Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 71

Thread: Meter has rigid conduit to disconnect

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    boston
    Posts
    1

    Meter has rigid conduit to disconnect

    Hey Mike or forum, can you answer a quick question please? Theres Rigid pipe from meter to a disconnect. Rigid pipe can not be changed at this time. I know pvc is preferred method because of parallel paths. Would threading a PVC male end to Rigid pipe entering Disconnect be an acceptable solution?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,737
    Quote Originally Posted by cduke103 View Post
    Hey Mike or forum, can you answer a quick question please? Theres Rigid pipe from meter to a disconnect. Rigid pipe can not be changed at this time. I know pvc is preferred method because of parallel paths. Would threading a PVC male end to Rigid pipe entering Disconnect be an acceptable solution?
    PVC is not necessarily a preferred method.
    In my area PVC is not usually used in this instance.

    must be a local not a NEC thing.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    15,973
    Here PVC is the "preferred" method if there are no hubs involved as metallic conduit would require a bonding bushing.
    The Code pretty much ignores the "parallel path" created by the metal nipple in this situation.
    At my age, I'm accustomed to restaurants asking me to pay in advance, but now my bank has started sending me their calendar one month at a time.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Cherry Valley NY, Seattle, WA
    Posts
    4,625
    To be precise, IIRC, in this instance the nec doesn't use the term "parallel path" it uses the term "objectionable current". Basically no one worries about this.
    Ethan Brush - East West Electric. NY, WA. MA

    "You can't generalize"

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    25,802
    As the others have stated this is not an issue and is an example of when objectionable current on the raceway is permitted by the NEC.
    Rob

    Moderator

    All responses based on the 2014 NEC unless otherwise noted

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Placerville, CA, USA
    Posts
    19,513
    Quote Originally Posted by infinity View Post
    As the others have stated this is not an issue and is an example of when objectionable current on the raceway is permitted by the NEC.
    I would say instead that since the NEC does not object to it, the current is per se not objectionable.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    25,802
    Quote Originally Posted by GoldDigger View Post
    I would say instead that since the NEC does not object to it, the current is per se not objectionable.
    LOL.
    Rob

    Moderator

    All responses based on the 2014 NEC unless otherwise noted

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Durango, CO, 10 h 20 min without traffic from winged horses.
    Posts
    9,706
    I call it the unavoidable objectionable.
    If you go and decide to dance with a gorilla the dance ain't over till the gorilla decides it's over.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NE Nebraska
    Posts
    37,882
    Since everything (conductive) on supply side of service disconnect is required to be bonded to the grounded conductor - there isn't much avoiding parallel grounded conductor current on those items if there is conductive materials between them. NEC must not think this is objectionable or they would have different requirements. They are a little more strict on bonding of service raceways then non service raceways though, which is a good thing I think if you are going to have some parallel current in the raceway.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    25,802
    Quote Originally Posted by kwired View Post
    Since everything (conductive) on supply side of service disconnect is required to be bonded to the grounded conductor - there isn't much avoiding parallel grounded conductor current on those items if there is conductive materials between them. NEC must not think this is objectionable or they would have different requirements. They are a little more strict on bonding of service raceways then non service raceways though, which is a good thing I think if you are going to have some parallel current in the raceway.
    There are many parallel paths in the line side of the service disconnect. In a building with multiple services there are parallel paths on the GEC's, metal raceways, etc.
    Rob

    Moderator

    All responses based on the 2014 NEC unless otherwise noted

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •