ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat
Recent Posts
Safety at heights?
by gfretwell - 04/23/24 03:03 PM
Old low volt E10 sockets - supplier or alternative
by gfretwell - 04/21/24 11:20 AM
Do we need grounding?
by gfretwell - 04/06/24 08:32 PM
UL 508A SPACING
by tortuga - 03/30/24 07:39 PM
Increasing demand factors in residential
by tortuga - 03/28/24 05:57 PM
New in the Gallery:
This is a new one
This is a new one
by timmp, September 24
Few pics I found
Few pics I found
by timmp, August 15
Who's Online Now
1 members (Scott35), 524 guests, and 19 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
#71054 10/21/06 11:20 AM
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 98
A
Member
I've seen a lot worse, even by "Masters". One of my "Dead Giveaways" about DIY's is that the Expurt Lectric Design Services available at Lowes and Home Despot never know about reduced neutrals, the use of which I consider as a sign that the installer had some sort of clue. Of course, that would slightly reduce sales of copper for the big boxes. The clerks in Supply houses aren't hip to the reduced neutral idea either.

#71055 10/21/06 11:24 AM
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 680
W
Member
Shouldn't there be a plastic bushing on the PVC [Linked Image]

#71056 10/21/06 12:12 PM
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,213
S
Member
Almost Fried, with all the switched power supplies everywhere, reduced neutrals is no longer such a good idea. (Not that residences are going to have large VFDs or whole-house UPSs, but still) We've had serious problems in buildings built with undersized neutrals and have been forced into expensive repairs to try to remedy the (I'm not exaggerating) cherry-red neutrals! It honestly wouldn't surprise me if future revisions of NEC mandate neutrals LARGER than that of the phase conductors to account for the continuous harmonic current the neutrals are subjected to. Either that, or OCP on the neutrals as well as the phase conductors.

[This message has been edited by SteveFehr (edited 10-21-2006).]

#71057 10/21/06 12:23 PM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,445
Likes: 3
Cat Servant
Member
A couple of random thoughts:

- It's a disaster rebuild. I would not expect things to return to normal.... ever! In the race to get thing up and running again, I expect that there are lots of 'good enough' stuff taking place. It is also doubtful anyone will return and 'do it right' before it breaks, or the next hurricane comes along;

- Romex, like any other wiring method, needs to be attached to the panel. The bid PVC fitting may work, but it's not correct.
Connectors do two things. One, as mentioned, is provide strain relief; wull on the cable, and the force never makes it to the wire connections. The other is, the connector keeps sparks in the box- and not in the wall, to start a fire. This is why we use knock out seals as well.

- Shared neutrals, as well as reduced neutrals, are far less forgiving. As we use more electronics, I expect the reduced neutral will be limited to feeders- and branch circuits will all get full size (or even over size) neutrals.
Kind of wonder just how one would use a 'reduced', or even 'shared', neutral with romex, though! Such an approach would have to have been designed into the cable.

#71058 10/21/06 12:30 PM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 794
Likes: 3
W
Member
Quote
It honestly wouldn't surprise me if future revisions of NEC mandate neutrals LARGER than that of the phase conductors to account for the continuous harmonic current the neutrals are subjected to.

If the two hots are 180 degrees in phase apart, you can get away with normal or undersized neutrals. The timing of the harmonic current draw on one such phase is the same for the other phase. Which means that the harmonics on the neutral would cancel (if equal). Where the problem comes up is in systems where the phases are 120 degrees apart. Then you will not get cancellation on the neutral, as the timing of the harmonic currents are different.

#71059 10/21/06 07:35 PM
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 111
E
Member
Can't do that in Canada eh!
1- NM must have a connector that's designed for use with such cable and shall be used to secure the cable in place adequately.[CEC 12-3022(3)]
2- Close the openings through which the conductors pass in such a manner that any remaining opening will not permit entrance of a test rod 6.75mm in diameter[12-3022(e)]

Also, don't you have to keep the main conductors seperate from the other conductors in that type of panel? You know, the ones with the little wall attached to the cover that seperates them?

#71060 10/21/06 07:39 PM
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,213
S
Member
Nope, no walls or separation like that in the US, it's all just jammed in there pretty much however the installer feels like. In fact, this is the first time I've ever heard of that! How does that work, doesn't that really put a crimper on how you can route cables into the panel?

#71061 10/21/06 08:48 PM
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,876
E
e57 Offline
Member
Could have reduced the cable count by using 12/3 HR's, and fanned them out on that nailer the 10/3 is on, and spread them out in the 1/2" KO's of the panel. Anyway, it would not fly here either. No strain releif connectors, and de-rating all of those bundles.


Mark Heller
"Well - I oughta....." -Jackie Gleason
#71062 10/21/06 09:10 PM
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,931
Likes: 34
G
Member
I can pick any job apart but I try not to be too nasty. I bet this is an improvement over the wiring it replaced so I am not that concerned. I also understand stovepiping all those RXes out one hole ain't legal but where are they going? I don't see them being moved around much. It may not be pretty but I bet it won't burn the house down.
Let's go look at what the "gas" man did. [Linked Image]


Greg Fretwell
#71063 10/21/06 09:20 PM
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,064
D
Member
Pretty good DIYer there.

Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5