- Location
- Massachusetts
Again, that is an opinion, not a statement of fact.
Spot the violation
- Thread starter jrannis
- Start date
- Status
Again, that is an opinion, not a statement of fact.
- Location
- Massachusetts
To elaborate a bit, even UL does not say a modification voids the listing.
They say that a modification makes it imposable for them to say the unit meets the standards.
By your interpretation I could not replace a damaged cord cap with a correctly rated new one.
Some commonsense must be exercised. :smile:
They say that a modification makes it imposable for them to say the unit meets the standards.
By your interpretation I could not replace a damaged cord cap with a correctly rated new one.
Some commonsense must be exercised. :smile:
jrannis
Senior Member
- Location
- Fort Lauderdale/ Miami
Sealing lock nuts are only good for Rigid or IMC
M. D.
Senior Member
So let's see here ,.. we have 352.6 ,. which requires a listing,.. we have U.L. 651 which describes the intended use of the fittings that would be used to connect the conduit to the LB ,.. as being outside the intended uses...
We have a guy posting in this thread that claims , and I have no reason to doubt, that he works for a co. that makes this stuff ,.. and he says no way would this have been part of the listing ,...
So even if drilling the side of the L.B. was part of the listing and an intended application ,... How now do we connect the conduit to these holes ???
We have a guy posting in this thread that claims , and I have no reason to doubt, that he works for a co. that makes this stuff ,.. and he says no way would this have been part of the listing ,...
So even if drilling the side of the L.B. was part of the listing and an intended application ,... How now do we connect the conduit to these holes ???
360Youth
Senior Member
- Location
- Newport, NC
Glue? :wink:
dcspector
Senior Member
- Location
- Burke, Virginia
dcspector
Senior Member
- Location
- Burke, Virginia
Sorry MD I have the same thing here the last sentence was what I was looking at.
M. D.
Senior Member
So if you have a carton of PVC terminal adpts. it should specify that sealing locknuts can be used ,... However the terminal adpt., as shown ,. is being employed outside it's intended use.
http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/sco...p?fn=0651.html
http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/sco...p?fn=0651.html
dcspector
Senior Member
- Location
- Burke, Virginia
MD..learn me here.. So a TA installed thru the top of a box in a wet location does not require a sealing locknut or brand name (myers hub) etc...? I also look at 314.15.
Last edited:
M. D.
Senior Member
Carlon makes these ,.. which are basically an O ring
http://www.carlonsales.com/techinfo/brochures/conduit/Conduit_Bodies_Brochure.pdf
E943DW
http://www.carlonsales.com/techinfo/brochures/conduit/Conduit_Bodies_Brochure.pdf
Flat Sealing Washer
Part No. Size Std. Ctn. Qty.
Part No. Size Std. Ctn. Qty.
E943DW
1/2 125
E943EW 3/4 125
E943FW 1 100
E943GW 11/4 50
E943HW 11/2 50
E943JW 2 25
E943FW 1 100
E943GW 11/4 50
E943HW 11/2 50
E943JW 2 25
dcspector
Senior Member
- Location
- Burke, Virginia
Yes the O-ring I know about.........but cannot use a sealing lock nut/ring with a TA, huh? Interesting. I did not know that.
weressl
Esteemed Member
Really? So what does the "continued validity of the UL certification mark" means if not that at the time when the modification is done and the question is asked the answer is that the modified conduit body has NO VALID UL LISTING.
Not at all.
Indeedey....
weressl
Esteemed Member
LJSMITH1
Senior Member
- Location
- Stratford, CT
It was also proablly shipped in a box but I can remove that as well.
I have been working with UL listed boxes like this
for a long time and I have never seen any instructions that say I may add any holes to it.
According to UL 50, in which these enclosures are typically listed to:
If you don't receive any type of instruction in the box or label , then, technically, the manufacturer is violating the requirement of the UL listing.
weressl
Esteemed Member
This has been bugging me for years, and evidently bugs others as well.
The lack of instructions from the manufacturer or industry standards produces unwanted results. Large field junction boxes with many small cable entries can be filled with hubs that eventually structurally weaken the bottom that it will eventually fail. This is the case even when the minimum spacing for the hubs is maintained, eg. the locknut can be tightened. I used to work at a company that addressed this question by developing an internal standard only concerning itself with adjacent punch-out spacing. It addressed itself to the minimum spacing in both center-aligned vertical and horizontal holes with mixed diameters as well as off center hole spacing. It did NOT address the structural issues with respect to the total available space or the thickness and material of the enclosure.
There are EU practices where replaceable gland plates with either pre-marked templates or actual knockouts furnished. Some of these found their way into the US market, such as Rittal.
cycotcskir
Senior Member
The UL listings are voluntary in the fact that a product is not listed until UL tests and approves for whatever use.
If I change the product, UL will not say whether it is good or not.
The listing, by the nature of what it is (voluntary certification for specific use), rests on UL saying/certifying that it IS good.
If UL will not say that something is good because they have not tested it, then there is no listing for it's current condition.
It is the AHJ that has the responsibility for interpretation of code. I understand what Iwire keeps saying and there is plenty room for debate, but in the end, I would interpret this case in this way.
If I change the product, UL will not say whether it is good or not.
The listing, by the nature of what it is (voluntary certification for specific use), rests on UL saying/certifying that it IS good.
If UL will not say that something is good because they have not tested it, then there is no listing for it's current condition.
It is the AHJ that has the responsibility for interpretation of code. I understand what Iwire keeps saying and there is plenty room for debate, but in the end, I would interpret this case in this way.
- Location
- Wisconsin
- Occupation
- PE (Retired) - Power Systems
Actually once something has been installed UL must take a "hands-off" approach as they have not tested the exact actual installation/condition.
As UL states - their mark indicates the product/device was manufactured correctly, and it met the applicable standards when it left the factory. After that point it is up to the AHJ to make sure are acceptable.
cycotcskir
Senior Member
That is basically what I was attempting to say, maybe it wasn't worded well. (I plead your sig.)
When it left the factory, the condition was "listed", when the EC get's it... it is "listed" (assuming no damage), when EC modifies it, it is no longer "listed".
Of course, this is how I would interpret this issue, others will say different. I think an issue like this should remain up for interpretation. If an issue like this was very specific it could prevent any modification whatsoever. IMO, not all Mods are bad.
- Status