# When will guys finally get it...



## JMV (Aug 10, 2013)

Nice big nipples you have there.


----------



## ponyboy (Nov 18, 2012)

Meh. I bet they're like 32". I'm over it


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

robmac85 said:


> I see this all the time still. 2 pipes over 24 inches long going into a panel jammed with #12 wires. This panel is being used as a raceway as well with that current limiting panel nippled to the side. Good thing I'm not an inspector. Lets see how the inspection goes
> 
> View attachment 35386


So Rob-- tell me the issue-- panel may be used as a raceway and you can have up to 9 current carrying conductor in a conduit before derating comes into play


----------



## electricalwiz (Mar 12, 2011)

what is so bad? the only thing I would have done different is put 2" pipe between the trough and the panel


----------



## robmac85 (Nov 20, 2013)

There's like 9000 wires in each pipe I don't think you can fit another one in if you tried. These nips are 38 inches long. So they're not really nips anymore. It's now a regular raceway so derating applies. Just put 8 or 9- 1" pipes or 3/4 and your good to go.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

If it's not your work, your job, your inspection....... then it ain't your problem.


----------



## robmac85 (Nov 20, 2013)

Problem is I took it over from another guy in the shop who went to another job...


----------



## guest (Feb 21, 2009)

robmac85 said:


> *There's like 9000 wires in each pipe I don't think you can fit another one in if you tried.* These nips are 38 inches long. So they're not really nips anymore. It's now a regular raceway so derating applies. Just put 8 or 9- 1" pipes or 3/4 and your good to go.


I think you are exaggerating slightly. 9000 wires would require a 4,500 circuit panel (I think Square D makes one in the QO line) and a much bigger gutter.  

As for the raceway/nipple debate I have always felt that the Code is off base on this one. Anything less than 10 feet IMHO is NOT enough close-in wireway to need derating. Others experiences may vary, and someone may have seen otherwise, but so far I have never encountered a situation where a nipple (or sometimes even a run of conduit) jammed full has ever had heating issues. 

The ONLY way I can see the install you pictured as having any issues with overheating of the conductors is if and only if EVERY circuit is loaded at over 80% AND every circuit has a continuous load like heaters or discharge lighting. 



480sparky said:


> If it's not your work, your job, your inspection....... then it ain't your problem.


Yeah that too. :thumbsup: It actually looks to be very neat and workmanlike, and from the pics I see no reason to fail it.

EDIT: I now see the post that went in as I was typing this epic. I still would not worry about it, IMHO let the inspector make the call before you start to tear it apart and rework it.


----------



## robmac85 (Nov 20, 2013)

Oh it's very neat indeed. I am just going to let it ride. This inspector is just a major DB so I'm just going to try and distract him as much as possible.


----------



## pete87 (Oct 22, 2012)

480sparky said:


> If it's not your work, your job, your inspection....... then it ain't your problem.





I can not agree with that 480 . 





Pete


----------



## guest (Feb 21, 2009)

robmac85 said:


> Oh it's very neat indeed. I am just going to let it ride. This inspector is just a major DB so *I'm just going to try and distract him as much as possible.*


Good plan. :thumbsup: I have used that trick before to my advantage. 

Another I have used is to leave a quick fix minor violation to grab his attention and it usually worked well. 

Many years ago I did a 200amp new service on my house in So Cal. It was a surface mount panel, so I had to sleeve some of the new circuits coming up from under the house in conduit (PVC). Inspector didn't want to sign off, claiming I couldn't run NM cable through conduit. My position is that it was for physical protection and thus allowed. (The conduits were 32" long, the restriction back then was 36" or less.) I even showed him the Code article that allowed it as installed. 

After a polite chat with his boss he signed it off. :laughing:

That was the ONE job where I didn't leave a distraction...:whistling2:

The even funnier part of all this was that he had to go into my kitchen to inspect the new range receptacle...and saw but said nothing about the complete post-mix soda fountain system in plain sight.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

Can't see it from my house.


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

Its not a big deal but its annoying that they would only install two little pipes for such a big panel.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

pete87 said:


> I can not agree with that 480 .
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Then go fix it. :whistling2:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Further,

Rob (et all) , you need realize the benchmarks for captive heat in the NEC are generic , as well as quite akin to zero tolerance laws

If in fact those were 4" nipples that one could _feel airflow through_, the same fill deration would apply

And as to gutters, our 30 conductor seems to be (iirc) 200, up the street in Canada...

~CS~


----------



## Going_Commando (Oct 1, 2011)

If the circuits aren't spliced in the wireway than you can use the exception in 310.15 A 2 and if the length of the circuit is at least 38', then you don't have to derate where it goes through the over-filled conduits.


----------



## rivermanchris (Dec 27, 2009)

I bet when you grab those pipes with normal electricity usage they feel real warm.


----------



## ablyss (Feb 8, 2014)

I think it looks great. Those look like 1" pipes to me. 26 #12 conductors are allowed according to Ch. 9 Table C.1, 1" EMT using THHN.


----------



## robmac85 (Nov 20, 2013)

Going_Commando said:


> If the circuits aren't spliced in the wireway than you can use the exception in 310.15 A 2 and if the length of the circuit is at least 38', then you don't have to derate where it goes through the over-filled conduits.


So in this case where all the wires are spliced up in the trough it's still not legit.


----------



## ponyboy (Nov 18, 2012)

robmac85 said:


> So in this case where all the wires are spliced up in the trough it's still not legit.


Splicing wires in that gutter is 20x more hack than having the nipples a little longer than 24".


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

If it bugs you so much, a couple pieces of conduit and some 2 piece EMT connectors will fix it up pretty quick.


----------



## robmac85 (Nov 20, 2013)

It's gonna really bug me if I have to change this around. We shall see on Thursday around 10:30 am lol


----------



## Maple_Syrup25 (Nov 20, 2012)

robmac85 said:


> We shall see on Thursday around 10:30 am lol


 Famous last words :laughing:


----------



## robmac85 (Nov 20, 2013)

ponyboy said:


> Splicing wires in that gutter is 20x more hack than having the nipples a little longer than 24".


They're way longer than 24" that's why I'm concerned, and this guy is a stickler. He makes me pull off covers looking for box extenders, made me shoot up ceiling wires to tie up MC because the spans between where it was strapped on each beam was a little over 6 feet. It's always something.


----------



## bml215 (Jul 2, 2012)

robmac85 said:


> made me shoot up ceiling wires to tie up MC because the spans between where it was strapped on each beam was a little over 6 feet.


What a d*ck, but that's funny.


----------



## CADPoint (Jul 5, 2007)

Wonder why the other guy had to go to another job?

Throw in two more pipes each side, let someone know that's it's going to cost
you one man a half day, with wire, because your going to fail inspection.

You go spend the rest of the day looking for other yahoo's to fail from...


----------



## Going_Commando (Oct 1, 2011)

robmac85 said:


> So in this case where all the wires are spliced up in the trough it's still not legit.


True, I was just showing a way in which that could be 100% code legit without having to derate the conductors in those 2 conduits. 

Also using the panel as a raceway is not a code violation.


----------



## Shockdoc (Mar 4, 2010)

robmac85 said:


> I see this all the time still. 2 pipes over 24 inches long going into a panel jammed with #12 wires. This panel is being used as a raceway as well with that current limiting panel nippled to the side. Good thing I'm not an inspector. Lets see how the inspection goes


I installed a 2 pole contactor in a panel a couple times.


----------



## Ultrafault (Dec 16, 2012)

Deep Cover said:


> If it bugs you so much, a couple pieces of conduit and some 2 piece EMT connectors will fix it up pretty quick.


I have never seen a two piece EMT connector. I was gonna ask you what one was, but then I did my own leg work and googled it. Thanks.


----------



## htneighbors (Jan 23, 2009)

Going_Commando said:


> If the circuits aren't spliced in the wireway than you can use the exception in 310.15 A 2 and if the length of the circuit is at least 38', then you don't have to derate where it goes through the over-filled conduits.


Either I'm not yet fully awake this morning or my brain is still frozen from the brutal Chicago winter, but can someone please explain this to me?


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

Ultrafault said:


> I have never seen a two piece EMT connector. I was gonna ask you what one was, but then I did my own leg work and googled it. Thanks.


They do come in handy.


----------



## robmac85 (Nov 20, 2013)

Going_Commando said:


> True, I was just showing a way in which that could be 100% code legit without having to derate the conductors in those 2 conduits.
> 
> Also using the panel as a raceway is not a code violation.


I stand corrected on the panel as a raceway! I just checked that section and it has changed quite a bit. I remember back in school discussing this, but that would have been using the 1999 code. So I just pulled out an old 2005 edition and checked that and sure enough it reads like this: 









( I even drew a note on the section back then to remember hah)


----------



## Roger (Jul 7, 2007)

robmac85 said:


> I stand corrected on the panel as a raceway! I just checked that section and it has changed quite a bit. I remember back in school discussing this, but that would have been using the 1999 code. So I just pulled out an old 2005 edition and checked that and sure enough it reads like this:
> 
> View attachment 35407
> 
> ...


Actually it has been the same since the 70's (maybe earlier) however, it was an exception to article section 373-8 

In the 99 cycle it was still 373-8 but the exception was now incorporated into the section and was the same as it was in 312.8 of the 2005.

Roger


----------



## bostongtp (Apr 9, 2014)

robmac85 said:


> I see this all the time still. 2 pipes over 24 inches long going into a panel jammed with #12 wires. This panel is being used as a raceway as well with that current limiting panel nippled to the side. Good thing I'm not an inspector. Lets see how the inspection goes


Am I missing something?

We have a what appears to be 40 circuit panel, which houses 40 breakers, if all breakers were utilized you would have 40 conductors. You can't run feeder conductors with branch circuit conductors, so those are out of question, maybe a few pass through circuits? How many could really be in there? Apparently not enough for you to be concerned enough to actually just count them.... It would take about 45 seconds lol. So your going to wait for the job to fail, when you could just count, as if we were in kinda garden, and verify there is adequate space? That would make your team look stupid, and it's a bad move on your part. I assume you didn't do this install for a good reason, the work there is nice from the pictures instead of criticizing it, learn from it. If you really though it was issue don't tell us, tell your superior.

I agree, good thing your not an inspector because if they thought like you a lot of people fail inspection. Since you didn't list what size the pipe is, we are left to guess. My guess is that pipe is no smaller than 1 1/4". 1 1/4" can house 45- #12awg conductors, and that panel has 2, so I don't know where exactly your going with this. Where here for you, but, did you need help with pipe calculations,de-rating, etc....or just wanted to vent?? 

I like the work, very neat. From the layout, to the wire bending. Hope you passed....I'm sure you did.


----------



## bostongtp (Apr 9, 2014)

Shockdoc said:


> I installed a 2 pole contactor in a panel a couple times.


 That's brave...


----------



## Awg-Dawg (Jan 23, 2007)

bostongtp said:


> You can't run feeder conductors with branch circuit conductors,


 
Why is that?


----------



## 360max (Jun 10, 2011)

Dennis Alwon said:


> So Rob-- tell me the issue-- panel may be used as a raceway and you can have up to *9 current carrying conductor in a conduit before derating comes into play*


...did you even count the connected breakers or are you just quizzing him?


----------



## bostongtp (Apr 9, 2014)

Awg-Dawg said:


> Why is that?



Art.230.7

2011NEC "other conductors in raceway or cable. Conductors other than service conductors shall not be installed in the same service raceway or service cable.
Not 100% sure. I have been told it will induce currents onto other lines if ran in parrallel for long distances.


----------



## Roger (Jul 7, 2007)

bostongtp said:


> Art.230.7
> 
> 2011NEC "other conductors in raceway or cable. Conductors other than service conductors shall not be installed in the same service raceway or service cable.


A panelboard is not a raceway or cable and if we used your logic, no branch circuit or feeder conductors could be installed in a panelboard that contained the service entrance conductors. 


Roger


----------



## bostongtp (Apr 9, 2014)

Roger said:


> A panelboard is not a raceway or cable and if we used your logic, no branch circuit or feeder conductors could be installed in a panelboard that contained the service entrance conductors. Roger


Did I say a panel was a raceway??if so cite that for me.... He asked why conductors for branch circuits can't be run with service conductors....so I gave him where it says so in the NEC. So if you go by my method, you might pass inspection ( an inspection is when a permit is pulled from a licensed electrician to perform electrical work, the work is then inspected by local AHJ. And he gives you a pass or a fail) your familiar with inspections Roger, yeah? 

Roger, what's your opinion on this work??


----------



## bml215 (Jul 2, 2012)

bostongtp said:


> You can't run feeder conductors with branch circuit conductors


Was talking about in a raceway roger


----------



## Roger (Jul 7, 2007)

bostongtp said:


> He asked why conductors for branch circuits can't be run with service conductors....so


No, you said branch circuits can't be run with feeders and he asked you why to which you answered 230.7 and that is dealing with services and service conductors, not feeders.

Roger


----------



## bostongtp (Apr 9, 2014)

Roger said:


> No, you said branch circuits can't be run with feeders and he asked you why to which you answered 230.7 and that is dealing with services and service conductors, not feeders. Roger


Excuse my terminology then....I though he knew where I was going, I should have been more clear. Let's put it this way. I WOULD NEVER MIX FEEDER, OR SERVICE CONDUCTORS WITH BRANCH CIRCUITS. First of all no need, second why would you need to utilize the same pipe your using for a feeder? Wouldn't that pipe normally terminate at a Disconnect, starter, load center etc? Maybe in commercial where it's a short nipple you need to pass through doing service work or something, but Why would you want branch circuits mixed in there? If there's a fault between your feeder and #12/#14awg branch circuit conductor it's going to be potentially catastrophic, imagine if the feeder was cut and it was on the A Phase and your feeder on the B Phase was cut and they met, your feeder won't trip until it sees 30/40/50/60/80a the branch circuit might but the wire will be backfed and live, and if the cable melted it could be shorting/arcing out.

Maybe I'm wrong.


----------



## Roger (Jul 7, 2007)

bostongtp said:


> Excuse my terminology then....I though he knew where I was going, I should have been more clear. Let's put it this way. I WOULD NEVER MIX FEEDER, OR SERVICE CONDUCTORS WITH BRANCH CIRCUITS. First of all no need, second why would you need to utilize the same pipe your using for a feeder? Wouldn't that pipe normally terminate at a Disconnect, starter, load center etc? Maybe in commercial where it's a short nipple you need to pass through doing service work or something, but Why would you want branch circuits mixed in there? If there's a fault between your feeder and #12/#14awg branch circuit conductor it's going to be potentially catastrophic, imagine if the feeder was cut and it was on the A Phase and your feeder on the B Phase was cut and they met, your feeder won't trip until it sees 30/40/50/60/80a the branch circuit might but the wire will be backfed and live, and if the cable melted it could be shorting/arcing out.
> 
> Maybe I'm wrong.


 
I'm not trying to beat you up or demean you but, I think you are definitely confusing service conductors (non fused) with feeders (fused) see the definition of both in article 100. 

Running feeders and branch circuits in the same conduit, cable, or raceway is not a problem and is very common.

Roger


----------



## ohiosparky99 (Nov 12, 2009)

bostongtp said:


> Am I missing something? We have a what appears to be 40 circuit panel, which houses 40 breakers, if all breakers were utilized you would have 40 conductors. You can't run feeder conductors with branch circuit conductors, so those are out of question, maybe a few pass through circuits? How many could really be in there? Apparently not enough for you to be concerned enough to actually just count them.... It would take about 45 seconds lol. So your going to wait for the job to fail, when you could just count, as if we were in kinda garden, and verify there is adequate space? That would make your team look stupid, and it's a bad move on your part. I assume you didn't do this install for a good reason, the work there is nice from the pictures instead of criticizing it, learn from it. If you really though it was issue don't tell us, tell your superior. I agree, good thing your not an inspector because if they thought like you a lot of people fail inspection. Since you didn't list what size the pipe is, we are left to guess. My guess is that pipe is no smaller than 1 1/4". 1 1/4" can house 45- #12awg conductors, and that panel has 2, so I don't know where exactly your going with this. Where here for you, but, did you need help with pipe calculations,de-rating, etc....or just wanted to vent?? I like the work, very neat. From the layout, to the wire bending. Hope you passed....I'm sure you did.


I don't believe his major issue is conduit fill, he's upset because the nipple is over 24" and he's worried about derating the cables. Personally I wouldn't worry about it, but that's just me


----------



## bostongtp (Apr 9, 2014)

Roger said:


> I'm not trying to beat you up or demean you but, I think you are definitely confusing service conductors (non fused) with feeders (fused) see the definition of both in article 100.
> 
> Running feeders and branch circuits in the same conduit, cable, or raceway is not a problem and is very common
> 
> We actually just straightened that out. And yes Service conductor and feeders are fused.....every conductor is fused, Aside from that yea you can run feeders and branch circuits in same conduit.


----------



## LARMGUY (Aug 22, 2010)

----------------------


----------



## Rich1013 (Apr 11, 2014)

can't gold plate everything


----------



## Tigerloose (Dec 5, 2010)

mxslick said:


> Many years ago I did a 200amp new service on my house in So Cal. It was a surface mount panel, so I had to sleeve some of the new circuits coming up from under the house in conduit (PVC). Inspector didn't want to sign off, claiming I couldn't run NM cable through conduit. My position is that it was for physical protection and thus allowed. (The conduits were 32" long, the restriction back then was 36" or less.) I even showed him the Code article that allowed it as installed.


Wet location would have been reason enough to say no.


----------

