using conductors from NM in conduit

Status
Not open for further replies.
goldstar said:
Why do we continually have this discussion? Why doesn’t the NEC just compel the wire manufacturers to imprint the wire ratings on the wires before the jacket goes on?

$$$ I guess. :roll:
Click to expand...

Submit that proposal. I'll see you in ten years if we're that lucky, so we can laugh about our foolish idealistic younger days....

There's no money in allowing the exact same but unmarked conductors to be used. There's no money in marking the exact same conductors so they can be used. Now, pushing afci's and gfci's, and pushing cfl's THEN pushing LED's....there's some serious scratch in that....:cool:
 
jap said:
What does the NEC have to do with CFL and LED sales?

JAP>
Click to expand...

Obviously nothing directly, I figured most of us would see where I was going. They're simply additional examples of industry lobbying government...or government pandering to industry. We can argue the benefits and costs of legislation (and NEC is nothing but a legal shortcut for AHJ's and insurance co's) 'til the cows come home, but the bottom line is always.....their bottom line.

You or I pushing for a small but practical change to the code is no longer worth the effort. Act like the businesses we are...pass costs along to the consumer, who has even less say in the matter.
 
goldstar said:
Why do we continually have this discussion? Why doesn’t the NEC just compel the wire manufacturers to imprint the wire ratings on the wires before the jacket goes on?

$$$ I guess. :roll:
Click to expand...
Because the NEC Can't compel us, the UL Standards can compel us and the NEC follows in this case. Just as a reference we also do not print anything on our inner conductors of the Type NM-B as printing when not needed costs money and when you are making millions of feet at such low margins every penny counts. The UL 719 standard allow us more options than just being THHN equivalent. However, once it is configured into the cable assembly and the markings are placed on the sheathing, as permitted by UL 719 then for most manufacturers it is moot to place anything on the wire itself as we would expect the product to get installed in accordance with Article 334 anyway.
 
Craigv said:
Submit that proposal. I'll see you in ten years if we're that lucky, so we can laugh about our foolish idealistic younger days....

There's no money in allowing the exact same but unmarked conductors to be used. There's no money in marking the exact same conductors so they can be used. Now, pushing afci's and gfci's, and pushing cfl's THEN pushing LED's....there's some serious scratch in that....:cool:
Click to expand...
It seems odd that you can bring NM cable into a breaker panel and that cable is marked only up to the point where it enters the panel. It seems odd that you can sleeve NM cable inside EMT and use a from-to connector at the entry point, strip off the NM jacket after it enters the EMT as long as the opposite end of the EMT terminates into a JB. BUT, if you bring NM cable into a JB and then use greenfield say to a furnace or boiler and you use the same conductors inside that greenfield, you are in violation. Pure BS IMHO.

I agree, a change in the Code is a shot in a million.
 
goldstar said:
It seems odd that you can bring NM cable into a breaker panel and that cable is marked only up to the point where it enters the panel. It seems odd that you can sleeve NM cable inside EMT and use a from-to connector at the entry point, strip off the NM jacket after it enters the EMT as long as the opposite end of the EMT terminates into a JB. BUT, if you bring NM cable into a JB and then use greenfield say to a furnace or boiler and you use the same conductors inside that greenfield, you are in violation. Pure BS IMHO.

I agree, a change in the Code is a shot in a million.
Click to expand...

That scenario kinda/sorta makes sense, as the consistent part of this is the stripped-jacket NM conductors always *terminate* in a box where it is obvious they originated from the jacketed NM. If it wasn't legal to remove the jacket, there would be no means of terminating the cable.

Running NM into a sleeve, the jacket is intact so we know what's there. But then running it stripped out through a JB and then re-entering some Greenfield and terminating at a furnace JB, if we open that furnace JB we would assume it is individual conductors...unmarked. Yes, we can of course trace it back to the NM jacket but in cases of busy boxes and lots of wiring I can see how verification of legal cable/conductors would be compromised.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top