# J-B Weld to Mount Metal Box



## HooKooDooKu (Jan 7, 2008)

I want to mount a switch on a steel plated support post.

The best way I can thing to do this is to run conduit down the face of the post to a metal handy box in which to place the switch.

Other than trying to drill through steel, the best solution I can come up with to mount the box is J-B Weld. The stuff is strong, withstands high temperatures (up to 600 degrees) and is not electrically conductive.

Is there anything in electrical code that would say this isn't a suitable way to mount the box?


{Initial Results on Page 5}
{New update on Page 6}


----------



## plummen (Jan 10, 2010)

i think an inspector would site workmanship. how about drilling and tapping the pole? :thumbsup:


----------



## Termite (Apr 13, 2008)

Aside from the need to mechanically fasten the box to the structure, I would think that any reputable inspector would turn that down for not being installed in a workmanlike manner. Being a ******* I agree that JB Weld is strong and might work fine, but as an inspector I'd never consider passing it. :no:

There are a multitude of options for mechanically attaching a box to red iron. Self tapping machine screws are available from sources such as Fastenall...They don't even need a pilot hole.


----------



## HooKooDooKu (Jan 7, 2008)

plummen said:


> i think an inspector would site workmanship. how about drilling and tapping the pole? :thumbsup:


Elaborate please?


I ask that because when I'm doing home improvements, I take my time to make sure it's done well enough that I'll never have to do it again. 

My only real concern would be if there were something in the code that says that conduit and such must be MECHANICALLY fastened, and therefore an inspector turn it down for being CHEMICALY fastened.

So I'm not worried about the install ever failing, but that doesn't mean the inspector will have the same opinion.


----------



## HooKooDooKu (Jan 7, 2008)

thekctermite said:


> Aside from the need to mechanically fasten the box to the structure, I would think that any reputable inspector would turn that down for not being installed in a workmanlike manner. Being a ******* I agree that JB Weld is strong and might work fine, but as an inspector I'd never consider passing it. :no:
> 
> There are a multitude of options for mechanically attaching a box to red iron. Self tapping machine screws are available from sources such as Fastenall...They don't even need a pilot hole.


You answered before I could finish typing the question, thanks.


Of course this does give me an idea... a way to avoid having the inspector nit-picking my work.

A life lesson I was given years ago was that if you have to submit a body of work to a reviewer, you should include at least one fault that is relatively easy to spot, but not too obvious. The idea is to give the reviewer a fault to find, so that when they find and report it, they will feel like they have done their job. Otherwise, if you do a really good job, you risk the reviewer nit-picking your work looking for a fault so that they can feel like they have done their job.

So one way to help make the inspection go smoothly is to go ahead and attach these boxes with J-B Weld. When the inspector finds it and points it out, he won't have to nit-pick the rest of my work to find a fault to make him feel like he's doing his job. I can then correct the deficiency by simply adding the screws through the J-B Weld.


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

or he may be the kind of inspector that if he sees something as questionable as using JB weld to glue a box to a pole, the rest of the work is probable equally crap and he will then inspect everything, very closely.

My rule: do it as it is supposed to be. I have inspectors that do not even look at my work because the know me and they know my work and they know the job is done correctly. If I start leaving things for people to catch, then they will start thinking : hmm, maybe there is more, and start looking.


----------



## HooKooDooKu (Jan 7, 2008)

Hopefully, either way, I'm going to do a good enough job that it wil stand up to scrutiny.

My only issue would be if the inspector was a stickler to following the letter of the code rather than cutting me some slack for minor mistakes that don't create a safety issue.

Case in point, I was wiring up a workshop before I learned about something called "box fill". What I was doing was running two parallel circuits for the shop, one was a 15 amp circuit for lighting and plugging in low power devices (drill, radio, etc), the second was a 20 amp circuit for high power devices, like a table saw. At one point, the circuits are running along the rim joist above a cinder block wall. To add power to the wall, I ran 3/4" conduit from the rim joist down to a pair of outlets. The j-box on the rim joist had 12 conductors coming into it (20 amp and 15 amp source, 20 & 15 amp down the conduit, and 20 & 15 amp load going to the next j-box). Well, I used a little 4x4 octagon box... way too small (to code) for 12 conductors. But I made it work because I only needed 5 wire nuts: 20 hot, 20 neutral, 15 hot, 15 neutral, and all the grounds. I got it all to fit positioning the 5 wire nuts just so, and cutting each wire to the exact length needed to reach the wire nut. Now there is nothing wrong with this from a safety stand point, but it violates code because there isn't any extra wire in the boxes to allow for future repair. I'm hoping that if the inspector catches it, he'll give me a pass rather than forcing me to rip the boxes down and replace the entire wire run since there is nothing inherently unsafe with the install, and the wiring is in a basement where all the wiring will remain exposed and never hidden behind drywall.

Basically, as long as I get an inspector interested in safety (rather than interested in being a bureaucrat), I'll turn out OK.


----------



## plummen (Jan 10, 2010)

ok so why did you ask the question if you dont want to here the answer from anybody? workmanship/workmanlike manner of installation is right in any code book be it plumbing or electrical ,it has nothing to do with be a bureaucrat.it has everything to do with doing the job right! :whistling2:


----------



## plummen (Jan 10, 2010)

ok here ya go from section 16135 
OUTLET,JUNCTION & PULL BOXES
PART 3- EXECUTION
SECTION A-OUTLET BOXES
#1-SECURELY FASTEN OUTLET BOX IN POSITION & SUPPORT INDEPENDENT OF CONDUIT SYSTEM 



now glue you box to the post with jb weld and come back 8 hours later and hit it from the side with a hammer.after hitting it is it still fastened securely to the post or is it taking up space on the floor? this is basically what a decent inspector is going to say! :whistling2:


----------



## HooKooDooKu (Jan 7, 2008)

plummen said:


> ok so why did you ask the question if you dont want to here the answer from anybody? workmanship/workmanlike manner of installation is right in any code book be it plumbing or electrical ,it has nothing to do with be a bureaucrat.it has everything to do with doing the job right! :whistling2:


Nobody WANTS to have their ideas shot down... and I ask to learn.




plummen said:


> ok here ya go from section 16135
> OUTLET,JUNCTION & PULL BOXES
> PART 3- EXECUTION
> SECTION A-OUTLET BOXES
> ...


Actually, the manufacturer's instructions (for J-B Weld) is to allow the product to day overnight, or about 16 hours before putting to use... and code is all about following manufacturer's instructions. :yes:

And so far, in asking the question, I'm learning... and in this case, quoting code gives me the information I really need... that the conduit must be "securely" fastened.

Now I'm not going to put it to the test by whaking it with a hammer (don't want to damage the box itself). But what I can do that I think would make a fair test would be to see if the box can hold my body weight. Would you consider that a fair test in determining if the box is "securely fastened"?


----------



## HooKooDooKu (Jan 7, 2008)

Buy the way... for those that might be wondering... yes, I've already mounted the 1st of two conduit boxes with J-B Weld. It was in the process of doing so that the thought occured to me that code might say "mechanically fastened", do I started this question in a couple of electrical forums I've participated to see what I could learn, even if it was after the fact.

Hey, but worst case, I've got me a box that is at least securerly fastened enough that it's not going to move around on me as I drill and tap the post.


----------



## Thurman (Feb 9, 2009)

"I ask that because when I'm doing home improvements".
IF you are doing these "home improvements" within your own home/property you own, then I should stop here. BUT-IF you are doing "Home Improvements" as a business: I feel as if I just had my toes stomped on. Why? Because I'm one of those who have been in the "trades" for years, gone to many hours of different schools, and obtained different trade licenses, and business licenses, and invested thousands of dollars in equipment, to do "Home Improvements"- -legally.
Quite frankly, using "J-B Weld" to attach an electrical box of any type is poor quality workmanship. I'm going to be a little ugly here: but if you are thinking of using "J-B Weld" to attach the box, why did you run conduit? David T.


----------



## RegeSullivan (Dec 8, 2006)

I am not sure of the point being made in this thread but I want to understand better how boxes should be surface mounted. The code quoated above says "#1-SECURELY FASTEN OUTLET BOX IN POSITION & SUPPORT INDEPENDENT OF CONDUIT SYSTEM ". So if the glue or JB Weld is "secure" it would be allowed? A box screwed to a metal pole would not survive a hammer blow any better than some of the new adhesives currently available. So is there a standard for mounting boxes or is it purely up to the inspector. This also beings up the question of what is the box mounted to. Everyone has seen a switch mounted to duct work on a furnace at one time or another. How hard is it to yank a box off of sheet metal when those little self tapers are used. What about a box surface mounted on drywall? It would never survive a hammer blow.


----------



## hyunelan2 (Aug 14, 2007)

My Answer:

$ Self taping screws < $ JB Weld.


----------



## HooKooDooKu (Jan 7, 2008)

Thurman said:


> "I ask that because when I'm doing home improvements".
> IF you are doing these "home improvements" within your own home/property you own, then I should stop here. BUT-IF you are doing "Home Improvements" as a business: I feel as if I just had my toes stomped on. Why? Because I'm one of those who have been in the "trades" for years, gone to many hours of different schools, and obtained different trade licenses, and business licenses, and invested thousands of dollars in equipment, to do "Home Improvements"- -legally.
> Quite frankly, using "J-B Weld" to attach an electrical box of any type is poor quality workmanship. I'm going to be a little ugly here: but if you are thinking of using "J-B Weld" to attach the box, why did you run conduit? David T.


Yes, this is all a part of a DIY for finishing a basement (after all, this IS a DIY formum). If I was getting paid to do this, I should know building codes better. 

As for why am I running conduit, the conduit is just for protecting the wire running down the pole. The circuit is in a garage and is mostly romex stapled to the side of floor joists. But I need to protect the wire to reach the switch I want to put on the pole. So I'll have a j-box at the top of the pole to make a romex to conduit transition, and then a handy box about mid-way down the pole to install the switch.


----------



## HooKooDooKu (Jan 7, 2008)

hyunelan2 said:


> My Answer:
> 
> $ Self taping screws < $ JB Weld.


Experience with JB Weld > Experience with Self taping screws.

I don't know what I'm getting into trying to put a screw through an 1/8" thick steel plate. Sure, based on my experience, I can see how a screw could tap its own hole working with the thin sheet metal used in metal studs. But we're talking an 1/8" thick steel plate. You're not going to just push a screw against the steel and start turning with a screw driver. Seems like either a difficult job, or a job that requires special tools.

But JB Weld? Mix the black and white putty, apply it to clean surfaces, clamp the box to the post for 24 hours. Done.


----------



## hyunelan2 (Aug 14, 2007)

1/8" is a bit thick, but why in the world would you even try to use a screwdriver? 

Drill.

I punched a few self tappers (bolt head, not screw) into metal to flush mount an electric box last night. Granted, it was probably only 1/16, not 1/8 thick, but it still only took a matter of seconds.


----------



## HooKooDooKu (Jan 7, 2008)

hyunelan2 said:


> 1/8" is a bit thick, but why in the world would you even try to use a screwdriver?
> 
> drill


Just exaggerating to make a point. 

Sure you say "drill". But that still brings up more questions. For example, it seems like you would have to have something of a piolet hole. After all, no mater how sharp a point you have on a screw, you take a drill to it, and it's going to try to walk all over that steel. So it would seem that you need a piolet hole or some sort of initial dimple in the steel just to keep the screw from moving around. If you do a piolet hole, am I going to effectively ruin my drill bit? Do I buy special drill bits? What size drill bit? 

Of course the thing we haven't even touched in the number of holes you have to drill. You need a minimum of two screws per box, and for my over all setup, I'm going to need at least 4 boxes (two posts I'm doing this to). And if you need to add a strap for the conduit becuase of length (not sure if I do, but likely will just for added durability), that's two more holes per post.


----------



## hyunelan2 (Aug 14, 2007)

If your self-tapper isn't sharp enough (or the metal is too hard) to make it's own little divot as you start the drill, you can use a hammer and a punch to make a small divot in the metal to keep the screw from walking. 

I like to use larger-diameter self-tappers with bolt-heads on them. You can then put a socket on your drill and apply pressure without the screw falling off, as it might with a regular screw-head.

EDIT:

If you need/want to predrill, a single carbide bit should do the trick if your steel is hardened. If not, you can probably get by with just a high-speed steel bit.


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

HooKooDooKu said:


> Experience with JB Weld > Experience with Self taping screws.
> 
> I don't know what I'm getting into trying to put a screw through an 1/8" thick steel plate. Sure, based on my experience, I can see how a screw could tap its own hole working with the thin sheet metal used in metal studs. But we're talking an 1/8" thick steel plate. You're not going to just push a screw against the steel and start turning with a screw driver. Seems like either a difficult job, or a job that requires special tools.
> 
> But JB Weld? Mix the black and white putty, apply it to clean surfaces, clamp the box to the post for 24 hours. Done.


tek-5 screws. Use a drill or better, a screw gun, a nut driver insert and spin the dang thing. They make them for up to 1/4" and maybe even 3/8" thick steel.

They are self drilling and self threading and work great. Having put in thousand of them into I-beams, steel building columns (round poles), and where ever else it was appropriate, I will unequivocally state: there is absolutely no reason to not do this properly.


JB Weld= craptastic work.:thumbsup:

Tek screws= proffesionalism:thumbup:


----------



## plummen (Jan 10, 2010)

RegeSullivan said:


> I am not sure of the point being made in this thread but I want to understand better how boxes should be surface mounted. The code quoated above says "#1-SECURELY FASTEN OUTLET BOX IN POSITION & SUPPORT INDEPENDENT OF CONDUIT SYSTEM ". So if the glue or JB Weld is "secure" it would be allowed? A box screwed to a metal pole would not survive a hammer blow any better than some of the new adhesives currently available. So is there a standard for mounting boxes or is it purely up to the inspector. This also beings up the question of what is the box mounted to. Everyone has seen a switch mounted to duct work on a furnace at one time or another. How hard is it to yank a box off of sheet metal when those little self tapers are used. What about a box surface mounted on drywall? It would never survive a hammer blow.


 a box that is properly mounted will take more than being smacked once with a hammer to knock it off,granted hitting it with a hammer is probably considered extreme but you dont want the box being ripped off the pull when youre moving furniture in the basement and hit it or when kids are rough housing and bump it just right.


----------



## plummen (Jan 10, 2010)

HooKooDooKu said:


> Yes, this is all a part of a DIY for finishing a basement (after all, this IS a DIY formum). If I was getting paid to do this, I should know building codes better.
> 
> As for why am I running conduit, the conduit is just for protecting the wire running down the pole. The circuit is in a garage and is mostly romex stapled to the side of floor joists. But I need to protect the wire to reach the switch I want to put on the pole. So I'll have a j-box at the top of the pole to make a romex to conduit transition, and then a handy box about mid-way down the pole to install the switch.


 why not just run conduit above bottem of joist and loop romex into it? :thumbsup:


----------



## plummen (Jan 10, 2010)

nap said:


> tek-5 screws. Use a drill or better, a screw gun, a nut driver insert and spin the dang thing. They make them for up to 1/4" and maybe even 3/8" thick steel.
> 
> They are self drilling and self threading and work great. Having put in thousand of them into I-beams, steel building columns (round poles), and where ever else it was appropriate, I will unequivocally state: there is absolutely no reason to not do this properly.
> 
> ...


 your stock is rising nap! :thumbsup:


----------



## HooKooDooKu (Jan 7, 2008)

plummen said:


> why not just run conduit above bottem of joist and loop romex into it? :thumbsup:


Its a 4-way switch, so there is more to it than a single 14/2 Romex in the conduit.

My plan is to run 14/3 to the conduit box near the top of the pole, run four hots and one ground down the conduit, then continue the run of 14/3 out of the top box and on to the next 3-way/4-way switch in the circuit.


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

HooKooDooKu said:


> Its a 4-way switch, so there is more to it than a single 14/2 Romex in the conduit.
> 
> My plan is to run 14/3 to the conduit box near the top of the pole, run four hots and one ground down the conduit, then continue the run of 14/3 out of the top box and on to the next 3-way/4-way switch in the circuit.


You aren't running NM in conduit are you? NM in conduit is very limited by the NEC.


----------



## HooKooDooKu (Jan 7, 2008)

nap said:


> You aren't running NM in conduit are you? NM in conduit is very limited by the NEC.


Given that I'm going to use 1/2" conduit, I don't think there is physical room to run two pieces of NM in the conduit... at least not sheathed.

The only question there is whether it is ok to strip the sheath off of Romex and use that, or do you have to buy the individual THHN (or what ever that abbreviation is) wire. Seems like I've seen mixed responses to that question.


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

> =HooKooDooKu;388972]Given that I'm going to use 1/2 conduit, I don't think there is physical room to run two pieces of NM in the conduit... at least not sheathed.


I just caught the tail end and did not go back to read.






> The only question there is whether it is ok to strip the sheath off of Romex and use that, or do you have to buy the individual THHN (or what ever that abbreviation is) wire. Seems like I've seen mixed responses to that question.[


the correct answer, without question is 


NO.

It is absolutely not legal to strip the sheath from NM and use the individual concuctors.

outside you would use THWN (w for wet) inside THHN is common and typical (although there are literally dozens of types of insulation that is acceptable).

most common found wire is rated THHN/THWN and can be used as either.


----------



## plummen (Jan 10, 2010)

why couldnt you remove sheathing from outside of romex and slide the end of it down through the pipe into switch box? we do it all the time in basements with block walls and drywalled ceilings where you cant have a junction box in ceiling.2 pieces of 14/2 with sheathing removed from the part that is sleeved into pipe should cause no issues,just make sure to bond the ground wires in the box. no worse than sleeving homeruns into a service panel or am i missing something? :wink:


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

plummen said:


> why couldnt you remove sheathing from outside of romex and slide the end of it down through the pipe into switch box? we do it all the time in basements with block walls and drywalled ceilings where you cant have a junction box in ceiling.2 pieces of 14/2 with sheathing removed from the part that is sleeved into pipe should cause no issues,just make sure to bond the ground wires in the box. no worse than sleeving homeruns into a service panel or am i missing something? :wink:


because it is illegal to remove the sheath and use the conductors as individual conductors. Although as far as anybody is aware of, the inner conductors are THHN, unless they are marked as such ,which last time I looked, they weren't, you cannot use them outside of the sheath.

btw; when you use a pipe for protection, you have to have a fitting at the end such as a plastic bushing to protect the conductor from the edges of the conduit.


----------



## plummen (Jan 10, 2010)

thats why ya put a coupling on the top of pipe and nice radius/curve in the romex where it goes into the top of it.im doing a basement rough in tomorrow or thursday,ill take some pics of how i do it


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

plummen said:


> thats why ya put a coupling on the top of pipe and nice radius/curve in the romex where it goes into the top of it.im doing a basement rough in tomorrow or thursday,ill take some pics of how i do it


coupling? use an arlington bushing, It's cheaper.

you still cannot strip NM like that.


----------



## plummen (Jan 10, 2010)

how do you run plugs on a block wall in a basement when youre rocking the ceiling without sleeving the wire in the pipe? :huh:


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

plummen said:


> how do you run plugs on a block wall in a basement when youre rocking the ceiling without sleeving the wire in the pipe? :huh:


there are limited allowances of NM in conduit for protection such as you are doing. I am not familiar enough to advise on the limitations without looking, and I have not had a chance to do it since I read this, but I do know that it is illegal to strip the sheathing from NM and use the wires inside as individual conductors unless they are rated to be used as such.


----------



## HIVOLT (Dec 17, 2009)

Nec 334.15 (c)


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

HIVOLT said:


> Nec 334.15 (c)



it seems to me that one of the other pro sparks had mentioned they further refined that in the '08 code with a limitation or clarification.

I'm going to have to go hunt up the 08 to see if I can find it.


----------



## HIVOLT (Dec 17, 2009)

This is from the NEC 2008


----------



## plummen (Jan 10, 2010)

im not talking about stripping the sheathing and feeding the wires from box to box inside of conduit,im referring to using the conduit to sleeve the 4-5' of romex on an end run to a box.its still a continuous piece of romex running to the panel or where ever its fed from to the plug/switch box.does this make sense? :huh:


----------



## HIVOLT (Dec 17, 2009)

It is allowed as long as the outer sheath is not removed. 

NEC 335.14 (C)


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

HIVOLT said:


> It is allowed as long as the outer sheath is not removed.
> 
> NEC 335.14 (C)


ok, explain how OP will conform to 314.17 a and b



then 334.30

and has he even considered fill limits


----------



## HIVOLT (Dec 17, 2009)

I see my apprentice son is back using my screen name to answer questions. Guess he has not learned his lesson. Give me a few to read the original post and I will answer your question.


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

that is too funny , have him register with his own screen name.


----------



## HIVOLT (Dec 17, 2009)

nap said:


> ok, explain how OP will conform to 314.17 a and b
> 
> 
> 
> ...


After talking to the wannabee he stated he was posting the NEC Article that states the sheath must be intact. He then answered another poster and meant to type 334.15. There isn't an Art 335 in the code book.


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

I didn't bother to check. I simply accepted he was correct in his statement, at least as far as the sheath being intact goes.

is there a 334.14 in the 08? I have an 05 on my computer I usually use and three is no 334.14 in the 05. 

dang, I really need to go hunt up my 08.


----------



## Leah Frances (Jan 13, 2008)

Maybe this is a newbie question but why not use BX instead of conduit?

Also, to OP, 

- I think your comment experience with JB Weld> metal screws was pretty insightful. JB Weld seems like a good option because you don't know how/are intimidated by the better solution.

- The beauty and curse of DIY is that you have to learn new skills. It's why I really love doing it. It's also why it can be cheaper and faster to pay a pro to do certain things - they already know to do things efficiently and correctly.

- So, get some metal screws and whatever other tools you're going to use and PRACTICE - before you know it you'll feel like a pro.

- You'll be alot more proud of your work if you do it right the first time rather than wishing at some time down the road that you didn't have to hammer some JB Weld off a box.


----------



## HooKooDooKu (Jan 7, 2008)

nap said:


> ...and has he even considered fill limits


I've made my mistakes regarding fill limits before. I double checked that when sizing the juntion box at the top of the conduit because it's going to have a bunch conductors going into it.

You see, the switch is a 4-way in a "handy box". That means two 14/3 Romex and 4 THHN coming together in the junction box at the ceiling. 

I looked up fill limits and got a 4x4 junction box that is deep enough for the 10 conductors, and the chart I found said I'm ok with the 4 conductors in 1/2" conduit. The only thing I didn't double check before getting started was the fill limit on the "handy box", and I seem to be pushing it with 4 conductors.

...

Ok, I just did some quick research that indicates a handy box is 13 cu.in. With four conductors, a ground, and a switch, that means the box is 1 cu. in. too small.


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

I am glad you are thinking like that but what I actually was referring to was the fill in the conduit with NM. There are limitations for that as well.


----------



## plummen (Jan 10, 2010)

i was thinking about a 4 sq metal box with a single gang plaster ring/cover on the bottem so the box fill wouldnt be an issue on that end anyway,do you really want to try and stuff a 4w switch and all that wire in a handy box?


----------



## HooKooDooKu (Jan 7, 2008)

HooKooDooKu said:


> ...
> 
> Ok, I just did some quick research that indicates a handy box is 13 cu.in. With four conductors, a ground, and a switch, that means the box is 1 cu. in. too small.


Hmmm, just got an idea how fill limits might still be met with the handy box... but time for a new question:
http://www.diychatroom.com/f18/conduit-ground-62899/#post389740


----------



## HooKooDooKu (Jan 7, 2008)

plummen said:


> i was thinking about a 4 sq metal box with a single gang plaster ring/cover on the bottem so the box fill wouldnt be an issue on that end anyway,do you really want to try and stuff a 4w switch and all that wire in a handy box?


Because there (possibly) won't be any wire nuts in the box nor any Romex sheath, I don't think it will much of a "stuff". All four conductors will screw directly to the switch, so compared to a plastic box with Romex sheath thrown in, I think there will safely be plenty of room.

However, yeat another question on connecting the ground.
Rabbit Ears?

http://www.diychatroom.com/f18/screw-terminals-mid-wire-62901/#post389751


----------



## plummen (Jan 10, 2010)

ground srew/wire bonded to box then to switch


----------



## Gigs (Oct 26, 2008)

nap said:


> I am glad you are thinking like that but what I actually was referring to was the fill in the conduit with NM. There are limitations for that as well.


The way I understand it, short sleeves of conduit over NM used for physical protection do not have a fill limit.



> “Special Notes” Conduit fill does not apply to those pieces of conduit used only for a form of protection and is not a part of a complete conduit or tubing system. NEC Chapter 9 Notes to tables Note 2
> 
> “Special Notes” Conduit fill calculations are not intended to apply to short sections of conduit that are used only to protect exposed wires [such as Romex] from physical damage. Conduit fill calculations pertain only to certain wiring designed sections that is substantially conduit in design. NEC Chapter 9 Notes to tables Note 2


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

Gigs said:


> The way I understand it, short sleeves of conduit over NM used for physical protection do not have a fill limit.



but he is not using it as a sleeve. He is using it as a raceway which is supported by the use of a connector when enterering the box. That is not a sleeve.


----------



## HooKooDooKu (Jan 7, 2008)

nap said:


> but he is not using it as a sleeve. He is using it as a raceway which is supported by the use of a connector when enterering the box. That is not a sleeve.


What's the difference between a sleeve and a raceway?

When I do a Google on "electrical raceway", I find references to those decrative covers you see to "hide" otherwise exposed wiring on the surface of a wall.

Otherwise, if I do just run NM cable through the condit (can I even get two 14/2 through a 1/2" conduit), couldn't you then call it a sleeve? 

From what I'm hearing so far, this piece of conduit between the ceiling and the switch is a raceway if I use THHN wire, or a sleeve if I use NM.


----------



## Gigs (Oct 26, 2008)

nap said:


> but he is not using it as a sleeve. He is using it as a raceway which is supported by the use of a connector when enterering the box. That is not a sleeve.


I'm not sure what you mean... if one end is open and it's short enough... it's a sleeve.


----------



## HooKooDooKu (Jan 7, 2008)

hyunelan2 said:


> ... $ Self taping screws < $ JB Weld.





HooKooDooKu said:


> Experience with JB Weld > Experience with Self taping screws. ...





nap said:


> ... Tek screws= proffesionalism:thumbup: ...


When I mentioned this thread to my wife and these equations and that the general consensus was that J-B Weld wouldn't look proffesional, she shot back...

"But you're not a professional". :laughing:


----------



## Leah Frances (Jan 13, 2008)

HKDK - you listen to your wife?!?


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

HooKooDooKu said:


> When I mentioned this thread to my wife and these equations and that the general consensus was that J-B Weld wouldn't look proffesional, she shot back...
> 
> "But you're not a professional". :laughing:


that's is funny.

the definition you might find in any place not in direct association with the NEC would be irrelevant.

but did you include the JBWeld= craptastic?

I would live to hear her response to that one.


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

Gigs said:


> I'm not sure what you mean... if one end is open and it's short enough... it's a sleeve.


yes BUT.


so, as long as he can comply 334.30, see no problem with the situation.

so, does the installation allow compliance with 334.30?


----------



## Stubbie (Jan 7, 2007)

I compare sleeves to raceways like tomatoes to tomatos and potatoes to potatos ...  

I think the closest answer to this question lies when we couple NEC 300.12 and exception 1 with Note 2 chapter 9. 

300.12 says all raceways metal or non metallic, cable armors, and cable sheaths must be continuous between cabinets, boxes, fittings or other enclosures or outlets.

Then an exception is made for raceways.

Exception 1 ... short sections of raceways used to provide support or protection of cable assemblies from physical damage shall not be required to be mechanically continuous.

Note 2 chapter 9

Table 1 applies only to complete conduit or tubing systems and is not intended to apply to sections of conduit or tubing used to protect exposed wiring from physical damage.

An example where conduit fill according to table 1 is not required would be if I come above grade with a run of direct buried uf-b to an outside mounted electrical box or panel. I am required to protect that uf-b not deeper than 18" below grade all the way to the box or panel. So it is a short section of raceway connected to a box at one end and open at the other. I am also required to install a bushing on the open end to protect from abrasion of the uf-b cable where it enters the conduit. Whether you want to call that a sleeve or not is up to you ... the NEC doesn't define it. Sleeve of raceway and short section of raceway IMO are the same thing. One or both ends must be open and not connected at both ends to a device box or other enclosure. Unless the raceway is complete as defined in 300.12 it is not a conduit system but a sleeve or short section of raceway whether or not it connects to a receptacle box at one end is irrelevant IMO. It is not subject to table 1. The only exception I can think of is where a max. 10 foot section of rigid raceway is allowed to enter the top of a surface mounted panelboard. In that situation the raceway must be sealed at the open end the cables must be fastened within 12" of where they emerge from the open end of the conduit and conduit fill is required. This is allowed only if the raceway does not penetrate a structural ceiling.

So IMO the code supports a short section of emt (sleeve) down the side of a basement wall to a electrical box and connected to that box but open at the other end as not subject to fill requirements of table 1. It must be used for the physical protection of the nm cable and installed in accordance with code requirements for a anti abrasion bushing at the point the nm enters the section of emt. The emt and electrical box must be supported properly against the wall. This meets the requirements of 300.12 and note 2 of chapter 9. 

That's my story and I'm stickin to it.....:whistling2:

BTW ... JB WELD to fasten a metal box to that post is "CRAPTASTIC" ......:laughing: Might as well use a hose clamp on the emt too..... 

You do need a nice powerful drill for thick metal using tech screws.


----------



## Leah Frances (Jan 13, 2008)

Stubbs - thanks for bringing some clarity! Want to weigh-in on the other discussion about rabbit ears?


----------



## Scuba_Dave (Jan 16, 2009)

Those pesky wabbit ears
We may have to limit Hookoo to one thread a week :laughing:


----------



## Leah Frances (Jan 13, 2008)

This coming from a man who has 7500 posts in 1 year..... Hey Kettle! Pot just called you black.


----------



## Scuba_Dave (Jan 16, 2009)

Hey, I said threads....not posts :laughing:
I haven't started a thread in 5 days
And on the SW reef forum I had 10k posts in about a year

And why did I always pronounce this "orly" instead of oh really ?


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

Stubbie said:


> That's my story and I'm stickin to it.....:whistling2:
> .


like I said, no problems as long as he can comply with 334.30


----------



## HooKooDooKu (Jan 7, 2008)

Scuba_Dave said:


> Those pesky wabbit ears
> We may have to limit Hookoo to one thread a week :laughing:


I already told ya'll in another thread that your rapid response to questions in this forum was only encouraging me to ask more.


----------



## HooKooDooKu (Jan 7, 2008)

*J-B Weld Results*

Well, I decided to give the J-B Weld a try... after all, like I said, I can always go back and add screws... and the epoxy will help hold things in place while I add them.

So for those that care, here's the results (so far)...

The J-B Weld is batting 0.667.

Pretty much using only my bare hands, I was able to pull down the 4x4 boxes at the top of the pole.

Trying to pull on the strap installed mid-way down the conduit, I couldn't make it move (but then there wasn't much space to put some really strong force on it).

But the "handy boxes" are ROCK SOLID. They didn't budge when I did what I could to put all my weight on them. I wrapped my hand around the box and leaned side ways til I was at a 45 degree angle (which ment about half my body weight was pulling on the box side ways) and again didn't budge.

I can't explain WHY both 4x4 boxes failed while both handy boxes held firm (especially when you consider the handy box has less surface area so pressures where higher). 4x4s were given 48 hours before testing, where as the handy boxes had a little bit more time.


----------



## Stubbie (Jan 7, 2007)

HooKooDooKu said:


> Well, I decided to give the J-B Weld a try... after all, like I said, I can always go back and add screws... and the epoxy will help hold things in place while I add them.
> 
> So for those that care, here's the results (so far)...
> 
> ...


I think you should show that test to the inspector be sure to have your video rolling ....  ... Just having fun.

ROCK SOLID .. that was Murrays trade name for their Loadcenters notice I underlined " was " ... :wink:


----------



## Stubbie (Jan 7, 2007)

nap said:


> like I said, no problems as long as he can comply with 334.30


I agree nap I'm just trying to get my story heard to .. as I have enjoyed this thread more than most ..LMAO for a change. I wonder if the inspector could just red tag for using a non listed adhesive product for fastening electrical boxes ...


----------



## Leah Frances (Jan 13, 2008)

I'm with Stubbie, this has been an entertaining thread.



HooKooDooKu said:


> I already told ya'll in another thread that your rapid response to questions in this forum was only encouraging me to ask more.


*Why are you asking questions if you are just going to do whatever you planned in the first place? * I am not trying to bait you, I really want to know.

I just don't get it, why bother to seek out the *correct* advice if you're just going to whatever floats your boat? It seems sort of _malicious and negligent_ that you took the time to learn what the legal and best practice was and you still elected to ignore it in favor of your own plan. 

I have spent 100s of hours in the last two years educating myself about homeowner electrical installation. *I would NEVER try to pass myself off as a pro, but I would also NEVER be ashamed to have a pro come and look at my work. *


----------



## HooKooDooKu (Jan 7, 2008)

Leah Frances said:


> ...*Why are you asking questions if you are just going to do whatever you planned in the first place? ...*


My question was "Is there anything in electrical code that would say this (using J-B Weld) isn't a suitable way to mount the box?"

The only code sighting I got was "SECURELY FASTEN OUTLET BOX IN POSITION & SUPPORT INDEPENDENT OF CONDUIT SYSTEM".

Beyond that, I only got "opinions" on inspectors interpretations on "workmanship". 

Granded, the majority of "opinons" were against using J-B Weld. But if I can get J-B Weld to hold "to my satisfaction", then in MY OPINION, I will be able to convince an inspector on-site that my "workmanship" mets the code definision of "securely fasten".

In the end, the only opinion that matters is the opinion of MY inspector. Otherwise, to call the "advice" given here as "correct" is being presumptous on what MY inspector's opinion is going to be in interpreting code.

Please don't think I'm ignoring what people are saying in this forum and just doing my own thing. I'm a very logical thinker, and reading these replys in a LOGICAL manner, no body said that I COULD NOT do what I want to, but in their opinion I SHOULD NOT do what I want to do. So, in THIS case, I have decided use my opinion over the opinion of others (it wouldn't be the first time I've had an opinion that was contrary to the majority, and my opinion was the better opinion).

By contrast, I asked about running a 4-way light switch with only 14-2. I proposed a solution on how to do this, and how to do it safely. But when someone provided the code that disallowed my solution (as opposed to their opinion on code), the discussion was over. What I wanted to do wasn't allow by code.

So please don't hang me out to dry just because my OPINION disagreed with the majority OPINION, and I decided to go with my own opinion.


And BTW, once I am finished with the electrical work I have to do, I too will not be ASHAMED to have a pro, or more importantly, the inspector, come and look at my work either. 

Now that doesn't mean I know that everything I do will "meet code". I haven't spent years studying code. I have spent years doing several minor wiring changes in my home and learning more about code as I go. I'll admit that sometimes I have learned that something I did was against code. There have been several things I have gone back and "fixed', even though I was convinced it was safe. I do want the wiring in my house to meet code. But as evideneced by the various discussions, much of code is open to interpretation.


----------



## frenchelectrican (Apr 12, 2006)

After I was reading the whole thing here and there is no way I will mess with JB weld one of the guys in France try that simuair product as you have it actally not pass our French inspectors as well.

I have no issue running the tek screws in steel post even ramset it { powder actaved nail driver } to steel post.

The issue with 4X4 junction box what you have is slight oily film from factory and that prevent from JB weld doing what it supposed to do that.

There are few cases I did see someone actally weld the junction box to steel post { this part I am NOT crazy to do that for good reason }

Now speaking of NM in the conduit as other did expain very clear they will get filled up fast due the shape of NM most of them useally are oval shape and I go by the widest part that how I count them. Oh yeah.,, don't thank about strip the sheating off and slip thru the conduit that is not allowed in the code.

Merci,Marc


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

> HooKooDooKu;390399]My question was "Is there anything in electrical code that would say this (using J-B Weld) isn't a suitable way to mount the box?"


that is not a black or white question. The answer is:

yes, if the AHJ feels the glue is not an adequate means of attachment.

I will tell you that I do not believe it is an adequate means of attachment and I doubt any inspector I have worked with would see it as an adequate means of attachment.





> Beyond that, I only got "opinions" on inspectors interpretations on "workmanship".


that is because the AHJ (authority having jurisdiction aka inspector usually) has the ability to use his judgement if something is not clearly defined in the code. You have been told by a couple pro electricians and some very informed lay electricians and I believe every one of them has said it is not acceptable in their eyes.

the only guy you really have to please is the inspector so glue it and see, or not. There simply is no definite answer on this question.



> Granded, the majority of "opinons" were against using J-B Weld. But if I can get J-B Weld to hold "to my satisfaction", then in MY OPINION, I will be able to convince an inspector on-site that my "workmanship" mets the code definision of "securely fasten".


No because your opinion or my opinion means squat. It is the inspectors opinion that matters. It is not a matter of convincing the inspector, it is a matter, simply, of how he feels about it. It really is that simple without a specific support for the means in the code.



> In the end, the only opinion that matters is the opinion of MY inspector.


 Now your getting it.




> Otherwise, to call the "advice" given here as "correct" is being presumptous on what MY inspector's opinion is going to be in interpreting code.


like I said, myself being a pro and whomever else does this for a living plus the folks that have dealt with insepectors on their own projects, most all seem to believe it will not fly. Now, if that definitive? Absolutely not. The only definitive word comes from the inspector. I just have been doing this long enough to know what most inspectors will and won't accept in a given situation, at least the 10 I have in my area.



> Please don't think I'm ignoring what people are saying in this forum and just doing my own thing. I'm a very logical thinker, and reading these replys in a LOGICAL manner, no body said that I COULD NOT do what I want to, but in their opinion I SHOULD NOT do what I want to do. So, in THIS case, I have decided use my opinion over the opinion of others (it wouldn't be the first time I've had an opinion that was contrary to the majority, and my opinion was the better opinion)


.It's your installation. You are the one that will deal with your inspector and if he red tags it, you are the one that will fix it. We are simply trying to save you from what we believe is some work AND if you remember way back in my earliest posts, sometimes if the inspector sees something that is really whack, he starts to look at everything with an eye out for other problems. That is why I do everything the absolute best I can. If he sees fantastic work in every spot he looks, he will feel much more comfortable not looking at that much more. As I said, I have had inspectors actually not even look at my work because they have looked at enough of it to know it will be right.

as a matter of fact, I had a green tag on a commercial service I was doing before I even put the wires in the thing. Nothing was hooked up but due to scheduling conflicts, he green tagged me so it would not screw up the power company hotting me up. It was a big rush rush thing but he knew it would be correct, and he was right.



> By contrast, I asked about running a 4-way light switch with only 14-2. I proposed a solution on how to do this, and how to do it safely. But when someone provided the code that disallowed my solution (as opposed to their opinion on code), the discussion was over. What I wanted to do wasn't allow by code.


I'm sorrry. I missed what you were asking. since this thread is so long, rather than hunting it up again, if you would ask again, I will provide some sort of answer.



> So please don't hang me out to dry just because my OPINION disagreed with the majority OPINION, and I decided to go with my own opinion.


we're not guy. Like I said, you are the only one that will talk to your inspector. We are seriously just trying to help. We don't get paid for this and there is no brownie points. We do this because we want to, nothing else. 




> And BTW, once I am finished with the electrical work I have to do, I too will not be ASHAMED to have a pro, or more importantly, the inspector, come and look at my work either.


 that's good because unless I misunderstood, the inspector has to come look at it.

never put in something you are ashamed of. Believe it or not, workmanship is legislated within the code. If you have some craptastic work, the inspector can tag it just because it looks craptastic.

to the last paragraph. I think everybody has had something tagged by an inspector one time or another. 

realize this is your house. do work you will be proud to show your buddies (or they will razz the hell out of you) but above all, do work that is safe.

If the box gets knocked of easily, it will pull on the wires attached to it which could stretch them or cause them to chafe and rub the insulation off. Then you have an unsafe situation simply because you did not want to go to the effort to do it really proper the first time.

It is impossible to think of all the things that might go wrong due to shoddy work so you just do it right when you do it and hopefully you will never learn all the things that can go wrong.:thumbup:


----------



## HooKooDooKu (Jan 7, 2008)

frenchelectrican said:


> ...
> The issue with 4X4 junction box what you have is slight oily film from factory and that prevent from JB weld doing what it supposed to do that...


Actually, the J-B Weld held firm to the box. It seperate from the post, ripping a layer of red (rust? paint?) off with it.


----------



## frenchelectrican (Apr 12, 2006)

Actally if I recall it right some of the steel post are powercoated and yeah they can get ripped off.

If you are serious about the JB weld then take the paint off with grinder or paint stripper so that way the JB weld will stick on however if it was for my way I will never do that due it take extra time to do that.

There are better way to get it done much quicker and don't have to wait for JB weld to complety cure up.

As I mention above I am in France now and our French inspector will not pass this set up I have see it before.

Merci,Marc


----------



## HooKooDooKu (Jan 7, 2008)

nap said:


> I'm sorrry. I missed what you were asking. since this thread is so long, rather than hunting it up again, if you would ask again, I will provide some sort of answer.


http://www.diychatroom.com/f18/wire-4-way-light-circuit-14-2-a-62784/

In this case, the plan was shot down with the claim that NEC doesn't allow you to seperate the hot and neutral (excluding switch loops).

While the hot and neutral are in the same sheath powering the lights, the hot comes form one end and the neutral from the other.


----------



## frenchelectrican (Apr 12, 2006)

HooKooDooKu said:


> http://www.diychatroom.com/f18/wire-4-way-light-circuit-14-2-a-62784/
> 
> In this case, the plan was shot down with the claim that NEC doesn't allow you to seperate the hot and neutral (excluding switch loops).
> 
> While the hot and neutral are in the same sheath powering the lights, the hot comes form one end and the neutral from the other.


I will answer that question in that fourm.

Merci,Marc


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

I posted in the other thread you linked to address this lights and switches


----------



## Scuba_Dave (Jan 16, 2009)

I'm a scuba diver (never guess by my name here) & one part of scuba diving is DIR - Do It Right
It is also a part of DIY
There are accepted means of doing things & the NEC code dictates what is required
There are a lot of grey areas as in many cases there is more then one way to DIR

As Nap said, its up to the Inspector
But you are ignoring the advice of people who have been doing this for decades
I've only dealt with 3 Inspectors over 12 years - 2 houses
I have the feeling the Inspector I usually see here would not accept it
Mainly because it is not an accepted means of attachment


----------



## Leah Frances (Jan 13, 2008)

HKDK - with no disrespect or sour grapes, let us know when you're planning on having this inspected and let us know the result. 

Part of the reason that electrical is the best forum on DIYChatroom (we rock!) is that people pay attention and are interested in follow up. Can't tell you how many times that I've posted a question that people have asked how I made out later.


----------



## HooKooDooKu (Jan 7, 2008)

Well here's the update on the 4x4 boxes.

As I previously reported, when I put them to the test, they failed. I'm not sure why since the handy boxes held fine. The only difference I can think of is that I didn't do any surface prep with the handy boxes. Thinking later that might have been a mistake, I tried to sand the pole just a little where the 4x4s were going. I then wiped down the "dust" with a damp towel, and thought I dried the pole after.

In any case, when the boxes failed, the weld held firm to the boxes and pulled away from the pole, pulling the redish rust/paint layer with it, leaving a very smooth back surface matching the pole and showing any voids where there wasn't any weld.

As you've already guessed, I added some more weld to the back of them yesterday and reatached them.

Tonight, when I took off the clamps, I put my full body weight on them. My feet lifted off the step ladder. So we're talking each box withstood the weight of over 200 pounds.

So at this point, I can't wait to hear an inspector's explination why I do not have a "#1-SECURELY FASTEN OUTLET BOX IN POSITION & SUPPORT INDEPENDENT OF CONDUIT SYSTEM" *with a strait face* when I'm in front of him hanging from the j-box he is rejecting.


----------



## Scuba_Dave (Jan 16, 2009)

Easy - intended use :wink:
Be prepared to show him where JB-Weld is listed for use on an electric box

From their web-site:



> *CONSTRUCTION*
> 
> 
> anchor bolts & screws
> ...


----------



## HooKooDooKu (Jan 7, 2008)

Leah Frances said:


> ...let us know the result.


Oh, don't worry... I will... after all of this... I mean my goodness, we're up to six pages here. We CAN'T let this end without results.

However, I can't even estimate when an inspection will even occur. I don't even have the permit yet. I've been delaying because there are some parts of the plans I had not finished up until now (such as that "unorthodox sub-panal"). I spent tonight at Lowe's getting some prices together so that I can put my cost estimate together for the permit application. In the mean time, I've been doing some prep work. That's one reason I could stand to wait for things like the epoxy to dry... I'm not ready to pull wire yet.

I've been busy with other prep items as well, such as tracing wires in the basement. Most of that circuit has to be ripped out because a single 15 amp circuit provided all the lighting and outlets in this unfinished basement. There there's the bouncy floors. Our building used 2x8s on 12" centers for a 14'6" span... and YES, I said *2x8. *There's several things I've seen around here (my house) that I don't know how it was allowed to pass inspection. So given what I've seen based on the work of "professionals", I think the inspector is going to be cutting a DIY some slack.


----------



## HooKooDooKu (Jan 7, 2008)

Scuba_Dave said:


> Easy - intended use :wink:
> Be prepared to show him where JB-Weld is listed for use on an electric box


Either I'm confused... or you're now trying to support my efforts to get this J-B Weld install passed.


----------



## Scuba_Dave (Jan 16, 2009)

Both :laughing:

It may be something he will ask for


----------



## Termite (Apr 13, 2008)

HooKooDooKu said:


> So at this point, I can't wait to hear an inspector's explination why I do not have a "#1-SECURELY FASTEN OUTLET BOX IN POSITION & SUPPORT INDEPENDENT OF CONDUIT SYSTEM" *with a strait face* when I'm in front of him hanging from the j-box he is rejecting.


Ok, I'll bite, although this thread is taking a purely argumentative turn. You asked for advice from professionals and experienced DIYers, you got it, yet you won't accept the advice you got. Sometimes it is better to say thanks and just agree to disagree than to continue to argue your case and beat a dead horse.

I'm an inspector. I'd turn it down based on the fact that it is not done in a workmanlike manner. Gluing (or JB Welding) electrical equipment is not an industry accepted practice for securing gear in place. Screws are. Why re-invent the wheel? The fact that you can hang from it is great and would probably be amusing to watch, for the record.

Here's some pretty good advice for dealing with inspectors. If you do "odd" things, your work will get a lot more attention. If I see a box "glued" to a metal post I'm instantly going to assume that you're cutting corners in other places and you're deserving of a little extra time and effort on my part. If you argue my calls and cannot cite code to substantiate your argument, I'm not going to leave quicker because you're hard to deal with. I'm going to camp out and write every single code violation I see....Even the minor stuff. Inversely, if you whip out a code book and (professionally) show me where I'm mistaken then you're a-ok in my opinion.

You can draw two conclusions from that last paragraph:
1) I'm a jerk. 
2) Striving to do perfect work that nobody will have any room to scrutinize of often easier in the end than taking shortcuts and then having to re-do the work. 

If you prefer item #1 that's ok, but understand this...In most cases the inspector isn't out to get you. He's probably a nice guy that has a job to do. He doesn't get paid more for writing you up. I assure you that it is up to the contractor or homeowner to determine how I interact with them during an inspection. If you're dead-set on the idea that you're right, be prepared to substantiate that with code. Not opinion. Not demonstrations with your body weight. Since the code doesn't offer you much in this particular scenario, I'd be prepared with product listings for JB weld....Demonstrate with manufacturer spec sheets or independent test reports (ICC ES reports for example) that it is specifically listed and tested for securing electrical boxes to red iron (it isn't). Demonstrate hardship...Why can't you screw it to the post? If there were actually a good reason to choose JB Weld over a mechanical fastener I think it would be an easy sell. Unfortunately it is just too easy to run a self tapping machine screw in there with a drill/driver. You don't even need a pilot hole with the right screw.

Not trying to dive off into an even deeper argument with you, just giving you the perspective that the inspector might take.


----------



## jlhaslip (Dec 31, 2009)

kctermite gives a nice summation of my experience with inspectors. And his signature sums it up nicely, too.

I would fail the jb-weld and I'm just the carpenter... :lol:


----------



## HooKooDooKu (Jan 7, 2008)

thekctermite said:


> You asked for advice from professionals and experienced DIYers, you got it, yet you won't accept the advice you got


Just to get technical for a moment, I asked what the code says. I was told what the code says, and I was also given advice on how others interpret code. 

As for J-B Weld being a short cut? :laughing:
It has already been pointed out that J-B Weld cost more and takes longer. Not much of a short cut if you ask me.

As for discussions with the inspector, I really just have to explain myself the way I pretty much have been through this thread:
1. I was informed that code indicates conduit needed to be "SECURELY FASTEN", not necessarily "mechanically" fastened.
2. I decided to utilize a tool I was familiar with rather than experiment with drilling holes in a structural member of my house.
3. I reviewed the specification of J-B Weld and found nothing contrary to its use in this application. (I stated in my opening question that J-B Weld withstands temperatures to 600 degrees, it's electrically not conductive, strong, and I had already seen the info on their web site Scuba_Dave pointed out).
4. I put my idea to a rather extreme test (supporting my body weight) before deciding to proceed with wiring the conduit.

With that, I think the inspector will respect the reason for my decision, even if he decided to over-ride it; and NOT see it as a short cut indicative of shoddy workmanship.

Here, I don't seem to be getting any respect simply because my decision was contrary to what others think I should do.


----------



## HooKooDooKu (Jan 7, 2008)

Ok, here's a funny one for you (or purhaps an eye-opener to just how fast things happen on the web).

If you Google "j-b weld conduit", this thread appears ahead of J-B Weld's own web site that list "conduit" for one of it's many uses.


----------



## Stubbie (Jan 7, 2007)

> Originally Posted by *HooKooDooKu*
> _So at this point, I can't wait to hear an inspector's explination why I do not have a "#1-SECURELY FASTEN OUTLET BOX IN POSITION & SUPPORT INDEPENDENT OF CONDUIT SYSTEM" *with a strait face* when I'm in front of him hanging from the j-box he is rejecting._


This tells me that you have decided that jb weld is securely fastened and an inspector cannot turn you down... if he does he is incorrect. All this exaggeration about hanging from the box determines securely fastened has me chuckling. It will get a chuckle from your inspector but I've never known a 'glued' on electrical box to a round support pole to ever pass but then I have never seen a professional jb weld a electrical box to anything.
The reality here is that whether it is passed or not passed no body dies from it. It's a matter of workmanship and no electrician would jb weld an electrical box to a column post. Why the heck would he? In my experience JB weld is a temporary installation. It is unorthodox, not needed and just not done in your situation. You can do anything you want its your home. You asked us to tell you how a professional would mount the box, we told you but you have it in your head that jb weld just cannot be turned down because you can hang from it. What your failing to understand is you are doing something that is not likely to have been seen by the inspector or at least is not securing a box in a manner he will expect to see from an electrician. I've never seen it and I've been doing this stuff for awhile. 

MY Commentary

The box is secure to the support post, however it is not a fastening means listed for electrical boxes and could over time come lose from the support due to being 'glued'. It is not a standard method or one you would expect to see from someone professional in the trade. 

It is something that you would expect or at least not be surprised to see from a homeowner.

It is not a violation that risks safety but will force a decision to be made whether jb weld constitues ' securely fastended '.

In my eyes it is not a fastening means that I would feel comfortable with if I was the inspector. I would lean towards a strong possibilty that the box will become separated from the metal post over time due to expanding and contracting of the metal post in response to temperature changes. I cannot assume that you have a good permanent bond to the post and you hanging from it would just get a chuckle out of me. You hanging from it just tells me it is secure for the moment but jb welding the box doesn't constitute an assurrrance it will still be bonded to the post a month from now. 

The product 'Industro Weld' is listed to bond electrical componenets, conduit and pipe permanently to steel and many other materials. So what it will boil down to is if the inspector sees jb weld as an acceptable means to securely fasten the box to the post. Since an NEC definition for securely fastened in place has not been made it will all be on the inspectors shoulder to determine code compliance using JB weld.

If I was the inspector and this is a private dwelling work being done by the homeowner.. I would red tag.... Unless I was familair with JB weld as a commonly used method to securely fasten a metal electrical box to a metal post in your situation.


----------



## Scuba_Dave (Jan 16, 2009)

KC & Stubbie are much better at expressing themselves then I am
I do agree with all their points

I'm reminded of that line in Jurassic park about scientists:


> so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.


Many people have used a hammer to pound a screw in
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should, or its the best method or an accepted method to do so


----------



## HooKooDooKu (Jan 7, 2008)

Stubbie said:


> This tells me that you have decided that jb weld is securely fastened and an inspector cannot turn you down... if he does he is incorrect. All this exaggeration about hanging from the box determines securely fastened has me chuckling. It will get a chuckle from your inspector but I've never known a 'glued' on electrical box to a round support pole to ever pass but then I have never seen a professional jb weld a electrical box to anything...


For what it's worth, the post is NOT round, it is square. I have a flat surface I'm working with.

I'll admit that I don't think I'm going to "hang" from the box in-front of the inspector. If I need to demonstrait the ability for it to support my weight, I can loop some cord over it to make something like a sturup. But it is no exaggeration that the 4x4 j-boxes are currently supporting my weight, at least for the length of time my fingers could stand to hold on.


----------



## Stubbie (Jan 7, 2007)

HooKooDooKu said:


> For what it's worth, the post is NOT round, it is square. I have a flat surface I'm working with.
> 
> I'll admit that I don't think I'm going to "hang" from the box in-front of the inspector. If I need to demonstrate the ability for it to support my weight, I can loop some cord over it to make something like a sturup. But it is no exaggeration that the 4x4 j-boxes are currently supporting my weight, at least for the length of time my fingers could stand to hold on.


Your not going to need to demonstrate anything for the inspector as far as securely fastened. He will take one look and likely will make up his mind very quickly. I thought you were putting the box on a round post but the shape of the post is irrelevant. Bottom line is we are discussing a rather insignificant issue. If the box comes loose from the post your probably going to end up changing your fastening method. No electrical safety hazard is going to be likely. After all there are situations where you are not required to securely fasten an electrical box..such as pendants hung from ceilings. So basically we are just hashing around the idea of fastening an electrical box with jb weld and how an inspector will view it as far as an acceptable means to meet securely fastened in the NEC. You feel jb weld is securely fastening your electrical box so you just have to wait and see if the inspector feels the same. He might or he might not or he might say I'll pass it but shoot a tech screw just to make sure.


----------



## HooKooDooKu (Jan 7, 2008)

Stubbie said:


> Your not going to need to demonstrate anything for the inspector as far as securely fastened. He will take one look and likely will make up his mind very quickly. I thought you were putting the box on a round post but the shape of the post is irrelevant. Bottom line is we are discussing a rather insignificant issue. If the box comes loose from the post your probably going to end up changing your fastening method. No electrical safety hazard is going to be likely. After all there are situations where you are not required to securely fasten an electrical box..such as pendants hung from ceilings. So basically we are just hashing around the idea of fastening an electrical box with jb weld and how an inspector will view it as far as an acceptable means to meet securely fastened in the NEC. You feel jb weld is securely fastening your electrical box so you just have to wait and see if the inspector feels the same. He might or he might not or he might say I'll pass it but shoot a tech screw just to make sure.


 :thumbsup:

Now I finally feel like someone is starting to understand me.


----------



## Stubbie (Jan 7, 2007)

HooKooDooKu said:


> :thumbsup:
> 
> Now I finally feel like someone is starting to understand me.


Lets don't get carried away ....


----------



## HooKooDooKu (Jan 7, 2008)

Stubbie said:


> Lets don't get carried away ....


I'm not suggesting you agree with me... just that you seem to understand my point of view. 

By contrast, I don't understand those that have jumped to the conclusion (in this or other posts) that I'm doing shoddy work, taking short cuts, or that I'm going to argue with an inspector just because I haven't heeded their advice in this situation.


----------



## hyunelan2 (Aug 14, 2007)

HooKooDooKu said:


> By contrast, I don't understand those that have jumped to the conclusion that I'm... taking short cuts....


Slapping on some 2-part epoxy is not a short cut for running screws into the beam? Seems like the "easy way out" (aka shortcut) to me?


----------



## HooKooDooKu (Jan 7, 2008)

hyunelan2 said:


> Slapping on some 2-part epoxy is not a short cut for running screws into the beam? Seems like the "easy way out" (aka shortcut) to me?


:confused1:
I though we've covered this already. 
And I resent the connotation of calling the work I've done "slapping on" epoxy.


----------



## Stubbie (Jan 7, 2007)

HooKooDooKu said:


> I'm not suggesting you agree with me... just that you seem to understand my point of view.
> 
> By contrast, I don't understand those that have jumped to the conclusion (in this or other posts) that I'm doing shoddy work, taking short cuts, or that I'm going to argue with an inspector just because I haven't heeded their advice in this situation.


What I understand is this ... you want to test the waters to see if your jb weld will pass inspection because you believe JB Weld is code compliant as a means to securely fasten the box to the post. You are familiar with using JBWeld .. not familiar with other methods suggested by electricians here that will be code compliant. In my area if you fail inspection you must pay 50$ for the re-inspection. So basically you are wanting to satisfy your belief that JB Weld will pass inspection rather than use known acceptable methods which you are not comfortable with doing. No?

The only way this discussion can be settled is to have the inspection and see if it is accepted. I don't think anybody really wins one way or the other. My opinion is your method vs mine are not equal in quality of workmanship but one will pass and the other may pass an inspection.

BTW .. I really appreciate someone who has skill with JB Weld I usually get the crap all over me and whatever else I'm trying bond with the stuff.


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

HooKooDooKu said:


> :thumbsup:
> 
> Now I finally feel like someone is starting to understand me.


I "understood you" long ago but that does not mean the inspector will agree with you and that is the only thing that matters.

so, with that said; let us know what the inspector says and in all fairness, even he does not notice you have glued the boxes to the posts, you have to show him so we can actually get his response.

believe it or not, that action of making sure he notices may actually look good in his eyes as he might see it as you wanting to make sure anything questionable is either right or gets corrected. Kind of like in the beginning when I said do not make intentional errors to try to make him feel good that he caught something rather it will make him be more suspect of other work.

this way, he would probable ask if there was anything else you had a question or concern about that maybe he should see.


----------



## HooKooDooKu (Jan 7, 2008)

nap said:


> believe it or not, that action of making sure he notices may actually look good in his eyes as he might see it as you wanting to make sure anything questionable is either right or gets corrected.


That's been my plan and the exact attitude I've taken. 

When I went for an initial meeting with the inspector, to determine just what work I could and could not do, I took along pictures of my http://www.diychatroom.com/f18/unorthodox-sub-panel-62937/ knowing that it was problamatic (I've learned a lot about electrical codes since I put that together). I didn't try to hide anything, but was simply upfront with what I had and asked his input on what I need to do to correct it.

Which reminds me, I need some advice regarding the http://www.diychatroom.com/f18/short-wires-overfill-63132/#post391293 that is in the circuits associated with that sub-panel.


----------



## spark plug (May 5, 2009)

hyunelan2 said:


> My Answer:
> 
> $ Self taping screws < $ JB Weld.


first off. It's "Self-tapping" As opposed to "Taping". Secondly, the issue is not how strong the impact survivability (of the box) must be. It's the acceptable standard that counts in electrical installation. In other words, if I came up with some rigged way (not wanting to use the word "crazy") to secure a box, it will still not be accepted. Because it's not the standard method. :yes::no:!


----------



## Stubbie (Jan 7, 2007)

Wow! 102 posts about this deal with JB WELD ... I think the OP should contact the company for a testimonial.....


----------



## HooKooDooKu (Jan 7, 2008)

spark plug said:


> ...In other words, if I came up with some rigged way ... to secure a box, it will still not be accepted. Because it's not the standard method. :yes::no:!


Technically speaking, isn't that enforcing your own standard as opposed to enforcing code? After all, the code says "securely fastened", not "fastened in the standard way". By implication, that would mean you wouldn't allow for inovation, that there can't be any new way to do something.

Now as one of the previous posters argued: "Sure it secure today, but what about 5 years from now when the room has been exposed to several thermal cycles, is it going to still be secure then" (or words to that effect).

In other words, you shouldn't turn it down just because it's "not standard", because I don't think that is what code says or implys.

Now by contrast, if you want to say that some given method is "not proven", then you've left no room for argument... unless scientific studies can be referenced to prove to the contrary (which I can't in the case of J-B Weld).

Not making any arguement for or against J-B Weld with this post, just pointing out what might be a minor mistake of symantics. Basically, while "Standard" equals "Proven", that "Not Standard" does not equal "not proven".


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

an inspector can turn it down with that justification. Like it or not, it is within their authority.


----------



## Norcal (Aug 25, 2007)

Not going to comment on using JB Weld since others have & I agree w/ them, but "handy" boxes are a "hallmark" of a DIY job & they suck! If one seems to feel the need to use them I suggest laying ones hands on a anvil & have someone smack each finger HARD 10 times w/ a 5# hammer, if one still feels the need to use them then go right ahead.....:whistling2:

It is a rare occurrence when those boxes are the best choice for the job,very rare.


----------



## HooKooDooKu (Jan 7, 2008)

This isn't the first time I've seen someone knocking handy boxes. What is so wrong with them?

Now I understand they are pretty small. Based on wire fill calculations, handy boxes seem limited to #14 wire, and require the wire terminates in the box (i.e. no room for a splice of any sort if the box has an outlet or switch in it).

But if your purpose is a single switch in a switch loop, or an outlet at the end of a branch, what's wrong with them?


----------



## Stubbie (Jan 7, 2007)

HooKooDooKu said:


> This isn't the first time I've seen someone knocking handy boxes. What is so wrong with them?
> 
> Now I understand they are pretty small. Based on wire fill calculations, handy boxes seem limited to #14 wire, and require the wire terminates in the box (i.e. no room for a splice of any sort if the box has an outlet or switch in it).
> 
> But if your purpose is a single switch in a switch loop, or an outlet at the end of a branch, what's wrong with them?


I don't like them for receptacles but a switch loop is a good use for them.


----------



## spark plug (May 5, 2009)

HooKooDooKu said:


> Technically speaking, isn't that enforcing your own standard as opposed to enforcing code? After all, the code says "securely fastened", not "fastened in the standard way". By implication, that would mean you wouldn't allow for inovation, that there can't be any new way to do something.
> 
> Now as one of the previous posters argued: "Sure it secure today, but what about 5 years from now when the room has been exposed to several thermal cycles, is it going to still be secure then" (or words to that effect).
> 
> ...


Yes. But the AHJ (Authority having jurisdiction) has to operate solely by proven methods. I'm certain if someone were to "HOT-Weld" a box to a steel beam (where there are other, acceptable methods) the Inspector might look at them funny, but they'll approve of the method of fastening. An integral part of the electrical installing system is, that ONLY approved devices and methods are used.:yes:!


----------



## HooKooDooKu (Jan 7, 2008)

spark plug said:


> Yes. But the AHJ (Authority having jurisdiction) has to operate solely by proven methods. I'm certain if someone were to "HOT-Weld" a box to a steel beam (where there are other, acceptable methods) the Inspector might look at them funny, but they'll approve of the method of fastening. An integral part of the electrical installing system is, that ONLY approved devices and methods are used.:yes:!


Finally!!! A post that really leaves me with the feeling the inspector very well might turn the J-B Weld down... and it's because of theses words...

*"approved devices and methods"*

Spark Plug, while you don't sight any specific NEC code, I can believe that those words are indeed in the code. From what little of code snippets I've read, that snippet even sounds like the kind of syntax the NEC uses.

Having reviewed the previous posts, I can see where some of the responses were sort-of implying what these words mean. But for the most part, the words that were being thrown around were "secure", "Workmanship", "CRAPTASTIC", and "non-standard". These words are either not in code or leave plenty of room for interpretation. Basically, they are not restrictive.

But the words "approved devices and methods" indicates that you ARE restricted to only use devices and methods that are on a list (real or implied).

From what I've seen of code, most of these sorts of lists are implied. By the lists being implied, that means they are not static, but are rather dynamic to allow for inovations that can prove themselves.


Thank you Spark Plug for an eye-openning response.


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

we told you that long ago.

now you are sounding like the guys I deal with on another site when I tell them something is illegal. It seems they will not accept it unless I provide code and section to prove it.


I told you long ago the inspector must approve of the method and he has the authority to approve or disapprove of the method.

if you want code section cite, it is: 110.2 and 110.3

NO, they do not have to be on a list nor do they have to be listed for the use by the manufacturer. It is fully within the AHJ to approve or disapprove of your method unless specifically listed for the use.


----------



## Scuba_Dave (Jan 16, 2009)

How many people have you had tell you this ? :laughing:
Multiple people have been telling you from the beginning that this could be rejected quite easily under NEC code
I'm sorry that none of us knew the "magic words" that would make you understand this 



thekctermite said:


> Aside from the need to mechanically fasten the box to the structure, I would think that any reputable inspector would turn that down for* not being installed in a workmanlike manner*. Being a ******* I agree that JB Weld is strong and might work fine, but *as an inspector I'd never consider passing it*
> 
> There are a multitude of options for mechanically attaching a box to red iron. Self tapping machine screws are available from sources such as Fastenall...They don't even need a pilot hole.





plummen said:


> *workmanship/workmanlike manner of installation is right in any code book be it plumbing or electrical* ,it has nothing to do with be a bureaucrat.it has everything to do with doing the job right!





Thurman said:


> Quite frankly, using "J-B Weld" to attach an electrical box of any *type is poor quality workmanship*. David





Stubbie said:


> I wonder if the inspector could just *red tag for using a non listed adhesive product for fastening electrical boxes* ...





nap said:


> I will tell you that I do not believe it is an adequate means of attachment and I doubt any inspector I have worked with would see it as an adequate means of attachment.
> 
> that is because the AHJ (authority having jurisdiction aka inspector usually) has the ability to use his judgement if something is not clearly defined in the code. You have been told by a couple pro electricians and some very informed lay electricians and I believe every one of them has said it is not acceptable in their eyes.
> 
> never put in something you are ashamed of. Believe it or not, *workmanship is legislated within the code.* If you have some craptastic work, the inspector can tag it just because it looks craptastic





Scuba_Dave said:


> There are accepted means of doing things & the NEC code dictates what is required
> 
> *I have the feeling the Inspector I usually see here would not accept it*
> *Mainly because it is not an accepted means of attachment*





thekctermite said:


> Ok, I'll bite, although this thread is taking a purely argumentative turn. You asked for advice from professionals and experienced DIYers, you got it, yet you won't accept the advice you got. Sometimes it is better to say thanks and just agree to disagree than to continue to argue your case and beat a dead horse.
> 
> *I'm an inspector. I'd turn it down based on the fact that it is not done in a workmanlike manner*. Gluing (or JB Welding) electrical equipment is not an industry accepted practice for securing gear in place. Screws are. Why re-invent the wheel?





Stubbie said:


> *It's a matter of workmanship* and no electrician would jb weld an electrical box to a column post. Why the heck would he? In my experience JB weld is a temporary installation. It is unorthodox, not needed and just not done in your situation. You can do anything you want its your home. You asked us to tell you how a professional would mount the box, we told you but you have it in your head that jb weld just cannot be turned down because you can hang from it. What your failing to understand is you are doing something that is not likely to have been seen by the inspector or at least is not securing a box in a manner he will expect to see from an electrician. I've never seen it and I've been doing this stuff for awhile.
> 
> MY Commentary
> 
> The box is secure to the support post, *however it is not a fastening means listed for electrical boxes* and could over time come lose from the support due to being 'glued'.* It is not a standard method or one you would expect to see from someone professional in the trade.*


----------



## HooKooDooKu (Jan 7, 2008)

nap said:


> It seems they will not accept it unless I provide code and section to prove it.


I'm a VERY logical thinker (yes you can replace that with the word "geek" if you like). 



nap said:


> I told you long ago the inspector must approve of the method and he has the authority to approve or disapprove of the method.


I admitted that in hind-sight I can now see that. It's just that the logic of those words at the time seem to say "the inspector can decide what ever he wants", sort of like my argument about an inspector imposing his own code as opposed to interpreting code.



nap said:


> NO, they do not have to be on a list nor do they have to be listed for the use by the manufacturer. It is fully within the AHJ to approve or disapprove of your method unless specifically listed for the use.


I said the "list" was "real or implied", I ment that what was "implied" is that the "list" is what ever the inspector wants it to be. In effect, the code creates the legal loophoop that allows an inspector to pass or fail items as he seems fit because is says that the item/method must be one that is "approved", yet generally doesn't list what is and is not approved.



In any case, I'm admitting that crow is on the menu for tonight. The inspector still might pass it, after all, J-B Weld COULD be on his approved list. But I am no longer certain to any degree that I would be willing to make a bet on it.

Thanks for all those that have stuck with this thread until a way could be found to make me understand.

Of course at this point, I CAN'T go and add a screw... we've got to leave the J-B Weld in place and see what the inspector will say when it's pointed out....


----------



## Termite (Apr 13, 2008)

HooKooDooKu said:


> Of course at this point, I CAN'T go and add a screw.......


Come on now....You could. You won't, but you could. :wink:

(For the record, crow can taste ok if you cook it right! I've eaten enough of it in my years in the industry)


----------



## HooKooDooKu (Jan 7, 2008)

thekctermite said:


> Come on now....You could. You won't, but you could. :wink:


I don't mean I can't out of stubberness. I mean I can't until we see how this drama plays out...

After all, I haven't given in 100% to the notion that the inspector WILL turn it down. I still believe with confidence that the box is "securly fastened". I just have no confidence the inspector will include it on HIS list of "approved methods".


----------



## Scuba_Dave (Jan 16, 2009)

HooKooDooKu said:


> And just how many DIYers have a copy of the codes much less taken the time to read and attempt to understand all of it.
> 
> Not everyone is on every board. So obviously asking a question in multiple places gets before a wider audience. And frequently I ask a question one way and get answers that were not exactly what the question was trying to ask. So sometimes I try the question again and attempt to be clearing about what I'm asking. Case in point, that question about wiring a 4-way circuit had to be asked in THREE forums before someone give a valid answer (similer to this thread, many just try to answer with "no you can't do that" with out citing details to support their answer). As for the debates, isn't that what these forums are for when discussing different ideas and points of view? Just because someone has a minority opinion or interpretation doesn't mean it's wrong.
> 
> ...


I have a copy of the 2005 NEC & do access NEC 2008 almost every day for review
The NEC 2005 was the best $100 I have ever spent
While I have not read every part of the NEC I have read quite a bit
Probably the 1st 3 chapters which deal with basic wiring & residential codes
Anyone doing anything beyond basic outlets/switches should have access to the codes
Anyone planning on doing work should research BEFORE doing that work & BEFORE asking questions
I knew how to run a sub-panel & what wire to use before I asked my 1st question years ago on another board before running my 1st sub
I posted to verify what I thought I knew & to validate my research

Many of the questions that are asked on this site by people over & over is easily found in a search of this site


----------



## Leah Frances (Jan 13, 2008)

"And just how many DIYers have a copy of the codes much less taken the time to read and attempt to understand all of it."

Count one DIYer who has taken GREAT PAINS not only to read the code, but try and understand it too!

You have no reason not to do your homework on the code when it's available online for anyone. 

It might be a clunky format, but inconvenience is no excuse for ignorance.


----------



## HooKooDooKu (Jan 7, 2008)

Leah Frances said:


> You have no reason not to do your homework on the code when it's available online for anyone.


No, that is incorrect. But building codes are copyrighted materials. They are not available to ANYONE online.


----------



## Scuba_Dave (Jan 16, 2009)

HooKooDooKu said:


> No, that is incorrect. But building codes are copyrighted materials. They are not available to ANYONE online.


Yes they* ARE* available online to *ANYONE*
That's where I access NEC 2008


----------



## HooKooDooKu (Jan 7, 2008)

Scuba_Dave said:


> Yes they* ARE* available online to *ANYONE*
> That's where I access NEC 2008


Care to post a link where I can read over the code?


BTW, given that you have the words "Extream DIY Homeowner" and you're a moderator in this forum... I think it is safe to say that you are NOT a "typical" homeowner.


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

Scuba_Dave said:


> The NEC 2005 was the best $100 I have ever spent
> e


you got ripped man. I paid $51.


https://www.nfpa.org/catalog/servic.../freecodes/free_access_document.asp?id=7008SB
hooku, they are available from the copyright holder at the NFPA website 

(please, let's stay away from the copyright argument)


----------



## Scuba_Dave (Jan 16, 2009)

You do know how to do a Google search ?

I joined this forum just over a year ago
I bought my 2005 NEC after buying this house
It's really not hard to find this information on the web

I bought the Handbook, 50% more pages then the normal code book
I needed the visuals


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

Scuba_Dave said:


> I bought the Handbook, 50% more pages then the normal code book
> I needed the visuals


Ok. you did ok then...


that is if you really must have pictures.


actually I have friends that buy those as well. Nothing wrong with an interpretation in English.


----------



## HooKooDooKu (Jan 7, 2008)

Scuba_Dave said:


> You do know how to do a Google search ?


Care to share what Google search is going to produce a hit within the 1st two pages on the subject of mounting j-boxes with J-B Weld? EXCLUDING this thread?


----------



## Scuba_Dave (Jan 16, 2009)

HooKooDooKu said:


> Care to share what Google search is going to produce a hit within the 1st two pages on the subject of mounting j-boxes with J-B Weld? EXCLUDING this thread?


Care to share what electrican, inspector or other Pro said you could use it & it met code ?
If you didn't find anything that said you could use it that should have told you it is not an accepted use


----------



## HooKooDooKu (Jan 7, 2008)

Scuba_Dave said:


> Yes they* ARE* available online to *ANYONE*
> That's where I access NEC 2008


Ok, I ALMOST stand corrected.

I've been able to get to the web site, and they do have some sort of information available on line. I see at the following link what looks like it could be a code reference (which seems odd they would give it for free, yet try to get you to pay for a PDF copy).
http://www.nfpa.org/freecodes/free_access_document.asp?id=7008SB

But when I try to open the document on my Vista Computer (yea, I know, I prefer XP and 7 myself, but that's what came with this computer), the browser crashes.


----------



## Scuba_Dave (Jan 16, 2009)

I use Vista, IE8.0 & the same site - no problems
I use the online version
You must enable pop-ups as it opens another window
Cookies must also be enabled


----------



## HooKooDooKu (Jan 7, 2008)

Scuba_Dave said:


> Care to share what electrican, inspector or other Pro said you could use it & it met code ?
> If you didn't find anything that said you could use it that should have told you it is not an accepted use


It's not that I couldn't find anything that said I could, I couldn't find ANYTHING one way or the other.

The only exception was J-B Weld's web page that lists using J-B Weld on conduit and specifically indicates that it's not electrically conductive.

So actually, I found some information that suggested I could use it, and found nothing that indicated you couldn't.


----------



## Scuba_Dave (Jan 16, 2009)

HooKooDooKu said:


> So actually, I found some information that suggested I could use it, and found nothing that indicated you couldn't.





> Care to share what *electrican, inspector or other Pro* said you could use it & it met code ?
> If you didn't find anything that said you could use it that should have told you it is not an accepted use


A web-site is not an Inspector, electrician or a Pro telling you it is an accepted use

So you asked on multiple sites, no-one said it was an accepted use
Yet you used it anyways....? :huh:


----------



## HooKooDooKu (Jan 7, 2008)

Scuba_Dave said:


> So you asked on multiple sites, no-one said it was an accepted use
> Yet you used it anyways....? :huh:


Where do you get that I've been asking this question on multiple sites, and actually, at the very beginning of this discusion at least one other person seemed to think it might be acceptable (remember RegeSullivan).


Like I've said... do a Google search on "J-B Weld conduit" and you get this thread, the J-B Weld web site, and then everything else is irrelevant other pages.


BTW, I'll once again point out that the majority of opinions was that it wouldn't be acceptable. No one could site code (at least that sounded convencing from a legalistic stand point) that said you could not. I had already used the J-B Weld before someone managed to site code that sounded convensing (to me at least).


----------



## Scuba_Dave (Jan 16, 2009)

HooKooDooKu said:


> Where do you get that I've been asking this question on multiple sites, and actually, at the very beginning of this discusion at least one other person seemed to think it WAS acceptable


Do you want me to repost the question from Pro-DIYER & your response to him that you are posting on multiple boards ?
One person....out of how many ? And was he an Inspector, Pro or an electrician ?

So after multiple Pros said not to use it you went ahead & used it anyways


----------



## spark plug (May 5, 2009)

nap said:


> you got ripped man. I paid $51.
> 
> 
> https://www.nfpa.org/catalog/servic.../freecodes/free_access_document.asp?id=7008SB
> ...


No. Scuba Dave did not get ripped off. I keep getting offers for the NEC 2005. (Which is the Code in effect for NYC at the present time) All are in the range of $100.00!:yes:! (The YES Smily is to confirm that what I say is the truth.)


----------



## HooKooDooKu (Jan 7, 2008)

Scuba_Dave said:


> Do you want me to repost the question from Pro-DIYER & your response to him that you are posting on multiple boards ?


I said THIS question.

Yes, there have been OTHER questions that I have asked in more than one forum. My recent question regarding 3-way/4-way switches comes to mind. I had to ask the question in three places (usually trying to be more specific each time I asked) before someone could explain WHY you can't legally wire a 3-way/4-way switch using only 14/2.



Scuba_Dave said:


> So after multiple Pros said not to use it you went ahead & used it anyways.


I think that horse is already dead. To see and understand my reasoning, read over this thread: http://www.diychatroom.com/f18/j-b-weld-mount-metal-box-62713/index9/#post393705 But I'll warn you, allocate a little time, that thread already takes more than 8 pages.


----------



## Pro_DYIer (Feb 2, 2010)

*An Apology*

Scuba_Dave and DYI Chatroom members; I see my original post was deleted, I apologize if my post was excessively negative.


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

spark plug said:


> No. Scuba Dave did not get ripped off. I keep getting offers for the NEC 2005. (Which is the Code in effect for NYC at the present time) All are in the range of $100.00!:yes:! (The YES Smily is to confirm that what I say is the truth.)


for just a code book it is way too much but Dave said he bought the handbook. I paid $51 for my 05 so yes, if he had bought just the NEC book, he over paid.

here is from Amazon. $67 and they have other from other vendors as low as $55 for a new 05 NEC.

http://www.amazon.com/National-Elec...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265166636&sr=1-1

so, there is your get rich scheme sparky. Buy up a bunch at $55. Sell them for $75-$80. Do that 1000 times and you have $20,000.


----------



## Scuba_Dave (Jan 16, 2009)

Pro_DYIer said:


> Scuba_Dave and DYI Chatroom members; I see my original post was deleted, I apologize if my post was excessively negative.


No problem....its was moved to Mod area for now
I would be interested in what other sites he has posted this question on


----------



## Gigs (Oct 26, 2008)

The copyright on the NEC has been ruled invalid in court because you can't copyright laws. So you can get the NEC by downloading the laws of any place that has adopted it.

You can download all the building codes you want here:

http://ftp.resource.org/codes.gov/


----------



## spark plug (May 5, 2009)

nap said:


> for just a code book it is way too much but Dave said he bought the handbook. I paid $51 for my 05 so yes, if he had bought just the NEC book, he over paid.
> 
> here is from Amazon. $67 and they have other from other vendors as low as $55 for a new 05 NEC.
> 
> ...


Yes. I know. All those bargains, Two-Fer deals landed me in the poorhouse!


----------



## Termite (Apr 13, 2008)

The continual argument and negative behavior on this thread is a shame. 

The horse is dead. Let's quit beating it please.


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

thekctermite said:


> The continual argument and negative behavior on this thread is a shame.
> 
> The horse is dead. Let's quit beating it please.


we're branching out KC. We are on to copyright law now.


----------



## Scuba_Dave (Jan 16, 2009)

nap said:


> we're branching out KC. We are on to copyright law now.


I thought we weren't doing that again ?
Does that mean Taps is next :laughing:


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

Gigs said:


> The copyright on the NEC has been ruled invalid in court because you can't copyright laws. So you can get the NEC by downloading the laws of any place that has adopted it.
> 
> You can download all the building codes you want here:
> 
> http://ftp.resource.org/codes.gov/


I have tried multiple times and have never been able to get any of the electrical codes to download.


----------



## Termite (Apr 13, 2008)

The codes aren't free. You might get online snippets here and there, but the NFPA is in the business of selling code books. So is the ICC, etc. If there's a full download out there for free, it is almost certainly illegally posted.


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

Gigs said:


> The copyright on the NEC has been ruled invalid in court because you can't copyright laws. So you can get the NEC by downloading the laws of any place that has adopted it.
> 
> You can download all the building codes you want here:
> 
> http://ftp.resource.org/codes.gov/


Oh, and that ruling was only in the Federal 5th district ONLY. It does not apply to any other federal district.

and you really must realize that the NFPA is not copyrighting law, the government is illegally copying the previously copyright protected NFPA literature. The NFPA does not write laws, they right a book of rules that the government chooses to accept as their codes (law). Just because the government takes that (steals) from the NFPA and does a copy and paste into the law books (which, btw, is expressly forbidden by the NFPA licensing agreement) does not make it legal.

the government is really really wrong on this position.


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

thekctermite said:


> The codes aren't free. You might get online snippets here and there, but the NFPA is in the business of selling code books. So is the ICC, etc. If there's a full download out there for free, it is almost certainly illegally posted.


not if it is in the 5th Fed district. They actually did make that (asinine) ruling.


----------



## spark plug (May 5, 2009)

nap said:


> we're branching out KC. We are on to copyright law now.


Let's put a positive spin on. I once posted that this forum tackles all issues except for Law and Medicine. I take it back. We are tackling Law. Insurance, Contract and Copyright Law. Now it's the turn of Medicine! JUST KIDDING!!!
This a DIY Forum. But with a grain of Salt and a BIG Smile:yes::yes:!


----------



## Termite (Apr 13, 2008)

spark plug said:


> Now it's the turn of Medicine! [/ quote]
> 
> Did you know JB Weld produces toxic vapors when used in proximity of 110v household current?
> 
> (just kidding) :laughing:


----------



## spark plug (May 5, 2009)

thekctermite said:


> spark plug said:
> 
> 
> > Now it's the turn of Medicine! [/ quote]
> ...


----------



## Pro_DYIer (Feb 2, 2010)

Scuba_Dave said:


> No problem....its was moved to Mod area for now


Sounds fair, thanks for the update.

Options for a code book are 2ND hand book stores, even if it not the "latest" it is better than none and it may be the version the local jurisdiction is using or, God forbid, the public library.


----------



## Termite (Apr 13, 2008)

Pro_DYIer said:


> Options for a code book are 2ND hand book stores, even if it not the "latest" it is better than none and it may be the version the local jurisdiction is using or, God forbid, the public library.


And, they're always available for public view/use at the local AHJ (the city, county, etc.). The code requires that copies be available for people to look at. Libraries also have them. Whenever in doubt, the best idea is to contact the inspector prior to doing work that may or may not meet code, which include's that inspector's approval of things that fall into gray areas.


----------



## HooKooDooKu (Jan 7, 2008)

nap said:


> you got ripped man. I paid $51.
> 
> 
> https://www.nfpa.org/catalog/servic.../freecodes/free_access_document.asp?id=7008SB
> ...


Nap, 

I see what you mean... I didn't intend to open a can of worms.
Now I understand why I was mistaken about this subject (or was I:whistling2.


----------



## Scuba_Dave (Jan 16, 2009)

Yes, you were....I've had no problem accessing it as have many others


----------



## HooKooDooKu (Jan 7, 2008)

Scuba_Dave said:


> No problem....its was moved to Mod area for now
> I would be interested in what other sites he has posted this question on


Actually, I totally forgot about posting the question over here:
http://ths.gardenweb.com/forums/load/wiring/msg0102035417376.html?5

It totally slipped my mind because over there, the answers were relatively positive. Nothing compared to the negativity over here.


I know that once again I ruffled a few feathers over the 3-way/4-way with 14/2 question:
http://www.ridgidforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=277816
http://www.diychatroom.com/f18/wire-4-way-light-circuit-14-2-a-62784/
But again, it was a situation where a few were unhappy simply because I didn't want to take their advice until someone could site something that at least sounded like code.

BTW, as for that particular question... I am now the proud owner of 250' of 14/3 (couldn't believe it was something like $10 more than the 100' roll).


----------



## Scuba_Dave (Jan 16, 2009)

HooKooDooKu said:


> Actually, I totally forgot about posting the question over here:
> http://ths.gardenweb.com/forums/load/wiring/msg0102035417376.html?5
> 
> It totally slipped my mind because over there, the answers were relatively positive. Nothing compared to the negativity over here.
> ...


You asked on a GARDEN web-site....really ??
Well what do you need us for :laughing:

You liked these guys:


> Totally speculating here.





> I don't know if it's to code or not


but ignored this:


> You should use a mechanical connection. In that situation I would drill and tap the column


----------



## HooKooDooKu (Jan 7, 2008)

Scuba_Dave,

You've been on my back a lot lately with comments like these:


You do know how to do a Google search ?

See, you can't even keep track of all your threads :laughing:

You asked on a GARDEN web-site....really ??
Well what do you need us for :laughing:



And now you're on my back once again beating a dead horse (AGAIN):
"[you] ignored this:
Quote:You should use a mechanical connection. In that situation I would drill and tap the column"


Dave... you're a moderator here for goodness sakes. Can you honestly say that you're following the forum rules here? Let me quote one in particular:

Users shall treat each other with respect at all times on DIYChatroom.com. Name calling, personal attacks, or other inappropriate behavior will not be allowed and may cause your account to be banned.


----------



## frenchelectrican (Apr 12, 2006)

HooKooDooKu said:


> Dave... you're a moderator here for goodness sakes. Can you honestly say that you're following the forum rules here? Let me quote one in particular:
> 
> Users shall treat each other with respect at all times on DIYChatroom.com. Name calling, personal attacks, or other inappropriate behavior will not be allowed and may cause your account to be banned.


 Dave is doing the best what he is doing so far and he know what to do and please do not cross that line.

Merci,Marc


----------



## Gigs (Oct 26, 2008)

thekctermite said:


> The codes aren't free. You might get online snippets here and there, but the NFPA is in the business of selling code books. So is the ICC, etc. If there's a full download out there for free, it is almost certainly illegally posted.


It's not illegal. The NFPA doesn't have any say in the matter. The NEC is public domain because the courts ruled that laws are public domain, and the NEC has been passed into law in many areas.

They can still sell books or whatever, but they can't sue someone for hosting copies of laws.

Here's a direct link to download the Arkansas electrical code, which includes the entire 2008 NEC:

http://ftp.resource.org/codes.gov/ar_electrical.pdf


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

Gigs said:


> It's not illegal. The NFPA doesn't have any say in the matter. The NEC is public domain because the courts ruled that laws are public domain, and the NEC has been passed into law in many areas.
> 
> They can still sell books or whatever, but they can't sue someone for hosting copies of laws.
> 
> ...


actually the 5th district only covers Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. That ruling is not applicable to the other 47 states. That means in 94% of the US, it has not been ruled that the NFPA has lost their copyrights.

from a site that argues there is no copyright protection:



> On June 27, 2003 the US Supreme Court refused to review the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that building codes, when enacted into law, could not be copyrighted.* This would indicate (at least in the 5th circuit) that all building codes enacted into law are now in the public domain*. This would included (sic) the National Electrical Code (NEC)


.

first, their argument is wrong as the SCOTUS does not necessarily grant a writ of certiorari because they believe the lower courts ruling is correct nor does it if they believe it is incorrect. They grant a writ more often simply because they believe the legal issues are of such importance, and especially so if they deal with constitutional issues. Based on that, their claim that since the SCOTUS has not addressed this, they condone it is simply wrong.

. and somebody must apply for a writ of certiorari. The SCOTUS does not go out looking for cases to take on.

and I still have not gotten anything to download from that site even after a dozen tries.


----------



## HooKooDooKu (Jan 7, 2008)

nap said:


> ...and I still have not gotten anything to download from that site even after a dozen tries.


I did some poking around on that web site and found this:
http://bulk.resource.org/codes.gov/

The states with files that include the NEC 2008 are 127MB in size... even at high-end DSL rates, that's going to take a while to download.


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

HooKooDooKu said:


> I did some poking around on that web site and found this:
> http://bulk.resource.org/codes.gov/
> 
> The states with files that include the NEC 2008 are 127MB in size... even at high-end DSL rates, that's going to take a while to download.


I have let my computer set for extended periods of time. I don't know if I have let it go for more than 10 minutes though. Maybe that is the problem.

thanks

btw: comcast broadband. Claims of up to 12 meg. I generally test around 18-20 on most test sites.


----------



## HooKooDooKu (Jan 7, 2008)

If you right-click on one of the listed documents and select "Save Target As..." then pick a filename, the transfer window will give you a progress bar. I've got low end DSL and it took over 15 minutes.


----------



## Stubbie (Jan 7, 2007)

I suppose after all this argument over the JB-Weld issue we should finally get around to mentioning that code does direct the electrician towards using industry standards in NEC 110.12. The FPN refers inspectors and electricians to the use of ANSI/NECA 1-2006 in regards to accepted standards for neatness and workmanship. These standards refered to as the NECA Accepted Industry practices are many volumes usually available in pdf or disc form and cover all accepted standards for electrical installations not just workmanship. 

You will likely find the anwser to jb weld for securely supporting electrical boxes in those standards and likely in this volume ... unfortunately you have to purchase to view.

http://www.necanet.org/store/pdf_toc/NECA1r_TOC.pdf


In the 2002 NEC/NFPA handbook commentary examples are given for unaccepted standards of workmanship .... ie ... exposed runs of cable like nm, unsupported cables, use of improper support methods for cabinets, cutout boxes, electrical boxes, raceways, and equipment enclosures....as described in NECA Industry standards for installations 1-2006.

I don't feel like 30$ to find the answer but the inspector will likely use these standards to rule on the JB Weld.


----------



## Leah Frances (Jan 13, 2008)

To be clear, you *cannot download* the 2008 NEC from the NFPA website for free, but you *CAN READ THE ENTIRE CONTENTS*.


----------

