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

Page 6 of 7  
On Thu, 16 May 2013 08:54:05 -0700, Oren wrote:

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 17 May 2013 09:18:28 -0700, Oren wrote:

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!

The key problem is that there are new leaks, at the interface between the pool pump and the motor.

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!

Unfortunately, I have the "band" tightened as far as it will go by hand:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 18 May 2013 06:10:06 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

This is exactly what I would do in the future if/when the motor endcaps rust on so tightly that they can't be removed. In the past, I've been extremely frustrated with endcap bolts breaking, where I had to punch a hole in the rusted endcap just to remove the bolts.
I *was* scared of touching the conduit - but now that I've worked with it, it seems like the easiest of all the tasks - so - my fear of conduit was unwarranted.

There was no way to remove the 1/2 inch elbow without spinning the motor. Just impossible (without cutting it off or disconnecting the other end of the conduit).
Both of these tasks seemed unthinkable to me before I worked with the conduit; but now that I've worked with the conduit, my fear of disturbing it has been greatly lessened.

Even easier, I could have *unbolted* the motor from the pump. Then it would have been even easier to spin than a motor attached to the back half of the pump.

I agree, in hindsight, with you. Separating the halves of the pump created *more work* for me as I now have to find new seals and replace them. I'll be doing that tomorrow if I can find them in stock.

Cleaning the pump was done only because it was easy to do. It would have been just as easy to clean the whole pump as it was half the pump, so cleaning was not really a factor.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Aye Karumba! I didn't realize until now that you split it by taking the pump apart instead of just seperating the motor from the pump! I knew you went on to screw around with the pump, but I thought that was after you had taken the motor off the pump. I would never take a pump apart that didn't need servicing, unless I had no other choice.

It's not the cleaning. It's that using an acid bath might be the cause of the pump now leaking. I sure woudn't be quick to use acid on a pump that was working just fine.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 20 May 2013 06:39:45 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Lesson learned the hard way. (Seems I have a bunch of those...)
Don't disassemble a pump if you don't have to!
And thanks for the spelling on "Aye Karumba"; I never knew how to spell it. :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

DDD-
You still don't.... Not bilingual?
It's spanish.... as in
Ay, caramba!
Google not working in your part of the world?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 17 May 2013 16:43:41 -0700, Oren wrote:

Well, the motors had to be turned in circles in order to remove the 1/2 inch elbow since there was no way the connector was coming off otherwise.
But I *could* have just unbolted the motors at the square flange (and, in hindsight, that's what I *should* have done.
Removing the motors also made it easier to move the pumps about as I juggled the setup (although in hindsight, that wasn't worth the leak).
I'm googling for a Sta-Rite Max-e-Glas II seal replacement DIY, and I see some youtube videos, which I will check out before replacing the seal tomorrow (if I can find a seal in stock at the local pool supply stores).
I'm a bit confused though why both pumps would leak simply from opening them up, as I've opened them up before and didn't have this problem.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The original pics show an elbow with a nut where the conduit connected to it, ie it's not the new type where the fitting screws into the conduit. So, why exacly was there no way to get that elbow off the end of the conduit without rotating the motor? Loosen the nut, pull and work it side to side until it comes off. If it won't come off, take a propane torch and gently apply a little heat to the outside of the conduit.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 20 May 2013 06:49:05 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

This is the original motor & 1/2-inch elbow, in situ:

Here is the elbow nut unscrewed, with the motor cap unscrewed:

You have, at best, about an inch of "slack" in the conduit:

That inch of slack is nowhere close to enough to spin the elbow:

And, there's not enough room to pull the wires out either:

That's because of the design of the motor end components, which block off more than half the puny half-inch opening to the elbow.

Even with a straight-through connector (on the spa pump), you still can't pull the wires out because of the design of the components in the end cap of the motor:

The wires just do not come out, even when pulling one by one:
Note: In that pic, I had removed & reinstalled the connector.
Without destroying anything, the only choice left is to spin the motor, which, I might add, still badly twists the wires:

The end result, after untwisting the thick wires, is this:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

start fresh! :) <<<
You change whatever you want but I seriously doubt you'll be able to disguise your particular approach to DIY repairs.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 17 May 2013 22:15:19 -0700, DD_BobK wrote:

Hi Bob,
That was just a joke about the nyms, since Oren is able to discern a lot of unintended things from a single photo.
It's funny you say that though, because you're only caustic to the ones from me. You're perfectly reasonable in the rest of the nyms. No big deal, as I don't actually plan on changing nyms, having stopped that privacy practice about a year ago.
I'm positive that, if I had wanted to change nyms, you'd never be the wiser; but again, I have no plans for that as it's not really an effective privacy measure anyway.
< / off topic discussion >
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

DDD-
Be my guest....change away.. we'll see if you can effectively morph and if I can detect...
You're changing in the past didn't seem all that effect.
It just amusement for me at this point.
cheers
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

n

e

d

brought this up already. >>>>
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.....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

, in

s

the

aged

nd:

I agree...

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 18 May 2013 17:32:58 -0400, gfretwell wrote:

I have three pool pumps, one fountain pump, and two well pumps; so it behooves me to learn how to replace their bearings.
Looking at my old AO Smith QC1102 1.0x1.65SF HP motors (I have four to choose from) I see the bearings appear to be the same as yours.

I'll google what these markings indicate: a. 6203V USA NSK b. 6203D 2145 CHINA KBC
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

6203 is the important part. That is the size of the bearing You also want "sealed" bearings, not "shielded" bearings in a pump and don't lose the "slinger" that washer between the pump and motor that seems to have no purpose. It takes water migrating down the shaft and "slings" it away before it gets to the bearing. Other than that, the only trick is getting the bearing off the shaft. A bearing puller is a great thing to have. A piece of 1/2" schedule 40 pipe seems to be a good driver to put it back. You want to be sure the driver only pushes on the inner race.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 20 May 2013 02:06:54 -0400, gfretwell wrote:

Thanks for that information as the bearing designation definitely still confuses me (if I wish to understand the various suffixes).
Googling, I see the shield is a non contact surface, while the seal is a contact surface (for what it's worth).
The old bearings were the 6203V NSK USA while the rebuilder (for about $150) put in the KBC 2145 6203D China bearings:

Googling, I find the AO Smith part number, size, & description is: 604005-001 ID=0.6693",OD=1.5750",W=0.470" double sealed high thrust
The nominal size for a 6203 bearing seems to be slightly different: 6203 ID=0.66993", OD=1.5748", W=0.4724"
But, maybe that's just a function of metric-to-english conversion: IDmm, OD@mm, Wmm
The actual 6203 apparently boils down to this: 6 = metric, single row ball bearing, deep groove 2 = light duty (e.g., 40mm OD, 12mm width) 03 = 17 mm bore diameter
The 6203 is so common, I find a confusing array of suffixes: 6203D (http://webshop.abfbearings.com/Bearing/6203D-KBC/329328 ) 6203V (http://www.tanchin-hk.com/bearings-shop-22026-NSK.html ) 6203LL (http://www.spapartsshop.com/na-6203-ll.aspx ) 6203ZZ (http://www.vxb.com/page/bearings/PROD/kit1040 ) 6203RS (http://www.inyopools.com/Products/07501352012909.htm ) 62032RS(http://www.thebigbearingstore.com/servlet/the-424/6203-dsh-2RS-6203-dsh-ZZ-Radial-Ball/Detail ) etc.
From the advertising, these "seem" to be what the suffix indicates: 6203D (deep groove, ball, single row, rubber seal on one side) 6203V (deep groove, ball) 6203LL (same as 2RS) 6203ZZ (double, staked, non-contact, 300 series stainless steel shields) 6203RS (rubber seals) 62032RS (two rubber seals)
This is all so confusing... that I think I'll call AO Smith for advice.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.