Electrician Talk banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 51 Posts

·
Retired Account
Joined
·
39,697 Posts
I'm going with the provisions of 314.23 F EX2 all of the specifics in (a) thru (f) met Joe

~CS~
 

·
Electric Al
Joined
·
4,823 Posts
Other than joints in condulet T fittings , the only other thing I notice is very sloppy bends in the conduit . I do not think that would be considered a violation !

Could it possibly be the support cables , for side to side support ?
 

·
Homer to Jebus
Electron Flow Consultant
Joined
·
837 Posts
Violation I see is it looks like chit. No code reference needed for that. :whistling2:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joe Tedesco

·
Banned
Joined
·
16,967 Posts
There's actually nothing wrong and no code violations. This is just another one of Joe's "I don't like how it looks so I'll call it a violation". :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,768 Posts
I don't see any supports on what looks like rigid or imc conduit.

I would rather see a union-to-t condulet attachment method rather than bell box cover to bell box cover-to-bell box attachment method.
 

·
Donuts > Fried Eggs
Joined
·
17,042 Posts
Those are funny fixtures, though. Stupid things weigh about 25 pounds and the only attachment point is that pissant little 1/2" threaded arm.

Seems like pretty much the only position they'll last is mounted straight down like in that picture. Otherwise, I've seen guys support them with chain, I ended up mounting a bunch by attaching 1/2" aluminum banding to hold the weight of the fixture head.
 

·
Retired Account
Joined
·
39,697 Posts
It lacks thought, why subject an install to 314.23 F EX2 a-f, when a piece of 1 5/8" strut could have been used to mount all those lights?

~CS~
 
1 - 20 of 51 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top