paul
Senior Member
- Location
- Snohomish, WA
220/221 said:
Is it game, set and match? That is for the zinc plated malleable iron chase nipple. What about the die cast chase nipples?
:grin:
Code Compliant or Not
- Thread starter Pierre C Belarge
- Start date
- Status
Is it game, set and match? That is for the zinc plated malleable iron chase nipple. What about the die cast chase nipples?
:grin:
- Location
- Massachusetts
paul said:Is it game, set and match? That is for the zinc plated malleable iron chase nipple. What about the die cast chase nipples?
I noticed that as well.
LarryFine
Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA
- Location
- Henrico County, VA
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor
Oh, good grief, Charlie Brown. Can't we all just get along? :grin:
A couple of years ago, I installed a generator sub-panel and inlet for a customer. The garage had finsihed walls, so I placed the sub in the stud bay next to the existing panel.
I bored a hole in the stud in line with a side KO in the existing panel, installed the new panel, and put a threaded nipple between them, using locknuts only inside both panels.
The locknuts scraped away paint, so it's bonded, there's a separate EGC anyway, and the install looks original, since I used the same brand of panel (and I re-used his breakers).
A couple of years ago, I installed a generator sub-panel and inlet for a customer. The garage had finsihed walls, so I placed the sub in the stud bay next to the existing panel.
I bored a hole in the stud in line with a side KO in the existing panel, installed the new panel, and put a threaded nipple between them, using locknuts only inside both panels.
The locknuts scraped away paint, so it's bonded, there's a separate EGC anyway, and the install looks original, since I used the same brand of panel (and I re-used his breakers).
wbalsam1
Senior Member
- Location
- Upper Jay, NY
mivey said:
Not a thorough bond, for sure. I would have to violate an install like this. :smile:
- Location
- Massachusetts
wbalsam1 said:
Using what code section? :smile:
IMO the only section which can be cited (and should be) is 250.12.
The NEC requires the paint to be removed, once the connection is 'metal to metal' it will be a reliable fault path.
UL says flimsy reducing washers make reliable fault path when installed per the NEC. That being a fact it is simply not believable that a chase nipple tightened against a clean conductive surface would not be a reliable fault path as well.
wbalsam1
Senior Member
- Location
- Upper Jay, NY
iwire said:
I think you're right about 250.12. Double locknutting each end of the conduit nipple was the way I was taught many years ago when doing industrial wiring. This method was a sure-fire way to have the locknuts dig through the paint on both sides of the enclosure thereby ensuring a thorough connection. Not only did we double locknut, but we also tightened each locknut by hammering them with the blade of a screwdriver to really tighten them. Locknutting only one side of each conduit would not ensure a thorough bonding connection path.
paul
Senior Member
- Location
- Snohomish, WA
wbalsam1 said:
I would have probably put on a bond bushing on one end if I had one in the van. Then I don't have to worry about a red tag.
As for the original install, I've done that many, many times. I figure the paint is removed from where the knockout or my uni-bit went through. I've used malleable and zinc FWIW. I also have used PVC FA's and a chase nipple into a concrete approved metal box for slab work. It holds much better than a TA or a BA when the iron workers kick the snot out of the PVC and I didn't see that method on the "approved" list. Of course now they just use smurf tube and call it good.
- Status