1 members (Scott35),
408
guests, and
13
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,391
OP
Moderator
|
I was sent these photos by email, I have resized and lightened them, other than that I do not know to much. This is not my work, but it did pass inspection. It appears one set of conductors passes through the meter to the panel. It appears the line side for the meter passes through the bottom of the meter and into the panel turns up and back into the meter finally terminating at the line lugs. The load side of the meter leaves the bottom of the meter wraps around the entire panel and back into the meter only to leave the the meter through the top hub. [This message has been edited by iwire (edited 05-01-2004).]
Bob Badger Construction & Maintenance Electrician Massachusetts
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,749
Member
|
iwire: What city or town was this job located in?
Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,391
OP
Moderator
|
It's a beauty isn't it? Bob [This message has been edited by iwire (edited 05-01-2004).]
Bob Badger Construction & Maintenance Electrician Massachusetts
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,116 Likes: 4
Member
|
Bob, My guess would be that they didn't have enough wire-bending space in the Meter enclosure to do what they wanted. BTW, that style of Meter Enclosure is similar to what we use on Long Island except ours are combination OH/UG and must be 13 inches wide minimum. Bill
Bill
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 650
Member
|
Clearly someone calculated the available fault current, and realized that if they just has about 8 more feet of conductor they could use cheaper breakers It has the appearance of something _very_ neatly done, while at the same time appearing very wrong. -Jon
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 615
Member
|
I love your answer winnie. Maybe before the price of steel and copper went it would have been cheaper to throw an enclosure with a big 'ole coil of wire in it.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,438
Member
|
Looks like bending radius is the issue to me... For the size of the conductors, I don't really see how the terminations could've been made without seriously turning that meter can into a rats nest (Or more so).. I'd have ordered the meter socket with a larger can... One peculiar thing is C phase looping back around on the load side of the meter socket... That kinda blows the bending radius justification out the window... Jon might just have the idea behind this! -Randy
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,391
OP
Moderator
|
I think I could have found a better way.
You have got metered and un-metered power in a panel that has nothing to do with that meter.
As far as the size of the meter socket itself, we must use the one specified by the POCO.
Bob Badger Construction & Maintenance Electrician Massachusetts
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 79
Member
|
Not for nothing, but are those couplings and chase nipples considered adequate equipment grounding paths? BTW, at least they took the locknut off the compression connector in the hub over the meter pan. [This message has been edited by cavo148 (edited 05-02-2004).]
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,374
Moderator
|
My power company wouldn't set that meter, for fear of power theft.
Ryan Jackson, Salt Lake City
|
|
|
Posts: 30
Joined: January 2013
|
|
|
|