EMT for overhead service

Status
Not open for further replies.
kwired said:
careful what you wish for, someone will have a solution that is looking for a problem to use here and come up with something that is a big of a joke as the raintight EMT fittings are.
Click to expand...

The problem is that there really is a problem when 95% of all installations with meter enclosure hubs are violations. I'm assuming that UL wrote the standard for hubs so when doing so they should have included the decades worth of installation methods (without RMC or IMC) that are used every day.
 
infinity said:
The problem is that there really is a problem when 95% of all installations with meter enclosure hubs are violations. I'm assuming that UL wrote the standard for hubs so when doing so they should have included the decades worth of installation methods (without RMC or IMC) that are used every day.
Click to expand...
When they do list something we won't like what product we are getting. At very least we will go to needing to have different part to stock for each size in both RMC/IMC hubs as well as a hub designed for EMT - which will likely have the fitting integrated into the hub rather than be a separate fitting.

Something not mentioned but I do see and have even done at times is inserting a reducing bushing into a hub - those are straight threaded and probably not listed to use in the hub either.
 
So, in the case of a 2-in. RMC mast landing at a hub on a meter pan, unless you have access to a large hydraulic bender to put an offset in 2-in rigid, you technically can't use an offset nipple, and therefore must use pieces of strut with RMC clamps to support the pipe, because it will be about an inch away from building.

(Infinity, thanks for link)
 
flashlight said:
So, in the case of a 2-in. RMC mast landing at a hub on a meter pan, unless you have access to a large hydraulic bender to put an offset in 2-in rigid, you technically can't use an offset nipple, and therefore must use pieces of strut with RMC clamps to support the pipe, because it will be about an inch away from building.

(Infinity, thanks for link)
Click to expand...

Technically yes, although in my 22 year career I have never had anyone care about this issue. There is probably an "approved" combination of fittings that will do it (and look horrible) like a RGS nipple, coupling, offset nipple coupling, RGS....
 
electrofelon said:
Technically yes, although in my 22 year career I have never had anyone care about this issue. There is probably an "approved" combination of fittings that will do it (and look horrible) like a RGS nipple, coupling, offset nipple coupling, RGS....
Click to expand...
I'm pretty certain the RGS coupling isn't listed to accept anything but RGS or IMC as well.

On a flat surface strut is too much space from the wall for meter socket hubs and a raceway with no offset and if anything you would then need spacers behind the meter socket.
 
You could also use the single screw "malleable iron" clamps that are 2 parts, the clamp top and the base. I think they look nice but I
don't trust their holding ability, especially for a mast.
 
kwired said:
I'm pretty certain the RGS coupling isn't listed to accept anything but RGS or IMC as well.

On a flat surface strut is too much space from the wall for meter socket hubs and a raceway with no offset and if anything you would then need spacers behind the meter socket.
Click to expand...
I dont know about that. The hubs on the meter sockets I typically use will give you several different offsets by turning them 90 or 180 degrees. I guess I dont recall mounting a meter socket on a flat surface, but Im pretty sure there would be plenty of room for narrow strut.
 
electrofelon said:
I dont know about that. The hubs on the meter sockets I typically use will give you several different offsets by turning them 90 or 180 degrees. I guess I dont recall mounting a meter socket on a flat surface, but Im pretty sure there would be plenty of room for narrow strut.
Click to expand...
1-1/4 or smaller yes, 2 inch is nearly centered and won't make much difference, 2.5 inch in an "A" series hub is pretty much centered and won't matter which way you bolt it on you get same dimension from the mounting surface.
 
kwired said:
1-1/4 or smaller yes, 2 inch is nearly centered and won't make much difference, 2.5 inch in an "A" series hub is pretty much centered and won't matter which way you bolt it on you get same dimension from the mounting surface.
Click to expand...

Ill check an actual unit next time Im near one, but looks like there is enough room for narrow strut here. Also recall the meter socket body has stand offs that buy you another 3/8"

 
Just my two cents but let’s say you go with the it fits it ships game.
Well sprinkler pipe fits EMT connectors just fine, say you run out of 4” EMT on a island that’s a 2 week barge trip and there is plenty of the rain mans trunk line left. It’s metal, fits and all we got to do is pull In data.

What’s the difference?
Both materials are not listed to do a job it can obviously do.

I only say this because I have seen where this road goes, you end up roping refineries platforms and gas pads, with MC-HL and hodgepodge of RMC parts and pieces in ways that only people worried about wasting money would allow.
 
AKElectrician said:
Just my two cents but let’s say you go with the it fits it ships game.
Well sprinkler pipe fits EMT connectors just fine, say you run out of 4” EMT on a island that’s a 2 week barge trip and there is plenty of the rain mans trunk line left. It’s metal, fits and all we got to do is pull In data.

What’s the difference?
Both materials are not listed to do a job it can obviously do.

I only say this because I have seen where this road goes, you end up roping refineries platforms and gas pads, with MC-HL and hodgepodge of RMC parts and pieces in ways that only people worried about wasting money would allow.
Click to expand...

I hear ya, but I think the hub thing is different. Its something that has been done forever - kinda dumb justification yes, but more importantly, there isnt really an alternative for some of these situations.
 
electrofelon said:
I hear ya, but I think the hub thing is different. Its something that has been done forever - kinda dumb justification yes, but more importantly, there isnt really an alternative for some of these situations.
Click to expand...
So it likely either comes down to manufacturers for some reason won't get an item listed for other uses, or won't design it differently so it can be listed for other uses. Or the listing agency refuses to list said items for other uses (whether they have good reason or not) but industry sort of looks the other way in most cases anyhow, and has done so for a very long time on this one.
 
kwired said:
So it likely either comes down to manufacturers for some reason won't get an item listed for other uses, or won't design it differently so it can be listed for other uses. Or the listing agency refuses to list said items for other uses (whether they have good reason or not) but industry sort of looks the other way in most cases anyhow, and has done so for a very long time on this one.
Click to expand...

I would say that I agree, but want to word it differently if I may.

Why wouldn't I make multiple different raceways, and then design comparable transition couplings etc. I do believe they make quite a few of these transitions or from-to's.
With the Service hub that bolts to the box, I would bet a dollar they were designed by pros in the field. They came up with a decision that risers for services are largely required to be in RMC, so make it that way.

My whole point is this no mixing parts was deliberately done to make money, why are we not following suit and making money?
It takes RMC to do it, so be it.

That said I have been oilfield trash with limited parts on metal islands or far off places a half day away majority of my career, and have mixed it all together in a UL soup.
 
AKElectrician said:
I would say that I agree, but want to word it differently if I may.

Why wouldn't I make multiple different raceways, and then design comparable transition couplings etc. I do believe they make quite a few of these transitions or from-to's.
With the Service hub that bolts to the box, I would bet a dollar they were designed by pros in the field. They came up with a decision that risers for services are largely required to be in RMC, so make it that way.

My whole point is this no mixing parts was deliberately done to make money, why are we not following suit and making money?
It takes RMC to do it, so be it.

That said I have been oilfield trash with limited parts on metal islands or far off places a half day away majority of my career, and have mixed it all together in a UL soup.
Click to expand...
The meter socket hubs and other similar hubs AFAIK are not made by the conduit/tubing manufacturers nor by the same manufacturers that are making the straight thread fittings, it is an accessory to an item that gets higher priorities placed on the main product and not this accessory.

Just a possibility of why things are like they are with this?
 
kwired said:
The meter socket hubs and other similar hubs AFAIK are not made by the conduit/tubing manufacturers nor by the same manufacturers that are making the straight fittings.
Click to expand...

Correct, Box guys got the market cornered with their better hub, for a typical single conduit install like a service. They get the extra dollar. Fast install no hole cutting.

But they don’t have a fighting chance if you got a different application where they take to much real estate on a box, or the means of making the hole right for the bolt on, one hole or 5. Now the conduit guys get the dollar for the Meyers hub.

Either way we mark it up and we follow the simple written instructions. It makes our jobs that much easier when I have to justify a install. And if I got to use more expensive parts or I got to use more time making it right, the more I make, assuming I bid it correct.
Might lose a job, but don’t have to work two to make up for rework caused by “misfittings”.

Just how my simple mind sees it anyway.
 
to For 20+ years if I wanted to land 2 in. RMC with an offset to get it to the wall, I used an offset nipple with a coupling and the inspector was fine, didn't think twice. Then I had to start reading about it....
 
Does a 2 inch condulet have straight or tapered threads? I retired 5 years ago and now I don't remember.
 
flashlight said:
to For 20+ years if I wanted to land 2 in. RMC with an offset to get it to the wall, I used an offset nipple with a coupling and the inspector was fine, didn't think twice. Then I had to start reading about it....
Click to expand...
I am not discrediting or talking down in anyway.
But I had a coming to Jesus moment when I thought we could be short changing our selves buy not selling our products a while back, time savers cost money, while cheap parts take time.
I could be wrong, but it seems like the paper work backs up my thoughts.
 
Ran 2-1/2" riser. Customer complained of leaking water. First time return discovered a few couplings were not as tight as they should be. Always double check your fittings. He called back. Still leaking. After taking apart the LB, connectors, and 3 couplings the problem was found or rather not found. JM left the wedding band out because he couldn't get the conduit together in the coupling. Basically had to rebuild have the service. Used the green band watertight fittings. No more leaks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top