Bad image

[This message has been edited by Joe Tedesco (edited 02-25-2005).]

Is that cast iron pipe or black painted steel pipe? I've seen a lot of old installations with black painted steel. Is the flex continuous through the pipe? Why does the flex need the extra protection or is the pipe providing a chase, down to an existing box?

If this is just a sleeve to provide additional protection, I see no problem as long as the flex has been installed per the code rules. If this is an old building, it is possible that the black painted pipe is old rigid conduit. Very old conduit, both rigid and thinwall was often painted black by the factory to provide corrosion protection.
Don

But if it's armored cable going into conduit, should there be a junction box where the individual wires designed for conduit get spliced into the BX and everything hooked up with the appropriate connectors?

Also wouldn't the sharp edge of the pipe rubbing against the metal jacket of the cable eventually break it at one of those spiral seams?

SvenNYC, I bet you are right. If you give that flex a tug it'd pull right out to reveal that it was only shoved over some THHN and then fed into that whatchmacallit in the bottom of the picture. Maybe it was used as a chase...but I doubt it.

RSlater,
RSmike

Here is a cross post to Bob Villa. The person who posted wnats to know if there are compession fitting to repair this. He has no room to rethread the pipe.
http://web.bobvila.com/ultimate/Forum7/HTML/000679.html

Link Corrected by Joe Tedesco, Moderator of BV Board

[This message has been edited by Joe Tedesco (edited 02-13-2003).]

Appleton's item #NTC-50,or NTC-75
Threadless rigid connector.
Although a bit over $5(3/4)$3(1/2) (at local supply house) it would solve this unique problem.


[This message has been edited by lwinter31 (edited 02-13-2003).]

I'm glad you checked, and found the BX was not continuous through the pipe. I seem to recall code calling for BX, etc., to be protected by pipe where it goes through floors, comes out of slabs, etc.
Correction: the requirement appears for Romex (NM) in 334.15(a). Not that protecting flex is such a bad thing....

Seems like the answers here have been helpful and the problem is still not corrected, at least we haven't heard from the original DIY person!

Who is this person?