Bending PVC

Status
Not open for further replies.
kwired said:
I see. With that approach a piece with a surface scratch, field made ink marks for reference for bending, or even adhesive residue from the tape used to bundle pieces when it was manufactured could be considered damage.
Click to expand...

Don't forget that all we are talking about is any damage that may occur during the making of field bends. All this discussion about damage (so far) stems from 352.24 Bends-How Made. We aren't talking about damage made by transporting, marking, taping, etc.
 
K8MHZ said:
Well, I picked Merriam-Webster because it's accepted pretty much everywhere. If you find out that the manual refers to a different dictionary, say Oxfords, let me know if you would. The on line Oxford isn't all that great. The hard copy Oxford Unabridged Dictionary is about a foot thick. I used to look stuff up in one. It was so big, it never left it's place, a pedestal in the library. You looked stuff up in it where it was sitting. It was too big to even be moved to a desk.
Click to expand...

Right now I am on the road and don't have access to the manual of style.

If you Google it you should find it.
 
K8MHZ said:
Don't forget that all we are talking about is any damage that may occur during the making of field bends. All this discussion about damage (so far) stems from 352.24 Bends-How Made. We aren't talking about damage made by transporting, marking, taping, etc.
Click to expand...
Ok, forget the transport damages or tape residue, field markings with a sharpie to assist with making the bends are still part of the bending process:p
 
From the manual of style:

3.1.2 Where terms are not defined in this chapter or within another chapter, they shall be defined using their ordinarily accepted meanings within the context in which they are used. Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition, shall be the source for the ordinarily accepted meaning.(2) 3.2 NFPA Official Definitions.(3) 3.3 General Definitions.2.3.1.3.2 If there are either no NFPA Official Definitions

If I Google Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition, I am taken right to Merriam-Webster.com. That is where I got my definition of 'suitable' and posted it here.

This from Wiki:

Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary) can be searched online at the company's website, and on the free dictionary search engine OneLook.


OneLook also took me back to the same Merriam-Webster definition that I posted.
 
K8MHZ said:
From the manual of style:

3.1.2 Where terms are not defined in this chapter or within another chapter, they shall be defined using their ordinarily accepted meanings within the context in which they are used. Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition, shall be the source for the ordinarily accepted meaning.(2) 3.2 NFPA Official Definitions.(3) 3.3 General Definitions.2.3.1.3.2 If there are either no NFPA Official Definitions

If I Google Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition, I am taken right to Merriam-Webster.com. That is where I got my definition of 'suitable' and posted it here.

This from Wiki:

Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary) can be searched online at the company's website, and on the free dictionary search engine OneLook.


OneLook also took me back to the same Merriam-Webster definition that I posted.
Click to expand...

The term used in the section we are discussing is "Identified" not the word "suitable".

So I am not following you.
 
iwire said:
The term used in the section we are discussing is "Identified" not the word "suitable".

So I am not following you.
Click to expand...

The term suitable is in the definition of 'identified'. In order to be 'identified' the only requirement is being recognizable as suitable. So, do we not need to define 'suitable' in order to know what the Art. 100 definition of 'identified' means?
 
K8MHZ said:
Marking with a marker is not damage. In some instances, marking is required, like the labeling required from the factory. Now, if you used a knife to score lines into the conduit.....
Click to expand...
and a minor scorch at the surface may not be damage either, really depends if it will have an impact on the product's ability to do what it is intended to do.

Jaw marks in RMC from pipe threading or from the wrench during assembly are similar in many ways.
 
sparkyrick said:
I swear you guys argue about the dumbest things sometimes.
Click to expand...

True, but it really does help with dealing with inspectors. The results of these discussions, not really arguments, is inevitably gaining a more thorough knowledge of the NEC and how to figure out what the darn thing really means.

To 'argue' a point here among some of the best minds in the electrical world, one must have all their ducks in a row. The ability to do that not only requires playing hop scotch throughout the NEC, but knowing about things like the NFPA manual of style and it's reference to a specific dictionary.

It's one thing to dispute an issue with (for instance) an inspector, it's another to be able to navigate through one or more books to illustrate the reason for the dispute. The former is far less adversarial and shows that research has been done, not just an action based upon emotion. Like the calling the 'identified' requirement stupid without further reason. It is stupid, but as I see it, it is also superfluous and have backed that feeling up with references.
 
K8MHZ said:
The term suitable is in the definition of 'identified'. In order to be 'identified' the only requirement is being recognizable as suitable. So, do we not need to define 'suitable' in order to know what the Art. 100 definition of 'identified' means?
Click to expand...

It will be the AHJ the interprets the article 100 definition not us, same as any code section.

Could you steer the AHJ in the direction you want? Sure sometimes other times they are going to tell you to pound sand and you will have no recourse.
 
iwire said:
It will be the AHJ the interprets the article 100 definition not us, same as any code section.

Could you steer the AHJ in the direction you want? Sure sometimes other times they are going to tell you to pound sand and you will have no recourse.
Click to expand...
But he put it well in the post right before yours by stating that showing the guy you have done some research on some level and that it isn't just you saying anything you can to try to get your way. Back your side of the issue up with some facts and the inspector might realize that you possibly do know what you are talking about. May still be one of those that likes to abuse his authority, but if you don't at least try when you feel you have a legitimate reason to you ultimately just let him have his way.
 
iwire said:
It will be the AHJ the interprets the article 100 definition not us, same as any code section.

Could you steer the AHJ in the direction you want? Sure sometimes other times they are going to tell you to pound sand and you will have no recourse.
Click to expand...

Well, here in Michigan, the 'AHJ' is the State of Michigan, not the inspectors, or the company they work for (we have hired guns in our area) or the city or the county they work for. If we disagree with what an inspector says, we do have recourse and the method of getting it is part of our code upgrade classes, plus the inspectors are also very up front about our right to challenge their rulings.

I think the system we have works well to eliminate dictatorship, shirt pocket rules and ego problems on the part of the inspectors. I have never dealt with an inspector here that I have had a problem with, including a very strict one that let me use a torch to heat up PVC once I proved to him I could do it. This guy was very strict and called a 'Code Nazi' by some due to his hard nosed rulings. When I showed him how I heated up the PVC, and the care I took not to scorch it, and it came out fine, he had no problem. He also knew that it was very time consuming and if I had a better way to heat up pipe, I would have done it. I also know that he would have gigged us if I didn't prove to him that I could use a torch and not damage the conduit. It was small stuff, so easy for me, but time consuming. I think on that particular job I did 2 or 3 bends using my trusty propane torch as a heat source.
 
iwire said:
IMO applying the code is not an abuse of authority.

To each their own.
Click to expand...
I agree as well, if they are applying what is printed or officially amended. If the NEC was truly simple to understand we wouldn't have a need for a code forum on this site and people like Mike Holt wouldn't have their current job either.

K8MHZ said:
Well, here in Michigan, the 'AHJ' is the State of Michigan, not the inspectors, or the company they work for (we have hired guns in our area) or the city or the county they work for. If we disagree with what an inspector says, we do have recourse and the method of getting it is part of our code upgrade classes, plus the inspectors are also very up front about our right to challenge their rulings.

I think the system we have works well to eliminate dictatorship, shirt pocket rules and ego problems on the part of the inspectors. I have never dealt with an inspector here that I have had a problem with, including a very strict one that let me use a torch to heat up PVC once I proved to him I could do it. This guy was very strict and called a 'Code Nazi' by some due to his hard nosed rulings. When I showed him how I heated up the PVC, and the care I took not to scorch it, and it came out fine, he had no problem. He also knew that it was very time consuming and if I had a better way to heat up pipe, I would have done it. I also know that he would have gigged us if I didn't prove to him that I could use a torch and not damage the conduit. It was small stuff, so easy for me, but time consuming. I think on that particular job I did 2 or 3 bends using my trusty propane torch as a heat source.
Click to expand...
I can say a lot of similar things about our state AHJ, overall they are pretty fair I think.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top