Hi Robert,

On 9/13/2011 5:19 PM, Robert Wessel wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 16:13:53 -0700, Don Y<nowhere@here.com>  wrote:
>
>> On 9/13/2011 7:53 AM, Robert Adsett wrote:

>>> I looking at some wireless possibilities for the network.  If that
>>> looks feasible that would just leave the power.
>>
>> You might also want to look at *fiber*.  You might
>> be able to run this *in* the same box as the power
>> since it is "just a piece of plastic"
>
> Fiber often is exempt, although there are exceptions (some armored
> cables, for example, are conductive).  But it does vary by local code,

Ah, good point!

> so check that first.  Fiber is also admirably resistant to electrical
> noise, which can be an issue in that sort of installation.  It also
> nicely isolates any gear attached to whatever is going on this pad.

The last point being especially significant in terms of susceptibility
to "bounce" from nearby lightning strikes, etc.  For those cases
where you "forgot" to disconnect the equipment on the other end of
the line...

On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 16:13:53 -0700, Don Y <nowhere@here.com> wrote:

>Hi Robert,
>
>On 9/13/2011 7:53 AM, Robert Adsett wrote:
>> On Sep 12, 11:08 pm, 1 Lucky Texan<1luckyte...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>> I suppose it's too late to consider power over ethernet or, gulp, some
>>> kinda domotics like X10?
>>
>> I think when we hit the 1kW mark for power requirements it ruled out
>> POE.
>>
>> I looking at some wireless possibilities for the network.  If that
>> looks feasible that would just leave the power.
>
>You might also want to look at *fiber*.  You might
>be able to run this *in* the same box as the power
>since it is "just a piece of plastic"


Fiber often is exempt, although there are exceptions (some armored
cables, for example, are conductive).  But it does vary by local code,
so check that first.  Fiber is also admirably resistant to electrical
noise, which can be an issue in that sort of installation.  It also
nicely isolates any gear attached to whatever is going on this pad.

Hi George,

On 9/12/2011 9:23 PM, George Neuner wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 19:09:53 -0700, Don Y<nowhere@here.com>  wrote:
>
>>> But then periodically the regs change for no apparent reason other
>>> than to stimulate business for electricians and suppliers.  You
>>> compare the old and new regs and it's obvious that the new is not
>>> safer in any way - it's just different enough that existing
>>> installations have to be "fixed".
>>
>> I don't know how "real" that scenario is.  I.e., as a kid, I recall
>> hearing (I hung around with lots of tradesmen) that any wiring that
>> was NOT up to the latest code had to be upgraded *to* that code.
>> It struck me, then, as silly:  "Who the hell will ever hire an
>> electrician to install an extra receptacle if that electrician is
>> then going to turn around and say, 'I'm sorry, sir, but I have
>> to remove all this K&T wiring and replace it with _______'?"
>
> There now are several states that require inspection for home sales
> and where either the seller or buyer *must* agree to fix any code
> violations or the home will lose its occupancy permit.

I think that only applies to "violations" but not "grandfathered"
(whether explicitly or not) conditions.

E.g., if you built your house in the 50's, you didn't run an
"earth" with the current carrying conductors.  Rewiring an
entire house to *add* that just because you sold it in 2011
would make it impractical to *ever* sell a house.

> In most states, though, home sales still are caveat emptor.

Here, I think the seller is "on the hook" for 5 years after
the sale (e.g., if the house burns down and they determine
it was due to wiring problems, the seller can be sued)

>> Has anyone any experience with this from a *business location"
>> point of view?  I.e., perhaps there they are bigger "sticklers"
>> for these details?
>
> Business and occupancy permits don't transfer with a commercial sale,
> so commercial properties can be sold with code violations because the
> new owner will need to get new permits anyway.

What I meant was, if you own a business and have some electrical
work done, will the inspector say, "Gee, this *other* stuff is
only current to the 2005 Code and you will have to upgrade it
all to 2011 Code..."

Hi Robert,

On 9/13/2011 7:53 AM, Robert Adsett wrote:
> On Sep 12, 11:08 pm, 1 Lucky Texan<1luckyte...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> I suppose it's too late to consider power over ethernet or, gulp, some
>> kinda domotics like X10?
>
> I think when we hit the 1kW mark for power requirements it ruled out
> POE.
>
> I looking at some wireless possibilities for the network.  If that
> looks feasible that would just leave the power.

You might also want to look at *fiber*.  You might
be able to run this *in* the same box as the power
since it is "just a piece of plastic"

(I am not knowledgeable enough to give an opinion)

On Sep 12, 11:08=A0pm, 1 Lucky Texan <1luckyte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I suppose it's too late to consider power over ethernet or, gulp, some
> kinda domotics like X10?

I think when we hit the 1kW mark for power requirements it ruled out
POE.

I looking at some wireless possibilities for the network.  If that
looks
feasible that would just leave the power.

Robert

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 19:09:53 -0700, Don Y <nowhere@here.com> wrote:

>> But then periodically the regs change for no apparent reason other
>> than to stimulate business for electricians and suppliers.  You
>> compare the old and new regs and it's obvious that the new is not
>> safer in any way - it's just different enough that existing
>> installations have to be "fixed".
>
>I don't know how "real" that scenario is.  I.e., as a kid, I recall
>hearing (I hung around with lots of tradesmen) that any wiring that
>was NOT up to the latest code had to be upgraded *to* that code.
>It struck me, then, as silly:  "Who the hell will ever hire an 
>electrician to install an extra receptacle if that electrician is
>then going to turn around and say, 'I'm sorry, sir, but I have
>to remove all this K&T wiring and replace it with _______'?"

There now are several states that require inspection for home sales
and where either the seller or buyer *must* agree to fix any code
violations or the home will lose its occupancy permit.

In most states, though, home sales still are caveat emptor.


>Has anyone any experience with this from a *business location"
>point of view?  I.e., perhaps there they are bigger "sticklers"
>for these details?

Business and occupancy permits don't transfer with a commercial sale,
so commercial properties can be sold with code violations because the
new owner will need to get new permits anyway.

George

On Sep 12, 10:01=A0am, Robert Adsett <s...@aeolusdevelopment.com> wrote:
> On Sep 11, 2:06=A0pm, Don Y <nowh...@here.com> wrote:
>
> > How deep do you *need* to go? =A0
>
> With the current connector candidate, 50mm.
>
> > Perhaps you can fit an extension
> > onto the box. =A0Or, stack one atop the other (bottom removed)
> > to gain the additional depth -- since the sides will be continuous
> > concrete...
>
> That's essentially what the convention boxes appear to do.
> We have come up with a design we can build ourselves
> that uses the same principle but if we can find an
> existing solution it would make our life easier.
>
> > > Yes and unsealed when connected. =A0That seems to be the hard part.
>
> > If it has to be sealed while in use, then the risk of liquids
> > entering the box, etc. increases dramatically. =A0I had assumed
> > you only needed to be able to seal it up when *not* in use.
>
> As I said, why make it easy on ourselves? =A0It is, unfortunately to
> situation that needs to be worked to.
>
> > Perhaps a few square yards of PV's? =A0:-/
>
> And the corresponding kWhs of batteries. :)
>
> That was in the original design concept until the implications of
> the power requirements were pointed out. =A0Then I think it failed
> on both aesthetic and cost grounds.
>
> > <frown> =A0Well, at least you don't have to *also* make it "inexpensive=
"!
>
> Thank heavens for small mercies.
>
> Robert

I suppose it's too late to consider power over ethernet or, gulp, some
kinda domotics like X10?

On Sep 11, 2:06=A0pm, Don Y <nowh...@here.com> wrote:
> How deep do you *need* to go? =A0

With the current connector candidate, 50mm.

> Perhaps you can fit an extension
> onto the box. =A0Or, stack one atop the other (bottom removed)
> to gain the additional depth -- since the sides will be continuous
> concrete...

That's essentially what the convention boxes appear to do.
We have come up with a design we can build ourselves
that uses the same principle but if we can find an
existing solution it would make our life easier.

> > Yes and unsealed when connected. =A0That seems to be the hard part.
>
> If it has to be sealed while in use, then the risk of liquids
> entering the box, etc. increases dramatically. =A0I had assumed
> you only needed to be able to seal it up when *not* in use.

As I said, why make it easy on ourselves?  It is, unfortunately to
situation that needs to be worked to.


> Perhaps a few square yards of PV's? =A0:-/

And the corresponding kWhs of batteries. :)

That was in the original design concept until the implications of
the power requirements were pointed out.  Then I think it failed
on both aesthetic and cost grounds.

> <frown> =A0Well, at least you don't have to *also* make it "inexpensive"!

Thank heavens for small mercies.

Robert

Hi George,

On 9/11/2011 1:48 PM, George Neuner wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 22:33:53 -0700, Don Y<nowhere@here.com>  wrote:
>
>> Most folks see the Code et al. as a "nuisance".  I, OTOH, figure
>> there is *some* reason, there -- even if it isn't spelled out
>> explicitly (though the annotated code books try to put some
>> explanation behind each requirement).
>
> They are, and they aren't, a nuisance.
>
> Wiring codes - for the most part - are minimum guides for trade
> electricians.  Particularly at low voltages they routinely permit
> installations that no safety conscious engineer (or sane person) ever
> would approve.

What the Code calls Low Voltage, AFAICT, *requires* close to nothing!
I wanted to relocate the transformers for the landscape lighting to the 
back of the garage.  This adds ~40 wire feet (each way) of conductor
to the circuit.  I figured I could just run a pair of 12's for each
conductor (let's drive IR losses into the mud :> ) and satisfy *my*
needs.

Of course, those 12's were going to come from some extra ROMEX I
have lying around.  "Hmmm... how will an electrician know that *this*
ROMEX is carrying 12-24VAC while *that* ROMEX (a few inches away)
is carrying mains voltage?"

And, what if there's a short or partial short.  Granted, it's only a
few hundred watts, but...

<frown>

> But then periodically the regs change for no apparent reason other
> than to stimulate business for electricians and suppliers.  You
> compare the old and new regs and it's obvious that the new is not
> safer in any way - it's just different enough that existing
> installations have to be "fixed".

I don't know how "real" that scenario is.  I.e., as a kid, I recall
hearing (I hung around with lots of tradesmen) that any wiring that
was NOT up to the latest code had to be upgraded *to* that code.
It struck me, then, as silly:  "Who the hell will ever hire an 
electrician to install an extra receptacle if that electrician is
then going to turn around and say, 'I'm sorry, sir, but I have
to remove all this K&T wiring and replace it with _______'?"

I suspect the practical effect is that these things just get
conveniently ignored.  OTOH, its hard to see writing a reg
where you deliberately *allow* "bad practices" to remain in
place...

Has anyone any experience with this from a *business location"
point of view?  I.e., perhaps there they are bigger "sticklers"
for these details?

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 22:33:53 -0700, Don Y <nowhere@here.com> wrote:

>Most folks see the Code et al. as a "nuisance".  I, OTOH, figure
>there is *some* reason, there -- even if it isn't spelled out
>explicitly (though the annotated code books try to put some
>explanation behind each requirement).

They are, and they aren't, a nuisance.

Wiring codes - for the most part - are minimum guides for trade
electricians.  Particularly at low voltages they routinely permit
installations that no safety conscious engineer (or sane person) ever
would approve.  

But then periodically the regs change for no apparent reason other
than to stimulate business for electricians and suppliers.  You
compare the old and new regs and it's obvious that the new is not
safer in any way - it's just different enough that existing
installations have to be "fixed".

George