Originally Posted By: jmyers This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Mike,
The word "workmanship" is so vague of a term that it is for all practical purposes, unenforceable. I believe it was meant more to keep someone from using 5/8 inch cable staples on a 4/0 SE cable.
Whether or not I would want or allow all of one bedroom receptacles on one circuit would depend on a few things. First would be the ampacity of that circuit, say a 20 versus a 15 amp. Second would be that the house has central air, compared to some older homes which would need window units. Third would be the size of the room and how many receptacles would be required. Given that the average room size around here is 15 X 13 it would be a sincere waste of time, money and wiring to put those 6 receptacles on two seperate circuits.
A little common sense goes a long way, but some good stupidity lasts forever. ![icon_biggrin.gif](upload://iKNGSw3qcRIEmXySa8gItY6Gczg.gif)
Originally Posted By: Mike Parks This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Bob
Did you read the FPN in 90.1?
Joe
Yes workmanship is vague but can I enforce it?
Yes.
Example:
Yesterday I took over the inspections for a very, very, very, small town. The GC and EC ask me what I wanted. I said to them "It is not what I want, It is the code!"
All the work is very good. The problem is that they have had 3 different opinions (inspectors) in 6 months.
One told him that the supplemental ground rod was not needed. So he did not install it.
What I told him was as follows:
1) The code is the rule.
2) If I am wrong, (never LOL), call me on it.
3) Add outlets for the A/C.
4) Keep doing the good work that you do.
5) A multi-feed on the same yoke must be disconnected at the same time.
6) You may, hard wire or plug connect the D/W and disposal. It is your choice.
The GC told me that whatever I asked he would do.
I told him that what he was doing is quality work.
Originally Posted By: Bob Badger This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Mike Parks wrote:
Bob
Did you read the FPN in 90.1?
This one Mike?
Quote:
FPN:Hazards often occur because of overloading of wiring systems by methods or usage not in conformity with this Code. This occurs because initial wiring did not provide for increases in the use of electricity. An initial adequate installation and reasonable provisions for system changes will provide for future increases in the use of electricity.
Yes, I am failure with it, I am also familiar with this code article.
Quote:
90.5 Mandatory Rules, Permissive Rules, and Explanatory Material.
90.5(C) Explanatory Material. Explanatory material, such as references to other standards, references to related sections of this Code, or information related to a Code rule, is included in this Code in the form of fine print notes (FPNs). Fine print notes are informational only and are not enforceable as requirements of this Code.
FPNs mean nothing for the inspector ![icon_twisted.gif](upload://xjO326gspdTNE5QS3UTl0a0Rtvy.gif) , they are helpful tips for the installers.
Mike Parks wrote:
Yes workmanship is vague but can I enforce it?
Yes.
You can only request it, you can not enforce it, at least that is how it is in the states I work in.
Everyone has a different definition of workmanlike and we all think we are correct in our own definition.
Some electricians from Chicago (All pipe wiring methods) think electricians that use NM are hacks and unworkmanlike.
Originally Posted By: jmyers This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Mike,
You are speaking as if the code is black and white. In many cases it is, in many it is not. You can only give your interpretation, as you stated, others can give theirs.
If you, or anyone else, wants to spend your life looking up code references so you can get into some good pi**ing contests, by all means, go ahead.
I prefer to save my time, energy and money for things that really mean something, like sex! ![icon_biggrin.gif](upload://iKNGSw3qcRIEmXySa8gItY6Gczg.gif)
You will be the better pi**er, but I will have the better pistol.
Originally Posted By: Mike Parks This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
"The GC and EC ask me what I wanted. I said to them “It is not what I want, It is the code!” "
Please note where I said it is the code NOT my opinion.
"Mike,
You are speaking as if the code is black and white. In many cases it is, in many it is not. You can only give your interpretation, as you stated, others can give theirs."
Again you are correct.
"How many outlets can I put on the small appliance branch circuit?"
The code does not limit this.
Let me ask this again:
"Could I make you put more than one circuit in a 1500sf bedroom (and yes there are homes this big)?
3va X 1500sf = 4500va?"
These (those) are load calculations for the entire home.
Can I enforce 90.8? I think not. But would a workmanlike installation allow for this???
Originally Posted By: jfarsetta This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Guys,
This was all very interesting, but Home Inspectors are NOT code enforcement officials. How many of us do load calcs when inspecting a home? Hell, I'm lucky if the panel is properly labeled.
This stuff is nice to know, but goes WAY beyond the standards of practice, IMO. Again, the discussion is certainly lively, but this thread just drifted to Gilligan's Island.
-- Joe Farsetta
Illigitimi Non Carborundum
"Dont let the bastards grind you down..."
Originally Posted By: Bob Badger This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
jfarsetta wrote:
This stuff is nice to know, but goes WAY beyond the standards of practice, IMO. Again, the discussion is certainly lively, but this thread just drifted to Gilligan's Island.
Your right, and I agreed with that earlier, that was why I went with the thread drift chart. ![icon_lol.gif](upload://zEgbBCXRskkCTwEux7Bi20ZySza.gif)
Call me Gilligan and whack me with the Skippers Cap. ![icon_lol.gif](upload://zEgbBCXRskkCTwEux7Bi20ZySza.gif)