Sleved romex with rigid pvc

[big john]

I think 300.4(D) makes it pretty clear there is no requirement for sleeving to be a raceway because it plainly states that conduit itself could be protected by an alternate metal sleeve:

Exception: Steel plates, sleeves, or the equivalent shall not be required to protect rigid metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit, rigid nonmetallic conduit, or electrical metallic tubing.

 

[Smart $]

In my area NM run down a running board.

Hmmm.... running boards are not mentioned in Article 300 until 300.5(F).

I was not aware reality was in question. :huh:

Reality is truthfully never in question. It is what it is.

However, one's perception of reality may be extensively scrutinized.

 

[iwire]

How would you comply with the securing requirement for say a 14/2 NM cable run through a 6' long PVC plumbing pipe.

It would be secured and supported by the pipe.

 

[big john]

Hmmm.... running boards are not mentioned in Article 300 until 300.5(F).

Running boards are mentioned in 334.15(C) before it refers back to 300.4

 

[iwire]

Hmmm.... running boards are not mentioned in Article 300 until 300.5(F).

Yet still I see it but of course the code language has changed since I used to do dwelling units.

Reality is truthfully never in question. It is what it is.

However, one's perception of reality may be extensively scrutinized.

Well you asked me if conduit or tubing provides protection.

Do you think plumbing pipe does not?

 

[Smart $]

You are assuming the messenger is correct. That is not in evidence yet.

Message

 is the evidence.  Interpretation seems to be askew.

[QUOTE="iwire, post: 1694022, member: 137492"]Or said another way, we have to read it how you read it to reach your conclusion.[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying you have to read it the way I do.  I'm just saying how I read it.  You are completely within your rights to disagree with me... but don't expect me to change my mind simply because you think I should. :slaphead:

 

[iwire]

One of the funny thing is this fairly recent change

Nonmetallic-sheathed cable installed on the
wall of an unfinished basement shall be permitted to be
installed in a listed conduit or tubing or shall be protected
in accordance with 300.4.

We never needed permission to run NM in conduit or tubing, it was already specifically allowed.

This change was catering to one very narrow installation likely proposed by some 'do gooder' who was offended by bare NM in a basement.

 

[iwire]

Message

 is the evidence.  Interpretation seems to be askew.[/QUOTE]

We agree. :thumbsup:

[QUOTE]
I'm not saying you have to read it the way I do.  I'm just saying how I read it.  You are completely within your rights to disagree with me...[B] but don't expect me to change my mind simply because you think I should.[/B] :slaphead:[/QUOTE]

Right back at ya. :D

I don't expect you to change your mind, it was clear by your second post your heels had dug in and you will fight this to the death. 

Luckily you are not an AHJ or inspector of wires in my area so I can breath easy.  8-)

 

[Smart $]

Yet still I see it but of course the code language has changed since I used to do dwelling units.

I never really did dwelling units but as a few side jobs. Nonetheless, it just goes to show you that reality and Code do not always jive.

Well you asked me if conduit or tubing provides protection.

Do you think plumbing pipe does not?

Some plumbing pipe offers equivalent protection to its listed conduit or tubing counterpart... but Code has no control over unlisted product, and as such has no control over the protection afforded. Actually Code should include a stipulation for the level of protection required. Obviously smurf tube does not afford protection equivalent to that of GRC.

 

[big john]

...This change was catering to one very narrow installation likely proposed by some 'do gooder' who was offended by bare NM in a basement.

I actually assumed that came about from the opposite direction: Somebody who saw a cable assembly pulled in conduit and (wrongly) made a stink that it couldn't be done, so this was an unnecessary clarification.

 

[iwire]

Nonetheless, it just goes to show you that reality and Code do not always jive.

Or maybe your interpretation and code do not always jive.

Some plumbing pipe offers equivalent protection to its listed conduit or tubing counterpart... but Code has no control over unlisted product, and as such has no control over the protection afforded.

Yet 300.4(B)(2) still allows a 'steel sleeve' for protection.

2011 NEC

(2) Nonmetallic-Sheathed Cable and Electrical Nonmetallic
Tubing. Where nails or screws are likely to penetrate
nonmetallic-sheathed cable or electrical nonmetallic tubing,
a steel sleeve, steel plate, or steel clip not less than 1.6 mm
(1⁄16 in.) in thickness shall be used to protect the cable or
tubing.

 

[Smart $]

...Luckily you are not an AHJ or inspector of wires in my area so I can breath easy.

I'm actually much more relaxed in practice than I am while scrutinizing.

There are many issues in Code which I do not agree with... but until someone makes a big enough issue of it, and gets key persons to get on board, it'll never get changed. But some hard heads are so adamant that the Code says something that it doesn't, it's hard to make any headway at times.

 

[big john]

I never really did dwelling units but as a few side jobs. Nonetheless, it just goes to show you that reality and Code do not always jive.

I agree the code isn't always consistent or logical, but I really don't see it i this case. You seem to be doing a lot of vague supposition to and philisophical dancing to argue that for some reason code would exclusively prohibit Romex in sleeving.

Support your position with code articles and I'm man enough to admit when I'm mistaken; it happens a lot.

 

[Smart $]

Or maybe your interpretation and code do not always jive.



Yet 300.4(B)(2) still allows a 'steel sleeve' for protection.

2011 NEC

Yes... and that steel sleeve is practically the equivalent of the "toughest" listed raceway... GRC.

My interpretation is typically on the nose. My perspective can vary. Just like my interpretation that many of your replies to my posts are intended to give me a hard time... confirm or deny?

 

[big john]

Yes... and that steel sleeve is practically the equivalent of the "toughest" listed raceway... GRC...

And yet I already posted above where the code clearly makes a distinction between metal sleeving and GRC.

 

[iwire]

Yes... and that steel sleeve is practically the equivalent of the "toughest" listed raceway... GRC.

:lol:

That is weak, really.

My interpretation is typically on the nose. My perspective can vary. Just like my interpretation that many of your replies to my posts are intended to give me a hard time... confirm or deny?

I would say you and I are are pretty equal in giving each other a hard time.

 

[Smart $]

I agree the code isn't always consistent or logical, but I really don't see it i this case. You seem to be doing a lot of vague supposition to and philisophical dancing to argue that for some reason code would exclusively prohibit Romex in sleeving.

That's half the problem right there. You are oversimplifying the point I am making. Romex in sleeving only becomes a problem (as Code is written) when the sleeving is longer than 4.5' and not a listed conduit or raceway.

Support your position with code articles and I'm man enough to admit when I'm mistaken; it happens a lot.

Apparently not when the article and section(s) is provided and you interpret differently. :blink:

 

[big john]

I've already posted the article that plainly allows unsecued cables when they are fished. And fishing is how cables get pull through sleeves.

You changed your argument from first implying that the interior of a fished space was not concealed, to then saying if the ends of the sleeves were accessible the sleeve was not concealed so could not be fished through.

It seems pretty plain to me that if you can't get inside a sleeve to install straps, that is by definition "concealed" and allowed to be fished.

This is further supported by the very definition you posted that says wires in a raceway are considered concealed. Why would a sleeve be any different?

 

[big john]

And, becaus I can't edit, with the exception of citing a definition for "concealed" you have not cited code substantuation for most of what you've asserted here, which goes to my original point of show me the writing and I may change my mind.

 

[Smart $]

Yes... and that steel sleeve is practically the equivalent of the "toughest" listed raceway... GRC.

:lol:

That is weak, really.

Slight exaggeration, perhaps. But not at all weak...

3/4" EMT nominal wall thickness (0.049") is less than 1/16". So the only listed round steel raceways left that have a nominal wall thickness of 1/16" or greater are RMC and IMC...!!!

http://steeltubeinstitute.org/steel-conduit/types-of-steel-conduit/electrical-metallic-tubing-emt/
http://steeltubeinstitute.org/steel-conduit/types-of-steel-conduit/intermediate-metal-conduit-imc/
http://steeltubeinstitute.org/steel-conduit/types-of-steel-conduit/rigid-metal-conduit-rmc/

I would say you and I are are pretty equal in giving each other a hard time.

So that is a "confirm", yes?

I'm talking intent here. I never intend to give you a hard time... it just happens. :lol: