- Location
- Massachusetts
Maybe it would be, it is conduit but that is not the question is it?
The OP asked if EMT is conduit and it is not.
If the plans / specs where clear was not the question and not something we can tell with the info provided.
Is EMT a conduit?
- Thread starter WirenutNH
- Start date
- Status
Maybe it would be, it is conduit but that is not the question is it?
The OP asked if EMT is conduit and it is not.
If the plans / specs where clear was not the question and not something we can tell with the info provided.
mivey
Senior Member
No it wasn't. But using my creative reading license, I delve into the deep recesses of the OP's mind and read the question as: "does the term conduit mean IMC?"
- Location
- Massachusetts
- Location
- Massachusetts
mivey
Senior Member
Having reached a deeper state of meditation, I am able to see the question more clearly now: "Except in locations specifically maked as RMC, does the term conduit mean IMC only?"
mivey
Senior Member
I knew you were going to say that.Sorry I am not a member of the ESP forum.
- Location
- Massachusetts
Rick Christopherson
Senior Member
As at least one previous poster has stated, the NEC does not define what is or is not classified as a conduit. It uses terms RMC, IMC, etc., but does not use the word "conduit" outside of these names (unless implied by the superior heading of a section). Therefore, you cannot utilize the NEC to support the assertion that EMT is not a form of conduit. EMT is a name. "Conduit" is a classification that spans many types of materials.
There is no single parameter that is exclusive to all of the named forms of conduit in the NEC. (i.e. you can't say that conduit is distinguishable because it is a threaded body, because PVC is not threaded.) Therefore, there is no distinguishing aspect that eliminates one form of circular body as being in the class of conduit or not.
Many of you get too hung up on the importance of the NEC and forget that it is nothing more than a private document created by a private company. It has no merit until the local government (legal system) adopts it. In a court of law, it has no greater importance than Merriam Webster's Dictionary.
The predicament that the engineer from the OP's posting has placed himself into is that in one area he specifically required RMC, but where not specifically required, he specified "conduit". It is this latter usage that places the term "conduit" into its generic usage. And with that, the Merriam Webster definition takes precedence, because the NEC is silent on the generic definition of what "conduit" means, or more importantly, what "conduit" excludes.
Food for thought: Is a metallic junction box an insulator simply because the NEC does not call it a conductor?
There is no single parameter that is exclusive to all of the named forms of conduit in the NEC. (i.e. you can't say that conduit is distinguishable because it is a threaded body, because PVC is not threaded.) Therefore, there is no distinguishing aspect that eliminates one form of circular body as being in the class of conduit or not.
Many of you get too hung up on the importance of the NEC and forget that it is nothing more than a private document created by a private company. It has no merit until the local government (legal system) adopts it. In a court of law, it has no greater importance than Merriam Webster's Dictionary.
The predicament that the engineer from the OP's posting has placed himself into is that in one area he specifically required RMC, but where not specifically required, he specified "conduit". It is this latter usage that places the term "conduit" into its generic usage. And with that, the Merriam Webster definition takes precedence, because the NEC is silent on the generic definition of what "conduit" means, or more importantly, what "conduit" excludes.
Food for thought: Is a metallic junction box an insulator simply because the NEC does not call it a conductor?
After a few recent posts I am no longer concerned with the topic of this discussion, I am now awestruck with what appears to possibly be an allegiance of Mivey and Rick in the makings. :blink:
The end may be near.
What's even more scary is this thread may be headed in to thousands of replies.
Roger
The end may be near.
What's even more scary is this thread may be headed in to thousands of replies.
Roger
Last edited:
Rick Christopherson
Senior Member
You owe me a new keyboard, Roger! :lol:
- Location
- Massachusetts
Yeah we tend to do that when the vast majority of jobs electricians do are in fact based on the NEC and almost every specification requires we adhere to the NEC.
So yes we do get hung up on it.
I don't think many forget that, I know I do not and I am sure Roger does not forget that. But the fact is in most areas of the US the NEC has in fact been adopted.
True, except that the NEC is likely specifically referenced in the jobs specifications and I doubt Merriam Webster's Dictionary is referenced by the specs or adopted by a jurisdiction so I would be surprised if the NEC did not carry more weight if this particular case was to go to court.
But by all means lets all play lawyer and speculate the what ifs of it all.
kwired
Electron manager
- Location
- NE Nebraska
After a few recent posts I am no longer concerned with the topic of this discussion, I am now awestruck with what appears to possibly be an allegiance of Mivey and Rick in the makings. :blink:
The end may be near.
What's even more scary is this thread may be headed in to thousands of replies.
Roger
I am amused by the fact that Rick wrote that much information and I totally agree with all of it, and it really was not all too technical in nature. He usually picks apart information I put here this time he actually reinforced it. The end has to be near
Rick Christopherson
Senior Member
But isn't that what you just did when you speculated that the NEC defines what is or is not conduit, when it does not?
You can't define something by omission. That's what I meant by the question regarding junction boxes. Because the NEC fails to define a metallic junction box as a conductor does not make it an insulator. That would be definition by omission.
The NEC fails to define the term conduit, so to apply a definition to it is also definition by omission. Your answer was that the NEC defined it by not defining it. That's definition by omission.
As for standing up in court, or the NEC failing to stand up in this instance--you bet it would! Courts don't like definition by omission, and in the absence of a definition within the NEC, the court would find another source to fill the vacuum....Merriam Webster will do nicely.
- Location
- Massachusetts
Can you point to the post where I said the NEC provides a definition of conduit? I don't recall saying such a thing, I do recalling saying that to the NEC and UL, EMT is tubing.
No argument from me.
Please quote me, I don't recall saying that.
We will remain in disagreement here.
Rick Christopherson
Senior Member
Well that wasn't very difficult to find. You first said so in your first posting in this thread, and continued to further narrow it with several subsequent postings.
So that being said, the question is posed to you: Where in the NEC does it state that EMT is not conduit?
- Location
- Massachusetts
It does not.
The NEC does not state it is conduit unlike say RMC, although it does state it's tubing.
Roger
- Status