Thread: BX Cable

When installing three prong outlets on a BX cable system that is bonded to metal boxes should there be a jumper wire from the box to the green screw on the new outlet? Or, is the surface contact between the outlet and the box sufficient?

I ran into an entire system in a high-rise condo today. At first glance into the panel I was perplexed at the lack of ground wires. Then I pulled an outlet cover to find only two wires. Outlet was grounded when attached to the box but became ungrounded when not on contact (no ground wire, hence the question).

I don't recall seeing this type of cable in many residences. In fact, this is the first that I can recall. I think it was mid 60's construction. Do you guys run into this stuff much? I hope I'm diagnoising this correctly....

Similar Threads:

• Using 2 conductor cable for 240 volt circuits
• Air ducts/electrical cable
• Electrical cable routing
• Electrical cable insulation cover
• Electrical cable water heater

Most buildings with more than 4? storeys are wired with armored cable.

I think the way it is done in my state is to splice the upstream and any downstreams and run a jumper to the receptacle green screw and another jumper to the metal box to bond it.

I guess the 6? member NEC panel decided that the contact of the 2 bolts that attach the receptacle yoke to the box does not create a "robust" ground.

Some receptacles, switches, etc. are listed for self-grounding to metal boxes - cannot use the paper washers and yoke must have full contact at top and bottom of box. Depends on the listing of the receptacle/device and the rules for the jurisdiction. See this more with EMT, no more than 6' in entire path on the "Bx" though, different vintages sure it was cable?

Originally Posted by Matt Fellman

When installing three prong outlets on a BX cable system that is bonded to metal boxes should there be a jumper wire from the box to the green screw on the new outlet? Or, is the surface contact between the outlet and the box sufficient?

I ran into an entire system in a high-rise condo today. At first glance into the panel I was perplexed at the lack of ground wires. Then I pulled an outlet cover to find only two wires. Outlet was grounded when attached to the box but became ungrounded when not on contact (no ground wire, hence the question).

I don't recall seeing this type of cable in many residences. In fact, this is the first that I can recall. I think it was mid 60's construction. Do you guys run into this stuff much? I hope I'm diagnoising this correctly....

See NEC 406.3(B) and also see 320.108, & 250.118.(8) Just remember to use an egc from the receptacle to the box and to ensure a thorough connection for the AC cable sheath. (The AC will of course have an egc installed within).

If it is AC cable ( BX) then the cable is rated to carry the fault current. Thus the cable itself is the grounding conductor. You say it looks like a 60's era built building, then I'm willing to be that it is AC cable.
Keep in mind that the AC cable is required to have a anti short bushing also.

So to answer your question - Yes just have them install a grounding tail from the metal box to the devcie.

The 6' in the entire Path rule is not for AC cable (BX) .

It's funny how throughout the years "Romex" has become the trade name for all kinds of different brands of NM wiring and, at least around my area, "BX" has become a sort of catch-all for AC and MC.

One really has to stop and be intentionally specific to make sure one is discussing the correct wiring method so as to cite the proper provision(s) of code. Just another of the many reasons why it is so important to consider the precision of code language when describing a condition, method, citation, etc.

Thank goodness for the "edit" button, or future forum readers would be so confused by my posts they would have me "wired to the electric chair"!

Thanks for the replies guys.... the terminology actually had me wondering. I didn't know exactly what it was. The picture/description in my Code Check book is what led me to call it as I did.

Originally Posted by Fred Warner

It's funny how throughout the years "Romex" has become the trade name for all kinds of different brands of NM wiring and, at least around my area, "BX" has become a sort of catch-all for AC and MC.

Fred,

My understanding of the history of why it is called "BX" is that knob and tube was the first wiring method, and the original manufacturer of BX (I forgot which manufacturer that was) developed a new and experimental wiring method ... "wiring method B" "experimental", or "B" "X". When it began being used, it was known by its name at that time "B X". Later, when other wiring methods came out, it became AC cable, but, like with NM, many people still called it, and still call it, "BX", although it is, and has been, "AC" cable for many decades.

Slightly different than NM and NM-B in that NM and NM-B is simply the same wiring method, only the "B" version of it, while "B X" was an entirely new wiring method.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Fred,

My understanding of the history of why it is called "BX" is that knob and tube was the first wiring method, and the original manufacturer of BX (I forgot which manufacturer that was) developed a new and experimental wiring method ... "wiring method B" "experimental", or "B" "X". When it began being used, it was known by its name at that time "B X". Later, when other wiring methods came out, it became AC cable, but, like with NM, many people still called it, and still call it, "BX", although it is, and has been, "AC" cable for many decades.

Slightly different than NM and NM-B in that NM and NM-B is simply the same wiring method, only the "B" version of it, while "B X" was an entirely new wiring method.

Yes. I guess the "B" part was meant for the word "Brand" as in "Brand-X". Without having to go into my attic and look for my old code books, I checked as far back as my 1956 and AC, ACT and ACL ("L" for lead) were the "BX's" of the day. I don't believe the term "BX" was ever used in the code book just as "Rome-X" is not used in the code book.

BX cable: Sprague Electric - invented by Harry Greenfield. He had two types of metallic sheathed cable, Type A and Type B. The X was indeed for experimental. Not sure what ever happened to AX.

It's also Romex, not Rome-X. I'm not sure why they put the X on. The Rome came from the town in New York and plant name where the wire was manufactured originally.

Originally Posted by Jim Robinson

.....................
It's also Romex, not Rome-X. ................

I know that. I simply put the "-X" to call out the word "Rome" before it as I did the "-X" to call out the word "Brand" before that. It's called poetic license.

Originally Posted by Jim Robinson

BX cable: Sprague Electric - invented by Harry Greenfield.

Thanks, Jim.

I knew there was a reason I should have remembered who invented it ... that's why all flexible metal conduit is called "Greenfield" today - he invented it and the first stuff was "Greenfield", and still is today.

Actually the "history" proferred earlier isn't exactly correct, although it is often repeated on the internet.

The "Greenfield" flexible armor-tubes for electric wiring and its further redevelopment & new patent versions listed by UL are what was and is known as "greenfield".

BX was the cable.

Still - you'd have to know if you were looking at conduit with 2 conductors or Cable, that's why I asked the original poster.

AX like another form of flexible armor-tubes used for other uses, but when used for electric wiring in structures had a problem.

I can explain if you're interested in what the problems were and the various early code developments that resulted if you'd like. Newly identified problems, new standards & tests, failed tests, former "faulty" requirement dropped - no need to continue or improve failed design meeting bad, no longer required standard.

Will TIFF files expand if I thumbnail them here?

On-topic,

Old supplies oft used long into the 60s. If the BX doesn't have the aluminum bonding strip it (the armor) may not be used for bonding egc, that bonding strip didn't start showing up until '59. Not all jurisdictions jumped on "new rules" or required old inventory to be disposed of and allowed it to be used/sold, etc. just like NOW, old BX and old conduit was not recalled or anything like that.

If it is old style, It (use of the armor as bond) wouldn't be grandfathered in since you'd be looking to alter/improve the circuit & receptacles. Back in the old days we were allowed to use plumbing 10'+ multiple connections, now we're restricted to one plumbing connection within five feet of from earthed entrance. It would not be a proper egc if it is older style or vintage.

Vintage BX armor is not adequate for bonding. You cannot apply uses of modern BX to vintage BX especially when replacing two-pin receptacles with three-pin ones.

p.s. when i referred to newly developed I was referring to the time period of the late 1800s and the early 1900s during the initial product development and early code development.

Unlike proffered earlier about applying and not applying uses of modern BX, there are no uses of modern BX as there is no modern BX

Today, and for a long time in the past, there is, and was, AC cable.

"Greenfield" is the flexible metal conduit used as raceways for pulling conductors in, and is the original brand of flexible metal conduit, leading to all flexible metal conduits being referred to as "greenfield".

"BX" was what became approved and known as AC cable, which was similar to flexible metal conduit with the conductors manufactured in the armored outer sheathing (no longer a raceway as the conductors could not be pulled in or out, or at least were not intended to be pulled in or out of the outer armored sheath - whether they "can", "could" or "could not" be may be a different matter).

"BX" as it became known did not include the armor bonding continuity strip running the length of the BX cable, thus, if the outer armor were to be used, the unwound length of the armor sheath would be the length of the grounding conductor. Additionally, with the armor wound around the conductors, a ground fault current could create a choke coil effect on the conductors within the outer armored sheath, leading to greater problems.

My 1897 NEC does not include a reference to AC (armored cable), however, my 1905 NEC does reference AC (armored cable). Between those two NEC editions were the 1899, 1901, 1903, and 1904 editions (which I do not have as much as I would like to have a copy of each), and in which AC (armored cable) was first referenced.

There is no reference to BX in any of the NEC code editions, not that I have been able to find.

Not only was the outer armored sheath on AC cable *not allowed* for grounding, it was also *required to be* grounded. There were several types of AC cable, AC, ACL, ACT, and possibly others. Decades later, with the addition of the bonding strip/conductor within the outer armored sheath, the outer covering was allowed to serve as a grounding conductor with limitations.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

Actually the "history" profferred earlier isn't exactly correct, although it is often repeated on the internet.

When making statements like that, disputing other posts and statements, it is important to provide back up documentation for your position of dispute and "correction", otherwise the disputing can be ignored or presumed to be incorrect in and of itself.

Providing documentation is not only to back up your statements of disputing others, but as a common courtesy which allows others to review the information and come to the same, or different, conclusions.

Some of the internet history states that the developers of AC cable had but one product, known as Product A, which would have been Greenfield flexible metal conduit. Thus, it makes sense that their next product, supposedly called Product B, was really called Product B. And, as this product was experimental, it was designated with an X, becoming referred to as B-X. Additionally, it makes sense that the company which made those products was one and the same as Greenfield was a flexible metal conduit through which conductors were pulled after installation, and that they developed a method by which conductors would be installed within the spirally wound outer metal armor sheath as the outer armor was spirally wound, and that they not longer needed to make it the same size as there was no need to be able to pull conductors in and out, the conductors were already "in the cable". Notice that I stated the above "makes sense" as in searching the internet for the history of AC cable, I found some information which seemed like it would be true and correct, and I found some information which I know is not true and is incorrect.

However, I am only providing likely support for the earlier proffered history, not trying to debunk it.

To debunk it, you need to provide documentation substantiating same.

There were a multitude of products in this product family or concentric and armored products.

Not JUST a singular form of armored conduit.
Not JUST a singular form of armored cable.

I offered the historical information (some citing even the inventor's own words) if anyone expressed an interest. No one has expressed an interest YET.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Some of the internet history states that the developers of AC cable had but one product, known as Product A, which would have been Greenfield flexible metal conduit. Thus, it makes sense that their next product, supposedly called Product B, was really called Product B. And, as this product was experimental, it was designated with an X, becoming referred to as B-X. Additionally, it makes sense that the company which made those products was one and the same as Greenfield was a flexible metal conduit through which conductors were pulled after installation, and that they developed a method by which conductors would be installed within the spirally wound outer metal armor sheath as the outer armor was spirally wound, and that they not longer needed to make it the same size as there was no need to be able to pull conductors in and out, the conductors were already "in the cable". Notice that I stated the above "makes sense" as in searching the internet for the history of AC cable, I found some information which seemed like it would be true and correct, and I found some information which I know is not true and is incorrect.

However, I am only providing likely support for the earlier proffered history, not trying to debunk it.

To debunk it, you need to provide documentation substantiating same.

Highlighted portion is completely untrue.

You won't find the answers using a search engine on the internet. Most of the documentation that IS available on the internet which is historical, are not in a searchable form. Hint: TIFF images of historic documents. Mr. Greenfield and Sprague invented and produced products for other uses.

Key to understanding the history is knowing that the 1899 edition removed the requirement that conduit be lined. Key to understanding the issue(s) is knowing why that existed in the first place and the WHY behind that change.

Although 1959 is important regarding the bonding wire 56-62 no distinction btwn MC or AC prior, 1990s changes are more important regarding EGC. The earlier bonding "wire" was a flat ribbon subject to breakage - cannot be relied upon for safety or as EGC.

I don't believe the term type AC showed up until the 30s.
Discussion of Armored Cable 1903.

Finally, in 1962 the Code was revised to require all branch circuits to include a grounding conductor or ground path to which the grounding contacts of the receptacle must be connected.

Someone else mentioned Romex - older NM which did include an EGC they were typically undersized - another thing to watch out for - although not so much in SF area.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

My 1897 NEC does not include a reference to AC (armored cable), however, my 1905 NEC does reference AC (armored cable).

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

Highlighted portion is completely untrue.

I don't believe the term type AC showed up until the 30s.

I know, you feel everyone else is wrong and you you are correct, yet you do not back it up with documents that what you say is wrong with what others say, you just say it and expect it to believed as true.

Likewise, you feel that everything you write is true and do not back it up with documents and expect it to be believed as true.

Here is something I stated "my 1905 NEC does reference AC (armored cable)", you then stated (as quoted above) "I don't believe the term type AC showed up until the 30s."

I gave you the reference as to when AC showed up.

Believe it or not, that is your choice. It is in there.

Just do not expect us to believe what you say when you do not back anything up.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

I don't believe the TERM type AC showed up until the 30s.

Discussion of Armored Cable first appeared 1903 NEC.

"officially" designated as TYPE AC first in 1932 NEC.

As usual one misses the forest for the trees, twists and distorts what was said.

Guesses that AX ever refered to conduit was are are WRONG, and cannot be supported. I can support my statements, by the inventor's own sworn words and historical facts.

Regarding one who hasn't ASKED and resorts to tantrums and ad hominem attacks, and without research skills, actual experience or knowledge, discourteousness SHALL NOT BE REWARDED.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

I know, you feel everyone else is wrong and you you are correct, yet you do not back it up with documents that what you say is wrong with what others say, you just say it and expect it to believed as true.

Perfect description of yourself. Do not project yourself upon me.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Likewise, you feel that everything you write is true and do not back it up with documents and expect it to be believed as true.

I expect nothing. Again you are projecting your own personality upon others. The above describes you.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Here is something I stated "my 1905 NEC does reference AC (armored cable)", you then stated (as quoted above) "I don't believe the term type AC showed up until the 30s."

I gave you the reference as to when AC showed up.

Believe it or not, that is your choice. It is in there.

Just do not expect us to believe what you say when you do not back anything up.

Selective reading lacking comprehension and understanding, intentional or compromised, not my concern as to your representations evidencing a distorted view of reality.

I challenge your authority or ability to speak for ME. I suggest and challenge your authority and ability to speak for US, or anyone other than YOURSELF.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

"officially" designated as TYPE AC first in 1932 NEC.

Dang you are dense and difficult.

I guess you need to write to the NFPA and tell them to retract all the "unofficial" NEC codes they printed and put out before AC came out "officially" in 1932.

By jove man, I READ THE 1905 CODE, and AC cable is IN THERE.

Now, it appears you do not like it to have been IN THERE, and it appears that you do not accept the fact that it has been IN THERE, but, good gawd man, you cannot be that dense to think that just because YOU insist it was not IN THERE (which, by the way, makes it "OFFICIAL") that it was not IN THERE.

You certainly are a piece of cake Watson.

If Watson does not believe it, *it cannot be*.

As usual one misses the forest for the trees, twists and distorts what was said.

Very good quote as it fits you to a "T".

Regarding one who hasn't ASKED and resorts to tantrums and ad hominem attacks, and without research skills, actual experience or knowledge, discourteousness SHALL NOT BE REWARDED.

I have no idea what you are referring to, but it sounds like you must be describing your actions again, because your posts, including that above, fits your description.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

I expect nothing. Again you are projecting your own personality upon others. The above describes you.

Again, a perfect description of your actions and posts.

Selective reading lacking comprehension and understanding, intentional or compromised, not my concern as to your representations evidencing a distorted view of reality.

Dang, for someone so capable of describing themselves, your take on others just must be a result of looking in the mirror. 'Cause that is the reflection you see and is what we see.

I challenge your authority or ability to speak for ME. I suggest and challenge your authority and ability to speak for US, or anyone other than YOURSELF.

You are not in a position to challenge anything or anything, Watson. At best you are incapable of even challenging your own authority.

Did you notice, the last day, day and a half, whatever its been since you posted, that things went rather smoothly (other than your lackey Sparky Steve interrupting the smoothness of this board in your absence).

What about the term (phrase):

"TYPE AC CABLE"

do you fail to read? could it be the word: type In conjunction with the AC in addition to the word cable?

Armored Cable was first mentioned/discussed in the
1903 NEC.

What about Nineteen-hundred-and-three is unclear?

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

Discussion of Armored Cable first appeared 1903 NEC

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

the TERMtype AC showed up until the 30s.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

Later referenced specifically the 1932 NEC as to the official designation as: "TYPE AC CABLE".

I notice you miss the distinction on other threads between

TYPE NM Cable
and

NM Cable (lacking the word which is part of the TERM of DISTINCTION, i.e. TYPE).

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

"officially" designated as TYPE AC first in 1932 NEC.

As usual one misses the forest for the trees, twists and distorts what was said.

Guesses that AX ever refered to conduit was are are WRONG, and cannot be supported. I can support my statements, by the inventor's own sworn words and historical facts.

Regarding one who hasn't ASKED and resorts to tantrums and ad hominem attacks, and without research skills, actual experience or knowledge, discourteousness SHALL NOT BE REWARDED.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

What about the term (phrase):

"TYPE AC CABLE"

do you fail to read? could it be the word: type In conjunction with the AC in addition to the word cable?

Armored Cable was first mentioned/discussed in the
1903 NEC.

What about Nineteen-hundred-and-three is unclear?





Later referenced specifically the 1932 NEC as to the official designation as: "TYPE AC CABLE".

I notice you miss the distinction on other threads between

TYPE NM Cable
and

NM Cable (lacking the word which is part of the TERM of DISTINCTION, i.e. TYPE).

Let's see now ... (how many times did Watson specifically state that "the term TYPE AC" was first officially used in the 1930s, specifically 1932?) ... does not matter, and, who is counting anyway?

When a man insists on making a fool of himself so adamantly as he does why stop him? Just let him do his stupid is as stupid does act, proving how stupid stupid does is, and then ...

From the 1928 "National Electrical Code" Regulations of the National Board of Fire Underwriters For Electrical Wiring and Apparatus as recommended by the National Fire Protection Association, Edition 1928 ...

505. Armored Cable.
- a. When armored cable, types AC or ACL, is used as the wiring method, the provisions of the following paragraphs of this section shall be observed.
- b. Type AC armored cable may be used for open work blah, blah, blah
- j. Type ACL blah, blah, blah

Now, let's review the above sequence ... ... no, that just has to be wrong because Watson said it was not so.

I think Watson needs to do what I said and contact the NFPA and have them recall each and every NEC which referenced TYPE AC armored cable which was published before Watson said it was, because, Watson is never wrong, so the NFPA must be wrong.

Watson, you really do need to replace that hat, every time you try to pull a rabbit out of it, you pull out a skunk.

Watson's 0
Peck's 1

End of the first quarter. Stay tuned.
and now for a word from our sponsors......................

Fred,

I'm waiting for Watson to try to change what he said he meant to say and did say by not saying it ... or something other than ... 'Oh, well, ... okay, I was wrong.'

I doubt we will ever hear that from Watson.

In fact, my guess is that is next thing will be to go back to other threads and try to bring up where he was right on something, and totally avoid acknowledging this where he was so blatantly wrong.

Just like with his other wrong posts, he has not yet acknowledged that he has ever been wrong.

Once I can get him to acknowledge that he is wrong, even just the first time, then it will be easier for him to acknowledge he is wrong the second time, and each time he does it, it will get easier.

In fact, if he comes back here and acknowledges he was wrong without trying to be or being wishy-washy about it and not trying to obfuscate it with why he was not quite as wrong as we would believe, you can give him for '1' and make it back even. I am not trying to win anything, I am simply trying to get the man do become a productive member of this board and get his head out of that dark hole down there.

Definition or official designation, differentiating what it was and was not, not unlike what we understand it to be (including a description that could include MC up through the later distinctions) 1932 NEC.

Prior to that there was a variety of "armored cables" being refered to for differing location types, uses, etc. They were "armored" in a variety of different ways.

However as mentioned previously armored cable first discussed 1903 not 1905.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

In fact, my guess is that is next thing will be to go back to other threads and try to bring up where he was right on something, and totally avoid acknowledging this where he was so blatantly wrong.

Dang am I good!

He is ALREADY doing just that, and double posting it too.

Fred,

You need to take one away from his '0' for that, making it a -1 penalty where he starts from.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Fred,

I'm waiting for Watson to try to change what he said he meant to say and did say by not saying it ... or something other than ... 'Oh, well, ... okay, I was wrong.'

I doubt we will ever hear that from Watson.

In fact, my guess is that is next thing will be to go back to other threads and try to bring up where he was right on something, and totally avoid acknowledging this where he was so blatantly wrong.

Just like with his other wrong posts, he has not yet acknowledged that he has ever been wrong.

Once I can get him to acknowledge that he is wrong, even just the first time, then it will be easier for him to acknowledge he is wrong the second time, and each time he does it, it will get easier.

In fact, if he comes back here and acknowledges he was wrong without trying to be or being wishy-washy about it and not trying to obfuscate it with why he was not quite as wrong as we would believe, you can give him for '1' and make it back even. I am not trying to win anything, I am simply trying to get the man do become a productive member of this board and get his head out of that dark hole down there.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

Definition or official designation, differentiating what it was and was not, not unlike what we understand it to be (including a description that could include MC up through the later distinctions) 1932 NEC.

Prior to that there was a variety of "armored cables" being refered to for differing location types, uses, etc. They were "armored" in a variety of different ways.

However as mentioned previously armored cable first discussed 1903 not 1905.

Nope.

Watson apparently simply cannot admit he is wrong when he is proven so publicly to be wrong.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

I'm waiting for Watson to try to change what he said he meant to say and did say by not saying it ... or something other than ... 'Oh, well, ... okay, I was wrong.'

Yep. 'Tis what he has tried to do.

Watson seems to be incapable of:

In fact, if he comes back here and acknowledges he was wrong without trying to be or being wishy-washy about it and not trying to obfuscate it with why he was not quite as wrong as we would believe, you can give him for '1' and make it back even.

Watson,

Question for you.

Simple yes or no answer.

Were you wrong when you said "Later referenced specifically the 1932 NEC as to the official designation as: "TYPE AC CABLE"." when, in fact, the 1928 NEC used the term "Type AC" for armored cable?

Or will you, yet again, try to make some twist to it to try to make yourself, in your eyes only, 'not wrong' or 'not as wrong', while making yourself look totally foolish in the eyes of others?

You inability to admit when you are wrong, even when so publicly shown you are wrong, that it makes everything else you say suspect - at best - possibly even makes everything else you say unbelievable in reality.

Do you want to come back and try it again, this time admitting you are wrong, or ... will you try to obfuscate what you said and try to make it look like you were not wrong?

Time is ticking away to see just what kind of man you are (for those few who have not seen truth yet, the others of us are just watching you boil in the bright light and waiting your next silly move).

25404-Royalty-Free-Clipart-Illustration-Of-White-Character-Leaping-To-Block-An-Opponent-From-Scoring

The ball's in your court.

Reminds me more of:

Honest BX, the stuff manufactured with rubber insulation on the conductors, is bad news. The only real way to see if you have problems with the stuff is to have it meggered.

I've been in many attics where the armor was glowing red because the insulation had failed on a couple of conductors in different places. The short doesn't draw enough current to trip a breaker but does heat the armor, sometimes to a bright red, but more often to a red you can see only in the dark. This situation, when present, also causes faster deterioration of any "good" insulation present between the fault points. In short, you have self destructing cable.

This same problem is a real issue where people have attempted to use the armor as a ground because if the insulation fails on the hot wire you may in fact have a potential on the armor.

The commonly used receptacle tester will show the ground wired correctly in some cases where the armor is used as an EGC but the circuit path may not trip a breaker in the event of a fault. Frankly, I think all this stuff needs to be on a GFCI breaker - but common sense is the only prod in place to get this done presently

If this stuff is in an attic where there's evidence there's been storage and the position of the cable has been moved by stuff being dragged and pushed over it you really need more testing done than a "visual".

After 35 or so years or so dealing with this stuff I'd offer it's at least as big an issue as FPE panels and breakers - regardless of when it showed up in the code book.

Originally Posted by Bill Kriegh

Honest BX, the stuff manufactured with rubber insulation on the conductors, is bad news. The only real way to see if you have problems with the stuff is to have it meggered.

After 35 or so years or so dealing with this stuff I'd offer it's at least as big an issue as FPE panels and breakers - regardless of when it showed up in the code book.

Bill,

I have been saying that about *ALL* rubber insulated conductors for years.

Have rubber insulated conductors, rewiring is needed, the rubber insulation has dried out, is brittle, is cracked, has failed.

The NEC even points out that the life of rubber insulated conductors is limited.

Originally Posted by Bill Kriegh

I've been in many attics where the armor was glowing red because the insulation had failed on a couple of conductors in different places.

Wow. I've never seen that!

Definitely something to look for more carefully during future attic IR scans though...

I'd recommend meggering instead. If there's no load on the circuit when shooting the pics you won't see the problem. A megger will find the problem if it's there. Meggering will also find a problem that hasn't showed up, leakage, but not enough to heat things up yet. I understand how this can be a tough sell.

Meggering is expensive because some things need to be disconnected to test stuff. It's the only sure way, though.

I think if you check around you'll find our British cousins require meggering new work and then every so many years as part of a recertification process. Not really such a bad idea.

Be sure to be taught the proper why to use a megger as you will damage things at the least.

pre 1932: Type AC armored cable.
1932: Type AC Cable

(note: lack of the word armored contained in the term).

First mention armored cable: 1903 NEC.

Forest, trees. "by Jove" Peck misses it AGAIN.

How many times Peck quoted and missed his argument was fruitless?

Creative quoting by Jerry Peck dropping the word cable immediately after the words AC and Cable doesn't change the truth about what I posted or said. Manipulation by Peck doesn't change the facts.

Watch for undersized EGCs in the earliest containing - 18 or 16 awg not full sized.

In those cases (lacking bonding strip, questionable bonding and/or undersized egc) no more than six feet in entire circuit path for bonding.

Lack of proper bond can prevent a CB OCPD from opening the circuit. THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE.

News Flash!

Watson tries it again!

Okay, that's not a news flash, that is to be expected from an untruthful, dishonest, change their posts person who refuses to admit and acknowledge when they are wrong and gets trying to change why he wants us to think he said so we think it was never wrong.

This is his most recent reinvention of himself and his posts.

Note Watson's statement said "the term type AC", keep track of that as he tries to change that to "Type AC cable'".

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

I don't believe the term type AC showed up until the 30s.

Note Watson's statement of "TYPE AC", and, referring to the above, his trying to change to "Type AC cable'".

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

"officially" designated as TYPE AC first in 1932 NEC.

This was my post about what the 1928 NEC states.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

When a man insists on making a fool of himself so adamantly as he does why stop him? Just let him do his stupid is as stupid does act, proving how stupid stupid does is, and then ...

From the 1928 "National Electrical Code" Regulations of the National Board of Fire Underwriters For Electrical Wiring and Apparatus as recommended by the National Fire Protection Association, Edition 1928 ...

505. Armored Cable.
- a. When armored cable, types AC or ACL, is used as the wiring method, the provisions of the following paragraphs of this section shall be observed.
- b. Type AC armored cable may be used for open work blah, blah, blah
- j. Type ACL blah, blah, blah

Now for Watson's latest attempt to re-invent himself and his posts - trying to change the term he used: "the term type AC", to "Type AC cable'". He must think that all of us here are totally enamored by his dimly lit light, which is flickering out.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

1932: Type AC Cable

(note: lack of the word armored contained in the term).

Then Watson tries the old tactic of 'if you are not right, and refuse to admit you are wrong, try deflection and misdirection ...

Forest, trees. "by Jove" Peck misses it AGAIN.

How many times Peck quoted and missed his argument was fruitless?

Watson, if you were in a space shuttle heading toward earth from the space station you would miss the earth, because you would insist that the earth was the moon and you would insist on veering away, as, unlike George Washington, who could not tell a lie, Watson cannot tell the truth. Yes, that is a fable about George Washington, but it is no fable about Watson ... that man simply cannot, will not, tell the truth.

Watson, you said, and defended your stance on, this: "the term type AC".

Once that was proven to be incorrect, instead of acknowledging it was incorrect, you kept your posturing up and are now trying to defend your stance on something you DID NOT SAY: " "Type AC cable'"."

Watson, admit it, you have no ethics, not ethical standards of doing right or being honest, your only goal is "to think you are right all the times at all costs" ... notice that I said "to think" "you are" because, as has been proven frequently, you "are not right" much of the time - well, it is really hard to tell how much of the time you are because you change everything so often.

I can see that being honest and forthright *IS NOT* part of who you are.

Trying to have us believe you when you try to change what you said from "the term type AC" to "Type AC cable'" is either the mark of total arrogance (which appears to be correct) or total stupidity (which I had my doubts about previously, but you now have me wondering if that is not the case as someone who is not totally stupid would know that what you are doing is simply digging yourself into a deeper hole.

Oh, wait ... here is a BIGGER SHOVEL, so you can dig faster!