MC CABLE

[boris machado]

Re: MC CABLE

hey guys i think theres been a little misunderstanding here when said running to the panel i was talking about b about 4 or 5 feet before getting in to the panel dont you think does cables are going to look more nice and neat tie up together instead of been all loose on top of the studs (like spagetti)on a ceiling or soffit .Remenber that mc cable should be secure no more than 12 inches from the box or fitting so going down to the panel with all the cables tie up for sure if not going to look good and if not going to meet code plus how you are going to get them all inside the panel at once ? and this bring me to a new question
If run mc cable in a conduit running to concrete box in a ceiling(fixture oulet )is that legal

 

[eprice]

Re: MC CABLE

Originally posted by sandsnow:
If I have multiple HR's in seperate conduits that come to one large box, and then consolidate through a 8 foot long riser (say 2inch) down to a panelboard, I don't need to worry about derating in this conduit???
[/QB]

Only if those circuits are at least 88 feet long. Otherwise the 8 foot long riser exceeds 10% of the non-derated portion of the circuit length.

 

[physis]

Re: MC CABLE

And if those HR's are NM I don't think you're allowed very many in a 2".

 

[macmikeman]

Re: MC CABLE

I never read any of this post until just now. Wow this is awesome Ryan. I wish you could teach code class to all the inspectors in the Western Division. Now I have a question. What impact if any would this have on the new part of 334.80 in the 2005 code? .

 

[physis]

Re: MC CABLE

I can't help but think that if I try to use that exception I'll wont be able to convince an inspector to accept it. And it's wording doesn't help.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: MC CABLE

What impact if any would this have on the new part of 334.80 in the 2005 code? .

In my opinion the specific rule in 334.80 overrides the general exception in 310.15. Ryan does not agree.
Don

[ July 16, 2005, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: don_resqcapt19 ]

 

[pierre]

Re: MC CABLE

Don
I agree with you about the requirement of 334.80 takes precedent over 310.15(A) exception. I do not know if Ryan agrees with this or not.
The reason Ryan has not responded since his first post, is he is in Florida with Mike Holt taking/helping with a 4 day seminar. I believe he is there for the week.

[ July 16, 2005, 06:32 AM: Message edited by: pierre ]