OK, I have now established proper metal content. The issue is more of an
electrical code issue, and I'm hoping the wealth of knowledge of the
usual suspects can help me out.

My basement shop needs more outlets. I had a nice new breaker panel
installed a few years back, and it's time to add an outlet so I can run
my mill without first unplugging the lathe.

The basement is finished, and has a "half wall" of wooden tongue & groove
boards that ends about 10" below the bottom of the breaker panel box.
The top of the wall is capped with a piece of 2x molding. The wall is
built on 2x3 studs, and the plan is to mount the outlet box in the wall.
I can run Romex once I'm in the wall, but I need to get from the breaker
box to the top of the wall in a protected (and hopefully tidy) fashion.

My original notion was to bend up 1/2" conduit to bridge the gap. I can
drill a hole in the top of the wall large enough to insert an inch or two
of conduit. I can attach it to the breaker box with a standard clamp,
going in through one of the bottom knockouts. I would then snake the
Romex down through the conduit & into the wall.

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

For my own peace of mind, it would be nice to have a clamp of some sort
inside the breaker box to prevent anyone from accidentally yanking the
Romex out. One option would be to slip one of the one-way plastic spring
loaded NMSC clamps (the sort that usually go in a knockout) onto the
cable just where it comes up out of the conduit fitting.

Given that previous licensed electricians ran Romex exposed and
unprotected in other areas, I doubt anyone is ever going to get cranky
about whatever I do. However, I try to stick to code whenever possible,
and I'm at least curious as to exactly what the code might have to say
about something like this (if anything). It's a bit too peculiar for any
of my wiring books or the course I took years ago.

Thanks!

Doug White

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.

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.

In article , Doug White wrote:
OK, I have now established proper metal content. The issue is more of an
electrical code issue, and I'm hoping the wealth of knowledge of the
usual suspects can help me out.

I'll try. I'm assuming that since you're posting from an MIT alumni account,
you're in the US; my comments apply to the US NEC only.

My basement shop needs more outlets. I had a nice new breaker panel
installed a few years back, and it's time to add an outlet so I can run
my mill without first unplugging the lathe.

The basement is finished, and has a "half wall" of wooden tongue & groove
boards that ends about 10" below the bottom of the breaker panel box.
The top of the wall is capped with a piece of 2x molding. The wall is
built on 2x3 studs, and the plan is to mount the outlet box in the wall.
I can run Romex once I'm in the wall, but I need to get from the breaker
box to the top of the wall in a protected (and hopefully tidy) fashion.

Code allows Romex to be either exposed or concealed.

My original notion was to bend up 1/2" conduit to bridge the gap. I can
drill a hole in the top of the wall large enough to insert an inch or two
of conduit. I can attach it to the breaker box with a standard clamp,
going in through one of the bottom knockouts. I would then snake the
Romex down through the conduit & into the wall.

The conduit is not required unless the cable is subject to physical damage.

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

A plastic bushing is required, yes.

Loose wires run in conduit do not require clamps.

Correct.

If the Romex was exposed where it came out of the conduit, a
clamp would be required that fits on the end of conduit.

I don't think that's correct.

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.

For my own peace of mind, it would be nice to have a clamp of some sort
inside the breaker box to prevent anyone from accidentally yanking the
Romex out. One option would be to slip one of the one-way plastic spring
loaded NMSC clamps (the sort that usually go in a knockout) onto the
cable just where it comes up out of the conduit fitting.

I guess. It's really not necessary, though.

Given that previous licensed electricians ran Romex exposed and
unprotected in other areas, I doubt anyone is ever going to get cranky
about whatever I do.

As noted above, that's not a Code violation. Never has been. The Code
explicitly permits Romex to be installed either exposed or concealed, and
requires conduit only where it's subject to physical damage.

However, I try to stick to code whenever possible,
and I'm at least curious as to exactly what the code might have to say
about something like this (if anything). It's a bit too peculiar for any
of my wiring books or the course I took years ago.

Hope I helped.

If the Romex was exposed where it came out of the conduit, a
clamp would be required that fits on the end of conduit.

I don't think that's correct.

Whether it is necessary or not, I'd put the clamp on and strip
the wire off the jacket that is in the conduit, as originally
suggested.
I had an inspector not like the fact I had the ground wire come
out of the conduit with no termination on the end of the conduit.
The only thing in the conduit was the ground wire to the water pipe.

I don't like the idea of running machines off of romex, personal
choice. If your looking for ease I'd run greenfield (bx without the
wire) and
then pull the wire through that. They also have conduit to greenfield
connectors.

Wayne D.

"Pete C." wrote in
ter.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.

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.

That would work, the catch is that taking the wall apart is a nightmare.
Because it is tongeue & groove, it's all interlocked like crazy. I
removed a bunch in another part of the basement, and tried to save some
for possible future use & repairs. No cigar. I was in a bit more of a
rush, but if I could take the wall apart, I'd do the whole run in
conduit. Boring an ovesized hole I can slip the clamp down through might
be my best bet.

I thought the conduit fitting was only required if the Romex is exposed
(that's how I've seen them in the past, but then I didn't think exposing
Romex was to code either).

Doug White

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article , Doug White
wrote:
OK, I have now established proper metal content. The issue is more of
an electrical code issue, and I'm hoping the wealth of knowledge of
the usual suspects can help me out.

I'll try. I'm assuming that since you're posting from an MIT alumni
account, you're in the US; my comments apply to the US NEC only.

My basement shop needs more outlets. I had a nice new breaker panel
installed a few years back, and it's time to add an outlet so I can
run my mill without first unplugging the lathe.

The basement is finished, and has a "half wall" of wooden tongue &
groove boards that ends about 10" below the bottom of the breaker
panel box. The top of the wall is capped with a piece of 2x molding.
The wall is built on 2x3 studs, and the plan is to mount the outlet
box in the wall. I can run Romex once I'm in the wall, but I need to
get from the breaker box to the top of the wall in a protected (and
hopefully tidy) fashion.

Code allows Romex to be either exposed or concealed.

My original notion was to bend up 1/2" conduit to bridge the gap. I
can drill a hole in the top of the wall large enough to insert an inch
or two of conduit. I can attach it to the breaker box with a standard
clamp, going in through one of the bottom knockouts. I would then
snake the Romex down through the conduit & into the wall.

The conduit is not required unless the cable is subject to physical
damage.

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

A plastic bushing is required, yes.

Loose wires run in conduit do not require clamps.

Correct.

If the Romex was exposed where it came out of the conduit, a
clamp would be required that fits on the end of conduit.

I don't think that's correct.

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.

For my own peace of mind, it would be nice to have a clamp of some
sort inside the breaker box to prevent anyone from accidentally
yanking the Romex out. One option would be to slip one of the one-way
plastic spring loaded NMSC clamps (the sort that usually go in a
knockout) onto the cable just where it comes up out of the conduit
fitting.

I guess. It's really not necessary, though.

Given that previous licensed electricians ran Romex exposed and
unprotected in other areas, I doubt anyone is ever going to get cranky
about whatever I do.

As noted above, that's not a Code violation. Never has been. The Code
explicitly permits Romex to be installed either exposed or concealed,
and requires conduit only where it's subject to physical damage.

However, I try to stick to code whenever possible,
and I'm at least curious as to exactly what the code might have to say
about something like this (if anything). It's a bit too peculiar for
any of my wiring books or the course I took years ago.

Hope I helped.

Yes, thanks! I guess the question is when is it "exposed to physical
damage". That's a bit of a squishy call. It's in a coner of the
basement, but it could get bashed if someone got really careless. Even
if it isn't explicitely required, I'd feel better with it protected by
some metal.

Doug White

"Doug White" wrote in message
. ..
(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article , Doug White
wrote:
OK, I have now established proper metal content. The issue is more of
an electrical code issue, and I'm hoping the wealth of knowledge of
the usual suspects can help me out.

I'll try. I'm assuming that since you're posting from an MIT alumni
account, you're in the US; my comments apply to the US NEC only.

My basement shop needs more outlets. I had a nice new breaker panel
installed a few years back, and it's time to add an outlet so I can
run my mill without first unplugging the lathe.

The basement is finished, and has a "half wall" of wooden tongue &
groove boards that ends about 10" below the bottom of the breaker
panel box. The top of the wall is capped with a piece of 2x molding.
The wall is built on 2x3 studs, and the plan is to mount the outlet
box in the wall. I can run Romex once I'm in the wall, but I need to
get from the breaker box to the top of the wall in a protected (and
hopefully tidy) fashion.

Code allows Romex to be either exposed or concealed.

My original notion was to bend up 1/2" conduit to bridge the gap. I
can drill a hole in the top of the wall large enough to insert an inch
or two of conduit. I can attach it to the breaker box with a standard
clamp, going in through one of the bottom knockouts. I would then
snake the Romex down through the conduit & into the wall.

The conduit is not required unless the cable is subject to physical
damage.

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

A plastic bushing is required, yes.

Loose wires run in conduit do not require clamps.

Correct.

If the Romex was exposed where it came out of the conduit, a
clamp would be required that fits on the end of conduit.

I don't think that's correct.

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.

For my own peace of mind, it would be nice to have a clamp of some
sort inside the breaker box to prevent anyone from accidentally
yanking the Romex out. One option would be to slip one of the one-way
plastic spring loaded NMSC clamps (the sort that usually go in a
knockout) onto the cable just where it comes up out of the conduit
fitting.

I guess. It's really not necessary, though.

Given that previous licensed electricians ran Romex exposed and
unprotected in other areas, I doubt anyone is ever going to get cranky
about whatever I do.

As noted above, that's not a Code violation. Never has been. The Code
explicitly permits Romex to be installed either exposed or concealed,
and requires conduit only where it's subject to physical damage.

However, I try to stick to code whenever possible,
and I'm at least curious as to exactly what the code might have to say
about something like this (if anything). It's a bit too peculiar for
any of my wiring books or the course I took years ago.

Hope I helped.

Yes, thanks! I guess the question is when is it "exposed to physical
damage". That's a bit of a squishy call. It's in a coner of the
basement, but it could get bashed if someone got really careless. Even
if it isn't explicitely required, I'd feel better with it protected by
some metal.

Doug White

FWIW, I wired my basement and ran EMT everywhere below the ceiling. I have
plastic bushings in the top ends and the bottom ends, of course, are clamped
into junction boxes.

The inspector approved. In fact, he was impressed, because I did some really
fancy bending with the hickey to get everything lined up perfectly. Whether
he was really adhering to code, I don't know.

Oh, where I forgot plastic bushings in a couple of places, I just split them
down one side slipped them over the wire and inside of the tube, and turned
the splits back against the wall so they couldn't be seen. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Wayne wrote in news:qLOZn.6657$KT3.6197
@newsfe13.iad:

If the Romex was exposed where it came out of the conduit, a
clamp would be required that fits on the end of conduit.

I don't think that's correct.

Whether it is necessary or not, I'd put the clamp on and strip
the wire off the jacket that is in the conduit, as originally
suggested.
I had an inspector not like the fact I had the ground wire come
out of the conduit with no termination on the end of the conduit.
The only thing in the conduit was the ground wire to the water pipe.

I don't like the idea of running machines off of romex, personal
choice. If your looking for ease I'd run greenfield (bx without the
wire) and
then pull the wire through that. They also have conduit to greenfield
connectors.

Thanks for the input. I thought about running BX, but snaking it through
the wall would be a nearly impossible task. It's going to be enough fun
doing it with Romex.

These aren't heavy duty machines. The mill & lathe are both 110V single
phase, and lesss than 1 HP motors.

Stripping the wire in the conduit has also been mentioned by someone
else. Is there any reason it can't be left in the jacket? It's only
running ~ 10 inches to get through the conduit, and leaving the jacket on
would provide a little extra protection where it comes out into the
breaker box.

Doug White

"Doug White" wrote in message
. ..
OK, I have now established proper metal content. The issue is more of an
electrical code issue, and I'm hoping the wealth of knowledge of the
usual suspects can help me out.

My basement shop needs more outlets. I had a nice new breaker panel
installed a few years back, and it's time to add an outlet so I can run
my mill without first unplugging the lathe.

The basement is finished, and has a "half wall" of wooden tongue & groove
boards that ends about 10" below the bottom of the breaker panel box.
The top of the wall is capped with a piece of 2x molding. The wall is
built on 2x3 studs, and the plan is to mount the outlet box in the wall.
I can run Romex once I'm in the wall, but I need to get from the breaker
box to the top of the wall in a protected (and hopefully tidy) fashion.

My original notion was to bend up 1/2" conduit to bridge the gap. I can
drill a hole in the top of the wall large enough to insert an inch or two
of conduit. I can attach it to the breaker box with a standard clamp,
going in through one of the bottom knockouts. I would then snake the
Romex down through the conduit & into the wall.

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

For my own peace of mind, it would be nice to have a clamp of some sort
inside the breaker box to prevent anyone from accidentally yanking the
Romex out. One option would be to slip one of the one-way plastic spring
loaded NMSC clamps (the sort that usually go in a knockout) onto the
cable just where it comes up out of the conduit fitting.

Given that previous licensed electricians ran Romex exposed and
unprotected in other areas, I doubt anyone is ever going to get cranky
about whatever I do. However, I try to stick to code whenever possible,
and I'm at least curious as to exactly what the code might have to say
about something like this (if anything). It's a bit too peculiar for any
of my wiring books or the course I took years ago.

Thanks!

Doug White

Mount some plywood beneath the panel if it isn't there already, use romex
connectors in the bottom of the panel, route the romex neatly and secure it
with staples beneath the box, make a removable cover between the panel and
the wall. When you use conduit to protect romex the conduit should stop
short of the box/panel.

"Ed Huntress" wrote in
:


"Doug White" wrote in message
. ..
(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article , Doug
White wrote:
OK, I have now established proper metal content. The issue is more
of an electrical code issue, and I'm hoping the wealth of knowledge
of the usual suspects can help me out.

I'll try. I'm assuming that since you're posting from an MIT alumni
account, you're in the US; my comments apply to the US NEC only.

My basement shop needs more outlets. I had a nice new breaker panel
installed a few years back, and it's time to add an outlet so I can
run my mill without first unplugging the lathe.

The basement is finished, and has a "half wall" of wooden tongue &
groove boards that ends about 10" below the bottom of the breaker
panel box. The top of the wall is capped with a piece of 2x
molding. The wall is built on 2x3 studs, and the plan is to mount
the outlet box in the wall. I can run Romex once I'm in the wall,
but I need to get from the breaker box to the top of the wall in a
protected (and hopefully tidy) fashion.

Code allows Romex to be either exposed or concealed.

My original notion was to bend up 1/2" conduit to bridge the gap. I
can drill a hole in the top of the wall large enough to insert an
inch or two of conduit. I can attach it to the breaker box with a
standard clamp, going in through one of the bottom knockouts. I
would then snake the Romex down through the conduit & into the wall.

The conduit is not required unless the cable is subject to physical
damage.

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

A plastic bushing is required, yes.

Loose wires run in conduit do not require clamps.

Correct.

If the Romex was exposed where it came out of the conduit, a
clamp would be required that fits on the end of conduit.

I don't think that's correct.

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.

For my own peace of mind, it would be nice to have a clamp of some
sort inside the breaker box to prevent anyone from accidentally
yanking the Romex out. One option would be to slip one of the
one-way plastic spring loaded NMSC clamps (the sort that usually go
in a knockout) onto the cable just where it comes up out of the
conduit fitting.

I guess. It's really not necessary, though.

Given that previous licensed electricians ran Romex exposed and
unprotected in other areas, I doubt anyone is ever going to get
cranky about whatever I do.

As noted above, that's not a Code violation. Never has been. The
Code explicitly permits Romex to be installed either exposed or
concealed, and requires conduit only where it's subject to physical
damage.

However, I try to stick to code whenever possible,
and I'm at least curious as to exactly what the code might have to
say about something like this (if anything). It's a bit too
peculiar for any of my wiring books or the course I took years ago.

Hope I helped.

Yes, thanks! I guess the question is when is it "exposed to physical
damage". That's a bit of a squishy call. It's in a coner of the
basement, but it could get bashed if someone got really careless.
Even if it isn't explicitely required, I'd feel better with it
protected by some metal.

Doug White

FWIW, I wired my basement and ran EMT everywhere below the ceiling. I
have plastic bushings in the top ends and the bottom ends, of course,
are clamped into junction boxes.

The inspector approved. In fact, he was impressed, because I did some
really fancy bending with the hickey to get everything lined up
perfectly. Whether he was really adhering to code, I don't know.

Oh, where I forgot plastic bushings in a couple of places, I just
split them down one side slipped them over the wire and inside of the
tube, and turned the splits back against the wall so they couldn't be
seen. d8-)

Sounds like some of the work I did in my old place. I have a collection
of CAD drawings where I calculated the angles & dimensions to get the EMT
bends just right. That was all going box to box, so I didn't have the
issue I've got now. Regular bends weren't too bad. The thing I always
hated was doing small offsets to get from a flat surface up & into a box.

Doug White

"Doug White" wrote in message
. ..
"Ed Huntress" wrote in
:


"Doug White" wrote in message
. ..
(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article , Doug
White wrote:
OK, I have now established proper metal content. The issue is more
of an electrical code issue, and I'm hoping the wealth of knowledge
of the usual suspects can help me out.

I'll try. I'm assuming that since you're posting from an MIT alumni
account, you're in the US; my comments apply to the US NEC only.

My basement shop needs more outlets. I had a nice new breaker panel
installed a few years back, and it's time to add an outlet so I can
run my mill without first unplugging the lathe.

The basement is finished, and has a "half wall" of wooden tongue &
groove boards that ends about 10" below the bottom of the breaker
panel box. The top of the wall is capped with a piece of 2x
molding. The wall is built on 2x3 studs, and the plan is to mount
the outlet box in the wall. I can run Romex once I'm in the wall,
but I need to get from the breaker box to the top of the wall in a
protected (and hopefully tidy) fashion.

Code allows Romex to be either exposed or concealed.

My original notion was to bend up 1/2" conduit to bridge the gap. I
can drill a hole in the top of the wall large enough to insert an
inch or two of conduit. I can attach it to the breaker box with a
standard clamp, going in through one of the bottom knockouts. I
would then snake the Romex down through the conduit & into the wall.

The conduit is not required unless the cable is subject to physical
damage.

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

A plastic bushing is required, yes.

Loose wires run in conduit do not require clamps.

Correct.

If the Romex was exposed where it came out of the conduit, a
clamp would be required that fits on the end of conduit.

I don't think that's correct.

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.

For my own peace of mind, it would be nice to have a clamp of some
sort inside the breaker box to prevent anyone from accidentally
yanking the Romex out. One option would be to slip one of the
one-way plastic spring loaded NMSC clamps (the sort that usually go
in a knockout) onto the cable just where it comes up out of the
conduit fitting.

I guess. It's really not necessary, though.

Given that previous licensed electricians ran Romex exposed and
unprotected in other areas, I doubt anyone is ever going to get
cranky about whatever I do.

As noted above, that's not a Code violation. Never has been. The
Code explicitly permits Romex to be installed either exposed or
concealed, and requires conduit only where it's subject to physical
damage.

However, I try to stick to code whenever possible,
and I'm at least curious as to exactly what the code might have to
say about something like this (if anything). It's a bit too
peculiar for any of my wiring books or the course I took years ago.

Hope I helped.

Yes, thanks! I guess the question is when is it "exposed to physical
damage". That's a bit of a squishy call. It's in a coner of the
basement, but it could get bashed if someone got really careless.
Even if it isn't explicitely required, I'd feel better with it
protected by some metal.

Doug White

FWIW, I wired my basement and ran EMT everywhere below the ceiling. I
have plastic bushings in the top ends and the bottom ends, of course,
are clamped into junction boxes.

The inspector approved. In fact, he was impressed, because I did some
really fancy bending with the hickey to get everything lined up
perfectly. Whether he was really adhering to code, I don't know.

Oh, where I forgot plastic bushings in a couple of places, I just
split them down one side slipped them over the wire and inside of the
tube, and turned the splits back against the wall so they couldn't be
seen. d8-)

Sounds like some of the work I did in my old place. I have a collection
of CAD drawings where I calculated the angles & dimensions to get the EMT
bends just right. That was all going box to box, so I didn't have the
issue I've got now. Regular bends weren't too bad. The thing I always
hated was doing small offsets to get from a flat surface up & into a box.

Doug White

Yeah, I have around six or seven of those little offsets, and I put more
effort into getting them just right than I should have. Nobody ever sees it
except me.

--
Ed Huntress

"Doug White" wrote in message
. ..
OK, I have now established proper metal content. The issue is more of an
electrical code issue, and I'm hoping the wealth of knowledge of the
usual suspects can help me out.

My basement shop needs more outlets. I had a nice new breaker panel
installed a few years back, and it's time to add an outlet so I can run
my mill without first unplugging the lathe.

The basement is finished, and has a "half wall" of wooden tongue & groove
boards that ends about 10" below the bottom of the breaker panel box.

Doug, previous answers suggest that you can run romex in the open when not
in danger of being harmed.
I have a similar situation. Running from a panel up, on the surface of the
wall until I am inside the ceiling. I simply ran the wire up the surface of
the wall and covered it with "box" consisting of 1"x2" lumber on either side
covered with a small piece of 1/2" plywood. Inspector had no problem. The
wire was protected.

Ivan Vegvary

"Doug White" wrote in message
. ..
Wayne wrote in news:qLOZn.6657$KT3.6197
@newsfe13.iad:

If the Romex was exposed where it came out of the conduit, a
clamp would be required that fits on the end of conduit.

I don't think that's correct.

Whether it is necessary or not, I'd put the clamp on and strip
the wire off the jacket that is in the conduit, as originally
suggested.
I had an inspector not like the fact I had the ground wire come
out of the conduit with no termination on the end of the conduit.
The only thing in the conduit was the ground wire to the water pipe.

I don't like the idea of running machines off of romex, personal
choice. If your looking for ease I'd run greenfield (bx without the
wire) and
then pull the wire through that. They also have conduit to greenfield
connectors.

Thanks for the input. I thought about running BX, but snaking it through
the wall would be a nearly impossible task. It's going to be enough fun
doing it with Romex.

These aren't heavy duty machines. The mill & lathe are both 110V single
phase, and lesss than 1 HP motors.

Stripping the wire in the conduit has also been mentioned by someone
else. Is there any reason it can't be left in the jacket? It's only
running ~ 10 inches to get through the conduit, and leaving the jacket on
would provide a little extra protection where it comes out into the
breaker box.

Doug White

There's no reason to strip the jacket off, but the EMT shouldn't run
straight into the box if you are running romex in it. BTW, with respect to
a previous suggestion, Greenfield is not meant to be run in place of
conduit, it is for whips running to motors that require flexibility.

In article , Wayne wrote:
If the Romex was exposed where it came out of the conduit, a
clamp would be required that fits on the end of conduit.

I don't think that's correct.

Whether it is necessary or not, I'd put the clamp on and strip
the wire off the jacket that is in the conduit, as originally
suggested.

That's just silly. There's no reason at all to strip the jacket off of Romex
cable before putting it in conduit. None. Zip. Nada.

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.

In article , Doug White wrote:

Sounds like some of the work I did in my old place. I have a collection
of CAD drawings where I calculated the angles & dimensions to get the EMT
bends just right. That was all going box to box, so I didn't have the
issue I've got now. Regular bends weren't too bad. The thing I always
hated was doing small offsets to get from a flat surface up & into a box.

They make offset fittings for doing just exactly that.

In article , "ATP" wrote:

When you use conduit to protect romex the conduit should stop
short of the box/panel.

Nonsense. There's nothing at all wrong with running conduit all the way up to
the box (with an appropriate fitting to secure the conduit to the box, of
course).

"Doug White" wrote in message
. ..
OK, I have now established proper metal content. The issue is more of an
electrical code issue, and I'm hoping the wealth of knowledge of the
usual suspects can help me out.
snip

Did you know that standard paintballs fit perfectly in 1/2 EMT? With your
air compressor, 10' of conduit and a bag of paintballs, you can have a lot
of fun with your neighbors. I only mention this because you probably don't
get to do conduit work very often and you might as well make the most of it.

On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 01:24:10 -0400, "Buerste"
wrote:


"Doug White" wrote in message
...
OK, I have now established proper metal content. The issue is more of an
electrical code issue, and I'm hoping the wealth of knowledge of the
usual suspects can help me out.
snip

Did you know that standard paintballs fit perfectly in 1/2 EMT? With your
air compressor, 10' of conduit and a bag of paintballs, you can have a lot
of fun with your neighbors. I only mention this because you probably don't
get to do conduit work very often and you might as well make the most of it.



Really? No ****?


KOOOOOL!!!!!

Gonna have fun making ordnance!!!!


Gunner, pondering the delights of an automatic paintball gun with a 3'
barrel


One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 01:24:10 -0400, "Buerste"
wrote:


"Doug White" wrote in message
. 7...
OK, I have now established proper metal content. The issue is more of
an
electrical code issue, and I'm hoping the wealth of knowledge of the
usual suspects can help me out.
snip

Did you know that standard paintballs fit perfectly in 1/2 EMT? With your
air compressor, 10' of conduit and a bag of paintballs, you can have a lot
of fun with your neighbors. I only mention this because you probably
don't
get to do conduit work very often and you might as well make the most of
it.



Really? No ****?


KOOOOOL!!!!!

Gonna have fun making ordnance!!!!


Gunner, pondering the delights of an automatic paintball gun with a 3'
barrel


I shot out a window in the shop a while back. I had some ten year old paint
balls...they get harder with age.

On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 04:58:55 -0400, "Buerste"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 01:24:10 -0400, "Buerste"
wrote:


"Doug White" wrote in message
.7...
OK, I have now established proper metal content. The issue is more of
an
electrical code issue, and I'm hoping the wealth of knowledge of the
usual suspects can help me out.
snip

Did you know that standard paintballs fit perfectly in 1/2 EMT? With your
air compressor, 10' of conduit and a bag of paintballs, you can have a lot
of fun with your neighbors. I only mention this because you probably
don't
get to do conduit work very often and you might as well make the most of
it.



Really? No ****?


KOOOOOL!!!!!

Gonna have fun making ordnance!!!!


Gunner, pondering the delights of an automatic paintball gun with a 3'
barrel


I shot out a window in the shop a while back. I had some ten year old paint
balls...they get harder with age.

Oh....that must really smart.

VBG!!!

Gunner, who has shot frozen ones at pit bulls roaming the neighborhood


One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "ATP"
wrote:

When you use conduit to protect romex the conduit should stop
short of the box/panel.

Nonsense. There's nothing at all wrong with running conduit all the way up
to
the box (with an appropriate fitting to secure the conduit to the box, of
course).

Why such a dick, Doug? Many electrical inspectors disagree. You can't
arbitrarily combine wiring methods, you need a proper transition. Romex
needs to be secured and it's quite clear that running it through a few
inches of EMT does not secure the cable.

Doug Miller wrote:

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.

NEC Article 358.22 along with Article 334, and Table 1, Chapter 9 seem
to suggest that NM would be permitted to be installed in EMT as-is,
however there is no reason *not* to strip the jacket after the NM clamp,
given that the OP will need to strip the jacket off a foot later anyway
inside the load center.


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.

Running the NM (Romex) exposed may be ok if the location can be
considered no subject to physical damage, but it is rather ugly. The EMT
will look better and can be painted to blend in.


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 most certainly know what I'm talking about, and what I posted is the
correct way to do the job. I've done many extensive permitted and
inspected electrical projects in multiple jurisdictions and have not one
had any complaint from the inspectors. Indeed many of the inspectors
have commented that my work was among the neatest jobs they had seen.

If the AHJ for your trailer park is ok with your sloppy work and ignores
the catch-all "workman like manner" stipulation in the NEC then your
garbage is fine for your trailer park.


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.

NEC Article 334.15(B) Protection from physical damage. The cable shall
be protected from physical damage where necessary by conduit, electrical
metallic tubing...

Whether protection from physical damage is necessary is open to
interpretation based on the actual conditions of the installation, so
the OP needs to look at the installation and think like an inspector.

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , Doug White wrote:

Sounds like some of the work I did in my old place. I have a collection
of CAD drawings where I calculated the angles & dimensions to get the EMT
bends just right. That was all going box to box, so I didn't have the
issue I've got now. Regular bends weren't too bad. The thing I always
hated was doing small offsets to get from a flat surface up & into a box.

They make offset fittings for doing just exactly that.

They also make a gadget called a "kicker" that makes those bends in a
single operation if you need to make a lot of them.

ATP wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "ATP"
wrote:

When you use conduit to protect romex the conduit should stop
short of the box/panel.

Nonsense. There's nothing at all wrong with running conduit all the way up
to
the box (with an appropriate fitting to secure the conduit to the box, of
course).

Why such a dick, Doug? Many electrical inspectors disagree. You can't
arbitrarily combine wiring methods, you need a proper transition. Romex
needs to be secured and it's quite clear that running it through a few
inches of EMT does not secure the cable.

The EMT to NM transition fitting at the point where the NM enters the
EMT takes care of the securing of the NM, and the EMT to enclosure
fitting where the EMT terminates at the load center enclosure takes care
of securing there.

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

ATP wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "ATP"
wrote:

When you use conduit to protect romex the conduit should stop
short of the box/panel.

Nonsense. There's nothing at all wrong with running conduit all the way
up
to
the box (with an appropriate fitting to secure the conduit to the box,
of
course).

Why such a dick, Doug? Many electrical inspectors disagree. You can't
arbitrarily combine wiring methods, you need a proper transition. Romex
needs to be secured and it's quite clear that running it through a few
inches of EMT does not secure the cable.

The EMT to NM transition fitting at the point where the NM enters the
EMT takes care of the securing of the NM, and the EMT to enclosure
fitting where the EMT terminates at the load center enclosure takes care
of securing there.

Doug thinks you don't need that, either, if I'm reading correctly.

In article , "ATP" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "ATP"
wrote:

When you use conduit to protect romex the conduit should stop
short of the box/panel.

Nonsense. There's nothing at all wrong with running conduit all the way up to
the box (with an appropriate fitting to secure the conduit to the box, of course).

Why such a dick, Doug? Many electrical inspectors disagree. You can't
arbitrarily combine wiring methods, you need a proper transition. Romex
needs to be secured and it's quite clear that running it through a few
inches of EMT does not secure the cable.

I see the requirements have changed between the 2005 and 2008 Codes. I was not
aware of that. Thank you for the correction.

ATP wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

ATP wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "ATP"
wrote:

When you use conduit to protect romex the conduit should stop
short of the box/panel.

Nonsense. There's nothing at all wrong with running conduit all the way
up
to
the box (with an appropriate fitting to secure the conduit to the box,
of
course).

Why such a dick, Doug? Many electrical inspectors disagree. You can't
arbitrarily combine wiring methods, you need a proper transition. Romex
needs to be secured and it's quite clear that running it through a few
inches of EMT does not secure the cable.

The EMT to NM transition fitting at the point where the NM enters the
EMT takes care of the securing of the NM, and the EMT to enclosure
fitting where the EMT terminates at the load center enclosure takes care
of securing there.

Doug thinks you don't need that, either, if I'm reading correctly.

Doug doesn't seem to understand that while the NEC code sections do not
explicitly detail every last fitting required, the NEC does specify that
the cables and conduits are to be secured (except when fished though
inaccessible spaces), and the use of the proper fittings falls under the
catch-all "workman like manner" requirement.

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"Doug White" wrote in message
. ..
OK, I have now established proper metal content. The issue is more of an
electrical code issue, and I'm hoping the wealth of knowledge of the
usual suspects can help me out.
snip

Did you know that standard paintballs fit perfectly in 1/2 EMT? With your
air compressor, 10' of conduit and a bag of paintballs, you can have a lot
of fun with your neighbors. I only mention this because you probably
don't get to do conduit work very often and you might as well make the
most of it.

When I was a teen (50 plus years ago) we found out that certain marbles fit
nicely within 1/2" conduit. A four foot length makes a wonderful blow dart!

Ivan Vegvary

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article , Doug White
wrote:

Sounds like some of the work I did in my old place. I have a
collection of CAD drawings where I calculated the angles & dimensions
to get the EMT bends just right. That was all going box to box, so I
didn't have the issue I've got now. Regular bends weren't too bad.
The thing I always hated was doing small offsets to get from a flat
surface up & into a box.

They make offset fittings for doing just exactly that.

Yeah, but I was single then & liked a challenge. It looks a whole lot
cleaner without all the extra fittings. The basement was semi-finished,
and I was trying to keep things tidy.

Doug White

"Ivan Vegvary" wrote in
:


"Doug White" wrote in message
. ..
OK, I have now established proper metal content. The issue is more
of an electrical code issue, and I'm hoping the wealth of knowledge
of the usual suspects can help me out.

My basement shop needs more outlets. I had a nice new breaker panel
installed a few years back, and it's time to add an outlet so I can
run my mill without first unplugging the lathe.

The basement is finished, and has a "half wall" of wooden tongue &
groove boards that ends about 10" below the bottom of the breaker
panel box.

Doug, previous answers suggest that you can run romex in the open when
not in danger of being harmed.
I have a similar situation. Running from a panel up, on the surface
of the wall until I am inside the ceiling. I simply ran the wire up
the surface of the wall and covered it with "box" consisting of 1"x2"
lumber on either side covered with a small piece of 1/2" plywood.
Inspector had no problem. The wire was protected.

Thanks to the wonderful work of the electrician who installed it, the
breaker box is mounted about an inch & a half off the wall. I just spent
a couple evenings securing it better.

If I do as you suggest, I could run the cable down the wall OK, the bit
that would be fuggly is the bend where it comes out the bottom of the box
and heads for the wall. They make nice right angle clamp connectors for
BX & the like, but they don't seem to have them for NMSC.

I would love to be able to come out the back of the box, but it's mounted
on a sheet of 1/2" plywood, and I'd have to take it down completely to
bore holes through the wood big enough to clear the usual metal Romex
clamps. I might be able to pop in one of the plastic clamps that install
from inside, which would be very tidy. Then it would be a straight shot
down the wall, and I could cover it with wiremold.

More things to ponder/investigate.

Doug White

"Buerste" wrote in
:


"Doug White" wrote in message
. ..
OK, I have now established proper metal content. The issue is more
of an electrical code issue, and I'm hoping the wealth of knowledge
of the usual suspects can help me out.
snip

Did you know that standard paintballs fit perfectly in 1/2 EMT? With
your air compressor, 10' of conduit and a bag of paintballs, you can
have a lot of fun with your neighbors. I only mention this because
you probably don't get to do conduit work very often and you might as
well make the most of it.

Oh, I've had a LOT of fun over the years with conduit. If you roll up &
tape a narrow cone of paper and run a long sheet rock screw in from the
back, you get a very functional blow gun dart. About 4 feet of EMT is
right. We used to call them "hoob tubes" from the sound you make blowing
a dart out at high speed. There are probably still holes & the
occasional wood screw scattered around my old dorm at MIT from
experiments. Driven with an air charged fire extinguisher, they could be
deadly.

Conduit blow guns are also very effective with "spit wads". MIT used to
have a weird toilet paper called Springfield Oval that had a special 1-
sheet-at-a-time dispenser. A sheet of Springfield Oval was the perfect
material to wet down, wad up & launch from a Hoob Tube.

Then there was the "Doomsday Wad" someone made from several entire rolls.
But I digress...

Doug White

On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 16:38:59 GMT
Doug White wrote:

snip
Yeah, but I was single then & liked a challenge. It looks a whole lot
cleaner without all the extra fittings. The basement was semi-finished,
and I was trying to keep things tidy.

I got pretty good at eye-balling, guessing and just a tape measure. The
biggest problem was avoiding a "dogleg" in the offset too. Amazing what
you can learn if you do it often enough

--
Leon Fisk
Grand Rapids MI/Zone 5b
Remove no.spam for email

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article , "ATP"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "ATP"
wrote:

When you use conduit to protect romex the conduit should stop
short of the box/panel.

Nonsense. There's nothing at all wrong with running conduit all the
way up to the box (with an appropriate fitting to secure the conduit
to the box, of course).

Why such a dick, Doug? Many electrical inspectors disagree. You can't
arbitrarily combine wiring methods, you need a proper transition.
Romex needs to be secured and it's quite clear that running it through
a few inches of EMT does not secure the cable.

I see the requirements have changed between the 2005 and 2008 Codes. I
was not aware of that. Thank you for the correction.

I had a wacky thought that would probably address the problem in a
"workman" like manner. The conduit connector that comes up into the box
requires a nut with the same thread as an standard NMSC cable clamp. if
I could get an overly long nut, I could use it to lock the EMT connector
in place, and then thread the NMSC clamp into the top. The nut (actually
more of a threaded sleeve) would have to be about 3/4" long.

The catch is that the threads are 13/16"-14, which is a very weird size.
Unless it is used elsewhere in the electrical world for some sort of
fitting, I'd probably have to make one up from scratch.

Although it's going to be a royal pain in the neck, I think my best bet
is to chisel the plywood backer away behind the breaker box. The lowest
knockouts in the back are close enough to the bottom that I think I can
do that and get an NMSC clamp in. All I have to do is get enough of the
plywood out of the way from behind the knockout. One option is to bust
out the largest knockout, bore out the wood, and then use a reducing
washer to shrink the hole back down. I shoudl be able to slip a reducing
washer up behind the panel on top of the plywood. I can then cover the
Romex with Wiremold, and it will be even tidier looking than the conduit
approach.

Doug White

On 2010-07-10, Doug White wrote:

[ ... ]

Oh, I've had a LOT of fun over the years with conduit. If you roll up &
tape a narrow cone of paper and run a long sheet rock screw in from the
back, you get a very functional blow gun dart. About 4 feet of EMT is
right. We used to call them "hoob tubes" from the sound you make blowing
a dart out at high speed. There are probably still holes & the
occasional wood screw scattered around my old dorm at MIT from
experiments. Driven with an air charged fire extinguisher, they could be
deadly.

:-)

Conduit blow guns are also very effective with "spit wads". MIT used to
have a weird toilet paper called Springfield Oval that had a special 1-
sheet-at-a-time dispenser.

And I had almost forgotten that "Invention of the Devil". :-)
You say "used to have" which suggests that you know that it has been
discontinued. Any idea when? And why? (Maybe the company died. :-)

A sheet of Springfield Oval was the perfect
material to wet down, wad up & launch from a Hoob Tube.

Which size sheet -- from a nearly full roll, a half empty one,
or a nearly empty one? Since the tear point was at a specific location,
each sheet was a bit smaller than the previous one.

Then there was the "Doomsday Wad" someone made from several entire rolls.

Launched by what? Lab hose powered catapult, or a quick dump of
compressed gas of some form?

The Springfield Oval (in quantity) also made a nice emergency
dam, when the occupants of a dorm room were trying to flood the hall by
running water from the sink (near the door) to an area defined by the
door and a semi-circle of wet towels.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

"Doug White" wrote in message
. ..
(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article , "ATP"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "ATP"
wrote:

When you use conduit to protect romex the conduit should stop
short of the box/panel.

Nonsense. There's nothing at all wrong with running conduit all the
way up to the box (with an appropriate fitting to secure the conduit
to the box, of course).

Why such a dick, Doug? Many electrical inspectors disagree. You can't
arbitrarily combine wiring methods, you need a proper transition.
Romex needs to be secured and it's quite clear that running it through
a few inches of EMT does not secure the cable.

I see the requirements have changed between the 2005 and 2008 Codes. I
was not aware of that. Thank you for the correction.

I had a wacky thought that would probably address the problem in a
"workman" like manner. The conduit connector that comes up into the box
requires a nut with the same thread as an standard NMSC cable clamp. if
I could get an overly long nut, I could use it to lock the EMT connector
in place, and then thread the NMSC clamp into the top. The nut (actually
more of a threaded sleeve) would have to be about 3/4" long.

The catch is that the threads are 13/16"-14, which is a very weird size.
Unless it is used elsewhere in the electrical world for some sort of
fitting, I'd probably have to make one up from scratch.

Although it's going to be a royal pain in the neck, I think my best bet
is to chisel the plywood backer away behind the breaker box. The lowest
knockouts in the back are close enough to the bottom that I think I can
do that and get an NMSC clamp in. All I have to do is get enough of the
plywood out of the way from behind the knockout. One option is to bust
out the largest knockout, bore out the wood, and then use a reducing
washer to shrink the hole back down. I shoudl be able to slip a reducing
washer up behind the panel on top of the plywood. I can then cover the
Romex with Wiremold, and it will be even tidier looking than the conduit
approach.

Doug White

It's not a weird size at all...half inch pipe thread, straight or tapered

"DoN. Nichols" wrote in
:

On 2010-07-10, Doug White wrote:

[ ... ]
Conduit blow guns are also very effective with "spit wads". MIT used
to have a weird toilet paper called Springfield Oval that had a
special 1- sheet-at-a-time dispenser.

And I had almost forgotten that "Invention of the Devil". :-)
You say "used to have" which suggests that you know that it has been
discontinued. Any idea when? And why? (Maybe the company died. :-)

For many years, MIT was the only place left on the planet that used it.
my understanding was that the company finally decided to stop making it.

A sheet of Springfield Oval was the perfect
material to wet down, wad up & launch from a Hoob Tube.

Which size sheet -- from a nearly full roll, a half empty one,
or a nearly empty one? Since the tear point was at a specific
location, each sheet was a bit smaller than the previous one.

It didn't make too much difference. If you had a fresh roll, you usually
had to shape the wad into a bit of a cylinder.

Then there was the "Doomsday Wad" someone made from several entire
rolls.

Launched by what? Lab hose powered catapult, or a quick dump of
compressed gas of some form?

It was hurled by hand. Made a hell of a thump when it hit my door...

The Springfield Oval (in quantity) also made a nice emergency
dam, when the occupants of a dorm room were trying to flood the hall
by running water from the sink (near the door) to an area defined by
the door and a semi-circle of wet towels.

Ah, the simple joys of youth...

Doug White

"Rick" wrote in
:


"Doug White" wrote in message
. ..
(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article , "ATP"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "ATP"
wrote:

When you use conduit to protect romex the conduit should stop
short of the box/panel.

Nonsense. There's nothing at all wrong with running conduit all
the way up to the box (with an appropriate fitting to secure the
conduit to the box, of course).

Why such a dick, Doug? Many electrical inspectors disagree. You
can't arbitrarily combine wiring methods, you need a proper
transition. Romex needs to be secured and it's quite clear that
running it through a few inches of EMT does not secure the cable.

I see the requirements have changed between the 2005 and 2008 Codes.
I was not aware of that. Thank you for the correction.

I had a wacky thought that would probably address the problem in a
"workman" like manner. The conduit connector that comes up into the
box requires a nut with the same thread as an standard NMSC cable
clamp. if I could get an overly long nut, I could use it to lock the
EMT connector in place, and then thread the NMSC clamp into the top.
The nut (actually more of a threaded sleeve) would have to be about
3/4" long.

The catch is that the threads are 13/16"-14, which is a very weird
size. Unless it is used elsewhere in the electrical world for some
sort of fitting, I'd probably have to make one up from scratch.

Although it's going to be a royal pain in the neck, I think my best
bet is to chisel the plywood backer away behind the breaker box. The
lowest knockouts in the back are close enough to the bottom that I
think I can do that and get an NMSC clamp in. All I have to do is
get enough of the plywood out of the way from behind the knockout.
One option is to bust out the largest knockout, bore out the wood,
and then use a reducing washer to shrink the hole back down. I
shoudl be able to slip a reducing washer up behind the panel on top
of the plywood. I can then cover the Romex with Wiremold, and it
will be even tidier looking than the conduit approach.

Doug White

It's not a weird size at all...half inch pipe thread, straight or
tapered

Aha! Thanks! I haven't detected any sign of taper on the electrical
parts I've checked. That suggests that a straight threaded coupler could
work. I found several 1/2" NPT couplers in brass or stainless, but
haven't found any with straight threads (NPS).

The quest continues...

Doug White

Doug White wrote in
:

"Rick" wrote in
:


"Doug White" wrote in message
. ..
(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article , "ATP"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "ATP"
wrote:

When you use conduit to protect romex the conduit should stop
short of the box/panel.

Nonsense. There's nothing at all wrong with running conduit all
the way up to the box (with an appropriate fitting to secure the
conduit to the box, of course).

Why such a dick, Doug? Many electrical inspectors disagree. You
can't arbitrarily combine wiring methods, you need a proper
transition. Romex needs to be secured and it's quite clear that
running it through a few inches of EMT does not secure the cable.

I see the requirements have changed between the 2005 and 2008
Codes. I was not aware of that. Thank you for the correction.

I had a wacky thought that would probably address the problem in a
"workman" like manner. The conduit connector that comes up into the
box requires a nut with the same thread as an standard NMSC cable
clamp. if I could get an overly long nut, I could use it to lock
the EMT connector in place, and then thread the NMSC clamp into the
top. The nut (actually more of a threaded sleeve) would have to be
about 3/4" long.

The catch is that the threads are 13/16"-14, which is a very weird
size. Unless it is used elsewhere in the electrical world for some
sort of fitting, I'd probably have to make one up from scratch.

Although it's going to be a royal pain in the neck, I think my best
bet is to chisel the plywood backer away behind the breaker box.
The lowest knockouts in the back are close enough to the bottom that
I think I can do that and get an NMSC clamp in. All I have to do is
get enough of the plywood out of the way from behind the knockout.
One option is to bust out the largest knockout, bore out the wood,
and then use a reducing washer to shrink the hole back down. I
shoudl be able to slip a reducing washer up behind the panel on top
of the plywood. I can then cover the Romex with Wiremold, and it
will be even tidier looking than the conduit approach.

Doug White

It's not a weird size at all...half inch pipe thread, straight or
tapered

Aha! Thanks! I haven't detected any sign of taper on the electrical
parts I've checked. That suggests that a straight threaded coupler
could work. I found several 1/2" NPT couplers in brass or stainless,
but haven't found any with straight threads (NPS).

It looks like there is something called a "merchants coupling" that will
do the trick. McMaster has them if I can't find one locally.

At least that gives me a backup plan if I can't remove enough wood from
behind the panel to install a regular Romex clamp.

Doug White

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 00:15:00 GMT, Doug White
wrote:

"Rick" wrote in
m:


"Doug White" wrote in message
. ..
(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article , "ATP"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "ATP"
wrote:

When you use conduit to protect romex the conduit should stop
short of the box/panel.

Nonsense. There's nothing at all wrong with running conduit all
the way up to the box (with an appropriate fitting to secure the
conduit to the box, of course).

Why such a dick, Doug? Many electrical inspectors disagree. You
can't arbitrarily combine wiring methods, you need a proper
transition. Romex needs to be secured and it's quite clear that
running it through a few inches of EMT does not secure the cable.

I see the requirements have changed between the 2005 and 2008 Codes.
I was not aware of that. Thank you for the correction.

I had a wacky thought that would probably address the problem in a
"workman" like manner. The conduit connector that comes up into the
box requires a nut with the same thread as an standard NMSC cable
clamp. if I could get an overly long nut, I could use it to lock the
EMT connector in place, and then thread the NMSC clamp into the top.
The nut (actually more of a threaded sleeve) would have to be about
3/4" long.

The catch is that the threads are 13/16"-14, which is a very weird
size. Unless it is used elsewhere in the electrical world for some
sort of fitting, I'd probably have to make one up from scratch.

Although it's going to be a royal pain in the neck, I think my best
bet is to chisel the plywood backer away behind the breaker box. The
lowest knockouts in the back are close enough to the bottom that I
think I can do that and get an NMSC clamp in. All I have to do is
get enough of the plywood out of the way from behind the knockout.
One option is to bust out the largest knockout, bore out the wood,
and then use a reducing washer to shrink the hole back down. I
shoudl be able to slip a reducing washer up behind the panel on top
of the plywood. I can then cover the Romex with Wiremold, and it
will be even tidier looking than the conduit approach.

Doug White

It's not a weird size at all...half inch pipe thread, straight or
tapered

Aha! Thanks! I haven't detected any sign of taper on the electrical
parts I've checked. That suggests that a straight threaded coupler could
work. I found several 1/2" NPT couplers in brass or stainless, but
haven't found any with straight threads (NPS).

The quest continues...

Doug White


Some of the very old electrical stuff Ive snagged over the years has had
the taper, but I guess the industry discovered that in such short
threads..it wasnt necessary, particularly when tightening against a
shoulder as most of it does these days.

Gunner

One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch