In what way was my remark drivel?
I've seen installations with both in the same conduit. I've even seen installations with CAT5 and 250vac forced down inside the old gas pipe. Apparently the installer reckoned it was a convenient way to route the cables round the building without hacking off the plaster. Or something.
Yup. Such as when you stuff 'em down inside an old gas pipe :-)
You know the saying about foolproof... :-(
Mark McIntyre hath wroth:
It wasn't. My remark about the NEC code requirements isn't really related to whatever the topic of this thread was at one time. I can see how you interpreted at referring to your comments. I'll try to be a bit more clear in the future.
It's certainly not code compliant. I suspect an inspector probably never saw that work. I've also seen it done wrong and always make a point of suggesting that it be reworked by an electrician. Unfortunately, the few that I've were done by an electrician so that's probably not a great idea.
Drivel (mine): Once upon a time, I had a summer job playing electrician. We were doing a skool and code required all the wiring to be in rigid conduit. No EMT, no Romex allowed. So, I spent my summer operating a pipe threader. Oh, what fun.
At one point, I decided it be interesting to ask why the skool has to use rigid conduit while everything else in town can use EMT. I got some rather odd guesses, so I did the research. It seems that when Edison was electrifying New York, the easiest way to install lighting was to snake the wires through the gas pipes and install the lamps in the gas fixtures. Most antique shops will have gas to electric conversion adapters and signs reminding tenants not to try setting fire to the light bulbs with a match. This was convenient for Edison, but also for the gas fitters that were worried about losing their jobs to electric lighting. So, the deal was struck and all electrical wiring had to be inside gas pipes. 100 years later, not much has changed in some areas. Sigh.
No need to shove it down a pipe. A scrambled mess of wiring will do as well. See: |
Of course, telephone wiring can also have problems: |
Anyone can be a fool with 100 proof?
On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 22:31:35 +0100, Mark McIntyre wrote in :
I think that's a tag for his own remark.
Sure. Lots of stupid non-code things out there.
Fascinating that the same practice should be used on the other side of the pond!
I was thinking of the one that goes: dont make something foolproof, the universe will just invent a superior class of fool.
Jeff Liebermann hath wroth:
It's 5 inches. See:
| Condition 5kVA | | Unshielded power lines or 5 in. 12 in. 24 in. | electrical equipment in (12.7 cm) (30.5 cm) (61 cm) | proximity to open or non- | metal pathways | | Unshielded power lines or 2.5 in. 6 in. 12 in. | electrical equipment in (6.4 cm) (15.2 cm) (30.5 cm) | proximity to grounded metal | conduit pathway | | Power lines enclosed in a N/A 6 in. 12 in. | grounded metal conduit (or (15.2 cm) (30.5 cm) | equivalent shielding) in | proximity to grounded metal | conduit pathway | | Transformers and electric 40 in. 40 in. 40 in. | motors (1.02 m) (1.02 m) (1.02 m) | | Fluorescent lighting 12 in. 12 in. 12 in. | (30.5cm) (30.5 cm) (30.5 cm)
Print the above table and nail it to the posterior of any electrician that snakes CAT5 through the same conduit or electrical box as AC power wiring.
Thanks Jeff, useful to keep that handy,
Mark McIntyre hath wroth:
I was wondering where they got the info. I couldn't find it in that form in my NFPA NEC book. However, a bit of Googling yielded that it came from EIA-569 (which I don't have a copy). From the Cabling FAQ:
Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.