Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sleeves

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Coppersmith
    replied
    Originally posted by growler View Post
    [COLOR=#ff0000]I can hardly wait for robot electricians to take over. I can see it all now.

    Danger Will Robinson, BS overload, this does not compute.[/COLOR]
    How about robot inspectors? Built-in NEC. Extreme consistency. All interpretations recorded and used as precedent for future rulings.

    Leave a comment:


  • Coppersmith
    replied
    Rereading 334.15(B) I just noticed "Cable shall be protected from physical damage [COLOR=#ff0000]where necessary[/COLOR]"

    "Where necessary" is not defined i.e. open to interpretation. I do remember recently having a chief inspector tell me that vertical exposed runs would be fine uncovered, but horizontal exposed portions i.e. "tool hangers" would need protection. He made me cover those with 1x4's.

    Leave a comment:


  • growler
    replied
    [COLOR=#ff0000]I can hardly wait for robot electricians to take over. I can see it all now.

    Danger Will Robinson, BS overload, this does not compute.[/COLOR]

    Leave a comment:


  • sameguy
    replied
    Originally posted by Coppersmith View Post
    In a complete raceway system, yes. As a sleeve, depends if the thing it's sleeving is properly terminated independent of the sleeve.
    My inspector oked the rx, but did say my short strapped greenfield with conn. and rx stapled looked better but not to code, as greenfield had to terminate in a box. Was in 1982 so code could be different now.

    Leave a comment:


  • Coppersmith
    replied
    Originally posted by sameguy View Post
    Is the smurf supposed to terminate in a box?
    In a complete raceway system, yes. As a sleeve, depends if the thing it's sleeving is properly terminated independent of the sleeve.

    Leave a comment:


  • sameguy
    replied
    Is the smurf supposed to terminate in a box? On the other end not shown. I was dinged, used greenfield (sleeve) to a water heater once in a basement; so pulled it out just left rx from floor joist to rx conn. on heater.

    Leave a comment:


  • Coppersmith
    replied
    Type MC can be installed exposed. It would be a better choice for garages with exposed wiring. It's interesting to note that it's much more flimsy than the schedule 80 or rigid required to protect NM.

    ETA: 330.12 says not allowed where subject to physical damage so I think I'm wrong about MC being allowed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Coppersmith
    replied
    Originally posted by LarryFine View Post
    Kinda like having contact with the police. Every time it happens, it costs me time, freedom, money, or various combinations.
    Larry, I didn't take you for a frequent contact with police kinda guy. Are you revealing something?

    Leave a comment:


  • growler
    replied
    Originally posted by Coppersmith View Post
    I agree it doesn't make it worse. But does it make it better? As mentioned, [COLOR=#000000]334.15(B) doesn't specifically say smurf is an approved means of protection. It's open to interpretation. I hate when things are open to interpretation. Interpretation costs me money.

    ETA: Smurf is much more flimsy than schedule 40 and schedule 40 is apparently not an allowed method since schedule 80 was called out.

    [/COLOR]
    I to hate things that are open to interpretation.

    If unfinished garages or unfinished basements require physical protection for wiring they could just come right out a say so. They could also state what level of protection.

    Leave a comment:


  • LarryFine
    replied
    Originally posted by Coppersmith View Post
    [COLOR=#000000]Interpretation costs me money.[/COLOR]
    Kinda like having contact with the police. Every time it happens, it costs me time, freedom, money, or various combinations.
    [COLOR=#000000]
    [/COLOR]
    [COLOR=#000000]ETA: Smurf is much more flimsy than schedule 40 and schedule 40 is apparently not an allowed method since schedule 80 was called out.[/COLOR]
    Apparently sched 40 is looked at as being no tougher than NM, MC, or even EMT.

    Leave a comment:


  • Coppersmith
    replied
    Originally posted by LarryFine View Post
    I believe the crux of the question is whether the tube is not acceptable whereas the exposed NM would be. Does the use of the tube create a violation? I'd say no, it doesn't worsen the installation.
    I agree it doesn't make it worse. But does it make it better? As mentioned, [COLOR=#000000]334.15(B) doesn't specifically say smurf is an approved means of protection. It's open to interpretation. I hate when things are open to interpretation. Interpretation costs me money.

    ETA: Smurf is much more flimsy than schedule 40 and schedule 40 is apparently not an allowed method since schedule 80 was called out.

    [/COLOR]

    Leave a comment:


  • LarryFine
    replied
    I believe the crux of the question is whether the tube is not acceptable whereas the exposed NM would be. Does the use of the tube create a violation? I'd say no, it doesn't worsen the installation.

    Leave a comment:


  • growler
    replied
    Originally posted by romex jockey View Post
    It's a resi garage Growler, so rakes, shovels, etc ....i wuz thinkin' physical protection.....~RJ~

    Code wise requiring physical protection is about as ambiguous as it can get.

    There are inspectors that will turn this install down and others that would let it pass.

    Leave a comment:


  • LarryFine
    replied
    Originally posted by infinity View Post
    Smurf would need to fall under "other approved means" to meet the NEC.
    Well, I approve. Does that count?

    Leave a comment:


  • Coppersmith
    replied
    The title of that section is "exposed work". If you cover the cells involved with drywall or paneling or plywood, that would also be considered sufficient protection and may be less expensive to implement when the cables are already installed should the inspector reject the smurf solution.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X