# Just read that smurf tube is not allowed



## Sdsparky

Just finished a job where we looped smurf between landscape fixtures for 120v line. Then today I did some reading and stumbled across a code line saying it is not suitable for direct burial in earth. Am I missing something or did we f up.


----------



## MHElectric

Actually I dont think its suitable for direct burial, I read that here before.

Ive used it for kitchen islands though, and it was in direct contact with dirt there and the inspectors never said anything. It might be one of those things where its a technical foul, but I doubt I would lose any sleep over it.

No, no. Bad electrician! Dont do it again! :jester:


----------



## BBQ

It is not for direct burial.



> 362.12 Uses Not Permitted. ENT shall not be used in the following:
> 
> 
> 
> (5) For direct earth burial


----------



## Big John

Can you call it a sleeve and pull in a direct burial wiring method?

The TELCO buries thousands of miles of innerduct, I'm not sure why we wouldn't be allowed to.


----------



## Semi-Ret Electrician

Big John said:


> Can you call it a sleeve and pull in a direct burial wiring method?
> 
> The TELCO buries thousands of miles of innerduct, I'm not sure why we wouldn't be allowed to.


We can use a 2x4 for "supplemental" protection so I can't see any objection to using ENT.


----------



## bkmichael65

Oh,well, you can't see it now. Next time you'll know better


----------



## wendon

Sdsparky said:


> Just finished a job where we looped smurf between landscape fixtures for 120v line. Then today I did some reading and stumbled across a code line saying it is not suitable for direct burial in earth. Am I missing something or did we f up.


Pull UF in it and you should be fine!


----------



## MHElectric

wendon said:


> Pull UF in it and you should be fine!


:thumbsup:

Thats the way you beat a screw up! Just think outside the box, until you figure a way around it. I like your style.


----------



## jefft110

wendon said:


> Pull UF in it and you should be fine!


That should work, but you would still probably be required to be 2' down unless you GFCI protect it.


----------



## FastFokker

Smurf tube... That will always give me a chuckle, what a bad name.


----------



## Shockdoc

Ii could be wrong but i believe it can be direct buried only inside the structure under the slab.


----------



## phil20

we used it in a concrete pour but only used it for telephone n data lines


----------



## Bugz11B

wendon said:


> Pull UF in it and you should be fine!


not if he is trying to make it to code... you cant put a cable assembly in any raceway (unless a sleeve nipple ect)(300.18), there are more reasons thats wrong then right... 
now about the smurf... lol... you did it for nothing electrically its useless. sry. use pvc next time.


----------



## BBQ

Erik.Schaeffer said:


> you cant put a cable assembly in any raceway (unless a sleeve nipple ect)(300.18),


That is false, you can instal cables in raceways. 



> 362.22 Number of Conductors. The number of conduc-tors shall not exceed that permitted by the percentage fill in Table 1, Chapter 9.
> 
> Cables shall be permitted to be installed where such use is not prohibited by the respective cable articles. The num-ber of cables shall not exceed the allowable percentage fill specified in Table 1, Chapter 9.


You will not find that UF is prohibited in raceways. 

We run MC in raceways all the time.


----------



## Bugz11B

BBQ said:


> That is false, you can instal cables in raceways.
> 
> 
> 
> You will not find that UF is prohibited in raceways.
> 
> We run MC in raceways all the time.


Ok well congrats, your WRONG all the time. how exactly do you derate this illegal operation, what temp do you rate your circuits? also how many MC's are you running in this conduit?? i mean at 40% fill how does this make sense?? IT IS ILLEGAL. 
And since 300.18 says PREWIRED RACEWAY ASSEMBLIES SHALL BE PERMITTED ONLY WHERE SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED IN THIS CODE FOR THE APPLICABLE WIRING METHOD.... That means you show me where it specifically says you CAN.. (not to knock you but i see you have posted a number of questionable answers...)


----------



## wendon

Erik.Schaeffer said:


> not if he is trying to make it to code... you cant put a cable assembly in any raceway (unless a sleeve nipple ect)(300.18), there are more reasons thats wrong then right...
> now about the smurf... lol... you did it for nothing electrically its useless. sry. use pvc next time.


Uf is rated for direct burial. Putting it in a raceway would be going over and above the code. Code is minimum standard!!:laughing::laughing: I'd still do it.


----------



## walkerj

Erik.Schaeffer said:


> Ok well congrats, your WRONG all the time. how exactly do you derate this illegal operation, what temp do you rate your circuits? also how many MC's are you running in this conduit?? i mean at 40% fill how does this make sense?? IT IS ILLEGAL.


Yea Bob. 
You are wrong all the time and I think you should be banned for misinformation. :laughing:


----------



## BBQ

Erik.Schaeffer said:


> Ok well congrats, your WRONG all the time. how exactly do you derate this illegal operation, what temp do you rate your circuits? also how many MC's are you running in this conduit?? i mean at 40% fill how does this make sense?? IT IS ILLEGAL.
> And since 300.18 says PREWIRED RACEWAY ASSEMBLIES SHALL BE PERMITTED ONLY WHERE SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED IN THIS CODE FOR THE APPLICABLE WIRING METHOD.... That means you show me where it specifically says you CAN.. (not to knock you but i see you have posted a number of questionable answers...)


Ok troll. :laughing:


----------



## Bugz11B

BBQ said:


> Ok troll. :laughing:


Actually your not wrong in your use.. although i dont agree with it it does SPECIFICALLY say MC can be in any raceway.. but it does not say that for UF


----------



## sbrn33

First troll ever to use his real name. Did you find the code section?


----------



## wendon

Erik.Schaeffer said:


> Ok well congrats, your WRONG all the time. how exactly do you derate this illegal operation, what temp do you rate your circuits? also how many MC's are you running in this conduit?? i mean at 40% fill how does this make sense?? IT IS ILLEGAL.
> And since 300.18 says PREWIRED RACEWAY ASSEMBLIES SHALL BE PERMITTED ONLY WHERE SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED IN THIS CODE FOR THE APPLICABLE WIRING METHOD.... That means you show me where it specifically says you CAN.. (not to knock you but i see you have posted a number of questionable answers...)


Where's the code reference that states you cannot put underground cable in a raceway?

340.10 Uses Permitted

(1) For use underground, including direct burial in the earth. For underground requirements, see 300.5

300.5 (C)
Underground Cable Under Buildings.
Underground cable installed under a building *shall be* in a raceway.


----------



## Bugz11B

sbrn33 said:


> First troll ever to use his real name. Did you find the code section?


wasn't trying to troll, code is code it clearly states not to put cable assemblies in any raceway unless it is specifically says its ok for said use. I dont like mis info if you dont know you dont know, but i see alot of shady work around which probably started from some guy just talking without knowing. I dont make the rules, I answered the original question AFTER making sure I wasnt spreading mis-info.


----------



## Bugz11B

wendon said:


> Where's the code reference that states you cannot put underground cable in a raceway?
> 
> 340.10 Uses Permitted
> 
> (1) For use underground, including direct burial in the earth. For underground requirements, see 300.5
> 
> 300.5 (C)
> Underground Cable Under Buildings.
> Underground cable installed under a building *shall be* in a raceway.


I didnt see that his lights were under a building.. but notice it SPECIFICALLY tells you it is ok for THAT situation... did you read and re-read "300.18 says PREWIRED RACEWAY ASSEMBLIES SHALL BE PERMITTED ONLY WHERE SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED IN THIS CODE FOR THE APPLICABLE WIRING METHOD"....


----------



## BBQ

Erik.Schaeffer said:


> .did you read and re-read "300.18 says PREWIRED RACEWAY ASSEMBLIES SHALL BE PERMITTED ONLY WHERE SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED IN THIS CODE FOR THE APPLICABLE WIRING METHOD"....


I did read and as soon as the subject is prewired raceway assemblies I will care about it. 

Right now we are talking about UF. :thumbsup:


----------



## Cow

Erik.Schaeffer said:


> I didnt see that his lights were under a building.. but notice it SPECIFICALLY tells you it is ok for THAT situation... did you read and re-read "300.18 says PREWIRED RACEWAY ASSEMBLIES SHALL BE PERMITTED ONLY WHERE SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED IN THIS CODE FOR THE APPLICABLE WIRING METHOD"....


You're off base. That code article has nothing to do with what you are talking about. Read the title of that particular article. It's talking about conduit runs being completed before wire is pulled in. What does that have to do with a completed conduit run that has UF pulled into it? 

A prewired raceway assembly would be something like Cable Con (HDPE with wires already installed from the factory), shows up on a big reel:

http://www.duraline.com/sites/default/files/downloads/ADT_CIC.pdf

This would be installed before the raceway was complete.


----------



## wendon

Erik.Schaeffer said:


> I didnt see that his lights were under a building.. but notice it SPECIFICALLY tells you it is ok for THAT situation... did you read and re-read "300.18 says PREWIRED RACEWAY ASSEMBLIES SHALL BE PERMITTED ONLY WHERE SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED IN THIS CODE FOR THE APPLICABLE WIRING METHOD"....


It doesn't say "shall be permitted" it says "shall be" . It's not giving you permission, it's saying you must put it in a raceway. Since when is UF cable a "prewired raceway"???? And where did you find that in 300.18 ? (A) or (B):no:


----------



## Bugz11B

BBQ said:


> I did read and as soon as the subject is prewired raceway assemblies I will care about it.
> 
> Right now we are talking about UF. :thumbsup:


And uf,mc,romex ect ect are all prewired raceway assemblies.... are you actually an electrician?? I honestly meant no harm, bottom line is you are incorrect sorry if that hurts, I noticed you in other topics giving what i thought was ghetto or handyman advice so i said something, didnt mean to get ya hurt i meant to help, constructive criticism must only work in the military average joes get hurt to easy


----------



## ampman

BBQ is the chuck norris of electrical wiring -if he wires something thats not code the code panel changes it to match


----------



## wendon

Erik.Schaeffer said:


> And uf,mc,romex ect ect are all prewired raceway assemblies.... are you actually an electrician?? I honestly meant no harm, bottom line is you are incorrect sorry if that hurts, I noticed you in other topics giving what i thought was ghetto or handyman advice so i said something, didnt mean to get ya hurt i meant to help, constructive criticism must only work in the military average joes get hurt to easy


Let me guess, you're union! Code references please. And quit using you caps, we hear you loud and clear!


----------



## Bugz11B

wendon said:


> It doesn't say "shall be permitted" it says "shall be" . It's not giving you permission, it's saying you must put it in a raceway. Since when is UF cable a "prewired raceway"???? And where did you find that in 300.18 ? (A) or (B):no:


300.18(A) prewired raceway assemblies shall be permitted ONLY WHERE SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED. the last sentence before the exception.


----------



## Big John

Even if this guy isn't actually trying to troll, y'all are still getting trolled.


----------



## Bugz11B

wendon said:


> Let me guess, you're union! Code references please. And quit using you caps, we hear you loud and clear!


union?? in florida?? no sir.


----------



## wendon

Raceway
An enclosed channel of metal or non-metallic materials designed expressly for holding wires, cables or busbars, with additional functions as permitted in this _Code_.

How would you install a cable in a cable???:no::no:

Read the whole section in Definitions, on "Raceway" I don't find it.


----------



## BBQ

Erik.Schaeffer said:


> And uf,mc,romex ect ect are all prewired raceway assemblies....


None of those cables are raceways. 



> are you actually an electrician??


Hell no, I sell flowers on the street corner. 




> I honestly meant no harm, bottom line is you are incorrect sorry if that hurts, I noticed you in other topics giving what i thought was ghetto or handyman advice so i said something, didnt mean to get ya hurt i meant to help, constructive criticism must only work in the military average joes get hurt to easy ;


Now I am going to have to go see my shrink to talk me through all the butt hurt you have caused me. :laughing:


----------



## jefft110

So, has anybody clicked over to the "other" site yet to see if there is a thread bragging about trolling Bob?:laughing:


----------



## walkerj

ampman said:


> BBQ is the chuck norris of electrical wiring -if he wires something thats not code the code panel changes it to match


This is the greatest thing I have ever read


----------



## sbrn33

This guy is not from there. Where is over there anyway? MH?


----------



## BBQ

It would be cool if it were true. :laughing:


----------



## btharmy

Erik.Schaeffer said:


> 300.18(A) prewired raceway assemblies shall be permitted ONLY WHERE SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED. the last sentence before the exception.


In order for UF in a conduit to be a violation, the jacket of the UF cable would have to be listed as a "raceway" in the NEC. The jacket is not a raceway. Thus, UF is not a "raceway assembly".So as a result, UF is a cable. NEC 340.12 does not include any wording that would prevent it from being used in a conduit. Take your own advice and avoid spreading false info by doing some homework before calling someone out for being wrong. With only 13 posts, I would recommend tempering your information with a little tact and knowledge of the topic at hand.


----------



## gold

BBQ said:


> Ok troll. :laughing:


He's not one of mine.


----------



## BBQ

Goldagain said:


> He's not one of mine.


:lol::lol::lol:


----------



## gold

BBQ said:


> :lol::lol::lol:


I'll may send someone over to recruit him depending on how he does here tho. :thumbsup:


----------



## Jlarson

No cable in conduit. :lol: :lol:


----------



## Semi-Ret Electrician

*300.5*
*(D)* *Protection from Damage.* Direct-buried conductors and cables shall be protected from damage in accordance with *300.5(D)(1)* through *(D)(4)*. 
*(1)* *Emerging from Grade.* Direct-buried conductors and cables emerging from grade and specified in columns 1 and 4 of *Table 300.5* shall be protected by enclosures or raceways extending from the minimum cover distance below grade required by *300.5(A)* to a point at least 2.5 m (8 ft) above finished grade. In no case shall the protection be required to exceed 450 mm (18 in.) below finished grade. 
*(4)* *Enclosure or Raceway Damage.* Where the enclosure or raceway is subject to physical damage, the conductors shall be installed in rigid metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit, Schedule 80 PVC conduit, or equivalent. _See related_ *ROP* *UL*


----------



## sbrn33

Semi-Ret Electrician said:


> *300.5*
> *(D)* *Protection from Damage.* Direct-buried conductors and cables shall be protected from damage in accordance with *300.5(D)(1)* through *(D)(4)*.
> *(1)* *Emerging from Grade.* Direct-buried conductors and cables emerging from grade and specified in columns 1 and 4 of *Table 300.5* shall be protected by enclosures or raceways extending from the minimum cover distance below grade required by *300.5(A)* to a point at least 2.5 m (8 ft) above finished grade. In no case shall the protection be required to exceed 450 mm (18 in.) below finished grade.
> *(4)* *Enclosure or Raceway Damage.* Where the enclosure or raceway is subject to physical damage, the conductors shall be installed in rigid metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit, Schedule 80 PVC conduit, or equivalent. _See related_ *ROP* *UL*


Did you even read the original post? Nothing in there about physical damage.


----------



## Semi-Ret Electrician

sbrn33 said:


> Did you even read the original post? Nothing in there about physical damage.


will the wire emerge from grade?


----------



## Bugz11B

btharmy said:


> In order for UF in a conduit to be a violation, the jacket of the UF cable would have to be listed as a "raceway" in the NEC. The jacket is not a raceway. Thus, UF is not a "raceway assembly".So as a result, UF is a cable. NEC 340.12 does not include any wording that would prevent it from being used in a conduit. Take your own advice and avoid spreading false info by doing some homework before calling someone out for being wrong. With only 13 posts, I would recommend tempering your information with a little tact and knowledge of the topic at hand.


This is the best reply ever, why you may ask? I shall tell, this topic (romex in conduit) is one of the most argued questions in electrical forums, normally I post the correct answer *That is not allowed* and I leave it at that, here I decided to troll (as i see some in this forum do so thought it would be a little fun) a bit which led you to posting the above, which is leading me to post the real answer other then my personal belief that it is a raceway within a raceway (see your buddies quote below for definition of raceway), anyways the answer is simple check out the actual UL listing on romex and or UF and you will find other then below buildings (for UF) and where subject to physical damage neither are intended to be ran in conduit thus voiding the UL listing THUS AGAINST THE CODE.
Now that i mentioned that I will also mention this it is also against code to use a punch out set in most panels because making a hole where a knockout is not provided voids UL listings (in some panels it is noted that it is ok to make your own holes ect but most do not, using a using a unibit to increase a knockout on a 1900 box also against code why UL, hell even the screws you use can void UL listings..
My point here is there is alot more to being an electrician then just the nec.. there is UL and dont forget osha.. Im sure glad the military paid for all my schooling otherwise I wouldn't have the education to answer all 13 of my posts knowing I am correct 



wendon said:


> Raceway
> An enclosed channel of metal or non-metallic materials designed expressly for holding wires, cables or busbars, with additional functions as permitted in this _Code_.
> 
> How would you install a cable in a cable???
> 
> 
> Read the whole section in Definitions, on "Raceway" I don't find it.



Based in what you said above what do you think the outter sheathing is on romex/uf ect?? Do you think it perhaps is a NON-METALLIC material designed expressly for holding wires?? I would like have to say so espically seeing as UF is PVC coating. And why do you think the NEC took note to point out MC can be run in pipe but they didnt mention that romex can think they just forgot?? 




sbrn33 said:


> Did you even read the original post? Nothing in there about physical damage.



this is to defend *Semi-Ret Electrician, *your right it wasnt in the original post but it was relevant in the bad advice to use the smurf as a sleeve because the smurf sleeve would have to come up and as long as its above grade -18" it needs to be protected from physical damage which smurf is not rated for.. however the smurf sleeve isnt allowed so....

Enjoy you all know the real reasons to why romex isnt allowed in conduit. and if some smart guy says to you "then why do they put the size of the romex in the table to be used for pipe fill" just remind them that romex needs to be sleeved threw floors and nipples still have a fill %


----------



## ponyboy

Erik.Schaeffer said:


> This is the best reply ever, why you may ask? I shall tell, this topic (romex in conduit) is one of the most argued questions in electrical forums, normally I post the correct answer *That is not allowed* and I leave it at that, here I decided to troll (as i see some in this forum do so thought it would be a little fun) a bit which led you to posting the above, which is leading me to post the real answer other then my personal belief that it is a raceway within a raceway (see your buddies quote below for definition of raceway), anyways the answer is simple check out the actual UL listing on romex and or UF and you will find other then below buildings (for UF) and where subject to physical damage neither are intended to be ran in conduit thus voiding the UL listing THUS AGAINST THE CODE.
> Now that i mentioned that I will also mention this it is also against code to use a punch out set in most panels because making a hole where a knockout is not provided voids UL listings (in some panels it is noted that it is ok to make your own holes ect but most do not, using a using a unibit to increase a knockout on a 1900 box also against code why UL, hell even the screws you use can void UL listings..
> My point here is there is alot more to being an electrician then just the nec.. there is UL and dont forget osha.. Im sure glad the military paid for all my schooling otherwise I wouldn't have the education to answer all 13 of my posts knowing I am correct
> 
> Based in what you said above what do you think the outter sheathing is on romex/uf ect?? Do you think it perhaps is a NON-METALLIC material designed expressly for holding wires?? I would like have to say so espically seeing as UF is PVC coating. And why do you think the NEC took note to point out MC can be run in pipe but they didnt mention that romex can think they just forgot??
> 
> this is to defend Semi-Ret Electrician, your right it wasnt in the original post but it was relevant in the bad advice to use the smurf as a sleeve because the smurf sleeve would have to come up and as long as its above grade -18" it needs to be protected from physical damage which smurf is not rated for.. however the smurf sleeve isnt allowed so....
> 
> Enjoy you all know the real reasons to why romex isnt allowed in conduit. and if some smart guy says to you "then why do they put the size of the romex in the table to be used for pipe fill" just remind them that romex needs to be sleeved threw floors and nipples still have a fill %


So will you not punch a hole in a panel or drill out a 4 square to 3/4 because of the UL listing? If not you are a bad electrician and an idiot.


----------



## walkerj

Erik.Schaeffer said:


> This is the best reply ever, why you may ask? I shall tell, this topic (romex in conduit) is one of the most argued questions in electrical forums, normally I post the correct answer *That is not allowed* and I leave it at that, here I decided to troll (as i see some in this forum do so thought it would be a little fun) a bit which led you to posting the above, which is leading me to post the real answer other then my personal belief that it is a raceway within a raceway (see your buddies quote below for definition of raceway), anyways the answer is simple check out the actual UL listing on romex and or UF and you will find other then below buildings (for UF) and where subject to physical damage neither are intended to be ran in conduit thus voiding the UL listing THUS AGAINST THE CODE.
> Now that i mentioned that I will also mention this it is also against code to use a punch out set in most panels because making a hole where a knockout is not provided voids UL listings (in some panels it is noted that it is ok to make your own holes ect but most do not, using a using a unibit to increase a knockout on a 1900 box also against code why UL, hell even the screws you use can void UL listings..
> My point here is there is alot more to being an electrician then just the nec.. there is UL and dont forget osha.. Im sure glad the military paid for all my schooling otherwise I wouldn't have the education to answer all 13 of my posts knowing I am correct
> 
> Based in what you said above what do you think the outter sheathing is on romex/uf ect?? Do you think it perhaps is a NON-METALLIC material designed expressly for holding wires?? I would like have to say so espically seeing as UF is PVC coating. And why do you think the NEC took note to point out MC can be run in pipe but they didnt mention that romex can think they just forgot??
> 
> this is to defend Semi-Ret Electrician, your right it wasnt in the original post but it was relevant in the bad advice to use the smurf as a sleeve because the smurf sleeve would have to come up and as long as its above grade -18" it needs to be protected from physical damage which smurf is not rated for.. however the smurf sleeve isnt allowed so....
> 
> Enjoy you all know the real reasons to why romex isnt allowed in conduit. and if some smart guy says to you "then why do they put the size of the romex in the table to be used for pipe fill" just remind them that romex needs to be sleeved threw floors and nipples still have a fill %


Three sentence rule. 

Ponyboy really didn't read you're whole post:laughing:


----------



## ponyboy

walkerj said:


> Three sentence rule.
> 
> Ponyboy really didn't read you're whole post:laughing:


I must've missed something but I'm still not gonna read it. That post needs to be broken into 6 parts and distributed bi weekly


----------



## Bugz11B

ponyboy said:


> So will you not punch a hole in a panel or drill out a 4 square to 3/4 because of the UL listing? If not you are a bad electrician and an idiot.


name calling is not called for. if you would like to call me names please do so to my face otherwise a wise crack works makes it less personal.


----------



## walkerj

You must not be from round here


----------



## ponyboy

Erik.Schaeffer said:


> name calling is not called for. if you would like to call me names please do so to my face otherwise a wise crack works makes it less personal.


Making it personal is part of being a good troll


----------



## wendon

Erik.Schaeffer said:


> name calling is not called for. if you would like to call me names please do so to my face otherwise a wise crack works makes it less personal.


So what you're saying is if you buy a JB without ko's it's useless? I won't call you any names but you are definitely a legend in your own mind! Still don't agree with your definition of UF but go ahead and think what you want. I'll still run UF in conduit if I think it needs protection and if it's going to be under a concrete slab. As for the knockouts I'd have to see a code reference such as 250.97 which is a bonding issue.


----------



## Bugz11B

wendon said:


> So what you're saying is if you buy a JB without ko's it's useless? I won't call you any names but you are definitely a legend in your own mind! Still don't agree with your definition of UF but go ahead and think what you want. I'll still run UF in conduit if I think it needs protection and if it's going to be under a concrete slab. As for the knockouts I'd have to see a code reference such as 250.97 which is a bonding issue.


I never said i didnt do the knockout thing, but i know and understand that in some cases it voids a UL listing, and if i felt any wire needed protection i would protect it. what i would do was never the issue what was the issue was the law of the land. i have increased a 1/2" ko to 3/4" more the once but i also know its voiding a UL listing same with knockouts in panels I had a semens MDP with not enough knockouts so i made them as needed again UL never approved my holes in that panel therefor the panel is no longer UL listed. all i did was correct somones answer to the question. I never even said I was fully opposed to the method, if i needed to I would do it i would. but in my area i would fail because local code has alot of the little UL things and our inspectors mostly know there stuff, nec, ul, an osha

also i didnt say a jb without holes is useless almost all JB's without any holes are still listed after punched as they are inteneded for that purpose, thats more if you add a hole in a box with ko's in it already.


----------



## wendon

Erik.Schaeffer said:


> but in my area i would fail because local code has alot of the little UL things and our inspectors mostly know there stuff, nec, ul, an osha


In the land where they don't even know how to vote!!!:no::no::no::laughing::laughing:


----------



## Bugz11B

wendon said:


> In the land where they don't even know how to vote!!!:no::no::no::laughing::laughing:


Yea... :/


----------



## 360max

Erik.Schaeffer said:


> This is the best reply ever, why you may ask? I shall tell, this topic (romex in conduit) is one of the most argued questions in electrical forums, normally I post the correct answer *That is not allowed* and I leave it at that, here I decided to troll (as i see some in this forum do so thought it would be a little fun) a bit which led you to posting the above, which is leading me to post the real answer other then my personal belief that it is a raceway within a raceway (see your buddies quote below for definition of raceway), anyways the answer is simple check out the actual UL listing on romex and or UF and you will find other then below buildings (for UF) and where subject to physical damage neither are intended to be ran in conduit thus voiding the UL listing THUS AGAINST THE CODE.
> Now that i mentioned that I will also mention this it is also against code to use a punch out set in most panels because making a hole where a knockout is not provided voids UL listings (in some panels it is noted that it is ok to make your own holes ect but most do not, using a using a unibit to increase a knockout on a 1900 box also against code why UL, hell even the screws you use can void UL listings..
> My point here is there is alot more to being an electrician then just the nec.. there is UL and dont forget osha.. Im sure glad the military paid for all my schooling otherwise I wouldn't have the education to answer all 13 of my posts knowing I am correct
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based in what you said above what do you think the outter sheathing is on romex/uf ect?? Do you think it perhaps is a NON-METALLIC material designed expressly for holding wires?? I would like have to say so espically seeing as UF is PVC coating. And why do you think the NEC took note to point out MC can be run in pipe but they didnt mention that romex can think they just forgot??


A very good explanation of your stance, but I have to ask, where in the NEC does it state junction boxes have to be listed (other than obvious areas such as hazardous locations)? BTW, thanks for your service .


----------



## Shockdoc

I use it in damp crawlspaces .
Yesterday I ran it up and over to refeed a a pool light wired in romex.


----------



## backstay

Erik.Schaeffer said:


> And uf,mc,romex ect ect are all prewired raceway assemblies.... are you actually an electrician?? I honestly meant no harm, bottom line is you are incorrect sorry if that hurts, I noticed you in other topics giving what i thought was ghetto or handyman advice so i said something, didnt mean to get ya hurt i meant to help, constructive criticism must only work in the military average joes get hurt to easy


Finally, someone who sees the real Bob! Ha Ha Ha


----------



## Ultrafault

You have not provided any evidence that nm is not listed to be run in conduit. Or that such an install would constitute a violation of said listing. 

I await your documentation in case I ever want to feel better about myself by putting down a superior install by quoting technicalities.


----------



## Bugz11B

Call Ul or send a email. I'm not your do boy. I'm pretty sure I have gave ample explanations. I'm pretty sure in the nec handbook 300.5 I think it has a picture of the proper use and explanations. Also I would just stick to the raceway in a raceway but as seen in this forum that gets argued a lot, also its not worth arguing with a boss over.


----------



## BBQ

Erik.Schaeffer said:


> Call Ul or send a email. I'm not your do boy.


Sorry but that is not how it works here.:no:

You came here telling us we are all wrong, if you want us to believe you you need to provide evidence of that, not just your word.

I have not decided if I will waste my time disputing all that you have posted. You have all the earmarks of someone who is trolling and I am not biting. :no:


----------



## Ultrafault

Well then if thats how it is. I just got off the phone with the president and he agreed with bob. He signed secret presidential proclamation bx459 which says "bob is right". I cant be bothered to provide evidence either sorry.


----------



## BBQ

Ultrafault said:


> Well then if thats how it is. I just got off the phone with the president and he agreed with bob. He signed secret presidential proclamation bx459 which says "bob is right". I cant be bothered to provide evidence either sorry.


OK ultra, just for you because we go so far back you are comfortable with using my name.:laughing:

As far as Eric's assertion of 'voiding' a UL listing. Here is what UL themselves say about field modifications. It is up to the AHJ to decide, not the people on an internet forum. (Not even me :laughing



> Field Modifications
> What happens to the Listing if a UL-Listed product is modified in the field?
> An authorized use of the UL Mark is the manufacturer’s declaration that the product was originally
> manufactured in accordance with the applicable requirements when it was shipped from the factory. When
> a UL-Listed product is modified after it leaves the factory, UL has no way to determine if the product
> continues to comply with the safety requirements used to certify the product without investigating the
> modified product. UL can neither indicate that such modifications ‘‘void’’ the UL Mark, nor that the
> product continues to meet UL’s safety requirements, unless the field modifications have been specifically
> investigated by UL. It is the responsibility of the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) to determine the
> acceptability of the modification or if the modifications are significant enough to require one of UL’s Field
> Engineering Services staff members to evaluate the modified product. UL can assist the AHJ in making this
> determination.
> An exception for a field modification authorized by UL is when the product has specific replacement
> markings. For example, a switchboard may have specific grounding kits added in the field. The
> switchboard is marked with a list of specific kit numbers that have been investigated for use in that
> particular switchboard. Only grounding kits that are included on the marking on the product have been
> investigated for use in that product.
> If a party wishes UL to determine if the modifications made to a UL Listed product comply with UL
> requirements, the appropriate Field Engineering Service can be initiated to investigate the modifications.
> This investigation will only be conducted after UL consults with the AHJ to ensure that UL’s investigation
> addresses all areas of concern and meets all of the AHJ’s needs.
> If you have any questions or would like to inquire about a Field Evaluation, contact Field Services at
> +1-877-UL-HELPS, prompt #2 (+1-877-854-3577) or visit http://www.ul.com/field/index.html.


As far as the ludicrous notion that a UF cable is a 'Prewired raceway assembly'.

Again from UL.



> UNDERGROUND FEEDER AND
> BRANCH CIRCUIT CABLE (YDUX)
> GENERAL
> This category covers underground feeder and branch circuit cable, rated
> 600 V, in sizes 14 to 4/0 AWG inclusive, copper, and 12 to 4/0 AWG inclusive,
> aluminum or copper-clad aluminum, for single and multiple conductor
> cables. It is designated as Type UF cable and is intended for use in accordance
> with Article 340 of ANSI/NFPA 70, ‘‘National Electrical Code’’ (NEC).
> Some multi-conductor cable is surface marked with the suffix ‘‘B’’ immediately
> following the type letters to indicate the usage of conductors employing
> 90°C rated insulation.
> Such cable may also be installed as Nonmetallic-sheathed Cable, per Section
> 340.10(4) of the NEC. The ampacities of Type UF cable, with or without
> the suffix ‘‘B,’’ are those of 60°C rated conductors as specified in the latest
> edition of the NEC.


Please take note that UL lists UF as a cable, not a raceway, not a prewired raceway assembly 

And now from the NEC 



> 340.1 Scope. This article covers the use, installation, and
> construction specifications for underground feeder and
> branch-circuit cable, Type UF.
> 
> 340.2 Definition.
> Underground Feeder and Branch-Circuit Cable, Type
> UF. A factory assembly of one or more insulated conductors
> with an integral or an overall covering of nonmetallic
> material suitable for direct burial in the earth.


Please take note that the NEC defines it as a cable, not a raceway, not a prewired raceway assembly and no place in article 340 will you find that they do. 

Now here is a link to prewired raceway

http://www.legrand.us/wiremold/race...aluminum-prewired-raceway.aspx#.UZzX5ErDDpc\\

And another

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...jFL3nQ_Spbb3upg&bvm=bv.46751780,d.dmQ&cad=rja

And another

http://www.monosystems.com/products/item/pre-wired-raceway/295/10030

Here is an IAEI article about type AC being a prewired raceway or not, the author concludes it is not.

http://digitaleditions.walsworthprintgroup.com/display_article.php?id=1208962

I think I have done my due diligence, I await Erik's rebuttal. :thumbsup:


----------



## Bugz11B

Look up the definition of raceway. Then tell me if the outer non metallic sheathing of romex sounds familiar. Bbq I want you to know I think ur a fun person to debate, I like it. But I think your wrong none the less, I know you are actually, but you also think I'm wrong so here as with every other forum on the topic Noone really knows what to think, but if ul or a private engineering company inspects it they will say it's not Ok, that is fact.


----------



## Bugz11B

PS I admire your due diligence. When you show me ul says it's approved for such use I will admit defeat.


----------



## Bugz11B

Also I accept it's not a prewired raceway but the outer sheathing is a raceway so putting it into pipe constitutes a raceway in a raceway. Really there is a reason they specifically note Mc can be in pipe...


----------



## Pete m.

Erik.Schaeffer said:


> Also I accept it's not a prewired raceway but the outer sheathing is a raceway so putting it into pipe constitutes a raceway in a raceway. Really there is a reason they specifically note Mc can be in pipe...



I don't know about you but every raceway I know of is intended to have the wires installed and the raceway also allows for the wiring to be removed.

How many times have you pulled wire into the jacket of UF?

The definition of raceway from the NEC seems to dispute your opinion;

*Raceway*. An enclosed *channel* of metal or nonmetallic ma-terials designed expressly for holding wires, cables, or bus-bars, with additional functions as permitted in this Code.

Merriam-Webster dictionary defines channel as: _a usually tubular enclosed passage : conduit
_

Pete


----------



## BBQ

Erik.Schaeffer said:


> Look up the definition of raceway. Then tell me if the outer non metallic sheathing of romex sounds familiar.





> *Raceway.* An enclosed channel of metal or nonmetallic materials
> designed expressly for holding wires, cables, or busbars,
> with additional functions as permitted in this Code.
> Raceways include, but are not limited to, rigid metal conduit,
> rigid nonmetallic conduit, intermediate metal conduit, liquidtight
> flexible conduit, flexible metallic tubing, flexible
> metal conduit, electrical nonmetallic tubing, electrical metallic
> tubing, underfloor raceways, cellular concrete floor raceways,
> cellular metal floor raceways, surface raceways, wireways,
> and busways.


Familiar? Yes. Similar? Yes. The same? No.




> Bbq I want you to know I think ur a fun person to debate, I like it. But I think your wrong none the less, I know you are actually,


Please tell me specifically what you feel I am wrong about. 




Erik.Schaeffer said:


> PS I admire your due diligence. When you show me ul says it's approved for such use I will admit defeat.


I cannot do that, just as you cannot show us that UL says UF is not approved for use in a raceway.

But I can show you what the NEC says.

For IMC


> *342.22 Number of Conductors.* The number of conductors
> shall not exceed that permitted by the percentage fill
> specified in Table 1, Chapter 9.
> 
> Cables *shall be permitted * to be installed *where such use
> is not prohibited by the respective cable articles**.* The number
> of cables shall not exceed the allowable percentage fill
> specified in Table 1, Chapter 9.


RMC


> *344.22 Number of Conductors. *The number of conductors
> shall not exceed that permitted by the percentage fill
> specified in Table 1, Chapter 9.
> 
> Cables shall be permitted to be installed where such use
> is not prohibited by the respective cable articles. The number
> of cables shall not exceed the allowable percentage fill
> specified in Table 1, Chapter 9.



FMC


> *350.22 Number of Conductors or Cables.*
> (A) Metric Designators 16 through 103 (Trade Sizes 1⁄2
> through 4). The number of conductors shall not exceed
> that permitted by the percentage fill specified in Table 1,
> Chapter 9.
> 
> Cables shall be permitted to be installed where such use
> is not prohibited by the respective cable articles. The number
> of cables shall not exceed the allowable percentage fill
> specified in Table 1, Chapter 9.


I could go on but I will not, you can look at .22 of any raceway article for yourself.

Please note this wording "where such use is not prohibited by the respective cable articles" so that means unless you can find something in article 340 that says we cannot put UF in a raceway ...... we can do so.

Can you show us anything in article 340 that says we cannot? 

I can't help but ask why you feel it would be violation to run a cable in a raceway? What would the electrical hazard be? 




Erik.Schaeffer said:


> Also I accept it's not a prewired raceway but the outer sheathing is a raceway so putting it into pipe constitutes a raceway in a raceway.


Again, that is your unsubstantiated opinion that a cable sheath is a raceway, you have not provided a shred of outside references to prove that point. 



> Really there is a reason they specifically note Mc can be in pipe...


Please cite the code section and tell us why you feel it is only proper to install MC in a 'pipe'.


----------



## Bugz11B

As above where this was already discussed based on that definition I'm my train of thought the nonmetallic outer sheathing of romex meets that definition. The inspectors in my area agree. epically for uf seeing it's outer sheathing is pvc.


----------



## Bugz11B

No code book near but if you look up Mc in the code it specifically says it can be used in pipe. Uf, romex ect does not.


----------



## BBQ

Erik.Schaeffer said:


> As above where this was already discussed based on that definition I'm my train of thought the nonmetallic outer sheathing of romex meets that definition. *The inspectors in my area agree. epically for uf seeing it's outer sheathing is pvc.*


So given that interpretation do they limit you to 360 degrees of bends between pull points?



> *352.26 Bends — Number in One Run.* There shall not be
> more than the equivalent of four quarter bends (360 degrees
> total) between pull points, for example, conduit bodies and
> boxes.


How about expansion fittings, do they also require those? 



> *352.44 Expansion Fittings.* Expansion fittings for PVC
> conduit shall be provided to compensate for thermal expansion
> and contraction where the length change, in accordance
> with Table 352.44, is expected to be 6 mm (1⁄4 in.) or greater in
> a straight run between securely mounted items such as boxes,
> cabinets, elbows, or other conduit terminations.


----------



## BBQ

Erik.Schaeffer said:


> No code book near but if you look up Mc in the code it specifically says it can be used in pipe. Uf, romex ect does not.


Well as you have pointed out the NEC, UL, OSHA and other standards are important. So I suggest you go find your code book and provide the code section you are talking about so we can discuss it without guessing. :thumbsup:


----------



## 360max

Pete m. said:


> I don't know about you but every raceway I know of is intended to have the wires installed and the raceway also allows for the wiring to be removed.
> 
> How many times have you pulled wire into the jacket of UF?
> 
> The definition of raceway from the NEC seems to dispute your opinion;
> 
> *Raceway*. An enclosed *channel* of metal or nonmetallic ma-terials designed expressly for holding wires, cables, or bus-bars, with additional functions as permitted in this Code.
> 
> Merriam-Webster dictionary defines channel as: _a usually tubular enclosed passage : conduit
> _
> 
> Pete


Pete, is mc cable a raceway? Its a factory assembled metallic cable that is acceptable to run in conduit, as noted in 330.10(7). Can the same type of permissive article be found for Type UF cable (other than for protection)?


----------



## BBQ

360max said:


> Pete, is mc cable a raceway? Its a factory assembled metallic cable that is acceptable to run in conduit, as noted in 330.10(7). Can the same type of permissive article be found for Type UF cable (other than for protection)?


:facepalm:

Article 300.22 in each raceway article gives us permission.


----------



## 360max

BBQ said:


> Familiar? Yes. Similar? Yes. The same? No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please tell me specifically what you feel I am wrong about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot do that, just as you cannot show us that UL says UF is not approved for use in a raceway.
> 
> But I can show you what the NEC says.
> 
> For IMC
> 
> 
> RMC
> 
> 
> 
> FMC
> 
> 
> I could go on but I will not, you can look at .22 of any raceway article for yourself.
> 
> Please note this wording "where such use is not prohibited by the respective cable articles" so that means unless you can find something in article 340 that says we cannot put UF in a raceway ...... we can do so.
> 
> *Can you show us anything in article 340 that says we cannot?
> *
> I can't help but ask why you feel it would be violation to run a cable in a raceway? What would the electrical hazard be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, that is your unsubstantiated opinion that a cable sheath is a raceway, you have not provided a shred of outside references to prove that point.
> 
> 
> 
> Please cite the code section and tell us why you feel it is only proper to install MC in a 'pipe'.



BBQ he is hanging his hat on 340.6 which leads to 110.3(B)


----------



## Bugz11B

BBQ said:


> :facepalm:
> 
> Article 300.22 in each raceway article gives us permission.


Then why did they feel the need to specifically note mc can be installed in pipe if it is already clear?


----------



## BBQ

Erik.Schaeffer said:


> Then why did they feel the need to specifically note mc can be installed in pipe if it is already clear?


Fair question, we have to keep in mind the NEC is always changing and that results in oddities. For that kind of info we need to look at the NFPAs ROP for the NEC.

I was just doing some digging through them and found this for you.



> Report on Proposals – May 2004 NFPA 70
> 
> 8-8 Log #581 NEC-P08
> 
> (342-22)
> 
> *Final Action:* Accept
> 
> *TCC Action:*
> The Technical Correlating Committee directs that this proposal be referred to Code-Making Panel 7 for information.
> 
> *Submitter:* Vince Baclawski, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)
> 
> *Recommendation:*
> Revise text to read as follows:
> 342.22 Number of Conductors. The number of conductors shall not exceed that permitted by the percentage fill specified in Table 1,
> Chapter 9.
> Cables shall be permitted to be installed where such use is permitted not prohibited by the respective cable articles. The number of
> cables shall not exceed the allowable percentage fill specified in Table 1, Chapter 9.
> 
> *Substantiation:*
> The second paragraph of this section was added for the 2002 NEC. The substantiation for adding this provision was that...
> 
> "The
> proposed language clarifies that cables, where permitted elsewhere in the Code, are allowed to be used in a raceway."
> 
> Cable Articles are
> structured so that installation in raceways is not prohibited. *The proposed revision will correlate the desired clarification with the cable
> articles, which do not specifically permit installation in raceways but instead do not prohibit installation in raceways.
> *
> *Panel Meeting Action:* Accept
> 
> *Number Eligible to Vote: *14
> 
> *Ballot Results:* Affirmative: 12 Negative: 1
> 
> *Ballot Not Returned:* 1 Cox
> 
> *Explanation of Negative:
> DABE: *This proposal should be Rejected until it has been demonstrated to this panel that the panels overseeing each cable type have
> been made aware that, unless they specifically prohibit the installation of cable, it will be permitted.


Erik, I can't but notice I keep providing references from outside sources and all you have provided has been your personal opinion. That is up to you but really limits your ability to prove your point.


----------



## BBQ

360max said:


> BBQ he is hanging his hat on 340.6 which leads to 110.3(B)


He may be trying to do that but the hat is hitting the floor. There is nothing I can find in the listing of UF that says it can, or cannot be installed in a raceway.


----------



## 360max

BBQ said:


> He may be trying to do that but the hat is hitting the floor. There is nothing I can find in the listing of UF that says it can, or cannot be installed in a raceway.


I have also looked, but can't find.


----------



## ampman

wendon said:


> In the land where they don't even know how to vote!!!:no::no::no::laughing::laughing:


hey wait a minute


----------



## Bugz11B

Here I will end my debating at this, no one can fully prove or disprove it's 100% legit to do or not to do, I was taught if it's not listed for such use then ul doesn't approve it for that use, it won't fly in my area. Other cables ect note in the code where they can and cannot be used as I pointed out with mc. Electrically I see no problem other then heat but hey not a single forum on the net has a concise answer on the topic and neither do we. But it was a fun debate for me.


----------



## Jlarson

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:


----------



## BBQ

Erik.Schaeffer said:


> Here I will end my debating at this, no one can fully prove or disprove it's 100% legit to do or not to do, I was taught if it's not listed for such use then ul doesn't approve it for that use, it won't fly in my area. Other cables ect note in the code where they can and cannot be used as I pointed out with mc. Electrically I see no problem other then heat but hey not a single forum on the net has a concise answer on the topic and neither do we. But it was a fun debate for me.


So you do not believe the words of the code making panel that I provided above and is a public record anyone can access at www.nfpa.org?

Well good luck to ya. :laughing:


----------



## 360max

Erik.Schaeffer said:


> Here I will end my debating at this, no one can fully prove or disprove it's 100% legit to do or not to do, I was taught if it's not listed for such use then ul doesn't approve it for that use, it won't fly in my area. Other cables ect note in the code where they can and cannot be used as I pointed out with mc. Electrically I see no problem other then heat but hey not a single forum on the net has a concise answer on the topic and neither do we. But it was a fun debate for me.


760.154(C)(2) *In Raceways*. Cables shall be permitted to be installed in raceways (just another example of where they specifically specify the use within a raceway)

Eric, in all fairness, you posted *nothing** from UL* to support your stance.


----------



## BBQ

360max said:


> 760.154(C)(2) *In Raceways*. Cables shall be permitted to be installed in raceways (just another example of where they specifically specify the use within a raceway)


360, if you read the CMP statement I posted it shows that the CMP recognizes that there are inconsistencies throughout the NEC articles and that .22 of each raceway article was intended to clear things up.

To me it succeeds in doing so.


----------



## Pete m.

360max said:


> Pete, is mc cable a raceway? Its a factory assembled metallic cable that is acceptable to run in conduit, as noted in 330.10(7). Can the same type of permissive article be found for Type UF cable (other than for protection)?


No. MC Cable is cable. I wasn't trying to say it is anything other.

I was making the point that the jacket of UF cable is not a raceway.

Erik was trying to make the argument that the jacket of UF cable is a raceway.

And the NEC does specifically permit UF to be installed in a raceway.

Pete


----------



## Bugz11B

360max said:


> 760.154(C)(2) In Raceways. Cables shall be permitted to be installed in raceways (just another example of where they specifically specify the use within a raceway)
> 
> Eric, in all fairness, you posted nothing from UL to support your stance.


Ok just look in the code at the type of cable, look at uses permitted, if it says in conduit then so be it just like mc does, if it doesn't then you must Google the manufacturer and type of cable and see if it was ul listed for that use south wire, romex brand, and cerro wire those brands don't have any literature saying it is Ok for use in conduit.


----------



## pudge565

Erik.Schaeffer said:


> This is the best reply ever, why you may ask? I shall tell, this topic (romex in conduit) is one of the most argued questions in electrical forums, normally I post the correct answer *That is not allowed* and I leave it at that, here I decided to troll (as i see some in this forum do so thought it would be a little fun) a bit which led you to posting the above, which is leading me to post the real answer other then my personal belief that it is a raceway within a raceway (see your buddies quote below for definition of raceway), anyways the answer is simple check out the actual UL listing on romex and or UF and you will find other then below buildings (for UF) and where subject to physical damage neither are intended to be ran in conduit thus voiding the UL listing THUS AGAINST THE CODE.
> Now that i mentioned that I will also mention this it is also against code to use a punch out set in most panels because making a hole where a knockout is not provided voids UL listings (in some panels it is noted that it is ok to make your own holes ect but most do not, using a using a unibit to increase a knockout on a 1900 box also against code why UL, hell even the screws you use can void UL listings..
> My point here is there is alot more to being an electrician then just the nec.. there is UL and dont forget osha.. Im sure glad the military paid for all my schooling otherwise I wouldn't have the education to answer all 13 of my posts knowing I am correct
> 
> Based in what you said above what do you think the outter sheathing is on romex/uf ect?? Do you think it perhaps is a NON-METALLIC material designed expressly for holding wires?? I would like have to say so espically seeing as UF is PVC coating. And why do you think the NEC took note to point out MC can be run in pipe but they didnt mention that romex can think they just forgot??
> 
> this is to defend Semi-Ret Electrician, your right it wasnt in the original post but it was relevant in the bad advice to use the smurf as a sleeve because the smurf sleeve would have to come up and as long as its above grade -18" it needs to be protected from physical damage which smurf is not rated for.. however the smurf sleeve isnt allowed so....
> 
> Enjoy you all know the real reasons to why romex isnt allowed in conduit. and if some smart guy says to you "then why do they put the size of the romex in the table to be used for pipe fill" just remind them that romex needs to be sleeved threw floors and nipples still have a fill %


"340.1 Scope. This article covers the use, installation, and construction speciﬁcations for underground feeder and branch-circuit cable, Type UF. 

340.2 Deﬁnition.
Underground Feeder and Branch-Circuit Cable, Type UF. A factory assembly of one or more insulated conductors with an integral or an overall covering of nonmetallic material suitable for direct burial in the earth."

The NEC specifically refers to it as a cable, unlike EMT.

"358.2 Deﬁnition.
Electrical Metallic Tubing (EMT). An unthreaded thin- wall raceway of circular cross section designed for the physical protection and routing of conductors and cables and for use as an equipment grounding conductor when installed utilizing appropriate ﬁttings. EMT is generally made of steel (ferrous) with protective coatings or alumi- num (nonferrous)."


----------



## pudge565

Erik.Schaeffer said:


> Look up the definition of raceway. Then tell me if the outer non metallic sheathing of romex sounds familiar. Bbq I want you to know I think ur a fun person to debate, I like it. But I think your wrong none the less, I know you are actually, but you also think I'm wrong so here as with every other forum on the topic Noone really knows what to think, but if ul or a private engineering company inspects it they will say it's not Ok, that is fact.


If the outer sheath of a UF or NM cable is a raceway tell me how you can install it without violating 300.18.

" 300.18 Raceway Installations.
(A) Complete Runs. Raceways, other than busways or ex- posed raceways having hinged or removable covers, shall be installed complete between outlet, junction, or splicing points prior to the installation of conductors. Where required to fa- cilitate the installation of utilization equipment, the raceway shall be permitted to be initially installed without a terminat- ing connection at the equipment. Prewired raceway assemblies shall be permitted only where speciﬁcally permitted in this Code for the applicable wiring method.
Exception: Short sections of raceways used to contain conductors or cable assemblies for protection from physi- cal damage shall not be required to be installed complete between outlet, junction, or splicing points."


----------



## btharmy

Erik.Schaeffer said:


> Also I accept it's not a prewired raceway but the outer sheathing is a raceway so putting it into pipe constitutes a raceway in a raceway. Really there is a reason they specifically note Mc can be in pipe...


If it is not a prewired raceway, then the outer jacket is not a raceway with wires in it. Thus the outer jacket is just that, an outer jacket, not a raceway. The simple fact is, nm is a cable, not wires in a raceway. It is listed and sold as a cable. It is called non metallic sheathed cable. Cables and raceways are two totally different things. I just can't understand how this can be confused for a prewierd raceway. Sometimes I think people make things harder than they need to be for no reason at all.


----------



## btharmy

Erik.Schaeffer said:


> Ok just look in the code at the type of cable, look at uses permitted, if it says in conduit then so be it just like mc does, if it doesn't then you must Google the manufacturer and type of cable and see if it was ul listed for that use south wire, romex brand, and cerro wire those brands don't have any literature saying it is Ok for use in conduit.


2011 NEC 334.10 Uses Permitted.

334.10(5) allows NM to be used in type I and II construction but only if it is installed within raceways.

It does not say this is the only time it can be installed in a race way it merely states that if you want to use NM in this type of construction it must be in a raceway. This in itself proves it is not a violation to install NM in raceways.

As far as what you can't do with NM cable:

2011 NEC 334.12 Uses Not Permitted

There is not any wording preventing the use of NM in a raceway. If I missed it, post the code article for me to look up.

Just a recap:

334.10 Uses Permitted = inside a raceway

334.12 Uses Not Permitted = nothing that prevents installation in a raceway

Are we done yet?


----------



## Bugz11B

I was wrong. I was shot down at an electrical board for this before based on it not being UL listed for this use I used most of the arguements used against me here and I lost it wasnt good enough for them to pass the inspection and I fought it based on principle it would have been an easy fix but I was sure they were wrong in the end I was wrong and had to redo my work. now i wouldnt lose based on it not being designed for said use. my bad, I did spread false info.

http://www.unitedcopper.com/images/...ads/cableInstall/cable_installation_guide.pdf


----------



## walkerj

Erik.Schaeffer said:


> I was wrong. I was shot down at an electrical board for this before based on it not being UL listed for this use I used most of the arguements used against me here and I lost it wasnt good enough for them to pass the inspection and I fought it based on principle it would have been an easy fix but I was sure they were wrong in the end I was wrong and had to redo my work. now i wouldnt lose based on it not being designed for said use. my bad, I did spread false info.
> 
> http://www.unitedcopper.com/images/stories/common/downloads/cableInstall/cable_installation_guide.pdf


Damn. 
You are ok in my book for saying you were wrong. 
That takes major cajones with these vicious jackals.


----------



## Bugz11B

walkerj said:


> Damn.
> You are ok in my book for saying you were wrong.
> That takes major cajones with these vicious jackals.


When ur wrong ur wrong, I'm no exception to that.


----------



## backstay

Erik.Schaeffer said:


> When ur wrong ur wrong, I'm no exception to that.


Wait! Are you saying Bob is not a hack? You said he had other questionable posts. Can't you dig them up and roast him for those?


----------



## walkerj

So I just purchased a **** ton of ENT for a job. 

Received it and noticed we received the wrong fittings for the turn downs out of the slabs. They were ENT to ENT. The part I specified was ENT to threaded female since we can't have plastic outside of the concrete. 
Almost a $4 difference per fitting x 1000s of fittings. 
Supplier wants me to help him eat the difference on his screw up. :laughing:
Homie don't play that


----------



## Bugz11B

backstay said:


> Wait! Are you saying Bob is not a hack? You said he had other questionable posts. Can't you dig them up and roast him for those?


I have seen questionable posts from the guy, however he seems to be pretty on point an like most I rarely read an entire thread so I may just be catching some after action trolling, next time I see something I'll call it we can debate it and either he will learn something or I will, either way debates are always fun and lots of useful info gets spread around unless people get sensitive and it gets personal then its pointless.


----------



## Brynn217

I have yet to see that someone correctly say why UF can't be used in any type of Conduit... The response is one I have seen alot. UF and Romex both have non-insulated conductors inside the larger jacket (IE: the ground wire).. due to this, you cannot run it in any conduit..... including smurf tube

Smurf tube is not rated for Direct Burial... It needs to have a 10,000lb crush rating... which is stupid, since 24" down it works just fine.....however PVC is cheaper to buy, just not faster to install...


----------



## BBQ

Brynn217 said:


> I have yet to see that someone correctly say why UF can't be used in any type of Conduit... The response is one I have seen alot. UF and Romex both have non-insulated conductors inside the larger jacket (IE: the ground wire).. due to this, you cannot run it in any conduit..... including smurf tube.



You can run bare EGCs in conduit so I am not following you.


----------



## backstay

Brynn217 said:


> I have yet to see that someone correctly say why UF can't be used in any type of Conduit... The response is one I have seen alot. UF and Romex both have non-insulated conductors inside the larger jacket (IE: the ground wire).. due to this, you cannot run it in any conduit..... including smurf tube
> 
> Smurf tube is not rated for Direct Burial... It needs to have a 10,000lb crush rating... which is stupid, since 24" down it works just fine.....however PVC is cheaper to buy, just not faster to install...


Where do they come up with this c#%p.


----------



## btharmy

BBQ said:


> You can run bare EGCs in conduit so I am not following you.


He is correct if it is feeding pool equipment or a hot tub. It doesn't apply to everything however. This is how false info gets perpetuated. (Wow, CS would be proud of that word.)


----------



## BBQ

btharmy said:


> He is correct if it is feeding pool equipment or a hot tub.


Good point, thanks. 



> It doesn't apply to everything however. This is how false info gets perpetuated. (Wow, CS would be proud of that word.)


:laughing:


----------



## Jlarson

:laughing: :laughing:


----------



## Brynn217

300.5 (b) The Interior of enclosures or raceways installed underground shall be considered to be a wet location. Insulated conductors and cables installed in these encolsures or raceways in underground installations shall be listed for use in wet locations and shall comply with 310.10(c)

310.10(c)(2) Be types MTW, RHW, RHW-2, TW, THW-2, THHW, THWN, THWN-2, XHHW, XHHW-2,ZW

according to MY Authority having jursidicition, you cannot use UL or SER or Romex inside PVC because of the non-insulated conductor contained inside the jacket. (my purpose was to run a Generator load in SER thru the PVC and into the house. Not allowed and I have to Bug the RHW Alum wires to my SER going into the house.)


----------



## Pete m.

Brynn217 said:


> according to MY Authority having jursidicition, you cannot use UL or SER or Romex inside PVC because of the non-insulated conductor contained inside the jacket. (my purpose was to run a Generator load in SER thru the PVC and into the house. Not allowed and I have to Bug the RHW Alum wires to my SER going into the house.)


I agree with your AHJ on the romex but service entrance cable is permitted for use in wet locations above ground.

I'm not sure what you mean by "UL" (I don't think you mean Underwriters Laboratory).

Pete


----------



## Brynn217

typo meant UF..... Also, In the Smurf Tube, they would not let me run the 12v Control Thermostat Wires in it for the Gen...


----------



## BBQ

Brynn217 said:


> 300.5 (b) The Interior of enclosures or raceways installed underground shall be considered to be a wet location. *Insulated* conductors and cables installed in these encolsures or raceways in underground installations shall be listed for use in wet locations and shall comply with 310.10(c)


That section is telling us that if the conductors are insulated they must be a wet location type. That section does not require insulated conductors.

SE or SER is a violation underground for other reasons. 

UF is fine.


----------



## Brynn217

UF is an insulated conductor and is not allowed in PVC underground because it is not listed in the 310.10(c)(2)... same goes for any other conductor insulated with a outer jacket that contains non-sulated individual conductors. that would be an Insulated Cable..... 

in any case... 90.4 takes precedence.....


----------



## Pete m.

Brynn217 said:


> UF is an insulated conductor and is not allowed in PVC underground because it is not listed in the 310.10(c)(2)... same goes for any other conductor insulated with a outer jacket that contains non-sulated individual conductors. that would be an Insulated Cable.....
> 
> in any case... 90.4 takes precedence.....


Are you implying that UF cable, which is permitted to be direct buried, is not permitted in a pvc conduit underground?

What code section would prohibit that? 

Take a look at 340.10.

Pete

p.s. IMHO your AHJ is using 90.4 incorrectly.


----------



## BBQ

The amount of misinformation about this subject blows my mind. :blink:


----------



## CopperSlave

Brynn217 said:


> UF is an insulated conductor and is not allowed in PVC underground because it is not listed in the 310.10(c)(2)


However, it IS listed in 310.(C)(3).:thumbsup:

Edit: And UF is not a conductor...it is a cable.


----------



## Bugz11B

BBQ said:


> The amount of misinformation about this subject blows my mind. :blink:


Told ya bud, this topic romex and uf in pipe will always be argued without a sure answer, where I posted that I was wrong I posted a link that led me to believe it's Ok in pipe but it will always be argued. I will just continue to not do it other then protection or sleeve and not be faced with the issue.


----------



## BBQ

Erik.Schaeffer said:


> Told ya bud, this topic romex and uf in pipe will always be argued without a sure answer, where I posted that I was wrong I posted a link that led me to believe it's Ok in pipe but it will always be argued. I will just continue to not do it other then protection or sleeve and not be faced with the issue.


Erik, you were doing better when you coincided I gave you a sure answer directly from the people who write the code. 

Cables such as NM and UF can be run in any raceway under the NEC. There may be areas with amendments to that. 

You do realize that Pete M is also an inspector?

And you still have not provided a single reference to support your view, while I have provided many. Hang it up. :thumbsup:


----------



## Bugz11B

BBQ said:


> Erik, you were doing better when you coincided I gave you a sure answer directly from the people who write the code.
> 
> Cables such as NM and UF can be run in any raceway under the NEC. There may be areas with amendments to that.
> 
> You do realize that Pete M is also an inspector?
> 
> And you still have not provided a single reference to support your view, while I have provided many. Hang it up. :thumbsup:


I already said your right and that I was wrong, last night I posted it.. All I meant in my post above is that this topic will always be argued, even without me and you it's always argued.


----------



## Big John

So, I'm not sure if you guys know it yet: But you can't put wirenuts in a panel.


----------



## BBQ

Big John said:


> So, I'm not sure if you guys know it yet: But you can't put wirenuts in a panel.


:2guns::2guns::2guns:

May an overloaded egg truck turn over on you.


----------



## Pete m.

Big John said:


> So, I'm not sure if you guys know it yet: But you can't put wirenuts in a panel.


Gas on the fire...:laughing:

Pete


----------



## 360max

Big John said:


> So, I'm not sure if you guys know it yet: But you can't put wirenuts in a panel.


I just tape the splices


----------



## Brynn217

ok should I ask about the SER since it is also suitable for Wet Locations, Its stupid to have to change to RHW just to go 20-25ft to a Generator Undergound...


----------



## BBQ

Brynn217 said:


> ok should I ask about the SER since it is also suitable for Wet Locations, Its stupid to have to change to RHW just to go 20-25ft to a Generator Undergound...


I pretty much agree with you, we used to use SER under ground in raceways all the time for temp power feeders on job sites. 

Before the 2008 NEC it was kind of a gray area but for 2008 they added 338.12(A)(2). That put the end to using SER underground. I think it boils down to SE and SER not being tested for that use and the fact they make type USE (Underground Service Entrance) cable.




> *338.12 Uses Not Permitted.
> 
> (A) Service-Entrance Cable. *Service-entrance cable (SE)
> shall not be used under the following conditions or in the
> following locations:
> 
> (2) Underground with or without a raceway


----------



## Mshea

To the original post ENT is approved for underground installations in Canada. In general armoured cables are not allowed in raceways except under very specific conditions. 
Most of the rest of this post is off topic and from my point of view the discussion is inane.
We have no prewired raceways and raceways all come without wires in them. in fact when a racway has wire in it it is a cable:blink: or maybe busduct. You cannot install an added wire in a cable either.

In General a racway system must be complete before any wires are installed so it is really easy here to determine that most of this discussion is peculiar to NEC definitions.


----------



## BBQ

Mshea said:


> To the original post ENT is approved for underground installations in Canada.


Can you post proof of that?



> We have no prewired raceways and raceways all come without wires in them.


Yes you do have them. Plugmold and power poles are two examples.


----------



## raider1

BBQ said:


> I pretty much agree with you, we used to use SER under ground in raceways all the time for temp power feeders on job sites.
> 
> Before the 2008 NEC it was kind of a gray area but for 2008 they added 338.12(A)(2). That put the end to using SER underground. I think it boils down to SE and SER not being tested for that use and the fact they make type USE (Underground Service Entrance) cable.


The UL Whitebook has stated for a while that SE and SER cable are not suitable for installation underground with or without a raceway, the 2008 NEC just made it much clearer.:thumbsup:

Chris


----------



## raider1

Brynn217 said:


> UF is an insulated conductor and is not allowed in PVC underground because it is not listed in the 310.10(c)(2)... same goes for any other conductor insulated with a outer jacket that contains non-sulated individual conductors. that would be an Insulated Cable.....
> 
> in any case... 90.4 takes precedence.....


So is your inspector using 90.4 to make up their own rules?????

Chris


----------



## BBQ

raider1 said:


> The UL Whitebook has stated for a while that SE and SER cable are not suitable for installation underground with or without a raceway,


I am going to disagree with that, if I recall it was the typical UL _'has not been investigated for'_ use underground. Pierre and I used to go round and round on this issue. :laughing:


----------



## raider1

BBQ said:


> I am going to disagree with that, if I recall it was the typical UL _'has not been investigated for'_ use underground. Pierre and I used to go round and round on this issue. :laughing:


I will dig out my older Whitebooks and see, be right back.:thumbsup:

Chris


----------



## BBQ

raider1 said:


> I will dig out my older Whitebooks and see, be right back.:thumbsup:
> 
> Chris


:thumbsup:

Cool.


----------



## raider1

Crap I don't have any old Whitebooks available right now, I cleaned out my office and moved them to school.

Here is what is in the current Whitebook for SE cable

"*Type SE* — Indicates cable for aboveground installation. Both the individual insulated conductors and the outer jacket or finish of Type SE are suitable for use where exposed to sun. Type SE cable contains Type RHW, RHW-2, XHHW, XHHW-2, THWN or THWN-2 conductors. Maximum size is 4/0 AWG copper or 300 kcmil aluminum or copper-clad aluminum."

Chris

P.S. How have you been Bob?


----------



## BBQ

I went into an old hard drive and found my 2003 Whitebook and I was wrong,

Here is a snip-it



> Type SE — Indicates cable for aboveground installation. Both the individual insulated conductors and the outer jacket or finish of Type SE are
> suitable for use where exposed to sun.


Other than being wrong at the moment :laughing: I have been doing fine.

You still head banging?


----------



## raider1

Once in awhile.:rockon:

I have been so busy the last 6 months its crazy. I had the ROC meetings in December and the follow paperwork with that and then teaching has be unreal. Every time I think I am caught up I have someone else call and want to line up classes. The last 3 weeks I have have 7 8 hour classes that I taught.

Chris


----------



## BBQ

raider1 said:


> Once in awhile.:rockon:
> 
> I have been so busy the last 6 months its crazy. I had the ROC meetings in December and the follow paperwork with that and then teaching has be unreal. Every time I think I am caught up I have someone else call and want to line up classes. The last 3 weeks I have have 7 8 hour classes that I taught.
> 
> Chris


I can't imagine they are anymore exciting giving them as taking them. :jester:


----------



## raider1

BBQ said:


> I can't imagine they are anymore exciting giving them as taking them. :jester:


It can be fun when you get someone who want's to argue.:jester::boxing::devil2:

Chris


----------



## Pete m.

raider1 said:


> It can be fun when you get someone who want's to argue.:jester::boxing::devil2:
> 
> Chris


Chapter meetings and section meetings of the IAEI are good for that!:laughing:

Pete


----------



## BBQ

raider1 said:


> It can be fun when you get someone who want's to argue.:jester::boxing::devil2:
> 
> Chris


Strange, I am pretty sure the two guys I go to have a dart board with my picture on it.:laughing:


Can't help it when they say things like only steel EMT. Fittings are listed for grounding and only heavy duty safety switches may be used as disconnects at dwelling unit HVAC units.


----------



## Pete m.

BBQ said:


> Strange, I am pretty sure the two guys I go to have a dart board with my picture on it.:laughing:
> 
> 
> Can't help it when they say things like only steel EMT. Fittings are listed for grounding and only heavy duty safety switches may be used as disconnects at dwelling unit HVAC units.


Troublemaker.....

Pete


----------



## raider1

Pete m. said:


> Chapter meetings and section meetings of the IAEI are good for that!:laughing:
> 
> Pete


Absolutely!

Some of the best classes I teach are for IAEI Chapter and Section meetings.:thumbup:

In fact I taught for the Utah Chapter IAEI in Wendover Nevada a couple of weeks ago. Good classes. There were a few CMP members there and it is always fun to go sit at the bar with them after the meetings.:drink:

Chris


----------



## raider1

BBQ said:


> Strange, I am pretty sure the two guys I go to have a dart board with my picture on it.:laughing:
> 
> 
> Can't help it when they say things like only steel EMT. Fittings are listed for grounding and only heavy duty safety switches may be used as disconnects at dwelling unit HVAC units.


Bob I would LOVE to have you in one of my classes.:devil2:

I have had Ryan sit in the back of some of my classes as well as Noel Williams, Mark Ode, Chuck Mello, David Clements and a few others. It's always fun to see these guys raise their hands during one of your presentations.

Chris


----------



## BBQ

I opened up my laptop and showed them both the UL whitebook and they quickly changed the subject.

One guy is a local inspector with a lot of 'Not in my town rules' and the other is a power company guy.

I go to them for my CEU classes only because the company pays for it.


----------



## Pete m.

BBQ said:


> I opened up my laptop and showed them both the UL whitebook and they quickly changed the subject.
> 
> One guy is a local inspector with a lot of 'Not in my town rules' and the other is a power company guy.
> 
> I go to them for my CEU classes only because the company pays for it.


You ever considered teaching?

Pete


----------



## Jlarson

No one is gonna let the ex-carny teach. :laughing:


----------



## BBQ

Jlarson said:


> No one is gonna let the ex-carny teach. :laughing:


:thumbsup:


I never finished high school, I would need to get my GED at least.


----------



## Pete m.

raider1 said:


> Bob I would LOVE to have you in one of my classes.:devil2:
> 
> I have had Ryan sit in the back of some of my classes as well as Noel Williams, Mark Ode, Chuck Mello, David Clements and a few others. It's always fun to see these guys raise their hands during one of your presentations.
> 
> Chris


You ever meet Mike Forister? He has been to the last several Ohio Chapter meetings.

Pete


----------



## Pete m.

BBQ said:


> :thumbsup:
> 
> 
> I never finished high school, I would need to get my GED at least.


Oh... I thought you were a professor... My bad...:jester::laughing:

Pete


----------



## wendon

UF is rated for direct burial as is URD (or whatever name you want to use) So if you can't run UF in conduit, are you telling me that I can't run URD in conduit?:no:


----------



## Brynn217

Where do you get a copy of the UL White book for the computer? i have only seen it in hard back... and have you all seen anyone enforcing the 2012 IECC. Had an inspector here fail my rough-in for the Vapor Proof Ceiling Boxes in a kitchen (and that is what he referenced) They are black plastic boxes with gaskets, can be found at home depot here.


----------



## Pete m.

Brynn217 said:


> Where do you get a copy of the UL White book for the computer? i have only seen it in hard back... and have you all seen anyone enforcing the 2012 IECC. Had an inspector here fail my rough-in for the Vapor Proof Ceiling Boxes in a kitchen (and that is what he referenced) They are black plastic boxes with gaskets, can be found at home depot here.


You can purchase it at UL.com.... And they usually give free copies at IAEI Chapter meetings.

Pete


----------



## walkerj

Pete m. said:


> You ever considered teaching?
> 
> Pete


He talks funny. 
Wouldn't go over well. 

I wish their were guys like yall down here. 

I can't even be around when we get inspections in BR because I always politely call them out on their made up codes. 

It's been 4 years since I asked the one prick to show where the use of anti shorts are required on MC cable. 
'The tag on the cable requires it'
'The box of connectors require it'
'The book says you have to'
'I know it's in there somewhere'
That's the 4 answers I got from him and let him prove himself wrong on the first three. 

He fails us on every job he inspects. 
Failed us today for nonsense that has nothing to do with us.


----------



## Pete m.

walkerj said:


> He talks funny.
> Wouldn't go over well.
> 
> I wish their were guys like yall down here.
> 
> I can't even be around when we get inspections in BR because I always politely call them out on their made up codes.
> 
> It's been 4 years since I asked the one prick to show where the use of anti shorts are required on MC cable.
> 'The tag on the cable requires it'
> 'The box of connectors require it'
> 'The book says you have to'
> 'I know it's in there somewhere'
> That's the 4 answers I got from him and let him prove himself wrong on the first three.
> 
> He fails us on every job he inspects.
> Failed us today for nonsense that has nothing to do with us.


Careful what you wish for... I don't make the codes up but I do enforce them.

Man I would love to visit there... I'm a big fan of good food!

Pete


----------



## Jlarson

walkerj said:


> He talks funny.
> Wouldn't go over well.
> 
> I wish their were guys like yall down here.
> 
> I can't even be around when we get inspections in BR because I always politely call them out on their made up codes.
> 
> It's been 4 years since I asked the one prick to show where the use of anti shorts are required on MC cable.
> 'The tag on the cable requires it'
> 'The box of connectors require it'
> 'The book says you have to'
> 'I know it's in there somewhere'
> That's the 4 answers I got from him and let him prove himself wrong on the first three.
> 
> He fails us on every job he inspects.
> Failed us today for nonsense that has nothing to do with us.


I think electricians should carry a buzzer around and whenever one starts in with some made up BS they get instant feedback as to their wrongness. :laughing: BZZZZ wrong, try enforcing the real code this time.


----------



## Big John

Jlarson said:


> I think electricians should carry a buzzer around and whenever one starts in with some made up BS they get instant feedback as to their wrongness. :laughing: BZZZZ wrong, try enforcing the real code this time.


 A 12V Vibratone horn and a lead-acid battery with a big red mushroom-switch. I will build it and send it to the guy who promises to post a video of it being used. :laughing:


----------



## wendon

Jlarson said:


> I think electricians should carry a buzzer around and whenever one starts in with some made up BS they get instant feedback as to their wrongness. :laughing: BZZZZ wrong, try enforcing the real code this time.


Or maybe just put that tone on your phone that goes kinda like Wa-Wa-Wa-Wa-wawwawwawwaw and play it for every time the inspector comes up with another joke. The last joke I heard was the inspector telling me that some UF isn't rated for direct exposure. (located under a lean-to on a shed) but he didn't have his glasses so he couldn't read the lettering on the cable!!!:whistling2::whistling2:


----------



## drspec

wendon said:


> Or maybe just put that tone on your phone that goes kinda like Wa-Wa-Wa-Wa-wawwawwawwaw and play it for every time the inspector comes up with another joke. The last joke I heard was the inspector telling me that some UF isn't rated for direct exposure. (located under a lean-to on a shed) but he didn't have his glasses so he couldn't read the lettering on the cable!!!:whistling2::whistling2:


I had one a couple of days ago for a panel change. You would have thought it was open mic night with this guy.

"are those breakers rated for aluminum wire? I can't see it listed on the breaker"
"are you going to remove that shelf and dryer to get your clearance?"


----------



## walkerj

Pete m. said:


> Careful what you wish for... I don't make the codes up but I do enforce them.
> 
> Man I would love to visit there... I'm a big fan of good food!
> 
> Pete


It would be one think if every inspection was held to the same standard. 

We are still on the buddy system here and we just aren't in the in crowd. 

This ok but I have an mc cable touching the grid going to a power pole and that's a no question asked fail.


----------



## Pete m.

I will say your pipe work looks much better than the MC but why is the cable touching the grid an issue?:blink:

Pete


----------



## walkerj

Pete m. said:


> I will say your pipe work looks much better than the MC but why is the cable touching the grid an issue?:blink:
> 
> Pete


That's not my work and if you can't put up some 90s after a month bending conduit you are a failure and need to go work at target. 
We do work direct for trane doing controls and this is another contractor's work. 

You tell me why it's an issue. 

Better yet, you call the permit office and ask. 2253893213


----------



## walkerj

And how come when we bid a job and don't get it and the specs call for 'no package cable aka bx or mc' we go to the job and this nonsense is installed.

It really grinds my gears.


----------



## ponyboy

Preach it walkerj. Preach it


----------



## markore

*Your confusion is from the low voltage listing*



Bugz11B said:


> No code book near but if you look up Mc in the code it specifically says it can be used in pipe. Uf, romex ect does not.


Cables are allowed to be installed in raceways, but normally low voltage data cables cannot be combined with ungrounded conductors.

Many manufacturers MC cable is specifically tested and listed for inclusion in raceways with LOW VOLTAGE cabling, which normally cannot be mixed with 110v circuits in the same raceway.

MC cable manufacturers have been able to get UL listing for this use because the twisted included ground and neutral and metallic sheath help to attenuate rf and emi which would normally leak into the data cables.

This listing is not required for installing cables in raceways that do not also contain low voltage cables.


----------



## chicken steve

The usual raceway / sleeve debate then, eh? ~CS~


----------



## markore

*If it is a sleeve....*



chicken steve said:


> The usual raceway / sleeve debate then, eh? ~CS~


If it is a sleeve, and we are still talking about UF through smurf tube I would connect the UF with a UF connector to the box then run the UF unbroken through the smurf tube using a UF to ridgid connector, coupling then smurf tube connector at both ends of the "sleeve" to clamp/support the UF as it enters the sleeve. Finally the UF would connect at the other end using the standard UF connector.

You would need:
4 UF connectors
2 smurf tube connectors
2 rigid threaded couplings.

Don't connect the smurf tube to anything directly, that would make it a raceway. Don't strip the UF inside the smurf tube.


----------



## ponyboy

markore said:


> If it is a sleeve, and we are still talking about UF through smurf tube I would connect the UF with a UF connector to the box then run the UF unbroken through the smurf tube using a UF to ridgid connector, coupling then smurf tube connector at both ends of the "sleeve" to clamp/support the UF as it enters the sleeve. Finally the UF would connect at the other end using the standard UF connector. You would need: 4 UF connectors 2 smurf tube connectors 2 rigid threaded couplings. Don't connect the smurf tube to anything directly, that would make it a raceway. Don't strip the UF inside the smurf tube.


All that work for a code compliant installation that isn't even code compliant


----------



## markore

ponyboy said:


> All that work for a code compliant installation that isn't even code compliant


Because it exceeds the length limitation for a sleeve or why?
I'm just giving some information since it sounded like the smurf was already buried. This is how they will pass it in this area, Washington DC. YMMV.


----------



## ponyboy

markore said:


> Because it exceeds the length limitation for a sleeve or why? I'm just giving some information since it sounded like the smurf was already buried. This is how they will pass it in this area, Washington DC. YMMV.


Rigid couplings are only listed for joining threaded rigid conduit. I know it's silly bc everyone does it but just thought I'd bring it up


----------



## markore

*Carlon PVC fittings are listed*



ponyboy said:


> Rigid couplings are only listed for joining threaded rigid conduit. I know it's silly bc everyone does it but just thought I'd bring it up


GOOD Point, since rigid coupling are more expensive then the product which is listed!

Carlon gray PVC fittings are listed for blue smurftube, but not orange. So use the Carlon PVC cement to solvent weld from hub side of female PVC adapter then connect the UF clamp to the threaded side.

This should give the required support to the UF cable while it enters / exits the smurf tube used as sleeve.

Connect the UF cable to boxes/devices on both ends, not the smurf tube, to maintain the classification as a sleeve, not a raceway.


----------



## markore

*The difference between raceways, nipples, and sleeves*

The difference between raceways, nipples, and sleeves


----------

