Line and low volt in same conduit. Its OK now?

Status
Not open for further replies.
chris kennedy said:
Do CAT5 and RG6 have at least 240V insulation?
Click to expand...

I don't usually deal with 240V insualtion values. Are you looking at the aspect that voltage exist as some potional at/from the plug! It looks like a 15 Amp receptacle to me.

I made my orginal statement based on the obsure fact that, here by code
we have to install a divider "per code" but that as an installer we can't negate the insulation value of what involved, and that it passed all that way across the other terminals of other devices.
 
hardworkingstiff said:
Chris, in this picture (120-volt receptacle) wouldn't they only need to have insulation rating of 120-volts and be a class 1 circuit, not class 2 or 3 (which I don't think they are class 1 circuits).
Click to expand...

Yes sir, but the Isotec cable comes in multi conductor assemblies, allowing for voltages higher that 120.
 
Since the 120 volt power is in a cable and not individual conductors the other cables could have an insulation value of 1 volt and this still would be code compliant.
 
infinity said:
Since the 120 volt power is in a cable and not individual conductors the other cables could have an insulation value of 1 volt and this still would be code compliant.
Click to expand...
So I could run romex and cat-5/RG-6 in the came conduit? That is essentially what it is there....
 
e57 said:
So I could run romex and cat-5/RG-6 in the came conduit? That is essentially what it is there....
Click to expand...


If you used the conduit as a sleeve sure. No different than running them through the same hole in a stud.
 
Based on 725.136((I)(2) & 820.133(A)(2)ex#1, this is a permitted installation. 300.3(C)(1) has no bearing on this installation, it has been modified by the above sections.




*Chapters 1-4 are general and can be modified by Chapters 5 - 7, and Chapter 8 is not subject to Chapters 1-7 unless specifically referenced.
 
Pierre C Belarge said:
Based on 725.136((I)(2) & 820.133(A)(2)ex#1, this is a permitted installation. 300.3(C)(1) has no bearing on this installation, it has been modified by the above sections.




*Chapters 1-4 are general and can be modified by Chapters 5 - 7, and Chapter 8 is not subject to Chapters 1-7 unless specifically referenced.
Click to expand...

from 725.136(I)(2)
...separated.... by a continuous and firmly fixed nonconductor, such as porcelain tubes or flexible tubing, in addition to the insulation on the conductors.
Click to expand...

I don't think we have porcelain tubes in that picture, so I guess we have flexible tubing inside the flex separating the conductors?

As far as 820.133(A)(2)ex#1, 820.1 says
This article covers coaxial cable distribution of radio frequency signals typically employed in community antenna television (CATV) systems.
Click to expand...
I think there may be an arguement that we are outside the scope of this code section, but I see your point.
 
The Telephone and data cabling are covered in Article 800 and are Class 2 circuits. Article 800.133 says that the Class1 cannot be in the same raceway with Class 2 or 3. I do not see any of the "Exceptions" that apply to the cables in this raceway.
 
For both Articles, look under Other Applications, the 1st exception.

Look specifically for the terms "nonmetallic-sheathed".

You will notice in the picture, that the TC cable shown is listed as being manufactured with a nonmetallic-sheath.
 
hardworkingstiff said:
If the non 120-volt circuits are class 2 or 3, then 725.136(A).
Click to expand...
Lou,
I don't see Class 2 or 3 conductors or cables in a raceway with power conductors. I see power cables and there is no violation mixing Class 2 or 3 conductors and cables with power cables.
(A) General. Cables and conductors of Class 2 and Class 3 circuits shall not be placed in any cable, cable tray, compartment, enclosure, manhole, outlet box, device box, raceway, or similar fitting with conductors of electric light, power, Class 1, non?power-limited fire alarm circuits, and medium-power network-powered broadband communications circuits unless permitted by 725.136(B) through (I).
Click to expand...
 
Pierre C Belarge said:
For both Articles, look under Other Applications, the 1st exception.

Look specifically for the terms "nonmetallic-sheathed".

You will notice in the picture, that the TC cable shown is listed as being manufactured with a nonmetallic-sheath.
Click to expand...

Sorry but I have a hard time believing this application is allowed. Now here comes your local telephone company installer who we all know hardly ever follows the NEC but knows that he can stuff / jam as many communication cables as he can into a conduit. Article 800 says conduit fill does not apply to communication cables... Do you do have a violation now?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top