shielding low voltage wire, running low voltage wires aside 12-2 romex
John M Lauck
First, is it possible to run Swann security camera (black, shielded,
power/audio/video in one) wire along side 12-2 romex. I'm wiring
security cameras and external motion lights and it would be much
easier to run this pair of wires side by side. Is there any problem
doing so?
Second, I've read plenty of info that specifies if you have to cross
Cat-5 wires with electric wire you cross the two wire
perpendicularly. However, in an older home where there's only a small
chase to get wires to their destination there's bound to be a place
where the wires are side by side. Can you wrap the low voltage wires
with foil or something to shield them? Is this necessary for short
points of contact? Is this the same for speaker/security or coax wire?
Robert L Bass
>
> Couple questions:
>
> First, is it possible to run Swann security camera (black,
> shielded,
> power/audio/video in one) wire along side 12-2 romex. I'm wiring
> security cameras and external motion lights and it would be much
> easier to run this pair of wires side by side. Is there any
> problem
> doing so?
Don't do it. Code requires separation for safety. For optimal
performance stay 12" minimum from 110VACD and 24" from 220VAC. Cross
at right angles where necessary. That said, it's ok to run close and
parallel for a few feet, say up a wall to a light switch. But
farther than that keep your distance.
> Second, I've read plenty of info that specifies if you have to
> cross
> Cat-5 wires with electric wire you cross the two wire
> perpendicularly. However, in an older home where there's only a
> small
> chase to get wires to their destination there's bound to be a place
> where the wires are side by side. Can you wrap the low voltage
> wires
> with foil or something to shield them? Is this necessary for short
> points of contact? Is this the same for speaker/security or coax
> wire?
For short distances necessary to get to a service point from the main
run, it's ok to stay under 12" away. Don't run the two types
abutting each other though.
--
Regards,
Robert L Bass
==============================>
Bass Home Electronics
4883 Fallcrest Circle
Sarasota · Florida · 34233
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
Sales & Tech Support 941-925-8650
Customer Service 941-232-0791
Fax 941-870-3252
==============================>
Frank Olson
> "John M Lauck" wrote:
>>
>> Couple questions:
>>
>> First, is it possible to run Swann security camera (black, shielded,
>> power/audio/video in one) wire along side 12-2 romex. I'm wiring
>> security cameras and external motion lights and it would be much
>> easier to run this pair of wires side by side. Is there any problem
>> doing so?
As long as your cable is shielded, I don't see that there's going to be
much of a problem for "short distances". Terminate your shield properly
though or your efforts will wind up like a Bass rant about Bush. On
many existing jobs where you're trying to route low voltage wire you're
bound to come across situations where parallel runs next to 110VAC are
unavoidable. Try and keep them separated as best as you can.
>
> Don't do it. Code requires separation for safety.
What "Code" would that be?? NEC?? Ten Commandments? Uniform Code of
Military Justice? Pirates Code?? NFPA?? Chapter and verse, please.
Jay "Little Napoleon" Severson
> Don't do it. Code requires separation for safety. For optimal
> performance stay 12" minimum from 110VACD and 24" from 220VAC. Cross
> at right angles where necessary. That said, it's ok to run close and
> parallel for a few feet, say up a wall to a light switch. But
> farther than that keep your distance.
Thanks <stop>....appreciate the update <stop>...just your posting style
<stop>...got it <stop>...carry on <stop> ...with your technical liabilities
<stop>...<eom>
Frank Olson
> "John M Lauck" wrote:
>>
>> Couple questions:
>>
>> First, is it possible to run Swann security camera (black, shielded,
>> power/audio/video in one) wire along side 12-2 romex. I'm wiring
>> security cameras and external motion lights and it would be much
>> easier to run this pair of wires side by side. Is there any problem
>> doing so?
>
> Don't do it. Code requires separation for safety. For optimal
> performance stay 12" minimum from 110VACD and 24" from 220VAC. Cross at
> right angles where necessary. That said, it's ok to run close and
> parallel for a few feet, say up a wall to a light switch. But farther
> than that keep your distance.
BAss, you're a moron. So you have to maintain separation for safety
(according to Code)... yet it's "OK to run close and parallel for a few
feet" (which is *against* Code)... Your mental faculties must be on
hiatus. This has got to be one of the dumbest things I've seen you
post. "Don't do it, but it's OK if you do"... Right, Bass.
NEC requires a minimum 2" separation between high voltage (110VAC) and
low voltage (communication grade) cabling. If you're running
communication grade wire down a wall which also happens to have a light
switch, it's going to be darn difficult to maintain that separation
unless you cut out the dry wall and physically staple the wire. Most
alarm installers (primates to BAss) recognize this and will use separate
wall entry points from any AC wiring that's terminated or run in the
same wall cavity. Electrical inspectors will look for this. They don't
bring the X-Ray equipment out to ensure any wiring you've run inside the
wall complies with NEC.
>
>> Second, I've read plenty of info that specifies if you have to cross
>> Cat-5 wires with electric wire you cross the two wire
>> perpendicularly. However, in an older home where there's only a small
>> chase to get wires to their destination there's bound to be a place
>> where the wires are side by side. Can you wrap the low voltage wires
>> with foil or something to shield them? Is this necessary for short
>> points of contact? Is this the same for speaker/security or coax wire?
>
> For short distances necessary to get to a service point from the main
> run, it's ok to stay under 12" away. Don't run the two types abutting
> each other though.
He shouldn't have a problem using shielded wire. The "rule" (code to
you) is to maintain a 2" separation.
John M Lauck
Thanks for the tips. I've been trying to maintain separation in all
cases but as several mentioned, it's nearly impossible in an older
(late 1800's) home to do this in all cases. 12" of separation sounds
ridiculous especially when studs are often 16" or less on center. You
can only drill so many holes before you are doing more structural
damage than necessary. I thought about testing it by wrapping some
low voltage wire around some hot romex and testing throughput on the
low voltage. Has this been done and published before?
Frank Olson
"Testing?" *Experience* demonstrates that you should maintain a larger
separation than the 2" required by NEC. When we do custom pre-wires, we
*always* go in *after* the electrician has completed his. This ensures
that we can maintain maximum separation (and minimize potential problems
with interference). When you're renovating an existing house, it's a
little more difficult but experience and "common sense" will ensure you
"win" in the end. If you lack the experience part, asking in a forum
like this will help. There are a large number of experienced home
automation specialists here. Bruce R., Bill Kearney, Dave Houston to
name a few (although Bill and I don't quite see "eye to eye" regarding
Bass and frequently butt heads). :-)
You're using shielded wire (or at least that's what you've indicated).
You shouldn't have a problem.
Good luck!!!
Robert L Bass
Frank Olson
> Robert L Bass wrote:
>
>> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>> boundary="----=_NextPart_000_05BF_01C862CB.C579DC00"
>
>
> How about posting in plain text, genius.
>
He must be back on the meds.
Frank Olson
>> Thanks for the tips. I've been trying to maintain separation in all cases but as several mentioned, it's nearly impossible in an older (late 1800's) home to do this in all cases. 12" of separation sounds ridiculous especially when studs are often 16" or less on center. You can only drill so many holes before you are doing more structural damage than necessary. I thought about testing it by wrapping some low voltage wire around some hot romex and testing throughput on the low voltage. Has this been done and published before?
>
> John,
>
to one of my keypad (data) runs. Every so often one of the keypads
would operate erratically. It didn't start happening immediately and it
wasn't all the time either.
>
> On the first call I simply swapped out the pad, checked to see if it was OK and left. Shortly thereafter I got a call that the system was still having problems. The panel seemed OK because the other keypads were working. Upon investigation I found the new Romex cable lying practically on top of my data cable. I moved my cable over a couple of feet and the problem was solved.
>
> I've also serviced numerous systems which we took over from competitors who couldn't fix problems. If the client mentioned keypads not responding or giving wrong indications, we'd disconnect the data cables and meter them. On a fair number of occasions we found AC voltage being inducted into the security system cables. Almost invariably rerouting a few cables solved the problems.
>
> I've wired quite a few older homes, John. One of them originally belonged to Sebastian Shallus, brother of Jacob Shallus. History buffs will tell you how old that house is. It was moved a number of years ago to North Canton, Connecticut. If you need help figuring ways to wire an older home I'd be glad to share some techniques with you. I promise not to suggest anything that will weaken the structure. Call when you have some time (my phone is in my sig line) and I'll try to help.
>
<snipped> This is another installation fairy tale. If AC inductance
was present on *ANY* of the keypad "data runs", it would affect the
entire system (and not just one or two keypads). The keypad data
connection (or keybus) is a common termination point on every alarm
system manufactured. A measurable AC voltage (which Bass goes on to
state he had) on a single "data line" would therefore "crash" the entire
system. If you believe this man can really "help" you, then I have a
bridge you can buy.
Bill Kearney
>> Sorry you got treated to the abusive post from my stalker.
Yes, well, he's right Frank. It's clear you're stalking Bass and have been
for quite a while.
John J. Bengii
"Frank Olson" <use_the_e...@yoursecuritysource.com> wrote in
message news:kl0oj.26850$ow.4728@pd7urf1no...
Robert L Bass
>
> How about posting in plain text, genius.
Sure thing.
=== Plain Text Follows ===
Frank Olson
> Medication could help that bridge dissolve.
It would take "a heap". :-)
Frank Olson
What I still don't get is where I was "abusive" to the OP. As for
"stalking" BAss... He's the centre of my universe. The Grand Poobah of
my tribe. I archive everything he writes. "Bass-speak" is our holy
language and to "Bassify" a system means it's "holy" useless.
John M Lauck
Please, arguments aside, I appreciate all the advice.
I understand that in the best situation you would run all low voltage
wires as far away from high voltage as possible.
But, if you absolutely had to run an unshielded CAT5 cable side by
side for a short run (behind a switch, in a hole etc) can you wrap the
wire with a material to shield it?
Robert L Bass
>
> But, if you absolutely had to run an unshielded CAT5 cable side by
> side for a short run (behind a switch, in a hole etc) can you wrap
> the wire with a material to shield it?
To the OP:
Perhaps I wasn't being clear. If not I apologize. If it's that
short a run, just connect it. It won't hurt anything to install the
device close to 110VAC wires and it won't matter if the two are
parallel for a short distance. I meant that you shouldn't run the
cables side by side from point to point. They can go behind or next
to electrical boxes, etc.
Note to Frank Olson:
Please refrain from turning every thread into a flame war. I'm not
interested in dialoguing with you. Everyone already knows you don't
like me and they've probably figured out by now that I'm not fond of
you either. When you spoil every thread with personal insults you
are not hurting me but you are ruining this newsgroup. There are a
lot of people who post here looking for assistance or trying to
assist others. You hurt them (not to mention your own image) by
continuing the nonsense. So please, for the benefit of the rest
here, give it a rest.
Frank Olson
> Note to Frank Olson:
>
> Please refrain from turning every thread into a flame war.
Actually you do a better job of that than me or Graham.
> I'm not
> interested in dialoguing with you.
Yet you mention me in almost every post.
> Everyone already knows you don't
> like me and they've probably figured out by now that I'm not fond of you
> either.
It's not that I don't like *you*, Bass. It's your dishonesty and
self-serving bullshit I don't like.
> When you spoil every thread with personal insults you are not
> hurting me but you are ruining this newsgroup.
You lied (again). I called you on it. You're also a moron for posting
such nonsense in a group like this. The other regulars are far too
polite to say anything to you (or they're aware of your retaliation
methods and don't care to get involved).
> There are a lot of
> people who post here looking for assistance or trying to assist others.
Heh... Your "assistance" usually has a "buy from me" button behind it.
There are dozens of other individuals here that share their expertise
and knowledge with no such agenda or who don't feel the need to inflate
their egos with cock and bullshit stories.
> You hurt them (not to mention your own image) by continuing the
> nonsense. So please, for the benefit of the rest here, give it a rest.
Tell you what... I'll take a page from your book. You lay off with the
"Jiminex", "Cracker" and "Olson" crap and I'll think about it.
Frank Olson
> Please, arguments aside, I appreciate all the advice.
> I understand that in the best situation you would run all low voltage
> wires as far away from high voltage as possible.
That's not always possible even "in the best situation". Make an effort
to maintain the minimum distance required by NEC, but try for more where
you can.
>
> But, if you absolutely had to run an unshielded CAT5 cable side by
> side for a short run (behind a switch, in a hole etc) can you wrap the
> wire with a material to shield it?
You won't need to wrap it. What you're describing should create any
problems for you. You can't run communication grade cables and 110VAC
into the same hole though and definitely not into the same box (unless
it has a physical barrier separating the high voltage side from the low
voltage side.
Bill Kearney
> such nonsense in a group like this. The other regulars are far too polite
> to say anything to you (or they're aware of your retaliation methods and
> don't care to get involved).
Oh give it a rest Frank. These days it's malcontents like you that are the
problem, not Bass.
minifrank
> you that are the problem Bass.
agreed
John J. Bengii
"Robert L Bass" <Rober...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:rCaoj.7204$ZO5.7023@trnddc03...
Lewis Gardner
> But, if you absolutely had to run an unshielded CAT5 cable side by
> side for a short run (behind a switch, in a hole etc) can you wrap the
> wire with a material to shield it?
There is no need. In some cases wrapping a ungrounded conductor around a
twisted pair cable may actually degrade the cable's performance.
Lewis Gardner
> and definitely not into the same box (unless it has a physical
> barrier separating the high voltage side from the low
> voltage side.
Not always. See NEC 725-54 Exception 2.
John M Lauck
> Is that the one with the funny initials?
>
>
> > Sorry you got treated to the abusive post from my stalker.
So considering interference with 120V electric wires, is it caused by
the electric current in general or is it caused when there's a problem
with the electric wiring?
If you go to home depot they sell electric/data combo boxes with a
little sheet of plastic to separate the wires. I haven't bought any
of these, but I can't see how or why that could qualify for "code".
Frank Olson
If the box is "UL Listed", the "little sheet of plastic" qualifies as
the "physical barrier" or "separation" required by NEC.
AC has been know to induce voltages into nearby cable runs. Usually
this isn't measurable by a standard VOM (I say *usually* - I've never
actually come across an instance). Most "erratic keypad operation" is
caused by poor connections (or a component failure).
Frank Olson
Right... As I said previously... we don't see "eye to eye" regarding
Bass. He's a "dope" for posting an idiotic self-aggrandizing fable.
Someone had to call him on it. I accept full responsibility. :-)
Karl Denninger
Yeah, when the LV cable is connected to a device in the box AND IS
CONTROLLING THAT DEVICE.
It'd be kinda hard to control the device via that wire without the wire
going in there, wouldn't it?
--
Karl Denninger (ka...@denninger.net)
http://www.denninger.net
Robert L Bass
>
> So considering interference with 120V electric wires, is it caused
> by the electric current in general or is it caused when there's a
> problem with the electric wiring?
There are two separate issues. Code, which prohibits running low
voltage cables too close to parallel high voltage wires, is mainly
concerned with life safety. In the event the two get shorted
together your low voltage hardware could become energized with lethal
voltages. For the same reason combo boxes like the ones you mention
below come with an insulating separator to keep the two apart.
Performance can be affected adversely when data cables run close and
parallel to high voltage cables due to inductance -- the same thing
that makes transformers work.
> If you go to home depot they sell electric/data combo boxes with a
> little sheet of plastic to separate the wires. I haven't bought
> any of these, but I can't see how or why that could qualify for
> "code".
The plastic insert keeps the low voltage components and cables
separated from 110/220VAC and, as long as the box bears the
appropriate UL label it will comply with US electrical codes.
Because there's such a small length of wire inside the box, induction
isn't a problem there either.
There's one point I failed to address earlier. You asked about
wrapping the part of the cable near the high voltage runs. That
won't really be effective. To keep garbage out of your data cable,
the shield would usually need to run the length of the cable and be
grounded at one end. If you can keep the major part of data cable
runs at least a foot away from parallel 110VAC you'll be OK though.
Bill Kearney
> to
> play Mr. Nice Guy in this NG and be the dick you are in the other?
You jackasses in ASA deserve each other. Keep your trash there and not
here.
Robert L Bass
>
> You jackasses in ASA deserve each other. Keep your trash there and
> not here.
I hope that wasn't directed at me, Bill.
John J. Bengii
assist in blocking capacitive induction but will not help with
magnetic induction. These cables are all rated for close encounters
with low voltage residential power circuits. They are insulated,
shielded, differential mode inputs sensing and/or terminated with low
impedance ends to assist with noise reduction. Cripes we run signal
cables through 3000 ampere, 14kV switchgear and have very little
problems with it. Don't wrap it around or tie it to the other cable
though.
"John M Lauck" <recaff...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:88382c9b-5951-4c4b...@v67g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
John J. Bengii
so we can all check our killfilters are working?
"G. Morgan" <yo...@pinion.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:53ec5076ad03ce7a4...@goofysplace.com...
> Robert L Bass wrote:
>
>>Note to Frank Olson:
>>
>>Please refrain from turning every thread into a flame war.
>
> Hmmmm-- let's have a look at your completely unprovoked attack
> yesterday in ASA
> against the late Mike Sabbodish, myself, and Jim.
> Message-ID: <2Z9oj.4141$e46.3155@trnddc04>
>
> "Another example of a derivative work is the hate website created my
> the late Michael Sabodish. He archived comments from numerous
> posters, morphed images stolen from my website and assembled them in
> a childish but creative attempt at harassment. While the site was
> more infantile than offensive, it might qualify as a derivative
> work.
> Sadly, Mike spent almost all of his energy and eventually, his life
> itself, on hatred and rage. If he'd directed half of that energy on
> something useful he'd have been rich and (possibly) still with us.
> I
> figure Jiminex and Cracker are both heading down the same path but
> by
> different means of transport. Jiminex rides only his rage but
> Cracker floats along on a sea of alcohol and drugs. In the end it
> will be the same -- two more wasted lives. AH, but I digress.... "
>
> What kind of response did you expect that to produce? Is it okay
> for you to
> play Mr. Nice Guy in this NG and be the dick you are in the other?
> You're a
> fraud Bassey.. You're a convicted felon and a compulsive liar, and
> you ain't
> foolin' nobody. Like you were told before - fuck right off and die
> already.
>
> --
> -G-
> 1 x 1 = 1
> 11 x 11 = 121
> 111 x 111 = 12321
> 1111 x 1111 = 1234321
> 11111 x 11111 = 123454321
> 111111 x 111111 = 12345654321
> 1111111 x 1111111 = 1234567654321
> 11111111 x 11111111 = 123456787654321
> 111111111 x 111111111 = 12345678987654321
John J. Bengii
having trouble with the signal integrity in it. It isn't an exact
science. Cat5 is designed to do it's job just the way it is, with
twisted pairs and full differential, common mode rejection inputs at
each end.
"Lewis Gardner" <lgar...@simplifiedtechnologies.com> wrote in message
news:47a28698$0$23673$d94e...@news.iglou.com...
John J. Bengii
"G. Morgan" <yo...@pinion.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:1c4ac464767ed2c37...@goofysplace.com...
> John J. Bengii wrote:
>
>>
>>Why don't you tell us all the details in a few posts of gory details
>>so we can all check our killfilters are working?
>
> Apparently yours isn't, you supposedly already plonked me.
>
> --
>
> -G
Frank Olson
> "Bill Kearney" wrote:
>>
>> You jackasses in ASA deserve each other. Keep your trash there and
>> not here.
>
> I hope that wasn't directed at me, Bill.
>
Gosh! I hope not. You'll start posting the 25 worse things Bush said
and pages and pages of weblinks to "items of interest" in your store in
retaliation. Please don't!!
Bill Kearney
"John J. Bengii" <nob...@yahoo.calm.dwn> wrote in message
news:bdudnbVrEZzzQz7a...@golden.net...
Frank Olson
> And the nitwits tend to keep changing how they forge their message headers.
That's because they want to avoid spam filters. I've never done that
(although Bass has often accused me of it).
Frank Olson
>> Thanks for the tips. I've been trying to maintain separation in all cases but as several mentioned, it's nearly impossible in an older (late 1800's) home to do this in all cases. 12" of separation sounds ridiculous especially when studs are often 16" or less on center. You can only drill so many holes before you are doing more structural damage than necessary. I thought about testing it by wrapping some low voltage wire around some hot romex and testing throughput on the low voltage. Has this been done and published before?
>
> John,
>
> Sorry you got treated to the abusive post from my stalker.
So... calling *you* a dummy for posting nonsense like: "Don't do it,
but it's OK sometimes" is "stalking". I suppose that's one of your
weird "codes" as well. :-)