On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 18:26:30 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 12:04:31 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

wrote in :


The point is, it's romex in weathertight conduit in an exterior
application and it passed inspection in Canada,

One: Just because it passed inspection does not mean it meets code in that jurisdiction.
The inspector may not have seen it -- or may have been as ignorant of the code as you are.

Two: What you *think* is code-compliant in Canada isn't necessarily code-compliant, either
there or anywhere else.

Three: It's time you learned that.

Four: This is NOT compliant with the U.S. NEC, irrespective of your misguided opinions.

Five: Are you aware that you've been arguing with a master electrician (gfretwell, not me)
about what does and doesn't meet Code?
Answer to one - it passed - that's all that matters to me
Answer to two - I know code in Canada and elsewhere is different - and
I've qualified that several times. I said "in Canada"
Answer to three - I already know that - see one and two above.
Answer to four - I never said it was compliant to US NEC - I said it
passes here - and I'm sure it has been passed many times in many
places in the USA as well - not every jurisdiction sticks strictly to
the NEC

Answer to number four - all kinds of guys argue with me about
automotive stuff - and I've been a "master mechanic" for over half my
life - (and I'm not 30). I've been wrong a few times, and I'm sure he
has been too.

Not saying he's wrong now either.

By the way - in Canada NMD90 is approved for "damp" but not "wet"
locations - so that's likely why it is deemed to be OK here in a
conduit above ground (like for running wires up the wall to exterior
lights)

On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 23:52:59 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

wrote in :

On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 12:04:31 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

wrote in :


The point is, it's romex in weathertight conduit in an exterior
application and it passed inspection in Canada,

One: Just because it passed inspection does not mean it meets code in that jurisdiction.
The inspector may not have seen it -- or may have been as ignorant of the code as you
are.

Two: What you *think* is code-compliant in Canada isn't necessarily code-compliant,
either
there or anywhere else.

Three: It's time you learned that.

Four: This is NOT compliant with the U.S. NEC, irrespective of your misguided opinions.

Five: Are you aware that you've been arguing with a master electrician (gfretwell, not me)
about what does and doesn't meet Code?
Answer to one - it passed - that's all that matters to me

"Passed inspection" is not the same as "Code-compliant".

Answer to two - I know code in Canada and elsewhere is different - and
I've qualified that several times. I said "in Canada"

Nice try. What you *actually* said is

Inside a properly installed conduit is a "dry location".

No qualifiers there at all.

OK - it is a DAMP location - not wet in Canadian code, and NMD90 cable
is approved for installation in "damp locations" in Canada.

Answer to three - I already know that - see one and two above.

Clearly you haven't learned it yet, as amply demonstrated by what you *actually* said (in
contrast to what you now *claim* you said). This is not the first time you've made blanket
statements about what's Code-compliant and what's not, without mentioning the fact that
you're talking about Canadian code (or your interpretation thereof, anyway).

Answer to four - I never said it was compliant to US NEC - I said it
passes here -

Again, for the record, what you *actually* said is
Inside a properly installed conduit is a "dry location".

and I'm sure it has been passed many times in many
places in the USA as well - not every jurisdiction sticks strictly to
the NEC

Again, "passed inspection" is not the same as "code compliant".

Answer to number four - all kinds of guys argue with me about
automotive stuff - and I've been a "master mechanic" for over half my
life - (and I'm not 30). I've been wrong a few times,

Indeed you have.

and I'm sure he
has been too.

Not here, not on electrical issues -- not that I've ever noticed, anyway. I've learned a lot from
reading his posts.

Not saying he's wrong now either.

No, and not implying it at all, either, are you?

No I am not. But as just stated above, nmd90 in Canada is approved for
use in dry and "damp"ocations, but not wet. A properly installed
protective conduit protects the cable from "wet" although it may allow
the cable to be "damp" - and that passes code in Canada.

This iosn't a code document - but from Southwire's canadian website -
-

• Southwire’s Romex® SIMpull ® Type NMD90 cables may be used for both
exposed work
in dry locations or concealed work in dry or damp locations
• The maximum allowable conductor temperature is 90°C
• The minimum recommended installation temperature is minus 25°C for
two-conductor
cables, and minus 10°C for three-conductor cables (with suitable
handling procedures)
• Material should be properly stored above 0°C for 24 hours prior to
installation
• The maximum voltage rating for all intended applications is 300
volts
• Consult the Canadian Electrical Code1 for further information
related to applications


Southwire’s Romex® SIMpull ® Type NMD90 cables meet or exceed the
requirements of
all applicable ASTM specifications, CSA C22.2 No. 48 (non-metallic
sheathed cable), and
the Canadian Electrical Code.1


Look up table 19 of the canadian electrical code for the permission to
run NMD90 exposed in damp locations.

See also: https://www.ecswire.com/products/specs/nmd90
Also see:
http://www.cerrowire.com/files/file/NMD-90.pdf

Download http://members.rennlist.org/warren/elec-hbk.pdf and search
for table 19.

Does this satisfy your objections??????

Like you said - code is different in different places. I am in Canada.
In Canada NMD90 cable is approved for damp locations.
Vertical protection conduit connected to weatherproof box for mounting
a light is a damp location.

I have now given you the cites - so can we drop it now????

On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 21:13:33 -0500, wrote:

OK - it is a DAMP location - not wet in Canadian code,

Cite that

On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 23:29:35 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 21:13:33 -0500, wrote:

OK - it is a DAMP location - not wet in Canadian code,

Cite that
I've been looking for an official definition of "damp" and there
doesn't appear to be one. other than in agricultural buildings where a
livestock housing building needs a minimum air exchange -that is only
described as "adequate"
Under your NEC it is: "Locations protected from weather and not
subject to saturation with water or other liquids but subject to
moderate degrees of moisture. Examples of such locations include
partially protected locations under canopies, marquees, roofed pen
porches, and like locations, and interior locations subject to
moderate degrees of moisture, such as basements, some barns, and some
cold storage buildings."
while "wet" is : "Installations underground or in concrete slabs or
masonry in direct contact with the earth; in locations subject to
saturation with water or other liquids, such as vehicle washing areas;
and in unprotected locations exposed to weather."

Also :
"From the 2002 NEC Definitions

Location, Damp. Locations protected from weather and not subject to
saturation with water or other liquids but subject to moderate degrees
of moisture. Examples of such locations include partially protected
locations under canopies, marquees, roofed open porches, and like
locations, and interior locations subject to moderate degrees of
moisture, such as some basements, some barns, and some cold-storage
warehouses.

Location, Dry. A location not normally subject to dampness or
wetness. A location classified as dry may be temporarily subject to
dampness or wetness, as in the case of a building under construction.

Location, Wet. Installations under ground or in concrete slabs or
masonry in direct contact with the earth; in locations subject to
saturation with water or other liquids, such as vehicle washing areas;
and in unprotected locations exposed to weather."


Being enclosed in a water resistant, if not water proof enclosure
(conduit) it does not completely comply with the description for a
"wet" location.( unprotected locations exposed to weather) or (
locations subject to saturation with water or other liquids,) But
that is under US regulations.

As you say - code in the USA and code in Canada are not the same.

And it seems pretty obvious my local inspector considered it to be
only a "damp" location .Another inspector may not have agreed. Such is
the ambiguity of an undefined or under-defined term, which is left to
the interpretation of the inspector involved.

I believe in the USA under the NEC nmd-90 does not exist - nmd is 90
by default? And perhaps the limitations to it's use are different
than in Canada.?

I also know that in some areas of the USA NMD cable is not allowed to
be used at all - you must use armored cable or conduit. - and as in
Canada where each province has it's own interpretations and "sub
codes" the same is true in the USA - with the addition of even
different cities in the same state having totally different
interpretations /versions of electrical code.

On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 00:30:55 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 23:29:35 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 21:13:33 -0500, wrote:

OK - it is a DAMP location - not wet in Canadian code,

Cite that
I've been looking for an official definition of "damp" and there
doesn't appear to be one. other than in agricultural buildings where a
livestock housing building needs a minimum air exchange -that is only
described as "adequate"
Under your NEC it is: "Locations protected from weather and not
subject to saturation with water or other liquids but subject to
moderate degrees of moisture. Examples of such locations include
partially protected locations under canopies, marquees, roofed pen
porches, and like locations, and interior locations subject to
moderate degrees of moisture, such as basements, some barns, and some
cold storage buildings."
while "wet" is : "Installations underground or in concrete slabs or
masonry in direct contact with the earth; in locations subject to
saturation with water or other liquids, such as vehicle washing areas;
and in unprotected locations exposed to weather."

Also :
"From the 2002 NEC Definitions

Location, Damp. Locations protected from weather and not subject to
saturation with water or other liquids but subject to moderate degrees
of moisture. Examples of such locations include partially protected
locations under canopies, marquees, roofed open porches, and like
locations, and interior locations subject to moderate degrees of
moisture, such as some basements, some barns, and some cold-storage
warehouses.

Location, Dry. A location not normally subject to dampness or
wetness. A location classified as dry may be temporarily subject to
dampness or wetness, as in the case of a building under construction.

Location, Wet. Installations under ground or in concrete slabs or
masonry in direct contact with the earth; in locations subject to
saturation with water or other liquids, such as vehicle washing areas;
and in unprotected locations exposed to weather."


Being enclosed in a water resistant, if not water proof enclosure
(conduit) it does not completely comply with the description for a
"wet" location.( unprotected locations exposed to weather) or (
locations subject to saturation with water or other liquids,) But
that is under US regulations.

As you say - code in the USA and code in Canada are not the same.

And it seems pretty obvious my local inspector considered it to be
only a "damp" location .Another inspector may not have agreed. Such is
the ambiguity of an undefined or under-defined term, which is left to
the interpretation of the inspector involved.


There is no confusion here. Conduit outside is "wet". I was hoping you
had a cite because I poked around a little in the CEC and I do not see
the definition for locations. They seem to use "conditions"
I will ask some of my Canadian electrical guys.

I believe in the USA under the NEC nmd-90 does not exist - nmd is 90
by default? And perhaps the limitations to it's use are different
than in Canada.?

NMD90 seems to be the same as NM-b here and both are made by at least
one company (Southwire). I suspect it is just marking.

I also know that in some areas of the USA NMD cable is not allowed to
be used at all - you must use armored cable or conduit. - and as in
Canada where each province has it's own interpretations and "sub
codes" the same is true in the USA - with the addition of even
different cities in the same state having totally different
interpretations /versions of electrical code.


There were only 2 cities that I knew of that did not allow NM (NYC and
Chicago) and I think that is down to Chicago now. They have even
started to soften.
More states are going the way of Florida and just adopt the NEC with
no local exceptions. We still have a few guys who try to squeeze their
interpretations too hard but appeals to Tallahassee tend to pull them
back onto the farm

OK, so let's say I ignore code and install romex in conduit in a wet location. And over time water condenses in the conduit so the romex becomes and stays wet.

What's the big effin deal?

Does the insulation break down and allow electricity to flow between L1 and neutral?

On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 03:14:37 -0700, rick wrote:

OK, so let's say I ignore code and install romex in conduit in a wet location. And over time water condenses in the conduit so the romex becomes and stays wet.

What's the big effin deal?

The first thing you see is nuisance trips of the GFCI

Does the insulation break down and allow electricity to flow between L1 and neutral?

Eventually the water can "wick" down the paper packing in the NM and
drip into other boxes.

If you want the question I have not heard answered is why the
manufacturers still use the paper in the first place.
There is a listing for NM without paper, using plastic filler, called
NM-c that tolerates more water than NM-b and less than UF but when you
poke around, that comes back as UF cable in their catalogs so I assume
they don't want to catabolize the UF business by upgrading NM-b to
NM-c.

It must be available somewhere because it has a name, "barn cable".

NM-b (Romex) dry only
NM-c (Barn cable) damp and dry
UF (underground feeder) dry, damp or wet

On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 10:17:25 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 03:14:37 -0700, rick wrote:

OK, so let's say I ignore code and install romex in conduit in a wet location. And over time water condenses in the conduit so the romex becomes and stays wet.

What's the big effin deal?

The first thing you see is nuisance trips of the GFCI

Does the insulation break down and allow electricity to flow between L1 and neutral?

Eventually the water can "wick" down the paper packing in the NM and
drip into other boxes.

If you want the question I have not heard answered is why the
manufacturers still use the paper in the first place.
There is a listing for NM without paper, using plastic filler, called
NM-c that tolerates more water than NM-b and less than UF but when you
poke around, that comes back as UF cable in their catalogs so I assume
they don't want to catabolize the UF business by upgrading NM-b to
NM-c.

It must be available somewhere because it has a name, "barn cable".

NM-b (Romex) dry only
NM-c (Barn cable) damp and dry
UF (underground feeder) dry, damp or wet
There is no paper in Canadian NMD-90 cable. I checked 4 different
samples I have here, 14, 12, and 10 guage.

Perhaps that's why an associate who thought he could beat the system
had to tear out ALL of the American NM cable he had used to wire his
house - the inspector took one look - no CSA stamp on the sheath and
he condemned the whole job. All of a sudden saving over 50% on his
cabling costs wasn't such a great deal any more!!!

Like I said on a previous post (or more) on another thread - Canadian
codes when it comes to safety tend to be much stricter than american
requirements. Many things that pass UL don't come close to passing
UL-c or CSA.

On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 14:08:58 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 10:17:25 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 03:14:37 -0700, rick wrote:

OK, so let's say I ignore code and install romex in conduit in a wet location. And over time water condenses in the conduit so the romex becomes and stays wet.

What's the big effin deal?

The first thing you see is nuisance trips of the GFCI

Does the insulation break down and allow electricity to flow between L1 and neutral?

Eventually the water can "wick" down the paper packing in the NM and
drip into other boxes.

If you want the question I have not heard answered is why the
manufacturers still use the paper in the first place.
There is a listing for NM without paper, using plastic filler, called
NM-c that tolerates more water than NM-b and less than UF but when you
poke around, that comes back as UF cable in their catalogs so I assume
they don't want to catabolize the UF business by upgrading NM-b to
NM-c.

It must be available somewhere because it has a name, "barn cable".

NM-b (Romex) dry only
NM-c (Barn cable) damp and dry
UF (underground feeder) dry, damp or wet
There is no paper in Canadian NMD-90 cable. I checked 4 different
samples I have here, 14, 12, and 10 guage.

Perhaps that's why an associate who thought he could beat the system
had to tear out ALL of the American NM cable he had used to wire his
house - the inspector took one look - no CSA stamp on the sheath and
he condemned the whole job. All of a sudden saving over 50% on his
cabling costs wasn't such a great deal any more!!!

Like I said on a previous post (or more) on another thread - Canadian
codes when it comes to safety tend to be much stricter than american
requirements. Many things that pass UL don't come close to passing
UL-c or CSA.

What packing do they use?

On 2016-03-09 2:28 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 14:08:58 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 10:17:25 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 03:14:37 -0700, rick wrote:

OK, so let's say I ignore code and install romex in conduit in a wet location. And over time water condenses in the conduit so the romex becomes and stays wet.

What's the big effin deal?

The first thing you see is nuisance trips of the GFCI

Does the insulation break down and allow electricity to flow between L1 and neutral?

Eventually the water can "wick" down the paper packing in the NM and
drip into other boxes.

If you want the question I have not heard answered is why the
manufacturers still use the paper in the first place.
There is a listing for NM without paper, using plastic filler, called
NM-c that tolerates more water than NM-b and less than UF but when you
poke around, that comes back as UF cable in their catalogs so I assume
they don't want to catabolize the UF business by upgrading NM-b to
NM-c.

It must be available somewhere because it has a name, "barn cable".

NM-b (Romex) dry only
NM-c (Barn cable) damp and dry
UF (underground feeder) dry, damp or wet
There is no paper in Canadian NMD-90 cable. I checked 4 different
samples I have here, 14, 12, and 10 guage.

Perhaps that's why an associate who thought he could beat the system
had to tear out ALL of the American NM cable he had used to wire his
house - the inspector took one look - no CSA stamp on the sheath and
he condemned the whole job. All of a sudden saving over 50% on his
cabling costs wasn't such a great deal any more!!!

Like I said on a previous post (or more) on another thread - Canadian
codes when it comes to safety tend to be much stricter than american
requirements. Many things that pass UL don't come close to passing
UL-c or CSA.

What packing do they use?

Canada also, once you strip off the outer cover, there are 2 or 3
insulated wires and a bare ground, that is all, no paper or further
insulation is required.

--
Froz...

Quando omni flunkus, moritati

On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 14:08:58 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 10:17:25 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 03:14:37 -0700, rick wrote:

OK, so let's say I ignore code and install romex in conduit in a wet location. And over time water condenses in the conduit so the romex becomes and stays wet.

What's the big effin deal?

The first thing you see is nuisance trips of the GFCI

Does the insulation break down and allow electricity to flow between L1 and neutral?

Eventually the water can "wick" down the paper packing in the NM and
drip into other boxes.

If you want the question I have not heard answered is why the
manufacturers still use the paper in the first place.
There is a listing for NM without paper, using plastic filler, called
NM-c that tolerates more water than NM-b and less than UF but when you
poke around, that comes back as UF cable in their catalogs so I assume
they don't want to catabolize the UF business by upgrading NM-b to
NM-c.

It must be available somewhere because it has a name, "barn cable".

NM-b (Romex) dry only
NM-c (Barn cable) damp and dry
UF (underground feeder) dry, damp or wet
There is no paper in Canadian NMD-90 cable. I checked 4 different
samples I have here, 14, 12, and 10 guage.

Perhaps that's why an associate who thought he could beat the system
had to tear out ALL of the American NM cable he had used to wire his
house - the inspector took one look - no CSA stamp on the sheath and
he condemned the whole job. All of a sudden saving over 50% on his
cabling costs wasn't such a great deal any more!!!

Like I said on a previous post (or more) on another thread - Canadian
codes when it comes to safety tend to be much stricter than american
requirements. Many things that pass UL don't come close to passing
UL-c or CSA.

I did some reading on NMD90. It appears there is no internal wrapper.
Maybe that is why they give up 300v in the ratings. NM-b is 600v
rated, NMD90 is 300.

On 2016-03-09 2:38 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 14:08:58 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 10:17:25 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 03:14:37 -0700, rick wrote:

OK, so let's say I ignore code and install romex in conduit in a wet location. And over time water condenses in the conduit so the romex becomes and stays wet.

What's the big effin deal?

The first thing you see is nuisance trips of the GFCI

Does the insulation break down and allow electricity to flow between L1 and neutral?

Eventually the water can "wick" down the paper packing in the NM and
drip into other boxes.

If you want the question I have not heard answered is why the
manufacturers still use the paper in the first place.
There is a listing for NM without paper, using plastic filler, called
NM-c that tolerates more water than NM-b and less than UF but when you
poke around, that comes back as UF cable in their catalogs so I assume
they don't want to catabolize the UF business by upgrading NM-b to
NM-c.

It must be available somewhere because it has a name, "barn cable".

NM-b (Romex) dry only
NM-c (Barn cable) damp and dry
UF (underground feeder) dry, damp or wet
There is no paper in Canadian NMD-90 cable. I checked 4 different
samples I have here, 14, 12, and 10 guage.

Perhaps that's why an associate who thought he could beat the system
had to tear out ALL of the American NM cable he had used to wire his
house - the inspector took one look - no CSA stamp on the sheath and
he condemned the whole job. All of a sudden saving over 50% on his
cabling costs wasn't such a great deal any more!!!

Like I said on a previous post (or more) on another thread - Canadian
codes when it comes to safety tend to be much stricter than american
requirements. Many things that pass UL don't come close to passing
UL-c or CSA.

I did some reading on NMD90. It appears there is no internal wrapper.
Maybe that is why they give up 300v in the ratings. NM-b is 600v
rated, NMD90 is 300.

Does it make a difference, whether at 120 or 240 volts, for residential
use it is well under the limits.


--
Froz...

Quando omni flunkus, moritati

On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 14:38:06 -0500, FrozenNorth
wrote:

On 2016-03-09 2:28 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 14:08:58 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 10:17:25 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 03:14:37 -0700, rick wrote:

OK, so let's say I ignore code and install romex in conduit in a wet location. And over time water condenses in the conduit so the romex becomes and stays wet.

What's the big effin deal?

The first thing you see is nuisance trips of the GFCI

Does the insulation break down and allow electricity to flow between L1 and neutral?

Eventually the water can "wick" down the paper packing in the NM and
drip into other boxes.

If you want the question I have not heard answered is why the
manufacturers still use the paper in the first place.
There is a listing for NM without paper, using plastic filler, called
NM-c that tolerates more water than NM-b and less than UF but when you
poke around, that comes back as UF cable in their catalogs so I assume
they don't want to catabolize the UF business by upgrading NM-b to
NM-c.

It must be available somewhere because it has a name, "barn cable".

NM-b (Romex) dry only
NM-c (Barn cable) damp and dry
UF (underground feeder) dry, damp or wet
There is no paper in Canadian NMD-90 cable. I checked 4 different
samples I have here, 14, 12, and 10 guage.

Perhaps that's why an associate who thought he could beat the system
had to tear out ALL of the American NM cable he had used to wire his
house - the inspector took one look - no CSA stamp on the sheath and
he condemned the whole job. All of a sudden saving over 50% on his
cabling costs wasn't such a great deal any more!!!

Like I said on a previous post (or more) on another thread - Canadian
codes when it comes to safety tend to be much stricter than american
requirements. Many things that pass UL don't come close to passing
UL-c or CSA.

What packing do they use?

Canada also, once you strip off the outer cover, there are 2 or 3
insulated wires and a bare ground, that is all, no paper or further
insulation is required.

The packing on Romex is to prevent "bruising" the conductor insulation
if the cable is beat up during or after insulation.
As I said to Clare, that may be one of the reasons why NMD-90 is only
rated at 300v. It also uses a different conductor insulation than NM-b
with no teflon jacket.

On 2016-03-09 2:47 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 14:38:06 -0500, FrozenNorth
wrote:

On 2016-03-09 2:28 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 14:08:58 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 10:17:25 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 03:14:37 -0700, rick wrote:

OK, so let's say I ignore code and install romex in conduit in a wet location. And over time water condenses in the conduit so the romex becomes and stays wet.

What's the big effin deal?

The first thing you see is nuisance trips of the GFCI

Does the insulation break down and allow electricity to flow between L1 and neutral?

Eventually the water can "wick" down the paper packing in the NM and
drip into other boxes.

If you want the question I have not heard answered is why the
manufacturers still use the paper in the first place.
There is a listing for NM without paper, using plastic filler, called
NM-c that tolerates more water than NM-b and less than UF but when you
poke around, that comes back as UF cable in their catalogs so I assume
they don't want to catabolize the UF business by upgrading NM-b to
NM-c.

It must be available somewhere because it has a name, "barn cable".

NM-b (Romex) dry only
NM-c (Barn cable) damp and dry
UF (underground feeder) dry, damp or wet
There is no paper in Canadian NMD-90 cable. I checked 4 different
samples I have here, 14, 12, and 10 guage.

Perhaps that's why an associate who thought he could beat the system
had to tear out ALL of the American NM cable he had used to wire his
house - the inspector took one look - no CSA stamp on the sheath and
he condemned the whole job. All of a sudden saving over 50% on his
cabling costs wasn't such a great deal any more!!!

Like I said on a previous post (or more) on another thread - Canadian
codes when it comes to safety tend to be much stricter than american
requirements. Many things that pass UL don't come close to passing
UL-c or CSA.

What packing do they use?

Canada also, once you strip off the outer cover, there are 2 or 3
insulated wires and a bare ground, that is all, no paper or further
insulation is required.

The packing on Romex is to prevent "bruising" the conductor insulation
if the cable is beat up during or after insulation.
As I said to Clare, that may be one of the reasons why NMD-90 is only
rated at 300v. It also uses a different conductor insulation than NM-b
with no teflon jacket.

Is the outer sheathing a different thickness, only guess I can come up
with. I have pulled a fair bit of 15 and 20 amp rated cables, and to the
best of my experience I doubt I could bruise the inner cables since I
have never much more than maybe scuffed the outer insulation.

--
Froz...

Quando omni flunkus, moritati

On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 15:16:39 -0500, FrozenNorth
wrote:


Is the outer sheathing a different thickness, only guess I can come up
with. I have pulled a fair bit of 15 and 20 amp rated cables, and to the
best of my experience I doubt I could bruise the inner cables since I
have never much more than maybe scuffed the outer insulation.

The usual reason the insulation gets bruised is the installer gets a
little too aggressive driving the staples. You are just "supporting"
the cable, not torturing it.

On 2016-03-09 3:27 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 15:16:39 -0500, FrozenNorth
wrote:


Is the outer sheathing a different thickness, only guess I can come up
with. I have pulled a fair bit of 15 and 20 amp rated cables, and to the
best of my experience I doubt I could bruise the inner cables since I
have never much more than maybe scuffed the outer insulation.

The usual reason the insulation gets bruised is the installer gets a
little too aggressive driving the staples. You are just "supporting"
the cable, not torturing it.

Probably true, not sure though, I have driven the staples, two hits with
a hammer and they are usually in close enough to hold the cable, why
give two extra hits. :-)

--
Froz...

Quando omni flunkus, moritati

On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 14:28:40 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 14:08:58 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 10:17:25 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 03:14:37 -0700, rick wrote:

OK, so let's say I ignore code and install romex in conduit in a wet location. And over time water condenses in the conduit so the romex becomes and stays wet.

What's the big effin deal?

The first thing you see is nuisance trips of the GFCI

Does the insulation break down and allow electricity to flow between L1 and neutral?

Eventually the water can "wick" down the paper packing in the NM and
drip into other boxes.

If you want the question I have not heard answered is why the
manufacturers still use the paper in the first place.
There is a listing for NM without paper, using plastic filler, called
NM-c that tolerates more water than NM-b and less than UF but when you
poke around, that comes back as UF cable in their catalogs so I assume
they don't want to catabolize the UF business by upgrading NM-b to
NM-c.

It must be available somewhere because it has a name, "barn cable".

NM-b (Romex) dry only
NM-c (Barn cable) damp and dry
UF (underground feeder) dry, damp or wet
There is no paper in Canadian NMD-90 cable. I checked 4 different
samples I have here, 14, 12, and 10 guage.

Perhaps that's why an associate who thought he could beat the system
had to tear out ALL of the American NM cable he had used to wire his
house - the inspector took one look - no CSA stamp on the sheath and
he condemned the whole job. All of a sudden saving over 50% on his
cabling costs wasn't such a great deal any more!!!

Like I said on a previous post (or more) on another thread - Canadian
codes when it comes to safety tend to be much stricter than american
requirements. Many things that pass UL don't come close to passing
UL-c or CSA.

What packing do they use?
What packing???
There is no packing. There is 2 or 3 insulated copper wires and one
bare copper wire inside a plastic sheathing. No paper, no string, no
"filament" of any kind. Not like our old Romex with the impregnated
cloth covering and rattan wrap around the individual insulated
conductors.

Apparently in the USA you are using a different product, manufactured
to a different standard. It's not just a different stamp on the
outside sheath.

On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 14:38:32 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 14:08:58 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 10:17:25 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 03:14:37 -0700, rick wrote:

OK, so let's say I ignore code and install romex in conduit in a wet location. And over time water condenses in the conduit so the romex becomes and stays wet.

What's the big effin deal?

The first thing you see is nuisance trips of the GFCI

Does the insulation break down and allow electricity to flow between L1 and neutral?

Eventually the water can "wick" down the paper packing in the NM and
drip into other boxes.

If you want the question I have not heard answered is why the
manufacturers still use the paper in the first place.
There is a listing for NM without paper, using plastic filler, called
NM-c that tolerates more water than NM-b and less than UF but when you
poke around, that comes back as UF cable in their catalogs so I assume
they don't want to catabolize the UF business by upgrading NM-b to
NM-c.

It must be available somewhere because it has a name, "barn cable".

NM-b (Romex) dry only
NM-c (Barn cable) damp and dry
UF (underground feeder) dry, damp or wet
There is no paper in Canadian NMD-90 cable. I checked 4 different
samples I have here, 14, 12, and 10 guage.

Perhaps that's why an associate who thought he could beat the system
had to tear out ALL of the American NM cable he had used to wire his
house - the inspector took one look - no CSA stamp on the sheath and
he condemned the whole job. All of a sudden saving over 50% on his
cabling costs wasn't such a great deal any more!!!

Like I said on a previous post (or more) on another thread - Canadian
codes when it comes to safety tend to be much stricter than american
requirements. Many things that pass UL don't come close to passing
UL-c or CSA.

I did some reading on NMD90. It appears there is no internal wrapper.
Maybe that is why they give up 300v in the ratings. NM-b is 600v
rated, NMD90 is 300.
Which is still well over the required rating for a center tapped
single phase 120/240 volt electrical supply.

On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 20:03:19 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 14:38:32 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 14:08:58 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 10:17:25 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 03:14:37 -0700, rick wrote:

OK, so let's say I ignore code and install romex in conduit in a wet location. And over time water condenses in the conduit so the romex becomes and stays wet.

What's the big effin deal?

The first thing you see is nuisance trips of the GFCI

Does the insulation break down and allow electricity to flow between L1 and neutral?

Eventually the water can "wick" down the paper packing in the NM and
drip into other boxes.

If you want the question I have not heard answered is why the
manufacturers still use the paper in the first place.
There is a listing for NM without paper, using plastic filler, called
NM-c that tolerates more water than NM-b and less than UF but when you
poke around, that comes back as UF cable in their catalogs so I assume
they don't want to catabolize the UF business by upgrading NM-b to
NM-c.

It must be available somewhere because it has a name, "barn cable".

NM-b (Romex) dry only
NM-c (Barn cable) damp and dry
UF (underground feeder) dry, damp or wet
There is no paper in Canadian NMD-90 cable. I checked 4 different
samples I have here, 14, 12, and 10 guage.

Perhaps that's why an associate who thought he could beat the system
had to tear out ALL of the American NM cable he had used to wire his
house - the inspector took one look - no CSA stamp on the sheath and
he condemned the whole job. All of a sudden saving over 50% on his
cabling costs wasn't such a great deal any more!!!

Like I said on a previous post (or more) on another thread - Canadian
codes when it comes to safety tend to be much stricter than american
requirements. Many things that pass UL don't come close to passing
UL-c or CSA.

I did some reading on NMD90. It appears there is no internal wrapper.
Maybe that is why they give up 300v in the ratings. NM-b is 600v
rated, NMD90 is 300.
Which is still well over the required rating for a center tapped
single phase 120/240 volt electrical supply.

Well over? 250v (the max in the 240v standard) is more than 80% of the
rating
Maybe this is a case where Canada is not as safe as the US.
600v is standard for all conductors used for general wiring here.

On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 11:20:45 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 20:03:19 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 14:38:32 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 14:08:58 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 10:17:25 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 03:14:37 -0700, rick wrote:

OK, so let's say I ignore code and install romex in conduit in a wet location. And over time water condenses in the conduit so the romex becomes and stays wet.

What's the big effin deal?

The first thing you see is nuisance trips of the GFCI

Does the insulation break down and allow electricity to flow between L1 and neutral?

Eventually the water can "wick" down the paper packing in the NM and
drip into other boxes.

If you want the question I have not heard answered is why the
manufacturers still use the paper in the first place.
There is a listing for NM without paper, using plastic filler, called
NM-c that tolerates more water than NM-b and less than UF but when you
poke around, that comes back as UF cable in their catalogs so I assume
they don't want to catabolize the UF business by upgrading NM-b to
NM-c.

It must be available somewhere because it has a name, "barn cable".

NM-b (Romex) dry only
NM-c (Barn cable) damp and dry
UF (underground feeder) dry, damp or wet
There is no paper in Canadian NMD-90 cable. I checked 4 different
samples I have here, 14, 12, and 10 guage.

Perhaps that's why an associate who thought he could beat the system
had to tear out ALL of the American NM cable he had used to wire his
house - the inspector took one look - no CSA stamp on the sheath and
he condemned the whole job. All of a sudden saving over 50% on his
cabling costs wasn't such a great deal any more!!!

Like I said on a previous post (or more) on another thread - Canadian
codes when it comes to safety tend to be much stricter than american
requirements. Many things that pass UL don't come close to passing
UL-c or CSA.

I did some reading on NMD90. It appears there is no internal wrapper.
Maybe that is why they give up 300v in the ratings. NM-b is 600v
rated, NMD90 is 300.
Which is still well over the required rating for a center tapped
single phase 120/240 volt electrical supply.

Well over? 250v (the max in the 240v standard) is more than 80% of the
rating

Actually peak voltage in a 240V AC circuit is 340V.

"trader_4" wrote in message
...

On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 11:20:45 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 20:03:19 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 14:38:32 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 14:08:58 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 10:17:25 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 03:14:37 -0700, rick wrote:

OK, so let's say I ignore code and install romex in conduit in a wet
location. And over time water condenses in the conduit so the romex
becomes and stays wet.

What's the big effin deal?

The first thing you see is nuisance trips of the GFCI

Does the insulation break down and allow electricity to flow between
L1 and neutral?

Eventually the water can "wick" down the paper packing in the NM and
drip into other boxes.

If you want the question I have not heard answered is why the
manufacturers still use the paper in the first place.
There is a listing for NM without paper, using plastic filler, called
NM-c that tolerates more water than NM-b and less than UF but when you
poke around, that comes back as UF cable in their catalogs so I assume
they don't want to catabolize the UF business by upgrading NM-b to
NM-c.

It must be available somewhere because it has a name, "barn cable".

NM-b (Romex) dry only
NM-c (Barn cable) damp and dry
UF (underground feeder) dry, damp or wet
There is no paper in Canadian NMD-90 cable. I checked 4 different
samples I have here, 14, 12, and 10 guage.

Perhaps that's why an associate who thought he could beat the system
had to tear out ALL of the American NM cable he had used to wire his
house - the inspector took one look - no CSA stamp on the sheath and
he condemned the whole job. All of a sudden saving over 50% on his
cabling costs wasn't such a great deal any more!!!

Like I said on a previous post (or more) on another thread - Canadian
codes when it comes to safety tend to be much stricter than american
requirements. Many things that pass UL don't come close to passing
UL-c or CSA.

I did some reading on NMD90. It appears there is no internal wrapper.
Maybe that is why they give up 300v in the ratings. NM-b is 600v
rated, NMD90 is 300.
Which is still well over the required rating for a center tapped
single phase 120/240 volt electrical supply.

Well over? 250v (the max in the 240v standard) is more than 80% of the
rating

Actually peak voltage in a 240V AC circuit is 340V.
*Not Peak; but Peak to Peak yes*