enclosed service mast

[iwire]

A home-owner tapped the line and put in a relay system that would drop the tapped load when the meter was pulled.

No, I have never thought of doing that. :grin:

 

[jwjrw]

You really caught me at a bad time because if there was a stress ball in front of me I would crush it.

So be prepared for blunt answers. :grin:




YOU ARE WRONG! (Blunt huh)

230.70.(A)(1) prohibits service conductors inside the building.

230.70(A)(1) requires the disconnecting means to be nearest the point of entrance. Once the conductors reach the disconnecting means they are no longer service conductors they are feeders and can run as far as you want.







Up to the disconecting means which is required to be where the SCs enter the building.



It makes no difference

Ok you have a "riser" that goes into a meter which has conductors that connect to the line side of the meter can. The meter and riser are not the service disconnect. The load side of the meter conductors go to a service disconnect. I don't see 230.70 (a) violation.

 

[iwire]

Ok you have a "riser" that goes into a meter which has conductors that connect to the line side of the meter can. The meter and riser are not the service disconnect. The load side of the meter conductors go to a service disconnect. I don't see 230.70 (a) violation.

In this case the riser from weatherhead to combination semi flush meter socket panel board is inside the wall. That is IMO a direct violation of 230.70(A)(1).

 

[Volta]

Ok you have a "riser" that goes into a meter which has conductors that connect to the line side of the meter can. The meter and riser are not the service disconnect. The load side of the meter conductors go to a service disconnect. I don't see 230.70 (a) violation.

If the "riser" you speak of is entering the "inside" of the building and the service disconnect is not located nearest that point, we have not complied with 230.70(A).

 

[cowboyjwc]

We had a case in Georgia where the service ran through the attic ahead of the meter. A home-owner tapped the line and put in a relay system that would drop the tapped load when the meter was pulled. It was not found until the house was sold and the new owner wanted to know what the contraption in the attic was for. As you might imagine, drops through attics are frowned upon now-a-days.

We've seen one of those too, but this guy was only drilling a hole with a 1/4 inch bit. How was he going to tie into the service drop?

quote=iwire;1213721]I do not think anyone has disputed it is a very common method in CA.
[/quote]


Good, and since CA is a leader, you must do as we do or we will boycott you. You see the lesson we've taught AZ. :grin:

 

[Volta]

...

Good, and since CA is a leader, you must do as we do or we will boycott you. You see the lesson we've taught AZ. :grin:

Sure did, those Iced Tea sales are way down :roll: .

 

[mivey]

But I think most us agree that they can enter the building. If so, the only words we can play with are "inside", and "nearest".

Most, but not all:

...YOU ARE WRONG! (Blunt huh)

230.70.(A)(1) prohibits service conductors inside the building...

but I think slick & volta are wearing him down:

...So 230.70(A)(1) while not specifically stating a length prohibits service conductors from running lets say 'unrestricted' in the building.

 

[mivey]

We've seen one of those too, but this guy was only drilling a hole with a 1/4 inch bit. How was he going to tie into the service drop?

He thought it would work the same as one of the DIY ice-maker kits you get for the fridge.

 

[mivey]

Please point out the 'horror stories' that 'some are making it out to be'.

All I have said is it ridiculous to think that unused service conductors in a wall are as safe as outside the building.

No horror stories, no smoldering wreckage.

Maybe no horror but just a widdle bit scawy: :grin:

You really caught me at a bad time because if there was a stress ball in front of me I would crush it....
It is both a code violation and a hazard...
Now I have to go beat a wall until I break a hand.

I am stupefied that you think I can run service conductors an unlimited distance inside a structure without complying with 230.6 I am literally shocked that you of all people do not see any hazard in doing so.

Don't know why I felt the urge to pick on you, but I mean it in a light-hearted way.

 

[mivey]

In this case the riser from weatherhead to combination semi flush meter socket panel board is inside the wall. That is IMO a direct violation of 230.70(A)(1).

That I would agree with. How long has that section been in place because I have seen a bunch of it in old locations?

 

[iwire]

mivey, at least put the correct posts together if you are going to post my superposed responses to them. :roll:

And as far as horror stories I still see none.

I see a guy that was a bit to up front about his day, sorry if that was a problem for you.

 

[iwire]

That I would agree with. How long has that section been in place because I have seen a bunch of it in old locations?

Interesting, as far as I knew that has been the topic of this thread all along.

 

[mivey]

mivey, at least put the correct posts together if you are going to post my superposed responses to them. :roll:

And as far as horror stories I still see none.

I see a guy that was a bit to up front about his day, sorry if that was a problem for you.

No problem for me. I'm worse on a bad day, but I'm happy at the moment.

As for the posts, I might have got them out of order. There was a lot of jumping back & to from service conductors to risers. Besides, I had to pick the most horror-laden posts I could find to make it fit.

 

[mivey]

Interesting, as far as I knew that has been the topic of this thread all along.

I only have back to 1978 (my newbie days) where it was in the grouping section 230.72(c) and said basically the same thing as the current code.

 

[cowboyjwc]

mivey, at least put the correct posts together if you are going to post my superposed responses to them. :roll:

And as far as horror stories I still see none.

I see a guy that was a bit to up front about his day, sorry if that was a problem for you.

What's the quote from Gunsmoke? "I went to bed mean and I woke up meaner."

That was kind of my day Thursday and I let everyone know that I woke up grumpy and people were going out of their way to see if they could make me grumpier.

 

[roger]

Volta, Precisely because there seems to be no agreement that the riser is technically inside the building.

Article 220 has already defined what the inside building space consists of and inside of a wall cavity is within the building

220.12 Lighting Load for Specified Occupancies.
A unit load of not less than that specified in Table 220.12 for occupancies specified therein shall constitute the minimum lighting load. The floor area for each floor shall be calculated from the outside dimensions of the building, dwelling unit, or other area involved. For dwelling units, the calculated floor area shall not include open porches, garages, or unused or unfinished spaces not adaptable for future use.

If the building was only considered within the interior walls it would be stated.

Roger

 

[jwjrw]

In this case the riser from weatherhead to combination semi flush meter socket panel board is inside the wall. That is IMO a direct violation of 230.70(A)(1).

I'm with you now. The service entrance conductors start at the service point.
It would depend on your AHJ interpertation of where it enters the building.

 

[mxslick]

Article 220 has already defined what the inside building space consists of and inside of a wall cavity is within the building



If the building was only considered within the interior walls it would be stated.

Roger

And there's where I totally disagree with you on one point (your Art.220 reference which is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.) That reference is speaking of a area calculation, not a specific definition. By that logic one can sell a home based on interior square footage (the normal accepted way), the area including all dividing walls and wall cavities, or the area measured from exterior, outside surface to exterior outside surface. AFAIK commerce laws would prohibit the latter two measurements for a listing or taxation purposes.

Here's the Merriam-Webster definition of "inside".

Main Entry: 1in?side
Pronunciation: \(ˌ)in-ˈsīd, ˈin-ˌ\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century

1 a : an interior or internal part or place : the part within b : inward nature, thoughts, or feeling c : viscera, entrails —usually used in plural
2 : an inner side or surface
3 a : a position of power, trust, or familiarity <only someone on the inside could have told> b : confidential information <has the inside on what happened at the convention>
4 : the area nearest a specified or implied point of reference: as a : the side of home plate nearest the batter b : the middle portion of a playing area c : the area near or underneath the basket in basketball

However, since NEC Article 100 does NOT contain a definition of the NEC's intent for the word "inside" I am in total agreement with your statement of:

If the building was only considered within the interior walls it would be stated.

I think that pretty much is the main problem here. The NEC in Art. 100 DOES NOT clearly define what it considers to be "inside" and that leads to the interperative (?) issues brought up in this discussion.

To make all the arguements in this and the other thread on the topic valid, we need the NEC to add something like this to Art. 100:

Inside. For the purposes of enforcing this Code, inside shall be considered as all areas and locations on the interior side of building exterior walls and finishes. Wall cavities shall for the purposes of this Code be considered inside.

Since the Code doesn't say that (yet) I call a riser as being outside.

 

[cowboyjwc]

Good definition. I vote Slick for code change of the day.

 

[iwire]

Since the Code doesn't say that (yet) I call a riser as being outside.

So if you have rats in the space in the stud bays you would not worry about it because they are outside the home?:grin:

Clearly a conduit inside the stud bay is inside.

Would the conduit need WP fittings inside the wall? no .... because it is inside.


I think it is down right comical you that you want us to believe a conduit inside the walls is outside the building,:grin:

Stick with the fact the AHJ has some leeway about how far from the point of entrance and at least that would make sense.