Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Woodworking (rec.woodworking) Discussion forum covering all aspects of working with wood. All levels of expertise are encouraged to particiapte. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Electical question
I recently constructed a built-in desk and bookshelf in my upstairs
loft. There was an outlet on the wall that happened to be right where two bookshelves joined together. I had to remove the cover plate and outlet in order for the bookshelves to be flush against the wall. I removed the socket and rejoined the wires together using wire nuts. I then pushed the wires back into the box and put my shelves in front of it...without using a cover plate. Its this last part that I'm kinda regretting now that the built-in is complete. Should I have put a cover plate over that or will the wire nuts be sufficient? None of the wires were anywhere near crossing each other but I still have a little anxiety about it. I'm pretty sure I know what the pro's would do... Opinions? I'm probably breaking major building codes doing that too. |
#2
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Electical question
If you twisted the wires ( holds the wires from pulling out of nut)before
the nut was put on and there is no exposed copper at the nut a cover plate will be fine. The plate is to prevent anyone or thing getting at the wires. With the cover plate on this should meet code. I'm taking it for granted that white-white black-black ground- ground where all done. "rolsonDesign" wrote in message ups.com... I recently constructed a built-in desk and bookshelf in my upstairs loft. There was an outlet on the wall that happened to be right where two bookshelves joined together. I had to remove the cover plate and outlet in order for the bookshelves to be flush against the wall. I removed the socket and rejoined the wires together using wire nuts. I then pushed the wires back into the box and put my shelves in front of it...without using a cover plate. Its this last part that I'm kinda regretting now that the built-in is complete. Should I have put a cover plate over that or will the wire nuts be sufficient? None of the wires were anywhere near crossing each other but I still have a little anxiety about it. I'm pretty sure I know what the pro's would do... Opinions? I'm probably breaking major building codes doing that too. |
#3
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Electical question
On May 15, 5:00 pm, rolsonDesign wrote:
I recently constructed a built-in desk and bookshelf in my upstairs loft. There was an outlet on the wall that happened to be right where two bookshelves joined together. I had to remove the cover plate and outlet in order for the bookshelves to be flush against the wall. I removed the socket and rejoined the wires together using wire nuts. I then pushed the wires back into the box and put my shelves in front of it...without using a cover plate. Its this last part that I'm kinda regretting now that the built-in is complete. Should I have put a cover plate over that or will the wire nuts be sufficient? None of the wires were anywhere near crossing each other but I still have a little anxiety about it. I'm pretty sure I know what the pro's would do... Opinions? I'm probably breaking major building codes doing that too. Plates are cheap at 50 cents each. You taped the wirenuts, right? |
#4
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Electical question
"rolsonDesign" wrote in message ups.com... I recently constructed a built-in desk and bookshelf in my upstairs loft. There was an outlet on the wall that happened to be right where two bookshelves joined together. I had to remove the cover plate and outlet in order for the bookshelves to be flush against the wall. I removed the socket and rejoined the wires together using wire nuts. I then pushed the wires back into the box and put my shelves in front of it...without using a cover plate. Its this last part that I'm kinda regretting now that the built-in is complete. Should I have put a cover plate over that or will the wire nuts be sufficient? None of the wires were anywhere near crossing each other but I still have a little anxiety about it. I'm pretty sure I know what the pro's would do... Opinions? I'm probably breaking major building codes doing that too. Does this not become a junction box in this scenario? If so, I always thought that they need to be easily accessed. |
#5
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Electical question
"rolsonDesign" wrote in message ups.com... I recently constructed a built-in desk and bookshelf in my upstairs loft. There was an outlet on the wall that happened to be right where two bookshelves joined together. I had to remove the cover plate and outlet in order for the bookshelves to be flush against the wall. I removed the socket and rejoined the wires together using wire nuts. I then pushed the wires back into the box and put my shelves in front of it...without using a cover plate. Its this last part that I'm kinda regretting now that the built-in is complete. Should I have put a cover plate over that or will the wire nuts be sufficient? None of the wires were anywhere near crossing each other but I still have a little anxiety about it. I'm pretty sure I know what the pro's would do... Opinions? I'm probably breaking major building codes doing that too. So many interesting answers! Yes, you needed to have a cover plate. An electrical box is supposed to contain an electrical fire. Presumably your bookshelves are combustible? Admittedly, the chances of an arc in the connections severe enough to cause a fire are very very small, but I wouldn't be comfortable with it. If you had fastened a piece of sheet metal over the opening, that probably would have been okay, even if it didn't meet code. |
#6
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Electical question
"rolsonDesign" wrote in message
ups.com... I recently constructed a built-in desk and bookshelf in my upstairs loft. [snip] Opinions? I'm probably breaking major building codes doing that too. "efgh" wrote in message news:8Zr2i.22602$Xh3.4308@edtnps90... Does this not become a junction box in this scenario? If so, I always thought that they need to be easily accessed. If I'm understanding you correctly, you have blocked access to a junction box by constructing the bookshelves over the junction box. If this is what you have done, then the lack of a cover plate is only part of the problem. The National Electrical Code requires ALL splices be forever accessible. If you are required to remove building "finish" materials to gain access to splices, that does not meet he definition of accessibility. Secondly, if you sell the house, how will the next owner have any idea where to look for this splice? Splices do occassionally need attention. If you've made a decent splice, the lack of a cover in this case is probably not a safety issue as NO ONE is likely to accidently touch ANY of these wires. Gary Kasten Licensed Electrical Contractor Kasten Electric Company St. Peters, MO |
#7
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Electical question
rolsonDesign wrote in news:1179262811.280486.79690
@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com: *snip* Should I have put a cover plate over that or will the wire nuts be sufficient? None of the wires were anywhere near crossing each other but I still have a little anxiety about it. I'm pretty sure I know what the pro's would do... Opinions? I'm probably breaking major building codes doing that too. Do it right the first time, and you'll save money in the long run. If code calls for a cover plate, put a cover plate on. Consider this also: Electrical boxes are great places for bugs to hide. You don't really want to have to work on the box and deal with spider webs, do you? Puckdropper -- Wise is the man who attempts to answer his question before asking it. To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm |
#8
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Electical question
In article . com, rolsonDesign wrote:
I recently constructed a built-in desk and bookshelf in my upstairs loft. There was an outlet on the wall that happened to be right where two bookshelves joined together. I had to remove the cover plate and outlet in order for the bookshelves to be flush against the wall. I removed the socket and rejoined the wires together using wire nuts. I then pushed the wires back into the box and put my shelves in front of it...without using a cover plate. Its this last part that I'm kinda regretting now that the built-in is complete. Should I have put a cover plate over that or will the wire nuts be sufficient? None of the wires were anywhere near crossing each other but I still have a little anxiety about it. I'm pretty sure I know what the pro's would do... Opinions? I'm probably breaking major building codes doing that too. The lack of a cover plate is a code violation, yes, but that's the least of your worries. The National Electrical Code requires all splices and junctions to be accessible, and specifically defines "accessible" thus: "Capable of being removed or exposed without damaging the building structure or finish or not permanently closed in by the structure or finish of the building." A junction box that has a built-in bookcase over it does not qualify as accessible. The best solution to this problem is to locate the other end of each of the two cables that enter this box, and disconnect them. Then run a new cable via a different route, bypassing the segment you just disconnected. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
#9
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Electical question
|
#10
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Electical question
"Toller" wrote in message Yes, you needed to have a cover plate. An electrical box is supposed to contain an electrical fire. Presumably your bookshelves are combustible? Admittedly, the chances of an arc in the connections severe enough to cause a fire are very very small, but I wouldn't be comfortable with it. If you had fastened a piece of sheet metal over the opening, that probably would have been okay, even if it didn't meet code. I wouldn't be comfortable at all. 19 years ago I had a small fire in an interior wall of a 50 year old house (small, only because my 3 year old daughter came to me at 1:30 PM and insisted I come look at the "pretty lights" in the living room behind the clock, and I caught it in time) due to a splice that shorted and caught the wall on fire. The splice was in a box, with no lid, and then drywalled over. I had no idea it was there. Essentially, it was a time bomb that took 45 years to go off ... thank goodness in the afternoon, instead of 1:30 in the morning. -- www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 2/20/07 KarlC@ (the obvious) |
#11
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Electical question
"Swingman" wrote in message ... "Toller" wrote in message Yes, you needed to have a cover plate. An electrical box is supposed to contain an electrical fire. Presumably your bookshelves are combustible? Admittedly, the chances of an arc in the connections severe enough to cause a fire are very very small, but I wouldn't be comfortable with it. If you had fastened a piece of sheet metal over the opening, that probably would have been okay, even if it didn't meet code. I wouldn't be comfortable at all. 19 years ago I had a small fire in an interior wall of a 50 year old house (small, only because my 3 year old daughter came to me at 1:30 PM and insisted I come look at the "pretty lights" in the living room behind the clock, and I caught it in time) due to a splice that shorted and caught the wall on fire. The splice was in a box, with no lid, and then drywalled over. I had no idea it was there. Essentially, it was a time bomb that took 45 years to go off ... thank goodness in the afternoon, instead of 1:30 in the morning. well, I am suggesting metal rather than drywall. There isn't much difference between sheet metal and a blank box cover. but, how did the wall catch fire? I would expect the dry wall to be charred, but it shouldn't have actually caught fire. I should have had a fire when a mouse chewed through a wire right next to where we kept napkins. His front half vaporized, but miraculously the napkins didn't catch. |
#13
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Electical question
In article , "Toller" wrote:
well, I am suggesting metal rather than drywall. There isn't much difference between sheet metal and a blank box cover. You're right, there isn't -- using either one to cover an inaccessible box is still a Code violation. ;-) -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
#14
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Electical question
In article , Roy Smith wrote:
But, a built-in bookcase with a built-in hinged door in the back to access the box probably would. If you do it right, it could be quite unobtrusive, and completely invisible when the shelf is filled with books. I suspect that would satisfy both the letter and the spirit of the code. Another option would be to cut a hole in the back of the built-in directly over the box, and add an extender ring to the box to bring it flush with the inside surface of the built-in. Then attach the cover plate of your choice. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
#15
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Electical question
"Swingman" wrote "Toller" wrote in message but, how did the wall catch fire? I would expect the dry wall to be charred, but it shouldn't have actually caught fire. That's what makes it chilling, eh? It "shouldn't have", but it did! By the time I got there the stud the box was attached to was in flames ... indeed a 'chilling' event. With a young child in the house, and even after I tore out the drywall all the way to the ceiling on both sides of the wall, and was absolutely sure that there was not a spark left (there was no 'fire blocking' of studs in those days, apparently) to come back to life, I spent that entire night, and the next day, awake and on "fire watch". Shudder every time I recollect it. I can relate. It was lucky that you had a bright kid who wanted to show her dad some "pretty lights". I moved into a house that had all kinds of compromised electrical work. No doubt, done by some bumpkin who wanted to "save money" and had no concept of safety. I went nuts and replaced everything that I could. It already had a new breaker box and half of the wiring was new. But no ground connections were made in any of the new wiring. There was a big basement that was lighted by a number of recycled 8 foot commercial flouescent fitures. There was one right at the foot of the stairs. I was coming down the stairs just a week or so after moving in one day. I smelled something funny coming out of the fixture. I popped of the cover and some smoke came out. There was varnish dripping out of the ballast! I immediately turned off the lights and stood vigil until everything was cool. I then pulled out all the ballasts from all the fixtures. Every single one of them was melting and a fire was just days away from happening. He must of got a great deal on these fixtures. I replaced the ballasts on the lights and everything worked just fine for the next 24 years. I was quite upset at the time. And I still get a chill thinking about how close I cane to having a newly purchased house burn to the ground. |
#16
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Electical question
"Toller" wrote in message
but, how did the wall catch fire? I would expect the dry wall to be charred, but it shouldn't have actually caught fire. That's what makes it chilling, eh? It "shouldn't have", but it did! By the time I got there the stud the box was attached to was in flames ... indeed a 'chilling' event. With a young child in the house, and even after I tore out the drywall all the way to the ceiling on both sides of the wall, and was absolutely sure that there was not a spark left (there was no 'fire blocking' of studs in those days, apparently) to come back to life, I spent that entire night, and the next day, awake and on "fire watch". Shudder every time I recollect it. -- www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 2/20/07 KarlC@ (the obvious) |
#17
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Electical question
"Doug Miller" wrote in message .. . In article , Roy Smith wrote: But, a built-in bookcase with a built-in hinged door in the back to access the box probably would. If you do it right, it could be quite unobtrusive, and completely invisible when the shelf is filled with books. I suspect that would satisfy both the letter and the spirit of the code. Another option would be to cut a hole in the back of the built-in directly over the box, and add an extender ring to the box to bring it flush with the inside surface of the built-in. Then attach the cover plate of your choice. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. I guess I have mixed feelings here, I recognize the dangers but have serious problems with electrician's high hourly rates in particular when the required job skill level is so low . Basically in this region their only claim to fame is the fact is they can sign off that the job is in fact to code regardless of their crappy work. In my opinion if their rates were reasonable far less people would be doing basic wiring themselves. Im my case I read the books then wired my complete shop all the electrician did was to inspect it and confirm it was up to code and connect it to the mains . The only reason to use a "certified" electrician was that is all the inspector would accept.....and you know what, I still considered it expensive .....mjh |
#18
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Electical question
On 16 May 2007 05:32:41 GMT, Puckdropper
wrote: rolsonDesign wrote in news:1179262811.280486.79690 : *snip* Should I have put a cover plate over that or will the wire nuts be sufficient? None of the wires were anywhere near crossing each other but I still have a little anxiety about it. I'm pretty sure I know what the pro's would do... Opinions? I'm probably breaking major building codes doing that too. Do it right the first time, and you'll save money in the long run. If code calls for a cover plate, put a cover plate on. Consider this also: Electrical boxes are great places for bugs to hide. You don't really want to have to work on the box and deal with spider webs, do you? So then what type of wiring is it? Romex? Wire in conduit?. If it is properly installed romex ripping out the drywall to unstapled it would not work for me. But by passing and disconnecting the romex and leaving it there very appealing. Wire in conduit piece of cake though. Side note the new place has a fuse panel, and it is staying. Mark (sixoneeight) = 618 |
#19
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Electical question
"Lee Michaels" wrote in message
I replaced the ballasts on the lights and everything worked just fine for the next 24 years. I was quite upset at the time. And I still get a chill thinking about how close I cane to having a newly purchased house burn to the ground. You only have to go through that once to get a healthy respect for ALWAYS following the best electrical practices known to man. To this day, as a builder, I take a strong personal interest in inspecting all the electrical work _myself_ before insulation/drywall goes up. Not to mention that it is a constant battle with sheetrockers who cover up electrical receptacles (hell, even AC vents) in their haste to get to the next job. I _ALWAYS_ take digital pictures of every single wall in the entire house after electrical, plumbing and HVAC rough-in, and before insulation, put those photos on a CD, and ultimately give them to the purchaser in the "house book" we always supply for appliances, fixtures, warranties, etc. As a homeowner, it is something I appreciate greatly, just for the safety aspects. And, as a builder, I can't tell you how many times that one practice has saved my butt during electrical trim out ... and I get to sleep at night. -- www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 2/20/07 KarlC@ (the obvious) |
#20
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Electical question
In article , "mike hide" wrote:
I guess I have mixed feelings here, I recognize the dangers but have serious problems with electrician's high hourly rates in particular when the required job skill level is so low . Basically in this region their only claim to fame is the fact is they can sign off that the job is in fact to code regardless of their crappy work. In my opinion if their rates were reasonable far less people would be doing basic wiring themselves. I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on a couple of points. IMO, the reason so many folks go the DIY route has less to do with the hourly rates charged by electricians than with the widespread misperception that "the the required job skill level is so low." It's *not* a low-skill job. Almost any fool can install residential wiring so that it works. Installing it so that it works, *and* is safe, isn't quite so simple. I've encountered, and corrected, these problems (among others) created by the previous owners of my various homes: + light switch in the neutral instead of the hot + 14-2 BX made to do the job of 14-3 by using the cable armor as a conductor + 3-way switches installed with 12-2, using the ground conductor as a traveler + hot and neutral reversed on a receptacle + outdoor outlet unprotected by GFCI + 20A breaker on a circuit with 14ga wire + 30A fuse on a circuit with 14ga wire + Romex run through an ungrommeted hole in a steel cold air return duct + aluminum wire connected to copper with copper-only wire nuts + aluminum wire connected to copper-only receptacles + cross-connected neutrals in two junction boxes on different circuits + Edison circuits not identifed as such and having no common disconnect + 100A overcurrent protection on a circuit dedicated to a 1/2 HP well pump + abandoned live wires in circumstances very similar to the one Swingman described (though without the "pretty colored lights") + 60A subpanel fed from another subpanel with 10/3 Romex ... + ... attached to the *hot* side of the lugs (so that the only overcurrent protection for the 10-ga feeder was the 200A service disconnect) All of these things "work". Not one of them is safe. But because they function as expected, the idiots who installed them probably didn't give them a second thought. I think any person of normal intelligence and mechanical ability, who takes the trouble to familiarize himself with the proper materials and methods of installation, and with the applicable portions of the NEC, is capable of installing residential wiring safely. Trouble is, there are a LOT of people who don't even know that there IS a National Electrical Code, let alone have any idea WHY. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
#21
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Electical question
As I said read the book by black and decker written by a professional electrician andd these problems will not occurr. I have to disagree the skill level is low all you need to know is what code is and how to implement it and read the book it certainly is not rocket science . Of course that is assuming the average electrician can read, which is doubtful in some cases ......mjh "Doug Miller" wrote in message t... In article , "mike hide" wrote: I guess I have mixed feelings here, I recognize the dangers but have serious problems with electrician's high hourly rates in particular when the required job skill level is so low . Basically in this region their only claim to fame is the fact is they can sign off that the job is in fact to code regardless of their crappy work. In my opinion if their rates were reasonable far less people would be doing basic wiring themselves. I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on a couple of points. IMO, the reason so many folks go the DIY route has less to do with the hourly rates charged by electricians than with the widespread misperception that "the the required job skill level is so low." It's *not* a low-skill job. Almost any fool can install residential wiring so that it works. Installing it so that it works, *and* is safe, isn't quite so simple. I've encountered, and corrected, these problems (among others) created by the previous owners of my various homes: + light switch in the neutral instead of the hot + 14-2 BX made to do the job of 14-3 by using the cable armor as a conductor + 3-way switches installed with 12-2, using the ground conductor as a traveler + hot and neutral reversed on a receptacle + outdoor outlet unprotected by GFCI + 20A breaker on a circuit with 14ga wire + 30A fuse on a circuit with 14ga wire + Romex run through an ungrommeted hole in a steel cold air return duct + aluminum wire connected to copper with copper-only wire nuts + aluminum wire connected to copper-only receptacles + cross-connected neutrals in two junction boxes on different circuits + Edison circuits not identifed as such and having no common disconnect + 100A overcurrent protection on a circuit dedicated to a 1/2 HP well pump + abandoned live wires in circumstances very similar to the one Swingman described (though without the "pretty colored lights") + 60A subpanel fed from another subpanel with 10/3 Romex ... + ... attached to the *hot* side of the lugs (so that the only overcurrent protection for the 10-ga feeder was the 200A service disconnect) All of these things "work". Not one of them is safe. But because they function as expected, the idiots who installed them probably didn't give them a second thought. I think any person of normal intelligence and mechanical ability, who takes the trouble to familiarize himself with the proper materials and methods of installation, and with the applicable portions of the NEC, is capable of installing residential wiring safely. Trouble is, there are a LOT of people who don't even know that there IS a National Electrical Code, let alone have any idea WHY. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
#22
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Electical question
"mike hide" wrote in message
it and read the book it certainly is not rocket science . Of course that is assuming the average electrician can read, which is doubtful in some cases Around here there are many who may well have trouble reading English. -- www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 2/20/07 KarlC@ (the obvious) |
#23
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Electical question
So no doubt your house is wired to the mexican electrical code ,which is
fine until you open the circuit breaker box and start trying to figure what all the in spanish breakers control "Swingman" wrote in message news "mike hide" wrote in message it and read the book it certainly is not rocket science . Of course that is assuming the average electrician can read, which is doubtful in some cases Around here there are many who may well have trouble reading English. -- www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 2/20/07 KarlC@ (the obvious) |
#24
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Electical question
In article , "mike hide" wrote:
So no doubt your house is wired to the mexican electrical code ,which is fine until you open the circuit breaker box and start trying to figure what all the in spanish breakers control Blank labels read the same in any language. g -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
#26
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Electical question
The best solution to this problem is to locate the other end of each of the two cables that enter this box, and disconnect them. Then run a new cable via a different route, bypassing the segment you just disconnected. That's what I was thinking. It seems as though I will have to cut an opening in the back of my bookshelf for a new box and then snip the old wires that go into the old box and re-join them in the new box. I meant to have the junction box accessable in the first place. I even went and bought a box -extender for remodels, but when I placed the two bookshelves together on the wall...the "joint" of the bookshelves rested right down the middle of the socket. So I removed the socket, spliced the wires (I twisted them), and screwed the nut on and pushed them back into the box. No it doesn't make me comfortable that there are wires behind my built-in, but at the time I didn't really know what to do. |
#27
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Electical question
Another option would be to cut a hole in the back of the built-in directly over the box, and add an extender ring to the box to bring it flush with the inside surface of the built-in. Then attach the cover plate of your choice. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. That's what the problem is...there are two bookshelf components that join each other right over the place where the outlet or junction box is. I think my fix for this would be to cut a new hold in the back of the built-in and through the wall, Then find the wires that lead to the old junction box and snip them (with the power shut off of course). Then re-route new wires to the new j-box in the back of my built-in. |
#28
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Electical question
"rolsonDesign" wrote in message I think my fix for this would be to cut a new hold in the back of the built-in and through the wall, Then find the wires that lead to the old junction box and snip them (with the power shut off of course). Then re-route new wires to the new j-box in the back of my built-in. Perhaps this has been asked already: Interior wall? What's on the other side? -- www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 2/20/07 KarlC@ (the obvious) |
#29
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Electical question
On May 16, 9:55 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , "mike hide" wrote: I guess I have mixed feelings here, I recognize the dangers but have serious problems with electrician's high hourly rates in particular when the required job skill level is so low . Basically in this region their only claim to fame is the fact is they can sign off that the job is in fact to code regardless of their crappy work. In my opinion if their rates were reasonable far less people would be doing basic wiring themselves. I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on a couple of points. IMO, the reason so many folks go the DIY route has less to do with the hourly rates charged by electricians than with the widespread misperception that "the the required job skill level is so low." It's *not* a low-skill job. Almost any fool can install residential wiring so that it works. Installing it so that it works, *and* is safe, isn't quite so simple. I've encountered, and corrected, these problems (among others) created by the previous owners of my various homes: + light switch in the neutral instead of the hot + 14-2 BX made to do the job of 14-3 by using the cable armor as a conductor + 3-way switches installed with 12-2, using the ground conductor as a traveler + hot and neutral reversed on a receptacle + outdoor outlet unprotected by GFCI + 20A breaker on a circuit with 14ga wire + 30A fuse on a circuit with 14ga wire + Romex run through an ungrommeted hole in a steel cold air return duct + aluminum wire connected to copper with copper-only wire nuts + aluminum wire connected to copper-only receptacles + cross-connected neutrals in two junction boxes on different circuits + Edison circuits not identifed as such and having no common disconnect + 100A overcurrent protection on a circuit dedicated to a 1/2 HP well pump + abandoned live wires in circumstances very similar to the one Swingman described (though without the "pretty colored lights") + 60A subpanel fed from another subpanel with 10/3 Romex ... + ... attached to the *hot* side of the lugs (so that the only overcurrent protection for the 10-ga feeder was the 200A service disconnect) All of these things "work". Not one of them is safe. But because they function as expected, the idiots who installed them probably didn't give them a second thought. I think any person of normal intelligence and mechanical ability, who takes the trouble to familiarize himself with the proper materials and methods of installation, and with the applicable portions of the NEC, is capable of installing residential wiring safely. Trouble is, there are a LOT of people who don't even know that there IS a National Electrical Code, let alone have any idea WHY. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. Then isn't up to the people who come up with the National Electrical Code to properly make it known to the people who are planning on doing their own work...I mean, through some sort of PSA can't they say something like."If you going to do you own electrical work, be sure to understand and comply with the National Electrical Code." |
#30
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Electical question
In article . com, rolsonDesign wrote:
The best solution to this problem is to locate the other end of each of the two cables that enter this box, and disconnect them. Then run a new cable via a different route, bypassing the segment you just disconnected. That's what I was thinking. It seems as though I will have to cut an opening in the back of my bookshelf for a new box and then snip the old wires that go into the old box and re-join them in the new box. Not if you just bypass it as I outlined above, and abandon it. I'm not sure I understand where you're going with this. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
#31
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Electical question
In article .com, rolsonDesign wrote:
Then isn't up to the people who come up with the National Electrical Code to properly make it known to the people who are planning on doing their own work...I mean, through some sort of PSA can't they say something like."If you going to do you own electrical work, be sure to understand and comply with the National Electrical Code." In many jurisdictions, it's illegal to do your own electrical work without getting a permit -- and in some places you can't a permit unless you're a licensed electrician. The PSAs you suggest could be seen by local enforcement authorities as an inducement to violate the law. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
#32
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Electical question
In article . com, rolsonDesign wrote:
I think my fix for this would be to cut a new hold in the back of the built-in and through the wall, Then find the wires that lead to the old junction box and snip them (with the power shut off of course). Then re-route new wires to the new j-box in the back of my built-in. Why?? As it is right now, you have a splice in an inaccessible junction box. Let's call it Box A. There are two cables in that box, right? Each one goes to another box somewhere else. Call those Box B and Box C. Now locate those two boxes. Shut off the power. Disconnect and remove the cable from Box B that connects to Box A, after taking careful note of exactly how it's connected to the other cable(s) in the box. Do the same at Box C. Now run a new cable from Box B directly to Box C, connecting each end exactly as the old cables were connected. Turn power back on, and verify that each of the cables you disconnected is dead. Done. It no longer matters that Box A is inaccessible, because it's not connected to anything and therefore is no longer part of your electrical installation and therefore not subject to the Code. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
#33
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Electical question
On 15 May 2007 14:00:11 -0700, rolsonDesign
wrote: I recently constructed a built-in desk and bookshelf in my upstairs loft. There was an outlet on the wall that happened to be right where two bookshelves joined together. I had to remove the cover plate and outlet in order for the bookshelves to be flush against the wall. I removed the socket and rejoined the wires together using wire nuts. I then pushed the wires back into the box and put my shelves in front of it...without using a cover plate. Its this last part that I'm kinda regretting now that the built-in is complete. Should I have put a cover plate over that or will the wire nuts be sufficient? None of the wires were anywhere near crossing each other but I still have a little anxiety about it. I'm pretty sure I know what the pro's would do... Opinions? I'm probably breaking major building codes doing that too. Here is what I know about elektricity: Volts X Amps = Watts. Watts/Volts = Amps. I = V/r. P=V X I. I=P/V. For everything else I go to the NEC. I think that you should go there, too. Regards, Tom Watson tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email) http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ |
#34
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Electical question
On 17 May 2007 04:39:57 GMT, Puckdropper
wrote: (Doug Miller) wrote in et: Blank labels read the same in any language. g I'm labeling mine as we blow breakers due to excess current. There's power to the garage that also includes the kitchen in the next room, 90% of the house on breaker 15, I guess when they installed the heaters in the bathrooms they got their own circuits... and there's a bunch of breakers that I don't know what they're for yet. My solution to that problem was to... rip out the kitchen, and redo all the electrical circuits (in the kitchen), ripping out the BX, replacing it w/grounded romex, adding a few circuits, rearranging and exchanging breakers, and in the process figuring out what each and every breaker served. Minor problem that ensued was a few outlets in the basement are suddenly dead, due to feeding off one of the old, as yet untraced, disconnected kitchen lines. 'Course, that may be overkill in your situation... I delayed figuring out all the circuits until I had to. Surprisingly, in spite of a rather small # of breaker slots (~18?) I managed to find enough space in the panel to get in all the circuits I wanted, including 7 -8 for the kitchen. Renata Well, this is what happens when your house wiring "evolves". Puckdropper |
#35
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Electical question
Renata wrote in
: On 17 May 2007 04:39:57 GMT, Puckdropper wrote: (Doug Miller) wrote in . net: Blank labels read the same in any language. g I'm labeling mine as we blow breakers due to excess current. *trim* My solution to that problem was to... rip out the kitchen, and redo all the electrical circuits (in the kitchen), ripping out the BX, replacing it w/grounded romex, adding a few circuits, rearranging and exchanging breakers, and in the process figuring out what each and every breaker served. Minor problem that ensued was a few outlets in the basement are suddenly dead, due to feeding off one of the old, as yet untraced, disconnected kitchen lines. 'Course, that may be overkill in your situation... *snip* Renata Actually, that's underkill. To solve this house's problem, it really needs to be knocked down and rebuilt. (Blown up... hm... what fun. Too bad the neighbor's so close. The owners could charge admission for the event and maybe offset new construction costs.) Puckdropper -- Wise is the man who attempts to answer his question before asking it. To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm |
#36
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Electical question
On 21 May 2007 18:24:58 GMT, Puckdropper
wrote: Renata wrote in : On 17 May 2007 04:39:57 GMT, Puckdropper wrote: (Doug Miller) wrote in .net: Blank labels read the same in any language. g I'm labeling mine as we blow breakers due to excess current. *trim* My solution to that problem was to... rip out the kitchen, and redo all the electrical circuits (in the kitchen), ripping out the BX, replacing it w/grounded romex, adding a few circuits, rearranging and exchanging breakers, and in the process figuring out what each and every breaker served. Minor problem that ensued was a few outlets in the basement are suddenly dead, due to feeding off one of the old, as yet untraced, disconnected kitchen lines. 'Course, that may be overkill in your situation... *snip* Renata Actually, that's underkill. To solve this house's problem, it really needs to be knocked down and rebuilt. (Blown up... hm... what fun. Too bad the neighbor's so close. Well..., maybe not. What shape's his house in? Maybe you could make it a two-fer? In fact, how 'bout the neighborhood...? ;-) Renata The owners could charge admission for the event and maybe offset new construction costs.) Puckdropper |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Electical Problem... | Electronics Repair | |||
electical conduit | Home Repair | |||
Electical problem | UK diy | |||
electical supplies | UK diy | |||
Residential electical question | Home Repair |