|
|
|
0 members (),
133
guests, and
21
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 3,669 Likes: 4
OP
Administrator Member
|
(submitted via Joe Tedesco) The first two are an easy code violation to pick out.
I don't know if you can see the last picture but a contractor did a real neat job in Rigid Metal Conduit and our local utility company took PVC with the flange end on and put it on the RMC. I asked the contractor and he said he left threads on the end of his pipe.
-JoeRossi ![[Linked Image]](https://www.electrical-contractor.net/Forum/Images/Bush1.JPG) ![[Linked Image]](https://www.electrical-contractor.net/Forum/Images/Bush2.JPG) ![[Linked Image]](https://www.electrical-contractor.net/Forum/Images/Conduit.JPG)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 680
Member
|
As far as the third pic goes, I see that all the time in Maine, the utility can do whatever it wants.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,391
Moderator
|
I agree with Walrus on the third pic. it is pointless to try to apply the NEC to an installation governed by the NESC. They could have just as well run plastic "U Guard". Personally between U-Guard and the PVC I would rather the PVC. ![[Linked Image]](https://www.electrical-contractor.net/ubb/smile.gif)
Bob Badger
Construction & Maintenance Electrician
Massachusetts
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 123
Member
|
At least the bell end of the fitting is down, so that the water will go over the pipe and not into it
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,441 Likes: 4
Member
|
mvp, It could still rise up through Capillary effect, obviously not in the same amount.
|
|
|
|
Posts: 31
Joined: December 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
