RMC threaded coupling U.L. listing

Status
Not open for further replies.
iwire said:
I agree with Smart even though I have done it and will do it again.
Click to expand...
I read through all the responses and here is where I'm at.

There are no IAEI EIEIO meetings where I live. Even if there were do I really have the energy to try and change the world? Went to work yesterday, went to work today, going to work tomorrow...
 
JJspark said:
Can you use a RMC threaded coupling to transition to LFMC?
Click to expand...


Of course not. That is as crazy as using ''old work boxes'' in new construction.............. Why would you use anything else besides RMC in the first place. We all know it is the only safe way to go , cause you just never know about these things.
 
fmtjfw said:
....

The male threads on fittings are not tapered threads.

Nipples may or may not be tapered threads.

The female threads and designed to work (only?) with tapered threads.

Throw the implications of DWTT in the middle of an IAEI meeting and you will be entertained with a minimum ? hour cat fight. (I know, I've done it.) The UL rep will respond with the DWTT verbiage and then sit back.
Click to expand...

This strict interpretation makes about 95% of every service non-compliant, you know when you screw in an EMT connector, PVC terminal adapter or SE cable connector into the meter pan hub. By this interpretation only RMC and IMC can be used for a service. If that is UL how writes a standard and lists products then there is a problem with their methodology.
 
infinity said:
This strict interpretation makes about 95% of every service non-compliant, you know when you screw in an EMT connector, PVC terminal adapter or SE cable connector into the meter pan hub. By this interpretation only RMC and IMC can be used for a service. If that is UL how writes a standard and lists products then there is a problem with their methodology.
Click to expand...

You can use PVC/EMT to female threaded adapter then a RMC/IMC nipple with tapered threads into the hub to be compliant.

SE cable connector is a problem.

I know, it's really stupid, but you never know when an inspector is going to read the UL White Book and start enforcing it.:blink:

[I've come across people who believe you can't serve a single structure with a service and a feeder from another building because there is no article with "service" and "feeder" in its title.:D]
 
texie said:
Well gee, wouldn't you think that after 50 or so years of folks using these products this way that somebody would say "lets investigate and get 'em listed" for this use?
Click to expand...
That is exactly what happened with the "raintight" EMT fittings, and the final product IMO accomplished very little. The old standard compression fittings held out enough water to be effective. Most of the time more moisture ended up inside from condensation then what ever leaked through the fittings, and still does.:slaphead::slaphead:
 
fmtjfw said:
[I've come across people who believe you can't serve a single structure with a service and a feeder from another building because there is no article with "service" and "feeder" in its title.:D]
Click to expand...

Please show me where that person is because I don't recall that being said.
 
iwire said:
Please show me where that person is because I don't recall that being said.
Click to expand...

http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=162639

Starting at post #29 in a discussion about a service and a separate feeder.

#29 You said that 225 does not apply to services
#30 I countered that the text of 225 and 230 both allowed multiple feeders and services under 225.30(B)(1) and 230.2 (B)(1)
[A better reference would have been 225.37 and 230.2(E)]
#31 You said scope and titles are code, can't be ignored
#32 I ask if we need an Article 227 to cover instances when we mix items from 225 & 230 in the same building
I also ask, given the title and scope of 225 how it can regulate items within a building e.g.: 225.32

I guess I was left with the impression that your opinion was that you can't serve a single structure with a service and a feeder from another building because there is no article with "service" and "feeder" in its title.

Apparently I misunderstood your posts. I apologize.

I would like to know your opinion about serving a structure with a 225 feeder and a 230 service.

Thanks.
 
fmtjfw said:
I would like to know your opinion about serving a structure with a 225 feeder and a 230 service.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Can't be done if using RMC threaded couplings, hubs, or other fittings with straight threads on some other raceway adapter.

Had to tie it to the thread topic somehow;)
 
fmtjfw said:
http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=162639

Starting at post #29 in a discussion about a service and a separate feeder.

#29 You said that 225 does not apply to services
#30 I countered that the text of 225 and 230 both allowed multiple feeders and services under 225.30(B)(1) and 230.2 (B)(1)
[A better reference would have been 225.37 and 230.2(E)]
#31 You said scope and titles are code, can't be ignored
#32 I ask if we need an Article 227 to cover instances when we mix items from 225 & 230 in the same building
I also ask, given the title and scope of 225 how it can regulate items within a building e.g.: 225.32

I guess I was left with the impression that your opinion was that you can't serve a single structure with a service and a feeder from another building because there is no article with "service" and "feeder" in its title.

Apparently I misunderstood your posts. I apologize.

I would like to know your opinion about serving a structure with a 225 feeder and a 230 service.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

The fact that I strongly believe the scopes of the articles must be followed in no way infers that believe a building cannot be supplied by both feeders and services.



It is done all the time.

The code is a pervasive one, and have not seen anything preventing it.
 
As an illustration of the reasoning involved let's take a look at the labelling requirement. To meet iwire's sense of scope, if you wanted to have a placard where the service enters mentioning the service and the feeder and a placard where the feeder enters mentioning the service you would have to have parallel language in both sections.
There is nothing wrong with a requirement in the service section conditional on the existence of a feeder, it just cannot regulate anything about the feeder itself.
Anyway, the mention of something you have to do if there is both a feeder and am service is an implicit (FWTW) recognition that that situation is not prohibited by the code.
PS: I think you mean "implies" not "infers". It does change the meaning....
 
Why not use the transition couplings made for the purpose. I know they make EMT to LFMC I bet they make them for RMC
 
While we're on this subject, how does one connect EMT to a "bell" box in a listed compliant way? Or maybe how to connect EMT (RT compression) to a conduit body?
This is a subject that has made me crazy for years. I think it shows how out of touch some of the standards folks are.
 
texie said:
While we're on this subject, how does one connect EMT to a "bell" box in a listed compliant way? Or maybe how to connect EMT (RT compression) to a conduit body?
This is a subject that has made me crazy for years. I think it shows how out of touch some of the standards folks are.
Click to expand...

There is no compliant way that I know of.

Yet it happens all the time.
 
If it is in a wet location, even the threaded ko seals that makers of wp bell boxes state that additional sealant must be used to seal around the ko plugs. Up here on Planet Macmikeman everyone thinks that if it is good enough for the ko seals, then a reasonable thing would be to apply sealant to any mismatch of a hub and pvc conduit or emt conduit threads and let it go at that.............. I personally prefer silicone sealant.
 
macmikeman said:
If it is in a wet location, even the threaded ko seals that makers of wp bell boxes state that additional sealant must be used to seal around the ko plugs. Up here on Planet Macmikeman everyone thinks that if it is good enough for the ko seals, then a reasonable thing would be to apply sealant to any mismatch of a hub and pvc conduit or emt conduit threads and let it go at that.............. I personally prefer silicone sealant.
Click to expand...

I have yet to see any raceway system that can remain dry in wet, or even damp, conditions. Water gets in from condensation. I don't think that can be avoided. I think it's best to rely on the integrity of the conductor insulation for water protection an arrange the raceway to drain.
 
K8MHZ said:
I have yet to see any raceway system that can remain dry in wet, or even damp, conditions. Water gets in from condensation. I don't think that can be avoided. I think it's best to rely on the integrity of the conductor insulation for water protection an arrange the raceway to drain.
Click to expand...
You plagiarized my response - nearly word for word before I ever had a chance to post it:cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top