In article , Doug White wrote:
"Pete C." wrote in
ster.com:


Doug White wrote:

The question is whether code requires any sort of bushing or clamp on
either end of the conduit.

Yes.

Loose wires run in conduit do not require
clamps. If the Romex was exposed where it came out of the conduit, a
clamp would be required that fits on the end of conduit. It would
take a much larger hole to fit the clamp down through the top of the
wall, and the Romex is never exposed anywhere.

There is a standard conduit fitting that goes on the end of the
conduit and provides a NM (Romex) type clamp. You run the NM cable up
to the end of the conduit, and strip the NM jacket off for the length
that will be in the conduit.

That's just stupid. There's no reason at all to strip the jacket off. There's
a common misconception that Romex isn't permitted in conduit. That simply
isn't true; in fact, not only is Romex permitted in conduit, the NEC
_explicitly requires_ putting it in conduit where necessary to protect it from
physical damage. Nowhere does the NEC state, or even suggest, that one should
strip the jacket from it.

I can't imagine where ideas like this get started.

You will need to remover some of that wall paneling so that you can
access the interior of the wall at the point where the NM will
transition to EMT conduit. You can insert the conduit through a
tightly sized hole in the top of the wall, install the NM connector on
the end of the conduit from inside the wall, and then feed the wires
from the NM up through the conduit, finishing with an inch or two of
the NM jacket in the conduit and clamp the NM cable securely at the NM
to EMT connector.

Oh, baloney, he doesn't need to do anything of the kind. Unless the location
is such that the cable would be subject to physical damage, he's perfectly OK
just running the Romex exposed.

That would work, the catch is that taking the wall apart is a nightmare.

So don't do it. Pete doesn't know what he's talking about, and you shouldn't
take electrical advice from him.
[snip]

I thought the conduit fitting was only required if the Romex is exposed

If it's required even under that circumstance, it's news to me.

(that's how I've seen them in the past, but then I didn't think exposing
Romex was to code either).

Well, it is: "Type NM cable shall be permitted as follows: (1) for both
exposed and concealed work in normally dry locations..." [2005 NEC, Article
334.10(A)] That's not new with the 2005 Code, either. The same language has
been in the Code for decades.