Question on EMT support

[Tulsa Electrician]

When I was looking up info for another thread I found this on caddy's website. They were discussing 2020 updates.
I took a screen shot of it to share. Not to sure about the support where a coupling with in the ten foot support needing a additional support.
Unless it was showing a support where the structure supports are greater than ten feet from each other.

I hope there not saying if a coupling is with in This ten foot span and more than three feet from from the support that additional support is required.

Any way a pic.

 

[Tulsa Electrician]

From a mike holt news letter.
I think I will send to caddy.

 

[infinity]

Couplings have no bearing on the supporting requirements for EMT. I believe that back in the 90's the NEC had the word fitting included in the requirement but that has been removed.

 

[Tulsa Electrician]

Caddy probably just want to sell more parts. Or they were saying they have a product if the span is over 10' between supports.
I could be reading what they wrote incorrectly. Thanks for the reply

 

[infinity]

I think that you're right. The graphic exceeds the minimum code requirement but might get someone to buy more of their products.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Couplings have no bearing on the supporting requirements for EMT. I believe that back in the 90's the NEC had the word fitting included in the requirement but that has been removed.tje

Yes "fitting" was removed and replaced with "conduit body or other tubing termination" in the 1993 code. The substantiation said

SUBSTANTIATION: Reason: Provides consistency with other conduit support language and clarifies by removing the age old argument, "is a coupling a fitting?"

 

[infinity]

Yes "fitting" was removed and replaced with "conduit body or other tubing termination" in the 1993 code. The substantiation said

Is that one of your old "proposals"?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Is that one of your old "proposals"?

No. That proposal was by Patricia B. Horton, Allied Tube & Conduit Corporation and there was second one by someone from Carrol Burtner, NEMA on the same issue that code cycle.