KentAT
Senior Member
- Location
- Northeastern PA
480, did we hit it, or are you just giving us more time??
Monday Photos (Spot the Violations)
- Thread starter 480sparky
- Start date
- Status
Jesse7623
Senior Member
- Location
- eastern Mass
I think sparky isnt sure if there are any violations and he wants us to help him find out.
that is why he is not replying yet but once he sees this post he will reply.
that is why he is not replying yet but once he sees this post he will reply.
I think sparky isnt sure if there are any violations and he wants us to help him find out.
Well, certainly the exposed contacts are a violation.
Someone mentioned the duplex being on the disconnect. They weren't. But even if they were, is it illegal to feed a 240v 30a recep and a 120v 15a duplex with a 2-pole breaker?
LarryFine
Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA
- Location
- Henrico County, VA
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor
You must have been a Where's Waldo fan as a kid.
LarryFine
Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA
- Location
- Henrico County, VA
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor
As long as there's a 15 or 20 amp breaker before the receptacle, yes.
LarryFine
Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA
- Location
- Henrico County, VA
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor
Not correct, guys.
The neutral had to be insulated unless it was the bare in a covered service cable. You could use either 10-3 cu NM or 8-2 al SE.
Remember, this exception was allowing the neutral conductor to do the grounding, not the ground conductor being used as a neutral.
COFFEE TIME
Member
- Location
- PHILA PA
ok 480 i guess you still want more.
on the 1900 or 2100 box the recpt cover is missing a screw.
the slots on the recpt look to be painted over.
and i would also bet there is no nipple between either the recpt and the disconnect switch or the 1900/2100 box an the disconnect switch.but that just a guess.i don't see the knockouts aligning up
on the 1900 or 2100 box the recpt cover is missing a screw.
the slots on the recpt look to be painted over.
and i would also bet there is no nipple between either the recpt and the disconnect switch or the 1900/2100 box an the disconnect switch.but that just a guess.i don't see the knockouts aligning up
ok 480 i guess you still want more.
on the 1900 or 2100 box the recpt cover is missing a screw.
the slots on the recpt look to be painted over.
and i would also bet there is no nipple between either the recpt and the disconnect switch or the 1900/2100 box an the disconnect switch.but that just a guess.i don't see the knockouts aligning up
The screws in the cover are in opposite corners, to match the ears on the box.
New recep, so there's no paint.
And the recep isn't fed by the disco. It's just right up against it.
steelersman
Senior Member
- Location
- Lake Ridge, VA
Maybe not benaround. But what I said is absolutely correct. Maybe you are misunderstood like in the other thread. I never said that the ground was being used as the neutral. And it used to be done with 10-2 copper or 8-2 aluminum SE-U before the 4 wire went into effect.
Larry, I was saying it really wouldn't matter if it was insulated or not, as far as the saftey
factor is concerned ( unless it was spliced in a j-box ). At the dryer the conductor hit the
neutral terminal and jumpered to the dryer frame ( insulated or not it on the frame ), at
the panel the conductor could land at either N/grd bus because they tie together, ( agian
insulated or not it's on the metal of the enclosure ) , Now as far as the code at the time
this was allowed, in at least one cycle it said that the conductor shall be insulated " or "
covered, and the EGC in a 10/2 romex is 'covered'. I think it was the next code cycle that
the verbage changed.
factor is concerned ( unless it was spliced in a j-box ). At the dryer the conductor hit the
neutral terminal and jumpered to the dryer frame ( insulated or not it on the frame ), at
the panel the conductor could land at either N/grd bus because they tie together, ( agian
insulated or not it's on the metal of the enclosure ) , Now as far as the code at the time
this was allowed, in at least one cycle it said that the conductor shall be insulated " or "
covered, and the EGC in a 10/2 romex is 'covered'. I think it was the next code cycle that
the verbage changed.
LarryFine
Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA
- Location
- Henrico County, VA
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor
I'll buy that. I'm 53, and I don't remember a bare NM conductor being permitted. It was always an insulated white in NM. I remembered the line "10-3 or SE."
At the panel end, neutrals must land on the same bus(es) as the service neutral. The enclosure may be part of the EGC's pathway, but not the neutral-current's pathway.
A couple of years ago, I installed a genny and non-service-rated ATS at a home, so I added a disco, which meant relocating the GEC's and separating neutrals and EGC's.
I removed the existing panel's bonding jumper to the enclosure, added an EGC bus to the box, and moved all the EGC's to the new bus . . . except for the major appliances' SE cable neutrals.
The structure of the house (panel in garage connected via a breezeway that butted into the side of the 2-story brick wall of the house) that it was almost impossible to replace those cables with SER.
The inspector agreed (whew!) and allowed the existing cables to remain, and agreed that I cover the bare wires with white tape and reinstall them on the now-isolated neutral bus.
Added: I know we're not really arguing; this is fun stuff. :smile:
At the panel end, neutrals must land on the same bus(es) as the service neutral. The enclosure may be part of the EGC's pathway, but not the neutral-current's pathway.
A couple of years ago, I installed a genny and non-service-rated ATS at a home, so I added a disco, which meant relocating the GEC's and separating neutrals and EGC's.
I removed the existing panel's bonding jumper to the enclosure, added an EGC bus to the box, and moved all the EGC's to the new bus . . . except for the major appliances' SE cable neutrals.
The structure of the house (panel in garage connected via a breezeway that butted into the side of the 2-story brick wall of the house) that it was almost impossible to replace those cables with SER.
The inspector agreed (whew!) and allowed the existing cables to remain, and agreed that I cover the bare wires with white tape and reinstall them on the now-isolated neutral bus.
Added: I know we're not really arguing; this is fun stuff. :smile:
- Status