Jump to content

inspectort

Members
  • Posts

    36
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Personal Information

  • Location
    USA
  • Occupation
    state certified electrical and building inspector, engineer

inspectort's Achievements

New Member

New Member (2/5)

0

Reputation

  1. Richard, Clearly wrong. That GFCI breaker might have been intended to serve a whirlpool tub, they may have just got their branch circuts mixed up in the panel and put the wrong wires under the wrong breaker. However they should have checked it. Just a thought. Troy
  2. Guys I can tell ya that I have worked on several houses built in the 20s 30s and 40s and it is very common for the neutrals to be connected to a switch going to a lighting outlet or recepticle outlet. It only took me one time, sitting on an old cast iron heating grate changing a recepticle that I had turned off at the switch to figure out neutrals are switched. I thought the switch was bad. I pulled the wires off of the switch and it was still hot at the plug. I was in denial that someone swtched those neutrals. I spoke to an old electrician buddy of mine and he said, Oh yeah we used to do it all the time. T.
  3. Jack, Article 210.52D exception allows you to mount the recepticle no more than 12" below the basin on the cabinet. If the recepticle that is shown just below the basin is GFCI protected I think that meets the intent of the code. T.
  4. Hey Brian, I bet if you opened the meter base and panel it would also be corroded from water running down that riser, depending on how long its been in that condition.
  5. Surge or lightening arrester?
  6. In most new panels I've seen with AFCIs, they are generly grouped. I don't recall ever having an issue with it causing any trip problems. The real problem that I have with AFCIs is do they actually work. Like with a lot of devices or certain materials required by the code, you wonder should they actually be required or just suggested by the electrician. There are a lot of manufacturing representatives who take a device that a company has developed and tested under certain circumstances, get a UL listing for that application. Then they lobby to have it adopted into NFPA 70. Don't get me wrong, I beleive that the people that are on the code commity are commited to life safety and are convinced by these people that their product can save lives. For instance, the GFCI recepticles, has anyone noticed thay have gone up in the last year about 3 or 4 dollars? Thats because UL found out that after these things trip a few times the fault protection is depleted to the point of no prtection at all. Now, they have some sort of internal sensor that will not allow the GFCI to reset if it has been damaged, some have a light. But how many people are out there using GFCIs that don't have any protection. Same with AFCIs, they developed them, tested them, somewhat, and threw them on the market. Seimans AFCI's would not reset in unheated garages in the winter here below 65 degrees, that was a recall. To my knowledge,none of them can share a common nuetral with another circut or they will trip. Thats the reason you don't see them in old work, you can't track down were the nuetrals are going and feeding what devices. I have heard of a AFCI recepticle that is in developement or has been developed. What good is that for concealed wiring in the walls? These will probably be required in bedrooms of houses for replacements. Does anyone have any stats that show how many less fires there have been since these were required January 1, 2002. I'll bet you don't. Ok I'll shut up. Thanks , Troy
  7. FROM KURT : I'd like to ask Troy what his interpretation is of those sections in the NEC that "answer the question". SORRY FOR TAKING SO LONG FOR A REPLY KURT, OUT OF TOWN ON BUSINESS. IF you have access to a 2002 or 2005 NEC Handbook, 312.8 in the commentary following the article, it gives an example of the calculation. It also says that most enclosures are intended to accommodate only those conductors that will be connected to switches or overcurrent devices. As for the exammple it states. If an enclosure has a wiring space of 4in wide by 3in deep, the cross-sectional area is 12in.(squared). Thus, the total conductor fill (see chapter 9,table 5 for demensions of conductors) at any cross section cannot exceed 4.8in.(squared) or 4o% of 12in.(squared) and the maximum for conductors and splices and taps at any cross-section cannot exceed 9in.(squared) 75% of 12in.(squard). My rule of thumb when inspecting a panel. I usally do not except any junctions in that panel that are not related to that encloser. If it is a juction in a conductor to make it long enough to reach a overcurrent device for example, I will except that. If the panel is so crowded I can't get the cover back on easily, I turn it down not for over fill, but for workmanship. Hope this helps.
  8. The 2 worse panels for an electrician or an inspector to see on a job is a Zinsco or a Federal Pacific. The problem is that the breaker become lose and begins arcing, building up heat and becoming even more lose. This one looks in pretty good condition. But my suggestion would be to replace it as soon as possible. If you have to replace one of those 50amp breakers, if you can find one, your probably going to pay close to a hundred dollars for it. As for the condensor wiring, I think it goes without saying, repair or replace. Looks like its been hit with the lawnmower or the weed eater a few too many times. Good luck. T.
  9. Article 312.7 and 312.8 2002 & 2005 NEC should answer your question. Troy
  10. I agree with hausdok, sounds like an ill placed nail or screw. That can take a while to track down. At least you've found the right circut. Might check your door bell too.
  11. The NEC references this only once that I know of in ART. 250.116 Nonelectric Equipment. It doesn't really get into the subject in the article itself, but it does reference a FPN article that basically says that siding is not electrical equipment so it is outside the scope of the NEC. But the FPN says that by bonding and grounding the siding, it will provide additional safety. My references are the 2002 and the 2005 NEC Handbook. Hope that answers the question. T.
  12. The NEC REQUIRES A #4 COPPER OR A #2 ALUMINUM TO THE WATER PIPE, MINIMUM. IF YOU ARE UNSURE IF YOU HAVE METALIC WATER LINES UNDERGROUND THIS WOULD BE, AT THE LEAST, A GOOD BOND FOR THE INTERIOR WATER LINES. The grounding electrode conductor from the service to the rod is never required to be larger than a #6 copper or #4 aluminum 250.66(A) but this is only a minimum, it can be larger. If you are unsure of a good ground, or their is no water ground at all, we require electricians to drive 2 rods and bond together. Two rods are also required where their is 25ohms or less resistance to ground.
  13. Found it. It was actually adopted in the 96 NEC, 210-52d. If it was built prior to the 96 NEC being adopted in your area, theres probably no problem, if installed after that, its wrong.
  14. May want to check the clearance from your lights to the shelves figure 410.8 and part D for clearances, maybe a fire hazard. I agree with Richard, I'm pretty sure 210.11©(3) has been in effect since the 93NEC and maybe before.
×
×
  • Create New...