Search:

Type: Posts; User: rbalex

Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 4

Search: Search took 0.07 seconds.

  1. You need to combine two NEC Article 344 Sections:...

    You need to combine two NEC Article 344 Sections:


    With respect to Section 344.10(A)(1), Galvanized Steel and Stainless Steel are both "steel RMC".
    Section 344.14 permits aluminum fittings to...
  2. Replies
    1$$
    Views
    253

    What a great question! Assuming you are using...

    What a great question!

    Assuming you are using a "standard" sealing fitting, for exposionproof purposes or not, it is limited to the 25% fill of the raceway it is nominally designed for....
  3. Replies
    1$$
    Views
    299

    I don't even know where to start. 1.) The...

    I don't even know where to start.

    1.) The electrical area classifications are questionable. What standard was used?

    It is difficult to justify the enclosure's internal classification as...
  4. Thread: LFMC

    by rbalex
    Replies
    14$$
    Views
    756

    As I said in the other thread...

    As I said in the other thread, I don't know the qualifications of the contactor, engineer or AHJ (inspector); I know mine (and they're pretty good). If not corrected now, "AHJ approval" won't...
  5. Thread: LFMC

    by rbalex
    Replies
    14$$
    Views
    756

    I might add though, show me the statute that...

    I might add though, show me the statute that gives an AHJ their "A" and I'll show you in the same statute, or a superior one, where they bear NO responsibility for poor judgement or erroneous...
  6. Thread: LFMC

    by rbalex
    Replies
    14$$
    Views
    756

    Thanks for calling me on this...

    Thanks for calling me on this :ashamed1:(me):thumbsup:(you) I meant 110.3(B) rather than 90.3(B). I've been loosing too much sleep recently. AHJs can approve anything they want.
  7. Thread: LFMC

    by rbalex
    Replies
    14$$
    Views
    756

    I would draw attention to the UL White Book which...

    I would draw attention to the UL White Book which is enforceable through Section 90.3(B):

    This is often a critical issue in hazardous location installations.
  8. [QUOTE=don_resqcapt19;1704275]Listed LFMC has...

    Listed LFMC has been around even before 1996. Since 1973, FedOSHA has required anything that can be listed must be listed. See 29 CFR 399 definitions of approved, acceptable and accepted.
  9. I would consider referencing this thread to the...

    I would consider referencing this thread to the engineer and the inspector. Most inspectors only represent the AHJ and are not actually the AHJ themselves. HOWEVER, if the "real" AHJ has approved the...
  10. I don't know their qualifications. I do know...

    I don't know their qualifications. I do know mine. If you drop the issue, you may need to consider if your State or Federal OSHA will be concerned. (They will be if you ever have an accident and you...
  11. Actually, Type EF isn't suitable for any NEC...

    Actually, Type EF isn't suitable for any NEC recognized installation. Just because a manufacturer makes it, and suppliers sell it, don't make it legal. The only prohibition is installing it.
  12. The NEC doesn't require everything to be cross...

    The NEC doesn't require everything to be cross referenced or all the design considerations located in one place. Otherwise the Code would be 2-3 times larger. Section 501.10 only needs to identify...
  13. Why is that a concern? RMC/IMC isn't insulated at...

    Why is that a concern? RMC/IMC isn't insulated at all. Most raceways aren't insulated. FWIW, LFMC isn't insulated either; it's jacketed.
  14. Appreciate the support :thumbsup: In addition,...

    Appreciate the support :thumbsup:

    In addition, CMP14 is concerned about "objectionable (circulating) currents". [Section 250.6] Systems, driven from nonlinear sources, are particularly suspect....
  15. That's interesting. I'd like to know the...

    That's interesting. I'd like to know the engineering standards that were applied. To me, it appears it's a "seat of the pants" WAG.
  16. Bob, the essential concern is grounding/bonding...

    Bob, the essential concern is grounding/bonding and the raceway construction is critical as I mentioned above.

    Odds are the "several paygrades up" will be pressing the OP for his views.
  17. That's a legitimate design consideration;...

    That's a legitimate design consideration; however, if you have enough "Ethel alcohol, Acelbutate, and Acetone" in the atmosphere to actually be a concern you might want to reconsider the Division 2...
  18. Actually, it doesn't even need to be LFMC in...

    Actually, it doesn't even need to be LFMC in Division 2. Plain FMC is suitable. See Section 501.10(B)(2)(2). The essential feature is the armor's interlocking method.
  19. Not so - no matter what the manufacturer's...

    Not so - no matter what the manufacturer's literature, sales or engineering staff says. If it isn't listed, it isn't LFMC. It's black and white in Section 350.6.
  20. It doesn't bother me personally; in fact, I made...

    It doesn't bother me personally; in fact, I made a proposal (rejected) to specifically make it acceptable; but spiraling the bonding conductor around the flex gives several CMP14 members the shakes....
  21. Just curious, what standard was used to classify...

    Just curious, what standard was used to classify the project?
  22. Quite simply, if it isn't listed, it isn't LFMC....

    Quite simply, if it isn't listed, it isn't LFMC. See Section 350.6.
  23. Replies
    1$$
    Views
    420

    Not usually. Only where the enclosure is...

    Not usually.



    Only where the enclosure is required to be explosionproof.[See Section 501.15(B)(1)]
    See Section 501.10(B)(4) for when an enclosure is required to be explosionproof.
  24. Thread: Boundary Seal

    by rbalex
    Replies
    2$$
    Views
    255

    Assuming the underground is unclassified as is...

    Assuming the underground is unclassified as is the most common convention, there is no "boundary" to seal in the unclassified location.
  25. Many general purpose components are...

    Many general purpose components are suitable/acceptable in Class II, Division 2. See NEC Section 500.8.
Results 1 to 25 of 200
Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 4