I installed some 1/2" Liqua flex the other day for the first time in my career....those fittings are junk. I was using this stuff to cover up some old sun beaten NM that had been installed on the back of a house next to a service. I stripped off the crusty NM sheath and fed the wires through those fittings....not much room inside the fittings in relationship to the raceway size.....It sure wasnt 40% fill !!!!
Liqua Tight flimsy flex fittings
- Thread starter Mule
- Start date
- Status
- Location
- Massachusetts
As far as the quality you get what you pay for, buy "OZ-Gedney" if you want the best.
Beyond that, placing NM inside a raceway in a wet location is a NEC violation.
glene77is
Senior Member
- Location
- Memphis, TN
The NM sheathing contains a paper filler which will wick water into the panel.
The effect of stripping off the NM sheathing gets rid of the 'wet' problem.
The THHN "inside" the NM sheathing has a wet rating.
Last year, we had a thread which reviewed this subject.
Keep Reading these interesting forums.
Last edited:
- Location
- Massachusetts
busman
Senior Member
- Location
- Northern Virginia
- Occupation
- Master Electrician / Electrical Engineer
Unfortunately, the wires inside Type NM-B are not labeled as required by 310.11 so you still have a code violation. It's even technically a violation to strip out old Romex to make pigtails.
Mark
Mark
JohnJ0906
Senior Member
- Location
- Baltimore, MD
Reference please?
The UL White Book and the Southwire site are both silent on the issue. Both merely state that the conductors in MN-B are 90? rated, but do not give a specific conductor type.
- Location
- New Jersey
- Occupation
- Journeyman Electrician
And even if it were THHN it still wouldn't work in a wet location. You would need THWN.
Minuteman
Senior Member
- Location
- The Sooner Nation
Carlon and Arlington make a pretty good liquid-tite connector. I like the Arlington "Push-On" the best, available at Locke.
I only have a 2008 here at home. 334.12(B)(4) Had a wording change between the 2005 and the 2008. (It's shaded gray) But according to the popular interpretation. If a conduit is in a wet or damp location, the conductors inside the conduit are still in a wet or damp location. Best if you changed the wire.
I only have a 2008 here at home. 334.12(B)(4) Had a wording change between the 2005 and the 2008. (It's shaded gray) But according to the popular interpretation. If a conduit is in a wet or damp location, the conductors inside the conduit are still in a wet or damp location. Best if you changed the wire.
Nothing personal to anyone but IMO, This is a situation where the intent of the code is lost in the stupid legalistic UL world we live in........Sorry... These conductors have managed to survive on the exterior of this home. The sheath did detiorate, but the conductor insulation was very healthy. Applying the flex over the conductors will provide much better protection than the previous installation that seemed to be doing well (inner insulation).
I have aliegence toward UL but I also understand the legal mechanics involved, and sometimes its just rediculous....
I have aliegence toward UL but I also understand the legal mechanics involved, and sometimes its just rediculous....
peter d
Senior Member
- Location
- New England
The only cable assembly I am aware of that truly does contain wet rated conductors is Type UF cable (for obvious reasons.)
.Cow
Senior Member
- Location
- Eastern Oregon
- Occupation
- Electrician
I like the T & B black pvc flex fittings. On the other hand I can't stand those gray pvc flex fittings that can rotate from straight to 90 degrees. They always seem to come apart at the joint.
Another one, I believe it's Type TC cable, is rated for direct burial. We've used miles of this stuff for control wiring to irrigation pivots.
Another one, I believe it's Type TC cable, is rated for direct burial. We've used miles of this stuff for control wiring to irrigation pivots.
Last edited:
LarryFine
Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA
- Location
- Henrico County, VA
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor
I disagree twice.
It's neither the sheath nor the filler that makes or breaks a wet/dry rating.
THHN is not a wet rating, NM conductors technically have no rating, and older NM did not contain what today's NM does.
peter d
Senior Member
- Location
- New England
I now stand corrected, twice. DB MC cable and TC cable had not occurred to me as they are pretty rare for run of the mill electrical work.
Rewire
Senior Member
- Location
- Lake of the Ozarks
The biggest problem in our industry today is their are to many"electricians" who have not cracked a code book in years. I have seen code violations that range from dumb to dangerous. When you do run into this shoddy work you have to spend an hour explaining to the homeowner why you cant out it back the way it was.
Easy.....now
You go ahead bidding the job rewiring the whole house, as their wouldnt be any place to stop in this case, and I will bid just the service/panel change which was what the HO wanted. Inpected, with a green tag....
IMO often the difference between horse sense and being "UL listed" is a billfold and a stamp of approval..... come on admit it.....:smile:
signed..... "dumb and dangerous"
B4T
Senior Member
- Location
- Long Island, N.Y.
I would not lose a minute's sleep over what Mule did. You can name all the code sections you like. He took a unsafe condition and made it safe IMO. Last week I said on this forum that installing a main lug only panel was a really bad idea and I would NEVER sell this job to anyone. It was the 2am. Deli panel change that got me going on this. It is perfectly legal and code compliant to install a MLO panel where there is a main breaker SOMEWHERE on the property. Safety wise, IMO this is really dumb. For another $50.00 - $75.00 you can install a MB panel. Most here do not see it my way. Funny how this forum can split hairs on some issues and go totally blind on others.. IMO :grin:
Rewire
Senior Member
- Location
- Lake of the Ozarks
their is a BIG difference between going above and beyond code and totally going against code. The arguement "its better than it was" is no excuse.
Rewire
Senior Member
- Location
- Lake of the Ozarks
I am talking about code compliant vs non-code compliant.A customer want to replace a non-grounded recptacle ,I can put a grounded type receptacle in but it would violate code,I could run a ground wire by itself back to the panel,which would make it better but would still violate code.I must replace it with a GFCI or a non-grounded receptacle.I don't have to rewire the house I just have to know what the minimum the code allows
rt66electric
Senior Member
- Location
- Oklahoma
so whats your method
so whats your method
Just for the sake of argument How do you'all (yankees included) switch from wiring inside the house (or any structure) to outdoor wiring??? What is the "code approved" method for installing a outdoor surface mounted bell box GFCI.. Is a surface mounted bell box (or any J-box) considered a wet location??? Give me solutions__ I already am aware there is a discrepancy.
so whats your method
Just for the sake of argument How do you'all (yankees included) switch from wiring inside the house (or any structure) to outdoor wiring??? What is the "code approved" method for installing a outdoor surface mounted bell box GFCI.. Is a surface mounted bell box (or any J-box) considered a wet location??? Give me solutions__ I already am aware there is a discrepancy.
- Status