Garage Power Disconnect

[winnie]

Hey, no problem.

If you have a new question it is helpful to start a new thread; I read the things you wrote as an answer to the original post.

So yes, I disagree with you on the 'cable in conduit' issue, but don't intend to be confrontational, happy to help find answers on other things.

-Jon

 

[Fred B]

Im sorry. I guess Ive been licensed for 25 years and rely on my instinct too much. I was dangling my statements out for your feedback and I see I got it.
My original question was regarding an overhead, not underground, installation to a garage, where you run the UF with a guy wire.
The underground discussion of running UF in a pipe was my afterthought on the OP post and I didn't realize it stirred a hornet nest.
For the record Fred I don't see where I said anything at all about transitioning from UF to NM or for running NM outside or wet locations.
310.15 B 16 says nothing about ampacities for UF cable installed in conduit. Its allowable ampacities for insulated conductors and cables.

Not trying to be confrontational here guys just searching for answers

Your post 15 makes reference to "2 different wireing methods combined", in reply to post 14 making reference to both UF and NM and I thought that "wiring methods combined" was referring to UF and NM that the OP made comment on using. Sorry if I misunderstood that comment.

.... that. NM isn't prohibited from being run in conduit either ( "uses not permitted"), nor is UF, but we still know you can't do it.

My reply about NM in conduit that was in an informational response to that portion of statement for those readers not electricians that wouldn't realize the difference.
In 2017 NEC 310.15(B)(16) title indicates "Allowable Ampacities ......More Than Three Current-Carrying Conductors in Raceway, Cable, or Earth....." I'm assuming a raceway can be conduit. In that table 1st column is listed "UF", unless I'm wrong and a conduit is not a raceway, it would seem to indicate that UF can be in a conduit.

 

[Jerramundi]

In 2017 NEC 310.15(B)(16) title indicates "Allowable Ampacities ......More Than Three Current-Carrying Conductors in Raceway, Cable, or Earth....." I'm assuming a raceway can be conduit. In that table 1st column is listed "UF", unless I'm wrong and a conduit is not a raceway, it would seem to indicate that UF can be in a conduit.

I get what he's saying.. he's hyper focused on the OR logical operand of 310.15(B)(16), which would imply the allowable ampacities are for SEPARATE instances (i.e. Raceway OR Cable). It's the latter sections of the code that allow for protection from physical damage and the explicit ability to do conduit fill calculations for cable inside conduit which implies cable in a conduit is okay.

Perhaps the NEC should utilize an AND/OR operand here instead of just OR. It's kind of a semantic argument, but then again logical operands do serve very explicit purposes... especially in things like computer programming and legal documents like contracts.

 

[jusme123]

Im sorry. I guess Ive been licensed for 25 years and rely on my instinct too much. I was dangling my statements out for your feedback and I see I got it.
My original question was regarding an overhead, not underground, installation to a garage, where you run the UF with a guy wire.
The underground discussion of running UF in a pipe was my afterthought on the OP post and I didn't realize it stirred a hornet nest.
For the record Fred I don't see where I said anything at all about transitioning from UF to NM or for running NM outside or wet locations.
310.15 B 16 says nothing about ampacities for UF cable installed in conduit. Its allowable ampacities for insulated conductors and cables.

Not trying to be confrontational here guys just searching for answers

To run UF exposed overhead, UF has to be identified as sunlight resistant , otherwise it’s a violation 340.12(9)