# Stackers or 2x4's



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

A Colorado Jim will hold 6 cables.

A Stacker on each side of the stud bay will hold a total of 8.

I'm not sure what you do with 2X4 blocks, but the only thing I use a 2X4 for when it comes to cable support is a 14.5" piece spanned across the studs above the panel to attach all the cables to.


----------



## Arrow3030 (Mar 12, 2014)

What you do above the panel is what I'm talking about with 2x4's. I do that over multigang switch boxes too.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Arrow3030 said:


> What you do above the panel is what I'm talking about with 2x4's. I do that over multigang switch boxes too.


Seems like too much work for me. I just use stackers on the other side and bring those cables into the far side of the box.


----------



## Arrow3030 (Mar 12, 2014)

I'm feeling like it's too much work now also. It looks great but who really cares. 

It's funny how I'm still trying to impress a guy I haven't worked for in fifteen years.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

I hear ya on the impressing your old boss thing lol. 

As for the actual work, think about what happens when the wall is finished and you snaked the cables in afterwards.


----------



## Navyguy (Mar 15, 2010)

We tend to use a lot of the stackers, even around the panel. HJere is a old pic of what I mean - remember that we cannot come into the top of the panel like you can in the USA.


----------



## Arrow3030 (Mar 12, 2014)

Navyguy said:


> We tend to use a lot of the stackers, even around the panel. HJere is a old pic of what I mean - remember that we cannot come into the top of the panel like you can in the USA.


I remember the first time I saw a set up like that. It is so far from what is done in San Francisco area.

Everything is flush mount and the meter, service disconnect, branch and feeder circuit all fit in a stud bay in the same enclosure. 

We don't have basements because our frost line is very shallow.


----------



## Navyguy (Mar 15, 2010)

I don't think the basement issue is about the frost line, but more about the fault line...

Cheers

John


----------



## Signal1 (Feb 10, 2016)

I like the stackers. 

I know what you mean about looking neat, and taking pride in your work, but if you think about it, once the wall is finished their job is done.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

We never use stackers. We drive a staple halfway in, then tyrap bundles to the staple. We wire a lot of houses and always do it this way. Stackers are just another item to stock and they are not cheap either.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

Navyguy said:


> We tend to use a lot of the stackers, even around the panel. HJere is a old pic of what I mean - remember that we cannot come into the top of the panel like you can in the USA.


You guys love your minibreakers, don't you? :wink:


----------



## Arrow3030 (Mar 12, 2014)

Navyguy said:


> I don't think the basement issue is about the frost line, but more about the fault line...
> 
> Cheers
> 
> John


I'm in no way a foundation guy so you may be right. Someone told me footings have to be below the frost line and that's why we don't have basements.


----------



## Navyguy (Mar 15, 2010)

MTW said:


> You guys love your minibreakers, don't you? :wink:


Actually I hate them, but with the requirement to have so many dedicated circuits, on a 100 amp panel you are pretty much forced to use them.

Some of them are pretty obvious like stove, dryer, ac, etc. But then you start adding in fridges, freezers, sump pumps, bathroom GFCI, microwave, 12 receptacle per circuit, etc the panel fills up pretty fast.

With the new AFCI requirements here, it was becoming a problem, but now they have mandated all new builds require a 200 amp service, we should be good to going back to full module breakers for everything.

Cheers

John


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

Navyguy said:


> Actually I hate them, but with the requirement to have so many dedicated circuits, on a 100 amp panel you are pretty much forced to use them.
> 
> Some of them are pretty obvious like stove, dryer, ac, etc. But then you start adding in fridges, freezers, sump pumps, bathroom GFCI, microwave, 12 receptacle per circuit, etc the panel fills up pretty fast.


What are the CEC requirements for dedicated circuits? 



> With the new AFCI requirements here, it was becoming a problem, but now they have mandated all new builds require a 200 amp service, we should be good to going back to full module breakers for everything.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> John


But 100 amps still allowed for service upgrades?


----------



## Navyguy (Mar 15, 2010)

Well there is a whole host of them potentially; some code mandates while others are cost savings.

Known loads such as stove, dryer, electric heat, AC, furnace, sump pump, dishwasher are all pretty standard.
General use such as refrigerators, laundry room, utility room, microwave, central vac, EV, two for kitchen counter (min) or three splits, outdoor receptacles, garage, one circuit for every 12 receptacles, lighting
Special equipment such as septic pump, pressure pump, whirlpool tub, hot tub, pool equipment, etc.

I should note that in some cases that if this "extra equipment" was needed, it would likely result in a 200 amp service, which has the bigger panels and of course the larger homes would require more of the same.

A cost savings one is to put the bathroom GFCI on a separate circuit from the rest of the bathroom, then you do not need to AFCI it; same applies to other like the sump pump, window shaker single receptacles, etc.

Cheers

John


----------



## ElectricMon (Jan 17, 2018)

i've used both but mostly out of necessity in bulk stackers are cheap but wood is usually scrap and so thats free except the labor to cut and screw it in between the studs and the downside to them is if its a 2/4 wall you cant fish wire easy if cant get your hand in the wall to add a wire in old work.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

ElectricMon said:


> i've used both but mostly out of necessity in bulk stackers are cheap but wood is usually scrap and so thats free except the labor to cut and screw it in between the studs and the downside to them is if its a 2/4 wall you cant fish wire easy if cant get your hand in the wall to add a wire in old work.


This is legal per NEC because they don't say not to do it. Take a 24'' chunk of romex sheath and remove any conductors from it. Staple one end to the stud over top of the panel, maybe something like 10'' above it. Stretch it nice and tight and staple it to the other stud on the other side of the panel. Now tie wrap your cables to it instead of hassling with pieces of wood that need to be cut and all that. Of course a few of the re-tarded inspectors won't allow it because they didn't come up with the concept first. But those types don't even count.


----------



## telsa (May 22, 2015)

Arrow3030 said:


> I remember the first time I saw a set up like that. It is so far from what is done in San Francisco area.
> 
> Everything is flush mount and the meter, service disconnect, branch and feeder circuit all fit in a stud bay in the same enclosure.
> 
> We don't have basements because our frost line is very shallow.


Dittos for Greater Sacramento.

It's All-in-Ones virtually everywhere.


----------



## telsa (May 22, 2015)

macmikeman said:


> This is legal per NEC because they don't say not to do it. Take a 24'' chunk of romex sheath and remove any conductors from it. Staple one end to the stud over top of the panel, maybe something like 10'' above it. Stretch it nice and tight and staple it to the other stud on the other side of the panel. Now tie wrap your cables to it instead of hassling with pieces of wood that need to be cut and all that. Of course a few of the re-tarded inspectors won't allow it because they didn't come up with the concept first. But those types don't even count.


This is Tract-Style Romex running all over California.

Super fast, super cheap.

The coil runts are used, of course.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Arrow3030 said:


> Do you set up blocks to staple to or load up Stackers in stud bays?
> 
> I use blocks when there's more than 4 cables and stackers otherwise.
> 
> I ask bc everytime I tell my helper to set them up he sighs. He use to rope tracks so I'm sure that kind of time consumption feels wrong to him.


Both

we'll box, drill, block, stack above switchings & more closer to the panel

I like neat _and_ quick....

~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Navyguy said:


> We tend to use a lot of the stackers, even around the panel. HJere is a old pic of what I mean - remember that we cannot come into the top of the panel like you can in the USA.



We may be following suit......from our 2017>>>



> *408.3(2) *Service Panelboards, Switchboards, and Switchgear. *Barri‐
> ers shall be placed in all service panelboards*, switchboards, and
> switchgear such that no uninsulated, ungrounded service
> busbar or service terminal is exposed to inadvertent contact by
> ...


:vs_cool:

~CS~


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

Tell me why this wouldn't be a perfectly acceptable substitute for a Colorado Jim to cable tie romex to

https://www.homedepot.com/p/Simpson-Strong-Tie-22-Gauge-Tension-Bridging-LTB20/100375307 










It won't sit perpendicular between the studs but who cares. It's 50 cents and you could carry a dozen in one hand. You could strap any number of cables to it.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

I would use them Splatz

As an aside, panduit lobbied to be listed for romex & MC a while ago

~CS


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

We use stackers but at the panel we use blocks of 2x4 or 2x6 on edge and staple to them.


----------



## Navyguy (Mar 15, 2010)

macmikeman said:


> This is legal per NEC because they don't say not to do it. Take a 24'' chunk of romex sheath and remove any conductors from it. Staple one end to the stud over top of the panel, maybe something like 10'' above it. Stretch it nice and tight and staple it to the other stud on the other side of the panel. Now tie wrap your cables to it instead of hassling with pieces of wood that need to be cut and all that. Of course a few of the re-tarded inspectors won't allow it because they didn't come up with the concept first. But those types don't even count.


That is a defect in our neck of the woods; we cannot tie wrap wire together either. First you have to find "approved" tie wraps for securing cable, then you need to derate the wires because of the bundling effect.

Cheers

John


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

Navyguy said:


> We tend to use a lot of the stackers, even around the panel. HJere is a old pic of what I mean - remember that we cannot come into the top of the panel like you can in the USA.


Every single time I see one of these pics, it makes me happy I don't live in Canada. That may be the stupidest code ever. 
Oh no way you can come in the top of the panel but go ahead and bring romex down to 5 feet. Nothing worse than coming into a panel from the side.


----------



## scotch (Oct 17, 2013)

Well you can come into the "top" of the panel if it is mounted upside down with the main breaker at the bottom and the feeder coming thru' the floor....done that a couple of times .


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

scotch said:


> Well you can come into the "top" of the panel if it is mounted upside down with the main breaker at the bottom and the feeder coming thru' the floor....done that a couple of times .


It is OK top be a tad gay


----------



## lighterup (Jun 14, 2013)

Navyguy said:


> That is a defect in our neck of the woods; we cannot tie wrap wire together either. First you have to find "approved" tie wraps for securing cable, then you need to derate the wires because of the bundling effect.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> John


It's a fact that some building departments HERE would 
never allow bundling / tie strapping NM...not saying they 
are right ..but I am saying you would need to fight them 
on the red tag you'd get.


----------



## lighterup (Jun 14, 2013)

sbrn33 said:


> Every single time I see one of these pics, it makes me happy I don't live in Canada. That may be the stupidest code ever.
> Oh no way you can come in the top of the panel but go ahead and bring romex down to 5 feet. Nothing worse than coming into a panel from the side.


not allowed to enter into the top of the panel
in Canada?


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Canadian Panels _isolate_ their mains. 

That is _why_ we see no top entry, or them mounted sideways

USA panels _don't_ isolate mains, which makes it *live* work for us ,unless we pull meters 

the '17 (as i posted) is attempting to bring us up to CEC safety standards

In what i suspect is short time ,we may be _working safer_

So.....go thank a Canadian
:vs_cool:
~CS~


----------



## Dark Knight (Jan 6, 2016)

I'm assuming this is why we isolate our mains - to keep stupid homeowners alive.


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

chicken steve said:


> Canadian Panels _isolate_ their mains.
> 
> That is _why_ we see no top entry, or them mounted sideways
> 
> ...


Chicken ****, I beg you to stay out of this thread. Please give us one without your dueschiness.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

chicken steve said:


> Canadian Panels _isolate_ their mains.
> 
> That is _why_ we see no top entry, or them mounted sideways
> 
> ...


Seriously, are you even an electrician? Have you bought a panel lately? What we have is not even close to the Canadian method to isolate the mains, it's literally a piece of plastic that snaps over the lugs on the main breaker. It still allows us to enter all the cables into the top without the Canadian main breaker compartment.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Steve just wants to be profound.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> In what i suspect is short time ,we may be _working safer_
> 
> So.....go *thank a Canadian*
> :vs_cool:
> ~CS~


Done.


----------



## The_Modifier (Oct 24, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> So.....go thank a Canadian
> :vs_cool:
> ~CS~


You're Welcome Steve.

Just to clear things up, we can mount them side ways upright upside down. through the top and through the back. Panel have rights up here to what ever orientation they prefer.

You should come up here sometime and try it- it's quite liberating. :devil3:


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

We don't need no stinking stackers. :no:


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

That’s a few too many. If getting an inspection I wouldn’t do that myself because I would expect it to fail for bundling.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

HackWork said:


> That’s a few too many. If getting an inspection I wouldn’t do that myself because I would expect it to fail for bundling.


Normally I agree. But we have this inspector in our pocket and he won't fail it.

Plus those are all bedroom and second floor circuits. Other than the dryer, they will never be fully loaded, not even close.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

MTW said:


> We don't need no stinking stackers. :no:


Hands down violations of

*300.4D*
:vs_shocked:
*310.15B3*
:vs_shocked:
*334.30*
:vs_shocked:
*334.80*
:vs_shocked:

~CS~


----------



## telsa (May 22, 2015)

splatz said:


> Tell me why this wouldn't be a perfectly acceptable substitute for a Colorado Jim to cable tie romex to
> 
> https://www.homedepot.com/p/Simpson-Strong-Tie-22-Gauge-Tension-Bridging-LTB20/100375307
> 
> ...


I'm corn fused.

That puppy looks like the tabs at the ends are designed to be bent// folded such that the element rides horizontal across a common stud bay.

The usual drill around here is the cheesy Romex sheath bit.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> Hands down violations of
> 
> *300.4D*
> :vs_shocked:


 No.



> *310.15B3*
> :vs_shocked:


 Yes.



> *334.30*
> :vs_shocked:


 No.



> *334.80*
> :vs_shocked:
> 
> ~CS~


 No.

You got 1 out of 4 correct. You're getting better. If you keep this trend up, within 20 more years you won't be posting bad code information at all!


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

telsa said:


> I'm corn fused.
> 
> That puppy looks like the tabs at the ends are designed to be bent// folded such that the element rides horizontal across a common stud bay.
> 
> The usual drill around here is the cheesy Romex sheath bit.


Those are meant for the diagonal cross bracing / "bridging" between floor joists. They are a Simpson product, the joist hanger people. 










If you fasten it between two studs, you'd attach the ends near the center of the stud, and it will not be perpendicular to the studs, it will be a foot or so higher at one end than the other. 

Rather than stapling to a horizontal block, you'd be zip tying to this diagonal brace.


----------



## telsa (May 22, 2015)

I said I was corn fused.

:smile:


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Which stackers do you guys prefer?

The white 3M that the cable sides into?









Or the red GB that has the flap to hold the cables in better, but needs to be opened and closed?









Note: The red one has a tab on it to hug the edge of the stud, which needs to be cut off if you want to nail it to the side of a joist.


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

What about the Arlington? 










http://www.aifittings.com/catalog/n...s-and-supports/cs2-and-cs20sc-cable-supports/ 










http://www.aifittings.com/catalog/low-voltage-cable-management/cable-standoffs/CS4


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

I've never seen those in real life.


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

HackWork said:


> I've never seen those in real life.


They are even more exciting than you're imagining them, I just wish I could get them with screws instead of nails.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

splatz said:


> They are even more exciting than you're imagining them, I just wish I could get them with screws instead of nails.


https://www.platt.com/platt-electri...ers/Arlington/CS20SC/product.aspx?zpid=461702


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

HackWork said:


> https://www.platt.com/platt-electri...ers/Arlington/CS20SC/product.aspx?zpid=461702


----------



## telsa (May 22, 2015)

HackWork said:


> https://www.platt.com/platt-electri...ers/Arlington/CS20SC/product.aspx?zpid=461702


$59.00 per 100 -- that's brutal.

:surprise:


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

telsa said:


> $59.00 per 100 -- that's brutal.
> 
> :surprise:


Platt is insane. 

http://www.techtoolsupply.com/Arlington-Low-Voltage-Cable-Stand-Off-100pc-p/arl-cs4.htm


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

HackWork said:


> No.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> ...


:devil3:
*And now the the AHJ's here And so I face the final curtain
My friend I'll say it clear I'll state my case of which I'm certain

I've lived this trade that's full , puffin' my chest for every payday
And more, much more than this I did it my way

Red tags I've had a few But then they caught too few to mention
I did what I had to do , And even wrote my own exceptions

I slept through each code update , then threw the book out on the highway
And more, much more than this ,I did it mmmMMMmmmyyyy way
*
:vs_cool::vs_cool::vs_cool:
~C(_w/apologies to 'ol Bue eyes_)S~


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> :devil3:
> *And now the the AHJ's here And so I face the final curtain
> My friend I'll say it clear I'll state my case of which I'm certain
> 
> ...


So instead of attempting to substantiate your claims like a normal person, you post stupid lyrics. 

Like I said, out of 4 code sections that you cited, only 1 was correct. 25%. I'm glad that you're happy about that.

This is supposed to be a professional forum, but you bring us down into the gutter by constantly posting incorrect code information.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

*Oh, I'm bein' hassled by a moonlighter, moonlighter moonlighter 
Creapy codes from a moonlighter, moonlighter moonlighter 

And if he ever cracks the book, he’ll wonder what those codes are for
Yes if he ever takes a look.... I won't have to post no more.
And if he likes to just loud mouth, baring teeth, north and south,
Yes if he’s just a big loud mouth, Oh if this place cared anymore

Oh, I'm loosing biz to a moonlighter, moonlighter moonlighter 
Nothing codes from a moonlighter, moonlighter moonlighter 

And if I ever lose my vans, lose some dough, lose my plan,
Oh if I ever lose my vans, Oh if.... I won't have no post no more.
And if I ever lose my guys, if my contacts all run dry,
Yes if I ever lose my guys, Oh if.... I won't have to post no more.*
:vs_cool::vs_cool::vs_cool:

~C(_w/apologies to Mr Stevens)_S~


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Steve, if you ever decide to become an electrician and want to learn how to use the NEC, I will be happy to help you. Then we can go over the 3 articles you cited and how they don't apply to the situation you quoted.

Let me know.


----------



## Arrow3030 (Mar 12, 2014)

HackWork said:


> Which stackers do you guys prefer?
> 
> The white 3M that the cable sides into?
> 
> ...


I like the white ones better. The red ones suck


----------



## Navyguy (Mar 15, 2010)

HackWork said:


> Which stackers do you guys prefer?
> 
> The white 3M that the cable sides into?
> 
> ...


Only ever used the red ones. Never knew (never looked for actually) any other kind.

Cheers
John


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Navyguy said:


> Only ever used the red ones. Never knew (never looked for actually) any other kind.
> 
> Cheers
> John


Arrow says that the red ones suck.

I think you two should fight.

:biggrin:


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

MTW said:


> We don't need no stinking stackers. :no:


This has never and will never cause a problem. It is asinine that this is no longer an approved method. 
Just another code junkie sitting at home trying to make a name for himself.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

I'm a white man myself, but a couple of times while in a rush I had to go looking for stackers at HD and ours only carries the red. White is way better. 
Macmikeman has spoken!


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

sbrn33 said:


> This has never and will never cause a problem. It is asinine that this is no longer an approved method.
> Just another code junkie sitting at home trying to make a name for himself.



Probably a regular at Mike Holts also . Probably thinks it's so cool to post gay smileys as well :vs_cocktail:


----------



## Arrow3030 (Mar 12, 2014)

macmikeman said:


> I'm a white man myself, but a couple of times while in a rush I had to go looking for stackers at HD and ours only carries the red. White is way better. It
> Macmikeman has spoken!


Word. The tab on the red ones don't latch very well and the NM kinda flops around in them.

The white ones at least hold the cable in place most the time.

I almost don't want to work when the red ones are all that's available but once again, I'm a lazy guy.


----------



## lighterup (Jun 14, 2013)

i prefer the white ones

The redones are actually much more spacious.
One time I doubled up (2 14 awg cables per slot 
side by side ...standing next to each other not 
laying flat on one another...barely touching.

The inspector red tagged it:vs_mad:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

on what code lighter?

~CS~


----------



## lighterup (Jun 14, 2013)

chicken steve said:


> on what code lighter?
> 
> ~CS~


I have no idea. This was in Summit county a few years back.

I don't think that Bldg dept sites codes or gives paperwork.
Most of the people there were fired from Akron Bldg Dept when Ohio
Board of Building standards shut Akron down (for various maleficence)

Summit County was assigned the jurisdiction , was instantly short
handed , so what they do? ...

Hired the people who were fired from Akron:vs_laugh:


----------



## lighterup (Jun 14, 2013)

Same bldg dept (back then) red tagged me for using stackets 
on any external walls ...said I was encroaching on the R value
of the insulation.

Yeah...welcome to Ohio


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Christ on a crutch Lighter.....:surprise:~CS~:surprise:


----------



## The_Modifier (Oct 24, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> Christ on a crutch


Now now Steve, don't be racist....


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

chicken steve said:


> Hands down violations of
> 
> *300.4D*
> :vs_shocked:


Wrong, it's a 2X6 wall. 




> *310.15B3*
> :vs_shocked:


Yes, but so what? These are residential circuits that will never see more than a few amps of load each. 




> *334.30*
> :vs_shocked:


Wrong. Cable ties are suitable for NM cables. 




> *334.80*
> :vs_shocked:


Wrong. Again, residential circuits, minimal load. 

Seriously, are you even an electrician?


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

I already told Steve that he only got one out of four code articles correct, but he refused to actually discuss it like an adult and a professional. He just ignored it as usual, because he is a clown.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

MTW said:


> Wrong. Again, residential circuits, minimal load.
> 
> Seriously, are you even an electrician?



334.80>>>


> Where more than two NM cables containing two or more
> current-carrying conductors are installed, without maintaining
> spacing between the cables, through the same opening in wood
> framing that is to be* sealed with thermal insulation, caulk, or
> ...



throws out>>>

310.15A2 ex>




> _Exception: Where different ampacities apply to portions of a circuit, thehigher ampacity shall be permitted to be used if the total portion(s) ofthe circuit with lower ampacity does not exceed the lesser of 3.0 m
> (10 ft) or 10 percent of the total circuit_.


Not sure how many CCC's are in each of what appears to be 4 holes ,if you've only two per hole your probably in the 4-6 80% range & ok _(derating by .8)_, if more than that, you're screwed!

~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

MTW said:


> Wrong. Cable ties are suitable for NM cables.



bold (mine) would be the '17 update (_you'll find it in 330 also_)>>>



> *334.30* Securing and Supporting. Nonmetallic-sheathed cable
> shall be supported and secured by staples; *cable ties listed and
> identified for securement and support*


so, from the whitebook we have>>>



> Type 2 — A Type 2 product retains 100% of its declared loop tensile strength (cable ties) or declared mechanical strength (fixing devices) after test conditions. The declared maximum operating temperature for products designated and marked as "Type 2" is based solely on performance criteria in ANSI/UL 62275. The polymeric material comprising the product has not been separately investigated for long-term thermal properties according to ANSI/UL 746B, "Polymeric Materials - Long Term Property Evaluations."
> Type 21 — A Type 21 product retains 100% of its declared loop tensile strength (cable ties) or declared mechanical strength (fixing devices) after test conditions. The declared maximum operating temperature for products designated and marked as "Type 21" is limited to the Relative Thermal Index - Strength (RTI - Strength) at 1.5 mm (0.06 in.) thickness for the polymeric material that comprises the product. The RTI - Strength for the material is determined by separate investigation for long-term thermal properties according to ANSI/UL 746B, and the declared maximum operating temperature of the product is based on the performance criteria in ANSI/UL 62275.
> Type 2S and Type 21S — Type 2S and Type 21S products meet the same requirements as Type 2 and Type 21 products, respectively, but have been additionally investigated for use as primary support for a flexible conduit, flexible tubing, or cable in accordance with the NEC. Such products may also be marked "Support" in lieu of the "S" designation.


:vs_cool:
~CS~


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

So neither of them applies, as we both told you. The fourth one doesn’t apply either, I guess you knew that since you didn’t even post it.

We are back to the beginning, you getting 1 out of 4 correct.

Pat yourself on the back.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

I see nobody's lent you a code book Hax....:vs_laugh:~CS~:glasses:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

So allow me....:vs_cool:


Seems You and MT _disagree_ here Hax....>>
:vs_OMG::boxing::boxing::boxing::vs_OMG:


> *
> 310.15B(3) Adjustment Factors.*
> (a) More than Three Current-Carrying Conductors. Where the
> number of current-carrying conductors in a raceway or cable
> ...


:biggrin:
~CS~


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

chicken steve said:


> 334.80>>>
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There's 4 holes there, so you're wrong. And as I said, it doesn't matter anyway, this inspector won't spend more than 30 seconds on this job.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

chicken steve said:


> bold (mine) would be the '17 update (_you'll find it in 330 also_)>>>
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I would use cable ties no matter what the NEC says. I coudn't care less about what the white book says. That's for armchair electricians who haven't done actual electrical work in decades. 

Why is it that you have absolutely no command over the NEC whatsoever?


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

HackWork said:


> I already told Steve that he only got one out of four code articles correct, but he refused to actually discuss it like an adult and a professional. He just ignored it as usual, because he is a clown.


And now he is making an even bigger clown of himself instead of just admitting he was wrong. :vs_laugh:


----------



## lighterup (Jun 14, 2013)

chicken steve said:


> Christ on a crutch Lighter.....:surprise:~CS~:surprise:


He's not on crutches Steve....he's doing just fine


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

MTW said:


> I
> 
> 
> > would use cable ties no matter what the NEC says.
> ...


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

So as usual, instead of just admitting you're wrong, more stupid song lyrics. Big surprise.

Are you actually suggesting that cable ties are not suitable for NM cable? If so, that would certainly put even further doubt into your claim of being an electrician.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

chicken steve said:


> I see nobody's lent you a code book Hax....:vs_laugh:~CS~:glasses:


I have more respect for someone that doesn't have a code book, than someone like yourself that has one and can't use it to save his life. Your record for accurate code information is abysmal.


----------



## eddy current (Feb 28, 2009)

Why the songs Steve? I’ve seen you complain that this site isn’t professional enough many times. Do you think these songs you make up are a professional type post?

Why not just back up your claim with an explanation?

Personally, when I see your songs I skim right to the next post.

Does anyone actually read these?


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Let's just be clear about something, I have every cycle of the NEC and will out code Steve any day of the week, as I did yet again in this thread- so much so that he could only reply with stupid song lyrics like a drunken fool.

What I don't have is a paper copy since this is 2018 and using paper is for silly people. And giving money to the NFPA is really bad.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

eddy current said:


> Why the songs Steve? I’ve seen you complain that this site isn’t professional enough many times. Do you think these songs you make up are a professional type post?
> 
> Why not just back up your claim with an explanation?
> 
> ...


Back when Steve was "One of the guys" and actually took part in the forum, the camaraderie, and contributed... the songs were kinda OK, once in a while entertaining.

But now they are just a crutch that he uses to not answer for himself as he fights his little battle against the entire forum.


----------



## Voltron (Sep 14, 2012)

macmikeman said:


> This is legal per NEC because they don't say not to do it. Take a 24'' chunk of romex sheath and remove any conductors from it. Staple one end to the stud over top of the panel, maybe something like 10'' above it. Stretch it nice and tight and staple it to the other stud on the other side of the panel. Now tie wrap your cables to it instead of hassling with pieces of wood that need to be cut and all that. Of course a few of the re-tarded inspectors won't allow it because they didn't come up with the concept first. But those types don't even count.


We used to do this but instead of using tie wraps, just staple one side and wrap around your set of cables before you staple the other side. If you have 6 holes with home runs, you'd have 6 wraps before you staple the other side. Nice and snug and one less material to use.


----------



## lighterup (Jun 14, 2013)

I respect your code knowledge , but I did buy my code
book cause I prefer to read from paper and I don't
have a cell or I phone anymore...I don't think thats
silly


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

lighterup said:


> I respect your code knowledge , but I did buy my code
> book cause I prefer to read from paper and I don't
> have a cell or I phone anymore...I don't think thats
> silly


 Anytime someone uses the word silly, you could expect it to be tongue in cheek.

As for the code, FWIW, for the price of 2 code books you could buy a tablet that would not only make using the code book easier, but help you with many other parts of your business.

95% of the time that I need to use the code book, I am in the office at my desk anyway, so using the PDF on the computer is much easier.


----------



## lighterup (Jun 14, 2013)

HackWork said:


> For the price of 2 code books you could buy a tablet that would not only make using the code book easier, but help you with many other parts of your business.
> 
> 95% of the time that I need to use the code book, I am in the office at my desk anyway, so using the PDF on the computer is much easier.


how is it easier? punch in category and it references right away easier?


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

lighterup said:


> how is it easier? punch in category and it references right away easier?


Being able to search for specific terms makes things much easier. I haven’t used the index in years, no need anymore.

Plus, when yo know the article number, you can just type it in to get to it instead of flipping pages looking for it. You can also bookmark the articles you use the most.


----------



## Arrow3030 (Mar 12, 2014)

Is the mobile app free?

I don't like to read off devices but modern day has me doing it all the time. I'd probably use the control f function on my phone then grab the book to read out of that article.


----------



## lighterup (Jun 14, 2013)

Arrow3030 said:


> Is the mobile app free?
> 
> I don't like to read off devices but modern day has me doing it all the time. I'd probably use the control f function on my phone then grab the book to read out of that article.


I think he had said at another time he gets it free
but I dont know how


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

lighterup said:


> I think he had said at another time he gets it free
> but I dont know how


Why are you speaking about me like I'm not right here :sad:


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

chicken steve said:


> Hands down violations of
> 
> *300.4D*
> :vs_shocked:
> ...


Just curious if you're going to answer for the false information you gave out here.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

and i'm curious if you even_ own_ a code book MT.....:devil3:~CS~


----------



## lighterup (Jun 14, 2013)

HackWork said:


> Why are you speaking about me like I'm not right here :sad:


sorry didn't mean nuthin by it


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> and i'm curious if you even_ own_ a code book MT.....:devil3:~CS~


Considering the fact that he clearly knows code better than you, I think we all know the answer to that.

Let me ask you a question, do you think replies like that actually help you?

You cited 4 code articles that Peter supposedly broke, then it was explained to you in detail that only 1 of them was correct. Now is where a professional or just a plain old reasonable adult would either state his case or admit that 3 of the 4 articles he posted were wrong.

But no, you post song lyrics and stupid questions. How many more times are you going to ask the people who cite the correct code to you if they own a code book?


----------

