I learned tonight that my wall joints and ceiling joists don't coincide
at the ends. So I'm faced with the following EMT-bending task
(illustrated on my web site):
http://web.newsguy.com/MySite/
Upon confronting the problem, it stopped me in my tracks. But
I think I have a better grip on it now, after making the sketch.
It achieves a bend what would be 270 degrees if done in a naive way,
in less than 180. The hard part seems to be getting over the side of the
lower stud --which I think may perhaps be best achieved with a long
gradual bend away from the stud. IIRC, EMT only needs to be clamped
every 10 feet, so this may be less of a problem than I thought it was at
first.
I think I will be smart to just practice the fit and then use EMT
end-to-end connectors when I achieve a bend that will get the job done.
I'll have to check the NEC to be sure those conectors don't need to be
accessible.
If you have any suggestions for me, I'm paying close attention! : )
Yes, I have an EMT bender, a hacksaw, and three 8' pieces to run through
before I need to go back to the store!
Bill
Bill wrote:
>
> 3" is the length of the offset!
Yes - I had somehow lost track of that as the conversations unfolded.
> A straight 90-degree bend would have
> offset 0. As you point out, the bender can only make bends of 5"
> radius. I'll achieve 90 degrees in 3 (30 degree) bends, no one says
> they have to be close together.
So - why do it in three bends? Did I understand that you are going to
achieve your offset within the 90, thus breaking the bend up into three
smaller bends with a slight rotation at "each" bend? That could work but
accuracy is going to be unpredictable - especially on your first attempt at
bending. As well, if you do that, you're going to have to start your bends
somewhat short of the wall, to allow for the travel of the offset in the 1/3
bend. You might not like what this looks like when you see it.
>
> I wouldn't be typing here, expect my bender is a Gardner #930, which
> has an Arrow, and an A and a B marked on it's edge, and 2 levels. It
> doesn't have angle lines marked on the side like the ones in the
> tutorials! I've been looking for a manual for it.
>
You should be able to download the manual from Garner's web site. I have
used that bender before and I don't like it - because of how they indicate
angles. If memory serves me correctly, they have markers for the common
angles - instead of the lines that are more common. Both ways work just as
well. For me - I'm a creature of habit and like to see the things I'm used
to, so I didn't like having to think differently with that particular
bender. It bent conduit just fine. I just had to think too much about it.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Bill wrote:
> I learned tonight that my wall joints and ceiling joists don't
> coincide at the ends. So I'm faced with the following EMT-bending
> task (illustrated on my web site):
>
> http://web.newsguy.com/MySite/
>
>
> Upon confronting the problem, it stopped me in my tracks. But
> I think I have a better grip on it now, after making the sketch.
>
> It achieves a bend what would be 270 degrees if done in a naive way,
> in less than 180. The hard part seems to be getting over the side of
> the lower stud --which I think may perhaps be best achieved with a
> long gradual bend away from the stud.
Couple of questions Bill - why bother going down the side of the stud? Why
not just go straight down the wall? If there is a reason to go down the
stud, then I'd suggest a simple offset bend, which should be detailed in the
manual for your bender. If not, there are a ton of very good youtube videos
on bending EMT. As for the 270 degrees - I don't see that. Where are you
coming up with that? I see a 90 with an offset.
>
> I think I will be smart to just practice the fit and then use EMT
> end-to-end connectors when I achieve a bend that will get the job
> done. I'll have to check the NEC to be sure those conectors don't
> need to be accessible.
No they do not need to be accessable. There is no juction inside the EMT,
so no need for accessability.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Bill wrote:
>
>
> For what its worth, I pulled off my first 22.5-degrees, "7/8" offset
> bend that is "perfect", about as much as such a bend can be.
Congratulations Bill. Feels good - don't it? No pictures on the web site?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:48:14 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> And speaking of EMT, I think I'll use some on my CNC router for a
>> shielded cable run. Cheerfully painted flat black, of course.
>
>Sounds like a smart investment at $1.67 for a 10-foot piece!
>Do you have any work from that router to show us yet?
Newp, not yet. I'm still running out of cabling/waiting for paint,
etc. at every turn, but I'm getting damned close, finally. Once I get
it wired (redoing the home & limit switches to serial for each axis)
I'll hook up the computer, motion control card, and Gecko G540 and go
to town with it.
>I know you can't run NM-Romex through conduit. Can you run an electrical
>cord through it (as you are considering, if I understand correctly)?
It would be a couple of open-ended cable protectors with a couple of
single and multi-conductor cables through it. No heat generation, low
voltage (0-50), no problem, and no oversight necessary.
--
Win first, Fight later.
--martial principle of the Samurai
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:41:23 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>> Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> I see a 90 with an offset.
>>>
>>>
>>> To achieve 90 degree angle with a 3" offset: Using 4 bends of 22
>>> degrees, the muliplier (from right angle trig) is 1/sin 22 is about
>>> 2.7, so 4*2.7 =10.8" appear to be required. So, I would distribute
>>> the four 22 degree bends evenly along 10.8" of EMT.
>>>
>>> Please correct me as necessary, and mention how many bends would you
>>> use for the same problem. Give some consideration to the final
>>> appearance.
>>
>> You've lost me Bill.
>
>Sorry, I thought you knew about this since you sent me to the manual.
>It's basic offset stuff, based on right angle geometry (trig). I
>omitted the calculation of the angles of the bends out of 2-D space that
>are required to get the correct (3") offset. But, my thinking is that
>these "adjustments" (where you turn the conduit a little before bending
>it) are most easily applied to the first and last bend (only).
>
>Why not just bend the 90, and then bend an offset
>> below the 90, to run down the stud? Or, as I asked in a previous post - why
>> are you bothering to run it down the stud at all? It can run down the sheet
>> rock, just fine.
>
>Because I'm installing the 3-switch box in the wall. I brought an
>external one home last year and it looked really crappy, so I took it
>back and am getting a lesson in conduit bending instead! : )
>
>Bill
>
>
>
>
>
> Use a good style hollow wall anchor to clamp it to the
>> wall.
>>
>> Here is an excellent link you may want to hold on to for reference, on
>> bending EMT.
>>
>> http://www.cefga.org/documents/BendingRaceways.pdf
>>
>
What about using Garvin offset EMT connectors?????
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 22:11:07 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 3" is the length of the offset!
>>
>> Yes - I had somehow lost track of that as the conversations unfolded.
>>
>>> A straight 90-degree bend would have
>>> offset 0. As you point out, the bender can only make bends of 5"
>>> radius. I'll achieve 90 degrees in 3 (30 degree) bends, no one says
>>> they have to be close together.
>>
>> So - why do it in three bends? Did I understand that you are going to
>> achieve your offset within the 90, thus breaking the bend up into three
>> smaller bends with a slight rotation at "each" bend? That could work but
>> accuracy is going to be unpredictable - especially on your first attempt at
>> bending.
>
>Well, they claim the tube bending is practically an "exact science".
>I've got a pencil, ruler and a protractor so I'm not leaving much to
>chance. When EMT is straight, it's easy to make accurate marks on it.
>I've got three 8-foot pieces of EMT too, and I only need to do it right
>once! ; )
>
>My current problem is my bender is old and although I located its
>patent, I haven't located a usable manual yet. I'm not sure what's to
>stop me from making my own 30 degree mark on it, but I'd like to see a
>manual anyway.
>
>Bill
>
>
>As well, if you do that, you're going to have to start your bends
>> somewhat short of the wall, to allow for the travel of the offset in the 1/3
>> bend. You might not like what this looks like when you see it.
>>
>>>
>>> I wouldn't be typing here, expect my bender is a Gardner #930, which
>>> has an Arrow, and an A and a B marked on it's edge, and 2 levels. It
>>> doesn't have angle lines marked on the side like the ones in the
>>> tutorials! I've been looking for a manual for it.
>>>
>>
>> You should be able to download the manual from Garner's web site. I have
>> used that bender before and I don't like it - because of how they indicate
>> angles. If memory serves me correctly, they have markers for the common
>> angles - instead of the lines that are more common. Both ways work just as
>> well. For me - I'm a creature of habit and like to see the things I'm used
>> to, so I didn't like having to think differently with that particular
>> bender. It bent conduit just fine. I just had to think too much about it.
>>
>
The arrow is the basic line for doing take ups where you line up for
stub ups. Typical for stubs is -5", assuming 1/2" bender.The B mark
is for back to back type bends where you want your 90 degree bend to
hit the next perpendicular surface. The A mark comes in when your
doing saddle bends. Some times they use symbols depends on the
bender. After you usually make the 90 degree, in the area you want to
start your 3" offset put a 45 degree kick in. Usually for 1/2" you
can use your bender handle to measure for your next bend of 45
degrees. This is kinda of an eyeball thing where you just do it from
experience so you may find it easier to do your way with a protractor.
Good luck
Mike M
On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 05:20:41 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>I learned tonight that my wall joints and ceiling joists don't coincide
>at the ends. So I'm faced with the following EMT-bending task
>(illustrated on my web site):
>
>http://web.newsguy.com/MySite/
>
>
>Upon confronting the problem, it stopped me in my tracks. But
>I think I have a better grip on it now, after making the sketch.
>
>It achieves a bend what would be 270 degrees if done in a naive way,
>in less than 180. The hard part seems to be getting over the side of the
>lower stud --which I think may perhaps be best achieved with a long
>gradual bend away from the stud. IIRC, EMT only needs to be clamped
>every 10 feet, so this may be less of a problem than I thought it was at
>first.
>
>I think I will be smart to just practice the fit and then use EMT
>end-to-end connectors when I achieve a bend that will get the job done.
>I'll have to check the NEC to be sure those conectors don't need to be
>accessible.
>
>If you have any suggestions for me, I'm paying close attention! : )
>
>Yes, I have an EMT bender, a hacksaw, and three 8' pieces to run through
>before I need to go back to the store!
>
>Bill
I'm assuming you don't have drywall up at this point. If you have
done a lot of pipe bending that may take some doing. Have you
considered adding a cross piece between the ceiling 2x4's so you can
just make a 90 and keep it simple.
Mike M
Bill wrote:
> Mike Marlow wrote:
> I see a 90 with an offset.
>
>
> To achieve 90 degree angle with a 3" offset: Using 4 bends of 22
> degrees, the muliplier (from right angle trig) is 1/sin 22 is about
> 2.7, so 4*2.7 =10.8" appear to be required. So, I would distribute
> the four 22 degree bends evenly along 10.8" of EMT.
>
> Please correct me as necessary, and mention how many bends would you
> use for the same problem. Give some consideration to the final
> appearance.
You've lost me Bill. Why not just bend the 90, and then bend an offset
below the 90, to run down the stud? Or, as I asked in a previous post - why
are you bothering to run it down the stud at all? It can run down the sheet
rock, just fine. Use a good style hollow wall anchor to clamp it to the
wall.
Here is an excellent link you may want to hold on to for reference, on
bending EMT.
http://www.cefga.org/documents/BendingRaceways.pdf
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Bill wrote:
>
> Well, they claim the tube bending is practically an "exact science".
> I've got a pencil, ruler and a protractor so I'm not leaving much to
> chance. When EMT is straight, it's easy to make accurate marks on it.
> I've got three 8-foot pieces of EMT too, and I only need to do it
> right once! ; )
>
That's right. But... get back to us after you've put your hand to bending
these bends...
> My current problem is my bender is old and although I located its
> patent, I haven't located a usable manual yet. I'm not sure what's to
> stop me from making my own 30 degree mark on it, but I'd like to see a
> manual anyway.
>
Have you tried the Gardner web site?
Just a piece of advice... don't underestimate the problems you may encounter
in bending EMT. You might just be placing too much confidence in your
understanding that bending EMT is practically and exact science. But - we
all have screwed up bends - and we all continue to do so from time to time.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 05:20:41 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>I learned tonight that my wall joints and ceiling joists don't coincide
>at the ends. So I'm faced with the following EMT-bending task
>(illustrated on my web site):
>
>http://web.newsguy.com/MySite/
>
>
>Upon confronting the problem, it stopped me in my tracks. But
>I think I have a better grip on it now, after making the sketch.
>
>It achieves a bend what would be 270 degrees if done in a naive way,
>in less than 180. The hard part seems to be getting over the side of the
>lower stud --which I think may perhaps be best achieved with a long
>gradual bend away from the stud. IIRC, EMT only needs to be clamped
>every 10 feet, so this may be less of a problem than I thought it was at
>first.
>
>I think I will be smart to just practice the fit and then use EMT
>end-to-end connectors when I achieve a bend that will get the job done.
>I'll have to check the NEC to be sure those conectors don't need to be
>accessible.
>
>If you have any suggestions for me, I'm paying close attention! : )
>
>Yes, I have an EMT bender, a hacksaw, and three 8' pieces to run through
>before I need to go back to the store!
>
>Bill
Run the conduit along the side of the joist, stub a 90 (with a 3" kick
to the right) down through the top plate.
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to [email protected] ---
Larry Jaques wrote:
>
> 2) Fab up a solid rod which can fit in the emt so you can clamp it
> tightly while bending it, preventing it from twisting while you make
> the compound angle bends. (Weld a doglegged rod to a thick flat plate
> with a hole in it so you can bolt it down, holding that bottom end
> while bending, KWIM,V?)
>
Holy Cow Larry - that's way over the top. Much easier to just use the
bender...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 05:20:41 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>I learned tonight that my wall joints and ceiling joists don't coincide
>at the ends. So I'm faced with the following EMT-bending task
>(illustrated on my web site):
>
>http://web.newsguy.com/MySite/
>
>
>Upon confronting the problem, it stopped me in my tracks. But
>I think I have a better grip on it now, after making the sketch.
>
>It achieves a bend what would be 270 degrees if done in a naive way,
>in less than 180. The hard part seems to be getting over the side of the
>lower stud --which I think may perhaps be best achieved with a long
>gradual bend away from the stud. IIRC, EMT only needs to be clamped
>every 10 feet, so this may be less of a problem than I thought it was at
>first.
>
>I think I will be smart to just practice the fit and then use EMT
>end-to-end connectors when I achieve a bend that will get the job done.
>I'll have to check the NEC to be sure those conectors don't need to be
>accessible.
>
>If you have any suggestions for me, I'm paying close attention! : )
3 possibles:
1) Use flexible emt for the bends if allowed by the NEC (or not ;)
2) Fab up a solid rod which can fit in the emt so you can clamp it
tightly while bending it, preventing it from twisting while you make
the compound angle bends. (Weld a doglegged rod to a thick flat plate
with a hole in it so you can bolt it down, holding that bottom end
while bending, KWIM,V?)
3) Have a friend who's an electrician bend it for you.
Oh, a 4th is to run the emt at an angle to the lights, thoroughly
irritating the owner of the shop. LOL!
>Yes, I have an EMT bender, a hacksaw, and three 8' pieces to run through
>before I need to go back to the store!
<g>
--
It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails,
admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.
-- Franklin D. Roosevelt
dpb wrote:
> On 7/10/2012 11:45 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> ...
>
>> Actually - you hit on something that I missed. He does not need an
>> offset - he can do it with 2 simple 90's. One 90 to run along the
>> wall, and a second 90 to run down the stud. Much easier measuring,
>> and less opportunity for error. Sometimes the simplest things are
>> the easiest to overlook.
>
> If on surface, yes. It'll be tough to get the 90s in the 3" total
> distance though--don't think can bend it that tight per the NEC
> limitations (and be in Code, anyway). Assuming 1/2", and that he's
> using a standard one-shot bender iirc the takeup will be 5" so he's
> short w/ the 3"+whatever by about an inch of the distance for one 90.
>
Yup - you are right. I had forgotten about the 3" measurement. Back to the
original offset idea for me.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 23:37:15 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2) Fab up a solid rod which can fit in the emt so you can clamp it
>>>> tightly while bending it, preventing it from twisting while you
>>>> make the compound angle bends. (Weld a doglegged rod to a thick
>>>> flat plate with a hole in it so you can bolt it down, holding that
>>>> bottom end while bending, KWIM,V?)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Holy Cow Larry - that's way over the top. Much easier to just use
>>> the bender...
>
> OK, then bend the 10' stick 90 degrees at the midpoint to give you a
> way to hold it while bending a compound angle. Someting has to hold it
> very, very tightly while it's being bent.
>
The pipe bender will hold it very snugly. Once you get the EMT in the
bender it is very secure throughout the bend.
>
>> It got dark on me too early today. I'll give it "the ol' college try"
>> tomorrow. If I should fail my bending test, I'll go the FMC route.
>
> Crap, Bill. Don't you have one of these? http://tinyurl.com/7x6bdp3
> That or the dual-lamp type are enough to light up a white-painted shop
> really well for work on the fluors.
I really like the two light versions on the stand. Extremely versatile
lights! Cheap too - usually around $30 - $40 or so for the 1000W model.
http://www.harborfreight.com/1000-watt-twin-lamp-halogen-floodlight-66439.html
or, one at Home Depot that's cheaper...
http://www.homedepot.com/h_d1/N-5yc1v/R-202524993/h_d2/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10053&langId=-1&keyword=halogen+work+light&storeId=10051
.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Bill wrote:
>
> This is starting to get a little crazy. EMT does NOT need to run
> down the middle of a stud like Romex does, right?
>
That is correct Bill. You can run conduit in air. Look at some places like
HD the next time you're in there. Any of the big box stores are great
places to see how it's done and to get ideas. The conduit is all exposed so
it's really easy to see. Lots to learn there.
I think I've lost track of a couple of points though. Am I correct in now
understanding that you are going to use standard in-the-wall switch boxes?
If so, then you're going to have to get your conduit inside the wall at some
point - as I'm sure you are aware. That will require significant cutting of
sheet rock 'cause conduit don't bend too good when trying to get it inside
walls through small openings.
You might want to consider notching the plate at the top of your wall, to
accomodate the conduit and just run your 90 down into the wall pocket via
the notch. From there, a simple offset will easily get you to the switch
box. The conduit will anchor to the switch box and you should clamp it
somehow at the plate, as well, even if you have to throw a block in there to
screw the clamp to. You might even find that with a 3 gang box, you don't
need an offset inside the wall. Your conduit may coincidentally fall in
alignment with one of the knockouts. Kiss that one if it works out that
way!
But - don't let me dissuade you... Bending offsets is a blast. I have bent
a thousand of them if I've bent one, and I still get a kick out of it when I
put the conduit up and it fits as planned. Simple minds - simple pleasures,
I guess. So - go ahead and bend yourself a few offsets. Check out the
links I sent you. They will give you some common "cheater" measurements for
offsets, which will save you lots of calculations. I don't do the
calculations - I use the standard measurements and shrinkage. Very fast,
accurate, and of course, very rewarding.
You're going to have fun bending conduit. You'll make some pretty cool
pretzels, you'll kink and ruin more than one piece of conduit, you'll
certainly make a bend in the complete opposite direction of what you
wanted - it's all guaranteed! You aren't bending conduit if you don't do
those things once in a while. But - it is cooly rewarding to bend it and
lay up perfect runs that just look like artwork in EMT when you're done.
Just remember to de-burr your cuts - every time. Every time. Use a saw and
not a tubing cutter. Not a tubing cutter! If you don't debur, I can assure
you, at some point in one of your runs, you will create one of those really
cool fireworks shows when you throw the switch.
Take pictures and post your efforts.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
dpb wrote:
> On 7/10/2012 6:51 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>> Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> I see a 90 with an offset.
>>>
>>>
>>> To achieve 90 degree angle with a 3" offset: Using 4 bends of 22
>>> degrees, the muliplier (from right angle trig) is 1/sin 22 is about
>>> 2.7, so 4*2.7 =10.8" appear to be required. So, I would distribute
>>> the four 22 degree bends evenly along 10.8" of EMT.
>>>
>>> Please correct me as necessary, and mention how many bends would you
>>> use for the same problem. Give some consideration to the final
>>> appearance.
>>
>> You've lost me Bill. Why not just bend the 90, and then bend an
>> offset below the 90, to run down the stud? Or, as I asked in a
>> previous post - why are you bothering to run it down the stud at
>> all? It can run down the sheet rock, just fine. Use a good style
>> hollow wall anchor to clamp it to the wall.
> ...
>
> Note the actual offset will have to be 3" _plus_ (say 3/4" assuming
> nominal tubaX thickness) for the centerline of the joist _plus_ the
> half-diameter of the conduit (doesn't say whether this is 1/2 or 3/4)
> to get centerlines in right position--namely on the centerline of the
> joist and flush against the side of the stud.
>
> There are many similar to that in the old barn here done in a couple
> of patterns; either looks fine. The easiest to do is to put the
> offset in the plane of the ceiling (horizontal iow) and far enough
> away for the 90 to matchup directly perpendicular to the wall
> (parallel to the run of the joist).
>
> Or, the easy way out if the suggestion to not mount on surface is
> rejected--use a transition flex conduit piece. :)
Actually - you hit on something that I missed. He does not need an offset -
he can do it with 2 simple 90's. One 90 to run along the wall, and a second
90 to run down the stud. Much easier measuring, and less opportunity for
error. Sometimes the simplest things are the easiest to overlook.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Bill wrote:
> Thank you Mike M.! I'm afraid it's going to take a bit more than that
> to make a conduit bender out of me, but I appreciate your effort!
> I did notice that the Klein bender I was looking at today, had new
> symbols on it but no manual attached! : ) They could learn a think or
> two from the folks who make the Swanson Speed Square! For 32 bucks,
> they could cover the open end of the handle with something. I think I
> would just as soon use my own 48" piece of pipe anyway! Not having
> experience, I can't be definite yet.
>
The reason that most benders don't have something over the end of the handle
is that a bender is used with the handle down as often as it is with the
handle up. One of mine came with a rubber grip on the end of the handle but
it did not take long for that to abrade away when using the bending upside
down. I supposed they could come up with some very strong rubber cap,
but...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 00:33:52 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>dpb wrote:
>> On 7/10/2012 10:01 PM, Bill wrote:
>>> dpb wrote:
>>>> On 7/10/2012 7:27 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> This is starting to get a little crazy. EMT does NOT need to run down
>>>>> the middle of a stud like Romex does, right?
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> No, I was pointing out the _minimum_ offset to clear the stud if you
>>>> were going to run it inside the cavity as I thought you said was your
>>>> intent.
>
>
>For what its worth, I pulled off my first 22.5-degrees, "7/8" offset
>bend that is "perfect", about as much as such a bend can be.
Congrats! <clap, clap, clap>
>It took a trip back to the store and a 4th piece of conduit to get it
Ouch! But "ya gotta break a few eggs", and all that.
>just right. I had 2 other bends that would have worked, but I mentioned
>to my wife that they failed the "craftsman-like manner" test. :) I
>wanted no strain on the electrical box and I preferred that it run right
>up the center of the stud.
But of course.
>Besides becoming more comfortable with the bender, the "trick" I used on
>the 2nd half of the bend was Not to look at angle-lines on the the
>bender, but to look at the short end--bending until the ends were
>parallel. My earlier attempts didn't really achieve this. Maybe there
>is a little luck involved too! : )
Luck, skill, art...go ahead and brag.
>Now I may proceed (except it's really, really hot!). I hope you're all
>having as much fun!
I helped a guy hang drywall on a canted, curved, and unsquare piece of
drywall, OSB, and dippy concrete yesterday, after helping him swap a
wall A/C unit (HEAVY old bitch) for a nice little JeldWen window. But
it's much cooler this week, mid to low 80s instead of high 90s like
last week. I like the trend.
And speaking of EMT, I think I'll use some on my CNC router for a
shielded cable run. Cheerfully painted flat black, of course.
--
Win first, Fight later.
--martial principle of the Samurai
On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 23:37:15 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 2) Fab up a solid rod which can fit in the emt so you can clamp it
>>> tightly while bending it, preventing it from twisting while you make
>>> the compound angle bends. (Weld a doglegged rod to a thick flat plate
>>> with a hole in it so you can bolt it down, holding that bottom end
>>> while bending, KWIM,V?)
>>>
>>
>> Holy Cow Larry - that's way over the top. Much easier to just use the
>> bender...
OK, then bend the 10' stick 90 degrees at the midpoint to give you a
way to hold it while bending a compound angle. Someting has to hold it
very, very tightly while it's being bent.
>It got dark on me too early today. I'll give it "the ol' college try"
>tomorrow. If I should fail my bending test, I'll go the FMC route.
Crap, Bill. Don't you have one of these? http://tinyurl.com/7x6bdp3
That or the dual-lamp type are enough to light up a white-painted shop
really well for work on the fluors.
Also, I forgot to mention a 5th possibility: you could string the wire
through the individual pieces cut to make the bends, then tighten them
together. Use discrete components (conduit and coupler) a few inches
long if you need to. No bending required.
--
It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails,
admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.
-- Franklin D. Roosevelt
On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 09:29:57 -0700, Mike M
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 05:20:41 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>I learned tonight that my wall joints and ceiling joists don't coincide
>>at the ends. So I'm faced with the following EMT-bending task
>>(illustrated on my web site):
>>
>>http://web.newsguy.com/MySite/
>>
>>
>>Upon confronting the problem, it stopped me in my tracks. But
>>I think I have a better grip on it now, after making the sketch.
>>
>>It achieves a bend what would be 270 degrees if done in a naive way,
>>in less than 180. The hard part seems to be getting over the side of the
>>lower stud --which I think may perhaps be best achieved with a long
>>gradual bend away from the stud. IIRC, EMT only needs to be clamped
>>every 10 feet, so this may be less of a problem than I thought it was at
>>first.
>>
>>I think I will be smart to just practice the fit and then use EMT
>>end-to-end connectors when I achieve a bend that will get the job done.
>>I'll have to check the NEC to be sure those conectors don't need to be
>>accessible.
>>
>>If you have any suggestions for me, I'm paying close attention! : )
>>
>>Yes, I have an EMT bender, a hacksaw, and three 8' pieces to run through
>>before I need to go back to the store!
>>
>>Bill
>
>I'm assuming you don't have drywall up at this point. If you have
>done a lot of pipe bending that may take some doing. Have you
>considered adding a cross piece between the ceiling 2x4's so you can
>just make a 90 and keep it simple.
>
>Mike M
You could alwats throw in a section of flexible metal conduit??
Liquid-Tite from Delikon would do the job. Dead simple to use and
install, and totally code compliant anywhere EMT will work.
On 7/9/2012 5:20 AM, Bill wrote:
>
> I learned tonight that my wall joints and ceiling joists don't coincide
> at the ends. So I'm faced with the following EMT-bending task
> (illustrated on my web site):
>
> http://web.newsguy.com/MySite/
>
>
> Upon confronting the problem, it stopped me in my tracks. But
> I think I have a better grip on it now, after making the sketch.
>
> It achieves a bend what would be 270 degrees if done in a naive way,
> in less than 180. The hard part seems to be getting over the side of the
> lower stud --which I think may perhaps be best achieved with a long
> gradual bend away from the stud. IIRC, EMT only needs to be clamped
> every 10 feet, so this may be less of a problem than I thought it was at
> first.
>
> I think I will be smart to just practice the fit and then use EMT
> end-to-end connectors when I achieve a bend that will get the job done.
> I'll have to check the NEC to be sure those conectors don't need to be
> accessible.
>
> If you have any suggestions for me, I'm paying close attention! : )
>
> Yes, I have an EMT bender, a hacksaw, and three 8' pieces to run through
> before I need to go back to the store!
>
> Bill
You haven't told us why it needs to be in that particular configuration,
but if it does, perhaps Greenfield would be the way to go?
http://www.flex-tubes.com/greenfield-flexible-conduit.html
On 7/9/2012 1:33 PM, Greg Guarino wrote:
> On 7/9/2012 5:20 AM, Bill wrote:
>>
>> I learned tonight that my wall joints and ceiling joists don't coincide
>> at the ends. So I'm faced with the following EMT-bending task
>> (illustrated on my web site):
>>
>> http://web.newsguy.com/MySite/
>>
>>
>> Upon confronting the problem, it stopped me in my tracks. But
>> I think I have a better grip on it now, after making the sketch.
>>
>> It achieves a bend what would be 270 degrees if done in a naive way,
>> in less than 180. The hard part seems to be getting over the side of the
>> lower stud --which I think may perhaps be best achieved with a long
>> gradual bend away from the stud. IIRC, EMT only needs to be clamped
>> every 10 feet, so this may be less of a problem than I thought it was at
>> first.
>>
>> I think I will be smart to just practice the fit and then use EMT
>> end-to-end connectors when I achieve a bend that will get the job done.
>> I'll have to check the NEC to be sure those conectors don't need to be
>> accessible.
>>
>> If you have any suggestions for me, I'm paying close attention! : )
>>
>> Yes, I have an EMT bender, a hacksaw, and three 8' pieces to run through
>> before I need to go back to the store!
>>
>> Bill
> You haven't told us why it needs to be in that particular configuration,
> but if it does, perhaps Greenfield would be the way to go?
>
> http://www.flex-tubes.com/greenfield-flexible-conduit.html
>
In case I wasn't clear, I was suggesting Greenfield flexible tubing for
the complex curve part only. You could attach it to the EMT with
connectors.
Mike M wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 05:20:41 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> I learned tonight that my wall joints and ceiling joists don't coincide
>> at the ends. So I'm faced with the following EMT-bending task
>> (illustrated on my web site):
>>
>> http://web.newsguy.com/MySite/
>>
>>
>> Upon confronting the problem, it stopped me in my tracks. But
>> I think I have a better grip on it now, after making the sketch.
>>
>> It achieves a bend what would be 270 degrees if done in a naive way,
>> in less than 180. The hard part seems to be getting over the side of the
>> lower stud --which I think may perhaps be best achieved with a long
>> gradual bend away from the stud. IIRC, EMT only needs to be clamped
>> every 10 feet, so this may be less of a problem than I thought it was at
>> first.
>>
>> I think I will be smart to just practice the fit and then use EMT
>> end-to-end connectors when I achieve a bend that will get the job done.
>> I'll have to check the NEC to be sure those conectors don't need to be
>> accessible.
>>
>> If you have any suggestions for me, I'm paying close attention! : )
>>
>> Yes, I have an EMT bender, a hacksaw, and three 8' pieces to run through
>> before I need to go back to the store!
>>
>> Bill
>
> I'm assuming you don't have drywall up at this point. If you have
> done a lot of pipe bending that may take some doing. Have you
> considered adding a cross piece between the ceiling 2x4's so you can
> just make a 90 and keep it simple.
>
> Mike M
>
I do have drywall on the ceiling, I removed it on this area of the wall
to replace the switchbox and add the EMT. Thank you for looking--I'm
sorry my diagram wasn't clearer.
Mike Marlow wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>> I learned tonight that my wall joints and ceiling joists don't
>> coincide at the ends. So I'm faced with the following EMT-bending
>> task (illustrated on my web site):
>>
>> http://web.newsguy.com/MySite/
>>
>>
>> Upon confronting the problem, it stopped me in my tracks. But
>> I think I have a better grip on it now, after making the sketch.
>>
>> It achieves a bend what would be 270 degrees if done in a naive way,
>> in less than 180. The hard part seems to be getting over the side of
>> the lower stud --which I think may perhaps be best achieved with a
>> long gradual bend away from the stud.
>
> Couple of questions Bill - why bother going down the side of the stud? Why
> not just go straight down the wall?
I wavered at first, but in the end (last summer) decided an external
3-switch box looked too darn ugly for me next to the door! I took it
back rather than installing it.
If there is a reason to go down the
> stud, then I'd suggest a simple offset bend, which should be detailed in the
> manual for your bender.
I have no manual, but I appreciate your sharing the terminology (which I
can use for a search).
If not, there are a ton of very good youtube videos
> on bending EMT. As for the 270 degrees - I don't see that. Where are you
> coming up with that? I see a 90 with an offset.
I watched a bunch of videos once upon a time. I may get a refresher
before I start eating EMT. Yes, it's 90 with an offset. Left 90, up
90, and over 90 makes the connection in a "naive" way. How do they
measure "90 with an offset"--90 + 22.5 ?
>
>
>>
>> I think I will be smart to just practice the fit and then use EMT
>> end-to-end connectors when I achieve a bend that will get the job
>> done. I'll have to check the NEC to be sure those conectors don't
>> need to be accessible.
>
> No they do not need to be accessable. There is no juction inside the EMT,
> so no need for accessability.
Cool, thanks!
Mike M wrote:
> If you haven't done a lot of pipe bending that may take some doing.
I haven't done ANY pipe bending yet, but after making the picture, I
think I may be able to do it in less time than it took me to make the
picture! I felt better after it occurred to me I could use a
connector, because then I only need to screw up a 3-4 foot section at a
time. That gives me 2 tries for $2! How hard can it be, right? I'll
let you know how it goes...
Cheers,
Bill
P.S. This problem is under my skin now! Between me and the EMT, one of
us is going to yield! : )
> Mike M
>
[email protected] wrote:
> You could alwats throw in a section of flexible metal conduit??
> Liquid-Tite from Delikon would do the job. Dead simple to use and
> install, and totally code compliant anywhere EMT will work.
Thank you for mentioning FMC, I looked it up. I may look for that if I
run through my three 8' pieces of EMT.
Bill
Mike Marlow wrote:
> Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>>
>> 2) Fab up a solid rod which can fit in the emt so you can clamp it
>> tightly while bending it, preventing it from twisting while you make
>> the compound angle bends. (Weld a doglegged rod to a thick flat plate
>> with a hole in it so you can bolt it down, holding that bottom end
>> while bending, KWIM,V?)
>>
>
> Holy Cow Larry - that's way over the top. Much easier to just use the
> bender...
>
It got dark on me too early today. I'll give it "the ol' college try"
tomorrow. If I should fail my bending test, I'll go the FMC route.
Mike Marlow wrote:
I see a 90 with an offset.
To achieve 90 degree angle with a 3" offset: Using 4 bends of 22
degrees, the muliplier (from right angle trig) is 1/sin 22 is about 2.7,
so 4*2.7 =10.8" appear to be required. So, I would distribute the four
22 degree bends evenly along 10.8" of EMT.
Please correct me as necessary, and mention how many bends would you use
for the same problem. Give some consideration to the final appearance.
Bill
On 7/10/2012 6:51 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>> Mike Marlow wrote:
>> I see a 90 with an offset.
>>
>>
>> To achieve 90 degree angle with a 3" offset: Using 4 bends of 22
>> degrees, the muliplier (from right angle trig) is 1/sin 22 is about
>> 2.7, so 4*2.7 =10.8" appear to be required. So, I would distribute
>> the four 22 degree bends evenly along 10.8" of EMT.
>>
>> Please correct me as necessary, and mention how many bends would you
>> use for the same problem. Give some consideration to the final
>> appearance.
>
> You've lost me Bill. Why not just bend the 90, and then bend an offset
> below the 90, to run down the stud? Or, as I asked in a previous post - why
> are you bothering to run it down the stud at all? It can run down the sheet
> rock, just fine. Use a good style hollow wall anchor to clamp it to the
> wall.
...
Note the actual offset will have to be 3" _plus_ (say 3/4" assuming
nominal tubaX thickness) for the centerline of the joist _plus_ the
half-diameter of the conduit (doesn't say whether this is 1/2 or 3/4) to
get centerlines in right position--namely on the centerline of the joist
and flush against the side of the stud.
There are many similar to that in the old barn here done in a couple of
patterns; either looks fine. The easiest to do is to put the offset in
the plane of the ceiling (horizontal iow) and far enough away for the 90
to matchup directly perpendicular to the wall (parallel to the run of
the joist).
Or, the easy way out if the suggestion to not mount on surface is
rejected--use a transition flex conduit piece. :)
--
On 7/10/2012 11:45 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
...
> Actually - you hit on something that I missed. He does not need an offset -
> he can do it with 2 simple 90's. One 90 to run along the wall, and a second
> 90 to run down the stud. Much easier measuring, and less opportunity for
> error. Sometimes the simplest things are the easiest to overlook.
If on surface, yes. It'll be tough to get the 90s in the 3" total
distance though--don't think can bend it that tight per the NEC
limitations (and be in Code, anyway). Assuming 1/2", and that he's
using a standard one-shot bender iirc the takeup will be 5" so he's
short w/ the 3"+whatever by about an inch of the distance for one 90.
I was presuming the "in the cavity" was a given but for that one still
needs the offset horizontally (1 90), turn for the extension into wall
(2 90) and down (3 90). But, two are in the ends of the runs, just one
separate. But, still given the short offset, don't think can fabricate
it w/ just 90s in plane and get the offset he wants.
I think the offset and down is the only practical meself given the
limitations on how tight a bend can do...
Then again, when I'm not actually looking at something what may be
obvious is often glaringly not... :) So, if I overlooked something
here, that's entirely possible.
Let's see though...somewhere in the not terribly distant past I happened
across a page that shows how to measure for a oneshot bender....ok,
that's not the same one but it'll do...
<http://www.tpub.com/ceb/68.htm>
--
On 7/10/2012 2:10 PM, dpb wrote:
...
> I think the offset and down is the only practical meself given the
> limitations on how tight a bend can do...
...
And, if I were doing it, think I'd go back some more or less arbitrary
distance from the downward end, put in the offset then bend the 90 and
field-cut the length of the vertical to suit...
You know, another thought strikes--wonder how many of these there are
(if more than one) and what direction of pull is? There's always the
possibility could simply make the 90 and place inline pull boxes at the
joists for the feed(s). Then again, maybe is going through wall studs,
who knows???
--
Mike Marlow wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>> Mike Marlow wrote:
>> I see a 90 with an offset.
>>
>>
>> To achieve 90 degree angle with a 3" offset: Using 4 bends of 22
>> degrees, the muliplier (from right angle trig) is 1/sin 22 is about
>> 2.7, so 4*2.7 =10.8" appear to be required. So, I would distribute
>> the four 22 degree bends evenly along 10.8" of EMT.
>>
>> Please correct me as necessary, and mention how many bends would you
>> use for the same problem. Give some consideration to the final
>> appearance.
>
> You've lost me Bill.
Sorry, I thought you knew about this since you sent me to the manual.
It's basic offset stuff, based on right angle geometry (trig). I
omitted the calculation of the angles of the bends out of 2-D space that
are required to get the correct (3") offset. But, my thinking is that
these "adjustments" (where you turn the conduit a little before bending
it) are most easily applied to the first and last bend (only).
Why not just bend the 90, and then bend an offset
> below the 90, to run down the stud? Or, as I asked in a previous post - why
> are you bothering to run it down the stud at all? It can run down the sheet
> rock, just fine.
Because I'm installing the 3-switch box in the wall. I brought an
external one home last year and it looked really crappy, so I took it
back and am getting a lesson in conduit bending instead! : )
Bill
Use a good style hollow wall anchor to clamp it to the
> wall.
>
> Here is an excellent link you may want to hold on to for reference, on
> bending EMT.
>
> http://www.cefga.org/documents/BendingRaceways.pdf
>
Bill wrote:
> Mike Marlow wrote:
> I see a 90 with an offset.
>
>
> To achieve 90 degree angle with a 3" offset: Using 4 bends of 22
> degrees, the muliplier (from right angle trig) is 1/sin 22 is about 2.7,
> so 4*2.7 =10.8" appear to be required. So, I would distribute the four
> 22 degree bends evenly along 10.8" of EMT.
>
> Please correct me as necessary, and mention how many bends would you use
> for the same problem. Give some consideration to the final appearance.
>
> Bill
I typed too fast last night. that whould have been 3 (not 4) times 2.7
= 8.1"... I apologize for any inconvenience.
I'm ready to take a shot at it.
On 7/10/2012 3:53 PM, Bill wrote:
> Bill wrote:
...
> I'm ready to take a shot at it.
Remember the actual offset you need is 3" _plus_ half the thickness of
the joist _plus_ has the conduit OD to get have it against the far side
of the stud and centered on the joist...at least if the location of the
measurement in your drawing is correct, that is.
I'd still just do the offset in the horizontal plane, and then down and
inset (I forgot the header in the other conversation w/ Mike).
Of course, you could simplify a whole lot if the wall is going to be
covered by simply notching...
--
dpb wrote:
> On 7/10/2012 3:53 PM, Bill wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
> ...
>
>> I'm ready to take a shot at it.
>
> Remember the actual offset you need is 3" _plus_ half the thickness of
> the joist
You are evidently right. I didn't realize there was adequate room on the
EMT 1-hole straps, I just opened up the box. As you are clearly aware,
the whole strap is 1.5" long. I would have put the hole in the middle
of the joist...duh!
_plus_ has the conduit OD to get have it against the far side
> of the stud and centered on the joist...at least if the location of the
> measurement in your drawing is correct, that is.
I believe you are right--it makes more sense to "hide the straps" so
that screws go on the less visible side. That makes
3" + 3/4" + 5/8" = 4 3/8"
Using three 30 degree bends, I should need 2 * 4 3/8 = 8 3/4" inches of
conduit for the bend
This is starting to get a little crazy. EMT does NOT need to run down
the middle of a stud like Romex does, right?
Thanks again for your suggestions!
I'll go set what I can do! I'm not too skeered! : )
Bill
>
> I'd still just do the offset in the horizontal plane, and then down and
> inset (I forgot the header in the other conversation w/ Mike).
>
> Of course, you could simplify a whole lot if the wall is going to be
> covered by simply notching...
>
> --
Mike Marlow wrote:
> dpb wrote:
>> On 7/10/2012 11:45 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> Actually - you hit on something that I missed. He does not need an
>>> offset - he can do it with 2 simple 90's. One 90 to run along the
>>> wall, and a second 90 to run down the stud. Much easier measuring,
>>> and less opportunity for error. Sometimes the simplest things are
>>> the easiest to overlook.
>>
>> If on surface, yes. It'll be tough to get the 90s in the 3" total
>> distance though--don't think can bend it that tight per the NEC
>> limitations (and be in Code, anyway). Assuming 1/2", and that he's
>> using a standard one-shot bender iirc the takeup will be 5" so he's
>> short w/ the 3"+whatever by about an inch of the distance for one 90.
>>
>
> Yup - you are right. I had forgotten about the 3" measurement. Back to the
> original offset idea for me.
3" is the length of the offset! A straight 90-degree bend would have
offset 0. As you point out, the bender can only make bends of 5"
radius. I'll achieve 90 degrees in 3 (30 degree) bends, no one says they
have to be close together.
I wouldn't be typing here, expect my bender is a Gardner #930, which has
an Arrow, and an A and a B marked on it's edge, and 2 levels. It
doesn't have angle lines marked on the side like the ones in the
tutorials! I've been looking for a manual for it.
Cheers, %-)
Bill
Mike Marlow wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>
>>
>> 3" is the length of the offset!
>
> Yes - I had somehow lost track of that as the conversations unfolded.
>
>> A straight 90-degree bend would have
>> offset 0. As you point out, the bender can only make bends of 5"
>> radius. I'll achieve 90 degrees in 3 (30 degree) bends, no one says
>> they have to be close together.
>
> So - why do it in three bends? Did I understand that you are going to
> achieve your offset within the 90, thus breaking the bend up into three
> smaller bends with a slight rotation at "each" bend? That could work but
> accuracy is going to be unpredictable - especially on your first attempt at
> bending.
Well, they claim the tube bending is practically an "exact science".
I've got a pencil, ruler and a protractor so I'm not leaving much to
chance. When EMT is straight, it's easy to make accurate marks on it.
I've got three 8-foot pieces of EMT too, and I only need to do it right
once! ; )
My current problem is my bender is old and although I located its
patent, I haven't located a usable manual yet. I'm not sure what's to
stop me from making my own 30 degree mark on it, but I'd like to see a
manual anyway.
Bill
As well, if you do that, you're going to have to start your bends
> somewhat short of the wall, to allow for the travel of the offset in the 1/3
> bend. You might not like what this looks like when you see it.
>
>>
>> I wouldn't be typing here, expect my bender is a Gardner #930, which
>> has an Arrow, and an A and a B marked on it's edge, and 2 levels. It
>> doesn't have angle lines marked on the side like the ones in the
>> tutorials! I've been looking for a manual for it.
>>
>
> You should be able to download the manual from Garner's web site. I have
> used that bender before and I don't like it - because of how they indicate
> angles. If memory serves me correctly, they have markers for the common
> angles - instead of the lines that are more common. Both ways work just as
> well. For me - I'm a creature of habit and like to see the things I'm used
> to, so I didn't like having to think differently with that particular
> bender. It bent conduit just fine. I just had to think too much about it.
>
On 7/10/2012 7:27 PM, Bill wrote:
...
> This is starting to get a little crazy. EMT does NOT need to run down
> the middle of a stud like Romex does, right?
...
No, I was pointing out the _minimum_ offset to clear the stud if you
were going to run it inside the cavity as I thought you said was your
intent.
It'll be a real trick to get those multiple bends in the proper planes
if you try what you described elsewhere but have at it...it's only time
and material... :)
--
dpb wrote:
> On 7/10/2012 7:27 PM, Bill wrote:
> ...
>
>> This is starting to get a little crazy. EMT does NOT need to run down
>> the middle of a stud like Romex does, right?
> ...
>
> No, I was pointing out the _minimum_ offset to clear the stud if you
> were going to run it inside the cavity as I thought you said was your
> intent.
>
> It'll be a real trick to get those multiple bends in the proper planes
> if you try what you described elsewhere but have at it...it's only time
> and material... :)
Gosh, you were making it sound like it wouldn't be too hard earlier.
If things don't go well, there is always FMC. I don't like to be a
quitter though!
I'm still trying to track down an instruction guide for my manual, just
for the principle of the thing....
Thanks!
Bill
Mike Marlow wrote:
> Have you tried the Gardner web site?
Mine is too old (patented 1960). Acquired from a high school shop auction.
>
> Just a piece of advice... don't underestimate the problems you may encounter
> in bending EMT. You might just be placing too much confidence in your
> understanding that bending EMT is practically and exact science. But - we
> all have screwed up bends - and we all continue to do so from time to time.
>
Thanks for letting me "off the hook", Mike. I'll reveal the outcome.
Bill
I found a conduit bender like mine on ebay. It's had a box that said it
was for bending angles of 45 and 90 degrees (not exotic ones like 30).
As has been said, sometimes the tools aren't as expensive as your time...
BTW, my new Bosch impact driver, because of it's compact size, helped me
last week to replace our over the range microwave FAST! Those screws
have a lot of threads too!
Bill
On 7/10/2012 10:01 PM, Bill wrote:
> dpb wrote:
>> On 7/10/2012 7:27 PM, Bill wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> This is starting to get a little crazy. EMT does NOT need to run down
>>> the middle of a stud like Romex does, right?
>> ...
>>
>> No, I was pointing out the _minimum_ offset to clear the stud if you
>> were going to run it inside the cavity as I thought you said was your
>> intent.
>>
>> It'll be a real trick to get those multiple bends in the proper planes
>> if you try what you described elsewhere but have at it...it's only time
>> and material... :)
>
> Gosh, you were making it sound like it wouldn't be too hard earlier.
>
...
Well, I wouldn't do it the way you seem to indicate you're going at
it--as I said, I'd just do the offset in plane (parallel to the ceiling
and the necessary double bend to get whereever it is you want it
alongside the stud in the perpendicular plane (vertical). Then there's
none of this trying to get some set of multiple angles to end up at a
(roughly) 90...
You're talking some set of mutiple bends in different planes to try to
run some angled run across instead of the straightforward way...I've not
tried to fathom the precise path, but your sketch will be hard to
replicate in practice methinks (particularly for the beginner)...as Mike
says, while it seems unlikely, it's quite easy to get turned around and
discover you just went the wrong way...the more complex the set of bends
the more likely it ain't comin' out the way you want.
--
dpb wrote:
> On 7/10/2012 10:01 PM, Bill wrote:
>> dpb wrote:
>>> On 7/10/2012 7:27 PM, Bill wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> This is starting to get a little crazy. EMT does NOT need to run down
>>>> the middle of a stud like Romex does, right?
>>> ...
>>>
>>> No, I was pointing out the _minimum_ offset to clear the stud if you
>>> were going to run it inside the cavity as I thought you said was your
>>> intent.
>>>
>>> It'll be a real trick to get those multiple bends in the proper planes
>>> if you try what you described elsewhere but have at it...it's only time
>>> and material... :)
>>
>> Gosh, you were making it sound like it wouldn't be too hard earlier.
>>
> ...
>
> Well, I wouldn't do it the way you seem to indicate you're going at
> it--as I said, I'd just do the offset in plane (parallel to the ceiling
> and the necessary double bend to get whereever it is you want it
> alongside the stud in the perpendicular plane (vertical). Then there's
> none of this trying to get some set of multiple angles to end up at a
> (roughly) 90...
>
> You're talking some set of mutiple bends in different planes to try to
> run some angled run across instead of the straightforward way...I've not
> tried to fathom the precise path, but your sketch will be hard to
> replicate in practice methinks (particularly for the beginner)...as Mike
> says, while it seems unlikely, it's quite easy to get turned around and
> discover you just went the wrong way...the more complex the set of bends
> the more likely it ain't comin' out the way you want.
Yes,
But it occurred to me that if I can just get both ends to be pointing in
the right directions, then I could made a further very small bend behind
the stud so that the end on the ceiling lies just where is it needs to.
In a nutshell, I can "fine tune the offset" this way.
Thanks again for guiding me to put the ceiling end in the right place!
I'm having a large tree taken down tomorrow, but, after that, this
little task is at the top of my list after I buy a bender that's not a
genuine antique.
Bill
On 7/10/2012 11:39 PM, Bill wrote:
...
> But it occurred to me that if I can just get both ends to be pointing in
> the right directions, then I could made a further very small bend behind
> the stud so that the end on the ceiling lies just where is it needs to.
> In a nutshell, I can "fine tune the offset" this way.
>
> Thanks again for guiding me to put the ceiling end in the right place!
...
It's those "small corrections" that tend to be the hardest--once you've
got a set of bends in a piece, then it becomes very difficult to change
much--it's much different working on a pretzel (particularly not
in-plane) than working from one end towards the other where your always
going towards the unfinished work...
But, there's nothing says you can't try it--maybe it'll come out first
go--who knows????
No problem--it just seemed like you were overlooking the fact that you
had to clear the material besides just the width...
--
dpb wrote:
> Note the actual offset will have to be 3" _plus_ (say 3/4" assuming
> nominal tubaX thickness) for the centerline of the joist _plus_ the
> half-diameter of the conduit (doesn't say whether this is 1/2 or 3/4) to
> get centerlines in right position--namely on the centerline of the joist
> and flush against the side of the stud.
>
> There are many similar to that in the old barn here done in a couple of
> patterns; either looks fine. The easiest to do is to put the offset in
> the plane of the ceiling (horizontal iow) and far enough away for the 90
> to matchup directly perpendicular to the wall (parallel to the run of
> the joist).
Yes, that would look professional. I appreciate the precision of your
explanations!
>
> Or, the easy way out if the suggestion to not mount on surface is
> rejected--use a transition flex conduit piece. :)
It could possibly come to that... If I was paying a contractor, that
would probably be my first choice too!
On 7/10/2012 11:01 PM, dpb wrote:
> On 7/10/2012 10:01 PM, Bill wrote:
>> dpb wrote:
...
>> Gosh, you were making it sound like it wouldn't be too hard earlier.
>>
> ....
>
> Well, I wouldn't do it the way you seem to indicate you're going at
> it--as I said, I'd just do the offset in plane (parallel to the ceiling
> and the necessary double bend to get whereever it is you want it
> alongside the stud in the perpendicular plane (vertical). Then there's
> none of this trying to get some set of multiple angles to end up at a
> (roughly) 90...
...
And, actually, having gone back and looked at your drawing again, I'd
probably "cheat" a little more, even... :)
Do the offset as described, then two 45s the first at proper distance
to clear the bottom of the header.
One question that wasn't clear...is the wall going to be covered in the
end or are the stud bays remaining open? If the former you'll just
leave the conduit to end once inside, correct? Just fasten it to the
stud in the middle to avoid nailing accidents as if it were Romex and
fasten firmly near the junction box...
If open, of course, I presume the whole reason for the conduit at all is
the hard protection for exposed run so you'll also have the offset to
hit the box at the other end to deal with...
--
dpb wrote:
> If open, of course, I presume the whole reason for the conduit at all is
> the hard protection for exposed run so you'll also have the offset to
> hit the box at the other end to deal with...
>
Yes, the EMT will attach to the switch box further down the stud (which
must be metal). There is existing drywall on the ceiling, and I will be
replacing the drywall on the wall.
After reflecting on the matter, and visiting Home Depot today, I arrived
home with a roll of ALFLEX ("Reduced Wall Aluminum Flexible Conduit"),
and two suitable couplers. I will only require perhaps less than 2 feet
of it two bridge my 2 new pieces of EMT. I was reading about FMC,
asking for FMC, and this is what I was given. Cool? The new conduit
will come out of the wall 16" to the left of and vertically higher than
my main electrical panel--Not a dangerous location, and I don't think it
raises any NEC flags.
We'll never know how long it would have taken me to make the bend in
EMT--and I wore out much of my enthusiasm to find out. This project
needs legs! : )
New detail: My original plan, was to use the (11) fluorescent T8
fixtures as boxes. However with 3 switches, there would be a fair
amount of wiring passing through them. This might make replacing one of
them somewhat of a headache, compared to if each fixture had it's own
box. More than one person has recommended an extra box for each fixture
in the past. It seems like a lot of extra work, but maybe it's "pay now
or pay later". %-) I will consider it again and what it would
take... Thank you for your interest in my project!
Cheers,
Bill
Mike M wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 22:11:07 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Bill wrote:
>>>> I wouldn't be typing here, expect my bender is a Gardner #930, which
>>>> has an Arrow, and an A and a B marked on it's edge, and 2 levels. It
>>>> doesn't have angle lines marked on the side like the ones in the
>>>> tutorials! I've been looking for a manual for it.
>>
> The arrow is the basic line for doing take ups where you line up for
> stub ups. Typical for stubs is -5", assuming 1/2" bender.The B mark
> is for back to back type bends where you want your 90 degree bend to
> hit the next perpendicular surface. The A mark comes in when your
> doing saddle bends. Some times they use symbols depends on the
> bender. After you usually make the 90 degree, in the area you want to
> start your 3" offset put a 45 degree kick in. Usually for 1/2" you
> can use your bender handle to measure for your next bend of 45
> degrees. This is kinda of an eyeball thing where you just do it from
> experience so you may find it easier to do your way with a protractor.
> Good luck
>
> Mike M
>
Thank you Mike M.! I'm afraid it's going to take a bit more than that to
make a conduit bender out of me, but I appreciate your effort!
I did notice that the Klein bender I was looking at today, had new
symbols on it but no manual attached! : ) They could learn a think or
two from the folks who make the Swanson Speed Square! For 32 bucks,
they could cover the open end of the handle with something. I think I
would just as soon use my own 48" piece of pipe anyway! Not having
experience, I can't be definite yet.
Thanks,
Bill
Mike Marlow wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>
>> Thank you Mike M.! I'm afraid it's going to take a bit more than that
>> to make a conduit bender out of me, but I appreciate your effort!
>> I did notice that the Klein bender I was looking at today, had new
>> symbols on it but no manual attached! : ) They could learn a think or
>> two from the folks who make the Swanson Speed Square! For 32 bucks,
>> they could cover the open end of the handle with something. I think I
>> would just as soon use my own 48" piece of pipe anyway! Not having
>> experience, I can't be definite yet.
>>
>
> The reason that most benders don't have something over the end of the handle
> is that a bender is used with the handle down as often as it is with the
> handle up.
Yes, I'm aware of that.
One of mine came with a rubber grip on the end of the handle but
> it did not take long for that to abrade away when using the bending upside
> down. I supposed they could come up with some very strong rubber cap,
As long as they are selling the bender with a handle (which personally,
I'd rather they not--I've got plenty of Schedule 40 black pipe) then I
would expect one more suitable than pipe ($7.50 for 4 foot ). I just see
it as unnecessary "skimping", nothing new in the engineering of many
modern retail tools. Used on concrete, I think that the thin steel
cylindrical handle would wear very poorly and that after a bit of use, I
would replace it with the pipe.
> but...
>
dpb wrote:
> On 7/10/2012 10:01 PM, Bill wrote:
>> dpb wrote:
>>> On 7/10/2012 7:27 PM, Bill wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> This is starting to get a little crazy. EMT does NOT need to run down
>>>> the middle of a stud like Romex does, right?
>>> ...
>>>
>>> No, I was pointing out the _minimum_ offset to clear the stud if you
>>> were going to run it inside the cavity as I thought you said was your
>>> intent.
For what its worth, I pulled off my first 22.5-degrees, "7/8" offset
bend that is "perfect", about as much as such a bend can be.
It took a trip back to the store and a 4th piece of conduit to get it
just right. I had 2 other bends that would have worked, but I mentioned
to my wife that they failed the "craftsman-like manner" test. :) I
wanted no strain on the electrical box and I preferred that it run right
up the center of the stud.
Besides becoming more comfortable with the bender, the "trick" I used on
the 2nd half of the bend was Not to look at angle-lines on the the
bender, but to look at the short end--bending until the ends were
parallel. My earlier attempts didn't really achieve this. Maybe there
is a little luck involved too! : )
Now I may proceed (except it's really, really hot!). I hope you're all
having as much fun!
Bill
Mike Marlow wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> For what its worth, I pulled off my first 22.5-degrees, "7/8" offset
>> bend that is "perfect", about as much as such a bend can be.
>
> Congratulations Bill. Feels good - don't it? No pictures on the web site?
>
Thanks Mike and Larry. I figured I would save taking a picture for if
someone didn't believe me. : ) OTOH, I have not yet regretted taking
pictures of "walls" before covering them up (with drywall). I'm not
going to argue whether it's a wall before you put drywall on it or not.
Larry Jaques wrote:
> And speaking of EMT, I think I'll use some on my CNC router for a
> shielded cable run. Cheerfully painted flat black, of course.
Sounds like a smart investment at $1.67 for a 10-foot piece!
Do you have any work from that router to show us yet?
I know you can't run NM-Romex through conduit. Can you run an electrical
cord through it (as you are considering, if I understand correctly)?
>
> --
> Win first, Fight later.
>
> --martial principle of the Samurai
>
Chris B. wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 05:20:41 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> I learned tonight that my wall joints and ceiling joists don't coincide
>> at the ends. So I'm faced with the following EMT-bending task
>> (illustrated on my web site):
>>
>> http://web.newsguy.com/MySite/
>>
>>
>> Upon confronting the problem, it stopped me in my tracks. But
>> I think I have a better grip on it now, after making the sketch.
>>
>> It achieves a bend what would be 270 degrees if done in a naive way,
>> in less than 180. The hard part seems to be getting over the side of the
>> lower stud --which I think may perhaps be best achieved with a long
>> gradual bend away from the stud. IIRC, EMT only needs to be clamped
>> every 10 feet, so this may be less of a problem than I thought it was at
>> first.
>>
>> I think I will be smart to just practice the fit and then use EMT
>> end-to-end connectors when I achieve a bend that will get the job done.
>> I'll have to check the NEC to be sure those conectors don't need to be
>> accessible.
>>
>> If you have any suggestions for me, I'm paying close attention! : )
>>
>> Yes, I have an EMT bender, a hacksaw, and three 8' pieces to run through
>> before I need to go back to the store!
>>
>> Bill
>
> Run the conduit along the side of the joist, stub a 90 (with a 3" kick
> to the right) down through the top plate.
Chris, Thank you for your suggestion. But, I ended up cutting my losses
time-wise, and completing the connection with an 18" piece of ALFLEX (FMC).
Bill
>
> --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to [email protected] ---
>
On 7/17/2012 2:48 PM, Bill wrote:
> I know you can't run NM-Romex through conduit.
You can in many locales, AAMOF, it may actually be required to protect
the wiring in an _interior_ environment from physical damage, but you
may have to de-rate the ampacity.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop