# Hide/Cover Sconce Light Fixture hole



## cgordonrogers (May 26, 2012)

Want to remove electrical sconces on bedroom walls. Would prefer not to cover the holes or hide with pictures. Can these holes be patched? Can wires be removed? Is this a fire hazard?


----------



## ddawg16 (Aug 15, 2011)

In order to patch up the holes you will have to remove the boxes. If you remove the boxes, you have to pull back the wires to the next box or install a box in which to terminate the wires.

It's not a fire hazard to have unconnected wires as long as they have wire nuts on them.


----------



## PaliBob (Jun 11, 2008)

Welcome to the Forum.
Tell us about your bedroom sconces. Are they wired with Romex type wire? If you don't know how to tell the difference then you may be safer by calling an Electrician?


----------



## andrew79 (Mar 25, 2010)

you can get decorative blanks to fit the boxes as well, or get whites and paint them to match the room.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

or buy nicer sconces and just install them instead.


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

If these sconces are wired in the "switch leg" fashion (power goes to switch first, then a switch leg is run to the sconces) all you need to do is disconnect the wire in the switch box. Then you can patch the holes, burying the box is fine.

Some will say that even if the lights were wired in the "switch loop" fashion (power goes to the light box first, then a switch loop runs over to the switch) you can just cap the wires off and then bury the box because there is no connection inside of the box.


----------



## Jim Port (Sep 21, 2007)

Energized ends of a cable cannot be buried in the wall.


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

Jim Port said:


> Energized ends of a cable cannot be buried in the wall.


You know what comes next: Article? :thumbup:


Edited: There is a lot of discussion on this topic, it goes both ways. Here is an example: http://www.electriciantalk.com/f2/hack-12483/


The main reason why you can't bury a junction box isn't a safety issue, it's in case the splices ever came loose, it's easier to troubleshoot when you can actually find the box. When abandoning wires and capping them off, there is nothing to come loose.

I don't think the thread starter should have this issue anyway since I am guessing the sconces are fed with a switch leg and he could just disconnect the wires inside of the switch box and abandon them properly.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

Macro said:


> You know what comes next: Article? :thumbup:


Haha, I agree.


----------



## Jim Port (Sep 21, 2007)

If it is still energized I would think this would apply.

314.29 Boxes, Conduit Bodies, and Handhole Enclosures
to Be Accessible. Boxes, conduit bodies, and handhole
enclosures shall be installed so that the wiring contained
in them can be rendered accessible without removing
any part of the building or, in underground circuits, without
excavating sidewalks, paving, earth, or other substance that
is to be used to establish the finished grade.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

Jim Port said:


> If it is still energized I would think this would apply.
> 
> 314.29 Boxes, Conduit Bodies, and Handhole Enclosures
> to Be Accessible. Boxes, conduit bodies, and handhole
> ...


That section only contains Boxes, Conduit Bodies, and Handhold enclosures that contain wires....


----------



## Jim Port (Sep 21, 2007)

Macro said:


> If these sconces are wired in the "switch leg" fashion (power goes to switch first, then a switch leg is run to the sconces) all you need to do is disconnect the wire in the switch box. Then you can patch the holes, burying the box is fine.
> 
> Some will say that even if the lights were wired in the "switch loop" fashion (power goes to the light box first, then a switch loop runs over to the switch) you can just cap the wires off and then bury the box because there is no connection inside of the box.


This is the part I was addressing.

If the conductors have been de-energized and removed from the box I would agree that it could be abandoned and covered over.


----------



## Code05 (May 24, 2009)

Jim Port said:


> This is the part I was addressing.
> 
> If the conductors have been de-energized and removed from the box I would agree that it could be abandoned and covered over.



This most applicable article is 300.15 IMO. Depends how you read it. I agree with you, but many will not.


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

This topic is completely up in the air, different people see it in different ways. 

One can say that if you pull a cable out of a box and tape it off, it's legal to bury it in the wall live. 300.15 wouldn't cover this since the wire isn't being spliced, terminated, etc. I linked to one thread where they were discussing that and there are many others.


----------



## Jim Port (Sep 21, 2007)

Here is 300.15 which I also agree would apply. Blue by me for emphasis.

300.15 Boxes, Conduit Bodies, or Fittings —Where Required.
A box shall be installed at each outlet and switch
point for concealed knob-and-tube wiring.
Fittings and connectors shall be used only with the specific
wiring methods for which they are designed and listed.
Where the wiring method is conduit, tubing, Type AC
cable, Type MC cable, Type MI cable, nonmetallic-sheathed
cable, or other cables, a box or conduit body shall be installed
at each conductor splice point, outlet point, switch point, junction
point, termination point, or pull point, unless otherwise
permitted in 300.15(A) through (L).


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

Jim Port said:


> Here is 300.15 which I also agree would apply. Blue by me for emphasis.
> 
> 300.15 Boxes, Conduit Bodies, or Fittings —Where Required.
> A box shall be installed at each outlet and switch
> ...


I edited my last post to cover that. The wire is not terminated, which is why that article doesn't apply. I believe it was Marc Shunk, a Moderator at this forums sister site Electriciantalk.com, who went into detail about this.


----------



## Jim Port (Sep 21, 2007)

Termination could also mean an endpoint.


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

Jim Port said:


> Termination could also mean an endpoint.


It could, but does it mean that in electrical code? 

When I tell a worker to terminate a set of wires, I want them landed on the lugs, not dangling in the air :whistling2: :thumbup:


----------



## Jim Port (Sep 21, 2007)

And the lugs would be in some kind of a box or enclosure, correct? You would not have a flying splice like the old K&T or an improperly made splice outside of a box.


----------



## Code05 (May 24, 2009)

Jim Port said:


> Termination could also mean an endpoint.


Personally I think the end of an energized cable/conductor is an outlet point in that section. But I can live with either.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

Macro said:


> It could, but does it mean that in electrical code?
> 
> When I tell a worker to terminate a set of wires, I want them landed on the lugs, not dangling in the air :whistling2: :thumbup:


personally, I don't have an issue with it, and I just don't see the violation... when costs don't hinder the job, I will try to disconnect where it is fed from, but yeah, if I have to take a fixture down, its not happening.


----------



## Code05 (May 24, 2009)

Macro said:


> It could, but does it mean that in electrical code?
> 
> When I tell a worker to terminate a set of wires, I want them landed on the lugs, not dangling in the air :whistling2: :thumbup:


What is the definition of outlet point?:whistling2:


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

Jim Port said:


> And the lugs would be in some kind of a box or enclosure, correct? You would not have a flying splice like the old K&T or an improperly made splice outside of a box.


All of those would require a box, were talking about a dead ended wire.


----------



## Jim Port (Sep 21, 2007)

As I see the cable as a deadend I would not say the cable would would meet the NEC definition of an outlet. Potential outlet, maybe if it were re-purposed. I only say this as no current is being taken.

Outlet. A point on the wiring system at which current is
taken to supply utilization equipment.


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

Jim Port said:


> And the lugs would be in some kind of a box or enclosure, correct? You would not have a flying splice like the old K&T or an improperly made splice outside of a box.


Yes, lugs would be in an enclosure. But an abandoned live wire wouldn't be in an enclosure nor would it be terminated. We're not talking about splices here.


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

Code05 said:


> What is the definition of outlet point?:whistling2:


I do not know what an "outlet point" is, but Jim defined "Outlet".

I don't believe that a loose wire in a wall would be either.


----------



## Code05 (May 24, 2009)

Jim Port said:


> As I see the cable as a deadend I would not say the cable would would meet the NEC definition of an outlet. Potential outlet, maybe if it were re-purposed. I only say this as no current is being taken.
> 
> Outlet. A point on the wiring system at which current is
> taken to supply utilization equipment.





Macro said:


> I do not know what an "outlet point" is, but Jim defined "Outlet".
> 
> I don't believe that a loose wire in a wall would be either.


As stated, there is no definition of out point- so as far as I am concerned it is the point where the actual current is supplied: the end of the energized wire.


----------



## Jim Port (Sep 21, 2007)

So let me pose this, a live splice would need to be in an accessible junction box, but a live deadended cable in a box could be buried?

I certainly don't think that is the intent.


----------



## Code05 (May 24, 2009)

Jim Port said:


> So let me pose this, a live splice would need to be in an accessible junction box, but a live deadended cable in a box could be buried?
> 
> *I certainly don't think that is the intent*.


If you are asking me, I already agreed. 300.15 prohibits IMO.


----------



## Jim Port (Sep 21, 2007)

I thought you did agree D, but I thought the others did not and was looking to see other thoughts.


----------



## bbo (Feb 28, 2010)

it really depends on the inspector. or the next inspector. or the one ten years or twenty years down the road when you sell your house.


Odds are most all of them would prohibit a buried end of a live wire, whether terminated or dangling or wrapped in a pretty pink bow.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

Jim Port said:


> I thought you did agree D, but I thought the others did not and was looking to see other thoughts.


I just don't see it as a violation, OR better yet, a safety concern, it's not like the electrons are just going to flow out of the end of the wire, and fill up the wall cavity... think about it, you have NM type cable run all over the house, all that protects it is a tiny jacket, now we strip a piece of that jacket and someone has a problem with it in the wall? come on....


----------



## Code05 (May 24, 2009)

stickboy1375 said:


> I just don't see it as a violation, OR better yet, a safety concern, it's not like the electrons are just going to flow out of the end of the wire, and fill up the wall cavity... think about it, you have NM type cable run all over the house, all that protects it is a tiny jacket, now we strip a piece of that jacket and someone has a problem with it in the wall? come on....


Tell you what, I will do a MH search-or PM Chris/Raider1, tomorrow and see what he says. 

I will post results. Fair enough? I am willing to abide by his opinion/ruling.


----------



## frenchelectrican (Apr 12, 2006)

stickboy1375 said:


> I just don't see it as a violation, OR better yet, a safety concern, it's not like the electrons are just going to flow out of the end of the wire, and fill up the wall cavity... think about it, you have NM type cable run all over the house, all that protects it is a tiny jacket, now we strip a piece of that jacket and someone has a problem with it in the wall? come on....


I have see the simauir situation in France ( that where I am now ) and with the end of run engerized conductor you can leave them in the box but if someone want to take it the box off they have to find where is the supply source and disconnect it and that end of run box you can chunk it out without issue.

Merci,
Marc


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

Jim Port said:


> So let me pose this, a live splice would need to be in an accessible junction box, but a live deadended cable in a box could be buried?
> 
> I certainly don't think that is the intent.


I agree that it might not be the intent of the code. But in my opinion it is allowed because I do not see anything restricting it.

It's similar to the way that the code only requires one of the receptacles in a bathroom to be 20A, the rest can be 15A. I don't believe that is the intent, but that's the way it's written.

The CMP spends way too much time dealing with the manufacturer's lobbyists and not enough time making small and simple things clear.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

Macro said:


> I agree that it might not be the intent of the code. But in my opinion it is allowed because I do not see anything restricting it.
> 
> It's similar to the way that the code only requires one of the receptacles in a bathroom to be 20A, the rest can be 15A. I don't believe that is the intent, but that's the way it's written.
> 
> The CMP spends way too much time dealing with the manufacturer's lobbyists and not enough time making small and simple things clear.


I agree, the NEC is a permissive document, so if clearly doesn't say, no dead ends in wall, then its legal. IMO.


----------



## Code05 (May 24, 2009)

stickboy1375 said:


> I agree, the NEC is a permissive document, so if clearly doesn't say, no dead ends in wall, then its legal. IMO.



Nope. Although Jim port gets the cookie, it is "termination point" in 300.15 that says no. It was added to the 2002 just for this situation.

Here is a thread where Bob concedes to Dennis on this point.

http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=122090

and here is the ROP:

3- 83 - (300-15(a)): Accept in Principle
SUBMITTER: Robert H. Keis, Dover, DE
RECOMMENDATION: Insert the words "termination point" into
the required locations or points where a box is required.
300-15. Boxes, Conduit Bodies, or Fittings—Where Required.
(a) Box or Conduit Body. Where the wiring method is
conduit, electrical metallic tubing, Type AC cable, Type MC
cable, Type MI cable, nonmetallic-sheathed cable, or other
cables, a box or conduit body complying with Article 370 shall be
installed at each conductor splice point, outlet, switch point,
junction point, termination point, or pull point, unless otherwise
permitted in (b) through . A box shall be installed at each
outlet and switch point for concealed knob-and-tube wiring.
SUBSTANTIATION: The argument has come up recently about
just taping the ends of an abandoned, but usable cable and
leaving the cable end buried in a wall or laying in a ceiling.
Nowhere in the code can I find a requirement that abandoned
cables need to be removed and a lot of times that would be
needless expense. Often cables are discontinued for one reason
or another and may or could be utilized again in the future. This
will settle a long standing argument. We tell the electrician when
he violates the code to "read the words." He did just that, and
that is reason for this proposal. The words aren't there!
PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle.
PANEL STATEMENT: See panel action on Proposal 3-81.
However, truly abandoned wires should not remain energized or
connected to a possible source of potential.
NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 11
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 11


----------



## k_buz (Mar 22, 2012)

So, you are saying (in all seriousness) that you have to have a junction box with one cable in it (capped off) accessible, but you can just wirenut a loose, live cable and leave it in the wall?


----------



## Jim Port (Sep 21, 2007)

Wow, I have been to IAEI meetings with Bob K. Small world.

KBuz, who is that addressed to?


----------



## k_buz (Mar 22, 2012)

Macro, Stickboy, any anyone else trying to argue that single live cables can be left live in a inaccessible location.


----------



## Jim Port (Sep 21, 2007)

Thanks for the clarification KB.


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

k_buz said:


> So, you are saying (in all seriousness) that you have to have a junction box with one cable in it (capped off) accessible, but you can just wirenut a loose, live cable and leave it in the wall?





k_buz said:


> Macro, Stickboy, any anyone else trying to argue that single live cables can be left live in a inaccessible location.


Yes, I am saying it in all seriousness.

Your walls are filled with live cables.

I still haven't seen where it's not permitted by electrical code. And I maintain that a "termination" is most certainly not a loose wire.

In no other part of the electrical code nor in normal electrical nomenclature is the word "termination" or the act of "terminating" referring to letting a loose wire hang freely.


----------



## k_buz (Mar 22, 2012)

300.15 Boxes, Conduit Bodies, or Fittings —Where Required.
A box shall be installed at each outlet and switch
point for concealed knob-and-tube wiring.
Fittings and connectors shall be used only with the specific
wiring methods for which they are designed and listed.
Where the wiring method is conduit, tubing, Type AC
cable, Type MC cable, Type MI cable, nonmetallic-sheathed
cable, or other cables, a box or conduit body shall be installed
at each conductor splice point, outlet point, switch point, junction
point, termination point, or pull point, unless otherwise
permitted in 300.15(A) through (L).

Now, I know you are going to argue the definition of termination point, but with the other examples listed in this code rule, I don't see how it can be interpreted any other way that a cable dead-ended.


----------



## Jim Port (Sep 21, 2007)

The difference is that the endpoint is accessible if it is in a box. The ends of the energized cables are in boxes.

Macro, you are going to need to explain this one too.



> It's similar to the way that the code only requires one of the receptacles in a bathroom to be 20A, the rest can be 15A. I don't believe that is the intent, but that's the way it's written.


The receptacle does not have to be 20 amps, the circuit it is on needs to be 20 amps. 

There have also been discussions about having a 15 amp holiday lighting circuit in a bathroom under the windows. IIRC the general opinion was that that was not allowed. Article 210 says the bathroom receptacles need to be served by a 20 amp circuit.


----------



## Code05 (May 24, 2009)

Jim Port said:


> Wow, I have been to IAEI meetings with Bob K. Small world.


I was curious if you might know the guy when I saw the location.


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

k_buz said:


> 300.15 Boxes, Conduit Bodies, or Fittings —Where Required.
> A box shall be installed at each outlet and switch
> point for concealed knob-and-tube wiring.
> Fittings and connectors shall be used only with the specific
> ...


 We've cited this article many times already.


> Now, I know you are going to argue the definition of termination point, but with the other examples listed in this code rule, I don't see how it can be interpreted any other way that a cable dead-ended.


I can't see how this article is in any way referring to a dead-ended cable. It's simply not there.

As I said before, I know the intent, but intensions mean nothing when it comes to the written word of the law.


----------



## Code05 (May 24, 2009)

Macro said:


> Yes, I am saying it in all seriousness.
> 
> Your walls are filled with live cables.
> 
> ...


Did you read the ROP I posted?


----------



## k_buz (Mar 22, 2012)

Give me an example of what you think is a termination point that isn't covered by one of the other examples in the code rule.

Conductor splice point
Outlet Point
Switch point
Junction point
Pull point


----------



## Jim Port (Sep 21, 2007)

Then there is always Charlies rule. 

Sometimes the Code doesn't say what you think it says.


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

Jim Port said:


> The difference is that the endpoint is accessible if it is in a box. The ends of the energized cables are in boxes.
> 
> Macro, you are going to need to explain this one too.
> 
> ...


 Yes, the circuit that *ONE* receptacle is on has to be 20A. You can have other receptacles in the bathroom on a 15A circuit that is shared with other rooms. Once the requirement of 210.11(C)(3) is met you can do as you like with any other receptacle you want to add to the room.


> There have also been discussions about having a 15 amp holiday lighting circuit in a bathroom under the windows. IIRC the general opinion was that that was not allowed.


 I'd like to read this, thanks.


> Article 210 says the bathroom receptacles need to be served by a 20 amp circuit.


 Only 1 receptacle needs to be served by a 20A circuit. Look it up and you'll see.


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

Code05 said:


> Did you read the ROP I posted?


Yes, I read it last year when I saw that thread over at Holt's. 

Did you read when I discussed the difference between intent and actual written code which we are bound by?

_"As I said before, I know the intent, but intentions mean nothing when it comes to the written word of the law."_


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

k_buz said:


> Give me an example of what you think is a termination point that isn't covered by one of the other examples in the code rule.
> 
> Conductor splice point
> Outlet Point
> ...


How is giving you _"an example of a termination point that isn't covered by another example"_ defining what a termination point is?

How have YOU defined a termination in all your years in the trade? If one of your workers said he terminated the cables and you come to the job to see a bunch of cables hanging loose in front of the panel, would you consider that correct? 

In what other place in the code does a termination point reference a loose wire not connected to anything?


----------



## k_buz (Mar 22, 2012)

Of course not...all end points of (the types of wiring listed) need to be ended (or terminated) inside a box or conduit body.


----------



## Code05 (May 24, 2009)

Macro, read this please.

http://www.neca-neis.org/cqd/index.cfm?fa=showArchiveQuestion&id=3919


----------



## Code05 (May 24, 2009)

Macro said:


> Yes, I read it last year when I saw that thread over at Holt's.
> 
> Did you read when I discussed the difference between intent and actual written code which we are bound by?
> 
> _"As I said before, I know the intent, but intentions mean nothing when it comes to the written word of the law."_


I am jumper at MH, care to tell me who you are?


----------



## k_buz (Mar 22, 2012)

Macro said:


> How is giving you _"an example of a termination point that isn't covered by another example"_ defining what a termination point is?


Because with the wording of this rule, termination point can only mean one thing...an end point. The other meanings that you are implying are covered by the other examples listed.


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

k_buz said:


> Of course not...all end points of (the types of wiring listed) need to be ended (or terminated) inside a box or conduit body.


Ok, so if they aren't ended into a box or conduit body, they aren't terminated at all :thumbsup:


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

k_buz said:


> Because with the wording of this rule, termination point can only mean one thing...an end point.


That is not clear in the code, it's just an assumption. In no other instance in the code or any part of electrical "lingo" is a "termination" a loose wire that isn't connected to anything, so my assuming is going in the opposite direction of your's.


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

k_buz said:


> Because with the wording of this rule, termination point can only mean one thing...an end point. The other meanings that you are implying are covered by the other examples listed.


Even if that was true, does mentioning something twice make one of the instances change it's meaning? There are MANY redundancies in the code. That doesn't give a basis to change the definition of one of them.


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

Code05 said:


> I am jumper at MH, care to tell me who you are?


I am not registered there, just browse.


----------



## k_buz (Mar 22, 2012)

Macro said:


> That is not clear in the code, it's just an assumption. In no other instance in the code or any part of electrical "lingo" is a "termination" a loose wire that isn't connected to anything, so my assuming is going in the opposite direction of your's.


This is where we differ...I think YOU are the one using "electrical lingo". The NEC doesn't specifically define termination, therefore you would have to use the common definition...



> termination [ˌtɜːmɪˈneɪʃən]_n_*1.* the act of terminating or the state of being terminated
> *2. something that terminates*
> *3.* a final result*terminational* _adj_





> ter·mi·nate (tûr
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

Code05 said:


> Macro, read this please.
> 
> http://www.neca-neis.org/cqd/index.cfm?fa=showArchiveQuestion&id=3919


What about it? That question and answer is not discussing what I said about the bathroom earlier in the thread.

That question and answer at your link is discussing what other outlets can be put on the required 20A bathroom circuit. What I said was that additional circuits can be added to the bathroom, and those circuits can be shared with other rooms and be 15A. As I mentioned, once the requirement of 210.11(C)(3) is met there is no other restriction or requirement when it comes to adding receptacles in the bathroom. So if a customer wants a receptacle to power a TV in his bathroom, it would be perfectly legal to come out of a 15A bedroom receptacle on the opposite side of that wall.


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

k_buz said:


> This is where we differ.


And we probably always will. :thumbsup:


> This is where we differ...I think YOU are the one using "electrical lingo".


 That's true, I am looking at every avenue. Other instances in the code, normal use in the field, etc. And in absolutely zero of those other examples does a termination point mean a loose, hanging, disconnected wire. 

It amazes me that they can add a change to the code to clear up confusion, when that very change itself is not clear. Yet, they have no problem spelling out in great detail many changes that lead to the manufacturers making more money :whistling2: :laughing:


----------



## k_buz (Mar 22, 2012)

Maybe its not spelled out word for word, because it is common sense. If you can't run a single live cable to a box and bury said box, then you can't just remove that box and leave that live cable buried in the wall.

Or maybe it is spelled out word for word by the "termination point" in 300.15 and you just refuse to accept the common definition of termination point.

I still defy you to give me an example of any termination point is anything other that is not an end point of a wire or cable.


----------



## Jim Port (Sep 21, 2007)

Do we really need to get all Clintonesque about the meaning of termination? The NEC does not define many words, but does use the dictionary definitions on commonly used words.

*Related to TERMINATION*

*Synonyms:* bound, boundary, cap, ceiling, confines, *end*, extent, limitation, line, limit
*Antonyms:* alpha, beginning, birth, commencement, creation, dawn, genesis, inception, incipience, incipiency, launch, morning, onset, outset, start


----------



## k_buz (Mar 22, 2012)

Macro said:


> And we probably always will. :thumbsup:
> That's true, I am looking at every avenue. Other instances in the code, normal use in the field, etc. * And in absolutely zero of those other examples does a termination point mean a loose, hanging, disconnected wire. *
> 
> It amazes me that they can add a change to the code to clear up confusion, when that very change itself is not clear. Yet, they have no problem spelling out in great detail many changes that lead to the manufacturers making more money :whistling2: :laughing:


We aren't talking about a "DISCONNECTED" wire. We are talking about a wire that is either live or still connected to a switch. Or are we arguing two different situations?


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

k_buz said:


> Maybe its not spelled out word for word, because it is common sense.


 Common sense has nothing to do with electrical code. Code is explained in great detail, not left up to common sense. If common sense was expected, the code would be half it's size.



> If you can't run a single live cable to a box and bury said box, then you can't just remove that box and leave that live cable buried in the wall.


 Why can't you do either?


> Or maybe it is spelled out word for word by the "termination point" in 300.15 and you just refuse to accept the common definition of termination point.


 I've said this 7 or 8 times already, so I can't see how you can possibly call a loose, hanging, disconnected wire the "common definition of a termination point". That is simply nonsense. 


> I still defy you to give me an example of any termination point is anything other that is not an end point of a wire or cable.


I don't know if there are a few typos or what, but your question doesn't make sense.

I still defy you to give me one other example (either in code or normal electrical nomenclature) of a loose, hanging, disconnected wire being defined as a termination point. Since you said that is the common definition of it, you should have no problem citing many, many examples


----------



## Jim Port (Sep 21, 2007)

I thought this was about a live cable fed from a switch and the fixture had been removed. Some were saying it was OK to bury the live end in the wall.


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

k_buz said:


> We aren't talking about a "DISCONNECTED" wire. We are talking about a wire that is either live or still connected to a switch. Or are we arguing two different situations?


The end of the wire that we are speaking about is not connected to anything, so it is disconnected. The other end of the wire is connected to something, yes, but not the end in question.


----------



## Jim Port (Sep 21, 2007)

Macro said:


> The *end of the wire* that we are speaking about is not connected to anything, so it is disconnected. The other end of the wire is connected to something, yes, but not the end in question.


This is the whole point of this. Using commonly defined terms that makes the end a termination point. It does not continue past this end. Article 300.15 includes termination points as needing to be accessible.

If you were to removed the switch end of the cable from the box this would be a properly abandoned cable, but not with one end still connected and energized.


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

Jim Port said:


> Do we really need to get all Clintonesque about the meaning of termination? The NEC does not define many words, but does use the dictionary definitions on commonly used words.
> 
> *Related to TERMINATION*
> 
> ...


I just searched the 2008 NEC PDF for the word "Termination"*. There are 129 pages that have that word on it, some of the pages have the word 2, 3, or even up to 6 times. That means the word is used many hundreds of times in the NEC.

Out of hundreds of times the word has been used in the code, can you show an example of just one time that it is used to define a loose hanging wire not connected to anything on that end? 

Can you show where it is used in normal electrical speak?

Out of the hundreds of times it's used in the code and the millions of times it's used in electrical discussions, if it's never used to define the loose end of a cable, why should we change the definition for that one instance?

The loose end of a wire is actually the exact polar opposite of what most electrician would consider "terminated".



* I only searched for the word "Termination". I did not search for "terminate" or any other variant. If I did, I'm sure there would be hundreds of more instances where it's used.


----------



## k_buz (Mar 22, 2012)

Macro said:


> Common sense has nothing to do with electrical code. Code is explained in great detail, not left up to common sense. If common sense was expected, the code would be half it's size.
> 
> Why can't you do either?
> I've said this 7 or 8 times already, so I can't see how you can possibly call a loose, hanging, disconnected wire the "common definition of a termination point". That is simply nonsense.
> ...


This is my last post in this thread because I'm beginning to think you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

1) 314.29 Boxes, Conduit Bodies, and Handhole Enclosures
to Be Accessible. Boxes, conduit bodies, and handhole
enclosures shall be installed so that the wiring contained
in them can be rendered accessible without removing
any part of the building or, in underground circuits, without
excavating sidewalks, paving, earth, or other substance that
is to be used to establish the finished grade.

2) You are not describing a disconnected wire. A wire has two ends, each being a termination point or end point. If one of the endpoints is connected to a live circuit (switched or unswitched) this is a connected wire.

3) A loose wire in the wall is not a termination point, the ends of those loose wires, whether in a box or not, are the termination points or end points.

4)I still defy you to give me an example of any termination point that could be looked at as anything other than an end point of a wire or cable. (Reworded)


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

Jim Port said:


> This is the whole point of this. *Using commonly defined terms* that makes the end a termination point. It does not continue past this end. Article 300.15 includes termination points as needing to be accessible.
> 
> If you were to removed the switch end of the cable from the box this would be a properly abandoned cable, but not with one end still connected and energized.


That's the thing, I don't see this as the commonly defined definition, as I mentioned, it's actually the opposite of what we commonly use as the definition.

You know as well as I do that to terminate is to land the wires or connect them in some way. In no instance in electrical work does terminate mean to leave the wires hanging. Right or wrong?


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

k_buz said:


> This is my last post in this thread because I'm beginning to think you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.


 Then I will end the discussion with you right here. You haven't answered my questions, you repeated the same things over and over even tho I explained why they didn't apply, and now you are trying to insult me. Good day


----------



## Jim Port (Sep 21, 2007)

You are playing on two definitions of terminate, but taking one out of context. Yes, it would be considered to terminate the wires on a breaker while cutting in a panel. This does not mean that the physical end of the cable is not a terminal point.

I can't think of one inspector that would validate your viewpoint. If it is energized it goes into an accessible junction box.

I am sure this would be flagged for repair by an HI if they saw the free end of an energized cable flying in the breeze. I know that they have no legal standing, but am using this as an example that a person with some knowledge of correct procedures and codes would recognize this as improper. I know you are also going to bring up they will not see it if it is buried. If a flying end is not ok in sticking out of the wall or attic space burying it behind a surface does not change anything other than accessiblity.

Would you think it ok to hide a junction point in a box behind a cabinet?


----------



## ddawg16 (Aug 15, 2011)

I'll chime in......I just went through a UL class so we can become a UL panel shop.

I've been designing and building control panels and test equipment for about 30 some odd years now. I may not be up to speed on the NEC like some of you guys...but I most likely know a lot more about electricity than most of you guys.....

Pure and simple....where ever the wire STOPS...THAT is a termination point. How it is teminated can vary. It can be to another wire, it can be on a terminal block....it can be into a switch...outlet...thingamagig....what ever...if the wire stops....that is a termination point....

So enough of the banter on the use of "Termination"....

BTW....I really enjoyed it a few years ago when I found a loose NM cable in the wall that I opened up (my house)....and got zapped.....The previous owner took out an outlet and covered up the hole just leaving the wires inside.........no, he did not wire nut them.....so I assumed they were dead.....like, who would leave exposed live wires in a wall?


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

Jim, please answer the question in post #71.

If the word is used hundreds upon hundreds of times and NEVER in any of those instances is it used in a way to define a loose end of a wire, why should we expect the definition to change for this one instance?


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

ddawg16 said:


> I'll chime in......I just went through a UL class so we can become a UL panel shop.
> 
> I've been designing and building control panels and test equipment for about 30 some odd years now. I may not be up to speed on the NEC like some of you guys...but I most likely know a lot more about electricity than most of you guys.....


This discussion is about the words of the law, specifically the NEC. You admitted yourself that you don't know much about the NEC. It's very nice that you know more about electricity than me and the others here, but that has nothing to do with this topic about law and wording of code.


> Pure and simple....where ever the wire STOPS...THAT is a termination point. How it is teminated can vary. It can be to another wire, it can be on a terminal block....it can be into a switch...outlet...thingamagig....what ever...if the wire stops....that is a termination point....


 I'll ask you to answer my question in post #71 as well:

If the word is used hundreds upon hundreds of times and NEVER in any of those instances is it used in a way to define a loose end of a wire, why should we expect the definition to change for this one instance?

Since you said that you don't know too much about the NEC, I can't expect you to answer this. But again, the NEC is what this discussion is about.


> So enough of the banter on the use of "Termination"....


 It's not banter, it's a discussion. I am FAR from the first person to say that the code doesn't restrict this practice and that a termination point does not mean a loose end of the wire by the code's definition. I may be the only person in this thread saying it, but I am not alone by any means.



> BTW....I really enjoyed it a few years ago when I found a loose NM cable in the wall that I opened up (my house)....and got zapped.....The previous owner took out an outlet and covered up the hole just leaving the wires inside.........no, he did not wire nut them.....so I assumed they were dead.....like, who would leave exposed live wires in a wall?


He should have taped them up. If he did, that wire would be no different than any of the other wires that fill up your walls.

Taping loose K&T wires up is a very commonly used practice. It's the different between a job costing hundreds and the same job costing thousands. The code doesn't restrict it nor is it dangerous.


----------



## Jim Port (Sep 21, 2007)

So your assertion is that that two live ends connected together are dangerous enough to require being in an accessible junction, but one end is not? Give it up.


----------



## k_buz (Mar 22, 2012)

I know I said I wouldn't say more, but I want to know one simple thing...please don't answer this question with another question.

How can the termination point of a wire/cable be anything other than the end point(s) of that wire/cable?


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

Jim Port said:


> So your assertion is that that two live ends connected together are dangerous enough to require being in an accessible junction, but one end is not? Give it up.


No, there is no danger in a splice being buried. It's not allow for convenience of troubleshooting. I mentioned this earlier in the thread and it's also a pretty well know fact.

I am not going to "give it up". If you don't like my opinion, that is fine. But I find it funny that you chose to be rude while ignoring the question I asked you multiple times. That's what people usually do when they are loosing an argument


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

k_buz said:


> I know I said I wouldn't say more, but I want to know one simple thing...please don't answer this question with another question.
> 
> How can the termination point of a wire/cable be anything other than the end point(s) of that wire/cable?


For some reason you are playing a game here. You asked that question earlier, but you asked it after I asked you a few questions- that you conveniently ignored. You even quoted my questions, but you didn't answer them. Instead you chose to ask your own question, and now you are being repugnant in telling me _not to answer a question with a question _after you just did it yourself.

So, would you like me to play your game too? I'll happily answer your question after you answer mine:

_I still defy you to give me one other example (either in code or normal electrical nomenclature) of the loose hanging end of a wire being defined as a termination point. Since you said that is the common definition of it, you should have no problem citing many, many examples_.


----------



## k_buz (Mar 22, 2012)

A termination point IS the end of a wire. A terminal block is where a bunch of wired ends and either connect to other wires, or end. To terminate a circuit is to end the wiring at a OCPD or the load. Terminations can either connect to something or they can be the capped ends of wires.


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

k_buz said:


> Where did you ask me a question where I didn't answer?


#72 is your post where you quote the question but don't answer it. In post #82 I asked the question again and you didn't answer it.


----------



## k_buz (Mar 22, 2012)

see my above answer


----------



## Code05 (May 24, 2009)

Macro said:


> No, there is no danger in a splice being buried. It's not allow for convenience of troubleshooting. I mentioned this earlier in the thread and it's also a pretty well know fact.
> 
> I am not going to "give it up". If you don't like my opinion, that is fine. But I find it funny that you chose to be rude while ignoring the question I asked you multiple times. That's what people usually do when they are loosing an argument


The word of the law in this case is how the AHJ interprets the NEC and any inspector need only look at that ROP and you are red tagged.

Appeal to the AHJ and if he/she says that the end of the cable is a termination point as meant in that ROP, case closed.

Who are you going to take this argument to then?


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

Your edited post:



k_buz said:


> A termination point IS the end of a wire.


 No, it's not. In no instance is a termination defined as the end of a wire in any of the hundreds of times the word is used in the NEC. There is nothing to say that the definition has changed in that one instance that you say it changed.


> A terminal block is where a bunch of wired ends and either connect to other wires, or end.


 Yes, every wire is terminated into the block. If a wire was hanging loose near the block, it would not be terminated.


> To terminate a circuit is to end the wiring at a OCPD or the load.


 Exactly.


> Terminations can either connect to something or then can be the capped ends of wires.


 Capped ends of wires are not terminations. The end of a wire is not defined as a termination in any of the hundreds of places that the word is used in the code, nor in real life electrical nomenclature. Again, I'll ask the question: if the word is used hundreds upon hundreds of times and NEVER in any of those instances is it used in a way to define a loose end of a wire, why should we expect the definition to change for this one instance?


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

Code05 said:


> The word of the law in this case is how the AHJ interprets the NEC and any inspector need only look at that ROP and you are red tagged.


 I disagree. Not all inspectors will red tag it. As I mentioned, it is very common to tape off K&T wiring. Maybe it's just a regional thing, you may not have as many old houses as we do in this area. But we can't go assuming what all inspectors will do.



> Who are you going to take this argument then?


I've never had an argument in real life since it's always been acceptable. I've had discussions online, this is the only time that other people got so heated about it tho :thumbup:


----------



## k_buz (Mar 22, 2012)

Macro said:


> Your edited post:
> 
> No, it's not. In no instance is a termination defined as the end of a wire in any of the hundreds of times the word is used in the NEC.


If the termination point of a wire isn't the end of the wire...where is the termination point of a wire?


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

k_buz said:


> If the termination point of a wire isn't the end of the wire...where is the termination point of a wire?


The termination point of a wire is where the wire is terminated. If the wire is not terminated, there is no termination point.


k_buz said:


> Where did you ask me a question where I didn't answer?


You ignored the question in post #87 yet again :thumbsup:


----------



## Code05 (May 24, 2009)

Macro said:


> I disagree. Not all inspectors will red tag it. As I mentioned, it is very common to tape off K&T wiring. Maybe it's just a regional thing, you may not have as many old houses as we do in this area. But we can't go assuming what all inspectors will do.


K&T installs are a whole beast to themselves, but you can longer splice, tap, or terminate it like they did it the old days.



> I've never had an argument in real life since it's always been acceptable. I've had discussions online, this is the only time that other people got so heated about it tho :thumbup:


I am not heated a bit.


----------



## k_buz (Mar 22, 2012)

My contention is that they (terminations) all are used to describe what you do to the end of a wire.

A wire nut can be a termination
A lug can be a termination
A ground screw can be a termination
A neutral bar can be a termination

More generally, a termination is a way to terminate the wiring...or end the wiring, and you cannot terminate a wire/cable anywhere but the end of the wire. Therefore, the termination point of a wire/cable is the end of the wire and must be in a box or conduit body.


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

Code05 said:


> K&T installs are a whole beast to themselves, but you can longer splice, tap, or terminate it like they did it the old days.


 I assume you meant to say that "you can *no* longer...".

If so, then things are different around here. Taping off K&T is common practice, and I don't see anything restricting it or romex in the code.


> I am not heated a bit.


Me neither :thumbsup:


----------



## k_buz (Mar 22, 2012)

Macro said:


> I assume you meant to say that "you can *no* longer...".
> 
> If so, then things are different around here. *Taping off K&T is common practice, and I don't see anything restricting it or romex in the code.
> *
> Me neither :thumbsup:


Knob and Tube wiring is not listed as one of the wiring methods that 300.15 requires a box or conduit body at termination points. 300.15 does list two specific termination points that they are required however.


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

k_buz said:


> My contention is that they (terminations) all are used to describe what you do to the end of a wire.
> 
> A wire nut can be a termination
> A lug can be a termination
> ...


 In all of the hundreds of instances in the code that we know about, I don't know of a single one that refers to the loose end of a wire. If you know of one, then please cite it, I would genuinely like to know since I am here and enjoy discussions like this to learn. 

A termination in all instances in code and in electrical speak is to attach that loose end to something. Taping off a loose wire is not terminating it. 



> More generally, a termination is a way to terminate the wiring...or end the wiring, and you cannot terminate a wire/cable anywhere but the end of the wire. Therefore, the termination point of a wire/cable is the end of the wire and must be in a box or conduit body.


EVERY wire has an end somewhere, but not all wires are terminated. 

Again, show me where the loose end of a wire is defined as terminated in any of the hundreds of places the word is used in the NEC. The fact that I have asked this question literally 11 times and no one has answered it pretty much proves the point that the NEC does not see the word "terminated" as the loose end of a wire.


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

k_buz said:


> Knob and Tube wiring is not listed as one of the wiring methods that 300.15 requires a box or conduit body at termination points. 300.15 does list two specific termination points that they are required however.


I agree with all of this. My examples of taping off K&T wiring no longer applies to this discussion.


----------



## k_buz (Mar 22, 2012)

edit..


----------



## Code05 (May 24, 2009)

Macro said:


> I assume you meant to say that "you can *no* longer...".


yes, thank you



> If so, then things are different around here. Taping off K&T is common practice, and I don't see anything restricting it or romex in the code.


If it is existing and you do not touch it, fine: but any alterations must be brought to modern code. I wanted to leave K&T out of this because it was installed without boxes to start. Kinda muddles the thread a bit.



> Me neither :thumbsup:


Good


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

k_buz said:


> You are changing the discussion by asking what a termination is.


 I'm not changing the discussion. I started the discussion and I have been discussing the same exact thing since my first post :thumbup:



> I have answered that question.


 LOL, WHERE? :laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing:



> The code rule we are citing doesn't include the word terminations.


 SORRY!!!!!! Leave off the last S for savings!!!!!!!!!

It doesn't include the word "termination*s*" but it does include the word "termination" with no S. :thumbup:



> The code rule is "each conductor termination point". All wires/cables have two termination points, and those termination points need to be accessible.


The termination point is the point of termination. There is no point of termination when a wire is not terminated, as in the case of a loose wire.

My question still remains. Why change the definition of "termination" for this one instance when it goes against the hundreds of other times the NEC uses the word?


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

Code05 said:


> If it is existing and you do not touch it, fine: but any alterations must be brought to modern code. I wanted to leave K&T out of this because it was installed without boxes to start. Kinda muddles the thread a bit.


k_buz was right about K&T being different anyway, as discussed in post #96.


----------



## ddawg16 (Aug 15, 2011)

> ter·mi·na·tion (tûr
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Macro said:


> I just searched the 2008 NEC PDF for the word "Termination"*. There are 129 pages that have that word on it, some of the pages have the word 2, 3, or even up to 6 times. That means the word is used many hundreds of times in the NEC.
> 
> Out of hundreds of times the word has been used in the code, *can you show an example of just one time that it is used to define a loose hanging wire not connected to anything on that end?*
> 
> ...


Your starting to sound like a lawyer.....you might want to look up "Inclusionary" vs "Exclusionary".




Macro said:


> *The termination point of a wire is where the wire is terminated. If the wire is not terminated, there is no termination point.*
> 
> 
> You ignored the question in post #87 yet again :thumbsup:


Wrong....



> *terminatedpast participle, past tense of ter·mi·nate (Verb)*
> 
> Verb:
> 
> ...





> *ter·mi·nate*
> 
> /ˈtɜrməˌneɪt/ http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.htmlShow Spelled [tur-muh-neyt] http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.htmlShow IPA verb, ter·mi·nat·ed, ter·mi·nat·ing.
> verb (used with object) 1. *to bring to an **end*; put an end to: to terminate a contract.
> ...


No mater how hard you try to use inclusionary or exclusionary logic....one or more wires that just end....hooked up or not...live are not....are 'terminated'....


----------



## Code05 (May 24, 2009)

Macro said:


> Again, show me where the loose end of a wire is defined as terminated in any of the hundreds of places the word is used in the NEC. The fact that I have asked this question literally 11 times and no one has answered it pretty much proves the point that the NEC does not see the word "terminated" as the loose end of a wire.


It is not defined in the NEC specifically. However 90.4 allows an AHJ to interpret or define it, and many go with a ROP short of a formal interpretation. 

And it is "termination point".


----------



## k_buz (Mar 22, 2012)

The definition of termination isn't changing, you are just failing to accept one acceptable way to terminate a wire is to put a wirenut on it. You say it isn't a termination, the rest of us say it is. 

I am done.


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

ddawg16 said:


> Your starting to sound like a lawyer.....you might want to look up "Inclusionary" vs "Exclusionary".


 Who better than a lawyer to interpret law?? :thumbsup:



> Wrong....


 No, what I said is very correct.



> No mater how hard you try to use inclusionary or exclusionary logic....one or more wires that just end....hooked up or not...live are not....are 'terminated'....


No, they are not. 

You haven't brought anything new to the discussion, you've said the same thing that has been said 15 times already in this thread. Do you really want to go back and forth when you could just read what has been said earlier?


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

k_buz said:


> The definition of termination isn't changing, you are just failing to accept one acceptable way to terminate a wire is to put a wirenut on it. You say it isn't a termination, the rest of us say it is.


Yes, exactly. This was a well know fact since the beginning of the thread. There are people who see it your way and there are people who see it mine (altho only one of them is here in this thread and he's been gone for hours, leaving me all alone ). The fact is that the code is not clear at all and it can be interpreted either way. That's what I said at the very beginning.


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

Code05 said:


> It is not defined in the NEC specifically. However 90.4 allows an AHJ to interpret or define it, and many go with a ROP short of a formal interpretation.
> 
> And it is "termination point".


Yes, the termination point is the point of termination. A loose wire has no termination point since it has not been terminated by the definition that the NEC uses in any of the many hundreds of times that it uses the word.

Words have many definitions. All of those definitions do not apply each time a word is used. For example, the word terminate can be defined as "assassinate, kill". However, we all know that doesn't apply to the way we use the word in our trade and in the NEC. The same for the definition "end". No one in our trade has ever told someone to "make that termination" and that person came back and said "it's already ended in mid air!". No where in the NEC is the word "termination" use to define the end of the wire, out of hundreds of times it's used...


----------



## Jim Port (Sep 21, 2007)

Would you also argue with the police that pulled you over for the illegal U turn that they could not because you swung wide right before going left which caused your turn to be shaped like a P?

We have shown numerous times that the word terminate or terminal can have differing meaning. You choose to focus on only one of those. I have replied with the common or dictionary usage of the word temination as being the endpoint of something. I don't believe you answered what you would call the finite endpoint of the cable if it is not a terminal end.


----------



## k_buz (Mar 22, 2012)

Macro said:


> Yes, the termination point is the point of termination. A loose wire has no termination point since it has not been terminated by the definition that the NEC uses in any of the many hundreds of times that it uses the word.


Why can I not let this die.

The NEC DOES NOT amend the definition of termination point to mean something other than what the dictionary defines it as. Therefore, whether you like it or not, the definition of termination point of a wire, is the end point of the wire, whether it is connected to something or capped off.

It can't be said any clearer than this, if you are interpreting it as anything other than this, you are wrong. If you have any other evidence, other than inferring a definition other than what is written, I will be happy to look at it. Show me a written interpretation that in some way confirms your position that it is OK to bury the end of a live wire in a wall, nowhere have you shown that, you have just reiterated your personal definition of the word termination point.


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

Jim Port said:


> Would you also argue with the police that pulled you over for the illegal U turn that they could not because you swung wide right before going left which caused your turn to be shaped like a P?


 Why act childish? Is it because you mistakenly thought that a box with a splice in it couldn't be buried for safety reasons? :thumbsup:


> We have shown numerous times that the word terminate or terminal can have differing meaning.


You haven't shown me that, I knew that since childhood vocabulary class.



> You choose to focus on only one of those.


Well, maybe more than one. However, as I said, not ALL of the definitions are applicable. We aren't using the definition "assassinate, kill" when we say terminate, right?




> I have replied with the common or dictionary usage of the word temination as being the endpoint of something.


 Again, there are many definitions, not all of them apply. We know how the NEC defines the word because it's used hundreds of times. And, as I said, in none of those instances is it talking about the loose end of a wire. This is a FACT that you have ignored for the last 3 pages. Why not just admit to it? 



> I don't believe you answered what you would call the finite endpoint of the cable if it is not a terminal end.


 Not sure what you mean...? It's the end of the cable, but as far as the NEC, the cable is NOT terminated if it's loose and hanging in the air.


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

k_buz said:


> Why can I not let this die.
> 
> The NEC DOES NOT amend the definition of termination point to mean something other than what the dictionary defines it as.


 That's incorrect. The NEC does not use the word Termination to define the loose end of a wire in any of the hundreds of instances that it uses the word. I've said this 20 times but every time it's ignored. The NEC uses specific definitions of each word that it prints. Not all definitions apply. Like I said, the definition "assassinate, kill" is not the meaning of the word terminate when used in the NEC, just like the end of a loose wire is not the definition either.



> Therefore, whether you like it or not, the definition of termination point of a wire, is the end point of the wire, whether it is connected to something or capped off.


 This is incorrect. Neither the NEC nor electricians use the word Termination to define the loose end of a wire. It just doesn't happen.


> It can't be said any clearer than this, if you are interpreting it as anything other than this, you are wrong.


 No, you are wrong 


> If you have any other evidence,


 I've backed up my claim with evidence the entire time, while people won't even answer a simple question after asking it 20 times. Jeeze!



> Show me a written interpretation that in some way confirms your position


 Show me a written interpretation of the word Terminate as used in the NEC that EVER means the loose end of a wire.



> that it is OK to bury the end of a live wire in a wall,


 If it's not restricted, then it is OK to do.


> nowhere have you shown that, you have just reiterated your personal definition of the word termination point.


It's not my personal definition, it's the way that the NEC uses it. How many more times do I have to say that? Just the fact that I've said it 21 times now and you still say that it's "my personal definition" shows that you haven't followed along at all.

For the 22nd time, the NEC DOES NOT define the word Terminate as the end of a loose wire in ANY of the hundreds of times it's used. So why change the definition for this one time?


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

I want to thank you guys. I checked the job specs of one of our big jobs and it says we have to "~make up all cable terminations for power, data, and antenna signal~".

After reading this thread I know that I can just cut the wires and call it done!! 

If you don't mind, I'd like to have each one of your names and addresses so I can have the subpoena sent to you so you can come to court and defend us as expert witnesses when we get the crap sued out of us for breach of contract, thanks :thumbup:


----------



## Jim Port (Sep 21, 2007)

Lawyer: Were you at the party where the person was stabbed?

Yes, but I was in the bathroom at the time.

L: A yes or no answer only.

Yes

Makes quite a bit of difference when the context is not known or has been changed and is not allowed to be qualified.


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

Jim Port said:


> Lawyer: Were you at the party where the person was stabbed?
> 
> Yes, but I was in the bathroom at the time.
> 
> ...


Context is great. And in the context of the NEC, the word terminate has NEVER been used to speak about the loose end of a wire, not in all the hundreds of time it's been used. Context :thumbsup:


----------



## Jim Port (Sep 21, 2007)

> Not sure what you mean...? It's the end of the cable, but as far as the NEC, the cable is NOT terminated if it's loose and hanging in the air.


If I put tape or wire nuts on the end is the cable now terminated?

I don't see why it is so hard to see that not everything uses the NEC to define a word. Many times we need to revert to everyday English meanings.

While the intent or concept cannot be enforced, it will certainly be used in forming a decision should the AHJ be asked to make a ruling on the subject.


----------



## k_buz (Mar 22, 2012)

Macro said:


> Context is great. And in the context of the NEC,* the word terminate has NEVER been used to speak about the loose end of a wire*, not in all the hundreds of time it's been used. Context :thumbsup:


You are correct, the word terminate is what you do to a loose end of a wire...and the end of a wire is the termination point of the wire...or the part of the wire you terminate.


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

Jim Port said:


> If I put tape or wire nuts on the end is the cable now terminated?


 How many times has this been discussed?


> I don't see why it is so hard to see that not everything uses the NEC to define a word. Many times we need to revert to everyday English meanings.


 You are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. Not everything uses the NEC to define a word. Such as the movie Terminator, it's definitely not using the NEC's definition of the word, right? 

However, the NEC uses the NEC to define the words :thumbsup: And since we are talking about the NEC, i think it's very reasonable to go by it's own definitions.


> While the intent or concept cannot be enforced, it will certainly be used in forming a decision should the AHJ be asked to make a ruling on the subject.


 You are 100% correct.


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

k_buz said:


> You are correct, the word terminate is what you do to a loose end of a wire


 Cool, we agree. When nothing is done to that loose end of the wire, it's not terminated.



> ...and the end of a wire is the termination point of the wire...


 Only if it has been terminated. If it hasn't been terminated, it's not the termination point.


> or the part of the wire you terminate.


Exactly, it needs to be terminated in order to be a termination point.


----------



## ddawg16 (Aug 15, 2011)

Macro said:


> That's incorrect. *The NEC does not use the word Termination to define the loose end of a wire in any of the hundreds of instances that it uses the word*. I've said this 20 times but every time it's ignored. The NEC uses specific definitions of each word that it prints. Not all definitions apply. Like I said, the definition "assassinate, kill" is not the meaning of the word terminate when used in the NEC, just like the end of a loose wire is not the definition either.


Ok....show us in the NEC where it defines the loose end of a wire....without using exclusionary logic.



> This is incorrect. Neither the NEC nor electricians use the word Termination to define the loose end of a wire. It just doesn't happen.


Wrong....I use it all the time....



> No, you are wrong
> I've backed up my claim with evidence the entire time, while people won't even answer a simple question after asking it 20 times. Jeeze!


No....you have not backed up your claim. You have failed to show us in the NEC where it explicitly defines "*loose end of a wire"*

Your 'trying' to use exclusionary logic to show that the loose end of a wire is not terminated. Under the accepted/publised definitions of Terminate/Terminated/Termination....a loose wire is terminated.....

This is what a Thasaurus shows for 'terminate'

*Synonyms* break off, break up, close, conclude, dead-end, determine, die, discontinue, elapse,*end*, expire, finish, go, halt, lapse, leave off, let up, pass, quit, stop, terminate, wind up, wink (out)

So....according to the Webster Thesaurus....End is a synonym to Terminate.....so using non-lawyer logic....loose end of a wire would also mean 'terminate'.....

Any futher contrary conclusions you have to this logic will only confirm that you have no logic....


----------



## Jim Port (Sep 21, 2007)

> _Would you also argue with the police that pulled you over for the illegal U turn that they could not because you swung wide right before going left which caused your turn to be shaped like a P?_





> Why act childish? Is it because you mistakenly thought that a box with a splice in it couldn't be buried for safety reasons? :thumbsup:


This is not acting childish. That example was purposely done to show how words can be twisted. 

Show me where this is allowed. How about asking the professional sites like at Mike Holt or Electrician Talk?

You could also search this site for someone that also thought it was safe to bury a splice as there was no way for it to fail and was shown differently.


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

ddawg16 said:


> Ok....show us in the NEC where it defines the loose end of a wire....


 Why would the loose end of a wire have to be defined? Isn't it clear enough already?

You're not an electrician, I can't expect you to know how the NEC works.



> Wrong....I use it all the time....


 You're not an electrician nor do you know anything about the NEC.

And you do NOT use the word "termination" to describe the loose end of a wire, so stop lying...



> No....you have not backed up your claim. You have failed to show us in the NEC where it explicitly defines "*loose end of a wire"*


 Again, why would I do that? What purpose would it be? Why would the NEC ever need to define a group of words that are very descriptive.

Here, I'll do it for you:

The loose end of a wire
Definition: The loose end of a wire.

:thumbdown:


> Your 'trying' to use exclusionary logic to show that the loose end of a wire is not terminated.


 I'm using logic as well as common sense, context, and experience with the NEC. What are YOU using?


> Under the accepted/publised definitions of Terminate/Terminated/Termination....a loose wire is terminated.....


 No, a loose wire is NOT terminated by the definition that the NEC uses.


> This is what a Thasaurus shows for 'terminate'


 it doesn't make a difference what the thesaurus says, not ALL synonyms or definitions are applicable. Just like I said earlier, the NEC doesn't use the definition "Assassinate, Kill" to define the word Termination even tho the dictionary has that as one of the many definitions. What is so hard to understand about that?


> So....according to the Webster Thesaurus....End is a synonym to Terminate.....so using non-lawyer logic....loose end of a wire would also mean 'terminate'.....


 No, it wouldn't. Not unless you are trying to say that when the NEC says "termination" they mean a killed or assassinated wire :whistling2:


> Any futher contrary conclusions you have to this logic will only confirm that you have no logic....


 Yes, there it is :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup: You can't prove your side so you try to insult me :laughing:

Even if I had no logic, I still hold a contractor's/master's license in NJ and NY so I certainly know the NEC, which is the only thing that matters in this discussion. Go find some wood to butcher :thumbup:


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

Jim Port said:


> This is not acting childish. That example was purposely done to show how words can be twisted.
> 
> Show me where this is allowed.


 WHY would I have to show you where this is allowed? As a Licensed Electrician you should know that something does NOT have to be "Allowed" by the NEC in order for it to be legal. If something is not specifically restricted by the NEC, it is allowed. 



> How about asking the professional sites like at Mike Holt or Electrician Talk?


 It's been discussed there multiple times, links were even posted. I showed where even Moderators at ET said that you can tape up a live wire and dead end it int he wall.


> You could also search this site for someone that also thought it was safe to bury a splice as there was no way for it to fail and was shown differently.


It IS safe to bury a splice. Burying a splice is no more dangerous than putting a plastic cover plate on it and having it exposed.

Not burying splices is a convenience for future troubleshooting in case the splice comes loose. When there is no splice, such as a dead ended cable, that problem doesn't exist.

This is basic 1st year apprentice stuff.


----------



## ddawg16 (Aug 15, 2011)

Macro said:


> You're not an electrician, I can't expect you to know how the NEC works.


Your right....I'm not an electrician....I'm a controls engineer.....


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

ddawg16 said:


> Your right....I'm not an electrician....I'm a controls engineer.....


Yes, and that doesn't impress me one bit, but nice try for the second time there buddy.

You're the guy who came into this thread *bragging* that he knew more about electricity than any of us. But in the same breath you said that you don't know much about the NEC…

This discussion is 100% about the NEC, and you know nothing about it, so you are not qualified to even discuss this issue. I wouldn't go to a Cardiologist's office and tell him how specific technical medical terms SHOULD be used. 

If you don't know how the NEC is using specific words, there is no way that you can accurately tell us how it's defining those words. You are making ignorant assumptions, and your superior knowledge of electricity doesn't change anything.


----------



## Jim Port (Sep 21, 2007)

Macro said:


> This is basic 1st year apprentice stuff.


Kind of like which side of a ribbed cable is the neutral?


----------



## Jim Port (Sep 21, 2007)

Macro said:


> It IS safe to bury a splice. Burying a splice is no more dangerous than putting a plastic cover plate on it and having it exposed.
> 
> Not burying splices is a convenience for future troubleshooting in case the splice comes loose. When there is no splice, such as a dead ended cable, that problem doesn't exist.


Where is a means to contain any arc or spark when the splice is just buried in the wall to prevent the wall cavity from becoming a fire pit? If the NEC decided that a buried splice is not dangerous why is it disallowed?


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

Jim Port said:


> Kind of like which side of a ribbed cable is the neutral?


I'm sorry that none of my experience is in residential lamp rewiring :thumbup:

As I said, I always used the marked side for positive/hot and I always checked continuity to be sure. I never had a reason to look up the code.


----------



## Jim Port (Sep 21, 2007)

Code05 said:


> and here is the ROP:
> 
> 3- 83 - (300-15(a)): Accept in Principle
> SUBMITTER: Robert H. Keis, Dover, DE
> ...


Looks like the CMP outnumbers you 11 to 1.


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

Jim Port said:


> Where is a means to contain any arc or spark when the splice is just buried in the wall to prevent the wall cavity from becoming a fire pit?


 We are talking about a splice in a BOX that is inaccessible. I NEVER said that you can't have a flying splice in a wall without a box.

The box will contain the arc the same way whether the box is accessible or not.

And again, I am not *promoting* someone burying a splice box. Just discussing the issue. 


> If the NEC decided that a buried splice is not dangerous why is it disallowed?


I said this already, three times actually. You want to argue with me, yet you don't read what I said.

Leaving splice boxes accesible is a convenience for future troubleshooting in case the splice becomes loose. At no times have I ever heard of an inaccesible junction box being a safety issue.

I have a box in my ceiling that was covered over before I bought the house, I saw it from the attic before I put the flooring down. The box has a cover over it so the fact that a little bit of spackling mud is covering it up doesn't make it dangerous. But it would be a pain if that splice came loose and I didn't know the box was there. That's why junction boxes are required to be accessible.


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

Jim Port said:


> Looks like the CMP outnumbers you 11 to 1.


This is yet another instance of you not reading what I said. Read the following quote:


Macro said:


> Jim Port said:
> 
> 
> > So let me pose this, a live splice would need to be in an accessible junction box, but a live deadended cable in a box could be buried?
> ...


The intent of the code really doesn't matter, the written word does. As I said from the beginning of this thread, they are very unclear and the way it's written doesn't restrict one from burying a live dead ended cable.

Now why don't YOU take your own advice and go to MH and ET and read all the threads discussing this topic. You'll see that there are plenty of people who agree with me that the code is written in a very poor way that doesn't convey what their original intention was, therefore it doesn't restrict it.


----------



## k_buz (Mar 22, 2012)

Is it legal to remove a sconce from a box, cover that box, and bury it in the wall if it only contained one 14-2 NM cable?


----------



## Jim Port (Sep 21, 2007)

Macro said:


> It's been discussed there multiple times, links were even posted. I showed where even Moderators at ET said that you can tape up a live wire and dead end it int he wall.
> 
> .


 
Here is a quote from Dennis Alwon, one of the Mods at MH



> Unless I know where the other end is I would leave the old wires in the jb and tape them off. If it does get energized there is no big deal, however if it is laying in the ceiling energized at a future date, then it would be a violation.


From pg 2 in the same thread also from Dennis



> Scott, I am talking about my preference of handling the situation. If the wire should be energized and it is in the ceiling without a JB then we have a potentially dangerous situation that is not code compliant. Article 300.15 states we must use a jb with a few exceptions


from pg 3 also by Dennis to Bob.



> Well if you don't see the end of the wire as the termination then I can't make you see it that way. We will just have to see it differently. :grin:
> 
> I just can't imagine the writers of the NEC would say this was allowed.


Here is where Bob concedes. Bob is also a Mod at MH.



> I love the ROPs, they have proved my views so many times.
> 
> 
> But not this time, :grin: it looks like they added 'termination point' for just this reason in the 2002 NEC.
> ...


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

k_buz said:


> Is it legal to remove a sconce from a box, cover that box, and bury it in the wall if it only contained one 14-2 NM cable?


Welcome to the first page!! :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

Everything is legal unless it is specified as being not allowed by the NEC (provided your jurisdiction goes by the NEC and doesn't have any other amendments about this issue). 

So the burden is on you to show where the NEC doesn't allow you to do that. If you can't show that, then it is allowed.


----------



## k_buz (Mar 22, 2012)

You are playing these games again, you know as well as I do that it is specifically prohibited. 

And what you implying is that the situation I just questioned you on, that if you take the box off the single 14-2 MN, and do nothing else, it is legal to stuff that wire in the wall.

In fact, with what you are saying, if capping a wire isn't a type of termination you don't even have to tape or put wirenuts on the wire you stuff in the wall.


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

Jim Port said:


> Here is a quote from Dennis Alwon, one of the Mods at MH
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Here is a quote from Marc Shunk, Moderator and founder of this forum's sister site Electriciantalk.com:



MDShunk said:


> Splices you can't bury, but there's no mention about dead ends.


 And another:


MDShunk said:


> I feel compelled to ask you do look it up, because I know you'll give up in frustration. Those of us with a great many years in this trade already know that this is not prohibited by the NEC.
> 
> You're certainly entitled to your opinion of this practice as being "hack", but you can't pretend for even a second that it's a violation.


And another:


MDShunk said:


> You're entitled to your opinion that it's hack, but there is no violation. A termination point would necessitate that it ends at a terminal of some sort. The conductors we're talking about are unterminated.


And another:


MDShunk said:


> Termination is the connection to equipment and devices. They don't want you to, for instance, terminate a receptacle without a box. To terminate a wire necessarily involves a terminal of some sort.


Hey look at this one, look familiar?? :thumbup:


MDShunk said:


> Every instance where the word "terminate" is used in the NEC, the wire is actually connected to something.


:whistling2:


MDShunk said:


> I don't agree.
> 
> I think we can both agree that the word "terminate" has two meanings, and it's not at all clear what meaning they're using in the NEC when they talk about cables that "terminate" needing to be in a box. That gives me the latitude to select the meaning that suits me best.


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

k_buz said:


> You are playing these games again, you know as well as I do that it is specifically prohibited.


 Wow, after I have said it what, 40 times now, you still don't understand that my opinion is different than your's?

It's EXTREMELY arrogant of you to say " you know as well as I do that it is specifically prohibited" when I clearly do not feel that way. 

I guess you are one of those people who feels' their opinion is better than other people's?


> And what you implying is that the situation I just questioned you on, that if you take the box off the single 14-2 MN, and do nothing else, it is legal to stuff that wire in the wall.


No, I am not implying it, I have said it outright dozens of times. You too seem to have a reading or comprehension problem. 

Until you can show me where it is prohibited, it is allowed. 


> In fact, with what you are saying, if capping a wire isn't a type of termination you don't even have to tape or put wirenuts on the wire you stuff in the wall.


 Show me the requirement to tape or nut a wire in the wall.


----------



## k_buz (Mar 22, 2012)

The ROP was never posted in the thread you are referencing, I don't know this for sure, but maybe Marc would have sung a different tune if he had all the information?


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

k_buz said:


> The ROP was never posted in the thread you are referencing, I don't know this for sure, but maybe Marc would have sung a different tune if he had all the information?


I think Marc was pretty clear on his interpretation of the word "termination".

Again, the ROP is meaningless in this discussion. I conceded on the second page that the intention may have been to restrict it, but the written word does NOT. I also gave another example of intention being different than the written word when citing that you can install receptacles on a 15A general purpose circuit in the bathroom.

This is FAR from the first time that the CMP has had to clear up a stupid code entry that could be interpreted many different ways.


----------



## ddawg16 (Aug 15, 2011)

Ok....I see what is going on.....Marco is just using this to get his post count up.....


----------



## k_buz (Mar 22, 2012)

This was my question....



k_buz said:


> Is it legal to remove a sconce from a box, cover that box, and bury it in the wall if it only contained one 14-2 NM cable?


This was your reply...



Macro said:


> Welcome to the first page!! :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:
> 
> Everything is legal unless it is specified as being not allowed by the NEC (provided your jurisdiction goes by the NEC and doesn't have any other amendments about this issue).
> 
> So the burden is on you to show where the NEC doesn't allow you to do that. If you can't show that, then it is allowed.


If you think the situation in my question is legal because the NEC doesn't specify, you are dead wrong...314.29.

Now that we got that cleared up, why would it be against code to bury a box with one 14-2 NM in it, but legal to bury a 14-2 NM without a box on it. Please, give me one logical reason.


----------



## Jim Port (Sep 21, 2007)

> Here is a quote from Marc Shunk, Moderator and founder of this forum's sister site Electriciantalk.com:


I thought Nathan was the owner or founder of both sites.

Regardless the only opinion that matters is the one from the CMP and they said a box is required.

You will also note that Marc said he was picking the one he agreed with. Just becuase you agree with something does not negate the fact that others may not see it your way.


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

ddawg16 said:


> Ok....I see what is going on.....Marco is just using this to get his post count up.....


Wow, at least this time you didn't try to brag about your credentials (or lack thereof when it comes to this topic). But thanks for the participation in this thread, it has been great. 

If at any time you choose to actually respond to my posts that refuted everything you said, feel free.

Until then, you can keep ignorantly spewing nonsense on topics you don't understand because your long list of achievements in the electrical world (member of a DIY forum for 8 months and some work on your own house) surely make you qualified to interprete code.

:laughing:


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

Jim Port said:


> I thought Nathan was the owner or founder of both sites.


 Marc went to Nathan to talk about opening an electrical forum and Nathan started it up and put Marc in control.


> Regardless the only opinion that matters is the one from the CMP and they said a box is required.


 I disagree. My jurisdiction goes by the NEC, not the CMP. The CMP's intentions don't count, the written word does. 

I understand that you are going to say that the CMP writes the NEC and all that. But in the end, the NEC is adopted and what is written in it when it's adopted is all that counts.


> You will also note that Marc said he was picking the one he agreed with. Just becuase you agree with something does not negate the fact that others may not see it your way.


 EXACTLY!!! I have said from the beginning that my opinion differs from yours, have I not? I've said that multiple times. Jeeze...

The problem here is that code should NEVER be left up to opinion. Not when it's using a word that no where else in the NEC nor in electrical nomenclature is it used to mean the loose end of a wire. But ddawg16 said that he uses the word termination to mean the end of a loose wire all the time, so I guess this issue is settled.



Macro said:


> Neither the NEC nor electricians use the word Termination to define the loose end of a wire. It just doesn't happen.
> 
> 
> ddawg16 said:
> ...


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

k_buz said:


> but legal to bury a 14-2 NM without a box on it. Please, give me one logical reason.


Because the code does not prohibit it. And if the code doesn't prohibit it, it's legal and perfectly acceptable to do. You know this, you are just looking to argue.

That is not only logical, it is an *indisputable FACT*. It's not an opinion, if the code doesn't prohibit something, it is legal. Fact, fact, fact.


----------



## k_buz (Mar 22, 2012)

That is the part you aren't grasping either from ignorance or stubbornness. It IS specifically prohibited when the NEC states that the termination points need to be in a box.

Just because an electrician doesn't *interpret* termination point to mean what the actual definition of termination point is, doesn't make the situation legal.

You have been provided with written evidence that what you are proposing is against code (the ROP), you show us one thing from someone of authority in the electrical field that supports your claim. If you can do that, I will concede that this issue will be up the discretion of the AHJ.


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

k_buz said:


> That is the part you aren't grasping either from ignorance or stubbornness. It IS specifically prohibited when the NEC states that the termination points need to be in a box.


 Again, I disagree. I interpret it differently than you. There are many other people who feel the same way. You can call me ignorant or stubborn, but that doesn't make your opinion any more valid than mine. I can call you ignorant and stubborn the same way.


> Just because an electrician doesn't *interpret* termination point to mean what the actual definition of termination point is, doesn't make the situation legal.


 Yes, it does. The wording is up for interpretation. Now YOU are saying that the "actual definition of termination point" is the end of the wire, but that is not automatically true. I can say that the actual definition of a termination point is a point in which the wire was assassinated or killed. I would be using one of the definitions of the word the same as you did. But in the real world, we have to use the word in proper context and figure out it's true definition in other ways. It seems perfectly reasonable to look at the other 500 times the word is used in the NEC to figure out how the NEC wants to use the word, now doesn't it?

That's where i am coming from, if you can't understand that we have a difference of opinion than I don't know what more to say.


> You have been provided with written evidence that what you are proposing is against code (the ROP),


 FALSE. It is only against code if the code prohibits it. The way it is written, I don't see it as being prohibited. I have said this 15 times now. 


> you show us one thing from someone of authority in the electrical field that supports your claim.


 I've already posted links to other threads and you are free to do all the searching you want. There are MANY other people that feel the same way I do, I even posted quotes in this thread. Just because you have a comprehension problem, it doesn't mean that I have proven my side.


> If you can do that, I will concede that this issue will be up the discretion of the AHJ.


EVERYTHING is already up to the discretion of the AHJ. Are you arguing THAT too? Have you not read 90.4??????????????


----------



## ddawg16 (Aug 15, 2011)

Macro said:


> Wow, at least this time you didn't try to brag about your credentials (or lack thereof when it comes to this topic). But thanks for the participation in this thread, it has been great.
> 
> If at any time you choose to actually respond to my posts that refuted everything you said, feel free.
> 
> ...


Yea....your right.....I don't know what I'm talking about....I just design the controls for things like this....










and this...










The fact that the panels are UL compliant doesn't mean anything....and all the field wiring is per NEC....including all terminated and un-terminated wiring....and all those spare wires that are just coiled up and stored in a box....

Nope...I don't know anything.....


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

ddawg16 said:


> Yea....your right.....I don't know what I'm talking about....I just design the controls for things like this....


 Again, that means NOTHING. You are only doing it to bolster your own ego because you are an arrogant fool. From the second you stepped into this thread you bragged about how much more you know than everyone else. Give it up already, NO ONE is impressed.

You can show me that you are a brain surgeon, or an astronaut, or a physicist. It doesn't matter because none of those professions, just like yours, have anything to do with the NEC.

I'm starting to question the validity of your assertions as to how smart you are, since you can't understand simple, basic English. Once again, you don't know jack about the NEC (as you admitted), so you are not qualified to tell me what a word that is used hundreds of times in it means. The same way as I am not going to come to you and argue with you about what that big shiny thing in the picture is. 


> The fact that the panels are UL compliant doesn't mean anything..


 No, it doesn't. Taking a UL compliance course does not teach you the NEC in any way, shape, or form. I have wired up plenty of control panels, and I will never say that doing so has taught me about the NEC. You are arguing an absolutely STUPID point.



> including all terminated and un-terminated wiring....


 All wire has 2 ends so all wire has to be terminated. Or at least that is what you say, right? :laughing::laughing::laughing:




> Nope...I don't know anything.....


Agreed, you don't know anything about this topic, as you mentioned when you said you don't know much about the NEC. Quit backpedaling.


----------



## Code05 (May 24, 2009)

Fellas at this point we are being trolled by some ET guy that cannot make it at MH. I am done. Bye Macaroni.

Dude, if ET is your only source, I feel sorry for ya.


----------



## Jim Port (Sep 21, 2007)

I don't even think Cletis would troll this hard.


----------



## k_buz (Mar 22, 2012)

For people looking at this thread for information (not that I think they would read all this crap to get to this point) abandoning a live wire in a wall or ceiling is not standard practice. If this was done, any inspector would require that live ends of a cable be dead-ended in a box.


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

Code05 said:


> Fellas at this point we are being trolled by some ET guy that cannot make it at MH. I am done. Bye Macaroni.
> 
> Dude, if ET is your only source, I feel sorry for ya.


I don't post at ET either, I only browse.

I had respect for you, jumper. It's unfortunate that I now see your true colors.

I've maintained the same thing from the beginning. What I said is in line with the opinions of MANY other people. The word termination is in the NEC hundreds of times, but it NEVER means the loose end of a wire in any of those other instances, it ALWAYS is used when speaking about making some type of connection. So I can't see how it could be used to accurately mean that in 300.15.

If you don't agree with that, fine. It's just a difference of opinion. But it most certainly doesn't make me a troll. And for you to lower yourself to that level and accuse me of being one simply because you don't agree with my opinion shows what you are truly made of.


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

k_buz said:


> For people looking at this thread for information (not that I think they would read all this crap to get to this point) abandoning a live wire in a wall or ceiling is not standard practice.


 Untrue. it is standard practice to abandon a live K&T wire in a wall or ceiling. And as we all know, it is perfectly legal even by what you have said earlier in the thread.


> If this was done, any inspector would require that live ends of a cable be dead-ended in a box.


Again, untrue. Inspectors allow it very often.


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

Jim Port said:


> I don't even think Cletis would troll this hard.


Another person taking the low road, good for you :thumbsup:


----------



## Code05 (May 24, 2009)

Macro said:


> I don't post at ET either, I only browse.
> 
> I had respect for you, jumper. It's unfortunate that I now see your true colors.
> 
> ...


My colors are my creds and sources, name yours. And you called me jumper, I reserve that for MH members. Care to play over there?


----------



## Jim Port (Sep 21, 2007)

I don't know what else to say. Three members here in the trade and two Mods at MH and 11 members of a CMP all agree that a box is needed. All you have to support your stance is Marc S and your own opinion.


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

Code05 said:


> My colors are my creds and sources, name yours.


 So you're going to start bragging too, huh? Some of you will do ANYTHING except discuss the topic at hand, won't you? You STILL (after asking 25+ times) haven't explained why the NEC doesn't use the word "termination" in ANY of the hundreds of times it uses it to mean the end of a loose wire. The reason that you are not answering that is because you *CAN'T*. Your "cred" (which has been busted) doesn't change that. You can't use "cred" to refute an argument that you have no other way to argue.


> And you called me jumper, I reserve that for MH members.


I could care less what you want. You called me a troll because you got mad that you didn't win an argument. I reserve being called a troll only for people who actually can prove it, jumper.


> Care to play over there?


Why? I already said that I am not registered. Why would you want to "play" over there? Do you think you are some type of big man on campus or something? You want to "play" on your own turf? :laughing::laughing: Do you realize how much of a child you are being, jumper?

So why do you want me to register over there? What would you say there that you can't say here to refute what I said? Give me a reason and I'll register. If you can't give me a reason, than I will see it as yet another way for you to cop-out like you've been doing the entire thread, jumper.

BTW, there are also plenty of threads on this topic over at MH. Why don't you do back over there and tell all the people who see it the way that I do that they are wrong and trolls. :whistling2:

Like I said, your true colors have certainly come out :thumbup:


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

Jim Port said:


> I don't know what else to say. Three members here in the trade and two Mods at MH and 11 members of a CMP all agree that a box is needed. All you have to support your stance is Marc S and your own opinion.


So the thread that I linked to and all the other threads that you should have searched for at ET, MH, etc. only have Marc S. agreeing with my side? Is that what you maintain? Are you saying that the thread that I linked to didn't have at least a dozen people agreeing with my side? Are you saying that the threads at MH don't also have many people agreeing with my side? Because if it is what you are saying, then you are a bold faced liar.


----------



## Code05 (May 24, 2009)

Macro said:


> So you're going to start bragging too, huh? Some of you will do ANYTHING except discuss the topic at hand, won't you? You STILL (after asking 25+ times) haven't explained why the NEC doesn't use the word "termination" in ANY of the hundreds of times it uses it to mean the end of a loose wire. The reason that you are not answering that is because you *CAN'T*. Your "cred" (which has been busted) doesn't change that. You can't use "cred" to refute an argument that you have no other way to argue.
> I could care less what you want. You called me a troll because you got mad that you didn't win an argument. I reserve being called a troll only for people who actually can prove it, jumper.
> 
> 
> ...


See, there is your problem. Did I say you were a troll or did I say we were being trolled?

You read, but do not see( comprehend),
You hear, but you do not listen.


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

Code05 said:


> See, there is your problem. Did I say you were a troll or did I say we were being trolled?
> 
> You read, but do not see( comprehend),
> You hear, but you do not listen.


Yeah, because you meant that you were being trolled by a nice guy that *isn't* a troll. :thumbup::thumbup:

Nice cop-out about everything else, you're good at that. You haven't answered the question I asked 26+ times, you haven't explained why you want me to register at Holt's, nothing as usual. It must suck to want to win an argument so bad but not be able to...

When I said that I respected you, I wasn't being honest. I only said it to add to the insult. In reality, I always thought you were a bald weirdo that looks like a child molester. Your biceps are as skinny as a 9 year old girl's. No wonder you will die an alone virgin.

Hey, you wanted to give up speaking about code and get personal, right?


----------



## Code05 (May 24, 2009)

Macro said:


> Yeah, because you meant that you were being trolled by a nice guy that *isn't* a troll. :thumbup::thumbup:
> 
> Nice cop-out about everything else, you're good at that. You haven't answered the question I asked 26+ times, you haven't explained why you want me to register at Holt's, nothing as usual. It must suck to want to win an argument so bad but not be able to...
> 
> ...


Well, ya got the bald part right, the rest -not so much.

Are we having fun yet, I ferget?


----------



## Jim Port (Sep 21, 2007)

I just read the thread you linked to on page 1 and will say that except for Marc and 220/221 and maybe one other the majority were saying it is not allowed for the same reasons that have been stated in this thread. Some even included dictionary definitions of the word terminate or terminal.


----------



## Jim Port (Sep 21, 2007)

The NEC does not define words like lug, panel or terminal and many others. Does that mean that we cannot resort to the dictionary?

Note the first part of Article 100:

Scope. This article contains only those definitions essential
to the proper application of this Code. It is not intended to
include commonly defined general terms or commonly defined
technical terms from related codes and standards. In
general, only those terms that are used in two or more
articles are defined in Article 100. Other definitions are
included in the article in which they are used but may be
referenced in Article 100.
Part I of this article contains definitions intended to
apply wherever the terms are used throughout this Code.
Part II contains definitions applicable only to the parts of
articles specifically covering installations and equipment
operating at over 600 volts, nominal.


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

Jim Port said:


> The NEC does not define words like lug, panel or terminal and many others. Does that mean that we cannot resort to the dictionary?


I've answered this many, many times. You are clearly being willfully ignorant. 

Of course you can use the dictionary, or a commonly used definition. However, there are MANY definitions of some words.

As I said at least 5 times already, the word "terminate" also means to assassinate or kill. Because that is a definition in the dictionary, should we automatically assume that the NEC means it that way? No, right? 

We need to use logic, context, etc. to figure out what the NEC means.

Now for the 27+ time, if you would like to know what definition the NEC uses, the smartest way would be to see how they use the word in other parts of their writing, correct?

Well in the many hundreds of times that the word is used in the NEC, not a single one of them refers to the end of a loose wire. ALL instances of that word are referring to some type of connection. 

So, I think it's perfectly logical to interprete the way it's used in 300.15 in the same fashion as the way it's used in all the other 500+ instances that it appears in the book.

No one has proven what I just said to be false in any way. It's simply my opinion on the matter, and I have shown the logic behind it. If that makes me a troll or Cletis, then so be it. But that doesn't change the fact that this part of the code is not clear and up for interpretation.


----------



## Jim Port (Sep 21, 2007)

You are still relying on that tired view that a word means the same thing because it is used more times one way than another. You keep bringing up assassinate as a meaning, but you ignore that termination also means an end.

I don't think you will see it any other way so I am dropping out before PETA gets involved for beating a dead horse or trying to get the horse to drink from the water of knowledge.


----------



## Code05 (May 24, 2009)

Macro said:


> No one has proven what I just said to be false in any way. It's simply my opinion on the matter, and I have shown the logic behind it. If that makes me a troll or Cletis, then so be it. But that doesn't change the fact that this part of the code is not clear and up for interpretation.


Ya sure sound like Cletis and you have not shown any creds or sources besides ET. What are we to expect or think?


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

Jim Port said:


> You are still relying on that tired view that a word means the same thing because it is used more times one way than another.


 What other way do we have to determine the exact meaning of a word that the code uses than to see how it uses it hundreds of other times? It's not a "tired view" just because you don't agree with it. It's basically the only logical way. 

YOU, on the other hand, are *trying* to say that this word is used in 300.15 in a *different way* than it's used EVERYWHERE ELSE in the code. That makes ZERO sense. 


> You keep bringing up assassinate as a meaning, but you ignore that termination also means an end.


 No, I have NOT ignored it. When I said that assassination and kill are definitions, that was in addition to the other meanings including "end". I SAID THAT, but again, you ignored it. 

I was very clear when I said that there are many meanings, but you continue to be willfully ignorant and only read what you want to.


> I don't think you will see it any other way


 And I don't think YOU will see it any other way, yet for some reason you expect me to. That's very arrogant of you.


> so I am dropping out before PETA gets involved for beating a dead horse or trying to get the horse to drink from the water of knowledge.


You have contributed to beating that dead horse the entire time.

I would ask you again what reasonable explanation you could come up with the explain why the NEC would use the word Termination differently in 300.15 than it uses it ANYWHERE ELSE in the HUNDREDS of places it's used in the book, but I know you will ignore that yet again, so what's the use?


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

Code05 said:


> Ya sure sound like Cletis and you have not shown any creds or sources besides ET.


 As I said, I am not a member of ET. Who is it with the reading problem? :laughing:

Now tell me, what do "creds" have to do with anything? Like I said before, you seem to think that "creds" mean something. The fact of the matter is that this is a discussion and the point I have made has not been refuted. It doesn't matter if I am just some nobody on the internet or Mike Holt in disguise. The words that I am typing are all that matter, and those words are what you can't refute, so instead you bring up "cred" as if it means something. I bet you were a loser in high school, so that is why you now act like a big popular dude on the internet :laughing:



> What are we to expect or think?


You are expected to answer my question and discuss the topic at hand. What does that have to do with "cred"?

It seems as if you'll take any avenue except discussing the topic. 

What I said in post #163 is perfectly logical. It may not be true, but it is a reasonable interpretation of something that is not clear. As usual, you ignored it and chose to bring up forum popularity. Pathetic...


----------



## DangerMouse (Jul 17, 2008)

Let's keep it civil and knock off the name-calling. Am I the only one who noticed that cgordonrogers never came back for an answer to this question that has no answer? :laughing:

DM


----------



## Macro (May 28, 2012)

LOL :thumbup:


His question should be answered on the first page. He can just disconnect the wires from the switch, if he wants he can cut them as short as possible and push them out of the box into the wall cavity (this isn't necessary, but it will ensure that the wires are never accidentally energized by someone else). Then he can patch over the boxes legally and safely.


No who is going to argue with me about this method?? :thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## beenthere (Oct 11, 2008)

Thread closed. Serves no purpose anymore.


----------

