DIYAPASON-L Digest #396 - Monday, September 24, 2001
 
Re: [Residence Organs]  Re: Cotton covered wire
  by "Gregory Rister" <grandcornet@earthlink.net>
Re: [Residence Organs]  NEC Interpretation: Is re-wiring necessary?
  by "F. Richard Burt" <effarbee@home.com>
Re: [Residence Organs]  NEC Interpretation: Is re-wiringnecessary?
  by "Greg Rister" <grandcornet@earthlink.net>
NEC Interpretation: Is re-wiring always necessary?
  by "The Schneider Family" <arpschneider@starband.net>
 

(back) Subject: Re: [Residence Organs] Re: Cotton covered wire From: "Gregory Rister" <grandcornet@earthlink.net> Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 22:38:45 -0700   ------=3D_NextPart_84815C5ABAF209EF376268C8 Content-type: text/plain; charset=3DUS-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by = gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net id WAA23731     OK, mea culpa. I am guilty of generalizing rather too=3D20 off-handedly on a subject which required some specificity. Let me set = str=3D aight=3D20 what I had intended to convey, because I do not want to lead anyone = astra=3D y:       Richard Schneider is absolutely correct. The NEC is certainly the = "guidin=3D g=3D20 light" for organ and any other electrical wiring; our firm certainly = foll=3D ows=3D20 that light in our work;     And yes, older instruments in their original locations (legions = thereof)=3D20 were "grandfathered", but once the instrument is moved or changed, new = wi=3D ring is=3D20 required and advisable in any event. I note that sometimes older organs = a=3D re=3D20 "updated" with new solid state relays and/or consoles, and in these = insta=3D nces=3D20 new wiring is required, usually from the console through the relay and = up=3D to the=3D20 chest spreaders, depending upon the extent of the changes being made. = Man=3D y=3D20 times, new consoles are grafted onto old cables.=3D20     In no way am I advocating the use of "antiquated, dirty, brittle or = frayi=3D ng=3D20 75 year old plus wiring" in ANY installation. How can you draw that = concl=3D usion=3D20 from what I said? My own installation utilizes a late 1930=3D92s = Wurlitzer=3D20 electro-pneumatic relay. It retains its original wiring which is in = extre=3D mely=3D20 good condition (as is the rest of the relay) and was thoroughly = checked-o=3D ut=3D20 before a decision was made to use it. New wiring goes to and from the = rel=3D ay, but=3D20 re-wiring the Wurlitzer relay was a ridiculous and unnecessary = propositio=3D n. Is=3D20 it fused? You=3D92d better believe it. I have absolute confidence in that = w=3D iring and=3D20 the application of NEC safety precautions.=3D20     There are many instances in older organ components where cotton = covered=3D20 cable has been used, such as keyboard coupler boxes, key contacts,=3D20 electro-mechanical and electro-pneumatic relays and the like. Where that = =3D wiring=3D20 is in sound condition, it is my opinion that it can be used, along with = t=3D he=3D20 safety devices required by the NEC and some COMMON SENSE please! If the = w=3D iring=3D20 looks marginal, it probably is. New wiring is always a better option.     If you should choose to use cruddy old wire (of any kind), without = fuse=3D20 protection, and a mega-amp rectifier to try and run your organ, yes = the=3D20 insurance company is likely to deny your claim after the fire is traced = t=3D o your=3D20 misguided work. But the mere presence of cotton-covered wiring isn=3D92t = go=3D ing to=3D20 cause such a denial, unless it was actually the cause of the fire. (And = I=3D can=3D20 confirm that based upon 22 years as a litigation attorney).     I would hazard a guess that most home installations in this country = have=3D20 never been visited by an electrical inspector. None of mine ever have. = I=3D n=3D20 fact, none of the commercial installations I have been involved with = have=3D ever=3D20 been subjected to electrical inspection (Except for AC). This doesn=3D92t = =3D mean=3D20 that we should try to get away with anything. It does mean that we,=3D20 individually, are absolutely responsible for the quality of the work we = a=3D re=3D20 doing, and for making judgments about the quality of materials we should = =3D or=3D20 should not use in a home organ. Common sense and erring on the side of = ca=3D ution=3D20 should be the rule. Adherence to the NEC is not a matter of satisfying a = =3D legal=3D20 requirement, it is very much a matter of building safety into your = instal=3D lation.=3D20 It is possible to make compromises in installing an older organ in your = h=3D ome,=3D20 but a safety issue should never be compromised. My own installation = conta=3D ins=3D20 some significant vestiges of cotton-covered cable, but it meets the = requi=3D rements=3D20 I have noted above, and I sleep quite well.=3D20       Greg Rister Not the Cotton-Candy King today =3D20 DYAPASON-L: a Discussion list for owners and=3D20 builders of their own=3D20   Residence Pipe Organs.   HOMEPAGE : http://www.diyapason.pipechat.org=3D20   List: mailto:DIYAPASON-L@pipechat.org=3D20   Administration: mailto:owner-DIYAPASON@pipechat.org=3D20   ------=3D_NextPart_84815C5ABAF209EF376268C8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=3DUS-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by = gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net id WAA23731   <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=3D3DContent-Type content=3D3D"text/html; = charset=3D3Dwindows-1=3D 251"> <META content=3D3D"MSHTML 5.50.4522.1800" name=3D3DGENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY><FONT size=3D3D2> <P align=3D3Djustify>OK, mea culpa. I am guilty of generalizing rather too = =3D off-handedly on a subject which required some specificity. Let me set = str=3D aight what I had intended to convey, because I do not want to lead = anyone=3D astray:</P> <P align=3D3Djustify></P> <OL> <P align=3D3Djustify> <LI>Richard Schneider is absolutely correct. The NEC is certainly the = "gu=3D iding light" for organ and any other electrical wiring; our firm = certainl=3D y follows that light in our work;</LI> <P></P> <P align=3D3Djustify> <LI>And yes, older instruments in their original locations (legions = there=3D of) were "grandfathered", but once the instrument is moved or changed, = ne=3D w wiring is required and advisable in any event. I note that sometimes = ol=3D der organs are "updated" with new solid state relays and/or consoles, = and=3D in these instances new wiring is required, usually from the console = thro=3D ugh the relay and up to the chest spreaders, depending upon the extent = of=3D the changes being made. Many times, new consoles are grafted onto old = ca=3D bles. </LI> <P></P> <P align=3D3Djustify> <LI>In no way am I advocating the use of "antiquated, dirty, brittle or = f=3D raying 75 year old plus wiring" in ANY installation. How can you draw = tha=3D t conclusion from what I said? My own installation utilizes a late = 1930=3D92=3D s Wurlitzer electro-pneumatic relay. It retains its original wiring = which=3D is in extremely good condition (as is the rest of the relay) and was = tho=3D roughly checked-out before a decision was made to use it. New wiring = goes=3D to and from the relay, but re-wiring the Wurlitzer relay was a = ridiculou=3D s and unnecessary proposition. Is it fused? You=3D92d better believe it. I = =3D have absolute confidence in that wiring and the application of NEC = safety=3D precautions. </LI> <P></P> <P align=3D3Djustify> <LI>There are many instances in older organ components where cotton = cover=3D ed cable has been used, such as keyboard coupler boxes, key contacts, = ele=3D ctro-mechanical and electro-pneumatic relays and the like. Where that = wir=3D ing is in sound condition, it is my opinion that it can be used, along = wi=3D th the safety devices required by the NEC and some COMMON SENSE please! = I=3D f the wiring looks marginal, it probably is. New wiring is always a = bette=3D r option.</LI> <P></P> <P align=3D3Djustify> <LI>If you should choose to use cruddy old wire (of any kind), without = fu=3D se protection, and a mega-amp rectifier to try and run your organ, yes = th=3D e insurance company is likely to deny your claim after the fire is = traced=3D to your misguided work. But the mere presence of cotton-covered wiring = i=3D sn=3D92t going to cause such a denial, unless it was actually the cause of = =3D the fire. (And I can confirm that based upon 22 years as a litigation = att=3D orney).</LI> <P></P> <P align=3D3Djustify> <LI>I would hazard a guess that most home installations in this country = h=3D ave never been visited by an electrical inspector. None of mine ever = have=3D ..&nbsp; In fact, none of the commercial installations I have been = involve=3D d with have ever been subjected to electrical inspection (Except for = AC).=3D &nbsp; This doesn=3D92t mean that we should try to get away with anything. = =3D It does mean that we, individually, are absolutely responsible for the = qu=3D ality of the work we are doing, and for making judgments about the = qualit=3D y of materials we should or should not use in a home organ. Common sense =3D and erring on the side of caution should be the rule. Adherence to the = NE=3D C is not a matter of satisfying a legal requirement, it is very much a = ma=3D tter of building safety into your installation. It is possible to make = co=3D mpromises in installing an older organ in your home, but a safety issue = s=3D hould never be compromised. My own installation contains some = significant=3D vestiges of cotton-covered cable, but it meets the requirements I have = n=3D oted above, and I sleep quite well. </LI></OL> <OL> <P></P></OL> <P align=3D3Djustify></P> <P align=3D3Djustify>Greg Rister</P> <P align=3D3Djustify>Not the Cotton-Candy King today</P> <P align=3D3Djustify></FONT><FONT size=3D3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</P> <P align=3D3Djustify><FONT size=3D3D2>DYAPASON-L: a Discussion list for = owner=3D s and builders of their own </P> <BLOCKQUOTE style=3D3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: = =3D 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid"> <DIV>Residence Pipe Organs.</DIV> <DIV>HOMEPAGE : <A = href=3D3D"http://www.diyapason.pipechat.org">http://www.=3D diyapason.pipechat.org</A></DIV> <DIV>List: <A = href=3D3D"mailto:mailto:DIYAPASON-L@pipechat.org">mailto:DIYA=3D PASON-L@pipechat.org</A></DIV> <DIV>Administration:&nbsp;&nbsp;<A = href=3D3D"mailto:mailto:owner-DIYAPASON@=3D pipechat.org">mailto:owner-DIYAPASON@pipechat.org</A></DIV> <DIV></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> ------=3D_NextPart_84815C5ABAF209EF376268C8--    
(back) Subject: Re: [Residence Organs] NEC Interpretation: Is re-wiring necessary? From: "F. Richard Burt" <effarbee@home.com> Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 05:12:14 -0500   The Schneider Family wrote: > > > Hi List, > > > Blaine is correct....... * * * > More important is the fact that insurance companies can and DO > use wanton failure to follow the NEC Code as a way of side-stepping > payment on insurance claims that may arise out of disasters which > are traced back non-code-compliant electrical installations. > * * * > The code specifies that if the organ is changed in any way, than > it gets re-wired. Period. That is the way I have read the NEC, too. However, I wish to dig just a bit deeper. If a dual-magnet stop action unit fails (for instance, a drawknob), is that "changing the organ" when it is replaced? I have advised a few clients/prospects that replacement of their old Reisner drawknob action units which have disintegrated plastic parts imposes liability on me if the organ should cause a fire. Would this be true if, indeed, a fire could be traced to the old double-cotton-covered wiring in an organ where a drawknob has been changed? I am familiar with insurance companies refusing to pay damage claims, and they are becoming more and more skittish about all claims that do not adhere to the precise interpretation of the wording of the policy. To the point, my sister's home was flooded recently in Houston due to an unrelenting tropical storm that came ashore and stalled right over town for several days. She had insurance against hurricane damage, but because the storm was not classified by the weather bureau as a "hurricane" when it arrived, her insurance company took the position that the damage was caused by rising water; not by a hurricane, and her claim was rejected. This was a very sticky issue that allowed thousands of claims to go unpaid to the dismay of those who had counted on being protected from huricanes, our most typical threat on the Gulf Coast. Am I making a mountain out of a mole-hill, or am I correct in my interpretation that replacement of a worn out drawknob could be construed as "any" change? Would like to see some other thoughts on this subject. Appreciatively, F. Richard Burt effarbee@home.com  
(back) Subject: Re: [Residence Organs] NEC Interpretation: Is re-wiringnecessary? From: "Greg Rister" <grandcornet@earthlink.net> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 09:52:30 +0800   F. Richard Burt wrote: > If a dual-magnet stop action unit fails (for instance, a drawknob), > is that "changing the organ" when it is replaced? > > I have advised a few clients/prospects that replacement of their > old Reisner drawknob action units which have disintegrated plastic > parts imposes liability on me if the organ should cause a fire. > > Would this be true if, indeed, a fire could be traced to the old > double-cotton-covered wiring in an organ where a drawknob has been > changed?   I think a plaintiff=92s attorney would probably make the argument that = this constituted a sufficient change in the instrument to require = re-wiring of some or all of the organ. Whether it actually is would be = subject to the determination of the court, based upon the facts of the = case, and its interpretation of the NEC clause invoked.   An obvious defense would be that if the pre-existing wiring was at fault = (and not the new drawknob), and the church was warned about the potential = for fire before or when the drawknob was replaced, the repair person = should be shielded from liability.   In such a case, I would say that you have at least three choices:   1) You can refuse the job (a difficult choice if you like staying in = business);   2) You can do the job but insist that the wiring be replaced (which can = potentially lose the job);   3) You can do the job - BUT - If you find a dangerous condition (of any = kind) in the organ, it is a good practice to advise your client in writing = that this situation exists, and the magnitude of its potential = consequences. It is also a good idea to suggest what corrective measures = might be taken (and give them a cost estimate). You might wish to do this = before accepting the job.   Bear in mind that the third choice may ultimately limit or shield you from = liability, but it won=92t shield you from a lawsuit. A good plaintiff=92s = attorney is going to name you and anyone else who has ever worked on the = organ as a potential defendant, to make sure he has the right =93perp=94 = somewhere in that number of people. You may ultimately be able to get out = of the litigation, but probably not without an attorney, much vexation, = and legal fees. Such is the litigation process in America (and it has = been so for more decades than I have been around).   Is the drawknob repair a "change" under the NEC? From the legal = perspective, "it depends" (cold comfort). I would be interested in = Richard's call on this. In my own opinion, since the organ was an = original installation and the wiring itself was not changed (just = touched), it wouldn't require re-wiring the console. But then, I really = might not take that job without provisos :)   Greg Rister The Pipe Organ Craftsmen Pomona, California   > DIYAPASON-L: a Discussion list for owners and builders of their own > Residence Pipe Organs. > HOMEPAGE : http://www.diyapason.pipechat.org > List: mailto:DIYAPASON-L@pipechat.org > Administration: mailto:owner-DIYAPASON@pipechat.org > >   --      
(back) Subject: NEC Interpretation: Is re-wiring always necessary? From: "The Schneider Family" <arpschneider@starband.net> Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 23:13:44 -0500   "F. Richard Burt" wrote:   (In response to my earlier comment of):   <The code specifies that if the organ is changed in any way, than it gets re-wired. Period.> > That is the way I have read the NEC, too. However, I wish to dig > just a bit deeper. > If a dual-magnet stop action unit fails (for instance, a drawknob), > is that "changing the organ" when it is replaced?   I think the important operative here is the word "CHANGED", as opposed to "REPAIRED. I think most authorities would view the replacement of disintegrated drawknob units as being a "repair job" and not a change. In the same way, I believe that Knob-and-Tube wiring could be repaired, so long as changes (that is to say: modifications) weren't being made to the system being repaired. Now, for your example, if you decide you need to replace all of the EXISTING Drawknob units because of failure, I don't see you running into problems. OTOH, if you decide that "while you're at it", you want to add 10 more Drawknobs for future ranks, then I think it's pretty clear that you've crossed that fine line from "REPAIR" to "MODIFICATION", and the necessity of replacement would come into play.   However, if you're replacing more than one or two, simple business sense would seem to dictate that doing this by means of removing the Drawknob Bolsters to the shop and thereby having the opportunity of re-wiring everything at the same time would be much more efficient and sensible approach.   > I have advised a few clients/prospects that replacement of their > old Reisner drawknob action units which have disintegrated plastic > parts imposes liability on me if the organ should cause a fire.   To cover your own butt, I would be certain that if they refuse to do anything, you get them to agree IN WRITING that you are absolved from liability; particularly if you have warned them of the impending hazard. > Would this be true if, indeed, a fire could be traced to the old > double-cotton-covered wiring in an organ where a drawknob has been > changed?   I think in an instance like that, I would "play it safe" and add fusing to the circuitry and DOCUMENT it (including PHOTOS!) so that you can prove that you tried to do what would certainly be considered a reasonable and proper means to ensure against that kind of failure.   Still, I would limit this to only a few isolated units. If the change needs to be wholesale, then it's only sensible to get them to buck-up and ante-up the cash to do the job properly in the first place. > I am familiar with insurance companies refusing to pay damage claims, <snip> > To the point, my sister's home was flooded recently in > Houston due to an unrelenting tropical storm that came ashore and > stalled right over town for several days. She had insurance against > hurricane damage, but because the storm was not classified by the > weather bureau as a "hurricane" when it arrived, her insurance > company took the position that the damage was caused by rising water; > not by a hurricane, and her claim was rejected.   Why, those dirty, dirty, dirty. . .   > This was a very sticky issue that allowed thousands of claims to go > unpaid to the dismay of those who had counted on being protected from > huricanes, our most typical threat on the Gulf Coast.   While this is certainly off the topic of the organ situation under discussion, it would seem to me that any kind of Disaster Declaration (and surly there was one!) would bring other kinds of relief into play.   I would go shopping for a new insurance company. I had to do that recently too, but for an altogether different reason! > Am I making a mountain out of a mole-hill, or am I correct in my > interpretation that replacement of a worn out drawknob could be > construed as "any" change?   Like I stated previously: if you're doing an isolated unit here and there and not making any other kinds of changes, I think you're not in violation of the INTENT of the NEC. However, if this is a case where you can see that wholesale replacement of all of the units for similar kinds of failures is imminent, then you need to simply be up-front and tell then that they're money ahead (and you're out of the woods in terms of liability) if they simply do a wholesale replacement and update.   That's how I read the matter. . .   Faithfully, Richard Schneider, PRES/CEO SCHNEIDER PIPE ORGANS, Inc. Pipe Organ Builders 41-43 Johnston St./P.O. Box 137 Kenney, IL 61749-0137 (217) 944-2454 VOX (217) 944-2