Hi eveyone,

I know it makes no sense to run nm-b in conduit for long runs, both
cost and possible heat, but where in the code does it tell you not to?

thanks,

tom @ www.URLBee.com

I know it makes no sense to run nm-b in conduit for long runs, both
cost and possible heat, but where in the code does it tell you not to?


It doesn't say you can't. In fact the 2005 code clears that language up

On 18 Jan 2005 02:08:07 GMT, (Greg) wrote:

I know it makes no sense to run nm-b in conduit for long runs, both
cost and possible heat, but where in the code does it tell you not to?


It doesn't say you can't. In fact the 2005 code clears that language up


Didn't get the new 2005 book yets, since I heard rumors there were
typos, so two things please: What does it say to clear this up?
Also, if I do buy a book and more "page changes" are made, anywone
know where I can go to print up these changes to insert them into my
book?

Thanks,

tom

wrote:

On 18 Jan 2005 02:08:07 GMT, (Greg) wrote:

I know it makes no sense to run nm-b in conduit for long runs, both
cost and possible heat, but where in the code does it tell you not to?


It doesn't say you can't. In fact the 2005 code clears that language up


What it does say, IIRC, is that if you DO run it in conduit, you're
supposed to de-rate it.

The errata is here
http://www.electrical-contractor.net...NEC-Errata.pdf

BTW the change is in 334.15(B) and says you can install NM in conduit to
provide physical protection. There is no requirement for derating.

On 18 Jan 2005 07:00:18 GMT, (Greg) wrote:

The errata is here
http://www.electrical-contractor.net...NEC-Errata.pdf



Thank you. Not looking a gift horse in the mouth, but is there a
place to get the 'changed pages' so you can print them up in insert
them in you book, or do you need to get a new book eveytime the typos
are caught?

I've been eyeing the loose-leaf book, and I was wondering if there was
an added benifit to geting it, like keeping up to date all the time.

thanks,

tom

On 18 Jan 2005 07:07:34 GMT, (Greg) wrote:

BTW the change is in 334.15(B) and says you can install NM in conduit to
provide physical protection. There is no requirement for derating.


I know the 2002 even tells you to run NM throught conduit between
dwelling floors, but I've been told over and over never run it though
for conduit work.


Example, if you run nm throught an unfiinished basement, when you get
to the wall, you need some protection for the cable. So, I was
planning on using emt(looks nicer than rnc to me), well I was told the
portion that goes into the emt needs to be unsheathed, per code. But
no one can tell me where it actually says so. ART 334 says you it can
be run in conduit. Note 9 of Chapter 9, even gives how to figure
conduit fill with this oval shapped cable(like NM).

So is this working practice from the past, or an actual code
enforcement?

Thank you, everyone.

later,

tom @ www.BookmarkAdmin.com

I was told the
portion that goes into the emt needs to be unsheathed, per code

That was never true. Actually using a cable this way is violating the listing.
A cable is an assembly and designed to be used with the sheath on.
I am also not sure where the derating rumor came from. Derating is based on the
number of current carrying conductors grouped together ... period. 4 or more
current carrying conductors are derated the same if they are in a cable, a 1/2"
pipe or a 4" pipe.
With a 90c conductor it is pretty hard to come up with a case where derating
will affect NM-b anyway.