NM in Liquidtite

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: NM in Liquidtite

I guess I have to stick by my guns here the inside of conduit above grade is not a wet or damp location.Logic is not in the discussion .What is in the NEC is though.
Now I will concede if you show me where in the NEC it states that the inside of conduit installed outdoors and above ground is not a dry but a damp or a wet location.
I will agree that when under ground there is a provision to install conductors rated for a wet location.

That`s my story and I am sticking to it :D
 
Re: NM in Liquidtite

Has anyone answered why a raceway installed on the extierior of buildings has to be arranged to drain??

What is draining?

Raintight is not the same as dry , if it is was air tight then you might have an arguement
 
Re: NM in Liquidtite

Take a glass of water with ice in it. Let it stand for a few minutes at room temperature and what happens? We all know because if we did not put a coaster down, we are running for a towel to dry the table before our wives see what happened :( :D :D :D
 
Re: NM in Liquidtite

Yes! That is the point!

However, I have ran many a mile of THHN in underground conduit! NOT THWN.

I have also used many a thousand feet of THHN, for service risers.(NOT sunlight rated)

BUT the code is slowly catching up with all of us!

Just because we have done it before, doesn't make it right! :roll:
 
Re: NM in Liquidtite

Originally posted by allenwayne:
I guess I have to stick by my guns here the inside of conduit above grade is not a wet or damp location.Logic is not in the discussion .What is in the NEC is though.
Now I will concede if you show me where in the NEC it states that the inside of conduit installed outdoors and above ground is not a dry but a damp or a wet location.
Click to expand...
Allen, have you even looked at 225.22?

If this article doesn't tell you that an exterior raintight raceway has moisture in it, then tell us why in your opinion the ink is wasted to include it in the NEC.

Roger

[ October 27, 2005, 08:21 AM: Message edited by: roger ]
 
Re: NM in Liquidtite

Originally posted by allenwayne:
I will agree that when under ground there is a provision to install conductors rated for a wet location.
Click to expand...
Allen, why would the interior of conduit underground be any wetter than that of conduit above ground? Either it's waterproof or it isn't.

The point is the location of the conduit, not the capabilities of it. If the outside of conduit is outdoors, so is the inside, along with the conductors within.
 
Re: NM in Liquidtite

Originally posted by electric_instructor:
why a raceway on the outside of a building has to be arrainged to drain?

AND define drain? :D
Click to expand...
It has to be drained because there will be water in it whether it's raintight or not. This is one reason the big stink about reengineering "Raintight" EMT fittings after UL pulled the listing of the old types was so rediculous.

#1 drain verb To draw off (a liquid) by a gradual process: drained water from the sink.

#2 To cause liquid to go out from; empty: drained the bathtub; drain the pond or in this case the raceway
Click to expand...
Roger
 
Re: NM in Liquidtite

Hello Mike, no they are not the same thing.

398.17 is the only mention of waterproof and wouldn't apply to any other section IMO.

Roger
 
Re: NM in Liquidtite

225.22 Raceways on exterior surfaces of buildings or other structures.Raceways on exterior surfaces of buildings or other structures shall be RAINTIGHT and arranged to drain water.

I still stick to my guns where does it state moist or damp location ?It does say RAINTIGHT which to me says it is not wet nor damp on the interior.Arranged to drain water ,well what can that mean as written in this article .One can argue that it is designed to drain water if inadvertently it is left open and water does enter the enclosure it will drain and not collect.
One can argue that point as well as argue that it is written like this to keep moisture out which would make it watertight but watertight is not mentioned.But both are only opinions and opinions are like well we all know that one and we all have one.
But when I read 100 for the definition of raintight - Constructed or protected so that exposure to a beating rain will not result in the entrance of water under specified test conditions.
Since there is no definition of moisture proof
all we can use is raintight,rainproof,watertight and weatherproof.
Watertight is the only one that specifically mentions moisture,but 225.22 says raintight not watertight so it does not apply here.
So I guess I did read 225.22 and the definitions that relate to 225.22.Has there been any sound factual proof to prove I am incorrect.NO do I stick to my guns YES,have I been swayed NO.Have you brought to the table anything other than your opinion NO ;)
 
Re: NM in Liquidtite

Larry the only mention of use of a conductor suitable for a wet location is when it is in lets say RNC and below ground.The opinion of still in a damp/moist/wet location when above ground is just that an opinion.
Now if the NEC said that all conductors regardless of above or below ground when installed outdoors shall have conductors rated for a wet location I would have to agree.But that is not the case.
RNC and LFNC are both listed as suitable for wet locations,but there is no mention of using conductors rated for a wet location.So are we required to use these types of conductors (REQUIRED as the key word)No,would I say it is advisable yes but that isn`t the question.Required is the question and to that I would still say no_Our personal opinions are not what is being discussed but what the NEC says we have to meet as a min.wiring requirement is.
 
Re: NM in Liquidtite

Allen, the fact is, what you typed
225.22 Raceways on exterior surfaces of buildings or other structures.Raceways on exterior surfaces of buildings or other structures shall be RAINTIGHT and arranged to drain water.
Click to expand...
is not what the article says, go back and read it again, slower this time.

Then type it again, the words have to be in the proper order, not in the order you want them to be in.

You said,
Just the facts,just the facts
Click to expand...
how can we have this if you change and manipulate the facts?

Roger

[ October 27, 2005, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: roger ]
 
Re: NM in Liquidtite

225.22 Raceways on Exterior Surfaces of Buildings or Other Structures.
Raceways on exteriors of buildings or other structures shall be arranged to drain and shall be raintight in wet locations.

the one thing that catches my eye is the lack of the words water proof
 
Re: NM in Liquidtite

Mike, you have posted the actual wording of the article section, and it does not include "water proof" because it is a physical fact that it can't be.

Allen, read the sentence as it is written, this will show you that no persons opinion means anything because grammatical rules of the sentence make it absolute and matter of fact.

Now, forget about your thoughts that there are opinions driving our stands on this matter.

I'm not a literature major, but I do remember some things from school.

The article sections title establishes the topic, Raceways on Exterior Surfaces of Buildings or Other Structures

The article section is one of the simplest in the NEC because it is one sentence that is made up of two clauses that can stand on their own as individual sentences, but instead they are joined with a conjunction that is the word "and".

This is nothing new and not my opinion, it is been a grammatical rule for centuries, or at-least a long long time.

The fist clause is, "Raceways on exteriors of buildings or other structures shall be arranged to drain" this is a complete sentence on it's own and means all raceways period, not any specific type.

It also means raceways under an eave or deck that are not subject to direct rain, i.e. not wet locations.

The second clause is "shall be raintight in wet locations." this does not change the first clause in any way, but is a separate thought that can be a sentence on it's own by adding "Raceways" to the beginning of it.

Example; Raceways shall be raintight in wet locations.

Now let's go ahead and put it together as two sentences.

225.22 Raceways on Exterior Surfaces of Buildings or Other Structures

Raceways on exteriors of buildings or other structures shall be arranged to drain.

Raceways shall be raintight in wet locations.

This says the same thing as;

Raceways on exteriors of buildings or other structures shall be arranged to drain and shall be raintight in wet locations.


I'm sure some of the more literature polished members will agree with this.

Roger

[ October 27, 2005, 10:52 PM: Message edited by: roger ]
 
Re: NM in Liquidtite

It still comes down to opinions.What ifs,Interpet it this way,If it was required to be this way then this wouldn`t have been written and interpeted a different way.
The one thing this forum has taught me is that the NEC is a written document and that if it is not written in an article than it only exists in ones opinion and therefore not to be taken into the actual install.
Roger, you of all people has told me over the past few years to not interpet the code to my likeing but interpet it as it is written ,since that is the final say so.Are you now telling me and the others of this fine forum that even though it is not written in the code it is ok to use our opinions to make an install legal because we think it is alrightt to do it a certain way.
I won`t spend the time and go back to posts where you rode me in the ground for using my opinion to argue a fact when it was NOT WRITTEN in the NEC that way.
In this case wet is wet not moist nor damp plain and simple.If it is not moist nor damp what other state of use is there ??? Give me another valid state of usage as outlined in the NEC then I will agree.
because Allen has brought to the table a valid point and there has to be something I missed that will prove that,well sorry not this time.I return to this forum daily for one reason to learn something new every day.I was not fortunate enough to spend months behind a desk learning formulas and equations when i was an apprentice in the 70`s .So i had to learn what I could in the time alloted to me after work weekends and after 32 years I am still learning.The day we think we know it all is the day we have lost proper perspective.Also the only stupid question we have are the ones we don`t ask.
So to you Roger as well as Charlie ,don,bryan,jim,bob and all the fine knoweledgable electricians on this forum I offer my thanks.With that said and walking away humble i turn .
Ok guys back to the norm the kid gloves are off :eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top