weathertight bulkhead options with LFMC fitting on one side, EMT (or multi-conductor cable) on the other side?

electrofelon said:
Ok so say you have Rob's running thread idea. I see several options from there:

1. But a box on the inside and the outside with locknuts. What could be wrong with that?

2. What about a RGS coupling and a 90 degree flex/sealtight connector on that? IS that one of those silly academic things where we cant thread a connector into a coupling? I just did that today LOL.
Click to expand...
1)I though the whole purpose if this thread was to reduce the costs of the penetration. I would expect the labor and material to provide boxes on each side would far exceed the cost of an actual bulkhead fitting.
2) A coupling on the running thread? That is specifically prohibited in 344.42(B).
 
electrofelon said:
Ok so say you have Rob's running thread idea. I see several options from there:

1. But a box on the inside and the outside with locknuts. What could be wrong with that?

2. What about a RGS coupling and a 90 degree flex/sealtight connector on that? IS that one of those silly academic things where we cant thread a connector into a coupling? I just did that today LOL.
Click to expand...
Yes part of this thread is based on the silly straight thread nonsense but it is what it is.

You could make up a combination running thread with a standard thread at one end. The standard thread would go into a conduit body on the outside and a box on the inside with two locknuts.

Or back to where we began just weld a rigid coupling (which isn't a raceway) in place and call it a day. As long as Don is not inspecting it there won't be a problem. ;)
 
infinity said:
Yes part of this thread is based on the silly straight thread nonsense but it is what it is.

You could make up a combination running thread with a standard thread at one end. The standard thread would go into a conduit body on the outside and a box on the inside with two locknuts.

Or back to where we began just weld a rigid coupling (which isn't a raceway) in place and call it a day. As long as Don is not inspecting it there won't be a problem. ;)
Click to expand...
Where is this project so I can give the AHJ a heads up? :D:D:D:D
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
The code requires field cut threads to be protected by an approved corrosion resistant compound when installed in an outside location.
Click to expand...
There are times when I wonder if I'm the only one who uses Kopr-shield as required. I know it generally stays around as I've come back to installations I did years ago and the residue on the threads is still there. However, never seen it on other installs that were not mine. Yes, I get that it is crazy expensive.

Mark
 
busman said:
There are times when I wonder if I'm the only one who uses Kopr-shield as required. I know it generally stays around as I've come back to installations I did years ago and the residue on the threads is still there. However, never seen it on other installs that were not mine. Yes, I get that it is crazy expensive.

Mark
Click to expand...
There are other approved compounds that are cheaper and not as expensive, such as Crouse-Hinds STL.
We did use Kopr-Shield for a time but switched to the STL.

Have also seen CopperCoat used, but that is an industrial thread lubricant and don't think it is approved for electrical use, but is very similar to Kopr-Shield, and a bit cheaper.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
As is everything in the electrical installation per 110.2.
Click to expand...
Sure, my point was that you can say "product X does not have this listing" and therefore if the NEC requires a listed product, you know product X won't comply. But if the NEC only requires an approved product, you'll have to check with the AHJ as to whether they will approve the use of product X.

Since you brought up 110.2, how does it interact with NEC sections that say something like "A listed so-and-so shall be permitted?" There are plenty of such sections, although I don't have such a reference off the top of my head. If you use a listed product to do what the section permits, can the AHJ still say "I don't approve that product, so you have a 110.2 violation?"

Cheers, Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
Sure, my point was that you can say "product X does not have this listing" and therefore if the NEC requires a listed product, you know product X won't comply. But if the NEC only requires an approved product, you'll have to check with the AHJ as to whether they will approve the use of product X.

Since you brought up 110.2, how does it interact with NEC sections that say something like "A listed so-and-so shall be permitted?" There are plenty of such sections, although I don't have such a reference off the top of my head. If you use a listed product to do what the section permits, can the AHJ still say "I don't approve that product, so you have a 110.2 violation?"

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
The inspector should not do that, but the inspector can do that. However that is an abuse of power and would likely be corrected by appeal to a higher authority.
 
LarryFine said:
My first two posts were ignored, so I'll try one more time.

Why is this not as simple as, say, a pair of LBs with a close nipple between them, sandwiching the container wall and an O-ring or two?
Click to expand...
its simply bc when we ship internationally, we'd like a fitting that's permanently installed on the shipping container to make the installation quicker.
nothing can extend past the outer most point of the shipping container so they can stack them on the ships
 
Good afternoon,
This is an item to consider in your container wall. These work well for the application.
Eaton part no. STTB, STTTBA, STTTBA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top