cable in conduit cable end seals

Status
Not open for further replies.
rbalex said:
You would be surprised how many cable manufactures at the time were indeed interested in developing a standard for gas blocked cable. As I said, they dropped it because UL and the manufacturers couldn’t determine a suitable test that could be consistently applied in general.

EDIT ADD: As for a Code reference if you were attempting to apply one of the gas blocked Sections it would fall under Section 110.3(B).
Click to expand...

maybe i'm misinterpreting your intention with the comment. but if 110.3(B) is to be interpreted as you can only install it for the use it is listed means every installation with a liquid tight box connector screwed into a condulet is a violation, duct seal inside a conduit(read the label, its for around the outside of conduits) (probably along with a ton of other common scenarios i'm trying to think of)
 
Last edited:
Wire-Smith said:
why not just take 1' of cable and seal(duck tape would probably work at that low of level) on some tubing on one end with gauges and pressurize it?
Click to expand...
As I said earlier suggest it to UL and/or NEMA and /or any other product standard promulgating body and see if it flies.
 
Wire-Smith said:
maybe i'm misinterpreting your intention with the comment. but if 110.3(B) is to be interpreted as you can only install it for the use it is listed means every installation with a liquid tight box connector screwed into a condulet is a violation, duct seal inside a conduit(read the label, its for around outside conduits) (probably along with a ton of other common scenarios i'm trying to think of)
Click to expand...
You can only install listed equipment in a manner consistent with the product standard. That's one reason why you want to check the White Book. The violation you cited may be common, nevertheless it is a violation.
 
rbalex said:
As I said earlier suggest it to UL and/or NEMA and /or any other product standard promulgating body and see if it flies.
Click to expand...

if i thought listing was required i would (still might) but i don't believe its required to be listed, nor do i see a reason for it to be. along with TSC or your shrinkons

thanks for helping with 501.15 by the way, i know a lot of people give cmp members (and people that send in proposals) a lot of crap, but i have a lot of respect and appreciation for all of you, thank you
 
rbalex said:
You can only install listed equipment in a manner consistent with the product standard. That's one reason why you want to check the White Book. The violation you cited may be common, nevertheless it is a violation.
Click to expand...
i disagree with your word choice of consistent(im not saying it is false just not the right word), i interpret it as you cannot install listed/labeled equipment in manner forbidden by the listing and labeling(this is a horrible way to say it, but best i can quickly come up with right now)
 
ac·cord·ance
əˈkôrdns/
noun


  • in a manner conforming with.
    "the product is disposed of in accordance with federal regulations"





i don't believe i am violating the listing/labeling


http://www.cooperindustries.com/content/dam/public/crousehinds/industrial-products/catalog-pdfs/fittings/es-sealing-hub-tsc-epoxy-sealing-compound.pdf

"A two part epoxy sealing compound may​ be used to seal ES sealing hubs. It is quick and easy to measure, mix and install. The compound is kneaded until a uniform color is obtained. It is then packed around the conductors to effectively seal the cable."


http://www.cooperindustries.com/con.../resources/pdfs/instruction-sheets/if1207.pdf

APPLICATION "TSC Epoxy Sealing Compound is designed for use only with Crouse-Hinds TMCX Series,TTC Series and Capri ADE Series cable fittings"



just because it isn't designed for anything else does not mean the instructions are saying it cannot be used for anything else, its just not intentionally designed for it. this statement is just a cop out absolving the manufacturer from the responsibility when it is used else wise. it is not saying it can only be used that way, i am using it to seal a cable just not in those fittings



i appreciate this conversation by the way, i hope i am not annoying you too much. if i'm wrong i would love to be convinced so
 
Last edited:
i install it in accordance with all of the instructions

http://www.cooperindustries.com/con.../resources/pdfs/instruction-sheets/if1207.pdf

INSTRUCTION FOR USE• Determine amount of compound required for the installation by referring to IF 1184 orthe cable gauge and sizer supplied with TMCX and TTC and to the 1840263 notice forADE series.• Remove compound from tube(s).Note: If ends of compound appear hard or crusty, cut with knife to expose fresh compound.• Mix the compound by folding and kneading until resulting mixture is a uniform greencolor (approximately 3 minutes) without streaks.• Apply compound as outlined in the instruction sheet supplied with fitting (workinglife is approximately 30 minutes at 68°F/20ºC. Working life decreases at elevatedtemperatures).
 
Wire-Smith said:
i install it in accordance with all of the instructions

http://www.cooperindustries.com/con.../resources/pdfs/instruction-sheets/if1207.pdf

INSTRUCTION FOR USE• Determine amount of compound required for the installation by referring to IF 1184 orthe cable gauge and sizer supplied with TMCX and TTC and to the 1840263 notice forADE series.• Remove compound from tube(s).Note: If ends of compound appear hard or crusty, cut with knife to expose fresh compound.• Mix the compound by folding and kneading until resulting mixture is a uniform greencolor (approximately 3 minutes) without streaks.• Apply compound as outlined in the instruction sheet supplied with fitting (workinglife is approximately 30 minutes at 68°F/20ºC. Working life decreases at elevatedtemperatures).
Click to expand...
You did read :
Note: Approved for use only with Crouse-Hinds TMCX Series, TTC Series and Capri ADE Series cable fittings.
Click to expand...
Correct?
 
rbalex said:
You did read :
Correct?
Click to expand...
yes

crouse hinds does not happen to be my ahj, the approved they are talking about is not code approval (ahj approval) they are only effectively saying they do not accept responsibility if it is used another way, they are saying they can't say it is good for other applications. all they have probably tested it for are those seal's, because that is the only application that requires it to be approved by the manufacturer for the use, i think code says sealing fittings are only aloud to be used with seals approved by manufacturer 501.15(C)(1)
 
Last edited:
my reference for post #70 is 501.15(C)(1) which is why i believe crouse hinds is saying tsc is only approved for those. this approval is not the same as nec approval(approved by ahj) crouse hinds is not a ahj nor do i believe there intent is to dissuade a ahj from approving it, i don't believe the approval crouse hinds is giving is the approval you are considering it to be

501.15(C) sealing fittings need to be listed for use with a specific compound
(fittings need listed, not the compound without a fitting)

crouse hinds has to specify a compound there fittings are approved/listed with
 
do you completely disagree with my interpretation? do you think there is no way it is allowed? and that my interpretation has no merit and should not be considered?
 
here is a real world reason why i believe my interpretation


by not allowing the use of tsc because of the reasons you have cited (which i believe lack merit), i would be aloud to go dig in a mud hole, pull up some clay and use it because it has no labeling saying it is approved only for tcmx sealing fittings

or instead of using tsc i would have to use
-silicone
-wholesale clay
-and probably some other items that are likely less effective than tsc


tsc is used for sealing cables, it has to be approved for those fittings(code requires fittings to be listed for use with specific sealing compounds), crouse hinds is not going to approve it for appletons fittings. 501.15(D)(2) exception allows the cable end to be sealed without a fitting inside the enclosure it terminates.
 
Last edited:
the only reason i am continuing this discussion is because i respect you, (if i have been disrespectful i apologize, i have been trying not to) and you believing something different from me on this makes me question my interpretation on things and once again if i am wrong i would appreciate being convinced so, but i will not just take your word for it. i understand if i have annoyed you too much so far, you don't owe me convincing but i honestly would appreciate it, i know it may not seem like i do.
 
Responding to Post #72. In that case they would’ve used the word recommended not approved, since approved is an NEC defined term and they would be using it improperly. BTW, UL considers manufacturers notes, labels, and instructions as part of their listing.

Look, I’m tired of playing your semantic games. I am neither your AHJ nor your babysitter nor am I responsible for anything you do. I have given you the best advice you are going to get from anyone else. If you want to slip a non-compliant installation past your real AHJ go for it, I can’t stop you. I would, however be happy to testify against you (as an expert witness BTW) in court.

I doubt if I will respond to you again.
 
rbalex said:
Responding to Post #72. In that case they would’ve used the word recommended not approved, since approved is an NEC defined term and they would be using it improperly. BTW, UL considers manufacturers notes, labels, and instructions as part of their listing.

Look, I’m tired of playing your semantic games. I am neither your AHJ nor your babysitter nor am I responsible for anything you do. I have given you the best advice you are going to get from anyone else. If you want to slip a non-compliant installation past your real AHJ go for it, I can’t stop you. I would, however be happy to testify against you (as an expert witness BTW) in court.

I doubt if I will respond to you again.
Click to expand...


30 Minutes ago, one of our E/I inspectors walked into the engineering trailer here on site and asked me 'what's the best way to seal a twisted pair #16, shielded cable within a conduit terminating at an instrument in CID1 area'...not kidding.

I told him I'd get back with him... as you might imagine, putting together quite an email based on the above string.
 
rbalex said:
Responding to Post #72. In that case they would’ve used the word recommended not approved, since approved is an NEC defined term and they would be using it improperly. BTW, UL considers manufacturers notes, labels, and instructions as part of their listing.

Look, I’m tired of playing your semantic games. I am neither your AHJ nor your babysitter nor am I responsible for anything you do. I have given you the best advice you are going to get from anyone else. If you want to slip a non-compliant installation past your real AHJ go for it, I can’t stop you. I would, however be happy to testify against you (as an expert witness BTW) in court.

I doubt if I will respond to you again.
Click to expand...

d**n, sorry. i'm not asking for information to be able to argue with an ahj, if they ever want anything more robust i will absolutely comply without argument (believe it or not), i'm not actually arguing to use an inferior product i actually believe it is the absolute best choice if i thought there was better i would rather use the better
 
Last edited:
Dale001289 said:
30 Minutes ago, one of our E/I inspectors walked into the engineering trailer here on site and asked me 'what's the best way to seal a twisted pair #16, shielded cable within a conduit terminating at an instrument in CID1 area'...not kidding.

I told him I'd get back with him... as you might imagine, putting together quite an email based on the above string.
Click to expand...

don't use TSC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top