Jack Davenport

.... Older circuits ,by the way they are ran can not support afci breakers .... How so, if they're not multi-wires? well like you stated - multi-wire circuits are the big issue then there is the issue of bare grounds and neutrals touching somewhere in the circuit, as well as neutrals of different circuits tied together. How about those staples driven a tad bit too tight, or that knob & tube rewire that left some of the knob & tube in place Marc

The NEC wording and the intent of the code making panel is one of when you alter( add to) or change the circuit you must add AFCI protection. When you are changing the electrical panel you ARE NOT altering or changing the circuit. There were alot of inspectors ( both code & HI) that misinterpreted the original wording and never bothered to find out the code panels intent when the rule first appeared. Thus they insisted that when changing panels one must include afci protection. Older circuits ,by the way they are ran can not support afci breakers This is why the code panel added the allowance of up to 6' added length as long as there are no devices in that 6 foot. You can splice the old cables in order to reach the new panel /breakers.

you can only use the 90 degree rating if the conductor terminates in a 90 degree terminal. You would be hard pressed to find a circuit breaker with anything other than a 75 degree rated terminals

There's an allowance to run NM cable straight from a circuit breaker ( panel) to the first outlet of the circuit uninterrupted. ( no j-boxes/splices) This allowance has restrictions on the length of this run. It also requires labeling on the the first outlet as well I underlined this allowance in the cut & paste below From 2014 NEC 210.12(A)(4) (4) A listed outlet branch-circuit type arc-fault circuit interrupter installed at the first outlet on the branch circuit in combination with a listed branch-circuit overcurrent protective device where all of the following conditions are met: a. The branch-circuit wiring shall be continuous from the branch-circuit overcurrent device to the outlet branch-circuit arc-fault circuit interrupter. b. The maximum length of the branch-circuit wiring from the branch-circuit overcurrent device to the first outlet shall not exceed 15.2 m (50 ft) for a 14 AWG conductor or 21.3 m (70 ft) for a 12 AWG conductor. c. The first outlet box in the branch circuit shall be marked to indicate that it is the first outlet of the circuit. d. The combination of the branch-circuit overcurrent device and outlet branch-circuit AFCI shall be identified as meeting the requirements for a system combination-type AFCI and shall be listed as such.

Go look at the background for AFCI's? I think it was Eaton or another company that came out with them and they were about the only ones on the committee that developed the code for AFCI's?.. Makes one go, Hummmm! Heres an interesting read on the development of the AFCI. http://w3.usa.siemens.com/us/internet-d ... istory.pdf

Triplex cable has a strand of high strength steel inside the bare grounded conductor. This what is used to attach it to poles and structures. That is what you are seeing in the picture. That is why you NEVER use cable cutters to just cut through the bare conductor on that cable - it will ruin the cutters

If I counted correctly the panel directory shows 5 or 6 spare breakers. There are only 6 tandum breakers in the panel. Did you remove the cover and verify if all the breakers were utilized? By the way the panel directory is not code compliant. They utilized persons names to identify rooms ( not allowed)

Absolutely not allowed ! The reason is; that stranded conductor is rated ( and tested/approved) to carry a certain amount of amperage based on the size of all those individual strands combined into 1 stranded conductor. Now that they are split up that section of the conductor is no longer rated to that amount of amperage. Lets say there is a fault condition that puts amperage on that conductor. there is a possibility of overloading the sections at the terminal bar. Those split up sections could possibly overload to the point of melting! Rare ,but possible. IMHO - ANY inspector who does not call this out should hang it up and go work as a Wal-Mart Greeter or McDonalds !

Perfectly legal to do so and in this situation it would be a good idea. Leave a note stating circuit has 14 awg conductors only install on 15 ampere overcurrect device. I have used paper key tags attached to conductors in panels.

What you are seeing is referred to as "sub Metering". The exterior meter is the main meter for ALL electricity used. The submeter records the amount of electricity the geo system uses . This is the credit amount provided to the utilities customer. The presence of a meter does not make it a service.The service stops at the systems main breaker. In this case that is in the larger panel.That small panel is a sub panel and shall be wired as such.

Ok. I'll bite. (Even though I feel like I'm being set up.) I did not know that a copper penny has the ampere rating printed on it, how is that, Jack? Not being set up in a bad way - just a fun way the ampere rating of a copper penny is stamped above Lincolns head: "In God We Trust"

How many of you know that a copper penny has the ampere rating printed on it ?

Here for the wiring rough-in inspection, the muni inspector wants to see all the boxes wired with wire nuts in place and two pigtails sticking out. If that passes, the receptacles go in. No small wonder back-stabbing takes place at that stage. It certainly simplifies the electrical inspection. The wire nuts have proven to be satisfactory, except yes sometimes a wire pops out and you lose power. Pigtails allow for easy replacement of receptacles, cheap 'upgrade' for a house flipper. [/quote Out of curiosity - Is that by chance a Canadian code thing ? There is no such requirement in the NEC ( other than neutrals on a multi-wire circuit) Then there is the good ole fashioned Local amendment thing.

Your chart is most likely correct as far as the configurations are concerned. The difference is the diameter of the receptacle itself. The 15 & 20 ampere versions are a smaller diameter than those 30 amperes and over. Thus the same configuration but different size receptacles and cord caps.

sort of looks that way Jim. If that is the case the install is ok as it would put the NM cable back farther then the required 1 1/4" How about it Chad ?

Add this to the list : #4) service head should be attached above the point of attachment of the service drop or overhead service conductors.

Of course the realtor would say that. Think they would seriously tell the truth? IMHO most realtor are like car salesman - can't believe half the crap they say! I am surprised that realtor see crap that the homeowners did ( like that) and don't have the Homeowner fix it before listing.

Makes absolutely no sense. UF cable is not a raceway. UF cable is allowed to be installed in conduit. If that is the inspectors reasoning he needs to be sent back to school! If the inspector is truly saying that then his supervisor needs to be called.

I'm confused- Raceway in a raceway? What your describing is not a raceway in a raceway. Are you sure your contractor is not just being lazy and not wanting to pull UF in conduit? - (sounds like it) Your county uses the NEC and there is no prohibition against what you want to do. It is done every day in that county. Maybe a call to the inspector to clarify would clear things up? My money is on your spark is trying to get out of pulling uf in conduit........ Can you show me in the nec where its legal to run uf or nm cable inside of conduit other than to shield exposed romex to a point where it terminates into a box? Keep in mind the NEC is a permissive document. If it does not state it can not be done, then it is allowed. NM cable would not be allowed to be installed in this situation as the pvc is classified a wet location. UF is allowed to be installed in this situation.

I'm confused- Raceway in a raceway? What your describing is not a raceway in a raceway. Are you sure your contractor is not just being lazy and not wanting to pull UF in conduit? - (sounds like it) Your county uses the NEC and there is no prohibition against what you want to do. It is done every day in that county. Maybe a call to the inspector to clarify would clear things up? My money is on your spark is trying to get out of pulling uf in conduit........

My guess is they are both copper. The one is corroded/oxidized. I am willing to bet that they are not aluminum lugs. My reply was a general reply that one can use aluminum and / or aluminum as a feed/ feeder

being insulated, containing a switch or receptacle is not the issue with that install. The issue is the type of box and the mounting means is the issue. 314.23(F) ( in the NEC) (F) Raceway-Supported Enclosures, with Devices, Luminaires, or Lampholders. An enclosure that contains a device(s), other than splicing devices, or supports a luminaire(s), lampholder, or other equipment and is supported by entering raceways shall not exceed 1650 cm3 (100 in.3) in size. It shall have threaded entries or have hubs identified for the purpose. It shall be supported by two or more conduits threaded wrenchtight into the enclosure or hubs. Each conduit shall be secured within 450 mm (18 in.) of the enclosure. Exception No. 1: Rigid metal or intermediate metal conduit shall be permitted to support a conduit body of any size, including a conduit body constructed with only one conduit entry, provided the trade size of the conduit body is not larger than the largest trade size of the conduit. Exception No. 2: An unbroken length(s) of rigid or intermediate metal conduit shall be permitted to support a box used for luminaire or lampholder support, or to support a wiring enclosure that is an integral part of a luminaire and used in lieu of a box in accordance with 300.15(B), where all of the following conditions are met: (a) The conduit is securely fastened at a point so that the length of conduit beyond the last point of conduit support does not exceed 900 mm (3 ft). (b) The unbroken conduit length before the last point of conduit support is 300 mm (12 in.) or greater, and that portion of the conduit is securely fastened at some point not less than 300 mm (12 in.) from its last point of support. © Where accessible to unqualified persons, the luminaire or lampholder, measured to its lowest point, is at least 2.5 m (8 ft) above grade or standing area and at least 900 mm (3 ft) measured horizontally to the 2.5 m (8 ft) elevation from windows, doors, porches, fire escapes, or similar locations. (d) A luminaire supported by a single conduit does not exceed 300 mm (12 in.) in any direction from the point of conduit entry. (e) The weight supported by any single conduit does not exceed 9 kg (20 lb). (f) At the luminaire or lampholder end, the conduit(s) is threaded wrenchtight into the box, conduit body, or integral wiring enclosure, or into hubs identified for the purpose. Where a box or conduit body is used for support, the luminaire shall be secured directly to the box or conduit body, or through a threaded conduit nipple not over 75 mm (3 in.) long.

The truth of the matter is there is NO problem with using copper for one leg and aluminum for another leg. The NEC is quiet on that. As long as each leg is sized properly why would there be a problem ? Each leg is completely independent of each other.

That is commonly referred to as a swivel. They are designed to hang high bay light fixtures from. The reason for the swivel is the light can hang straight on a sloped ceiling. That set up is incorrect as installed. That box is not designed to be hung and suspended with the locknuts holding it

[:-thumbu]