Search:

Type: Posts; User: rbalex

Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 4

Search: Search took 2.45 seconds.

  1. Replies
    3$$
    Views
    118

    If you aren't already, you should become familiar...

    If you aren't already, you should become familiar with NFPA 497 as well as NFPA 30.

    In absence of a high ambient temperature, I wouldn't be too concerned with NMP. Class IIIB materials can burn...
  2. That's correct. It's usually overlooked though...

    That's correct. It's usually overlooked though when someone generally unfamiliar with Hazardous Location installations simply assumes that since Section 501.10(B) and other Sections permit many...
  3. How would you bond a sheet metal box with either...

    How would you bond a sheet metal box with either a conduit or MC installation? It can certainly be done compliantly for either wiring method but most would use a double-locknut or a locknut bushing...
  4. Replies
    3$$
    Views
    118

    I apologize for the late response. Both my wife...

    I apologize for the late response. Both my wife and I have been under the weather.

    I appreciate that you tried to be as descriptive as possible, but there are still a few open items such as...
  5. I missed this one since it wasn't posted in the...

    I missed this one since it wasn't posted in the HAZLOC forum.

    While the previous posts are both correct and relevant, what is more significant (and often overlooked) where sheet-metal boxes are...
  6. Replies
    45$$
    Views
    1,166

    It was the manufacturers that made both the were...

    It was the manufacturers that made both the were the major opponents - back in the day. They didn't want TC-ER cutting into their MC business. It's one of the reasons for making some of the more...
  7. Replies
    45$$
    Views
    1,166

    Just curious; is there actually a market for...

    Just curious; is there actually a market for TC-ER for 500 kcmil and larger. Personally, I would never design for a multiconductor cable construction for tray installation in those sizes. In fact, I...
  8. Excellent question. You're the AHJ...

    Excellent question. You're the AHJ representative. How would you interpret Section 511.7(A)(1) most consistently? Personally, wiring above the canopy, probably should be exempt. Then again, it...
  9. Section 514.7 cross references Section 511.7 for...

    Section 514.7 cross references Section 511.7 for suitable wiring methods above classified locations for dispensing facilities. The wiring methods you listed are all acceptable assuming they are LFMC,...
  10. Replies
    6$$
    Views
    440

    I happen to agree with Rob especially since the...

    I happen to agree with Rob especially since the "power" conductors are enclosed in EMT.

    I can't answer what is too close, but Section 725.136(I) suggests what is far enough apart. Also, especially...
  11. Thread: IS Valve Wiring

    by rbalex
    Replies
    3$$
    Views
    238

    With a few caveats, the basic purpose of...

    With a few caveats, the basic purpose of intrinsically safe wiring it to permit any wiring method that is acceptable for unclassified locations. See Section 504.20. The major items of concern beyond...
  12. Replies
    2$$
    Views
    138

    Section 310.10(H)(5). The reference is to...

    Section 310.10(H)(5). The reference is to "sectioned" conductors.
  13. Replies
    3$$
    Views
    239

    Yes. Only locations classified because of the...

    Yes. Only locations classified because of the dispensing system is under consideration in Section 514.8.

    Actually, Section 501.10(A)(1) Exception was originally developed for Sections 514.8...
  14. Replies
    3$$
    Views
    239

    No. Article 514 only applies to classifications...

    No. Article 514 only applies to classifications created by dispensing sources. Other sources and their impact on wiring methods are not considered.

    If you have it available, compare 2002 NEC...
  15. Thread: NFPA 30

    by rbalex
    Replies
    2$$
    Views
    125

    Good guess. [Section 500.4 (B) IN No.2] However,...

    Good guess. [Section 500.4 (B) IN No.2] However, since it is in an Informational Note (IN), it is technically nonmandatory. But you would be hard put to ignore it without a very strong argument for a...
  16. Replies
    4$$
    Views
    358

    I apologize for the delayed response. I had to do...

    I apologize for the delayed response. I had to do a bit of research. I failed to consider revisions (and their unintended consequences) in the 2014 NEC.

    From the 2011 NEC:


    From the 2014...
  17. Replies
    4$$
    Views
    246

    Basically, since the NEC is based on visual field...

    Basically, since the NEC is based on visual field inspection and cables are marked as ITC, PLTC or TC it identifies which Subsection of 502.10(B) (4),(5) or (6) applies. However, to answer the...
  18. Replies
    4$$
    Views
    246

    In Class II, the primary concern is surface heat,...

    In Class II, the primary concern is surface heat, especially where dust accumulation is possible. Good "housekeeping" will usually eliminate concerns in Division 2 for most installations but that can...
  19. Replies
    4$$
    Views
    358

    Most of the major hazardous location manufactures...

    Most of the major hazardous location manufactures make Class II, Div 2 Receptacles . (NOTE: "Class 2" usually refers to an Article 725 application)

    While explosionproof isn't necessary, it isn't...
  20. As I mentioned, it depends on the processes...

    As I mentioned, it depends on the processes involved. A cooling tower serving shell and tube heat exchangers often receive flammable products that have leaked from the process tubes. See API RP500...
  21. Please review your reference; I have no idea what...

    Please review your reference; I have no idea what "NEC section B.1.2" is.

    That said, depending on the processes involved, cooling towers themselves are often considered sources.
  22. Replies
    3$$
    Views
    222

    I would generally analyze it that way as well....

    I would generally analyze it that way as well. However, it is conceivable that Division 2 only extends 18" beyond the wall, if the wall is at least 18 high. It would simply be the "run off" of the...
  23. Replies
    3$$
    Views
    222

    First - why didn't you post this in the Hazardous...

    First - why didn't you post this in the Hazardous (Classified) Locations forum? AND why didn't you ask this BEFORE Public Input for the 2017 NEC? :D

    My opinion is Figure 514.3(B) is incomplete.
    ...
  24. Good question and CMP 14 hasn't seen fit to...

    Good question and CMP 14 hasn't seen fit to answer that directly. Many have considered "duct seal" in a common (non-explosionproof) conduit body as suitable. See Section 500.8(A)(3).

    Note: If you...
  25. Tom (ptonsparky) asked the right question....

    Tom (ptonsparky) asked the right question. However you will need a bit of history to understand my answer. Before the 2005 the NEC indeed "classifies any raceway passing under a Class I Div. 2 area...
Results 1 to 25 of 200
Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 4