# entrance fitting



## mdshunk (Mar 13, 2005)

Sparky Joe said:


> Having romex exposed is also a violation.


No, it's not. 

Having romex installed where it is exposed to physical damage is, however, a violation. Just because romex is exposed does not mean that it is exposed to physical damage. I am aware that there are some jurisdictional rules against exposed romex.


----------



## Sparky Joe (Apr 29, 2006)

mdshunk said:


> No, it's not.
> 
> Having romex installed where it is exposed to physical damage is, however, a violation. Just because romex is exposed does not mean that it is exposed to physical damage. I am aware that there are some jurisdictional rules against exposed romex.


Didn't know that, I was always told you can't have it exposed(perhaps the boss didn't want a crappy looking job)

So how is "exposed to physical damage" defined? Within 3 feet of the floor?

Up a bit late MD? must be near 2am there huh? Just can't get enough I guess, is that how you get the reputation of "super-hero"?


----------



## mdshunk (Mar 13, 2005)

Sparky Joe said:


> So how is "exposed to physical damage" defined?


It isn't. It's largly up to the AHJ, and your boss. The code only specifically requires that romex be protected when it comes up through a floor for 6". Naturally, there are lots of other circumstances where it likely will be exposed to physical damage. It would take some sort of catastrophe or vandalism to damage an exposed romex entering the top of a panel.


----------



## MSSI (Mar 25, 2006)

That whole wall with the plywood gets packed out and firerated with 5/8 x-type sheetrock. So the covers will be flushmount.
As for the looptys.(service loop)..I cant say Im not a little loopty myself but this is just an old habbit from the machine wiring days. It would bug the hell out of me when an engineer would "add" or more like, forget a pump or heater, whatever, If you have to add a contactor into a panel you might just need that extra2-4" to squeeze it in there. Or how bout being able to change a coil or without having to un wire the thing. 
I think In this case I didnt feel like re-dressing a Temporary cable that was already cut and stripped. I will sometimes (depending on mood)leave a loop on the breaker sides though incase I need to shuffle breakers around..


----------



## thom (Nov 3, 2006)

Your panel doesn't install at all like mine.

Our house exteriors are stucco. We are required to mount our panels on a board (I use T-111 siding) with the stucco abutting the board. The stucco cannot abutt the panel, we are required to leave a small air gap that is created by the panel offsets. On meter sockets, a nipple feeds from the rear of the meter socket through the wall to the main panel. I use combo units so the nipples (I use pvc female adapters) feed from the back of the panel through the wall into the stud cavity. All the romex pulls through the nipples into the panel. Pretty standard around here.

Why would MD say it's a violation to enter through the rear of the panel? The panels include knockouts on the rear. Any other feed through would seem to be nonsensicle.


----------



## mdshunk (Mar 13, 2005)

thom said:


> Why would MD say it's a violation to enter through the rear of the panel? The panels include knockouts on the rear. Any other feed through would seem to be nonsensicle.


I'm saying that it is, indeed, a violation to feed multiple romexes through the back of a famale adaptor in the back of the panel. That adaptor is not so rated, and there is no provision in the code or the UL White Book to permit such use. Aparently, is must pass inspection in your area, and that's a shame. It is legal to enter the back of a panel, but only through connectors rated for the size and number of cables that have clamping means. You can only enter through a nipple through the top of an enclosure, and only if it is at least 18" long. Entering the back through a nipple or female adaptor is a clear-cut violation.

If the inspectors in your area overlook that, it sure is a simple method. Best of luck to you.


----------



## MSSI (Mar 25, 2006)

UPDATE...Here is what I came up with. The second floor only is pulled in..[/ATTACH]


----------



## MSSI (Mar 25, 2006)




----------



## mdshunk (Mar 13, 2005)

Looks neat. Bundling is a concern, but if those conduit straps are greater than 24" apart, you likely won't get tagged on it. The alternative is a more traditional "NM rack":


----------



## JohnJ0906 (Jan 7, 2007)

Did you derate those wires? Sure looks like bundleing longer than 24" to me. But it does look neat.


----------



## MSSI (Mar 25, 2006)

If the inspector gripes Ill yank the straps off...Even if I derate the 60% I am still good with 15s and 20s I think...


----------



## Sparky Joe (Apr 29, 2006)

Why would you derate any of that?
I think that is top notch work MSS.
And Md's pic is my new wallpaper, ha (yeah right)


----------



## Sparky Joe (Apr 29, 2006)

I'm still drooling over that pic MD, did you do it?

If I were allowed the time to do work that nice, I just might go residential.


----------



## mdshunk (Mar 13, 2005)

Sparky Joe said:


> Why would you derate any of that?)


Mostly because of NEC 310.15(B)(2)(a). It might not even apply if those straps are over 24" apart. Personally, I see those straps as being no different than if that same amount of cable went through bored holes in studs or joists. They certainly don't look tightly bound together to me, but they do sorta look "stacked". If I was inspecting it, I'd pass it. It looks like air can get in amongst the cables. 


*310.15 Ampacities for Conductors Rated 0–2000 Volts.*
_*(B) Tables.* Ampacities for conductors rated 0 to 2000_
_volts shall be as specified in the Allowable Ampacity Table_
_310.16 through Table 310.19 and Ampacity Table 310.20_
_through 310.21 as modified by (1) through (6)._
*(2) Adjustment Factors.*
*(a) More Than Three Current-Carrying Conductors in*
_*a Raceway or Cable. *Where the number of current-carrying_
_conductors in a raceway or cable exceeds three, or where_
_single conductors or multiconductor cables are stacked or_
_bundled longer than 600 mm (24 in.) without maintaining_
_spacing and are not installed in raceways, the allowable_
_ampacity of each conductor shall be reduced as shown in_
_Table 310.15(B)(2)(a) Each current-carrying conductor of a_
_paralleled set of conductors shall be counted as a currentcarrying_
_conductor._​ 

If you're interested, here's a really nice technical article on the subject:
http://www.iaei.org/subscriber/magazine/03_e/magazine_03e_lindsey.htm


----------



## mdshunk (Mar 13, 2005)

Sparky Joe said:


> If I were allowed the time to do work that nice, I just might go residential.


It's too bad your union gig does't let you do nice work, and you are an NM cable hater, huh? :jester:


----------



## Sparky Joe (Apr 29, 2006)

mdshunk said:


> It's too bad your union gig does't let you do nice work, and you are an NM cable hater, huh? :jester:


The whole point of why I am where I am is to do nice work. I should take pictures of my racks or even the underground stuff that no one is ever going to see anyway. 
The thing about the pic I like is the vastness of it, with pipe each run represents 6 circuits, so those 6 cans would only be about 30 pipes, whereas there are well over 100 runs of romex there.

I like to get creative with my racks, although 3 bends on one stick(like in the pic) is prohibeted. So my racks would look cleaner, but the complexity is what intrigues me.

I know your just teasing, but honestly, did you do that?


----------



## mdshunk (Mar 13, 2005)

Sparky Joe said:


> I know your just teasing, but honestly, did you do that?


That picture, and many others from that job, have made their rounds for years. I'm surprised you havn't seen one of them. That's why I wrote "a more traditional NM rack". It was tongue-in-cheek, because there's certainly nothing normal or traditional about that picture.


----------



## Sparky Joe (Apr 29, 2006)

Again the question strikes me, at least was it your company?

Or was the last post a "tongue in cheek" way of saying 'yes'?


----------



## Sparky Joe (Apr 29, 2006)

Oh and as far as the refference, I had no idea there was derating due to bundling romex. Now I wonder if the 'spacing' is due to heat or inductance?


----------



## mdshunk (Mar 13, 2005)

Sparky Joe said:


> Again the question strikes me, at least was it your company??


No, I have no idea who did that work. I've done similar installs, but never took pics. I wasn't really a picture taking guy until the last couple of months, when I've discovered the value of pictures. The lion's share of my work is far from beautiful. Just taking crap and making it less crappy. I mostly do service and old work. If I posted a picture of everything I did last week, for instance, you'd think it was all crap. If I posted that same work beside the "before", you'd understand. You aren't permitted by simple economics to make every job a piece of artwork. Just NEC compliant.


----------

