What size electrical junction box fits a 1-inch diameter cable anyway?

[Danny D]

Today I tried to connect a 1-inch wide flexible conduit to what was
billed as a 1-inch outdoor junction box:
http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/13019061/img/13019061.jpg

However, the 1-inch side of the old elbow clearly was too small to fit
the threads in the 1-inch hole of the new reputedly 1-inch junction box:
http://www5.picturepush.com/photo/a/13019068/img/13019068.jpg

Yet, the 1-inch side of the old elbow was just as clearly too large to
fit the threads in the 3/4 inch hole of a 3/4 inch junction box:
http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/13019076/img/13019076.jpg

Clearly I'm confused. Or I bought the wrong type of junction box.
Does a solution seem clear to you?

[Harry Johnson]

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/npt-national-pipe-taper-threads-d_750.html

[RBM]

On 5/15/2013 1:36 AM, Danny D wrote:

You have a piece of 3/4" nonmetallic flex. It looks like you have a 1/2"
X 90 degree NM flex connector. You need a 3/4" NM flex connector. The
larger threaded side of the connector is not pipe threads. it only
threads onto the tightening nut that goes on the NM flex. If you want to
install the 3/4" into the box with 1" openings, you'll need a 1" x 3/4"
threaded bushing.

[John Grabowski]

*You are confusing trade sizes with actual dimensions of the conduit. Your
flex has some writing on the outside of it which should include the trade
size.

I have put together a chart of the actual dimensions of some conduits,
however it does not have the flexible type that you have listed yet. The
other conduit dimensions may give you an idea of what size you really need.
http://www.mrelectrician.tv/conversioncharts/pipeconduit.html

[tra...@optonline.net]

+1

Also, I would use a box twice that size. You have 6 wires
entering the box, which is probably close to the limit for
that box. It's also being put in to allow easy disconnect of
the motor, so having some extra room is a good thing.
And a larger box would allow for the addition of another
wire if you decide to go to a dual speed pump at some point.

[tra...@optonline.net]

On May 15, 7:59 am, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net>
wrote:

> wire if you decide to go to a dual speed pump at some point.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Actually, I went back and looked at the pics again. I thought
it was a smaller box, but now I see it looks like we're looking
at the side of the box. If it's about 4x4, that's what I had in
mind.

[DD_BobK]

On May 14, 11:09 pm, gfretw...@aol.com wrote:

> Conduit is measured based on ID not OD but that is a nominal size.
> Your Carflex LFNC looks like 3/4" but you need a connector to get into
> that 3/4" threaded hub.

+1

[DD_BobK]

Completely....

1) That elbow is meant to attach to your existing flex. The end with
straight thread (the bigger end) makes up the water connection to the
flex, The smaller end looks to be 1/2".... in screws into just able
an wet location box.

2) The "box end" of conduit connectors are sized like water pipe.
RIgid conduit is sized like water pipe.
Checkout conduit sizes.... http://www.home4c.com/conduit.htm

3) Conduits don't have widths...they have diameters.

[Danny D]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 02:09:51 -0400, gfretwell wrote:

> Conduit is measured based on ID not OD but that is a nominal size. Your
> Carflex LFNC looks like 3/4" but you need a connector to get into that
> 3/4" threaded hub.

Does that mean that what I measured as the old 1-inch conduit and 1-inch
elbow is actually a 3/4-inch conduit and elbow?

http://www5.picturepush.com/photo/a/13042773/img/13042773.jpg

If that's the case, why doesn't it then fit the 3/4-inch junction box?

[Danny D]

[Oren]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 17:30:24 +0000 (UTC), Danny D <Dan...@example.com>
wrote:

>If that's the case

I'll defer on the electrical stuff. However, something tells me the
box has be a certain height above the ground surface. Given the
location for potential flooding, electrical power and that kind of
stuff.

[Danny D]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 11:27:36 -0700, Oren wrote:

> something tells me the box has be a certain height above the ground
> surface. Given the location for potential flooding, electrical power and
> that kind of stuff.

I had asked and the answer came back that it's to code to put the box
on the concrete outside, as long as I use waterproof connections and a
waterproof cover (all of which I already purchased).

[Danny D]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 14:07:52 -0400, gfretwell wrote:

> That elbow is a 3/4" flex to 1/2" thread.

OK. If the large side of the elbow, which measures at 1-inch, is actually
a 3/4 inch connection, then that means the existing conduit is 3/4 inch
and not 1 inch as I had thought.

So I bought the wrong box (because I bought a 1-inch box).

However, that doesn't explain why the 3/4-inch threaded connector is
still too large for the 3/4-inch box?

It's close, but the threads don't fit?

I'm wholly confused because 3/4 inch conduit doesn't fit the 3/4 inch
box???

[Danny D]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 14:07:52 -0400, gfretwell wrote:

> You need a 3/4 to 3/4

Actually, the plan is to put the old 3/4 inch conduit into the junction
box with a straight-through connector.

Then, coming out of the junction box, will be half-inch conduit that goes
to the motors, with a straight through half inch connector on the end
that screws into the motor body.

My only problem right now is figuring out why the 3/4 inch conduit
doesn't fit into the 3/4 inch holes of the box. It makes no sense unless
I'm assuming something that isn't the case (which it must be).

[tra...@optonline.net]

What you have doesn't work, so you have to take it
back, right? You apparently have 3/4"
liquidtight conduit. Measure the inside diameter. Go down
to HD or wherever you bought what you have. Take a piece
of the conduit with you or measure the inside diatmeter. I
see markings on the conduit in the pic and I'll bet it even
says what size it is. Find a piece of conduit at HD to use
or take a piece with you. Then go to the parts bin and find
the appropriate fittings, box, etc. Make sure it all works before
you leave.

One fundemental problem that has been explained to
you is that you have two different ends of that elbow.
One end has threads that mate with the nut for the
conduit. That end will never mate with the box. If that
conduit is 3/4, then you need a 3/4" elbow. It fits 3/4
conduit on one side, 3/4 box hole on the other

[tra...@optonline.net]

On May 15, 2:07 pm, gfretw...@aol.com wrote:

> On Wed, 15 May 2013 17:31:10 +0000 (UTC), Danny D <Dan...@example.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 15 May 2013 02:09:51 -0400, gfretwell wrote:
>
> >> Conduit is measured based on ID not OD but that is a nominal size. Your
> >> Carflex LFNC looks like 3/4" but you need a connector to get into that
> >> 3/4" threaded hub.
>
> >Does that mean that what I measured as the old 1-inch conduit and 1-inch
> >elbow is actually a 3/4-inch conduit and elbow?
>
> >http://www5.picturepush.com/photo/a/13042773/img/13042773.jpg

I'm not sure what we're looking at in the pic. On the left,
is there a bushing inside that conduit? That's what it looks
like to me, a 3/4 conduit with a bushing inside. And what are
you showing the end of on the right? The old fitting that
went over the conduit on the left? If so, then what that appears
to me is some different kind of liquidtight fitting that uses
a seperate bushing inside the conduit and then the fitting itself goes
over the conduit.

>
> >If that's the case, why doesn't it then fit the 3/4-inch junction box?
>

> That elbow is a 3/4" flex to 1/2" thread. You need a 3/4 to 3/4

[Danny D]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 15:07:26 -0700, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

> What you have doesn't work, so you have to take it back, right?

> Find a piece of conduit at HD to use or take a piece with you.

> Make sure it all works before you leave.

I did exactly as advised, and found out the answer to the size enigma can
only be had with experience, as measurements do not prevail when it comes
to flexible conduit connection sizes.
http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/13045061/img/13045061.jpg

It turned out that this fitting (that clearly measured at one inch
diameter) isn't even close to what they call a one-inch fitting:
http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/13045051/img/13045051.jpg

In fact (even though it clearly measures out at 1 inch), it's not even
close to what they call a 3/4 inch fitting; it turns out that it is a
half-inch fitting!
http://www4.picturepush.com/photo/a/13045057/img/13045057.jpg

So, the end result is that the original conduit and both sides of the
elbow were actually nominally half inch sizes all along!

[Danny D]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 07:01:18 -0700, DD_BobK wrote:

> 1) That elbow is meant to attach to your existing flex. The end with
> straight thread (the bigger end) makes up the water connection to the
> flex, The smaller end looks to be 1/2".... in screws into just able an
> wet location box.

I guess I missed the clue stamped right on the elbow all along!
http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/13045079/img/13045079.jpg

The enigma turns out to be that the elbow was 1/2 inch on both sides!

The clue I missed is that it was clearly stamped 1/2 inch, but it never
occurred to me that this meant *both sides* were half inch (yes, even the
side that measures out at 1 inch).

Note: The straight-thru connectors are stamped 1/2NPT.

[Danny D]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 15:22:40 -0700, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

> I'm not sure what we're looking at in the pic. On the left,
> is there a bushing inside that conduit?

I'm not sure what the yellow thing is but here is a side view:
http://www2.picturepush.com/photo/a/13045100/img/13045100.jpg

It turns out that, with experience, the whole thing turns out to be
comprised of half-inch fittings!

1. The half-inch conduit ...
2. ... had a half-inch nut ...
3. ... which held a half-inch elbow ...
4. ... which was screwed into a half-inch hole in the motor!

Note: The plastic nut, plastic elbow, and gray conduit are all one inch
in diameter; but they're still considered half inch equipment, apparently.

[Danny D]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 15:07:26 -0700, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

> One fundemental problem that has been explained to you is that
> you have two different ends of that elbow.
> One end has threads that mate with the nut for the conduit.
> That end will never mate with the box.

It turned out to be even worse than you said.

Apparently the one-piece straight-through half-inch ends that I bought
from Home Depot won't work on the motor end because they actually *screw*
onto the conduit!
http://www5.picturepush.com/photo/a/13045123/img/13045123.jpg

In fact, the Ace Hardware guy was amazed that they weren't two pieces,
and he kept trying to take it apart!

His two-piece connector has a nut that holds it onto the conduit, just
like the old elbow had.

However, the one-piece Home Depot connector actually, somehow, grabs onto
the "ribs" of the conduit, to screw on tightly (patent pending I'm sure).

If I used the one-piece connector on the conduit end by the motor, it
would make spinning off that connector impossible without spinning the
motor or conduit itself!

And that's the whole problem I'm trying to avoid!

[Danny D]

UPDATE:

It's mostly done. Thanks for all the advice. I learned a lot.
http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/13045434/img/13045434.jpg

A lesson learned is those patent-pending one-piece connectors stink!
http://www2.picturepush.com/photo/a/13045440/img/13045440.jpg

You have to spin the entire cable to remove them!

That's the problem I was trying to avoid in the first place!

Tomorrow I'll pick up two more two-piece connectors and finish the job.

[DD_BobK]

Danny-

Try listening to the guys in the newsgroup.... remember the code is a
minimum standard.
Mounting a box,even a "water proof" box, on the ground when an easy
alternative exists is a bad idea.

[DD_BobK]

Note: boxes are described buy their nominal size ....like a 4" box or
by a "gang" ..like single gang, double gang, etc
The threaded hole callouts are secondary to box size.

[Danny D]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 21:40:37 -0700, DD_BobK wrote:

> Mounting a box,even a "water proof" box, on the ground
> when an easy alternative exists is a bad idea.

I've never wired using conduit before, so I can use all the suggestions
I can get; however, I must have missed alternative mounting ideas.

How would you suggest the junction box be mounted?
Should I raise it up on a block of wood?

BTW, I added silicone to waterproof the bottom of the box:
http://www4.picturepush.com/photo/a/13045562/img/13045562.jpg

And I put di-electric grease on all the connections:
http://www2.picturepush.com/photo/a/13045565/img/13045565.jpg

And, I added o-rings to every conduit connection:
http://www5.picturepush.com/photo/a/13045583/img/13045583.jpg

Two questions I have regarding the setup below:
http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/13045571/img/13045571.jpg

Q1: Would you drill into the concrete to firmly attach the box?
Q2: Should I buy male spade connectors so as to connect spade to spade?
(instead of the waterproof wire nuts?)

[Danny D]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 11:27:36 -0700, Oren wrote:

> I'll defer on the electrical stuff. However, something tells me the box
> has be a certain height above the ground surface. Given the location for
> potential flooding, electrical power and that kind of stuff.

Hi Oren,

I went back to find this because DD_BobK said I had ignored your
suggestion, so I apologize for not having taken greater note of this.

The location gets torrential rain during the winter (and not a drop of
rain for the other 9 months of the year); so, I agree raising it up a bit
might be a good idea.

How does it sound to put it on a thick block of wood?

Or is there a better way to raise it off the concrete?
(bearing in mind the concrete itself is already raised a couple of inches)

[Danny D]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 07:36:49 -0400, John Grabowski wrote:

> *You are confusing trade sizes with actual dimensions of the conduit.
> Your flex has some writing on the outside of it which should
> include the trade size.

LESSON LEARNED:

The old cable clearly says it's 1/2 inch cable on it, had I only looked!
http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/13045614/img/13045614.jpg

In hindsight, I was lulled into complacency because I could easily
measure the fat end of the original elbow at an exact 1 inch, so, it
seemed so natural that the conduit was one inch that I didn't doublecheck.

It was only when the one inch box didn't fit, and the 3/4 inch box didn't
fit either, that I took a second look at the problem.

Even then, it's wholly unnatural that both sides of that elbow were
actually 1/2 inch connectors!

[Danny D]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 06:11:25 -0700, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

> If it's about 4x4, that's what I had in mind.

It's the biggest box they had.

I really wanted three holes in each side (one for each motor).

A lesson learned is that the only thing this pipe cutter turned out to be
good for was for cutting the conduit (but a smaller irrigation cutter
would have worked even better):
http://www2.picturepush.com/photo/a/13045635/img/13045635.jpg

Unlike the useless pipe cutter though, the wire strippers and the wire
crimper seemed to do the job quite nicely:
http://www4.picturepush.com/photo/a/13045647/img/13045647.jpg

In fact, they did so well, I'm wondering if it would be to code to mate
the female spade connectors to male spade connectors instead of cutting
off the ends to wire nut them?

[tra...@optonline.net]

On May 15, 8:05 pm, Danny D <Dan...@example.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 15 May 2013 15:07:26 -0700, trad...@optonline.net wrote:
> > What you have doesn't work, so you have to take it back, right?
> > Find a piece of conduit at HD to use or take a piece with you.
> > Make sure it all works before you leave.
>
> I did exactly as advised, and found out the answer to the size enigma can
> only be had with experience, as measurements do not prevail when it comes
> to flexible conduit connection sizes.
>  http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/13045061/img/13045061.jpg
>
> It turned out that this fitting (that clearly measured at one inch
> diameter) isn't even close to what they call a one-inch fitting:
>  http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/13045051/img/13045051.jpg
>

We told you many times right from the start that the
size is *not* based on the fitting. It's based on the size
of the inside diameter of the CONDUIT.

> In fact (even though it clearly measures out at 1 inch), it's not even
> close to what they call a 3/4 inch fitting; it turns out that it is a
> half-inch fitting!
>  http://www4.picturepush.com/photo/a/13045057/img/13045057.jpg
>
> So, the end result is that the original conduit and both sides of the
> elbow were actually nominally half inch sizes all along!

Well, there you have it.

[tra...@optonline.net]

On May 15, 8:44 pm, Danny D <Dan...@example.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 15 May 2013 15:07:26 -0700, trad...@optonline.net wrote:
> > One fundemental problem that has been explained to you is that
> > you have two different ends of that elbow.
> > One end has threads that mate with the nut for the conduit.
> > That end will never mate with the box.
>
> It turned out to be even worse than you said.
>
> Apparently the one-piece straight-through half-inch ends that I bought
> from Home Depot won't work on the motor end because they actually *screw*
> onto the conduit!
>  http://www5.picturepush.com/photo/a/13045123/img/13045123.jpg
>


> In fact, the Ace Hardware guy was amazed that they weren't two pieces,
> and he kept trying to take it apart!

Must be like my local Ace Hardware where every time I
walk in, the resident wingnut who is clueless insists on
"helping" me. One visit I was looking for a basic water
pressure gauge for a well pump and he gave me a
lecture about how residential water systems operate at
2 PSI.

That fitting you have is common. It works fine for most
applications. The end that connects to a box, typically
goes into a blank hole and then the nut that is provided
goes on inside to hold it. As you figured out, that won't
work because your motor has a threaded fitting.

[tra...@optonline.net]

On May 15, 8:27 pm, Danny D <Dan...@example.com> wrote:

And right on the conduit in the pic is black lettering. Doesn't that
say that it's 1/2"? Or, if that piece isn't readable, isn't there
another
section there that is?

[tra...@optonline.net]

On May 16, 1:22 am, Danny D <Dan...@example.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 07:36:49 -0400, John Grabowski wrote:
> > *You are confusing trade sizes with actual dimensions of the conduit.
> > Your flex has some writing on the outside of it which should
> > include the trade size.
>
> LESSON LEARNED:
>
> The old cable clearly says it's 1/2 inch cable on it, had I only looked!
>  http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/13045614/img/13045614.jpg
>

Finally! Good grief!

> In hindsight, I was lulled into complacency because I could easily
> measure the fat end of the original elbow at an exact 1 inch, so, it
> seemed so natural that the conduit was one inch that I didn't doublecheck.

Part of this comes from experience. One inch conduit is
so large that it makes no sense that it would be used to hook
up your pool motor. Once you have some experience, it's easy
to recognize what size it is just by looking. Apparently, it's not
so easy to tell by looking at a pic. You did have that one recent
pic that shows the end of the 1/2", but the hole in that compared
to the thickenss of the wall, and the different colors, made me
think it was some kind of bushing inside a 3/4" conduit

>
> It was only when the one inch box didn't fit, and the 3/4 inch box didn't
> fit either, that I took a second look at the problem.

As DD pointed out, it's not really a one inch box. It's a
4" box with one inch holes. Just so you don't wind up
going over to ACE and asking for such a thing. The
dopes they have over there might spend an hour looking
for one.

>
> Even then, it's wholly unnatural that both sides of that elbow were
> actually 1/2 inch connectors!

Well, I guess that's why even the right end wouldn't go into
the box threads.

[tra...@optonline.net]

Some of the folks that have had discussion or issues with
inspectors can probably give you a better answer regarding
fastening it. It definitiely needs to be fastened and putting
screws into the concrete would do that. However to
avoid drilling, I wonder if construction adhesive would satisfy
code? Not sure. I would be comfortable doing it for
that application from a safety standpoint, but not sure what
an inspector would say.

I think DerbyDad brought up the issue of
raising it up higher. I don't believe that's required by code.
If there is no pooling of water around the box likely, ie it
runs off, then I wouldn't worry about it. If water can pool
there, then putting something to raise it up an inch or so
isnt' a bad idea. But I think most pool installers would just
mount it to the deck.

I would not use spade terminals, more work and not typically
how it would be done. And you're cutting the wires too short.
I forget the exact code reqt, but think it's like 6" beyond the
box. Don't go nuts, nobody is going to come measure them.
But just looking at it, they appear short.

And not to get you into a rat hole, but just so you know
and learn, there is a min box size allowed for a given
number of wires of a given size. I would think that box
is probably around the limit, you have 12 wires going
into it. They don't want you to shove 10 lbs of stuff into
a 5 lb bag,

[tra...@optonline.net]

On May 16, 9:24 am, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net>
wrote:

> a 5 lb bag,- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Forgot to add, in the pic on the conduit fitting on the
lower left, there is a locknut showing on the outside
of the box. That locknut is to secure the fitting inside
a box that has no threads. It should not be on the
outside, where there should be a o-ring seal.

[Danny D.]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 06:24:03 -0700, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

> I forget the exact code reqt, but think it's like 6" beyond the box.

> ... just looking at it, they appear short.

Interesting. I was keeping them to 3", but I didn't have a spec to go by.

Had I known it was 6", I would have added more.

I am buying wire today so I can buy some more and make them longer.

[Danny D.]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 06:24:03 -0700, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

> there is a min box size allowed for a given number of wires of a given
> size.

Yikes.

Nobody mentioned that, 'till now.

This is a 31 cubic inch box, with two 10 AWG lines going in, and two
coming out, for a total of 12 wires.

[Danny D.]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 05:34:50 -0700, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

> We told you many times right from the start that the size is *not* based
> on the fitting. It's based on the size of the inside diameter of the
> CONDUIT.

And, I erroneously thought all the time that the fitting size was the
same as the size of the inside of the conduit.

It wasn't even close.

My mistake.

Lesson learned. (Listen to the huckleberry team!)

[Danny D.]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 05:47:21 -0700, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

> And right on the conduit in the pic is black lettering. Doesn't that
> say that it's 1/2"?

Yes. You are correct.

It *clearly* states it is 1/2 inch conduit, in fact.
http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/13045614/img/13045614.jpg

I just hadn't read it because I was sure I had *measured* it (via the
elbow) at 1 inch.

I was wrong.

[tra...@optonline.net]

On May 16, 12:14 am, Danny D <Dan...@example.com> wrote:
> UPDATE:
>
> It's mostly done. Thanks for all the advice. I learned a lot.
>  http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/13045434/img/13045434.jpg
>
> A lesson learned is those patent-pending one-piece connectors stink!
>  http://www2.picturepush.com/photo/a/13045440/img/13045440.jpg
>
> You have to spin the entire cable to remove them!

Only if it's going into a box with threaded holes or the
pump motor that you have, which is threaded too. If it goes into
a box with blanks, then you use the provided nut to secure it
on the inside. To remove, you take the nut off and the
connector comes out. You're right, they don't work well
for threaded connections.

[Oren]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 21:17:36 +0000 (UTC), Danny D <Dan...@example.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 15 May 2013 11:27:36 -0700, Oren wrote:
>
>> something tells me the box has be a certain height above the ground
>> surface. Given the location for potential flooding, electrical power and
>> that kind of stuff.
>

>I had asked and the answer came back that it's to code to put the box
>on the concrete outside, as long as I use waterproof connections and a
>waterproof cover (all of which I already purchased).

I recall that. It was also brought up to replace the two short runs,
make them new longer runs with new wire, etc. Back to the control box
/ breaker location. Once the distance to the new motor location was
determined.

You had new flex conduit. Doing so would've prevented having a box.

Just sayin'

[Oren]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 04:14:18 +0000 (UTC), Danny D <Dan...@example.com>
wrote:

>It's mostly done. Thanks for all the advice. I learned a lot.
> http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/13045434/img/13045434.jpg
>

Golly Gee Danny. The octopus has grown :)

You can get to the strainer baskets easier and remove the tops, IF you
don't trip over that thing. You still have to bonding wire to connect.

Don't trip, okay?

[Oren]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 05:09:30 +0000 (UTC), Danny D <Dan...@example.com>

wrote:

>
>> Mounting a box,even a "water proof" box, on the ground
>> when an easy alternative exists is a bad idea.
>
>I've never wired using conduit before, so I can use all the suggestions
>I can get; however, I must have missed alternative mounting ideas.

um, a couple that came up...

- replace two short runs with new longer ones back to the control box
/ breaker ( you had a roll of flex conduit)

- box on the wall

I kept asking about the conduits on the wall; a flex elbow, an empty
1/2" metal conduit. (forget the brace)

[Oren]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 05:14:31 +0000 (UTC), Danny D <Dan...@example.com>
wrote:

>How does it sound to put it on a thick block of wood?
>
>Or is there a better way to raise it off the concrete?

Drill a hole in the pad. Then drive a solid metal rod vertical and add
copious amounts of duct tape.

Or find an easy way to attach the box to the rod.

Just sayin'

[tra...@optonline.net]

Not to get critical, but I can't help but wonder at his
choice of locations for elbows. Like why they are used
at the top of the pic, where it looks like the conduit could
have gone straight in. An elbow on the motor on the
right and an elbow where the left motor conduit enters the
box would seem more logical.

[Oren]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 21:40:37 -0700 (PDT), DD_BobK <rkaz...@gmail.com>
wrote:

He has said that if he had to cut a Jandy valve out, I think he said
that! The pool would drain 500 gallons of water upon his soul.
Something like that, er.

[Oren]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 05:34:50 -0700 (PDT), "tra...@optonline.net"
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:

>> So, the end result is that the original conduit and both sides of the
>> elbow were actually nominally half inch sizes all along!
>
>Well, there you have it.

... take it to the person on isle 5: "Give me one of these."

[Danny D.]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:13:40 -0700, Oren wrote:

> Drill a hole in the pad. Then drive a solid metal rod vertical

I've decided to elevate it an inch or two up on concrete.
I'll snap a photo when done to show it to you.

[Oren]

The OP had his mind made up. See If I can help.

Danny -

- Disconnect the bottom right wire out from the box. Flip it to the
backside of the motor, around the strainer basket backside, under the
union.

How far does it stretch beyond left of the right side pump.

Move the box and the 3 flex tubes, up & back, over, or what makes you
happy.

This will open up a trip free zone :-\

[Danny D.]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 10:09:26 -0700, Oren wrote:

> The pool would drain 500 gallons of water upon his soil.

Actually, it would drain about 40,000 gallons, because the pool equipment
is 8 feet below the waterline, and the pool is only about 9 feet deep.

[Danny D.]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 08:26:33 -0700, Oren wrote:

> You had new flex conduit. Doing so would've prevented having a box.

But I *wanted* the junction box!

For two reasons:
a) Ease of disconnection
b) Freedom to swap in emergencies

With the four new unions and the junction box, I now can move the pumps
and motors about if/when I need to. There are other similar pumps on the
property (e.g., for the koi pond that is currently a koi swamp due to the
pump being out of commission - but that's another story).

I've been pining for that junction box ever since I first started taking
the motors off to fix them.

[Danny D.]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 11:18:04 -0700, Oren wrote:

> ... take it to the person on isle 5: "Give me one of these."

I did exactly that at Home Depot today, and the guy came up with these
nice new two-piece conduit connectors. I also bought extra long lengths
of the 10 AWG wire, as recommended, to replace that which I put in
yesterday:

http://www2.picturepush.com/photo/a/13054955/img/13054955.jpg

Note: I did try to find insulated male & female spade connectors; but
they didn't have any for 220 volts and 10 AWG stranded wire; so I'll be
using the waterproof wire nuts with di-electric grease instead, on a
waterproofed junction box on an extra two inches of concrete to keep it
high (although the concrete pad itself is two inches off the ground).

[Danny D.]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 07:25:01 -0700, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

> You're right, they don't work well for threaded connections.

In hindsight, I should have shopped around more for a non-threaded
junction box, but no hardware store I went to had any.

[Danny D.]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 08:54:05 -0700, Oren wrote:

> Don't trip, okay?

I did specifically plan the location of the cleaner pump (the one at 45°)
so that not only did the pipes not run over the top of the basket, but
that I could get my (rather large) body all around it to service the
heater and the other pumps.

So, while the octopus has grown, it now has the advantage of:
a) Must easier access to the baskets and pump
b) Easy disconnection of the pump and wiring
c) Re-use of one pump for another with only minor effort

[Danny D.]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:15:33 -0700, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

> An elbow on the motor on the right and an elbow where the left motor
> conduit enters the box would seem more logical.

That was a compromise.

Having lived the horrors of threaded elbows, I had intended on replacing
all the elbows with straight-through connections instead.

However, I then realized I strongly disliked *all* the straight-through
connections also (none seem particularly water tight) ... so I decided to
keep the original elbows, which, at least, were clearly water tight.

In hindsight, were I to rip it all up and start again:
a) I'd have bought a non-threaded junction box!
b) I would have use straight-through connections at the junction box
c) And, at the motor, I would have drilled out the threads and used a non-
threaded elbow so that it could easily be removed simply by removing the
nut.

[Oren]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 19:31:08 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
<Dan...@is.invalid> wrote:

>On Thu, 16 May 2013 10:09:26 -0700, Oren wrote:
>
>> The pool would drain 500 gallons of water upon his soil.
>

Do not change what I said. I said soul and you came with soil.

>Actually, it would drain about 40,000 gallons, because the pool equipment
>is 8 feet below the waterline, and the pool is only about 9 feet deep.

Must be that fancy California stuff.

[DD_BobK]

On May 16, 9:15 am, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net>
wrote:

+1

I don't understand.... why the new box at all??
Just run new conduit & new conductors all from the control panel.
No box on the slab. No intermediate connections.

Now he's got a hacked up fix to an original hack job..... at least
consistency is being maintained.

[DD_BobK]

If the box is waterproof why the need for waterproof wire nuts?
If the box was mounted on a post.... it would never get water inside
If the box didn't exist...you wouldn't need to mount it or use wire
nuts.

Are you learning....your way of doing things makes more work for you &
achieves subpar results.

[Danny D.]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 22:26:49 -0700, DD_BobK wrote:

> choice of locations for elbows.   Like why they are used at the top of
> the pic, where it looks like the conduit could have gone straight in.
>  An elbow on the motor on the right and an elbow where the left motor
> conduit enters the box would seem more logical.<<<

I took (most of) your advice and reconfigured the wiring:
http://www4.picturepush.com/photo/a/13057637/img/13057637.jpg

[Danny D.]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 12:29:34 -0700, Oren wrote:

> - Disconnect the bottom right wire out from the box. Flip it to the
> backside of the motor, around the strainer basket backside, under the
> union.

Done.
http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/13057686/img/13057686.jpg

[Danny D.]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 06:24:03 -0700, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

> If water can pool there, then putting something to raise it up
> an inch or so isnt' a bad idea.

I raised it up with a concrete stepping stone; and the concrete pad
was already raised by an inch already (off the ground level):
http://www2.picturepush.com/photo/a/13057740/img/13057740.jpg

[Danny D.]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 06:40:32 -0700, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

> That locknut is to secure the fitting inside a box that has no threads.
> It should not be on the outside, where there should be a o-ring seal.

Thanks for that advice; all the locknuts were removed since all the
conduit fittings are screwed into either the junction box or the motors:
http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/13057756/img/13057756.jpg

[Danny D.]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 06:24:03 -0700, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

> I would not use spade terminals, more work and not typically how it
> would be done. And you're cutting the wires too short. I forget the
> exact code reqt, but think it's like 6" beyond the box.

I removed all the wires and bought longer wires replaced the conduit:
http://www5.picturepush.com/photo/a/13057783/img/13057783.jpg

I then made sure there was at least 6 inches inside the conduit box.
http://www4.picturepush.com/photo/a/13057777/img/13057777.jpg

I also cut off and put fresh spade terminals on all the wires:
http://www4.picturepush.com/photo/a/13057787/img/13057787.jpg

And, I greased all connections with di-electric grease:
http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/13057769/img/13057769.jpg

I stripped the wires about a half inch for the wire nuts:
http://www4.picturepush.com/photo/a/13057797/img/13057797.jpg

Before greasing and installing the wire nuts:
http://www2.picturepush.com/photo/a/13057765/img/13057765.jpg

Note: I only realized the original wire was smaller than 10 AWG when I
started stripping it to put the new spade connectors on, and when I
twisted the wire nuts on. I suspect the old wire was 12 AWG or maybe even
14 AWG all along. My mistake.

[Danny D.]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 15:22:40 -0700, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

> The old fitting that went over the conduit on the left? If so, then
> what that appears to me is some different kind of liquidtight fitting
> that uses a seperate bushing inside the conduit and then the fitting
> itself goes over the conduit.

I removed the elbows off the old conduit, and only then did I realize
what the yellow and white parts actually were:
http://www5.picturepush.com/photo/a/13057828/img/13057828.jpg

[Danny D.]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:15:33 -0700, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

> I can't help but wonder at his choice of locations for elbows. Like
> why they are used at the top of the pic, where it looks like the conduit
> could have gone straight in. An elbow on the motor on the right and an
> elbow where the left motor conduit enters the box would seem more
> logical.

Thanks for the advice (Oren & Bob said the same thing).

I agreed with that assessment, so I ripped out all the conduit and wire I
had put in, bought new wire, and cut new conduit.
http://www5.picturepush.com/photo/a/13057888/img/13057888.jpg

Picked up some new two-piece straight-through connectors, and rewired it
to what you were so kindly suggesting.
http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/13057866/img/13057866.jpg

With all the cutting of the conduit, I found this irrigation pipe cutter
works well, and is just the right size:
http://www4.picturepush.com/photo/a/13057862/img/13057862.jpg

[tra...@optonline.net]

On May 17, 3:59 am, "Danny D." <Dan...@is.invalid> wrote:

I think I told you early on that 12 was more than sufficient.
That motor only pulls about 7 amps, so even 14 would be OK.
I don't know how you got onto 10, but it's better to be too large,
than too small. Only disadvantage is it;s harder to work with.

[tra...@optonline.net]

I know you really, really wanted that box. But after looking
at the final pictures that show a good view of the wiring on
the ends of the motors, I have to agree with Oren. With
what I see there, all that you need to do to remove a
motor is:

Remove the wires from the terminals
Unscew the nut that is on the conduit outside the box
Pull off the conduit.
Work the wires out with a pair of needle nose pliers.

Unless I'm missing something, I don't see why that can't
be done in just a few minutes. And you should rarely have
to do even that, because those pumps last a long time.

[tra...@optonline.net]

Doh! We lost that battle early on. Danny had a real hard-on
for installing that box. I agree with you and Oren that the box
wasn't really necessary. But I think we missed one point in
explaining to him why. As I recall, he was complaining about
two things with regard to disconnecting and removing a pump
motor:

A - Very difficult to get the wires out from the motor. I disagreed
with that. Yeah, it's a little tight, but with a pair of needle nose
pliers, they should come out without much trouble.

B - He had to rotate the whole motor/pump to unscrew it
from the conduit, because the elbow screwed into threads
in the motor. I knew what he meant, but didn't think through
that there are two piece conduit elbows, where you could
remove the CONDUIT from the elbow, pull the wires out
of the motor and elbow, then unscrew the elbow. He now
has that type connector, actually he got rid of the elbows
at the motors all together, so taking it apart at the motor
should be no problem. But I don't think we clearly explained
those finer points to him.

[tra...@optonline.net]

On May 17, 4:05 am, "Danny D." <Dan...@is.invalid> wrote:

Ahah! I knew something wasn't right with the end of that
conduit we were looking at. It's as I suspected, there was
a bushing inside it. The inside hole diameter was too
small, the wall way to thick for it to be liquidtight conduit.

[Danny D]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 05:03:25 -0700, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

> I think I told you early on that 12 was more than sufficient.
> That motor only pulls about 7 amps, so even 14 would be OK.

It's amazing how much collective knowledge there is on a.h.r!

I had physically eyeballed it. And I was wrong.

Also, I had measured the conduit. I was wrong there too.

I learned a lot in this, my first 220v wiring job ever!

[Danny D]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 05:12:37 -0700, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

> All that you need to do to remove a motor is:

> Remove the wires from the terminals

> Unscrew the nut that is on the conduit outside the box

> Pull off the conduit.
> Work the wires out with a pair of needle nose pliers.

I must, belatedly, agree.

I think all my cursing and swearing from the initial motor removals had
swayed me, before we ever started.

If you recall, the original elbow setup made it nearly impossible to get
the wires out, mainly for these three reasons:

1. The covers of the original 3 motors were rusted on tightly
2. The motor had to be spun in order to spin off the elbow
3. It was impossible to pull the spaded wires through the elbow

With the covers rusted on in the past, I couldn't disconnect the wires,
which meant I couldn't spin off the elbow nor pull the spaded wires
through it.

In hindsight, the simpler solution would have been to put a multi-piece
straight-through connector on the motor. Luckily, there's nothing
stopping me from doing so, except I'm heading off to camp with the kids
this weekend.

[Oren]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 19:31:08 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
<Dan...@is.invalid> wrote:

I presume it would trip the breaker with that much water.

Do you have a disconnect / breaker on high ground?

[Danny D]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 05:26:03 -0700, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

> He now has that type connector, actually he got rid of the elbows at the
> motors all together, so taking it apart at the motor should be no
> problem. But I don't think we clearly explained those finer points to
> him.

I do belatedly agree, in hindsight ... I had not realized that the
*simpler* (and better) solution would have been to buy the following:

a. Two straight-through multipiece (easily removed) conduit connectors
b. About 20 feet of conduit & 12 AWG or 14 AWG stranded copper wire
c. Spade and open-end crimp-on connectors
d. About 20 feet of bare copper 10 AWG bonding wire & connectors

Instead of:
a. Six straight-through multipiece conduit connectors
b. 20 feet of conduit & 10 feet of 10 AWG stranded copper wire
c. Spade and open-end crimp-on connectors
d. About 20 feet of bare copper 10 AWG bonding wire & connectors
e. Waterproof junction box and waterproof cover
f. Waterproof wire nuts & di-electric grease
g. Concrete pedestal

The key to the lesson was to better understand the difference between the
absolutely horrid elbow connectors and the lousy one-piece patent-pending
straight connectors versus the much easier to remove multi-piece
connectors!

That took time and experience.
The lessons learned are remembered for the *next* wiring job!

[Danny D]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 05:29:30 -0700, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

> The inside hole diameter was too small, the wall way to thick for it to
> be liquidtight conduit.

I'm confused. I see that it's a multi-piece elbow connector, but are you
saying the original setup wasn't water tight?

[Oren]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 19:49:43 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
<Dan...@is.invalid> wrote:

>On Thu, 16 May 2013 08:54:05 -0700, Oren wrote:
>
>> Don't trip, okay?
>
>I did specifically plan the location of the cleaner pump (the one at 45�)
>so that not only did the pipes not run over the top of the basket, but
>that I could get my (rather large) body all around it to service the
>heater and the other pumps.
>

I could tell you were a big guy. Figured you wear ~ a size 11 shoe.

(you left wet foot prints on the pavers when you drained the filter)

>So, while the octopus has grown, it now has the advantage of:
>a) Must easier access to the baskets and pump
>b) Easy disconnection of the pump and wiring
>c) Re-use of one pump for another with only minor effort

...go for it

[Danny D]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 08:59:01 -0700, Oren wrote:

> Do you have a disconnect / breaker on high ground?

The main breaker panel is about four feet above the pool equipment.

The 40,000 gallons, if it were to overflow into the pool equipment would
surely run down the hill, as it's all very steep stuff out here in the
mountains. It would never even make it to the neighbor's yard.

[Oren]

Had you kept the right side flex short, put a longer one on the left
side - the *mandatory* box (and paver) could've been moved further
back towards the wall, but still have the ability to disconnect the
motors. I was trying to explain it to you.

Water under the bridge now.

[tra...@optonline.net]

On May 17, 12:08 pm, Danny D <Dan...@example.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 17 May 2013 05:29:30 -0700, trad...@optonline.net wrote:
> > The inside hole diameter was too small, the wall way to thick for it to
> > be liquidtight conduit.
>
> I'm confused. I see that it's a multi-piece elbow connector, but are you
> saying the original setup wasn't water tight?

No. Just that the picture that you showed us of the end of the
conduit did not look like liquidtight conduit of any size.
The hole was small, the wall was way to thick. That's
why I said it looks like it has a bushing in it, which was
correct.

[Danny D]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 09:35:30 -0700, Oren wrote:

> Had you kept the right side flex short, put a longer one on the left
> side - the *mandatory* box (and paver) could've been moved further back
> towards the wall, but still have the ability to disconnect the motors. I
> was trying to explain it to you.

Auuuuurgh. *now* I understand what you were trying to tell me!
You are wholly correct! In fact, while I was testing the system just now,
I kept kicking the concrete paver, and thinking I should have moved it up
a foot or so, out of the way.

That's *exactly* what you had forseen, and were desperately *trying* to
tell me! Mea culpa. I did what I thought you had suggested, only I didn't
fully understand it.

Next time, I'm just going to put a straight shot conduit from panel to
motor - but - if I were to have the junction box, I would move it closer
to the panel so that it's more out of the way!

Sigh. (slaps head).

Anyway, since the leaks moved backward (now they're coming from the
underside of the pump to motor interface!), I'm glad the paver is there
to keep the electrical box dry!
http://www5.picturepush.com/photo/a/13070333/img/13070333.jpg

[Danny D]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 09:18:28 -0700, Oren wrote:

> I could tell you were a big guy. Figured you wear ~ a size 11 shoe.

You scare me. A lot! I'm going to have to switch nyms again, just to
start fresh! :)

BTW, I think every thing you said, turned out to be the best practice, in
the end. As was said by Bob, trader4, and others.

I just didn't understand it all.

Right now, I have to pack for camping, but, the good news is that it's
all buttoned up, and, well, the *original* leaks are wholly fixed!
http://www5.picturepush.com/photo/a/13070368/img/13070368.jpg

The key problem is that there are new leaks, at the interface between the
pool pump and the motor.
http://www4.picturepush.com/photo/a/13070382/img/13070382.jpg

I think there is a "seal" there that I've never replaced. Maybe I damaged
it. Dunno - but *both* motors are leaking from that location!
http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/13070356/img/13070356.jpg

Unfortunately, I have the "band" tightened as far as it will go by hand:
http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/13070364/img/13070364.jpg

[Oren]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 20:54:30 +0000 (UTC), Danny D <Dan...@example.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 17 May 2013 09:35:30 -0700, Oren wrote:
>
>> Had you kept the right side flex short, put a longer one on the left
>> side - the *mandatory* box (and paver) could've been moved further back
>> towards the wall, but still have the ability to disconnect the motors. I
>> was trying to explain it to you.
>
>Auuuuurgh. *now* I understand what you were trying to tell me!
>You are wholly correct! In fact, while I was testing the system just now,
>I kept kicking the concrete paver, and thinking I should have moved it up
>a foot or so, out of the way.
>

Butter beans

>That's *exactly* what you had forseen, and were desperately *trying* to
>tell me! Mea culpa. I did what I thought you had suggested, only I didn't
>fully understand it.
>
>Next time, I'm just going to put a straight shot conduit from panel to
>motor - but - if I were to have the junction box, I would move it closer
>to the panel so that it's more out of the way!
>
>Sigh. (slaps head).
>
>Anyway, since the leaks moved backward (now they're coming from the
>underside of the pump to motor interface!), I'm glad the paver is there
>to keep the electrical box dry!
> http://www5.picturepush.com/photo/a/13070333/img/13070333.jpg

I warned you about the O-ring, potential leak, at the Volute at the
strap band connection.

As did I mention (days ago) checking the seal behind the impeller in
the volute. If the seal is bad the leak comes from around the motor
shaft.

/s/ dark horse

[tra...@optonline.net]

What exactly was the point to seperating the motor from the
pump to begin with? I recall hearing about soaking parts in
acid too. I just tuned out on all that.....

[Oren]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 21:06:15 +0000 (UTC), Danny D <Dan...@example.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 17 May 2013 09:18:28 -0700, Oren wrote:
>
>> I could tell you were a big guy. Figured you wear ~ a size 11 shoe.
>
>You scare me. A lot! I'm going to have to switch nyms again, just to
>start fresh! :)
>

Won't work. You are a creature of habit; like all of us.

>BTW, I think every thing you said, turned out to be the best practice, in
>the end. As was said by Bob, trader4, and others.
>
>I just didn't understand it all.
>
>Right now, I have to pack for camping, but, the good news is that it's
>all buttoned up, and, well, the *original* leaks are wholly fixed!
> http://www5.picturepush.com/photo/a/13070368/img/13070368.jpg

Bad seal at the motor shaft, behind the impeller. 2nd notice. I
brought this up already.

>
>The key problem is that there are new leaks, at the interface between the
>pool pump and the motor.
> http://www4.picturepush.com/photo/a/13070382/img/13070382.jpg
>

The motor side of the volute. The shaft seal is leaking? Causing the
bearing to rust, related to chlorine. It gets worse if you let it.

>I think there is a "seal" there that I've never replaced. Maybe I damaged
>it. Dunno - but *both* motors are leaking from that location!
> http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/13070356/img/13070356.jpg
>

I'm clueless.

>Unfortunately, I have the "band" tightened as far as it will go by hand:
> http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/13070364/img/13070364.jpg

When you tighten this stainless band on the volute, use caution.

- the O-ring is aligned, lubed, seated

- hold the motor from underneath / support by hand so to assist a
non-stressed, finessed attachment.

[Oren]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 14:55:45 -0700 (PDT), "tra...@optonline.net"
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:

>What exactly was the point to seperating the motor from the
>pump to begin with?

um, so he could turn the motor in rapid circles to disconnect the flex
conduit? Let me think...

[DD_BobK]

On May 17, 5:03 am, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net>
wrote:

but it's better to be too large,than too small.

Only disadvantage is it;s harder to work with.

+1

[DD_BobK]

On May 17, 5:12 am, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net>
wrote:

Because DDD is doing the thinking & working.
He only listens to & follows parts of the great (& free) advice he's
given.

He has the most unusual "logic co-processor" I've ever seen employed
in A.H.R
I used t find it extremely frustrating but now I just see it as funny
& sad.

I've decided to only put minimal thought & effort into his threads.
Experience has shown they will drag on forever as he substitutes "his
brand of logic" of the sound advice he's given. :(

[DD_BobK]

DDD-

That's got to be the most unusual wiring job I've ever seen in 45
years of DIY & real engineering too.

[DD_BobK]

You change whatever you want but I seriously doubt you'll be able to
disguise your particular approach to DIY repairs.

[DD_BobK]

Bingo! +2

DDD-
You're headed to pump repair or replacement now. :(

When you put in the new pumps you can re-wire the whole installation
correctly
and get rid of that dumb box / stepping stone Rube Goldberg
arrangement.

Oh well.....

[tamilk...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 11:00:24 PM UTC+5:30, Danny D wrote:
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 02:09:51 -0400, gfretwell wrote:
>
>
>
> > Conduit is measured based on ID not OD but that is a nominal size. Your
>
> > Carflex LFNC looks like 3/4" but you need a connector to get into that
>
> > 3/4" threaded hub.
>
>
>
> Does that mean that what I measured as the old 1-inch conduit and 1-inch
>
> elbow is actually a 3/4-inch conduit and elbow?
>
>
>
> http://www5.picturepush.com/photo/a/13042773/img/13042773.jpg
>
>
>
> If that's the case, why doesn't it then fit the 3/4-inch junction box?

[tra...@optonline.net]

On May 17, 7:43 pm, Oren <O...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 May 2013 14:55:45 -0700 (PDT), "trad...@optonline.net"

>
> <trad...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >What exactly was the point to seperating the motor from the
> >pump to begin with?
>
> um, so he could turn the motor in rapid circles to disconnect the flex
> conduit?  Let me think...

He could have just cut off the old conduit and wires near where
they enter the motor, since he was going with new wiring anyway
Or he could have removed the conduit nut and pulled the conduit
off the connector. Or if none of that was to his liking and he
chose to rotate the whole motor, why couldn't he just rotate the
whole pump too? It's not all that much more difficult. Seperating
the motor from the pump when that whole assembly was
working and not leaking made no sense to me.

Also, wasn't there something about soaking the parts in acid?

[Oren]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 22:20:45 -0700 (PDT), DD_BobK <rkaz...@gmail.com>
wrote:

A few parts, but it depends. IME, a shaft seal, impeller and O-ring.
Inspect the shaft bearing behind seal for rust. No rust, it should be
fine for now. The seal leaks and corrodes the bearing from chlorine
(motors squeal). Not real expensive.

>When you put in the new pumps you can re-wire the whole installation
>correctly
>and get rid of that dumb box / stepping stone Rube Goldberg
>arrangement.
>

A damn insult to Rednecks, I swear

>Oh well.....

...we'll have another 500 on topic threads

[Oren]

LOL - I agree completely

>Also, wasn't there something about soaking the parts in acid?

...and he got a few black-eyes for remotely suggesting it

I guess he got past the smoke test, but failed badly on the leak test.

[DD_BobK]

On May 18, 9:32 am, Oren <O...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 May 2013 22:20:45 -0700 (PDT), DD_BobK <rkaza...@gmail.com>

I agree...

>>>A few parts, but it depends. IME, a shaft seal, impeller and O-ring.
Inspect the shaft bearing behind seal for rust. No rust, it should be
fine for now. The seal leaks and corrodes the bearing from chlorine
(motors squeal). Not real expensive. <<<<

but totally avoidable via the "if it ain't broke, don't fit rule".
And "better is the enemy of good enough"

Now that I've changed my attitude... his threads & DIY approach is
actually entertaining.
These threads could be scripts for a TV show.

DDD reminds me of monkey & a football.......

cheers
Bob

PS.... has anyone seen a slab mounted box in a similar situation?
IME, they're always pole, post or wall mounted.

[Oren]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 17:32:58 -0400, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

>On Sat, 18 May 2013 09:32:16 -0700, Oren <Or...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>>A few parts, but it depends. IME, a shaft seal, impeller and O-ring.
>>Inspect the shaft bearing behind seal for rust. No rust, it should be
>>fine for now. The seal leaks and corrodes the bearing from chlorine
>>(motors squeal). Not real expensive.
>

>On all of the pumps I have worked on the ceramic seal actually seals
>to the impeller and the pump housing. The shaft is not sealed.
>They can be pretty nasty and still work OK.
>I have 3 pool pumps and a well pump that all have 5/8" shafts and use
>the same bearing (a sealed 6203). I went to an online bearing place
>and got 10 bearings for what one costs locally.
>I throw new bearings at any pump I rebuild now.

Been years since I fixed mine, ceramic seal is correct.

OP: (follow this excellent video)

_HowTo: Repair a Sta-Rite Max-E-Glas II Pump_

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xGIdsnKy5M>