Spot the violation

Status
Not open for further replies.

jrannis

Senior Member
For your viewing pleasure I present the LB of the year 2008. Observed outside of a guard house on beautiful Key Biscayne, Florida
attachment.php
 

dcspector

Senior Member
Location
Burke, Virginia
He doesn't have to. You have to prove it isn't an acceptable method if you believe the additional entries are a violation.

My post simply stated......"I think" as in ones opinion. let's all contact Carlon, etc. and see what they say....dunno...I did not cite this I would simply put the ball in the EC's court. Also, what was the tree falling thing post all about?
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
For what it is worth, the NEC allows making splices in conduit bodies. Why would the NEC prohibit adding a conduit entrance?
 

480sparky

Senior Member
Location
Iowegia
My post simply stated......"I think" as in ones opinion. let's all contact Carlon, etc. and see what they say....dunno...I did not cite this I would simply put the ball in the EC's court.

All I'm saying that if an inspector feels there's a violation, it's up to that inspector to show why it's a violation. A Code reference, something from the UL White book, whatever. Without some sort of written basis, you can't say it's a violation.

Also, what was the tree falling thing post all about?

Beats me. Maybe the picture is of an LB on a board that's nailed to a tree and we just can't see the tree.
PENA.gif
 

dcspector

Senior Member
Location
Burke, Virginia
For what it is worth, the NEC allows making splices in conduit bodies. Why would the NEC prohibit adding a conduit entrance?

I understand that per section 314.16(C) What I am trying to convey is altering the conduit body itself as a manufactured piece of equipment. Is it acceptable per the manufacturer????
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top