I have been doing transitions from one type of raceway or cable to another for the last 20 years. Where in the NEC can I go to to prove to an inspector that I am allowed to transition from MC to Liquidtight using the appropriate fittings to maintain continuity. He is insisting that I terminate the MC in a box first and then change over to liquidtight. The only code article that I can find on the subject is 300.12, but that doesn't help me unless I could use "continuos between fittings".
MC to Liquidtight transition
- Thread starter mr.power
- Start date
- Status
mcclary's electrical
Senior Member
- Location
- VA
How are you making the transition? pipe coupling? Welcome to the forum
Last edited:
Jim W in Tampa
Senior Member
- Location
- Tampa Florida
He technically has you but many do it. A coupling is not listed for the use. He is making a big deal out of nothing
Jim W in Tampa
Senior Member
- Location
- Tampa Florida
All i can tell you then is to give him the stupid box he wants. Makes an easy job harder and solves nothing but that coupling was not lister for the use you have in mind.
Volta
Senior Member
- Location
- Columbus, Ohio
I would hope so. That would have the tapered threads that a coupling doesn't.
I've not seen any thread type stipulation anywhere. Taking tapered vs. straight threads out of the picture, how would a 'C' fitting be any different than a threaded coupling regarding the connectors. These connectors are technically box connectors for terminating to a box or enclosure via a knockout hole.
Volta
Senior Member
- Location
- Columbus, Ohio
Well, I guess in actual text, I agree, but 344.42(B) prohibits couplings being used with running threads on conduit. This connector is not conduit, granted, but the intent may remain.
Otherwise, 300.15 could work for a picky person, but I'm trying to be less picky, personally
. "Fittings and connectors shall only be used with the specific wiring methods for which they are designed and listed". Just a rewording of 110.3(B).Also, if the wires from the MC are not labeled per 310.11, they cannot be used in a method other than MC.
Jim W in Tampa
Senior Member
- Location
- Tampa Florida
You might come out cheaper using using a pulling L . If you cut the wire then your forced to replace it as can't use unmarked wire of mc. And if you use a steel box you must ground it if you cut the wire. Your dealing with a by the book inspector and while many here disagree with him you simply can't win this one.
Jim W in Tampa
Senior Member
- Location
- Tampa Florida
No smaller than the throat of the connectors
I wasn't thinking along the lines of the thread style but that he may classify the "C" fitiing as a box,but I suppose that is splitting hairs too.
Thinking about thread style,is a plain vanilla MC connector straight or running thread vs tapered,if so it would not legally tighten to a tapered thread but would need to be used with a double locknut as would be the case in a box and straight thread,,,,,,,,,just talking here, whatcha think.
I also think the tapered thead make up taper to taper allows the necessary 5 thread make up required for snuffing and cooling of an internal explosion so that an ignition source is not leaked into the atmosphere,just talking here as well.
dick
Thinking about thread style,is a plain vanilla MC connector straight or running thread vs tapered,if so it would not legally tighten to a tapered thread but would need to be used with a double locknut as would be the case in a box and straight thread,,,,,,,,,just talking here, whatcha think.
I also think the tapered thead make up taper to taper allows the necessary 5 thread make up required for snuffing and cooling of an internal explosion so that an ignition source is not leaked into the atmosphere,just talking here as well.
dick
I don't think I understand.
I was thinking you would splice the conductors, and the volume required for each conductor would probably be too large for a C or something like that... I guess you are figuring on not splicing them.
- Status