Thank you. Why I got your ear. I will research later, but is there a required depth to the box? I believe there is a depth requirement when the conductors come into the box from the rear. What about conduits entering and leaving the side.
Dennis, I would like to apologize. I'm trying to figure out what the equation was for sizing the nmb in a conduit. mils x.0000007854 (but I'm missing something I think) to get area, then that number to be under 53% of trade size. Long story short I think I'm missing part of the equation but my older notes show the 6-3 in a 1 ". The 1/2 " is also good for 12-2nmb. I think the 2" may have be for 6-3 uf. Either way, I stand corrected I think, sorry.
If the conductors don't go out the back, the only requirement for depth is that the conduits and there locknuts fit in the box.
No kidding. Thank you
You're talking about the minimum size of a conduit that it would be OK to run the cable in for a complete conduit system.
Yes, thank you Wayne
conduit dimensions have not changed in many many decades.
We'll just KISS it! 53% conduit fill for single conductor, 31% fill for 2 conductors, and 40% fill for more than 3 conductors.
Yes, NM is much smaller now and that is one reason I find a lot more areas where I will consider NM subject to physical damage that I would have 30 - 40 years ago. The older jacket was much thicker and much tougher.
IMO, something is either subject to damage or it is not. Whether the NM is tougher or less tougher than it used to be does not enter into the "subject to damage" criteria.
I don't see why you can't take into account the material used. For example nm, mc and PVC sched 40 are all subject to the physical damage criteria. It Seems reasonable that some are tougher than others and thus may not be subject to physical damage while another would.
Subject to physical damage is based on the likely hood of the installed wiring method being damaged.
Where does it say that in the code?
