iwire said:IMO there is no NEC need for that 'Kenny Clamp'.
Here are some different opinions:
Factory KO Question
Notched hole for GEC
GEC entering panel
iwire said:IMO there is no NEC need for that 'Kenny Clamp'.
iwire said:IMO there is no NEC need for that 'Kenny Clamp'.
Run the EGC through a hole and bond it to the enclosure by other means. (As in the neutral bar)
Reference?tom baker said:The manufacturer is 100% correct in saying that a romex clamp or hole in a service can violates the NEC.
tom baker said:The manufacturer is 100% correct in saying that a romex clamp or hole in a service can violates the NEC.
312.5 Cabinets, Cutout Boxes, and Meter Socket Enclosures.
Conductors entering enclosures within the scope of this article shall be protected from abrasion and shall comply with 312.5(A) through (C).
(A) Openings to Be Closed. Openings through which conductors enter shall be adequately closed.
What does adequately closed mean???? A #6 wire through a 1/4" hole is pretty well closed. What's left is a lot less than a weep hole that is in a meter base.ryan_618 said:I think it could be argued that 312.5(A) requires the connector. What do you guys think?
Saying that use of a device complies with code is a far cry from saying that not using the device is non-compliant.tom baker said:Here is the mfgs statement on code sections:
"Complies with 110.3(B) and 250.8 NEC, using a listed grounding or bonding connector for the proper application.
Complies with 250.64 (E) NEC when entering and exiting metallic raceways and enclosures."
LarryFine said:Saying that use of a device complies with code is a far cry from saying that not using the device is non-compliant.
georgestolz said:I haven't seen services that have been subjected to abuse that would prove the need for this clamp. I can imagine that the flashover from the GEC to the can as it passes through a small hole could cause some damage.
John Arendt said:Roger:
Round & round I go. The link page has a pic of Mike (& Steve) and the next link takes you back to the main forum page.
PS, it's quitting time at office....1-1/2 hr ride home, be back later.
John
One cool thing about this site is, since it is a national forum, we get exposed to different 'standards' of installation quite a bit. For example, a typical North-East-Coast service would never pass in my area of CO, simply because it looks so different than what we're used to seeing.John Arendt said:Personally, I have not seen ANY EGC's thru the '1/4-5/16" hole in panels.
I would tend to disagree with that. A #6 bare fills a 1/4" hole in the bottom of the disconnect quite completely, IMO. I would venture to guess that the amount of daylight visible through the hole would be less than you'd see through a two-screw NM connector in a 1/2" hole.John Arendt said:The 'hole' argument goes back to 312.5 (A)...iwire said:What section would that be?tom baker said:The manufacturer is 100% correct in saying that a romex clamp or hole in a service can violates the NEC.
I think this gets down to where the rubber meets the road on this issue: Where is it required that any single conductor be secured to the box? I don't see a requirement for single conductors, or more specifically, for a GEC to be secured to the box.John Arendt said:)...and lack of any connector securing said conductor to the enclosure.
Agreed. 110.3(B) could be cited for misusing the connector, IMO.As the NMC connector is intended for a 'cable'; technically, it should not be used to secure 'cord' or 'conductors', or anything other than 'cable', and NMC specifically.
I don't consider this a stupid subject at all, and I hope nobody takes my responses to be negative either.John Arendt said:Please don't take this reply as a flame attempt, or some smart aXX attempting to fan flames, or drag on what some may consider a stupid subject.
Scott, I agree that an NM connector should be allowed for this.electricmanscott said:$3.50 For a connector in this application is outrageous. A standard romex connector is more than enough for this application. While not "technically" correct installation it certainly should be.
Thanks for the explanation, Tom!tom baker said:But both he and Mike saw the correctness of the product, which is why you see it in all Mikes graphics.
Would you favor proposing the Kenny Clamp for the application, or just clamping the GEC to the box (leaving the door open for a product like a two-screw connector)?mike@mikeholt.com said:My office will be making a proposal for the 2011 NEC to clarify this issue.