On 2/4/2012 11:33 AM, Horace Greeley wrote:
On 2/3/2012 5:04 PM, RBM wrote:
On 2/3/2012 4:34 PM, Horace Greeley wrote:


Check with your local electrical inspector.

If done properly, ours said it was legal and safe to do the plug and
cord setup.

His only recommendation was to use a 12 gauge appliance cord set, proper
strain relief (not romex clamp) and a high-quality 20 amp receptacle.

That really makes no sense. Typical oil burner/ furnace is fed with a 15
amp circuit. It's either code compliant or it's not, regardless of size
or ampacity of cord and receptacle.

You want your furnace crapping out because of a cheap piece of junk
outlet that barely holds the plug in place?

Yes, the cheap 50 cent outlets you find at McLowes are code compliant
but they're still junk. You won't find one in my house.

You miss the point entirely.A typical residential central heating system
is fed with a 15 amp circuit. Despite the Nec violation in connecting
the appliance with cord and plug, it is also a Nec violation to install
a 20 amp outlet on a 15 amp circuit. It has nothing to do with the
quality of the receptacle itself, or the cord for that matter. There are
extremely high quality 15 amp receptacles, and hard service cords rated
for 15 amp as well. Any electrical inspector would know this.

On 2/4/2012 11:59 AM, Bernt Berger wrote:
On 2/3/2012 8:37 PM, RBM wrote:
On 2/3/2012 7:13 PM, wrote:


A power failure every year or less can be considered "frequent
interchange". - if you don't wish to make a case for anti-vibration
(and you do not have a "compliant connection" or whatever you call the
fabric connector on the duct hood.

Boy, you are one master of misinterpretation. It's referring to
interchanging the appliance. You don't replace your boiler because of
frequent power failures.
I would love to see you try and run your silly arguments by an
electrical inspector. They'd laugh you right out of the business.

I spoke with an insurance underwriter, their position is:

1. During a power outage, they prefer that you take reasonable steps to
keep your pipes from freezing and causing thousands in damage to your home.

2. They would rather have you run your gas or oil furnace off of an
extension cord and a genset than use one of those portable kerosene or
propane heaters.

Absolutely, and this string is about how to do just that, properly, not
just in an emergency situation where you would just disconnect the
boiler from it's normal power supply and connect it to a cord and plug
for generator power.

On Feb 2, 2:08*pm, (David Combs) wrote:
Here's what I want to do.

I've got steam/boiler heater, runs on gas, the only electricty
needed is to run the (solenoid?) thermostat, basically.

It's powered via a cable (covered in flexible metal tubing)
that connects into the wall 110-AC line.

What I want to do is get that changed from that direct connection
to the wall, to instead end in a grounded male plug.

That's it!

Probably requiring another separate female socket box to plug
it into.

WHY? *So that when the power goes out and I get my small
generator cranked up, I can unplug the heating apparatus
(boiler, etc) from the wall and plug it into an extension
cord from the generator. *So I don't freeze my ass.

---

Now, I figure that this has to be done "to code", thus has
to be done by a licensed electrician.

So these guys recommended by my (*very* smart plumber)
came over to look at the "job".

At first the older of the two gave me all this gobbledygook
about the code requiring him to add some mechanism to the
circuit-breaker panel to avoid having the generator back-feeding
into the house wiring when the city power came back on, and
my generator was still connected.

Complete BS, of course, because the two power sources,]
the house power and the generator, are TOTALLY isolated --
the boiler has only this single plug, and it's plugged
into one of three places:
* *. the house.
* *. the generator
* *. nowhere -- it's "unplugged".

-----

Now, if you were an electrician, how much would YOU
charge to do this?

Oh, gotta add this. *There's TWO (gas) heat generators:
* . the big boiler, which heats the floors ABOVE it.
* . a small one, that supplies (via hot water) heat to
* * the basement (ie the same floor the boilers are
* * on), the reason being that 15 yearsago my wife's
* * aging parents came to live with us (couldn't manage
* * on their own, what with macular degeneration, etc), so
* * we converted the (finished) basement into a wee
* * kitchenless apartment for them.

And one third thing. *There's a continually running fan
in the boiler exhaust pipe to force the "exhaust"
up the chimney, not allowing it to (on windy day)
stay in the boiler room and flow under the door
to the rest of the basement -- which it often did until
the fan was added.

That too is wired directly into the wall, and also must
be converted into a plug. *What's that, 200 watts?

-----

This job seems so darned simple that it might not even
be worth the trip over to do the work, unless they charged
up the gazoo (per minute). * (I say this because it's been
an entire week since those two guys came over, and no
estimate yet. *Looks like they *don't want to do it at all,
maybe.)

So that I can judge whether an offer makes sense or not,
what might YOU charge to do this? * (Location: Westchester
County, N.Y.)

Hey, thanks so much!

David

A year or so ago I did, in essence, what you described and it took
less than one hour. My gas furnace was hard wired into a box near the
furnace. I got into the box, installed a receptacle and added a plug
to the existing furnace wire. This allowed me to plug the furnace
directly into the generator. Since then I added a manual transfer
switch that made this change unnecessary.

BTW - the electrical part of the transfer switch installation didn't
take much more than an hour. The mechanical task of securing the
switch to the basement wall, installing the generator plug in the
garage and running conduit and wire between the switch and garage plug
took a couple of hours.

RonB

On 2/4/2012 1:23 PM, RBM wrote:

You miss the point entirely.A typical residential central heating system
is fed with a 15 amp circuit. Despite the Nec violation in connecting
the appliance with cord and plug, it is also a Nec violation to install
a 20 amp outlet on a 15 amp circuit. It has nothing to do with the
quality of the receptacle itself, or the cord for that matter. There are
extremely high quality 15 amp receptacles, and hard service cords rated
for 15 amp as well. Any electrical inspector would know this.

We all know what they say about people who make assumptions.

The only circuits in my home that are 15 amp are the lighting circuits.
ALL receptacles are 20 amp on 20 amp circuits.

And FWIW, my 70,000 Btu Lochinvar gas hot water heater came from the
factory with a 120v plug on it. The literature states my water heater is
suitable for use as a space heating appliance.

They all plug in, they all passed inspection.

You can ****in' nit-pick all you want but there's not much difference
between my 70,000 Btu water heater and both my 60,000 Btu gas furnaces.

http://www.lochinvar.com/_linefiles/...ual%202011.pdf

On 2/4/12 2:04 PM, Horace Greeley wrote:

The only circuits in my home that are 15 amp are the lighting circuits.
ALL receptacles are 20 amp on 20 amp circuits.

And FWIW, my 70,000 Btu Lochinvar gas hot water heater came from the
factory with a 120v plug on it. The literature states my water heater is
suitable for use as a space heating appliance.

They all plug in, they all passed inspection.

You can ****in' nit-pick all you want but there's not much difference
between my 70,000 Btu water heater and both my 60,000 Btu gas furnaces.

http://www.lochinvar.com/_linefiles/...ual%202011.pdf


Another yeahbut. The literature from Lochinvar says it's ok.
It came from the factory with a plug. That would fall under UL or
whoever's jurisdiction.
Code instructors often repeated the "Read the instructions" mantra
in the continuing classes I've attended.

On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 10:16:26 -0600, bud--
wrote:

On 2/3/2012 8:25 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 20:37:07 -0500, wrote:

On 2/3/2012 7:13 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:48:40 -0500, wrote:

On 2/3/2012 6:30 PM, mike wrote:
On 2/3/2012 1:34 PM, Horace Greeley wrote:
On 2/3/2012 7:22 AM, RBM wrote:
On 2/2/2012 11:05 PM, wrote:

I've seen furnaces connected with a twist-lock plug - it meets the
requirement for a disconnect within reach of the furnace.(takes the
place of a switch) and is also a foolproof way of connecting to a
genset.

That maybe true in Canada, but it doesn't meet 422.16 of the Nec, in the
U.S., at least not for your garden variety central heating system.


Check with your local electrical inspector.

If done properly, ours said it was legal and safe to do the plug and
cord setup.

His only recommendation was to use a 12 gauge appliance cord set, proper
strain relief (not romex clamp) and a high-quality 20 amp receptacle.

I went thru the same process.
Prevailing opinion is that devices permanently attached to the structure
must be permanently wired. Heating system seems to be permanently attached.
Reading the NEC, it appears that's what it says.

The Nec requires that it be designed to be unattached , and removed for
servicing, for a cord and plug to be used. Not too many central heating
systems that meet that criteria.

So, I went down to the permit office and talked with the inspector.
He said, "no problem; putting a socket in the box and plug on the wire
will pass my inspection".

That's only the "B" part.
There IS another allowed reason.

422.16 Flexible Cords.
(A) General. Flexible cord shall be permitted (1) for the
connection of appliances to facilitate their frequent interchange
or to prevent the transmission of noise or vibration


A power failure every year or less can be considered "frequent
interchange". - if you don't wish to make a case for anti-vibration
(and you do not have a "compliant connection" or whatever you call the
fabric connector on the duct hood.

Boy, you are one master of misinterpretation. It's referring to
interchanging the appliance. You don't replace your boiler because of
frequent power failures.
I would love to see you try and run your silly arguments by an
electrical inspector. They'd laugh you right out of the business.

They get inspected and passed all the time. And not just in Ontario,
or Canada.

And you determined that from your Ouija board?

Google it like I did.
It is being done and passed in Pennsylvania for sure.

You and Evan generalize what is (allegedly) true where you are to the
universe.


You are generalizing about something you apparently don't know any
more about than I do.
I agree with RBM.

To take a slightly different approach, use of cords is covered in
article 410. Uses permitted is in 410.7-A. Possibly relevant sections a
"(6) Connection of utilization equipment to facilitate frequent interchange.
(7) Prevention of the transmission of noise or vibration.
(8) Appliances where the fastening means and mechanical connections are
specifically designed to permit ready removal for maintenance...."

Sections 6 and 8 are not relevant to boilers in the US. You may have to
often replace your boilers (6) or remove them for maintenance in Canada
(7) but it does not happen in the US.

Any competent electrician in the US (don't know about Canada where
electricians "molest" the wiring) can connect a boiler and avoid the
transmission of vibration. There are numerous flexible wiring methods
and our boilers are massive enough not to vibrate.

But if we imported a Canadian boiler that had enough vibration problem
that a flexible cord was need we couldn't connect it with a plug. Plugs
are covered in 410.7-B. Plugs are not permitted for (7) above.

That is consistent with the more limited 422.16 and with what RBM said.

Incidentally, if a receptacle was allowed it wouldn't be a duplex
receptacle which you suggested.

Correct. Code DOES say a "dedicated" outlet - which in it's strictest
interpretation is a single outlet. Again - I DID later say I
recommended a 20 amp twist-lock - and every one of THOSE I have run
across recently IS a single outlet.

You could also read the comments of gfretwell who basically says it is
(a minor) wrong but he would do it anyway. (Is it any wonder our youth
are in trouble. Where are the role models...)

There is no safety or logical resaon NOT to. I suspect it is a
carry-over from some reason that USED to exist.

On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 15:04:58 -0500, Horace Greeley
wrote:

On 2/4/2012 1:23 PM, RBM wrote:

You miss the point entirely.A typical residential central heating system
is fed with a 15 amp circuit. Despite the Nec violation in connecting
the appliance with cord and plug, it is also a Nec violation to install
a 20 amp outlet on a 15 amp circuit. It has nothing to do with the
quality of the receptacle itself, or the cord for that matter. There are
extremely high quality 15 amp receptacles, and hard service cords rated
for 15 amp as well. Any electrical inspector would know this.

We all know what they say about people who make assumptions.

The only circuits in my home that are 15 amp are the lighting circuits.
ALL receptacles are 20 amp on 20 amp circuits.

And FWIW, my 70,000 Btu Lochinvar gas hot water heater came from the
factory with a 120v plug on it. The literature states my water heater is
suitable for use as a space heating appliance.

They all plug in, they all passed inspection.

You can ****in' nit-pick all you want but there's not much difference
between my 70,000 Btu water heater and both my 60,000 Btu gas furnaces.

http://www.lochinvar.com/_linefiles/...ual%202011.pdf


AND - using a 20 amp plug would ENSURE the furnace would not be
connected to the genset with an 18 guage extention cord.

On 2/4/2012 3:04 PM, Horace Greeley wrote:
On 2/4/2012 1:23 PM, RBM wrote:

You miss the point entirely.A typical residential central heating system
is fed with a 15 amp circuit. Despite the Nec violation in connecting
the appliance with cord and plug, it is also a Nec violation to install
a 20 amp outlet on a 15 amp circuit. It has nothing to do with the
quality of the receptacle itself, or the cord for that matter. There are
extremely high quality 15 amp receptacles, and hard service cords rated
for 15 amp as well. Any electrical inspector would know this.

We all know what they say about people who make assumptions.

The only circuits in my home that are 15 amp are the lighting circuits.
ALL receptacles are 20 amp on 20 amp circuits.

And FWIW, my 70,000 Btu Lochinvar gas hot water heater came from the
factory with a 120v plug on it. The literature states my water heater is
suitable for use as a space heating appliance.

They all plug in, they all passed inspection.

You can ****in' nit-pick all you want but there's not much difference
between my 70,000 Btu water heater and both my 60,000 Btu gas furnaces.

http://www.lochinvar.com/_linefiles/...ual%202011.pdf



This string was about connecting a central heating system by cord and
plug. Many gas hot water heaters come with cords and plugs and are
approved for that purpose. Most domestic boilers and furnaces don't
come with cords and plugs, and unless specifically listed by the
manufacturer to be cord and plug connected, their wiring should adhere
to Nec regulations in the U.S.
You can feel free to Rube your wiring any way you like, but the OP
wanted to know the cost to do this by a professional, and a professional
is going to follow the rules of the Nec.

On 2/4/2012 5:04 PM, RBM wrote:

You can feel free to Rube your wiring any way you like, but the OP
wanted to know the cost to do this by a professional, and a professional
is going to follow the rules of the Nec.

Actually, you're wrong. It's up to the AHJ and in my (and many)
location, a cord and plug is an acceptable and safe method of connecting
a gas furnace. There is nothing Rube or unsafe about it.

On 2/4/2012 8:38 PM, Horace Greeley wrote:
On 2/4/2012 5:04 PM, RBM wrote:

You can feel free to Rube your wiring any way you like, but the OP
wanted to know the cost to do this by a professional, and a professional
is going to follow the rules of the Nec.

Actually, you're wrong. It's up to the AHJ and in my (and many)
location, a cord and plug is an acceptable and safe method of connecting
a gas furnace. There is nothing Rube or unsafe about it.

Duh, it's always up to the AHJ, and typically in the U.S. he's
interpreting Nec rules.
I have no question about a cord and plug attachment being safe. There
are simply times where it meets Nec rules, and times it doesn't .

You entered this string saying: " His only recommendation was to use a
12 gauge appliance cord set, proper strain relief (not romex clamp) and
a high-quality 20 amp receptacle.

Your inference is that using 20 amp equipment, somehow makes it better,
which is not true if the circuit feeding the system is 15 amp. It would
then be a Nec code violation.

On 2/4/2012 8:58 PM, RBM wrote:
On 2/4/2012 8:38 PM, Horace Greeley wrote:
On 2/4/2012 5:04 PM, RBM wrote:

You can feel free to Rube your wiring any way you like, but the OP
wanted to know the cost to do this by a professional, and a professional
is going to follow the rules of the Nec.

Actually, you're wrong. It's up to the AHJ and in my (and many)
location, a cord and plug is an acceptable and safe method of connecting
a gas furnace. There is nothing Rube or unsafe about it.

Duh, it's always up to the AHJ, and typically in the U.S. he's
interpreting Nec rules.
I have no question about a cord and plug attachment being safe. There
are simply times where it meets Nec rules, and times it doesn't .

You entered this string saying: " His only recommendation was to use a
12 gauge appliance cord set, proper strain relief (not romex clamp) and
a high-quality 20 amp receptacle.

Your inference is that using 20 amp equipment, somehow makes it better,
which is not true if the circuit feeding the system is 15 amp. It would
then be a Nec code violation.


Ignore rbm, i think he's a backpeddlin' nitpickin' troll. LOL

On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 20:58:27 -0500, RBM wrote:

On 2/4/2012 8:38 PM, Horace Greeley wrote:
On 2/4/2012 5:04 PM, RBM wrote:

You can feel free to Rube your wiring any way you like, but the OP
wanted to know the cost to do this by a professional, and a professional
is going to follow the rules of the Nec.

Actually, you're wrong. It's up to the AHJ and in my (and many)
location, a cord and plug is an acceptable and safe method of connecting
a gas furnace. There is nothing Rube or unsafe about it.

Duh, it's always up to the AHJ, and typically in the U.S. he's
interpreting Nec rules.
I have no question about a cord and plug attachment being safe. There
are simply times where it meets Nec rules, and times it doesn't .

You entered this string saying: " His only recommendation was to use a
12 gauge appliance cord set, proper strain relief (not romex clamp) and
a high-quality 20 amp receptacle.

Your inference is that using 20 amp equipment, somehow makes it better,
which is not true if the circuit feeding the system is 15 amp. It would
then be a Nec code violation.

Perhaps not on a "dedicated" outlet. Using a 15 amp outlet on a 20
amp fuse definitely WOULD be an infraction. If the 20 amp outlet was
on a 12 guage copper cable, connected to a 15 amp breaker it would
also not be , necessarily, a violation. A 20 amp breaker on 14 guage
cable would be - regardless what outlet was connected at the other
end.

The L6-15R receptacle WOULD do the job and would satisfy those who
would not accept the use of a 20 amp connector on a 15 amp circuit.
Being "industrial" devices on a "dedicated" circuit I don't see an
issue myself as there would be nothing else that could possibly be
plugged into the outlet in the average home.

Check with your local inspector to be sure.

On 2/4/2012 11:57 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 20:58:27 -0500, wrote:

On 2/4/2012 8:38 PM, Horace Greeley wrote:
On 2/4/2012 5:04 PM, RBM wrote:

You can feel free to Rube your wiring any way you like, but the OP
wanted to know the cost to do this by a professional, and a professional
is going to follow the rules of the Nec.

Actually, you're wrong. It's up to the AHJ and in my (and many)
location, a cord and plug is an acceptable and safe method of connecting
a gas furnace. There is nothing Rube or unsafe about it.

Duh, it's always up to the AHJ, and typically in the U.S. he's
interpreting Nec rules.
I have no question about a cord and plug attachment being safe. There
are simply times where it meets Nec rules, and times it doesn't .

You entered this string saying: " His only recommendation was to use a
12 gauge appliance cord set, proper strain relief (not romex clamp) and
a high-quality 20 amp receptacle.

Your inference is that using 20 amp equipment, somehow makes it better,
which is not true if the circuit feeding the system is 15 amp. It would
then be a Nec code violation.

Perhaps not on a "dedicated" outlet. Using a 15 amp outlet on a 20
amp fuse definitely WOULD be an infraction. If the 20 amp outlet was
on a 12 guage copper cable, connected to a 15 amp breaker it would
also not be , necessarily, a violation. A 20 amp breaker on 14 guage
cable would be - regardless what outlet was connected at the other
end.

The L6-15R receptacle WOULD do the job and would satisfy those who
would not accept the use of a 20 amp connector on a 15 amp circuit.
Being "industrial" devices on a "dedicated" circuit I don't see an
issue myself as there would be nothing else that could possibly be
plugged into the outlet in the average home.

Check with your local inspector to be sure.


Perhaps, possibly, maybe, under the circumstances, would,could, should.
Ultimately an AHJ make his own determination, and when you become one,
you too will have that authority. For the purpose of discussion in a DIY
newsgroup, I prefer to stick to written, documented code, something we
can all refer to.

On 2/4/2012 8:58 PM, RBM wrote:

blah blah blah whaaaa whaaaa whaaaaa
[ nitpicking snipped ]

Your inference is that using 20 amp equipment, somehow makes it better,
which is not true if the circuit feeding the system is 15 amp. It would
then be a Nec code violation.

Again, it passed inspection. I'm happy, the AHJ is happy and my
insurance company is happy. When the power goes out in the winter and I
can plug the furnace into the genset, even my wife will be happy.

I really don't give a rat's ass about your silly opinion. Get it?

On 2/5/2012 9:37 AM, Horace Greeley wrote:
On 2/4/2012 8:58 PM, RBM wrote:

blah blah blah whaaaa whaaaa whaaaaa
[ nitpicking snipped ]

Your inference is that using 20 amp equipment, somehow makes it better,
which is not true if the circuit feeding the system is 15 amp. It would
then be a Nec code violation.

Again, it passed inspection. I'm happy, the AHJ is happy and my
insurance company is happy. When the power goes out in the winter and I
can plug the furnace into the genset, even my wife will be happy.

I really don't give a rat's ass about your silly opinion. Get it?

I'm not offering an opinion, merely citing code. If you have a problem
with the Nec, contact the folks at the NFPA, who write it.

On 2/5/2012 9:43 AM, RBM wrote:

I'm not offering an opinion, merely citing code. If you have a problem
with the Nec, contact the folks at the NFPA, who write it.


Again, it passed inspection. I'm happy, the AHJ is happy and my
insurance company is happy. When the power goes out in the winter and I
can plug the furnace into the genset, even my wife will be happy.

I really don't give a rat's ass about your silly opinion. Get it?

On 2/5/2012 10:06 AM, Horace Greeley wrote:
On 2/5/2012 9:43 AM, RBM wrote:

I'm not offering an opinion, merely citing code. If you have a problem
with the Nec, contact the folks at the NFPA, who write it.


Again, it passed inspection. I'm happy, the AHJ is happy and my
insurance company is happy. When the power goes out in the winter and I
can plug the furnace into the genset, even my wife will be happy.

I really don't give a rat's ass about your silly opinion. Get it?


Again, I'm just citing Nec, and while your AHJ is well within his
authority to allow this type of connection on your particular heating
system, it is not necessarily an acceptable practice in general.
This, being a DIY newsgroup, I think it's important that readers know
the difference between the actual code, and someone's opinion. So, for
your benefit and everyone else's, here is the actual text of the code
along with a note from the Nec handbook:

Nec 422.16 Flexible cords

(A) General. Flexible cord shall be permitted (1) for the connection of
appliances to facilitate their frequent interchange or to prevent the
transmission of noise or vibration or (2) to facilitate the removal or
disconnection of appliances that are fastened in place, where the
fastening means and mechanical connections are specifically designed to
permit ready removal for maintenance or repair and the appliance is
intended or identified for flexible cord connection.

Nec handbook note: It should be understood that a cord-connected
appliance is required to be specifically designed mechanically and
electrically, to be readily removable for maintenance and repair.

Maybe you can interpret the above to mean that you can slap a cord and
plug on a cast iron oil burner, but frankly, I don't see it.

On 2/5/2012 10:26 AM, RBM wrote:

Maybe you can interpret the above to mean that you can slap a cord and
plug on a cast iron oil burner, but frankly, I don't see it.


The world is not always black or white. Sometimes there are valid shades
of grey.

So again, it passed inspection. I'm happy, the AHJ is happy and my
insurance company is happy.

I really don't give a rat's ass about your silly opinion. Get it yet?

On 2/4/2012 3:17 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 10:16:26 -0600,
wrote:

On 2/3/2012 8:25 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 20:37:07 -0500, wrote:

On 2/3/2012 7:13 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:48:40 -0500, wrote:

On 2/3/2012 6:30 PM, mike wrote:
On 2/3/2012 1:34 PM, Horace Greeley wrote:
On 2/3/2012 7:22 AM, RBM wrote:
On 2/2/2012 11:05 PM, wrote:

I've seen furnaces connected with a twist-lock plug - it meets the
requirement for a disconnect within reach of the furnace.(takes the
place of a switch) and is also a foolproof way of connecting to a
genset.

That maybe true in Canada, but it doesn't meet 422.16 of the Nec, in the
U.S., at least not for your garden variety central heating system.


Check with your local electrical inspector.

If done properly, ours said it was legal and safe to do the plug and
cord setup.

His only recommendation was to use a 12 gauge appliance cord set, proper
strain relief (not romex clamp) and a high-quality 20 amp receptacle.

I went thru the same process.
Prevailing opinion is that devices permanently attached to the structure
must be permanently wired. Heating system seems to be permanently attached.
Reading the NEC, it appears that's what it says.

The Nec requires that it be designed to be unattached , and removed for
servicing, for a cord and plug to be used. Not too many central heating
systems that meet that criteria.

So, I went down to the permit office and talked with the inspector.
He said, "no problem; putting a socket in the box and plug on the wire
will pass my inspection".

That's only the "B" part.
There IS another allowed reason.

422.16 Flexible Cords.
(A) General. Flexible cord shall be permitted (1) for the
connection of appliances to facilitate their frequent interchange
or to prevent the transmission of noise or vibration


A power failure every year or less can be considered "frequent
interchange". - if you don't wish to make a case for anti-vibration
(and you do not have a "compliant connection" or whatever you call the
fabric connector on the duct hood.

Boy, you are one master of misinterpretation. It's referring to
interchanging the appliance. You don't replace your boiler because of
frequent power failures.
I would love to see you try and run your silly arguments by an
electrical inspector. They'd laugh you right out of the business.

They get inspected and passed all the time. And not just in Ontario,
or Canada.

And you determined that from your Ouija board?

Google it like I did.
It is being done and passed in Pennsylvania for sure.

Anecdotal evidence of "all the time". What a great idea.
Astrology works "all the time".


You and Evan generalize what is (allegedly) true where you are to the
universe.


You are generalizing about something you apparently don't know any
more about than I do.

Like RBM I am commenting on NEC requirements.

I agree with RBM.

To take a slightly different approach, use of cords is covered in
article 410. Uses permitted is in 410.7-A. Possibly relevant sections a
"(6) Connection of utilization equipment to facilitate frequent interchange.
(7) Prevention of the transmission of noise or vibration.
(8) Appliances where the fastening means and mechanical connections are
specifically designed to permit ready removal for maintenance...."

Sections 6 and 8 are not relevant to boilers in the US. You may have to
often replace your boilers (6) or remove them for maintenance in Canada
(7) but it does not happen in the US.

Any competent electrician in the US (don't know about Canada where
electricians "molest" the wiring) can connect a boiler and avoid the
transmission of vibration. There are numerous flexible wiring methods
and our boilers are massive enough not to vibrate.

But if we imported a Canadian boiler that had enough vibration problem
that a flexible cord was need we couldn't connect it with a plug. Plugs
are covered in 410.7-B. Plugs are not permitted for (7) above.

That is consistent with the more limited 422.16 and with what RBM said.

Incidentally, if a receptacle was allowed it wouldn't be a duplex
receptacle which you suggested.

Correct. Code DOES say a "dedicated" outlet - which in it's strictest
interpretation is a single outlet.

Strictest? It is the interpretation that any competent electrician would
use.

Again - I DID later say I
recommended a 20 amp twist-lock - and every one of THOSE I have run
across recently IS a single outlet.

You could also read the comments of gfretwell who basically says it is
(a minor) wrong but he would do it anyway. (Is it any wonder our youth
are in trouble. Where are the role models...)

There is no safety or logical resaon NOT to. I suspect it is a
carry-over from some reason that USED to exist.

Nothing has changed. Cord is tested primarily for flexibility. Tests of,
for instance, romex are much more extensive. Cord is not intended to be
a permanent wiring method and is not allowed "as a substitute for the
fixed wiring of a structure."

RBM provided a connection method that is code compliant. The same method
could be done cheaper if built from parts if you are doing it yourself.
The OP asked about having an electrician do it. An electrician is real
unlikely to wire a cord and plug unless they have cleared their method
with the AHJ. The AHJ is not available.

And in the US a 20A receptacle wired with #12 wire but on a 15A breaker
is a code violation.

--
bud--

On 2/5/2012 11:25 AM, bud-- wrote:
On 2/4/2012 3:17 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 10:16:26 -0600,
wrote:

On 2/3/2012 8:25 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 20:37:07 -0500, wrote:

On 2/3/2012 7:13 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:48:40 -0500, wrote:

On 2/3/2012 6:30 PM, mike wrote:
On 2/3/2012 1:34 PM, Horace Greeley wrote:
On 2/3/2012 7:22 AM, RBM wrote:
On 2/2/2012 11:05 PM, wrote:

I've seen furnaces connected with a twist-lock plug - it
meets the
requirement for a disconnect within reach of the
furnace.(takes the
place of a switch) and is also a foolproof way of connecting
to a
genset.

That maybe true in Canada, but it doesn't meet 422.16 of the
Nec, in the
U.S., at least not for your garden variety central heating
system.


Check with your local electrical inspector.

If done properly, ours said it was legal and safe to do the
plug and
cord setup.

His only recommendation was to use a 12 gauge appliance cord
set, proper
strain relief (not romex clamp) and a high-quality 20 amp
receptacle.

I went thru the same process.
Prevailing opinion is that devices permanently attached to the
structure
must be permanently wired. Heating system seems to be
permanently attached.
Reading the NEC, it appears that's what it says.

The Nec requires that it be designed to be unattached , and
removed for
servicing, for a cord and plug to be used. Not too many central
heating
systems that meet that criteria.

So, I went down to the permit office and talked with the inspector.
He said, "no problem; putting a socket in the box and plug on
the wire
will pass my inspection".

That's only the "B" part.
There IS another allowed reason.

422.16 Flexible Cords.
(A) General. Flexible cord shall be permitted (1) for the
connection of appliances to facilitate their frequent interchange
or to prevent the transmission of noise or vibration


A power failure every year or less can be considered "frequent
interchange". - if you don't wish to make a case for anti-vibration
(and you do not have a "compliant connection" or whatever you call
the
fabric connector on the duct hood.

Boy, you are one master of misinterpretation. It's referring to
interchanging the appliance. You don't replace your boiler because of
frequent power failures.
I would love to see you try and run your silly arguments by an
electrical inspector. They'd laugh you right out of the business.

They get inspected and passed all the time. And not just in Ontario,
or Canada.

And you determined that from your Ouija board?

Google it like I did.
It is being done and passed in Pennsylvania for sure.

Anecdotal evidence of "all the time". What a great idea.
Astrology works "all the time".


You and Evan generalize what is (allegedly) true where you are to the
universe.


You are generalizing about something you apparently don't know any
more about than I do.

Like RBM I am commenting on NEC requirements.

I agree with RBM.

To take a slightly different approach, use of cords is covered in
article 410. Uses permitted is in 410.7-A. Possibly relevant sections
a
"(6) Connection of utilization equipment to facilitate frequent
interchange.
(7) Prevention of the transmission of noise or vibration.
(8) Appliances where the fastening means and mechanical connections are
specifically designed to permit ready removal for maintenance...."

Sections 6 and 8 are not relevant to boilers in the US. You may have to
often replace your boilers (6) or remove them for maintenance in Canada
(7) but it does not happen in the US.

Any competent electrician in the US (don't know about Canada where
electricians "molest" the wiring) can connect a boiler and avoid the
transmission of vibration. There are numerous flexible wiring methods
and our boilers are massive enough not to vibrate.

But if we imported a Canadian boiler that had enough vibration problem
that a flexible cord was need we couldn't connect it with a plug. Plugs
are covered in 410.7-B. Plugs are not permitted for (7) above.

That is consistent with the more limited 422.16 and with what RBM said.

Incidentally, if a receptacle was allowed it wouldn't be a duplex
receptacle which you suggested.

Correct. Code DOES say a "dedicated" outlet - which in it's strictest
interpretation is a single outlet.

Strictest? It is the interpretation that any competent electrician would
use.

Again - I DID later say I
recommended a 20 amp twist-lock - and every one of THOSE I have run
across recently IS a single outlet.

You could also read the comments of gfretwell who basically says it is
(a minor) wrong but he would do it anyway. (Is it any wonder our youth
are in trouble. Where are the role models...)

There is no safety or logical resaon NOT to. I suspect it is a
carry-over from some reason that USED to exist.

Nothing has changed. Cord is tested primarily for flexibility. Tests of,
for instance, romex are much more extensive. Cord is not intended to be
a permanent wiring method and is not allowed "as a substitute for the
fixed wiring of a structure."

RBM provided a connection method that is code compliant. The same method
could be done cheaper if built from parts if you are doing it yourself.
The OP asked about having an electrician do it. An electrician is real
unlikely to wire a cord and plug unless they have cleared their method
with the AHJ. The AHJ is not available.

And in the US a 20A receptacle wired with #12 wire but on a 15A breaker
is a code violation.


This is the code:

Nec 422.16 Flexible cords

(A) General. Flexible cord shall be permitted (1) for the connection of
appliances to facilitate their frequent interchange or to prevent the
transmission of noise or vibration or (2) to facilitate the removal or
disconnection of appliances that are fastened in place, where the
fastening means and mechanical connections are specifically designed to
permit ready removal for maintenance or repair and the appliance is
intended or identified for flexible cord connection.

Nec handbook note: It should be understood that a cord-connected
appliance is required to be specifically designed mechanically and
electrically, to be readily removable for maintenance and repair.

This is the Clare interpretation of the code:

" If you have a "compliant coupling" on the ductwork to eliminate
vibration, the flexible cord is allowed under the code for the same
reason.. Immaterial that the rigid gas line passes vibration to the
house. No inspector can say FOR SURE that the cord is not there for
vibration reasons - and if it is allowed for that purpose there is no
SAFETY reason for denying it - hense the overlooking of the
"infraction" by so many inspectors."

REALY??? (ROFL) Note all the straw men inserted.

On 2/5/2012 11:53 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 11:43:04 -0500, wrote:

On 2/5/2012 11:25 AM, bud-- wrote:
On 2/4/2012 3:17 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 10:16:26 -0600,
wrote:

On 2/3/2012 8:25 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 20:37:07 -0500, wrote:

On 2/3/2012 7:13 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:48:40 -0500, wrote:

On 2/3/2012 6:30 PM, mike wrote:
On 2/3/2012 1:34 PM, Horace Greeley wrote:
On 2/3/2012 7:22 AM, RBM wrote:
On 2/2/2012 11:05 PM, wrote:

I've seen furnaces connected with a twist-lock plug - it
meets the
requirement for a disconnect within reach of the
furnace.(takes the
place of a switch) and is also a foolproof way of connecting
to a
genset.

That maybe true in Canada, but it doesn't meet 422.16 of the
Nec, in the
U.S., at least not for your garden variety central heating
system.


Check with your local electrical inspector.

If done properly, ours said it was legal and safe to do the
plug and
cord setup.

His only recommendation was to use a 12 gauge appliance cord
set, proper
strain relief (not romex clamp) and a high-quality 20 amp
receptacle.

I went thru the same process.
Prevailing opinion is that devices permanently attached to the
structure
must be permanently wired. Heating system seems to be
permanently attached.
Reading the NEC, it appears that's what it says.

The Nec requires that it be designed to be unattached , and
removed for
servicing, for a cord and plug to be used. Not too many central
heating
systems that meet that criteria.

So, I went down to the permit office and talked with the inspector.
He said, "no problem; putting a socket in the box and plug on
the wire
will pass my inspection".

That's only the "B" part.
There IS another allowed reason.

422.16 Flexible Cords.
(A) General. Flexible cord shall be permitted (1) for the
connection of appliances to facilitate their frequent interchange
or to prevent the transmission of noise or vibration


A power failure every year or less can be considered "frequent
interchange". - if you don't wish to make a case for anti-vibration
(and you do not have a "compliant connection" or whatever you call
the
fabric connector on the duct hood.

Boy, you are one master of misinterpretation. It's referring to
interchanging the appliance. You don't replace your boiler because of
frequent power failures.
I would love to see you try and run your silly arguments by an
electrical inspector. They'd laugh you right out of the business.

They get inspected and passed all the time. And not just in Ontario,
or Canada.

And you determined that from your Ouija board?

Google it like I did.
It is being done and passed in Pennsylvania for sure.

Anecdotal evidence of "all the time". What a great idea.
Astrology works "all the time".


You and Evan generalize what is (allegedly) true where you are to the
universe.


You are generalizing about something you apparently don't know any
more about than I do.

Like RBM I am commenting on NEC requirements.

I agree with RBM.

To take a slightly different approach, use of cords is covered in
article 410. Uses permitted is in 410.7-A. Possibly relevant sections
a
"(6) Connection of utilization equipment to facilitate frequent
interchange.
(7) Prevention of the transmission of noise or vibration.
(8) Appliances where the fastening means and mechanical connections are
specifically designed to permit ready removal for maintenance...."

Sections 6 and 8 are not relevant to boilers in the US. You may have to
often replace your boilers (6) or remove them for maintenance in Canada
(7) but it does not happen in the US.

Any competent electrician in the US (don't know about Canada where
electricians "molest" the wiring) can connect a boiler and avoid the
transmission of vibration. There are numerous flexible wiring methods
and our boilers are massive enough not to vibrate.

But if we imported a Canadian boiler that had enough vibration problem
that a flexible cord was need we couldn't connect it with a plug. Plugs
are covered in 410.7-B. Plugs are not permitted for (7) above.

That is consistent with the more limited 422.16 and with what RBM said.

Incidentally, if a receptacle was allowed it wouldn't be a duplex
receptacle which you suggested.

Correct. Code DOES say a "dedicated" outlet - which in it's strictest
interpretation is a single outlet.

Strictest? It is the interpretation that any competent electrician would
use.

Again - I DID later say I
recommended a 20 amp twist-lock - and every one of THOSE I have run
across recently IS a single outlet.

You could also read the comments of gfretwell who basically says it is
(a minor) wrong but he would do it anyway. (Is it any wonder our youth
are in trouble. Where are the role models...)

There is no safety or logical resaon NOT to. I suspect it is a
carry-over from some reason that USED to exist.

Nothing has changed. Cord is tested primarily for flexibility. Tests of,
for instance, romex are much more extensive. Cord is not intended to be
a permanent wiring method and is not allowed "as a substitute for the
fixed wiring of a structure."

RBM provided a connection method that is code compliant. The same method
could be done cheaper if built from parts if you are doing it yourself.
The OP asked about having an electrician do it. An electrician is real
unlikely to wire a cord and plug unless they have cleared their method
with the AHJ. The AHJ is not available.

And in the US a 20A receptacle wired with #12 wire but on a 15A breaker
is a code violation.


This is the code:

Nec 422.16 Flexible cords

(A) General. Flexible cord shall be permitted (1) for the connection of
appliances to facilitate their frequent interchange or to prevent the
transmission of noise or vibration or (2) to facilitate the removal or
disconnection of appliances that are fastened in place, where the
fastening means and mechanical connections are specifically designed to
permit ready removal for maintenance or repair and the appliance is
intended or identified for flexible cord connection.

Nec handbook note: It should be understood that a cord-connected
appliance is required to be specifically designed mechanically and
electrically, to be readily removable for maintenance and repair.

This is the Clare interpretation of the code:

" If you have a "compliant coupling" on the ductwork to eliminate
vibration, the flexible cord is allowed under the code for the same
reason.. Immaterial that the rigid gas line passes vibration to the
house. No inspector can say FOR SURE that the cord is not there for
vibration reasons - and if it is allowed for that purpose there is no
SAFETY reason for denying it - hense the overlooking of the
"infraction" by so many inspectors."

REALY??? (ROFL) Note all the straw men inserted.

The reality is, these things generally do not get inspected since it
happens after the CO but if this was done with the proper cord
connector (not a Romex clamp) and the cord was of appropriate size, an
inspector might hold his nose and walk away from it, only thinking
about the worse alternatives homeowners do like backfeeding dryer
outlets.

I was wondering where you were? I agree, the fact is today, many central
heating systems have some type of Molex quick disconnects for parts of
the system, like the burner or pumps, etc. that do need to be
disconnected for service or repair.

On 2/5/2012 10:50 AM, Horace Greeley wrote:
On 2/5/2012 10:26 AM, RBM wrote:

Maybe you can interpret the above to mean that you can slap a cord and
plug on a cast iron oil burner, but frankly, I don't see it.


The world is not always black or white. Sometimes there are valid shades
of grey.

So again, it passed inspection. I'm happy, the AHJ is happy and my
insurance company is happy.

I really don't give a rat's ass about your silly opinion. Get it yet?

Absolutely, the gray area is exactly why you need to be careful in what
you write. Your statement:

" His only recommendation was to use a 12 gauge appliance cord set,
proper strain relief (not romex clamp) and a high-quality 20 amp
receptacle."

The above statement could have been made by an inspector that knew you
have a 20 amp circuit feeding your system. Nobody here knows that, so it
reads like it would be acceptable on a 15 amp circuit, provided that you
use oversized cord and plug. My guess is that the error is on your part,
not the inspector, as I'm sure he knows Nec rules.

The city of Chicago and some surrounding areas require wiring to be in EMT or better conduit.
Most everywhere else in the United States allows Romex.


Is Romex wiring too lenient?

Is the conduit requirement too excessive?

There are Chicago code nazis that will defend the conduit requirement.

Maybe conduit should be required everywhere?

Maybe the NEC should require everyone to rip out their walls and put in conduit?

Are electricians that install NM a bunch of 'Rubes'?

Who's right?

On 2/5/2012 1:34 PM, Mike Homes wrote:

The city of Chicago and some surrounding areas require wiring to be in
EMT or better conduit.
Most everywhere else in the United States allows Romex.


Is Romex wiring too lenient?

Is the conduit requirement too excessive?

There are Chicago code nazis that will defend the conduit requirement.

Maybe conduit should be required everywhere?

Maybe the NEC should require everyone to rip out their walls and put in
conduit?

Are electricians that install NM a bunch of 'Rubes'?

Who's right?

Not necessarily a matter of right or wrong, sometimes politics enter the
picture. You install wiring according to the rules imposed by the
municipality that has jurisdiction. In areas like Chicago, the work is
more labor intensive, having to use conduit. This may put more money in
the pocket of the installer. It also may be that those in power feel it
is safer to be in conduit.

On 2/5/12 12:44 PM, RBM wrote:
On 2/5/2012 1:34 PM, Mike Homes wrote:

The city of Chicago and some surrounding areas require wiring to be in
EMT or better conduit.
Most everywhere else in the United States allows Romex.


Is Romex wiring too lenient?

Is the conduit requirement too excessive?

There are Chicago code nazis that will defend the conduit requirement.

Maybe conduit should be required everywhere?

Maybe the NEC should require everyone to rip out their walls and put in
conduit?

Are electricians that install NM a bunch of 'Rubes'?

Who's right?

Not necessarily a matter of right or wrong, sometimes politics enter the
picture. You install wiring according to the rules imposed by the
municipality that has jurisdiction. In areas like Chicago, the work is
more labor intensive, having to use conduit. This may put more money in
the pocket of the installer. It also may be that those in power feel it
is safer to be in conduit.

Which leads to a question on inspectors. Are inspectors immune from
lawsuits if they screw up and pass something that isn't code compliant?

On 2/5/2012 1:55 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 2/5/12 12:44 PM, RBM wrote:
On 2/5/2012 1:34 PM, Mike Homes wrote:

The city of Chicago and some surrounding areas require wiring to be in
EMT or better conduit.
Most everywhere else in the United States allows Romex.


Is Romex wiring too lenient?

Is the conduit requirement too excessive?

There are Chicago code nazis that will defend the conduit requirement.

Maybe conduit should be required everywhere?

Maybe the NEC should require everyone to rip out their walls and put in
conduit?

Are electricians that install NM a bunch of 'Rubes'?

Who's right?

Not necessarily a matter of right or wrong, sometimes politics enter the
picture. You install wiring according to the rules imposed by the
municipality that has jurisdiction. In areas like Chicago, the work is
more labor intensive, having to use conduit. This may put more money in
the pocket of the installer. It also may be that those in power feel it
is safer to be in conduit.

Which leads to a question on inspectors. Are inspectors immune from
lawsuits if they screw up and pass something that isn't code compliant?

Or possibly things they missed. My belief is that if I wire a place that
burns, regardless of inspections or anything else, if it burns because
of my wiring, I go to jail.

"RBM" wrote in message ...
On 2/5/2012 1:34 PM, Mike Homes wrote:

The city of Chicago and some surrounding areas require wiring to be in
EMT or better conduit.
Most everywhere else in the United States allows Romex.


Is Romex wiring too lenient?

Is the conduit requirement too excessive?

There are Chicago code nazis that will defend the conduit requirement.

Maybe conduit should be required everywhere?

Maybe the NEC should require everyone to rip out their walls and put in
conduit?

Are electricians that install NM a bunch of 'Rubes'?

Who's right?

Not necessarily a matter of right or wrong, sometimes politics enter the
picture. You install wiring according to the rules imposed by the
municipality that has jurisdiction. In areas like Chicago, the work is
more labor intensive, having to use conduit. This may put more money in
the pocket of the installer. It also may be that those in power feel it
is safer to be in conduit.

Shouldn't the municipalities be forced to follow the NEC?

"RBM" wrote in message ...
On 2/5/2012 1:55 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 2/5/12 12:44 PM, RBM wrote:
On 2/5/2012 1:34 PM, Mike Homes wrote:

The city of Chicago and some surrounding areas require wiring to be in
EMT or better conduit.
Most everywhere else in the United States allows Romex.


Is Romex wiring too lenient?

Is the conduit requirement too excessive?

There are Chicago code nazis that will defend the conduit requirement.

Maybe conduit should be required everywhere?

Maybe the NEC should require everyone to rip out their walls and put in
conduit?

Are electricians that install NM a bunch of 'Rubes'?

Who's right?

Not necessarily a matter of right or wrong, sometimes politics enter the
picture. You install wiring according to the rules imposed by the
municipality that has jurisdiction. In areas like Chicago, the work is
more labor intensive, having to use conduit. This may put more money in
the pocket of the installer. It also may be that those in power feel it
is safer to be in conduit.

Which leads to a question on inspectors. Are inspectors immune from
lawsuits if they screw up and pass something that isn't code compliant?

Or possibly things they missed. My belief is that if I wire a place that
burns, regardless of inspections or anything else, if it burns because
of my wiring, I go to jail.


Seriously?

If you forget to tighten a connection and it causes a fire, they toss you in jail?

Are there really electricians doing jail time for making a mistake?

On 2/5/12 2:32 PM, Mike Homes wrote:

"RBM" wrote in message
...

Not necessarily a matter of right or wrong, sometimes politics enter
the picture. You install wiring according to the rules imposed by the
municipality that has jurisdiction. In areas like Chicago, the work is
more labor intensive, having to use conduit. This may put more money
in the pocket of the installer. It also may be that those in power
feel it is safer to be in conduit.

Shouldn't the municipalities be forced to follow the NEC?


That would be up to the Legislature of whatever state. The NEC
is a legal document that sets up minimum standards. Most of Nebraska is
under the 2011 code now. It's enforced by state inspectors.
Lincoln, Omaha, and a few other towns have their own inspectors and
special rules if they chose.
I do irrigation wiring. The legislature is considering putting us
under the code along with those wiring grain handling equipment.
There hasn't been any inspections of either for years as far as I know.

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:44:51 -0500, RBM wrote:

On 2/5/2012 1:34 PM, Mike Homes wrote:

The city of Chicago and some surrounding areas require wiring to be in
EMT or better conduit.
Most everywhere else in the United States allows Romex.


Is Romex wiring too lenient?

Is the conduit requirement too excessive?

There are Chicago code nazis that will defend the conduit requirement.

Maybe conduit should be required everywhere?

Maybe the NEC should require everyone to rip out their walls and put in
conduit?

Are electricians that install NM a bunch of 'Rubes'?

Who's right?

Not necessarily a matter of right or wrong, sometimes politics enter the
picture. You install wiring according to the rules imposed by the
municipality that has jurisdiction. In areas like Chicago, the work is
more labor intensive, having to use conduit. This may put more money in
the pocket of the installer. It also may be that those in power feel it
is safer to be in conduit.
Keeps those Chicago river-rats from chewing on the wiring. Same
reason parts of NYC require everything to be done with "BX" - metalic
sheathed cable.

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 12:55:21 -0600, Dean Hoffman
" wrote:

On 2/5/12 12:44 PM, RBM wrote:
On 2/5/2012 1:34 PM, Mike Homes wrote:

The city of Chicago and some surrounding areas require wiring to be in
EMT or better conduit.
Most everywhere else in the United States allows Romex.


Is Romex wiring too lenient?

Is the conduit requirement too excessive?

There are Chicago code nazis that will defend the conduit requirement.

Maybe conduit should be required everywhere?

Maybe the NEC should require everyone to rip out their walls and put in
conduit?

Are electricians that install NM a bunch of 'Rubes'?

Who's right?

Not necessarily a matter of right or wrong, sometimes politics enter the
picture. You install wiring according to the rules imposed by the
municipality that has jurisdiction. In areas like Chicago, the work is
more labor intensive, having to use conduit. This may put more money in
the pocket of the installer. It also may be that those in power feel it
is safer to be in conduit.

Which leads to a question on inspectors. Are inspectors immune from
lawsuits if they screw up and pass something that isn't code compliant?
Inspectors are given discretion on what they pass. They are allowed
leaway on their "interpretation" of the code, and could only,
possibly, be held legally responsible if they passed something that
was unsafe and actually resulted in injury, loss, or death - and could
be reasonably proven.

On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 15:32:38 -0500, "Mike Homes"
wrote:


"RBM" wrote in message ...
On 2/5/2012 1:34 PM, Mike Homes wrote:

The city of Chicago and some surrounding areas require wiring to be in
EMT or better conduit.
Most everywhere else in the United States allows Romex.


Is Romex wiring too lenient?

Is the conduit requirement too excessive?

There are Chicago code nazis that will defend the conduit requirement.

Maybe conduit should be required everywhere?

Maybe the NEC should require everyone to rip out their walls and put in
conduit?

Are electricians that install NM a bunch of 'Rubes'?

Who's right?

Not necessarily a matter of right or wrong, sometimes politics enter the
picture. You install wiring according to the rules imposed by the
municipality that has jurisdiction. In areas like Chicago, the work is
more labor intensive, having to use conduit. This may put more money in
the pocket of the installer. It also may be that those in power feel it
is safer to be in conduit.

Shouldn't the municipalities be forced to follow the NEC?

No. Forced by whom? The NFPA has no standing in law. It's up to the
municipalities to accept their codes as law, or any other set of codes they
wish. ...or not.

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:44:51 -0500, RBM wrote:

On 2/5/2012 1:34 PM, Mike Homes wrote:

The city of Chicago and some surrounding areas require wiring to be in
EMT or better conduit.
Most everywhere else in the United States allows Romex.


Is Romex wiring too lenient?

Is the conduit requirement too excessive?

There are Chicago code nazis that will defend the conduit requirement.

Maybe conduit should be required everywhere?

Maybe the NEC should require everyone to rip out their walls and put in
conduit?

Are electricians that install NM a bunch of 'Rubes'?

Who's right?

Not necessarily a matter of right or wrong, sometimes politics enter the
picture. You install wiring according to the rules imposed by the
municipality that has jurisdiction. In areas like Chicago, the work is
more labor intensive, having to use conduit. This may put more money in
the pocket of the installer. It also may be that those in power feel it
is safer to be in conduit.

It's more likely that there is "consideration" given from one group to the
other. Politics and bedfellows, as it were.

On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 15:32:38 -0500, "Mike Homes"
wrote:


"RBM" wrote in message ...
On 2/5/2012 1:34 PM, Mike Homes wrote:

The city of Chicago and some surrounding areas require wiring to be in
EMT or better conduit.
Most everywhere else in the United States allows Romex.


Is Romex wiring too lenient?

Is the conduit requirement too excessive?

There are Chicago code nazis that will defend the conduit requirement.

Maybe conduit should be required everywhere?

Maybe the NEC should require everyone to rip out their walls and put in
conduit?

Are electricians that install NM a bunch of 'Rubes'?

Who's right?

Not necessarily a matter of right or wrong, sometimes politics enter the
picture. You install wiring according to the rules imposed by the
municipality that has jurisdiction. In areas like Chicago, the work is
more labor intensive, having to use conduit. This may put more money in
the pocket of the installer. It also may be that those in power feel it
is safer to be in conduit.

Shouldn't the municipalities be forced to follow the NEC?
NEC does not have the power of law until the government of a given
area says it does. A county can adopt the NEC verbatim, can publish
their own code based on the NEC with changes, can refer to the NEC, or
adopt whatever code they see fit (including no code at all)
Not sure if a state can mandate a minimum code requirement or not -
but if it can and does, a county can still demand a higher level of
compliance.

They can also adopt whichever version of the NEC they see fit to adopt
- from current code to, say, 1996 code.

"Mike Homes" wrote in message
news:4f2ee6bc$0$1583$c3e8da3

stuff snipped

Not necessarily a matter of right or wrong, sometimes politics enter the
picture. You install wiring according to the rules imposed by the
municipality that has jurisdiction. In areas like Chicago, the work is
more labor intensive, having to use conduit. This may put more money in
the pocket of the installer. It also may be that those in power feel it
is safer to be in conduit.

Shouldn't the municipalities be forced to follow the NEC?

The conduit requirement in cities like NYC and Chicago is based on the close
proximity of houses and the potential seriousness of even a single house
fire breaking out in a row of connected homes. The entire city of Chicago
caught fire once, and that memory has "stuck." Conduit and armored cable
have a much lower chance of being accidentally damaged than NM sheathed
wiring. Officials of large cities, especially those with old buildings and
aging wiring systems, are very, VERY paranoid about anything that could
start a fire. That comes from experience fighting rowhouse fires in high
winds where dozens of homes can catch fire from embers carried on the wind.
Reading through

http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/html/firecode/faq.shtml

gives you a good idea of how paranoid they are about potential ignition
sources. No fire pits, no tar kettles for roofers, no smoking at
construction sites and tons more. City officials have good reason to be
worried about fire spreading. There are plenty of historical precedents.

I've read in several places that if Tokyo suffers a massive earthquake, even
with all the precautions the Japanese have put in place, the city will
likely burn down. That's because of the number of densely packed old wooden
buildings and the likelihood that water mains would break and firetrucks
would be unable to reach many parts of the city. Fukashima was a love tap
from Mother Nature. If that epicenter had been near Tokyo, the world's
economy would have been imperiled since it's one of the world's most
important cities. Same is true of NYC, Los Angeles, Chicago, London and a
few other cities.

1866—Portland, Maine Independence Day Fire, commercial district destroyed;
10,000 homeless
1871—Great Chicago Fire, destroyed the downtown on October 8
1871—Peshtigo, Wisconsin Fire, several towns destroyed in a firestorm,
1500-2500 dead, same day as Chicago Fire
1871—Port Huron Fire of 1871 killed over 200 people in Port Huron, Michigan
on October 8.
1872—Great Boston Fire of 1872, destroyed 776 buildings and killed at least
20 people.
1877—Saint John, New Brunswick Fire destroyed 1600 buildings
1878—The Great Fire of Hong Kong, destroyed 350 to 400 buildings across more
than 10 acres (40,000 m2) of central Hong Kong.
1879—1879 Hakodate fire, Hakodate, Hokkaido, Japan, 67 fatalities, 20,000
homeless.[10]
1883—Ocala, Florida Thanksgiving Day Fire A devastating fire occurs in the
downtown business district. The Ocala House, Palace Hotel, Ocala Banner and
ten stores are destroyed
1886—Great Vancouver Fire, Vancouver, British Columbia, 1886.
1889—Great Seattle Fire
1889—Great Bakersfield Fire of 1889—destroyed 196 buildings and killed 1
person.
1889—The First Great Lynn Conflagration. About 100 buildings destroyed,
costing over $160 million in damage in today's dollars.
1894—Great Fire in Shanghai; over 1,000 buildings are destroyed
1897—Great Windsor Fire, Windsor, Nova Scotia Canada, destroyed 80% of the
town
1898—Great Fire of New Westminster, British Columbia
1900—Sandon, British Columbia, Canada, destroyed by fire
1901—Great Fire of 1901, Jacksonville, Florida
1904—Great Baltimore Fire
1904—Second Great Fire of Toronto
1904—Ålesund Fire
1906—San Francisco earthquake and fire
1911—Oscoda/AuSable, Michigan
1908—First Great Chelsea Fire on April 12. Nearly half the city of Chelsea,
Massachusetts was destroyed.
1914—Great Salem Fire of 1914
1916—Matheson Fire, Matheson, Ontario
1917—The Halifax Explosion, largest man-made explosion before the atomic
bomb
1917—Great Atlanta fire of 1917, during which over 300 acres (1.2 km²) (73
blocks) destroyed
1917—Great Thessaloniki Fire of 1917, Thessaloniki, Greece
1917—Gyöngyös, Hungary fire in which a number of buildings were destroyed
leaving around 8,000 homeless
1921—Tulsa Race Riot, 35 city blocks; 1,256 residences were destroyed by
arson
1922—The Great Fire of Smyrna, Izmir, Turkey
1922—The Great Fire of 1922 in the Timiskaming District, Ontario, Canada,
killed 43 people and burnt down 18 townships.
1923—1923 Tokyo fire following the Great Kanto earthquake.[12]
1931—Half of downtown Lillooet, British Columbia, Canada, is destroyed by
fire
1934—1934 Hakodate fire, Hakodate, Hokkaido, Japan, killed 2,166.
1938—1938 Changsha Fire, 56,000 buildings burned by the Chinese army during
the Second Sino-Japanese War to prevent the Japanese from getting resources
from the city, 3,000 civilians killed on November 13.
1939—Great Lagunillas Fire at Ciudad Ojeda, Venezuela on November 14.
1947—Texas City Disaster, two ships explode, igniting chemical works,
460–600 killed
1948—Fukui earthquake with fire, 46,000 buildings and houses lost on June 28
1949—A fire burning for 18 hours in Chongqing's waterfront and banking
district, on September 2, killed 2865 people[13] and left more than 100,000
homeless. 7000 buildings were destroyed.[14]
1951—Tung Tau fire, fire in a squatter area in Hong Kong, up to 25,000
homeless, led to the Comfort Mission riot
1953—Shek Kip Mei fire, fire in a squatter area in Hong Kong, 58,000
homeless[15]
1961—Bukit Ho Swee Fire, flames erupt in a squatter settlement in Singapore,
making 16,000 homeless
1961—Bel Air fire, burned 6,090 acres (24.6 km2) and destroyed 484 homes
near UCLA in Los Angeles[16]
1964—The Bellflower Street Conflagaration fire destroyed nineteen apartment
buildings and damaged eleven in square-block conflagration in Boston
1973—Second Great Chelsea Fire on October 14. 18 city blocks destroyed:
several businesses (mostly rag shops) and homes of one, two, and three story
wood frame and metal clad construction.
1974—Chelsea, Massachusetts on May 24. A fire at the American Barrel Company
spread to several other businesses in a two block area.
1981—Arson fire in Lynn, Massachusetts levels downtown factory area under
redevelopment; no conviction; $80 million damage estimate [17]
1983—North Division Street explosion in Buffalo, New York kills 5
firefighters and 2 others and destroys millions in property.
1985—Isabela Island forest fire, Galápagos Island, Ecuador, 62,500 acres
(253 km2) lost on March.
1985—Osage Ave./MOVE Incident, Philadelphia, 65 houses destroyed.
1985—Annanar forest fire, Portugal, 1,500 km² destroyed, killing 14.
1986—Chu Ku Tsai village fire, Hong Kong, 2,000 homeless on Lunar New Year
holiday.[15]
1986—Aberdeen Typhoon Shelter fire, Aberdeen, Hong Kong, 150 vessels
destroyed, 1,700 homeless and 2 injured on December 25[15]
1988—Great Lashio Fire, Lashio, Myanmar, killed 134, 2000 buildings
destroyed.
1988—A fire in Lisbon, Portugal destroyed 7 blocks of houses (7,500 m²) on
August 25
1991—Kuwaiti oil fires following the Persian Gulf War
1991—Oakland Hills firestorm kills 25 and destroys 3469 homes and apartments
1991—Great Meiktila fire, 5,900 buildings and houses burned and kills
thirty-one, Meiktila, central Myanmar on April 7.[citation needed]
1993—A Tsunami hit with fire at Okushiri Island, Japan by 1993 quake, 645
houses lost, 202 killed on July.
2002—Lagos armoury explosion causes fire which destroys half of Lagos and
killed 1,100 people
2003—Canberra bushfires fire that killed 4 and destroyed over 500 homes
2008—Camden Market Fire, which caused severe damage to one of North London's
most famous shopping districts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fires

--
Bobby G.

On 2/5/2012 3:46 PM, Mike Homes wrote:

"RBM" wrote in message
...
On 2/5/2012 1:55 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 2/5/12 12:44 PM, RBM wrote:
On 2/5/2012 1:34 PM, Mike Homes wrote:

The city of Chicago and some surrounding areas require wiring to be in
EMT or better conduit.
Most everywhere else in the United States allows Romex.


Is Romex wiring too lenient?

Is the conduit requirement too excessive?

There are Chicago code nazis that will defend the conduit requirement.

Maybe conduit should be required everywhere?

Maybe the NEC should require everyone to rip out their walls and
put in
conduit?

Are electricians that install NM a bunch of 'Rubes'?

Who's right?

Not necessarily a matter of right or wrong, sometimes politics enter
the
picture. You install wiring according to the rules imposed by the
municipality that has jurisdiction. In areas like Chicago, the work is
more labor intensive, having to use conduit. This may put more money in
the pocket of the installer. It also may be that those in power feel it
is safer to be in conduit.

Which leads to a question on inspectors. Are inspectors immune from
lawsuits if they screw up and pass something that isn't code compliant?

Or possibly things they missed. My belief is that if I wire a place
that burns, regardless of inspections or anything else, if it burns
because of my wiring, I go to jail.


Seriously?
If you forget to tighten a connection and it causes a fire, they toss
you in jail?

Are there really electricians doing jail time for making a mistake?

I suppose it depends upon how heinous a mistake.

Good on you!
"who can argue success?"

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Horace Greeley" wrote in message
...

Again, it passed inspection. I'm happy, the AHJ is happy and my
insurance company is happy. When the power goes out in the winter and I
can plug the furnace into the genset, even my wife will be happy.

I really don't give a rat's ass about your silly opinion. Get it?

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 15:54:57 -0500, wrote:




Not necessarily a matter of right or wrong, sometimes politics enter the
picture. You install wiring according to the rules imposed by the
municipality that has jurisdiction. In areas like Chicago, the work is
more labor intensive, having to use conduit. This may put more money in
the pocket of the installer. It also may be that those in power feel it
is safer to be in conduit.
Keeps those Chicago river-rats from chewing on the wiring. Same
reason parts of NYC require everything to be done with "BX" - metalic
sheathed cable.

Many local codes are union driven. Using conduit or BX makes it more
difficult for the DIYer too, thus more work for the union
electricians.

NYC is a solid union town. We've exhibited at trades shows there and
everything had to be handled by union people. That included plugging
in a lamp into an extension cord.

"Horace wrote in message
...

Again, it passed inspection. I'm happy, the AHJ is happy and my
insurance company is happy. When the power goes out in the winter and I
can plug the furnace into the genset, even my wife will be happy.

I really don't give a rat's ass about your silly opinion. Get it?



On 2/5/2012 5:21 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Good on you!
"who can argue success?"

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.


Mayberry's electrical inspector (Barney Fife) with his NEC code book
strapped to his side?

In article ,
wrote:

Illegal to have a plug on solid conductor cord - if not illegal, not
adviesable. You need a good "appliance cord" - I like teck cable for
that kind of setup. #14 or #12.

This thing pulls (solenoid, thermostat upstairs) like nothing, 5 watts
maybe?

I looked in that spirally flexible metal 3/4-inch diameter tube that
encloses the power wires to the wall, at the end of it, where I could
see the wires themselves. Two shielded wires, I think, don't recall seeing a
third.

Anyway, I'll check out "teck cable", size 14 or 12 (the lower, the
bigger, right?).

Thanks,

David