I'll post pics and specs on my new shop once I have it all setup, I am
moving into a 1,500 sq ft barn and getting a few new tools.
My landlord (the farmer) added some additional electrical for me.
Hehad an electrician put in a 220 circuit and run some metal conduit
out to where I wanted the 220 plug and put it in a metal jbox. He also
ran two wires for an aditional 110 circuit to the same jbox all inside
metal conduit. I will pull the 110 out and route it to where I want
the extra juice.
I do lots of home electrical and can follow the diagrams well and know
some of the codes, etc. I have always used romex or armorcable. I want
to come out of this steel jbox with some armor cable to a 4 gang
outlet, then out to a 1/2 switched outlet and then another switched
outlet. I am familar with how all that is done but have the following
question (finally).
Do I attach the ground wire in the armor cable to the jbox? Once I go
out of one of the switches I will use romex overhead and I want to be
sure everything is grounded correctly. I guess the metal conduit and
boxes are ground enough to just run the two wire 110 but when I come
out to armor cable and romex I want to be sure I am grounded no?
BW
Hoping I don't burn the place down or lectracute mysef. The farmer
wouldn't be happy.
> The thin grounding wire in armor cables is not meant to be connected. =A0=
It is
> meant to be folded back on the armor at the point of the box clamp.
That is correct. The ribbon is folded back on the armor at both ends.
You couldn't connect it as a ground if you tried - the wire is too
weak. I've been told that the wire is there to ground moisture in the
armored cable, but I have my doubts. Do you have a better reason?
shelly
PS - I reread my earlier post and found an error: NYC code also allows
for conduit (naturally.)
> > Conduit is nice and probably required since you indicate that the
> > wiring will not be exposed. Exposed romex or the like will not cut it
> > now.
>
> ??? Why would conduit be required if the wiring will be concealed?
> [...]
>
> > Armor cable, conduit and boxes have no listed electrical
> > characteristics and therefore should not be part of any required
> > ground protection.
>
> Totally incorrect. In addition to cable armor, the NEC also recognizes
> rigid and flexible metallic conduit or tubing as acceptable grounding
> conductors.
Doug
Typo on the "Not be exposed". Should read "wiring will not be
exposed".
I will have to reread the paragraph you mention. On a big electrical
job I kept up with 2 years ago this was an inspection item. No
conduits, flexible or not was acceptable as a ground conductor. Yes
the conduit was grounded and the boxes also but with a specified
ground conductor.
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 19:21:23 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 07:36:42 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Armor is also used as the ground.... in NYC, where the code is
>>> unbelievably strict, armored cable is ALL they let you use - no romex
>>> at all. Using 2-12 armor is standard for a 20 amp breaker. Just make
>>> sure that you use metal boxes (not the plastic crap) and make sure the
>>> connections to the boxes are tight.
>>>
>>
>>Yes - but that is because it has a ground wire in it which is in constant
>>contact with the shielding. The ground wire is bent back over the shielding
>>at the point of the clamp and is secured by the clamp.
> In NYC the code requires armoured cable to keep the rats from eating
>the cables.
I had a code update class this year and the instructor told us just
that, and that's why it's refered to as BX as it was invented to
solve the rat problem in Bronx.
Mike M.
Yeah, I remember running into all kinds of old crap back in "the old days".
The code violations were brutal and I wonder how some of us survived...LOL
BX cable should have had a grounding strip /ribbon run inside the steel
armour. Steel (in a helical coil) is not considered a good grounding
conductor and if the ribbon existed it had to be used.
From the Ontario Hydro Electrical Safety Code - 19th Edition - 1983
Rule 10-510 Fixed Equipment
(2) The armour of those constructions of armoured cables incorporating a
grounding conductor shall not be considered as fulfilling the requirements
of a grounding conductor for the purposes of this Rule, and the grounding
conductor provided in these cables shall shall comply with Subrule (1)(b).
**(states the conductor shall be bare or green)
(3) The armour of flexible conduit and liquid-tight flexible metal conduit
shall not be considered as fulfilling the requirements of a grounding
conductor for the purposes of this rule, and a separate grounding conductor
shall be run within the conduit.
EMT was never considered mechanical protection but could always be used in
places where romex was Ok just strapped to a wall to keep it neat.
1983 rule. Sorry I was too lazy to find it in the new code book
Rule 12-1502 Use (EMT)
Electrical metallic tubing may be be used for exposed and concealed work
except that it shall not be used:
(a) Where it is subject to mechanical injury either during installation or
afterwards;
(b) in any hazardous location;
etc... corrosive, wet, concrete, earth contact, corrosive vapors...
--------------------
wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Not that many years ago "BX" armoured cable was accepted as a safety
ground in Canada too - and the current "MC" cable, with aluminum
shield and a separate bonding ribbon also passes.
Actually EMT IS adequate protection under Canadian code for exposed
wiring in a lot of areas. (like basement walls and residential
garages)
-----------------
On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 23:19:56 -0400, "Josepi" <[email protected]>
wrote:
In Canada armored cable is not considered a ground conductor. A continuous
ground conductor must be run.
E.M.T. does not suffice a s a ground conductor and a separate grounding
conductor must be run. The little screws that hold EMT together can have
physical strain on them, separate and are not good grounding systems and not
to Canadian safety code.
EMT is not physical protection for wiring and only a method running wires.
It takes conduit (rigid) to offer physical protection.
I find this hard to believe the NEC would differ that much on armored cable.
Who would use a grounding conductor that is made out of who knows what crap
metal and has an inductive coil made out of it? Sounds like somebody has
their wires crossed.
-------------
"Doug Miller" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Totally incorrect. In addition to cable armor, the NEC also recognizes
rigid and flexible metallic conduit or tubing as acceptable grounding
conductors.
On Sep 7, 11:23=A0am, "SonomaProducts.com" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'll post pics and specs on my new shop once I have it all setup, I am
> moving into a 1,500 sq ft barn and getting a few new tools.
>
> My landlord (the farmer) added some additional electrical for me.
> Hehad an electrician put in a 220 circuit and run some metal conduit
> out to where I wanted the 220 plug and put it in a metal jbox. He also
> ran two wires for an aditional 110 circuit to the same jbox all inside
> metal conduit. I will pull the 110 out and route it to where I want
> the extra juice.
>
> I do lots of home electrical and can follow the diagrams well and know
> some of the codes, etc. I have always used romex or armorcable. I want
> to come out of this steel jbox with some armor cable to a 4 gang
> outlet, then out to a 1/2 switched outlet and then another switched
> outlet. I am familar with how all that is done but have the following
> question (finally).
>
> Do I attach the ground wire in the armor cable to the jbox? Once I go
> out of one of the switches I will use romex overhead and I want to be
> sure everything is grounded correctly. I guess the metal conduit and
> boxes are ground enough to just run the two wire 110 but when I come
> out to armor cable and romex I want to be sure I am grounded no?
>
> BW
> Hoping I don't burn the place down or lectracute mysef. The farmer
> wouldn't be happy.
BW
Armor is armor. Nothing else. The ground must be defined and in this
case it is the bare or green wire with in the armor cable.
Conduit is nice and probably required since you indicate that the
wiring will not be exposed. Exposed romex or the like will not cut it
now.
The additional wires indicate that there is no ground wire and it will
have to be added.
A subpanel with the required breakers should have been added. Also a
ground rod should be provided for additional protection. Especially if
the barn is constructed of combustible material.
Armor cable, conduit and boxes have no listed electrical
characteristics and therefore should not be part of any required
ground protection.
Bob AZ
I bet the NEC makes no distinction with glass and plastic for grounding
either. This doesn't make it OK as there are other rules that you don't seem
to be able to see with your HUHAS.
---------
"Doug Miller" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
That is incorrect.
The term "mechanical grounding" doesn't make any sense, and is not a
concept recognized by the NEC.
Moreover, the NEC makes no distinction between rigid metal conduit,
intermediate metal conduit, electrical metallic tubing (aka EMT or
thinwall), copper wire, or aluminum wire, in terms of their suitability
as equipment grounding conductors: all are equally acceptable.
-------------------
On 9/9/2011 11:58 AM, Hoosierpopi wrote:
The conduit and metal boxes constitute the Mechanical Grounding. The
bare copper conductor (or green wire) constitutes the Electrical
Ground.
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 5:19:37 PM UTC-7, m II wrote:
> ...The Code doesn't specify *anything at all* about colors
> in
> residential wiring except: neutral = gray or white, ground = bare or
> green or green with a yellow tracer, and those colors can't be used for
> anything else.
Just to clarify: the common wiring to a wall switch has the same
black/white/bare wires as to a socket, but BOTH THE BLACK
AND WHITE ARE LIVE. The white wire, therefore, IS 'used'
for something else, and for that reason it must be marked
(usually with a wrap of colored tape) as 'nonneutral'.
When you add that extra tape to tag the wire, it effectively
becomes no longer a 'white' color wire.
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 11:03:26 -0700 (PDT), [email protected] wrote:
>
>> The thin grounding wire in armor cables is not meant to be connected. Â It is
>> meant to be folded back on the armor at the point of the box clamp.
>
>
>That is correct. The ribbon is folded back on the armor at both ends.
>You couldn't connect it as a ground if you tried - the wire is too
>weak. I've been told that the wire is there to ground moisture in the
>armored cable, but I have my doubts. Do you have a better reason?
>
>shelly
>
>PS - I reread my earlier post and found an error: NYC code also allows
>for conduit (naturally.)
It is there to provide a "direct" ground - instead of a possibly
"inductive" ground by shorting all the coils in the armour. If the
"ribbon" is bent back over the armour in the box connector you get a
clean positive ground from end to end.
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 22:35:34 -0400, Doug Miller
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 9/8/2011 9:19 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 21:25:51 -0400, Doug Miller
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/7/2011 8:27 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't count on the armor to be a ground connector, it's not exactly a
>>>> copper conductor. Safety first!
>>>
>>> It doesn't have to be copper.
>>>
>>> The NEC explicitly permits the use of (among other things) the armor of
>>> type AC armored cable to be used as the equipment grounding conductor.
>>> Other acceptable grounding conductors include aluminum wire, EMT, rigid
>>> metal conduit, flexible metal conduit, and flexible metallic tubing.
>>> [2008 NEC, Article 250.118]
>>
>> Ya, the code is one thing... safety is another. I've seen armored cable where
>> the armor was no longer connected to the box, just hanging in the air, or
>> barely attached by rusty screws.
>
>Don't blame the armored cable for that. Blame an incompetent installer.
My point was that people don't care if they damage the armor because they think
it serves no electrical purpose. They wouldn't react the same to seeing the
wires hanging out! And it's easier to disconnect the armor than the ground wire.
> > In that case a short to ground could blow out
> > the rusty connection and leave the ground hot.
>
>Probably not before tripping the breaker...
Yup, and they would then flip the breaker back on, and with the armor blown out,
would energize the chassis with 120v.
On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 09:15:43 -0400, Doug Miller
<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Everybody seems to be saying something different... Doug Miller states that
>> armor on AC cable is OK for use as ground conductor. Read the beginning of this
>> thread. I think the NEC states that it is OK only in limited circumstances.
>
>Too bad that doesn't stop you from making
>up Code rules that you imagine to exist.
I haven't made anything up, the NEC states AC cable can only be used in certain
locations, IE "not wet". You are the one making things up.
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 09:15:43 -0400, Doug Miller
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>
>>> Everybody seems to be saying something different... Doug Miller
>>> states that armor on AC cable is OK for use as ground conductor.
>>> Read the beginning of this thread. I think the NEC states that it
>>> is OK only in limited circumstances.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Too bad that doesn't stop you from making
>> up Code rules that you imagine to exist.
>
>
>
> I haven't made anything up, the NEC states AC cable can only be used
> in certain locations, IE "not wet". You are the one making things up.
Oh come on Bob - you are now reaching too far. Wet was never even one of
the discussion topics. Good for you - you went and found something in the
NEC - it still only serves to show how you reach to make a point that is not
even relevant, or that is not related to what you hae already put on the
table. So - you did nothing to prove Doug wrong. You only served to make
yourself look worse in this discussion. Thought you were the one that
suggested dropping this and moving on to woodworking. You should have
followed your own advice.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Mike the Troll" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
<look at me drivel snipped>
On 9/17/2011 8:39 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 09:15:43 -0400, Doug Miller
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Everybody seems to be saying something different... Doug Miller states that
>>> armor on AC cable is OK for use as ground conductor. Read the beginning of this
>>> thread. I think the NEC states that it is OK only in limited circumstances.
>>
>> Too bad that doesn't stop you from making
>> up Code rules that you imagine to exist.
>
> I haven't made anything up,
I guess it must have been someone else using your account, then, who
posted the claims that AC cable armor couldn't be used as an equipment
grounding conductor, or that the use of wire with blue insulation was a
Code violation.
> the NEC states AC cable can only be used in certain
> locations, IE "not wet".
Stop changing the subject. I never claimed otherwise; at no point in
this thread has the subject of permissible locations for installing AC
cable come up (until now).
> You are the one making things up.
What have I made up? Be specific.
ROFL - Too funny but quite possibly true.
Adverse environment.
-------------------
wrote in message news:[email protected]...
In NYC the code requires armoured cable to keep the rats from eating
the cables.
---------------------
[email protected] wrote:
Armor is also used as the ground.... in NYC, where the code is
unbelievably strict, armored cable is ALL they let you use - no romex
at all. Using 2-12 armor is standard for a 20 amp breaker. Just make
sure that you use metal boxes (not the plastic crap) and make sure the
connections to the boxes are tight.
Fuck off troll!
----------------
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
m II wrote:
> Please don't feed the troll.
>
That is so funny coming from you...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
> > Ya, the code is one thing... safety is another. I've seen armored cable=
where
> > the armor =A0was no longer connected to the box, just hanging in the ai=
r, or
> > barely attached by rusty screws.
>
> Don't blame the armored cable for that. Blame an incompetent installer.
>
> =A0> In that case a short to ground could blow out
> =A0> the rusty connection and leave the ground hot.
>
> Probably not before tripping the breaker...
after all, consider the mayhem that can be caused by accidentally
pinching, squeezing, cutting or puncturing romex - bx is called
armored for a reason.
shelly
On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 20:27:00 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 11:23:09 -0700 (PDT), "SonomaProducts.com" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>I'll post pics and specs on my new shop once I have it all setup, I am
>>moving into a 1,500 sq ft barn and getting a few new tools.
>>
>>My landlord (the farmer) added some additional electrical for me.
>>Hehad an electrician put in a 220 circuit and run some metal conduit
>>out to where I wanted the 220 plug and put it in a metal jbox. He also
>>ran two wires for an aditional 110 circuit to the same jbox all inside
>>metal conduit. I will pull the 110 out and route it to where I want
>>the extra juice.
>>
>>I do lots of home electrical and can follow the diagrams well and know
>>some of the codes, etc. I have always used romex or armorcable. I want
>>to come out of this steel jbox with some armor cable to a 4 gang
>>outlet, then out to a 1/2 switched outlet and then another switched
>>outlet. I am familar with how all that is done but have the following
>>question (finally).
>>
>>Do I attach the ground wire in the armor cable to the jbox? Once I go
>>out of one of the switches I will use romex overhead and I want to be
>>sure everything is grounded correctly. I guess the metal conduit and
>>boxes are ground enough to just run the two wire 110 but when I come
>>out to armor cable and romex I want to be sure I am grounded no?
>>
>>BW
>>Hoping I don't burn the place down or lectracute mysef. The farmer
>>wouldn't be happy.
>
>
>As far as I know you need the safety ground wire to be continuous throughout
>your wiring, from the fuse box to each outlet. The ground wire in each outlet
>box connects both to the outlet and to the box itself.
>
>I wouldn't count on the armor to be a ground connector, it's not exactly a
>copper conductor. Safety first!
>
>Anyway, if you don't get it inspected by an electrician you might get in legal
>trouble from the landlord if there's a problem, even in the future after you
>leave!
Easy way around the latter. Cut the wire off when you leave.
>
> I find this hard to believe the NEC would differ that much on armored cable.
> Who would use a grounding conductor that is made out of who knows what crap
> metal and has an inductive coil made out of it? Sounds like somebody has
> their wires crossed.
>
again, see my earlier post - ever hear of 12-2? (there is a 12-3 used
for 220 lines)
shelly
On 13 Sep 2011 17:35:44 GMT, [email protected] (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>[email protected] writes:
>>On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 22:49:54 -0400, Doug Miller
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On 9/11/2011 8:47 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>> My point was that people don't care if they damage the armor because they think
>>>> it serves no electrical purpose. They wouldn't react the same to seeing the
>>>> wires hanging out! And it's easier to disconnect the armor than the ground wire.
>>>
>>>And *my* point is that people who know what they're doing understand
>>>what the armor is for; it's only people who are not familiar with the
>>>Code who think the armor serves no electrical purpose...
>>
>>You're assuming most people have the knowledge of electricians... the opposite
>>is true. I once watched a guy wiring his barn with some industrial wire he
>>bought. I told him he couldn't use the 'blue' wires because they were not in
>>code, and he told me "It's my barn I'll wire it any way I want!" Pity the
>>electrician who goes there later to fix it! I should have reported the idiot.
>
>Good thing you didn't report him, you'd have looked the fool. So long as the
>current carrying conductors are not white or green, they're perfectly acceptable
>to the NEC in any residential setting.
>
>scott
I only used the blue color as an example, he was using multi colored wires in a
totally haphazard fashion, connecting blues to greens to oranges... whatever was
convenient, and changing color mid-run is a code violation as far as I know. I
don't think he connected any white wires in what I saw.
m II wrote:
> Fuck off troll!
>
> ----------------
Let me see... from your previous reply to another poster... "Such language!
I can rest that case. Was almost too easy to demonstrate."
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 21:25:51 -0400, Doug Miller
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 9/7/2011 8:27 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> I wouldn't count on the armor to be a ground connector, it's not exactly a
>> copper conductor. Safety first!
>
>It doesn't have to be copper.
>
>The NEC explicitly permits the use of (among other things) the armor of
>type AC armored cable to be used as the equipment grounding conductor.
>Other acceptable grounding conductors include aluminum wire, EMT, rigid
>metal conduit, flexible metal conduit, and flexible metallic tubing.
>[2008 NEC, Article 250.118]
Ya, the code is one thing... safety is another. I've seen armored cable where
the armor was no longer connected to the box, just hanging in the air, or
barely attached by rusty screws. In that case a short to ground could blow out
the rusty connection and leave the ground hot.
In some types of installations, such as computer systems or recording studios,
dedicated ground wires are ran to eliminate electrical noise. The equipment
chassis ground is connected to the safety ground wire but not the armor.
Sometimes these outlets are colored orange.
BobF
Dougy pulls this "know-it-all" routine with each poster at some time.
He lives for it to put somebody else down with his self-professed code
knowledge.
After he gets his licks in another sock puppet, mostly some Mike
personality likes to get in there and act knowledgeable also on his
coattails
You are no exception and I think you will also do what most others have
done.Killfilter the Mike kooks. You will enjoy the group much better
then.
As in many groups, there are many "experts" here and many
"know-it-alls" that live to jump down somebody's throat. Most of these
are insecure teacher types that attempt to send you down to the
Principal's office verbally but it frustrates them badly to not have
that control over others every word here.
Hang in there. Take it with a grain of salt. There re real woodworker
people here too.
------------
"Doug Miller" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
<his usual grandstanding snipped>
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 21:36:50 -0400, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>
>>
>> This thread started as a discussion on the use of a copper ground
>> wire and not just a crap piece of steel armor for a safety ground. It
>> went off on a tangent but that wasn't really my idea. I still say the
>> armor is dangerous, and I would always run a copper wire. You realize
>> if the armor developed any appreciable resistance, the breaker
>> wouldn't even trip for a ground short? And as for the CODE, it wasn't
>> God given! In my business, we take the safe route before the legal
>> route or any other,
>>
>
>And you realize that the armor is not used for the ground - don't you?
Everybody seems to be saying something different... Doug Miller states that
armor on AC cable is OK for use as ground conductor. Read the beginning of this
thread. I think the NEC states that it is OK only in limited circumstances. (BTW
there is no requirement for technicians to know anything about electricians
codes or rules.) I look up anything I need to know - the NEC is HUGE - and the
only thing I found on this is that rigid pipe is OK.
All I am saying is that I would personally use a copper ground wire inside armor
wire (if it didn't have one) for safety reasons. I don't know why it's such a
big deal. I've been in places where the cables are broken from the boxes, duplex
outlets out hanging in the air! You would be surprised at some of the things
that never get repaired in the seedy underworld in the city! I do lots of
musical equipment and getting it set up properly in some clubs is quite a
challenge. It's very important that mics and guitars are properly grounded, I've
seen people shocked by these things. I recommend to bands that they run a ground
of some kind to tie all their amps together, and use a rack box if they can. I
would recommend they only use 1 circuit but that isn't possible with some of
today's large amplifiers.
Another challenge to this approach is that some equipment is subject to ground
loop hum, and one of the things I do is re-wire the amp (if possible) to reduce
the noise. Old amps were lacking things like star grounding and that's a
problem. Some people were using ground-lift switches and that's bad news! The
amps I design are hum free, I ground the circuit my way, not the usual status
quo, and the safety ground doesn't create a loop.
Anyway, this thread is about worn out.
On 9/16/2011 10:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 21:36:50 -0400, "Mike Marlow"<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> This thread started as a discussion on the use of a copper ground
>>> wire and not just a crap piece of steel armor for a safety ground. It
>>> went off on a tangent but that wasn't really my idea. I still say the
>>> armor is dangerous, and I would always run a copper wire. You realize
>>> if the armor developed any appreciable resistance, the breaker
>>> wouldn't even trip for a ground short? And as for the CODE, it wasn't
>>> God given! In my business, we take the safe route before the legal
>>> route or any other,
>>>
>>
>> And you realize that the armor is not used for the ground - don't you?
>
> Everybody seems to be saying something different... Doug Miller states that
> armor on AC cable is OK for use as ground conductor. Read the beginning of this
> thread. I think the NEC states that it is OK only in limited circumstances.
It really would be nice if you'd take the trouble to learn what the NEC
actually says before telling us what you think it says.
"The equipment grounding conductor run with or enclosing the circuit
conductors shall be one or more of the following: ... armor of type AC
cable as provided in 320.108." [2008 NEC, Article 250.118(8)]
Article 320.108 just says that the cable armor "shall provide an
adequate fault path".
>(BTW
> there is no requirement for technicians to know anything about electricians
> codes or rules.)
It's evident that you don't. Too bad that doesn't stop you from making
up Code rules that you imagine to exist.
> I look up anything I need to know
It's evident that you have in fact looked up no more what you think you
need to know.
> - the NEC is HUGE - and the
> only thing I found on this is that rigid pipe is OK.
You didn't look very carefully, then: rigid metal conduit is listed as a
grounding conductor in 250.118(2), and the *next six words* in the code
are "intermediate metal conduit" and "electrical metallic tubing"
(Articles 250.118(3) and 250.118(4) respectively)
>
> All I am saying is that I would personally use a copper ground wire inside armor
> wire (if it didn't have one) for safety reasons.
And I won't disagree with you on that. I agree that it's prudent to do
so -- but it is *not* required by the NEC.
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 07:36:42 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>
>>
>> Armor is also used as the ground.... in NYC, where the code is
>> unbelievably strict, armored cable is ALL they let you use - no romex
>> at all. Using 2-12 armor is standard for a 20 amp breaker. Just make
>> sure that you use metal boxes (not the plastic crap) and make sure the
>> connections to the boxes are tight.
>>
>
>Yes - but that is because it has a ground wire in it which is in constant
>contact with the shielding. The ground wire is bent back over the shielding
>at the point of the clamp and is secured by the clamp.
In NYC the code requires armoured cable to keep the rats from eating
the cables.
You must have severe HUHAS if you think I care about trying to not
return what I receive, here. I didn't set the tone so try your troll on
somebody else.
Stop interlaced posting. It's inconsiderate and moronic.
--------------
"Bill" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
On 9/12/2011 9:54 PM, m II wrote:
> Bullshit!
This is not a word I care to read when I open a post, and the content
of
your post certainly doesn't warrant its use. Perhaps you will bear this
in mind in your future announcements? You may have recognized by now
that we are a community of gentlemen (ladies and children welcome too).
> His first device was the "A" and the cable second, thus the "B". It
> was
> experimental and the "X" was added to signify.
>
> --------------- "Mike M" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> I had a code update class this year and the instructor told us just
> that, and that's why it's refered to as BX as it was invented to
> solve the rat problem in Bronx.
>
> Mike M.
"Look at me" syndrome or just losing it?
Read what he stated again and stop trying to disagree regardless of what
people post.
Is this another case where the hot wire can feed current into a box and it
doesn't return to the source "vapour currents" but, it can still trip the
breaker?
Perhaps this is another one of your imaginary current circuits, like the
bathroom fan circuit, where the current fills up the device before it
continues to the rest of the circuit?
---------
"Doug Miller" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Ya, the code is one thing... safety is another. I've seen armored cable
> where
> the armor was no longer connected to the box, just hanging in the air, or
> barely attached by rusty screws.
Don't blame the armored cable for that. Blame an incompetent installer.
> In that case a short to ground could blow out
> the rusty connection and leave the ground hot.
Probably not before tripping the breaker...
In Canada armored cable is not considered a ground conductor. A continuous
ground conductor must be run.
E.M.T. does not suffice a s a ground conductor and a separate grounding
conductor must be run. The little screws that hold EMT together can have
physical strain on them, separate and are not good grounding systems and not
to Canadian safety code.
EMT is not physical protection for wiring and only a method running wires.
It takes conduit (rigid) to offer physical protection.
I find this hard to believe the NEC would differ that much on armored cable.
Who would use a grounding conductor that is made out of who knows what crap
metal and has an inductive coil made out of it? Sounds like somebody has
their wires crossed.
-------------
"Doug Miller" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Totally incorrect. In addition to cable armor, the NEC also recognizes
rigid and flexible metallic conduit or tubing as acceptable grounding
conductors.
Such language!
I can rest that case. Was almost too easy to demonstrate.
---------------
"FrozenNorth" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Fuck off troll.
On 9/23/11 4:27 PM, m II wrote:
> Please don't feed the troll.
>
--
Froz...
The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.
Bullshit!
His first device was the "A" and the cable second, thus the "B". It was
experimental and the "X" was added to signify.
---------------
"Mike M" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I had a code update class this year and the instructor told us just
that, and that's why it's refered to as BX as it was invented to
solve the rat problem in Bronx.
Mike M.
Please don't feed the troll.
--------------------
"FrozenNorth" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
On 9/21/11 9:01 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> m II wrote:
>
>> First I didn't post any of that confusion. Learn to read attribution
>> lines and stop the bottom posting confusion with poorly designed
>> readers.
>
> Poorly designed readers are the ones that support top posting.
>
>>
>> Second the switch wiring is common practice and there is nothing in
>> the Can code about using the white for hot. It does not need to be
>> marked with tape. Our code only states the neutral shall be marked.
>>
>
> Who cares about the Canadian wiring code. This conversation has been
> about
> the NEC. I know - that's a complex concept for your mind...
>
Sorta exactly, I care about the Canadian Code, living in Canada, I have
rewired much of my house, when the white becomes a hot, i.e off a
switch
I mark it. Not just for me, but for a possible future owner of the
house. I would hate to work on a wiring job where it wasn't done that
way. Absolutely nothing wrong with going beyond code, especially if it
only takes a minute and ten cents worth of materials.
--
Froz...
The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.
[email protected] writes:
>On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 22:49:54 -0400, Doug Miller
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On 9/11/2011 8:47 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> My point was that people don't care if they damage the armor because they think
>>> it serves no electrical purpose. They wouldn't react the same to seeing the
>>> wires hanging out! And it's easier to disconnect the armor than the ground wire.
>>
>>And *my* point is that people who know what they're doing understand
>>what the armor is for; it's only people who are not familiar with the
>>Code who think the armor serves no electrical purpose...
>
>You're assuming most people have the knowledge of electricians... the opposite
>is true. I once watched a guy wiring his barn with some industrial wire he
>bought. I told him he couldn't use the 'blue' wires because they were not in
>code, and he told me "It's my barn I'll wire it any way I want!" Pity the
>electrician who goes there later to fix it! I should have reported the idiot.
Good thing you didn't report him, you'd have looked the fool. So long as the
current carrying conductors are not white or green, they're perfectly acceptable
to the NEC in any residential setting.
scott
Fucking troll!
Go some place else with your BULLSHIT!!
------------------
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
[email protected] wrote:
>
> because you have no sense of humor... and you like side-stepping my
> questions.
>
Sorry Bob - but you lose on this argument. Doug fairly called you out
on
what you posted. You back peddled but you did not do so well. You
made
some very direct statements about code violations, provided partial
information, and then tried to cover your tracks by later offering
limited
additional information - which by the way only served to throw your
credibility into question. Do yourself a favor and go back through
your
contributions to this thread. I'm sure you will see where you earned
everything Doug has thrown your way.
>
> Of course I'm not an electrician, I'm a technician, I have an IBEW
> card for my work in telecommunications.
One would expect better of you in that case.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
When Military stations went under OSHA, an OSHA man came to inspect
the largest man made structure in the world - a massive Radar building.
Many floors of special hardening e.g. the toilets were mounted on
springs and flex tubing... It could take a 75Megaton blast on the side.
This is something of a building. Anyway - he was looking around and
couldn't find anything - Mil spec everywhere. He walked by my Dads desk
and spotted a "Polly Pot" - A green plastic coffee pot. He stopped and
spied a 2 wire cord on the pot. Ah Ha ! - Violation at last. Dad
informed him that the plastic was non-conductive. He stood firm and so
Dad went into the shop, got a 3 prong plug and wound a green wire along
the two wire - and with a lug and sheet metal screw (SS) attached it to
the pot. Dad installed it - the man was pleased he found and had the
error corrected. - Dad kept it that way until he signed the site over
to NASA. Mechanical connection...
Martin
On 9/9/2011 10:11 PM, Josepi wrote:
> I bet the NEC makes no distinction with glass and plastic for grounding
> either. This doesn't make it OK as there are other rules that you don't
> seem to be able to see with your HUHAS.
>
> ---------
> "Doug Miller" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> That is incorrect.
>
> The term "mechanical grounding" doesn't make any sense, and is not a
> concept recognized by the NEC.
>
> Moreover, the NEC makes no distinction between rigid metal conduit,
> intermediate metal conduit, electrical metallic tubing (aka EMT or
> thinwall), copper wire, or aluminum wire, in terms of their suitability
> as equipment grounding conductors: all are equally acceptable.
>
>
> -------------------
> On 9/9/2011 11:58 AM, Hoosierpopi wrote:
> The conduit and metal boxes constitute the Mechanical Grounding. The
> bare copper conductor (or green wire) constitutes the Electrical
> Ground.
>
On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 23:19:56 -0400, "Josepi" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>In Canada armored cable is not considered a ground conductor. A continuous
>ground conductor must be run.
>
>E.M.T. does not suffice a s a ground conductor and a separate grounding
>conductor must be run. The little screws that hold EMT together can have
>physical strain on them, separate and are not good grounding systems and not
>to Canadian safety code.
>EMT is not physical protection for wiring and only a method running wires.
>It takes conduit (rigid) to offer physical protection.
>
Actually EMT IS adequate protection under Canadian code for exposed
wiring in a lot of areas. (like basement walls and residential
garages)
>I find this hard to believe the NEC would differ that much on armored cable.
>Who would use a grounding conductor that is made out of who knows what crap
>metal and has an inductive coil made out of it? Sounds like somebody has
>their wires crossed.
>
>
Not that many years ago "BX" armoured cable was accepted as a safety
ground in Canada too - and the current "MC" cable, with aluminum
shield and a separate bonding ribbon also passes.
>-------------
>"Doug Miller" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>Totally incorrect. In addition to cable armor, the NEC also recognizes
>rigid and flexible metallic conduit or tubing as acceptable grounding
>conductors.
m II wrote:
> Fucking troll!
>
> Go some place else with your BULLSHIT!!
Spending your morning in front of the mirror again?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
First I didn't post any of that confusion. Learn to read attribution
lines and stop the bottom posting confusion with poorly designed
readers.
Second the switch wiring is common practice and there is nothing in the
Can code about using the white for hot. It does not need to be marked
with tape. Our code only states the neutral shall be marked.
----------
"whit3rd" wrote in message
news:21898761.506.1316635848023.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqma37...
Just to clarify: the common wiring to a wall switch has the same
black/white/bare wires as to a socket, but BOTH THE BLACK
AND WHITE ARE LIVE. The white wire, therefore, IS 'used'
for something else, and for that reason it must be marked
(usually with a wrap of colored tape) as 'nonneutral'.
When you add that extra tape to tag the wire, it effectively
becomes no longer a 'white' color wire.
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 5:19:37 PM UTC-7, m II wrote:
> ...The Code doesn't specify *anything at all* about colors
> in
> residential wiring except: neutral = gray or white, ground = bare or
> green or green with a yellow tracer, and those colors can't be used
> for
> anything else.
On Sep 7, 2:23=A0pm, "SonomaProducts.com" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'll post pics and specs on my new shop once I have it all setup, I am
> moving into a 1,500 sq ft barn and getting a few new tools.
>
> My landlord (the farmer) added some additional electrical for me.
> Hehad an electrician put in a 220 circuit and run some metal conduit
> out to where I wanted the 220 plug and put it in a metal jbox. He also
> ran two wires for an aditional 110 circuit to the same jbox all inside
> metal conduit. I will pull the 110 out and route it to where I want
> the extra juice.
>
> I do lots of home electrical and can follow the diagrams well and know
> some of the codes, etc. I have always used romex or armorcable. I want
> to come out of this steel jbox with some armor cable to a 4 gang
> outlet, then out to a 1/2 switched outlet and then another switched
> outlet. I am familar with how all that is done but have the following
> question (finally).
>
> Do I attach the ground wire in the armor cable to the jbox? Once I go
> out of one of the switches I will use romex overhead and I want to be
> sure everything is grounded correctly. I guess the metal conduit and
> boxes are ground enough to just run the two wire 110 but when I come
> out to armor cable and romex I want to be sure I am grounded no?
>
> BW
> Hoping I don't burn the place down or lectracute mysef. The farmer
> wouldn't be happy.
The conduit and metal boxes constitute the Mechanical Grounding. The
bare copper conductor (or green wire) constitutes the Electrical
Ground. So, all your conduit should be mechanically "bonded" one to
the other and all your devices should be connected to the Electrical
Ground at the source.
Note: You can never have enough electrical outlets.
For lighting, I use (switched - 4-wa, in my case) grounded outlets in/
on the ceiling to accept the plugs of those cheap fluorescent
"shoplights" I get at HD or Lowes ($8-10) as it makes changing our
ballasts/fixtures a snap (well, a de-hook/re-hook)
>
> BX cable should have had a grounding strip /ribbon =A0run inside the stee=
l
> armour. =A0Steel (in a helical coil) is not considered a good grounding
> conductor and if the ribbon existed it had to be used.
>
Didn't have to use it - if you've ever connected the ribbon (it's
really a thin aluminum wire) you'd see how crappy it is. I'd feel
safer with bx to box connections.
shelly
m II wrote:
> Please don't feed the troll.
>
That is so funny coming from you...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
> Do I attach the ground wire in the armor cable to the jbox? Once I go
> out of one of the switches I will use romex overhead and I want to be
> sure everything is grounded correctly. I guess the metal conduit and
> boxes are ground enough to just run the two wire 110 but when I come
> out to armor cable and romex I want to be sure I am grounded no?
>
> BW
> Hoping I don't burn the place down or lectracute mysef. The farmer
> wouldn't be happy.
Didn't realize I would start such a thread. I hired an electrician. He
tied the 110 armor cable ground to the same ground used for the 220
circuit (duh). He put in a few new 4 gang boxes and two switched
outlets. I could have done the switched outlets but I would have run
wire back and forth a few times and he did it in a single 3 conductor
run, as it should be done. $150 well spent.
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 22:49:54 -0400, Doug Miller
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 9/11/2011 8:47 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> My point was that people don't care if they damage the armor because they think
>> it serves no electrical purpose. They wouldn't react the same to seeing the
>> wires hanging out! And it's easier to disconnect the armor than the ground wire.
>
>And *my* point is that people who know what they're doing understand
>what the armor is for; it's only people who are not familiar with the
>Code who think the armor serves no electrical purpose...
You're assuming most people have the knowledge of electricians... the opposite
is true. I once watched a guy wiring his barn with some industrial wire he
bought. I told him he couldn't use the 'blue' wires because they were not in
code, and he told me "It's my barn I'll wire it any way I want!" Pity the
electrician who goes there later to fix it! I should have reported the idiot.
>>>> In that case a short to ground could blow out
>>>> the rusty connection and leave the ground hot.
>>>
>>> Probably not before tripping the breaker...
>>
>> Yup, and they would then flip the breaker back on, and with the armor blown out,
>> would energize the chassis with 120v.
>>
>Don't blame the armor for that either. Blame an ass who flips a tripped
>breaker back on without finding out why it tripped first.
99% of the population!
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 21:04:44 -0400, Doug Miller
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>I guess it must have been someone else using your account, then, who
>>posted the claims that AC cable armor couldn't be used as an equipment
>>grounding conductor,
>
>Ummm... could you, like, quote where I said "Ac cable couldn't be used for
>ground according to the NEC." like because I don't seem to see any such post...
>like what are you smoking, man??
OK, *shouldn't* be used, then. Happy?
You said that you "wouldn't count on" it.
>
>
>> or that the use of wire with blue insulation was a
>>Code violation.
>
>So you say you can use blue wire for ground?
I never said that; quite the opposite, in fact.
>
>You say you can use blue wire for neutral?
I never said that either; quite the opposite, in fact.
>
>Oh I get it, you can use it for the hot... so a bundle of blue wires is fine?
Yes, you can, and yes, it is.
>
>Wait a minute, a bundle of blue wires is probably a violation, there is a 66%
>chance of it now isn't there?
If you would take the trouble to learn what the Code actually says, then you
could stop guessing. And you wouldn't have to make stuff up.
>
>>
>>> the NEC states AC cable can only be used in certain
>>> locations, IE "not wet".
>>
>>Stop changing the subject. I never claimed otherwise; at no point in
>>this thread has the subject of permissible locations for installing AC
>>cable come up (until now).
>
>I'm not changing the subject, I pointed out that AC cable can only be used in
>limited areas.
Which *is* changing the subject, obviously.
> The OP in this thread was using it in a barn, and depending on
>the barn, it may have been illegal.
If you would take the trouble to learn what the Code actually says, then you
could stop guessing. And you wouldn't have to make stuff up.
On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 16:43:20 -0400, "m II" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Such language!
>
>I can rest that case. Was almost too easy to demonstrate.
Fuck off troll.
On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 21:04:44 -0400, Doug Miller
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>I guess it must have been someone else using your account, then, who
>posted the claims that AC cable armor couldn't be used as an equipment
>grounding conductor,
Ummm... could you, like, quote where I said "Ac cable couldn't be used for
ground according to the NEC." like because I don't seem to see any such post...
like what are you smoking, man??
> or that the use of wire with blue insulation was a
>Code violation.
So you say you can use blue wire for ground?
You say you can use blue wire for neutral?
Oh I get it, you can use it for the hot... so a bundle of blue wires is fine?
Wait a minute, a bundle of blue wires is probably a violation, there is a 66%
chance of it now isn't there?
>
>> the NEC states AC cable can only be used in certain
>> locations, IE "not wet".
>
>Stop changing the subject. I never claimed otherwise; at no point in
>this thread has the subject of permissible locations for installing AC
>cable come up (until now).
I'm not changing the subject, I pointed out that AC cable can only be used in
limited areas. The OP in this thread was using it in a barn, and depending on
the barn, it may have been illegal. You can't use it for ground if it's illegal,
now can you?
But I acknowledge that I wouldn't use AC sheath as a ground, and the fact it is
legal IN YOUR AREA doesn't mean shit to me. Different towns are free to adopt
any or NOT to adopt any of the code. And even if it's legal, it's a stupid thing
to do. As little as 10 ohms resistance might not let the breaker trip.
And I NEVER said it was illegal according to the NEC! That was YOUR invention!
> > You are the one making things up.
>
>What have I made up? Be specific.
Read the above...
[email protected] wrote:
>
> because you have no sense of humor... and you like side-stepping my
> questions.
>
Sorry Bob - but you lose on this argument. Doug fairly called you out on
what you posted. You back peddled but you did not do so well. You made
some very direct statements about code violations, provided partial
information, and then tried to cover your tracks by later offering limited
additional information - which by the way only served to throw your
credibility into question. Do yourself a favor and go back through your
contributions to this thread. I'm sure you will see where you earned
everything Doug has thrown your way.
>
> Of course I'm not an electrician, I'm a technician, I have an IBEW
> card for my work in telecommunications.
One would expect better of you in that case.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
m II wrote:
> First I didn't post any of that confusion. Learn to read attribution
> lines and stop the bottom posting confusion with poorly designed
> readers.
Poorly designed readers are the ones that support top posting.
>
> Second the switch wiring is common practice and there is nothing in
> the Can code about using the white for hot. It does not need to be
> marked with tape. Our code only states the neutral shall be marked.
>
Who cares about the Canadian wiring code. This conversation has been about
the NEC. I know - that's a complex concept for your mind...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
[email protected] wrote:
>> BX cable should have had a grounding strip /ribbon run inside the
>> steel armour. Steel (in a helical coil) is not considered a good
>> grounding conductor and if the ribbon existed it had to be used.
>>
>
> Didn't have to use it - if you've ever connected the ribbon (it's
> really a thin aluminum wire) you'd see how crappy it is. I'd feel
> safer with bx to box connections.
>
The thin grounding wire in armor cables is not meant to be connected. It is
meant to be folded back on the armor at the point of the box clamp.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Only Dougy's code says these things.
"Not a workmanlike manner"
FAILED!
"Doug Miller" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
No, it's not. The Code doesn't specify *anything at all* about colors
in
residential wiring except: neutral = gray or white, ground = bare or
green or green with a yellow tracer, and those colors can't be used for
anything else.
There is no prohibition whatsoever against mixing colors, or using any
colors you please.
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Armor is also used as the ground.... in NYC, where the code is
> unbelievably strict, armored cable is ALL they let you use - no romex
> at all. Using 2-12 armor is standard for a 20 amp breaker. Just make
> sure that you use metal boxes (not the plastic crap) and make sure the
> connections to the boxes are tight.
>
Yes - but that is because it has a ground wire in it which is in constant
contact with the shielding. The ground wire is bent back over the shielding
at the point of the clamp and is secured by the clamp.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
m II wrote:
>
> Stop interlaced posting. It's inconsiderate and moronic.
Bullshit!
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Sep 7, 9:10=A0pm, Bob AZ <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sep 7, 11:23=A0am, "SonomaProducts.com" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I'll post pics and specs on my new shop once I have it all setup, I am
> > moving into a 1,500 sq ft barn and getting a few new tools.
>
> > My landlord (the farmer) added some additional electrical for me.
> > Hehad an electrician put in a 220 circuit and run some metal conduit
> > out to where I wanted the 220 plug and put it in a metal jbox. He also
> > ran two wires for an aditional 110 circuit to the same jbox all inside
> > metal conduit. I will pull the 110 out and route it to where I want
> > the extra juice.
>
> > I do lots of home electrical and can follow the diagrams well and know
> > some of the codes, etc. I have always used romex or armorcable. I want
> > to come out of this steel jbox with some armor cable to a 4 gang
> > outlet, then out to a 1/2 switched outlet and then another switched
> > outlet. I am familar with how all that is done but have the following
> > question (finally).
>
> > Do I attach the ground wire in the armor cable to the jbox? Once I go
> > out of one of the switches I will use romex overhead and I want to be
> > sure everything is grounded correctly. I guess the metal conduit and
> > boxes are ground enough to just run the two wire 110 but when I come
> > out to armor cable and romex I want to be sure I am grounded no?
>
> > BW
> > Hoping I don't burn the place down or lectracute mysef. The farmer
> > wouldn't be happy.
>
> BW
>
> Armor is armor. Nothing else. The ground must be defined and in this
> case it is the bare or green wire with in the armor cable.
>
> Conduit is nice and probably required since you indicate that the
> wiring will not be exposed. Exposed romex or the like will not cut it
> now.
>
> The additional wires indicate that there is no ground wire and it will
> have to be added.
>
> A subpanel with the required breakers should have been added. Also a
> ground rod should be provided for additional protection. Especially if
> the barn is constructed of combustible material.
>
> Armor cable, conduit and boxes have no listed electrical
> characteristics and therefore should not be part of any required
> ground protection.
>
> Bob =A0AZ
Armor is also used as the ground.... in NYC, where the code is
unbelievably strict, armored cable is ALL they let you use - no romex
at all. Using 2-12 armor is standard for a 20 amp breaker. Just make
sure that you use metal boxes (not the plastic crap) and make sure the
connections to the boxes are tight.
shelly
On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 11:23:09 -0700 (PDT), "SonomaProducts.com" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>I'll post pics and specs on my new shop once I have it all setup, I am
>moving into a 1,500 sq ft barn and getting a few new tools.
>
>My landlord (the farmer) added some additional electrical for me.
>Hehad an electrician put in a 220 circuit and run some metal conduit
>out to where I wanted the 220 plug and put it in a metal jbox. He also
>ran two wires for an aditional 110 circuit to the same jbox all inside
>metal conduit. I will pull the 110 out and route it to where I want
>the extra juice.
>
>I do lots of home electrical and can follow the diagrams well and know
>some of the codes, etc. I have always used romex or armorcable. I want
>to come out of this steel jbox with some armor cable to a 4 gang
>outlet, then out to a 1/2 switched outlet and then another switched
>outlet. I am familar with how all that is done but have the following
>question (finally).
>
>Do I attach the ground wire in the armor cable to the jbox? Once I go
>out of one of the switches I will use romex overhead and I want to be
>sure everything is grounded correctly. I guess the metal conduit and
>boxes are ground enough to just run the two wire 110 but when I come
>out to armor cable and romex I want to be sure I am grounded no?
>
>BW
>Hoping I don't burn the place down or lectracute mysef. The farmer
>wouldn't be happy.
As far as I know you need the safety ground wire to be continuous throughout
your wiring, from the fuse box to each outlet. The ground wire in each outlet
box connects both to the outlet and to the box itself.
I wouldn't count on the armor to be a ground connector, it's not exactly a
copper conductor. Safety first!
Anyway, if you don't get it inspected by an electrician you might get in legal
trouble from the landlord if there's a problem, even in the future after you
leave!
[email protected] wrote:
>
> This thread started as a discussion on the use of a copper ground
> wire and not just a crap piece of steel armor for a safety ground. It
> went off on a tangent but that wasn't really my idea. I still say the
> armor is dangerous, and I would always run a copper wire. You realize
> if the armor developed any appreciable resistance, the breaker
> wouldn't even trip for a ground short? And as for the CODE, it wasn't
> God given! In my business, we take the safe route before the legal
> route or any other,
>
And you realize that the armor is not used for the ground - don't you?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
You are correct and caught me. I am Doug Miller using another nickname
too.
------------------
"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Unless you can _prove_ that assertation,
You are in violation of your own "advice".
-------------
In article <[email protected]>, m II <[email protected]>
wrote:
If you aren't another of the many nicknames Doug uses here then stop
trolling.
Depends on location.
The NEC in USA is looser than many other codes. Other locations this
technique is inadvisable and illegal.
Use the ground wire the cable is supplied with not what Doug tells you.
---------------
wrote in message
news:04c49c65-62f7-458f-83f4-d3137b1aae48@br5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
Armored IS acceptable as a ground - the armor is a continuous band
strip of metal wound up. BY will easily support the weight of a 200 lb
person hanging off of it (I've done it!) It won't "develop any
appreciable resistance" any more that the wire inside would.
shelly
In article <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Of course I'm not an electrician, I'm a technician, I have an IBEW
>>> card for my work in telecommunications.
>>
>>Surely the IBEW has some sort of classes you can take to learn
>>something, anything, about the NEC so that you don't sound quite so
>>silly when you discuss it...
>>
>
>I have no reason to learn any more about the code then I know now. I don't do
>much elec. wiring other than in my own house, and I know enough for that.
>
>For now, lets just kill this useless thread and try to get along! This is after
>all a wood shop, not a utility room!
>
The fact remains, you *lied* in your original description of what the
bozo was 'doing wrong'.
Those who took your *INACCURATE* description at face value, and made the
mistake of believing _what_you_said_ -- they *were* correct in pointing
out the error of your "as reported" violation.
What the 'bozo' was =actually= doing -may- have been 'wrong' and/or a
'code violation'.
What you SAID HE WAS DOING WRONG, was _not_, as described, a violation.
"Union card" or not, you're not "protected" from disciplinary action when
you make overt errors such as that.
On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 22:51:40 -0400, Doug Miller
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 9/14/2011 8:46 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 08:47:15 -0400, Doug Miller
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/13/2011 8:41 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> I should have told you I only used the blue color as an example, he was using a
>>>> multi colored wire bundle in a totally haphazard fashion, connecting blues to
>>>> greens
>>>
>>> That *is* a violation.
>>>
>>>> to oranges... whatever was convenient, and changing color mid-run is a
>>>> code violation as far as I know.
>>>
>>> "as far as [you] know" the Code doesn't seem to be very far. :-)
>>>
>>>> I don't think he had any white wires in what I saw.
>>>
>>> He didn't need any. Gray is acceptable for neutral.
>>>>
>>>>> The Code specifies that neutral must be white or gray; ground must be
>>>>> bare, green or green with a yellow stripe; and that those colors can be
>>>>> used for no other purposes. It makes no mention whatsoever of blue,
>>>>> black, red, orange, or any other colors, with respect to residential
>>>>> wiring. Unless he was using blue wire for ground or neutral, it's
>>>>> perfectly fine.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't say he used it for hot, you jumped to an incorrect conclusion.
>>>
>>> You claimed that using a blue wire was a violation. It's not.
>>>>
>>>>>> and he told me "It's my barn I'll wire it any way I want!" Pity the
>>>>>> electrician who goes there later to fix it!
>>>>>
>>>>> Why? Any electrician should be able to figure out that a blue wire is hot.
>>>>
>>>> Unless it's ground.
>>>
>>> And if it's installed as such, that's a violation. But there's nothing
>>> at all wrong with using blue wires, your delusions to the contrary
>>> notwithstanding.
>>>>
>>>>>> I should have reported the idiot.
>>>>>
>>>>> He was right, you were not. Who's the idiot?
>>>>
>>>> I'd say you are... :)
>>>
>>> Why? Because I know the Code and you don't?
>>
>> because you have no sense of humor... and you like side-stepping my questions.
>>
>>>> Are you an electrician by the way?
>>>
>>> No. Never claimed to be, either. I don't need to ask you that question;
>>> I already know the answer.
>>
>> Of course I'm not an electrician, I'm a technician, I have an IBEW card for my
>> work in telecommunications.
>
>Surely the IBEW has some sort of classes you can take to learn
>something, anything, about the NEC so that you don't sound quite so
>silly when you discuss it...
>
I have no reason to learn any more about the code then I know now. I don't do
much elec. wiring other than in my own house, and I know enough for that.
Anyway, I always take the safer route, and would look up anything I would need
to know. Most of what I do know about code is what I got from the company
electricians, who inspected any work I needed to do to keep the communications
equipment running.
For now, lets just kill this useless thread and try to get along! This is after
all a wood shop, not a utility room!
George Watson by any other name is still Doug Miller
http://www.uffnet.com/kookkamp/phlatdale.htm
-----------------
"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
<trolling snipped>
On 9/18/2011 10:14 AM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>, m II<[email protected]> wrote:
>> ...thinks he has good knowledge of the code and how it is applied in
>> **his** area.
>>
>> If you aren't another of the many nicknames Doug uses here then stop
>> trolling.
>
> Unless you can _prove_ that assertation,
> You are in violation of your own "advice".
>
Please don't feed the trolls, Robert.
...thinks he has good knowledge of the code and how it is applied in
**his** area.
If you aren't another of the many nicknames Doug uses here then stop
trolling.
--------------------
"Scott Lurndal" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
They you really have no basis upon which to stand with respect to
your initial "blue wire" posting, or any criticism of posters such
as Doug who have, over the years, evidenced a clear understanding
and familiarity with the NEC as applied in the United States.
scott
On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 23:11:03 -0400, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>
>>
>> because you have no sense of humor... and you like side-stepping my
>> questions.
>>
>
>Sorry Bob - but you lose on this argument. Doug fairly called you out on
>what you posted. You back peddled but you did not do so well. You made
>some very direct statements about code violations, provided partial
>information, and then tried to cover your tracks by later offering limited
>additional information - which by the way only served to throw your
>credibility into question. Do yourself a favor and go back through your
>contributions to this thread. I'm sure you will see where you earned
>everything Doug has thrown your way.
This thread started as a discussion on the use of a copper ground wire and not
just a crap piece of steel armor for a safety ground. It went off on a tangent
but that wasn't really my idea. I still say the armor is dangerous, and I would
always run a copper wire. You realize if the armor developed any appreciable
resistance, the breaker wouldn't even trip for a ground short? And as for the
CODE, it wasn't God given! In my business, we take the safe route before the
legal route or any other,
>>
>> Of course I'm not an electrician, I'm a technician, I have an IBEW
>> card for my work in telecommunications.
>
>One would expect better of you in that case.
Such is the case with newsgroups, conversations don't often go well.
[email protected] writes:
>I have no reason to learn any more about the code then I know now.
They you really have no basis upon which to stand with respect to
your initial "blue wire" posting, or any criticism of posters such
as Doug who have, over the years, evidenced a clear understanding
and familiarity with the NEC as applied in the United States.
scott
In article <[email protected]>, m II <[email protected]> wrote:
>...thinks he has good knowledge of the code and how it is applied in
>**his** area.
>
>If you aren't another of the many nicknames Doug uses here then stop
>trolling.
Unless you can _prove_ that assertation,
You are in violation of your own "advice".
On 9/7/2011 8:27 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
> I wouldn't count on the armor to be a ground connector, it's not exactly a
> copper conductor. Safety first!
It doesn't have to be copper.
The NEC explicitly permits the use of (among other things) the armor of
type AC armored cable to be used as the equipment grounding conductor.
Other acceptable grounding conductors include aluminum wire, EMT, rigid
metal conduit, flexible metal conduit, and flexible metallic tubing.
[2008 NEC, Article 250.118]
On 9/7/2011 9:10 PM, Bob AZ wrote:
> Armor is armor. Nothing else. The ground must be defined and in this
> case it is the bare or green wire with in the armor cable.
That is incorrect. The armor of type AC armored cable is explicitly
recognized by the NEC as an acceptable equipment grounding conductor.
>
> Conduit is nice and probably required since you indicate that the
> wiring will not be exposed. Exposed romex or the like will not cut it
> now.
??? Why would conduit be required if the wiring will be concealed?
[...]
> Armor cable, conduit and boxes have no listed electrical
> characteristics and therefore should not be part of any required
> ground protection.
Totally incorrect. In addition to cable armor, the NEC also recognizes
rigid and flexible metallic conduit or tubing as acceptable grounding
conductors.
On 9/8/2011 1:50 AM, Bob AZ wrote:
>>> Conduit is nice and probably required since you indicate that the
>>> wiring will not be exposed. Exposed romex or the like will not cut it
>>> now.
>>
>> ??? Why would conduit be required if the wiring will be concealed?
>> [...]
>>
>>> Armor cable, conduit and boxes have no listed electrical
>>> characteristics and therefore should not be part of any required
>>> ground protection.
>>
>> Totally incorrect. In addition to cable armor, the NEC also recognizes
>> rigid and flexible metallic conduit or tubing as acceptable grounding
>> conductors.
>
> Doug
>
> Typo on the "Not be exposed". Should read "wiring will not be
> exposed".
That *is* what it reads; that's why the statement makes no sense. Did
you mean it should read "wiring will be exposed"?
>
> I will have to reread the paragraph you mention. On a big electrical
> job I kept up with 2 years ago this was an inspection item. No
> conduits, flexible or not was acceptable as a ground conductor. Yes
> the conduit was grounded and the boxes also but with a specified
> ground conductor.
Perhaps there's a local ordinance prohibiting it, or perhaps the
inspector doesn't understand the Code, or perhaps that was specified by
contract. But it's not prohibited by the NEC. The NEC doesn't permit a
total of more than 6 feet of flex in a ground-fault path, but there is
no such limitation on rigid or intermediate, or on EMT.
On 9/8/2011 9:19 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 21:25:51 -0400, Doug Miller
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 9/7/2011 8:27 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>> I wouldn't count on the armor to be a ground connector, it's not exactly a
>>> copper conductor. Safety first!
>>
>> It doesn't have to be copper.
>>
>> The NEC explicitly permits the use of (among other things) the armor of
>> type AC armored cable to be used as the equipment grounding conductor.
>> Other acceptable grounding conductors include aluminum wire, EMT, rigid
>> metal conduit, flexible metal conduit, and flexible metallic tubing.
>> [2008 NEC, Article 250.118]
>
> Ya, the code is one thing... safety is another. I've seen armored cable where
> the armor was no longer connected to the box, just hanging in the air, or
> barely attached by rusty screws.
Don't blame the armored cable for that. Blame an incompetent installer.
> In that case a short to ground could blow out
> the rusty connection and leave the ground hot.
Probably not before tripping the breaker...
On 9/18/2011 9:41 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 22:46:00 -0700 (PDT), [email protected] wrote:
>
>> Armored IS acceptable as a ground - the armor is a continuous band
>> strip of metal wound up. BY will easily support the weight of a 200 lb
>> person hanging off of it (I've done it!) It won't "develop any
>> appreciable resistance" any more that the wire inside would.
>
> When someone pulls it off the wall and breaks the connection to the box it will!
> (Seen that back stage, the 2 ac wires were still connected.)
Improper maintenance (pulling it off the wall) and improper installation
(failure to secure it to the wall so that it couldn't be pulled off)
don't make the armor unsuitable as a grounding conductor.
On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 22:46:00 -0700 (PDT), [email protected] wrote:
>Armored IS acceptable as a ground - the armor is a continuous band
>strip of metal wound up. BY will easily support the weight of a 200 lb
>person hanging off of it (I've done it!) It won't "develop any
>appreciable resistance" any more that the wire inside would.
When someone pulls it off the wall and breaks the connection to the box it will!
(Seen that back stage, the 2 ac wires were still connected.)
I've seen that stuff around for years, but people don't use it as much anymore.
Now it seems to be relegated to where it's needed IE on flexible equipment such
as motors and generators. I have some in my basement going to the water heater
but that's only because it's exposed, it has a ground wire BTW. My garage used
to be full of it but I had it replaced when I rebuilt it after the fire, all
wiring is behind drywall now.
On 9/9/2011 11:58 AM, Hoosierpopi wrote:
>
> The conduit and metal boxes constitute the Mechanical Grounding. The
> bare copper conductor (or green wire) constitutes the Electrical
> Ground.
That is incorrect.
The term "mechanical grounding" doesn't make any sense, and is not a
concept recognized by the NEC.
Moreover, the NEC makes no distinction between rigid metal conduit,
intermediate metal conduit, electrical metallic tubing (aka EMT or
thinwall), copper wire, or aluminum wire, in terms of their suitability
as equipment grounding conductors: all are equally acceptable.
On 9/11/2011 8:47 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> My point was that people don't care if they damage the armor because they think
> it serves no electrical purpose. They wouldn't react the same to seeing the
> wires hanging out! And it's easier to disconnect the armor than the ground wire.
And *my* point is that people who know what they're doing understand
what the armor is for; it's only people who are not familiar with the
Code who think the armor serves no electrical purpose...
>
>>> In that case a short to ground could blow out
>>> the rusty connection and leave the ground hot.
>>
>> Probably not before tripping the breaker...
>
> Yup, and they would then flip the breaker back on, and with the armor blown out,
> would energize the chassis with 120v.
>
Don't blame the armor for that either. Blame an ass who flips a tripped
breaker back on without finding out why it tripped first.
On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 21:14:49 -0400, "m II" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Hang in there. Take it with a grain of salt. There re real woodworker
>people here too.
Obviously, you're not one of them.
On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 21:14:49 -0400, "m II" <[email protected]> wrote:
>BobF
>
>Dougy pulls this "know-it-all" routine with each poster at some time.
>He lives for it to put somebody else down with his self-professed code
>knowledge.
>
>After he gets his licks in another sock puppet, mostly some Mike
>personality likes to get in there and act knowledgeable also on his
>coattails
>
>You are no exception and I think you will also do what most others have
>done.Killfilter the Mike kooks. You will enjoy the group much better
>then.
>
>As in many groups, there are many "experts" here and many
>"know-it-alls" that live to jump down somebody's throat. Most of these
>are insecure teacher types that attempt to send you down to the
>Principal's office verbally but it frustrates them badly to not have
>that control over others every word here.
>
>Hang in there. Take it with a grain of salt. There re real woodworker
>people here too.
>
I'm not worried! Miller took exception to me from the start, I figure that's his
problem... he seems to look at the world thru blinders but what the hey. I do
things safely and not always by the rules - sometimes the rules are bad... The
last job I had I was responsible for the safety of hundreds, if not thousands,
of peoples lives, and I was quite well rewarded for it. No one died on my watch
or because of my work, for 27 years. I don't have to take shit from anybody.
Now maybe we can talk about wood... I'm about to order a few hundred dollars of
toys from Lee Valley during their 'free shipping' days!
The trolls are not concerned with correct information here, they (especially
Doug Miller) wants an admission he is the smartest and most knowledgeable
person alive (bow down syndrome). This will never happen and thus never
satisfies his ego shortcomings. The multiple nicknames and trolling attacks
will persist as long as there is a sucker that responds to his insecurity
demonstrations.
1------------
wrote in message news:[email protected]...
I'm not worried! Miller took exception to me from the start, I figure that's
his
problem... he seems to look at the world thru blinders but what the hey. I
do
things safely and not always by the rules - sometimes the rules are bad...
The
last job I had I was responsible for the safety of hundreds, if not
thousands,
of peoples lives, and I was quite well rewarded for it. No one died on my
watch
or because of my work, for 27 years. I don't have to take shit from anybody.
Now maybe we can talk about wood... I'm about to order a few hundred dollars
of
toys from Lee Valley during their 'free shipping' days!
2------------
On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 21:14:49 -0400, "m II" <[email protected]> wrote:
BobF
Dougy pulls this "know-it-all" routine with each poster at some time.
He lives for it to put somebody else down with his self-professed code
knowledge.
After he gets his licks in another sock puppet, mostly some Mike
personality likes to get in there and act knowledgeable also on his
coattails
You are no exception and I think you will also do what most others have
done.Killfilter the Mike kooks. You will enjoy the group much better
then.
As in many groups, there are many "experts" here and many
"know-it-alls" that live to jump down somebody's throat. Most of these
are insecure teacher types that attempt to send you down to the
Principal's office verbally but it frustrates them badly to not have
that control over others every word here.
Hang in there. Take it with a grain of salt. There re real woodworker
people here too.
On 9/18/2011 1:20 AM, Dave wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 21:14:49 -0400, "m II"<[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hang in there. Take it with a grain of salt. There re real woodworker
>> people here too.
>
> Obviously, you're not one of them.
Please don't feed the trolls.
"Doug Miller" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
On 9/11/2011 8:47 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> My point was that people don't care if they damage the armor because
> they think
> it serves no electrical purpose. They wouldn't react the same to
> seeing the
> wires hanging out! And it's easier to disconnect the armor than the
> ground wire.
And *my* point is that people who know what they're doing understand
what the armor is for; it's only people who are not familiar with the
Code who think the armor serves no electrical purpose...
>
>>> In that case a short to ground could blow out
>>> the rusty connection and leave the ground hot.
>>
>> Probably not before tripping the breaker...
>
> Yup, and they would then flip the breaker back on, and with the armor
> blown out,
> would energize the chassis with 120v.
>
Don't blame the armor for that either. Blame an ass who flips a tripped
breaker back on without finding out why it tripped first.
=================
Those points are moot.
99.6% of the users of armoured cable are non-electrically trained
people, and not "know what they are doing" though.
Even electricians, as knowledgeable as they think they are, put
breakers back on to find out why they tripped. That is a basic
troubleshooting technique to start with, by almost all people. When it
doesn't trip again we shrug and walk away, wondering.
--
Eric
On 9/12/2011 9:54 PM, m II wrote:
> Bullshit!
This is not a word I care to read when I open a post, and the content of
your post certainly doesn't warrant its use. Perhaps you will bear this
in mind in your future announcements? You may have recognized by now
that we are a community of gentlemen (ladies and children welcome too).
> His first device was the "A" and the cable second, thus the "B". It was
> experimental and the "X" was added to signify.
>
> --------------- "Mike M" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> I had a code update class this year and the instructor told us just
> that, and that's why it's refered to as BX as it was invented to
> solve the rat problem in Bronx.
>
> Mike M.
On 9/12/2011 10:34 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 22:49:54 -0400, Doug Miller
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 9/11/2011 8:47 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> My point was that people don't care if they damage the armor because they think
>>> it serves no electrical purpose. They wouldn't react the same to seeing the
>>> wires hanging out! And it's easier to disconnect the armor than the ground wire.
>>
>> And *my* point is that people who know what they're doing understand
>> what the armor is for; it's only people who are not familiar with the
>> Code who think the armor serves no electrical purpose...
>
> You're assuming most people have the knowledge of electricians...
To the contrary, I assume that most people do *not* have that knowledge,
specifically including *you*.
> the opposite
> is true. I once watched a guy wiring his barn with some industrial wire he
> bought. I told him he couldn't use the 'blue' wires because they were not in
> code,
You were wrong.
The Code specifies that neutral must be white or gray; ground must be
bare, green or green with a yellow stripe; and that those colors can be
used for no other purposes. It makes no mention whatsoever of blue,
black, red, orange, or any other colors, with respect to residential
wiring. Unless he was using blue wire for ground or neutral, it's
perfectly fine.
>and he told me "It's my barn I'll wire it any way I want!" Pity the
> electrician who goes there later to fix it!
Why? Any electrician should be able to figure out that a blue wire is hot.
> I should have reported the idiot.
He was right, you were not. Who's the idiot?
On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 20:45:31 -0400, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 09:15:43 -0400, Doug Miller
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Everybody seems to be saying something different... Doug Miller
>>>> states that armor on AC cable is OK for use as ground conductor.
>>>> Read the beginning of this thread.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Too bad that doesn't stop you from making
>>> up Code rules that you imagine to exist.
>>
>>
>>
>> I haven't made anything up, the NEC states AC cable can only be used
>> in certain locations, IE "not wet". You are the one making things up.
>
>Oh come on Bob - you are now reaching too far. Wet was never even one of
>the discussion topics.
Now wait a minute there buddy, that guy accused me of making up NEC rules -
PROVE THAT!
Let me quote the above that you must have skipped over:
>I think the NEC states that it is OK only in limited circumstances.
And then I stated SOME of the limited circumstances: (There are other)
> the NEC states AC cable can only be used in certain locations, IE "not wet".
Keep reading the above till you realize that I never said " the NEC disallows
ground in AC cable armor," EVER in this thread.
> Good for you - you went and found something in the
>NEC - it still only serves to show how you reach to make a point that is not
>even relevant, or that is not related to what you hae already put on the
>table
> So - you did nothing to prove Doug wrong. You only served to make
>yourself look worse in this discussion.
In your opinion...
> Thought you were the one that
>suggested dropping this and moving on to woodworking. You should have
>followed your own advice.
I was planning on it, but I came here today to see 15 new posts, mostly
criticizing me... Since the only things I ever said here was that "a copper
ground wire is better than AC cable" and that someone using a bunch of blue wire
(and other weird colors) to do his barn in a haphazard manner was causing
trouble to future electricians.
NOW can we go on to making furniture? I'm almost finished a large 6 drawer
bureau, what are YOU doing?
On 9/13/2011 8:31 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
> I only used the blue color as an example, he was using multi colored wires in a
> totally haphazard fashion, connecting blues to greens to oranges... whatever was
> convenient, and changing color mid-run is a code violation as far as I know.
No, it's not. The Code doesn't specify *anything at all* about colors in
residential wiring except: neutral = gray or white, ground = bare or
green or green with a yellow tracer, and those colors can't be used for
anything else.
There is no prohibition whatsoever against mixing colors, or using any
colors you please.
On 9/13/2011 8:41 PM, [email protected] wrote:
[...]
>
> I should have told you I only used the blue color as an example, he was using a
> multi colored wire bundle in a totally haphazard fashion, connecting blues to
> greens
That *is* a violation.
> to oranges... whatever was convenient, and changing color mid-run is a
> code violation as far as I know.
"as far as [you] know" the Code doesn't seem to be very far. :-)
>I don't think he had any white wires in what I saw.
He didn't need any. Gray is acceptable for neutral.
>
>> The Code specifies that neutral must be white or gray; ground must be
>> bare, green or green with a yellow stripe; and that those colors can be
>> used for no other purposes. It makes no mention whatsoever of blue,
>> black, red, orange, or any other colors, with respect to residential
>> wiring. Unless he was using blue wire for ground or neutral, it's
>> perfectly fine.
>
> I didn't say he used it for hot, you jumped to an incorrect conclusion.
You claimed that using a blue wire was a violation. It's not.
>
>>> and he told me "It's my barn I'll wire it any way I want!" Pity the
>>> electrician who goes there later to fix it!
>>
>> Why? Any electrician should be able to figure out that a blue wire is hot.
>
> Unless it's ground.
And if it's installed as such, that's a violation. But there's nothing
at all wrong with using blue wires, your delusions to the contrary
notwithstanding.
>
>>> I should have reported the idiot.
>>
>> He was right, you were not. Who's the idiot?
>
> I'd say you are... :)
Why? Because I know the Code and you don't?
>
> Are you an electrician by the way?
No. Never claimed to be, either. I don't need to ask you that question;
I already know the answer.
On 9/14/2011 8:46 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 08:47:15 -0400, Doug Miller
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 9/13/2011 8:41 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> [...]
>>>
>>> I should have told you I only used the blue color as an example, he was using a
>>> multi colored wire bundle in a totally haphazard fashion, connecting blues to
>>> greens
>>
>> That *is* a violation.
>>
>>> to oranges... whatever was convenient, and changing color mid-run is a
>>> code violation as far as I know.
>>
>> "as far as [you] know" the Code doesn't seem to be very far. :-)
>>
>>> I don't think he had any white wires in what I saw.
>>
>> He didn't need any. Gray is acceptable for neutral.
>>>
>>>> The Code specifies that neutral must be white or gray; ground must be
>>>> bare, green or green with a yellow stripe; and that those colors can be
>>>> used for no other purposes. It makes no mention whatsoever of blue,
>>>> black, red, orange, or any other colors, with respect to residential
>>>> wiring. Unless he was using blue wire for ground or neutral, it's
>>>> perfectly fine.
>>>
>>> I didn't say he used it for hot, you jumped to an incorrect conclusion.
>>
>> You claimed that using a blue wire was a violation. It's not.
>>>
>>>>> and he told me "It's my barn I'll wire it any way I want!" Pity the
>>>>> electrician who goes there later to fix it!
>>>>
>>>> Why? Any electrician should be able to figure out that a blue wire is hot.
>>>
>>> Unless it's ground.
>>
>> And if it's installed as such, that's a violation. But there's nothing
>> at all wrong with using blue wires, your delusions to the contrary
>> notwithstanding.
>>>
>>>>> I should have reported the idiot.
>>>>
>>>> He was right, you were not. Who's the idiot?
>>>
>>> I'd say you are... :)
>>
>> Why? Because I know the Code and you don't?
>
> because you have no sense of humor... and you like side-stepping my questions.
>
>>> Are you an electrician by the way?
>>
>> No. Never claimed to be, either. I don't need to ask you that question;
>> I already know the answer.
>
> Of course I'm not an electrician, I'm a technician, I have an IBEW card for my
> work in telecommunications.
Surely the IBEW has some sort of classes you can take to learn
something, anything, about the NEC so that you don't sound quite so
silly when you discuss it...
On 9/21/11 9:01 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> m II wrote:
>
>> First I didn't post any of that confusion. Learn to read attribution
>> lines and stop the bottom posting confusion with poorly designed
>> readers.
>
> Poorly designed readers are the ones that support top posting.
>
>>
>> Second the switch wiring is common practice and there is nothing in
>> the Can code about using the white for hot. It does not need to be
>> marked with tape. Our code only states the neutral shall be marked.
>>
>
> Who cares about the Canadian wiring code. This conversation has been about
> the NEC. I know - that's a complex concept for your mind...
>
Sorta exactly, I care about the Canadian Code, living in Canada, I have
rewired much of my house, when the white becomes a hot, i.e off a switch
I mark it. Not just for me, but for a possible future owner of the
house. I would hate to work on a wiring job where it wasn't done that
way. Absolutely nothing wrong with going beyond code, especially if it
only takes a minute and ten cents worth of materials.
--
Froz...
The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.
"FrozenNorth" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Sorta exactly, I care about the Canadian Code, living in Canada, I have
rewired much of my house, when the white becomes a hot, i.e off a switch
I mark it. Not just for me, but for a possible future owner of the
house. I would hate to work on a wiring job where it wasn't done that
way. Absolutely nothing wrong with going beyond code, especially if it
only takes a minute and ten cents worth of materials.
==============
I believe any electrician in N.America could recognize the white wire tied
into a bundle of blacks as a switch wire feed.
This was the recommended method and the only way not to see two whites on a
lamp socket, which your inspector will have a problem with.
The tape marking is redundant to most electrical people.
--
Eric
First, no matter what color is used, a professional or technical
person should always test. There are always someone that wires
something in with a wire they have.
And if you want to bet your life on another persons good or bad day
then simply take care, you live on the edge.
Martin
On 9/14/2011 7:47 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
> On 9/13/2011 8:41 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> I should have told you I only used the blue color as an example, he
>> was using a
>> multi colored wire bundle in a totally haphazard fashion, connecting
>> blues to
>> greens
>
> That *is* a violation.
>
>> to oranges... whatever was convenient, and changing color mid-run is a
>> code violation as far as I know.
>
> "as far as [you] know" the Code doesn't seem to be very far. :-)
>
>> I don't think he had any white wires in what I saw.
>
> He didn't need any. Gray is acceptable for neutral.
>>
>>> The Code specifies that neutral must be white or gray; ground must be
>>> bare, green or green with a yellow stripe; and that those colors can be
>>> used for no other purposes. It makes no mention whatsoever of blue,
>>> black, red, orange, or any other colors, with respect to residential
>>> wiring. Unless he was using blue wire for ground or neutral, it's
>>> perfectly fine.
>>
>> I didn't say he used it for hot, you jumped to an incorrect conclusion.
>
> You claimed that using a blue wire was a violation. It's not.
>>
>>>> and he told me "It's my barn I'll wire it any way I want!" Pity the
>>>> electrician who goes there later to fix it!
>>>
>>> Why? Any electrician should be able to figure out that a blue wire is
>>> hot.
>>
>> Unless it's ground.
>
> And if it's installed as such, that's a violation. But there's nothing
> at all wrong with using blue wires, your delusions to the contrary
> notwithstanding.
>>
>>>> I should have reported the idiot.
>>>
>>> He was right, you were not. Who's the idiot?
>>
>> I'd say you are... :)
>
> Why? Because I know the Code and you don't?
>>
>> Are you an electrician by the way?
>
> No. Never claimed to be, either. I don't need to ask you that question;
> I already know the answer.
Wonder why they put grounding conductors in armored cables. I doubt people
would pay for the extra conductor if they could use the armor for a ground
in either country.
Doug misinforms again.
In Canada
--------------
http://www.homedepot.ca/product/14-2-ac-90-amour-cable-30m/908343
http://www.homedepot.ca/product/14-3-ac-90-armour-cable-20m/908348
In USA
---------
http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053&productId=100143824&R=100143824
http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053&productId=100142069&R=100142069
-----------------
"Josepi" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
In Canada armored cable is not considered a ground conductor. A continuous
ground conductor must be run.
E.M.T. does not suffice a s a ground conductor and a separate grounding
conductor must be run. The little screws that hold EMT together can have
physical strain on them, separate and are not good grounding systems and not
to Canadian safety code.
EMT is not physical protection for wiring and only a method running wires.
It takes conduit (rigid) to offer physical protection.
I find this hard to believe the NEC would differ that much on armored cable.
Who would use a grounding conductor that is made out of who knows what crap
metal and has an inductive coil made out of it? Sounds like somebody has
their wires crossed.
-------------
"Doug Miller" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Totally incorrect. In addition to cable armor, the NEC also recognizes
rigid and flexible metallic conduit or tubing as acceptable grounding
conductors.
On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 08:47:15 -0400, Doug Miller
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 9/13/2011 8:41 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>[...]
>>
>> I should have told you I only used the blue color as an example, he was using a
>> multi colored wire bundle in a totally haphazard fashion, connecting blues to
>> greens
>
>That *is* a violation.
>
>> to oranges... whatever was convenient, and changing color mid-run is a
>> code violation as far as I know.
>
>"as far as [you] know" the Code doesn't seem to be very far. :-)
>
>>I don't think he had any white wires in what I saw.
>
>He didn't need any. Gray is acceptable for neutral.
>>
>>> The Code specifies that neutral must be white or gray; ground must be
>>> bare, green or green with a yellow stripe; and that those colors can be
>>> used for no other purposes. It makes no mention whatsoever of blue,
>>> black, red, orange, or any other colors, with respect to residential
>>> wiring. Unless he was using blue wire for ground or neutral, it's
>>> perfectly fine.
>>
>> I didn't say he used it for hot, you jumped to an incorrect conclusion.
>
>You claimed that using a blue wire was a violation. It's not.
>>
>>>> and he told me "It's my barn I'll wire it any way I want!" Pity the
>>>> electrician who goes there later to fix it!
>>>
>>> Why? Any electrician should be able to figure out that a blue wire is hot.
>>
>> Unless it's ground.
>
>And if it's installed as such, that's a violation. But there's nothing
>at all wrong with using blue wires, your delusions to the contrary
>notwithstanding.
>>
>>>> I should have reported the idiot.
>>>
>>> He was right, you were not. Who's the idiot?
>>
>> I'd say you are... :)
>
>Why? Because I know the Code and you don't?
because you have no sense of humor... and you like side-stepping my questions.
>> Are you an electrician by the way?
>
>No. Never claimed to be, either. I don't need to ask you that question;
>I already know the answer.
Of course I'm not an electrician, I'm a technician, I have an IBEW card for my
work in telecommunications.
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 21:19:04 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 21:25:51 -0400, Doug Miller
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On 9/7/2011 8:27 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>> I wouldn't count on the armor to be a ground connector, it's not exactly a
>>> copper conductor. Safety first!
>>
>>It doesn't have to be copper.
>>
>>The NEC explicitly permits the use of (among other things) the armor of
>>type AC armored cable to be used as the equipment grounding conductor.
>>Other acceptable grounding conductors include aluminum wire, EMT, rigid
>>metal conduit, flexible metal conduit, and flexible metallic tubing.
>>[2008 NEC, Article 250.118]
>
>Ya, the code is one thing... safety is another. I've seen armored cable where
>the armor was no longer connected to the box, just hanging in the air, or
>barely attached by rusty screws. In that case a short to ground could blow out
>the rusty connection and leave the ground hot.
>
Poor workmanship is poor workmanship - whether metalic sheathed cable
or Romex. ANd to meet code, the RIGHT box connectors are required. In
Canad, the galvanized BX (obsolete now) does NOT meet code. And the
AntiShort is absolutely necessary.
>In some types of installations, such as computer systems or recording studios,
>dedicated ground wires are ran to eliminate electrical noise. The equipment
>chassis ground is connected to the safety ground wire but not the armor.
>Sometimes these outlets are colored orange.
Virtually ALL isolated ground receptacles are orange - and they all
have a green triangle on them. The "U" ground is not connected to the
mounting bracket (hense the "isolated ground" - and the bare safety
ground connects to the box - which also grounds the cover plate if it
is metal - while the ground terminal (green wire by code - sometimes
red wire of NMD3 cable, taped green at both ends) runs DIRECTLY back
to the ground buss on the panel. This pretty well limits a "isolated
ground" circuit to ONE duplex receptacle - or possibly 2 isolated
ground reeptacles in one box.
Proof positive.
Thanks.
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
m II wrote:
>
> Stop interlaced posting. It's inconsiderate and moronic.
Bullshit!
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:21:53 -0400, Doug Miller
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 9/12/2011 10:34 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 22:49:54 -0400, Doug Miller
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/11/2011 8:47 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>> My point was that people don't care if they damage the armor because they think
>>>> it serves no electrical purpose. They wouldn't react the same to seeing the
>>>> wires hanging out! And it's easier to disconnect the armor than the ground wire.
>>>
>>> And *my* point is that people who know what they're doing understand
>>> what the armor is for; it's only people who are not familiar with the
>>> Code who think the armor serves no electrical purpose...
>>
>> You're assuming most people have the knowledge of electricians...
>
>To the contrary, I assume that most people do *not* have that knowledge,
>specifically including *you*.
>
>> the opposite
>> is true. I once watched a guy wiring his barn with some industrial wire he
>> bought. I told him he couldn't use the 'blue' wires because they were not in
>> code,
>
>You were wrong.
I should have told you I only used the blue color as an example, he was using a
multi colored wire bundle in a totally haphazard fashion, connecting blues to
greens to oranges... whatever was convenient, and changing color mid-run is a
code violation as far as I know. I don't think he had any white wires in what I
saw.
>The Code specifies that neutral must be white or gray; ground must be
>bare, green or green with a yellow stripe; and that those colors can be
>used for no other purposes. It makes no mention whatsoever of blue,
>black, red, orange, or any other colors, with respect to residential
>wiring. Unless he was using blue wire for ground or neutral, it's
>perfectly fine.
I didn't say he used it for hot, you jumped to an incorrect conclusion.
>>and he told me "It's my barn I'll wire it any way I want!" Pity the
>> electrician who goes there later to fix it!
>
>Why? Any electrician should be able to figure out that a blue wire is hot.
Unless it's ground.
>> I should have reported the idiot.
>
>He was right, you were not. Who's the idiot?
I'd say you are... :)
Are you an electrician by the way?
On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 18:09:58 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>
>If you would take the trouble to learn what the Code actually says, then you
>could stop guessing. And you wouldn't have to make stuff up.
What a fucking weasel you are!!!
You still won't admit I never mentioned the NEC code!
You still won't admit I only said It's better to use a continous copper ground
wire!
You still won't admit I only said that you shouldn't use blue wires for all your
wiring!
YOU WON'T BECAUSE YOU AREN'T A MAN, YOU'RE A FUCKING PUSSY!
YOU WERE FUCKING WRONG AND TRIED TO FRAME ME WITH YOUR LIES!
So PLONK to you, you fucking nazi cocksucker!
Yours or his or both?
--
"Doug Miller" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Please don't feed the trolls.
--
On 9/20/2011 12:11 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
I'll take making the occasional typo over being the sociopathic,
blithering idiot that you are, any day.
You do profess to have a lot of extra cash.
There must be reason for that, trollboi.
---------------
"-MIKE-" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Ahhhh, if I had a nickel for every time someone called me a fucking
nazi
cocksucker.
On 9/19/11 7:54 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
> So PLONK to you, you fucking nazi cocksucker!
>
Ahhhh, if I had a nickel for every time someone called me a fucking nazi
cocksucker.
--
-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 9/19/2011 8:54 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 18:09:58 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
> wrote:
>
>>
>> If you would take the trouble to learn what the Code actually says, then you
>> could stop guessing. And you wouldn't have to make stuff up.
>
>
> What a fucking weasel you are!!!
>
> You still won't admit I never mentioned the NEC code!
That's not true.
>
> You still won't admit I only said It's better to use a continous copper ground
> wire!
That's not true either.
>
> You still won't admit I only said that you shouldn't use blue wires for all your
> wiring!
Nor is that.
>
>
> YOU WON'T BECAUSE YOU AREN'T A MAN, YOU'RE A FUCKING PUSSY!
No, it's because you're an idiot.
<plonk>
On 9/19/11 9:44 PM, m II wrote:
> You do profess to have a lot of extra cash.
>
> There must be reason for that, trollboi.
>
When you're done scrubbing your mom's back, google the word, "sacrcasm."
--
-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 9/19/11 11:33 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
> On 9/19/11 9:44 PM, m II wrote:
>> You do profess to have a lot of extra cash.
>>
>> There must be reason for that, trollboi.
>>
>
> When you're done scrubbing your mom's back, google the word, "sacrcasm."
>
No really, I like it the way I spelled 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
On 9/20/11 8:04 AM, m II wrote:
> Two backpedals in 15 minutes?
>
> You need better and faster brain.One that works before you slam your
> fists into the wall. Or play drums?
>
I'll take making the occasional typo over being the sociopathic,
blithering idiot that you are, any day.
--
-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 9/20/2011 12:11 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
> On 9/20/11 8:04 AM, m II wrote:
>> Two backpedals in 15 minutes?
>>
>> You need better and faster brain.One that works before you slam your
>> fists into the wall. Or play drums?
>>
>
> I'll take making the occasional typo over being the sociopathic,
> blithering idiot that you are, any day.
>
>
Please don't feed the trolls.
On 9/20/2011 12:45 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
>> When you're done scrubbing your mom's back, google the word, "sacrcasm."
> No really, I like it the way I spelled it. :-)
It dseno't mtaetr in what oerdr the ltteres in a word are, the olny
iproamtnt tihng is that the frsit and last ltteer be in the rghit pclae.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On 9/19/2011 7:54 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 18:09:58 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
> wrote:
>
>>
>> If you would take the trouble to learn what the Code actually says, then you
>> could stop guessing. And you wouldn't have to make stuff up.
>
>
> What a fucking weasel you are!!!
>
> You still won't admit I never mentioned the NEC code!
>
> You still won't admit I only said It's better to use a continous copper ground
> wire!
>
> You still won't admit I only said that you shouldn't use blue wires for all your
> wiring!
>
>
> YOU WON'T BECAUSE YOU AREN'T A MAN, YOU'RE A FUCKING PUSSY!
>
>
> YOU WERE FUCKING WRONG AND TRIED TO FRAME ME WITH YOUR LIES!
>
>
> So PLONK to you, you fucking nazi cocksucker!
>
>
Plonk you for being a filthy mouth poster.
Two backpedals in 15 minutes?
You need better and faster brain.One that works before you slam your
fists into the wall. Or play drums?
-------------
"-MIKE-" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
On 9/19/11 11:33 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
> When you're done scrubbing your mom's back, google the word,
> "sacrcasm."
>
No really, I like it the way I spelled it. :-)