The Electrical Contractor Network

ECN Electrical Forum
Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals

Books, Tools and Test Equipment for Electrical and Construction Trades

Register Now!

Register Now!

We want your input!

Featured:
   

2017 NEC and Related
2017 NEC
Now Available!

   
Recent Posts
Sprinklered equipment 26-008
by bigpapa
12/02/16 04:24 PM
On Delay Relay with Auto Reset
by Potseal
12/01/16 09:59 AM
Wow, that was close!
by jraef
11/28/16 07:06 PM
Earthquake in New Zeeland
by RODALCO
11/27/16 11:25 PM
Calling all Non-US members!! (Non-US only)
by Tjia1981
11/27/16 06:33 AM
New in the Gallery:
12.5A through 0.75mm˛ flex (just out of curiosity)
Shout Box

Top Posters (30 Days)
gfretwell 13
HotLine1 9
Texas_Ranger 8
sparkyinak 7
Trumpy 6
Who's Online
0 registered (), 132 Guests and 5 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#87565 - 03/17/04 04:05 PM I found a 384.20 violation, I get a cookie.
Haligan Offline
Member

Registered: 02/25/04
Posts: 112
Loc: Berkeley, CA USA
It brings me great joy to find (and correct) mistakes. It's like saving a life proactively. Even if the problem had a very low chance of danger.

I recently found branch circuit grounding conductors connected to the neutral bus bar on a subpanel. There was a grounding bus bar, but the sub was so overloaded with cheater breakers that it's full, and on the neutral they were doubling up. Even more frustrating was the SECOND subpanel located a mere foot away, also started out with full size breakers, but now filling up with more cheaters.

I said out loud "Urrrrrrrgghhhhh!"
So I wouldn't offend anyone.

One thing I haven't figured out yet. It could be a coincidence, but at one jbox, with that circuit off, my meter was reading 2volts DC. Weird. With the circuit energized but not connected to the load, I was reading 39 volts AC on the LOAD side! What the #^$#

I don't like unsolved mysteries. I gotta know how it ends.

Top
2014 / 2011 NEC & Related Books and Study Guides
#87566 - 03/17/04 06:17 PM Re: I found a 384.20 violation, I get a cookie.
Ryan_J Offline
Moderator

Registered: 08/19/03
Posts: 1355
Loc: West Jordan, Utah, USA
Hello Haligan, and welcome.

Is 384.20 a Canadian Eelctrcial Code reference? I think the violation(s) in the NEC would be 250.24(A)(5) and 110.3(B).
_________________________
Ryan Jackson,
Salt Lake City

Top
#87567 - 03/17/04 06:43 PM Re: I found a 384.20 violation, I get a cookie.
Bill Addiss Offline
Member

Registered: 10/07/00
Posts: 4196
Loc: NY, USA
Ryan,

384-20 is the '99 NEC equivilent of 408.20 in the 2002 NEC.

Haligan,

Welcome to ECN. Note that the '99 NEC uses "-" dashes and the 2002 NEC uses "." dots. A minor difference, but it does help distinguish one from the other. (you could also specify ('99 NEC))

Bill

[This message has been edited by Bill Addiss (edited 03-17-2004).]

Top
#87568 - 03/17/04 10:13 PM Re: I found a 384.20 violation, I get a cookie.
Haligan Offline
Member

Registered: 02/25/04
Posts: 112
Loc: Berkeley, CA USA
I'm not thrilled that the numbering has changed, but at least now I know the - and . conventions.
I only own the '99 so I'll stick with the hyphen.

Did I give enough detail about the above oddball meter readings. I'm using a new Fluke T5 meter, and haven't learned its quirks yet. The manual consists of stick people and other caveman-like drawings. My hunch is that the meter is reading it right. I wasn't expecting to see DC voltage on an AC circuit.

Top
#87569 - 03/18/04 12:37 AM Re: I found a 384.20 violation, I get a cookie.
Scott35 Offline

Broom Pusher and
Member

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 2724
Loc: Anaheim, CA. USA
As to what your Meter is reading (displaying):

High input Impedance Volt Meters can display some rather odd stuff at times!

When you find odd readings - such as the ones you mentioned, try using your Wiggy in parallel with the Fluke DVM, to see if the readings become more "Reasonable".

There's an optin to place a fixed resistor across the leads, but that option may be hazardous for the person doing the tests, if the circuit is indeed active (live).
The Wiggy method is very much less hazardous than the shunt resistor - plus you do not need to purchase any resistors or alter any leads.
Need to practice a bit to get both meters connected at the same time.

Next time you find odd readings on a circuit - especially if it's "Dead", have an Assistant connect a Wiggy's Test Leads right next to the DVM's Test leads - and watch the numbers change!

Scott35
_________________________
Scott " 35 " Thompson
Just Say NO To Green Eggs And Ham!

Top



ECN Electrical Forums - sponsored by Electrical Contractor Network - Electrical and Code Related Discussion for Electrical Contractors, Electricians, Inspectors, Instructors, Engineers and other related Professionals