Jim Port

I think you are describing EMT or electrical metallic tubing. This is covered in Article 358 of the NEC. Set screw connectors and couplings cannot be used in wet areas. They are for dry locations only. Compression fittings are made for use in wet areas.

So how would you satisfy the requirement for Up to be on with a face down or face up panel?

It sounds like two service disconnects fed from one meter. There would be no need to use the bypass lever to disconnect the power. Just throw the two breakers in the disconnects. Besides, at least on the meter sockets I have seen the bypass is located under the meter cover and is only accessible with the socket open. To Tim, a main breaker may be in the basement panel, but it is not the service disconnect. As shown in your pic the service disconnect is outside at the meter. The breaker inside the basement panel is redundant.

You are more than welcome Jack. I hope I can help to educate the members here.

Here is an article from Electrical Contractor magazine regarding panel orientation. http://www.ecmag.com/index.cfm?fa=artic ... cleID=7650 Here is one for a panel mounted on its back. http://www.ecmag.com/index.cfm?fa=artic ... cleID=7779

Wayne, please review Richards posr regarding the difference between an unfused service cable needing to be "as short as practical" and a feeder cable that can run hundreds of feet in a dwellling. When you said from the meter to the panel it sounds like a service cable. Either way the splice needs to be made in a properly sized junction box.

Jack, if you read 240.81 this will more clearly define horizontal as being a 90 degree rotation from the normal orientation, ie the narrow dimension of the panel would be the left and right sides instead of the top and bottom. Face up nor face down would not satisfy either 240.33 nor 240.81.

Admitting that one is wrong and has made mistakes is difficult. However, trying to justify the mistake by saying that is how i have done it for years, or the inspector passed it so it must be correct is lame. What's next, it works so it must be safe? As a contractor you have an obligation to be knowledgeable in your trade and the Code. Your customers are paying you for this. To provide something less does a disservice to the trade, and a ripoff to the customer. From your first post in this thread. You should know that the HI should be making a report based on the observations during the inspection. Are you asking the HI to decide on the correct method of remediation?

Just a suggestion to Plummen. I was always taught to get your own house in order before critizing others. Yes, the game has a different set of rules for HIs vs contractors. Contractors have the codes to guide them and specify the minimum safety standards. HIs are free to recommend things they feel would improve the safety for the homeowner, regardless of a code requirement or not. You are not helping the image of responsible contractors with the attitude you are giving here. As a licensed contractor you should be the one that knows how to handle a situation like adding GFI protection to AL branch circuits. How about adding a GFI breaker that is rated for use with AL instead of some old out of date and non-compliant method? You have been told several times in this topic that use of connectors that are not UL listed for AL is not correct, regardless of Noalox application. There is more to the Ideal connector besides the Noalox. The spring inside will also handle the greater expansion ratio of the AL and still retain a proper tension on the connection. But why worry about this when an uninformed inspector says that your method is fine? No wonder customers wonder why my prices are higher when there is so-called competion like you out there taking shortcuts and installing non-compliant work. Hard to provide the same cost as someone using a $0.10 wire nut when a connector that cost several dollars is needed. BTW I hope your insurance company doesn't read your posts to see the kind of liability your methods are exposing them to.

If the utility said it was up to you to install the support pole the correct design should be in their design manual that is commonly available online. Most places here would be at least a 6x6x16 or so.

Yes, the splice can be made in the panel up to the limits of conductor fill. Unused conductors are commonly terminated in panels when the circuit is no longer needed. They could also be removed entirely or placed in a junction box outside the panel.

Tim, Glad you had a fortunate outcome. However it cannot be ruled out that the breaker should have even tripped without knowing more details. Wires should not have overheated in the fixture. That does not necessarirly mean that there was enough current flow to trip the breaker.

Jack, Some of the auxillary bars come with tapping screws and instructions of what size size holes need to be drilled.

I don't remember if the AFCIs can accept 2 wires. A pigtail could be installed to alleviate this situation.

Jeff, I stand corrected. Not much use of buss bars in resi so I had forgotten those exceptions. Does seem counter to using a regular GEC like a #6 to the rod where the connections need to be permanent, while this depends on mechanical security of bolts or set screws.

From the panel to the first rod needs to be continuos. A bus bar splice like was suggested would not meet the code.

That is one of the ground wires going to possibly the water line or a ground rod.

Here are some other opinions http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.p ... disconnect

110.2 Approval. The conductors and equipment required or permitted by this Code shall be acceptable only if approved. 100 Approved. Acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction. 110.3 Examination, Identification, Installation, and Use of Equipment. (A) Examination. In judging equipment, considerations such as the following shall be evaluated: (1) Suitability for installation and use in conformity with the provisions of this Code FPN: Suitability of equipment use may be identified by a description marked on or provided with a product to identify the suitability of the product for a specific purpose, environment, or application. Suitability of equipment may be evidenced by listing or labeling. So using that there is no compliant method to attach a ground to a metallic box except a listed ground clip. You would not be able to use a ground screw since none are listed.

Show me where it is required that the support be listed.

Your interpretation of interior is the most rigid I have seen. I have yet to see an code inspector have an issue with NM into the back of a disco. What would you propose, a splice box on the inside of the wall and switch wiring methods? Where do you see as the limit of the interior; is it the face of the drywall or the vinyl siding?

The is a clamp for copper tubing. To hell with 110.3(B) listing and labeling. I guess that you do not think that 334.30 is being met be this? Where does it say in 334.30 that the fitting must be listed? This cables are secured and it does not look like they are being damaged by this clamp. What part of Article 300 would this usage violate?

NM into the back of the disco is fine. This is no different than having NM feed an exterior light or receptacle when coming into the back of the box. This would not be considered an exterior.

Correct, if you mean the center point of the transformer. This agrees with what I said. If you measure between two points on the same plane there is no difference. Try to measure voltage between the 2 screws of a single pole switch. you will not get a reading. Does this mean that there is no voltage? No it it just that there is no difference of potential between them. Without a reference you do not have a way to measure voltage. Ground could be at 500 volts and a hot leg at 620. All the sytem sees is that there is a difference of potential of 120 volts.

The voltage does not go away on the neutral. We just don't have a way to reference it in relationship to the neutral since it is the reference point.