Violation? Case #10222008.

Violation? Case #10222008.

  • Too many bends

    Votes: 10 62.5%

  • Not enough bends

    Votes: 6 37.5%
  • Total voters
    16
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
wasasparky said:
...why not?
Click to expand...
A few reasons:
- 360? is a complete circle....you go past that a bit and you get a knot ~ no wire pull [I know...we can pull through 5 90?...]
- sidewall pressure on the insulation ...you can rupture it with excess pressure
- damage to the conductors themselves...a la...the "wire stretcher" ...although the conductors will probably snap or at the least, you'll lose the nose in the conduit.

Recently I've been involved with some pulls that required both pull calculations as well as a "tensionometer".
 
Logically there must be some kind of bend under the cement. The pipe can’t go straight into the ground!? An LB or some kind of pull point would have looked better, in my opinion. Hey at least they used compression fittings!


Stickboy1375 I do the same thing.

Cschmid I like the quote

“Life is temporary, heaven is forever. live like it is your only chance to make a difference..

to do nothing is the surest way to achieve nothing..”

JJ
 
That's child play. Once upon a time I had to rework a fire alarm that had no less than 11 90's in 1/2 EMT between boxes. Oh, and the pipe had 8 #14 solids in it to boot.
 
celtic said:
A few reasons:
- 360? is a complete circle....you go past that a bit and you get a knot ~ no wire pull [I know...we can pull through 5 90?...]
- sidewall pressure on the insulation ...you can rupture it with excess pressure
- damage to the conductors themselves...a la...the "wire stretcher" ...although the conductors will probably snap or at the least, you'll lose the nose in the conduit.

Recently I've been involved with some pulls that required both pull calculations as well as a "tensionometer".
Click to expand...

My point was that there is nothing magic about 360 degrees.
Maybe 8 - 90's is a stretch, but more than 4 does not mean instant rupture, damage, snaop, etc...

Nowadays you need to show the inherent danger as part of your substantiation for a code change, there are a lot of "arbitrary" requirements that if they were not code already, would probably have a hard time making it now...
 
wasasparky said:
Nowadays you need to show the inherent danger as part of your substantiation for a code change, there are a lot of "arbitrary" requirements that if they were not code already, would probably have a hard time making it now...
Click to expand...
Like the 25-ohm single-rod spec?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top