romex cable

[ltwright]

Can you install romex inside of emt?

 

[tom baker]

Re: romex cable

Take a look at 2005 NEC section 334.30
Keep in mind your wire fill.
If this is for other than physical protection, why bother with NM? Just use THHN.
Also the NM conductors are not allowed to be used by themselfs, IE they are not a listed conductor.

 

[coppertreeelectric]

Re: romex cable

The quick answer is "NO"

 

[ryan_618]

Re: romex cable

In the 2005, yes.
In the 2002, no.

 

[infinity]

Re: romex cable

Ryan, where in the 2002 is this prohibited and where in the 2005 is it allowed?

 

[roger]

Re: romex cable

Originally posted by infinity:
Ryan, where in the 2002 is this prohibited and where in the 2005 is it allowed?

As far as the 05, look at 358.22 or any of the conduit or tubing .22 sections.

Whether it was prohibited before was kind of an interpretation thing.

Roger

 

[ryan_618]

Re: romex cable

Raceway xxx.22, as Roger said, addresses it in both the 2002 and the 2005.

In the 202, the cable method had to specifically alow the placement of a cable in a raceway. The only cable mehtod I know of that permitted it was MC cable, in 330.10(7).

Talking with Gaylen Rogers, chairperson of CMP 7, he says this was a mistake in the 2002, simply a lack of correlation between the cable panel and raceway panel, so I never felt inclined to issue a red tag for it.

 

[infinity]

Re: romex cable

In the 202, the cable method had to specifically alow the placement of a cable in a raceway. The only cable mehtod I know of that permitted it was MC cable, in 330.10(7).

So what you're saying is that in the 2005 the restrictions on individual cabling methods have been removed and the requirement now falls under the XXX.22 section of specific conduit articles?

 

[George Stolz]

Re: romex cable

Man, I need to buy the 2005 on CD.

 

[roger]

Re: romex cable

Originally posted by infinity:
So what you're saying is that in the 2005 the restrictions on individual cabling methods have been removed and the requirement now falls under the XXX.22 section of specific conduit articles?

Correct, although actually it is a permission more than a requirement.

Roger

[ June 04, 2005, 09:45 AM: Message edited by: roger ]

 

[pierre]

Re: romex cable

from Ryan
"Talking with Gaylen Rogers, chairperson of CMP 7, he says this was a mistake in the 2002, simply a lack of correlation between the cable panel and raceway panel, so I never felt inclined to issue a red tag for it."
From Roger
"Whether it was prohibited before was kind of an interpretation thing."

This change and having the two different CMPs not working closely together has made this "interesting", as now in this great country of ours, I think we may be referencing 4 different code cycles

Because we had heard it was a lack of coordination between the two CMPs, and knew it would be addressed, we let it pass as well.

 

[infinity]

Re: romex cable

Correct, although actually it is a permission more than a requirement.

Yes, you're right. I should have said permission instead of requirement. Thanks for the correction. Must have been a rough night.

[ June 04, 2005, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: infinity ]

 

[ltwright]

Re: romex cable

Thanks for all of your comments, it really has helped.