Pics of panel rough-in

Status
Not open for further replies.
360Youth said:
Sorry, I don't see it.
Click to expand...

NECA 1, Article 9, Section N:
n) The length of conductors within cabinets and
cutout boxes shall be sufficient to neatly train the
conductor to the termination point with no excess
(see Figure 11). Allow sufficient cable length for thermal
contraction of conductors to prevent damage of
insulation or dislodging connections.
 
e57 said:
Smart$ Nice.... Bet that costs a hunk of change$$$$

IMPO wish din rail were more commonly used.... Much of the control work I see is much less astetic or organized.
Click to expand...

Yes, very nice. I see that 120 volt circuit you installed in that nice factory box. :grin: I kid. You should see the control boxes we come across at those "log flumes." I have spent hours trying to fix jumped wires and busted troughs. We have grown quite attatched to din rail. One of my next post, as soon as I get some pics, is "favorite tools." One of mine is the Greenlee drill tap set, from 6-32 to 1/4-20. It is great for mounting din rail and groundlugs almost anywhere you need them.
 
mdshunk said:
110.12.

If you care to use NECA 1 (NEIS) as your guideline for 110.12 workmanship issues (as referenced in the FPN), NECA 1, Section 9, Article N prohibits this practice.
Click to expand...

I've known some who feel that the lack of a loop is a workmanship issue. IMO it is not nessesary, but certainly not a code violation or workmanship issue. Lets call it 'style'... Some like shortest and direct (me), some a loop, some top to bottom and back and vise versa. And some of us are not governed by the NECA.

I know a guy who doubles up the conductor at every termination (Irish style) - now that might be a violation.....
 
mdshunk said:
NECA 1, Article 9, Section N:
n) The length of conductors within cabinets and
cutout boxes shall be sufficient to neatly train the
conductor to the termination point with no excess
(see Figure 11). Allow sufficient cable length for thermal
contraction of conductors to prevent damage of
insulation or dislodging connections.
Click to expand...

While I do not disagree, and it is not a preferable installation (note the other terminations) I would still submit "excess" as opinion. IMO, while I would rather not, the benefits of the extra wire within the useable space are not excessive, but I accept your opinion.
 
e57 said:
Smart$ Nice.... Bet that costs a hunk of change$$$$
Click to expand...
Thanks! Can't recall the cost of the machine, but thinking it broke seven figures.

IMPO wish din rail were more commonly used.... Much of the control work I see is much less astetic or organized.
Click to expand...
Hmmm.... most control work I've done in the past few years has all used din-rail-mount devices. Heck, even the field-fabricated junction boxes use din-rail term' blocks.
 
aline said:
These are before and after pictures from a panel replacement.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of my main panel before I got into putting the sub next to it.

Here's my main panel before any work was done on it:


Then I put a 60A Square D QO sub next to it and installed a two poll 50A breaker in the main for the welder outlet I installed that day.



Yea that sub is a little messy but I was working on short wires that day and didn't have slack to twist them and it was my first panel job.
I tried putting zip ties in there but the inspector was going to fail me for bundling in the panel...so I left them out.

And the outlet/pipe work photos:

Before:




After:

 
Last edited:
Smart $ said:
Hmmm.... most control work I've done in the past few years has all used din-rail-mount devices. Heck, even the field-fabricated junction boxes use din-rail term' blocks.
Click to expand...

Consider yourself lucky... I don't get the oprotunity to instal or fabricate them often - but I get to work in many. Usually from what I consider the worst decade for any trade - the seventies. 9X's out of 10 - if it looks like someone was listening to Black Sabbath and was chemically, mentaly and physically challenged when they installed it - with a little probing you might find a date of manufacture of 1974-1981. (Not all - you older guys - but a good deal of them)
 
360Youth said:
OK, here goes. I'll run the risk and post photos. One is a house panel I am curently working on. I still have to run island stove circuit through the spare and I noticed the other day I forgot to put the smokes on AFCI. This is a smaller more manageable house and panel, so it is much easier to keep neat. The other photo is a 100 amp 3-phase ATS we just installed for a WWTP.

View attachment 364

View attachment 362

View attachment 363
Click to expand...

Are those white wires on the two pole breakers in that Homeline panel?
 
big vic said:
Are those white wires on the two pole breakers in that Homeline panel?
Click to expand...

They are. One is water heater, the other 30 amp air handler. You can not tell from the photo, but I re-identify with red marker, usually stripes. I like it better than tape. Tape, to me, looks like I nicked the wire and patched it. That and I hate going to a panel years later and it is peeling off.
 
If you are refering to my pics (360Youth), the photo does not show very well my re-identification with red marker. I put 3-4 continuous red stripes rather than tape. I don't like tape as reidentification on smaller wires. I think it complies with 200.7(C)(1).
 
mdshunk said:
110.12.

If you care to use NECA 1 (NEIS) as your guideline for 110.12 workmanship issues (as referenced in the FPN), NECA 1, Section 9, Article N prohibits this practice.
Click to expand...

Hate to rain on your parade, but...

FPNs are not to used as part of the code as well as other references, both of which "are for informational purposes only and not enforcable as requirements of this code" as per 90.5(C) Explanatory material
 
bstoin said:
Hate to rain on your parade, but...
Click to expand...
You're not raining on my parade. That's why I predicated my comments with "...if you care to use...". You could just as easily use your company's own workmanship guidelines as a reference document for 110.12 matters.
 
mdshunk said:
You're not raining on my parade. That's why I predicated my comments with "...if you care to use...". You could just as easily use your company's own workmanship guidelines as a reference document for 110.12 matters.
Click to expand...
I thought you were responding to georgestolz's asking for a code reference on an issue...you referenced 110.12 along with the FPN.
If I missed something along the way it's understandable...this thread has become somewhat blurry.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top