# Useless electrical codes



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

List an NEC code you believe to be useless and explain your reason.

One of mine: *110.12 Mechanical Execution of Work*

Reason: It is totally subjective verbiage. In other words "One man's trash is another man's treasure."

Pete


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Direct from the NFPA Style Manual:


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

Anything from the first page of the NEC to the last page.


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

480sparky said:


> Direct from the NFPA Style Manual:


Yet the CMP's continuously accept language using those words.

Pete


----------



## Chris1971 (Dec 27, 2010)

MTW said:


> Anything from the first page of the NEC to the last page.


Very eloquently stated. I like your thought provoking comments.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Protection from damage is very vague, IMO. There are many areas like this in the NEC.


----------



## ralpha494 (Oct 29, 2008)

*Underli**ne in red, place stars all around, and hilite the following in orange:


*"*334.100 Construction. *The outer cable sheath of nonmetallic-sheathed cable shall be a nonmetallic material."


then cut it out and throw away the rest of the book.


----------



## MHElectric (Oct 14, 2011)

The code section that says we can't secure a plastic box to a stud by using sheet rock screws inside the box. I forget the code reference.

IMO, this is the BEST way to secure a cut in box. I have no idea why it wouldn't be allowed.


----------



## Chris1971 (Dec 27, 2010)

MHElectric said:


> The code section that says we can't secure a plastic box to a stud by using sheet rock screws inside the box. I forget the code reference.
> 
> IMO, this is the BEST way to secure a cut in box. I have no idea why it wouldn't be allowed.


Use a smart box.


----------



## Chris1971 (Dec 27, 2010)

MHElectric said:


> The code section that says we can't secure a plastic box to a stud by using sheet rock screws inside the box. I forget the code reference.
> 
> IMO, this is the BEST way to secure a cut in box. I have no idea why it wouldn't be allowed.


Here's a smart box.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

Chris1971 said:


> Use a smart box.


Very eloquently stated. I like your thought provoking comments.


----------



## Chris1971 (Dec 27, 2010)

MTW said:


> Very eloquently stated. I like your thought provoking comments.


Thanks Tina.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

Chris1971 said:


> Thanks Tina.


You're Tina. :whistling2:


----------



## Chris1971 (Dec 27, 2010)

MTW said:


> You're Tina. :whistling2:


Are you drinking again? You need to lay off the bottle. It makes you a bitter person.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

Chris1971 said:


> Are you drinking again? You need to lay off the bottle. It makes you a bitter person.


You should be banned from this forum. :thumbsup:


----------



## Chris1971 (Dec 27, 2010)

MTW said:


> You should be banned from this forum. :thumbsup:


Cool story sister.


----------



## papaotis (Jun 8, 2013)

not to interupt, but i think the drywall screws heads are to shrap. could danage insulation. round head screws(sheet metal type should be fine


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

Dennis Alwon said:


> *Protection from damage is very vague,* IMO. There are many areas like this in the NEC.


Yes, it is, but how would you write a definition to define it.

We have the same thing with "subject to physical damage". 

(my answer is that everything you can see and touch is subject to physical damage)


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

MHElectric said:


> The code section that says we can't secure a plastic box to a stud by using sheet rock screws inside the box. I forget the code reference.
> 
> IMO, this is the BEST way to secure a cut in box. I have no idea why it wouldn't be allowed.


While many people think that, the code doesn't really say that. I believe that will be cleared up for the 2017 code.


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

4 wire to a detached structure. A properly installed 3 wire never killed anyone.


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

Allowing MC cable at all.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> while many people think that, the code doesn't really say that. I believe that will be cleared up for the 2017 code.



314.23(b)(1).


----------



## Chris1971 (Dec 27, 2010)

sbrn33 said:


> Allowing MC cable at all.


One of the better electrical product inventions.:thumbup:


----------



## pete87 (Oct 22, 2012)

NEC ... I like it .


A Better NEC will have NO AFCI B.S. in it .


I am going to the land of no AFCI !





Pete


----------



## MHElectric (Oct 14, 2011)

Chris1971 said:


> Here's a smart box.
> 
> View attachment 64786


How much does one of them cost?


----------



## Dash Dingo (Mar 3, 2012)

For me the dumbest code (and I never follow it) is on a 3 wire multiwire circuit requiring the breaker to take out all 3 circuits. Stupid.
Ballast disconnects are stupid also.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Chris1971 (Dec 27, 2010)

MHElectric said:


> How much does one of them cost?


Single gang: $2.00


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

480sparky said:


> 314.23(b)(1).


It doesn't say you can't pass a screw through one side of a box. It says you can't pass it through the interior of a box. A screw or nail that only passes through a single side of a box has not passed through the interior of the box. 

The panel accepted my PI stating this and there should be a revision for the 2017 to make it clear that screws or nails that pass though a single side of the box are permitted.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> It doesn't say you can't pass a screw through one side of a box. It says you can't pass it through the interior of a box. A screw or nail that only passes through a single side of a box has not passed through the interior of the box.
> 
> The panel accepted my PI stating this and there should be a revision for the 2017 to make it clear that screws or nails that pass though a single side of the box are permitted.


My book says screws "shall pass through the interior" of the box.


----------



## kg7879 (Feb 3, 2014)

The number one thing I would like to see in the code book is standardization.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

kg7879 said:


> The number one thing I would like to see in the code book is standardization.


Standardization........ of _what_?


----------



## micromind (Aug 11, 2007)

110.3(B) Thou shalt blindly obey any and all manufacturers instructions at all times without exception no matter how insane they may be. 

Also, anything pertaining to 2Ø systems. 

Box fill.....seriously, is there any electrician anywhere who has not violated the box fill requirements? I know I have......many times.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

micromind said:


> 110.3(B) Thou shalt blindly obey any and all manufacturers instructions at all times without exception no matter how insane they may be.


Common sense and theory must always be subverted by profit.


----------



## papaotis (Jun 8, 2013)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> It doesn't say you can't pass a screw through one side of a box. It says you can't pass it through the interior of a box. A screw or nail that only passes through a single side of a box has not passed through the interior of the box.
> 
> The panel accepted my PI stating this and there should be a revision for the 2017 to make it clear that screws or nails that pass though a single side of the box are permitted.


i that is so, then why do they make metal boxes with the nail holes in them that pass through the interior of the box?:001_huh:


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

480sparky said:


> My book says screws "shall pass through the interior" of the box.


Yes, and passing through one side of a box is not passing through the interior of that box. The only thing in the interior is the head of the screw or nail when you pass the screw or nail through a single side wall. To pass through the interior the screw or nail has to enter one side wall, pass through the interior and exit the through the other side wall.

This has been debated an number of times in the forums. The change for 2017 will make it clear that you can pass the screw or nail though a single side wall. In fact the PI was generated as a response to the debates on the the forums as there was no clear winner with the debates.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

*Seasoned Hack for Hire....*

If only the forums could debate their way into some rational NEC , i'd take it all more seriously....:whistling2:

That said, the last _epiphany_ for me was 314.28 (A) (2) Ex. applying T312.6 (A) to LB's 

I have literally never installed a _compliant_ LB in 3 decades ......

Thanks Don !

~CS~


----------



## Bad Electrician (May 20, 2014)

sbrn33 said:


> 4 wire to a detached structure. A properly installed 3 wire never killed anyone.


 
As long as you do not run a metallic piping to the structure.


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

Another one I can't figure the rationale behind is 376.22(B). You can have a metal wireway of any length and as long as you don't have more than 30 CCC's at any cross-sectional area you don't have to derate.

But, if you have a nipple that is 25" long and put 4 CCC's in it then your wire is somehow going to be less able to carry current than if it was in a wireway.:blink:

Pete


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

Actually almost all the ampacity tables. That should be a manufacturers spec.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

papaotis said:


> not to interupt, but i think the drywall screws heads are to shrap. could danage insulation. round head screws(sheet metal type should be fine


How will the drywall screws cut the insulation when , in fact, the screw is recessed into the hole provided. That is what makes this install compliant, IMO. The wires cannot really touch the screws


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> ........ To pass through the interior the screw or nail has to enter one side wall, pass through the interior and exit the through the other side wall..............





don_resqcapt19 said:


> .......... It says you can't pass it through the interior of a box.......... .



..............................................:blink:


----------



## OaklandElec (Jan 4, 2011)

Originally Posted by MTW
You should be banned from this forum. 




Chris1971 said:


> Cool story sister.


You guys are the same person right? Different screen names?


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

Chris1971 said:


> One of the better electrical product inventions.:thumbup:


Do you guys really believe that? If so you have whole different mentality than I do. I believe our trade is a craft that should be taught and learned. 
If you believe MC is just as good as EMT then so be it but then do not whine about unskilled laborers taking over your job. I use MC but only because I have to to compete. I hate it every time.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

This part of 200.7(C):

.......... If used for single-pole, 3-way or 4-way switch loops, the* reidentified* conductor with white or gray insulation or three continuous white or gray stripes..........

If you pull a switch out of the box and there's a white wire connected to it, and you can't figure out that the white wire is ungrounded, you need to turn in your strippers and go work at McDonalds.


----------



## Chris1971 (Dec 27, 2010)

OaklandElec said:


> Originally Posted by MTW
> You should be banned from this forum.
> 
> 
> ...


Maybe?:whistling2:


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> If only the forums could debate their way into some rational NEC , i'd take it all more seriously....:whistling2:
> 
> That said, the last _epiphany_ for me was 314.28 (A) (2) Ex. applying T312.6 (A) to LB's
> 
> ...



Can you or Don elaborate further? This sounds worth knowing


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

OaklandElec said:


> Originally Posted by MTW
> You should be banned from this forum.
> 
> 
> ...



Same body, different personalities :thumbsup: :laughing:


----------



## Chris1971 (Dec 27, 2010)

meadow said:


> Same body, different personalities :thumbsup: :laughing:


It depends which personality wants to login that day.:whistling2::whistling2:


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

Chris1971 said:


> It depends which personality wants to login that day.:whistling2::whistling2:



A few drinks usually determines that :laughing::jester:


----------



## Barjack (Mar 28, 2010)

> *200.6 Means of Identifying Grounded Conductors.
> (A) Sizes 6 AWG or Smaller.* An insulated grounded conductor
> of 6 AWG or smaller shall be identified by a continuous
> white or gray outer finish or by three continuous
> ...





> *250.119 Identification of Equipment Grounding Conductors.*
> Unless required elsewhere in this Code, equipment
> grounding conductors shall be permitted to be bare,
> covered, or insulated. Individually covered or insulated
> ...


If it is perfectly permissible to identify grounded conductors and EGC's larger than 6 AWG, as well as _any_ size ungrounded conductor, then why bother mandating a continuous covering for smaller neutrals and EGC's? 

Where is the hazard?

I know, I know, Copper.org wants to sell more wire.


----------



## Barjack (Mar 28, 2010)

sbrn33 said:


> Do you guys really believe that? If so you have whole different mentality than I do. I believe our trade is a craft that should be taught and learned.
> If you believe MC is just as good as EMT then so be it but then do not whine about unskilled laborers taking over your job. I use MC but only because I have to to compete. I hate it every time.


I really, really do believe it. 

I also believe, like you, that our trade is a craft. I believe a good electrician can make any installation look good, whether its MC, EMT, RMC, Romex, or even Data or AV.

I used MC just today. I also made one of my guys redo a wire run because he was sloppy.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

OaklandElec said:


> You guys are the same person right? Different screen names?


:no::no:


----------



## micromind (Aug 11, 2007)

The 'Metric Designator' crap. It's 1/2", not Metric Designator 16. It's been 1/2" for more than a century, leave it be. 

Hey Gomer, get me 3 meters of metric designator 16. The guy shows up with 3 Flukes, all with 16" test leads........


----------



## ponyboy (Nov 18, 2012)

micromind said:


> The 'Metric Designator' crap. It's 1/2", not Metric Designator 16. It's been 1/2" for more than a century, leave it be.
> 
> Hey Gomer, get me 3 meters of metric designator 16. The guy shows up with 3 Flukes, all with 16" test leads........



Don't you like how the metric distance comes first in our code book with the standard behind it in parenthesis? Wtf 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Chris1971 (Dec 27, 2010)

MTW said:


> :no::no:


:vs_poop::vs_poop::vs_poop::vs_poop::vs_poop:


----------



## papaotis (Jun 8, 2013)

Dennis Alwon said:


> How will the drywall screws cut the insulation when , in fact, the screw is recessed into the hole provided. That is what makes this install compliant, IMO. The wires cannot really touch the screws


thats the point. a drywall doesnt recess into the hole. the head with the sharp edge sticks out from the surface. a round head screw does not.


----------



## A Little Short (Nov 11, 2010)

papaotis said:


> thats the point. a drywall doesnt recess into the hole. the head with the sharp edge sticks out from the surface. a round head screw does not.


The wires will not touch ( or enough to damage them) the screw head. How do you deal with romex connector nuts if you think the screw head would damage anything.

As Don stated, the rule was for the screw passing through the entire box with exposed threads. I believe that was the original intent and now will be clarified.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

A Little Short said:


> The wires will not touch ( or enough to damage them) the screw head. How do you deal with romex connector nuts if you think the screw head would damage anything.
> 
> As Don stated, the rule was for the screw passing through the entire box with exposed threads. I believe that was the original intent and now will be clarified.


It will take exactly one code cycle for some SOB inspector on the cmp to make sure it gets made illegal also .............


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

papaotis said:


> i that is so, then why do they make metal boxes with the nail holes in them that pass through the interior of the box?:001_huh:


Those boxes have the nail pass through within a 1/4" of the back of the box.
The rule does permit a nail or screw to pass through one side of the box, through the interior, through the other side of the box and into the building structure as long as it is within a 1/4 of the back of the box.


----------



## micromind (Aug 11, 2007)

110.2 seems pretty dumb......"The conductors and equipment required or permitted by this code shall be acceptable only if approved."

Approved by whom? 

90.1(C) states that the code is not to be an instruction manual, but 300.18 states that conduit must be installed complete before wire is pulled in. Seems like an instruction to me........

To install a simple motor, you need to refer to 5 different articles.....110, 240, 250, 310 and 430. A bit of consolidation might be in order here......


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

Most electrical codes could be replaced with simple common sense and a good grasp of electrical theory.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

MTW said:


> Most electrical codes could be replaced with simple common sense and a good grasp of electrical theory.



I agree.


----------



## Nutmegger777 (Mar 14, 2014)

Double-edged sword..
Too specific a code may insult one's intelligence or defeat common sense.
Too vague puts too much power into AHJ's hands.


----------

