# painted into a corner



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

z gr8 1 said:


> Where in the NEC does it say you may not paint the s.e.c.? The customer painted the jacket white to match the house and the inspector failed because jacket was painted.


The inspector should be telling you what code section he feels has been violated.

In my opinion there is no such NEC rule.


----------



## z gr8 1 (May 25, 2010)

I've looked and only thing I can come up with is that the paint may take away from the fire retardness of the jacket. But I can't find anything about covering or painting.


----------



## TOOL_5150 (Aug 27, 2007)

i would definitely consult the mfg of the cable - and go from there. Most likely, paint adds another protective layer.

~Matt


----------



## ampman (Apr 2, 2009)

mabye the manuf. says it cannot be painted


----------



## TOOL_5150 (Aug 27, 2007)

ampman said:


> mabye the manuf. says it cannot be painted


And thats exactly why he should "definitely consult the mfg of the cable" as i stated in the prior post.

~Matt


----------



## ampman (Apr 2, 2009)

TOOL_5150 said:


> And thats exactly why he should "definitely consult the mfg of the cable" as i stated in the prior post.
> 
> ~Matt


 yes well you beat me to that sorry my typing is slow


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

z gr8 1 said:


> Where in the NEC does it say you may not paint the s.e.c.? The customer painted the jacket white to match the house and the inspector failed because jacket was painted.


 
Where it says that the material shall be used as the manufacturer instructs and where it gives the ampacity rating for the conditions of use which are based on carefully conducted documented and repeatable testing. The insulation is calculated into the ampacity because of the rate at which I squared R generated heat is dissipated through it. It is affected by the ambient temperature, whether or not it is installed in couduit, etc. By painting the insulation, you reduce the rate of heat loss directly through it to the outside. It no longer has any UL rating and is therefore a code violation. The ampacity table becomes inoperative, there is no way to tell what a safe ampacity rating for it is anymore. It needs to be replaced.


----------



## micromind (Aug 11, 2007)

If the paint has covered the marking of the cable, then I believe it would be a violation of 310.11(B)(1)(3) which requires S.E. cables to be marked on the surface. 

Rob


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

Any inspector who tags someone for that is an ***. 
It's done here everyday. I would want him to tell me what article he is using to fail me. Thats horsecrap.


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

"It's done here everyday."

So is smoking and drunk driving. Habitual behavior doesn't make it legal, right, or smart.


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

Shorty Circuit said:


> "It's done here everyday."
> 
> So is smoking and drunk driving. Habitual behavior doesn't make it legal, right, or smart.


True enough but no one has posted a code section preventing it.

310.11(B)(1)(3) requires the manufacturer to provide the labeling it does not require us to ensure it is always visible, if it did we could not run SE cable concealed. 

BTW paint is one of the ways the NEC suggest to mark cables and conductors.


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

> By painting the insulation, you reduce the rate of heat loss directly through it to the outside.


Why would paint reduce the heat loss characteristics any more than installing the SE cable in thermal insulation?



> It no longer has any UL rating and is therefore a code violation.


Got anything to back that up?




> The ampacity table becomes inoperative, there is no way to tell what a safe ampacity rating for it is anymore.


Again got anything to back that up?

I agree with Bob, I don't know of any NEC code section that would be violated by painting the outside sheath of SE cable.

Chris


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

Shorty Circuit said:


> "It's done here everyday."
> 
> So is smoking and drunk driving. Habitual behavior doesn't make it legal, right, or smart.


 
I'm going to try to be nice to a fairly new member with opinions that may be right about half the time if that. Yes I'm talking about you.


It's done here everyday because IT IS legal to do. :whistling2:


----------



## Speedy Petey (Jan 10, 2007)

jwjrw said:


> Any inspector who tags someone for that is an ***.
> It's done here everyday. I would want him to tell me what article he is using to fail me. Thats horsecrap.


I agree. Overzealous pig headed inspector.





Shorty Circuit said:


> "It's done here everyday."
> 
> So is smoking and drunk driving. Habitual behavior doesn't make it legal, right, or smart.


So you are equating these things to painting SE cable. Come on now.


----------



## 10492 (Jan 4, 2010)

Shorty Circuit said:


> The insulation is calculated into the ampacity because of the rate at which I squared R generated heat is dissipated through it. It is affected by the ambient temperature, whether or not it is installed in couduit, etc. By painting the insulation, you reduce the rate of heat loss directly through it to the outside. It no longer has any UL rating and is therefore a code violation. The ampacity table becomes inoperative, there is no way to tell what a safe ampacity rating for it is anymore. It needs to be replaced.


This is reminding me of  this  for some reason.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

If a conductor is painted, it's painted for aesthetics. This would imply it's out in the open, for the world to see.

So would a layer of paint prevent any more heat transfer than a raceway? A wall cavity? A fitting? An electrical enclosure/box?

What is the R-value of paint?


I don't see any offence here.............. unless the paint is a truly ugly color.


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

"Why would paint reduce the heat loss characteristics any more than installing the SE cable in thermal insulation?"

The answer is that it is unknown. That is the point. If thermal insulation is approved for use with the cable under certain conditions which have been met, it has been tested and proven reliable under those conditions. Being painted it has not been. There are too many variables that are unknown. What thickness of paint? How many coats? What kind of paint having what kind of thermal transfer characteristics. Is the paint flamable? Is it compatible with the insulation or will it damage it over time? All unknown with unknown results. NEC does not accept that. It does not recognize gut feelings by installers.


"Got anything to back that up?"

Yeah, the inspector who flunked it. Why not ask him why. If I were the inspector, the reasons I gave is why I would have flunked it too.:2guns:

"I'm going to try to be nice to a fairly new member with opinions that may be right about half the time if that. Yes I'm talking about you."

You mean a fairly new member you agree with half the time if that. I'm going to be nice and not offer any reply to that....this time.


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

Shorty Circuit said:


> "Why would paint reduce the heat loss characteristics any more than installing the SE cable in thermal insulation?"
> 
> The answer is that it is unknown. That is the point. If thermal insulation is approved for use with the cable under certain conditions which have been met, it has been tested and proven reliable under those conditions. Being painted it has not been. There are too many variables that are unknown. What thickness of paint? How many coats? What kind of paint having what kind of thermal transfer characteristics. Is the paint flamable? Is it compatible with the insulation or will it damage it over time? All unknown with unknown results. NEC does not accept that. It does not recognize gut feelings by installers.
> 
> ...


 

I do agree with you on some of your replys. You may even have more knowledge than me. But some of your replies are off the wall. And that is MY opinion which means nothing. Maybe I'm the one thats off the wall IDK. We all get along well here and welcome discussion. And we are brutal when someone thinks they know it all. Look how we treat the tool and badger!:laughing:


----------



## Speedy Petey (Jan 10, 2007)

Shorty Circuit said:


> "Got anything to back that up?"
> 
> Yeah, the inspector who flunked it. Why not ask him why. If I were the inspector, the reasons I gave is why I would have flunked it too.:2guns:


That is NOT "backing up" a code citation for failing a job now is it?

You know very well what he meant by backing it up. Facts!

_"Because I said so"_ is not a fact. Not even for an AHJ. :whistling2:


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

SP;

I don't have the code in front of me. It's in my office and I have no idea when I'll be back there. 

Two things. First it is not just what the code says but the intent of the code that matters. That is what I have cited as I interpret it. Second, the code is ultimately whatever the AHJ says it is no matter how unreasonable it sounds. I had a job that flunked because a two foot section of sealtite base power in that ran from the bottoom of a boxed out building column to an office partition that was so tight you couldn't budge it one inch if your life depended on it didn't have a bracket to secure it to the concrete floor. That day with that inspector that was the code. If you want to know why it flunked, ask the inspector. Then ask him what he wants you to do to correct it so that will be satisfactory to him.


----------



## Innovative (Jan 26, 2010)

Personally, I feel that anyone who runs exposed SE cable a hack. I have no idea how exposed SE cable on the exterior of a building is still code compliant after all these years. I see it installed, it looks like sh** and is dangerous in my opinion. Why not just stretch UF wire around the outside of buildings, or staple romex to the walls, instead of installing inside of them????


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

Shorty Circuit said:


> SP;
> 
> I don't have the code in front of me. It's in my office and I have no idea when I'll be back there.
> 
> Two things. First it is not just what the code says but the intent of the code that matters. That is what I have cited as I interpret it.


That is utter BS. As an inspector you enforce the words written in the code book, not somebody's "Idea" of the intent of the code.



> Second, the code is ultimately whatever the AHJ says it is no matter how unreasonable it sounds.


90.4 gives the AHJ the responsibility for making interpretations of the rules, not the ability to make up rules that do not exist in the code.

Chris


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

raider1 said:


> That is utter BS. As an inspector you enforce the words written in the code book, not somebody's "Idea" of the intent of the code.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Not only that but they have to amend the nec in writing. If its an ahj rule they can show it to you. If they can't its the inspector being an ***


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

Shorty Circuit said:


> "Why would paint reduce the heat loss characteristics any more than installing the SE cable in thermal insulation?"
> 
> The answer is that it is unknown. That is the point. If thermal insulation is approved for use with the cable under certain conditions which have been met, it has been tested and proven reliable under those conditions. Being painted it has not been. There are too many variables that are unknown. What thickness of paint? How many coats? What kind of paint having what kind of thermal transfer characteristics. Is the paint flamable? Is it compatible with the insulation or will it damage it over time? All unknown with unknown results. NEC does not accept that. It does not recognize gut feelings by installers.
> 
> ...


All you have given me is your feelings on why this is a code violation, please give me a code section that backs up your position.

Chris


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

Innovative said:


> Personally, I feel that anyone who runs exposed SE cable a hack. I have no idea how exposed SE cable on the exterior of a building is still code compliant after all these years. I see it installed, it looks like sh** and is dangerous in my opinion. Why not just stretch UF wire around the outside of buildings, or staple romex to the walls, instead of installing inside of them????


 

I agree it looks like crap.I've only done one the last few years. It was a rental and the guy wanted cheap cheap cheap. I don't think it's dangerous myself because so many houses are wired that way and I don't hear of them burning down any more than ones with a conduit riser. Would I do it on my house? Heck no!! But it is legal.


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

raider1 said:


> All you have given me is your feelings on why this is a code violation, please give me a code section that backs up your position.
> 
> Chris


 
Which word of "I don't have the code in front of me. It's in my office and I have no idea when I'll be back there" didn't you understand?


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Innovative said:


> Personally, I feel that anyone who runs exposed SE cable a hack. I have no idea how exposed SE cable on the exterior of a building is still code compliant after all these years. I see it installed, it looks like sh** and is dangerous in my opinion. Why not just stretch UF wire around the outside of buildings, or staple romex to the walls, instead of installing inside of them????


What do you call a med student who graduated with the lowest score? Doctor.

What do you call a law student who passed the bar with the minimum score? Lawyer.

What do you call a person who barely met the minimum requirements for flying an aircraft? A pilot.

What do you call a person who installs electrical to the minimum required by the NEC and local codes? An electrician.


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

480sparky said:


> What do you call a med student who graduated with the lowest score? Doctor.
> 
> What do you call a law student who passed the bar with the minimum score? Lawyer.
> 
> ...


 
I thought I was a rat, no wait a troll, no wait a tool! Now your saying I'm an electrician???


----------



## Innovative (Jan 26, 2010)

480sparky said:


> What do you call a med student who graduated with the lowest score? Doctor.
> 
> What do you call a law student who passed the bar with the minimum score? Lawyer.
> 
> ...


What do you call and electrician that installs SE cable on the outside of a building that works for Innovative Electric? Unemployed

For me, the "bare minimum", just isnt gonna cut it. I could drive around in a 1985 Ford van with rust on it, but nope, not gonna work. We could install 305 SS fastners on a dock, but 316 SS is better....... the list goes on.....


----------



## Speedy Petey (Jan 10, 2007)

Innovative said:


> Personally, I feel that anyone who runs exposed SE cable a hack.


I normally don't take offense to other's opinions, but this one is flat out, plain and simple, ignorant. 

Sorry Inno, you stated how you feel. This is just how *I* feel.


----------



## Speedy Petey (Jan 10, 2007)

Shorty Circuit said:


> Two things. First it is not just what the code says but the intent of the code that matters. That is what I have cited as I interpret it. Second, the code is ultimately whatever the AHJ says it is no matter how unreasonable it sounds. I had a job that flunked because a two foot section of sealtite base power in that ran from the bottoom of a boxed out building column to an office partition that was so tight you couldn't budge it one inch if your life depended on it didn't have a bracket to secure it to the concrete floor. That day with that inspector that was the code. If you want to know why it flunked, ask the inspector. Then ask him what he wants you to do to correct it so that will be satisfactory to him.


You have a VERY warped conception of how the code works and how it is implemented. 
Code is code. Not what some inspector wants it to be.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Innovative said:


> What do you call and electrician that installs SE cable on the outside of a building that works for Innovative Electric? Unemployed
> 
> For me, the "bare minimum", just isnt gonna cut it. I could drive around in a 1985 Ford van with rust on it, but nope, not gonna work. We could install 305 SS fastners on a dock, but 316 SS is better....... the list goes on.....


You're certainly entitled to do your work the way you see fit. Just don't call anyone who doesn't measure up to YOUR minimum level a hack. That's just being ignorant. 

And that's not my opinion, that's a fact.


----------



## BDB (Jul 9, 2008)

I had never heard/seen of SEC being run exposed on a house untill I went to visit my inlaws for the first time up in the catskills. First time I saw the inlaws service I thought what the hell!?!?!? I started looking at other houses there and I be damn if they were not all like this.:blink: I could never see myself doing this and like Innov I do not like it. But if that is the way that part of the country does things then so be it.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Maybe Marc will post his infamous pix of the apartment building wrapped in SEC. :thumbsup:


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

Speedy Petey said:


> You have a VERY warped conception of how the code works and how it is implemented.
> Code is code. Not what some inspector wants it to be.


I guess all of the code officials I've dealt with are unrepresentative of the group as a whole. How did I ever get so lucky?


----------



## Speedy Petey (Jan 10, 2007)

Shorty Circuit said:


> I guess all of the code officials I've dealt with are unrepresentative of the group as a whole. How did I ever get so lucky?


I don't know. I do know that some inspectors are on power trips because folks let them, this includes their superiors. 

I know that in my area our inspectors are held accountable to unrealistic requests and interpretations.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

One of the first things an inspector should learn is to make decisions that will hold up in court.


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

Shorty Circuit said:


> Which word of "I don't have the code in front of me. It's in my office and I have no idea when I'll be back there" didn't you understand?


So you don't have a code book in your truck but you have access to the internet to post on electrical forums.

HERE is a link to NFPA and a online version of the 2008 NEC.

Chris


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

Shorty Circuit said:


> I guess all of the code officials I've dealt with are unrepresentative of the group as a whole. How did I ever get so lucky?


Lucky to have code officials that make up their own rules and enforce their opinions?

To each his own, but I would prefer to deal with code officials that enforce what is written in the adopted code and leave their "Opinions" at the door.:thumbsup:

Chris


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

raider1 said:


> So you don't have a code book in your truck but you have access to the internet to post on electrical forums.
> 
> HERE is a link to NFPA and a online version of the 2008 NEC.
> 
> Chris


Or he could PM me with his email, and I'll send him a .pdf of it.:whistling2:


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

480sparky said:


> One of the first things an inspector should learn is to make decisions that will hold up in court.


Very good point.

Chris


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

480sparky said:


> Or he could PM me with his email, and I'll send him a .pdf of it.:whistling2:


 
For a TOOL you are a pretty nice junkyard dog!!:thumbsup:


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

Innovative said:


> Personally, I feel that anyone who runs exposed SE cable a hack.


Now that hurts, I use SE on my own home. 




> I have no idea how exposed SE cable on the exterior of a building is still code compliant after all these years.


Because t has long track record of safety.





> I see it installed, it looks like sh** and is dangerous in my opinion.


You know what they say about opinions, personally I have no desire for the industrial look of pipe on the side of my home.




> Why not just stretch UF wire around the outside of buildings, or staple romex to the walls, instead of installing inside of them????


In some cases that is legal as well and I would do it if I needed too.


----------



## Innovative (Jan 26, 2010)

*


Bob Badger said:



Now that hurts, I use SE on my own home.

Click to expand...

*


Bob Badger said:


> *I have no idea how exposed SE cable on the exterior of a building is still code compliant after all these years. *




*"Because it has long track record of safety."*

I will break out the camera for all the rotting SE cable that is installed on the exterior I see in the future.......
The power company will no longer connect to SE cable with their service drop in this area.





*You know what they say about opinions, personally I have no desire for the industrial look of pipe on the side of my home.*

My opinion for my companies work.........


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

Shorty Circuit said:


> Which word of "I don't have the code in front of me. It's in my office and I have no idea when I'll be back there" didn't you understand?


Which part of trying to answer code questions without a code book makes sense?

We are a sharp group, we know the NEC very well. My head banging friend Chris is a long time inspector, heads up an IAEI group and will not surprise me if he ends up on a NEC code making panel before he is done in this trade.

Your view that inspectors can legally enforce 'intent' is absolute nonsense,

Furthermore there is no derating of SE required if buried in thermal insulation but you want to say paint will be an issue. That is not the least bit logical.

I wonder if you are who you say you are or if you might be one of the members of this forum that has been tossed out before?


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

Innovative said:


> Will break out the camera for all the rotting SE cable that is installed on the exterior I see in the future.......


Don't bother I have seen it, I know very well what it looks like.



I have also seen EMT rotted entirely away leaving just conductors and PVC pulled out of each fitting, guess we should ban those as well.:jester:


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

Bob Badger said:


> Which part of trying to answer code questions without a code book makes sense?
> 
> We are a sharp group, we know the NEC very well. My head banging friend Chris is a long time inspector, heads up an IAEI group and will not surprise me if he ends up on a NEC code making panel before he is done in this trade.
> 
> ...


 

Your last thought crossed my mind this morning when I read another of his off the wall posts. Idk


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

Bob Badger said:


> Don't bother I have seen it, I know very well what it looks like.
> 
> 
> 
> I have also seen EMT rotted entirely away leaving just conductors and PVC pulled out of each fitting, guess we should ban those as well.:jester:


 


Yep only pvc allowed from now on! :thumbup:


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Bob Badger said:


> ............I have also seen EMT rotted entirely away leaving just conductors and PVC pulled out of each fitting, guess we should ban those as well.:jester:



No. Let's concentrate on banning anything that can be installed incorrectly. 

Let's ban NM because someone can direct-bury it. Let's ban metal staples because some yahoo got overly ambitious with a hammer. Let's ban PVC boxes because someone might cover them with grass............:whistling2:


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

480sparky said:


> No. Let's concentrate on banning anything that can be installed incorrectly.
> 
> Let's ban NM because someone can direct-bury it. Let's ban metal staples because some yahoo got overly ambitious with a hammer. Let's ban PVC boxes because someone might cover them with grass............:whistling2:


 
Can we ban scotchkote while we are at it? Someone might sniff the vapors and forget where the boxes are burried.:laughing:


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

Innovative said:


> Bob Badger said:
> 
> 
> > You know what they say about opinions, personally I have no desire for the industrial look of pipe on the side of my home.
> ...


Well there we agree, you are the owner, you are the one taking the risks, you get to decided how things will be done in your name. I totally understand and respect that. 

I work for large company and we will use whatever product the customer is willing to pay for and is code compliant. 

There is no shame in selling a Kia to people that need a Kia.


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

jwjrw said:


> Can we ban scotchkote while we are at it? Someone might sniff the vapors and forget where the boxes are burried.:laughing:


Ban Scotchkote?? 

I never use the "memory" method of finding buried boxes.

I give the GPS coordinates to TOOL and he draws me a Treasure Map :laughing:


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

raider1 said:


> So you don't have a code book in your truck but you have access to the internet to post on electrical forums.
> 
> HERE is a link to NFPA and a online version of the 2008 NEC.
> 
> Chris


 
Thanks for the link Chris. I don't have a truck. Wish I did though.


----------



## Mr. Sparkle (Jan 27, 2009)

z gr8 1 said:


> Where in the NEC does it say you may not paint the s.e.c.? The customer painted the jacket white to match the house and the inspector failed because jacket was painted.


Here is the numero uno head honcho A number one person for you to contact to get a definitive answer as to if the inspector had the right to fail you or not:

Suzanne Borek
Code Specialist
State of New Jersey
Division of Codes and Standards
Code Assistance Unit
609-984-7609


----------



## Innovative (Jan 26, 2010)

BTW..... In our area, which is quite a few cities, counties and towns, each with their own inspectors. They do enforce their own agenda to what the intent of the code is. If you do go over their head and try to argue the point, it just leads to more problems in the future. It is usually MUCH easier to follow along with what the inspector at the jobsite wants.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Black4Truck said:


> Ban Scotchkote??
> 
> I never use the "memory" method of finding buried boxes.
> 
> I give the GPS coordinates to TOOL and he draws me a Treasure Map :laughing:


Oh, you got a GPS unit now, huh?








​


----------



## Mr. Sparkle (Jan 27, 2009)

Innovative said:


> BTW..... In our area........It is usually MUCH easier to follow along with what the inspector at the jobsite wants.


Not here, if you have a "Pig Headed" (Thanks Petey!) inspector with his own interpretation of the intent of the NEC the DCA here wants to know about it.

They (The DCA) routinely send out informational letters to AHJ's in an effort to eliminate the existence of any "grey areas".

Good on them.

Case and point:

A while back I had an inspector fail me for not putting a receptacle on the front of a house full of cultured stone, I put the receptacle just around the corner on the siding.

I called the DCA and asked their opinion and after hearing my side of the story they agreed that he did not have the right to fail me and I did not have to add the outlet on the front of the dwelling. the code states "at" the front of the house, not "on"........I know, I know.....splitting hairs here but the receptacle would have looked out of place stuck in the middle of that stone, so I put it at the closest possible place I could to the front of the house. I argued my point in a proffesional way, contacted the correct people, and won the argument. 

Leaving every town or inspector to get away with their own interpretation of clearly written items in the NEC is a recipe for disaster.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Innovative said:


> BTW..... In our area, which is quite a few cities, counties and towns, each with their own inspectors. They do enforce their own agenda to what the intent of the code is..........



Then it should be their job to submit a Proposal, either to change the NEC, or to clarify it, along with substantiation for it. 99.9% of them would probably end up not accepted right off the bat.


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

OK, now you guys have gone and done it. Now that I have internet access to the code I'm really dangerous. 

Here goes the paint;

You can use the equation in 310.15 6(c) if you can convince the code official that you figured out RCA, the effective thermal resistance between the conductor and the surrounding area. There are examples in annex B.

Of course you still have to convince him that you've complied with 310.16 FPN3 which refers to 110.3B and that you have complied with 310.10 FPN3.

If you can do all that then you should be able to leave it as it is....and I will award you a medal because I have no idea how to do that myself. 
:notworthy::clap::thumbup1:


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

Shorty Circuit said:


> OK, now you guys have gone and done it. Now that I have internet access to the code I'm really dangerous.
> 
> Here goes the paint;
> 
> ...


 
Wow! I didn't think your posts could get any more off the wall then they usually are. Stupid me.:laughing:


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

jwjrw said:


> Wow! I didn't think your posts could get any more off the wall then they usually are. Stupid me.:laughing:



Lesse... Once upon a time, there was LawnGuy, then Honda Race, then milehiwire, then JackBoot, then Forgery...........


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

480sparky said:


> Lesse... Once upon a time, there was LawnGuy, then Honda Race, then milehiwire, then JackBoot, then Forgery...........


 

Is it true that before Peter D was abducted by them aliens that he wasn't a troll? :sleep1:


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

jwjrw said:


> Is it true that before Peter D was abducted by them aliens that he wasn't a troll? :sleep1:



I dunno. For some reason, Peter went from 60Hz to 400.


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

Shorty Circuit said:


> OK, now you guys have gone and done it. Now that I have internet access to the code I'm really dangerous.
> 
> Here goes the paint;
> 
> ...


Why do I need to use engineering supervision to determine the ampacity of SE cable coated with paint?

What part of 310.15(B) requires that I use 310.15(C) for SE cable coated with paint instead of using the Tables?

Chris


----------



## TOOL_5150 (Aug 27, 2007)

Innovative said:


> BTW..... In our area, which is quite a few cities, counties and towns, each with their own inspectors. They do enforce their own agenda to what the intent of the code is. If you do go over their head and try to argue the point, it just leads to more problems in the future. It is usually MUCH easier to follow along with what the inspector at the jobsite wants.


HAHAHAHA Really? You just bend over and take it in the ass, in order to make things MUCH easier?

Thats just pathetic man...

~Matt


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

TOOL_5150 said:


> HAHAHAHA Really? You just bend over and take it in the ass, in order to make things MUCH easier?
> 
> Thats just pathetic man...


Kind of what I was thinking but it does make me understand why he would do a service call on a holiday for Walmart for short money.


----------



## 10492 (Jan 4, 2010)

TOOL_5150 said:


> HAHAHAHA Really? You just bend over and take it in the ass, in order to make things MUCH easier?
> 
> Thats just pathetic man...
> 
> ~Matt


I don't think so. He has a point.

It may be better to do it his way, than it is to waste alot of time arguing with the inspector. After awhile, you get to know different ones and what they look for.


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

raider1 said:


> Why do I need to use engineering supervision to determine the ampacity of SE cable coated with paint?
> 
> What part of 310.15(B) requires that I use 310.15(C) for SE cable coated with paint instead of using the Tables?
> 
> Chris


I really appreciate the link you gave me to the code. I don't think I'm getting my point across to you though. The code is explicit when it says and means that you have to use products in a way that the manufacturer intended, in a way UL tested it for. So then you have to demonstrate that painting the wire is cosistent with that. Then you have to accept that the tables no longer apply because by painting the wire, you have altered its ability to dissipate heat. You've added another layer of thermal insulation around it. For that reason you have to demonstrate that the ampacity of the wire is still adequate to handle the current that could flow in the circuit it is connected to. The only way to do that is to use the formula to calculate it but since you have no way to know what one of the critical parameters is, the thermal dissipation parameter RCA is, I don't know how you can do that. BTW, how do you know the paint won't erode the insulation over time and it won't qualify to be rated for 600 volts anymore? That goes to the chemistry between the paint and the insulation.

So when you figure all that out, I'd like to know how you did it and I will be the first to congratulate you. If the AHJ has a different criteria than what I presumed it would be (it wouldn't be the first time) then I'd like to know about that too so that I can increase my understanding of it as well.

Good luck with it.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

Shorty Circuit said:


> I really appreciate the link you gave me to the code. I don't think I'm getting my point across to you though. The code is explicit when it says and means that you have to use products in a way that the manufacturer intended, in a way UL tested it for. So then you have to demonstrate that painting the wire is cosistent with that. Then you have to accept that the tables no longer apply because by painting the wire, you have altered its ability to dissipate heat. You've added another layer of thermal insulation around it. For that reason you have to demonstrate that the ampacity of the wire is still adequate to handle the current that could flow in the circuit it is connected to. The only way to do that is to use the formula to calculate it but since you have no way to know what one of the critical parameters is, the thermal dissipation parameter RCA is, I don't know how you can do that. BTW, how do you know the paint won't erode the insulation over time and it won't qualify to be rated for 600 volts anymore? That goes to the chemistry between the paint and the insulation.
> 
> So when you figure all that out, I'd like to know how you did it and I will be the first to congratulate you. If the AHJ has a different criteria than what I presumed it would be (it wouldn't be the first time) then I'd like to know about that too so that I can increase my understanding of it as well.
> 
> Good luck with it.


 

Got anything to back that up??,,,,you're just making stuff up,,,,go ahead and admit it. If I run SE in a bare uninsulated wall,,,,,,,,,and the next room over,,,I run SE that is going to get covered in bat insulation,,,,,and the next room over I run SE that is going to get sprayed in FOAM insulation,,,,,PROVE<<<<<<<keyword<<<<<PROVE to me (not with your feelings and silly wishes) .....that I have to treat those (3) pieces of SE cable any differently.


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

mcclary's electrical said:


> Got anything to back that up??,,,,you're just making stuff up,,,,go ahead and admit it. If I run SE in a bare uninsulated wall,,,,,,,,,and the next room over,,,I run SE that is going to get covered in bat insulation,,,,,and the next room over I run SE that is going to get sprayed in FOAM insulation,,,,,PROVE<<<<<<<keyword<<<<<PROVE to me (not with your feelings and silly wishes) .....that I have to treat those (3) pieces of SE cable any differently.


I'm not required to. I'm only here to post my views based on my knowledge and experience just like everyone else does. Follow it or ignore it for all I care, it makes no difference to me. It wasn't my installation which flunked inspection though. So if you are so sure of yourself, why do you think it flunked? What do you think the inspector's reason will be?

BTW, I have no comment about your own SE installation.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

Shorty Circuit said:


> I'm not required to. I'm only here to post my views based on my knowledge and experience just like everyone else does. Follow it or ignore it for all I care, it makes no difference to me. It wasn't my installation which flunked inspection though. So if you are so sure of yourself, why do you think it flunked? What do you think the inspector's reason will be?
> 
> BTW, I have no comment about your own SE installation.


 


Yep,,,,that's what I thought.


----------



## 10492 (Jan 4, 2010)

Does this mean I can't paint EMT anymore?
:whistling2:


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

Shorty Circuit said:


> Then you have to accept that the tables no longer apply because by painting the wire, you have altered its ability to dissipate heat.


No we do not have to accept the absurd.:no: 




> BTW, how do you know the paint won't erode the insulation over time and it won't qualify to be rated for 600 volts anymore? That goes to the chemistry between the paint and the insulation.



Interesting, you better call the NFPA and explain it to them.



> 200.7(C) Circuits of 50 Volts or More. The use of insulation that is white or gray or that has three continuous white stripes for other than a grounded conductor for circuits of 50 volts or more shall be permitted only as in (1) through (3).
> 
> (1) If part of a cable assembly and where the insulation is permanently reidentified *to indicate its use as an ungrounded conductor, by painting* or other effective means at its termination,......


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

Dnkldorf said:


> Does this mean I can't paint EMT anymore?
> :whistling2:



No, you cannot even run EMT in contact with a surface as that changes the heat dissipation is some way. :laughing:


----------



## 10492 (Jan 4, 2010)

Bob Badger said:


> No, you cannot even run EMT in contact with a surface as that changes the heat dissipation is some way. :laughing:


 
Boy do I have a bunch of rework to do.....


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

Shorty Circuit said:


> OK, now you guys have gone and done it. Now that I have internet access to the code I'm really dangerous.
> 
> Here goes the paint;
> 
> ...


 You dont need to do any of that. The AHJ is required to give you a code reference in Jersey if you dont pass. ASK FOR IT. When he gives it to you , you willl either be educated on why you cant paint it, or you will be ready to make an argument. Either way until he gives you a reference HIS job isnt done.


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

Bob Badger said:


> No we do not have to accept the absurd.:no:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So now you're a chemist too. How talented.:hammer:

Painted at its termination, not along the entire length!!! Please read all the words, not just the ones you want to hear. :wallbash:


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

480sparky said:


> Lesse... Once upon a time, there was LawnGuy, then Honda Race, then milehiwire, then JackBoot, then Forgery...........


LawnGuy was not a Troll.. he was the real deal to the very end..

THEN he became a Troll :no:


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Black4Truck said:


> LawnGuy was not a Troll.. he was the real deal to the very end..
> 
> THEN he became a Troll :no:



Once a troll, always a troll. :yes:


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

How could "the code" permit you to paint a wire in one section (reidentifying a nuetral) and prevent you somewhere else without identifying the difference or at least specifically noteing an exception? I think if were not permitted it would have to be specifically not permited with the words "shall not" because it IS mentioned in another section that a conductor can be reidentified by painting. Please dont ask for for a reference I'm drawing from memory.

edit

Isnt that jacket Vynil? or PVC? How would the paint effect the PVC jacket any different then it would effect PVC siding (If you were painting PVC SIDING) There is certainly merit in the argument that it may or may not be listed for use but is UL required to list it with any specific finish? (rhetorica l) Is it listed for use on a PAINTED SURFACE? Would it need to be? What would the difference be?

Splitting hairs, ask for a code referance on this one


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

gold said:


> How could "the code" permit you to paint a wire in one section (reidentifying a nuetral) and prevent you somewhere else without identifying the difference or at least specifically noteing an exception? I think if were not permitted it would have to be specifically not permited with the words "shall not" because it IS mentioned in another section that a conductor can be reidentified by painting. Please dont ask for for a reference I'm drawing from memory.
> 
> edit
> 
> ...


Painting only a few inches at the termination to identify the neutral does not substantially affect its ability to dissipate heat. Painting it over a significant portion of its length might and probably will.

Don't know what kind of paint is being applied. Don't know what's in it. Don't know what kinds of paint are incompatible with pvc. What about a paint that has an organic solvent base? Will some disolve PVC? Not sure, haven't researched it. Can you solvent bond to PVC by partially disolving it? Isn't that how a solvent weld is made?


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Shorty Circuit said:


> Painting only a few inches at the termination to identify the neutral does not substantially affect its ability to dissipate heat. Painting it over a significant portion of its length might and probably will...........



Define 'significant portion'.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

Shorty Circuit said:


> Painting only a few inches at the termination to identify the neutral does not substantially affect its ability to dissipate heat. Painting it over a significant portion of its length might and probably will.
> 
> Don't know what kind of paint is being applied. Don't know what's in it. Don't know what kinds of paint are incompatible with pvc. What about a paint that has an organic solvent base? Will some disolve PVC? Not sure, haven't researched it. Can you solvent bond to PVC by partially disolving it? Isn't that how a solvent weld is made?


You have a reasonable point, but if the code allows it (even requires it to some extent with the word "SHALL") in one section it would have to use the words "SHALL NOT" where it isnt permited. To my knowledge there is no mention of the "finish" on a specific conductor or conductor assembly. Is the underwriter required to list every little thing with every possable finish?

You have a good reason NOT to do it, but I cant seem to think of any requirement it doesnt meet.

I think the OP (and perhaps some of us as well) is best served asking for a referance.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

gold said:


> You have a reasonable point, but if the code allows it (even requires it to some extent with the word "SHALL") in one section it would have to use the words "SHALL NOT" where it isnt permited. To my knowledge there is no mention of the "finish" on a specific conductor or conductor assembly. Is the underwriter required to list every little thing with every possable finish?
> 
> You have a good reason NOT to do it, but I cant seem to think of any requirement it doesnt meet.
> 
> I think the OP (and perhaps some of us as well) is best served asking for a referance.


 


He DOES NOT have a good point. THe only thing he has is a WILD imagination where he thinks he can make up the intent of the code. He's full of it


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

Shorty Circuit said:


> So now you're a chemist too. How talented.


Thanks, I get that a lot. :thumbsup:



> Painted at its termination, not along the entire length!!! Please read all the words, not just the ones you want to hear. :wallbash:


You had brought up two issues heat disaption and insulation degragation.



Shorty Circuit said:


> BTW, how do you know the paint won't erode the insulation over time and it won't qualify to be rated for 600 volts anymore? That goes to the chemistry between the paint and the insulation.


So putting the heat issue aside for moment I was responding to your statement that the insulation will not be rated 600 V any longer.

Obviously the NFPA does not feel that the paint will change the rating of the insulation. 

Your view about the heat dissipation because of the paint is ... well ... just plain ridiculous and if you stick to it I will assume you are just another forum troll.


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

Bob Badger said:


> Thanks, I get that a lot. :thumbsup:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've always seen black wire indicated for phase, neutral and ground using colored pvc tape, not paint, usually no more than about a foot or two in length with a ring of tape at each end of a foot length and an open spiral of tape between them or sometimes maybe just a six inch wide ring of tape. I don't know much about what types of paint are habitually used to indicate phases on wires but if the paint is incompatible with the insulation, then that violates the provision I cited earlier that the material installed must be consistent with the manufacturer's instructions. What could be in say spray cans of paint that might degrade PVC? Acetone? MEK? TCA? What kind of paint could thermally blanket wire? Thick coats of epoxy? This is why we need competent inspectors. It's not just for people who try to cheat, it's for people who sometimes get it wrong because they don't know....everything. That includes all of us, believe it or not even you.

While you may disagree with my view about painting wire, you still have offered no explanation as to what the AHJ might have been thinking when he rejected it. Right or wrong he had a reason. Calling me names will not make your case for you. Even you must already see that I have at least some knowledge and experence in this industry. Therefore calling me a troll only proves you have nothing better to offer yourself and you will not tolerate other people disagreeing with you. You'd never make my bidder's list with that attitude. You would make my blacklist of unacceptable bidders instead though. How about researching it and getting some real answers instead of just wasting time calling me names.


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

While you may disagree with my view about painting wire, you still have offered no explanation as to what the AHJ might have been thinking when he rejected it. Right or wrong he had a reason. Quote




He rejected it because he is an incompetent inspector is my guess. Or maybe he is really a good inspector and just hates the op for some reason. I hope the op posts what article he was tagged on. All we are doing is guessing.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

Shorty Circuit said:


> I've always seen black wire indicated for phase, neutral and ground using colored pvc tape, not paint, usually no more than about a foot or two in length with a ring of tape at each end of a foot length and an open spiral of tape between them or sometimes maybe just a six inch wide ring of tape. I don't know much about what types of paint are habitually used to indicate phases on wires but if the paint is incompatible with the insulation, then that violates the provision I cited earlier that the material installed must be consistent with the manufacturer's instructions. What could be in say spray cans of paint that might degrade PVC? Acetone? MEK? TCA? What kind of paint could thermally blanket wire? Thick coats of epoxy? This is why we need competent inspectors. It's not just for people who try to cheat, it's for people who sometimes get it wrong because they don't know....everything. That includes all of us, believe it or not even you.
> 
> While you may disagree with my view about painting wire, you still have offered no explanation as to what the AHJ might have been thinking when he rejected it. Right or wrong he had a reason. Calling me names will not make your case for you. Even you must already see that I have at least some knowledge and experence in this industry. Therefore calling me a troll only proves you have nothing better to offer yourself and you will not tolerate other people disagreeing with you. You'd never make my bidder's list with that attitude. You would make my blacklist of unacceptable bidders instead though. How about researching it and getting some real answers instead of just wasting time calling me names.


 

There's nothing to research, it's not a violation.

The inspector WILL NOT come up with a code reference,because there IS NONE TO CITE, if there were, believe me, I'm sure you would have thrown out more than those whimsical wishes of yours.


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

mcclary's electrical said:


> There's nothing to research, it's not a violation.
> 
> The inspector WILL NOT come up with a code reference,because there IS NONE TO CITE, if there were, believe me, I'm sure you would have thrown out more than those whimsical wishes of yours.


That remains to be seen.


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

There is a bright side to all this. If it turns out to be legal, when business is slow you guys can get fill in work going around painting SE wires for a few extra bucks on the side. And if an electrical inspector comes around to harass you about it being illegal, you can tell him we thrashed it out here and it was voted on, the majority won.


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

Shorty Circuit said:


> That remains to be seen.


There is NO NEC section that specifically prohibits painting the sheath of SE cable. If there were Me, Bob or one of many other forum posters would have already posted the section.

Now back to your position in regards to the use of listed equipment.

110.3(B) of the NEC requires listed or labeled equipment to be installed and used in accordance with any instructions included in the listing or labeling.

Now if a wire manufacture had in their installation instructions that painting the SE cable jacket was not acceptable then you could not do it.

BUT if there is nothing in the installation instructions then you can't just assume that anything you don't like violates the listing of the SE cable.

There is nothing in the UL White Book under Service Entrance Cable (TYLZ) that indicates that SE cable is not suitable to be painted.

Chris


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

"If there were Me, Bob or one of many other forum posters would have already posted the section."

If I knew that one day I would meet people who know as much about everything as you guys do, I wouldn't have wasted my time and money on an education. I could have just asked you for the answers.


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

Shorty Circuit said:


> "If there were Me, Bob or one of many other forum posters would have already posted the section."
> 
> If I knew that one day I would meet people who know as much about everything as you guys do, I wouldn't have wasted my time and money on an education. I could have just asked you for the answers.


Don't be a smart A$$, I was being professional in my response to you.

What I meant by saying "If there were Me, Bob or one of many other forum posters would have already posted the section." was that if there was a specific code section that prohibited painting SE cable it would have already been pointed out.

There are many very knowledgeable people on this site that know the code inside and out.

Chris


----------



## 76nemo (Aug 13, 2008)

Too much bickering here to add to the fire, but I will say the OP is the only other person I have EVER heard of failing for that. I did a heavy up once where the drop was already 4/0 SE. I just changed it from two services to one. AHJ just says he wants the weatherhead rerouted away from the front window. No problem.

Work was done, I took my time and it was beyond par, which I got a "Nice job." for. One thing he states, no sticker 'til you replace that drop Brad:blink:

In my nicest voice, are you pulling my chain Greg? It's sized, it's moved where you wanted it, are you serious? "Sorry bud, it's painted". "Uhhh Greg, it's been a long day, quit your picking." Not picking on this one he says. It's painted and no longer UV resistant bud he says with a nod. Not ever having a run in with him before I replaced it without him citing any amendment. Hope you're not reading this Greg, but I had to disagree there.

On the other hand of proper use of SE drops and where they should not be permitted, I can step out my front door and snap a pic of an SE drop load side of the meter that would make your heart flutter!!!!! I have lots of pics somewhere where most of the neutral wrap is exposed, but as Bob said, he's seen enough of it already.

Those drops are so common here, it's almost a norm. Hey, I didn't design it


----------



## 76nemo (Aug 13, 2008)

*Physical damage impossible:*

In between her meter and my white picket fence is her driveway. Her bumper lines up perfectly with the horizontal entrance:












Sorry for the pic being too large and for the hijack, but it's warranted:no:


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

Shorty Circuit said:


> There is a bright side to all this. If it turns out to be legal, when business is slow you guys can get fill in work going around painting SE wires for a few extra bucks on the side. And if an electrical inspector comes around to harass you about it being illegal, you can tell him we thrashed it out here and it was voted on, the majority won.



I suggest you try asking this question about paint and your thoughts about harmonics over here, there are a handful of engineers that might be able to explain things to you. :thumbsup:


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

raider1 said:


> Don't be a smart A$$, I was being professional in my response to you.
> 
> What I meant by saying "If there were Me, Bob or one of many other forum posters would have already posted the section." was that if there was a specific code section that prohibited painting SE cable it would have already been pointed out.
> 
> ...


This is why the code says up front that it is not a specification for untrained people. Neither NEC nor the rest of NFPA can account for every possible contingency, every variant, every case someone can dream up. This is what is meant by the intent of the code. They expect you to not only know what it says but what it means and why they say it. They expect you to think. Maybe they are asking too much.


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

Shorty Circuit said:


> This is why the code says up front that it is not a specification for untrained people. Neither NEC nor the rest of NFPA can account for every possible contingency, every variant, every case someone can dream up. This is what is meant by the intent of the code. They expect you to not only know what it says but what it means and why they say it. They expect you to think. Maybe they are asking too much.


 

Behave Peter!:laughing:


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

mcclary's electrical said:


> There's nothing to research, it's not a violation.
> 
> The inspector WILL NOT come up with a code reference,because there IS NONE TO CITE, if there were, believe me, I'm sure you would have thrown out more than those whimsical wishes of yours.


"How about researching it and getting some real answers instead of just wasting time calling me names."

"There's nothing to research, it's not a violation"

If you don't know how to research it, then you have no way to know that whatever you apply to it won't damage it or compromise its performance.


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

Shorty Circuit said:


> This is why the code says up front that it is not a specification for untrained people. Neither NEC nor the rest of NFPA can account for every possible contingency, every variant, every case someone can dream up. This is what is meant by the intent of the code. They expect you to not only know what it says but what it means and why they say it. They expect you to think. Maybe they are asking too much.


Please show me where in the NEC it states that the code is more just a guideline and you should follow the "Intent of the code" not what is actually written in the code.

Chris


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

76nemo said:


> In between her meter and my white picket fence is her driveway. Her bumper lines up perfectly with the horizontal entrance:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry for the pic being too large and for the hijack, but it's warranted:no:


So putting it in EMT is going to prevent any damages? A little old lady who confuses the accelerator for the brake is going to damage it anyway.

I'll bet I could find a truck with side mirrors that can take that wattmeter right off the wall in a heartbeat. Are you as concerned about that?


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

The watt what?J/k:jester::laughing:


----------



## 76nemo (Aug 13, 2008)

480sparky said:


> So putting it in EMT is going to prevent any damages? A little old lady who confuses the accelerator for the brake is going to damage it anyway.
> 
> I'll bet I could find a truck with side mirrors that can take that wattmeter right off the wall in a heartbeat. Are you as concerned about that?


 
No Ken, just saying I would of done it another way. I'll have to vote it is the most upsurd install I have seen here locally, and I don't know how it got stickered. To answer your question Ken, the placement of the meter stems right up there IMO in a driveway.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

76nemo said:


> No Ken, just saying I would of done it another way. I'll have to vote it is the most upsurd install I have seen here locally, and I don't know how it got stickered. To answer your question Ken, the placement of the meter stems right up there IMO in a driveway.



Given my druthers, I'd put the meter on the left side of the corner, and pipe down and in. That cable is not going straight down to a panel because of the window..... so I'd pipe betwixt the meter & panel anyway. Not that any of this is required, but I'd do so just because of the driveway.


----------



## 76nemo (Aug 13, 2008)

480sparky said:


> Given my druthers, I'd put the meter on the left side of the corner, and pipe down and in. That cable is not going straight down to a panel because of the window..... so I'd pipe betwixt the meter & panel anyway. Not that any of this is required, but I'd do so just because of the driveway.


 
Yupper:thumbsup:


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

raider1 said:


> Please show me where in the NEC it states that the code is more just a guideline and you should follow the "Intent of the code" not what is actually written in the code.
> 
> Chris


I read the code and nowhere does it say that an electrician needs to be able to use his brain and think. I knew there was a fatal flaw in it.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

Shorty Circuit said:


> I read the code and nowhere does it say that an electrician needs to be able to use his brain and think. I knew there was a fatal flaw in it.


 


Well, one things for sure. They certainly weren't gonna say an electrician should use his brain and think of dreamed up scenarios where a coat of paint would actully change ANYTHING about a piece of wire. 

I could cover the wire in foam insulation 4" thick and THEN PAINT THAT,,,,,and there's still not a code in the world to make me treat it any differently than a normal piece of SE


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

Shorty Circuit said:


> I read the code and nowhere does it say that an electrician needs to be able to use his brain and think. I knew there was a fatal flaw in it.


I could say the same thing about engineers.

So to recap, you can't find anything in the NEC to back up your position that paint on SE cable is a code violation, so you have resorted to stating that electricians are idiots when they don't think the same way you do.

Chris


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

Isnt MOST SEU rated for use in plaster and stucco anyway?


----------



## pesdfw (Jun 23, 2010)

Sounds like some inspector was having a bad day ...


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

raider1 said:


> I could say the same thing about engineers.
> 
> So to recap, you can't find anything in the NEC to back up your position that paint on SE cable is a code violation, so you have resorted to stating that electricians are idiots when they don't think the same way you do.
> 
> Chris


So to recap, the equation given in 310.60D for the engineer to calculate ampacity is definitive because the thermal insulation properties created by the applied coating invalidates the tables. However, I found obtaining the "effective thermal resistance between conductor and ambient" coefficient "RCA" used in the equation for paint anything but easy to obtain. The engineer will also need the thickness applied and the thicknesses and RCAs of the PVC conductor and overall outer jacket to perform the computation. The code correctly mandates that this calculation be performed by an engineer as it is clearly beyond the scope of licensed electrians many of whom evidently don't even understand it. It wouldn't surprise me if the AHJ requires the calculation to bear the engineer's PE seal and be signed off by him as part of a permit application.

In addition, the coating may chemically compromise the integrity of the insulation itself either because of the material in the coating or in the carrier vehicle in which it is applied being incompatible with it. The reference below indicates that PVC used for SE cable conductor insulation and outer jacketing is only moderately resistant to organic solvents and oils such as acetone, MEK, esters, alcohols and many others. 

http://www.unitedcopper.com/specs/wire/SER_sheet.pdf

http://www.batt.co.uk/upload/files/insulationsheathdata_1227548566.pdf

These are carriers typically used in aerosol spray paints which would probably be a bad choice. 

The inspector was correct, the installation is not demonstrated code compliant until he is satisfied that the criteria has been met.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

Shorty Circuit said:


> So to recap, the equation given in 310.60D for the engineer to calculate ampacity is definitive because the thermal insulation properties created by the applied coating invalidates the tables. However, I found obtaining the "effective thermal resistance between conductor and ambient" coefficient "RCA" used in the equation for paint anything but easy to obtain. The engineer will also need the thickness applied and the thicknesses and RCAs of the PVC conductor and overall outer jacket to perform the computation. The code correctly mandates that this calculation be performed by an engineer as it is clearly beyond the scope of licensed electrians many of whom evidently don't even understand it. It wouldn't surprise me if the AHJ requires the calculation to bear the engineer's PE seal and be signed off by him as part of a permit application.
> 
> In addition, the coating may chemically compromise the integrity of the insulation itself either because of the material in the coating or in the carrier vehicle in which it is applied being incompatible with it. The reference below indicates that PVC used for SE cable conductor insulation and outer jacketing is only moderately resistant to organic solvents and oils such as acetone, MEK, esters, alcohols and many others.
> 
> ...


 
And all that means absolutely SQUAT untill the AHJ gives a reference.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Shorty Circuit said:


> So to recap, .........









​


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

Shorty Circuit said:


> So to recap, the equation given in 310.60D for the engineer to calculate ampacity is definitive because the thermal insulation properties created by the applied coating invalidates the tables.


Wow that is very interesting, you must work with some very different SE as the SE I work with is rated 600 Volts not 2001 to 35,000 Volts. 




Putz. :laughing:



> The code correctly mandates that this calculation be performed by an engineer as it is clearly beyond the scope of licensed electrians many of whom evidently don't even understand it.


Do you get a kick from talking out your ass? :laughing:

The NEC does not require an engineer to determine the ampacity of SE supplying a service. 



> It wouldn't surprise me if the AHJ requires the calculation to bear the engineer's PE seal and be signed off by him as part of a permit application.


Some areas do require stamped prints.



> The inspector was correct, the installation is not demonstrated code compliant until he is satisfied that the criteria has been met.


You still have not provided any code section to back up you wild dreams. :no:


----------



## TOOL_5150 (Aug 27, 2007)

Dnkldorf said:


> I don't think so. He has a point.
> 
> It may be better to do it his way, than it is to waste alot of time arguing with the inspector. After awhile, you get to know different ones and what they look for.


He has no point. He is afraid to stand up to an inspector, like a little girl. "what they look for".... come on.. are you a girly man too? Do your work to NEC and local standards, and there is not ONE THING an inspector can make you change because that is "what he wants."

I go NO problem asking for the inspector's bosses number and calling him right then and there if I know I am right.

Its people like you guys why give the crappy inspectors the big egos. Luckily, We have a good amount of good inspectors, that know the code, and are pleasant to talk to.

~Matt


----------



## 10492 (Jan 4, 2010)

TOOL_5150 said:


> He has no point. He is afraid to stand up to an inspector, like a little girl. "what they look for".... come on.. are you a girly man too? Do your work to NEC and local standards, and there is not ONE THING an inspector can make you change because that is "what he wants."
> 
> I go NO problem asking for the inspector's bosses number and calling him right then and there if I know I am right.
> 
> ...


You can argue, or you can get paid.

I like getting paid, and then arguing later.

If that makes me a "girly man", so be it.


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

Bob Badger said:


> Wow that is very interesting, you must work with some very different SE as the SE I work with is rated 600 Volts not 2001 to 35,000 Volts.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"Do you get a kick from talking out your ass?"

No, I make a living by designing electrical systems which incorporate an understanding of NEC among other factors taken into account. This is why most jurisdictions require a licensed PE to stamp drawings and will not rely on the the more limited understanding of licensed electricians to certify the adequacy of a design.


----------



## oldtimer (Jun 10, 2010)

Shorty Circuit said:


> "Do you get a kick from talking out your ass?"
> 
> No, I make a living by designing electrical systems which incorporate an understanding of NEC among other factors taken into account. This is why most jurisdictions require a licensed PE to stamp drawings and will not rely on the the more limited understanding of licensed electricians to certify the adequacy of a design.


 Oh... poor us, We are of limited understanding.  

Maybe, because we did'nt sit behind a desk all our lives.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

Shorty Circuit said:


> "Do you get a kick from talking out your ass?"
> 
> No, I make a living by designing electrical systems which incorporate an understanding of NEC among other factors taken into account. This is why most jurisdictions require a licensed PE to stamp drawings and will not rely on the the more limited understanding of licensed electricians to certify the adequacy of a design.


 

This may be true if we were designing a hospital, but you don't need a stamp to paint a piece of SE. 

You are a typical engineer, you think you're smarter than everybody else, and you don't have enough common sence to pour piss out of a boot.
Get down off your high horse, and admit you're making this stuff up. There's not a code in this world that addresses this. You're dreaming, 














Putz:blink: (thanks Bob that was funny)


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

Putz:blink: (thanks Bob that was funny)[/quote]



Almost every engineer I know seems to think they know everything about everything. When taking their car to be fixed they tell the mechanic what is wrong with it. And why it should of been designed differently!:laughing:


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

mcclary's electrical said:


> This may be true if we were designing a hospital, but you don't need a stamp to paint a piece of SE.
> 
> You are a typical engineer, you think you're smarter than everybody else, and you don't have enough common sence to pour piss out of a boot.
> Get down off your high horse, and admit you're making this stuff up. There's not a code in this world that addresses this. You're dreaming,
> ...


Now I can understand it if some of you guys get a little pang in the pit of your stomach thinking about having applied a thermal blanket around SE cable by painting it to match the color of the siding on a house because that's what a homeowner wanted but that's not my problem. I'd probably dismiss it as meaningless too...if I'd done it. BTW, did you put a primer coat on it too?

So far the theories about why the inspector (right or wrong) flunked the installation on this thread are; 

Another inspector flunked one because it compromised the wire's UV rating (????)

The inspector was having a bad day. 

Anyone else care to take a stab at was going through his mind when he did it or do you all just agree he was wrong and drop the whole thing? Will we ever find out why he did it? I hope so. BTW, In the last two months I've seen three serious code violations that were passed by township electrical inspectors. I think they are much too easy on you guys.


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

Shorty Circuit said:


> No, I make a living by designing electrical systems


I am really starting to doubt that.


----------



## 10492 (Jan 4, 2010)

Below is the orginal question by the OP



z gr8 1 said:


> Where in the NEC does it say you may not paint the s.e.c.? The customer painted the jacket white to match the house and the inspector failed because jacket was painted.


Next is his only reply on this thread




z gr8 1 said:


> I've looked and only thing I can come up with is that the paint may take away from the fire retardness of the jacket. But I can't find anything about covering or painting.


 

So, you asked this:



Shorty Circuit said:


> So far the theories about why the inspector (right or wrong) flunked the installation on this thread are;
> 
> Another inspector flunked one because it compromised the wire's UV rating (????)
> 
> ...


 
I say the inspector was throwing the guy a bone, and the electrician didn't catch it.

If he did his scope right, this would be an extra.

Blame the inspector for wanting it done, and collect an extra $300.:thumbsup:


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

From Neutral size



Bob Badger said:


> Yes, most of us understand basic electrical theory.


Yes basic. Sadly that often seems to be where it ends.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Shorty Circuit said:


> .......... Sadly that often seems to be where it ends.









​


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

Sparky, I see you've offered up your best technical argument. You've missed your true calling in life. 

Yes and I will have fries with that.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

Shorty Circuit said:


> Sparky, I see you've offered up your best technical argument. You've missed your true calling in life.
> 
> Yes and I will have fries with that.


 


ANd you have too,,,,, with terms like thermal blanket,,,,,,,get real


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Shorty Circuit said:


> Sparky, I see you've offered up your best technical argument. You've missed your true calling in life.
> 
> Yes and I will have fries with that.


At least I've offered up an argument, which is more than you've offered up. I'm still waiting for your enforceable definition of 'substantial portion.'


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

Shorty Circuit said:


> Sparky, I see you've offered up your best technical argument. You've missed your true calling in life.
> 
> Yes and I will have fries with that.


This is why he is affectionately called TOOL :thumbup:


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Black4Truck said:


> This is why he is affectionately called TOOL :thumbup:



Let the record show the real reason:








​


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

480sparky said:


> At least I've offered up an argument, which is more than you've offered up. I'm still waiting for your enforceable definition of 'substantial portion.'
> 
> 
> ​


 
A substantial portion is....the part you painted :laughing:

If that's a triple whopper you're selling I'd say about halfway through :boxing::2guns:


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Shorty Circuit said:


> A substantial portion is....the part you painted :laughing:
> 
> If that's a triple whopper you're selling I'd say about halfway through :boxing::2guns:


So now I can't use paint to mark conductors. Are you going to submit this as a proposal to change the '14?









I didn't think so.


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

Shorty Circuit said:


> So to recap, the equation given in 310.60D for the engineer to calculate ampacity is definitive because the thermal insulation properties created by the applied coating invalidates the tables. However, I found obtaining the "effective thermal resistance between conductor and ambient" coefficient "RCA" used in the equation for paint anything but easy to obtain. The engineer will also need the thickness applied and the thicknesses and RCAs of the PVC conductor and overall outer jacket to perform the computation. The code correctly mandates that this calculation be performed by an engineer as it is clearly beyond the scope of licensed electrians many of whom evidently don't even understand it. It wouldn't surprise me if the AHJ requires the calculation to bear the engineer's PE seal and be signed off by him as part of a permit application.
> 
> In addition, the coating may chemically compromise the integrity of the insulation itself either because of the material in the coating or in the carrier vehicle in which it is applied being incompatible with it. The reference below indicates that PVC used for SE cable conductor insulation and outer jacketing is only moderately resistant to organic solvents and oils such as acetone, MEK, esters, alcohols and many others.
> 
> ...


Here's the problem with your argument about using engineering supervision in 310.15(C).

310.15(A)(1) Ampacities for conductors shall be permitted to be determined by tables as provided in 310.15(B) *OR* under engineering supervision, as provided in 310.15(C).

There is nothing in the NEC that requires me to calculate the ampacity of conductor using the formulas in 310.15(C) or 310.60(D) (The later being for conductors rated from 2001 to 35,000 volts) I am permitted to just use the ampacity tables provided.

Chris


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

raider1 said:


> Here's the problem with your argument about using engineering supervision in 310.15(C).
> 
> 310.15(A)(1) Ampacities for conductors shall be permitted to be determined by tables as provided in 310.15(B) *OR* under engineering supervision, as provided in 310.15(C).
> 
> ...


 
310.10 FPN(3)

"The rate at which heat generated dissipates into the ambient medium. Thermal insulation that covers or surrounds conductors affects the rate of heat dissipation."

You people just don't seem to get it. When you paint over the insulation, you change that rate. It is reduced because you've added an additional layer of insulation. Therefore if is allowed at all, it has to be derated. The method used to create the tables doesn't apply anymore because you've altered the conditions, violated the assumptions made during the testing that established the tables. How much it is derated by depends on the additonal thermal barrier the paint created which is a function of the type of paint and its thickness. This is why an engineer has to calculate it. They won't trust it to an electrician. This thread makes it plain why.

Why don't you just coat it with paving tar or go to a plumbing supply house and buy some ASJ to cover it with and then paint over it and see what happens to it.


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

Shorty Circuit said:


> 310.10 FPN(3)
> 
> "The rate at which heat generated dissipates into the ambient medium. Thermal insulation that covers or surrounds conductors affects the rate of heat dissipation."


As you may or may not know, fine print notes are for informational purposes only and not enforcable. (See 90.5(C))

The FPN that you have quoted does let the code user know that thermal insulation can affect the rate of heat dissipation, but it in no way prohibits painting SE cable.



> You people just don't seem to get it. When you paint over the insulation, you change that rate. It is reduced because you've added an additional layer of insulation. Therefore if is allowed at all, it has to be derated. *The method used to create the tables doesn't apply anymore because you've altered the conditions, violated the assumptions made during the testing that established the tables.* How much it is derated by depends on the additonal thermal barrier the paint created which is a function of the type of paint and its thickness. This is why an engineer has to calculate it. They won't trust it to an electrician. This thread makes it plain why.


Do you have anything other then your own opinion to back up what I have bolded in your quote? Do you have the testing data from where the Tables in 310.15 were created?

I know of nothing in the NEC that says the Tables in 310.15(B) are "invalid" if the cables are installed with any additional thermal barrier. 



> Why don't you just coat it with paving tar or go to a plumbing supply house and buy some ASJ to cover it with and then paint over it and see what happens to it.


Now you are just being stupid.

Chris


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

raider1 said:


> Do you have anything other then your own opinion to back up what I have bolded in your quote?
> 
> Chris


 
Yeah, a bidders list...and you're not on it.:no:


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

raider1 said:


> Now you are just being stupid.


I would say he is doing what a troll does.


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

Shorty Circuit said:


> Yeah, a bidders list...and you're not on it.:no:


So what your saying is you don't have anything to back up your assumptions.:thumbsup:

Chris


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

Bob Badger said:


> I would say he is doing what a troll does.


Yep, he is.:thumbsup:

Chris


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

​


----------



## TOOL_5150 (Aug 27, 2007)

Dnkldorf said:


> You can argue, or you can get paid.
> 
> I like getting paid, and then arguing later.
> 
> If that makes me a "girly man", so be it.


I have been paid as well... the worst Ive ever set back getting paid was a few days, while the head honcho of the city "looked into the matter"

a few days doesnt matter a hill of beans, because our customers have 30 days to pay in full anyway.
You point is moot.

~Matt


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

TOOL_5150 said:


> I have been paid as well... the worst Ive ever set back getting paid was a few days, while the head honcho of the city "looked into the matter"
> 
> a few days doesnt matter a hill of beans, because our customers have 30 days to pay in full anyway.
> You point is moot.
> ...


 

I agree, the last time this happened to me, I did not back down. I politely told the building owner that I would need a few days to let the building inspector "clear his head",,,,,,,sure enough, he came around, and saw things MY WAY. AND I'm being 100% honest when I say that he has "respected me",,,,ever since then. He has been one of the nicest, most competent inspectors I've dealt with, but I honestly believe it's because of that incident, he knows I know the code, not just doing whatever he says like a mindless conformist who copies others work, rather, I actually know the code.


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

480sparky said:


>


 

I'm always lurking here....:whistling2:why you giving me a hard time 480?:laughing:


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

jwjrw said:


> I'm always lurking here....:whistling2:why you giving me a hard time 480?:laughing:



You have too many posts to be a lurker. :no:


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

480sparky said:


> You have too many posts to be a lurker. :no:


 

But you have to agree most of my posts are meaningless like william1978's!  :laughing:


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

jwjrw said:


> But you have to agree most of my posts are meaningless like william1978's!  :laughing:



May be.......... but at least they make sense.


----------



## Bkessler (Feb 14, 2007)

TOOL_5150 said:


> He has no point. He is afraid to stand up to an inspector, like a little girl. "what they look for".... come on.. are you a girly man too? Do your work to NEC and local standards, and there is not ONE THING an inspector can make you change because that is "what he wants."
> 
> I go NO problem asking for the inspector's bosses number and calling him right then and there if I know I am right.
> 
> ...


I think us CA guys shouldn't be included in inspector threads, I suppose if every once in a while an inspector calls something like in the OP it wouldn't be a big deal, but here in CA the inspectors are the "all in one" inspectors who' are just plain ignorant and call the most ridiculous things because they have know idea what there looking at.


----------



## Wingnut (Jan 31, 2010)

z gr8 1 said:


> Where in the NEC does it say you may not paint the s.e.c.? The customer painted the jacket white to match the house and the inspector failed because jacket was painted.


 
what kind of paint? you cant just wipe it off?


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

Shorty Circuit said:


> Anyone else care to take a stab at was going through his mind when he did it or do you all just agree he was wrong and drop the whole thing? Will we ever find out why he did it? I hope so. BTW, In the last two months I've seen three serious code violations that were passed by township electrical inspectors. I think they are much too easy on you guys.


We are not required to know whats going through his head. He is required to tell us by giving a code referance. No referance, call DCA


----------



## Wingnut (Jan 31, 2010)

310.11? the inspector should be ubel too see this is in complince


----------



## Wingnut (Jan 31, 2010)

the AHJ should be able too see it before its coverd anyway IMO


----------



## TOOL_5150 (Aug 27, 2007)

jwjrw said:


> But you have to agree most of my posts are meaningless like william1978's!  :laughing:


DAMN!!! :laughing:

~Matt


----------



## TOOL_5150 (Aug 27, 2007)

Bkessler said:


> I think us CA guys shouldn't be included in inspector threads, I suppose if every once in a while an inspector calls something like in the OP it wouldn't be a big deal, but here in CA the inspectors are the "all in one" inspectors who' are just plain ignorant and call the most ridiculous things because they have know idea what there looking at.


Yeah, good point. other states have REAL electrical inspectors.. here we often, almost all the time, get the all-in-one inspectors.

Which reminds me - GOD HONEST TRUTH - I once had an inspector show up with one of those flip book 'Code Check' booklets you can get from HD or blowes.. I saw that and this happened: :blink::laughing:

~Matt


----------



## Wingnut (Jan 31, 2010)

I don't know about IR2 loss....
and sure it not a NEC or UL issue 


BUTT... 


My inspectors around here would be PO-ed if they could not walk up and do their job..... read the markings on the wire..... that's ALL they do.

check breaker rating
check wire rating
check grounding
check wire method

and if it's covered (with paint) they can not do that.

JMI


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Wingnut said:


> ..........My inspectors around here would be PO-ed if they could not walk up and do their job..... read the markings on the wire..... that's ALL they do............



So what do they do when it's all sheetrocked, and the panel is in a rocked garage?............ no markings are visible *anywhere*. The walls cover them all up.


----------



## Wingnut (Jan 31, 2010)

480sparky said:


> So what do they do when it's all sheet-rocked, and the panel is in a rocked garage?............ no markings are visible *anywhere*. The walls cover them all up.


you can not do that here

you can't Sheetrock, bury, slurry,siding UNTIL it is inspected here.

are services here are ridged. 


The inspector check the wire markings...
He will stand on his head to read it some times.


he has too do that (job description)


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

TOOL_5150 said:


> DAMN!!! :laughing:
> 
> ~Matt


 
Did you notice he has been absent from this thread? Didn't even get a  or a :laughing: out of him. Oh well maybe next time!


----------



## Mogie (May 26, 2010)

TOOL_5150 said:


> i would definitely consult the mfg of the cable - and go from there. Most likely, paint adds another protective layer.
> 
> ~Matt


Depending on the type of paint used, it may add a flammable layer. I've never heard of an inspector failing because of this.


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

Mogie said:


> Depending on the type of paint used, it may add a flammable layer. I've never heard of an inspector failing because of this.


I've said pretty much the same. I've never seen an inspector failing a job because of this because I've never seen anyone stupid enough to try it. What kind of primer and paint did the wire manufacturer recommend using with that wire?
:thumbdown::bangin: :2guns::zorro::001_tongue:


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

jwjrw said:


> Did you notice he has been absent from this thread? Didn't even get a  or a :laughing: out of him. Oh well maybe next time!


 
Still missing!:thumbsup:


----------



## Speedy Petey (Jan 10, 2007)

This has got to be one of the stupidest threads I have seen in a while. I originally let it go because I thought it had some merit. 

We should all just admit that Shorty the engineer troll is right. Everyone else is wrong.
How could we be so stupid for even doubting.


----------

