I got the impression that he was saying that a connector of some sort at the conduit entrance negates the requirement for the sheath to even extend to the enclosure, or like with my example above.
312.5(C) doesn't specify the extent of sheath clearance with the clamp you have shown but 314.17(B) does and it states the sheath shall extend not less than 1/4 inch inside the box and beyond any clamp. (language added to 2017 NEC)
Agreed for enclosures within the scope of Article 314, boxes, used as "outlet, device, junction, or pull boxes." That does not include panelboard cabinets or other enclosures subject to Article 312: "cabinets, cutout boxes, and meter socket enclosures."
So are you saying that even if every other reference related to NM installation all require the 1/4 inch of sheathing minimum to extend into an enclosure because you don't see the the added reference in 312 other than the exception in 312.5(C) the sheathing is exempt from the requirements. And even though it is also mentioned in 334, because the reference is in 334.15(C) any other area is also exempt from the 1/4 inch.
Precisely.
That's only in the context of installation on basement walls.
312.5(C) indicates a minimum 18 in raceway up to maximum 10 ft of raceway. Does your "short nipple" meet the minimum? But even if it does, the condition of the exception in 312.5(C) exception(1) cannot be met if raceway is continuous box to box. Also the general condition of the exception indicates the raceway comes out the top of the enclosure, thus your suggestion fails that point as well.
Well, for a complete raceway, that brings up the "related question" I asked, does the cable still need to be secured to a panelboard enclosure to comply with 312.5(C)?
That is just illustrating 312.5(C) Exception, which lets you skip securing the cables to the panelboard enclosure. Many of those requirements can be skipped if you instead figure out how to secure the cable coming out of the sleeve to the panelboard enclosure.
If the 312.5(C) cable in complete raceway to panelboard enclosure question has come up before, I'd be happy to review any threads you can point me to.For another possible never-ending argument, if you are standing on your head outside, is the sky up or down?
I responded there with:
Such as the NM-to-EMT transition fitting or my NM clamp-and-female adapter method.
This is a very specific installation, and different from a general box-to-box conduit.
Are you suggesting that if the transition fitting secures the NM to the sleeve, and the sleeve is secured to the cabinet, the NM is thereby secured to the cabinet? A transitive property of securement? Regardless of the length of the sleeve?
Yes, I certainly agree than a clamp connector inside the panel, screwed into a coupling or female adapter outside the panel, would secure the cable to the enclosure.
Yes, and more specifically, that the sheath need not reach the cabinet interior.
And I'm saying that such a clamping assembly on the other end of the conduit would provide the same function (if not better), and allow a standard connector at the enclosure end.
Yes, and I'm suggesting that those rules do not apply to an enclosure-to-enclosure conduit, regardless of the wiring method within.
So why isn't that a violation of 310.120(A)? Otherwise, I agree that the NM to conduit transition fitting, along with stripping the NM sheath, would be a change in wiring method, and so then 312.5(C) becomes moot, as a cable is no longer entering the cabinet.
