Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Paul
 
Posts: n/a
Default 12-2-2 NM cable only has one grounding conductor?

I need to run two new 20A circuits to the other side of the house - at Home
Depot I see this "12-2-2" romex cable with 2 hots, 2 neutrals, and one
ground. Is it safe to share that one 12ga. ground between two 20A
circuits? (I "assume" it was a 12 ga ground, it's up in the air on the
spools at HD so hard to get a close look)

Does 12/4 armored cable (MC or BX) only have one grounding conductor? or is
it better because the metal jacket is an additional/supplemental grounding
path?

Thanks.



  #2   Report Post  
toller
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Interesting; I had never heard of 12-2-2. But reading up on it, it is
specifically intended for 2 AFCI protected circuits. Since AFCIs also
function as GFCIs, any current going to the ground will trip the breaker and
cut off the current. There is no possible way to overload the ground.

Without the AFCI you could, in principle, overload the ground without
tripping the breaker so it would not meet code. Personally, I would rather
run two cables anyhow.

At least this is my reading of it; I can't wait to hear how foolish I am...


  #3   Report Post  
Doug Miller
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , "toller" wrote:
Interesting; I had never heard of 12-2-2. But reading up on it, it is
specifically intended for 2 AFCI protected circuits. Since AFCIs also
function as GFCIs,


Not [necessarily] true. *Some* (perhaps most) AFCIs are dual-listed for use as
GFCIs as well. But not all of them.

And the ones that are, don't function quite the same: the trip threshold is a
bit higher.

any current going to the ground will trip the breaker and
cut off the current. There is no possible way to overload the ground.


Not true.

Very unlikely, I grant, but not impossible: a low-impedance (hence high
current) short from hot to ground on *each* hot leg would indeed overload the
ground. This would not necessarily involve an arc that would trip an AFCI. It
*is* extremely unlikely, but it's not impossible.

Without the AFCI you could, in principle, overload the ground without
tripping the breaker so it would not meet code.


Even *with* the AFCI, you could, in principle, overload the ground without
tripping the breaker, as I noted above.

Personally, I would rather run two cables anyhow.


Unless it's a really, really long run, it's probably a *lot* less expensive to
use two 12-2 WG cables, and two standard breakers. AFCIs ain't cheap.

And it's a lot harder to screw up.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
  #4   Report Post  
The Real Tom
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 11:47:50 -0500, "Paul"
wrote:

I need to run two new 20A circuits to the other side of the house - at Home
Depot I see this "12-2-2" romex cable with 2 hots, 2 neutrals, and one
ground. Is it safe to share that one 12ga. ground between two 20A
circuits? (I "assume" it was a 12 ga ground, it's up in the air on the
spools at HD so hard to get a close look)


IMHO:

Since the ECG only carries current for a very short time, in a ground
fault, you should have no problems sharing the ground. I've run emt
with many circuits and a single ground wire. So, imho, I don't know
of any problems with the code against doing this.

BTW, now if you are interestinged in running two circuts in the same
cable, why have you ruled out 12/3 ?



Does 12/4 armored cable (MC or BX) only have one grounding conductor? or is
it better because the metal jacket is an additional/supplemental grounding
path?


Personally, I like having a seperate ground, so this rules out AC as
my choice. Plus, as for the MC jacket, it can only be used as a
ground if listed as such. Eventhought it is grounded.

From your questions, you are doing the right thing planning out the
project before you runn around buying stuff.

Might want to post what you doing(or intend on doing) to get
suggestions how to do it best.

hth,

tom @ www.CarFleaMarket.com



Thanks.



  #5   Report Post  
The Real Tom
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 17:07:54 GMT, "toller" wrote:

Interesting; I had never heard of 12-2-2. But reading up on it, it is
specifically intended for 2 AFCI protected circuits. Since AFCIs also
function as GFCIs, any current going to the ground will trip the breaker and


AFCI's do not perform as GFCI's unless they are specifilcy built as
such and labeled. This is not the general case.


cut off the current. There is no possible way to overload the ground.

Without the AFCI you could, in principle, overload the ground without
tripping the breaker so it would not meet code. Personally, I would rather


How would you overload the ground, if you follow the NEC?

run two cables anyhow.

At least this is my reading of it; I can't wait to hear how foolish I am...




Learning everyday,

tom


  #6   Report Post  
toller
 
Posts: n/a
Default


AFCI's do not perform as GFCI's unless they are specifilcy built as
such and labeled. This is not the general case.


http://www.mikeholt.com/mojonewsarch...e~20030320.htm
"all AFCI's have a built in Ground Fault Interrupter"


How would you overload the ground, if you follow the NEC?


You couldn't, since you wouldn't be using 12-2-2. But he is talking about
using 12-2-2.



  #7   Report Post  
Wayne Whitney
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 2005-03-19, toller wrote:

Interesting; I had never heard of 12-2-2. But reading up on it, it is
specifically intended for 2 AFCI protected circuits.


Just to be clear, there is no requirement to have an AFCI protect a
12-2-2 cable. The point is that one application for 12-2-2 is running
two circuits to back to back bedrooms; since the circuits must be AFCI
protected, they can not share a neutral.

Cheers, Wayne

  #8   Report Post  
toller
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Wayne Whitney" wrote in message
...
On 2005-03-19, toller wrote:

Interesting; I had never heard of 12-2-2. But reading up on it, it is
specifically intended for 2 AFCI protected circuits.


Just to be clear, there is no requirement to have an AFCI protect a
12-2-2 cable. The point is that one application for 12-2-2 is running
two circuits to back to back bedrooms; since the circuits must be AFCI
protected, they can not share a neutral.

Certainly. But without a AFCI the two circuits would have to be on opposite
legs because of the shared ground, and then there is no advantage of 12-2-2
over 12-3. In fact 12-3 is better because it reduces the voltage drop.
So while 12-2-2 can be used without AFCI, it would not make sense to do so.


  #9   Report Post  
Wayne Whitney
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 2005-03-19, toller wrote:

Certainly. But without a AFCI the two circuits would have to be on opposite
legs because of the shared ground


Why do you believe that to be the case, can you indicate a section of
the NEC that requires it? I thought that if you are running two
circuits in conduit, for example, it was standard to only pull one
EGC. Is there a requirement to have a separate EGC for each circuit?

So while 12-2-2 can be used without AFCI, it would not make sense to do so.


Admittedly it is a speciality product, but I can see other places it
would make sense. For example, in a kitchen setting with two small
appliance circuits, protected by separate GFCI outlets, you need to
separate the neutrals downstream of the GFCIs.

Cheers, Wayne

  #10   Report Post  
Doug Miller
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , "toller" wrote:

Certainly. But without a AFCI the two circuits would have to be on opposite
legs because of the shared ground


Utter nonsense. If they shared a *neutral* they'd need to be on opposite legs.

Please don't give any more electrical advice until you figure out the
difference between ground and neutral.

, and then there is no advantage of 12-2-2
over 12-3. In fact 12-3 is better because it reduces the voltage drop.


It does what?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?


  #11   Report Post  
toller
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Wayne Whitney" wrote in message
...
On 2005-03-19, toller wrote:

Certainly. But without a AFCI the two circuits would have to be on
opposite
legs because of the shared ground


Why do you believe that to be the case, can you indicate a section of
the NEC that requires it? I thought that if you are running two
circuits in conduit, for example, it was standard to only pull one
EGC. Is there a requirement to have a separate EGC for each circuit?

You might be right; I couldn't find anything on it.
However, it seems prudent to have a ground that can carry the maximum
current supplied by the hots.

So while 12-2-2 can be used without AFCI, it would not make sense to do
so.


Admittedly it is a speciality product, but I can see other places it
would make sense. For example, in a kitchen setting with two small
appliance circuits, protected by separate GFCI outlets, you need to
separate the neutrals downstream of the GFCIs.

Yes, it could be used for that, but I would rather run two cables.


  #12   Report Post  
Wayne Whitney
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 2005-03-19, Doug Miller wrote:

In article , "toller" wrote:

and then there is no advantage of 12-2-2
over 12-3. In fact 12-3 is better because it reduces the voltage drop.


It does what?


It does seem true that sharing a neutral between the two circuits on
separate legs reduces the voltage drop due to the wiring. The current
on the neutral leg is less than on either hot, so the voltage drop due
to the neutral leg is less than it would be with a separate neutral.

Cheers, Wayne

  #13   Report Post  
Art Todesco
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I would run a 12-3 w/ground and put the breakers on opposite sides of
the 240. I have done a similar thing with 2 electric heaters in the 2
upstairs baths ... we like warm bathrooms when showering.
Wayne Whitney wrote:
On 2005-03-19, Doug Miller wrote:


In article , "toller" wrote:


and then there is no advantage of 12-2-2
over 12-3. In fact 12-3 is better because it reduces the voltage drop.


It does what?



It does seem true that sharing a neutral between the two circuits on
separate legs reduces the voltage drop due to the wiring. The current
on the neutral leg is less than on either hot, so the voltage drop due
to the neutral leg is less than it would be with a separate neutral.

Cheers, Wayne

  #14   Report Post  
The Real Tom
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 18:02:15 GMT, "toller" wrote:


AFCI's do not perform as GFCI's unless they are specifilcy built as
such and labeled. This is not the general case.


http://www.mikeholt.com/mojonewsarch...e~20030320.htm
"all AFCI's have a built in Ground Fault Interrupter"


Careful, people might confuse 30 ma GFCI trip as GFCI protection for
personnel. So, imho, best not to mention afci/gfci unless the item is
labeled and listed as such.

later,

tom (VERY PARINOID)




How would you overload the ground, if you follow the NEC?


You couldn't, since you wouldn't be using 12-2-2. But he is talking about
using 12-2-2.



  #15   Report Post  
Doug Miller
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Wayne Whitney wrote:
On 2005-03-19, Doug Miller wrote:

In article , "toller"

wrote:

and then there is no advantage of 12-2-2
over 12-3. In fact 12-3 is better because it reduces the voltage drop.


It does what?


It does seem true that sharing a neutral between the two circuits on
separate legs reduces the voltage drop due to the wiring. The current
on the neutral leg is less than on either hot, so the voltage drop due
to the neutral leg is less than it would be with a separate neutral.


Irrelevant. This would do nothing to alter the voltage drop between the supply
and the load, which is the only place it really matters. Further, the
resistance of whatever load is applied to the circuit, even if it's just a
single light bulb, is orders of magnitude greater than the resistance of the
conductors.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?


  #16   Report Post  
Wayne Whitney
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 2005-03-20, Doug Miller wrote:

In article , Wayne Whitney wrote:

It does seem true that sharing a neutral between the two circuits on
separate legs reduces the voltage drop due to the wiring. The current
on the neutral leg is less than on either hot, so the voltage drop due
to the neutral leg is less than it would be with a separate neutral.


Irrelevant. This would do nothing to alter the voltage drop between the supply
and the load, which is the only place it really matters.


I don't believe that is correct. Given a fixed voltage available at
the panel, and for example a resistive load, the hot and neutral wires
are effectively resistors in series with the load. The total
resistance of the circuit will be the resistance of the hot +
resistance of the load + resistance of the neutral. You can't ignore
the neutral just because it is after the load.

Another way of looking at things is that using a shared neutral makes
the overall circuit partially parallel, and two resistors in parallel
have a lower resistance than they do in series.

Further, the resistance of whatever load is applied to the circuit,
even if it's just a single light bulb, is orders of magnitude
greater than the resistance of the conductors.


Well, this is always true, yet on a long run conductors are typically
oversized to avoid an excessive voltage drop. So it does happen.
Admittedly the benefit of reduced voltage drop due to a shared neutral
may be more theoretical than of practical importance, but I do believe
it is real.

Cheers, Wayne

  #17   Report Post  
Doug Miller
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Wayne Whitney wrote:
On 2005-03-20, Doug Miller wrote:

In article , Wayne Whitney

wrote:

It does seem true that sharing a neutral between the two circuits on
separate legs reduces the voltage drop due to the wiring. The current
on the neutral leg is less than on either hot, so the voltage drop due
to the neutral leg is less than it would be with a separate neutral.


Irrelevant. This would do nothing to alter the voltage drop between the

supply
and the load, which is the only place it really matters.


I don't believe that is correct. Given a fixed voltage available at
the panel, and for example a resistive load, the hot and neutral wires
are effectively resistors in series with the load.


Yes, that's true, but you're talking about resistances measured in tenths of
ohms, in series with resistances measured in hundreds of ohms. As a practical
matter, except on *very* long runs, the resistance of the conductors is not
really a concern.

The total
resistance of the circuit will be the resistance of the hot +
resistance of the load + resistance of the neutral. You can't ignore
the neutral just because it is after the load.


I'm *not* ignoring the neutral. But you're missing the fact that the voltage
drop between the source and the load is almost completely independent of the
resistance *elsewhere* in the circuit. The only effect that the resistance of
the neutral has on the circuit is a *minuscule* difference in the current that
flows through it.

Another way of looking at things is that using a shared neutral makes
the overall circuit partially parallel, and two resistors in parallel
have a lower resistance than they do in series.


The effect on voltage drop is still so small as to be utterly negligible.

Further, the resistance of whatever load is applied to the circuit,
even if it's just a single light bulb, is orders of magnitude
greater than the resistance of the conductors.


Well, this is always true, yet on a long run conductors are typically
oversized to avoid an excessive voltage drop. So it does happen.


Do you know just *how* low the resistance of copper conductors actually is?

Admittedly the benefit of reduced voltage drop due to a shared neutral
may be more theoretical than of practical importance, but I do believe
it is real.


I don't think I ever said it wasn't "real". But it certainly isn't important.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
  #18   Report Post  
Paul
 
Posts: n/a
Default

BTW, now if you are interestinged in running two circuts in the same
cable, why have you ruled out 12/3 ?


I had it in my head that sharing a neutral for two circuits was a big no-no,
so I never considered that option....

Might want to post what you doing(or intend on doing) to get
suggestions how to do it best.


As it turns out, I found a better route through the house and have enlisted
a helper, so I'm going to KISS and run two 12/2 romex cables...

What we're doing:

Circuit #1 - 20A -
To support an electric hydronic baseboard heater, 750W. Also on the
circuit will be under tile electric warming mat at about 300W. A GFCI
breaker in the panel to protect any faults with the baseboard heater.

Circuit # 2 - 20A -
For general lighting and outlets in the bath. GFCI outlets of course.

I decided to run two circuits because I couldn't see one circuit handling
baseboard heater + tile warming mat + lights + fan + hot curling iron +
1500W hair dryer.... Sure I could probably get away with it until she kicks
the hair dryer into overdrive g...

-- Paul



  #19   Report Post  
Wayne Whitney
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 2005-03-20, Doug Miller wrote:

Yes, that's true, but you're talking about resistances measured in
tenths of ohms, in series with resistances measured in hundreds of
ohms. As a practical matter, except on *very* long runs, the
resistance of the conductors is not really a concern.


Very good, I agree with this. Voltage drop due to the conductors only
matters for long runs. But it is still a reasonable question whether
sharing a neutral between two circuits will reduce that voltage drop,
even if it only matters for long runs.

But you're missing the fact that the voltage drop between the source
and the load is almost completely independent of the resistance
*elsewhere* in the circuit.


True, the voltage drop between the source and the load only depends on
the resistance of the hot. But the "available voltage" at the load
depends on the voltage drop of both the hot and the neutral.

Consider an example: exactly 120V available at the panel, a single
circuit with (long) wiring with a resistance of 0.1 ohms each for the
hot and the neutral, and an electric heater with a resistance of 10
ohms (nominally a 1200W heater). If the heater were wired directly to
the panel, the total resistance is 10 ohms and the heater would draw
12 amps. With the (long) wiring, the total resistance is 10.2 ohms,
and the heater draws 11.76 amps (120/10.2). The voltage drop across
the hot is 1.176 volts, the drop across the heater is 117.6 volts, and
the drop across the neutral is 1.176 volts.

Now suppose we have two 10 ohm heaters on an Edison circuit (shared
neutral). This represents the best case of totally balanced loads,
and the current on the neutral will be 0. So this is equivalent to
having the two heaters in series across a 240V supply. Each hot
conductor has the same resistance of 0.1 ohms. The total resistance
is 20.2 ohms, and the current is 11.88 amps (240/20.2). The voltage
drop across the first hot is 1.188 volts, the drop across each heater
is 118.8 volts, and the drop across the second hot is again 1.188
volts.

In the single circuit case, the "voltage drop" the single heater saw
was 2.4 volts (120 - 117.6). In the shared neutral case, the voltage
drop was only 1.2 volts (120 - 118.8). This illustrates the best case
scenario of using a shared neutral: with perfectly balanced loads, the
voltage drop due to the wiring with be half as much.

Cheers, Wayne

  #20   Report Post  
Doug Miller
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , "Paul" wrote:
BTW, now if you are interestinged in running two circuts in the same
cable, why have you ruled out 12/3 ?


I had it in my head that sharing a neutral for two circuits was a big no-no,
so I never considered that option....


It's perfectly fine, as long as both of these conditions are met:
a) the two hot conductors are on *opposite* legs of the service, and
b) both hot conductors are disconnected by the same device.
Both requirements are easily met by using a standard double-pole (240V)
breaker.

Might want to post what you doing(or intend on doing) to get
suggestions how to do it best.


As it turns out, I found a better route through the house and have enlisted
a helper, so I'm going to KISS and run two 12/2 romex cables...


That'll definitely be easier in the long run, and less confusing to the next
homeowner.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?


  #21   Report Post  
Wayne Whitney
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 2005-03-20, Doug Miller wrote:

In article , "Paul" wrote:

I had it in my head that sharing a neutral for two circuits was a big no-no,
so I never considered that option....


It's perfectly fine, as long as both of these conditions are met:
a) the two hot conductors are on *opposite* legs of the service, and
b) both hot conductors are disconnected by the same device.
Both requirements are easily met by using a standard double-pole (240V)
breaker.


I believe (b) above is not always required by the NEC, although it
seems like a good idea for a variety of reasons. 210.4(B) requires
this when the circuit supplies "more than one device or equipment on
the same yoke". And 210.4(C) requires this if the circuit serves any
240V loads.

Cheers, Wayne

  #22   Report Post  
The Real Tom
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:09:03 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , "Paul" wrote:
BTW, now if you are interestinged in running two circuts in the same
cable, why have you ruled out 12/3 ?


I had it in my head that sharing a neutral for two circuits was a big no-no,
so I never considered that option....


It's perfectly fine, as long as both of these conditions are met:
a) the two hot conductors are on *opposite* legs of the service, and


You know, I couldn't understand why so many people say make sure
multiconductors are on opposite 'phases' to protect the neutral
conductor. Figuring, ofcouse they will be opposite when using double
pole breakers. So, I wrote off the warning.

But as time goes on I hear from electricians they run into many times
homeowners tossing in two breakers, and only using the spaces
provided. Somtimes not having the breakers next to each(vertically)
but spread out in the panel. I've even heard about one homeowner
putting in mini-tandem breakers, and using that for a three conductor
cable.

So very good advice!

later,

tom @
www.CarFleaMarket.com



b) both hot conductors are disconnected by the same device.
Both requirements are easily met by using a standard double-pole (240V)
breaker.

Might want to post what you doing(or intend on doing) to get
suggestions how to do it best.


As it turns out, I found a better route through the house and have enlisted
a helper, so I'm going to KISS and run two 12/2 romex cables...


That'll definitely be easier in the long run, and less confusing to the next
homeowner.


  #23   Report Post  
Doug Miller
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Wayne Whitney wrote:

In the single circuit case, the "voltage drop" the single heater saw
was 2.4 volts (120 - 117.6). In the shared neutral case, the voltage
drop was only 1.2 volts (120 - 118.8). This illustrates the best case
scenario of using a shared neutral: with perfectly balanced loads, the
voltage drop due to the wiring with be half as much.


Yes, *if* you have perfectly balanced, purely resistive loads.

But the difference has no practical significance in any case.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
  #24   Report Post  
Art Todesco
 
Posts: n/a
Default


You know, I couldn't understand why so many people say make sure
multiconductors are on opposite 'phases' to protect the neutral
conductor. Figuring, ofcouse they will be opposite when using double
pole breakers. So, I wrote off the warning.

But as time goes on I hear from electricians they run into many times
homeowners tossing in two breakers, and only using the spaces
provided. Somtimes not having the breakers next to each(vertically)
but spread out in the panel. I've even heard about one homeowner
putting in mini-tandem breakers, and using that for a three conductor
cable.

So very good advice!

later,

tom @ www.CarFleaMarket.com


We were doing some wiring in my son's 95 year old house (complete rewire
in the 60s) and found a common neutral where the 2 legs were fed from 2
breakers on the same phase. Of course we move things around.
  #25   Report Post  
The Real Tom
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 13:31:02 -0600, Art Todesco
wrote:


You know, I couldn't understand why so many people say make sure
multiconductors are on opposite 'phases' to protect the neutral
conductor. Figuring, ofcouse they will be opposite when using double
pole breakers. So, I wrote off the warning.

But as time goes on I hear from electricians they run into many times
homeowners tossing in two breakers, and only using the spaces
provided. Somtimes not having the breakers next to each(vertically)
but spread out in the panel. I've even heard about one homeowner
putting in mini-tandem breakers, and using that for a three conductor
cable.

So very good advice!

later,

tom @ www.CarFleaMarket.com


We were doing some wiring in my son's 95 year old house (complete rewire
in the 60s) and found a common neutral where the 2 legs were fed from 2
breakers on the same phase. Of course we move things around.


Ouch. Good catch!


  #26   Report Post  
HorneTD
 
Posts: n/a
Default

, and then there is no advantage of 12-2-2
over 12-3. In fact 12-3 is better because it reduces the voltage drop.



It does what?

Just what he said it does. A multi wire branch circuit will operate all
but the imbalanced portion of it's load at 208, 240, 480, or what have
you rather than at 120, or 277. Using a single phase multi wire branch
circuit supplied from a single phase 120/240 volt center tapped service
with twelve amps on one leg and fifteen amperes on the other the neutral
will only carry the difference or in this case three amperes. On a
circuit that is fifty feet long the three amperes has a voltage drop of
the round trip distance of one hundred feet the twelve remaining amperes
from both legs will have the voltage drop of only fifty feet because it
is using the other ungrounded conductors load to complete the trip. You
get the same amount of work done for roughly half of the voltage drop.
--
Tom Horne
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
grounding water pipe William Deans Home Repair 50 February 19th 05 05:09 AM
slightly OT NTL/Telewest cable descrambler ntldescrambler UK diy 10 August 26th 04 04:25 PM
Is it OK to put standard "twin & earth" cable directly into the cavity of a dwarf wall? Jon Weaver UK diy 20 August 8th 03 04:38 PM
Grounding Rod *and* Rebar for service grounds? Vinnie Murdico Home Repair 3 June 27th 03 05:13 PM
Ground to Gas Pipe?? w_tom Home Repair 4 June 23rd 03 10:14 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:34 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"