# Fished to box



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

Wiresmith said:


> *334.30 (B)Unsupported Cables,* Nonmetallic-sheathed cable shall be permitted to be unsupported where the cable:
> 
> (1) Is fished* between access points* through concealed spaces in finished buildings or structures and supporting is impracticable.


I think you answered your own question ...


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

splatz said:


> I think you answered your own question ...


i'm interested in whether others believe it is code compliant or not to not secure within normal distance when you fish in finished wall


----------



## MDShunk (Jan 7, 2007)

Would you prefer that walls were hacked open every time a move, add, or changes was done, with no appreciable enhancement to the safety of the installation?

If its allowed to be unsupported, then by default it's allowed to be unsecured. You can't have a cable that is secured but unsupported unless physics work differently at your house. Cut in boxes do have integral cable clamps, if you're like to call that securing at the box. 

The opening in the wall where the cut in box goes is an access point. Why? Because the code does not define "access point", so I can call anything I want an access point.


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

Try selling a customer on the fact you want to cut open all their walls and or ceilings to install a cable for a new device they want.

That would go over like a lead balloon and you won't be getting many jobs.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

MDShunk said:


> If its allowed to be unsupported, then by default it's allowed to be unsecured. You can't have a cable that is secured but unsupported unless physics work differently at your house. Cut in boxes do have integral cable clamps, if you're like to call that securing at the box.


i agree its clearly allowed to be unsecured and unsupported between access points, i think the thing for me is there is no clear alleviation of the rule to secure within the required distance where the cable terminates. i see a distinguished difference between securing within so far of termination into an enclosure and securing/supporting throughout the rest of the run, i see this difference for all of the different wiring methods and throughout the code. the securing near the box is much more important than securing/supporting throughout the rest of the run, the wiring method can be easily pulled out of the box and also when it comes to cables if you run it through holes in framing members that initial staple is actually securing the run the holes are supporting it and without the initial staple the cable can be pulled out of the box anywhere along the run by just a pull on the cable.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

i think i'm coming off like i am saying it is required (because the way i read it is) but i am actually trying to find a good argument that it isn't required because from my experience i have only been led to believe it isn't required. and by good argument i don't believe the excuse "i would have to repair the drywall" qualifies, i would like to find substantiation in the code. or propose a change to make the actual requirement more clear


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

:001_huh::confused1:

I think it's widely known and understood that fished cables don't require securing and supporting.


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

Wiresmith said:


> i agree its clearly allowed to be unsecured and unsupported between access points, i think the thing for me is there is no clear alleviation of the rule to secure within the required distance where the cable terminates.


You have to secure the cable near the box if you don't use a clamp where the cable enters the box. When you fish the cable, you have to use the clamp.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

splatz said:


> You have to secure the cable near the box if you don't use a clamp where the cable enters the box. When you fish the cable, you have to use the clamp.



to me that's like saying the myers hub on the 2" rigid conduit satisfies the requirement to secure the conduit within 3' of the box


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

splatz said:


> You have to secure the cable near the box if you don't use a clamp where the cable enters the box. When you fish the cable, you have to use the clamp.


and then also

*314.17(A) Openings to Be Closed.* Openings through which conductors enter shall be closed in an approved manner


so i wouldn't think you would ever be able to not use the box cable clamp
*edit-i am wrong in this this sentence- 314.17(c) exception allows under a certain circumstance and when cable is stapled within 8", thanks splatz*



also are you suggesting if you use the box clamp in exposed work or in new construction then you don't have to staple within 12"?


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

MTW said:


> :001_huh::confused1:
> 
> I think it's widely known and understood that fished cables don't require securing and supporting.


that's the common understanding of people i have come across as well. but if i read it and other similar wiring method articles it does not read like that to me.


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

Wiresmith said:


> also are you suggesting if you use the box clamp in exposed work or in new construction then you don't have to staple within 12"?


I think you probably know the rule is within 8" without the clamp, within 12" with the clamp.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

splatz said:


> I think you probably know the rule is within 8" without the clamp, within 12" with the clamp.


i didn't know that,


i found it

314.17(c) exception right?


to me, that still doesn't allow the non-securing though


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

Wiresmith said:


> i didn't know that,
> 
> 
> i found it
> ...


Right. 





> to me, that still doesn't allow the non-securing though


No it doesn't; 334.30(B)(1) above is what allows it to be unsupported (and therefore unsecured). 

Between access points = between points at which the cable is accessible


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

splatz said:


> Right.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





i think the difference in how we view this is that i see the securing within so far from the box as very different and a separate requirement than securing and supporting throughout the rest of the run (which is what i see the allowance referring to)


take for example Rigid 344.30(A) and (B)
paraphrasing
(A)securely fasten within 3' of enclosure

(B)support within every 10'



i know rigid is not the same as NM, i am looking at this because there is obviously a clear distinction between securing when leaving a box and securing/supporting throughout the rest of the run. rigid doesn't need secured throughout the run, NM does, i look at that as a more stringent requirement for NM whereas if you don't require the NM to be fastened near the box NM would have a lesser requirement.


thanks for helping me try to see it, but i don't.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

i can completely see how you don't have to secure or support the cable during the rest of the run in concealed areas between access points (what i would consider something like the cable poking out of the plate). but i don't see the code allowing omission of the securing nearest the box, only along the run that would be equivalent to where rigid must be supported and not secured.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

the real world visualization i have of this is say you have a cut in box and you fish NM to it from the basement and then run the rest of the NM through bored holes in floor joists in the basement and then fish the other end back up into a wall into another cut in box.

if you pull anywhere on the length of that cable, you could easily move the conductors inside the pull on the electrical connection. i'll admit if you have just a loose staple near the box you could do the same thing, but if you have a loose staple it's not really secured. and i admit the cable is supposed to be secured to the box, but do you really clamp down on them cables to the box that hard? i see securing the cable to the box differently than securing the cable near the box, just like my comparison earlier about qualifying a Myers hub as meeting the securing requirement for rigid near a box.


P.S. i know this is a trivial topic, i just like things right, whether it be the code more crystal clear or busting out the joint compound and paint.


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

To me all staples should be short of snug, you want to be able to move the cable freely under the staple. Their purpose is not to hold fast against yanking, staples are terrible for strain relief. 

Realistically, if someone yanks on the cable, yea something bad might happen, one of the worst outcomes is the staple rips the jacket and insulation. 

Going up in the wall, the resistance is going to come from the clamp on the box - which is required because the wire was fished not secured with staples inside the wall. That's actually less likely to cause trouble than yanking against a tight staple. 

The staples might protect the cable from the drywallers, but I'd bet the cable that's fished is less likely to be damaged after the install than the one that's stapled down. If someone's nailing someting in the wall and misses the stud, it could hit the cable. If the cable is dangling inside the wall cavity, very unlikely to damage it with a nail or screw. 



Wiresmith said:


> the real world visualization i have of this is say you have a cut in box and you fish NM to it from the basement and then run the rest of the NM through bored holes in floor joists in the basement and then fish the other end back up into a wall into another cut in box.
> 
> if you pull anywhere on the length of that cable, you could easily move the conductors inside the pull on the electrical connection. i'll admit if you have just a loose staple near the box you could do the same thing, but if you have a loose staple it's not really secured. and i admit the cable is supposed to be secured to the box, but do you really clamp down on them cables to the box that hard? i see securing the cable to the box differently than securing the cable near the box, just like my comparison earlier about qualifying a Myers hub as meeting the securing requirement for rigid near a box.
> 
> ...


----------



## Wirenuting (Sep 12, 2010)

I think your looking for more then what's there.. 

If the speed limit is 25 and it's a sunny clear day on an empty road, can I drive 20?


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

Wirenuting said:


> I think your looking for more then what's there..
> 
> If the speed limit is 25 and it's a sunny clear day on an empty road, can I drive 20?


yes, its the maximum speed limit not the required or minimum speed limit.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

i'm asking whether it falls short of the minimum requirement, code is minimum not a design manual, your allowed to do better than minimum but not worse


----------



## Wirenuting (Sep 12, 2010)

Wiresmith said:


> i'm asking whether it falls short of the minimum requirement, code is minimum not a design manual, your allowed to do better than minimum but not worse


Of course you can do more, but why create further work unless your wanting to increase your profit. 

Like we say at work, "With my time and your money, anything is possible."


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

Wirenuting said:


> Of course you can do more, but why create further work unless your wanting to increase your profit.
> 
> Like we say at work, "With my time and your money, anything is possible."



i'm asking about the minimum code requirement, satisfying that is not creating more work than what's required to meet it, it's just meeting the minimum requirement


----------



## MDShunk (Jan 7, 2007)

Can you explain how something that is permitted to be unsupported could also be secured? You can't. If it's permitted to be unsupported, it may be unsecured by default.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

splatz said:


> To me all staples should be short of snug, you want to be able to move the cable freely under the staple. Their purpose is not to hold fast against yanking, staples are terrible for strain relief.
> 
> Realistically, if someone yanks on the cable, yea something bad might happen, one of the worst outcomes is the staple rips the jacket and insulation.
> 
> ...


i think i was wrong in using the scenario of a tight staple there, i agree with you that the jacket might get more damage than just using the box connector. but i think if you staple like normal there that it will add some more pull out resistance and not damage the cable


----------



## BlackHowling (Feb 27, 2013)

12-510 Running of cable between boxes and fittings (see Appendices B and G)

(1) Where the cable is run between boxes and fittings, it shall be supported by straps, cable ties of a type 

specifically approved for the purpose, or other devices located 

(a) within 300 mm of every box or fitting; and 

(b) at intervals of not more than 1.5 m throughout the run.

(2) Cables run through holes in joists or studs shall be considered to be supported.

(3) Notwithstanding Subrules (1) and (2), where the cable is run as concealed wiring such that it is 

impracticable to support it, and where metal sheeting or cladding, metal joists, metal top or bottom plates, 

or metal studs are not used, the cable shall be permitted to be fished and need not be supported between 

boxes and fittings.



Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

MDShunk said:


> Can you explain how something that is permitted to be unsupported could also be secured? You can't. If it's permitted to be unsupported, it may be unsecured by default.


i agree with that part


the problem i have, is i see the securing within so far from the box as almost unrelated to the securing and supporting of the run of the wiring method(which i believe is the part the allowance applies to)



i know rigid is not the same as NM, but

take for example Rigid 344.30(A) and (B)
paraphrasing
(A)securely fasten within 3' of enclosure

(B)support within every 10'


i am looking at this because there is obviously a clear distinction between securing when leaving a box and securing/supporting throughout the rest of the run. rigid doesn't need secured throughout the run, NM does, i look at that as a more stringent requirement for NM whereas if you don't require the NM to be fastened near the box NM would have a lesser requirement.(i posted this earlier)


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

BlackHowling said:


> 12-510 Running of cable between boxes and fittings (see Appendices B and G)
> 
> (1) Where the cable is run between boxes and fittings, it shall be supported by straps, cable ties of a type
> 
> ...


that^ i agree clearly allows it, just not the NEC


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

"Earlier versions of Rule 12-510(3) have long permitted fishing non-metallic sheathed cable through concealed spaces. A change to this rule adds some new restrictions — for obvious reasons, fishing is now no longer permitted where metal cladding, joists or plates are within the walls."

NEC also doesn't have this

it appears CEC doesn't have a securing requirement, is that correct BlackHowling?


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

Sounds like you are worrying about something that is a nothing problem.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

Jlarson said:


> Sounds like you are worrying about something that is a nothing problem.



i'm not worrying about it, it's trivial like i said earlier. i was hoping someone would point something out to me that would clearly allow it. i would like to see it more clearly stated in the code though if it is allowed, among probably a ton of other things. it wouldn't bother me a bit to fish something in like that.


----------



## BlackHowling (Feb 27, 2013)

Wiresmith said:


> "Earlier versions of Rule 12-510(3) have long permitted fishing non-metallic sheathed cable through concealed spaces. A change to this rule adds some new restrictions — for obvious reasons, fishing is now no longer permitted where metal cladding, joists or plates are within the walls."
> 
> NEC also doesn't have this
> 
> it appears CEC doesn't have a securing requirement, is that correct BlackHowling?


Correct. Code only states support for cables and conduits. FCC says it needs to be secure bit that's a bit different. 

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## catsparky1 (Sep 24, 2013)

I like fish 

I like box


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

catsparky1 said:


> I like fish
> 
> I like box


Hmm, fish and box............you know there is an old joke in there someplace?


----------



## readydave8 (Sep 20, 2009)

MechanicalDVR said:


> Hmm, fish and box............you know there is an old joke in there someplace?


Blind man?

"Hello, Ladies"?


----------



## paulengr (Oct 8, 2017)

To OP for one thing you’re mixing a raceway (FMC) with combination cable/raceway products (MC, NM). All three fall in different Code chapters and have different support requirements. Only flexible cord has no “support” requirement but it cannot be run in hidden locations like inside walls. Read each Code separately to understand it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

