Snap in, no locknut, conduit connectors.

[bob sheehan]

We see large amounts of snap in, no locknut, conduit connectors from a couple of manufacturers. There is no way to tighten them, so we are puzzled how they could comply with the code which, in several places, says that all nuts, screws, etc. must be tight. Even if they are tight enough now, how about in 10, 20, or ???years. What about their grounding, and amount of tightness which can depend upon the panel wall thickness, diameter of KO, etc. Also whatabout the huge lawsuit potential if there is an accident, fire, etc.

 

[bphgravity]

Re: Snap in, no locknut, conduit connectors.

It all comes down to their testing and listing. Several manufacturer's have their fittings listed as suitable for grounding (bonding) that are of the snap-in type.

 

[bob sheehan]

Re: Snap in, no locknut, conduit connectors.

Yes, there some are UL listed. However can you imagine what the lawyers and juries will do after there is a problem. They will read the Code, regarding tight locknuts, screws, etc. then demonstrate that the connectors have no way to tighten them. 73 companies have gone bankrupt and 8400 lawsuits have occured in the past two years related to asbestos. Most have little or nothing to do with actual illness's or injuries.

 

[peter d]

Re: Snap in, no locknut, conduit connectors.

What is the issue?

These connectors have been tested by the manufacturers and listed by UL. If you don't like them, don't use them.

 

[charlie tuna]

Re: Snap in, no locknut, conduit connectors.

these fittings are ul rated for their use! can't complain about tightness -- from what i find in the field today is i can remove most existing installations without the need for channel locks!!

 

[bob sheehan]

Re: Snap in, no locknut, conduit connectors.

The MGM fire in Las Vegas, several years ago which resulted in dozens of deaths and hundreds of millions of dollars of damages, was caused by a loose locknut behind a pie case. (see National Fire Protection conclusion). It seems to be a huge risk to use these things, with a very small advantage. We have a lawyer in Cincinnati who drives a Roll Royce convertable, entertains and contributes huge sums to Presidents and other politicians, and wins hundreds of millions of dollars in judgemants, based on junk science and dubious technical data. Also the Beverly Hills fire (dozens of deaths, huge financial payouts, etc.) in nearby Kentucky also resulted in judgements against the chair, carpet, wire, box, etc. manufacturers and included UL and a multitude of others. Any company who ignores these product liability is flirting with disaster.

 

[peter d]

Re: Snap in, no locknut, conduit connectors.

A few things:

1) The MGM fire was 26 years ago, not "several" years ago.

2) When a fire or fatility occurs, EVERYONE ends up getting sued whether they are repsonsible or not.

3) Your argument is counterintuitive. A snap-in type of connector provides a more secure connection than a locknut type connector. Furthermore, a fire is much more likely to result from a poor installation [such as the MGM Grand (and long before snap-in connectors were invented at that)] than a particular product.

4) Why are you so concerned about this? Do you know something that UL and the manufacturers don't know? Have you conducted independent testing? Have you published reports? If not, you are just rendering an unsubstantiated opinion that has no real value.

 

[bob sheehan]

Re: Snap in, no locknut, conduit connectors.

There is a saying, which may or may not be a bit of an exaggeration that says that says that all companies are one lawsuit away from bankruptcy. Actually I invented what are probably the first series of steel snap in connectors, over 30 years ago, that were and are still used by many large OEMs in North America.And yes we and other well known testing laboratories did extensive testing and we are comfortable that they are suitable for the applications that they are used in. However without getting too technical here, it is important they are manufactured to rigid specifications (type and carbon content of steel, heat treating, plating, and so on), and are not suitable for many applications. My original point is that if a very aggressive attorney/ambulance chaser were to present the very clear Code requirements regarding tightening to a jury, particularly if there were a serious injury, fire, etc., the judgement/ award to his client could be devastating. I do not have a dog in this fight, but thought that the readers may like to be informed, and have these important facts.

 

[peter d]

Re: Snap in, no locknut, conduit connectors.

Originally posted by bob sheehan:
The MGM fire in Las Vegas, several years ago which resulted in dozens of deaths and hundreds of millions of dollars of damages, was caused by a loose locknut behind a pie case.

I realize that the MGM fire is held up as the model for everything that can go wrong, but it was many more elements than a loose locknut. The building lacked complete coverage sprinklers and automatic fire detection devices, had no voice evacuation system or elevator recall, was loaded with combustibles, and had a HVAC system which easily filled the building with smoke due to its poor design.

Furthermore, I am no conspiracy theorist but I believe the investigation report leaves more questions than answers. It is clear that the raceway was poorly assembled, but it it not clear where the ground fault originated that that caused it to heat up and disintegrate.

And there is the lingering possibility that the fire may have been caused by arson.

[ February 18, 2006, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: peter d ]