ECN Forum
Posted By: electure Planned it that Way ? - 12/31/07 01:08 AM
What on Earth? I don't know what to make of it.

[Linked Image]


[Linked Image]
Posted By: sparkyinak Re: Planned it that Way ? - 12/31/07 01:24 AM
I would hazard a guess, I would say the 2" is nothing more then a brace or bracket for the overhead. The left mast, not the service mast it getting the strain.
Posted By: wire_twister Re: Planned it that Way ? - 12/31/07 01:42 AM
Is the service mast EMT? that would be why the other pipe is there
Posted By: KJay Re: Planned it that Way ? - 12/31/07 02:31 AM
Can't really be sure, but it looks like maybe they goofed and used 1-1/2" or 2" for the service mast and then added the 2-1/2" for the point of attachment.

In my area, the power company requires all service masts used as the point of attachment to be 2-1/2" rigid Galv.
Posted By: leland Re: Planned it that Way ? - 12/31/07 02:56 AM
--In my area, the power company requires all service masts used as the point of attachment to be 2-1/2" rigid Galv. --

Yup, Most. N-star/Keyspan- whoever they are today.

This guy needs better planning or a bender.
Perhaps the spare is for cable phone etc.

I see no bennefit for support. Same # and size clips etc.
Just buying extra time IMO.

edit: Those compression fittings aren't valid in another 2 days are they?
Posted By: Lostazhell Re: Planned it that Way ? - 12/31/07 03:56 AM
The pre-bends with compression fittings give away the riser as EMT.. Likely a new shop that hasn't invested in a 555 bender yet. If this is in So Cal Edison, PG&E, SDG&E, LADWP or any other So Cal utility territory, I'll bet they refused the EMT as an attatchment point and someone dreamed up the RMC "Pole"
Posted By: NORCAL Re: Planned it that Way ? - 12/31/07 04:15 AM
That looks like a fairly old Circle AW meter can (current models have a plastic cover over the breaker).All I have to say it's one nasty looking install.:(
Posted By: EV607797 Re: Planned it that Way ? - 12/31/07 06:31 AM
No doubt that "Tijuana Joe" did the service/mast with EMT, got rejected by the inspector, came up with plan "B" to provide a suitable point of attachment and the rest is history.

As crappy as it looks, there's really nothing illegal about it. NEC doesn't say that service entrance conductors must actually be inside of the mast and I seriously doubt that any POCO would have such a requirement in their construction standards.

One pet-peeve though: I really hate when people use LBs to make a directional change on the same plane instead of a bend or ell. There must be a more professional looking way to do it. It just looks so "Harry Homeowner" when people use LBs like that. Again, just a peeve.
Posted By: LarryC Re: Planned it that Way ? - 12/31/07 01:33 PM
I think the installer just wanted to provide a nice shelter for all those homeless wasps.

Larry C
Posted By: leland Re: Planned it that Way ? - 12/31/07 02:34 PM
Originally Posted by LarryC
I think the installer just wanted to provide a nice shelter for all those homeless wasps.

Larry C



LOL..Good point!
Posted By: Wireless Re: Planned it that Way ? - 12/31/07 03:26 PM
Actually I recently did a job like that because it was specced by LADWP.
Posted By: walrus Re: Planned it that Way ? - 12/31/07 03:56 PM
nice raintight emt conns smile
Posted By: BryanInBalt Re: Planned it that Way ? - 12/31/07 04:45 PM
They are both rigid yes?

Maybe it was planned to paralel feed for a larger service and then the cheap LL decided he didn't want the meter pack done afterall.

First pipe is up already (and paid for) why bother taking it down?

Posted By: KJay Re: Planned it that Way ? - 12/31/07 07:05 PM
In the first picture, it looks that rigid is straining to stay straight.
How high above the roofline or last point of support to the point of attachment does the utility there let you go before you have to add some sort of guy?
It’s only 3-feet unguyed in my area. grin

Posted By: electure Re: Planned it that Way ? - 12/31/07 07:06 PM
The conduit on the right is EMT.
The "attachment mast" (for lack of a better term) is GRC.

So Ca Edison is the utility serving this installation, and no, they won't attach the drop to EMT....GRC or IMC is the only approved attachment point.

The entire service could have been relocated to the left 6" or so and avoided the offset around the rain gutter altogether......after all, the feeder to the panel is on the surface.

Strange install, I've never seen anything quite like it laugh


MAX Distance of Center
Line of Load Above Roof

Conduit Size Distance
1-1/4" 30"
1-1/2" 40"
2" 5'-0"
2-1/2" or Larger 8'-0"
Posted By: Yoopersup Re: Planned it that Way ? - 02/06/08 11:19 PM
Seperate Service mast for cable, Phone , ect as required
Posted By: electure Re: Planned it that Way ? - 02/07/08 01:15 AM
Yoopersup,

Quote
The conduit on the right is EMT.....So Ca Edison is the utility serving this installation, and no, they won't attach the drop to EMT....GRC or IMC is the only approved attachment point.


The telephone drop is on the rear of the building, 75 feet or so away.

The rigid mast is the attachment point for the electrical service drop.
© ECN Electrical Forums