100 Fitting.

[fmtjfw]

I bet you're a hit at parties.

Don't know, never go to them.

I actually was invited to a retirement party at the school board. I went and told them that when I retired I expected that they would have a party, I just didn't expect to be invited to it.

I was awarded the Buckeye Award at the Ohio IAEI's 3 -day seminar in 2012. I was the first West Virginian so honored. It is awarded to the most obnoxious attendee.:lol:

 

[cadpoint]

Section/Paragraph: 100 Fitting.

Added Text

Fitting. An accessory such as a locknut, bushing, or other part of a wiring system that is intended primarily to perform a mechanical rather than an electrical function.

Informational Note: A fitting that has a dual role such as a grounding locknut or bushing is still considered a fitting.

Substantiation:

Reduce possible confusion.

In a box fill calculation a lock nut is not counted, nor is a multiplier used againest the count of lock washers to it's size.

Now if you want to say, a set screw grounding bushing needs to be counted, I'm in...

 

[fmtjfw]

The problem is in James' informational note resulting in a raceway used as a sleeve being also called a fitting.

I'm confused, my addition to "Fitting" is to say that a fitting (mostly used for mechanical purposes in the original text) is still a fitting if it is also used for electrical purposes e.g.: as part of an EGC.

 

[al hildenbrand]

I'm confused, my addition to "Fitting" is to say that a fitting (mostly used for mechanical purposes in the original text) is still a fitting if it is also used for electrical purposes e.g.: as part of an EGC.

I understand what you mean. And, the common sense part of me has no trouble with the notion.

When a packet of language becomes legally enforceable statute or ordinance, though, my common sense, however, looses standing. So when a Fitting is defined as "other part" . . . not even "other similar part" but a very broad and sweeping "other part" . . . "that is intended primarily to perform a mechanical rather than an electrical function" I can't find, in that language, a way to exclude a raceway that is used only for mechanical protection of a surface mounted cable.

To me, "other part" and "primarily" are what makes the definition of "fitting" so nebulous.

 

[al hildenbrand]

To me, "other part" and "primarily" are what makes the definition of "fitting" so nebulous.

So, I applaud the attempt to do something positive with this definition. I just wish I had some positive ideas.

Rather, I have ideas like: 90.5(C) tells us that "Explanatory Material" (including informational notes) is "not enforceable as requirements of this Code." So, even though the proposed informational note change tries to help with the term "fitting", it isn't enforceable.

In my opinion, the clarification of the definition resulting in easier understanding that something like a grounding bushing, with its electrical and mechanical uses, is a fitting, needs to happen with enforceable language, therefore, the change in text needs to be actually in the words of the definition itself.

The complexity of the problem, to me (again, this is my opinion), comes from things that I will do in the field, when I am assembling a switch box or outlet box. At times, when I am doing a little install, and don't have any more fancy store bought Caddy brackets to help mount the box, and I don't want take the time and expense to do another supply trip, I'll grab a piece of EMT and some metal stud framing screws and whack out my own bracket. The EMT, with it's 2014 NEC 358.2 Definition and with the greatly shortened 2014 NEC Article 100 Definition of Raceway, is, what? I don't really know. And to then add a clarification in the Article 100 Definition of Fitting telling me to consider the EMT a fitting, seems more confusing.

 

[iwire]

A couple of my thoughts.

1) So a raceway might also fit the defintion of a fitting. So what? Seriously I don't see the problem.


2) Doesn't the UL general directory tell us what fittings are already by virtue of the listing standard?

 

[fmtjfw]

A couple of my thoughts.

1) So a raceway might also fit the defintion of a fitting. So what? Seriously I don't see the problem.


2) Doesn't the UL general directory tell us what fittings are already by virtue of the listing standard?

The NEC and hence NFPA carefully tippy-toes around NRTL and UL direct references, although UL appears to be the only NRTL mentioned in Annex A. Probably because, even though the preference is clearly for UL, (NFPA and UL are siblings historically) so as not to rile up the other NRTLs.

A direct, clear, reference to the UL White Book would be very helpful.

IAEI has no trouble in providing training that appears to give UL a premier position.