I dont really like the tapered/non tapered argument. Although it seems intuitive, do you have any evidence that mixing tapered and non tapered is the reason? I have never seen that stated by any authority. Note RGS couplings are non tapered.
Tell arlington you want it and maybe they'll get it listed. They already have a one box with metal gem box in it and a romex connector good for 13 small romexes.
The rigid 6inches underground to feed a shed in a dry desert location I feel is in now way dangerous.
Not sure there is anything in the product standard that would permit the conduit hub to be listed for use with PVC. I think this is a case where the product standard would have to be changed first.
So any idea who's idea it was to create a product standard that only allowed RMC?
Maybe this goes back a long ways before PVC was used much?Again, if the PVC male adapter is listed to be used with the threaded metal hub, why does the threaded metal hub need to be listed for the PVC male adapter?
I think I agree with you here, as long as it was a case of them just not being investigated for the use. If they had been investigated for the use but denied for some reason, then we would have to ask why there is a conflict where one investigation found them okay but the other did not.
That is literally what the quoted language in post #28 from the DWTT UL category information says.
Yet the UL Guide Information for the hub says otherwise and the guide information is a 110.3(B) listing and labeling instruction. Where there is a conflict between listing and labeling instructions, it becomes a 90.4(B) issue and only YOUR AHJ knows the answer.
They have not been investigated (tested) for the use because there is no provision in the listing standard that provides for that investigation.
Maybe no one has submitted a proposal to make a change in the listing standard. As currently written the hubs can't even be used with IMC even though the threads are identical to those of RMC.So any idea who's idea it was to create a product standard that only allowed RMC?
The phrase "has only been investigated with X" does not mean the same as "may only be used with X." The "has only been investigated with X" language is agnostic on other uses. It just says that manufacturer of the hub has only done certain testing in getting the hub listed.
Of course it would be idea to take care of the whole mess, to include other components such as EMT connectors, bell boxes, etc....
That listing standard says pretty much the same as the one for the conduit hubs....the connector has only been investigated for use with a locknut and has not been investigated for use in fittings having female threads.
Agreed when the listing standards for both sides of the connection are silent on the combination.
Don I nominate you to try it
I don't have to worry about the real world anymore...just the play one on these forumsDon I nominate you to try it
Seems like this would also take care of the age old EMT fittings into bell boxes issue as well.
Seems simple enough to me--EMT connectors are just for putting in holes in sheet metal enclosures. If you want to go into a threaded hub, you need something like this:
www.bptfittings.com
True.......or......we could get rid of the listing nonsense so we don't have to worry about 1 out of 20 inspectors that call it or have to chase down an oddball fitting that no one stocks.Seems simple enough to me--EMT connectors are just for putting in holes in sheet metal enclosures. If you want to go into a threaded hub, you need something like this:
Bridgeport
Since 1925, Bridgeport has led the industry with US-made fittings, built from our principles of innovation, quality, outstanding service and rapid delivery, a tradition we maintain as part of the NSI…
Or you can use a rigid nipple and an EMT to rigid transition coupling.
Cheers, Wayne
