# Which Fitting-Connection is Code Compliant?



## jar546 (Feb 14, 2019)

You have the flat washer and the famous Meyers hub used with PVC.  Which one would be a compliant installation (assuming the connector was fully seated in the Meyers hub.


----------



## fatboy (Feb 14, 2019)

Left, I have never seen the installation on the right.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Feb 14, 2019)

Haven't seen the one on the right, I'll pick the one on the left


----------



## Rick18071 (Feb 14, 2019)

Why wouldn't the right one be right if it is listed?


----------



## fatboy (Feb 14, 2019)

Rick18071 said:


> Why wouldn't the right one be right if it is listed?



Due to the nature of the question, my assumption (I know), one was compliant, the other not.


----------



## chris kennedy (Feb 14, 2019)

The one on the right is compliant. That’s a sealing ring.
The one one the left is a violation of 110.3(B). Meyers hubs are only listed for use with RMC and IMC. 

What do I win?


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Feb 14, 2019)

But the one in the middle's a Methodist!


----------



## jar546 (Feb 14, 2019)

chris kennedy said:


> The one on the right is compliant. That’s a sealing ring.
> The one one the left is a violation of 110.3(B). Meyers hubs are only listed for use with RMC and IMC.
> 
> What do I win?



About time you put your 2 cents in.  You have officially won an "ataboy" from Joe.  Go see him after work.  Congrats.


----------



## fatboy (Feb 14, 2019)

Well......crap.


----------



## Norcal (Feb 24, 2019)

BTW, it's a Myers hub, not Meyers hub. Because of my surname it's something I notice.  

Back to the topic.


----------



## ICE (Feb 24, 2019)

It seems to me that a metal flat washer in contact with the metal can is not water tight.


----------



## chris kennedy (Feb 25, 2019)

The green rubber is on both sides.


----------



## ICE (Feb 25, 2019)

I can see the rubber on top.....why don’t I see the rubber underneath the washer? Sorry but it doesn’t resemble a sealing ring.

This really looks like a a generic flat washer with a rubber washer on top.... it’s Jeff’s picture so I’ll take his word for it but I’ve not seen one like this.

This is a picture that I took three days ago.  The worker insisted that the fitting is raintight.  I had him back off the lock ring and sure enough there's a gasket.  It fits into the knockout perfectly and accomplished nothing.  Had it been visible after installation it would have still not worked.









This is a sealing ring:





This is the rubber washer similar to the one in my picture:





I guess I'm just not convinced that Jeff's picture is a sealing ring.


----------



## chris kennedy (Feb 25, 2019)

That ring came from my shop when Jeff was working with us.
I can assure you it’s a listed sealing ring with rubber on both sides.
Just a different manufacturer than the one in your pic.


----------



## ICE (Feb 25, 2019)

chris kennedy said:


> That ring came from my shop when Jeff was working with us.
> I can assure you it’s a listed sealing ring with rubber on both sides.
> Just a different manufacturer than the one in your pic.


Well then, you I can trust.....but hold on.....Jeff called it a flat washer and you knew it was a sealing ring that doesn't look like a sealing ring....that's insider information.  

Well alrighty then, it's game on Jeff


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Feb 25, 2019)

Stay on em, ICE their in cahoots with each other!

I had a 50/50 chance and I picked the wrong one!


----------



## chris kennedy (Feb 25, 2019)

Oh no, no more cahoots.
Now he is an inspector and I’m still an installer.
Can’t wait to work in his area so we can go toe to toe!


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Feb 25, 2019)

CK, Battle of the Titans!


----------



## jar546 (Feb 25, 2019)

ICE said:


> Well then, you I can trust.....but hold on.....Jeff called it a flat washer and you knew it was a sealing ring that doesn't look like a sealing ring....that's insider information.
> Well alrighty then, it's game on Jeff



This is the washer:


----------



## jar546 (Feb 25, 2019)

Isn't this what was used in your photo?


----------



## jar546 (Feb 25, 2019)

Besides Ice, it appears as though those penetrations were below the level of live parts anyway so no sealing needed.


----------



## ICE (Feb 25, 2019)

jar546 said:


> Isn't this what was used in your photo?


That is a possibility.  It makes better sense than a lock ring and a gasket.  Is this yellow gasket meant to fit inside the KO hole and the metal is meant to bite in and act as a lock ring?  When I first saw it I thought that it will not repel water. I could see a gap between the minute bit of rubber that I could see and the can so I assumed that it was no good.  If I was wrong, I'm happy to give them a call and take back the correction.  I'll just tell them that you started it.

Ya ...no...there was a gap


----------



## ICE (Feb 25, 2019)

jar546 said:


> Besides Ice, it appears as though those penetrations were below the level of live parts anyway so no sealing needed.


That is incorrect.  I'll look for another picture.


----------



## jar546 (Feb 25, 2019)

ICE said:


> That is incorrect.  I'll look for another picture.



I clicked on your picture and zoomed in.  On the pic it looks like the sealing locknut and a sealing ring.  If there was a gap all they needed to do was to tighten it.  BTW, the locking nut is sometimes just on the inside.  It only needs to be sealed from one side.

On another note, I will repeat, it does not appear as though the penetration is above the level of live parts.


----------



## ICE (Feb 25, 2019)

jar546 said:


> I clicked on your picture and zoomed in.  On the pic it looks like the sealing locknut and a sealing ring.  If there was a gap all they needed to do was to tighten it.  BTW, the locking nut is sometimes just on the inside.  It only needs to be sealed from one side.
> 
> On another note, I will repeat, it does not appear as though the penetration is above the level of live parts.


If by above you mean through the top, you are correct.  However my AHJ sees this as meaning from any point on any surface that is above the bottom of the live parts.

_312.2 Damp and Wet Locations. In damp or wet locations, surface-type enclosures within the scope of this article shall be placed or equipped so as to prevent moisture or water from entering and accumulating within the cabinet or cutout box, and shall be mounted so there is at least 6- mm (o-in.) airspace between the enclosure and the wall or other supporting surface. Enclosures installed in wet locations shall be weatherproof. For enclosures in wet locations, raceways or cables entering *above the level *of uninsulated live parts shall use fittings listed for wet locations.




_


----------



## jar546 (Feb 26, 2019)

From that level it obviously is above the level of live parts.  From the original photo angle it did not.  You don't need an AHJ to interpret "above the level of live parts" as it is self explanatory. I know an electrician who was missing the word "level" in the last 5 code book cycles and still thought it only applied when you were above live parts.

Nice installation.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Feb 26, 2019)

What are the little black square (shields) that the red hots are going through in post #25, I have not seen those before inside a panel?


----------



## chris kennedy (Feb 26, 2019)

Those are CT’s
Current Transformers


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Feb 26, 2019)

So the CT's are used to monitor current usage for the PV system? 

I haven't seen those used here yet, only a handful of PV systems here with the last one installed last year.


----------

