nm in conduit in unfinished basement

[realolman]

If I put nm in conduit for physical protection down the cement block wall of an unfinished basement to a switch or receptacle, do I have to use compression box connectors or can I use set screw connectors?

Is there such a thing as nm-c or not?

 

[mdshunk]

If I put nm in conduit for physical protection down the cement block wall of an unfinished basement to a switch or receptacle, do I have to use compression box connectors or can I use set screw connectors?

Either one.

Is there such a thing as nm-c or not?

Kinda sorta. Some UF is dual labeled as NM-C.

 

[stickboy1375]

Either or, but I use these on top

 

[mdshunk]

I use these on top:

 

[stickboy1375]

Does that just slip over the emt? what holds it in place? pressure? probably alot cheaper than mine...




EDIT... I found them... they look pretty good have to give them a try.. thanks

 

[iwire]

Not saying the Arlington's do not work fine but they are not (or where not) listed for line voltage use.

They are great for voice and data drops.

 

[ptonsparky]

Not saying the Arlington's do not work fine but they are not (or where not) listed for line voltage use.

They are great for voice and data drops.

Guess I better start looking for a UL sticker on the 2x8 that NM cable just came through before it goes into the non voltage rated bushing.

 

[iwire]

Guess I better start looking for a UL sticker on the 2x8 that NM cable just came through before it goes into the non voltage rated bushing.

There is no requirement for a UL listed 2 x 8 (yet )

But check 358.6 (2002 NEC)

 

[mdshunk]

Not saying the Arlington's do not work fine but they are not (or where not) listed for line voltage use.

Think about this... the wiring method is "NM cable". The piece of EMT is "sleeving for protection" as referenced in Chapter 9, note 2. This "sleeving for protection" is optional in most cases, and wouldn't need to be an electrical raceway at all. It could be something built out of 2x4 lumber, which obviously wouldn't need to be UL listed either.

I did use the combination coupling in the earlier picture until an inspector actually gave me the tip to use the Arlington pipe bushings. I'm not saying he was right, but since "he told me so", I have an out for my inspections if I'm ever flagged for it. Plus, they only cost about a nickel.

 

[iwire]

Think about this... the wiring method is "NM cable". The piece of EMT is "sleeving for protection" as referenced in Chapter 9, note 2. This "sleeving for protection" is optional in most cases, and wouldn't need to be an electrical raceway at all. It could be something built out of 2x4 lumber, which obviously wouldn't need to be UL listed either.

IMO that argument goes out the window once that raceway is attached to a box.

It is no longer a sleeve it is now a raceway.

JMO, and I don't think using the Arlington's are dangerous or criminal.

 

[mdshunk]

JMO, and I don't think using the Arlington's are dangerous or criminal.

So you're saying that it might be in improper use of a fitting that we could overlook? :wink:

I smell a code change proposal. George S, where are you? You're one for 10, or somthing like that. How many you got in for 2011 so far?

 

[George Stolz]

I've got a little list for the 2011, but I haven't been as good about keeping it updated for all the different discussions we've had going on for the past while. There's been a lot of good proposal material that's been overlooked.

The only violation I see is clamping to the box (314.17(B)) and the connector shown does not relieve that either. The plastic bushing from Arlington would be compliant with 300.15(C), IMO. I trust (without looking) that the bushing is listed for protection of low voltage cables, but NM is arguably a bit tougher than Cat-5 anyway, so that should not affect approval, IMO.

IMO that argument goes out the window once that raceway is attached to a box.

It is no longer a sleeve it is now a raceway.

What do you think of this read of 300.15(C):

A box or conduit body shall not be required where cables enter or exit from conduit or tubing that is used to provide cable support or protection against physical damage. A fitting shall be provided on the end(s) of the conduit or tubing to protect the cable from abrasion.​

By "end(s)", does that mean that when the term is singular, the other end is a box? If so, then the cable would seem to maintain the "wiring method" status and the pipe would still be for physical protection. A thought.​

 

[iwire]

What do you think of this read of 300.15(C):

I said what I thought.

 

[George Stolz]

So, why the "end(s)"? How does a physical protection raceway have one end?