Ent smurf tube

[kwired]

I have not used a lot of it, but I though the wire pulls were easier in ENT than in EMT....until you try to pull a couple of wires by the other ones...that was very difficult compared to EMT. As long as you were pulling all of the wires at the same it was great in my experience.

You probably had well secured ENT. Makes some sense though, the corrugated wall of the ENT will have less surface area for drag.

 

[ADub]

Does ent pull through easier if it's well secured? Anyone?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[sparkyrick]

A box with a build-in PVC hub will also accept ENT. The OD and material of ENT and PVC are identical. See the UL White book.

During remodels of stores that I did originally, I've opened up walls and have seen smurf tube that I had glued to PVC adapters years ago had melted and became deformed. I no longer glue smurf tube to PVC.

 

[ActionDave]

Does ent pull through easier if it's well secured? Anyone?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It pulls easier but it is still a pain compared to EMT or FMC.

 

[rambojoe]

uummm... if you are doing high rises or large enough concrete work, try pre pulling the conductors,i.e. parking structure lights. when you get into those kind of large jobs just about all whips will be the same, for instance 30'. so you can have bins of 30' cuts,60' cuts and so on. its not that hard to separate special full boat homerun whips or switch leg with constant whips. just always pull in a string. now we are making money! I know some of you know this ,you just don't want to share. shame shame....yes, its smoking quick especially eliminating the need to fall back 5 floors down to just pull something that's a pain in the butt anyway.shoot even for small jobs...at the end you can always cut left over long whips and cut short.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

You probably had well secured ENT. Makes some sense though, the corrugated wall of the ENT will have less surface area for drag.

Actually just run through metal studs without the code required strap at each box.

The first place I saw it was a couple of years before it was permitted in the NEC. (It was all set to go into the code, but one of the metal conduit manufactures bought NFPA memberships for a number of their employees and the article was voted down on the floor of the NFPA meeting. It appeared in the code 3 years later, and was court a case that reached the US Supreme Court(Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. Indian Head) over the issue.)
It was at a prison and the door manufacture had installed a short length between the door position sensor and the lock assemble on the door buck. The ENT was bent in a 90 as tight as possible where it changed from the vertical run up the side to the horizontal run on the top. I looked at that and thought that there was no way we would get the wire around that, but the 3 stranded #18s pushed around it very easily.

(and people say that manufacturers would never attempt to have undue influence in the development of the NEC )

 

[kwired]

Does ent pull through easier if it's well secured? Anyone?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I might have mentioned that three or four times in this thread

Actually just run through metal studs without the code required strap at each box.

The first place I saw it was a couple of years before it was permitted in the NEC. (It was all set to go into the code, but one of the metal conduit manufactures bought NFPA memberships for a number of their employees and the article was voted down on the floor of the NFPA meeting. It appeared in the code 3 years later, and was court a case that reached the US Supreme Court(Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. Indian Head) over the issue.)
It was at a prison and the door manufacture had installed a short length between the door position sensor and the lock assemble on the door buck. The ENT was bent in a 90 as tight as possible where it changed from the vertical run up the side to the horizontal run on the top. I looked at that and thought that there was no way we would get the wire around that, but the 3 stranded #18s pushed around it very easily.

(and people say that manufacturers would never attempt to have undue influence in the development of the NEC )

You can get away with little support on short runs from outlet box to outlet box, it is a longer pull that I have always had trouble with. And you can have two similarly length pulls and the one with only three #12's is the one that has you cussing yet the one filled nearly 40% pulls relatively easy. Then you find some slack in a turn has caused all the trouble with the one that pulls hard.

And I would have never guessed a manufacturer would have ever tried to influence the code making process to favor a product they make.

 

[user 100]

The first place I saw it was a couple of years before it was permitted in the NEC. (It was all set to go into the code, but one of the metal conduit manufactures bought NFPA memberships for a number of their employees and the article was voted down on the floor of the NFPA meeting. It appeared in the code 3 years later, and was court a case that reached the US Supreme Court(Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. Indian Head) over the issue.)

I decided to look this up and found the 1988 case/decision-it was pretty ​interesting reading.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I decided to look this up and found the 1988 case/decision-it was pretty ​interesting reading.

If you have an hour, you can listen to the oral arguments for this case here.

 

[user 100]

If you have an hour, you can listen to the oral arguments for this case here.

:thumbsup: Thanks.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

:thumbsup: Thanks.

The opinion of the Second Circuit Court on this case is interesting.

 

[user 100]

The opinion of the Second Circuit Court on this case is interesting.

It sure is-a manufacturer essentially rigged the voting and bought a code rejection and then tried to argue that it's scheme was legitimate because the nfpa was akin to a " quasi legislative body".

Anyone who claims that the cmp cannot be influenced is either ignorant of history, incredibly naive, or just dishonest.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

...
Anyone who claims that the cmp cannot be influenced is either ignorant of history, incredibly naive, or just dishonest.

Actually they did not succeed at influencing the CMP as the new article was reported as accept coming out of the comment stage. It had been rejected in the proposal stage. All of the issues between Allied and Indian Head (Carlon) took place after the comment stage.

 

[user 100]

Actually they did not succeed at influencing the CMP as the new article was reported as accept coming out of the comment stage. It had been rejected in the proposal stage. All of the issues between Allied and Indian Head (Carlon) took place after the comment stage.

Allied still tried awfully hard though, didn't they? And they could have ultimately suceeded. Over 100k spent packing the nfpa voting system w/ folks for the sole purpose of protecting their interest. Corruption knows no bounds sometimes-at least they got busted.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Allied still tried awfully hard though, didn't they? And they could have ultimately suceeded. Over 100k spent packing the nfpa voting system w/ folks for the sole purpose of protecting their interest. Corruption knows no bounds sometimes-at least they got busted.

I am sure they did everything they could at the CMP part of the process, but they did not succeed. Like I said, it was reported as reject in the proposal stage and accept at the comment stage, so if there was any response to influence by the CMP it would have been influence exerted by Indian Head (Carlon).

The packing of the annual meeting is what kept ENT out of that edition of the code. One thing that has changed since then is now you have to have been an NFPA member for at least 6 months to vote at the meeting, back then it was only 30 days.

 

[user 100]

I am sure they did everything they could at the CMP part of the process, but they did not succeed. Like I said, it was reported as reject in the proposal stage and accept at the comment stage, so if there was any response to influence by the CMP it would have been influence exerted by Indian Head (Carlon).

The packing of the annual meeting is what kept ENT out of that edition of the code. One thing that has changed since then is now you have to have been an NFPA member for at least 6 months to vote at the meeting, back then it was only 30 days.

I went over this again and I got it now-it was rejected at proposal, but given the green light at comment. Indian head would wanted have more push at comment-talk about needing to jockey for position.:lol:

At least the fair minded got something out of the deal, only after a lawsuit came about. One can only imagine the goings on today if that 6 month req wasn't on the table.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

....
At least the fair minded got something out of the deal, only after a lawsuit came about. One can only imagine the goings on today if that 6 month req wasn't on the table.

But the 6 month rule, just means you have to do more planning

 

[user 100]

But the 6 month rule, just means you have to do more planning

:lol:. Thanks for the references.