Running 3 #10's (stranded) in 1-1/2" PVC conduit. Total run 75 feet. Does
code allow me to have a splice within the conduit? Seems like it is kind of
accessible since I can easily pull it from both ends in case of problems.
Two 90° bends are involved but I am using long sweeps.

Thanks for the info.
BTW, while I'm typically not a cheapskate, on my retirement allowance I
would rather not pay for a new roll of wire ($65) when I'm only shy a few
feet. Buying a single 75' piece, by the foot, will still set me back $30.

All replies appreciated.

Ivan Vegvary

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 02:11:42 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 20:44:39 -0700, "Ivan Vegvary"
wrote:

Running 3 #10's (stranded) in 1-1/2" PVC conduit. Total run 75 feet. Does
code allow me to have a splice within the conduit? Seems like it is kind of
accessible since I can easily pull it from both ends in case of problems.
Two 90° bends are involved but I am using long sweeps.

Thanks for the info.
BTW, while I'm typically not a cheapskate, on my retirement allowance I
would rather not pay for a new roll of wire ($65) when I'm only shy a few
feet. Buying a single 75' piece, by the foot, will still set me back $30.

All replies appreciated.

Ivan Vegvary

No splices in the conduit, sorry.

But if the situation allows, you could put a box in the right spot
and make the splice in there....

Paul F.

Paul Franklin wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 02:11:42 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 20:44:39 -0700, "Ivan Vegvary"
wrote:

Running 3 #10's (stranded) in 1-1/2" PVC conduit. Total run 75 feet. Does
code allow me to have a splice within the conduit? Seems like it is kind of
accessible since I can easily pull it from both ends in case of problems.
....
No splices in the conduit, sorry.

But if the situation allows, you could put a box in the right spot
and make the splice in there....
....

Or, again if it works, you could make one of the bends at a box instead
of the sweep...

Whatever, "pullable for access" doesn't equate to "accessible" per NEC.

--

In article ,
"Ivan Vegvary" wrote:

Running 3 #10's (stranded) in 1-1/2" PVC conduit. Total run 75 feet. Does
code allow me to have a splice within the conduit? Seems like it is kind of
accessible since I can easily pull it from both ends in case of problems.
Two 90° bends are involved but I am using long sweeps.

Thanks for the info.
BTW, while I'm typically not a cheapskate, on my retirement allowance I
would rather not pay for a new roll of wire ($65) when I'm only shy a few
feet. Buying a single 75' piece, by the foot, will still set me back $30.

All replies appreciated.

Ivan Vegvary

This is one of those instances where'd I'd say the code is a
"suggestion." Sort of like a stop sign in the middle of nowhere in the
middle of the night. If you can solder well and put a couple of layers
of shrink tube on it, I'd say go for it. I wouldn't do it with wire nuts.

In article , Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
"Ivan Vegvary" wrote:

Running 3 #10's (stranded) in 1-1/2" PVC conduit. Total run 75 feet. Does
code allow me to have a splice within the conduit? Seems like it is kind of
accessible since I can easily pull it from both ends in case of problems.
Two 90° bends are involved but I am using long sweeps.

Thanks for the info.
BTW, while I'm typically not a cheapskate, on my retirement allowance I
would rather not pay for a new roll of wire ($65) when I'm only shy a few
feet. Buying a single 75' piece, by the foot, will still set me back $30.

All replies appreciated.

Ivan Vegvary

This is one of those instances where'd I'd say the code is a
"suggestion."

Then your advice is worth exactly what the OP is paying for it. In many
places, the Code is _the law_.

Sort of like a stop sign in the middle of nowhere in the
middle of the night. If you can solder well and put a couple of layers
of shrink tube on it, I'd say go for it. I wouldn't do it with wire nuts.

Code violation, and, if underground, unsafe besides. Electrical codes are
there for a reason. Don't advise people to disregard them.

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Ivan Vegvary" wrote:

Running 3 #10's (stranded) in 1-1/2" PVC conduit. Total run 75 feet.
Does
code allow me to have a splice within the conduit? Seems like it is kind
of
accessible since I can easily pull it from both ends in case of problems.
Two 90° bends are involved but I am using long sweeps.

Thanks for the info.
BTW, while I'm typically not a cheapskate, on my retirement allowance I
would rather not pay for a new roll of wire ($65) when I'm only shy a few
feet. Buying a single 75' piece, by the foot, will still set me back
$30.

All replies appreciated.

Ivan Vegvary

This is one of those instances where'd I'd say the code is a
"suggestion." Sort of like a stop sign in the middle of nowhere in the
middle of the night. If you can solder well and put a couple of layers
of shrink tube on it, I'd say go for it. I wouldn't do it with wire nuts.

I disagree. Certainly one can make a successful splice in a potentially wet
location. This is done with deep well pumps where the splice is actually
under water. The difference is that a qualified person knows that there is a
splice down in the well, so if the pump doesn't work, a few tests can
determine the problem and the mechanic knows where to look for the open
circuit. If a person wily nilly makes splices in inaccessible locations,
where they're illegal as per code, who would even think to look there.

In article , "RBM"
wrote:

If a person wily nilly makes splices in inaccessible locations,
where they're illegal as per code, who would even think to look there.

If there's no continuity from one end of the cable to the other, then
there's a break somewhere in between. Anyone would think to look there.
A well-made splice in the situation the OP describes is never going to
fail, anyway. And if it does, the length of wire is readily pulled and
replaced. Illegal? Sure. So what, says I. If you understand the reason
for the code, you understand under what circumstances you can ignore it,
particularly in your own home.

On Jun 27, 10:24*am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Smitty Two wrote:





In article ,
"Ivan Vegvary" wrote:

Running 3 #10's (stranded) in 1-1/2" PVC conduit. *Total run 75 feet.. *Does
code allow me to have a splice within the conduit? *Seems like it is kind of
accessible since I can easily pull it from both ends in case of problems.
Two 90° bends are involved but I am using long sweeps.

Thanks for the info.
BTW, while I'm typically not a cheapskate, on my retirement allowance I
would rather not pay for a new roll of wire ($65) when I'm only shy a few
feet. *Buying a single 75' piece, by the foot, will still set me back $30.

All replies appreciated.

Ivan Vegvary

This is one of those instances where'd I'd say the code is a
"suggestion."

Then your advice is worth exactly what the OP is paying for it. In many
places, the Code is _the law_.

Sort of like a stop sign in the middle of nowhere in the
middle of the night. If you can solder well and put a couple of layers
of shrink tube on it, I'd say go for it. I wouldn't do it with wire nuts..

Code violation, and, if underground, unsafe besides. Electrical codes are
there for a reason. Don't advise people to disregard them.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Agreed especially since he mentioned soldeing the wires. The code
should be violated only by those who know how |.

Jimmie

Smitty Two wrote:
In article , "RBM"
wrote:

If a person wily nilly makes splices in inaccessible locations,
where they're illegal as per code, who would even think to look there.

If there's no continuity from one end of the cable to the other, then
there's a break somewhere in between. Anyone would think to look there.
A well-made splice in the situation the OP describes is never going to
fail, anyway. And if it does, the length of wire is readily pulled and
replaced. Illegal? Sure. So what, says I. If you understand the reason
for the code, you understand under what circumstances you can ignore it,
particularly in your own home.

But that assumes that somehow you will always be there and available for
the life of the house. Standard practice makes tons of sense because
there is a common baseline and you don't have to scratch your head
because of corner cutting and hay baled work done by someone else.

On 6/27/2009 7:24 AM Doug Miller spake thus:

In article
,
Smitty Two wrote:

In article , "Ivan
Vegvary" wrote:

Running 3 #10's (stranded) in 1-1/2" PVC conduit. Total run 75 feet. Does
code allow me to have a splice within the conduit? Seems like it is kind of
accessible since I can easily pull it from both ends in case of problems.
Two 90° bends are involved but I am using long sweeps.

Sort of like a stop sign in the middle of nowhere in the middle of
the night. If you can solder well and put a couple of layers of
shrink tube on it, I'd say go for it. I wouldn't do it with wire
nuts.

Code violation, and, if underground, unsafe besides. Electrical codes
are there for a reason. Don't advise people to disregard them.

Ditto. Unsafe, as I have seen with my own two eyes what happens when
water gets inside conduit and finds its way inside conductors (this
happened when the insulation was nicked when the wires were pulled).
Result was a corroded spot in the wire which caused an open circuit.


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article , "RBM"
wrote:

If a person wily nilly makes splices in inaccessible locations,
where they're illegal as per code, who would even think to look there.

If there's no continuity from one end of the cable to the other, then
there's a break somewhere in between. Anyone would think to look there.
A well-made splice in the situation the OP describes is never going to
fail, anyway. And if it does, the length of wire is readily pulled and
replaced. Illegal? Sure. So what, says I. If you understand the reason
for the code, you understand under what circumstances you can ignore it,
particularly in your own home.



You are demonstrating your inexperience in your statement. For one thing
"your own home" becomes someone else's home at some point. True, one can
determine that the conductor is shorted or open, but when things are not
done by the book, it invariably takes longer to find the problem, since we
begin looking for the most logical location to find the problem. Another
thing, when multiple conductors are pulled in a conduit, they're pulled
together. In the process they get twisted around each other. Often you
cannot just "readily" pull a conductor out of the bunch. Sometimes the
"stuff" that accumulates in underground conduits acts as a glue, and can
make it difficult or impossible to remove the conductors intact, especially
if you've got some lump of a splice in there. Do it once, do it right. You
may have every right to muck up your own home, but I would refrain from
recommending that it's OK for others to do it

In article , JIMMIE wrote:
On Jun 27, 10:24=A0am, (Doug Miller) wrote:

Code violation, and, if underground, unsafe besides. Electrical codes are
there for a reason. Don't advise people to disregard them.

Agreed especially since he mentioned soldeing the wires. The code
should be violated only by those who know how |.

Soldering isn't a Code violation.

On Jun 27, 10:24 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
This is one of those instances where'd I'd say the code is a
"suggestion."

Then your advice is worth exactly what the OP is paying for it. In many
places, the Code is _the law_.

I'm pretty sure he wasn't disputing that. He just meant that no one
would ever know...

On the other hand, I do think it's a bad suggestion. He hasn't said so
yet, but I highly suspect that this is to go underground. If that
solder joint fails, damages the other wires and melts the conduit
someday, he's going to hate life when he has to dig it up and replace
it.

JIMMIE wrote:
On Jun 27, 10:24 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Smitty Two wrote:





In article ,
"Ivan Vegvary" wrote:
Running 3 #10's (stranded) in 1-1/2" PVC conduit. Total run 75 feet. Does
code allow me to have a splice within the conduit? Seems like it is kind of
accessible since I can easily pull it from both ends in case of problems.
Two 90° bends are involved but I am using long sweeps.
Thanks for the info.
BTW, while I'm typically not a cheapskate, on my retirement allowance I
would rather not pay for a new roll of wire ($65) when I'm only shy a few
feet. Buying a single 75' piece, by the foot, will still set me back $30.
All replies appreciated.
Ivan Vegvary
This is one of those instances where'd I'd say the code is a
"suggestion."
Then your advice is worth exactly what the OP is paying for it. In many
places, the Code is _the law_.

Sort of like a stop sign in the middle of nowhere in the
middle of the night. If you can solder well and put a couple of layers
of shrink tube on it, I'd say go for it. I wouldn't do it with wire nuts.
Code violation, and, if underground, unsafe besides. Electrical codes are
there for a reason. Don't advise people to disregard them.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Agreed especially since he mentioned soldeing the wires. The code
should be violated only by those who know how |.

Jimmie

Code ain't for you. Code is for the poor SOB 20 years from now, and a
couple of owners later, trying to reverse-engineer what the hell you
did. Yeah, odds are an in-line splice would work, and if done properly,
would never fail. But how much would it cost to buy a long enough cable,
or put a proper junction box in the middle? Shortly after I moved in
here, I found a badly-done butt splice floating in the bathroom wall,
because previous owner was too cheap or lazy to run a new wire, all of
about 15 feet. Just recently, I discovered the 4' fluorescents in the
basement were hooked up above the drop ceiling, by shoving the ends of
the romex into duplex outlets wired into the octagon boxes that once
held the original porcelain fixtures. I still need to rewire those, so I
can have light in the basement again...

--
aem sends...

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 13:31:18 -0400, "RBM" wrote:


"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article , "RBM"
wrote:

If a person wily nilly makes splices in inaccessible locations,
where they're illegal as per code, who would even think to look there.

If there's no continuity from one end of the cable to the other, then
there's a break somewhere in between. Anyone would think to look there.
A well-made splice in the situation the OP describes is never going to
fail, anyway. And if it does, the length of wire is readily pulled and
replaced. Illegal? Sure. So what, says I. If you understand the reason
for the code, you understand under what circumstances you can ignore it,
particularly in your own home.



You are demonstrating your inexperience in your statement. For one thing
"your own home" becomes someone else's home at some point. True, one can
determine that the conductor is shorted or open, but when things are not


You should be able to do what you want in YOUR home. After all, it
would be YOUR family and YOUR friends that could be killed.

"Metspitzer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 13:31:18 -0400, "RBM" wrote:


"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article , "RBM"
wrote:

If a person wily nilly makes splices in inaccessible locations,
where they're illegal as per code, who would even think to look there.

If there's no continuity from one end of the cable to the other, then
there's a break somewhere in between. Anyone would think to look there.
A well-made splice in the situation the OP describes is never going to
fail, anyway. And if it does, the length of wire is readily pulled and
replaced. Illegal? Sure. So what, says I. If you understand the reason
for the code, you understand under what circumstances you can ignore it,
particularly in your own home.



You are demonstrating your inexperience in your statement. For one thing
"your own home" becomes someone else's home at some point. True, one can
determine that the conductor is shorted or open, but when things are not


You should be able to do what you want in YOUR home. After all, it
would be YOUR family and YOUR friends that could be killed.

Again, the reason we have building codes, electrical codes, life safety
codes etc., is because Your home will at some point be someone else's home,
someone who has no idea what ass backwards , possibly dangerous
installations you made, when it was your home. Not to mention that it is
against the law to kill your own family

In article , "RBM"
wrote:

"Metspitzer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 13:31:18 -0400, "RBM" wrote:


"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news In article , "RBM"
wrote:

If a person wily nilly makes splices in inaccessible locations,
where they're illegal as per code, who would even think to look there.

If there's no continuity from one end of the cable to the other, then
there's a break somewhere in between. Anyone would think to look there.
A well-made splice in the situation the OP describes is never going to
fail, anyway. And if it does, the length of wire is readily pulled and
replaced. Illegal? Sure. So what, says I. If you understand the reason
for the code, you understand under what circumstances you can ignore it,
particularly in your own home.



You are demonstrating your inexperience in your statement. For one thing
"your own home" becomes someone else's home at some point. True, one can
determine that the conductor is shorted or open, but when things are not


You should be able to do what you want in YOUR home. After all, it
would be YOUR family and YOUR friends that could be killed.

Again, the reason we have building codes, electrical codes, life safety
codes etc., is because Your home will at some point be someone else's home,
someone who has no idea what ass backwards , possibly dangerous
installations you made, when it was your home. Not to mention that it is
against the law to kill your own family



Good grief. I knew I was going to get some **** about this, but a well
soldered and insulated splice in a spacious conduit with wide sweeping
turns is hardly dangerous, the damn code be damned. There's about a one
in ten billion chance it will go short or open in the lifetime of the
house, and if it does either, it's STILL not dangerous or difficult to
diagnose or repair. If the retired homeowner on a fixed income wants to
save a few bucks on wire, let him splice the **** if he knows how.
Millions of people survived the advent of electricity before there were
all these laws to protect us from ourselves.

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article , "RBM"
wrote:

"Metspitzer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 13:31:18 -0400, "RBM" wrote:


"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news In article , "RBM"

wrote:

If a person wily nilly makes splices in inaccessible locations,
where they're illegal as per code, who would even think to look
there.

If there's no continuity from one end of the cable to the other, then
there's a break somewhere in between. Anyone would think to look
there.
A well-made splice in the situation the OP describes is never going
to
fail, anyway. And if it does, the length of wire is readily pulled
and
replaced. Illegal? Sure. So what, says I. If you understand the
reason
for the code, you understand under what circumstances you can ignore
it,
particularly in your own home.



You are demonstrating your inexperience in your statement. For one
thing
"your own home" becomes someone else's home at some point. True, one
can
determine that the conductor is shorted or open, but when things are
not


You should be able to do what you want in YOUR home. After all, it
would be YOUR family and YOUR friends that could be killed.

Again, the reason we have building codes, electrical codes, life safety
codes etc., is because Your home will at some point be someone else's
home,
someone who has no idea what ass backwards , possibly dangerous
installations you made, when it was your home. Not to mention that it is
against the law to kill your own family



Good grief. I knew I was going to get some **** about this, but a well
soldered and insulated splice in a spacious conduit with wide sweeping
turns is hardly dangerous, the damn code be damned. There's about a one
in ten billion chance it will go short or open in the lifetime of the
house, and if it does either, it's STILL not dangerous or difficult to
diagnose or repair. If the retired homeowner on a fixed income wants to
save a few bucks on wire, let him splice the **** if he knows how.
Millions of people survived the advent of electricity before there were
all these laws to protect us from ourselves.


I'm not saying that splicing the wire in the conduit is dangerous, just that
it may become a nuisance to someone in the future. I probably costs less in
the long run to do things properly. You say, "let him splice the **** if he
knows how". In all manner of things, how many people think they know how,
and don't.

In article , Smitty Two wrote:

Good grief. I knew I was going to get some **** about this, but a well
soldered and insulated splice in a spacious conduit with wide sweeping
turns is hardly dangerous, the damn code be damned. There's about a one
in ten billion chance it will go short or open in the lifetime of the
house, and if it does either, it's STILL not dangerous or difficult to
diagnose or repair. If the retired homeowner on a fixed income wants to
save a few bucks on wire, let him splice the **** if he knows how.
Millions of people survived the advent of electricity before there were
all these laws to protect us from ourselves.

Please stop giving electrical advice.

" If a person wily nilly makes splices in inaccessible locations,
where they're illegal as per code, who would even think to look there.

If there's no continuity from one end of the cable to the other, then
there's a break somewhere in between. Anyone would think to look there.
A well-made splice in the situation the OP describes is never going to
fail, anyway. And if it does, the length of wire is readily pulled and
replaced. Illegal? Sure. So what, says I. If you understand the reason
for the code, you understand under what circumstances you can ignore it,
particularly in your own home.



You are demonstrating your inexperience in your statement. For one thing
"your own home" becomes someone else's home at some point. True, one can
determine that the conductor is shorted or open, but when things are not


You should be able to do what you want in YOUR home. After all, it
would be YOUR family and YOUR friends that could be killed.


*Killing your own family and friends would certainly be rewarding enough for
doing whatever you want in your own home.

On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 20:44:39 -0700, "Ivan Vegvary"
wrote:

Running 3 #10's (stranded) in 1-1/2" PVC conduit. Total run 75 feet. Does
code allow me to have a splice within the conduit? Seems like it is kind of
accessible since I can easily pull it from both ends in case of problems.
Two 90° bends are involved but I am using long sweeps.


NEC does not allow this. Connections must be made in an accessable
approved electrical box.

In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article
, Smitty
Two wrote:

Good grief. I knew I was going to get some **** about this, but a well
soldered and insulated splice in a spacious conduit with wide sweeping
turns is hardly dangerous, the damn code be damned. There's about a one
in ten billion chance it will go short or open in the lifetime of the
house, and if it does either, it's STILL not dangerous or difficult to
diagnose or repair. If the retired homeowner on a fixed income wants to
save a few bucks on wire, let him splice the **** if he knows how.
Millions of people survived the advent of electricity before there were
all these laws to protect us from ourselves.

Please stop giving electrical advice.

No. You want to give code advice, fine. I'll give common sense advice
all I want.

In article , Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article
, Smitty
Two wrote:

Good grief. I knew I was going to get some **** about this, but a well
soldered and insulated splice in a spacious conduit with wide sweeping
turns is hardly dangerous, the damn code be damned. There's about a one
in ten billion chance it will go short or open in the lifetime of the
house, and if it does either, it's STILL not dangerous or difficult to
diagnose or repair. If the retired homeowner on a fixed income wants to
save a few bucks on wire, let him splice the **** if he knows how.
Millions of people survived the advent of electricity before there were
all these laws to protect us from ourselves.

Please stop giving electrical advice.

No. You want to give code advice, fine. I'll give common sense advice
all I want.

You haven't given any common sense advice yet -- dangerous practices that
violate the Code are *not* common sense.

John Grabowski wrote:

You are demonstrating your inexperience in your statement. For one
thing "your own home" becomes someone else's home at some point.
True, one can determine that the conductor is shorted or open, but
when things are not


You should be able to do what you want in YOUR home. After all, it
would be YOUR family and YOUR friends that could be killed.


*Killing your own family and friends would certainly be rewarding
enough for doing whatever you want in your own home.

And if the extension he's planning is to his son's iron lung that he has to
have because he can no longer afford the expensive care at the nursing
facility?

There's always an exception to almost every rule, law, or code.

In article , "RBM"
wrote:

In all manner of things, how many people think they know how,
and don't.

Most. People are idiots, by and large. But it isn't up to me to judge
the skills of the OP. And if he misjudges his own skills, so what?
Freedom includes the freedom to shoot yourself in the foot.

All these damn rules and regulations about every tiny little thing that
might cause someone to stub their toe, annoy me. And people that are
terrified to break one of them now and again because they think they can
imagine some absolutely astronomical possibility that some catastrophe
could result, annoy me even more. Kill your family, someone postulated?
Sheesh. Better not let your wife change a light bulb, or operate a steak
knife.

So y'all can go out there and fill up your fat arteries with your
mcdonalds crap and drive five feet off the next guy's bumper at 80 miles
an hour and then go home and pray to the NEC god all ya want.

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 17:52:46 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , JIMMIE wrote:
On Jun 27, 10:24=A0am, (Doug Miller) wrote:

Code violation, and, if underground, unsafe besides. Electrical codes are
there for a reason. Don't advise people to disregard them.

Agreed especially since he mentioned soldeing the wires. The code
should be violated only by those who know how |.

Soldering isn't a Code violation.

Soldering stranded cable CAN be.

In article , wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 17:52:46 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article ,
JIMMIE wrote:
On Jun 27, 10:24=A0am, (Doug Miller) wrote:

Code violation, and, if underground, unsafe besides. Electrical codes are
there for a reason. Don't advise people to disregard them.

Agreed especially since he mentioned soldeing the wires. The code
should be violated only by those who know how |.

Soldering isn't a Code violation.

Soldering stranded cable CAN be.

Cite, please.

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 17:14:27 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article
, Smitty
Two wrote:

Good grief. I knew I was going to get some **** about this, but a well
soldered and insulated splice in a spacious conduit with wide sweeping
turns is hardly dangerous, the damn code be damned. There's about a one
in ten billion chance it will go short or open in the lifetime of the
house, and if it does either, it's STILL not dangerous or difficult to
diagnose or repair. If the retired homeowner on a fixed income wants to
save a few bucks on wire, let him splice the **** if he knows how.
Millions of people survived the advent of electricity before there were
all these laws to protect us from ourselves.

Please stop giving electrical advice.

No. You want to give code advice, fine. I'll give common sense advice
all I want.
And anyone who is on these forums will soon know who to ignore.

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:19:21 -0400, Phisherman
wrote:

On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 20:44:39 -0700, "Ivan Vegvary"
wrote:

Running 3 #10's (stranded) in 1-1/2" PVC conduit. Total run 75 feet. Does
code allow me to have a splice within the conduit? Seems like it is kind of
accessible since I can easily pull it from both ends in case of problems.
Two 90° bends are involved but I am using long sweeps.


NEC does not allow this. Connections must be made in an accessable
approved electrical box.


Not 100% true any more.
There are now "T-Tap" devices approved by the NEC, UL, and CSA for
making connections without a junction box in non-accessible locations.
I would never use them or advise anyone to use them, but they are
(currently) legal and available.
Aluminum wire and Urea formadehyde insulation were both legal and
available in the not so distant past as well.
However, the NEC has not (yet) allowed a splice inside a conduit.

In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article
, Smitty
Two wrote:
In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article
,
Smitty
Two wrote:

Good grief. I knew I was going to get some **** about this, but a well
soldered and insulated splice in a spacious conduit with wide sweeping
turns is hardly dangerous, the damn code be damned. There's about a one
in ten billion chance it will go short or open in the lifetime of the
house, and if it does either, it's STILL not dangerous or difficult to
diagnose or repair. If the retired homeowner on a fixed income wants to
save a few bucks on wire, let him splice the **** if he knows how.
Millions of people survived the advent of electricity before there were
all these laws to protect us from ourselves.

Please stop giving electrical advice.

No. You want to give code advice, fine. I'll give common sense advice
all I want.

You haven't given any common sense advice yet -- dangerous practices that
violate the Code are *not* common sense.

Yeah, I know you're a code junkie, Doug. And I respect your knowledge
and your professionalism. And I understand the reason for the code. And
I realize that a hidden, inaccessible splice is a violation of the NEC.

Now, when was the last time you drove one or more miles per hour over
the speed limit? How could you possibly put your own life, and the lives
of your family, and the lives of children and other innocent strangers,
in such grave danger, by willfully violating a law that is designed to
protect us all from tragedies great and small?

If you think that a *properly soldered and shrink-wrapped* splice in a
wire in a conduit as described by the OP constitutes a *danger*, then
you and I define the word differently. I think the dictionary is on my
side, though.

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article , "RBM"
wrote:

In all manner of things, how many people think they know how,
and don't.

Most. People are idiots, by and large. But it isn't up to me to judge
the skills of the OP. And if he misjudges his own skills, so what?
Freedom includes the freedom to shoot yourself in the foot.

All these damn rules and regulations about every tiny little thing that
might cause someone to stub their toe, annoy me. And people that are
terrified to break one of them now and again because they think they can
imagine some absolutely astronomical possibility that some catastrophe
could result, annoy me even more. Kill your family, someone postulated?
Sheesh. Better not let your wife change a light bulb, or operate a steak
knife.

So y'all can go out there and fill up your fat arteries with your
mcdonalds crap and drive five feet off the next guy's bumper at 80 miles
an hour and then go home and pray to the NEC god all ya want.

I mostly agree with what you are saying. I think the OP however, is trying
to do the right thing as correctly as possible, which is why he asked the
question. I am not fond of our nanny society where everything has to be
built to protect us from ourselves, but imo, backed up by many years of
practical experience, the most practical, common sense solution, is to get a
longer piece of wire, then nobody has to be concerned about it's integrity
down the road

In article , Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article
, Smitty
Two wrote:
In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article
,
Smitty
Two wrote:

Good grief. I knew I was going to get some **** about this, but a well
soldered and insulated splice in a spacious conduit with wide sweeping
turns is hardly dangerous, the damn code be damned. There's about a one
in ten billion chance it will go short or open in the lifetime of the
house, and if it does either, it's STILL not dangerous or difficult to
diagnose or repair. If the retired homeowner on a fixed income wants to
save a few bucks on wire, let him splice the **** if he knows how.
Millions of people survived the advent of electricity before there were
all these laws to protect us from ourselves.

Please stop giving electrical advice.

No. You want to give code advice, fine. I'll give common sense advice
all I want.

You haven't given any common sense advice yet -- dangerous practices that
violate the Code are *not* common sense.

Yeah, I know you're a code junkie, Doug. And I respect your knowledge
and your professionalism. And I understand the reason for the code. And
I realize that a hidden, inaccessible splice is a violation of the NEC.

And on that basis, you should not advise people to do that.

Now, when was the last time you drove one or more miles per hour over
the speed limit? How could you possibly put your own life, and the lives
of your family, and the lives of children and other innocent strangers,
in such grave danger, by willfully violating a law that is designed to
protect us all from tragedies great and small?

Irrelevant, because I do not advise people to exceed the speed limit. You
*have* been advising people to knowingly violate the NEC.

If you think that a *properly soldered and shrink-wrapped* splice in a
wire in a conduit as described by the OP constitutes a *danger*, then
you and I define the word differently. I think the dictionary is on my
side, though.

It certainly poses a greater *potential* danger than does complying with the
Code. The principal risk is water penetrating an underground conduit and
corroding the splice.

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article
, Smitty
Two wrote:

Good grief. I knew I was going to get some **** about this, but a well
soldered and insulated splice in a spacious conduit with wide sweeping
turns is hardly dangerous, the damn code be damned. There's about a one
in ten billion chance it will go short or open in the lifetime of the
house, and if it does either, it's STILL not dangerous or difficult to
diagnose or repair. If the retired homeowner on a fixed income wants to
save a few bucks on wire, let him splice the **** if he knows how.
Millions of people survived the advent of electricity before there were
all these laws to protect us from ourselves.
Please stop giving electrical advice.

No. You want to give code advice, fine. I'll give common sense advice
all I want.

But you aren't doing that. You obviously have an extreme distaste for
what you perceive as being told what to do. That greatly colors your
view so you think it is normal and "common sense" but really only to you.

On Jun 27, 1:52*pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , JIMMIE wrote:

On Jun 27, 10:24=A0am, (Doug Miller) wrote:

Code violation, and, if underground, unsafe besides. Electrical codes are
there for a reason. Don't advise people to disregard them.
Agreed especially since he mentioned soldeing the wires. The code
should be violated only by those who know how |.

Soldering isn't a Code violation.

I dont know what the NEC says about soldering but its a bad idea.
Solder joints cant handle 20 amps of current unless they are made
extremely well. Ive known to many really fine electricians that
couldnt solder worth anything. Even a pretty good solder joint will
melt with 10 amps. Cycle the load on an off a few times and the joint
will soon have more resistance than the hair dryer someone had been
using on the circuit.

Jimmie

In article , JIMMIE wrote:
On Jun 27, 1:52=A0pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article .=
com, JIMMIE wrote:

On Jun 27, 10:24=3DA0am, (Doug Miller) wrote:

Code violation, and, if underground, unsafe besides. Electrical codes =
are
there for a reason. Don't advise people to disregard them.
Agreed especially since he mentioned soldeing the wires. The code
should be violated only by those who know how |.

Soldering isn't a Code violation.

I dont know what the NEC says about soldering but its a bad idea.
Solder joints cant handle 20 amps of current unless they are made
extremely well. Ive known to many really fine electricians that
couldnt solder worth anything. Even a pretty good solder joint will
melt with 10 amps. Cycle the load on an off a few times and the joint
will soon have more resistance than the hair dryer someone had been
using on the circuit.

Complete nonsense (except for the part where you say you don't know what the
NEC says -- *that*, I believe).

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article , "RBM"
wrote:

In all manner of things, how many people think they know how,
and don't.

Most. People are idiots, by and large. But it isn't up to me to judge
the skills of the OP. And if he misjudges his own skills, so what?
Freedom includes the freedom to shoot yourself in the foot.

All these damn rules and regulations about every tiny little thing that
might cause someone to stub their toe, annoy me. And people that are
terrified to break one of them now and again because they think they can
imagine some absolutely astronomical possibility that some catastrophe
could result, annoy me even more. Kill your family, someone postulated?
Sheesh. Better not let your wife change a light bulb, or operate a steak
knife.

So y'all can go out there and fill up your fat arteries with your
mcdonalds crap and drive five feet off the next guy's bumper at 80 miles
an hour and then go home and pray to the NEC god all ya want.

Well said Smitty...Well said....

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 17:14:27 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article
, Smitty
Two wrote:

Good grief. I knew I was going to get some **** about this, but a well
soldered and insulated splice in a spacious conduit with wide sweeping
turns is hardly dangerous, the damn code be damned. There's about a one
in ten billion chance it will go short or open in the lifetime of the
house, and if it does either, it's STILL not dangerous or difficult to
diagnose or repair. If the retired homeowner on a fixed income wants to
save a few bucks on wire, let him splice the **** if he knows how.
Millions of people survived the advent of electricity before there were
all these laws to protect us from ourselves.

Please stop giving electrical advice.

No. You want to give code advice, fine. I'll give common sense advice
all I want.

If you ever decide to sell your house please let everyone here know
where is so we can avoid it like the plague. God only knows what you
have done to it during your ownership!

G.S.

On Jun 27, 11:15*pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , JIMMIE wrote:





On Jun 27, 1:52=A0pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article .=
com, JIMMIE wrote:

On Jun 27, 10:24=3DA0am, (Doug Miller) wrote:

Code violation, and, if underground, unsafe besides. Electrical codes =
are
there for a reason. Don't advise people to disregard them.
Agreed especially since he mentioned soldeing the wires. The code
should be violated only by those who know how |.

Soldering isn't a Code violation.

I dont know what the NEC says about soldering but its a bad idea.
Solder joints cant handle 20 amps of current unless they are made
extremely well. Ive known to many really fine electricians that
couldnt solder worth anything. Even a pretty good solder joint will
melt with 10 amps. Cycle the load on an off a few times and the joint
will soon have more resistance than the hair dryer someone had been
using on the circuit.

Complete nonsense (except for the part where you say you don't know what the
NEC says -- *that*, I believe).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I know that solder joints are forbidden on primary power circuits by
contract in many applications because there are reliabilty problems
with them. I also know that I have the skill to make such connections
reliably. In my job I dont keep up with the NEC anymore but I do know
that they were allowed years ago but thought that this would be
removed one day, this was a consideration back in the 70s because it
allowed on the skill of the electrican to make mutiple connections
without ever making a mistake. Used to, and Im paraphrasing a lot
because I dont have a copy of the NEC and I will take your word for it
that it is still allowed, the joint had to be of a quality where you
didnt really need the solder before it was soldered and the connection
must not rely on the solder for a circuit path, I take it this is
still true. I am sure you will let me know if it is not. The problem
is that solder will melt with just a few amps of current passing
through it. Once it melts and cools it may form a "cold joint" with a
high resistance. HIGH is a very relative term in this case as it may
mean conderably less than one ohm but much greater than the fraction
of a milliohm resistance of a good joint. These damaged splice would
work fine for years as long as the load on them was low but the first
time someone added something to increase the load on them they would
fail. In the 80s we had to remove all the soldered splices from our
wireways for the above reason, they were considered substandard. This
is quite different from the philosophy of the 60's when I was taught
that soldered joints were the acme of electrical splices and wirenuts
were a fire waiting to happen.

I cant think of a single reason anyone would want to use a soldered
joint for primary power wiring with the exception of what the OP
wanted to do and that was to circumvent other NEC specifications.

Jimmie

JIMMIE wrote:
....
I cant think of a single reason anyone would want to use a soldered
joint for primary power wiring with the exception of what the OP
wanted to do and that was to circumvent other NEC specifications.

That has always been proscribed--NEC (won't quote Sections) prohibits
soldered connections in service wires, ground wire or a grounding wire.

Even where solder joints were prescribed, the solder was not to take the
place of the proper mechanical joint, only to maintain its integrity w/
time.

I've assumed (which I probably ought to correct) in another post to OP
that the run he's speaking of is a branch circuit and thereby is fused
upstream given it's #10 that would seem a safe bet.

--

JIMMIE wrote:
On Jun 27, 11:15 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , JIMMIE wrote:





On Jun 27, 1:52=A0pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article .=
com, JIMMIE wrote:
On Jun 27, 10:24=3DA0am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
Code violation, and, if underground, unsafe besides. Electrical codes =
are
there for a reason. Don't advise people to disregard them.
Agreed especially since he mentioned soldeing the wires. The code
should be violated only by those who know how |.
Soldering isn't a Code violation.
I dont know what the NEC says about soldering but its a bad idea.
Solder joints cant handle 20 amps of current unless they are made
extremely well. Ive known to many really fine electricians that
couldnt solder worth anything. Even a pretty good solder joint will
melt with 10 amps. Cycle the load on an off a few times and the joint
will soon have more resistance than the hair dryer someone had been
using on the circuit.
Complete nonsense (except for the part where you say you don't know what the
NEC says -- *that*, I believe).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I know that solder joints are forbidden on primary power circuits by
contract in many applications because there are reliabilty problems
with them. I also know that I have the skill to make such connections
reliably. In my job I dont keep up with the NEC anymore but I do know
that they were allowed years ago but thought that this would be
removed one day, this was a consideration back in the 70s because it
allowed on the skill of the electrican to make mutiple connections
without ever making a mistake. Used to, and Im paraphrasing a lot
because I dont have a copy of the NEC and I will take your word for it
that it is still allowed, the joint had to be of a quality where you
didnt really need the solder before it was soldered and the connection
must not rely on the solder for a circuit path, I take it this is
still true. I am sure you will let me know if it is not. The problem
is that solder will melt with just a few amps of current passing
through it. Once it melts and cools it may form a "cold joint" with a
high resistance. HIGH is a very relative term in this case as it may
mean conderably less than one ohm but much greater than the fraction
of a milliohm resistance of a good joint. These damaged splice would
work fine for years as long as the load on them was low but the first
time someone added something to increase the load on them they would
fail. In the 80s we had to remove all the soldered splices from our
wireways for the above reason, they were considered substandard. This
is quite different from the philosophy of the 60's when I was taught
that soldered joints were the acme of electrical splices and wirenuts
were a fire waiting to happen.

I cant think of a single reason anyone would want to use a soldered
joint for primary power wiring with the exception of what the OP
wanted to do and that was to circumvent other NEC specifications.

Jimmie

Many years ago, soldering was used in house wiring. The
electricians used those big hunk of metal soldering irons
and if I remember, the things were not electric, they had
to be heated by a torch. The connections were insulated
by that old black friction tape. I come across it along
with knob and tube wiring in very old houses and buildings.

TDD