# Romex into surface mounted outdoor box.



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

We've all seen this type of installation:









It could be an outlet like in the picture or a roundbox for a light.

When coming into the back with romex, I like to drill a small 1/2" hole thru the brick. Easy to drill, easy to seal, and not making unnecessarily large holes in the house/building.

The problem is that you should use a connector in the box. A button connector won't work since the 1/2" KO in the box is threaded. A typical metal 2-screw romex squeeze connector works, but it requires a 1-1/2" hole in the brick to accommodate it's size.

Do they make any type of flat button connector type thing that is threaded and can be used in a threaded hole of an outdoor box?


----------



## Switched (Dec 23, 2012)

I haven't seen anything like your asking, but you can cut off the excess screw on those 2 screw connectors to make the hole smaller.

Maybe use a threaded nipple, then it is just a chase? lol


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Switched said:


> I haven't seen anything like your asking, but you can cut off the excess screw on those 2 screw connectors to make the hole smaller.


 Yeah, I have done that. But it's still a bigger hole and I am lazy :biggrin:



> Maybe use a threaded nipple, then it is just a chase? lol


Hmmmm, that would make it a sleeve, but I don't think it would be code compliant unless you could staple it within 12" from it entering :vs_laugh:

I have always just run the cable right thru the hole and wrapped the ground around the ground screw to stop the cable from pulling out. But I figured if they made something that would work, I would use it.


----------



## Switched (Dec 23, 2012)

HackWork said:


> Yeah, I have done that. But it's still a bigger hole and I am lazy :biggrin:
> 
> 
> Hmmmm, that would make it a sleeve, but I don't think it would be code compliant unless you could staple it within 12" from it entering :vs_laugh:
> ...


Nah, you fished the wire in!


----------



## Switched (Dec 23, 2012)

I am surprised Arlington doesn't have something, they make all kinds of items for weird situations.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

We usually drill a small hole thru the brick and we widen the hole where it enters the box just enough for the connector. But you knew this.


----------



## 99cents (Aug 20, 2012)

I just bash a bigger hole. Maybe try a strain relief connector.


----------



## 460 Delta (May 9, 2018)

Maybe a Tomic romex clamp put in backwards?


----------



## Switched (Dec 23, 2012)

460 Delta said:


> Maybe a Tomic romex clamp put in backwards?


Not sure that would work because of the lip on the box for the threads. 

Guess you could try it on a standard 2-screw if you reversed it and used a deep box?


----------



## telsa (May 22, 2015)

Rarely encountered... but:

Try two-screw connector -- reversed -- clamped around the Romex -- first -- with the Bell box already sleeved, dangling towards the building... then spin the (deep) Bell box onto the two-screw connector&Romex that are now assembled, stripped... etc. [ Requires the Bell box to have the right kind of casting, at the hub.]

Finally, jamb the entire assembly back towards the building... I love to use caulk (top and sides with a (tiny) drip opening at the bottom. I also like to file (smallish triangle file) to just slightly notch the Bell box so that there is the tiniest gap between the box and its trim gasket so that water does not puddle up.

I don't want any insects to get past, so my notch is pretty small.

Say, does anyone want the perfect solution for Bell boxes mounted as low to the landscape for GFCI receptacles?


----------



## PaddyF924 (Feb 2, 2017)

I normally use a 1/2 inch wet connector.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

460 Delta said:


> Maybe a Tomic romex clamp put in backwards?


That does work, but the box is already pretty tight with the wire coming in the back and a GFCI receptacle. Having the connector in there makes it almost impossible.


----------



## telsa (May 22, 2015)

I open up holes, in such ceramic materials, ( usually tile and stone for us in California ) with a tungsten carbide grit hole saw. 

Such a grit edge does not bind, so it's no problem to free-hand the widening penetration. 

This operation is ultra common in Commercial trim-outs as the tile boys left their beauties encroaching over my roughed in mud-ring.

TC grit gives you MUCH more free-hand control, and the tool is pretty cheap as these things go.

It sure beats the H out of messing with a chisel -- which has the disturbing tendency to let cracks go outside the zone of trim-cover.


----------



## Switched (Dec 23, 2012)

PaddyF924 said:


> I normally use a 1/2 inch wet connector.


?? Is that a strain relief?


----------



## Switched (Dec 23, 2012)

telsa said:


> I open up holes, in such ceramic materials, ( usually tile and stone for us in California ) with a tungsten carbide grit hole saw.
> 
> Such a grit edge does not bind, so it's no problem to free-hand the widening penetration.
> 
> ...


That is typically what I do too.


----------



## PaddyF924 (Feb 2, 2017)

Switched said:


> PaddyF924 said:
> 
> 
> > I normally use a 1/2 inch wet connector.
> ...


Nope. 1/2 se wet connector. Listed for 14/2 and 12/2


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

PaddyF924 said:


> Nope. 1/2 se wet connector. Listed for 14/2 and 12/2


Wow, look at all that wasted profit :sad:


----------



## PaddyF924 (Feb 2, 2017)

HackWork said:


> PaddyF924 said:
> 
> 
> > Nope. 1/2 se wet connector. Listed for 14/2 and 12/2
> ...


Lol profit? I add a markup so I still make money providing it. I don’t have to waste time screwing around with caulk or any thing else to keep water out. And I’m the jack ass who marks up from the base price, not my price on my account.


----------



## Switched (Dec 23, 2012)

PaddyF924 said:


> Nope. 1/2 se wet connector. Listed for 14/2 and 12/2


Yeah, they make those in plastic too, like the one I posted. Never heard them called a wet connector, just a strain relief. 

That's one of the cool things about the Platt website, you can search on slang terms and product terms. I have found different manufactures call the same item different things anyway.


----------



## eddy current (Feb 28, 2009)

We have a stupid code that makes us bond the connector if it is metal. 
I use plastic Romex connectors installed backwards in the box if it will fit.


----------



## PaddyF924 (Feb 2, 2017)

Yeah definitely agree with that


----------



## Switched (Dec 23, 2012)

HackWork said:


> Wow, look at all that wasted profit :sad:


No kidding, why even bother with the box at all. I think you should cut the end off of an extension cord (preferably a salvaged one, they cost you zero) and just run that into the box your getting power from!

If they want weatherproof, just tell them to go to the grocery store and use the plastic bag they give you. (Unless your in Cali, then you'll have to pay the 10 cents for it:vs_mad


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

PaddyF924 said:


> Lol profit? I add a markup so I still make money providing it.


 You lost money purchasing it. You could have added that same amount of money into the job and kept it.



> I don’t have to waste time screwing around with caulk or any thing else to keep water out.


 You need to keep water out of the hole going into the house. Sealing around the back of the box does both in one quick shot.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Switched said:


> No kidding, why even bother with the box at all. I think you should cut the end off of an extension cord (preferably a salvaged one, they cost you zero) and just run that into the box your getting power from!
> 
> If they want weatherproof, just tell them to go to the grocery store and use the plastic bag they give you. (Unless your in Cali, then you'll have to pay the 10 cents for it:vs_mad


:sad:


----------



## PaddyF924 (Feb 2, 2017)

I honestly hate bell boxes. I avoid them at all costs unless I have no way around, such as with brick. I normally use the flush mount Arlington in use boxes.


----------



## Switched (Dec 23, 2012)

HackWork said:


> :sad:


No, this is a good idea, you can even use a smaller than 1/2" hole. I am working on a getting this through the NEC panel right now.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Switched said:


> No, this is a good idea, you can even use a smaller than 1/2" hole. I am working on a getting this through the NEC panel right now.


I'm trying to find a reasonable solution here. 

I actually try to find a code compliant way to do something and you guys yell at me :sad:


----------



## tjb (Feb 12, 2014)

I think his tongue’s in his cheek.


----------



## Switched (Dec 23, 2012)

HackWork said:


> I'm trying to find a reasonable solution here.
> 
> I actually try to find a code compliant way to do something and you guys yell at me :sad:


I bet you If you contacted someplace like Arlington and told them you want something like an RC50 that can screw into a 1/2" thread and clamp the NM cable in place, they would build it.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

That sounds like a lot of work.

I will probably just keep running the cable thru the hole and collect my check :biggrin:


----------



## Switched (Dec 23, 2012)

Actually, Garvin would do it. They even advertise in their catalogs they want your ideas.

Maybe I'll shoot them an email about this and a PVC hub.


----------



## PaddyF924 (Feb 2, 2017)

HackWork said:


> That sounds like a lot of work.
> 
> I will probably just keep running the cable thru the hole and collect my check


I used to do that. Then one day my brothers outside receptacle stopped working. So I opened it up and the bell was fill of water. There was connector or caulking or anything. It made me think of all the times guys I worked for or with told me to do it just like that and I started wondering if those bell boxes looked like my brothers did that day.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

PaddyF924 said:


> I used to do that. Then one day my brothers outside receptacle stopped working. So I opened it up and the bell was fill of water. There was connector or caulking or anything. It made me think of all the times guys I worked for or with told me to do it just like that and I started wondering if those bell boxes looked like my brothers did that day.


A little silicone will take care of that and seal the hole into the house at the same time.


----------



## PaddyF924 (Feb 2, 2017)

HackWork said:


> PaddyF924 said:
> 
> 
> > I used to do that. Then one day my brothers outside receptacle stopped working. So I opened it up and the bell was fill of water. There was connector or caulking or anything. It made me think of all the times guys I worked for or with told me to do it just like that and I started wondering if those bell boxes looked like my brothers did that day.[/quote
> ...


----------



## Ctsparky93 (Sep 17, 2016)

I was thinking about a threaded push in connector the other day but no one sells them. I have in the past just flipped a 2 screw connector into the box before. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

I just make the big hole 1.5" to 2" deep, then the 1/2" hole the rest of the way through. The Arlington UF connectors are < 1" in diameter for the 1/2" connector or < 1.25" for the 3/4" connector. 

http://www.aimedia.co/media/catalog-pages/C-5-2.pdf


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

splatz said:


> I just make the big hole 1.5" to 2" deep, then the 1/2" hole the rest of the way through. The Arlington UF connectors are < 1" in diameter for the 1/2" connector or < 1.25" for the 3/4" connector.
> 
> http://www.aimedia.co/media/catalog-pages/C-5-2.pdf


Just like with the other weathertight connectors that PaddyF924 uses, those aren't rated for romex and aren't code compliant. Plus, they cost too much and that hurts my feels :sad:


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

HackWork said:


> Just like with the other weathertight connectors that PaddyF924 uses, those aren't rated for romex and aren't code compliant. Plus, they cost too much and that hurts my feels :sad:


The connector is compliant, the Romex is not. You should of course be transitioning from NM to UF in a box inside the wall. :surprise:


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

splatz said:


> The connector is compliant, the Romex is not. You should of course be transitioning from NM to UF in a box inside the wall. :surprise:


I believe it is compliant to bring romex into the back of a box mounted outside as described here. That's a completely different subject that has been beaten to death. 

I see no purpose in spending 10 times as much on a connector that isn't code compliant to use when it is going to be sealed with silicone anyway. Just my opinion.


----------



## JoeSparky (Mar 25, 2010)

Silicone or duct seal and an invisible connector:vs_laugh: Seems as you are the one with all that wasted profit :jester:


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

JoeSparky said:


> Silicone or duct seal and an invisible connector:vs_laugh: Seems as you are the one with all that wasted profit :jester:


I never waste profit!!! :vs_mad:



I spend it all on hookers :smile:


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

I don't use a connector and I call it good. This is one of those areas of the NEC that can be ignored. There's no real safety hazard by not using a connector.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

HackWork said:


> I spend it all on hookers :smile:


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

HackWork said:


> I believe it is compliant to bring romex into the back of a box mounted outside as described here. That's a completely different subject that has been beaten to death.
> 
> I see no purpose in spending 10 times as much on a connector that isn't code compliant to use when it is going to be sealed with silicone anyway. Just my opinion.


They are two bucks rockafeller


----------



## JoeSparky (Mar 25, 2010)

Hax is right, A threaded version of an Arlington NM94 black button would be an easy way to make this a code compliant install. Black buttons are $.14 ea. I'd gladly pay 2x that to never have to drill for a recessed connector behind a bell box again.
Are you listening Arlington?


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

splatz said:


> They are two bucks rockafeller


Which is 10x the 20 cents that a romex connector costs. 

Why would I throw away money on an unnecessary item that isn’t even code compliant?


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

HackWork said:


> Which is 10x the 20 cents that a romex connector costs.
> 
> Why would I throw away money on an unnecessary item that isn’t even code compliant?


It's the closest thing to code compliant that's going to happen, and it's going to do a better job of keeping the waters away from the electricities than anyting else that's going to happen.. the extra $18 a year isn't going to break the bank.


----------



## Switched (Dec 23, 2012)

splatz said:


> It's the closest thing to code compliant that's going to happen, and it's going to do a better job of keeping the waters away from the electricities than anyting else that's going to happen.. *the extra $18 a year isn't going to break the bank*.


I don't know about the high class places you work, but there is no way I can get away with charging that kind of highway robbery with my clients. They will never pay those kind of prices.:crying:


----------



## Bird dog (Oct 27, 2015)

A PVC nipple wouldn't cut the romex in the wall like a RMC nipple w/o a bushing, so, which is smaller? A PVC nipple or a RMC nipple w/bushing?


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

splatz said:


> It's the closest thing to code compliant that's going to happen, and it's going to do a better job of keeping the waters away from the electricities than anyting else that's going to happen.. the extra $18 a year isn't going to break the bank.


You’re talking crazy again. If you can’t squirt some silicone on the back of a box and attach it to a wall without water getting in, I don’t know what else to say.

You, the other guy, and maybe three other people on this planet would use that fitting. No one else. The rest of the world loves profit :biggrin:


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

HackWork said:


> You’re talking crazy again. If you can’t squirt some silicone on the back of a box and attach it to a wall without water getting in, I don’t know what else to say.
> 
> You, the other guy, and maybe three other people on this planet would use that fitting. No one else. The rest of the world loves profit :biggrin:


You roll around in that two story Hilton hotel you call a work van, you blow untold thousands on lever nuts so you don't have to mess up your manicure with wire nuts, and you can't chunk up $18 a year for these superior connectors? 

FFS. I will send you a box of these, when you're done you send back a box of two screw romex clamps and bubble gum to prove you're doing things right, and I'll send another box. If I see 1/2" UF connectors on New Jersey craigslist your ass is grass.


----------



## zac (May 11, 2009)

Try reeming the threads out with a7/8s uni bit and then snapping the belly button in. Worth a try. 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Bird dog (Oct 27, 2015)

Try inserting the romex connector from the inside of the box. You may need a threaded box without an inner hub (Red Dot?) & GFI the receptacle from some place else.


----------



## samgregger (Jan 23, 2013)

I would just goop it full of construction adhesive, that romex isn't going to move from the box and the hole will be sealed.


----------



## FF301 (Jan 12, 2014)

Arlington flat siding box.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

I put a regular two screw romex connector ass backwards in the bell box, if I put anything at all. 50/50 Non inspected jobs never, inspected jobs- Romex connector ass backwards from the box side so hardly any problem getting the box to sit nice up to the wall. Then you can leave out the ko's from the box long enough to tighten the two screws with a trim screwdriver, before installing the screw in ko's. Most gfi's will still fit in there ok. I do the same for soffit mounted sensor lights and bell boxes.


----------



## MDShunk (Jan 7, 2007)

There's a company called Halex, I believe, that makes a flush bushing that clips in a threaded hub to grab a romex cable.


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

MDShunk said:


> There's a company called Halex, I believe, that makes a flush bushing that clips in a threaded hub to grab a romex cable.


Halex is at either Lowes or Home Depot I forget

http://halexco.com/products.cfm?siteSection=contractor&productID=406&product_group=NM



> Indoors Only. Type: Butterfly Style - does not require a locknut. In a dry location, use to secure #14 - #10 non-metallic sheathed cable to a steel outlet box or other metal enclosure. No locknut is required. Miscellaneous: 3/8" size fits 1/2" knockout.


----------



## MDShunk (Jan 7, 2007)

splatz said:


> Halex is at either Lowes or Home Depot I forget
> 
> http://halexco.com/products.cfm?siteSection=contractor&productID=406&product_group=NM


Not at all what I was thinking off. Might be Heyco. I know it starts with an H.


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

samgregger said:


> I would just goop it full of construction adhesive, that romex isn't going to move from the box and the hole will be sealed.


Not saying I like it, I usually use duct seal and avoid silicone sealant or construction adhesive, but I guess you could make the argument that with the right adhesive, it is secured within 6" of the box, and you're compliant.


----------



## flyboy (Jun 13, 2011)

I screwed one of these into the back of the box and then pinched (broke) off the excess on the outside of the box with my channel locks so it fit flush to the building.


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

MDShunk said:


> Not at all what I was thinking off. Might be Heyco. I know it starts with an H.


I found their web site, I didn't find it but they have a LOT of bushings grommets etc. 

Do you remember if it's less than $2? Because that's going to be a deal breaker.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

MDShunk said:


> There's a company called Halex, I believe, that makes a flush bushing that clips in a threaded hub to grab a romex cable.


If you could find it let us know.


----------



## warrenmanne (Aug 25, 2018)

I like to drill a new 1/2" hole in the back back of the box and use this connector. The part that extrudes out of the back of the box is smaller than the knockout, so you don't have to make a big hole on the brick or hardi board siding. The lip you see in the picture is designed to be inside the enclosure. 

The trickiest part for me on these installs is not busting a pringles sized piece of the face of the brick when i make the hole. Some bricks just dont care how small of a drill bit you use. 

Last step is to caulk the everything good.









Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

warrenmanne said:


> I like to drill a new 1/2" hole in the back back of the box and use this connector. The part that extrudes out of the back of the box is smaller than the knockout, so you don't have to make a big hole on the brick or hardi board siding. The lip you see in the picture is designed to be inside the enclosure.
> 
> The trickiest part for me on these installs is not busting a pringles sized piece of the face of the brick when i make the hole. Some bricks just dont care how small of a drill bit you use.
> 
> Last step is to caulk the everything good. https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181210/8149ac05b925d9067b86a9207f5ddcdb.jpg


Thats why I don't like making the larger hole at all, a 1/2" hole with a long bit is all you need for the cable, and I don't want to have to open it up any further for the connector.

BTW, the connector that you pictured is an off-brand version of the Raco Insider. They work well in certain instances, but not in this application. There is no room on the back of an outdoor single gang or round box to drill a new hole without making it too close to the edge, which risks exposing any chipping of the brick around the hole.


----------



## warrenmanne (Aug 25, 2018)

HackWork said:


> BTW, the connector that you pictured is an off-brand version of the Raco Insider. They work well in certain instances, but not in this application. There is no room on the back of an outdoor single gang or round box to drill a new hole without making it too close to the edge, which risks exposing any chipping of the brick around the hole.


Here we go again, hackworks telling me the way i do it is stupid, or impossible, or when he does it it doesn't work well. I said what i do, and have done for years.

It works great and i have plenty of room in the bell box. I do ten of these a week around Christmas time, so I KNOW it works. OP asked for suggestions, i gave him what works for me. I guess this is on me though for not implicitly saying "this is what i do, and it could only possibly work for me."

Like i said, drilling the hole on the brick is tricky. Not impossible. 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

warrenmanne said:


> Here we go again, hackworks telling me the way i do it is stupid, or impossible, or when he does it it doesn't work well. I said what i do, and have done for years.


 What do you want? It's stupid. Sorry for hurting your feelings.



> OP asked for suggestions


 Nope, I asked for a connector that threads into the hub. Not some cobbled together garbage. drilling a new KO off center in the back of an outdoor box and using an Insider connector is absolutely idiotic. You still need to drill a larger hole in the brick for it.

10 a week? :vs_laugh::vs_laugh:

@MTW, the troll is back.

This is the guy who cried saying that I should follow code, but got the code completely wrong that he said I should follow :vs_laugh:


----------



## 3DDesign (Oct 25, 2014)

Last few I've done, I cut out half brick and flush mounted the box. I mortared the box in.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

3DDesign said:


> Last few I've done, I cut out half brick and flush mounted the box. I mortared the box in.


That's the nice way to do it, but definitely labor intensive versus surface mounting.


----------



## 3DDesign (Oct 25, 2014)

HackWork said:


> That's the nice way to do it, but definitely labor intensive versus surface mounting.


My best friend is a brick layer. He taught me how to knock out half a brick with a hammer. It's takes a couple of minutes, unless the brick is hardened like the old yellow brick homes. Those are as hard as glass.


----------



## warrenmanne (Aug 25, 2018)

Romex into outdoor box? Nice try, but why would threaded steel nm connector be any better? 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Bird dog (Oct 27, 2015)

This might work for you...
Raco 4714 Cable Connector, Sheathed, 1/2

https://www.amazon.com/Raco-4714-Cable-Connector-Sheathed/dp/B000R8147I


----------



## Going_Commando (Oct 1, 2011)

I hear you Hax, it's a pain in the ass. I do it the difficult way and use an 1 1/2" bit to make enough of a hole for the connector (I usually have to do this with MC, not romex, but the connectors are the same size. Same principle with EMT), then zip the smaller hole through the rest of the brick. I always use a connector, be it romex or MC. It's just how I was taught. Arlington should just make a bell box with a regular knockout in the back, since this install is common as hell, and is a problem we shouldn't still have to be dealing with in 2018.


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

Switched said:


> Yeah, they make those in plastic too, like the one I posted. Never heard them called a wet connector, just a strain relief.
> 
> That's one of the cool things about the Platt website, you can search on slang terms and product terms. I have found different manufactures call the same item different things anyway.


The term wet connector isn't one I've heard before, it's a strain relief to me.

How the word "conduit" gets in the name is stranger yet.


----------



## 99cents (Aug 20, 2012)

I don’t know how making a hole big enough to fit a connector is such a big deal. You need to make a hole so make it big enough to begin with. This thread reminds me of a teen aged girl distraught over the color of her phone.


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

HackWork said:


> I'm trying to find a reasonable solution here.
> 
> I actually try to find *a code compliant way* to do something and you guys yell at me :sad:


Seems to me bringing romex into an surface mount exterior box is far from code compliant if the inspector sees it.


----------



## Bird dog (Oct 27, 2015)

MechanicalDVR said:


> Seems to me bringing romex into an surface mount exterior box is far from code compliant if the inspector sees it.


I've not ever heard of inspectors raising a stink about it on the forum.


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

Bird dog said:


> I've not ever heard of inspectors raising a stink about it on the forum.


Oh it's been brought up several times.


----------



## Bird dog (Oct 27, 2015)

MechanicalDVR said:


> Oh it's been brought up several times.


What seemed to be the solution from the AHJ?


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

warrenmanne said:


> Here we go again, hackworks telling me the way i do it is stupid, or impossible, or when he does it it doesn't work well. I said what i do, and have done for years.
> 
> It works great and i have plenty of room in the bell box. I do ten of these a week around Christmas time, so I KNOW it works. OP asked for suggestions, i gave him what works for me. I guess this is on me though for not implicitly saying "this is what i do, and it could only possibly work for me."
> 
> Like i said, drilling the hole on the brick is tricky. Not impossible.


Hi Frunkslammer.


----------



## warrenmanne (Aug 25, 2018)

MTW said:


> Hi Frunkslammer.


I don't get the frunkslammer thing. Honestly, you've said it twice now. Is that some guy who got banned for not getting on board with you and the other guys? 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

Bird dog said:


> What seemed to be the solution from the AHJ?


Bring UF into the surface mounted box as it's a damp/wet location.


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

warrenmanne said:


> I don't get the frunkslammer thing. Honestly, you've said it twice now. Is that some guy who got banned for not getting on board with you and the other guys?


Search his name and read a few of his posts.


----------



## 99cents (Aug 20, 2012)

If it’s a big deal, just use one of these and cut the screws short or put in shorter screws. Done. Next.


----------



## warrenmanne (Aug 25, 2018)

MechanicalDVR said:


> Search his name and read a few of his posts.


Not gonna do that. But i will say this much... the guys at work were right about the forum. It reads like a bunch of ole timers who work on their own, so they need an outlet to preach their word as gospel. I feel like im at a Democrat strategy meeting on the Clinton compound. 

And before i get told this isn't the place for that comment. Its Hacks post, and from what i can tell hes usually the first to go after others suggestions as invalid. I hope everyone has a good monday, and all your jobs pay well

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

warrenmanne said:


> Not gonna do that. But i will say this much... the guys at work were right about the forum. It reads like a bunch of ole timers who work on their own, so they need an outlet to preach their word as gospel. I feel like im at a Democrat strategy meeting on the Clinton compound.
> 
> And before i get told this isn't the place for that comment. Its Hacks post, and from what i can tell hes usually the first to go after others suggestions as invalid. I hope everyone has a good monday, and all your jobs pay well


Nice troll post.


----------



## 99cents (Aug 20, 2012)

MTW said:


> Nice troll post.


Nice troll post.


----------



## 99cents (Aug 20, 2012)

I like this warrenmanne dude.

Frunk was from Vancouver, not Atlanta. Makes no sense.


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

warrenmanne said:


> Not gonna do that. But i will say this much... the guys at work were right about the forum. It reads like a bunch of ole timers who work on their own, so they need an outlet to preach their word as gospel. I feel like im at a Democrat strategy meeting on the Clinton compound.
> 
> And before i get told this isn't the place for that comment. Its Hacks post, and from what i can tell hes usually the first to go after others suggestions as invalid. I hope everyone has a good monday, and all your jobs pay well


"Democrat, Clinton"...........there's no need to use filthy words here!

Some guys here are just 'highly' opinionated!


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

I like that dude to. Can't wait to take him to town. I haven't looked yet but does he have any electrical posts? 
Whatever, I just use a chase nipple with the collared side on the back.


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

warrenmanne said:


> Not gonna do that. But i will say this much... the guys at work were right about the forum. It reads like a bunch of ole timers *who work on their own,* so they need an outlet to preach their word as gospel. I feel like im at a Democrat strategy meeting on the Clinton compound.
> 
> And before i get told this isn't the place for that comment. Its Hacks post, and from what i can tell hes usually the first to go after others suggestions as invalid. I hope everyone has a good monday, and all your jobs pay well
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


I take it you can't work on your own. If you need help let anyone of us know.


----------



## 99cents (Aug 20, 2012)

warrenmanne said:


> I don't get the frunkslammer thing. Honestly, you've said it twice now. Is that some guy who got banned for not getting on board with you and the other guys?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


Sometimes this place is like a two dog sled team One thinks he’s the lead dog and the other has his head up the lead dog’s ass. MTW isn’t a lead dog.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

warrenmanne said:


> Here we go again, hackworks telling me the way i do it is stupid, or impossible, or when he does it it doesn't work well. I said what i do, and have done for years.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


I think you are being overly sensitive, he was saying he does not think your method would work. Big difference between that and calling someone stupid.


I do not do residential and have not seen a bell box in years but from what I remember locating a spot for a 7/8" hole would be tough?


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

MechanicalDVR said:


> Bring UF into the surface mounted box as it's a damp/wet location.


Right up there to the top 10 in stupidest codes ever.


----------



## 99cents (Aug 20, 2012)

brian john said:


> I think you are being overly sensitive, he was saying he does not think your method would work. Big difference between that and calling someone stupid.
> 
> 
> I do not do residential and have not seen a bell box in years but from what I remember locating a spot for a 7/8" hole would be tough?


Not really. I just use whatever is handy. Half the time it’s one of these and I cut out a slot for the screw. If you line it up properly, the box covers the hole. Easy.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

99cents said:


> I don’t know how making a hole big enough to fit a connector is such a big deal. You need to make a hole so make it big enough to begin with. This thread reminds me of a teen aged girl distraught over the color of her phone.


It's not a big deal. As many people pointed out it's just an unnecessary extra step. Go read Going_Commando's post, having to drill a 1-1/2" hole in brick is a lot harder and requires the larger rotary hammer, while just drilling a 1/2" hole is easy and quick with the M12 battery rotary hammer.

Why is it that you oppose someone looking for a better product? Today I used stackers instead of stapling 4 romex's to the stud, they are a good idea, right? Someone came up with that idea to make the job easier, and now we use them all the time. 

But there always has to be a d1ck to tell you that you don't need something and it's not that big of a deal doing it the harder way...


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

sbrn33 said:


> Right up there to the top 10 in stupidest codes ever.


Well nobody in their right mind would dispute that fact but if an inspector wants to be an ass it's a code available to them for ball busting.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

MechanicalDVR said:


> Seems to me bringing romex into an surface mount exterior box is far from code compliant if the inspector sees it.





MechanicalDVR said:


> Bring UF into the surface mounted box as it's a damp/wet location.


The inspectors here don't feel that way, and from what I have read at Mike Holt's it seems like they are up in the air about it too. 

In the end an inspector won't fail you for bringing romex into an outdoor box, but he will probably fail you for not using a connector.


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

I normally just use 1/2" pvc sleeve for the wire and caulk it to seal the box and hole in the building.


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

HackWork said:


> The inspectors here don't feel that way, and from what I have read at Mike Holt's it seems like they are up in the air about it too.
> 
> In the end an inspector won't fail you for bringing romex into an outdoor box, but he will probably fail you for not using a connector.


I think that depends on the inspector.


----------



## 99cents (Aug 20, 2012)

HackWork said:


> It's not a big deal. As many people pointed out it's just an unnecessary extra step. Go read Going_Commando's post, having to drill a 1-1/2" hole in brick is a lot harder and requires the larger rotary hammer, while just drilling a 1/2" hole is easy and quick with the M12 battery rotary hammer.
> 
> Why is it that you oppose someone looking for a better product? Today I used stackers instead of stapling 4 romex's to the stud, they are a good idea, right? Someone came up with that idea to make the job easier, and now we use them all the time.
> 
> But there always has to be a d1ck to tell you that you don't need something and it's not that big of a deal doing it the harder way...


What color is your phone?


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

99cents said:


> What color is your phone?


That's it, now you've gone and done it. You just gave this thread AIDS.


----------



## warrenmanne (Aug 25, 2018)

Bottom line hackman, you're Gonna have to roll up your sleeves make that hole work for you.... The brain trust can't seem to come up with the connector that's going to make your life easier. If you're trying to do this in a code compliant way you need UF cable, and a watertight connector. So a 1/2" service entrance connector. 

This one is a bit of a troll, but only cause i get accused of it. So i might as well enjoy myself


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

warrenmanne said:


> Bottom line hackman, you're Gonna have to roll up your sleeves make that hole work for you.... The brain trust can't seem to come up with the connector that's going to make your life easier. If you're trying to do this in a code compliant way you need UF cable, and a watertight connector. So a 1/2" service entrance connector.
> 
> This one is a bit of a troll, but only cause i get accused of it. So i might as well enjoy myself


I see.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

warrenmanne said:


> Bottom line hackman, you're Gonna have to roll up your sleeves make that hole work for you.... The brain trust can't seem to come up with the connector that's going to make your life easier. If you're trying to do this in a code compliant way you need UF cable, and a watertight connector. So a 1/2" service entrance connector.
> 
> This one is a bit of a troll, but only cause i get accused of it. So i might as well enjoy myself


Pretty much anything is better than your handyman way of doing it.

You recognize that drilling out the masonry risks it chipping out, yet you drill a hole on the back of the box off center, making it less likely to cover the hole. Then you install an Insider plastic connector, which isn't made for that purpose and still needs a larger hole made in the masonry. 

If you are going to drill a larger hole in the masonry anyway, why not just use a normal connector threaded into the hub in the center? 

You can cry and moan all day about how mean I am, it won't change the fact that if anyone saw you doing that, you would be fired.


----------



## warrenmanne (Aug 25, 2018)

sbrn33 said:


> I like that dude to. Can't wait to take him to town. I haven't looked yet but does he have any electrical posts?
> Whatever, I just use a chase nipple with the collared side on the back.


Not hiding my name or location. Go on the Georgia SOS website and do a license search. You'll find my address listed there as well. What time can i expect you to pick me up?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## warrenmanne (Aug 25, 2018)

HackWork said:


> Pretty much anything is better than your handyman way of doing it.
> 
> You recognize that drilling out the masonry risks it chipping out, yet you drill a hole on the back of the box off center, making it less likely to cover the hole. Then you install an Insider plastic connector, which isn't made for that purpose and still needs a larger hole made in the masonry.
> 
> ...


This might get me banned. But **** it, all i really take away from this forum is that younger guys get **** on for asking questions, and the old guys just ask questions so they can have some validation for their hacky ways. Hackman, go **** yourself, and the ford econoline you drive around in. 

You know what would really get me fired? (Nothing i own my own business) asking my supervisor what connector i can use cause i don't like making a hole in brick. He would have told me to get lost or do it the right way, and don't be such a bitch. 

Let me reiterate, Hackman. Get ****ed

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

warrenmanne said:


> Not hiding my name or location. Go on the Georgia SOS website and do a license search. You'll find my address listed there as well. What time can i expect you to pick me up?


You're not really an electrician, are you?


----------



## warrenmanne (Aug 25, 2018)

MTW said:


> You're not really an electrician, are you?


That was a poorly worded question. Your asking if I'm not, and then am an electrician in the same question. Please re phrase

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

warrenmanne said:


> This might get me banned. But **** it, all i really take away from this forum is that younger guys get **** on for asking questions,


 The younger guys get a lot of people spending their own time helping them.



> and the old guys just ask questions so they can have some validation for their hacky ways.


 Looking for a code compliant low-profile threaded connector is a hacky way? :surprise:



> Hackman, go **** yourself, and the ford econoline you drive around in.


 Excuse me, but I **** myself in a Sprinter. Don't be jelly. 



> You know what would really get me fired?


 Your bad attitude? Your misunderstanding of the code (as you displayed in the last thread)? Your stupid method of drilling out the back of an outside box off-center for an Insider connector?


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

MTW said:


> You're not really an electrician, are you?





warrenmanne said:


> That was a poorly worded question. Your asking if I'm not, and then am an electrician in the same question. Please re phrase


:surprise:


I LOVE when my threads turn out this awesome :biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:


----------



## warrenmanne (Aug 25, 2018)

HackWork said:


> :surprise:
> 
> 
> I LOVE when my threads turn out this awesome [emoji3][emoji3][emoji3]


Have you and MTW searched for my license yet?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

warrenmanne said:


> Have you and MTW searched for my license yet?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


Dude it is Georgia, my mom could pass that test.


----------



## warrenmanne (Aug 25, 2018)

Brah she did pass it, we spent a lot of time studying together. Is she going to be with us when you "take me to town?


sbrn33 said:


> Dude it is Georgia, my mom could pass that test.


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

warrenmanne said:


> Brah she did pass it, we spent a lot of time studying together. Is she going to be with us when you "take me to town?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


Troll elsewhere.


----------



## warrenmanne (Aug 25, 2018)

HackWork said:


> Troll elsewhere.


How come when i defend myself it's trolling, but when you and mtw do it, its "code compliant"? The trollings only start after you dismiss my posts, even though you asked for them on the ****EN INTERNET where anyone can be anything they want. Ill go troll elsewhere when guys like you stop crossing neutrals on residential branch circuits.

You're asking about a WATERTIGHT way to bring ROMEX into an exterior box. No one's got a ****en approved connector that's going to make it OK to bring romex into an exterior box. If you're not taking the time to make a decent hole in the brick, then i doubt you're taking the time to use the supplied mounting ears for a bell box. You just punch a hole with your Phillips head and use some tapcons. Id argue that what you're asking us for in this thread is a troll in its own right. (Approved Watertight romex connector? I mean really... does anyone know of a collar that will make it so my dog can fly? ) But then MTW would have to come up for air from the back of your sprinter to defend you. 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## 99cents (Aug 20, 2012)

warrenmanne said:


> Have you and MTW searched for my license yet?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


If you go to post #28, that will tell you something about MTW and Hack.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

99cents said:


> If you go to post #28, that will tell you something about MTW and Hack.


I'm not gay, but I'm not so sure about the guy I blew last night.


----------



## warrenmanne (Aug 25, 2018)

99cents said:


> If you go to post #28, that will tell you something about MTW and Hack.


 . 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## electricguy (Mar 22, 2007)

I did a few of these last week it was finding a suitable hole saw for ceder siding then on 2 sides of the home was the grit saw for hardened stucco, its a pita going through my hole saws looking for the right size and then the 7/8ths ship auger, once . surprised I can still by 2 screw romex connectors as my supply house didnt even have pvc boxes in stock. Seems like i am always asking for stuff and get the deer in headlights look.


----------



## Bird dog (Oct 27, 2015)

electricguy said:


> I did a few of these last week it was finding a suitable hole saw for ceder siding then on 2 sides of the home was the grit saw for hardened stucco, its a pita going through my hole saws looking for the right size and then the 7/8ths ship auger, once . surprised I can still by 2 screw romex connectors as my supply house didnt even have pvc boxes in stock. Seems like i am always asking for stuff and get the deer in headlights look.


Maybe you can help the counter guy out with a picture of what you need. :vs_laugh:


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

warrenmanne said:


> How come when i defend myself it's trolling, but when you and mtw do it, its "code compliant"? The trollings only start after you dismiss my posts, even though you asked for them on the ****EN INTERNET where anyone can be anything they want. Ill go troll elsewhere when guys like you stop crossing neutrals on residential branch circuits.


 That is where your trolling started, and why we got on bad terms. 

You got all holier than thou and told me that it was wrong and against code, but then when you were schooled about code and found out that it is compliant, you weren't man enough to admit it, and you posted some BS about how we have a responsibility to stop interference or some such nonsense.



> You're asking about a WATERTIGHT way to bring ROMEX into an exterior box.


 *NO, I NEVER asked for that.* Never once did I say it had to be watertight. I said that I use silicone to seal it. I am looking for a plastic button style connector that is threaded. That certainly wouldn't be watertight.

You see? You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, you did not read what I asked for, yet you are here making yourself look foolish. Will you be man enough to admit it this time I doubt it.



> Id argue that what you're asking us for in this thread is a troll in its own right.


 Why would you argue that when a dozen people agreed that it is a good idea and wish they made one? One person even said he was going to suggest the idea to a manufacturer.

You need to step back and regroup. It's going to take some time to recover from this one.


----------



## warrenmanne (Aug 25, 2018)

HackWork said:


> Never once did I say it had to be watertight. I said that I use silicone to seal it. I am looking for a plastic button style connector that is threaded. That certainly wouldn't be watertigt


You're right. You're generally right. Im just a no good troll heading down a lonely path of self destruction. 

Lets spitball on this product. How did you imagine the manufacturers designing this product for you? Would it be like a regular plastic push in connector with a threaded exterior kind of thing? We're going to have to make a special tool to tighten that down cause you'll never get it flush to the back otherwise. Or maybe we could, i donno, put the wire clamp part on the interior of the box and they would thread it in from the inside. Who cares about box fill anyways. 

Or how about this one... we just sell them any old metal nm clamp style connector and call it "the internal flushmount bell box threaded connector"

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## warrenmanne (Aug 25, 2018)

You can also drill a 1/2" hole in the 3/4" threaded knockout plugs that come with 3/4" boxes, if you'll spring for one. If im not mistaken, and consensus seems to be that i am, a 1/2" connector should pop right into that. 

Im just spitballing out loud here. Cause your post went to **** when you started arguing with responses. I practice this one at work, you should try it on here "if you don't like, leave it alone". Now go get some neutrals crossed so all those guys behind you can get shocked changing out a light. 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

warrenmanne said:


> Lets spitball on this product. How did you imagine the manufacturers designing this product for you? Would it be like a regular plastic push in connector with a threaded exterior kind of thing?


 I think that would be fine. Something like that.



> We're going to have to make a special tool to tighten that down cause you'll never get it flush to the back otherwise.


 Maybe screw it in from the inside of the box and have a flange with a 6-sided hexagonal shape like a chase nipple? 



> Or maybe we could, i donno, put the wire clamp part on the interior of the box and they would thread it in from the inside. Who cares about box fill anyways. Or how about this one... we just sell them any old metal nm clamp style connector and call it "the internal flushmount bell box threaded connector"


 As discussed earlier, that intrudes into the box too far. With the cable coming out of it, it takes up almost half of the depth of the box, which makes installing a GFCI very hard.



warrenmanne said:


> You can also drill a 1/2" hole in the 3/4" threaded knockout plugs that come with 3/4" boxes, if you'll spring for one. If im not mistaken, and consensus seems to be that i am, a 1/2" connector should pop right into that.


 Hmmmmm, now that sounds like a great idea. At least to try it out. 



> Im just spitballing out loud here. Cause your post went to **** when you started arguing with responses.


 I didn't argue with responses, I cited your method as being stupid, because I am honest. As I described earlier, you didn't read the thread and didn't know what I was looking for. 



> Now go get some neutrals crossed so all those guys behind you can get shocked changing out a light.


Tell me how running a secondary neutral can lead to a shock. I will wait for you to not answer that...

You are clearly still pissed because I wiped the floor with you in that thread, and I exposed you for not knowing the code that you were lambasting others for not following.


----------



## warrenmanne (Aug 25, 2018)

HackWork said:


> I think that would be fine. Something like that.
> 
> Maybe screw it in from the inside of the box and have a flange with a 6-sided hexagonal shape like a chase nipple?
> 
> ...


You can't just mix the neutrals from different circuits outside of a panel. It gives the current an alternate path other than the intended neutral. If you understand why circuits with shared neutrals (multi wire branch circuits) need to have their breakers tied together, than you will understand why you shouldn't just pick up the first neutral you find in the attic. I can't believe I'm explaining this idea to you. You aren't an electrician, are you?



Read attached picture taken from mike holt's website









Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## warrenmanne (Aug 25, 2018)

And calling something stupid is pretty much arguing with it. I don't see much of a difference. You were a dickhead first, that means i get to go last

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

warrenmanne said:


> You can't just mix the neutrals from different circuits outside of a panel.


 It's not mixing neutrals from different circuits.



> It gives the current an alternate path other than the intended neutral.


 That becomes the "intended neutral". BTW, you aren't speaking code right now, just making things up.



> If you understand why circuits with shared neutrals (multi wire branch circuits) need to have their breakers tied together, than you will understand why you shouldn't just pick up the first neutral you find in the attic.


 I don' tknow what that means. Who suggested finding a neutral in an attic? The entire discussion was about running a new neutral back to the panel.



> I can't believe I'm explaining this idea to you. You aren't an electrician, are you?


 I am an awesome one.

And again, you just showed that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.



> Read attached picture taken from mike holt's


That has nothing to do with the discussion of running a new neutral back to the panel.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

warrenmanne said:


> And calling something stupid is pretty much arguing with it. I don't see much of a difference. You were a dickhead first, that means i get to go last


I don't remember calling you stupid. But if I did, you definitely deserved it.


----------



## JoeSparky (Mar 25, 2010)

Hax, I think I just won the thread :smile:
Instead of using a standard 1 gang bell box, use an Arlington FS8161. It is a flat back weatherproof box. You can use a normal black button in the back of it with zero clearance. Pay no attention to the stock photo with the siding profile cut out. That part number is a flat back. 
CHEAP✔
CODE COMPLIANT ✔
AVAILABLE ✔
NOT HACK ✔

I Win! :vs_clap:


----------



## warrenmanne (Aug 25, 2018)

Youre a bigger man than me hack. Maybe one day ill be able to walk in your footsteps. I just hope that place im doing it in doesn't go up in flames. 

I thought you would have stopped responding the first time i told you to get ****ed, so ill try again. Hack, get ****ed.


HackWork said:


> I don't remember calling you stupid. But if I did, you definitely deserved it.


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

warrenmanne said:


> Youre a bigger man than me hack. Maybe one day ill be able to walk in your footsteps. I just hope that place im doing it in doesn't go up in flames.
> 
> I thought you would have stopped responding the first time i told you to get ****ed, so ill try again. Hack, get ****ed.


 Nooooo, I will never stop responding.

To be honest, I actually thought better of you. I thought you would admit that running a new neutral is code compliant (since it is) and that the idea for the connector that myself and others are looking for is reasonable. But instead, you just showed your ass once again.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

JoeSparky said:


> Hax, I think I just won the thread :smile:
> Instead of using a standard 1 gang bell box, use an Arlington FS8161. It is a flat back weatherproof box. You can use a normal black button in the back of it with zero clearance. Pay no attention to the stock photo with the siding profile cut out. That part number is a flat back.
> CHEAP✔
> CODE COMPLIANT ✔
> ...


That is a very good idea. How does a typical in-use cover mate to it? Does it look OK?


----------



## tjb (Feb 12, 2014)

Similar to what looked like a nm lt connector posted earlier. Cable gland. OD isn’t much than the 7/8” hole you’re already drilling. 

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/...Ryi4IUi-rCVE4wSifa_Qa4Oj1Di1zHOfSjXK64yvoxQo8

Plus it’s waterproof, though you stated you didn’t care about that. 

Another solution would be to stub a piece of 1/2” emt or pvc on the back of that box, use a listed nm->emt changeover on the other end. Arlington makes one-piece changeovers I think. But even then you may need a slightly larger ID hole than the 7/8” you’re already drilling, just to fit the compression style emt connector in. Shrug. 

Like someone else said, looks like the kind of thing Arlington would enjoy solving. Like their old work RAST38 Mc connectors. Really cool. 

Meow.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

tjb, I only drill a 1/2" hole. That's just the standard that I always drill. Even 10-3 fits thru it when I install inlets. It's small, won't break out much brick or masonry, I could use my little M12 rotary hammer, and it's easy to seal.

I like that box that JoeSparky posted, it seems like it will work perfectly as long as I use a white bodied in-use cover.


----------



## 99cents (Aug 20, 2012)

JoeSparky said:


> Hax, I think I just won the thread :smile:
> Instead of using a standard 1 gang bell box, use an Arlington FS8161. It is a flat back weatherproof box. You can use a normal black button in the back of it with zero clearance. Pay no attention to the stock photo with the siding profile cut out. That part number is a flat back.
> CHEAP✔
> CODE COMPLIANT ✔
> ...


You win.

Does it work with a human thermostat too?


----------



## JoeSparky (Mar 25, 2010)

HackWork said:


> That is a very good idea. How does a typical in-use cover mate to it? Does it look OK?


Looks just as ugly as a bubble cover installed on any other box. Fits just fine, though. 


George Carlin said it best:
Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.


----------



## telsa (May 22, 2015)

Bird dog said:


> Maybe you can help the counter guy out with a picture of what you need. :vs_laugh:


I think Platt has an app for that. 

It might hurt some feelings, though. :crying:


----------



## zac (May 11, 2009)

It works!









Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

zac said:


> It works!


:biggrin: Did you have to take off any of the hub inside in order to get the button connector to grip completely? I figured it would be too thick. and it wouldn't be able to clip in. 

What did you drill it with? Unibit straight thru?


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Oh and @zac, I've been meaning to ask you and @splatz, do you know of a way to pop those 2 screw KOs in the back of the box? I usually drill them but it seems like they are supposed to be able to be popped out, no? But hammering on them never works for me and makes me feel like I am going to crack the box. Why are they nubs like that if they expect you to drill them?


----------



## zac (May 11, 2009)

HackWork said:


> Did you have to take off any of the hub inside in order to get the button connector to grip completely? I figured it would be too thick. and it wouldn't be able to clip in.
> 
> What did you drill it with? Unibit straight thru?


You may want to take back the like and thank remarks. I put romex through and it held secure when pushing the button or slightly pulling. When I used forced it came out. I spent about 30 seconds with my linemans busting out hub and tried again. This time it took way more force but still came out. I am happy with it and don't think a rat has the pulling force I do inside of a wall. 

I did unibit the threads out. 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## zac (May 11, 2009)

HackWork said:


> Oh and @zac, I've been meaning to ask you and @splatz, do you know of a way to pop those 2 screw KOs in the back of the box? I usually drill them but it seems like they are supposed to be able to be popped out, no? But hammering on them never works for me and makes me feel like I am going to crack the box. Why are they nubs like that if they expect you to drill them?


Don't know. I always just drill. 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## nrp3 (Jan 24, 2009)

I’ve never liked the aluminum tabs. I’ll either tap those bumps with a hammer gently or drill.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

I'll continue to not use a connector. :thumbup:


----------



## Bird dog (Oct 27, 2015)

nrp3 said:


> I’ll either tap those bumps with a hammer gently or drill.


IIRC #2 Philips & sidecutters.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

zac said:


> You may want to take back the like and thank remarks. I put romex through and it held secure when pushing the button or slightly pulling. When I used forced it came out. I spent about 30 seconds with my linemans busting out hub and tried again. This time it took way more force but still came out. I am happy with it and don't think a rat has the pulling force I do inside of a wall.
> 
> I did unibit the threads out.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


You mean the connector came out? Or the cable?

I assume you mean the connector, and that won't be a problem because it will be tightly sandwiched between the back of the box and the wall.

You are still the winner.


----------



## zac (May 11, 2009)

HackWork said:


> You mean the connector came out? Or the cable?
> 
> I assume you mean the connector, and that won't be a problem because it will be tightly sandwiched between the back of the box and the wall.
> 
> You are still the winner.


Yes the connector. 
Glad you asked the question because this will cut time off installing the connector. 

Normally I cut the box in flush and that's the way it is with me. I'd rather cut it flush and lose profit then surface mount it if I didn't price it right. Sometimes however on cmu or brick that's not an option and a surface mounting we go. 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## MDShunk (Jan 7, 2007)

If I recall, the Arlington NM94 connectors are slit in such a way that they'll either clip into a sheet metal knockout or conform to a threaded hub.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

MDShunk said:


> If I recall, the Arlington NM94 connectors are slit in such a way that they'll either clip into a sheet metal knockout or conform to a threaded hub.


Really?!?!?!?!?! 


Well now I know what I will be doing first thing tomorrow morning :vs_laugh: I got a new box of NM94's to try this out with :biggrin:


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

zac said:


> Yes the connector.
> Glad you asked the question because this will cut time off installing the connector.


You mean that you are going to use the button connector but not break the hub off?


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

MDShunk said:


> If I recall, the Arlington NM94 connectors are slit in such a way that they'll either clip into a sheet metal knockout or conform to a threaded hub.


The NM94 is the black button, right? I've had very limited success having them work in threaded knockouts, which is why I forgo a connector altogether. They do fit in a threaded hub but they are squeezed so tightly that it's hard to actually get the cable in. So I follow my own code instead.


----------



## zac (May 11, 2009)

HackWork said:


> You mean that you are going to use the button connector but not break the hub off?


No, that you started the thread. 
Breaking off the hub took no time at all. 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

MTW said:


> The NM94 is the black button, right? I've had very limited success having them work in threaded knockouts, which is why I forgo a connector altogether. They do fit in a threaded hub but they are squeezed so tightly that it's hard to actually get the cable in. So I follow my own code instead.


I find it hard to get the cable into the NM94's all of the time, just today I was having a hard time. I am thinking that when I run out of them I might start using those yellow ones that macmikeman pimps.


----------



## Going_Commando (Oct 1, 2011)

I usually use NM-74s instead of 94s these days. I'll still use the buttons for some stuff, but 90% of the time it is NM-74s or 2-screw connectors (mainly for going into bell boxes, funnily enough).


----------



## Max C. (Sep 29, 2016)

eddy current said:


> We have a stupid code that makes us bond the connector if it is metal.
> I use plastic Romex connectors installed backwards in the box if it will fit.


Eddy, what type of connectors are you using? At least around here, I have yet to see a single _*threaded*_, plastic loomex connector...


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

Somebody right up there ^^^^^^^. was saying they have trouble with those little nubs inside a wp box right? I don't even slow down to look at it to see who or use the quote button, but anyway, Hit em with a hammer or your side cutters while holding a nail set on them. Works perfect. 


Maybe I should have called this your MACTIP OF THE DAY!


----------



## electricguy (Mar 22, 2007)

Guess I will have to get a few of those butthole connectors now


----------



## B-Nabs (Jun 4, 2014)

You could try drilling out the hub from the inside with a 1 1/8" step bit (3/4" trade size), such that the next larger step from 7/8" shaves the hub down to be flush with the inside back of the box, the 7/8" step goes through and removes the threads, and as a result you're left with just the thickness of the box with a 7/8" hole, and you can snap a button into that.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## B-Nabs (Jun 4, 2014)

warrenmanne said:


> If you understand why circuits with shared neutrals (multi wire branch circuits) need to have their breakers tied together, than you will understand why you shouldn't just pick up the first neutral you find in the attic.


MWBC breakers don't have to be handle tied in Canada (thank God), and the only reason they do in the US is because the NEC decided it needed to pander to morons who don't understand how a MWBC works. 

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Switched (Dec 23, 2012)

B-Nabs said:


> MWBC breakers don't have to be handle tied in Canada (thank God), and the only reason they do in the US is because the NEC decided it needed to pander to morons who don't understand how a MWBC works.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk


Isn't that how most codes come into existence?

Like the segregation of the Line side of a loadcenter vs the load side. Qualified people should negate the need for that code.

The CEC panders to stupidity too, it is after all a subject to corruption and paid legislation, just like the NEC is. (Well... not exactly, way more money slinging around down south)


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

HackWork said:


> Oh and @zac, I've been meaning to ask you and @splatz, do you know of a way to pop those 2 screw KOs in the back of the box? I usually drill them but it seems like they are supposed to be able to be popped out, no? But hammering on them never works for me and makes me feel like I am going to crack the box. Why are they nubs like that if they expect you to drill them?


If you hit them with a nail set it punches a nice hole.


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

macmikeman said:


> Somebody right up there ^^^^^^^. was saying they have trouble with those little nubs inside a wp box right? I don't even slow down to look at it to see who or use the quote button, but anyway, Hit em with a hammer or your side cutters while holding a nail set on them. Works perfect.
> 
> 
> Maybe I should have called this your MACTIP OF THE DAY!


Yupes, you beat me to it.


----------



## eddy current (Feb 28, 2009)

Max C. said:


> Eddy, what type of connectors are you using? At least around here, I have yet to see a single _*threaded*_, plastic loomex connector...


I was talking about the push in connectors when there are no threads like in many plastic boxes. Because we now have to bond metal connectors I try and not use them when possible was my point.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

B-Nabs said:


> You could try drilling out the hub from the inside with a 1 1/8" step bit (3/4" trade size), such that the next larger step from 7/8" shaves the hub down to be flush with the inside back of the box, the 7/8" step goes through and removes the threads, and as a result you're left with just the thickness of the box with a 7/8" hole, and you can snap a button into that.


That is a very good idea.


----------



## 29573 (Apr 8, 2012)

flyboy said:


> I screwed one of these into the back of the box and then pinched (broke) off the excess on the outside of the box with my channel locks so it fit flush to the building.
> 
> View attachment 130642


Another take on this would be to cut the bell off a 1/2” TA.
Makes a nice threaded bushing. Or so I hear :smile:


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

splatz said:


> If you hit them with a nail set it punches a nice hole.


An awl works just fine as well.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

eddy current said:


> I was talking about the push in connectors when there are no threads like in many plastic boxes. *Because we now have to bond metal connectors* I try and not use them when possible was my point.


Explain please


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

villageelectric said:


> Another take on this would be to cut the bell off a 1/2” TA.
> Makes a nice threaded bushing. Or so I hear :smile:


But it kind of defeats the original purpose of a cable clamp that Hack was looking for.


----------



## eddy current (Feb 28, 2009)

brian john said:


> Explain please


It’s a Canadian thing.

CEC 12-3000(3) Where metal fittings are used to terminate a non-metallic wiring method to a non-metallic outlet box, the metal fittings shall be bonded to ground.

Inspectors here look for it as it is a relatively new code.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

eddy current said:


> It’s a Canadian thing.
> 
> CEC 12-3000(3) Where metal fittings are used to terminate a non-metallic wiring method to a non-metallic outlet box, the metal fittings shall be bonded to ground.
> 
> Inspectors here look for it as it is a relatively new code.


AFAIK, that has always been an NEC requirement. Even if not cited directly, it would still be required by the part that requires anything likely to become energized to be bonded.


----------



## B-Nabs (Jun 4, 2014)

eddy current said:


> It’s a Canadian thing.
> 
> CEC 12-3000(3) Where metal fittings are used to terminate a non-metallic wiring method to a non-metallic outlet box, the metal fittings shall be bonded to ground.
> 
> Inspectors here look for it as it is a relatively new code.


That wouldn't apply here though, as the box is metallic. Bond the box and the connector is bonded. 

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## flyboy (Jun 13, 2011)

MechanicalDVR said:


> But it kind of defeats the original purpose of a cable clamp that Hack was looking for.


You don't need it. The grounding screw will hold the cable in the box. At least that's what I've been told. :whistling2:


----------



## B-Nabs (Jun 4, 2014)

Switched said:


> Isn't that how most codes come into existence?
> 
> Like the segregation of the Line side of a loadcenter vs the load side. Qualified people should negate the need for that code.
> 
> The CEC panders to stupidity too, it is after all a subject to corruption and paid legislation, just like the NEC is. (Well... not exactly, way more money slinging around down south)


Oh, no argument there. Just luckily the CEC hasn't fallen victim (yet) to this particular instance of the dumbing down of our trade. 

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

B-Nabs said:


> Oh, no argument there. Just luckily the CEC hasn't fallen victim (yet) to this* particular instance of the dumbing down of our trade.*


So you think "the segregation of the Line side of a loadcenter vs the load side" is a legitimate need?


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

flyboy said:


> You don't need it. The grounding screw will hold the cable in the box. At least that's what I've been told. :whistling2:


And if shaped correctly, you can make it so that the ground conductors hold the cable directly in the center of that threaded KO so that the cable doesn't touch the edges at all. Then squirt some caulk/silicone around it and you have a perfectly solid, safe, and water tight installation.

With that said, if they made a threaded button connector that I could throw in and have it be code compliant, I would.


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

I honestly don't know why this thread has gone so long. I answered the question on the first page. Screw a ****ing chase nipple in the back caulk it and call it good. This isn't Holt's. This is real life. 
Oh and Warren is a very nice guy.


----------



## flyboy (Jun 13, 2011)

HackWork said:


> And if shaped correctly, you can make it so that the ground conductors hold the cable directly in the center of that threaded KO so that the cable doesn't touch the edges at all. Then squirt some caulk/silicone around it and you have a perfectly solid, safe, and water tight installation.
> 
> With that said, if they made a threaded button connector that I could throw in and have it be code compliant, I would.


I used duct seal. :biggrin:


----------



## eddy current (Feb 28, 2009)

MechanicalDVR said:


> So you think "the segregation of the Line side of a loadcenter vs the load side" is a legitimate need?


It’s the separation of the unprotected service conductors and the rest of the panel that is protected and can be shut off. And yes, it is needed IMO.


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

eddy current said:


> It’s the separation of the unprotected service conductors and the rest of the panel that is protected and can be shut off. And yes, it is needed IMO.


If the NEC does this I may quit the electrical field. Of all the stupid unneeded codes this may be the top of the list.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

sbrn33 said:


> I honestly don't know why this thread has gone so long. I answered the question on the first page. Screw a ****ing chase nipple in the back caulk it and call it good. This isn't Holt's. This is real life.
> Oh and Warren is a very nice guy.


 That doesn’t make it code compliant and frankly it doesn’t really add anything to the installation.



flyboy said:


> I used duct seal. :biggrin:


I know a lot of people like duct seal, but I don’t really care for it. I’ve seen way too much of it hard and brittle and cracking away. I also don’t like the way you have to work it in your hands and it makes your hands greasy. I like those small toothpaste style tubes of silicone.


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

eddy current said:


> It’s the separation of the unprotected service conductors and the rest of the panel that is protected and can be shut off. And yes, it is needed IMO.


I was under the impression it's just separation by a plastic cover. 

Can you explain briefly why this is needed now and has been just fine since the first panel was designed and built?


----------



## eddy current (Feb 28, 2009)

MechanicalDVR said:


> I was under the impression it's just separation by a plastic cover.
> 
> Can you explain briefly why this is needed now and has been just fine since the first panel was designed and built?


Easy, LOTO.

Safety regs have continually changed since the first panel was designed and built all for good reason. I should not have to explain this to you.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

eddy current said:


> Easy, LOTO.
> 
> Safety regs have continually changed since the first panel was designed and built all for good reason. I should not have to explain this to you.


To make big changes in order to make something safer when no one is actually getting hurt seems a little odd to many of us.


----------



## 99cents (Aug 20, 2012)

Ten pages about a dumb connector? Jeebus.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

99cents said:


> Ten pages about a dumb connector? Jeebus.


U jelly?


----------



## eddy current (Feb 28, 2009)

HackWork said:


> To make big changes in order to make something safer when no one is actually getting hurt seems a little odd to many of us.


Agreed. 

I know you do more live work where you are but here it is difficult, especially since LOTO has been pushed more and more.


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

eddy current said:


> Easy, LOTO.
> 
> Safety regs have continually changed since the first panel was designed and built all for good reason. I should not have to explain this to you.


In 55 years the only time I can recall this ever being useful was once seeing a guy try and put the inner panel cover on a GE 3 ph panel backwards and hitting all three lugs.

This reminds me of the recent lawsuit I saw in the news, a woman suing a cellphone maker because she got her phone stuck inside her vagina and her lawyer feels they should have warned her it wasn't to be used in that manner


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

eddy current said:


> Agreed.
> 
> I know you do more live work where you are but here it is difficult, especially since LOTO has been pushed more and more.


I guess it depends what you consider "live work".

I remember working in a mall in which there were large troughs with literally hundreds of circuits running thru them in #12 THHN. Was it considered live work for me to remove the cover without shutting down every circuit? 

If a tiny little portion of the lug is exposed at the top of the panel while I am working 3 foot away in the bottom of the panel, is that live work?

Last week I was in a house talking to a customer and I just randomly pulled opened the little cover on the old fusepanel in the hallway which exposed the live screw terminals. Was that live work? Was everyone who ever looking inside working live? 

What about when you plug something into an outlet? Those prongs are live as you are inserting them, live work? What if you finger slips forward onto the prongs? I bet that happens far more than people getting injured by the exposed lugs in panels, wouldn't you agree?


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

99cents said:


> Ten pages about a dumb connector? Jeebus.


and not one question so far about the metallurgical composition of the metal romex connectors....


----------



## eddy current (Feb 28, 2009)

HackWork said:


> I guess it depends what you consider "live work".
> 
> I remember working in a mall in which there were large troughs with literally hundreds of circuits running thru them in #12 THHN. Was it considered live work for me to remove the cover without shutting down every circuit?
> 
> ...


Is it not spelled out in your safety regs (OSHA or whatever it's called) what is considered live work? Is working in a ressi panel exempt?


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

eddy current said:


> Is it not spelled out in your safety regs (OSHA or whatever it's called) what is considered live work? Is working in a ressi panel exempt?


I don't know, what constitutes a live panel? Any exposure to live electrical parts? 

If so, then what is a light bulb socket able to be open for anyone to stick their finger into? I bet WAY more people get hurt that way than by the exposed lugs in an electrical panel.


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

Insanity:wink:


----------



## telsa (May 22, 2015)

MechanicalDVR said:


> In 55 years the only time I can recall this ever being useful was once seeing a guy try and put the inner panel cover on a GE 3 ph panel backwards and hitting all three lugs.
> 
> This reminds me of the recent lawsuit I saw in the news, a woman suing a cellphone maker because she got her phone stuck inside her vagina and her lawyer feels they should have warned her it wasn't to be used in that manner


Her lover put 8====> on her screen -- and she became enraptured, love stuck.

And,... it stuck. :crying:

Thus the term "dry hole" was born. 

And you thought it came from "wild catting."

That came from %$#houses.

BTW, that's the last time she takes a bet after fifteen shots of Jack. :devil3:

Lastly, she was notified of the safety hazard by he-mail... but she had it directed to her spam filter.

Next time she needs to direct her hot mail thru her man filter.


----------



## 99cents (Aug 20, 2012)

HackWork said:


> U jelly?


Why and no.


----------



## Nutmegger777 (Mar 14, 2014)

There is a lot of money to be made in devising a clamp made just for that -- entering the back of a bell box with Romex. 
Think Kenny clamp, for example. 
Spend some money on marketing, make the inspectors think that your product is the only code-compliant way to do something, then reap the profits. 
You are welcome!


----------



## bostonPedro (Nov 14, 2017)

Nutmegger777 said:


> There is a lot of money to be made in devising a clamp made just for that -- entering the back of a bell box with Romex.
> Think Kenny clamp, for example.
> Spend some money on marketing, make the inspectors think that your product is the only code-compliant way to do something, then reap the profits.
> You are welcome!


I have just messed up my thinning hair to look like Einstein or maybe Dr. Frankenstein depending on who you ask and have donned a white lab coat and will now go to the basement to work on this and wont leave until I created a clamp to make me millions.


----------



## flyboy (Jun 13, 2011)

HackWork said:


> I know a lot of people like duct seal, but I don’t really care for it. I’ve seen way too much of it hard and brittle and cracking away. I also don’t like the way you have to work it in your hands and it makes your hands greasy. I like those small toothpaste style tubes of silicone.


Nothing held up better then ductseal in a cold soaked truck overnight. Just cut a piece off the brick with your hook knife and roll it in your hands. Presto, a pliable hole filler. 

Mmmm, that smell on your hands was almost as good as gasoline.

Ductseal, leather tool pouches, climbing belts, gaffs, extention cords, rolls of THHN and SE cable, electrical tape, pulling compound, metal boxes and fittings, EMT and BX cable. 

The stuff that made electrical trucks smell like nothing else in the world. Like an electrical truck. :biggrin:


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

I occasionally use silicone or an epoxy to seal things but switched to mostly duct seal maybe 25 years ago. I consider silicone caulk like duct tape and drywall screws, you can use them for a lot of things, but they aren't really the best thing. 

I started using it because it's so much easier and neater to work with, you don't get the drippy stringy effect you get with silicone. 

It's also nice that you don't have to basically throw away a bunch every time you use it, it has a very long shelf life, doesn't matter if the package has been opened. 

With duct seal you can remove it, replace it, rework it, no fuss. You can pull out the plug, run another cable through the same hole if there's room, and reseal it. Try that with silicone or other goop. 

It is much more tool bag or pocket friendly. Silicone will never every come out of your work clothes. 

Most important - I revisit a lot of my old work, I have plenty of customers I've worked for over 20 years, and I can say the duct seal holds up the best. It may glaze over a bit but it remains flexible enough to keep a good seal. Silicone isn't really UV resistant. In time, it separates from the surface it's bonded to and you wind up with a gap.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

splatz said:


> I consider silicone caulk like duct tape and drywall screws, you can use them for a lot of things, but they aren't really the best thing.


 I agree with you about a lot of things, but I see this the exact opposite. Silicone is excellent for sealing things, I consider it the best way to seal this type of hole. 

Silicone is used for sealing things with high exposure to water like shower doors and even things with constant water pressure like aquariums.



> I started using it because it's so much easier and neater to work with, you don't get the drippy stringy effect you get with silicone.


 I hear you on that. But you do get messy hands. 

If you use the little toothpaste style tubes of silicone you can squirt it on the back of the box and into the hole without ever touching it, and wipe it as you pull the tip away to stop that stringy effect that you mentioned. 



> It's also nice that you don't have to basically throw away a bunch every time you use it, it has a very long shelf life, doesn't matter if the package has been opened.


 I never throw those tubes away, I use them 2-6 times, sometimes over a 4 month period. I do put them on the floor along with PVC cement, duct seal, and other stuff like that and run the heater when I need to use them in the Winter.



> Most important - I revisit a lot of my old work, I have plenty of customers I've worked for over 20 years, and I can say the duct seal holds up the best. It may glaze over a bit but it remains flexible enough to keep a good seal. Silicone isn't really UV resistant. In time, it separates from the surface it's bonded to and you wind up with a gap.


I think today is backwards day :biggrin: What you just said about silicone is exactly what I see from ductseal. Hard, brittle, and cracking away.



> It is much more tool bag or pocket friendly.


 Really?? :vs_laugh:


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

telsa said:


> Her lover put 8====> on her screen -- and she became enraptured, love stuck.
> 
> And,... it stuck. :crying:
> 
> ...



I just know she got some serious issues going on!


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

I'll tell you one thing silicone is really good for, waterproofing fabric. I have one of these rigger's bags which I like for using outdoors but the bottom get soggy. I painted the bottom with a caulk gun tube of silicone, let it soak in good and dry, it's perfect.


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

HackWork said:


> I think today is backwards day :biggrin: What you just said about silicone is exactly what I see from ductseal. Hard, brittle, and cracking away.


What brand of duct seal are you using? I use the Ideal. I was just looking at this the other day, I had some coax cables and ethernet cables exiting a metal siding building up high for some antennas. I installed them maybe 15+ years ago. From the ground, I thought there were mushroom type through wall bushings. I couldn't see it until I got right up close but they weren't mushroom bushings, I had pressed in doughnuts of duct seal around the cables, they were still perfectly round and perfectly sealed all this while. 

Now these days I always have plenty of the mushroom bushings, which I still use with a little duct seal, I helped a cable company guy out and he gave me a PILE of these and a TON of snap and seal F connectors, I might have a lifetime supply depending on how long I live


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

splatz said:


> What brand of duct seal are you using? I use the Ideal.


 I'm not sure of the brands that the other people have used on all the installations that I had to replace because the duct seal failed and water got in.


:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:


----------



## 99cents (Aug 20, 2012)

We use duct seal to prevent cold air infiltration. I don’t think it’s meant as a waterproof barrier.


----------



## Signal1 (Feb 10, 2016)

One of my former employees took a couple little pieces of red wire and wrapped it around a sharpie to make little coily things and stuck them in a block of duct seal.

He left it on top of another trades job-box at the end of the day. We found out the next morning that someone called the police, who in turn called the state bomb squad. 

Fortunately this wasn't the bomb technician's first "duct seal bomb". He knew exactly what it was and told the GC "tell your electrician to cut the crap"


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

hackwork said:


> i'm not sure of the brands that the other people have used on all the installations that i had to replace because the duct seal failed and water got in.
> 
> 
> :biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:
> ...


thatwasnotme


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

splatz said:


> thatwasnotme


Bologna. It even says it was you right in the panel.


----------



## B-Nabs (Jun 4, 2014)

MechanicalDVR said:


> So you think "the segregation of the Line side of a loadcenter vs the load side" is a legitimate need?


As I mentioned in the thread on that subject, I don't have a horse in that race as I don't do residential, and generally in commercial the service entrance is separate from the panels anyway. I will say, however, that whenever I have occasion to poke around in enclosures with unfused service entrance conductors, my butthole puckers a little tighter than otherwise, so yeah, I guess you could say I see the merit of separating those conductors from the rest. 

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## 99cents (Aug 20, 2012)

B-Nabs said:


> As I mentioned in the thread on that subject, I don't have a horse in that race as I don't do residential, and generally in commercial the service entrance is separate from the panels anyway. I will say, however, that whenever I have occasion to poke around in enclosures with unfused service entrance conductors, my butthole puckers a little tighter than otherwise, so yeah, I guess you could say I see the merit of separating those conductors from the rest.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk


I feel better once that section of the panel is buttoned up. Once the panel is fired up, there’s no reason to go in there again. As soon as the inspection’s done, the cover goes on.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

B-Nabs said:


> As I mentioned in the thread on that subject, I don't have a horse in that race as I don't do residential, and generally in commercial the service entrance is separate from the panels anyway. I will say, however, that whenever I have occasion to poke around in enclosures with unfused service entrance conductors, my butthole puckers a little tighter than otherwise, so yeah, I guess you could say I see the merit of separating those conductors from the rest.


People who go near the window in skyscrapers often have their buttholes pucker just as much, if not more. But we don't stop people from looking out the window because it isn't actually causing them to get hurt. Just like the hundreds of millions of residential panels with energized service conductors in them. It's not a safety issue if it's only perceived.


----------



## 99cents (Aug 20, 2012)

HackWork said:


> People who go near the window in skyscrapers often have their buttholes pucker just as much, if not more. But we don't stop people from looking out the window because it isn't actually causing them to get hurt. Just like the hundreds of millions of residential panels with energized service conductors in them. It's not a safety issue if it's only perceived.


That’s dumb. What is the window if it isn’t a barrier to prevent injury or death?

Quit trolling.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

99cents said:


> That’s dumb. What is the window if it isn’t a barrier to prevent injury or death?
> 
> Quit trolling.


I am not trolling, I stated something to illustrate how we don't (or at least shouldn't) legislate regulations for "safety" based on fear alone. 

The *only* reason why you have advocated enclosing the service conductors is fear. Throughout all of this discussion, not one of you have been able to backup the claims of danger with any real world evidence. 

People simply aren't getting hurt, it's a non-issue.


----------



## readydave8 (Sep 20, 2009)

HackWork said:


> I am not trolling, I stated something to illustrate how we don't (or at least shouldn't) legislate regulations for "safety" based on fear alone.
> 
> The *only* reason why you have advocated enclosing the service conductors is fear. Throughout all of this discussion, not one of you have been able to backup the claims of danger with any real world evidence.
> 
> People simply aren't getting hurt, it's a non-issue.


speaking of which:

what type connector will work in bell box threaded hole?:wink:


----------



## 99cents (Aug 20, 2012)

HackWork said:


> I am not trolling, I stated something to illustrate how we don't (or at least shouldn't) legislate regulations for "safety" based on fear alone.
> 
> The *only* reason why you have advocated enclosing the service conductors is fear. Throughout all of this discussion, not one of you have been able to backup the claims of danger with any real world evidence.
> 
> People simply aren't getting hurt, it's a non-issue.


So, if there is a big hole in the wall in a high rise instead of a window, you think that’s safe? Your comparison, not mine.

You’re trolling. Obviously a barrier over service conductors is safer. To say otherwise is stupid.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

99cents said:


> So, if there is a big hole in the wall in a high rise instead of a window, you think that’s safe? Your comparison, not mine.


 If there is a big hole in the wall of hundreds of millions of high-rises and no one gets hurt, then it clearly is safe, isn’t it?



> You’re trolling. Obviously a barrier over service conductors is safer. To say otherwise is stupid.


 This is starting to sound like the argument saying that having an outside disconnect on a house is 100% safer.

How is something “safer” if it’s not dangerous in the first place? If no one is getting hurt, what are you saving them from?

You can call it trolling all you want, but in the end you are basing your views on fear and not actual danger.


----------



## 99cents (Aug 20, 2012)

HackWork said:


> If there is a big hole in the wall of hundreds of millions of high-rises and no one gets hurt, then it clearly is safe, isn’t it?
> 
> 
> This is starting to sound like the argument saying that having an outside disconnect on a house is 100% safer.
> ...


This is a rule for residential panels. Yes, It’s based on fear, the fear that a homeowner is going to do something stupid. If you don’t see HO stupidity during your workday, you live on another planet. I see it almost every day.

It’s safer, Hack. I can’t believe you can’t understand that. You must be trolling.


----------



## Switched (Dec 23, 2012)

99cents said:


> This is a rule for residential panels. Yes, It’s based on fear, the fear that a homeowner is going to do something stupid. If you don’t see HO stupidity during your workday, you live on another planet. I see it almost every day.
> 
> It’s safer, Hack. I can’t believe you can’t understand that. You must be trolling.


I posted this the other day in another thread, but no matter what, HO stupidity can't be stopped.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

They are pushing using a bicycle to go to work these days in Honolulu big time, since we have a mayor who is something I would discuss in Controversial talk. Meantime , that practice of riding bicycles on city streets that is pushed by a certain political leaning is way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way more dangerous a thing to do than working in a panel the way we Americans do , and there are definite statistics to back this statement up. But yet, there is no outcry from OSHA about encouraging employee's to get on a bicycle to come to work. The opposite actually, they are rewarded and encouraged to do so.


----------



## eddy current (Feb 28, 2009)

I’m going to encourage everyone to not even use panel covers considering there is no actual danger.


----------



## trentonmakes (Mar 21, 2017)

eddy current said:


> I’m going to encourage everyone to not even use panel covers considering there is no actual danger.


That would be great! Then everyone could see my beautiful handy work and not just the inspector!


Sent from my LG-K550 using Tapatalk


----------



## CTshockhazard (Aug 28, 2009)

eddy current said:


> I’m going to encourage everyone to not even use panel covers considering there is no actual danger.



Sounds good, as long as you remove all the windows from your skyscrapers too.


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

B-Nabs said:


> As I mentioned in the thread on that subject, I don't have a horse in that race as I don't do residential, and generally in commercial the service entrance is separate from the panels anyway. I will say, however, that whenever I have occasion to poke around in enclosures with unfused service entrance conductors, my butthole puckers a little tighter than otherwise, so yeah, I guess you could say I see the merit of separating those conductors from the rest.


You have an interesting perspective that I can see and respect.

I've only felt the pucker factor in panels in 480v and higher voltages. 

4160v chillers were always fun to play around.


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

trentonmakes said:


> That would be great! Then everyone could see my beautiful handy work and not just the inspector!


I think clear polycarbonate panel covers would be a good thing! With everything visible people would hesitate to be slobs in there. You could take IR readings right through the cover. 

I also think there should be a few meters on every panel, there should be an ammeter per leg, voltage meters per leg and to ground, and a presence of voltage indicator "idiot light". A warning light for excessive current on the GEC. 

Really it's just a matter of time before someone puts it in the NEC that all panels must have mechanical interlocks so that if the cover is open or removed it's all dead in there. 

Then, we can just go to 24VDC power like Edison said we should in the first place, because all that **** will be really expensive.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

99cents said:


> This is a rule for residential panels. Yes, It’s based on fear, the fear that a homeowner is going to do something stupid. If you don’t see HO stupidity during your workday, you live on another planet. I see it almost every day.
> 
> It’s safer, Hack. I can’t believe you can’t understand that. You must be trolling.


I asked multiple times now and you ignore the question.

How is something "safer" if it isn't dangerous in the first place?

If no one is getting hurt, how are you making it safer?

All you are doing is appeasing someone's fears, not making anything safer.

In order to make something safer, you need to prevent injury or death. You can't do that if there aren't injuries or deaths occurring. 

Enacting laws and regulations "for safety" when no one is getting hurt is nothing more than liberal feel-good bullsh1t. Keep that garbage in Canada. The idea of changing the entire way that we do things "for safety" when no one is getting hurt is fu*ktarded.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

eddy current said:


> I’m going to encourage everyone to not even use panel covers considering there is no actual danger.


There most likely is a danger. If everyone had their panel cover off like you suggest, there would most likely be injuries or deaths occurring. Kids sticking their hands in there, heck adults sticking their hands in there, or things falling into it and causing shorts/faults.

So then it would be smart to require a panel cover because it would prevent those injuries and fires.


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

I don't care what you hockey jockey's say there is no need for the separation of conductors in the panel. It is an idiotic rule, you know it, I know it and anyone in the trade knows it.


----------



## 99cents (Aug 20, 2012)

HackWork said:


> I asked multiple times now and you ignore the question.
> 
> How is something "safer" if it isn't dangerous in the first place?
> 
> ...


How do you know nobody is getting hurt? Do you collect stats?

Obviously, a lockable cover is safer. I don’t need stats to back that up because even an idiot would understand that.

You’re trolling.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

99cents said:


> How do you know nobody is getting hurt? Do you collect stats?
> 
> Obviously, a lockable cover is safer. I don’t need stats to back that up because even an idiot would understand that.
> 
> You’re trolling.


 It’s not my job to prove a negative. It is your job to prove that people are getting hurt. 

In all of this discussion over the years you Northerners never posted any statistics showing people getting hurt. Not once. You can’t find anything. The reason is because nobody was getting hurt.

There are hundreds of millions of electrical panels in our country alone, yet you can’t find any data saying how exposed lugs are causing people to get hurt. It’s because there is no actual danger, which means you can’t make it safer.

It’s intellectually dishonest to continually say that I am trolling when you know that you are the one who is trolling.


----------



## 99cents (Aug 20, 2012)

HackWork said:


> It’s not my job to prove a negative. It is your job to prove that people are getting hurt.
> 
> In all of this discussion over the years you Northerners never posted any statistics showing people getting hurt. Not once. You can’t find anything. The reason is because nobody was getting hurt.
> 
> ...


You’re being ridiculous.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

99cents said:


> You’re being ridiculous.


I am being reasonable and logical.

So you wont post any statistics showing people getting hurt from that 1" of exposed lugs? And here I was, thinking that you would :vs_laugh::vs_laugh::vs_laugh:


----------



## 99cents (Aug 20, 2012)

HackWork said:


> I am being reasonable and logical.
> 
> So you wont post any statistics showing people getting hurt from that 1" of exposed lugs? And here I was, thinking that you would :vs_laugh::vs_laugh::vs_laugh:


I responded on the other thread. This one is about Romex connectors.


----------



## 220/221 (Sep 25, 2007)

I'm sure I have installed several hundred of these over the decades and never once even considered using a connector. I just installed one yesterday :thumbsup:

If there was even a slight chance of the Romex getting pulled on, I pull the ground wire tight to the ground screw 

If I were forced into it by an inspector, I'd just use a 2 screw connector on the inside of the box.


PS. I am happy to see that the abundance love is still freely shared here


----------



## Nutmegger777 (Mar 14, 2014)

I heard the 2020 will mandate recept installation with ground pin up or neutral up, which I wholeheartedly agree with -- that's the ONLY way. 


.... now THAT's trolling


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

Whoa, you're superposed to put a connector on there? That's a waste of a perfectly good connector.


----------



## MotoGP1199 (Aug 11, 2014)

I know this is an old thread, but I ran across these. Never used one,
"
Heyco®-Tite Nylon Liquid Tight Romex®
and Other Oval Hole Connectors
Straight-Thru, NPT Hubs
with Integral Sealing Ring, Approved for NEMA 6 and 6P Applications
For Romex® NM-B and UF-B Cables. For use in clearance or threaded
holes, electrical conduit couplings and adapters.
The Ultimate in Liquid Tight Strain Relief Protection
"


----------



## Almost Retired (Sep 14, 2021)

MotoGP1199 said:


> I know this is an old thread, but I ran across these. Never used one,
> "
> Heyco®-Tite Nylon Liquid Tight Romex®
> and Other Oval Hole Connectors
> ...


i have seen them, never used them
come to think of it, exposed romex isnt legal here
most of the HOs and hacks just poke it thru a KO in the bottom


----------



## West Coast Sparky (Nov 14, 2021)

HackWork said:


> We've all seen this type of installation:
> 
> View attachment 130618
> 
> ...


Unibit/step bit to 3/4 then a push grommet works grest


----------

