uses to agree with himself?
Do you have any cites for your stupidity?
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
You've clearly never really read Doug's posts on wiring. Oh well..
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 00:12:47 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote the following:
>
>"Lee Michaels" wrote
>> I got a "shop stool" at a garage sale and it turned into a bar stool
>> of sorts. Ya know, you sit on it and nothing much happens. I needed
>> the space, threw it out and my productivity went up. Go figure.
>---------------------------
>I am often reminded of Fred Bingham's comment.
>
>"The most important tool in the boat yard is the thinking chair."
>
>I found it to be true.
>
>YMMV
Yabbut, we aren't in any old seagull-squawking boatyard, son.
We're in our tiny, private shops. ;)
--
Peace of mind is that mental condition in which you have accepted the worst.
-- Lin Yutang
Here what happens with the insurance companies, typically.
- You have a fire
- Fire Marshal (Chief Fire Inspector with insurance company hanging on his
every word...waiting) checks in and says "Careless smoking!", You reply "No,
nobody smokes here!".
- Fire Marshal then states "Official cause of fire is bad wiring" **BIG
STAMP ON PAGE** (before all the nonsense boys double their ritalin
injections - I have been there)
- Your insurance company looks into permit records and finds no record of
wiring permit to add recent updates. They don't want to pay, readily. May
drag out for a few years plus a few sleepless nights.
- Your insurance company has to pay, probably by law
- Your insurance comes up for renewal and they won't look at you.
- You run to other insurance compaines and they share records.
- You live without insuance and your mortgage company theatens you to pay-up
now.
- You reach deep into investments and get a second job.
- You post here and they all laugh at you.
BTW: The $75 fee will totally break the budget on your $20,000 update,
cancel the whole deal and, you will live in shame for the rest of your life,
wishing for Alzheimers so you can forget.
If anybody has proof otherwise, post the link. Shame is so hard to prove
these days. Perhaps we have some dimentia experts??
"Puckdropper" <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote in message
news:4c1582e4$0$1474
Insurance issues aside, $25 for an inspection is cheap. Assuming you
have a good inspector, getting your work looked at by a professional for
$25 is cheap.
Puckdropper
[email protected]...
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
>
> If you would have had to make a fire-related claim with your home
> owners insurance company
> you may have been up a creek (worth the risk?).
>
> I don't want to waste the approximately $600/yr I spend for my
> coverage. Where I live, the permit is $25--cheaper than pills to help
> me sleep. Not only that, the idea pleases SWMBO! : ) Not only that,
> I've never worked through the process
> before so I will learn something from it. From my perspective, I don't
> see a big downside.
> I want to emphasize: YMMV!
>
> Bill
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>The city seems to to have comingled several facets
>>(building/heating/cooling/plumbing/electrical) into
>>The Dept of Community Development. My assumption about the requirement was
>>based upon the NEC. Part of my project includes the installation of a new
>>subpanel.
>>One will be able to see if from the street and I don't want to ever have
>>to
>>answer any
>>hard questions about how it got there. In different circumstances, I
>>might
>>be more cavalier.
>
> I didn't pull a permit to add my electrical panel, nor am I for the
> finishing
> job on the room above the garage (my shop, some day). I did when I added
> a
> garage, twenty years ago and that included a sub panel.
If you would have had to make a fire-related claim with your home owners
insurance company
you may have been up a creek (worth the risk?).
I don't want to waste the approximately $600/yr I spend for my coverage.
Where I live, the permit is $25--cheaper than pills to help me sleep.
Not only that, the idea pleases SWMBO! : ) Not only that, I've never
worked through the process
before so I will learn something from it. From my perspective, I don't see a
big downside.
I want to emphasize: YMMV!
Bill
FrozenNorth wrote:
> On 6/20/10 11:37 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
<snip>
>>> The real question is, how many lines can you run through a floor joist
>>> in the basement ceiling, that allows for the most clothing to by hung
>>> from it?
>>>
>>> Is that in the NEC? :-)
>>
>>
>> The NEC specifically states that "clothing is optional", Mike. ;)
>>
> Naked electricians are *not* allowed in my house.
>
That depends on what she looks like.
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]
Cries to sleep and trolls by day
"Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Not my post folks. The Gymmy Bob/JP Bengi twit is at it.
That idiot's history is here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.solar.photovoltaic/msg/a57dda4e6757f15c?hl=en
If you want to clone me, at least get the goods on correct forgery
formating.
I am tickled with the threat you assign to my posts despite
your inability to do a fucking thing about it, loser.
_______________________________________________________________
"Josepi" <[email protected]> **fakir** wrote in message
news:<D%[email protected]>...
Not my post folks. The OCD trolls are running amuck here.
If you want to clone me, at least get the top post format right.
I am tickled with the importantance you assign to my posts despite your sore
losing.
"Josepi" <[email protected]> **clone** wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
top posting is way to complix for you moron!
Stop top posting, moron.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
I have. You're wrong. Simple physics even tells the simple this.
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 22:05:15 -0400, "Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Oh buloney! Look at the truss spec. on your last order design or consult
>>your local truss manufacturer.
I know. You poor thing so sad.
Terrible as it is you really must quit whining
with kill filter hopping.
Break out you freebie netfront account.
You can troll using that account LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
OH wait a minute! Thats ME MY account!
ROTFLMAO
Not so fun being frogged you poor baby.
I have not even begun the full show yet!
LOL
LOL
LOL.
______________________________________________________________
"Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Cries to sleep and trolls by day
"Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Not my post folks. The Gymmy Bob/JP Bengi twit is at it.
That idiot's history is here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.solar.photovoltaic/msg/a57dda4e6757f15c?hl=en
If you want to clone me, at least get the goods on correct forgery
formating.
I am tickled with the threat you assign to my posts despite
your inability to do a fucking thing about it, loser.
_______________________________________________________________
"Josepi" <[email protected]> **fakir** wrote in message
news:<D%[email protected]>...
Not my post folks. The OCD trolls are running amuck here.
If you want to clone me, at least get the top post format right.
I am tickled with the importantance you assign to my posts despite your sore
losing.
"Josepi" <[email protected]> **clone** wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
top posting is way to complix for you moron!
Stop top posting, moron.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
I have. You're wrong. Simple physics even tells the simple this.
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 22:05:15 -0400, "Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Oh buloney! Look at the truss spec. on your last order design or consult
>>your local truss manufacturer.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On Jun 23, 5:40=A0am, "Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote:
> top posting is way to complix for you moron!
I am not the one who has trouble with simple concepts, moron.
When you stop top posting perhaps someone will answer you again.
On Aug 2, 2:37=A0am, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > You're going to need a *lot* more lighting in your shop (another half-d=
ozen 4'
> > dual shop lights ought to do). =A0Might just as well put it in now.
>
> Real shop lights are the next project. =A0I've got wire and a switch all
> set for them! =A0 "Insulation" was a "Might just as well do it now". =A0T=
he
> sort of lighting I need to work in my shop, and the sort of lighting I
> need to sand joint compound near the ceiling are different enough that I
> don't consider it a "Might just as well do it now."! =A0: ) =A0I wouldn't
> mind having one of those fancy 1kW light stands, but can't justify the
> space for it at this point. =A0Thanks for the ideas!
>
It's a garage. When its not in use, hang it from the ceiling.
On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 07:14:22 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>Just finished my insulation. I ended up taking down the drywall in the
>corner too, rather than leaving myself 2 butt-joints to make there. I
>would have saved some time if I had decided that a month or two ago
>rather than tip-toeing around it. While I was trimming things up a
>question occurred to me--What sort of Lighting am I going to want while
>doing the setting compound/sanding/finishing compound joint work?
Lots!
>There are presently 2 fluorescent lights, in the middle of the 20'x24'
>area--but I'll need a more careful view while sanding right? I assume
>I'll need direct lighting to do a good job. My first inclination is to
>put my shop light (std. hand held/corded) on a movable stand of some
>sort? Can you point me to something like that? I also have an extra
>"living room lamp" at my disposal which I could move around as a fire
>hazard. ; ) BTDT?
You're going to need a *lot* more lighting in your shop (another half-dozen 4'
dual shop lights ought to do). Might just as well put it in now. Add to that
a couple of 1kW halogen work lights, for the mud work, and you should be OK.
Something like these (though I generally put 300W bulbs in them).
http://www.homedepot.com/h_d1/N-5yc1vZ1xih/R-202071330/h_d2/ProductDisplay?langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053
[email protected] wrote:
>
> You're going to need a *lot* more lighting in your shop (another
> half-dozen 4' dual shop lights ought to do). Might just as well put
> it in now. Add to that a couple of 1kW halogen work lights, for the
> mud work, and you should be OK.
>
A couple of 1KW work lights? Holy cow - you're going to blind the poor guy
with the glare.
Seriously - one does not need tons of light to check for flatness. A modest
60W bulb, and a head tilted to view the wall from an angle is plenty
sufficient. As another poster suggested - use your hand and fingers to find
the high/low spots.
Bill - I paint cars a bit - and I insist on dead flat surface finishes. I
have a little insight into this stuff, and you don't need to over engineer
this lighting thing. A simple hand held trouble light will give you all the
light you need to check your joints. You *can* have too much light and end
up with glare off the walls and glare from the airborne dust.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 20:16:34 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>I'm curious how much care does a 5 gallon bucket of all-purpose joint
>compound requires. On the container it says to store it at "room
>temperature". The temperatures are hovering locally between 53 and 80
>degrees F. here lately. I don't plan to have to store it for too many
>weeks and I'm reluctant to bring it in from the garage. Because of it's
>mass, I figure it could probably handle a cool draft at night. I'm not
>wrong about this, am I?
Keep it between 33F and 130F and you should be OK, Bill. Hard freezes
are rough on it, as is boiling. Other than that, just watch the
consistency.
--
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country
against his government." --Edward Abbey
[email protected] wrote:
> You're going to need a *lot* more lighting in your shop (another half-dozen 4'
> dual shop lights ought to do). Might just as well put it in now.
Real shop lights are the next project. I've got wire and a switch all
set for them! "Insulation" was a "Might just as well do it now". The
sort of lighting I need to work in my shop, and the sort of lighting I
need to sand joint compound near the ceiling are different enough that I
don't consider it a "Might just as well do it now."! : ) I wouldn't
mind having one of those fancy 1kW light stands, but can't justify the
space for it at this point. Thanks for the ideas!
Bill
Not my post folks. The OCD trolls are running amuck here.
If you want to clone me, at least get the top post format right.
I am tickled with the importantance you assign to my posts despite your sore
losing.
"Josepi" <[email protected]> **clone** wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
top posting is way to complix for you moron!
Stop top posting, moron.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
I have. You're wrong. Simple physics even tells the simple this.
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 22:05:15 -0400, "Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Oh buloney! Look at the truss spec. on your last order design or consult
>>your local truss manufacturer.
>
Clone troll
"Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Sorry Keith. It is a bad morning.
My medication is playing tricks with my head.
I can't read posts without formatting.
__________________________________________________________
"Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
Sorry Keith. It wasn't my post at that time of the morning.
I can read posts with almost any formatting.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:8b8debc9-ddbc-49db-98c3-0fdbdd86971d@x27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
I am not the one who has trouble with simple concepts, moron.
When you stop top posting perhaps someone will answer you again.
On Jun 23, 5:40 am, "Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote:
> top posting is way to complix for you moron!
Sorry Keith. It wasn't my post at that time of the morning.
I can read posts with almost any formatting.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:8b8debc9-ddbc-49db-98c3-0fdbdd86971d@x27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
I am not the one who has trouble with simple concepts, moron.
When you stop top posting perhaps someone will answer you again.
On Jun 23, 5:40 am, "Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote:
> top posting is way to complix for you moron!
How is that working for you fool!
Scrabbling for the pen and paper to
write your doctor about the new voice
in your head.
Do tell that idot to prescribe gas.
Lots of it. And a good solid bag.
_______________________________________________________
"Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Clone troll
"Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Sorry Keith. It is a bad morning.
My medication is playing tricks with my head.
I can't read posts without formatting.
__________________________________________________________
"Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
Sorry Keith. It wasn't my post at that time of the morning.
I can read posts with almost any formatting.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:8b8debc9-ddbc-49db-98c3-0fdbdd86971d@x27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
I am not the one who has trouble with simple concepts, moron.
When you stop top posting perhaps someone will answer you again.
On Jun 23, 5:40 am, "Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote:
> top posting is way to complix for you moron!
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 22:05:15 -0400, "Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Oh buloney! Look at the truss spec. on your last order design or consult
>your local truss manufacturer.
I have. You're wrong. Simple physics even tells the simple this.
Stop top posting, moron.
hmmmm.. I wonder where that came from. What was I thinking?...LOL
love = nick?
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Sounds kinky.
On 8/16/2010 4:34 PM, Josepi wrote:
> Alway let your drywallers know that the wiring is alive. They are more
> careful, that way, and the bark will tell you where to look for the
> problems
> before the drywallers get away and **YOU** have to fix the drywall holes
> that allow you to pull a couple of more inches through the clamp.
>
> Ask them politely to hit the love conductors and NOT the neutrals though.
Don't freeze it. So far so good.
Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
"Our Republic and the Press will Rise or Fall Together": Joseph Pulitzer
TSRA: Endowed; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Originator & Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member. http://lufkinced.com/
On 9/16/2010 7:16 PM, Bill wrote:
> I'm curious how much care does a 5 gallon bucket of all-purpose joint compound
> requires. On the container it says to store it at "room temperature". The
> temperatures are hovering locally between 53 and 80 degrees F. here lately. I
> don't plan to have to store it for too many weeks and I'm reluctant to bring it
> in from the garage. Because of it's mass, I figure it could probably handle a
> cool draft at night. I'm not wrong about this, am I?
>
> Bill
Bill wrote:
> Just finished my insulation. I ended up taking down the drywall in the
> corner too, rather than leaving myself 2 butt-joints to make there. I
> would have saved some time if I had decided that a month or two ago
> rather than tip-toeing around it. While I was trimming things up a
> question occurred to me--What sort of Lighting am I going to want
> while doing the setting compound/sanding/finishing compound joint
> work?
> There are presently 2 fluorescent lights, in the middle of the 20'x24'
> area--but I'll need a more careful view while sanding right? I assume
> I'll need direct lighting to do a good job. My first inclination is
> to put my shop light (std. hand held/corded) on a movable stand of
> some sort? Can you point me to something like that? I also have an
> extra "living room lamp" at my disposal which I could move around as
> a fire hazard. ; ) BTDT?
>
Just put up whatever light you feel you need to see well Bill. There is no
such thing as defining proper lighting - it's all up to your eyes. You're a
smart guy, you don't need to ask every little common sense thing - just try
a few of the common sense things, and you'll be fine. Don't know why you
would call your moveable living room light a fire hazard...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Aug 2, 11:02=A0am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]=
.com>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Aug 2, 6:57=3DA0am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >> In article <[email protected]>, Bill <[email protected]> wrot=
e:
> >> >Could you advise me on sand-paper (I really mean "screen"), in the
> >> >context of putting up drywall. =3DA0I bought Stanley's book on drywal=
l two
> >> >days ago and, to my surprise, this was not addressed.
>
> >> >I was going to get 120 grit (medium) and 220 grit (fine), since that =
is
> >> >what is offered at Lowes. =3DA0 My guess is that the 120 is for (heav=
ier)
> >> >setting compound and the 220 is for the finishing compound.
>
> >> That's what I use.
>
> >Same.
>
> >> I also use one of these to control the dust:http://www.amazon.com/MT80=
0-S=3D
> >and-Kleen-Sander-System/dp/B00005A1K8
>
> >> Got mine at Home Depot about four, five years ago. Not sure if they st=
ill sell
> >> them or not -- it doesn't seem to be on their website. The product is =
great,
> >> and so is the manufacturer: I dropped the sanding head off the top of =
a ladder
> >> onto a concrete floor and cracked part of it. Called them to order a
> >> replacement -- told them exactly what happened, so they knew it wasn't=
a
> >> warranty claim -- and they sent a complete new sanding head, free of c=
harge,
> >> by Priority Mail. I had it in two days.
>
> >I have one of those, too. =A0It doesn't have the water filter on it,
> >though. =A0I've found that the screen makes larger dust particles (than
> >sand paper) so a shop vac has no problems with it. =A0It will plug a
> >filter, though. =A0I wonder if a Dust Deputy would help.
>
> Heck, the water filter is the best feature. It catches 90% of the dust; v=
ery
> little actually makes it through to the shopvac.
...and you can recycle the dust into new mud! ;-)
Bill wrote:
> Mike Marlow wrote:
> Don't know why you
>> would call your moveable living room light a fire hazard...
>
> Well, because it's so top-heavy. I no doubt wrote that because
> I had just read the following sentence in a book:
>
> "If you have a fire hazard--I mean an attached garage, then...."
>
> (and I thought it was humorous).
>
> What I'm after, I think, is a way to make my $10 shop light solve
> my current lighting needs. I could add some rope hooks to my aluminum
> ladder (and convert it into an electrical hazard)...
>
>
> Bill
On Aug 2, 10:14=A0am, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
> Doug Miller wrote:
> > In article<[email protected]>, Bill<[email protected]> =A0wrote=
:
> >> Just finished my insulation. I ended up taking down the drywall in the
> >> corner too, rather than leaving myself 2 butt-joints to make there. =
=A0I
> >> would have saved some time if I had decided that a month or two ago
> >> rather than tip-toeing around it. =A0While I was trimming things up a
> >> question occurred to me--What sort of Lighting am I going to want whil=
e
> >> doing the setting compound/sanding/finishing compound joint work?
>
> > I use one of these:
> >http://www.lowes.com/pd_320775-337-TQS1000QDUT_0_?productId=3D3179077
>
> Wow, the price is right too (~$39). =A0Do you find it convenient for othe=
r
> uses? =A0 I'd guess it's probably pretty hot so one might not want to be
> right underneath it.
I've found, like all tools, a little more money goes a long way in
satisfaction. I have one of the cheapie lights and it's not very
stable. One of the switches broke, as well, so only one head works.
I'll spend more money on the next one. Another $40 or so is nothing
when doing this stuff.
> I've got a list of about 10 drywall-project related things to pick up
> today (drywall hammer, ...), not including drywall and joint compound.
> I'll have to see how I survive that first! =A0: )
Hammer?! Screw the sheetrock!
Bill wrote:
>
> My work, at the ceiling, Easysand on top of Durabond, taped, is
> basically sanded vertically with 150 grit (leaving minor "striation").
> So far, I've used 6" and 8" knives there creating a taper that extends
> 10 to 11 inches from the ceiling. I have a 12" knife for finishing. I
> expect I can omit adding a layer of "All-Purpose" there and go
> straight to the finishing compound (or not?).
You will want to apply/finish your taper in the horizontal direction as well
as the vertical in order to eliminate the striations Bill. Circular might
be a better reference word. If I recall, you have a significant step that
you flared out, and you will probably find that you want that flare
extending a great deal farther than what you currently have, or it will be
visible. You might want to consider using something like a wallpaper tool
to feather out coats of mud to get a larger and flatter flare. Longer is
better in this type of application, and remember that you build up in small
steps rather than trying to get it all in one load. You might also want to
consider a long board for sanding it down. You can get rolls of abrasive
from auto body supply shops, that have an adhesive back, which you can stick
to a board. Will work great in flattening out surfaces. You will probably
find that your flares will run out a couple of feet by the time you are
done, in order to make them disappear.
>
> Do you have any suggestions about the application of further compounds
> and sanding (in particular, is there a worthwhile reason to switch to
> strictly horizontal application and sanding)?
>
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
mike" wrote:
> How is your "block sender" affecting this fool:
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
-----------------------
Who?
-----------------------
> You can lead them to LINUX
> but you can't make them THINK !
> Mandriva 2010 using KDE 4.3
> Website: www.rentmyhusband.biz helping
------------------------
Who?
------------------------
> "Evodawg" is supposedly a linux user, looks to me
> like you are batting with a sieve, Lew!
------------------------------
Who?
Lew
Bill wrote:
> Just finished my insulation. I ended up taking down the drywall in the
> corner too, rather than leaving myself 2 butt-joints to make there. I
> would have saved some time if I had decided that a month or two ago
> rather than tip-toeing around it. While I was trimming things up a
> question occurred to me--What sort of Lighting am I going to want while
> doing the setting compound/sanding/finishing compound joint work?
>
> There are presently 2 fluorescent lights, in the middle of the 20'x24'
> area--but I'll need a more careful view while sanding right? I assume
> I'll need direct lighting to do a good job. My first inclination is to
> put my shop light (std. hand held/corded) on a movable stand of some
> sort? Can you point me to something like that? I also have an extra
> "living room lamp" at my disposal which I could move around as a fire
> hazard. ; ) BTDT?
>
> Bill
I find that running my hand over the seams and joints often does a
better job of finding flaws than that of sight. Expect to do some
touch-ups after the primer goes on.
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]
Bill wrote:
>
> At this point, it looks good to me. In places where the step was
> greater, I made a wider "band" than I described. If if doesn't look
> good after I prime it, I may do as you suggest--though I wonder
> whether it would be easier to just replace the top 12" of drywall to
> the ceiling... Thank you for your idea; I will save it for
> reference. It seems like if you adhere sanding screen to a board
> that there would be little room for the dust to fall away--and that
> you would end up scratching the surface. Is there more to the picture
> than you described? Are you talking about a board sized to fit 2
> screens end-to-end? Not necessary to put much effort into a reply
> for my sake, as I'm not there yet, but the ideas are interesting!
>
For a step like I recall you to have, I would be using a 2'-3' long board.
The rolls of abrasive I suggested come in 2" width, so the board does not
need to be more than 2" wide. Stiffen it with a backbone, which will also
give you something to hold on to. Don't worry - the dust will certainly
fall away. We use long boards in doing auto body work - though they are
only 14-16" long. They make getting a surface dead flat a lot easier.
Plus - the longer the board is the easier it will be to hold it up there
and get a look at what things will look like when you paint the wall. If
you can see any kind of gap under a 2' board, then you can be assured you'll
see it in paint as well. Though... you are pretty high up with your joint,
so you get a little relief just from the fact that it is so far above eye
level.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
The joint is half empty...
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Pessimist, huh? : )
Nova wrote:
> I find that running my hand over the seams and joints often does a
> better job of finding flaws than that of sight. Expect to do some
> touch-ups after the primer goes on.
>
Ohhh...that's why they make those 6" deep boxes? To hide the wires from the
drywallers.
Why is it they always nick the neutral conductor and it only shows up on the
GFCI circuits?
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Actually the drywall guys are the bane of electricians. They don't care one
hoot about those boxes. Very common to find a glob of dried compound in a
box. Same thing with painters. That said - the mud chips out very easily
and if it is part of a smear that ran wild from the wall, just score it
through along the outside of the box and chip off the errant remainder. For
the most part you can easily mud right up to the box with no problems, but
if you do lay a blob in there it's no big deal. The screw threads are no
problem at all. The screws will run home just fine. If your wires are
properly tucked inside your boxes, you have nothing to worry about from
drywall tools.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Bill <[email protected]> writes:
>Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On the other hand, having completed my second layer with All-Purpose
>>> joint compound, I notice I've got almost 20 feet of tape (not near the
>>> ceiling) which is largely joint-starved. In some cases, I think that
>>> may partly be the result of taping across too wide a gap.
>>>
>>
>> What do you mean by joint-starved Bill? Do you mean that you've sanded down
>> to the tape and it's starting to show?
>
>Sorry, I took too much liberty with the following definition:
>
>starved joint ( â²stärvd â²jöint ) ( engineering ) A glued joint
>containing insufficient or inadequate adhesive.
>
>I.e., there are places where the tape is not adhered. You can push in
>just a little, 1/16" or less, with your finger. At first I (naively)
>thought I might fix that with additional layers of joint compound.
>Didn't work. Those "bad" places keep looking raised (and they seem
>likely to be a headache down the road...).
Cut a slit in the "bad" places (air bubbles) with an utility knife,
then (re)apply your topcoat.
scott
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>"mike" wrote:
>
>> Do not be so bloody lazy, get proactive.
><snip>
>--------------------
>More work than it's worth, especially when "block sender" is so easy.
>
>Lew
>
As said, lazy.
The ass knows the way around "block sender".
How is your "block sender" affecting this fool:
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
--
You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK !
Mandriva 2010 using KDE 4.3
Website: www.rentmyhusband.biz helping
"Evodawg" is supposedly a linux user, looks to me
like you are batting with a sieve, Lew!
mike
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote
> I.e., there are places where the tape is not adhered. You can push in just
> a little, 1/16" or less, with your finger. At first I (naively) thought I
> might fix that with additional layers of joint compound. Didn't work.
> Those "bad" places keep looking raised (and they seem likely to be a
> headache down the road...).
>
> All the tools I need are sitting right there..redoing it now is not a
> major inconvenience (as long as the removal goes well enough). I am much
> faster now than I was when I started.
If it is just a few places, not very long, you can use a utility blade to
cut a football shaped piece out of the paper and fill it in with joint
compound. It will not show a crack even at a joint, for short sections.
If you can just pull the paper up, there will be an indentation where the
paper was. Trim a half inch off of the paper, and mud and re-apply the
paper in the groove without sanding down the indentation. Use a narrow
blade to press the paper into the mud. That could save some good time and
effort from sanding.
Did I mention that I hate to sand? <g>
--
Jim in NC
Bill wrote:
> I'm preparing to tape my joints and around several of my eleven
> electrical boxes. Larry may consider it "overkill", but I made
> little cardboard box inserts, held by friction, which fit into the
> front of each of the electrical boxes to protect the wires from
> drywall knives, sanders, etc.
>
> I noticed that the screw holes are still exposed so I'm planning to
> buy a package of short 6-32 screws to protect the screw holes from
> now until the time that I am finished painting. Is this the standard
> way to protect the screw holes during the joint taping and painting
> process? I assume that it's sufficient.
>
Actually the drywall guys are the bane of electricians. They don't care one
hoot about those boxes. Very common to find a glob of dried compound in a
box. Same thing with painters. That said - the mud chips out very easily
and if it is part of a smear that ran wild from the wall, just score it
through along the outside of the box and chip off the errant remainder. For
the most part you can easily mud right up to the box with no problems, but
if you do lay a blob in there it's no big deal. The screw threads are no
problem at all. The screws will run home just fine. If your wires are
properly tucked inside your boxes, you have nothing to worry about from
drywall tools.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Bill wrote:
>
> I'm just trying to see the light! : ) Well, maybe the reverse--but
> as Paul McCartney sang, and just recently on PBS, "Let It Be"... ; )
Or the old Hank Williams song "I Saw The Light"...
>
> Could you advise me on sand-paper (I really mean "screen"), in the
> context of putting up drywall. I bought Stanley's book on drywall two
> days ago and, to my surprise, this was not addressed.
Seems to me the drywall sanding stuff is around 80 or 100 grit. That stuff
is a lot better than sandpaper in my opion.
>
> I was going to get 120 grit (medium) and 220 grit (fine), since that
> is what is offered at Lowes. My guess is that the 120 is for
> (heavier) setting compound and the 220 is for the finishing compound.
Shouldn't need two grits. 120 might be a tad on the fine side. 220 is
definitely finer than you'll need.
>
> Then (I pondered), someone who can apply joint compound nicely might
> not even need the 120...
It wouldn't be a sheetrock job if you didn't have fine white dust
everywehre - especially in your nose.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Josepi wrote:
> Ohhh...that's why they make those 6" deep boxes? To hide the wires
> from the drywallers.
>
> Why is it they always nick the neutral conductor and it only shows up
> on the GFCI circuits?
>
It's all part of an evil plot on the part of the even more evil drywallers
and painters.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Aug 2, 6:57=A0am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Could you advise me on sand-paper (I really mean "screen"), in the
> >context of putting up drywall. =A0I bought Stanley's book on drywall two
> >days ago and, to my surprise, this was not addressed.
>
> >I was going to get 120 grit (medium) and 220 grit (fine), since that is
> >what is offered at Lowes. =A0 My guess is that the 120 is for (heavier)
> >setting compound and the 220 is for the finishing compound.
>
> That's what I use.
Same.
> I also use one of these to control the dust:http://www.amazon.com/MT800-S=
and-Kleen-Sander-System/dp/B00005A1K8
>
> Got mine at Home Depot about four, five years ago. Not sure if they still=
sell
> them or not -- it doesn't seem to be on their website. The product is gre=
at,
> and so is the manufacturer: I dropped the sanding head off the top of a l=
adder
> onto a concrete floor and cracked part of it. Called them to order a
> replacement -- told them exactly what happened, so they knew it wasn't a
> warranty claim -- and they sent a complete new sanding head, free of char=
ge,
> by Priority Mail. I had it in two days.
I have one of those, too. It doesn't have the water filter on it,
though. I've found that the screen makes larger dust particles (than
sand paper) so a shop vac has no problems with it. It will plug a
filter, though. I wonder if a Dust Deputy would help.
Bill wrote:
>
> On the other hand, having completed my second layer with All-Purpose
> joint compound, I notice I've got almost 20 feet of tape (not near the
> ceiling) which is largely joint-starved. In some cases, I think that
> may partly be the result of taping across too wide a gap.
>
What do you mean by joint-starved Bill? Do you mean that you've sanded down
to the tape and it's starting to show? If so - don't remove it. Feather
new compound in to cover it over. You don't need any minimum amount of
compound - just enough to hide the tape.
> I guess I'll get out some 120 grit (heaviest I have on hand) and sand
> 'er down and retape. That's what you do if this happens, right
> (Yes, that's a real question)? Better to back up and get it right,
> then forge ahead and have the tape fall off after its painted...
Can't answer for sure, because I don't understand what you mean when you say
joint starved.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Just finished my insulation. I ended up taking down the drywall in the
corner too, rather than leaving myself 2 butt-joints to make there. I
would have saved some time if I had decided that a month or two ago
rather than tip-toeing around it. While I was trimming things up a
question occurred to me--What sort of Lighting am I going to want while
doing the setting compound/sanding/finishing compound joint work?
There are presently 2 fluorescent lights, in the middle of the 20'x24'
area--but I'll need a more careful view while sanding right? I assume
I'll need direct lighting to do a good job. My first inclination is to
put my shop light (std. hand held/corded) on a movable stand of some
sort? Can you point me to something like that? I also have an extra
"living room lamp" at my disposal which I could move around as a fire
hazard. ; ) BTDT?
Bill
Mike Marlow wrote:
Don't know why you
> would call your moveable living room light a fire hazard...
Well, because it's so top-heavy. I no doubt wrote that because
I had just read the following sentence in a book:
"If you have a fire hazard--I mean an attached garage, then...."
(and I thought it was humorous).
What I'm after, I think, is a way to make my $10 shop light solve
my current lighting needs. I could add some rope hooks to my aluminum
ladder (and convert it into an electrical hazard)...
Bill
Mike Marlow wrote:
> Just put up whatever light you feel you need to see well Bill. There is no
> such thing as defining proper lighting - it's all up to your eyes. You're a
> smart guy, you don't need to ask every little common sense thing - just try
> a few of the common sense things, and you'll be fine.
I'm just trying to see the light! : ) Well, maybe the reverse--but as
Paul McCartney sang, and just recently on PBS, "Let It Be"... ; )
Could you advise me on sand-paper (I really mean "screen"), in the
context of putting up drywall. I bought Stanley's book on drywall two
days ago and, to my surprise, this was not addressed.
I was going to get 120 grit (medium) and 220 grit (fine), since that is
what is offered at Lowes. My guess is that the 120 is for (heavier)
setting compound and the 220 is for the finishing compound.
Then (I pondered), someone who can apply joint compound nicely might not
even need the 120...
Is my intuition concerning the use of the sanding screens correct?
Bill
In article <[email protected]>, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>Just finished my insulation. I ended up taking down the drywall in the
>corner too, rather than leaving myself 2 butt-joints to make there. I
>would have saved some time if I had decided that a month or two ago
>rather than tip-toeing around it. While I was trimming things up a
>question occurred to me--What sort of Lighting am I going to want while
>doing the setting compound/sanding/finishing compound joint work?
I use one of these:
http://www.lowes.com/pd_320775-337-TQS1000QDUT_0_?productId=3179077
Set it up so that it's almost parallel to the wall. Imperfections in the
surface will throw sharp shadows. If you can't see imperfections under a
thousand watts of unfrosted, unshaded, glaring light, nobody will be able to
see them under a couple hundred watts of frosted fluorescent lighting after
you're done.
In article <[email protected]>, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>Could you advise me on sand-paper (I really mean "screen"), in the
>context of putting up drywall. I bought Stanley's book on drywall two
>days ago and, to my surprise, this was not addressed.
>
>I was going to get 120 grit (medium) and 220 grit (fine), since that is
>what is offered at Lowes. My guess is that the 120 is for (heavier)
>setting compound and the 220 is for the finishing compound.
That's what I use.
I also use one of these to control the dust:
http://www.amazon.com/MT800-Sand-Kleen-Sander-System/dp/B00005A1K8
Got mine at Home Depot about four, five years ago. Not sure if they still sell
them or not -- it doesn't seem to be on their website. The product is great,
and so is the manufacturer: I dropped the sanding head off the top of a ladder
onto a concrete floor and cracked part of it. Called them to order a
replacement -- told them exactly what happened, so they knew it wasn't a
warranty claim -- and they sent a complete new sanding head, free of charge,
by Priority Mail. I had it in two days.
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>, Bill<[email protected]> wrote:
>> Just finished my insulation. I ended up taking down the drywall in the
>> corner too, rather than leaving myself 2 butt-joints to make there. I
>> would have saved some time if I had decided that a month or two ago
>> rather than tip-toeing around it. While I was trimming things up a
>> question occurred to me--What sort of Lighting am I going to want while
>> doing the setting compound/sanding/finishing compound joint work?
>
> I use one of these:
> http://www.lowes.com/pd_320775-337-TQS1000QDUT_0_?productId=3179077
>
Wow, the price is right too (~$39). Do you find it convenient for other
uses? I'd guess it's probably pretty hot so one might not want to be
right underneath it.
I've got a list of about 10 drywall-project related things to pick up
today (drywall hammer, ...), not including drywall and joint compound.
I'll have to see how I survive that first! : )
Bill
In article <d5681c8d-b252-4e0a-b0ad-d10c30fda3a9@n19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Aug 2, 6:57=A0am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >Could you advise me on sand-paper (I really mean "screen"), in the
>> >context of putting up drywall. =A0I bought Stanley's book on drywall two
>> >days ago and, to my surprise, this was not addressed.
>>
>> >I was going to get 120 grit (medium) and 220 grit (fine), since that is
>> >what is offered at Lowes. =A0 My guess is that the 120 is for (heavier)
>> >setting compound and the 220 is for the finishing compound.
>>
>> That's what I use.
>
>Same.
>
>> I also use one of these to control the dust:http://www.amazon.com/MT800-S=
>and-Kleen-Sander-System/dp/B00005A1K8
>>
>> Got mine at Home Depot about four, five years ago. Not sure if they still sell
>> them or not -- it doesn't seem to be on their website. The product is great,
>> and so is the manufacturer: I dropped the sanding head off the top of a ladder
>> onto a concrete floor and cracked part of it. Called them to order a
>> replacement -- told them exactly what happened, so they knew it wasn't a
>> warranty claim -- and they sent a complete new sanding head, free of charge,
>> by Priority Mail. I had it in two days.
>
>I have one of those, too. It doesn't have the water filter on it,
>though. I've found that the screen makes larger dust particles (than
>sand paper) so a shop vac has no problems with it. It will plug a
>filter, though. I wonder if a Dust Deputy would help.
Heck, the water filter is the best feature. It catches 90% of the dust; very
little actually makes it through to the shopvac.
In article <[email protected]>, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article<[email protected]>, Bill<[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Just finished my insulation. I ended up taking down the drywall in the
>>> corner too, rather than leaving myself 2 butt-joints to make there. I
>>> would have saved some time if I had decided that a month or two ago
>>> rather than tip-toeing around it. While I was trimming things up a
>>> question occurred to me--What sort of Lighting am I going to want while
>>> doing the setting compound/sanding/finishing compound joint work?
>>
>> I use one of these:
>> http://www.lowes.com/pd_320775-337-TQS1000QDUT_0_?productId=3179077
>>
>Wow, the price is right too (~$39). Do you find it convenient for other
>uses?
Oh, absolutely. I use it when painting a room, or when finishing furniture --
the brighter the light the better. Occasionally use it in the garage for car
repair work too, and for general-purpose task lighting whenever I need a bit
more light on whatever I'm working on.
Pick up a couple of spare bulbs too -- but not at Lowe's. They're about 75%
cheaper at Harbor Freight.
>I'd guess it's probably pretty hot so one might not want to be
>right underneath it.
Quite correct. If you're using one while painting a small room, best to
station it outside the door if you can, so that most of the heat stays
outside the room. OTOH, that heat can be useful when working on a car in an
unheated garage in February. DAMHIKT.
>
>I've got a list of about 10 drywall-project related things to pick up
>today (drywall hammer, ...), not including drywall and joint compound.
>I'll have to see how I survive that first! : )
There are some excellent videos on drywall installation and finishing
techniques available at the public library. And I'll share a finishing tip
that I learned from a pro: when spreading joint compound, hold your taping
knife with your index and middle fingers splayed out in a vee behind the
blade, and grasp the handle only with your thumb and last two fingers. That
gives you *far* better control of the blade than if you grasp the handle with
your entire hand.
I'm preparing to tape my joints and around several of my eleven
electrical boxes. Larry may consider it "overkill", but I made
little cardboard box inserts, held by friction, which fit into the front
of each of the electrical boxes to protect the wires from drywall
knives, sanders, etc.
I noticed that the screw holes are still exposed so I'm planning to buy
a package of short 6-32 screws to protect the screw holes from now until
the time that I am finished painting. Is this the standard way to
protect the screw holes during the joint taping and painting process? I
assume that it's sufficient.
Bill
On 8/16/2010 4:34 PM, Josepi wrote:
> Alway let your drywallers know that the wiring is alive. They are more
> careful, that way, and the bark will tell you where to look for the problems
> before the drywallers get away and **YOU** have to fix the drywall holes
> that allow you to pull a couple of more inches through the clamp.
>
> Ask them politely to hit the love conductors and NOT the neutrals though.
Sounds kinky.
Earlier in this thread, I described how much drywall work I left for
myself 3" away from the ceiling. 25 pounds of Durabond and 18 pounds of
EasySand later, that part looks pretty darn good now. I learned to wear
gloves when I work with EasySand, and to act faster too.
On the other hand, having completed my second layer with All-Purpose
joint compound, I notice I've got almost 20 feet of tape (not near the
ceiling) which is largely joint-starved. In some cases, I think that
may partly be the result of taping across too wide a gap.
I guess I'll get out some 120 grit (heaviest I have on hand) and sand
'er down and retape. That's what you do if this happens, right
(Yes, that's a real question)? Better to back up and get it right,
then forge ahead and have the tape fall off after its painted...
I just wanted you supportive folks to know I'm still working at it.
Bill
Mike Marlow wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>
>>
>> On the other hand, having completed my second layer with All-Purpose
>> joint compound, I notice I've got almost 20 feet of tape (not near the
>> ceiling) which is largely joint-starved. In some cases, I think that
>> may partly be the result of taping across too wide a gap.
>>
>
> What do you mean by joint-starved Bill? Do you mean that you've sanded down
> to the tape and it's starting to show?
Sorry, I took too much liberty with the following definition:
starved joint ( â²stärvd â²jöint ) ( engineering ) A glued joint
containing insufficient or inadequate adhesive.
I.e., there are places where the tape is not adhered. You can push in
just a little, 1/16" or less, with your finger. At first I (naively)
thought I might fix that with additional layers of joint compound.
Didn't work. Those "bad" places keep looking raised (and they seem
likely to be a headache down the road...).
All the tools I need are sitting right there..redoing it now is not a
major inconvenience (as long as the removal goes well enough). I am
much faster now than I was when I started.
Bill
>
>> I guess I'll get out some 120 grit (heaviest I have on hand) and sand
>> 'er down and retape. That's what you do if this happens, right
>> (Yes, that's a real question)? Better to back up and get it right,
>> then forge ahead and have the tape fall off after its painted...
Morgans wrote:
> "Bill"<[email protected]> wrote
>
>> I.e., there are places where the tape is not adhered. You can push in just
>> a little, 1/16" or less, with your finger. At first I (naively) thought I
>> might fix that with additional layers of joint compound. Didn't work.
>> Those "bad" places keep looking raised (and they seem likely to be a
>> headache down the road...).
>>
>> All the tools I need are sitting right there..redoing it now is not a
>> major inconvenience (as long as the removal goes well enough). I am much
>> faster now than I was when I started.
>
> If it is just a few places, not very long, you can use a utility blade to
> cut a football shaped piece out of the paper and fill it in with joint
> compound. It will not show a crack even at a joint, for short sections.
>
> If you can just pull the paper up, there will be an indentation where the
> paper was. Trim a half inch off of the paper, and mud and re-apply the
> paper in the groove without sanding down the indentation. Use a narrow
> blade to press the paper into the mud. That could save some good time and
> effort from sanding.
That seems like a darn good idea. I'll use it if I can pull the paper up
nicely. Thanks!
BTW, as you may have noticed from my earlier post, you helped me solve
the problem I was having near the ceiling. Amazing what 43 pounds of
dry compound can do with a little effort! : )
Bill
>
> Did I mention that I hate to sand?<g>
Bill wrote:
>
> BTW, as you may have noticed from my earlier post, you helped me solve
> the problem I was having near the ceiling.
My work, at the ceiling, Easysand on top of Durabond, taped, is
basically sanded vertically with 150 grit (leaving minor "striation").
So far, I've used 6" and 8" knives there creating a taper that extends
10 to 11 inches from the ceiling. I have a 12" knife for finishing. I
expect I can omit adding a layer of "All-Purpose" there and go straight
to the finishing compound (or not?).
Do you have any suggestions about the application of further compounds
and sanding (in particular, is there a worthwhile reason to switch to
strictly horizontal application and sanding)?
So far, so good! Though admittedly I've paid a high price in labor for
taking this route and not removing the drywall to the ceiling! :)
Bill
On 9/9/2010 6:49 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>
>>
>> My work, at the ceiling, Easysand on top of Durabond, taped, is
>> basically sanded vertically with 150 grit (leaving minor "striation").
>> So far, I've used 6" and 8" knives there creating a taper that extends
>> 10 to 11 inches from the ceiling. I have a 12" knife for finishing. I
>> expect I can omit adding a layer of "All-Purpose" there and go
>> straight to the finishing compound (or not?).
>
> You will want to apply/finish your taper in the horizontal direction as well
> as the vertical in order to eliminate the striations Bill. Circular might
> be a better reference word. If I recall, you have a significant step that
> you flared out, and you will probably find that you want that flare
> extending a great deal farther than what you currently have, or it will be
> visible.
At this point, it looks good to me. In places where the step was
greater, I made a wider "band" than I described. If if doesn't look
good after I prime it, I may do as you suggest--though I wonder whether
it would be easier to just replace the top 12" of drywall to the
ceiling... Thank you for your idea; I will save it for reference. It
seems like if you adhere sanding screen to a board that there would be
little room for the dust to fall away--and that you would end up
scratching the surface. Is there more to the picture than you described?
Are you talking about a board sized to fit 2 screens end-to-end? Not
necessary to put much effort into a reply for my sake, as I'm not there
yet, but the ideas are interesting!
Bill
You might want to consider using something like a wallpaper tool
> to feather out coats of mud to get a larger and flatter flare. Longer is
> better in this type of application, and remember that you build up in small
> steps rather than trying to get it all in one load. You might also want to
> consider a long board for sanding it down. You can get rolls of abrasive
> from auto body supply shops, that have an adhesive back, which you can stick
> to a board. Will work great in flattening out surfaces. You will probably
> find that your flares will run out a couple of feet by the time you are
> done, in order to make them disappear.
>
>>
>> Do you have any suggestions about the application of further compounds
>> and sanding (in particular, is there a worthwhile reason to switch to
>> strictly horizontal application and sanding)?
>>
>
On 9/9/2010 1:03 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> For a step like I recall you to have, I would be using a 2'-3' long board.
> The rolls of abrasive I suggested come in 2" width, so the board does not
> need to be more than 2" wide. Stiffen it with a backbone, which will also
> give you something to hold on to. Don't worry - the dust will certainly
> fall away. We use long boards in doing auto body work - though they are
> only 14-16" long. They make getting a surface dead flat a lot easier.
> Plus - the longer the board is the easier it will be to hold it up there
> and get a look at what things will look like when you paint the wall. If
> you can see any kind of gap under a 2' board, then you can be assured you'll
> see it in paint as well. Though... you are pretty high up with your joint,
> so you get a little relief just from the fact that it is so far above eye
> level.
>
The metrics are helpful! I've been moving a ruler around a little to
gauge how I'm doing--I might be afraid to try a yardstick! : )
Thanks,
Bill
I'm curious how much care does a 5 gallon bucket of all-purpose joint
compound requires. On the container it says to store it at "room
temperature". The temperatures are hovering locally between 53 and 80
degrees F. here lately. I don't plan to have to store it for too many
weeks and I'm reluctant to bring it in from the garage. Because of it's
mass, I figure it could probably handle a cool draft at night. I'm not
wrong about this, am I?
Bill
On 9/16/10 8:16 PM, Bill wrote:
> I'm curious how much care does a 5 gallon bucket of all-purpose joint
> compound requires. On the container it says to store it at "room
> temperature". The temperatures are hovering locally between 53 and 80
> degrees F. here lately. I don't plan to have to store it for too many
> weeks and I'm reluctant to bring it in from the garage. Because of it's
> mass, I figure it could probably handle a cool draft at night. I'm not
> wrong about this, am I?
>
Your fine, if is supposed to get much below 50, bring it in.
--
Froz...
The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.
FrozenNorth wrote:
> On 9/16/10 8:16 PM, Bill wrote:
>> I'm curious how much care does a 5 gallon bucket of all-purpose joint
>> compound requires. On the container it says to store it at "room
>> temperature". The temperatures are hovering locally between 53 and 80
>> degrees F. here lately. I don't plan to have to store it for too many
>> weeks and I'm reluctant to bring it in from the garage. Because of it's
>> mass, I figure it could probably handle a cool draft at night. I'm not
>> wrong about this, am I?
>>
> Your fine, if is supposed to get much below 50, bring it in.
>
Thank you.
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> Actually the drywall guys are the bane of electricians. They don't care
> one hoot about those boxes. Very common to find a glob of dried compound
> in a box. Same thing with painters. That said - the mud chips out very
> easily and if it is part of a smear that ran wild from the wall, just
> score it through along the outside of the box and chip off the errant
> remainder. For the most part you can easily mud right up to the box with
> no problems, but if you do lay a blob in there it's no big deal. The
> screw threads are no problem at all. The screws will run home just fine.
> If your wires are properly tucked inside your boxes, you have nothing to
> worry about from drywall tools.
The screws sticking up will make finishing harder, as will wires sticking
out or box sticking up.
Alway let your drywallers know that the wiring is alive. They are more
careful, that way, and the bark will tell you where to look for the problems
before the drywallers get away and **YOU** have to fix the drywall holes
that allow you to pull a couple of more inches through the clamp.
Ask them politely to hit the love conductors and NOT the neutrals though.
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
It's all part of an evil plot on the part of the even more evil drywallers
and painters.
Josepi wrote:
> Ohhh...that's why they make those 6" deep boxes? To hide the wires
> from the drywallers.
>
> Why is it they always nick the neutral conductor and it only shows up
> on the GFCI circuits?
>
On 6/20/10 11:37 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 12:15:41 -0500, -MIKE-<[email protected]>
> wrote the following:
>
>> On 6/20/10 11:59 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>>>> As long as the hole is big enough to put the cables through it
>>>>> without kinking or damaging them, sure. AFAIK, the Code doesn't
>>>>> mention anything at all about minimum hole size through wood framing.
>>>>
>>>> One caveat for drilling bigger holes in a typical tubafour stud frame
>>>> is the larger hole may require the use of nail plates if they end up
>>>> less than 1 1/4" from the edge.
>>>
>>> True. I use bigger holes to make pulling easier, and to run more through
>>> one hole. That way I don't have to worry about wires running through a lot
>>> of different heights when rock goes on.
>>>
>>
>> The real question is, how many lines can you run through a floor joist
>> in the basement ceiling, that allows for the most clothing to by hung
>>from it?
>>
>> Is that in the NEC? :-)
>
> The NEC specifically states that "clothing is optional", Mike. ;)
>
Naked electricians are *not* allowed in my house.
--
Froz...
The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.
On 6/23/2010 8:37 AM, Josepi wrote:
> Sorry Keith. It wasn't my post at that time of the morning.
>
> I can read posts with almost any formatting.
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:8b8debc9-ddbc-49db-98c3-0fdbdd86971d@x27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> I am not the one who has trouble with simple concepts, moron.
>
> When you stop top posting perhaps someone will answer you again.
>
>
>
> On Jun 23, 5:40 am, "Josepi"<[email protected]> wrote:
>> top posting is way to complix for you moron!
What the fuck is your problem? You've been chastised by a half-dozen people
for top-posting, yet you claim some "other" impersonator is to blame for at
least some of them, which you so brilliantly point out with yet another fucking
top-post? One (I might add) that was explicitly corrected by Keith then
UN-corrected by you? Oh, so YOU "can read posts with almost any formatting"...
What do you want, a fucking medal? Is that you're justification for
blatantly ignoring the wishes of others?
--
A. Because it makes the discussion harder to read.
Q. Why should I not top-post?
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 21:43:45 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> You're going to need a *lot* more lighting in your shop (another
>>> half-dozen 4' dual shop lights ought to do). Might just as well put
>>> it in now. Add to that a couple of 1kW halogen work lights, for the
>>> mud work, and you should be OK.
>>>
>>
>> A couple of 1KW work lights? Holy cow - you're going to blind the
>> poor guy with the glare.
>
> Put 300W sticks in them. Bounce off the ceiling or an adjacent wall.
> One light tends to throw shadows.
>
>> Seriously - one does not need tons of light to check for flatness.
>> A modest 60W bulb, and a head tilted to view the wall from an angle
>> is plenty sufficient. As another poster suggested - use your hand
>> and fingers to find the high/low spots.
>
> It's a lot easier to see with a *lot* of flat (indirect) light. At
> least it is for me.
You need to try more techniques. One light will do the job. It's all about
the angles.
>
>> Bill - I paint cars a bit - and I insist on dead flat surface
>> finishes. I have a little insight into this stuff, and you don't
>> need to over engineer this lighting thing. A simple hand held
>> trouble light will give you all the light you need to check your
>> joints. You *can* have too much light and end up with glare off the
>> walls and glare from the airborne dust.
>
> Dust? ...and you paint cars? ;-)
Oh... you might say...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 21:43:45 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>
>>
>> You're going to need a *lot* more lighting in your shop (another
>> half-dozen 4' dual shop lights ought to do). Might just as well put
>> it in now. Add to that a couple of 1kW halogen work lights, for the
>> mud work, and you should be OK.
>>
>
>A couple of 1KW work lights? Holy cow - you're going to blind the poor guy
>with the glare.
Put 300W sticks in them. Bounce off the ceiling or an adjacent wall. One
light tends to throw shadows.
>Seriously - one does not need tons of light to check for flatness. A modest
>60W bulb, and a head tilted to view the wall from an angle is plenty
>sufficient. As another poster suggested - use your hand and fingers to find
>the high/low spots.
It's a lot easier to see with a *lot* of flat (indirect) light. At least it is
for me.
>Bill - I paint cars a bit - and I insist on dead flat surface finishes. I
>have a little insight into this stuff, and you don't need to over engineer
>this lighting thing. A simple hand held trouble light will give you all the
>light you need to check your joints. You *can* have too much light and end
>up with glare off the walls and glare from the airborne dust.
Dust? ...and you paint cars? ;-)
top posting is way to complix for you moron!
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 22:05:15 -0400, "Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Oh buloney! Look at the truss spec. on your last order design or consult
>>your local truss manufacturer.
>
I have. You're wrong. Simple physics even tells the simple this.
Stop top posting, moron.
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 12:15:41 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
wrote the following:
>On 6/20/10 11:59 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>>> As long as the hole is big enough to put the cables through it
>>>> without kinking or damaging them, sure. AFAIK, the Code doesn't
>>>> mention anything at all about minimum hole size through wood framing.
>>>
>>> One caveat for drilling bigger holes in a typical tubafour stud frame
>>> is the larger hole may require the use of nail plates if they end up
>>> less than 1 1/4" from the edge.
>>
>> True. I use bigger holes to make pulling easier, and to run more through
>> one hole. That way I don't have to worry about wires running through a lot
>> of different heights when rock goes on.
>>
>
>The real question is, how many lines can you run through a floor joist
>in the basement ceiling, that allows for the most clothing to by hung
>from it?
>
>Is that in the NEC? :-)
The NEC specifically states that "clothing is optional", Mike. ;)
--
Peace of mind is that mental condition in which you have accepted the worst.
-- Lin Yutang
Not my post folks. The Gymmy Bob/JP Bengi twit is at it.
That idiot's history is here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.solar.photovoltaic/msg/a57dda4e6757f15c?hl=en
If you want to clone me, at least get the goods on correct forgery formating.
I am tickled with the threat you assign to my posts despite
your inability to do a fucking thing about it, loser.
_______________________________________________________________
"Josepi" <[email protected]> **fakir** wrote in message
news:<D%[email protected]>...
Not my post folks. The OCD trolls are running amuck here.
If you want to clone me, at least get the top post format right.
I am tickled with the importantance you assign to my posts despite your sore
losing.
"Josepi" <[email protected]> **clone** wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
top posting is way to complix for you moron!
Stop top posting, moron.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
I have. You're wrong. Simple physics even tells the simple this.
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 22:05:15 -0400, "Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Oh buloney! Look at the truss spec. on your last order design or consult
>>your local truss manufacturer.
Sorry Keith. It is a bad morning.
My medication is playing tricks with my head.
I can't read posts without formatting.
__________________________________________________________
"Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
Sorry Keith. It wasn't my post at that time of the morning.
I can read posts with almost any formatting.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:8b8debc9-ddbc-49db-98c3-0fdbdd86971d@x27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
I am not the one who has trouble with simple concepts, moron.
When you stop top posting perhaps someone will answer you again.
On Jun 23, 5:40 am, "Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote:
> top posting is way to complix for you moron!
In article <[email protected]>, "Josepi" <X-Complaints-to: [email protected]> wrote:
>Here what happens with the insurance companies, typically.
>
[fantasy snipped]
Perhaps you'd care to cite some evidence that the imaginary scenario you
describe has ever actually happened in real life, even once, to anyone.
On 6/14/10 8:58 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>, "Josepi"<X-Complaints-to: [email protected]> wrote:
>> Here what happens with the insurance companies, typically.
>>
> [fantasy snipped]
>
> Perhaps you'd care to cite some evidence that the imaginary scenario you
> describe has ever actually happened in real life, even once, to anyone.
I don't get how people fall for that urban myth.
Logically, it makes no sense. Inspections are done to insure proper
wiring because proper wiring means your house won't burn down... due
to improper wiring. If your house won't burn down due to improper
wiring, there is no risk involved, which means you would never need
insurance for it.
Yet, every year, there are probably thousands of insurance claims paid
out for house fires that were deemed by a fire marshal to be due to
improper wiring. I don't think you will ever see a fire marshal report
that lists the cause of fire as, "proper wiring." So if an insurance
company won't pay a claim based on "improper wiring" or "lack of
inspection," then they would never pay a claim for an electrical fire.
I suspect that insurance companies insure houses specifically FOR
improper wiring,
because that's precisely why you freakin need insurance in the first place.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
I bought some "grounding pigtails" to screw into my (obviously metal)
electrical boxes.
The pigtails are #12 stranded wire (I stripped the loose end), but the
three ground wires I intended to connect to them are solid wire.
My wiring book, "Stanley: Complete Wiring" provides the idea of twisting
the solid wires and then wrapping the stranded wire about, leaving an
1/8" of the stranded wire extending beyond the end of the solid wire
(before attaching a wire nut and electrical tape)--however they are not
working with three #12 wires in their example.
I was wondering whether it might be preferable to attach a piece of
solid copper wire to the box instead so that stranded wire is not
involved in the wire connection. It seems this may result in a more
robust connection (but I recognize that this is an opinion based upon my
intuition).
Bill
In article <[email protected]>, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>I bought some "grounding pigtails" to screw into my (obviously metal)
>electrical boxes.
>
>The pigtails are #12 stranded wire (I stripped the loose end), but the
>three ground wires I intended to connect to them are solid wire.
>
>My wiring book, "Stanley: Complete Wiring" provides the idea of twisting
>the solid wires and then wrapping the stranded wire about, leaving an
>1/8" of the stranded wire extending beyond the end of the solid wire
>(before attaching a wire nut and electrical tape)--however they are not
>working with three #12 wires in their example.\
It'll still work. Don't overthink this, buddy.
>
>I was wondering whether it might be preferable to attach a piece of
>solid copper wire to the box instead so that stranded wire is not
>involved in the wire connection. It seems this may result in a more
>robust connection (but I recognize that this is an opinion based upon my
>intuition).
When I need a grounding pigtail, I always use solid copper. Several reasons:
first, it's easier to make the wirenut connection with all solid wires than
with a mix of solid and stranded. Second, I'm a cheap SOB, and scrap solid
wire is essentially free, nothing to buy. Third, I'm also a practical SOB, and
I *always* have scrap solid wire available. Scraps less than 6" go in the
trash, 6" or longer go in the toolbox. The nearest hardware store or home
center is at least a 30-minute round trip, but the bottom of my toolbox is
only seconds away.
I do not know about your rules and regualtions of your communnal type
residential association or the politics of your state or governing body
responsible for building / electrical inspections.
Where I am, the electrical rules and inspections are governed by the
Province, although the national electrical code is the basis for the
provincial Code.
The building Inspector is a local guy enforcing local municipal Code based
on the Provincial building Code...LOL
When the electrical Inspector comes in he will inspect the wiring asked to
inspect. He doesn't care about structural building items or wiring that may
be existing, non-conforming. It's really not his business unless things get
politically dirty...maybe? He may make recommendations but unless he sees
something really, immediately, dangerous, he won't get involved. Just paying
the fee and calling him in they figure you are the consciencious type,
usually.
As far as map, sketches and plans, these things are really only for the
Building Inspector and Building Dept. of the Municipality. They would
involve structural soundness and asthetic issues for the neighbourhood look
and feel. Wiring is not usually wanted on the drawings nor is it used by
most electricians on the job. Industrial is usually the exception. I have
seen many people spend a lot of time making drawing for the electrician only
to have the guys on the job totally ignore it and do it "their way". This
usually works out better anyway after seeing room formation and determining
"Ergo" layout flow of the usage. Specific weird wiring quirks are the
exception for clarity.
"and closed up" means after the fictures are all closed up. This looks to me
like "childproofed". No open wiring or electrical contact points that
anybody could touch by accident.
When I "pushed" my third inspector to inspect my solar PV system he ran to
his vehicle, saying I hadn't paid for the inspection, to look at his
database. "Yeah, you have paid, it will he fine". He was more woriied they
got paid for it than looking at it. I had definite no-nos that he should
have jumped on me for. They look for knowledge and general attitude in your
work the they run to try to keep up with the clock, here.
YMMV
https://www.hubbellnet.com/max_htm/tech_stuff/NEMA/front.html
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
What do you mean by "and closed up"?
Most of the application for a "(Garage) Building Building" permit consists
of
"Maps, Sketches, and Other Exhibits: Applicant must attach appropriate
sufficient maps, sketches, and other exhibits, including a signed Homeowners
Association Affirmation of Notification.
I have 2 questions:
1) Are before and after SU documents, along with written summaries likely
to suffice for this?
2) Is my Homeowners Association likely to raise their head (for fear of all
the the outlets)? --Maybe I'll layout a SU document with buffers, fans,
and other quiet amenities. : )
3) I can see why some people might not go this route. It surely gets in
the way of changing your mind. It sounds sort of silly, but "how much
"vaguness" is allowed? Is a phrase such as "add fluorescent lighting to the
ceiling" unacceptable?
The application fee for the building permit the maximum of .05/sq^2 or $25.
Is that likely to cover both the "rough-in" and "final inspection", or are
their typically further fees?
Bill
"Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Personally, If I were you, I would pay for a wiring inspection. You run
>> all
>> your cables to the boxes and call them to come and then again after the
>> recepticals are installed and closed up.
Bill wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Bill wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Yes, I understand. If your breakers work the way they should, then
>>> they would protect you, your family and your property. But don't
>>> they fail on occasion?
>>> I think of them as a backup.
>>>
>>
>> If you keep trying to find potential problems this way, you will
>> never wire your garage. After all - what is the difference between
>> and extension cord and a wired outlet? If that breaker failure
>> occurs, the impact is the same at the outlet as it is at the
>> extension cord. How do you think it is going to be any safer by not
>> using the extension cord?
>
>
> Nothing is waiting on the extension cord. It just surprised me that
> I was the
> one who observed a difference between an extension cord and a wall
> outlet. I would
> have thought it more likely for our roles to have been reversed on
> that detail.
>
I think it's more a matter that you believe you found a problem that is not
really a problem. Or... at least one that is so easily addressed as to make
it moot. Your mention of a breaker failure is what I addressed and the
extension cord has no association with a breaker failure, that is any
greater than anything else that is tied to a breaker or plugged into a wall,
or even hardwired for that matter.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Bill wrote:
>
> My point was that a regular extension cord was less likely to incur
> an issue in the first place rather an multi-pound box containing 2
> duplex outlets. It would be quite easy,
> for instance, for someone to spill a liquid into or kick the latter
> compared to
> a regular extension cord or a wall outlet. My neighbor's dog might
> even pee on it. ; )
Well - you have to go with what makes you comfortable in this matter. I
think you're looking for problems where they don't exist, but I'm not the
one who has to be comfortable in your garage. Just make sure the extension
cords you purchase are heavy enough for the tasks at hand...
>
> As far as the details concerning the job, the main concern I have is
> "how well" I need
> to get the cable from one side of the attic to an adjacent corner.
> Currently virtually all of
> the cables of the house are lying unprotected in the attic. I would
> like to do something in between
> pulling up the attic floor boards and drilling holes in the joists,
> and just laying 4 new cables
> next to the ones already there. How about stapling the new cabkes to
> the base of the ceiling
> joists (using the appropriate staples)? Is that likely to pass an
> inspection based on the situation
> I've described? Obviously staping them to the floor boards is a
> horrible concept, because, for instance,
> I will need to get under those to install my lighting boxes.
>
The NEC addresses this. You can't just staple up romex to the underside of
joists. You can install running boards and then staple to those though.
The NEC is a tough read if you don't already know what you're looking for
and where it is addressed, however you can find adequate information in a
number of DIY wiring books available at places like Home Depot, Lowes, etc.
Would be worth the money for ya.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
The phase angle determines what you get.
Anyway - most 3-phase apartment house services are in fact 180 split windings.
e.g. delta with centers of the delta sides are grounded. You don't get
multiple phases for normal home use.
Martin
Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
"Our Republic and the Press will Rise or Fall Together": Joseph Pulitzer
TSRA: Endowed; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member. http://lufkinced.com/
On 6/9/2010 11:27 PM, Josepi wrote:
> Or 120 degrees out of phase if fed off a network three phase system. Ths can
> be common in apartment buildings or large residental blocks. Now you get
> the vector sum of two loads and have to consider the power factor also.
>
> The end result is a low current, in the neutral, anyway, unless you have pf
> correction on one and not the other. Not likely in a residence.
>
>
> "Martin H. Eastburn"<[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> Actually, the currents are added. The effect is subtraction.
>
> One leg has a -1 vector tagged to it so when adding it becomes subtraction.
>
> Remember in the US and many other places the two voltages are 180 degrees
> out of phase with the other.
>
> Martin
>
>
Like the rest of us, when the job is finished you will be looking around
saying, "Nothin' to it". The hardest part is the anxiety or not knowing.
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> If you keep trying to find potential problems this way, you will never
> wire your garage.
With the assistance you and other folks have given me, I'm going to pull
this off. After I am successful, I will add it to my short list of major
accomplishments! : )
Bill
Highly recommended. even if you just wire a recptacle for a garage door
opener. You cna always hook a pulldown trouble light, receptacle later from
it.
or
Put a garage door opener on it and park your lawn tractor in there for the
winter when it's too cold to do wood working in there.
"Scott Lurndal" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:V4tQn.33398The
_most useful_ outlet that I have in my shop is a retractable cube-tap
hanging from the center of the shop ceiling. I suggest you run another
circuit to a quad outlet box there for the retractable cube-tap.
s
That depends whether you ever will open up a wall and wonder where the
cables go.
I think he meant the breakers. I usually do it in pencil on a separate sheet
and then after I get the three word descriptions and abrev. (word too long)
down I label the permanent sticker with marking pen.
Most figure they will after and then **after** they can't temeber where it
all went too and then one-of-these-days, I'll get a 'round-tuit, and I could
never find one of those online to buy.
Anybody know where to buy a round tuit?
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
When I submitted a purchase agreement, I requested that the seller's add
labels
to the 3 year old main panel. It didn't have a single one! I was glad I
did, because
I learned that each ceiling fan had a breaker, for instance, and I would
probably still
be guessing what the breaker for for the sump pump was for!
Do you label any of the wires themselves (or anything else along those
lines)?
Bill
"Puckdropper" <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Remember to label as you
> go, and label everything. I had to replace a switch today and wound up
> shutting off every 120V breaker in the unlabeled panel to get the power
> shut off.
>
> (What's really irritating this was a new panel and the old one was
> sufficiently labeled.)
"Bill" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> If you keep trying to find potential problems this way, you will never
>> wire your garage.
>
>
>
>With the assistance you and other folks have given me, I'm going to pull
>this off. After I am successful, I will add it to my short list of major
>accomplishments! : )
>
>Bill
>
The _most useful_ outlet that I have in my shop is a retractable cube-tap
hanging from the center of the shop ceiling. I suggest you run another
circuit to a quad outlet box there for the retractable cube-tap.
s
You just need to follow the existing lumber in the attic and pin to the
sides of what's there so it can't be stepped on and damaged.
A running board can be used if the trusses run perpendicular to the
direction you want to travel.
In our code preactice, if you cannot walk over top of it you don't have to
worry about it being stepped on. IOW if the ceiling is too low you can't
walk there.
Do **NOT** drill through engineered trusses. If a building Inspector saw
this he may make you replace them.....big job!!!!
You mentioned "building permit". We would not be involved in a building
permit, but rather a wiring permit. Inside a garage, nobody is going to know
what you have done and if you are not modifying the structure, who cares?
YMMV on that one with area regs and community rules.
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Josephi,
The cable needs to go from the subpanel, straight up the inside of a wall to
the attic and from there go about 12-15 feet to the top of an adjacent wall
where it comes back down. The difficulty (for me) was how the cable should
go through the attic. This portion of the attic already has "flooring" and
I'd prefer not to mess with that. Mike suggested a "running board" which
would span the roof joists, I imagine it would be quite low. I "knew"
running cable from roof joist to roof joist (without a "running board") just
"had to be wrong" because of the proximity to possible moisture there. I
will do some homework on the "running board" concept and look for some
examples to see what I might be overlooking.
I told my wife I was planning to submit some SU pictures with my request for
a building permit and she thought I was trying to "show off"! This was
funny to me because the situation is actually quite the opposite, but after
considering it I hope the pictures will help make a good impression.
Bill
Trusses would typically have "Webs" installed between any long runs of
outside framing and 2 x 6 bottom rafters or smaller. If they are a "stick
roof" then the bottom rafter has to be large enough lumber to carry the
ceiling weight for that long span, itself and would be a 2 x8 or larger for
more than 10-12 feet. I would have to look up the span chart in the building
code to give you exact sizes here but you get the idea.
Basically, if you have a wide ceiling (more than 12') and there is no
vertical web pieces than you would not have trusses. It won't matter as
trusses or stick roof they can carry some load. I wouldn't store 100 lb up
there though.
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
[email protected] wrote:
> At the bottom of the rafters? That's some long nails! ;-)
My parents referred to the ceiling joists as rafters, so evidently I've
had to undo some incorrect learning. I tried to be accurate today. I
probably should have said something about where the ceiling joists meet
the rafters. Thank you for helping me to get it right!
> I thought your attic was trussed? If so, you shouldn't be storing
> anything up
> there. Trusses can take very little "floor load".
It's "mostly open" so I take it that it's not trussed. I apologize if I
have misused some basic terminology.
> Suggestion for your AC/heat... I'm looking into the "mini split" heat
> pumps
> for my attic shop. They're in the $1K to $2K region, without
> installation, a
> lot of it I hope I can do (just starting research mode).
I'll take a look. I would be interested in reading about your
experience here if you try it. At this point, the electrical aspect of
it hardly intimidates me at all! However, at some point one must start
counting amperes...I should be as concerned about my caloric intake! : )
Bill
Larry Jaques wrote:
>
> I'm a 1-hole/1-wire kinda guy. If the NEC won't let you put Romex
> into a conduit, why stuff wires together at all? Remember that when
> you're in a workshop, most of your plugins are high-amp tools. Act
> accordingly, eh?
No problem running multiple romex runs through one hole. That's quite
different from running in an enclosed conduit. I do not know the maximum
number of 12/2 runs permitted in any given size hole, without looking it up,
but I stick to 3 as my rule of thumb, and I bore 1" holes. Larry's approach
negates the following thought, but if you are going to run multiple runs
through one hole, never find yourself having to pull hard to run a wire. If
you do - time for a new hole.
>
> I convinced the HVAC guys that I wouldn't be parking in the new shop,
> so they let me vent an A/C (and heat) into the 2-car shop. I installed
> 18 brand new holes in the door to the utility room (house side) and
> put Filtrete filters over them. It stays down to 80F during 105+
> summer days and at 55F or above in the winter at 17F outside. HVAC
> for the shop is absolutely wonderful. Just Do It!
>
>
I'm chiming in with Larry! For the most part - no AC in mine, but heat in
the winter - priceless. I spend lots of time in my garage doing everything
from woodworking, to body work, to mechanical, to fabrication - and it is so
nice to just bump the thermostat and not worry about wearing a jacket, etc.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Larry Jaques" wrote
> They have a special foam for wiring use, too. It's fluorescent
> orange, so the inspector can tell it's the correct stuff. It doesn't
> melt as easily if there's a fire so your upper walls/attic stay safer
> longer in the event of a fire.
> http://cableorganizer.com/abesco-fire-rated-foam/
>
Hey, good website. I got some big workstations and a couple other projects I
have to wire up and they have some goodies that could help. I filed this one
away.
>
> Those are two things you really don't need in a shop. The radio takes
> your attention away from sharp spinny things which are often reaching
> for your fingers, and the chair lets you goof off too much. Calculate
> in the office, not the shop.
>
I got a "shop stool" at a garage sale and it turned into a bar stool of
sorts. Ya know, you sit on it and nothing much happens. I needed the space,
threw it out and my productivity went up. Go figure.
"Lee Michaels" wrote
> I got a "shop stool" at a garage sale and it turned into a bar stool
> of sorts. Ya know, you sit on it and nothing much happens. I needed
> the space, threw it out and my productivity went up. Go figure.
---------------------------
I am often reminded of Fred Bingham's comment.
"The most important tool in the boat yard is the thinking chair."
I found it to be true.
YMMV
Lew
[email protected] wrote:
> At the bottom of the rafters? That's some long nails! ;-)
My parents referred to the ceiling joists as rafters, so evidently I've
had to undo some incorrect learning. I tried to be accurate today. I
probably should have said something about where the ceiling joists meet
the rafters. Thank you for helping me to get it right!
> I thought your attic was trussed? If so, you shouldn't be storing anything up
> there. Trusses can take very little "floor load".
It's "mostly open" so I take it that it's not trussed. I apologize if I
have misused some basic terminology.
> Suggestion for your AC/heat... I'm looking into the "mini split" heat pumps
> for my attic shop. They're in the $1K to $2K region, without installation, a
> lot of it I hope I can do (just starting research mode).
I'll take a look. I would be interested in reading about your
experience here if you try it. At this point, the electrical aspect of
it hardly intimidates me at all! However, at some point one must start
counting amperes...I should be as concerned about my caloric intake! : )
Bill
"Josepi" <[email protected]>wrote:
>Same easynews.com account and ID...LOL
>You are just too easy hopper/tazoar/Lectronuis/Ms Marples/wmjbk/Doug/
>
>------------------
>Path:
>s03-b23.iad!npeersf01.iad.highwinds-media.com!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.glorb.com!news2.glorb.com!news.glorb.com!news-in-01.newsfeed.easynews.com!easynews!core-easynews-01!easynews.com!en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
>From: Larry Jaques <[email protected]>
>Newsgroups: rec.woodworking
[sawn sapwood]
Have to keep right on proving your lack
of anythng, right Gymmy.
No brain
No balls
No bimbo
You still out there pissing off those parrot guys
with your female side?
You heard they locked up your buddy Peter Hucker.
Ate some bad beef and really sent him over the edge.
Want some sausage?
Your dance tune is playing.
X-Abuse-Report: [email protected]
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Path: news.teranews.com!not-for-mail
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 03:29:25 GMT
Lines: 61
From: "Pizza Gurl" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups:
alt.pets.parrots.cockatiels,alt.pets.parrots.african-grey,rec.pets.birds
Subject: This THREAD is driving me batshit!!!
Organization: Not in USA
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE
V6.00.2800.1165
Come on LadyBitch! You get everything you deserve and
less. If you don't
want to be in the game, stop paying for the ticket!
"LadyTech" <leave_me_alone> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Mamabird" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> | "LadyTech" <leave_me_alone> wrote in message
> | news:[email protected]...
> | >
> | > "Day7" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> | > news:NB1Bc.394$84.197@newsfe2-win...
> | > |
> | > | "LadyTech" <leave_me_alone> wrote in message
> | > | news:[email protected]...
> | > |
> | > | "Peter Hucker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> | > | news:opr9usq5klaiowgp@blue...
> | > | | On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 13:32:46 -0400, LadyTech <leave_me_alone>
> | > wrote:
> | > | |
> | > | | >
> | > | | > "Peter Hucker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> | > | | > news:opr9seh2htaiowgp@blue...
> |
> | <garbage snipped>
> |
> | WOULD YOU PEOPLE PLEASE KNOCK IT OFF DAMMIT !!!! I'm going to start
> sending
> | abuse complaints to certain ISPs if you idiots keep crossposting off
> topic
> | crap and basically taking over these news groups.
> |
> | BIRDS! GET IT? BIRDS! I can understand how things can get OT from
> time to
> | time. Most of us are guilty of that but this has gone beyond
> ridiculous and
> | it needs to stop.
> | --
> | Mama
> | ~^~^~^~ Visit Mamabird's Nest: <http://iluvbirds.tripod.com/> And
> My
> | Photo Albums at: <http://photos.yahoo.com/iluvbirdz>
> | ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
> |
>
> I can understand that it's driving you batty, it's driving me batty
> too, but report it to Peter's ISP. After all he calls Americans Arab
> torturers and Nazi's.... He is the one that starts all of the trouble,
> just like PG starts crap as well and I am getting sick and tired of
> being called names for no reason whatsoever. I came here to learn
> about birds, NOT to be called names and be judged by morons that know
> nothing about me. I'm sorry if I made you mad. I will stop, but if
> Hucker or PG starts in on me again then I'm defending myself.... or
> they will be reported.
>
>
>
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 08:29:28 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote
the following:
>On 6/23/2010 11:42 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> Guys, would you just plonk Josepi and forget him?
>
>Who?
Exactly. I would have forgotten him but for all the idiots quoting
him every bloody day.
--
I am beginning to learn that it is the sweet, simple things of life
which are the real ones after all. --Laura Ingalls Wilder (1867-1957)
Larry Jaques wrote:
>> Three 10-2 Romex cables in one hole okay?
>
> I'm a 1-hole/1-wire kinda guy. If the NEC won't let you put Romex
> into a conduit, why stuff wires together at all? Remember that when
> you're in a workshop, most of your plugins are high-amp tools. Act
> accordingly, eh?
Makes sense to me; simple is good. I assume that you employ that same
reasoning where the cable enters the panel too.
Logically, the trickiest part of my project left may be dealing with the
existing outlets I don't want. I need to spend a little more time up
there, like krw does, and get my existing current flow completely
figured out. I think it would also help to have a big "dental mirror"
(seriously!). BTDT?
Bill
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
I worked seven hours
>in the attic today, trying to get things sealed up so I can put the temporary
>floor back in. It'll take a couple more hours tomorrow, then I can move all
>the junk back into the attic space. In the Fall I'll start over with the
>walls and the real (sub) floor. I figure Winter will be a good time to
>insulate the walls and ceiling. ;-)
You make me feel like I don't have it so bad. Maybe I will earn more "attic
time" when I get to my new lighting. Good luck finishing up tomorrow.
Bill
On 6/20/2010 2:55 AM, Lee Michaels wrote:
> "Larry Jaques" wrote
>
>> They have a special foam for wiring use, too. It's fluorescent
>> orange, so the inspector can tell it's the correct stuff. It doesn't
>> melt as easily if there's a fire so your upper walls/attic stay safer
>> longer in the event of a fire.
>> http://cableorganizer.com/abesco-fire-rated-foam/
>>
> Hey, good website. I got some big workstations and a couple other projects I
> have to wire up and they have some goodies that could help. I filed this one
> away.
>
>>
>> Those are two things you really don't need in a shop. The radio takes
>> your attention away from sharp spinny things which are often reaching
>> for your fingers, and the chair lets you goof off too much. Calculate
>> in the office, not the shop.
>>
> I got a "shop stool" at a garage sale and it turned into a bar stool of
> sorts. Ya know, you sit on it and nothing much happens. I needed the space,
> threw it out and my productivity went up. Go figure.
Burt Rutan in the plans for the LongEZ suggests that the "thinking
chair" is an essential piece of equipment. I suspect that few of us are
as productive as Burt Rutan.
>
>
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> If the NEC won't let you put Romex into a conduit
A common misconception.
There is *nothing* in the NEC which prohibits putting NM ("Romex") in conduit;
quite the contrary, in fact: Article 334.15(B) _explicitly requires_ putting
it in conduit for "protect[ion] from physical damage where necessary".
In article <[email protected]>, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Somebody wrote:
>
>> Three 10-2 Romex cables in one hole okay?
>--------------------
>NO!!!
Nonsense. Of course it is, as long as the hole is big enough to do it without
damaging the cables. 3/4" may be a bit tight, but 7/8" is sufficient.
On 6/20/10 8:04 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> If the NEC won't let you put Romex into a conduit
>
> A common misconception.
>
> There is *nothing* in the NEC which prohibits putting NM ("Romex") in conduit;
> quite the contrary, in fact: Article 334.15(B) _explicitly requires_ putting
> it in conduit for "protect[ion] from physical damage where necessary".
I did that on the new 220 circuit to my table saw. I was going to use
those separate, loose wires, but the Romex was actually cheaper, and I
needed it for another run.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 00:15:46 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote the
following:
>Thank you for your reply. It contains a lot of good information!
>
>Josepi wrote:
>> Sounds like you are well on your way!! The first blow with the hammer was
>> the hardest! YIKES!!
>
>Yes, I think we've discussed how difficult it can be to "start" here
>before. After a few days of procrastinating, working on other things, I
>made a list one evening, and it was easy as 1, 2, 3 the next day. I
>think I didn't work so fast, because I wasn't so sure about Steps 4, 5
>and 6! Perhaps procrastinating a bit after Step 2, I went on a 90
>minute shopping trip to Menards and made a very detailed list of
>virtually everything I thought I needed. Evidentally 240v, 20Amp
>outlets are not popular, as I did not find what I was looking for
>stocked. I thought I wanted the 3-prong type and The only ones they had
>were ones which lock with a twist (still 3-prong).
I prefer them. L6-20 for my 240v circuits I installed in my shop when
I moved in.
>> I , again decide, never to drill less than 3/4" ones again!...LOL
>
>3/4" sounded "right" to me to. I was planning to drill a practice hole
>before I committed myself to see how well the cables fit! : )
My fave size.
>> A long spade bit with extension works well. It
>> avoids chips in your eyes if overhead or high run,
>> allows you to come in on a fairly straight angle without the next joist/
>> truss pushing your drill out,
>> allows a better "in-line" view so your holes do not go up and down.
>
>Yes, I've also read in more than one place about the "importance" of
>getting your holes lined up. They even suggested a jig (prop) to
>assist. Most of the holes I need to drill will be through the studs in
>the garage wall.
Cut a V in a piece of tubafore and rest your auger on it, eh?
I like a 50" height. It's always over bench/table/stand height.
>> - Drill the furthest one and work your way backward so the previous is
>> always in site or ping chalk lines to get your holes lined up.
>
>Yes!
>> - drill individual holes for larger cables. ALl conductors need cooling.
>> Three 2 wire cables (6 conductors) in any hole so there is always cooling to
>> each conductor inside-
>
>Three 10-2 Romex cables in one hole okay?
I'm a 1-hole/1-wire kinda guy. If the NEC won't let you put Romex
into a conduit, why stuff wires together at all? Remember that when
you're in a workshop, most of your plugins are high-amp tools. Act
accordingly, eh?
>> - before insulating shoot foam into the ceiling holes to re-vapour barrier.
>
>Thank you for mentioning that --that wasn't even on my list!
They have a special foam for wiring use, too. It's fluorescent
orange, so the inspector can tell it's the correct stuff. It doesn't
melt as easily if there's a fire so your upper walls/attic stay safer
longer in the event of a fire.
http://cableorganizer.com/abesco-fire-rated-foam/
>> Dont' forget speaker cables, Ethernet (CAT5 or 5e or 6), intercom, phone,
>> remote control for dust collector, thermostats... video camera security
>> cables, weather vane, wind turbine, exhaust port in eaves...think hard and
>> take your time.
>
>Gosh, that's the type of thinking that got me where I am now--and that
>was "just" over electricity and lighting. You have a vivid
>imagination--maybe you are in sales? : )
>It occurred to me this week
>that it would be nice to have a shop radio--don't laugh I just got a
>sturdy wooden "shop chair" last week.
Those are two things you really don't need in a shop. The radio takes
your attention away from sharp spinny things which are often reaching
for your fingers, and the chair lets you goof off too much. Calculate
in the office, not the shop.
>After seeing how hot it gets, I
>have to wonder where "air conditioning" might fit onto a list. I will
>probably have to make-do with a shop fan. That would go well with all
I convinced the HVAC guys that I wouldn't be parking in the new shop,
so they let me vent an A/C (and heat) into the 2-car shop. I installed
18 brand new holes in the door to the utility room (house side) and
put Filtrete filters over them. It stays down to 80F during 105+
summer days and at 55F or above in the winter at 17F outside. HVAC
for the shop is absolutely wonderful. Just Do It!
>of that dry-wall dust I'm making! : ) I already noticed white tracks
>throughout the house the other day--burglars!!! I cleaned them up
>before SWMBO came home!
It's TOOL TIME! Time for a HEPA dust collector, Bill. Leave those
tracks the next time and when SWMBO screams, offer to buy a dust
collector which nabs every bit of dust. She'll jump/you get the new
toy. Win/win, wot?
--
Peace of mind is that mental condition in which you have accepted the worst.
-- Lin Yutang
Romex in conduit would probably OK in your Code but in conduit you would
have to derate the conductors as per tables in your electrical code.
It's all about cooling the conductor so it doesn't overheat and give you
fire problems.
Remember not to put extension cords under a rug? Samething applies...heat
buildup
So a #14 wire is good for 20 amperes in free air, 15 amperes in a cable with
other buddies and less in conduit, depending on how many buddies in in bed
with it. Our electrical boxes are all marked in cu in or air space now and I
believe the US is starting that also. Less air space means less wires
allowed and less connectors.
"Larry Jaques" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I'm a 1-hole/1-wire kinda guy. If the NEC won't let you put Romex
into a conduit, why stuff wires together at all? Remember that when
you're in a workshop, most of your plugins are high-amp tools. Act
accordingly, eh?
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 00:15:46 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>Thank you for your reply. It contains a lot of good information!
>
>Josepi wrote:
>> Sounds like you are well on your way!! The first blow with the hammer was
>> the hardest! YIKES!!
>
>Yes, I think we've discussed how difficult it can be to "start" here
>before. After a few days of procrastinating, working on other things, I
>made a list one evening, and it was easy as 1, 2, 3 the next day. I
>think I didn't work so fast, because I wasn't so sure about Steps 4, 5
>and 6! Perhaps procrastinating a bit after Step 2, I went on a 90
>minute shopping trip to Menards and made a very detailed list of
>virtually everything I thought I needed. Evidentally 240v, 20Amp
>outlets are not popular, as I did not find what I was looking for
>stocked. I thought I wanted the 3-prong type and The only ones they had
>were ones which lock with a twist (still 3-prong).
>
We don't have a Menard's here (they have them where my brother lives), but a
20A 240V outlet should be pretty common. HD and Lowes carry them here,
several varieties.
>> I , again decide, never to drill less than 3/4" ones again!...LOL
>
>3/4" sounded "right" to me to. I was planning to drill a practice hole
>before I committed myself to see how well the cables fit! : )
I generally use 5/8" for 12/2 or 12/3. 3/4" should be fine, too.
>>
>> A long spade bit with extension works well. It
>> avoids chips in your eyes if overhead or high run,
>> allows you to come in on a fairly straight angle without the next joist/
>> truss pushing your drill out,
>> allows a better "in-line" view so your holes do not go up and down.
>
>Yes, I've also read in more than one place about the "importance" of
>getting your holes lined up. They even suggested a jig (prop) to
>assist. Most of the holes I need to drill will be through the studs in
>the garage wall.
Drill them in the center, if at all possible.
>> - Drill the furthest one and work your way backward so the previous is
>> always in site or ping chalk lines to get your holes lined up.
>
>Yes!
>
>
>> - drill individual holes for larger cables. ALl conductors need cooling.
>> Three 2 wire cables (6 conductors) in any hole so there is always cooling to
>> each conductor inside-
>
>Three 10-2 Romex cables in one hole okay?
I wouldn't. Three small holes (centered) are better than one big one.
>
>
>> - before insulating shoot foam into the ceiling holes to re-vapour barrier.
>
>Thank you for mentioning that --that wasn't even on my list!
>
>
>>
>> I am not sure were you will used the running board..in attic or on ceiling.
>> Usually there are enough lumber pieces in the attic to follow with a cable.
>> Across the trusses is a good place for one. Nail it to bottom truss web and
>> nail cables to sides = no feet on cable to stretch it.
>
>Attic. As the cable has to go perpendicular to the floor joists and many
>of them are already covered with flooring, I latched onto the idea of a
>"running board" when Mike Marlow first mentioned it. If I understand
>what you wrote concerning where to locate it, is across the bottom of
>the rafters, a few inches above the flooring, part of the "bottom truss
>web"? The roof does not leak but should the proximity to the elements
>via the roofing nails be of concern?
At the bottom of the rafters? That's some long nails! ;-)
>It is good that no feet will be able to stretch the wire, but I think it
>should be protected so that no one can push a box against it as well. I
>have seen the idea of building a "U-shaped" running board proposed. 6
>cables across an 6"-8" wide board? If the location I identified above
>is okay, I would consider nailing the wires with the plastic backed
>staples to the running board with great care not to damage any wires,
>and then "screwing" the running board to the rafters in case it may ever
>need to be modified.
I thought your attic was trussed? If so, you shouldn't be storing anything up
there. Trusses can take very little "floor load".
>>
>> Dont' forget speaker cables, Ethernet (CAT5 or 5e or 6), intercom, phone,
>> remote control for dust collector, thermostats... video camera security
>> cables, weather vane, wind turbine, exhaust port in eaves...think hard and
>> take your time.
>
>Gosh, that's the type of thinking that got me where I am now--and that
>was "just" over electricity and lighting. You have a vivid
>imagination--maybe you are in sales? : ) It occurred to me this week
>that it would be nice to have a shop radio--don't laugh I just got a
>sturdy wooden "shop chair" last week. After seeing how hot it gets, I
>have to wonder where "air conditioning" might fit onto a list. I will
>probably have to make-do with a shop fan. That would go well with all
>of that dry-wall dust I'm making! : ) I already noticed white tracks
>throughout the house the other day--burglars!!! I cleaned them up
>before SWMBO came home!
Ho boy, I see trouble in your future!
Yes, it is the wrong time of the year for such things. I worked seven hours
in the attic today, trying to get things sealed up so I can put the temporary
floor back in. It'll take a couple more hours tomorrow, then I can move all
the junk back into the attic space. In the Fall I'll start over with the
walls and the real (sub) floor. I figure Winter will be a good time to
insulate the walls and ceiling. ;-)
Suggestion for your AC/heat... I'm looking into the "mini split" heat pumps
for my attic shop. They're in the $1K to $2K region, without installation, a
lot of it I hope I can do (just starting research mode). Tapping into my
upstairs air handler would be a piece of cake (it's in the area that is going
to be the shop), but circulating dust doesn't sound like a way to make SWMBO
happy. These "mini split" systems might just be the ticket. I should be able
to use my tools year 'round then, instead of just three months in the Spring
and Fall.
In my area that is exactly what would happpen and is right on the money
legally and logically.
Be vague and let them demand more detail. You would be dealing with a clerk
that wants a little more cash for her next promotion Brownie points (not the
marijuana kind though).
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I find out ASAP.
TYVM!
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
::: document printed :::
> If you have to say anything about electrical, you may be able to get by
> with the statement that all electrical work will be performed to NEC (or
> local codes), and inspected by certified electrical inspectors.
>
Nahh! Attached ro unattached I wouldn't get a building permit, **HERE**.
Work inside a home can't be seen from the road and mostly not necessary and
not wanted from this end.
A deck somebody could fall off of, over a certain size, attached to the
building...every municipality has it's own requirements for when a permit is
needed.
Even then in the last house I built I put a deck on 8' in the ait about 16'
x 16' and the inspector stands on the finished deck, looks down the
neigbourhood back yards a says "There is a deck that wasn't inspected,
there's one.. and another and another."
I asked about hitting on them and he replies "We have no rights to enter
somebdy's property with a warrant". They basically had no rights to enforce
anything untill somebody gets hurt or a fire or other legal happening. OTOH:
A few 3000 ft^2 homes in a nearby city were bulldozed due to lack of
permits. Now that is hidden structural that cannot be inspected after the
fact and bigger politcis, at the time.
To make a long story short I am not sure why you would get the building
inspection people involved. Electrical? yes. (maybe they are one and the
same there) I assume you have made your "feeler" calls to the governing
bodies to see what the desired rules are.
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
The folks who would pay a claim on a homeowner's insurance policy. I don't
wish
to provide them with an easy out--even if a fire might be caused by a
furnace,
hot water heater, or existing wiring. I've seen that they work pretty hard
to avoid
writing checks, and I'm not an attorney and I don't wish to have to hire
one.
In the absense of a building permit, I would leave myself vulnerable. Maybe
your
answer would have been different if I had disclosed that it was an attached
garage?
Bill
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 01:36:55 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> At the bottom of the rafters? That's some long nails! ;-)
>
>My parents referred to the ceiling joists as rafters, so evidently I've
>had to undo some incorrect learning. I tried to be accurate today. I
>probably should have said something about where the ceiling joists meet
>the rafters. Thank you for helping me to get it right!
No, I meant that if your wires are at the bottom of the wood thingy that
supports the roof decking, it's going to be a *long* roofing nail that
penetrates the wire. Even if it's a truss with only 2x4s, that's at least a
4-1/2" nail.
>> I thought your attic was trussed? If so, you shouldn't be storing anything up
>> there. Trusses can take very little "floor load".
>
>It's "mostly open" so I take it that it's not trussed. I apologize if I
>have misused some basic terminology.
Ok, I just remembered that from some time back in this thread. If it's
"mostly open", it's probably "gabled". Some floor loading is likely OK. You
can look it up, given the span and dimensions/spacing of the joists.
>
>> Suggestion for your AC/heat... I'm looking into the "mini split" heat pumps
>> for my attic shop. They're in the $1K to $2K region, without installation, a
>> lot of it I hope I can do (just starting research mode).
>
>I'll take a look. I would be interested in reading about your
>experience here if you try it. At this point, the electrical aspect of
>it hardly intimidates me at all! However, at some point one must start
>counting amperes...I should be as concerned about my caloric intake! : )
The one's I'm looking at want a 20A/200V circuit and take about half that.
It's one room, about 400sq. ft., but surrounded by Alabama on five sides.
It'll likely be next spring, or later, before I get that far.
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>, Puckdropper
>>> <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What gave you the idea that the sub panel had to be perfectly
>>>> level?
>>>
>>> I think most inspectors would construe the "neat and workmanlike
>>> manner" clause to require that the panel be at least approximately
>>> level. <g>
>>
>> Not even close. There would be or could be lots of reasons to
>> stagger the height of a sub-panel reletive to a main.
>
> Did I say anything at all about its height relative to any other
> panels that
> may or may not be present?
That is though, what Bill was indeed speaking about. He even posted
pictures of it.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
In article <[email protected]>, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Puckdropper
>> <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>> What gave you the idea that the sub panel had to be perfectly level?
>>
>> I think most inspectors would construe the "neat and workmanlike manner"
>> clause to require that the panel be at least approximately level. <g>
>
>Not even close. There would be or could be lots of reasons to stagger the
>height of a sub-panel reletive to a main.
Did I say anything at all about its height relative to any other panels that
may or may not be present?
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 02:21:17 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote the
following:
>Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>>> Three 10-2 Romex cables in one hole okay?
>>
>> I'm a 1-hole/1-wire kinda guy. If the NEC won't let you put Romex
>> into a conduit, why stuff wires together at all? Remember that when
>> you're in a workshop, most of your plugins are high-amp tools. Act
>> accordingly, eh?
>
>Makes sense to me; simple is good. I assume that you employ that same
>reasoning where the cable enters the panel too.
I prolly would if it didn't make the panel look like Swiss cheese. I
did open other pre-sliced orifices, though.
>Logically, the trickiest part of my project left may be dealing with the
>existing outlets I don't want.
The NEC says "depower the wiring, insulate and tag the wiring ends if
left (safely out of the way) in the box, and cover the outlets", I
believe.
>I need to spend a little more time up
>there, like krw does, and get my existing current flow completely
>figured out. I think it would also help to have a big "dental mirror"
>(seriously!). BTDT?
I have, but haven't yet shoveled out the sheckels for one of these:
http://fwd4.me/TdM These cost a grand the last I checked.
or even one of these:
http://fwd4.me/TdJ WOW! Those were $300 the last time I looked.
I love technology at commodity levels! ;)
--
Peace of mind is that mental condition in which you have accepted the worst.
-- Lin Yutang
Bill wrote:
>
> It appears that 2 inspections are required: a "Rough-In" and a "Final"
> inspection.
That is the norm.
> If I just install the subpanel, but don't power it, and run cables
> from it, unattached, to all of the boxes,
> including running board, staples, but not any outlets or circuit
> breakers, will I be ready for the "Rough-In" inspection?
Install your subpanel complete with wiring to your main, just leave the
breaker turned off that feeds the subpanel. Then, as you indicate below,
run all of your branch circuits, with nothing attached to them. Call for
your rough-in. Once you get the sticker for the rough-in, you can complete
and cover the wiring (sheetrock or whatever you choose). Then you call for
your final. The inspector will look at connections within your boxes, GFIs,
etc. He'll give you a final sticker if he's satisfied.
Many of us will wire in the devices (outlets, switches, etc.) prior to the
rough-in inspection, just because, and inspectors usually do not object.
That way, you can energize circuits for temporary use prior to the
inspection. Best to check with your local electrical inspection firm though
to see what they want.
>
> The application includes the following (and is the ONLY place where
> the applicant describes the work to be done--of course, this is the
> same permit one would use to build an entire garage):
>
> 10) Maps, Sketches, and Other Exhibits: Applicant must attach
> appropriate sufficient maps, sketches, and
> other exhibits, including a signed Homeowners Association and/or
> Architectural Control Committee
> Affirmation of Notification.
Most places do not require a description of wiring in a building permit
application. Again though - this stuff can vary widely from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction, so it's best to ask your code enforcement people what level of
detail they want for electrical. I'm guessing they don't really want any
level of detail in the application. Generally they defer to the electrical
inspector to assure electrical code compliance and only want to see his
stickers.
>
>
> From what you said, in my application for a permit, I assume I might
> write: "Install a subpanel adjacent to the existing main panel in
> the garage, and wire additional power outlets and additional lighting
> there,
> making minor modifications as necessary, dependant on the existing
> electrical configuration."
You may not even have to say that much. Generally local codes folks don't
care about things like subpanels - they just want to see your stickers.
>
> I could add: "The subpanel would be powered from a circuilt breaker
> (60 Amp) from the main panel having 200 Amp service".
>
Not if you don't need to.
> Based upon your experience, do you expect that these statements may
> suffice?
If you have to say anything about electrical, you may be able to get by with
the statement that all electrical work will be performed to NEC (or local
codes), and inspected by certified electrical inspectors.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Typically in residential wiring cables the ground wire is not included in
the conductor count. If you bought other type cable, for almost any other
application, the total number of conductors would be included in the count.
So yes, 12/3 NMD, NMW, would include a black, red, white plus a bare
conductor. If you bought a 12/3 cable in cab tire (the black rubber type
flexible stuff) it would include a black, white and green, or three other
colours depending on the application it was desigend for and the company
making it.
For ground wiring, I like to keep them as continuous as possible. I would
probably bring my incoming ground wire, very long from the cable, wrap it
around the box screw and then to each receptical in turn with one long,
uncut run, all from the cable. In lieu of that, to the box screw, then to a
wire nut (connector / Marrette) with two pigtails... one to each receptical
ground. If the wire is stranded you may want to crimp a lug on the end,
depending on how well the connector is made for that style of conductor.
I am not sure what the point of the four banger receptical would be. I have
installed this config in walls a few times and it is a mistake for most
applications. Most wall wart AC adapters cover too many recepticals, the six
banger receptical splitters cover the other two recepticals and you only get
use of two of the wired in ones, the current capacity is still only 15 amps
between the four and that limits what you can accidentally use at one time
and a few other reasons I can't think of right now. They do work well for
light draw test equipment (say electronics).
The number 12 wire may be a good idea if the extension cord has some length
to elimate voltage drop and be easier on higher powered equipment (saws,
routers etc..) but then you probably wouldn't want to share a bunch of
equipment like that on that quad box. Individual circuits are still the best
bet for when your grandson comes in and cuts that piece of wood or blows off
his dirty pants while you are jointing that piece of briar you just bought.
If you O/C protect the 12/3 cable with a 20 amp circuit then you need 20 amp
recepticals (have a T slot in the neutral side) and you are over fusing any
portable power tools you use. You may lose some of the human protection
afforded by the recommended max circuit capacity for the equipment.
In short, if you are going to open up your walls, spend the time and money
to put a few outlets around the room on individual circuits. Possibly one on
the ceiling for who-knows-what later. You don't have to use them. I wired
mine with one receptical per breaker..kept them high for over workbenches.
Any 240v circuits will have to be crawling through the attic or kept close
to the breaker panel or piped across the ceiling after.
BTW: There are defined standards for every current and voltage rating of
receptical so they can't be used in the wrong application. It is a good idea
to stick to these standards. I believe I have found charts on GE or Hubbel
websites with pics to identify each type.
Personally, If I were you, I would pay for a wiring inspection. You run all
your cables to the boxes and call them to come and then again after the
recepticals are installed and closed up. I would run the wire, install the
boxes and wire the recepticals and leave hanging for the rough in
inspection. (the wall finisher will not like the receptical wired in bu they
can be turned sideways and pushed through the holes before mounting the
drywall etc... Inform the inspector you are not too sure and have a close
look, He will advise some requirements, some tips, and some hints of how to
make it right or better, usually. After the first wave of inspection, hook
up your breakers in the panel. If nervous about that get some help, friend,
passing electrician etc... With inspection, you'll feel better, your home
insurance will feel better after a fire, and you just bought yourself some
protection against insurance, weasel out.
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Josephi - You read my mind. A pair of duplex outlets was what I had in mind
by "quad in a box". I honestly did not intend to be vague.
I had a question concerning the ground wires in wiring a quad box in a
branch circuit (both outlets to be run in series from the same hot).
Resources I have found have been vague. My understanding includes that a
wire attached to the ground terminal of the first duplex outlet would be
pigtailed with the upstream ground wire and a wire which is screwed to the
box, and that the wire attached to the ground terminal of the second duplex
outlet would be pigtailed with the downstream ground wire and a wire which
is screwed to the (metal) box. So the box would contain exactly 2
connectors and two wires would be screwed to the box, possibly at the same
place. Does this seem like the best way to you? I can think of equivalent
configurations, but this one seems good. Another possibility seems to be to
use a 3rd pigtail connecting the first two pigtail connections and connect
them to the box that way instead. Which way seems preferable to you?
BTW, using 12-3 cable for my run, every wire I mentioned connecting in the
paragraph above would be bare (right?).
Thank you!
Bill
Bill wrote:
>
> Yes, I understand. If your breakers work the way they should, then
> they would protect you, your family and your property. But don't
> they fail on occasion?
> I think of them as a backup.
>
If you keep trying to find potential problems this way, you will never wire
your garage. After all - what is the difference between and extension cord
and a wired outlet? If that breaker failure occurs, the impact is the same
at the outlet as it is at the extension cord. How do you think it is going
to be any safer by not using the extension cord?
> Surely you don't really mean I think too much. By sharing my
> thoughts here I often receive feedback, as you well know, and have a
> chance to learn something
> from some of the knowledgable folks here including you. A great deal,
> perhaps most,
> of the time, I learn things I would not have been informed enough to
> ask about.
> No thinking ~~ no learning. IMO, the percentage of people in the US
> who think too much
> is miniscule. I would not include myself in that group. My thinking
> and my profession
> revolves around the idea that it is better to enourage learning. Surely
> you subscribe
> to that too, or you would not bother to teach! : ) Now enough with
> that.
Well, there is a difference between seeking knowledge on matters not well
understood, and dwelling too long or too deep armed with only very basic
understandings. One can easily draw inappropriate conclusions based on too
little understanding and a well intended interest in safety (for example).
This can lead to minor inconveniences (a decision not to use extension cords
due to a faulty conclusion re: safety), or it can lead to more critical
errors (a misplaced trust in a "safer" method that really is not).
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Jun 7, 9:59=A0pm, "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...> Top of what?
>
> I apologize for not wording my question more effectively. Here's another
> try:
>
> A few months ago, the idea of a "quad in a box" as a go-anywhere power
> source
> was brought up.
>
> Can one power this configuration by plugging it into a wall outlet withou=
t
> violating the NEC?
>
> Bill
Year's ago, before GFCI were common/required, and before GFCI
extension cords were available, I made a 4 foot cord with a GFCI
receptacle in a exterior receptacle box.
I'd plug it into an outlet and then plug extension cords into it.
That would depend where your located. This 120 degree system is quite common
in some areas.
The voltages aimed at are 125 / 216 vac so that the 120v loads get a little
high voltage and the 240 loads get a slightly low voltage, all within legal
acceptable standards.
The energy metering takes a full two element Whr meter instead of a 1.5
element meter used for regular 120/240 vac. Costs a bit more so it it
typically only used in high rises and other large residential blocks.
In apartment or condo blocks, usually each floor will be fed off two out of
three phases, in the construction I have been involved with. One neutral
conductor and three phase conductors can feed the whole building up the
electrical service shaft. This can save some copper and use one big 3ph 4W
transformer for the building. 6 phase star can be used in a similar method
but power theft is easier to accomplish by customers and it takes more
copper.
With a delta configuration only **one** centre tapped phase can be grounded.
This was called 3 ph 4 wire delta and the metering was too complicated for
many EE people and abandoned. This was common with a 120/240 vac residential
service where the customer wanted to run a small 3 phase meat slicer or saw.
A second transformer could be added at 60 degrees for open delta, quite
economically and get three phase and single phase.
"Martin H. Eastburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
The phase angle determines what you get.
Anyway - most 3-phase apartment house services are in fact 180 split
windings.
e.g. delta with centers of the delta sides are grounded. You don't get
multiple phases for normal home use.
Martin
Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
"Our Republic and the Press will Rise or Fall Together": Joseph Pulitzer
TSRA: Endowed; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member. http://lufkinced.com/
On 6/9/2010 11:27 PM, Josepi wrote:
> Or 120 degrees out of phase if fed off a network three phase system. Ths
> can
> be common in apartment buildings or large residental blocks. Now you get
> the vector sum of two loads and have to consider the power factor also.
>
> The end result is a low current, in the neutral, anyway, unless you have
> pf
> correction on one and not the other. Not likely in a residence.
>
>
> "Martin H. Eastburn"<[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> Actually, the currents are added. The effect is subtraction.
>
> One leg has a -1 vector tagged to it so when adding it becomes
> subtraction.
>
> Remember in the US and many other places the two voltages are 180 degrees
> out of phase with the other.
>
> Martin
>
>
Or 120 degrees out of phase if fed off a network three phase system. Ths can
be common in apartment buildings or large residental blocks. Now you get
the vector sum of two loads and have to consider the power factor also.
The end result is a low current, in the neutral, anyway, unless you have pf
correction on one and not the other. Not likely in a residence.
"Martin H. Eastburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Actually, the currents are added. The effect is subtraction.
One leg has a -1 vector tagged to it so when adding it becomes subtraction.
Remember in the US and many other places the two voltages are 180 degrees
out of phase with the other.
Martin
Top of what?
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I couldn't verify if this message made it to the group, so I am reposting.
Still curious about the question at the top if anyone would care to comment.
Thanks! Bill
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: [email protected] ---
"Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Top of what?
>
I apologize for not wording my question more effectively. Here's another
try:
A few months ago, the idea of a "quad in a box" as a go-anywhere power
source
was brought up.
Can one power this configuration by plugging it into a wall outlet without
violating the NEC?
Bill
Maybe nobody knows what a "quad-in-a-box" is? I don't. Perhaps dual duplex
recepticals?
Usually electrical safety codes do not apply very tightly to plug-in
devices. These devices would be controlled by consumer safety agencies like
UL & CSA. Everytime the ELec. Code Inspector comes you would just unplug it,
anyway!...LOL
Is this any help?
http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/items/5YL44
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I apologize for not wording my question more effectively. Here's another
try:
A few months ago, the idea of a "quad in a box" as a go-anywhere power
source
was brought up.
Can one power this configuration by plugging it into a wall outlet without
violating the NEC?
Bill
"Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Top of what?
>
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: [email protected] ---
In article <[email protected]>, "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Top of what?
>>
>I apologize for not wording my question more effectively. Here's another
>try:
>
>
>A few months ago, the idea of a "quad in a box" as a go-anywhere power
>source
>was brought up.
>
>Can one power this configuration by plugging it into a wall outlet without
>violating the NEC?
Yes, of course. The NEC is concerned with services, feeders, and branch
circuits -- basically, everything between the service drop and the outlet.
What's on *your* side of the outlet is of no concern to the NEC.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Bill"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>"Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> Top of what?
>>>
>>I apologize for not wording my question more effectively. Here's another
>>try:
>>
>>
>>A few months ago, the idea of a "quad in a box" as a go-anywhere power
>>source
>>was brought up.
>>
>>Can one power this configuration by plugging it into a wall outlet without
>>violating the NEC?
>
> Yes, of course. The NEC is concerned with services, feeders, and branch
> circuits -- basically, everything between the service drop and the outlet.
> What's on *your* side of the outlet is of no concern to the NEC.
Josephi - You read my mind. A pair of duplex outlets was what I had in mind
by "quad in a box". I honestly did not intend to be vague.
Doug -- Wouldn't this be considered an extension of the branch
circuit/outlet since it is an outlet itself? Maybe it's gets omitted for
being temporary. This same mechanism seems like the best way to add
outlets underneath the table of a workbench. Do you think that this is this
just as permissable?
I had a question concerning the ground wires in wiring a quad box in a
branch circuit (both outlets to be run in series from the same hot).
Resources I have found have been vague. My understanding includes that a
wire attached to the ground terminal of the first duplex outlet would be
pigtailed with the upstream ground wire and a wire which is screwed to the
box, and that the wire attached to the ground terminal of the second duplex
outlet would be pigtailed with the downstream ground wire and a wire which
is screwed to the (metal) box. So the box would contain exactly 2
connectors and two wires would be screwed to the box, possibly at the same
place. Does this seem like the best way to you? I can think of equivalent
configurations, but this one seems good. Another possibility seems to be to
use a 3rd pigtail connecting the first two pigtail connections and connect
them to the box that way instead. Which way seems preferable to you?
BTW, using 12-3 cable for my run, every wire I mentioned connecting in the
paragraph above would be bare (right?).
Thank you!
Bill
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Buy a 12-3 (black, white, green), 25 ft molded cord set, chop off
> receptacle, wire in a 2-gang, extra deep box with a double duplex cover
> plate and a couple of receptacles.
>
> Time for a beer.
>
> It's only a silly extension cord.
>
Perhaps so, but surely it's an extension cord that merits much more care.
Thank you for your patience.
Bill
In article <[email protected]>, "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, "Bill"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>"Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> Top of what?
>>>>
>>>I apologize for not wording my question more effectively. Here's another
>>>try:
>>>
>>>
>>>A few months ago, the idea of a "quad in a box" as a go-anywhere power
>>>source
>>>was brought up.
>>>
>>>Can one power this configuration by plugging it into a wall outlet without
>>>violating the NEC?
>>
>> Yes, of course. The NEC is concerned with services, feeders, and branch
>> circuits -- basically, everything between the service drop and the outlet.
>> What's on *your* side of the outlet is of no concern to the NEC.
>
>Josephi - You read my mind. A pair of duplex outlets was what I had in mind
>by "quad in a box". I honestly did not intend to be vague.
>
>Doug -- Wouldn't this be considered an extension of the branch
>circuit/outlet since it is an outlet itself?
No -- because it's *not* an outlet. It's an extension cord.
>Maybe it's gets omitted for
>being temporary.
It's not covered by the Code because it's not part of the premises wiring
system.
>This same mechanism seems like the best way to add
>outlets underneath the table of a workbench. Do you think that this is this
>just as permissable?
Certainly. As I said before, it's just an extension cord.
>
>I had a question concerning the ground wires in wiring a quad box in a
>branch circuit (both outlets to be run in series from the same hot).
Parallel, actually, not series.
>Resources I have found have been vague. My understanding includes that a
>wire attached to the ground terminal of the first duplex outlet would be
>pigtailed with the upstream ground wire and a wire which is screwed to the
>box, and that the wire attached to the ground terminal of the second duplex
>outlet would be pigtailed with the downstream ground wire and a wire which
>is screwed to the (metal) box.
That's one way to do it, but certainly not the only way. The Code requires
that both grounding wires, and the grounding terminals of each outlet, and the
metal box, are all electrically connected. How you achieve that is up to you.
A more common installation would be to wire-nut together pigtails from each
outlet, both grounding conductors, and a pigtail fastened to the box.
>So the box would contain exactly 2
>connectors and two wires would be screwed to the box,
Yes
>possibly at the same place.
NO. At different places. One wire per screw terminal.
>Does this seem like the best way to you? I can think of equivalent
>configurations, but this one seems good. Another possibility seems to be to
>use a 3rd pigtail connecting the first two pigtail connections and connect
>them to the box that way instead. Which way seems preferable to you?
Not the second one you mention here. Why use an extra pigtail if you don't
need to?
>
>BTW, using 12-3 cable for my run, every wire I mentioned connecting in the
>paragraph above would be bare (right?).
Every wire you mentioned *must* be bare, regardless of what type of cable
you're using -- but why are you using 12-3 cable? (12-3 has *four* conductors:
black, red, white, and bare.)
The NEC mandates that the grounding conductor be either:
a) uninsulated, or
b) covered with insulation which is green, or green with a yellow stripe.
NM cable is manufactured *only* with bare grounding conductors.
On 6/7/10 11:17 PM, Bill wrote:
> "Doug Miller"<[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> In article<[email protected]>, "Bill"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Josepi"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Top of what?
>>>>
>>> I apologize for not wording my question more effectively. Here's another
>>> try:
>>>
>>>
>>> A few months ago, the idea of a "quad in a box" as a go-anywhere power
>>> source
>>> was brought up.
>>>
>>> Can one power this configuration by plugging it into a wall outlet without
>>> violating the NEC?
>>
>> Yes, of course. The NEC is concerned with services, feeders, and branch
>> circuits -- basically, everything between the service drop and the outlet.
>> What's on *your* side of the outlet is of no concern to the NEC.
>
>
>
> Josephi - You read my mind. A pair of duplex outlets was what I had in mind
> by "quad in a box". I honestly did not intend to be vague.
>
I see these all the time and have built many.
I also hear that phrase all the time... it may be a regional thing.
All you're talking about is a homemade extension cord with 4 outlets.
Couldn't you just buy a power strip with a long cord? Those thing are
already UL listed and many of them have a built-in GFCI on the plug.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On 6/7/10 11:44 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
> Time for a beer.
>
> It's only a silly extension cord.
>
> Lew
>
>
Beat me to it. :-)
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
-- but why are you using 12-3 cable? (12-3 has *four* conductors:
> black, red, white, and bare.)
>
For this particular wire run, I'm going to power 8 duplex outlets with one
hot and 4 more with the other hot.
I'm also going to run wire to dedicated 240v outlets. I'm also going to use
it for my lighting (different circuits
of course).
I have already used SU to estimate my wire requirements, and one 250' roll
of 12-3 will meet adequately meet ALL of my current (cough, cough) wiring
needs. Wiring to my outlets will range from 23'-44' and
I think this decision will make managing my wire inventory very simple, now
and with whatever is leftover.
I'm always willing to be corrected, but I thought this was a good decision
on my part.
I was tempted to go with pigtailing 5 wires to connect to ground, but that
seems to slightly complicate
the future replacement of a duplex outlet (since to my understanding,
properly done, the end of the wires
should be recut). I think I'm on safer ground (cough), or at least more
confident, twisting/connecting 3 wires
rather than 5. I surely don't want one coming loose.
Thank you very much for your valuable assistance! And also to other folks
who have helped me
along my road to self-actualization.
My next step is to remove all of the wallboard on two walls. Then I can
better-understand and
remove/modify the existing wiring before I put up the new. I have to admit
that I overlooked the
removal/modification step in my planning! And this does not include the
30Amp RV-outlet on the
outside of my shop that I am not using. I think I will dismantle it at the
panel for now. The NEC doesn't
preclude leaving it in this state/condition, does it?
Bill
In article <[email protected]>, "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>-- but why are you using 12-3 cable? (12-3 has *four* conductors:
>> black, red, white, and bare.)
>>
>For this particular wire run, I'm going to power 8 duplex outlets with one
>hot and 4 more with the other hot.
Why not 6 and 6?
>I'm also going to run wire to dedicated 240v outlets.
There's no need to run 12-3 or 10-3 for pure 240V outlets. A 240V circuit does
not use, and hence does not need, a neutral conductor, so 12-2 or 10-2 will
work just fine.
> I'm also going to use
>it for my lighting (different circuits
>of course).
It makes more sense to use 14-2 for your lighting circuits. Why 12-3?
>
>I have already used SU to estimate my wire requirements, and one 250' roll
>of 12-3 will meet adequately meet ALL of my current (cough, cough) wiring
>needs. Wiring to my outlets will range from 23'-44' and
>I think this decision will make managing my wire inventory very simple, now
>and with whatever is leftover.
>I'm always willing to be corrected, but I thought this was a good decision
>on my part.
I don't agree. I think it's a poor decision. Based on the plans you posted a
week or so back, you don't need 12-3 for *anything*. All of your 120V outlets
can be wired with 12-2, and the lighting with 14-2.
And you should be using 10-2, not 12-3, for the 240V circuits. The dust
collector can manage on 12-2, I'd imagine.
[...]
>My next step is to remove all of the wallboard on two walls. Then I can
>better-understand and
>remove/modify the existing wiring before I put up the new. I have to admit
>that I overlooked the
>removal/modification step in my planning! And this does not include the
>30Amp RV-outlet on the
>outside of my shop that I am not using. I think I will dismantle it at the
>panel for now. The NEC doesn't
>preclude leaving it in this state/condition, does it?
It didn't used to, but the Code does now require that abandoned wire be
removed as much as practical. There was a discussion of that over at
alt.home.repair about 5-6 months ago, I think -- I'm pretty sure somebody
posted the exact requirements, and you should be able to find the thread with
a Google Groups search.
>
>Bill
>
>
"Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Personally, If I were you, I would pay for a wiring inspection. You run
> all
> your cables to the boxes and call them to come and then again after the
> recepticals are installed and closed up. I would run the wire, install the
> boxes and wire the recepticals and leave hanging for the rough in
> inspection. (the wall finisher will not like the receptical wired in bu
> they
> can be turned sideways and pushed through the holes before mounting the
> drywall etc... Inform the inspector you are not too sure and have a close
> look, He will advise some requirements, some tips, and some hints of how
> to
> make it right or better, usually. After the first wave of inspection, hook
> up your breakers in the panel. If nervous about that get some help,
> friend,
> passing electrician etc... With inspection, you'll feel better, your home
> insurance will feel better after a fire, and you just bought yourself some
> protection against insurance, weasel out.
>
I recently read somewhere, perhaps in the NEC, about a requirement of
submission
of desogn drawings (prepared by somoneone who knows how to) that are not
less than 30" etc.
Is this part of the wiring inspection process? You are talking about
working
through the city/municipality right? The insurance issue is one I have been
concerned about. I am a little afraid to let an inspector see what I
"inherited" when
I bought my house (although the house inspector didn't note any problems in
this area).
Someone with a trained eye wouldn't have trouble finding existing things to
object to...
BTW, my project includes the installation of a subpanel adjacent to the main
panel.
Bill
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Bill"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>-- but why are you using 12-3 cable? (12-3 has *four* conductors:
>>> black, red, white, and bare.)
>>>
>>For this particular wire run, I'm going to power 8 duplex outlets with one
>>hot and 4 more with the other hot.
>
> Why not 6 and 6?
Well, it's really 4, 4 and 4. I thought the 120 quad above the 220v for the
TS could share, and
the other quad would run from a circuit dedicated to it. Having the two
duplex halves of a quad
running off of totally separate circuits seems downright dangerous (because
its confusing)!
> There's no need to run 12-3 or 10-3 for pure 240V outlets. A 240V circuit
> does
> not use, and hence does not need, a neutral conductor, so 12-2 or 10-2
> will
> work just fine.
I could run my two 120v branch circuits from one 12-3 cable and a tandem
breaker. Is there much
advantage to two cables and two breakers?
As a non-professional, I suspect the price structure favors one 250' spool
of cable.
Others have suggested 12-3 (partially, for the unforeseeable future, I
think), in addition
to the fact that you get two 120v branch circuits from one cable).
I intended to install only 20 Amp circuits everywhere--however
Joseph brought up some new issues concerning this to my attention. My TS
wants to
be on a 20 Amp circuilt. I understand 12 gauge wire is suitable for that
(10 being
required only on 30 Amp circuits, from my understanding).
I need to assimilate some of this. I'll keep thinking!
It might be helpful to discuss concerns relating to putting lighting on 20
Amp circuits, as
I think there is some inconsistency present. One advantage I see is that
you
can occasionally demand a little more from one of the circuits. I already
have a separate
lighting fixture/circuit, from the main panel, so a total loss of lighting
is only a possibility
with a total power outtage.
Bill
"Puckdropper" <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> *snip*
>
>>
>> I could run my two 120v branch circuits from one 12-3 cable and a
>> tandem breaker. Is there much
>> advantage to two cables and two breakers?
>>
>
> *snip*
>
> If you're running 2 120V circuits from a 12-3 cable, consider that the
> neutral would have to carry twice as much current as it would in most
> situations.
So, if I understand you correctly, 12-3 cable isn't really intended for
running
two 120v circuits, despite the fact that it's possible to do so. I did not
understand this.
Looks like I can get a 250 ft roll of Romex 12-2 for about $70 or so. I'll
be careful
to avoid "burn-thru" (I searched for at least 15 minutes last night until I
figured out
what mytical quality being "burn-thru resistent" referred to). No need to
explain, I already know!!! : )
Lew, Swingman, Mike, What do you think, 12-2 all around (you could talk me
into some 10-2)?
All 20 Amp circuits. Will inspectors like it?
Bill
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Personally, If I were you, I would pay for a wiring inspection. You run
>> all
>> your cables to the boxes and call them to come and then again after the
>> recepticals are installed and closed up.
What do you mean by "and closed up"?
Most of the application for a "(Garage) Building Building" permit consists
of
"Maps, Sketches, and Other Exhibits: Applicant must attach appropriate
sufficient maps, sketches, and other exhibits, including a signed Homeowners
Association Affirmation of Notification.
I have 2 questions:
1) Are before and after SU documents, along with written summaries likely
to suffice for this?
2) Is my Homeowners Association likely to raise their head (for fear of all
the the outlets)? --Maybe I'll layout a SU document with buffers, fans,
and other quiet amenities. : )
3) I can see why some people might not go this route. It surely gets in
the way of changing your mind. It sounds sort of silly, but "how much
"vaguness" is allowed? Is a phrase such as "add fluorescent lighting to the
ceiling" unacceptable?
The application fee for the building permit the maximum of .05/sq^2 or $25.
Is that likely to cover both the "rough-in" and "final inspection", or are
their typically further fees?
Bill
In article <[email protected]>, "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, "Bill"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>-- but why are you using 12-3 cable? (12-3 has *four* conductors:
>>>> black, red, white, and bare.)
>>>>
>>>For this particular wire run, I'm going to power 8 duplex outlets with one
>>>hot and 4 more with the other hot.
>>
>> Why not 6 and 6?
>
>Well, it's really 4, 4 and 4. I thought the 120 quad above the 220v for the
>TS could share, and the other quad would run from a circuit dedicated to it. Having the two
>duplex halves of a quad running off of totally separate circuits seems downright dangerous (because
>its confusing)!
Right, that's not a good idea.
>
>
>> There's no need to run 12-3 or 10-3 for pure 240V outlets. A 240V circuit does
>> not use, and hence does not need, a neutral conductor, so 12-2 or 10-2 will
>> work just fine.
>
>I could run my two 120v branch circuits from one 12-3 cable and a tandem
>breaker. Is there much advantage to two cables and two breakers?
It depends mostly on the locations of the recepticals -- if you can run one
continuous cable from the breaker panel to the first one to the last one, it
may make more sense to use 12-3. If you have to split it in two different
directions, use two separate runs of 12-2.
>As a non-professional, I suspect the price structure favors one 250' spool
>of cable.
No, it doesn't. You "suspect". But apparently you haven't actually checked.
Prices this morning at Lowes.com show $118 for 250' of 12-3 and $70 for 250'
of 12-2.
Plus, 12ga wire is inappropriate for about half of your wiring job. It's
unnecessary for your lighting circuit(s) -- those can use 14ga easily. And you
_really should not_ use 12ga wire for your 240V circuits. I assure you, you
will come to regret that decision. I *strongly* recommend using 10ga _at
minimum_ on the circuits for your table saw and air compressor.
>Others have suggested 12-3 (partially, for the unforeseeable future, I
>think), in addition to the fact that you get two 120v branch circuits from one cable).
That's really not as big an advantage as it seems. Especially when you can run
168 feet of 12-2 for the same price as 100 feet of 12-3.
>I intended to install only 20 Amp circuits everywhere--however
>Joseph brought up some new issues concerning this to my attention. My TS
>wants to be on a 20 Amp circuilt. I understand 12 gauge wire is suitable for that
>(10 being required only on 30 Amp circuits, from my understanding).
That's correct... but what if you decide to buy a larger, more powerful table
saw at some time in the future? I cannot emphasize this too strongly: don't
make decisions now that will constrain your decisions in the future. Run 10ga
wire to your 240V outlets.
>
>I need to assimilate some of this. I'll keep thinking!
>
>It might be helpful to discuss concerns relating to putting lighting on 20
>Amp circuits, as I think there is some inconsistency present. One advantage I see is that
>you can occasionally demand a little more from one of the circuits.
What does that mean? Lighting is pretty much a fixed load. A 15-amp circuit is
sufficient to power 1440 watts of lighting. That's thirty-six 48" fluorescent
tubes. There's _no reason_ to use 12ga wire for a lighting circuit.
In article <[email protected]>, Puckdropper <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>If you're running 2 120V circuits from a 12-3 cable, consider that the
>neutral would have to carry twice as much current as it would in most
>situations.
No, it doesn't, unless it's installed improperly. Properly installed (with
the two hot conductors on opposite legs of the service), the current in the
neutral conductor is the *difference* of the currents in the two hots, not
their sum. For example, with 11 amps on one leg, and 7 amps on the other, the
current in the neutral is 4 amps, not 18.
In article <[email protected]>, "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Puckdropper" <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>> *snip*
>>
>>>
>>> I could run my two 120v branch circuits from one 12-3 cable and a
>>> tandem breaker. Is there much
>>> advantage to two cables and two breakers?
>>>
>>
>> *snip*
>>
>> If you're running 2 120V circuits from a 12-3 cable, consider that the
>> neutral would have to carry twice as much current as it would in most
>> situations.
(This is not true. See my other post.)
>
>So, if I understand you correctly, 12-3 cable isn't really intended for running
>two 120v circuits, despite the fact that it's possible to do so. I did not
>understand this.
Yes, it is. He's mistaken.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Doug, Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed reply! I printed it
ut. -Bill
In article <[email protected]>, Puckdropper <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Puckdropper
>> <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>>>If you're running 2 120V circuits from a 12-3 cable, consider that the
>>>neutral would have to carry twice as much current as it would in most
>>>situations.
>>
>> No, it doesn't, unless it's installed improperly. Properly installed
>> (with the two hot conductors on opposite legs of the service), the
>> current in the neutral conductor is the *difference* of the currents
>> in the two hots, not their sum. For example, with 11 amps on one leg,
>> and 7 amps on the other, the current in the neutral is 4 amps, not 18.
>
>Bill, I'm sorry for the incorrect information. After much thought, I
>think I can explain why Doug's right. (On opposite legs, the current
>draws are going two different directions (on a plot). That's why they
>subtract and not add.)
>
>Doug, thanks for the correction.
>
No problem, Puck, it's a common misconception, and I wish everyone were as
graceful as you at having the misconception corrected.
"Puckdropper" <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Puckdropper
>> <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>>>If you're running 2 120V circuits from a 12-3 cable, consider that the
>>>neutral would have to carry twice as much current as it would in most
>>>situations.
>>
>> No, it doesn't, unless it's installed improperly. Properly installed
>> (with the two hot conductors on opposite legs of the service), the
>> current in the neutral conductor is the *difference* of the currents
>> in the two hots, not their sum. For example, with 11 amps on one leg,
>> and 7 amps on the other, the current in the neutral is 4 amps, not 18.
>
> Bill, I'm sorry for the incorrect information.
Hey, no problem, thank you for offering your help! This 'lectricy is
interesting stuff, huh?
After much thought, I
> think I can explain why Doug's right. (On opposite legs, the current
> draws are going two different directions (on a plot). That's why they
> subtract and not add.)
That is a helpful explanation. Thank you!
Bill
>
> Doug, thanks for the correction.
>
> Puckdropper
> --
> Never teach your apprentice everything you know.
"DerbyDad03" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:f21f27d9-a45a-4451-850f-
Year's ago, before GFCI were common/required, and before GFCI
extension cords were available, I made a 4 foot cord with a GFCI
receptacle in a exterior receptacle box.
I'd plug it into an outlet and then plug extension cords into it.
Nice idea. i think that half of the fun of this craft is the ingenuity it
spawns.
Bill
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bill wrote:
>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>
>>> Buy a 12-3 (black, white, green), 25 ft molded cord set, chop off
>>> receptacle, wire in a 2-gang, extra deep box with a double duplex
>>> cover plate and a couple of receptacles.
>>>
>>> Time for a beer.
>>>
>>
>>
>>> It's only a silly extension cord.
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps so, but surely it's an extension cord that merits much more
>> care. Thank you for your patience.
>>
>
> Why?
Because if you fling it around or drop it, it may become a fire hazard.
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
> [email protected]
>
>
> "Mike Marlow" wrote:
>
>> Bill - you think about things too much. Nix the fire hazard idea.
> --------------------------
Yes, I understand. If your breakers work the way they should, then they
would protect you, your family and your property. But don't they fail on
occasion?
I think of them as a backup.
Surely you don't really mean I think too much. By sharing my thoughts here
I often receive feedback, as you well know, and have a chance to learn
something
from some of the knowledgable folks here including you. A great deal,
perhaps most,
of the time, I learn things I would not have been informed enough to ask
about.
No thinking ~~ no learning. IMO, the percentage of people in the US who
think too much
is miniscule. I would not include myself in that group. My thinking and my
profession
revolves around the idea that it is better to enourage learning. Surely you
subscribe
to that too, or you would not bother to teach! : ) Now enough with that.
Bill
Me thinks 90 degrees may be considered still "level".
"Puckdropper" <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I like the set of high and low outlets. It's what I plan on doing when
we finally knock down and rebuild my sister's garage.
What gave you the idea that the sub panel had to be perfectly level?
Some of the new installs I've seen on TV have actually had them turned 90
degrees.
Bill <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
> I updated my web site and included pictures (instead of links) to make
> it easier on the reader. You may find it interesting if you have been
> following this thread--at least I tried to make it interesting!
> Go and read my innermost-thoughts while leveling a subpanel, or see a
> new bird (s). :)
>
> http://web.newsguy.com/MySite/
>
> Bill
>
On Jun 23, 7:39=A0pm, "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*[email protected]>
wrote:
> "Bill" =A0wrote
>
> > BTW, due to mid-western storms this week, my Internet and phone access =
at
> > home have been down and that is why I haven't replied to any posts duri=
ng
> > the last few days. =A0And Comcast won't send anyone over to look into t=
he
> > matter (power-surged modem?) for another 6 days... =A0When a company as=
ks
> > you to entrust them with such concerns, and you regularly send them dec=
ent
> > sized checks, you might expect them to try to work a little faster to g=
et
> > things right.
>
> I remember that classic line about Comcast.
>
> Anybody who doesn't beleive in the existance of hell has obviously never
> subscribed to Comcast.
Comcast is fantastic (Comcastic?) when compared to either Charter or
Dish.
Bill wrote:
>> Mike Marlow wrote:
>
>>> Bill - my advice to you is to get out of your own head. You really
>>> do not understand electricity, NEC, or anything associated with
>>> work like this.
>
>
> My uncle who used to work as an electrician told me that it sounds
> like I know what I'm doing and he thinks I can do it, so go figure. So
> far, it seems like he's right.
>
There is not a doubt in my mind you can do it Bill. My suggestions were
only to help you bypass the route of wrong assumptions.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 6/14/2010 12:23 PM, Bill wrote:
> *** All bets down ***
>
> Since I don't have to have the power turned off at the meter to make my
> modifications, a permit is not required.
> They handed me my check back.
>
> *** Take the pass, pay the don'ts ***
>
>
> Comment: I had to go to the county level ("Builing and Zoning Department")
> as, although I have a city mailing address, technically my area is not
> incorporated as a part of the city. YMMV
Magic word ... "unincorporated".
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Puckdropper
> <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> What gave you the idea that the sub panel had to be perfectly level?
>
> I think most inspectors would construe the "neat and workmanlike
> manner"
> clause to require that the panel be at least approximately level. <g>
Not even close. There would be or could be lots of reasons to stagger the
height of a sub-panel reletive to a main. I've never encountered an
inspector that considered the type of level Bill spoke of, to be a sign of
workmanlike manner.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Bill wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 16:26:53 -0400, "Bill" <[email protected]>
<snip>
>>>If you would have had to make a fire-related claim with your home owners
>>>insurance company
>>>you may have been up a creek (worth the risk?).
>>
>>Bullshit. You can't come up with one example of this actually happening
>>because it never has.
>
>
>
> I found this example in 30 seconds; the OPs problem is sort of interesting:
>
> http://www.thathomesite.com/forums/load/realestate/msg071833224624.html
The above article has nothing to do with an insurance claim being denied
due to a failure to obtain a building permit for electrical work?
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]
Bill <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
*snip*
>
> If I walked through a door and reached around for a switch only to
> feel an outlet I would find it a little unnerving. I was thinking of
> the types of coverplates that have additional "child-proof" covers
> over the outlets or that are designed for exterior use
> ("spring-loaded" outlet covers). At 50" inches, I would have 4 duplex
> outlets in a neat row. "Form" may have to sacrifice for the sake of
> "function" here though, and I may move that outlet down to knee-level.
> That outlet will allow me to easily plug in an extension cord for use
> in the back yard and will be a big improvement over my existing
> configuration. I'll save the idea of exterior outlets for another
> year.
>
> THANK YOU (ALL); having "Fun"!
> Bill
Disconcerting, perhaps, but probably not dangerous. Looking at most
common outlet designs, it's impossible to stick your fingers in far
enough to contact something.
If you're looking for a light switch there, though, put a light switch
there. That's good usability where something is exactly where the user
expects it to be.
FWIW, you might as well add at least the wiring for an exterior outlet
while you're doing everything else. You'll enjoy the upgrade every time
you plug something in outside without having to leave the door cracked.
Puckdropper
--
Never teach your apprentice everything you know.
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Doug, Thank you, as always, for your thoughtful answers!
>>
>> I normally space holes about 2"
>>
>>>apart, but there's no hard-and-fast rule about that.
>>
>>Do you mean 2" between centers?
>
>
> It doesn't matter. It's only approximate anyway.
>
>
>>Since "straight-up" is the best way to
>>exit my subpanel, I wish to be efficient. I've already planned 8 cables
>>coming out, with others likely to follow. Putting two 10-2 cables in a
>>3/4" hole and two 12-2 (or 14-2) cables in a 5/8" hole ought to be
>>efficient! I'll follow the same grouping rules threading the wires
>>through the wall studs. Lew Hodgett pointed out that threading three
>>10-2 cables through a 3/4" hole was definitely wrong. I would appreciate
>>knowing his point of view concerning this.
>
>
> "Definitely wrong"? Hardly. There's nothing in the Code, AFAIK, that dictates
> specific sizes of holes in wood framing for passing cables through. If the
> hole is large enough to pass the cables without damaging them, and it's done
> "in a neat and workmanlike manner", the Code is satisfied.
>
>
The NEC may not mention it but the building codes do. IIRC an example
is that any hole drilled in a stud for a load bearing wall can not
exceed 40 percent of the width of the stud. Floor joist are an all
together different matter.
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]
"Bill" wrote
>
> BTW, due to mid-western storms this week, my Internet and phone access at
> home have been down and that is why I haven't replied to any posts during
> the last few days. And Comcast won't send anyone over to look into the
> matter (power-surged modem?) for another 6 days... When a company asks
> you to entrust them with such concerns, and you regularly send them decent
> sized checks, you might expect them to try to work a little faster to get
> things right.
>
I remember that classic line about Comcast.
Anybody who doesn't beleive in the existance of hell has obviously never
subscribed to Comcast.
Bill wrote:
> Update:
>
> Following my installation of my "dummy" electrical outlet yesterday, I
> learned I like the receptacle box to stick out exactly 1/2" passed the
> stud. I went to two different Borgs looking for a small piece of 1/2"
> pine or equivalent to use as a sort of fixture--but to my surprise,
> there was none in sight (I prefer not to use plywood due to personal
> sensitivities to the glue dust, et. al., YMMV).
>
<snip>
For "new" electrical installations I prefer to use the depth adjustable
boxes similar to :
http://www.homedepot.com/Electrical-Electrical-Boxes-Conduit-Fittings-Boxes-Brackets/Carlon/h_d1/N-5yc1vZ1xhuZbohnZ2dq/R-100315472/h_d2/ProductDisplay?langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]
Bill <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
> I updated my web site and included pictures (instead of links) to make
> it easier on the reader. You may find it interesting if you have been
> following this thread--at least I tried to make it interesting!
> Go and read my innermost-thoughts while leveling a subpanel, or see a
> new bird (s). :)
>
> http://web.newsguy.com/MySite/
>
> Bill
>
I like the set of high and low outlets. It's what I plan on doing when
we finally knock down and rebuild my sister's garage.
What gave you the idea that the sub panel had to be perfectly level?
Some of the new installs I've seen on TV have actually had them turned 90
degrees.
Puckdropper
--
Never teach your apprentice everything you know.
Bill <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> Puckdropper wrote:
>
>> I like the set of high and low outlets. It's what I plan on doing
>> when we finally knock down and rebuild my sister's garage.
>
> Now, that sounds like a big job...
>
*trim*
The carport side is going to be easy. A little sawzall work, a couple of
chains, a pickup truck and YEE HAW!!!
Puckdropper
--
Never teach your apprentice everything you know.
Mike Marlow wrote:
> Bill - my advice to you is to get out of your own head. You really
> do not
> understand electricity, NEC, or anything associated with work like
> this.
----------------------------------------
This conversation reminds me of a brilliant young co-op student who
was working in the plant engineering department.
One day he ended up in the hospital getting glass pulled out of his
body.
Seems he made up a test light with a 120V, 60W light bulb, a lamp
socket, and a couple of test leads.
To test his new toy, opened up a 480V panel and put the test leads
across the incoming buss bars.
Darwin almost got one.
Some people should just learn to stay out of the shop.
Lew
Bill wrote:
>
> Is there any problem with different gauge cables sharing the same hole
> (I considered that the conduit on the lesser cable might not be
> adequate to be next to a hotter cable)? Swingman (smartly) advised
> me not to do anything I don't feel confident about--and this is a
> detail that makes me hesitate.
No problem. It is commonly done.
>
> If I walked through a door and reached around for a switch only to
> feel an outlet I would find it a little unnerving. I was thinking of
> the types of coverplates that have additional "child-proof" covers
> over the outlets or that are designed for exterior use
> ("spring-loaded" outlet covers). At 50" inches, I would have 4
> duplex outlets in a neat row. "Form" may have to sacrifice for the
> sake of "function" here though, and I may move that outlet down to
> knee-level. That outlet will allow me to easily plug in an extension
> cord for use in the back yard and will be a big improvement over my
> existing configuration. I'll save the idea of exterior outlets for
> another year.
Now would be a better time to install the exterior outlets, while you have
the walls opened up. It does not take any longer than installing an inside
outlet.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Bill wrote:
>
> I was looking at lighting at Menards. I know I want simple
> fluorenscent lighting that works when it's cold and can be seen but
> not heard. I sort of recollect someone mentioning the "American
> Fluorescent Lighting" company, possibly in low regard (cheap
> ballasters?). They made many of the simple fixtures I saw at
> Menards. Is the prevailing regard for CFL products negative?
Perhaps anecdotal, but my experiences with American Florescent has been far
less than satisfying. They are generally low priced units - for a reason...
>
> Lighting is a whole-nuther can of worms... For an instant, I saw light
> at the end of the tunnel!
Was it getting bigger?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Bill wrote:
> Update:
>
> Following my installation of my "dummy" electrical outlet yesterday, I
> learned I like the receptacle box to stick out exactly 1/2" passed the
> stud. I went to two different Borgs looking for a small piece of
> 1/2" pine or equivalent to use as a sort of fixture--but to my
> surprise, there was none in sight (I prefer not to use plywood due to
> personal sensitivities to the glue dust, et. al., YMMV).
>
I snipped your afternoon's pleasure with the power tools Bill, but thought I
might share with you that your boxes have indicators on them for various
thicknesses of sheetrock. Just hold the up to the right indicator and mount
them.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Bill wrote:
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>
> My question wasn't about the height of the sub-panel *relative* to
> main--it was about the rationale for the (precise) levelness of
> electrical panels in general.
>
Thanks for that clarification Bill - I misunderstood your intent. To
address this with the new understanding - you can take this stuff too far.
No inspector is going to even stick a level on your panel, let alone check
to see if you are within some fraction of an inch. You indicated that you
went to extremes - not necessary, or even worth the effort.
> Doug's reference to the "neat and workmanlike manner" clause of the
> NEC was all I could think of while I was leveling it.
That's why you need to get out of your own head, and learn what these terms
really mean. You can drive yourself nuts chasing extreme goals that nobody
else would even consider. In fact - they don't even mean anything.
>
> BTW, the directions that came with my sub-panel said it could be
> installed upside down. I didn't check whether that is even consistent
> with the NEC--but it seems comparatively-unsafe based upon user
> expectations. I'm new to this, but I've already developed a
> preference for working "away from" the hot lugs.
You see - to you it seems "comparitively unsafe based on user expectations".
Bill - my advice to you is to get out of your own head. You really do not
understand electricity, NEC, or anything associated with work like this.
That in itself is not any probelm. Hell - everyone was there at one point.
But - rather than you dwelling on all of the meaningless things you're
pursuing, why don't you invest the energy to really learn? Doug offered you
first hand help. You can learn from a local electrician. Why not quit
trying to be the expert that you're not, and just accept the things that are
generally accepted in the trade, and relegate your own intuitive thoughts to
a lesser value?
>
> Q1: If one is connecting wires in a junction box, I've read that the
> wires should be long enough to extend at least 3, and perhaps 6,
> inches past the top of the box. I have 6 (#12) conductor wires + 4
> wires related to ground, I am concerned that the box might become a bit
> full
> (box is 24.5 in^3). In general, how much of a concern is a box's
> "fullness"?
Bill - get with Doug or an electrician. You really need to. You simply
cannot learn to wire by posting to a usenet newsgroup.
>
> Q2: I removed one circuit from the main panel today where the common
> and ground were on adjacent terminals in the common bar. I realize
> that common and ground are joined in the main panel, but is wiring a 20
> amp
> circuit this way something that something you would or wouldn't
> hesitate to do? Clearly this option will not be available in the
> sub-panel
> (anyway).
Bill - get with Doug or an electrician. You really need to. You simply
cannot learn to wire by posting to a usenet newsgroup.
Bill - you are trying to cheat your way out of real learning. That does not
seem consistent with what I see in you here - but for some reason, you
resist actually learing what you are trying to undertake. You need to
invest in that learning. You're not getting it - not in the least. You're
taking false securities in meaningless things like box heights, and you have
no clue what you're doing with the real threat - current. You can make
yourself feel comfortable with terms like "workmanlike manner", or by being
stupid in the degree to which you hang a panel level, or the manner in which
you insist on hanging a metal box, but in the end that stuff is completely
meaningless. Absolutely meaningless. At this point Bill - you are more
dangerous than you are accomplished. Call Doug.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Bill wrote:
>
> I mostly get it (the units kVA are new to me). The lesson here
> appears to be that if I add two 15A 120v devices, than I should put
> one on each side/leg, and that I should give some thought as to how
> devices may be used in combination as I add breakers for them. I
> have never thought this through to this level before (and it's good
> timing too). TYVM!
> Bill
Don't over think it though, Bill. A great deal of what you will plug into a
wall outlet is not of sufficient load for you to analyse this to death.
Think about it - do you really worry about which leg a particular outlet is
on when you plug in a saw to cut a piece of wood?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Bill <[email protected]> writes:
>Lighting is a whole-nuther can of worms... For an instant, I saw light
>at the end of the tunnel! : ) Thanks for keeping me thinking!
>
For lighting, particularly in the regions of the country that have
Menards :-), you want electronic ballasts that work to zero degrees F.
They're plenty quiet enough. I use 8' T12's, but if I were doing it
today, I'd use 8' T8's. Do select an appropriate color temperature
bulb - C50's (Chroma 50's), 5000K is about right for a shop such that
your finishes will look similar under the shop lights as under daylight.
If you use 4 footers, try picking them up at garage sales/flea markets
then swapping out the ballasts; HD around here has electronic replacment
ballasts, or you can check out the local lighting shop.
scott
Bill wrote:
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>
>> Now would be a better time to install the exterior outlets, while
>> you have the walls opened up. It does not take any longer than
>> installing an inside outlet.
>>
>>
>
> I was just passing along your idea to my wife and she evidently felt
> the need to point out to me that the wall was brick! : ) A matter
> of mere "child's play", I'm sure.
>
Bigger hammer!
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Lookin' good!
I hope you will be adding a few more staples at the top of the studs. Those
wires are too loose, yet.
What type of bird is that?
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I put a few pictures of my "work in progress" on my website in case
anyone would like to see what I've been fussing about! : )
The 3 power receptacles on the bottom of the right wall are supposed to
be 220v but there have been 32/64 bit technical difficulties...
As you'll be able to see, I "installed" my first electrical outlet
today. I made 3 mistakes I won't make when I install my second
outlet--and no, one of them was not removing the stud from the garage!
http://web.newsguy.com/MySite/
Bill
On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 10:05:07 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote
the following:
>On 7/5/2010 8:56 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> Kinda hard to miss the mild lubricant in there, too, innit?
>
>I'm of the opinion that WD-40 neither corrodes, nor lubricates well for
>any length of time.
Right, no better than 3-in-1 oil. They didn't used to have any oil in
it, though.
>It does seem to get gummy and will leave a varnish
>residue behind if used on the same mechanism for a long time, which is
>why I never used it on my shotguns, except to give them a good dousing
>after coming back from a duck/goose hunt, before grabbing Hoppe's #9.
#9 is a solvent, so what's the doucheing with WD for? Removing the
duck spit?
>Wd-40's great for what it was designed for, displacing moisture, and
>moderately useful as a handy solvent for cleaning a metal surface ...
>and great in the kitchen for shining up SS appliance doors and surfaces
>like nothing else will.
You forgot its best attribute: removing the slime from labels whose
glue didn't come off.
--
It's also helpful to realize that this very body that we have, that's
sitting right here right now, with its aches and its pleasures, is
exactly what we need to be fully human, fully awake, fully alive.
-- Pema Chodron
On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 02:07:55 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote the
following:
>What is the popular way to remove knock-outs from the back of a metal
>electric receptacle box after it is nailed up? I have almost 2" of free
>space behind the box.
>
>The best idea Ive come up with on my own so far is to put a piece of
>wood across the face of the box, and use a C-clamp to try to push out
>the knock-out. Maybe a few very small washers to help direct the force
>to where I need it most.
>
>Now, what is the "right" way? :)
IANAE, but I use an ice pick to good effect. Oops, that's on plastic
boxes. On metal, I use my 11" (or 14?) long, insulated needle nose
pliers to knock out one end and rock it from behind with them
afterwards. http://fwd4.me/Vt2 is similar, but the set I bought had a
needlenose pair and a pair with more of a linesman type of jaws.
--
It's also helpful to realize that this very body that we have, that's
sitting right here right now, with its aches and its pleasures, is
exactly what we need to be fully human, fully awake, fully alive.
-- Pema Chodron
My apoligies Bill never would I laugh at your situation of
self created stupidity. The clone poster is of hell bent persuasion
to make me cry. I am weeping but for you those like you
well to silly to get over how many times it takes to say
READ my history!
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.solar.photovoltaic/msg/a57dda4e6757f15c?hl=en
"Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news: [email protected]...
[email protected]
I like to sit on one hand until it goes completely to sleep.
Then when I use that hand it always feels like somebody else is doing it.
LOL
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
IT IS true that they have a great deal of room for improvement. They
definitely suffer from the "one hand not knowing what the other is
doing" syndrome...and their second hand often doesn't know what it's
doing either. We were instructed to "return our box for exchange" this
week, only to be told upon arrival that "we don't take those". You sort
of get used to it and it becomes a bad joke...
Bill
Lee Michaels wrote:
> "Bill" wrote
>> BTW, due to mid-western storms this week, my Internet and phone access at
>> home have been down and that is why I haven't replied to any posts during
>> the last few days. And Comcast won't send anyone over to look into the
>> matter (power-surged modem?) for another 6 days... When a company asks
>> you to entrust them with such concerns, and you regularly send them
>> decent
>> sized checks, you might expect them to try to work a little faster to get
>> things right.
>>
> I remember that classic line about Comcast.
>
Sounds like you are well on your way!! The first blow with the hammer was
the hardest! YIKES!!
I have learned the hard way many times about running 14/2 cables (general
home wiring) and drilling holes. Everytime I feel a 1/2" hole will be fine
the cable is hard to pull through it if any angle is encurred and after
having to add that last minute change and drilling another right beside it,
I , again decide, never to drill less than 3/4" ones again!...LOL
A long spade bit with extension works well. It
avoids chips in your eyes if overhead or high run,
allows you to come in on a fairly straight angle without the next joist/
truss pushing your drill out,
allows a better "in-line" view so your holes do not go up and down.
- Drill the furthest one and work your way backward so the previous is
always in site or ping chalk lines to get your holes lined up.
- Check other sides of lumber **EVERY TIME** for existing wires and pipes!!!
- Square your runs off with lumber (right angle corners for neatness) extra
slack may be needed for adjustments
- staple down wires within 6" of every box (code here)..when you step on one
in the attic you won't pull the connection apart inside the box.
- leave some slack around the box. You break a wire off inside, you'll
apreciate it.
- Keep pass though holes back 1.5" of drywall or finishing surface (nail
avoidance). violations get steel plate on surface under drywall.
- drill individual holes for larger cables. ALl conductors need cooling.
Three 2 wire cables (6 conductors) in any hole so there is always cooling to
each conductor inside-
- before insulating shoot foam into the ceiling holes to re-vapour barrier.
I am not sure were you will used the running board..in attic or on ceiling.
Usually there are enough lumber pieces in the attic to follow with a cable.
Across the trusses is a good place for one. Nail it to bottom truss web and
nail cables to sides = no feet on cable to stretch it.
Dont' forget speaker cables, Ethernet (CAT5 or 5e or 6), intercom, phone,
remote control for dust collector, thermostats... video camera security
cables, weather vane, wind turbine, exhaust port in eaves...think hard and
take your time.
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I got to get my "hands dirty" this week! I took down most of the drywall on
my
long wall up to 7' high. The ceiling is 8.5' high, but I thought that
stopping
at less than 8' would make replacing the drywall easier (I can always remove
more..). A pro would have probably used a skilsaw, but my Harbor Freight
rotary
tool, along with a box-cutter, cut pretty well, if a little (i.e. alot)
slower.
This was basically my first time removing any drywall at all, so I took my
time.
I quickly learned the axiom, "A hammer is your friend"!
I also removed an existing 50-Amp outlet from the wall. I validated the
outlet's
deadness with my voltometer before I touched anything. I made a special trip
to
the store to buy connectors (the largest ones I could find!) which I put on
the
end of each of the wires (perfect fit) and I taped each of them at least 3"
down. I did this even though the C-Breaker will stay turned off and I must
give
some of the Wrecker's most of the credit for giving me the right perspective
to
so gingerly protect my dead wires (Lew: I wish my main panel had a lock!).
Swingman: I also picked up a outlet tester *with GFCI* while I was at the
store!
I will completely remove that wire and its corresponding C-breaker from the
main
panel soon, and I will do so while the main circuit breaker is turned off.
Most of what I wrote above above is feedback. I am seeking your assistance
with
the following concerns to help me proceed: I have been reading and thinking
about running wires, running boards and stapling. I also learned a
convenient
term: "double top plate"--the entry and exit points to my attic will be
through
it. The truth is that since my wires will only be traveling through my
attic
near my eave (basicly unaccessible), the NEC would probably permit me to
place
new wires next to the one that is currrently lying there. However, seeking
to
do things in a craftman-like way, I would prefer to use a running board. I
have
been thinking about how I am going to run/staple three 10-2 and two 12-2 or
12-3
cables along my current path: from my subpanel, up through the double top
plate
(how many holes, how big), along the running board and back down through
the
double top plate. I learned, in particular, that I *do not want to derate*
my
wires!!!--at least I would prefer not to. I suppose I can learn the math
and
buy bigger wire if I must. BTW, My initial inclinations were to drill a
hole
through the double top plate for the 12 gauge wires and another hole for the
10
guage wires (as the grouped wires have similar destinations). All 5 or 6 of
these will be traveling together out of the subpanel and accross the running
board where they will exit the attic "together" (but perhaps not too closely
together!).
Any assistance you may be able to provide me with about this is welcome and
appreciated! I hope that something of what I have written may be
insightful to
others who are seeking to add power to their shop.
Bill
[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>It's not clear from this, but do ensure that you never run mutiple
>>romex cables through a knockout on the subpanel. Once cable (with
>>appropriate clamp) per knockout.
>
>As long as the clamp is rated for two cables, where's the problem?
Shouldn't be a problem. They're not very common.
scott
Bill <[email protected]> writes:
>
>Doug, Thank you, as always, for your thoughtful answers!
>
> I normally space holes about 2"
>> apart, but there's no hard-and-fast rule about that.
>
>Do you mean 2" between centers? Since "straight-up" is the best way to
>exit my subpanel, I wish to be efficient. I've already planned 8 cables
>coming out, with others likely to follow. Putting two 10-2 cables in a
>3/4" hole and two 12-2 (or 14-2) cables in a 5/8" hole ought to be
>efficient! I'll follow the same grouping rules threading the wires
>through the wall studs. Lew Hodgett pointed out that threading three
>10-2 cables through a 3/4" hole was definitely wrong. I would appreciate
>knowing his point of view concerning this.
It's not clear from this, but do ensure that you never run mutiple
romex cables through a knockout on the subpanel. Once cable (with
appropriate clamp) per knockout.
>
>Is there any problem with different gauge cables sharing the same hole
>(I considered that the conduit on the lesser cable might not be adequate
>to be next to a hotter cable)? Swingman (smartly) advised me not to do
>anything I don't feel confident about--and this is a detail that makes
>me hesitate.
Not a problem; assuming again that you're referring a hole in a framing
member, not a knockout in the panelbox.
scott
[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>>[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>>>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>It's not clear from this, but do ensure that you never run mutiple
>>>>romex cables through a knockout on the subpanel. Once cable (with
>>>>appropriate clamp) per knockout.
>>>
>>>As long as the clamp is rated for two cables, where's the problem?
>>
>>Shouldn't be a problem. They're not very common.
>
>More common than you think. Take a look at the fine print on the next package
>you buy; you might be surprised. It's been quite a while since I've bought any
>romex clamps that were *not* rated for two 12-2 or 14-2 cables.
>>
>>scott
Ok. I bought 100 pack last time, and tossed the plastic wrap. I'll check
next time I'm at electrical supply house.
scott
I like to sit on one hand until it goes completely to sleep.
Then when I use that hand it always feels like somebody else is doing it.
LOL
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
IT IS true that they have a great deal of room for improvement. They
definitely suffer from the "one hand not knowing what the other is
doing" syndrome...and their second hand often doesn't know what it's
doing either. We were instructed to "return our box for exchange" this
week, only to be told upon arrival that "we don't take those". You sort
of get used to it and it becomes a bad joke...
Bill
Lee Michaels wrote:
> "Bill" wrote
>> BTW, due to mid-western storms this week, my Internet and phone access at
>> home have been down and that is why I haven't replied to any posts during
>> the last few days. And Comcast won't send anyone over to look into the
>> matter (power-surged modem?) for another 6 days... When a company asks
>> you to entrust them with such concerns, and you regularly send them
>> decent
>> sized checks, you might expect them to try to work a little faster to get
>> things right.
>>
> I remember that classic line about Comcast.
>
This is why I urged you to get an inspection for your wiring.
This would be a professional overviewing your work and giving you tips and
corrections. All these "nay" sayers would want to do this themselves also. I
see you as no different. If you do woodworking it would be assumed you have
some "do-it-yourself pride".
You stated you were a PHd in math and could separate the good tips from the
bad. Do it.
You can do this.
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Mike Marlow wrote:
> Bill - get with Doug or an electrician. You really need to. You simply
> cannot learn to wire by posting to a usenet newsgroup.
I held a wiring clinic in my driveway the other day. 2by4's, stapling,
wire stripping, wire-connecting (two wires, three wires,..), with both
#12 and #10 romex, using metal boxes, etc.
Keep in mind, you have no way of knowing what resources I used to learn
(some of the Worst are at the Borgs). I don't need to learn Everything
in order to learn Something. See the difference?
Here, for instance, is a website which shows how to install my subpanel.
For the moment, I don't have a need to understand how to install any
other sub-panels, just this one.
http://www.hammerzone.com/archives/elect/panel/sub_panel/01/new.htm
Best,
Bill
He does seem to have his own world in the electrical business.
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Not even close. There would be or could be lots of reasons to stagger the
height of a sub-panel reletive to a main. I've never encountered an
inspector that considered the type of level Bill spoke of, to be a sign of
workmanlike manner.
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Puckdropper
> <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> What gave you the idea that the sub panel had to be perfectly level?
>
> I think most inspectors would construe the "neat and workmanlike
> manner"
> clause to require that the panel be at least approximately level. <g>
Bill wrote:
> I measured and cut 1by8 into a 65" running board, using an antique
> hand saw for posterity. I hammered three 7d (2 1/4") nails into each
> end and when I nailed it to the roof joists, the roof joists in
> between the ones on the ends were each 1/8" to 1/2" away from the
> board. That could have worked out far worse, but I ended up using 6
> nails instead of the 15 I had planned. It occurred to met that when
> I nail staples into the board it may be wise support it from behind. I'm
> having about as much fun as Lew could wish for me to have under
> such warm circumstances! No one would want to be paying me by the
> hour, I just came in to look something up...
>
> Bill
Stick a couple of nails in every other joist - not just the ends. You won't
have to worry about a springy board then.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 00:12:35 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>Josepi wrote:
>> WD-40 is corrosive as hell.
>>
>> The label is different in Canada. The lubricant properties has been removed
>> and who knows what else.
>>
>> Locksmith said it happens all the time. Not a protectant but an etchant and
>> very corrosive. Rinse with oil after usage.
>>
>>
>
>Thank you for the heads-up. I'm sure I could have waited, but after
>reading that I didn't read the next thread before I cleaned up my
>combination square with SAE-30. I'll look for Boeshield.
I buy it from Rockler or Woodcraft, but Sears sells it too:
http://www.sears.com/shc/s/search_10153_12605?keyword=boeshield&x=0&y=0&vName=Tools&viewType=24&viewItems=24
Swingman wrote:
> On 6/20/2010 7:57 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> As long as the hole is big enough to put the cables through it
>> without kinking or damaging them, sure. AFAIK, the Code doesn't
>> mention anything at all about minimum hole size through wood framing.
>
> One caveat for drilling bigger holes in a typical tubafour stud frame
> is the larger hole may require the use of nail plates if they end up
> less than 1 1/4" from the edge.
True. I use bigger holes to make pulling easier, and to run more through
one hole. That way I don't have to worry about wires running through a lot
of different heights when rock goes on.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Bill wrote:
> Wiring running straight through a wall, at 90 degree angles to the
> studs, doesn't need to be stapled ("every 4 1/2 feet") since it is
> supported by the studs, correct?
>
> Bill
Correct.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Bill wrote:
>
>
> I found this example in 30 seconds; the OPs problem is sort of
> interesting:
> http://www.thathomesite.com/forums/load/realestate/msg071833224624.html
>
> Another issue is that should you sell your home, you will be liable
> to the buyer
> should they experience a fire and learn that you installed the
> subpanel without
> a permit. I'm curious whether manslaughter charges would be plausable
> under the right set of circumstances (not yours!)... You say
> Bullshit, I say, here
> please, take the $25. : )
Not at all relevant Bill. As you've been told many times now - you will be
getting an electrical inspection. That is the process which deems your
wiring to be in compliance. What goes on with building permits is an
entirely different matter. You are looking too hard to find problems...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 16:26:53 -0400, "Bill" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>>The city seems to to have comingled several facets
>>>>(building/heating/cooling/plumbing/electrical) into
>>>>The Dept of Community Development. My assumption about the requirement
>>>>was
>>>>based upon the NEC. Part of my project includes the installation of a
>>>>new
>>>>subpanel.
>>>>One will be able to see if from the street and I don't want to ever have
>>>>to
>>>>answer any
>>>>hard questions about how it got there. In different circumstances, I
>>>>might
>>>>be more cavalier.
>>>
>>> I didn't pull a permit to add my electrical panel, nor am I for the
>>> finishing
>>> job on the room above the garage (my shop, some day). I did when I
>>> added
>>> a
>>> garage, twenty years ago and that included a sub panel.
>>
>>
>>If you would have had to make a fire-related claim with your home owners
>>insurance company
>>you may have been up a creek (worth the risk?).
>
> Bullshit. You can't come up with one example of this actually happening
> because it never has.
I found this example in 30 seconds; the OPs problem is sort of interesting:
http://www.thathomesite.com/forums/load/realestate/msg071833224624.html
Another issue is that should you sell your home, you will be liable to the
buyer
should they experience a fire and learn that you installed the subpanel
without
a permit. I'm curious whether manslaughter charges would be plausable
under the right set of circumstances (not yours!)... You say Bullshit, I
say, here
please, take the $25. : )
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 23:54:00 -0400, FrozenNorth
<[email protected]> wrote the following:
>On 6/20/10 11:37 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 12:15:41 -0500, -MIKE-<[email protected]>
>> wrote the following:
>>
>>> On 6/20/10 11:59 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>>>>> As long as the hole is big enough to put the cables through it
>>>>>> without kinking or damaging them, sure. AFAIK, the Code doesn't
>>>>>> mention anything at all about minimum hole size through wood framing.
>>>>>
>>>>> One caveat for drilling bigger holes in a typical tubafour stud frame
>>>>> is the larger hole may require the use of nail plates if they end up
>>>>> less than 1 1/4" from the edge.
>>>>
>>>> True. I use bigger holes to make pulling easier, and to run more through
>>>> one hole. That way I don't have to worry about wires running through a lot
>>>> of different heights when rock goes on.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The real question is, how many lines can you run through a floor joist
>>> in the basement ceiling, that allows for the most clothing to by hung
>>>from it?
>>>
>>> Is that in the NEC? :-)
>>
>> The NEC specifically states that "clothing is optional", Mike. ;)
>>
>Naked electricians are *not* allowed in my house.
Are you sure about that? You must be hiring the wrong
electricalician.
http://fwd4.me/TlF
http://fwd4.me/TlG
http://www.garagescapes.com/images/female_contractor.jpg
http://fwd4.me/TlI
http://fwd4.me/TlK
And the one who got the attention of both brains:
http://fwd4.me/TlL Va va VOOM!
--
Peace of mind is that mental condition in which you have accepted the worst.
-- Lin Yutang
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 07:45:33 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote the following:
>Bill wrote:
>> Mike Marlow wrote:
>>
>>> Now would be a better time to install the exterior outlets, while
>>> you have the walls opened up. It does not take any longer than
>>> installing an inside outlet.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I was just passing along your idea to my wife and she evidently felt
>> the need to point out to me that the wall was brick! : ) A matter
>> of mere "child's play", I'm sure.
>>
>
>Bigger hammer!
No, januwine Harbor Fright Multifunction tool to the rescue!
Grub out the grout and remove 1 or 2 bricks, gaining access to the
wall.
--
Peace of mind is that mental condition in which you have accepted the worst.
-- Lin Yutang
In article <[email protected]>, "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 16:26:53 -0400, "Bill" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>>>The city seems to to have comingled several facets
>>>>>(building/heating/cooling/plumbing/electrical) into
>>>>>The Dept of Community Development. My assumption about the requirement
>>>>>was
>>>>>based upon the NEC. Part of my project includes the installation of a
>>>>>new
>>>>>subpanel.
>>>>>One will be able to see if from the street and I don't want to ever have
>>>>>to
>>>>>answer any
>>>>>hard questions about how it got there. In different circumstances, I
>>>>>might
>>>>>be more cavalier.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't pull a permit to add my electrical panel, nor am I for the
>>>> finishing
>>>> job on the room above the garage (my shop, some day). I did when I
>>>> added
>>>> a
>>>> garage, twenty years ago and that included a sub panel.
>>>
>>>
>>>If you would have had to make a fire-related claim with your home owners
>>>insurance company
>>>you may have been up a creek (worth the risk?).
>>
>> Bullshit. You can't come up with one example of this actually happening
>> because it never has.
>
>
>I found this example in 30 seconds; the OPs problem is sort of interesting:
>
>http://www.thathomesite.com/forums/load/realestate/msg071833224624.html
That page describes a building that was built in violation of local zoning
ordinances, and the city want the owner to tear it down. What does that have
to do with the allegation that an insurance company may deny a claim for a
residential fire if electrical work was done without a permit, or not done to
Code? That is a claim that is made frequently, here and at alt.home.repair,
but so far I haven't seen even one case in which the person making that claim
has been able to substantiate it.
>
>Another issue is that should you sell your home, you will be liable to the
>buyer should they experience a fire and learn that you installed the subpanel
>without a permit.
Got a cite for that, or are you simply repeating what you read somewhere? Lots
of people say that too, but I haven't seen that one backed up either.
On 6/13/2010 8:43 PM, Nova wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 16:26:53 -0400, "Bill" <[email protected]>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> If you would have had to make a fire-related claim with your home
>>>> owners
>>>> insurance company
>>>> you may have been up a creek (worth the risk?).
>>>
>>> Bullshit. You can't come up with one example of this actually happening
>>> because it never has.
>>
>>
>>
>> I found this example in 30 seconds; the OPs problem is sort of
>> interesting:
>>
>> http://www.thathomesite.com/forums/load/realestate/msg071833224624.html
>
> The above article has nothing to do with an insurance claim being denied
> due to a failure to obtain a building permit for electrical work?
The bizarre thing about it is that he wants to tear down the garage and
the zoning board wants him to tear down the garage, so WHY IS THERE A
PROBLEM? Seems to me that the thing to do is tear down the garage and
then get the permit to build the new one he wants.
But you're right that it has nothing to do with insurance.
However it is true that you _can_ end up up the creek. If you did
substandard wiring in violation of code _and_ if that substandard wiring
started the fire, THEN they could if they chose to be sticky deny the
claim.
>
In article <[email protected]>, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>However it is true that you _can_ end up up the creek. If you did
>substandard wiring in violation of code _and_ if that substandard wiring
>started the fire, THEN they could if they chose to be sticky deny the
>claim.
Not if the insurance contract doesn't say so, they can't.
Can anyone come up with *one* *verified* example of an insurance company
successfully denying a fire insurance claim based on substandard wiring, or
wiring that was done without a permit?
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>That is the process which deems your wiring to be in compliance. What goes
>on with building permits is an entirely different matter.
But it is correct that the inspection is provided as part of the process,
correct?
By the way, for those that are keeping score, I just found out that the
price for the permit in my jurisdiction will
be $75, rather than $25. On the positive side, the form doesn't ask any
hard questions. Some of you guys spend
more than $75 on a saw blade.
Sorry if the case I provided yesterday was a bit of a "red herring". Not
being a lawyer, doing reseach on that
particular topic is not of interest to me. The only point I wanted to make
is that not getting a permit can get you in trouble.
My dad, whose passed away 3 years ago, would advise me to get the
inspection/permit. Ya can't argue with the ol' man, right?
I'm off to the county seat with my application. Have a nice day!!! : )
Bill
*** All bets down ***
Since I don't have to have the power turned off at the meter to make my
modifications, a permit is not required.
They handed me my check back.
*** Take the pass, pay the don'ts ***
Comment: I had to go to the county level ("Builing and Zoning Department")
as, although I have a city mailing address, technically my area is not
incorporated as a part of the city. YMMV
Bill
I got to get my "hands dirty" this week! I took down most of the drywall on my
long wall up to 7' high. The ceiling is 8.5' high, but I thought that stopping
at less than 8' would make replacing the drywall easier (I can always remove
more..). A pro would have probably used a skilsaw, but my Harbor Freight rotary
tool, along with a box-cutter, cut pretty well, if a little (i.e. alot) slower.
This was basically my first time removing any drywall at all, so I took my time.
I quickly learned the axiom, "A hammer is your friend"!
I also removed an existing 50-Amp outlet from the wall. I validated the outlet's
deadness with my voltometer before I touched anything. I made a special trip to
the store to buy connectors (the largest ones I could find!) which I put on the
end of each of the wires (perfect fit) and I taped each of them at least 3"
down. I did this even though the C-Breaker will stay turned off and I must give
some of the Wrecker's most of the credit for giving me the right perspective to
so gingerly protect my dead wires (Lew: I wish my main panel had a lock!).
Swingman: I also picked up a outlet tester *with GFCI* while I was at the store!
I will completely remove that wire and its corresponding C-breaker from the main
panel soon, and I will do so while the main circuit breaker is turned off.
Most of what I wrote above above is feedback. I am seeking your assistance with
the following concerns to help me proceed: I have been reading and thinking
about running wires, running boards and stapling. I also learned a convenient
term: "double top plate"--the entry and exit points to my attic will be through
it. The truth is that since my wires will only be traveling through my attic
near my eave (basicly unaccessible), the NEC would probably permit me to place
new wires next to the one that is currrently lying there. However, seeking to
do things in a craftman-like way, I would prefer to use a running board. I have
been thinking about how I am going to run/staple three 10-2 and two 12-2 or 12-3
cables along my current path: from my subpanel, up through the double top plate
(how many holes, how big), along the running board and back down through the
double top plate. I learned, in particular, that I *do not want to derate* my
wires!!!--at least I would prefer not to. I suppose I can learn the math and
buy bigger wire if I must. BTW, My initial inclinations were to drill a hole
through the double top plate for the 12 gauge wires and another hole for the 10
guage wires (as the grouped wires have similar destinations). All 5 or 6 of
these will be traveling together out of the subpanel and accross the running
board where they will exit the attic "together" (but perhaps not too closely
together!).
Any assistance you may be able to provide me with about this is welcome and
appreciated! I hope that something of what I have written may be insightful to
others who are seeking to add power to their shop.
Bill
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 15:36:07 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote the
following:
>Bill wrote:
> >>I'm still lacking in Internet access at home
>
>Hey, it's nice to be hooked up again! I'm unable and unwilling to award
>Comcast any accolades on their service, but for the time being I'm "back
>in business".
>
>Project-wise, last night I computed how much "wire-space" each of my
>boxes requires and I am off to buy 12 boxes, a "running board" and
>accessories.
>
>BTW, for those that don't need to ever make a mock-up/model, I made one
>with cardboard boxes for outlets and switches and convinced myself to
>add an additional duplex outlet (making a total of 11 inside)--it must
>have been the echo of your collective voices I heard in the still of the
>moment!
Best make it an even -dozen- boxes, Bill. You don't want any
unbalanced legs, especially the one I'm pulling just now.
--
The most powerful factors in the world are clear ideas
in the minds of energetic men of good will.
-- J. Arthur Thomson
Thank you for your reply. It contains a lot of good information!
Josepi wrote:
> Sounds like you are well on your way!! The first blow with the hammer was
> the hardest! YIKES!!
Yes, I think we've discussed how difficult it can be to "start" here
before. After a few days of procrastinating, working on other things, I
made a list one evening, and it was easy as 1, 2, 3 the next day. I
think I didn't work so fast, because I wasn't so sure about Steps 4, 5
and 6! Perhaps procrastinating a bit after Step 2, I went on a 90
minute shopping trip to Menards and made a very detailed list of
virtually everything I thought I needed. Evidentally 240v, 20Amp
outlets are not popular, as I did not find what I was looking for
stocked. I thought I wanted the 3-prong type and The only ones they had
were ones which lock with a twist (still 3-prong).
> I , again decide, never to drill less than 3/4" ones again!...LOL
3/4" sounded "right" to me to. I was planning to drill a practice hole
before I committed myself to see how well the cables fit! : )
>
> A long spade bit with extension works well. It
> avoids chips in your eyes if overhead or high run,
> allows you to come in on a fairly straight angle without the next joist/
> truss pushing your drill out,
> allows a better "in-line" view so your holes do not go up and down.
Yes, I've also read in more than one place about the "importance" of
getting your holes lined up. They even suggested a jig (prop) to
assist. Most of the holes I need to drill will be through the studs in
the garage wall.
>
> - Drill the furthest one and work your way backward so the previous is
> always in site or ping chalk lines to get your holes lined up.
Yes!
> - drill individual holes for larger cables. ALl conductors need cooling.
> Three 2 wire cables (6 conductors) in any hole so there is always cooling to
> each conductor inside-
Three 10-2 Romex cables in one hole okay?
> - before insulating shoot foam into the ceiling holes to re-vapour barrier.
Thank you for mentioning that --that wasn't even on my list!
>
> I am not sure were you will used the running board..in attic or on ceiling.
> Usually there are enough lumber pieces in the attic to follow with a cable.
> Across the trusses is a good place for one. Nail it to bottom truss web and
> nail cables to sides = no feet on cable to stretch it.
Attic. As the cable has to go perpendicular to the floor joists and many
of them are already covered with flooring, I latched onto the idea of a
"running board" when Mike Marlow first mentioned it. If I understand
what you wrote concerning where to locate it, is across the bottom of
the rafters, a few inches above the flooring, part of the "bottom truss
web"? The roof does not leak but should the proximity to the elements
via the roofing nails be of concern?
It is good that no feet will be able to stretch the wire, but I think it
should be protected so that no one can push a box against it as well. I
have seen the idea of building a "U-shaped" running board proposed. 6
cables across an 6"-8" wide board? If the location I identified above
is okay, I would consider nailing the wires with the plastic backed
staples to the running board with great care not to damage any wires,
and then "screwing" the running board to the rafters in case it may ever
need to be modified.
>
> Dont' forget speaker cables, Ethernet (CAT5 or 5e or 6), intercom, phone,
> remote control for dust collector, thermostats... video camera security
> cables, weather vane, wind turbine, exhaust port in eaves...think hard and
> take your time.
Gosh, that's the type of thinking that got me where I am now--and that
was "just" over electricity and lighting. You have a vivid
imagination--maybe you are in sales? : ) It occurred to me this week
that it would be nice to have a shop radio--don't laugh I just got a
sturdy wooden "shop chair" last week. After seeing how hot it gets, I
have to wonder where "air conditioning" might fit onto a list. I will
probably have to make-do with a shop fan. That would go well with all
of that dry-wall dust I'm making! : ) I already noticed white tracks
throughout the house the other day--burglars!!! I cleaned them up
before SWMBO came home!
Bill
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 23:35:37 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 21:43:45 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're going to need a *lot* more lighting in your shop (another
>>>> half-dozen 4' dual shop lights ought to do). Might just as well put
>>>> it in now. Add to that a couple of 1kW halogen work lights, for the
>>>> mud work, and you should be OK.
>>>>
>>>
>>> A couple of 1KW work lights? Holy cow - you're going to blind the
>>> poor guy with the glare.
>>
>> Put 300W sticks in them. Bounce off the ceiling or an adjacent wall.
>> One light tends to throw shadows.
>>
>>> Seriously - one does not need tons of light to check for flatness.
>>> A modest 60W bulb, and a head tilted to view the wall from an angle
>>> is plenty sufficient. As another poster suggested - use your hand
>>> and fingers to find the high/low spots.
>>
>> It's a lot easier to see with a *lot* of flat (indirect) light. At
>> least it is for me.
>
>You need to try more techniques. One light will do the job. It's all about
>the angles.
A couple of *dual* 1000W lights (with 300W bulbs in them instead of the
standard 500W) pointed on adjacent walls and ceiling will flood the area from
all angles. If there is any chance of shadows, I'll miss something.
>>> Bill - I paint cars a bit - and I insist on dead flat surface
>>> finishes. I have a little insight into this stuff, and you don't
>>> need to over engineer this lighting thing. A simple hand held
>>> trouble light will give you all the light you need to check your
>>> joints. You *can* have too much light and end up with glare off the
>>> walls and glare from the airborne dust.
>>
>> Dust? ...and you paint cars? ;-)
>
>Oh... you might say...
On 6/24/10 8:29 AM, Swingman wrote:
> On 6/23/2010 11:42 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> Guys, would you just plonk Josepi and forget him?
>
>
> Who?
>
Like they say, every village needs an idiot. :-)
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
Oh my Gymmy Bob you wan't vertical scrolling.
All those voices in your head must be rolling you.
Or do I call you John. John P Bengi?
In another place you said:
"Oh? What happened, no mens bicycle seats
there for your nasal pleasure? hahahhohohhehehe"
Upset John?
You spent all that time wasting your time and putting
together a bunch of ficticious garbage and nobody
has any clue what your point is, or what you
are trying to say. You waste your time where nobody will
spend the time trying to second guess what some 15 year
old on drugs posted in an attempt to solve his/her
attempt at self inferiority complex.
Anybody else understand this gobble-dee-gook? Please step
forward and explain it to the group.
Nobody cares? I rest my case wannabe Troll.
"John Penis Bengi" <JBengi(gimme-but)@(sperm)swallah.com>
wrote in message
news:1116155929.f032fdbfda3a2553f16949f6630a45fe@teranews...
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=1116807476.c3785e77c249b399a1544090e1480db5%40teranews
_____________________________________________________
"Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news: [email protected]...
Same easynews.com account and ID...LOL
You are just too easy hopper/tazoar/Lectronuis/Ms Marples/wmjbk/Doug/
------------------
Path:
s03-b23.iad!npeersf01.iad.highwinds-media.com!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.glorb.com!news2.glorb.com!news.glorb.com!news-in-01.newsfeed.easynews.com!easynews!core-easynews-01!easynews.com!en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Larry Jaques <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.woodworking
Subject: Re: Shop Wall and Electric
Sender: novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com
Organization: DIVERSIFY.com
Reply-To: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<1%[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<8b8debc9-ddbc-49db-98c3-0fdbdd86971d@x27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 5.00/32.1170
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 100623-1, 06/23/2010), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Lines: 30
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise
we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 21:42:26 -0700
Xref: Hurricane-Charley rec.woodworking:532782
X-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 21:43:11 MST (s03-b23.iad)
Same easynews.com account and ID...LOL
You are just too easy hopper/tazoar/Lectronuis/Ms Marples/wmjbk/Doug/
------------------
Path:
s03-b23.iad!npeersf01.iad.highwinds-media.com!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.glorb.com!news2.glorb.com!news.glorb.com!news-in-01.newsfeed.easynews.com!easynews!core-easynews-01!easynews.com!en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Larry Jaques <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.woodworking
Subject: Re: Shop Wall and Electric
Sender: novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com
Organization: DIVERSIFY.com
Reply-To: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<1%[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<8b8debc9-ddbc-49db-98c3-0fdbdd86971d@x27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 5.00/32.1170
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 100623-1, 06/23/2010), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Lines: 30
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise
we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 21:42:26 -0700
Xref: Hurricane-Charley rec.woodworking:532782
X-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 21:43:11 MST (s03-b23.iad)
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 10:26:08 -0500, Steve Turner
<[email protected]> wrote the following:
>On 6/23/2010 8:37 AM, Josepi wrote:
>> Sorry Keith. It wasn't my post at that time of the morning.
>>
>> I can read posts with almost any formatting.
>>
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:8b8debc9-ddbc-49db-98c3-0fdbdd86971d@x27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>> I am not the one who has trouble with simple concepts, moron.
>>
>> When you stop top posting perhaps someone will answer you again.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jun 23, 5:40 am, "Josepi"<[email protected]> wrote:
>>> top posting is way to complix for you moron!
>
>What the fuck is your problem?
Guys, would you just plonk Josepi and forget him?
We'll all feel better about it.
DFTFT
--
Peace of mind is that mental condition in which you have accepted the worst.
-- Lin Yutang
In article <[email protected]>, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
>
>3/4" sounded "right" to me to. I was planning to drill a practice hole
>before I committed myself to see how well the cables fit! : )
3/4" is overkill for most NM cabling. 1/2" is ample for one or two 14-2 or one
14-3; 5/8" quite sufficient for one or two 12-2 or one 12-3. Why bother
drilling smaller holes, you may ask? It's faster. And it doesn't drain the
battery in your cordless drill as quickly.
[...]>
>Three 10-2 Romex cables in one hole okay?
As long as the hole is big enough to put the cables through it without kinking
or damaging them, sure. AFAIK, the Code doesn't mention anything at all about
minimum hole size through wood framing.
>Attic. As the cable has to go perpendicular to the floor joists and many
>of them are already covered with flooring, I latched onto the idea of a
>"running board" when Mike Marlow first mentioned it. If I understand
>what you wrote concerning where to locate it, is across the bottom of
>the rafters, a few inches above the flooring, part of the "bottom truss
>web"?
It can be wherever you like: near the floor, near the ceiling, or anywhere in
between, including run diagonally or in a logarithmic curve. It doesn't
matter.
>The roof does not leak but should the proximity to the elements
>via the roofing nails be of concern?
No.
>
>It is good that no feet will be able to stretch the wire, but I think it
>should be protected so that no one can push a box against it as well.
Correct.
>I have seen the idea of building a "U-shaped" running board proposed.
Not necessary. Why make more work for yourself?
>6 cables across an 6"-8" wide board?
No problem. A 1x6 should be fine.
>If the location I identified above
>is okay, I would consider nailing the wires with the plastic backed
>staples to the running board with great care not to damage any wires,
>and then "screwing" the running board to the rafters in case it may ever
>need to be modified.
Three comments about that plan:
1) Wrong order. Attach the running board to the rafters first, then the cables
to the board. First, that way you don't risk damaging the cables as you attach
the board; second, I don't think you've considered the difficulty of attaching
the boards with half a dozen cables hanging off of them....
2) No real point in using screws. If it ever "needs to be modified", just
install a new running board and leave the old one in place. *By far* the
hardest part of modifying it later will be moving the cables. Whatever you do
with the running board at that time pales into insignificance by comparison.
3) Why bother with the plastic-backed staples? Code permits plain metal
staples such as these
http://www.amazon.com/NM-Cable-Staples-72816/dp/B002CM2IPY
which are much cheaper, and *far* easier to install.
On 6/20/10 11:59 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> As long as the hole is big enough to put the cables through it
>>> without kinking or damaging them, sure. AFAIK, the Code doesn't
>>> mention anything at all about minimum hole size through wood framing.
>>
>> One caveat for drilling bigger holes in a typical tubafour stud frame
>> is the larger hole may require the use of nail plates if they end up
>> less than 1 1/4" from the edge.
>
> True. I use bigger holes to make pulling easier, and to run more through
> one hole. That way I don't have to worry about wires running through a lot
> of different heights when rock goes on.
>
The real question is, how many lines can you run through a floor joist
in the basement ceiling, that allows for the most clothing to by hung
from it?
Is that in the NEC? :-)
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
Doug Miller wrote:
> 3/4" is overkill for most NM cabling. 1/2" is ample for one or two 14-2 or one
> 14-3; 5/8" quite sufficient for one or two 12-2 or one 12-3. Why bother
> drilling smaller holes, you may ask? It's faster. And it doesn't drain the
> battery in your cordless drill as quickly.
I like the idea of putting two 12-2 cables through one 5/8" hole. It
goes without saying that safety is my highest priority.
What is an ideal hole size for a single 10-2 cable? 3/4"? Similar
distance between adjacent holes?
>> It is good that no feet will be able to stretch the wire, but I think it
>> should be protected so that no one can push a box against it as well.
>
> Correct.
>
>> I have seen the idea of building a "U-shaped" running board proposed.
>
> Not necessary. Why make more work for yourself?
Hmmm...attaching it low (close to the eaves) seems to offer the running
board the safest reasonable location. BTW, it will be approximately 12
feet long. Surely I don't wish to clutter the area directly over the
existing main and the new adjacent subpanel more than it already is.
Presently wires "spew" from the top plate over the main panel :(. So, I
will strive that my new work will not impede access. What is a good way
to add protection against the above-mentioned box that someone might be
inclined to push against the running board? A gun? : )
>
>> 6 cables across an 6"-8" wide board?
>
> No problem. A 1x6 should be fine.
> I don't think you've considered the difficulty of attaching
> the boards with half a dozen cables hanging off of them....
You are correct (but I can imagine worse, I think)! :)
> 3) Why bother with the plastic-backed staples? Code permits plain metal
> staples such as these
> http://www.amazon.com/NM-Cable-Staples-72816/dp/B002CM2IPY
> which are much cheaper, and *far* easier to install.
Hmm. I've noticed those in my present configuration. Intuitively, plain
metal staples seem to increase the risk of accidentally damaging the
cabling. Someone suggested that they used insulated staples with nm
cable. I will seek to better understand these options. I don't mind
spending a few dollars on staples if it makes installing cable more
idiot-proof, in case I have a helper! : )
We discussed outlet locations (in proximity to panels) earlier.
My main panel is 24" to the right of the back door of the garage. Is
there any problem with installing a duplex outlet in between the panel
and the back door, at 50" high? My concern was that the location was
where someone might expect to find a light switch (so I would use a
coverplate, or equivalent protection). Does the NEC prohibit what I
have suggested?
Thank you very much!
BTW, most of the drywall on Wall #2 is coming off tomorrow. I may try to
speed things up with careful use of my reciprocating saw. I hope I can
get to sleep! : )
In article <[email protected]>, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> 3/4" is overkill for most NM cabling. 1/2" is ample for one or two 14-2 or
> one
>> 14-3; 5/8" quite sufficient for one or two 12-2 or one 12-3. Why bother
>> drilling smaller holes, you may ask? It's faster. And it doesn't drain the
>> battery in your cordless drill as quickly.
>
>I like the idea of putting two 12-2 cables through one 5/8" hole. It
>goes without saying that safety is my highest priority.
This isn't a safety issue at all, actually. Just a convenience issue.
>
>What is an ideal hole size for a single 10-2 cable? 3/4"? Similar
>distance between adjacent holes?
3/4" will accomodate one or two 10-2 cables. I normally space holes about 2"
apart, but there's no hard-and-fast rule about that. Just make sure you space
them apart horizontally, not vertically. Holes through joists should be as
close to the center of the joist as you can get them (holes near either the
top or bottom edge weaken the joist considerably). Same rule applies to
rafters and studs, too.
>
>
>>> It is good that no feet will be able to stretch the wire, but I think it
>>> should be protected so that no one can push a box against it as well.
>>
>> Correct.
>>
>>> I have seen the idea of building a "U-shaped" running board proposed.
>>
>> Not necessary. Why make more work for yourself?
>
>Hmmm...attaching it low (close to the eaves) seems to offer the running
>board the safest reasonable location. BTW, it will be approximately 12
>feet long. Surely I don't wish to clutter the area directly over the
>existing main and the new adjacent subpanel more than it already is.
>Presently wires "spew" from the top plate over the main panel :(. So, I
>will strive that my new work will not impede access. What is a good way
>to add protection against the above-mentioned box that someone might be
>inclined to push against the running board? A gun? : )
Don't worry about it. A cable stapled to a running board isn't going to be
damaged at all by having a cardboard box shoved against it.
>>
>>> 6 cables across an 6"-8" wide board?
>>
>> No problem. A 1x6 should be fine.
>
>> I don't think you've considered the difficulty of attaching
>> the boards with half a dozen cables hanging off of them....
>
>You are correct (but I can imagine worse, I think)! :)
>
>> 3) Why bother with the plastic-backed staples? Code permits plain metal
>> staples such as these
>> http://www.amazon.com/NM-Cable-Staples-72816/dp/B002CM2IPY
>> which are much cheaper, and *far* easier to install.
>
>Hmm. I've noticed those in my present configuration. Intuitively, plain
>metal staples seem to increase the risk of accidentally damaging the
>cabling.
Well, yes, that's true, but only if you're not paying close attention to how
hard you're driving the staples in. :-) Stop hammering when the staple
contacts the cable sheath, and you'll be fine.
>Someone suggested that they used insulated staples with nm
>cable. I will seek to better understand these options. I don't mind
>spending a few dollars on staples if it makes installing cable more
>idiot-proof, in case I have a helper! : )
From my perspective, ease of installation is the main reason for using metal
staples, not cost. The plastic ones are a PITA to put in.
>
>We discussed outlet locations (in proximity to panels) earlier.
>My main panel is 24" to the right of the back door of the garage. Is
>there any problem with installing a duplex outlet in between the panel
>and the back door, at 50" high?
None at all.
>My concern was that the location was
>where someone might expect to find a light switch (so I would use a
>coverplate, or equivalent protection).
Not sure what you mean here. Of course you'd use a cover plate -- all
receptacles are required by Code to have cover plates. What do you mean by
"equivalent protection"?
> Does the NEC prohibit what I
>have suggested?
No.
Doug, Thank you, as always, for your thoughtful answers!
I normally space holes about 2"
> apart, but there's no hard-and-fast rule about that.
Do you mean 2" between centers? Since "straight-up" is the best way to
exit my subpanel, I wish to be efficient. I've already planned 8 cables
coming out, with others likely to follow. Putting two 10-2 cables in a
3/4" hole and two 12-2 (or 14-2) cables in a 5/8" hole ought to be
efficient! I'll follow the same grouping rules threading the wires
through the wall studs. Lew Hodgett pointed out that threading three
10-2 cables through a 3/4" hole was definitely wrong. I would appreciate
knowing his point of view concerning this.
Is there any problem with different gauge cables sharing the same hole
(I considered that the conduit on the lesser cable might not be adequate
to be next to a hotter cable)? Swingman (smartly) advised me not to do
anything I don't feel confident about--and this is a detail that makes
me hesitate.
>> My concern was that the location was
>> where someone might expect to find a light switch (so I would use a
>> coverplate, or equivalent protection).
>
> Not sure what you mean here.
If I walked through a door and reached around for a switch only to feel
an outlet I would find it a little unnerving. I was thinking of the
types of coverplates that have additional "child-proof" covers over the
outlets or that are designed for exterior use ("spring-loaded" outlet
covers). At 50" inches, I would have 4 duplex outlets in a neat row.
"Form" may have to sacrifice for the sake of "function" here though,
and I may move that outlet down to knee-level. That outlet will allow
me to easily plug in an extension cord for use in the back yard and will
be a big improvement over my existing configuration. I'll save the idea
of exterior outlets for another year.
THANK YOU (ALL); having "Fun"!
Bill
BTW, is anyone else not sure they prefer the appearance of those "flat"
GFCI outlets compared to traditonal-looking outlets. The former seem to
be styled for use in a home. For $32 (x3), I can buy GFCI C-Breakers,
and use the outlets I like, but I'd just soon have the GFCI switch at
the (first) outlet. Maybe I should get around a little more and try
shopping someplace besides Menards...but based upon what I've seen, I'm
not going to get my hopes up.
Mike Marlow wrote:
> Now would be a better time to install the exterior outlets, while you have
> the walls opened up. It does not take any longer than installing an inside
> outlet.
Thank you for that suggestion, I will investigating what is involved.
It is true that I would want the outlet on the other side of a wall that
I am presently working on....
Puckdropper, your idea of positioning a lightswitch at 50"--where people
are likely to expect it, is a good idea! I could install a switch there
for my new lighting (that I don't have yet). I was focusing so intently
on doing one thing at a time that the idea did not occur to me.
I was looking at lighting at Menards. I know I want simple fluorenscent
lighting that works when it's cold and can be seen but not heard. I
sort of recollect someone mentioning the "American Fluorescent Lighting"
company, possibly in low regard (cheap ballasters?). They made many of
the simple fixtures I saw at Menards. Is the prevailing regard for CFL
products negative?
Lighting is a whole-nuther can of worms... For an instant, I saw light
at the end of the tunnel! : ) Thanks for keeping me thinking!
Bill
Mike Marlow wrote:
> Now would be a better time to install the exterior outlets, while you have
> the walls opened up. It does not take any longer than installing an inside
> outlet.
>
>
I was just passing along your idea to my wife and she evidently felt the
need to point out to me that the wall was brick! : ) A matter of mere
"child's play", I'm sure.
Bill
In article <[email protected]>, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Doug, Thank you, as always, for your thoughtful answers!
>
> I normally space holes about 2"
>> apart, but there's no hard-and-fast rule about that.
>
>Do you mean 2" between centers?
It doesn't matter. It's only approximate anyway.
> Since "straight-up" is the best way to
>exit my subpanel, I wish to be efficient. I've already planned 8 cables
>coming out, with others likely to follow. Putting two 10-2 cables in a
>3/4" hole and two 12-2 (or 14-2) cables in a 5/8" hole ought to be
>efficient! I'll follow the same grouping rules threading the wires
>through the wall studs. Lew Hodgett pointed out that threading three
>10-2 cables through a 3/4" hole was definitely wrong. I would appreciate
>knowing his point of view concerning this.
"Definitely wrong"? Hardly. There's nothing in the Code, AFAIK, that dictates
specific sizes of holes in wood framing for passing cables through. If the
hole is large enough to pass the cables without damaging them, and it's done
"in a neat and workmanlike manner", the Code is satisfied.
>Is there any problem with different gauge cables sharing the same hole
None at all.
>(I considered that the conduit on the lesser cable might not be adequate
>to be next to a hotter cable)? Swingman (smartly) advised me not to do
>anything I don't feel confident about--and this is a detail that makes
>me hesitate.
>
>>> My concern was that the location was
>>> where someone might expect to find a light switch (so I would use a
>>> coverplate, or equivalent protection).
>>
>> Not sure what you mean here.
>
>If I walked through a door and reached around for a switch only to feel
>an outlet I would find it a little unnerving. I was thinking of the
>types of coverplates that have additional "child-proof" covers over the
>outlets or that are designed for exterior use ("spring-loaded" outlet
>covers).
Ahh, I see now. There's no Code violation there that I'm aware of. The Code
does require a switch close to the door, though -- the idea is that you
shouldn't have to walk all the way into a dark room to turn on the lights.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>It's not clear from this, but do ensure that you never run mutiple
>romex cables through a knockout on the subpanel. Once cable (with
>appropriate clamp) per knockout.
As long as the clamp is rated for two cables, where's the problem?
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> wrote:
>>
>>>It's not clear from this, but do ensure that you never run mutiple
>>>romex cables through a knockout on the subpanel. Once cable (with
>>>appropriate clamp) per knockout.
>>
>>As long as the clamp is rated for two cables, where's the problem?
>
>Shouldn't be a problem. They're not very common.
More common than you think. Take a look at the fine print on the next package
you buy; you might be surprised. It's been quite a while since I've bought any
romex clamps that were *not* rated for two 12-2 or 14-2 cables.
>
>scott
In article <[email protected]>, Nova <[email protected]> wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Doug, Thank you, as always, for your thoughtful answers!
>>>
>>> I normally space holes about 2"
>>>
>>>>apart, but there's no hard-and-fast rule about that.
>>>
>>>Do you mean 2" between centers?
>>
>>
>> It doesn't matter. It's only approximate anyway.
>>
>>
>>>Since "straight-up" is the best way to
>>>exit my subpanel, I wish to be efficient. I've already planned 8 cables
>>>coming out, with others likely to follow. Putting two 10-2 cables in a
>>>3/4" hole and two 12-2 (or 14-2) cables in a 5/8" hole ought to be
>>>efficient! I'll follow the same grouping rules threading the wires
>>>through the wall studs. Lew Hodgett pointed out that threading three
>>>10-2 cables through a 3/4" hole was definitely wrong. I would appreciate
>>>knowing his point of view concerning this.
>>
>>
>> "Definitely wrong"? Hardly. There's nothing in the Code, AFAIK, that dictates
>
>> specific sizes of holes in wood framing for passing cables through. If the
>> hole is large enough to pass the cables without damaging them, and it's done
>> "in a neat and workmanlike manner", the Code is satisfied.
>>
>>
>
>The NEC may not mention it but the building codes do. IIRC an example
>is that any hole drilled in a stud for a load bearing wall can not
>exceed 40 percent of the width of the stud. Floor joist are an all
>together different matter.
>
Sounds like a good and sensible rule. Note, though, that it imposes an _upper_
limit on the size of the hole, not a _lower_ limit.
And that upper limit is pretty generous: 40% of the width of a tubafour is
almost an inch and a half.
Doug Miller wrote:
> Ahh, I see now. There's no Code violation there that I'm aware of. The Code
> does require a switch close to the door, though -- the idea is that you
> shouldn't have to walk all the way into a dark room to turn on the lights.
Thank you for mentioning that. I'm going to install a switch for my new
lighting right in the suggested location.
BTW, due to mid-western storms this week, my Internet and phone access
at home have been down and that is why I haven't replied to any posts
during the last few days. And Comcast won't send anyone over to look
into the matter (power-surged modem?) for another 6 days... When a
company asks you to entrust them with such concerns, and you regularly
send them decent sized checks, you might expect them to try to work a
little faster to get things right. My wife noted that it takes 30
minutes to speak to someone working through Comcast's answering system,
however if you are requesting "new service" then you get to speak to
someone almost immediately. She's been successfully using that
"shortcut" to get to a person. I apologize if it's slowed any of you
folks who are requesting new services! ; )
So, in any event, I won't be back until Monday or so. Thank you for all
of the suggestions for lighting, et. al. I feel like you left me with
plenty of projects to keep me occupied in the meantime! : )
Happy Wreck-ing!
Bill
What we have here is Doug Miller.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 04:00:06 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
"What we have here is a failure to communicate."
--
Have your accounts been removed by other's complaints?
Do you like to force your opinions on others?
Do you need to use multiple names due to shame and fear?
Better rates for those requiring anonymity to survive!
******** easynews.com, trolling made easy **********
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 04:00:06 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Doug Miller wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>, Puckdropper
>>> <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What gave you the idea that the sub panel had to be perfectly level?
>>>
>>> I think most inspectors would construe the "neat and workmanlike manner"
>>> clause to require that the panel be at least approximately level. <g>
>>
>>Not even close. There would be or could be lots of reasons to stagger the
>>height of a sub-panel reletive to a main.
>
>Did I say anything at all about its height relative to any other panels that
>may or may not be present?
"What we have here is a failure to communicate."
In article <[email protected]>, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> Ahh, I see now. There's no Code violation there that I'm aware of. The Code
>> does require a switch close to the door, though -- the idea is that you
>> shouldn't have to walk all the way into a dark room to turn on the lights.
>
>Thank you for mentioning that. I'm going to install a switch for my new
>lighting right in the suggested location.
>
>
>BTW, due to mid-western storms this week
Where ya at? We've had a lot of midwestern storms this week, too -- wonder if
you're anywhere near. I'm in Indianapolis.
Lee Michaels wrote:
> "Bill" wrote
>> BTW, due to mid-western storms this week, my Internet and phone access at
>> home have been down and that is why I haven't replied to any posts during
>> the last few days. And Comcast won't send anyone over to look into the
>> matter (power-surged modem?) for another 6 days... When a company asks
>> you to entrust them with such concerns, and you regularly send them decent
>> sized checks, you might expect them to try to work a little faster to get
>> things right.
>>
> I remember that classic line about Comcast.
>
> Anybody who doesn't beleive in the existance of hell has obviously never
> subscribed to Comcast.
IT IS true that they have a great deal of room for improvement. They
definitely suffer from the "one hand not knowing what the other is
doing" syndrome...and their second hand often doesn't know what it's
doing either. We were instructed to "return our box for exchange" this
week, only to be told upon arrival that "we don't take those". You sort
of get used to it and it becomes a bad joke...
Bill
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>
>>> Ahh, I see now. There's no Code violation there that I'm aware of. The Code
>>> does require a switch close to the door, though -- the idea is that you
>>> shouldn't have to walk all the way into a dark room to turn on the lights.
>> Thank you for mentioning that. I'm going to install a switch for my new
>> lighting right in the suggested location.
>>
>>
>> BTW, due to mid-western storms this week
>
> Where ya at? We've had a lot of midwestern storms this week, too -- wonder if
> you're anywhere near. I'm in Indianapolis.
Doug, I am too--Small world! I'm live few miles south of the loop and
and a few blocks off of Meridian (135). I spent another 90 minutes or
so at Menards today window shopping in the electric section. I was at
the store on Meridian, not too far from Smith Valley Rd. I'm still
lacking in Internet access at home (it has been determined that my
Internet problem is "regional" in nature). So, being Saturday night, I
drove a few miles to get public access! :) I have work, measuring
and such, to do in my attic, but it's 90+ degrees outside in the breeze,
to I decided my measuring could wait until tomorrow.
Bill
In article <[email protected]>, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Bill <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>> Doug Miller wrote:
>> Where ya at? We've had a lot of midwestern storms this week, too -- wonder if
>> you're anywhere near. I'm in Indianapolis.
>
>
>Doug, I am too--Small world! I'm live few miles south of the loop and
>and a few blocks off of Meridian (135). I spent another 90 minutes or
>so at Menards today window shopping in the electric section. I was at
>the store on Meridian, not too far from Smith Valley Rd. I'm still
>lacking in Internet access at home (it has been determined that my
>Internet problem is "regional" in nature). So, being Saturday night, I
>drove a few miles to get public access! :) I have work, measuring
>and such, to do in my attic, but it's 90+ degrees outside in the breeze,
>to I decided my measuring could wait until tomorrow.
>
I'll be darned, Bill, it *is* a small world. We live on the near northwest
side, a short distance from the 38th St interchange on I-65. You ever buy your
lumber from Northwest Lumber? It's just one exit up the highway, five minutes
from home for me.
Maybe we ought to get together some time. If you want to drop me a line, my
email address is /doug at milmac dot com/.
Bill wrote:
>>I'm still lacking in Internet access at home
Hey, it's nice to be hooked up again! I'm unable and unwilling to award
Comcast any accolades on their service, but for the time being I'm "back
in business".
Project-wise, last night I computed how much "wire-space" each of my
boxes requires and I am off to buy 12 boxes, a "running board" and
accessories.
BTW, for those that don't need to ever make a mock-up/model, I made one
with cardboard boxes for outlets and switches and convinced myself to
add an additional duplex outlet (making a total of 11 inside)--it must
have been the echo of your collective voices I heard in the still of the
moment!
Bill
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 05:03:16 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote the
following:
>Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
>> Seems he made up a test light with a 120V, 60W light bulb, a lamp
>> socket, and a couple of test leads.
>>
>> To test his new toy, opened up a 480V panel and put the test leads
>> across the incoming buss bars.
>>
>
> From that, I take it you'd go with the solid metal ground rather than
>the stranded version. I read that the #12 gauge versions of each are not
>created equal w.r.t. capacity--and that they are not equal in a lot of
>other ways too.
Sorry, Bill, but you just proved that Mike might have had it right.
Overvoltage and capacity (amperage) are two entirely different things
and you don't seem to grok the difference, which can be dangerous.
Be careful!
--
EXPLETIVE: A balm, usually applied verbally in hindsight,
which somehow eases those pains and indignities following
our every deficiency in foresight.
Things are coming together. I'm almost committed to using a 60-Amp
breaker for my subpanel. Maybe it's obvious to everyone else, but it
occurred to me that one doesn't want a breaker so big that the breaker
on one's main panel, in my case 200 Amps, has ANY decent chance of being
overloaded--and thus leaving folks and their tools in the dark.
My shop will have lighting serviced by each panel.
Salesfolk at two different BORGs tell me that 6-3 nm-b romex cable is
suitable as a "feeder cable" for 60 AMP service, even though the charts
indicate that it is only suitable for a 55 Amp device. I would not put
circuits greater than 30 Amp on the subpanel under this configuration.
I have 2 questions I would appreciate opinions on:
1) Is the 6-3 Romex cable suitable for a feeder cable as described?
2) I noticed this cable appears to be 3/4" in diameter. What is the
minimum hole size I would need to bore though studs to properly
accommodate it? Is just big enough to get the cable through big enough?
I don't even think I need additional cable clamps besides for those on
the panels as I would consider if the panels were any further apart.
Thank you!
Bill
Bill wrote:
> 1) Is the 6-3 Romex cable suitable for a feeder cable as described?
I found the following,and thought it was insightful. The way that I
interpret it, using only 2-pole breakers might raise the effective
ampacity of a "50 Amp subpanel" to 100 Amps (of course this ignores the
extra heat generated by having 2 hot wires "filled" at the same time).
Is there any fruit to be picked here?
-Bill
This provides two separate 60A legs of 120V. Usually, each row in a
breaker panel is on the opposite leg from the row above/below it. So if
you want three each of 15A and 20A 120V circuits, and they are all fully
loaded at once (and this rarely if ever happens), your loads will be as
follows:
Leg 1: 20A + 20A + 15A = 55A
Leg 2: 20A + 15A + 15A = 50A
Neutral load: 5A
If leg 2 goes to 0, then the neutral load would be the same as leg 1, 55A.
Yes and the ingredients and labels have changed over the years. The US can
**used** to say "lubricates" on the front and the Canuck can didn't.
Now, I see, none of the cans state "lubricates" on the front.
Pretty hard to state "lubricates" and "removes oil and grease" in the same
breath...LOL
Meanwhile WD-40 claims the ingredients are secret and nobody knows what is
in it.
http://www.lockpicking101.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1075&start=30
"Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Canada Ingredients:
Ingredient CAS Number Percent
Aliphatic Petroleum Distillates 64742-47-8
64742-88-7
45-50%
Petroleum Base Oil 64742-58-1
64742-53-6
64742-56-9
64742-65-0
30-35%
Non-Hazardous Ingredients Proprietary <10%
Surfactant Proprietary <2%
Carbon Dioxide 124-38-9 2-3%
USA Ingredients:
Ingredient
CAS #
Weight Percent
Aliphatic Hydrocarbon
64742-47-8
45-50
Petroleum Base Oil
64742-58-1
64742-53-6
64742-56-9
64742-65-0
<25
LVP Aliphatic Hydrocarbon
64742-47-8
12-18
Carbon Dioxide
124-38-9
2-3
Surfactant
Proprietary
<2
Non-Hazardous Ingredients
Mixture
<10
Kind of hard to figure out the "corrosive" agent in either!
Seems to be a Little Miss T'aint group here. Possibly all the same guy. Many
have the same name, though, apparently...LOL
Surprised he is still here. I haven't cleaned out my bozobin lately.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Mike, the "spam_master" got you.
Before you pop a blood vessel, put him in your "kill file", then grab
a brew to celebrate your accomplishment.<G>
Lew
Josepi wrote:
>
> WD-40 is corrosive as hell.
--------------------------
"Mike Marlow" wrote:
>
> Huh??? It's no lubricant (as many people think), but corrosive as
> hell? Not ture.
----------------------------------
Bill <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
> As I understand it, Lowes is switching over from Delta tools to
> Porter-Cable tools--this process seems to be happening at different
> speeds at different locales. I picked up the Delta 14" BS, as part of
> my store's clearance sale, new-in-box, for $150. I may pick up the
> Delta drill press (Model 17-959d) once I get my shop in order.
> Woodcraft and others offer it for $579--that seems to be the "minimum
> advertised price". My current electrical project is keeping me
> occupied, but I'll get a DP when I need it to drill mortises.
Does your local Lowes have the 17-959 on sale? I've been thinking about
upgrading my drill press (a $100 Ryobi benchtop) to something more
substantial. If yours does, maybe mine will too. (You're in Indy, right?
I'm left of Indy about 300 miles.)
I'll definately take a look next time I'm in there.
*snip*
>
> Bill
>
Puckdropper
--
Never teach your apprentice everything you know.
Bill <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> Puckdropper wrote:
>
>> Does your local Lowes have the 17-959 on sale? I've been thinking
>> about upgrading my drill press (a $100 Ryobi benchtop) to something
>> more substantial. If yours does, maybe mine will too. (You're in
>> Indy, right? I'm left of Indy about 300 miles.)
>
> No, Lowes carried the Delta 17-950 DP(at $400), not the 17-959. For
> the difference in their current prices, I think that choosing the
> 17-959 is a no-brainer. I was able to locate a 17-950 in a slightly
> damaged box at Lowes, and buy it for $175. It turned out the unit was
> badly damaged--must have been hit with a forklift, so I returned it
> the same day. A lot of aggravation for nothing (~260 pounds).
> Clearance units probably won't be priced at such a low price though,
> the department manager has discretion once items are "unlisted". I
> just mentioned that I knew Lowes was clearing them out and negotiated
> a little.
>
> I found out about the Delta clearance at sawmillcreek.org. They just
> started requiring a $6 annual "contribution", for membership, which is
> now required to look at their "Deals & Discounts" section--which is
> how I learned about the clearance above. I don't think I'd pay the $6
> just to look at that, as in general the pickings are slim, but they
> have a sub-forum focused on hand tools which I like.
>
> Yep, I'm still in Indy. I was out to St. Louis a few weeks ago. Are
> you in MO or IA?
>
> Bill
Ah... Your previous post lead me to believe they had the 17-959. No big
deal. (Still worth a look, though.)
I think SMC required the use of a real name on the site, something I'm
reluctant to do. Everything else I do on the internet is done with the
handle of Puckdropper, so why should one site be any different?
Boy, my distance estimate was off. It's only 200 miles to Indy.
Puckdroper
--
Never teach your apprentice everything you know.
Josepi wrote:
>
> WD-40 is corrosive as hell.
--------------------------
"Mike Marlow" wrote:
>
> Huh??? It's no lubricant (as many people think), but corrosive as
> hell? Not ture.
----------------------------------
Mike, the "spam_master" got you.
Before you pop a blood vessel, put him in your "kill file", then grab
a brew to celebrate your accomplishment.<G>
Lew
WD-40 is corrosive as hell.
The label is different in Canada. The lubricant properties has been removed
and who knows what else.
When it became popular years ago they bought it by the case and guys were
lubricating lock and hinges, everywhere with it. After many locks (all
brass-top quality) had to be replaced they took a few to a locksmith and
they cut them open. The tumblers were mostly eating right out of the locks
from the corrosive stuff.
Locksmith said it happens all the time. Not a protectant but an etchant and
very corrosive. Rinse with oil after usage.
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> I made several uses of my Starrett
>> combination square. Today was the first day I
>> used it, and the feeling of quality impressed me.
>
J. Clarke wrote:
> Do take some Boeshield or bowling alley wax or
> something to the head, and if you didn't get the stainless steel blade
> to the blade as well. It does rust if you let it.
I wiped some WD-40 on it before I put it away to wipe off my
fingerprints. I have some Johnson's paste wax. Do you think that would
be a more suitable protection?
Bill
Josepi wrote:
> WD-40 is corrosive as hell.
Huh??? It's no lubricant (as many people think), but corrosive as hell?
Not ture.
>
> The label is different in Canada. The lubricant properties has been
> removed and who knows what else.
It never had any lubricant properties.
> When it became popular years ago they bought it by the case and guys
> were lubricating lock and hinges, everywhere with it. After many
> locks (all brass-top quality) had to be replaced they took a few to a
> locksmith and they cut them open. The tumblers were mostly eating
> right out of the locks from the corrosive stuff.
Bull. This stuff is pure junk in my opinion, but to state that it eats up
tumblers just ignores the mountains of evidence to the contrary. The junk
is used everyday and it does do some work to clean up rusty or oxidized
surfaces, but it does not eat up brass or any other material. You might
want to submit a cite for your claim above.
>
> Locksmith said it happens all the time. Not a protectant but an
> etchant and very corrosive. Rinse with oil after usage.
>
Locksmiths use it all the time - for immediate relief of a problem. Not for
a long term lubricant. So - you found what - one locksmith that makes this
claim?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Josepi wrote:
>>
>> WD-40 is corrosive as hell.
> --------------------------
> "Mike Marlow" wrote:
>>
>> Huh??? It's no lubricant (as many people think), but corrosive as
>> hell? Not ture.
> ----------------------------------
> Mike, the "spam_master" got you.
>
> Before you pop a blood vessel, put him in your "kill file", then grab
> a brew to celebrate your accomplishment.<G>
>
ARGH!!! Sorry to all.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Puckdropper" <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bill <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>>
>> As I understand it, Lowes is switching over from Delta tools to
>> Porter-Cable tools--this process seems to be happening at different
>> speeds at different locales. I picked up the Delta 14" BS, as part of
>> my store's clearance sale, new-in-box, for $150. I may pick up the
>> Delta drill press (Model 17-959d) once I get my shop in order.
>> Woodcraft and others offer it for $579--that seems to be the "minimum
>> advertised price". My current electrical project is keeping me
>> occupied, but I'll get a DP when I need it to drill mortises.
>
> Does your local Lowes have the 17-959 on sale? I've been thinking about
> upgrading my drill press (a $100 Ryobi benchtop) to something more
> substantial. If yours does, maybe mine will too. (You're in Indy, right?
> I'm left of Indy about 300 miles.)
>
> I'll definately take a look next time I'm in there.
>
> *snip*
>
>>
>> Bill
>>
>
>
> Puckdropper
> --
> Never teach your apprentice everything you know.
Just to muddy the decision a bit, but have you looked at a used older
commercial/industrial machine?
I was looking for a drill press myself. I looked for a long time as the 3/4
HP Jet I had was getting me by. I finally ran accross a 1970's vintage
Powermatic 1200, for $600. The only down fall was the PM 1200 came with a 3
phase motor, but I had a spare Variable frquency drive laying around that
converted 240 single phase into the 208 3 phase the 1200 needed. Also the
motor could have been replaced with a single phase motor.
http://i734.photobucket.com/albums/ww343/PoorUB/Powermatic%201200/VFD.jpg
http://i734.photobucket.com/albums/ww343/PoorUB/Powermatic%201200/LRleftside.jpg
I looked for 2-3 years before this drill press came along, and I am sure I
am done looking!
Just something to consider!
Greg
On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 14:43:19 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> Geez, you've got a planer? With that you can have any thickness you
>> want. In Britain they call it a "thicknesser".
>>
>> If you have a bandsaw you can cut down on wastage though--resaw to
>> approximate thickness then fine-tune with the planer.
>
>Good idea. Thanks! I got a great deal on a BS I'm eager to assemble
>as soon as I'm done with this electrical project! : )
Which one? I'll likely buy a band saw after I get my shop done, or at least
usable. ...hopefully towards the end of the year. It'll probably be
September before I get any more done, though.
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 14:43:19 -0400, Bill<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> Geez, you've got a planer? With that you can have any thickness you
>>> want. In Britain they call it a "thicknesser".
>>>
>>> If you have a bandsaw you can cut down on wastage though--resaw to
>>> approximate thickness then fine-tune with the planer.
>>
>> Good idea. Thanks! I got a great deal on a BS I'm eager to assemble
>> as soon as I'm done with this electrical project! : )
>
> Which one? I'll likely buy a band saw after I get my shop done, or at least
> usable. ...hopefully towards the end of the year.
As I understand it, Lowes is switching over from Delta tools to
Porter-Cable tools--this process seems to be happening at different
speeds at different locales. I picked up the Delta 14" BS, as part of
my store's clearance sale, new-in-box, for $150. I may pick up the Delta
drill press (Model 17-959d) once I get my shop in order. Woodcraft and
others offer it for $579--that seems to be the "minimum advertised
price". My current electrical project is keeping me occupied, but I'll
get a DP when I need it to drill mortises.
I installed almost all of my 11 new electrical boxes today. The simple
fixture I made yesterday from 1/2" stock worked well. I used a specially
cut 2by4 as an additional fixture to establish uniform height and I
stacked 3/32" thickness of paper on it to account for 3/16" difference
in box height where necessary. I made several uses of my Starrett
combination square that I got for Christmas. Today was the first day I
used it, and the feeling of quality impressed me. My 3/32" stack of
paper truly was.
I squandered a lot of time on one box that I didn't fit at 90 degrees to
the stud (those nail holes have a lot of memory). I ended up replacing
it with a metal box w/bracket. I have to say I am impressed with the
quality that is built into the metal box w/bracket.
Swingman: You are right, making jigs/fixtures is most satisfying.
I took a picture today which you may appreciate. I'll post it after I
make significant progress.
I wish you all a fine Independence Day, whatever you do to celebrate it.
The UPS man arrived with 3 boxes of 48" rockets with 1/2" dowels today! :)
Bill
Bill wrote:
> I squandered a lot of time on one box that I didn't fit at 90 degrees to
> the stud (those nail holes have a lot of memory).
Actually, I didn't fit it at 90 degrees to the "face" of the stud--I
introduced some "curl" (bad!).
Effective writing for this forum requires a good bit of thought sometimes!
Bill
On 7/4/2010 4:25 AM, Bill wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 14:43:19 -0400, Bill<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>>> Geez, you've got a planer? With that you can have any thickness you
>>>> want. In Britain they call it a "thicknesser".
>>>>
>>>> If you have a bandsaw you can cut down on wastage though--resaw to
>>>> approximate thickness then fine-tune with the planer.
>>>
>>> Good idea. Thanks! I got a great deal on a BS I'm eager to assemble
>>> as soon as I'm done with this electrical project! : )
>>
>> Which one? I'll likely buy a band saw after I get my shop done, or at
>> least
>> usable. ...hopefully towards the end of the year.
>
> As I understand it, Lowes is switching over from Delta tools to
> Porter-Cable tools--this process seems to be happening at different
> speeds at different locales. I picked up the Delta 14" BS, as part of my
> store's clearance sale, new-in-box, for $150.
That's a good price. If there was that kind of deal when I was shopping
I'd have certainly gone that way.
> I may pick up the Delta
> drill press (Model 17-959d) once I get my shop in order. Woodcraft and
> others offer it for $579--that seems to be the "minimum advertised
> price". My current electrical project is keeping me occupied, but I'll
> get a DP when I need it to drill mortises.
>
> I installed almost all of my 11 new electrical boxes today. The simple
> fixture I made yesterday from 1/2" stock worked well. I used a specially
> cut 2by4 as an additional fixture to establish uniform height and I
> stacked 3/32" thickness of paper on it to account for 3/16" difference
> in box height where necessary. I made several uses of my Starrett
> combination square that I got for Christmas. Today was the first day I
> used it, and the feeling of quality impressed me.
That is a superb tool. I got one backalong when I realized that my
cheap combination square wasn't even close to square and was getting
less so every time I used it. Do take some Boeshield or bowling alley
wax or something to the head, and if you didn't get the stainless steel
blade to the blade as well. It does rust if you let it.
> My 3/32" stack of
> paper truly was.
>
> I squandered a lot of time on one box that I didn't fit at 90 degrees to
> the stud (those nail holes have a lot of memory). I ended up replacing
> it with a metal box w/bracket. I have to say I am impressed with the
> quality that is built into the metal box w/bracket.
>
>
> Swingman: You are right, making jigs/fixtures is most satisfying.
> I took a picture today which you may appreciate. I'll post it after I
> make significant progress.
>
> I wish you all a fine Independence Day, whatever you do to celebrate it.
> The UPS man arrived with 3 boxes of 48" rockets with 1/2" dowels today! :)
>
> Bill
>
Puckdropper wrote:
> Does your local Lowes have the 17-959 on sale? I've been thinking about
> upgrading my drill press (a $100 Ryobi benchtop) to something more
> substantial. If yours does, maybe mine will too. (You're in Indy, right?
> I'm left of Indy about 300 miles.)
No, Lowes carried the Delta 17-950 DP(at $400), not the 17-959. For the
difference in their current prices, I think that choosing the 17-959 is
a no-brainer. I was able to locate a 17-950 in a slightly damaged box at
Lowes, and buy it for $175. It turned out the unit was badly
damaged--must have been hit with a forklift, so I returned it the same
day. A lot of aggravation for nothing (~260 pounds). Clearance units
probably won't be priced at such a low price though, the department
manager has discretion once items are "unlisted". I just mentioned that
I knew Lowes was clearing them out and negotiated a little.
I found out about the Delta clearance at sawmillcreek.org. They just
started requiring a $6 annual "contribution", for membership, which is
now required to look at their "Deals & Discounts" section--which is how
I learned about the clearance above. I don't think I'd pay the $6 just
to look at that, as in general the pickings are slim, but they have a
sub-forum focused on hand tools which I like.
Yep, I'm still in Indy. I was out to St. Louis a few weeks ago. Are
you in MO or IA?
Bill
>> I made several uses of my Starrett
>> combination square. Today was the first day I
>> used it, and the feeling of quality impressed me.
>
J. Clarke wrote:
> Do take some Boeshield or bowling alley wax or
> something to the head, and if you didn't get the stainless steel blade
> to the blade as well. It does rust if you let it.
I wiped some WD-40 on it before I put it away to wipe off my
fingerprints. I have some Johnson's paste wax. Do you think that would
be a more suitable protection?
Bill
On 7/4/2010 5:14 PM, Bill wrote:
>
>>> I made several uses of my Starrett
>>> combination square. Today was the first day I
>>> used it, and the feeling of quality impressed me.
>>
>
>
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> Do take some Boeshield or bowling alley wax or
>> something to the head, and if you didn't get the stainless steel blade
>> to the blade as well. It does rust if you let it.
>
>
>
> I wiped some WD-40 on it before I put it away to wipe off my
> fingerprints. I have some Johnson's paste wax. Do you think that would
> be a more suitable protection?
WD-40 is not highly regarded. Johnson's paste wax is far better as a
protectant. But you might want to pick up a can of Boeshield next time
you're in Sears. It'll cost you 20 bucks but if you've got tools with
cast iron tables it's worth it and that can will last you for years.
J. Clarke wrote:
> WD-40 is not highly regarded. Johnson's paste wax is far better as a
> protectant. But you might want to pick up a can of Boeshield next time
> you're in Sears. It'll cost you 20 bucks but if you've got tools with
> cast iron tables it's worth it and that can will last you for years.
>
Will do. Thanks!
In article <[email protected]>, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>I wiped some WD-40 on it before I put it away to wipe off my
>fingerprints. I have some Johnson's paste wax. Do you think that would
>be a more suitable protection?
Johnson's paste wax is certainly better protection than WD-40, but it may not
be enough. You and I have the same climate, obviously, and I have found
Johnson's to be quite sufficient -- but my shop is in the basement, with
dehumidifiers running year-round. If you don't have a dehumidifier in your
shop, you may need something stronger. Another frequent contributor here,
Leon, is in Houston, and he's found paste wax to be totally inadequate. Of
course, Houston is just a bit more humid than Indy, and he has airborne salt
to contend with besides.
Josepi wrote:
> WD-40 is corrosive as hell.
>
> The label is different in Canada. The lubricant properties has been removed
> and who knows what else.
>
> Locksmith said it happens all the time. Not a protectant but an etchant and
> very corrosive. Rinse with oil after usage.
>
>
Thank you for the heads-up. I'm sure I could have waited, but after
reading that I didn't read the next thread before I cleaned up my
combination square with SAE-30. I'll look for Boeshield.
Bill
Puckdropper wrote:
> I think SMC required the use of a real name on the site, something I'm
> reluctant to do. Everything else I do on the internet is done with the
> handle of Puckdropper, so why should one site be any different?
I think "real name" is a relative thing; maybe you have an alias? I
think SMC is mainly trying to cut down on the number of people who might
attempt to spam its site.
"Puckdropper" <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bill <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> Puckdropper wrote:
>>
>>> Does your local Lowes have the 17-959 on sale? I've been thinking
>>> about upgrading my drill press (a $100 Ryobi benchtop) to something
>>> more substantial. If yours does, maybe mine will too. (You're in
>>> Indy, right? I'm left of Indy about 300 miles.)
>>
>> No, Lowes carried the Delta 17-950 DP(at $400), not the 17-959. For
>> the difference in their current prices, I think that choosing the
>> 17-959 is a no-brainer. I was able to locate a 17-950 in a slightly
>> damaged box at Lowes, and buy it for $175. It turned out the unit was
>> badly damaged--must have been hit with a forklift, so I returned it
>> the same day. A lot of aggravation for nothing (~260 pounds).
>> Clearance units probably won't be priced at such a low price though,
>> the department manager has discretion once items are "unlisted". I
>> just mentioned that I knew Lowes was clearing them out and negotiated
>> a little.
>>
>> I found out about the Delta clearance at sawmillcreek.org. They just
>> started requiring a $6 annual "contribution", for membership, which is
>> now required to look at their "Deals & Discounts" section--which is
>> how I learned about the clearance above. I don't think I'd pay the $6
>> just to look at that, as in general the pickings are slim, but they
>> have a sub-forum focused on hand tools which I like.
>>
>> Yep, I'm still in Indy. I was out to St. Louis a few weeks ago. Are
>> you in MO or IA?
>>
>> Bill
>
> Ah... Your previous post lead me to believe they had the 17-959. No big
> deal. (Still worth a look, though.)
>
> I think SMC required the use of a real name on the site, something I'm
> reluctant to do. Everything else I do on the internet is done with the
> handle of Puckdropper, so why should one site be any different?
Usually if you have a real e-mail address, that is sufficient. I've had a
throw away e-mail account for Lobby Dosser for the past ten years or so. He
gets a Bunch of spam! But it is a Real name as far as a number of companies
are concerned.
"Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:P_bYn.8485$3%[email protected]...
> WD-40 is corrosive as hell.
>
> The label is different in Canada. The lubricant properties has been
> removed
> and who knows what else.
> When it became popular years ago they bought it by the case and guys were
> lubricating lock and hinges, everywhere with it. After many locks (all
> brass-top quality) had to be replaced they took a few to a locksmith and
> they cut them open. The tumblers were mostly eating right out of the locks
> from the corrosive stuff.
>
> Locksmith said it happens all the time. Not a protectant but an etchant
> and
> very corrosive. Rinse with oil after usage.
>
>
> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>> I made several uses of my Starrett
>>> combination square. Today was the first day I
>>> used it, and the feeling of quality impressed me.
>>
>
>
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> Do take some Boeshield or bowling alley wax or
>> something to the head, and if you didn't get the stainless steel blade
>> to the blade as well. It does rust if you let it.
>
>
>
> I wiped some WD-40 on it before I put it away to wipe off my
> fingerprints. I have some Johnson's paste wax. Do you think that would
> be a more suitable protection?
>
> Bill
>
>
Canada Ingredients:
Ingredient CAS Number Percent
Aliphatic Petroleum Distillates 64742-47-8
64742-88-7
45-50%
Petroleum Base Oil 64742-58-1
64742-53-6
64742-56-9
64742-65-0
30-35%
Non-Hazardous Ingredients Proprietary <10%
Surfactant Proprietary <2%
Carbon Dioxide 124-38-9 2-3%
USA Ingredients:
Ingredient
CAS #
Weight Percent
Aliphatic Hydrocarbon
64742-47-8
45-50
Petroleum Base Oil
64742-58-1
64742-53-6
64742-56-9
64742-65-0
<25
LVP Aliphatic Hydrocarbon
64742-47-8
12-18
Carbon Dioxide
124-38-9
2-3
Surfactant
Proprietary
<2
Non-Hazardous Ingredients
Mixture
<10
Kind of hard to figure out the "corrosive" agent in either!
In article <[email protected]>, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>Josepi wrote:
>> WD-40 is corrosive as hell.
>>
>> The label is different in Canada. The lubricant properties has been removed
>> and who knows what else.
>>
>> Locksmith said it happens all the time. Not a protectant but an etchant and
>> very corrosive. Rinse with oil after usage.
>>
>>
>
>Thank you for the heads-up.
Don't thank him, Bill, he doesn't know what he's talking about. WD-40 is *not*
corrosive, as anybody who's ever used it knows. Josepi is a troll; he's best
ignored.
On 7/5/2010 6:29 PM, Josepi wrote:
> Yes and the ingredients and labels have changed over the years. The US can
> **used** to say "lubricates" on the front and the Canuck can didn't.
>
> Now, I see, none of the cans state "lubricates" on the front.
>
> Pretty hard to state "lubricates" and "removes oil and grease" in the same
> breath...LOL
>
> Meanwhile WD-40 claims the ingredients are secret and nobody knows what is
> in it.
>
> http://www.lockpicking101.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1075&start=30
>
>
> "Lobby Dosser"<[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> Canada Ingredients:
> Ingredient CAS Number Percent
> Aliphatic Petroleum Distillates 64742-47-8
> 64742-88-7
> 45-50%
> Petroleum Base Oil 64742-58-1
> 64742-53-6
> 64742-56-9
> 64742-65-0
> 30-35%
> Non-Hazardous Ingredients Proprietary<10%
> Surfactant Proprietary<2%
> Carbon Dioxide 124-38-9 2-3%
>
> USA Ingredients:
> Ingredient
> CAS #
> Weight Percent
> Aliphatic Hydrocarbon
> 64742-47-8
> 45-50
> Petroleum Base Oil
> 64742-58-1
> 64742-53-6
> 64742-56-9
> 64742-65-0
> <25
> LVP Aliphatic Hydrocarbon
> 64742-47-8
> 12-18
> Carbon Dioxide
> 124-38-9
> 2-3
> Surfactant
> Proprietary
> <2
> Non-Hazardous Ingredients
> Mixture
> <10
>
> Kind of hard to figure out the "corrosive" agent in either!
I've got a can of "Sprayon 708" Teflon lubricant. According to the MSDS
it contains propane, heptane, and isopropyl alcohol. Anything it
touches quickly turns to rust (fortunately I found that out before I
used it on anything expensive). There's obviously something or other in
it that's not listed on the MSDS (Teflon, for one thing, unless they're
lying about that).
>
>
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 7/5/2010 6:29 PM, Josepi wrote:
>> Yes and the ingredients and labels have changed over the years. The US
>> can
>> **used** to say "lubricates" on the front and the Canuck can didn't.
>>
>> Now, I see, none of the cans state "lubricates" on the front.
>>
>> Pretty hard to state "lubricates" and "removes oil and grease" in the
>> same
>> breath...LOL
>>
>> Meanwhile WD-40 claims the ingredients are secret and nobody knows what
>> is
>> in it.
>>
>> http://www.lockpicking101.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1075&start=30
>>
>>
>> "Lobby Dosser"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Canada Ingredients:
>> Ingredient CAS Number Percent
>> Aliphatic Petroleum Distillates 64742-47-8
>> 64742-88-7
>> 45-50%
>> Petroleum Base Oil 64742-58-1
>> 64742-53-6
>> 64742-56-9
>> 64742-65-0
>> 30-35%
>> Non-Hazardous Ingredients Proprietary<10%
>> Surfactant Proprietary<2%
>> Carbon Dioxide 124-38-9 2-3%
>>
>> USA Ingredients:
>> Ingredient
>> CAS #
>> Weight Percent
>> Aliphatic Hydrocarbon
>> 64742-47-8
>> 45-50
>> Petroleum Base Oil
>> 64742-58-1
>> 64742-53-6
>> 64742-56-9
>> 64742-65-0
>> <25
>> LVP Aliphatic Hydrocarbon
>> 64742-47-8
>> 12-18
>> Carbon Dioxide
>> 124-38-9
>> 2-3
>> Surfactant
>> Proprietary
>> <2
>> Non-Hazardous Ingredients
>> Mixture
>> <10
>>
>> Kind of hard to figure out the "corrosive" agent in either!
>
> I've got a can of "Sprayon 708" Teflon lubricant. According to the MSDS
> it contains propane, heptane, and isopropyl alcohol. Anything it touches
> quickly turns to rust (fortunately I found that out before I used it on
> anything expensive). There's obviously something or other in it that's
> not listed on the MSDS (Teflon, for one thing, unless they're lying about
> that).
I doubt they can get away with outright lies, but it would not surprise me
that stuff is being left out when an MSDS is created.
Bill <[email protected]> writes:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 14:43:19 -0400, Bill<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>>> Geez, you've got a planer? With that you can have any thickness you
>>>> want. In Britain they call it a "thicknesser".
>>>>
>>>> If you have a bandsaw you can cut down on wastage though--resaw to
>>>> approximate thickness then fine-tune with the planer.
>>>
>>> Good idea. Thanks! I got a great deal on a BS I'm eager to assemble
>>> as soon as I'm done with this electrical project! : )
>>
>> Which one? I'll likely buy a band saw after I get my shop done, or at least
>> usable. ...hopefully towards the end of the year.
>
>As I understand it, Lowes is switching over from Delta tools to
>Porter-Cable tools--this process seems to be happening at different
Delta == Porter Cable (http://www.deltaportercable.com/)
>speeds at different locales. I picked up the Delta 14" BS, as part of
>my store's clearance sale, new-in-box, for $150.
That is a good deal.
scott
In article <[email protected]>, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>Salesfolk at two different BORGs tell me that 6-3 nm-b romex cable is
>suitable as a "feeder cable" for 60 AMP service, even though the charts
>indicate that it is only suitable for a 55 Amp device. I would not put
>circuits greater than 30 Amp on the subpanel under this configuration.
>
>I have 2 questions I would appreciate opinions on:
>
>1) Is the 6-3 Romex cable suitable for a feeder cable as described?
Yes, it is. When the rated ampacity of a conductor as given in the charts in
the NEC does not match a standard breaker rating (e.g. 55-amp rating, which
falls between the standard breaker ratings 50 and 60 amps), the Code
explicitly permits using the next-higher standard breaker size. [2005 NEC,
Article 240.4(B)]
>
>2) I noticed this cable appears to be 3/4" in diameter. What is the
>minimum hole size I would need to bore though studs to properly
>accommodate it?
Bore 3/4" and 7/8" holes in a piece of scrap two-by and test. I think you're
probably going to need 7/8" for this to slip through easily.
>Is just big enough to get the cable through big enough?
No. Just big enough to get the cable through _without damaging it_ is big
enough. :-)
In article <[email protected]>, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>Bill wrote:
>> 1) Is the 6-3 Romex cable suitable for a feeder cable as described?
>
>
>I found the following,and thought it was insightful. The way that I
>interpret it, using only 2-pole breakers might raise the effective
>ampacity of a "50 Amp subpanel" to 100 Amps (of course this ignores the
>extra heat generated by having 2 hot wires "filled" at the same time).
>Is there any fruit to be picked here?
No. the fruit you're comparing are apples and oranges. A two-pole 50A breaker
supplies one 50A circuit at 240V = 12kVA. This is exactly the same as two 50A
circuits at 120V = 2 * 6kVA = 12kVA.
This has nothing at all to do with whether your 6/3 cable can be protected by
a 60A breaker (it can).
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 14:38:19 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Nova wrote:
>>> Bill wrote:
>>>> Update:
>>>>
>>>> Following my installation of my "dummy" electrical outlet
>>>> yesterday, I learned I like the receptacle box to stick out
>>>> exactly 1/2" passed the stud. I went to two different Borgs
>>>> looking for a small piece of 1/2" pine or equivalent to use as a
>>>> sort of fixture--but to my surprise, there was none in sight (I
>>>> prefer not to use plywood due to personal sensitivities to the
>>>> glue dust, et. al., YMMV).
>>>>
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> For "new" electrical installations I prefer to use the depth
>>> adjustable boxes similar to :
>>>
>>> http://www.homedepot.com/Electrical-Electrical-Boxes-Conduit-Fittings-Boxes-Brackets/Carlon/h_d1/N-5yc1vZ1xhuZbohnZ2dq/R-100315472/h_d2/ProductDisplay?langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053
>>>
>>
>> Those look handy!
>
> I guess if you think $4.30 for a $.30 box is handy. ;-)
That's what I was thinking. Man - that's one expensive box.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 14:38:19 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>Nova wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>> Update:
>>>
>>> Following my installation of my "dummy" electrical outlet yesterday, I
>>> learned I like the receptacle box to stick out exactly 1/2" passed the
>>> stud. I went to two different Borgs looking for a small piece of 1/2"
>>> pine or equivalent to use as a sort of fixture--but to my surprise,
>>> there was none in sight (I prefer not to use plywood due to personal
>>> sensitivities to the glue dust, et. al., YMMV).
>>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> For "new" electrical installations I prefer to use the depth adjustable
>> boxes similar to :
>>
>> http://www.homedepot.com/Electrical-Electrical-Boxes-Conduit-Fittings-Boxes-Brackets/Carlon/h_d1/N-5yc1vZ1xhuZbohnZ2dq/R-100315472/h_d2/ProductDisplay?langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053
>>
>
>Those look handy!
I guess if you think $4.30 for a $.30 box is handy. ;-)
On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 14:37:37 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>Mike Marlow wrote:
>
>> I snipped your afternoon's pleasure with the power tools Bill, but thought I
>> might share with you that your boxes have indicators on them for various
>> thicknesses of sheetrock. Just hold the up to the right indicator and mount
>> them.
>>
>
>Yes, my 20.3 in^3 boxes have small lines at 1/4", 3/8", etc. but using
>them won't be as accurate as my fixture. I have not developed the
>trained eye that you have (in fact, my vision is not perfect). My 30.4
>double-gang boxes are marked at 3/8" (not 1/2")--and all of one ones at
>the store (Menards) seemed to be. I was actually going to go with metal
>boxes but my uncle talked me into plastic. The outlets look differently
>at 7/16" and 1/2", and as I'm going to have 22 outlets on two walls, I'm
>striving for consistency. If they don't go up the way I want, I'll get
>different ones.
The boxes I've used have tangs on the back set back 1/2". These go against
the front of the two-by and then the nails get driven home. When the
sheetrock goes up and the wall plates attached, everything looks fine.
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>, Bill<[email protected]> wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>> 1) Is the 6-3 Romex cable suitable for a feeder cable as described?
>>
>>
>> I found the following,and thought it was insightful. The way that I
>> interpret it, using only 2-pole breakers might raise the effective
>> ampacity of a "50 Amp subpanel" to 100 Amps (of course this ignores the
>> extra heat generated by having 2 hot wires "filled" at the same time).
>> Is there any fruit to be picked here?
>
> No. the fruit you're comparing are apples and oranges. A two-pole 50A breaker
> supplies one 50A circuit at 240V = 12kVA. This is exactly the same as two 50A
> circuits at 120V = 2 * 6kVA = 12kVA.
I mostly get it (the units kVA are new to me). The lesson here appears
to be that if I add two 15A 120v devices, than I should put one on each
side/leg, and that I should give some thought as to how devices may be
used in combination as I add breakers for them. I have never thought
this through to this level before (and it's good timing too). TYVM!
Bill
In article <[email protected]>, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>Wiring running straight through a wall, at 90 degree angles to the
>studs, doesn't need to be stapled ("every 4 1/2 feet") since it is
>supported by the studs, correct?
If by "running straight through a wall" you mean "running through holes bored
in the studs" then yes, that's correct.
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 17:14:19 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote the
following:
>
>>> I made several uses of my Starrett
>>> combination square. Today was the first day I
>>> used it, and the feeling of quality impressed me.
>>
>
>
>J. Clarke wrote:
>> Do take some Boeshield or bowling alley wax or
>> something to the head, and if you didn't get the stainless steel blade
>> to the blade as well. It does rust if you let it.
>
>
>
>I wiped some WD-40 on it before I put it away to wipe off my
>fingerprints. I have some Johnson's paste wax. Do you think that would
>be a more suitable protection?
Yeah, I like waxing my, erm, I mean Johnson's paste wax. Some reviews
show that there is no help from it whatsoever, but I've seen it work,
so it's good enough for me. Go for it!
--
It's also helpful to realize that this very body that we have, that's
sitting right here right now, with its aches and its pleasures, is
exactly what we need to be fully human, fully awake, fully alive.
-- Pema Chodron
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 17:14:19 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> I made several uses of my Starrett
>>> combination square. Today was the first day I
>>> used it, and the feeling of quality impressed me.
>>
>
>
>J. Clarke wrote:
>> Do take some Boeshield or bowling alley wax or
>> something to the head, and if you didn't get the stainless steel blade
>> to the blade as well. It does rust if you let it.
>
>
>
>I wiped some WD-40 on it before I put it away to wipe off my
>fingerprints. I have some Johnson's paste wax. Do you think that would
>be a more suitable protection?
I second the Boeshield recommendation. You're going to need it for your
bandsaw table anyway. DOn't use anything meant for cars on your woodworking
tools. A lot of the stuff is death on unfinished wood. Boeshield if fine.
I measured and cut 1by8 into a 65" running board, using an antique hand
saw for posterity. I hammered three 7d (2 1/4") nails into each end and
when I nailed it to the roof joists, the roof joists in between the ones
on the ends were each 1/8" to 1/2" away from the board. That could have
worked out far worse, but I ended up using 6 nails instead of the 15 I
had planned. It occurred to met that when I nail staples into the board
it may be wise support it from behind. I'm having about as much fun as
Lew could wish for me to have under such warm circumstances! No one
would want to be paying me by the hour, I just came in to look something
up...
Bill
Mike Marlow wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>> I measured and cut 1by8 into a 65" running board, using an antique
>> hand saw for posterity. I hammered three 7d (2 1/4") nails into each
>> end and when I nailed it to the roof joists, the roof joists in
>> between the ones on the ends were each 1/8" to 1/2" away from the
>> board. That could have worked out far worse, but I ended up using 6
>> nails instead of the 15 I had planned.
>
> Stick a couple of nails in every other joist - not just the ends. You won't
> have to worry about a springy board then.
Okay, that means just one more joist. I just checked and hand pressure
will just about close the 3/8" gap there, so a few size 7d nails surely
will.
I'll try to post a couple pictures on my web page that I took with my
wife's camera just for fun. This was just the 2nd time I've used the
camera in 5 years so don't allow your expectations to get too high! :)
Thank you!
Bill
Bill wrote:
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>
>> No - I'm just trying to help you do it the best way.
>>
>
> I'm surely not doing this as a "know-it-all", and I appreciate your
> insight. My metal box is 4x4x2 1/8 (the rest of my boxes are
> plastic). I am going to install a pair of duplex outlets in it.
> I've knocked-out two 3/4" diameter holes in the back, and I only plan
> to run 8" of #12-2 romex cable through them. You wouldn't recommend I
> take this box down, would you? I certainly will if there are any
> safety concerns. I intend to leave that box, unmodified, forever.
The best laid plans of mice and man... and all that stuff. You don't have
to take the box down, you could just insert plugs into the holes you've
already knocked out. If you knocked out the 3/4" holes, you knocked out too
much hole. The 1/2" holes are all you needed to knock out.
> The romex connectors do not thread into the box but are only secured
> by the "nut" inside the box, correct?
>
That is correct Bill.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Bill wrote:
>
> I installed (2):
> "Clamp Connector for NM Cable, Size: 3/8", Dim: 1/2" ko".
> The actual diameter of the hole in the metal box, as measured with my
> rule is 3/4", though, if I understand correctly, I believe you refer
> to these as 1/2" (perhaps because you can fit up to 1/2" romex cable
> through it?).
>
Close - because they will take a 1/2" clamp.
> The ONLY holes on my box of the size above are on the back of the box.
> The rest of the holes in the box have 1" diameter. I would presume
> that you would refer to these as 3/4" holes.
>
> Please let me know if I'm getting it or not, and whether my existing
> configuration is okay! :)
>
To go back a couple of steps Bill - you can hit the box from the rear,
especially with a deep box like you're using. It's just not the easiest way
to have gone about it. I'm just curious why you chose to stick a metal box
there when you had used plastic everywhere else.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Yup. Find the unfastened side of the K.O> and place the blade of your
screwdriver (red handled Robertson here LOL) and give it a wack with your
hammer or or palm. When it's sticking out the back grab it with a long nose
pliers from the outside and twist it until it breaks off. Now you need to
get a strain relief into the hole and a cablein the back.
OTOH. You typically do not want to come into the back of a receptical box.
The cable conductors will be aiming directly at the back of the receptical
and have to be bent on a hard 90 degree turn to get the receptical in. If
you have to put a dimmer or other large device in the box you may not get it
in without wire damage.
The end of the box is the best entrance and the easiest to install.
Ohh and there is no T.K.O. in this one. Give it one good crack.
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Could you do it with only 1.75" inches behind the box to work with?
IIRC, the little welded "button" in on left, next to the stud.
I put that box up like it was never coming down...
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> Old screw driver and a hammer. That's why they call them knock-outs. :)
> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> What is the popular way to remove knock-outs from the back of a metal
>> electric receptacle box after it is nailed up? I have almost 2" of
>> free space behind the box.
>>
>> The best idea Ive come up with on my own so far is to put a piece of
>> wood across the face of the box, and use a C-clamp to try to push out
>> the knock-out. Maybe a few very small washers to help direct the force
>> to where I need it most.
>>
>> Now, what is the "right" way? :)
>>
>> Bill
>
Bill wrote:
>
> As soon as I got home, I took another look at the electrical box. The
> most appropriate sized holes for a 12-2 cable, 3/8" radius, were all
> on the back of the box.
Ok Bill - take this as a fact. Don't think about it and don't argue - hit
the box from the top or the bottom. Those knock outs are appropriately
sized for your 12/2 wire. They were designed by people who know much more
about this than...
>
> I took a 3" C-clamp, and a small piece of one-by and pushed-in
> connector ports on the back (2 corners), quite handily. This did
> not put any force on the connection to the stud either (as using a
> screwdriver undoubtedly would have). The connectors were easy to fit
> and it will be easy to pull 8" of cable through.
Whatever...
>
> Mike, Maybe you read 1.75" as .75"? The romex clamp sticks out, at
> most, 3/4", no?
>
No - I'm just trying to help you do it the best way. You can think your way
through this all you want, but don't you think these things have been
figured out by a lot of people who know what they are doing, long ago?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Bill wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>> Mike Marlow wrote:
>>
>>>> Could you do it with only 1.75" inches behind the box to work with?
>>>> IIRC, the little welded "button" in on left, next to the stud.
>>>> I put that box up like it was never coming down...
>>>
>>> Why are you trying to knock out the back of the box? It's much
>>> easier to hit it from the top or the bottom. If you do knock it
>>> out, how to you propose to get a romex clamp on them?
>>
>
>
> I think some of the confusion came from the fact that my sub-panel's
> directions said to "hit" at the little tab/button, and for electrical
> boxes it appears to be just the opposite. I think we're gonna have
> 'lectric in a few days folks!
>
> Bill
Clarification in terms here Bill - we talk about "hitting" a box, or a
panel, or whatever, as the point where the wire enters. It's not a literal
hit. So when we use the term hit, we are not talking about striking
something.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Bill wrote:
> Mike Marlow wrote:
> if
>> you're going to do this stuff, and accept what is established as
>> acceptable, without applying your own sense of reasoning to each
>> step of this process. Your ideas are not bad ideas, but you are
>> re-inventing wheels that have long been invented. You go overboard
>> in the things you do. You would really benefit yourself if you
>> spent the time to learn the realities of electrical work, and not
>> rely so much on the ideas in your head.
>
> Perhaps best if you don't seek a career in science thinking like
> that... I'll tell ya what, why don't we respect each others'
> processes. In my field, if you don't go "overboard", you don't get
> anything.
> We have to go pretty far overboard to get much at all.
> Just saying.
Point taken, but are you dabbling in science practices now, or electrical
practices?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 01:19:05 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote the following:
>Josepi wrote:
>
>> WD-40 is corrosive as hell.
>
>Huh??? It's no lubricant (as many people think), but corrosive as hell?
>Not ture.
PDFTFT
--
It's also helpful to realize that this very body that we have, that's
sitting right here right now, with its aches and its pleasures, is
exactly what we need to be fully human, fully awake, fully alive.
-- Pema Chodron
Bill wrote:
<more stuff than anyone else who has ever posted electrical questions
here...>
Bill - you have to get a grip here. You've asked a ton of questions that
would have been addressed by books that have been recommended to you. It
seems you have not read them. Each step of the way you are proposing things
that we challenge and offer advice on. This will go on ad-nauseum. At some
point you have to take the responsibility to actually learn how to wire, if
you're going to do this stuff, and accept what is established as acceptable,
without applying your own sense of reasoning to each step of this process.
Your ideas are not bad ideas, but you are re-inventing wheels that have long
been invented. You go overboard in the things you do. You would really
benefit yourself if you spent the time to learn the realities of electrical
work, and not rely so much on the ideas in your head. Hire yourself an
electrician, and learn from him. Don't tell him what you think should be -
listen to him. You'll learn a great deal that way.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Bill wrote:
> Doug Miller wrote:
>>
>> Closer, but still not quite on the mark -- it's because they are
>> sized for 1/2" conduit.
>
>
> Hmmm.... This seems to imply that my #10-2 romex cables will require
> a larger connector at the panel (3/4")?
>
It in no way implies that. Not even sure how you draw that conclusion Bill.
You are talking about Romex and Doug was speaking about conduit. A world
apart.
> After noticing how "interwoven" the existing 6-3 NM-B cable was (that
> was once used for a 50-Amp welding circuit) with the other wires, I
> decided to leave it in place and use it as a feeder into my sub-panel.
> I already replaced its 50 Amp circuit breaker with a 60 Amp circuit
> breaker (a small step for many readers here, but a big step for Bill).
> The directions helped to make it effortless. That experience will be
> helpful to me when I install my new circuits. Is it an oversight that
> I did not cut and re-strip the wires (directions did not suggest
> doing so)?
Cut and re-strip? Only if you need to. Not sure what you're trying to say
here Bill.
>
> The main question I had about this cable, one related to connectors,
> is about its plastic "cube-shaped" (on the outside of the panel)
> connector. The connector is the same as the one used for the kitchen
> stove (50 Amp circuit-breaker). I bought a 1" connector for attaching
> the 6-3 NM-B to the subpanel, but I wonder whether I should be
> considering one like I described above? Thank you for any knowledge
> you are willing to share concerning this!
>
Huh???
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Yup. Find the unfastened side of the K.O> and place the blade of your
screwdriver (red handled Robertson here LOL) and give it a wack with your
hammer or or palm. When it's sticking out the back grab it with a long nose
pliers from the outside and twist it until it breaks off. Now you need to
get a strain relief into the hole and a cablein the back.
OTOH. You typically do not want to come into the back of a receptical box.
The cable conductors will be aiming directly at the back of the receptical
and have to be bent on a hard 90 degree turn to get the receptical in. If
you have to put a dimmer or other large device in the box you may not get it
in without wire damage.
The end of the box is the best entrance and the easiest to install.
Ohh and there is no T.K.O. in this one. Give it one good crack.
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Could you do it with only 1.75" inches behind the box to work with?
IIRC, the little welded "button" in on left, next to the stud.
I put that box up like it was never coming down...
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> Old screw driver and a hammer. That's why they call them knock-outs. :)
> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> What is the popular way to remove knock-outs from the back of a metal
>> electric receptacle box after it is nailed up? I have almost 2" of
>> free space behind the box.
>>
>> The best idea Ive come up with on my own so far is to put a piece of
>> wood across the face of the box, and use a C-clamp to try to push out
>> the knock-out. Maybe a few very small washers to help direct the force
>> to where I need it most.
>>
>> Now, what is the "right" way? :)
>>
>> Bill
>
Home Depot has small packs of 5 pc. for less than a few dollars in
Canuckistan
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Just a note of caution on a common gotcha: A safety concern, and enough
to be a code violation in many locales, is leaving unused knock outs
that have been removed, unplugged ... you may get a chimney effect in
event of an arc that can theoretically allow a fire to spread to
adjacent walls and studs more quickly.
In the old days, an electrician's "shuckin' party" used to consist of
the whole crew sitting around a pile of boxes and knocking out plugs
before mounting them ... now that used holes have to be plugged, you
don't see this anymore.
It can get expensive to rectify when a buyer's third party inspector
gigs you for this infraction when you go to sell a house.
DAMHIKT.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"Luigi Zanasi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:e0e87110-2094-47b8-993a-64c82ed0906b@u36g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 5, 8:05 am, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Wd-40's great for what it was designed for, displacing
>> moisture, and
>> moderately useful as a handy solvent for cleaning a metal
>> surface ...
>> and great in the kitchen for shining up SS appliance doors and
>> surfaces
>> like nothing else will.
>
>
> It's OK as a "honing oil" on my oilstones rather than oil which
> tends
> to gum up as I hardly ever use them, and some people swear it's
> good
> for arthritis.
>
> Didn't know about it being good for cleaning SS. Gotta try that,
> thanks Swing.
>
> Luigi
What I like is how WD-40 helps to dissolve and relocate old
lubrication. I don't use it specifically for lubrication, but to
"reactivate" old lube, such is in the bearings of a rolling garage
door. It penetrates great and the dissolved old lube then
relubricates the ball bearings without any fuss or mess.
Nonny
--
On most days,
it's just not worth
the effort of chewing
through the restraints..
I would hope those holes are closer to 7/8" or you will be replacing that
box....LOL
1/2" conduit holes...always conduit size plus 3/8" for the gadget.
Stay tuned for the "Little Miss Tisn't" family...LOL
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I'm surely not doing this as a "know-it-all", and I appreciate your
insight. My metal box is 4x4x2 1/8 (the rest of my boxes are plastic).
I am going to install a pair of duplex outlets in it.
I've knocked-out two 3/4" diameter holes in the back, and I only plan to
run 8" of #12-2 romex cable through them. You wouldn't recommend I take
this box down, would you? I certainly will if there are any safety
concerns. I intend to leave that box, unmodified, forever.
My other 11 receptacle boxes are plastic. They have plastic punch-outs
in just about the same place as above (I recognize that a difference,
from the point of view of maintenance, is that they don't have their own
connectors).
The romex connectors do not thread into the box but are only secured by
the "nut" inside the box, correct?
Bill
Bill wrote:
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> What is the popular way to remove knock-outs from the back of a
>>> metal electric receptacle box after it is nailed up? I have almost
>>> 2" of free space behind the box.
>>>
>>> The best idea Ive come up with on my own so far is to put a piece of
>>> wood across the face of the box, and use a C-clamp to try to push
>>> out the knock-out. Maybe a few very small washers to help direct
>>> the force to where I need it most.
>>>
>>> Now, what is the "right" way? :)
>>>
>>> Bill
>>
>> Old screw driver and a hammer. That's why they call them knock-outs.
>> :)
>
>
> Could you do it with only 1.75" inches behind the box to work with?
> IIRC, the little welded "button" in on left, next to the stud.
> I put that box up like it was never coming down...
Why are you trying to knock out the back of the box? It's much easier to
hit it from the top or the bottom. If you do knock it out, how to you
propose to get a romex clamp on them?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Bill wrote:
> Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> Or even an amateur who knows what he's doing. Bill, if you're
>> reading this, ask any of the long-term regulars here if I have my
>> s**t together on electrical issues, and remember that I'm only about
>> fifteen, twenty minutes up I-65 from you.
>
> I don't need to ask. I think that you and Mike both know what you are
> doing. I appreciate it when anyone takes the time to help teach me
> something. And I hope you can see without me saying so; I have
> learned a great deal. I have been comingling alot of it into good use
> recently! TYBVM
>
> Bill
Bill - you really have learned a lot. It's clear you like to investigate,
and to learn new things. It's also clear that you take a great pride in
that, and that's good stuff. My suggestions were only in the spirit of
getting you there with fewer misunderstandings and false assumptions.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Jul 5, 8:05=A0am, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Wd-40's great for what it was designed for, displacing moisture, and
> moderately useful as a handy solvent for cleaning a metal surface ...
> and great in the kitchen for shining up SS appliance doors and surfaces
> like nothing else will.
It's OK as a "honing oil" on my oilstones rather than oil which tends
to gum up as I hardly ever use them, and some people swear it's good
for arthritis.
Didn't know about it being good for cleaning SS. Gotta try that,
thanks Swing.
Luigi
Bill wrote:
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>
>>> Could you do it with only 1.75" inches behind the box to work with?
>>> IIRC, the little welded "button" in on left, next to the stud.
>>> I put that box up like it was never coming down...
>>
>> Why are you trying to knock out the back of the box? It's much
>> easier to hit it from the top or the bottom. If you do knock it
>> out, how to you propose to get a romex clamp on them?
>
> I think I could have got them on with 1 3/4" of space, but I will do
> as you advised, in case that their are problems with tightening the
> "nut/collar" that goes inside the box that I don't fully comprehend.
>
There are a couple of considerations Bill - one is just the accessability of
the rear of the box. One might ask why you would want to create a situation
where you have to fight to make a connection. Down the road, and re-work is
only going to be that much more difficult and it's not going to be easy
during the intial install. The other is simply that you are creating a less
than desireable environment inside the box with a rear hit. If you're only
using 21 cu in boxes, you've got a tight squeeze with a rear hit. If you're
using 18 cu in, you're creating a nightmare. I strongly suggest you just
hit the top and the bottom. Standardize on how you hit the box - either
feed in from the top or feed in from the bottom - and then exit from the
other end. Makes re-work later on much easier. Your wire bends will thank
you for that little change in approach.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 7/5/2010 8:56 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> Kinda hard to miss the mild lubricant in there, too, innit?
I'm of the opinion that WD-40 neither corrodes, nor lubricates well for
any length of time. It does seem to get gummy and will leave a varnish
residue behind if used on the same mechanism for a long time, which is
why I never used it on my shotguns, except to give them a good dousing
after coming back from a duck/goose hunt, before grabbing Hoppe's #9.
Wd-40's great for what it was designed for, displacing moisture, and
moderately useful as a handy solvent for cleaning a metal surface ...
and great in the kitchen for shining up SS appliance doors and surfaces
like nothing else will.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 7/5/2010 8:56 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> Kinda hard to miss the mild lubricant in there, too, innit?
>
> I'm of the opinion that WD-40 neither corrodes, nor lubricates well for
> any length of time. It does seem to get gummy and will leave a varnish
> residue behind if used on the same mechanism for a long time, which is why
> I never used it on my shotguns, except to give them a good dousing after
> coming back from a duck/goose hunt, before grabbing Hoppe's #9.
>
> Wd-40's great for what it was designed for, displacing moisture, and
> moderately useful as a handy solvent for cleaning a metal surface ... and
> great in the kitchen for shining up SS appliance doors and surfaces like
> nothing else will.
Going to try that one Today! Got some ratty looking SS that I can't keep
clean.
What is the popular way to remove knock-outs from the back of a metal
electric receptacle box after it is nailed up? I have almost 2" of free
space behind the box.
The best idea Ive come up with on my own so far is to put a piece of
wood across the face of the box, and use a C-clamp to try to push out
the knock-out. Maybe a few very small washers to help direct the force
to where I need it most.
Now, what is the "right" way? :)
Bill
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> What is the popular way to remove knock-outs from the back of a metal
> electric receptacle box after it is nailed up? I have almost 2" of free
> space behind the box.
>
> The best idea Ive come up with on my own so far is to put a piece of wood
> across the face of the box, and use a C-clamp to try to push out the
> knock-out. Maybe a few very small washers to help direct the force to
> where I need it most.
>
> Now, what is the "right" way? :)
>
> Bill
Old screw driver and a hammer. That's why they call them knock-outs. :)
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> What is the popular way to remove knock-outs from the back of a metal
>> electric receptacle box after it is nailed up? I have almost 2" of
>> free space behind the box.
>>
>> The best idea Ive come up with on my own so far is to put a piece of
>> wood across the face of the box, and use a C-clamp to try to push out
>> the knock-out. Maybe a few very small washers to help direct the force
>> to where I need it most.
>>
>> Now, what is the "right" way? :)
>>
>> Bill
>
> Old screw driver and a hammer. That's why they call them knock-outs. :)
Could you do it with only 1.75" inches behind the box to work with?
IIRC, the little welded "button" in on left, next to the stud.
I put that box up like it was never coming down...
In article <[email protected]>, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>What is the popular way to remove knock-outs from the back of a metal
>electric receptacle box after it is nailed up? I have almost 2" of free
>space behind the box.
The first thing I'd try, I think, is just a big screwdriver. If you can push
one edge of that knockout just 1/16" inside the box, you should be able to get
a nail puller or small cat's-paw under that edge and lift it farther.
Eventually you'll be able to grab it with a pliers.
Or you might try drilling a small hole in the knockout, then using an
automobile dent puller to pull it toward you.
Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Could you do it with only 1.75" inches behind the box to work with?
>> IIRC, the little welded "button" in on left, next to the stud.
>> I put that box up like it was never coming down...
>
> Why are you trying to knock out the back of the box? It's much easier to
> hit it from the top or the bottom. If you do knock it out, how to you
> propose to get a romex clamp on them?
I think I could have got them on with 1 3/4" of space, but I will do as
you advised, in case that their are problems with tightening the
"nut/collar" that goes inside the box that I don't fully comprehend.
Thank you,
Bill
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> What is the popular way to remove knock-outs from the back of a metal
>>> electric receptacle box after it is nailed up? I have almost 2" of
>>> free space behind the box.
>>>
>>> The best idea Ive come up with on my own so far is to put a piece of
>>> wood across the face of the box, and use a C-clamp to try to push out
>>> the knock-out. Maybe a few very small washers to help direct the force
>>> to where I need it most.
>>>
>>> Now, what is the "right" way? :)
>>>
>>> Bill
>>
>> Old screw driver and a hammer. That's why they call them knock-outs. :)
>
>
> Could you do it with only 1.75" inches behind the box to work with? IIRC,
> the little welded "button" in on left, next to the stud.
> I put that box up like it was never coming down...
What they said.
Bill wrote:
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>
>>> Could you do it with only 1.75" inches behind the box to work with?
>>> IIRC, the little welded "button" in on left, next to the stud.
>>> I put that box up like it was never coming down...
>>
>> Why are you trying to knock out the back of the box? It's much easier
>> to hit it from the top or the bottom. If you do knock it out, how to
>> you propose to get a romex clamp on them?
>
I think some of the confusion came from the fact that my sub-panel's
directions said to "hit" at the little tab/button, and for electrical
boxes it appears to be just the opposite. I think we're gonna have
'lectric in a few days folks!
Bill
Mike Marlow wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "Bill"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> What is the popular way to remove knock-outs from the back of a
>>>> metal electric receptacle box after it is nailed up? I have almost
>>>> 2" of free space behind the box.
>>>>
>>>> The best idea Ive come up with on my own so far is to put a piece of
>>>> wood across the face of the box, and use a C-clamp to try to push
>>>> out the knock-out. Maybe a few very small washers to help direct
>>>> the force to where I need it most.
>>>>
>>>> Now, what is the "right" way? :)
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>
>>> Old screw driver and a hammer. That's why they call them knock-outs.
>>> :)
>>
>>
>> Could you do it with only 1.75" inches behind the box to work with?
>> IIRC, the little welded "button" in on left, next to the stud.
>> I put that box up like it was never coming down...
>
> Why are you trying to knock out the back of the box? It's much easier to
> hit it from the top or the bottom. If you do knock it out, how to you
> propose to get a romex clamp on them?
>
As soon as I got home, I took another look at the electrical box. The
most appropriate sized holes for a 12-2 cable, 3/8" radius, were all on
the back of the box.
I took a 3" C-clamp, and a small piece of one-by and pushed-in connector
ports on the back (2 corners), quite handily. This did not put any
force on the connection to the stud either (as using a screwdriver
undoubtedly would have). The connectors were easy to fit and it will be
easy to pull 8" of cable through.
Mike, Maybe you read 1.75" as .75"? The romex clamp sticks out, at
most, 3/4", no?
Bill
On 7/7/10 2:24 AM, Bill wrote:
> I took a 3" C-clamp, and a small piece of one-by and pushed-in connector
> ports on the back (2 corners), quite handily. This did not put any force
> on the connection to the stud either (as using a screwdriver undoubtedly
> would have).
You worry too much. :-)
Millions of electricians knock those out with screwdrivers or pliers and
it's fine on the box/wall connection.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
Mike Marlow wrote:
> No - I'm just trying to help you do it the best way.
>
I'm surely not doing this as a "know-it-all", and I appreciate your
insight. My metal box is 4x4x2 1/8 (the rest of my boxes are plastic).
I am going to install a pair of duplex outlets in it.
I've knocked-out two 3/4" diameter holes in the back, and I only plan to
run 8" of #12-2 romex cable through them. You wouldn't recommend I take
this box down, would you? I certainly will if there are any safety
concerns. I intend to leave that box, unmodified, forever.
My other 11 receptacle boxes are plastic. They have plastic punch-outs
in just about the same place as above (I recognize that a difference,
from the point of view of maintenance, is that they don't have their own
connectors).
The romex connectors do not thread into the box but are only secured by
the "nut" inside the box, correct?
Bill
Mike Marlow wrote:
> The best laid plans of mice and man... and all that stuff. You don't have
> to take the box down, you could just insert plugs into the holes you've
> already knocked out. If you knocked out the 3/4" holes, you knocked out too
> much hole. The 1/2" holes are all you needed to knock out.
There are a lot of numbers going around and I'm still learning to decode
them!
I installed (2):
"Clamp Connector for NM Cable, Size: 3/8", Dim: 1/2" ko".
The actual diameter of the hole in the metal box, as measured with my
rule is 3/4", though, if I understand correctly, I believe you refer to
these as 1/2" (perhaps because you can fit up to 1/2" romex cable
through it?).
The ONLY holes on my box of the size above are on the back of the box.
The rest of the holes in the box have 1" diameter. I would presume that
you would refer to these as 3/4" holes.
Please let me know if I'm getting it or not, and whether my existing
configuration is okay! :)
Thank you!
Bill
In article <[email protected]>, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Bill wrote:
>>
>> I installed (2):
>> "Clamp Connector for NM Cable, Size: 3/8", Dim: 1/2" ko".
>> The actual diameter of the hole in the metal box, as measured with my
>> rule is 3/4", though, if I understand correctly, I believe you refer
>> to these as 1/2" (perhaps because you can fit up to 1/2" romex cable
>> through it?).
>>
>
>Close - because they will take a 1/2" clamp.
Closer, but still not quite on the mark -- it's because they are sized for
1/2" conduit.
Mike Marlow wrote:
I'm just curious why you chose to stick a metal box
> there when you had used plastic everywhere else.
It was a recovery from a plastic box that did not go on
with it's face 90 degrees to the face of the studs.
Big nail holes, even shallow ones, have good "memory".
After enough time was wasted on that, I replaced it
with a metal box (and was more careful in the sequels)!
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>, "Mike Marlow"<[email protected]> wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>>
>>> I installed (2):
>>> "Clamp Connector for NM Cable, Size: 3/8", Dim: 1/2" ko".
>>> The actual diameter of the hole in the metal box, as measured with my
>>> rule is 3/4", though, if I understand correctly, I believe you refer
>>> to these as 1/2" (perhaps because you can fit up to 1/2" romex cable
>>> through it?).
>>>
>>
>> Close - because they will take a 1/2" clamp.
>
> Closer, but still not quite on the mark -- it's because they are sized for
> 1/2" conduit.
Hmmm.... This seems to imply that my #10-2 romex cables will require a
larger connector at the panel (3/4")?
After noticing how "interwoven" the existing 6-3 NM-B cable was (that
was once used for a 50-Amp welding circuit) with the other wires, I
decided to leave it in place and use it as a feeder into my sub-panel.
I already replaced its 50 Amp circuit breaker with a 60 Amp circuit
breaker (a small step for many readers here, but a big step for Bill).
The directions helped to make it effortless. That experience will be
helpful to me when I install my new circuits. Is it an oversight that I
did not cut and re-strip the wires (directions did not suggest doing so)?
The main question I had about this cable, one related to connectors, is
about its plastic "cube-shaped" (on the outside of the panel) connector.
The connector is the same as the one used for the kitchen stove (50 Amp
circuit-breaker). I bought a 1" connector for attaching the 6-3 NM-B to
the subpanel, but I wonder whether I should be considering one like I
described above? Thank you for any knowledge you are willing to share
concerning this!
Bill
In article <[email protected]>, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article<[email protected]>, "Mike
> Marlow"<[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Bill wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I installed (2):
>>>> "Clamp Connector for NM Cable, Size: 3/8", Dim: 1/2" ko".
>>>> The actual diameter of the hole in the metal box, as measured with my
>>>> rule is 3/4", though, if I understand correctly, I believe you refer
>>>> to these as 1/2" (perhaps because you can fit up to 1/2" romex cable
>>>> through it?).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Close - because they will take a 1/2" clamp.
>>
>> Closer, but still not quite on the mark -- it's because they are sized for
>> 1/2" conduit.
>
>
>Hmmm.... This seems to imply that my #10-2 romex cables will require a
>larger connector at the panel (3/4")?
No, it doesn't imply that, and no, you don't need that. Standard 1/2" NM cable
connectors are typically rated for any of the following:
- one 14-2 or 14-3 cable
- one 12-2 or 12-3
- one 10-2 or 10-3
- two 14-2
- two 12-2
- one 14-2 plus one 12-2
If in doubt, check the package, but I've never needed to use a 3/4" clamp for
anything smaller than AWG 8.
>
>After noticing how "interwoven" the existing 6-3 NM-B cable was (that
>was once used for a 50-Amp welding circuit) with the other wires, I
>decided to leave it in place and use it as a feeder into my sub-panel.
>I already replaced its 50 Amp circuit breaker with a 60 Amp circuit
>breaker (a small step for many readers here, but a big step for Bill).
[Note for those who may have missed the discussion of this point a week or so
back -- using 6-3 NM-B on a 60A circuit is perfectly fine.]
>The directions helped to make it effortless. That experience will be
>helpful to me when I install my new circuits. Is it an oversight that I
>did not cut and re-strip the wires (directions did not suggest doing so)?
As long as the conductors weren't damaged in some way, then, no, you did just
fine.
>The main question I had about this cable, one related to connectors, is
>about its plastic "cube-shaped" (on the outside of the panel) connector.
>The connector is the same as the one used for the kitchen stove (50 Amp
>circuit-breaker). I bought a 1" connector for attaching the 6-3 NM-B to
>the subpanel, but I wonder whether I should be considering one like I
>described above? Thank you for any knowledge you are willing to share
>concerning this!
The important thing is that you use a connector that's rated for the type and
size of cable that you're using it with. As long as that requirement is met,
the specific type of connector isn't that important.
My own preference is for the all-metal connectors with clamps and locknuts.
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>, Bill<[email protected]> wrote:
>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>> In article<[email protected]>, "Mike
>> Marlow"<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Bill wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I installed (2):
>>>>> "Clamp Connector for NM Cable, Size: 3/8", Dim: 1/2" ko".
>>>>> The actual diameter of the hole in the metal box, as measured with my
>>>>> rule is 3/4", though, if I understand correctly, I believe you refer
>>>>> to these as 1/2" (perhaps because you can fit up to 1/2" romex cable
>>>>> through it?).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Close - because they will take a 1/2" clamp.
>>>
>>> Closer, but still not quite on the mark -- it's because they are sized for
>>> 1/2" conduit.
>>
>>
>> Hmmm.... This seems to imply that my #10-2 romex cables will require a
>> larger connector at the panel (3/4")?
>
> No, it doesn't imply that, and no, you don't need that. Standard 1/2" NM cable
> connectors are typically rated for any of the following:
> - one 14-2 or 14-3 cable
> - one 12-2 or 12-3
> - one 10-2 or 10-3
> - two 14-2
> - two 12-2
> - one 14-2 plus one 12-2
Okay that is good news. I only doubted because while my 1/2" insulated
staples are suitable for my 12-2 cable, I required larger ones (9/16")
for my 10-2 cable. Aside from "cable connector for nm cable", my
packaging did not further advise.
> If in doubt, check the package, but I've never needed to use a 3/4" clamp for
> anything smaller than AWG 8.
>>
>> After noticing how "interwoven" the existing 6-3 NM-B cable was (that
>> was once used for a 50-Amp welding circuit) with the other wires, I
>> decided to leave it in place and use it as a feeder into my sub-panel.
>> I already replaced its 50 Amp circuit breaker with a 60 Amp circuit
>> breaker (a small step for many readers here, but a big step for Bill).
>
> [Note for those who may have missed the discussion of this point a week or so
> back -- using 6-3 NM-B on a 60A circuit is perfectly fine.]
>
>> The directions helped to make it effortless. That experience will be
>> helpful to me when I install my new circuits. Is it an oversight that I
>> did not cut and re-strip the wires (directions did not suggest doing so)?
>
> As long as the conductors weren't damaged in some way, then, no, you did just
> fine.
>
>> The main question I had about this cable, one related to connectors, is
>> about its plastic "cube-shaped" (on the outside of the panel) connector.
>> The connector is the same as the one used for the kitchen stove (50 Amp
>> circuit-breaker). I bought a 1" connector for attaching the 6-3 NM-B to
>> the subpanel, but I wonder whether I should be considering one like I
>> described above? Thank you for any knowledge you are willing to share
>> concerning this!
>
> The important thing is that you use a connector that's rated for the type and
> size of cable that you're using it with. As long as that requirement is met,
> the specific type of connector isn't that important.
>
> My own preference is for the all-metal connectors with clamps and locknuts.
My 1" steel clamp with lock nuts is appropriate for "10-3 to 4-3
non-metallic sheathed", so I think I'm good-to-go. : )
Bill
In article <[email protected]>, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Bill wrote:
>
><more stuff than anyone else who has ever posted electrical questions
>here...>
>
>Bill - you have to get a grip here. You've asked a ton of questions that
>would have been addressed by books that have been recommended to you. It
>seems you have not read them. Each step of the way you are proposing things
>that we challenge and offer advice on. This will go on ad-nauseum. At some
>point you have to take the responsibility to actually learn how to wire, if
>you're going to do this stuff, and accept what is established as acceptable,
>without applying your own sense of reasoning to each step of this process.
>Your ideas are not bad ideas, but you are re-inventing wheels that have long
>been invented. You go overboard in the things you do. You would really
>benefit yourself if you spent the time to learn the realities of electrical
>work, and not rely so much on the ideas in your head. Hire yourself an
>electrician, and learn from him. Don't tell him what you think should be -
>listen to him. You'll learn a great deal that way.
Or even an amateur who knows what he's doing. Bill, if you're reading this,
ask any of the long-term regulars here if I have my s**t together on
electrical issues, and remember that I'm only about fifteen, twenty minutes up
I-65 from you.
Doug Miller wrote:
> Or even an amateur who knows what he's doing. Bill, if you're reading this,
> ask any of the long-term regulars here if I have my s**t together on
> electrical issues, and remember that I'm only about fifteen, twenty minutes up
> I-65 from you.
I don't need to ask. I think that you and Mike both know what you are
doing. I appreciate it when anyone takes the time to help teach me
something. And I hope you can see without me saying so; I have learned
a great deal. I have been comingling alot of it into good use recently!
TYBVM
Bill
Mike Marlow wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>> Doug Miller wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Closer, but still not quite on the mark -- it's because they are
>>> sized for 1/2" conduit.
>>
>>
>> Hmmm.... This seems to imply that my #10-2 romex cables will require
>> a larger connector at the panel (3/4")?
>>
>
> It in no way implies that. Not even sure how you draw that conclusion Bill.
> You are talking about Romex and Doug was speaking about conduit. A world
> apart.
Yes, I understand better now. I think of romex cables as having their
own conduit, but this does not seem to be the popular convention.
Mike Marlow wrote:
if
> you're going to do this stuff, and accept what is established as acceptable,
> without applying your own sense of reasoning to each step of this process.
> Your ideas are not bad ideas, but you are re-inventing wheels that have long
> been invented. You go overboard in the things you do. You would really
> benefit yourself if you spent the time to learn the realities of electrical
> work, and not rely so much on the ideas in your head.
Perhaps best if you don't seek a career in science thinking like that...
I'll tell ya what, why don't we respect each others' processes.
In my field, if you don't go "overboard", you don't get anything.
We have to go pretty far overboard to get much at all.
Just saying.
On 7/10/2010 4:04 AM, Bill wrote:
> Mike Marlow wrote:
> if
>> you're going to do this stuff, and accept what is established as
>> acceptable,
>> without applying your own sense of reasoning to each step of this
>> process.
>> Your ideas are not bad ideas, but you are re-inventing wheels that
>> have long
>> been invented. You go overboard in the things you do. You would really
>> benefit yourself if you spent the time to learn the realities of
>> electrical
>> work, and not rely so much on the ideas in your head.
>
> Perhaps best if you don't seek a career in science thinking like that...
> I'll tell ya what, why don't we respect each others' processes.
> In my field, if you don't go "overboard", you don't get anything.
> We have to go pretty far overboard to get much at all.
> Just saying.
Bill, electrical wiring is not science, it's a skilled trade, and if you
go at it like a tradesman you'll make more progress faster. There's a
thick, moderately expensive (by textbook standards), poorly bound book
called the "National Electrical Code Handbook" from the NFPA (not to be
confused with the similarly titled book from McGraw-Hill) that you might
want to get. Has the full text of the NEC and explanatory material that
shows how it is to be applied in many commonplace situations. Most
decent libraries will have a copy.
In article <[email protected]>, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 7/10/2010 4:04 AM, Bill wrote:
>> Mike Marlow wrote:
>> if
>>> you're going to do this stuff, and accept what is established as
>>> acceptable,
>>> without applying your own sense of reasoning to each step of this
>>> process.
>>> Your ideas are not bad ideas, but you are re-inventing wheels that
>>> have long
>>> been invented. You go overboard in the things you do. You would really
>>> benefit yourself if you spent the time to learn the realities of
>>> electrical
>>> work, and not rely so much on the ideas in your head.
>>
>> Perhaps best if you don't seek a career in science thinking like that...
>> I'll tell ya what, why don't we respect each others' processes.
>> In my field, if you don't go "overboard", you don't get anything.
>> We have to go pretty far overboard to get much at all.
>> Just saying.
>
>Bill, electrical wiring is not science, it's a skilled trade, and if you
>go at it like a tradesman you'll make more progress faster. There's a
>thick, moderately expensive (by textbook standards), poorly bound book
>called the "National Electrical Code Handbook" from the NFPA (not to be
>confused with the similarly titled book from McGraw-Hill) that you might
>want to get. Has the full text of the NEC and explanatory material that
>shows how it is to be applied in many commonplace situations. Most
>decent libraries will have a copy.
Excellent advice all around. I'll add, too, that the Code Handbook from
McGraw-Hill is also a valuable resource.
Mike Marlow wrote:
> Bill - you really have learned a lot. It's clear you like to investigate,
> and to learn new things. It's also clear that you take a great pride in
> that, and that's good stuff. My suggestions were only in the spirit of
> getting you there with fewer misunderstandings and false assumptions.
>
Thank you, and thank you for not coming back over the top. I believe
everyone here likes to use their head, or we wouldn't be here.
Bill
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 23:51:16 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]>
wrote the following:
>Canada Ingredients:
>Ingredient CAS Number Percent
>Aliphatic Petroleum Distillates 64742-47-8
>64742-88-7
>45-50%
>Petroleum Base Oil 64742-58-1
>64742-53-6
>64742-56-9
>64742-65-0
>30-35%
>Non-Hazardous Ingredients Proprietary <10%
>Surfactant Proprietary <2%
>Carbon Dioxide 124-38-9 2-3%
>
>USA Ingredients:
>Ingredient
>CAS #
>Weight Percent
>Aliphatic Hydrocarbon
>64742-47-8
>45-50
>Petroleum Base Oil
>64742-58-1
>64742-53-6
>64742-56-9
>64742-65-0
><25
>LVP Aliphatic Hydrocarbon
>64742-47-8
>12-18
>Carbon Dioxide
>124-38-9
>2-3
>Surfactant
>Proprietary
><2
>Non-Hazardous Ingredients
>Mixture
><10
>
>Kind of hard to figure out the "corrosive" agent in either!
Kinda hard to miss the mild lubricant in there, too, innit?
--
It's also helpful to realize that this very body that we have, that's
sitting right here right now, with its aches and its pleasures, is
exactly what we need to be fully human, fully awake, fully alive.
-- Pema Chodron
Geeesh! Get the pop in ones that grip as you tighten them. You bought
expensive clamps for romex style cables.
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I think I could have got them on with 1 3/4" of space, but I will do as
you advised, in case that their are problems with tightening the
"nut/collar" that goes inside the box that I don't fully comprehend.
Thank you,
Bill
On 7/7/2010 1:20 PM, Bill wrote:
> run 8" of #12-2 romex cable through them. You wouldn't recommend I take
> this box down, would you? I certainly will if there are any safety
> concerns. I intend to leave that box, unmodified, forever.
Just a note of caution on a common gotcha: A safety concern, and enough
to be a code violation in many locales, is leaving unused knock outs
that have been removed, unplugged ... you may get a chimney effect in
event of an arc that can theoretically allow a fire to spread to
adjacent walls and studs more quickly.
In the old days, an electrician's "shuckin' party" used to consist of
the whole crew sitting around a pile of boxes and knocking out plugs
before mounting them ... now that used holes have to be plugged, you
don't see this anymore.
It can get expensive to rectify when a buyer's third party inspector
gigs you for this infraction when you go to sell a house.
DAMHIKT.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
I put a few pictures of my "work in progress" on my website in case
anyone would like to see what I've been fussing about! : )
The 3 power receptacles on the bottom of the right wall are supposed to
be 220v but there have been 32/64 bit technical difficulties...
As you'll be able to see, I "installed" my first electrical outlet
today. I made 3 mistakes I won't make when I install my second
outlet--and no, one of them was not removing the stud from the garage!
http://web.newsguy.com/MySite/
Bill
Josepi wrote:
> Lookin' good!
>
> I hope you will be adding a few more staples at the top of the studs. Those
> wires are too loose, yet.
>
> What type of bird is that?
I'm informed it is a Yellow-shafted Northern Flicker. Our previous
apartment was 100 feet from a farm and we had alot of exotic visitors
(including possums). They all liked the feeding station.
>
>
>
> "Bill"<[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> I put a few pictures of my "work in progress" on my website in case
> anyone would like to see what I've been fussing about! : )
> The 3 power receptacles on the bottom of the right wall are supposed to
> be 220v but there have been 32/64 bit technical difficulties...
>
> As you'll be able to see, I "installed" my first electrical outlet
> today. I made 3 mistakes I won't make when I install my second
> outlet--and no, one of them was not removing the stud from the garage!
>
> http://web.newsguy.com/MySite/
>
> Bill
>
>
Update:
Following my installation of my "dummy" electrical outlet yesterday, I
learned I like the receptacle box to stick out exactly 1/2" passed the
stud. I went to two different Borgs looking for a small piece of 1/2"
pine or equivalent to use as a sort of fixture--but to my surprise,
there was none in sight (I prefer not to use plywood due to personal
sensitivities to the glue dust, et. al., YMMV).
On the way home, it occurred to me that I hadn't tried-out the 12.5"
planer I picked up at auction last fall. So I took the 2 foot cut-off of
a 1by8 left left over from cutting my running board yesterday and passed
it through about 5 times. My Harbor Freight Centrum digital caliper, a
measuring instrument well-regarded for its precision, and also out for
its maiden usage, indicated it was within .02" of 1/2". Accuracy was
validated with a ruler and a 1/2" piece of drywall. BTW, it was nice
that the digital caliper came with an extra battery as I needed it.
I got out my also here-to-fore unused B&D circular saw, $7 at
auction--blade and drywall square included, and made sure the blade was
tight. I plugged it in and was pleased to see it ran. I cut out two
small rectangular pieces of my home-planed 1/2" stock and nailed their
faces together so that they overlapped. I expect to hold one piece
against a stud while I position and nail a new receptacle box in an
optimal position relative to the corresponding stud. I'll find out how
well it works as many as 11 times tomorrow.
I did a few other things too, but nothing that involved 3 "new" tools!
:) BTW, that drywall square has been darn handy. I've seen recently
that it would also be nice to have all of 1 foot, 2 foot, 3 foot, 4 foot
and 6 foot steel rules too, but I guess ya can't have everything...
Bill
On 7/3/2010 12:44 AM, Bill wrote:
> Update:
>
> Following my installation of my "dummy" electrical outlet yesterday, I
> learned I like the receptacle box to stick out exactly 1/2" passed the
> stud. I went to two different Borgs looking for a small piece of 1/2"
> pine or equivalent to use as a sort of fixture--but to my surprise,
> there was none in sight (I prefer not to use plywood due to personal
> sensitivities to the glue dust, et. al., YMMV).
1/2 is a nonstandard thickness. If you want that store bought you need
to try a hobby shop that stocks Midwest Micro-Wood or the like, or find
a hardwood yard that will plane to order.
> On the way home, it occurred to me that I hadn't tried-out the 12.5"
> planer I picked up at auction last fall. So I took the 2 foot cut-off of
> a 1by8 left left over from cutting my running board yesterday and passed
> it through about 5 times.
Geez, you've got a planer? With that you can have any thickness you
want. In Britain they call it a "thicknesser".
If you have a bandsaw you can cut down on wastage though--resaw to
approximate thickness then fine-tune with the planer.
> My Harbor Freight Centrum digital caliper, a
> measuring instrument well-regarded for its precision, and also out for
> its maiden usage, indicated it was within .02" of 1/2". Accuracy was
> validated with a ruler and a 1/2" piece of drywall. BTW, it was nice
> that the digital caliper came with an extra battery as I needed it.
>
> I got out my also here-to-fore unused B&D circular saw, $7 at
> auction--blade and drywall square included, and made sure the blade was
> tight. I plugged it in and was pleased to see it ran. I cut out two
> small rectangular pieces of my home-planed 1/2" stock and nailed their
> faces together so that they overlapped. I expect to hold one piece
> against a stud while I position and nail a new receptacle box in an
> optimal position relative to the corresponding stud. I'll find out how
> well it works as many as 11 times tomorrow.
>
> I did a few other things too, but nothing that involved 3 "new" tools!
> :) BTW, that drywall square has been darn handy. I've seen recently that
> it would also be nice to have all of 1 foot, 2 foot, 3 foot, 4 foot and
> 6 foot steel rules too, but I guess ya can't have everything...
>
> Bill
>
>
Mike Marlow wrote:
> I snipped your afternoon's pleasure with the power tools Bill, but thought I
> might share with you that your boxes have indicators on them for various
> thicknesses of sheetrock. Just hold the up to the right indicator and mount
> them.
>
Yes, my 20.3 in^3 boxes have small lines at 1/4", 3/8", etc. but using
them won't be as accurate as my fixture. I have not developed the
trained eye that you have (in fact, my vision is not perfect). My 30.4
double-gang boxes are marked at 3/8" (not 1/2")--and all of one ones at
the store (Menards) seemed to be. I was actually going to go with metal
boxes but my uncle talked me into plastic. The outlets look differently
at 7/16" and 1/2", and as I'm going to have 22 outlets on two walls, I'm
striving for consistency. If they don't go up the way I want, I'll get
different ones.
Thank you,
Bill
Nova wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>> Update:
>>
>> Following my installation of my "dummy" electrical outlet yesterday, I
>> learned I like the receptacle box to stick out exactly 1/2" passed the
>> stud. I went to two different Borgs looking for a small piece of 1/2"
>> pine or equivalent to use as a sort of fixture--but to my surprise,
>> there was none in sight (I prefer not to use plywood due to personal
>> sensitivities to the glue dust, et. al., YMMV).
>>
>
> <snip>
>
> For "new" electrical installations I prefer to use the depth adjustable
> boxes similar to :
>
> http://www.homedepot.com/Electrical-Electrical-Boxes-Conduit-Fittings-Boxes-Brackets/Carlon/h_d1/N-5yc1vZ1xhuZbohnZ2dq/R-100315472/h_d2/ProductDisplay?langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053
>
Those look handy!
Bill
J. Clarke wrote:
> Geez, you've got a planer? With that you can have any thickness you
> want. In Britain they call it a "thicknesser".
>
> If you have a bandsaw you can cut down on wastage though--resaw to
> approximate thickness then fine-tune with the planer.
Good idea. Thanks! I got a great deal on a BS I'm eager to assemble
as soon as I'm done with this electrical project! : )
Bill
I updated my web site and included pictures (instead of links) to make
it easier on the reader. You may find it interesting if you have been
following this thread--at least I tried to make it interesting!
Go and read my innermost-thoughts while leveling a subpanel, or see a
new bird (s). :)
http://web.newsguy.com/MySite/
Bill
Puckdropper wrote:
> I like the set of high and low outlets. It's what I plan on doing when
> we finally knock down and rebuild my sister's garage.
Now, that sounds like a big job...
>
> What gave you the idea that the sub panel had to be perfectly level?
> Some of the new installs I've seen on TV have actually had them turned 90
> degrees.
>
> Puckdropper
In article <[email protected]>, Puckdropper <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>What gave you the idea that the sub panel had to be perfectly level?
I think most inspectors would construe the "neat and workmanlike manner"
clause to require that the panel be at least approximately level. <g>
>Some of the new installs I've seen on TV have actually had them turned 90
>degrees.
That's going to be a Code violation in most cases.
Article 240.33 requires panels to be installed vertically "unless shown to be
impracticable", and Article 240.81 requires that when breaker handles are
operated vertically, the ON position must be up, just like a light switch.
Those provisions have been in the Code for _at least_ twenty years.
Mike Marlow wrote:
> Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article<[email protected]>, Puckdropper
>> <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>> What gave you the idea that the sub panel had to be perfectly level?
>>
>> I think most inspectors would construe the "neat and workmanlike
>> manner"
>> clause to require that the panel be at least approximately level.<g>
>
> Not even close. There would be or could be lots of reasons to stagger the
> height of a sub-panel reletive to a main. I've never encountered an
> inspector that considered the type of level Bill spoke of, to be a sign of
> workmanlike manner.
>
My question wasn't about the height of the sub-panel *relative* to
main--it was about the rationale for the (precise) levelness of
electrical panels in general.
Doug's reference to the "neat and workmanlike manner" clause of the NEC
was all I could think of while I was leveling it.
BTW, the directions that came with my sub-panel said it could be
installed upside down. I didn't check whether that is even consistent
with the NEC--but it seems comparatively-unsafe based upon user
expectations. I'm new to this, but I've already developed a preference
for working "away from" the hot lugs.
Q1: If one is connecting wires in a junction box, I've read that the
wires should be long enough to extend at least 3, and perhaps 6, inches
past the top of the box. I have 6 (#12) conductor wires + 4 wires
related to ground, I am concerned that the box might become a bit full
(box is 24.5 in^3). In general, how much of a concern is a box's
"fullness"?
Q2: I removed one circuit from the main panel today where the common and
ground were on adjacent terminals in the common bar. I realize that
common and ground are joined in the main panel, but is wiring a 20 amp
circuit this way something that something you would or wouldn't hesitate
to do? Clearly this option will not be available in the sub-panel (anyway).
Bill
Mike Marlow wrote:
> Bill - get with Doug or an electrician. You really need to. You simply
> cannot learn to wire by posting to a usenet newsgroup.
I held a wiring clinic in my driveway the other day. 2by4's, stapling,
wire stripping, wire-connecting (two wires, three wires,..), with both
#12 and #10 romex, using metal boxes, etc.
Keep in mind, you have no way of knowing what resources I used to learn
(some of the Worst are at the Borgs). I don't need to learn Everything
in order to learn Something. See the difference?
Here, for instance, is a website which shows how to install my subpanel.
For the moment, I don't have a need to understand how to install any
other sub-panels, just this one.
http://www.hammerzone.com/archives/elect/panel/sub_panel/01/new.htm
Best,
Bill
Mike Marlow wrote:
>> BTW, the directions that came with my sub-panel said it could be
>> installed upside down. I didn't check whether that is even consistent
>> with the NEC--but it seems comparatively-unsafe based upon user
>> expectations.
>
> You see - to you it seems "comparitively unsafe based on user expectations".
> Bill - my advice to you is to get out of your own head. You really do not
> understand electricity, NEC, or anything associated with work like this.
Mike,
How many panels have you installed "upside-down"? I'd go a little out
of my way to install one right-side up, wouldn't you?
Bill
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Bill - my advice to you is to get out of your own head. You really do not
>> understand electricity, NEC, or anything associated with work like this.
My uncle who used to work as an electrician told me that it sounds like
I know what I'm doing and he thinks I can do it, so go figure. So far,
it seems like he's right.
Bill
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Seems he made up a test light with a 120V, 60W light bulb, a lamp
> socket, and a couple of test leads.
>
> To test his new toy, opened up a 480V panel and put the test leads
> across the incoming buss bars.
>
From that, I take it you'd go with the solid metal ground rather than
the stranded version. I read that the #12 gauge versions of each are not
created equal w.r.t. capacity--and that they are not equal in a lot of
other ways too.
Bill
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 16:26:53 -0400, "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>>>The city seems to to have comingled several facets
>>>(building/heating/cooling/plumbing/electrical) into
>>>The Dept of Community Development. My assumption about the requirement was
>>>based upon the NEC. Part of my project includes the installation of a new
>>>subpanel.
>>>One will be able to see if from the street and I don't want to ever have
>>>to
>>>answer any
>>>hard questions about how it got there. In different circumstances, I
>>>might
>>>be more cavalier.
>>
>> I didn't pull a permit to add my electrical panel, nor am I for the
>> finishing
>> job on the room above the garage (my shop, some day). I did when I added
>> a
>> garage, twenty years ago and that included a sub panel.
>
>
>If you would have had to make a fire-related claim with your home owners
>insurance company
>you may have been up a creek (worth the risk?).
Bullshit. You can't come up with one example of this actually happening
because it never has.
>I don't want to waste the approximately $600/yr I spend for my coverage.
>Where I live, the permit is $25--cheaper than pills to help me sleep.
>Not only that, the idea pleases SWMBO! : ) Not only that, I've never
>worked through the process
>before so I will learn something from it. From my perspective, I don't see a
>big downside.
>I want to emphasize: YMMV!
You've bought into a pack of lies.
I only installed fictures in my latest home that can take CFL with Med
bases.
I spent a lot on 6500K bulbs only to find, now I can't stand the colour in
lay back relax situations. Love them for work areas where you have to focus
on details. The 48" tube fluorescents seems to display a nicer light than
the CFLs in the 6500K though.
Now I have many of my bedrooms and TV area CFLs replaced with 2700K or 3000K
units and it is just my cosy.
The other caveat on CFLs is they do not last that long. In two years I have
tossed out about 8-10 bulbs, so far. A few years from a Sylvania CFL bulb
would be amazing. Many good quality incandescents have lasted longer than
most of these bulbs, so far. Now you figure out which ones are good quality
in this week's production.
"Larry Jaques" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Every lamp in my home which can utilize CFLs is doing so now. I love
'em. The whiter/bluer, the better. Uckfay Amberyay! My current batch
came from China and are (almost) dimmable. (They still bounce a flash
every couple seconds on X-10 dimming modules for my home automation,
so I replaced those with appliance modules with relays. No mo
blinking. They're only 60Hz, though, so I do get a mild amount of
hum. For humless fluor strip lighting, go with electronic ballasts at
at least 120Hz frequency. Much quieter, much better, cold-hardy, etc.
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 19:41:58 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>> It's not clear from this, but do ensure that you never run mutiple
>> romex cables through a knockout on the subpanel. Once cable (with
>> appropriate clamp) per knockout.
>
>>
>> scott
>
>
>Scott, Thank you for mentioning this! -Bill
Except that it's not true, in general. Read at the box of clamps. It'll tell
you how many cables can be clamped with one clamp. Quite often you can put
two 12/2s in a single 1/2" clamp.
One thing you might find handy are the plastic stacked cable brackets for
organizing the routing into and out of your box. They support several
parallel cables from the box into the ceiling (or floor), where you can then
split them off to where they're going.
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 00:20:41 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote the
following:
>Mike Marlow wrote:
>
>> Now would be a better time to install the exterior outlets, while you have
>> the walls opened up. It does not take any longer than installing an inside
>> outlet.
>
>Thank you for that suggestion, I will investigating what is involved.
>It is true that I would want the outlet on the other side of a wall that
>I am presently working on....
>
>Puckdropper, your idea of positioning a lightswitch at 50"--where people
>are likely to expect it, is a good idea! I could install a switch there
>for my new lighting (that I don't have yet). I was focusing so intently
>on doing one thing at a time that the idea did not occur to me.
>
>I was looking at lighting at Menards. I know I want simple fluorenscent
>lighting that works when it's cold and can be seen but not heard. I
>sort of recollect someone mentioning the "American Fluorescent Lighting"
>company, possibly in low regard (cheap ballasters?).
"Balluster" is for stairs. "Ballast" is for fluor tube lighting. Stay
away from Lights of America brand. It's the cheapest, worst crap I've
ever had the displeasure of replacing half a dozen times (2x for
myself and 4x for others.)
>They made many of
>the simple fixtures I saw at Menards. Is the prevailing regard for CFL
>products negative?
Every lamp in my home which can utilize CFLs is doing so now. I love
'em. The whiter/bluer, the better. Uckfay Amberyay! My current batch
came from China and are (almost) dimmable. (They still bounce a flash
every couple seconds on X-10 dimming modules for my home automation,
so I replaced those with appliance modules with relays. No mo
blinking. They're only 60Hz, though, so I do get a mild amount of
hum. For humless fluor strip lighting, go with electronic ballasts at
at least 120Hz frequency. Much quieter, much better, cold-hardy, etc.
>Lighting is a whole-nuther can of worms... For an instant, I saw light
>at the end of the tunnel! : ) Thanks for keeping me thinking!
Caution, Bill. The light at the end of the tunnel is actually an
oncoming train!
--
Peace of mind is that mental condition in which you have accepted the worst.
-- Lin Yutang
On 6/20/2010 7:57 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
> As long as the hole is big enough to put the cables through it without kinking
> or damaging them, sure. AFAIK, the Code doesn't mention anything at all about
> minimum hole size through wood framing.
One caveat for drilling bigger holes in a typical tubafour stud frame is
the larger hole may require the use of nail plates if they end up less
than 1 1/4" from the edge.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
ROFLMFAO!
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
In article <[email protected]>, Puckdropper
<puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
That's going to be a Code violation in most cases.
Article 240.33 requires panels to be installed vertically "unless shown to
be
impracticable", and Article 240.81 requires that when breaker handles are
operated vertically, the ON position must be up, just like a light switch.
Those provisions have been in the Code for _at least_ twenty years.
Some knowledgable guy wrote:
>Some of the new installs I've seen on TV have actually had them turned 90
>degrees.
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bill wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes, I understand. If your breakers work the way they should, then
>> they would protect you, your family and your property. But don't
>> they fail on occasion?
>> I think of them as a backup.
>>
>
> If you keep trying to find potential problems this way, you will never
> wire your garage. After all - what is the difference between and
> extension cord and a wired outlet? If that breaker failure occurs, the
> impact is the same at the outlet as it is at the extension cord. How do
> you think it is going to be any safer by not using the extension cord?
My point was that a regular extension cord was less likely to incur an issue
in the first place rather an multi-pound box containing 2 duplex outlets.
It would be quite easy,
for instance, for someone to spill a liquid into or kick the latter compared
to
a regular extension cord or a wall outlet. My neighbor's dog might even pee
on it. ; )
I AM eager to get the garage wired. I may have been half done by now, but
I was persuaded to "pull a permit" after I determined it wouldn't be too
difficult to apply. I'll submit my application on Monday and they should
reply in 3-5 days, so it was written. Possible loss of my homeowner's
insurance protection
was the most convincing factor. Hopefully this will be just a minor set
back.
I am chomping at the bit! Saw-shopping at the auction used up a few days
this week.
To be honest, facing a level of bureaucracy slowed me from having already
submitted
my application. This is my fault. This goes back to "The hardest part about
getting something done
is starting (or something else)"--especially when it something you haven't
done before.
As far as the details concerning the job, the main concern I have is "how
well" I need
to get the cable from one side of the attic to an adjacent corner.
Currently virtually all of
the cables of the house are lying unprotected in the attic. I would like to
do something in between
pulling up the attic floor boards and drilling holes in the joists, and just
laying 4 new cables
next to the ones already there. How about stapling the new cabkes to the
base of the ceiling
joists (using the appropriate staples)? Is that likely to pass an
inspection based on the situation
I've described? Obviously staping them to the floor boards is a horrible
concept, because, for instance,
I will need to get under those to install my lighting boxes.
Bill
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 18:01:37 -0400, "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 16:26:53 -0400, "Bill" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>>>The city seems to to have comingled several facets
>>>>>(building/heating/cooling/plumbing/electrical) into
>>>>>The Dept of Community Development. My assumption about the requirement
>>>>>was
>>>>>based upon the NEC. Part of my project includes the installation of a
>>>>>new
>>>>>subpanel.
>>>>>One will be able to see if from the street and I don't want to ever have
>>>>>to
>>>>>answer any
>>>>>hard questions about how it got there. In different circumstances, I
>>>>>might
>>>>>be more cavalier.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't pull a permit to add my electrical panel, nor am I for the
>>>> finishing
>>>> job on the room above the garage (my shop, some day). I did when I
>>>> added
>>>> a
>>>> garage, twenty years ago and that included a sub panel.
>>>
>>>
>>>If you would have had to make a fire-related claim with your home owners
>>>insurance company
>>>you may have been up a creek (worth the risk?).
>>
>> Bullshit. You can't come up with one example of this actually happening
>> because it never has.
>
>
>I found this example in 30 seconds; the OPs problem is sort of interesting:
>
>http://www.thathomesite.com/forums/load/realestate/msg071833224624.html
More bullshit. That's a case of no building permit for a structure. The
issue at hand is not a structure.
>Another issue is that should you sell your home, you will be liable to the
>buyer
>should they experience a fire and learn that you installed the subpanel
>without
>a permit. I'm curious whether manslaughter charges would be plausable
>under the right set of circumstances (not yours!)... You say Bullshit, I
>say, here
>please, take the $25. : )
>
Again, you spout bullshit. Find an example. You can't.
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bill wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes, I understand. If your breakers work the way they should, then
>> they would protect you, your family and your property. But don't
>> they fail on occasion?
>> I think of them as a backup.
>>
>
> If you keep trying to find potential problems this way, you will never
> wire your garage. After all - what is the difference between and
> extension cord and a wired outlet? If that breaker failure occurs, the
> impact is the same at the outlet as it is at the extension cord. How do
> you think it is going to be any safer by not using the extension cord?
Nothing is waiting on the extension cord. It just surprised me that I was
the
one who observed a difference between an extension cord and a wall outlet.
I would
have thought it more likely for our roles to have been reversed on that
detail.
Bill
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The NEC addresses this. You can't just staple up romex to the underside
> of joists.
Yes, I had read this.
> You can install running boards and then staple to those though.
Ah, now that's a Fine idea! : )
> The NEC is a tough read if you don't already know what you're looking for
> and where it is addressed,
Yes, I've noticed that!
> however you can find adequate information in a number of DIY wiring books
> available at places like Home Depot, Lowes, etc. Would be worth the money
> for ya.
I bought "Stanley's" wiring book. I've learned a bit from it, and it is
nice to read, but it does not contain
the suggestion you made about "running boards", and I doubt the other books
do either.
I will feel better about that design too! I will just plan to nail up a 4"
path
of 1/2" stock near the base of the roof joists. It will look great! : )
Now, I can author my design with a
little more authority (reminds me of the letter Ralphie wrote for his
teacher in the movie The Christmas Story)!
Bill
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
> [email protected]
>
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> If you keep trying to find potential problems this way, you will never
> wire your garage.
With the assistance you and other folks have given me, I'm going to pull
this off. After I am successful, I will add it to my short list of major
accomplishments! : )
Bill
"Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I am not certain where you want to run the cables.
Josephi,
The cable needs to go from the subpanel, straight up the inside of a wall to
the attic and from there go about 12-15 feet to the top of an adjacent wall
where it comes back down. The difficulty (for me) was how the cable should
go through the attic. This portion of the attic already has "flooring" and
I'd prefer not to mess with that. Mike suggested a "running board" which
would span the roof joists, I imagine it would be quite low. I "knew"
running cable from roof joist to roof joist (without a "running board") just
"had to be wrong" because of the proximity to possible moisture there. I
will do some homework on the "running board" concept and look for some
examples to see what I might be overlooking.
I told my wife I was planning to submit some SU pictures with my request for
a building permit and she thought I was trying to "show off"! This was
funny to me because the situation is actually quite the opposite, but after
considering it I hope the pictures will help make a good impression.
Bill
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 18:48:08 -0400, "Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Sounds like you are well on your way!! The first blow with the hammer was
>the hardest! YIKES!!
>
>I have learned the hard way many times about running 14/2 cables (general
>home wiring) and drilling holes. Everytime I feel a 1/2" hole will be fine
>the cable is hard to pull through it if any angle is encurred and after
>having to add that last minute change and drilling another right beside it,
>I , again decide, never to drill less than 3/4" ones again!...LOL
"General home wiring"? 14/2? Well, I guess for lighting circuits, it's OK.
I'd *never* use it for anything else, though.
>A long spade bit with extension works well. It
> avoids chips in your eyes if overhead or high run,
> allows you to come in on a fairly straight angle without the next joist/
>truss pushing your drill out,
> allows a better "in-line" view so your holes do not go up and down.
I much prefer a "stubby" self-feeding auger, intended for the purpose. They
eat right through and you can get the drill and bit between most joists. If
you drill in the center of the joist (where you should be), you don't "go up
or down".
<snip>
"Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
You'll be fine with an Inspector to give you hints. A little
> butter /grease can go a long way with the Inpsector...not too obvious
> though...LOL. Be friendly and pedestal the guy a bit.
>
Thank you. I am hoping this renovation gives me a chance to remove a cable
that truely
shouldn't be lying where it is. I really want a electrical configuration I
don't have to
apologize for, one that was completed with a little craftsmanship...
Bill
"Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:HZsQn.25042$%[email protected]...
> Like the rest of us, when the job is finished you will be looking around
> saying, "Nothin' to it". The hardest part is the anxiety or not knowing.
>
Thank you for your understanding! : )
"Scott Lurndal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The _most useful_ outlet that I have in my shop is a retractable cube-tap
> hanging from the center of the shop ceiling. I suggest you run another
> circuit to a quad outlet box there for the retractable cube-tap.
>
Thank you for your suggestion. I may do something along those lines.
I'm already proposing 6 duplex outlets on one wall, 3 on another, and 3
240v outlets on the first wall. I've already had more than one salesperson
look at me incredulously and ask why I needed so much power...lol.
I hope none of this worries anyone who issues permits.
I learned a new word today, "cube-tap". Google showed me.
"Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Highly recommended. even if you just wire a recptacle for a garage door
> opener. You cna always hook a pulldown trouble light, receptacle later
> from
> it.
>
> or
>
> Put a garage door opener on it and park your lawn tractor in there for the
> winter when it's too cold to do wood working in there.
>
Actually, my garage door openers is plugged into the one duplex outlet in
the attic.
I plug a lamp into the other socket so I can see while I'm up there.
I'll see what more I can do after I better understand the existing
electrical configuration.
Maybe I can describe my design in my application for a building permit with
just
enough generality to give me some flexibility.
Thanks again!
Bill
"Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Do **NOT** drill through engineered trusses. If a building Inspector saw
> this he may make you replace them.....big job!!!!
I wasn't planning to here, but that is a nice piece of knowledge to have.
Thanks!
>
> You mentioned "building permit". We would not be involved in a building
> permit, but rather a wiring permit. Inside a garage, nobody is going to
> know
> what you have done and if you are not modifying the structure, who cares?
The folks who would pay a claim on a homeowner's insurance policy. I don't
wish
to provide them with an easy out--even if a fire might be caused by a
furnace,
hot water heater, or existing wiring. I've seen that they work pretty hard
to avoid
writing checks, and I'm not an attorney and I don't wish to have to hire
one.
In the absense of a building permit, I would leave myself vulnerable. Maybe
your
answer would have been different if I had disclosed that it was an attached
garage?
Bill
"Puckdropper" <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Remember to label as you
> go, and label everything. I had to replace a switch today and wound up
> shutting off every 120V breaker in the unlabeled panel to get the power
> shut off.
>
> (What's really irritating this was a new panel and the old one was
> sufficiently labeled.)
When I submitted a purchase agreement, I requested that the seller's add
labels
to the 3 year old main panel. It didn't have a single one! I was glad I
did, because
I learned that each ceiling fan had a breaker, for instance, and I would
probably still
be guessing what the breaker for for the sump pump was for!
Do you label any of the wires themselves (or anything else along those
lines)?
Bill
"Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> To make a long story short I am not sure why you would get the building
> inspection people involved. Electrical? yes. (maybe they are one and the
> same there) I assume you have made your "feeler" calls to the governing
> bodies to see what the desired rules are.
The city seems to to have comingled several facets
(building/heating/cooling/plumbing/electrical) into
The Dept of Community Development. My assumption about the requirement was
based upon the NEC. Part of my project includes the installation of a new
subpanel.
One will be able to see if from the street and I don't want to ever have to
answer any
hard questions about how it got there. In different circumstances, I might
be more cavalier.
Bill
Oh buloney! Look at the truss spec. on your last order design or consult
your local truss manufacturer.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
*NOT* true. Trusses are not typically rated for *any* floor loading. Their
strength is in compression. The web has no strength in tension.
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 09:48:43 -0400, "Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Trusses would typically have "Webs" installed between any long runs of
>outside framing and 2 x 6 bottom rafters or smaller. If they are a "stick
>roof" then the bottom rafter has to be large enough lumber to carry the
>ceiling weight for that long span, itself and would be a 2 x8 or larger for
>more than 10-12 feet. I would have to look up the span chart in the
>building
>code to give you exact sizes here but you get the idea.
>
>Basically, if you have a wide ceiling (more than 12') and there is no
>vertical web pieces than you would not have trusses. It won't matter as
>trusses or stick roof they can carry some load. I wouldn't store 100 lb up
>there though.
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 02:55:32 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
<leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote the following:
>
>"Larry Jaques" wrote
>
>> They have a special foam for wiring use, too. It's fluorescent
>> orange, so the inspector can tell it's the correct stuff. It doesn't
>> melt as easily if there's a fire so your upper walls/attic stay safer
>> longer in the event of a fire.
>> http://cableorganizer.com/abesco-fire-rated-foam/
>>
>Hey, good website. I got some big workstations and a couple other projects I
>have to wire up and they have some goodies that could help. I filed this one
>away.
That was the first usable Googlized link I found yesterday. "I utilize
expensive sites like that to find products, then purchase them
elsewhere at half or 1/3 the price." frugalled Larry.
>> Those are two things you really don't need in a shop. The radio takes
>> your attention away from sharp spinny things which are often reaching
>> for your fingers, and the chair lets you goof off too much. Calculate
>> in the office, not the shop.
>>
>I got a "shop stool" at a garage sale and it turned into a bar stool of
>sorts. Ya know, you sit on it and nothing much happens. I needed the space,
>threw it out and my productivity went up. Go figure.
Ditto here. I got the tall, nicely padded/nicely backed stool with the
chrome ring on the bottom (drafting style, I think) and it immediately
became a rest for my staple guns. <shrug>
--
Peace of mind is that mental condition in which you have accepted the worst.
-- Lin Yutang
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 07:26:17 -0400, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 6/20/2010 2:55 AM, Lee Michaels wrote:
>> "Larry Jaques" wrote
>>
>>> They have a special foam for wiring use, too. It's fluorescent
>>> orange, so the inspector can tell it's the correct stuff. It doesn't
>>> melt as easily if there's a fire so your upper walls/attic stay safer
>>> longer in the event of a fire.
>>> http://cableorganizer.com/abesco-fire-rated-foam/
>>>
>> Hey, good website. I got some big workstations and a couple other projects I
>> have to wire up and they have some goodies that could help. I filed this one
>> away.
>>
>>>
>>> Those are two things you really don't need in a shop. The radio takes
>>> your attention away from sharp spinny things which are often reaching
>>> for your fingers, and the chair lets you goof off too much. Calculate
>>> in the office, not the shop.
>>>
>> I got a "shop stool" at a garage sale and it turned into a bar stool of
>> sorts. Ya know, you sit on it and nothing much happens. I needed the space,
>> threw it out and my productivity went up. Go figure.
>
>Burt Rutan in the plans for the LongEZ suggests that the "thinking
>chair" is an essential piece of equipment. I suspect that few of us are
>as productive as Burt Rutan.
That's EZ for you to say.
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 09:48:43 -0400, "Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Trusses would typically have "Webs" installed between any long runs of
>outside framing and 2 x 6 bottom rafters or smaller. If they are a "stick
>roof" then the bottom rafter has to be large enough lumber to carry the
>ceiling weight for that long span, itself and would be a 2 x8 or larger for
>more than 10-12 feet. I would have to look up the span chart in the building
>code to give you exact sizes here but you get the idea.
>
>Basically, if you have a wide ceiling (more than 12') and there is no
>vertical web pieces than you would not have trusses. It won't matter as
>trusses or stick roof they can carry some load. I wouldn't store 100 lb up
>there though.
*NOT* true. Trusses are not typically rated for *any* floor loading. Their
strength is in compression. The web has no strength in tension.
Larry Jaques <[email protected]>wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 08:29:28 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote
>the following:
>
>>On 6/23/2010 11:42 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>>> Guys, would you just plonk Josepi and forget him?
>>
>>Who?
>
>Exactly. I would have forgotten him but for all the idiots quoting
>him every bloody day.
Do not be so bloody lazy, get proactive.
DO your own leg work in not relying on others!
Educate all responders to his trash.
Educate the new players who know no better.
Write him up to his providers.
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Forget the LAZY way in filtering the name
hopping, name stealing lunatic.
WORK at ridding the group of this numbskull.
mike
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bill wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Maybe I can describe my design in my application for a building
>> permit with just
>> enough generality to give me some flexibility.
>>
>
> You probably do not have to describe your design at all in your permit
> application. Most building permits do not require any detailed electrical
> design - just an inspection by an electrical inspector. Why bother
> detailing more information than required?
It appears that 2 inspections are required: a "Rough-In" and a "Final"
inspection.
If I just install the subpanel, but don't power it, and run cables from it,
unattached, to all of the boxes,
including running board, staples, but not any outlets or circuit breakers,
will I be ready for the "Rough-In" inspection?
The application includes the following (and is the ONLY place where the
applicant describes the work to be done--of course, this is the same permit
one would use to build an entire garage):
10) Maps, Sketches, and Other Exhibits: Applicant must attach appropriate
sufficient maps, sketches, and
other exhibits, including a signed Homeowners Association and/or
Architectural Control Committee
Affirmation of Notification.
From what you said, in my application for a permit, I assume I might write:
"Install a subpanel adjacent to the existing main panel in the garage,
and wire additional power outlets and additional lighting there, making
minor modifications as necessary, dependant on the existing electrical
configuration."
I could add: "The subpanel would be powered from a circuilt breaker (60
Amp) from the main panel having 200 Amp service".
Based upon your experience, do you expect that these statements may suffice?
Bill
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
::: document printed :::
> If you have to say anything about electrical, you may be able to get by
> with the statement that all electrical work will be performed to NEC (or
> local codes), and inspected by certified electrical inspectors.
>
I find out ASAP.
TYVM!
"Bill" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, "Bill"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>"Josepi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> Top of what?
>>>>
>>>I apologize for not wording my question more effectively. Here's another
>>>try:
>>>
>>>
>>>A few months ago, the idea of a "quad in a box" as a go-anywhere power
>>>source
>>>was brought up.
>Doug -- Wouldn't this be considered an extension of the branch
>circuit/outlet since it is an outlet itself? Maybe it's gets omitted for
>being temporary. This same mechanism seems like the best way to add
>outlets underneath the table of a workbench. Do you think that this is this
>just as permissable?
>
It's no different than any extension cord. Use type SJ 12-3 with ground
and a 4" deep box; make sure you use the appropriate fitting to hold
the SJ to the box. If you use a metal box, make sure you ground the box.
scott
I am not certain where you want to run the cables. Typically in the ceiling
you would run the cables on the ***sides** of the trusses or rafters. This
prevents stepping on the cable when walking around in the attic and not
nailing through them when you put a ceiling in. Leave some slack spots to be
able to push the cables out-of-the-way in case of putting something up there
or future construction or a wire breaks off in a box and you need a few more
spare inches.
Keep all your wirng back from the wall or ceiling surface about 1.5" or
more. This makes them miss frywall screws and nails or that picture of the
centrefold you want to hang on a nail. If you must violate that space
install a protecive plate, available for plumbers with some hammer in claws
to stop nails and screws going through that spot easily.
You're an educated, smart guy and you will have more detail questions as you
get going. You'll be fine with an Inspector to give you hints. A little
butter /grease can go a long way with the Inpsector...not too obvious
though...LOL. Be friendly and pedestal the guy a bit.
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The NEC addresses this. You can't just staple up romex to the underside
> of joists.
Yes, I had read this.
> You can install running boards and then staple to those though.
Ah, now that's a Fine idea! : )
> The NEC is a tough read if you don't already know what you're looking for
> and where it is addressed,
Yes, I've noticed that!
> however you can find adequate information in a number of DIY wiring books
> available at places like Home Depot, Lowes, etc. Would be worth the money
> for ya.
I bought "Stanley's" wiring book. I've learned a bit from it, and it is
nice to read, but it does not contain
the suggestion you made about "running boards", and I doubt the other books
do either.
I will feel better about that design too! I will just plan to nail up a 4"
path
of 1/2" stock near the base of the roof joists. It will look great! : )
Now, I can author my design with a
little more authority (reminds me of the letter Ralphie wrote for his
teacher in the movie The Christmas Story)!
Bill
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
> [email protected]
>
cat got your tongue acidently asshole?
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
____________________________________________________________
Was that the same advise as the guy telling you that 120 volt won't really
hurt you and all you had to do was keep one hand in your pocket at all time?
Bad display of ignorance. Note the sock puppets present.
If you knew how many times I have been involved in electrical accidents for
120 volt contacts and flashes of personnel it would make you shriek.
Fortunately, nobody I was close to, every died from one or HV for that
matter. Just a lot of burn treatments, raised antibody testing and eye
treatments for flash damage.
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
We're human, huh? Accidents can happen sooo easily. I was recently
accused of worrying too much. Me, can you imagine that! : )
Bill
Larry Jaques wrote:
Because of the insulation,
> I missed the flatwire cable for the water heater. The result was
> blinding as I ran the Tiger saw through the outer wall and into the
> wire as I cut the rectangular hole for the microwave and stove vent.
Another clone crybaby post
"Josepi" <[email protected]> ***CLONE** wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Somebody suffered my stupidity once too often
and is now running their big dog right up my ass!
I am the only Gymmy Bob/JP Bengi twit.
My history is here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.solar.photovoltaic/msg/a57dda4e6757f15c?hl=en
______________________________________________________
"Josepi" <[email protected]> **fakir** wrote in message
news:<N1oUn.30835$%[email protected]>...
Somebody got their itsy bitsy feelings hurt and is now trying to run with
the big dogs.
"Josepi" <[email protected]> **CLONE** wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
cat got your tongue acidently asshole?
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
____________________________________________________________
Was that the same advise as the guy telling you that 120 volt won't really
hurt you and all you had to do was keep one hand in your pocket at all time?
Bad display of ignorance. Note the sock puppets present.
If you knew how many times I have been involved in electrical accidents for
120 volt contacts and flashes of personnel it would make you shriek.
Fortunately, nobody I was close to, every died from one or HV for that
matter. Just a lot of burn treatments, raised antibody testing and eye
treatments for flash damage.
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
We're human, huh? Accidents can happen sooo easily. I was recently
accused of worrying too much. Me, can you imagine that! : )
Bill
Larry Jaques wrote:
Because of the insulation,
> I missed the flatwire cable for the water heater. The result was
> blinding as I ran the Tiger saw through the outer wall and into the
> wire as I cut the rectangular hole for the microwave and stove vent.
Somebody suffered my stupidity once too often
and is now running their big dog right up my ass!
I am the only Gymmy Bob/JP Bengi twit.
My history is here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.solar.photovoltaic/msg/a57dda4e6757f15c?hl=en
______________________________________________________
"Josepi" <[email protected]> **fakir** wrote in message
news:<N1oUn.30835$%[email protected]>...
Somebody got their itsy bitsy feelings hurt and is now trying to run with
the big dogs.
"Josepi" <[email protected]> **CLONE** wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
cat got your tongue acidently asshole?
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
____________________________________________________________
Was that the same advise as the guy telling you that 120 volt won't really
hurt you and all you had to do was keep one hand in your pocket at all time?
Bad display of ignorance. Note the sock puppets present.
If you knew how many times I have been involved in electrical accidents for
120 volt contacts and flashes of personnel it would make you shriek.
Fortunately, nobody I was close to, every died from one or HV for that
matter. Just a lot of burn treatments, raised antibody testing and eye
treatments for flash damage.
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
We're human, huh? Accidents can happen sooo easily. I was recently
accused of worrying too much. Me, can you imagine that! : )
Bill
Larry Jaques wrote:
Because of the insulation,
> I missed the flatwire cable for the water heater. The result was
> blinding as I ran the Tiger saw through the outer wall and into the
> wire as I cut the rectangular hole for the microwave and stove vent.
Somebody got their itsy bitsy feelings hurt and is now trying to run with
the big dogs.
"Josepi" <[email protected]> **CLONE** wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
cat got your tongue acidently asshole?
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
____________________________________________________________
Was that the same advise as the guy telling you that 120 volt won't really
hurt you and all you had to do was keep one hand in your pocket at all time?
Bad display of ignorance. Note the sock puppets present.
If you knew how many times I have been involved in electrical accidents for
120 volt contacts and flashes of personnel it would make you shriek.
Fortunately, nobody I was close to, every died from one or HV for that
matter. Just a lot of burn treatments, raised antibody testing and eye
treatments for flash damage.
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
We're human, huh? Accidents can happen sooo easily. I was recently
accused of worrying too much. Me, can you imagine that! : )
Bill
Larry Jaques wrote:
Because of the insulation,
> I missed the flatwire cable for the water heater. The result was
> blinding as I ran the Tiger saw through the outer wall and into the
> wire as I cut the rectangular hole for the microwave and stove vent.
Was that the same advise as the guy telling you that 120 volt won't really
hurt you and all you had to do was keep one hand in your pocket at all time?
Bad display of ignorance. Note the sock puppets present.
If you knew how many times I have been involved in electrical accidents for
120 volt contacts and flashes of personnel it would make you shriek.
Fortunately, nobody I was close to, every died from one or HV for that
matter. Just a lot of burn treatments, raised antibody testing and eye
treatments for flash damage.
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
We're human, huh? Accidents can happen sooo easily. I was recently
accused of worrying too much. Me, can you imagine that! : )
Bill
Larry Jaques wrote:
Because of the insulation,
> I missed the flatwire cable for the water heater. The result was
> blinding as I ran the Tiger saw through the outer wall and into the
> wire as I cut the rectangular hole for the microwave and stove vent.
Larry Jaques wrote:
Because of the insulation,
> I missed the flatwire cable for the water heater. The result was
> blinding as I ran the Tiger saw through the outer wall and into the
> wire as I cut the rectangular hole for the microwave and stove vent.
We're human, huh? Accidents can happen sooo easily. I was recently
accused of worrying too much. Me, can you imagine that! : )
Bill
On 19 Jun 2010 14:25:42 -0700, Bill <[email protected]> wrote
the following:
>
>I got to get my "hands dirty" this week! I took down most of the drywall on my
>long wall up to 7' high. The ceiling is 8.5' high, but I thought that stopping
>at less than 8' would make replacing the drywall easier (I can always remove
>more..). A pro would have probably used a skilsaw, but my Harbor Freight rotary
>tool, along with a box-cutter, cut pretty well, if a little (i.e. alot) slower.
>This was basically my first time removing any drywall at all, so I took my time.
>I quickly learned the axiom, "A hammer is your friend"!
I removed a 2' square of drywall last month to put supports in for a
shower grab handle. I used the HF Multifunction tool with the rounded
blade and it was absolutely the best, safest, least-dusty method I've
ever used to cut drywall. That one use paid for the saw, I swear!
My one go-round with a live 240v circuit cost me $100, at a client's
home, too. Embarrassing. I had cut the inside drywall out, felt the
cavity, but didn't remove the insulation. Because of the insulation,
I missed the flatwire cable for the water heater. The result was
blinding as I ran the Tiger saw through the outer wall and into the
wire as I cut the rectangular hole for the microwave and stove vent.
Oops!
>I also removed an existing 50-Amp outlet from the wall. I validated the outlet's
>deadness with my voltometer before I touched anything. I made a special trip to
>the store to buy connectors (the largest ones I could find!) which I put on the
>end of each of the wires (perfect fit) and I taped each of them at least 3"
>down. I did this even though the C-Breaker will stay turned off and I must give
>some of the Wrecker's most of the credit for giving me the right perspective to
>so gingerly protect my dead wires (Lew: I wish my main panel had a lock!).
>Swingman: I also picked up a outlet tester *with GFCI* while I was at the store!
>I will completely remove that wire and its corresponding C-breaker from the main
>panel soon, and I will do so while the main circuit breaker is turned off.
I picked up a Greenlee variable voltage tick from Amazon the other
day. 5-1000v. It's a bit touchy, but the variable sensitivity dials
out false positives. It beeps and the bright LED glows when you get
close to an active circuit. this $13 item would have saved me that
Benjy. <sigh>
Ask a local electrician about hole size and runningboards for your
area, Bill. I usually use a 3/4" Jennings for my wiring through studs
and topplates, and I prefer to keep wiring separated and use insulated
staples on Romex, but IANAE.
--
Peace of mind is that mental condition in which you have accepted the worst.
-- Lin Yutang