On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 23:54:00 -0400, FrozenNorth
wrote the following:

On 6/20/10 11:37 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 12:15:41 -0500,
wrote the following:

On 6/20/10 11:59 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
As long as the hole is big enough to put the cables through it
without kinking or damaging them, sure. AFAIK, the Code doesn't
mention anything at all about minimum hole size through wood framing.

One caveat for drilling bigger holes in a typical tubafour stud frame
is the larger hole may require the use of nail plates if they end up
less than 1 1/4" from the edge.

True. I use bigger holes to make pulling easier, and to run more through
one hole. That way I don't have to worry about wires running through a lot
of different heights when rock goes on.


The real question is, how many lines can you run through a floor joist
in the basement ceiling, that allows for the most clothing to by hung
from it?

Is that in the NEC? :-)

The NEC specifically states that "clothing is optional", Mike.

Naked electricians are *not* allowed in my house.

Are you sure about that? You must be hiring the wrong
electricalician.

http://fwd4.me/TlF

http://fwd4.me/TlG

http://www.garagescapes.com/images/f...contractor.jpg

http://fwd4.me/TlI

http://fwd4.me/TlK

And the one who got the attention of both brains:
http://fwd4.me/TlL Va va VOOM!

--
Peace of mind is that mental condition in which you have accepted the worst.
-- Lin Yutang

Doug, Thank you, as always, for your thoughtful answers!

I normally space holes about 2"
apart, but there's no hard-and-fast rule about that.

Do you mean 2" between centers? Since "straight-up" is the best way to
exit my subpanel, I wish to be efficient. I've already planned 8 cables
coming out, with others likely to follow. Putting two 10-2 cables in a
3/4" hole and two 12-2 (or 14-2) cables in a 5/8" hole ought to be
efficient! I'll follow the same grouping rules threading the wires
through the wall studs. Lew Hodgett pointed out that threading three
10-2 cables through a 3/4" hole was definitely wrong. I would appreciate
knowing his point of view concerning this.

Is there any problem with different gauge cables sharing the same hole
(I considered that the conduit on the lesser cable might not be adequate
to be next to a hotter cable)? Swingman (smartly) advised me not to do
anything I don't feel confident about--and this is a detail that makes
me hesitate.

My concern was that the location was
where someone might expect to find a light switch (so I would use a
coverplate, or equivalent protection).

Not sure what you mean here.

If I walked through a door and reached around for a switch only to feel
an outlet I would find it a little unnerving. I was thinking of the
types of coverplates that have additional "child-proof" covers over the
outlets or that are designed for exterior use ("spring-loaded" outlet
covers). At 50" inches, I would have 4 duplex outlets in a neat row.
"Form" may have to sacrifice for the sake of "function" here though,
and I may move that outlet down to knee-level. That outlet will allow
me to easily plug in an extension cord for use in the back yard and will
be a big improvement over my existing configuration. I'll save the idea
of exterior outlets for another year.

THANK YOU (ALL); having "Fun"!
Bill


BTW, is anyone else not sure they prefer the appearance of those "flat"
GFCI outlets compared to traditonal-looking outlets. The former seem to
be styled for use in a home. For $32 (x3), I can buy GFCI C-Breakers,
and use the outlets I like, but I'd just soon have the GFCI switch at
the (first) outlet. Maybe I should get around a little more and try
shopping someplace besides Menards...but based upon what I've seen, I'm
not going to get my hopes up.

Bill wrote in :

*snip*


If I walked through a door and reached around for a switch only to
feel an outlet I would find it a little unnerving. I was thinking of
the types of coverplates that have additional "child-proof" covers
over the outlets or that are designed for exterior use
("spring-loaded" outlet covers). At 50" inches, I would have 4 duplex
outlets in a neat row. "Form" may have to sacrifice for the sake of
"function" here though, and I may move that outlet down to knee-level.
That outlet will allow me to easily plug in an extension cord for use
in the back yard and will be a big improvement over my existing
configuration. I'll save the idea of exterior outlets for another
year.

THANK YOU (ALL); having "Fun"!
Bill

Disconcerting, perhaps, but probably not dangerous. Looking at most
common outlet designs, it's impossible to stick your fingers in far
enough to contact something.

If you're looking for a light switch there, though, put a light switch
there. That's good usability where something is exactly where the user
expects it to be.

FWIW, you might as well add at least the wiring for an exterior outlet
while you're doing everything else. You'll enjoy the upgrade every time
you plug something in outside without having to leave the door cracked.

Puckdropper
--
Never teach your apprentice everything you know.

Bill wrote:


Is there any problem with different gauge cables sharing the same hole
(I considered that the conduit on the lesser cable might not be
adequate to be next to a hotter cable)? Swingman (smartly) advised
me not to do anything I don't feel confident about--and this is a
detail that makes me hesitate.

No problem. It is commonly done.


If I walked through a door and reached around for a switch only to
feel an outlet I would find it a little unnerving. I was thinking of
the types of coverplates that have additional "child-proof" covers
over the outlets or that are designed for exterior use
("spring-loaded" outlet covers). At 50" inches, I would have 4
duplex outlets in a neat row. "Form" may have to sacrifice for the
sake of "function" here though, and I may move that outlet down to
knee-level. That outlet will allow me to easily plug in an extension
cord for use in the back yard and will be a big improvement over my
existing configuration. I'll save the idea of exterior outlets for
another year.

Now would be a better time to install the exterior outlets, while you have
the walls opened up. It does not take any longer than installing an inside
outlet.


--

-Mike-

Mike Marlow wrote:

Now would be a better time to install the exterior outlets, while you have
the walls opened up. It does not take any longer than installing an inside
outlet.

Thank you for that suggestion, I will investigating what is involved.
It is true that I would want the outlet on the other side of a wall that
I am presently working on....

Puckdropper, your idea of positioning a lightswitch at 50"--where people
are likely to expect it, is a good idea! I could install a switch there
for my new lighting (that I don't have yet). I was focusing so intently
on doing one thing at a time that the idea did not occur to me.

I was looking at lighting at Menards. I know I want simple fluorenscent
lighting that works when it's cold and can be seen but not heard. I
sort of recollect someone mentioning the "American Fluorescent Lighting"
company, possibly in low regard (cheap ballasters?). They made many of
the simple fixtures I saw at Menards. Is the prevailing regard for CFL
products negative?

Lighting is a whole-nuther can of worms... For an instant, I saw light
at the end of the tunnel! : ) Thanks for keeping me thinking!

Bill

Mike Marlow wrote:

Now would be a better time to install the exterior outlets, while you have
the walls opened up. It does not take any longer than installing an inside
outlet.



I was just passing along your idea to my wife and she evidently felt the
need to point out to me that the wall was brick! : ) A matter of mere
"child's play", I'm sure.

Bill

Bill wrote:

I was looking at lighting at Menards. I know I want simple
fluorenscent lighting that works when it's cold and can be seen but
not heard. I sort of recollect someone mentioning the "American
Fluorescent Lighting" company, possibly in low regard (cheap
ballasters?). They made many of the simple fixtures I saw at
Menards. Is the prevailing regard for CFL products negative?

Perhaps anecdotal, but my experiences with American Florescent has been far
less than satisfying. They are generally low priced units - for a reason...


Lighting is a whole-nuther can of worms... For an instant, I saw light
at the end of the tunnel!

Was it getting bigger?

--

-Mike-

Bill wrote:
Mike Marlow wrote:

Now would be a better time to install the exterior outlets, while
you have the walls opened up. It does not take any longer than
installing an inside outlet.



I was just passing along your idea to my wife and she evidently felt
the need to point out to me that the wall was brick! : ) A matter
of mere "child's play", I'm sure.


Bigger hammer!

--

-Mike-

In article , Bill wrote:

Doug, Thank you, as always, for your thoughtful answers!

I normally space holes about 2"
apart, but there's no hard-and-fast rule about that.

Do you mean 2" between centers?

It doesn't matter. It's only approximate anyway.

Since "straight-up" is the best way to
exit my subpanel, I wish to be efficient. I've already planned 8 cables
coming out, with others likely to follow. Putting two 10-2 cables in a
3/4" hole and two 12-2 (or 14-2) cables in a 5/8" hole ought to be
efficient! I'll follow the same grouping rules threading the wires
through the wall studs. Lew Hodgett pointed out that threading three
10-2 cables through a 3/4" hole was definitely wrong. I would appreciate
knowing his point of view concerning this.

"Definitely wrong"? Hardly. There's nothing in the Code, AFAIK, that dictates
specific sizes of holes in wood framing for passing cables through. If the
hole is large enough to pass the cables without damaging them, and it's done
"in a neat and workmanlike manner", the Code is satisfied.

Is there any problem with different gauge cables sharing the same hole

None at all.

(I considered that the conduit on the lesser cable might not be adequate
to be next to a hotter cable)? Swingman (smartly) advised me not to do
anything I don't feel confident about--and this is a detail that makes
me hesitate.

My concern was that the location was
where someone might expect to find a light switch (so I would use a
coverplate, or equivalent protection).

Not sure what you mean here.

If I walked through a door and reached around for a switch only to feel
an outlet I would find it a little unnerving. I was thinking of the
types of coverplates that have additional "child-proof" covers over the
outlets or that are designed for exterior use ("spring-loaded" outlet
covers).

Ahh, I see now. There's no Code violation there that I'm aware of. The Code
does require a switch close to the door, though -- the idea is that you
shouldn't have to walk all the way into a dark room to turn on the lights.

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 00:20:41 -0400, Bill wrote the
following:

Mike Marlow wrote:

Now would be a better time to install the exterior outlets, while you have
the walls opened up. It does not take any longer than installing an inside
outlet.

Thank you for that suggestion, I will investigating what is involved.
It is true that I would want the outlet on the other side of a wall that
I am presently working on....

Puckdropper, your idea of positioning a lightswitch at 50"--where people
are likely to expect it, is a good idea! I could install a switch there
for my new lighting (that I don't have yet). I was focusing so intently
on doing one thing at a time that the idea did not occur to me.

I was looking at lighting at Menards. I know I want simple fluorenscent
lighting that works when it's cold and can be seen but not heard. I
sort of recollect someone mentioning the "American Fluorescent Lighting"
company, possibly in low regard (cheap ballasters?).

"Balluster" is for stairs. "Ballast" is for fluor tube lighting. Stay
away from Lights of America brand. It's the cheapest, worst crap I've
ever had the displeasure of replacing half a dozen times (2x for
myself and 4x for others.)


They made many of
the simple fixtures I saw at Menards. Is the prevailing regard for CFL
products negative?

Every lamp in my home which can utilize CFLs is doing so now. I love
'em. The whiter/bluer, the better. Uckfay Amberyay! My current batch
came from China and are (almost) dimmable. (They still bounce a flash
every couple seconds on X-10 dimming modules for my home automation,
so I replaced those with appliance modules with relays. No mo
blinking. They're only 60Hz, though, so I do get a mild amount of
hum. For humless fluor strip lighting, go with electronic ballasts at
at least 120Hz frequency. Much quieter, much better, cold-hardy, etc.


Lighting is a whole-nuther can of worms... For an instant, I saw light
at the end of the tunnel! : ) Thanks for keeping me thinking!

Caution, Bill. The light at the end of the tunnel is actually an
oncoming train!


--
Peace of mind is that mental condition in which you have accepted the worst.
-- Lin Yutang

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 07:45:33 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote the following:

Bill wrote:
Mike Marlow wrote:

Now would be a better time to install the exterior outlets, while
you have the walls opened up. It does not take any longer than
installing an inside outlet.



I was just passing along your idea to my wife and she evidently felt
the need to point out to me that the wall was brick! : ) A matter
of mere "child's play", I'm sure.


Bigger hammer!

No, januwine Harbor Fright Multifunction tool to the rescue!
Grub out the grout and remove 1 or 2 bricks, gaining access to the
wall.

--
Peace of mind is that mental condition in which you have accepted the worst.
-- Lin Yutang

Bill writes:

Doug, Thank you, as always, for your thoughtful answers!

I normally space holes about 2"
apart, but there's no hard-and-fast rule about that.

Do you mean 2" between centers? Since "straight-up" is the best way to
exit my subpanel, I wish to be efficient. I've already planned 8 cables
coming out, with others likely to follow. Putting two 10-2 cables in a
3/4" hole and two 12-2 (or 14-2) cables in a 5/8" hole ought to be
efficient! I'll follow the same grouping rules threading the wires
through the wall studs. Lew Hodgett pointed out that threading three
10-2 cables through a 3/4" hole was definitely wrong. I would appreciate
knowing his point of view concerning this.

It's not clear from this, but do ensure that you never run mutiple
romex cables through a knockout on the subpanel. Once cable (with
appropriate clamp) per knockout.



Is there any problem with different gauge cables sharing the same hole
(I considered that the conduit on the lesser cable might not be adequate
to be next to a hotter cable)? Swingman (smartly) advised me not to do
anything I don't feel confident about--and this is a detail that makes
me hesitate.

Not a problem; assuming again that you're referring a hole in a framing
member, not a knockout in the panelbox.

scott

Bill writes:

Lighting is a whole-nuther can of worms... For an instant, I saw light
at the end of the tunnel! : ) Thanks for keeping me thinking!


For lighting, particularly in the regions of the country that have
Menards :-), you want electronic ballasts that work to zero degrees F.

They're plenty quiet enough. I use 8' T12's, but if I were doing it
today, I'd use 8' T8's. Do select an appropriate color temperature
bulb - C50's (Chroma 50's), 5000K is about right for a shop such that
your finishes will look similar under the shop lights as under daylight.

If you use 4 footers, try picking them up at garage sales/flea markets
then swapping out the ballasts; HD around here has electronic replacment
ballasts, or you can check out the local lighting shop.

scott

In article , wrote:

It's not clear from this, but do ensure that you never run mutiple
romex cables through a knockout on the subpanel. Once cable (with
appropriate clamp) per knockout.

As long as the clamp is rated for two cables, where's the problem?

(Doug Miller) writes:
In article , wrote:

It's not clear from this, but do ensure that you never run mutiple
romex cables through a knockout on the subpanel. Once cable (with
appropriate clamp) per knockout.

As long as the clamp is rated for two cables, where's the problem?

Shouldn't be a problem. They're not very common.

scott

In article , wrote:
(Doug Miller) writes:
In article ,
wrote:

It's not clear from this, but do ensure that you never run mutiple
romex cables through a knockout on the subpanel. Once cable (with
appropriate clamp) per knockout.

As long as the clamp is rated for two cables, where's the problem?

Shouldn't be a problem. They're not very common.

More common than you think. Take a look at the fine print on the next package
you buy; you might be surprised. It's been quite a while since I've bought any
romex clamps that were *not* rated for two 12-2 or 14-2 cables.

scott

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , Bill wrote:

Doug, Thank you, as always, for your thoughtful answers!

I normally space holes about 2"

apart, but there's no hard-and-fast rule about that.

Do you mean 2" between centers?


It doesn't matter. It's only approximate anyway.


Since "straight-up" is the best way to
exit my subpanel, I wish to be efficient. I've already planned 8 cables
coming out, with others likely to follow. Putting two 10-2 cables in a
3/4" hole and two 12-2 (or 14-2) cables in a 5/8" hole ought to be
efficient! I'll follow the same grouping rules threading the wires
through the wall studs. Lew Hodgett pointed out that threading three
10-2 cables through a 3/4" hole was definitely wrong. I would appreciate
knowing his point of view concerning this.


"Definitely wrong"? Hardly. There's nothing in the Code, AFAIK, that dictates
specific sizes of holes in wood framing for passing cables through. If the
hole is large enough to pass the cables without damaging them, and it's done
"in a neat and workmanlike manner", the Code is satisfied.



The NEC may not mention it but the building codes do. IIRC an example
is that any hole drilled in a stud for a load bearing wall can not
exceed 40 percent of the width of the stud. Floor joist are an all
together different matter.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

(Doug Miller) writes:
In article , wrote:
(Doug Miller) writes:
In article ,
wrote:

It's not clear from this, but do ensure that you never run mutiple
romex cables through a knockout on the subpanel. Once cable (with
appropriate clamp) per knockout.

As long as the clamp is rated for two cables, where's the problem?

Shouldn't be a problem. They're not very common.

More common than you think. Take a look at the fine print on the next package
you buy; you might be surprised. It's been quite a while since I've bought any
romex clamps that were *not* rated for two 12-2 or 14-2 cables.

scott

Ok. I bought 100 pack last time, and tossed the plastic wrap. I'll check
next time I'm at electrical supply house.

scott

In article , Nova wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

In article , Bill wrote:

Doug, Thank you, as always, for your thoughtful answers!

I normally space holes about 2"

apart, but there's no hard-and-fast rule about that.

Do you mean 2" between centers?


It doesn't matter. It's only approximate anyway.


Since "straight-up" is the best way to
exit my subpanel, I wish to be efficient. I've already planned 8 cables
coming out, with others likely to follow. Putting two 10-2 cables in a
3/4" hole and two 12-2 (or 14-2) cables in a 5/8" hole ought to be
efficient! I'll follow the same grouping rules threading the wires
through the wall studs. Lew Hodgett pointed out that threading three
10-2 cables through a 3/4" hole was definitely wrong. I would appreciate
knowing his point of view concerning this.


"Definitely wrong"? Hardly. There's nothing in the Code, AFAIK, that dictates

specific sizes of holes in wood framing for passing cables through. If the
hole is large enough to pass the cables without damaging them, and it's done
"in a neat and workmanlike manner", the Code is satisfied.



The NEC may not mention it but the building codes do. IIRC an example
is that any hole drilled in a stud for a load bearing wall can not
exceed 40 percent of the width of the stud. Floor joist are an all
together different matter.

Sounds like a good and sensible rule. Note, though, that it imposes an _upper_
limit on the size of the hole, not a _lower_ limit.

And that upper limit is pretty generous: 40% of the width of a tubafour is
almost an inch and a half.

Oh buloney! Look at the truss spec. on your last order design or consult
your local truss manufacturer.


wrote in message
...
*NOT* true. Trusses are not typically rated for *any* floor loading. Their
strength is in compression. The web has no strength in tension.


On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 09:48:43 -0400, "Josepi" wrote:

Trusses would typically have "Webs" installed between any long runs of
outside framing and 2 x 6 bottom rafters or smaller. If they are a "stick
roof" then the bottom rafter has to be large enough lumber to carry the
ceiling weight for that long span, itself and would be a 2 x8 or larger for
more than 10-12 feet. I would have to look up the span chart in the
building
code to give you exact sizes here but you get the idea.

Basically, if you have a wide ceiling (more than 12') and there is no
vertical web pieces than you would not have trusses. It won't matter as
trusses or stick roof they can carry some load. I wouldn't store 100 lb up
there though.

Romex in conduit would probably OK in your Code but in conduit you would
have to derate the conductors as per tables in your electrical code.

It's all about cooling the conductor so it doesn't overheat and give you
fire problems.

Remember not to put extension cords under a rug? Samething applies...heat
buildup

So a #14 wire is good for 20 amperes in free air, 15 amperes in a cable with
other buddies and less in conduit, depending on how many buddies in in bed
with it. Our electrical boxes are all marked in cu in or air space now and I
believe the US is starting that also. Less air space means less wires
allowed and less connectors.


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
I'm a 1-hole/1-wire kinda guy. If the NEC won't let you put Romex
into a conduit, why stuff wires together at all? Remember that when
you're in a workshop, most of your plugins are high-amp tools. Act
accordingly, eh?

I only installed fictures in my latest home that can take CFL with Med
bases.

I spent a lot on 6500K bulbs only to find, now I can't stand the colour in
lay back relax situations. Love them for work areas where you have to focus
on details. The 48" tube fluorescents seems to display a nicer light than
the CFLs in the 6500K though.

Now I have many of my bedrooms and TV area CFLs replaced with 2700K or 3000K
units and it is just my cosy.

The other caveat on CFLs is they do not last that long. In two years I have
tossed out about 8-10 bulbs, so far. A few years from a Sylvania CFL bulb
would be amazing. Many good quality incandescents have lasted longer than
most of these bulbs, so far. Now you figure out which ones are good quality
in this week's production.



"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
Every lamp in my home which can utilize CFLs is doing so now. I love
'em. The whiter/bluer, the better. Uckfay Amberyay! My current batch
came from China and are (almost) dimmable. (They still bounce a flash
every couple seconds on X-10 dimming modules for my home automation,
so I replaced those with appliance modules with relays. No mo
blinking. They're only 60Hz, though, so I do get a mild amount of
hum. For humless fluor strip lighting, go with electronic ballasts at
at least 120Hz frequency. Much quieter, much better, cold-hardy, etc.

Was that the same advise as the guy telling you that 120 volt won't really
hurt you and all you had to do was keep one hand in your pocket at all time?
Bad display of ignorance. Note the sock puppets present.


If you knew how many times I have been involved in electrical accidents for
120 volt contacts and flashes of personnel it would make you shriek.
Fortunately, nobody I was close to, every died from one or HV for that
matter. Just a lot of burn treatments, raised antibody testing and eye
treatments for flash damage.


"Bill" wrote in message
...
We're human, huh? Accidents can happen sooo easily. I was recently
accused of worrying too much. Me, can you imagine that! : )

Bill

Larry Jaques wrote:
Because of the insulation,
I missed the flatwire cable for the water heater. The result was
blinding as I ran the Tiger saw through the outer wall and into the
wire as I cut the rectangular hole for the microwave and stove vent.

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 22:05:15 -0400, "Josepi" wrote:

Oh buloney! Look at the truss spec. on your last order design or consult
your local truss manufacturer.

I have. You're wrong. Simple physics even tells the simple this.

Stop top posting, moron.

top posting is way to complix for you moron!

wrote in message
. ..

" wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 22:05:15 -0400, "Josepi" wrote:

Oh buloney! Look at the truss spec. on your last order design or consult
your local truss manufacturer.

I have. You're wrong. Simple physics even tells the simple this.

Stop top posting, moron.

On Jun 23, 5:40*am, "Josepi" wrote:
top posting is way to complix for you moron!

I am not the one who has trouble with simple concepts, moron.

When you stop top posting perhaps someone will answer you again.

Not my post folks. The OCD trolls are running amuck here.

If you want to clone me, at least get the top post format right.

I am tickled with the importantance you assign to my posts despite your sore
losing.


"Josepi" **clone** wrote in message
...
top posting is way to complix for you moron!
Stop top posting, moron.

wrote in message
. ..
I have. You're wrong. Simple physics even tells the simple this.


" wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 22:05:15 -0400, "Josepi" wrote:

Oh buloney! Look at the truss spec. on your last order design or consult
your local truss manufacturer.

Sorry Keith. It wasn't my post at that time of the morning.

I can read posts with almost any formatting.


wrote in message
...
I am not the one who has trouble with simple concepts, moron.

When you stop top posting perhaps someone will answer you again.



On Jun 23, 5:40 am, "Josepi" wrote:
top posting is way to complix for you moron!

On 6/23/2010 8:37 AM, Josepi wrote:
Sorry Keith. It wasn't my post at that time of the morning.

I can read posts with almost any formatting.


wrote in message
...
I am not the one who has trouble with simple concepts, moron.

When you stop top posting perhaps someone will answer you again.



On Jun 23, 5:40 am, wrote:
top posting is way to complix for you moron!

What the **** is your problem? You've been chastised by a half-dozen people
for top-posting, yet you claim some "other" impersonator is to blame for at
least some of them, which you so brilliantly point out with yet another ****ing
top-post? One (I might add) that was explicitly corrected by Keith then
UN-corrected by you? Oh, so YOU "can read posts with almost any formatting"...
What do you want, a ****ing medal? Is that you're justification for
blatantly ignoring the wishes of others?

--
A. Because it makes the discussion harder to read.
Q. Why should I not top-post?
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

Scott Lurndal wrote:

It's not clear from this, but do ensure that you never run mutiple
romex cables through a knockout on the subpanel. Once cable (with
appropriate clamp) per knockout.


scott


Scott, Thank you for mentioning this! -Bill

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 19:41:58 -0400, Bill wrote:

Scott Lurndal wrote:

It's not clear from this, but do ensure that you never run mutiple
romex cables through a knockout on the subpanel. Once cable (with
appropriate clamp) per knockout.


scott


Scott, Thank you for mentioning this! -Bill

Except that it's not true, in general. Read at the box of clamps. It'll tell
you how many cables can be clamped with one clamp. Quite often you can put
two 12/2s in a single 1/2" clamp.

One thing you might find handy are the plastic stacked cable brackets for
organizing the routing into and out of your box. They support several
parallel cables from the box into the ceiling (or floor), where you can then
split them off to where they're going.

Doug Miller wrote:

Ahh, I see now. There's no Code violation there that I'm aware of. The Code
does require a switch close to the door, though -- the idea is that you
shouldn't have to walk all the way into a dark room to turn on the lights.

Thank you for mentioning that. I'm going to install a switch for my new
lighting right in the suggested location.


BTW, due to mid-western storms this week, my Internet and phone access
at home have been down and that is why I haven't replied to any posts
during the last few days. And Comcast won't send anyone over to look
into the matter (power-surged modem?) for another 6 days... When a
company asks you to entrust them with such concerns, and you regularly
send them decent sized checks, you might expect them to try to work a
little faster to get things right. My wife noted that it takes 30
minutes to speak to someone working through Comcast's answering system,
however if you are requesting "new service" then you get to speak to
someone almost immediately. She's been successfully using that
"shortcut" to get to a person. I apologize if it's slowed any of you
folks who are requesting new services! ; )

So, in any event, I won't be back until Monday or so. Thank you for all
of the suggestions for lighting, et. al. I feel like you left me with
plenty of projects to keep me occupied in the meantime! : )

Happy Wreck-ing!

Bill

"Bill" wrote

BTW, due to mid-western storms this week, my Internet and phone access at
home have been down and that is why I haven't replied to any posts during
the last few days. And Comcast won't send anyone over to look into the
matter (power-surged modem?) for another 6 days... When a company asks
you to entrust them with such concerns, and you regularly send them decent
sized checks, you might expect them to try to work a little faster to get
things right.

I remember that classic line about Comcast.

Anybody who doesn't beleive in the existance of hell has obviously never
subscribed to Comcast.

In article , Bill wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

Ahh, I see now. There's no Code violation there that I'm aware of. The Code
does require a switch close to the door, though -- the idea is that you
shouldn't have to walk all the way into a dark room to turn on the lights.

Thank you for mentioning that. I'm going to install a switch for my new
lighting right in the suggested location.


BTW, due to mid-western storms this week

Where ya at? We've had a lot of midwestern storms this week, too -- wonder if
you're anywhere near. I'm in Indianapolis.

Lee Michaels wrote:
"Bill" wrote
BTW, due to mid-western storms this week, my Internet and phone access at
home have been down and that is why I haven't replied to any posts during
the last few days. And Comcast won't send anyone over to look into the
matter (power-surged modem?) for another 6 days... When a company asks
you to entrust them with such concerns, and you regularly send them decent
sized checks, you might expect them to try to work a little faster to get
things right.

I remember that classic line about Comcast.



Anybody who doesn't beleive in the existance of hell has obviously never
subscribed to Comcast.

IT IS true that they have a great deal of room for improvement. They
definitely suffer from the "one hand not knowing what the other is
doing" syndrome...and their second hand often doesn't know what it's
doing either. We were instructed to "return our box for exchange" this
week, only to be told upon arrival that "we don't take those". You sort
of get used to it and it becomes a bad joke...

Bill

I like to sit on one hand until it goes completely to sleep.

Then when I use that hand it always feels like somebody else is doing it.

LOL

"Bill" wrote in message
...
IT IS true that they have a great deal of room for improvement. They
definitely suffer from the "one hand not knowing what the other is
doing" syndrome...and their second hand often doesn't know what it's
doing either. We were instructed to "return our box for exchange" this
week, only to be told upon arrival that "we don't take those". You sort
of get used to it and it becomes a bad joke...

Bill


Lee Michaels wrote:
"Bill" wrote
BTW, due to mid-western storms this week, my Internet and phone access at
home have been down and that is why I haven't replied to any posts during
the last few days. And Comcast won't send anyone over to look into the
matter (power-surged modem?) for another 6 days... When a company asks
you to entrust them with such concerns, and you regularly send them
decent
sized checks, you might expect them to try to work a little faster to get
things right.

I remember that classic line about Comcast.

My apoligies Bill never would I laugh at your situation of
self created stupidity. The clone poster is of hell bent persuasion
to make me cry. I am weeping but for you those like you
well to silly to get over how many times it takes to say
READ my history!
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...6757f15c?hl=en


"Josepi" wrote in message
news: ...

I like to sit on one hand until it goes completely to sleep.

Then when I use that hand it always feels like somebody else is doing it.

LOL

"Bill" wrote in message
...
IT IS true that they have a great deal of room for improvement. They
definitely suffer from the "one hand not knowing what the other is
doing" syndrome...and their second hand often doesn't know what it's
doing either. We were instructed to "return our box for exchange" this
week, only to be told upon arrival that "we don't take those". You sort
of get used to it and it becomes a bad joke...

Bill


Lee Michaels wrote:
"Bill" wrote
BTW, due to mid-western storms this week, my Internet and phone access at
home have been down and that is why I haven't replied to any posts during
the last few days. And Comcast won't send anyone over to look into the
matter (power-surged modem?) for another 6 days... When a company asks
you to entrust them with such concerns, and you regularly send them
decent
sized checks, you might expect them to try to work a little faster to get
things right.

I remember that classic line about Comcast.

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 10:26:08 -0500, Steve Turner
wrote the following:

On 6/23/2010 8:37 AM, Josepi wrote:
Sorry Keith. It wasn't my post at that time of the morning.

I can read posts with almost any formatting.


wrote in message
...
I am not the one who has trouble with simple concepts, moron.

When you stop top posting perhaps someone will answer you again.



On Jun 23, 5:40 am, wrote:
top posting is way to complix for you moron!

What the **** is your problem?

Guys, would you just plonk Josepi and forget him?
We'll all feel better about it.

DFTFT

--
Peace of mind is that mental condition in which you have accepted the worst.
-- Lin Yutang

Same easynews.com account and ID...LOL
You are just too easy hopper/tazoar/Lectronuis/Ms Marples/wmjbk/Doug/

------------------
Path:
s03-b23.iad!npeersf01.iad.highwinds-media.com!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.glorb.com!news2.glorb.com!news.glor b.com!news-in-01.newsfeed.easynews.com!easynews!core-easynews-01!easynews.com!en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Larry Jaques
Newsgroups: rec.woodworking
Subject: Shop Wall and Electric
Sender:
Organization: DIVERSIFY.com
Reply-To: lid
Message-ID:
References:









X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 5.00/32.1170
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 100623-1, 06/23/2010), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Lines: 30
X-Complaints-To:
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise
we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 21:42:26 -0700
X-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 21:43:11 MST (s03-b23.iad)

On 6/23/2010 11:42 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:

Guys, would you just plonk Josepi and forget him?


Who?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)