Frequently seen electrical defect....

[Joseph Farsetta]

DID YOU KNOW...

... that one of the most frequently seen electrical defect has to do with the wiring of electrical sub-panels? It's true. A majority of sub-panels, which are secondary electrical panels wired to the main electrical panel, require four-conductor feeder cables. Once these conductors reach the sub-panel, the grounded (neutral) conductor and grounding (bare-ground) conductor must be SEPARATED. In fact, the neutral conductor must be on its own termination bus bar, which is not in any way connected to the panel case, or housing. The ground conductor must be connected to the case. In addition to this, each individual branch circuit cable's neutral and ground conductors must also be separated, and correctly terminated onto the corresponding terminal bus bar. Often, inspectors see these wired co-mingled and terminated on a single terminal bus bar. This is a common electrical defect, which related directly to safety, and which must be corrected via re-termination. Sometimes, the feeder cable has an insufficient number of conductors (four are needed) which makes correcting this defect more costly and complicated.

[Jim Luttrall]

Yep.
What's your point?

[Gunnar Alquist]

I find miswired multiwire circuits as often as miswired ground/neutral.

[Jim Port]

While that information is good it was code compliant to only have a 3 wire feeder to a subpanel in a detached structure providing there was no other metallic path between the structures.

In the case of a properly wired 3 wire feeder the neutrals and grounds are again rebonded the same as the main service.

Don't get caught without knowing the difference.

[Raymond Wand]

DID YOU KNOW....

Joe Farsetta is an incompetent Chair of the ESOP, and vendor now a pushy vendor trying to establish himself as reputable and honest vendor here on a reputable board trying to drum up business.

Me thinks he shouldn't be so stingy and pay for advertising on Inspection News like all the other vendors.

[Joseph Farsetta]

For those asking why I post what I post goes way back to a time when I came to this board multiple times per day. The fact is that there is a lot of knowledge here. I used to come here to learn new things. I enjoyed the banter and occasional hostility. It was fun. The truth is that lots of visitors still come to learn. No matter what you may think, newbies will still go out and inspect... and many times with limited knowledge. So, while my comments may seem quite basic to some, there are others who find them invaluable. And that's why I post what I post. Some disagree with my commentary ( as with the SOP) and in others, my posts may result in assessment and change. Whatever the result, if I help one person, then my posting was successful.

[Julie Weishaar]

Raymond,

I am reading these posts and can't help but notice how you make derogatory accusations against others on this "reputable" board for home inspectors. Joe Farsetta has NOT made a SINGLE reference (nor have I) about his business. He is posting, as are all other inspectors, relevant, thought-provoking industry information for both the newbies and the seasoned professionals. In keeping with the professionalism and purpose of this excellent inspection-industry platform, how about trying to keep your posts/comments relevant to the inspection topic?

[Joseph Farsetta]

Excellent point, Jim. You are correct when it comes to detached structures! And, yes, you need to know how to recognize, inspect, and report the differences. My apologies to the seasoned guys out there. But, if Jim's reply helped remove some doubt in a newer inspector's thought process or helped improve someone's inspection technique, then the post was doubly successful.

You see, guys... the more we focus on relevent things, the better we get at communicating and trying to improve the knowledge base within our industry.

I'm sorry some folks have a hard time appreciating this.

[Raymond Wand]

Julie

Derogatory accusations? They are not accusations they are based on facts! Many people have been party to his unwarranted unethical treatment and his inability to act in a befitting manner given his the positions he holds particularly as ESOP Chair. The fact that he is attempting to ingratiate himself here with trivial information is laughable. Besides there are more then enough senior members and qualified knowledgeable people here to make up for any short fall in information.

If you must ply your wares I suggest you go to the Nacho board where I don't see you proffering anything.

[Tony Mount]

Wow, you Yorkers stick together pretty good, I see nothing wrong with either of your post from the middle of the country. I'am the bottom feeder of the Inspection industry as you may know, so having me on your side may not mean that much.

[Julie Weishaar]

Raymond, we will continue to post relevant industry information on this site as we are both approved members. As Joe stated, if one person can benefit from a post, it is successful. If you choose to continue to use this platform to make character judgements of others, that is your perrogative.

[Raymond Wand]

Julie

I find it rather interesting you touting your employers verbiage, but are you fully cognizant of what Joe has been up to and party too? In particular with his involvement with a false credential CMI - Certified Master Inspector where a number of Canadians have bought into a useless meaningless title that hasn't even begun to meet legally what it was sold as?

[Julie Weishaar]

Raymond, if you would like to continue this conversation, do it off line.

[Scott Patterson]

Ray, I think you have lost it!

You have not added any relevant information to this board since you started posting on it. You do everything in your power to shift threads into your own personal vitriol against INACHi and anyone associated with it that you do not like. For this reason, I have for the first time placed you (or anyone) on the ignore list feature of this bulletin board. I will no longer see your post so hopefully others will do the same.

Hope it all works out for you, I do think that you could add something to the technical side of this board if you just gave it a try.

Best!

[Raymond Wand]

Scott

You obviously have a selective memory, and you have shown just how spiteful you are after lecturing me.

You are a little man!

[Gunnar Alquist]

For this reason, I have for the first time placed you (or anyone) on the ignore list feature of this bulletin board. I will no longer see your post so hopefully others will do the same.

Wait, I can do that? Cool.

[Gunnar Alquist]

Well, it's less than perfect.

[Eric Barker]

In fact, the neutral conductor must be on its own termination bus bar, which is not in any way connected to the panel case, or housing.

So it just magically hangs there? That's pretty neat! May I be so bold as to suggest another concept - mounting the bar on a plastic standoff without a bonding strap or screw. Now don't take my word for it - I've been wrong before.

[Bill Kriegh]

Prior to the current code cycle, and in any areas that haven't adopted the 2008 NEC unless local rule are to the contrary, some circumstances permitted installation of a 3 wire feed to a sub panel and attachment of a grounding electrode conductor to the grounded conductor. So, the whether or not the installation is legal will depend on when it was done and the location where it was done.

And, I can assure you this isn't among the most frequently seen issues, although it is certainly in the top 25 somewhere.

Way ahead of this on the list are multiple neutrals per terminal on a panel buss, multiple wires on a breaker terminal not listed for more than a single wire, multiwire branch circuits with both hots on the same line buss, oversized breakers for a given wire size, breaker brand mismatch in panel, cables with no clamp where they enter the panel- - and on it goes. Most homes don't even have more than one panel

[Joseph Farsetta]

Yes, Eric, you are correct. The bus bar is electrically isolated from the panel case, but physically held in place via some insulated material. I should have been clearer. Thank you,

Bill, while I do agree with you on some of the items you mention, my own experience where a sub panel is installed, is that this is one of the much more common defects I see. The others are right up there, especially double lugged neutrals, or even grounds and neutrals together under a single terminal lug!

[Jerry Peck]

DID YOU KNOW...

... that one of the most frequently seen electrical defect has to do with the wiring of electrical sub-panels? It's true. A majority of sub-panels, which are secondary electrical panels wired to the main electrical panel, require four-conductor feeder cables.


Joe,

Hate to tell you this, but MAIN PANELS also require FOUR CONDUCTOR FEEDERS.

*SERVICE EQUIPMENT* does not require 4-wire feeders.

Actually, Joe, there is no such thing as a "sub panel" in a house, they are only found in submarines.

You seem to be one of the ones who are propagating the illusion that there is a wiring difference between so-called "main" panels" and so-called "sub" panels - there is not ... ALL PANELS ARE CREATED EQUALLY ANS ARE WIRED THE SAME.

THE ONLY PLACE THE NEUTRAL IS BONDED TO GROUND IS AT ... yep, you guessed it ... THE "SERVICE EQUIPMENT".

[Joseph Farsetta]

Jerry,

Nice to see that you haven't changed much through the years. :)

Actually, Mr. Peck, I believe you may be incorrect on this one.

How many conductors would be required on a sub-panel (Yes, Jerry, it's a common term, even among electricians, and is valid for the purposes of this discussion) which only serves devices that require, say 220 volts?

[Jerry Peck]

How many conductors would be required on a sub-panel (Yes, Jerry, it's a common term, even among electricians, and is valid for the purposes of this discussion) which only serves devices that require, say 220 volts?

Joe,

As common as you think it is, it is not a CORRECT TERM and your use of it is even less correct.

How many conductors to a submarine panel? I've never worked on submarines, so I don't know how they are wired, but they probably have back-up power wired in.

There are at least 3 conductors required for SERVICE EQUIPMENT:
- 2 hot phase conductors
- 1 neutral / ground conductor
- 1 ground conductor (optional to be separate from the neutral, but which gets bonded to neutral at both of its ends)

There are 4 conductors required for A PANEL (A PANEL OF ANY TYPE):
- 2 hot phase conductors
- 1 hot neutral conductor
- 1 equipment ground conductor

If the panel is part of the SERVICE EQUIPMENT then the SERVICE EQUIPMENT gets wired as stated above for SERVICE EQUIPMENT, the panel in it has no controlling nature on how the SERVICE EQUIPMENT is wired.

ANY PANEL downstream from the SERVICE EQUIPMENT (outside the SERVICE EQUIPMENT enclosure) GETS WIRED THE SAME WAY - presuming, of course, we are discussing 120 volt / 240 volt panels.

[Joseph Farsetta]

Jerry,

Notwithstanding your incorrect initial statement that main panels require 4-conductor feeders (which is preposterous if you were to apply 310.15 B 6), the remaining (4th)conductor gets covered in 250.50, and is NOT part of the feed. Remember hot-hot-neutral? That is ALL that comes in from the street in a residence, typically. If you have but 120 volts inbound, it's 2 conductors.

Now, I don't profess being a code expert, as you apparently do, but I have a good grasp of electrical production, routing, and distribution from the public utility to the receptacle. The fact of the matter remains that you have less of a problem with WHAT was said, than WHO said it.

At least admit it, Jerry. While I have tried to evolve as an educator, author, inspector, and contributor through the years, I can't say that you have ever gotten over the fact that not everyone puts the same spin on things that you do.

Regarding your technically accurate but inane comments regarding the existence of what are commonly termed as "sub-panels", I agree that nowhere in the NEC is the word found. You are speaking of distribution panels. Whoopee.

There isn't an electrician on the planet that won't recognize what the term sub-panel means. So, Jerry, its not a submarine panel, or anything else. When I speak of a subpanel, forgive my ignorance. When you are my audience, I will remember to not only use the terminology you want, but I'll try and speak the Queen's english as well.

Seriously, though... you have FAILED to admit that a distribution panel (happy?) serving only 220 devices do NOT get fed with a 4-conductor feeder. It is simply NOT required.

You went on to produce a response in RED, instead of answering a simple question; and answering it honestly. Your disdain for me has demeaned your opinion, for even little old me (the non code expert) recognizes shucking and jiving when he sees it.

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry,

Notwithstanding your incorrect initial statement that main panels require 4-conductor feeders (which is preposterous if you were to apply 310.15 B 6), the remaining (4th)conductor gets covered in 250.50, and is NOT part of the feed. Remember hot-hot-neutral? That is ALL that comes in from the street in a residence, typically.

Joe,

*I* understand, it is apparent that *YOU* do not.


Remember hot-hot-neutral? That is ALL that comes in from the street in a residence, typically.

That part you have right, but ...

You are referring to the SERVICE ENTRANCE CONDUCTORS, and the SERVICE ENTRANCE CONDUCTORS go to the SERVICE EQUIPMENT ... *NOT* ... *NOT* to a "main panel".

Look it up in the code, you will find that it is SERVICE EQUIPMENT (which is why I have been making that in all caps, hoping that you would catch on to what I am saying, what the code is saying, what is there (which are all the same) and what you are saying (which is different).


Now, I don't profess being a code expert, as you apparently do, but I have a good grasp of electrical production, routing, and distribution from the public utility to the receptacle.

Apparently you do not have the grasp of it that you think you do.


The fact of the matter remains that you have less of a problem with WHAT was said, than WHO said it.

Joe, you should know by now that *I* do not care *WHO* is saying it wrong, it is still wrong. And in this case it is you are are saying it wrong. Thus, like usual, you are way off base, again.



At least admit it, Jerry. While I have tried to evolve as an educator, author, inspector, and contributor through the years, I can't say that you have ever gotten over the fact that not everyone puts the same spin on things that you do.

Joe, I really don't care what you THINK you have accomplished, I am only trying to get you to understand that you are teaching others incorrectly and *I* am educating *YOU* in your incorrect understanding of what you think you know.

As an educator (you are calling yourself that) you should know that knowing and understanding what is right and correct if the only way you can really educate and teach others the right and correct way.

If you cannot see and understand that, you are not an educator.


Your entire post and continued comments showing your lack of knowledge show that you should not be a self-professed educator, at least not until you know and understand the correct and proper way things are.

I have been trying to make it painfully simple for you - here is a simpler way for you to understand, or at least it is about as simple as it can be made, if you do not understand it, you should not be a self-professed educator.

First there is the overhead service drop or underground service lateral.

Then there is the mast with service entrance conductors to the meter or underground service laterals to the meter.

After that are service entrance conductors from the meter to the service equipment.

You will notice that, as yet, there are NO PANELS involved, only SERVICE entrance conductors and SERVICE equipment.

Now, and only now, do you get to PANELS.

A PANEL may be in the same enclosure as the SERVICE EQUIPMENT, however, SERVICE EQUIPMENT does exist with a PANEL being in its enclosure.

After the SERVICE EQUIPMENT comes feeders which go to PANELS, which you may call "distribution panels", "loadcenters", "remote panels", etc., but keep in mind that they are all AFTER the SERVICE EQUIPMENT.

Now, how to address SERVICE EQUIPMENT which also contains a PANEL - that is addressed as SERVICE EQUIPMENT, because that is what it is - and then address the panelboard within it as a panel.

You are one of those under the mistaken belief that, somehow, for some reason, if you call a "PANEL" a "main"panel or a "sub"panel, that you somehow change the way those PANELS are wired, but you don't, they are only PANELS, and ALL PANELS are wired the same.

Whereas SERVICE EQUIPMENT is wired differently.

SERVICE EQUIPMENT is wired where the neutral is bonded to ground.

PANELS are wired where the neutral is isolated from ground.

Panels which are located within SERVICE EQUIPMENT are *PART OF* the SERVICE EQUIPMENT which has the neutral bonded to ground ... and this condition does not change whether or not there is a panelboard within the SERVICE EQUIPMENT.

[Joseph Farsetta]

Jerry,

Beyond the technical doublespeak, you have failed to prove that what I have said is in any way incorrect.

My initial statement had to do with isolated neutrals (yes, the NEC now recognizes neutral). You just couldn't help yourself in turning this simple observation into something that it didnt have to be.

Bottom line is that the comment was intended as an observation intended to provide simple information. I am quite sure that there are enough bonafide electrical code experts who have seen what you have wriitten in response, and are scratching theiir heads.

You have accomplished little here, other that furthering the fact that is aint about technicalities... its about you.

So, Jerry... putting all the fancy verbiage aside, and recognizing your statement having to do with panels (mains and distribution) requiring 4-conductor feeds... will you admit that you are incorrect?

Do distribution panels (service, subs, who really cares at this point other than you?) that feed 220 volt appliances ONLY require a 4-wire feed?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

One of these words will speak volumes for you as a person, Jerry.

Tell me, without the flowery code lingo. We all know of what I speak. Tell me. Please

[Paul W Abernathy]

While I hesitate to get into the "*issing" contest I will simply state a few points and trust me I will move on and flame me all everyone wishes as like it or not I am an expert in this field of study.

First, I really do not mind ( even as an educator ) the use of the term "Sub" panel even if it is incorrect perse' because it is widely used in both the electrical industry ( and in publications by leading industry experts ) and in home inspection publications. It is more so a slang for a term remote distribution panel and I honestly don't see where it mis-educates anyone as long as they understand the intent and make it clear...simply is a argument point that is moot in my opinion again as long as they understand what is being talked about. In many of my seminars around the country I even have to call it "sub-panel" so the electricians in the room actually know what I am talking about and then and only then do I explain to them "Sub-Panel" does not exist anywhere in the code but it is what many of them have come to learn so a GOOD educator will roll with it and help them understand without confusing them at this point.

Second, I believe somewhere I saw where it was stated that 4 conductors must always be run to a remote distribution panel and that is simply not the case. Their are commercial applications where a panel has no need for a "grounded" conductor at all since possibly the loads are all 480V lets say and the NEC® does not require this "grounded" conductor to be run at that specific application. Ofcourse an EGC ( Equipment Grounding Conductor ) would be run to meet the requirements of a low impedance fault current path to aid in the operation of the OCPD ( Overcurrent Protective Device ) but that is a give I hope at this point in many electricians and advanced level home inspectors knowledgebase.

Third, The NEC® does tell us when a "Grounded" conductor is required to be run and the main one that comes to mind is :


(C) Grounded Conductor Brought to Service Equipment.
Where an ac system operating at less than 1000 volts
is grounded at any point, the grounded conductor(s) shall
be run to each service disconnecting means and shall be
connected to each disconnecting means grounded conductor(
s) terminal or bus. A main bonding jumper shall connect
the grounded conductor(s) to each service disconnecting
means enclosure. The grounded conductor(s) shall be installed
in accordance with 250.24(C)(1) through (C)(3).

Fourth, I don't like symantics regarding service equipment and main disconnect to be honest with you because their are MANY places in the NEC® that require equipment to be "Service Equipment Rated" and it has nothing to do with actually the service at all. The main understanding of the "Service Equipment" is a piece of equipment designed to allow a proper case to neutral connection, designed for the connection, tested and listed for the application and thus can be used for the application. A main panel can take on alot of meanings but hardly worth any arguments over since most ( and I do speak for thousands of electricians whom I listen too on a regular basis ) think of the main panel as the actual service disconnection means even if they really have no idea what they are thinking....just the nature of THEIR beast, fact is their are main breaker panels everywhere down stream in alot of applications even if a MLO ( Main Lug Only ) was all that was required so when I hear Main Panel from some electricians I know what they are saying and it is pointless for me to confuse them at this point and try to explain that alot of panels are Main Breaker Panels or MCB and so on....it simply does not help the situation and even what comes to MY mind when I hear Main Panel is the Service Disconnection Means and not Service Equipment since we established that "Service Equipment" is a designation of the panel use and many other applications call for a panel that is "Service Equipment Rated"...so honestly I don't get confused when I hear the students speak of both even if they are sometimes incorrect. I just correct them if needed and work with their understanding and continue to educate.

I have to admit I have not spent the time to read all the posts so I don't claim to be privy to all that is being discussed and I really don't want to since I don't really help out here much and I am way too busy to start but I figured I would say a few things on the concept and leave it be...

Let's also remember that prior to the 2008 NEC® it was perfectly legal to install a 3-wire setup to a detached structure per NEC® 250.32 as long as their were no metallic paths between the two structures. The grounded electrode system requirement at the detached structure plays only the role it is dealt....from that remote distribution panel to the GES ( Grounded Electrode System ) and nothing more. The conductors feeding this panel could have been make up of (2) Ungrounded Conductors and (1) Grounded Conductor and it would have met the code, not the case in the 2008 NEC® and to me was a great move ( one that I have been pushing for over the years in proposals ) but never the less was a 3 wire system to a panel and was legal and still is even in the 2008 NEC® for existing applications where it has already been legally done.

Teaching ( my opinion ) is not always about getting the lingo 100% correct and more about the connection with the student, knowing they get the understanding of what I am saying and they take something away from it. I don't want to turn Home Inspectors into Electricians and I dont want Electricians playing Home Inspector either but letting them meet somewhere in the middle make everyone happy and everyone learns.

Take it from me......while debate is good....hate is not...lets all just sit and educate.

[Jerry Peck]

So, Jerry... putting all the fancy verbiage aside, and recognizing your statement having to do with panels (mains and distribution) requiring 4-conductor feeds... will you admit that you are incorrect?

Joe,

You still don't understand wiring, do you?

My statement that ALL PANELS are wired the same, and that they require 4 conductors, 2-hots, 1-neutral, and 1-ground is not incorrect ... it is precisely correct.

Your statement trying to say that there is a difference in wiring between some panels you try to re-label as "main" and "sub" panels and that they are wired differently is incorrect. And you are still refusing to admit that.


Do distribution panels (service, subs, who really cares at this point other than you?) that feed 220 volt appliances ONLY require a 4-wire feed?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Joe, if you would ask a correct question, it could be answered with a yes or a no.

Can ANYTHING which is 240 volts ONLY (i.e., NOT 120 volt / 240 volt) be wired without a neutral? If that is what you are trying to ask, the answer to that is "Yes.", and that includes 240 volt ONLY electrical equipment and appliances.

Those 240 volt ONLY equipment and appliances require 2-hots and 1- equipment ground.

[Jerry Peck]

First, I really do not mind ( even as an educator ) the use of the term "Sub" panel even if it is incorrect perse' because it is widely used in both the electrical industry ( and in publications by leading industry experts ) and in home inspection publications. It is more so a slang for a term remote distribution panel and I honestly don't see where it mis-educates anyone as long as they understand the intent and make it clear...simply is a argument point that is moot in my opinion again as long as they understand what is being talked about. In many of my seminars around the country I even have to call it "sub-panel" so the electricians in the room actually know what I am talking about and then and only then do I explain to them "Sub-Panel" does not exist anywhere in the code but it is what many of them have come to learn so a GOOD educator will roll with it and help them understand without confusing them at this point.


Paul,

The problem with people like Joe being an educator and using the "main" and "sub" panel terminology is that he teaches that the neutral is bonded to ground at a "main" panel and not bonded to ground at a "sub" panel when a "main" panel is NOT part of the "service equipment" in all referenced cases and the neutral is bonded to ground "at the service equipment".

MANY parts of this country have installation which have a main service disconnect on the exterior which is separate from "the panel", which then becomes (for those who feel a need to try to label panels either "main" or 'sub") the one and only panel, which would be a "main" panel because it is "the only panel".

Thus, it is confusing to many in many parts of the country where the main service disconnect is separate from the panel.

MANY home inspectors come on here confused about where the neutral is bonded to ground and thinking it is at "the main panel" where there is only one panel, which is downstream from "the service equipment" ... and the neutral is only bonded to ground at the service equipment, not at any panel.

[Paul W Abernathy]

Jerry,

I think what we need to understand is that any education is far superior to no education. As an educator myself ( and I wont comment on if I am a good one or a bad one as at this point in my career I let my body of work speak for itself ) it is all about the symantics of the presentation.

In a normal service disconnection setting the service disconnect is located within the enclosure to which a panelboard is installed and it has a main circuit breaker or fuse which serves as the service disconnection means. This panel will be fed with 3 conductors in a typical 120/240V 3 wire setup and again is rather typical. Indeed, In many parts of the country the service disconnection means is located outside at an exterior enclosure as you stated...and it is still an enclosure with an service disconnection means and indeed (4) conductors will leave it to the remote distribution panel located somewhere else within the dwelling.....very typical in many area's of the country and is typically refered to by many as a "Sub-Panel"...again I can't say where the term actually come from but I have heard it used my entire 25+ years in this industry...yes that dates back to when I was a green helper for my brother at the ripe age of 15 years old.

I guess over the years I have come to understand the loose slang used and can adapt to teaching all levels of technical education when it comes to electrical topics. We also have to remember that lets take Virginia for example ( ok...no Virginia or West Virginia Jokes Please ) the installation of choice is the meter outside directly back to back with the cabinet enclosure which contains the panelboard with the service disconnection means main breaker....which is of course service rated.

I believe i guess the biggest hurdle for HI's ( and I have been working with them for many years now ) is understanding the issues of grounding and bonding. I explain to them in many ways that the GEC( grounding electrode conductor ) must connect to the grounded conductor via the grounded terminal bar at the service disconnection means ( and two other locations the NEC Allows...that I wont go into because this is not an educational moment )...while a supplimental grounding electrode conductor does not need to as it has many other locations on the GES it can connect to per the NEC®....but alas it usually takes images and graphics to get the point accross.......

The point is....Electrical Issues are not easy for anyone and I don't expect HI's to be experts on it in the same nature I dont expect a brain surgeon to do a triple bypass operation.....I think Mr. Farsetta's intentions were good and he is trying to help people and I also think your intentions are good as you are also trying to help people......the in between tends to direct others away from education and then both are hurt in the process...just my two cents on that issue.

One of the issues I can reflect back to in the years of watching the NEC® evolve is the Section 250.32 triumphs of old. If we had no metallic paths between the detached structure and the dwelling in this example then we could run a 3 wire setup to the detached structure and install a GES ( Grounded Electrode System ) at the detached structure and bond the grounded conductor to the case and the connection is made between grounded conductors and grounding conductors....while it took us time in earlier cycles to get this type of problem removed in similiar situations like Dryer and range applications it has come full circle and now not allowed in the 2008 NEC® with regards to detached structures and I applaud the process for it and take alot of pride in being apart of it......

In the end...I don't educate here....and I really dont contribute here so these are just my observations. I am not here to step on anyones toes or build a case for anything...i have my own forum to do that but I think the proper approach would have been for everyone involved to stop and look at how we could re-word a lesson to make it a better lesson and much like revisions to the printed book.....have it evolve with everyones input.

Alas....I am gone guys.......Don't be afraid to visit my site and chat it up;)

[Jerry Peck]

In a normal service disconnection setting the service disconnect is located within the enclosure to which a panelboard is installed and it has a main circuit breaker or fuse which serves as the service disconnection means.


Paul,

That's the fallacy of your assumption, and the fallacy of the assumption for those who continue to think, and say, and teach, that the "main" panel is the same as the "service equipment".

In many areas of the country the service equipment is stand alone from the panel.

Thus, thinking, saying, and teaching an assumption which does not apply across the board to all installations is simply wrong.

On the flip side, though, and as I keep saying, the "service equipment" *IS ALWAYS* ... without fail ... *ALWAYS* ... where the neutral is bonded to ground - whether or not there is a panel as part of the "service equipment" or not.

Not only is that correct in *ALL* instances, it is also the way the code addressed it.

Think, say, and teach it that way and you will be correct in *ALL* cases *ALL* the time.

I am not sure why that concept is so difficult for some to understand.

[Paul W Abernathy]

Ok Mr. Peck.....I conceed to your superior intelligence and will simply refrain from assisting anyone on here in the future. Guess my experience, knowledge and years of assisting thousands of electrical students and home inspectors is all for nothing......enjoy your forum.

I don't have the time nor the desire to get into arguments over symantics and word twisting. I will not loose any sleep over an educator somewhere in the country teaching Home Inspectors about improper case to neutral connections and calling a remote distribution panel a "Sub-Panel"....but then again that is me.....I am one of the unknown educators who don't call it a Sub-Panel but actually dont care that others do if the student knows what the topic is really about......

Have a nice day......

[Jerry Peck]

Ok Mr. Peck.....I conceed to your superior intelligence and will simply refrain from assisting anyone on here in the future. Guess my experience, knowledge and years of assisting thousands of electrical students and home inspectors is all for nothing......enjoy your forum.

Paul,

Not superior intelligence or anything like that, simply stating the obvious: Why teach one variation of service equipment as though it is ALWAYS the only choice? Why not teach the obvious way which is correct in every instance instead of just one specific setup?

It's not me which says that, it is the NEC, and as an electric guru (which is what your avatar says you are) you should know and understand the correct way, which is correct in all cases, not one which is only correct in one installation configuration yet you are teaching as being correct in all?

That is what I do not understand - why you are continuing to choose to fore go what the NEC itself addresses and insist that your way is the only way when in fact it is not even the NEC way.


I don't have the time nor the desire to get into arguments over symantics and word twisting.

No word twisting going on by me - *I* am simply stating what the NEC states, *YOU*, on the other hand, are stating that one configuration always applies, when in fact it does not.


I am one of the unknown educators who don't call it a Sub-Panel but actually dont care that others do if the student knows what the topic is really about......

That is good, but the problem is that many do not understand that what you are saying is not applicable in all cases, that it is only applicable in the one case you are referring to, and that is because, as you explained it above, your way applies to all installations, when in fact it only applies to that one specific installation setup.

So why not teach the way which will always be correct, the way which will not create confusion when other approved installation setups are inspected?

Not sure why you are continuing to resist the way which is always correct and instead keep defending a single installation setup as though it is applicable to all installation setups.

As an educator, it seems to me that you would want to teach your students the way which is always correct - that it is "service equipment" and that the neutral is bonded to ground at the "service equipment".

[Paul W Abernathy]

Mr. Peck,

Firstly, you must come from a long line of "ASSUMERS" in that you assume I teach the term "Sub-Panel". If you actually took the time to READ my posts I have made you would not accuse me but rather understand that as an educator I listen to the term "Sub-Panel" and have a unique ability to take that person who is using it, educate them and at the time understand why they are using it and redirect them into the right way to use it...not belittle them in the process of learning.

Secondly, Since you seem to say I teach the term "Sub-Panel" I will point you to page 37 of my book on "How to perform electrical inspections" and you will clearly see I explain that the term "Sub-Panel" does not exist in the NEC® ....so accusing me of teaching something a certain way without 1.) knowing me and 2.) even reading my prevous posts is for an educator quite annoying.

Never assume anything...and YES...I am the Electrical Guru because people learn from me without having to hear the belittled garbage that could come out of a good teaching lesson. I answer peoples questions in a way "THEY" can understand it and then take the time to re-educate them when they understand but might not fully grasp the concept...This is an educator......this is why Mike Holt has me in his 2008 NEC Video's, this is why the State of Virginia listened to me when I spoke up about continued education, this is why I have articles in magazines on electrical topics and this is why I did a training video for INACHI.org........because I educate and not breed hate.........

I am done on this topic.....you may bash me at will.....but the fact is we are two different people and you have not read nor understood my posts and have formed your OWN opinion of my teaching style which is incorrect.....It is in PRINT my stance on the term "Sub-Panel" nd it has not waivered here........

You have a good day sir.......Please say hi to Joe for me as I am sure you are both good friends.

BTW..if you dont have the luxury of actually owning my book......here is part of page 37 and 38. However, I am sure you will not like it either and cast stones from glass houses.....Oh...remember in one of your prevous posts...you called the neutral ground....it's grounded conductor...lets not educate them wrong please.


Grounded Conductor. A system or circuit conductor that
is intentionally grounded.


Service Panels


A service panel is a distribution or load center that contains the main disconnecting means. This is the ONLY panel where the neutral and grounds should be joined (bonded) together.

Distribution Panels


Distribution panels, or load-side panels, are downstream from the panel containing the main service disconnect(s). In these panels, the neutral and grounds should be separate, and the neutral bus should be isolated from the panel enclosure.
The only exception to this is in existing detached structures where no metallic path exists between the structures. In this exception, a connection between the grounded conductor and the metal case via a bonding jumper is permitted. According to the 2008 NEC, this is not allowed in new construction, so, in all cases, a 4-wire feed to the detached structure is required in order to isolate the grounded conductors from the equipment grounding conductors.
There are two methods of providing ground continuity back to the service panel:

1. four conductor feeders with:

two hot or ungrounded conductors;
one neutral or grounded conductor; and
one equipment grounding conductor.2. three conductor feeders with:

two hot or ungrounded conductors;
one neutral or grounded conductor; and
equipment grounding through conduit/tubing, electrically linking the two panels (allowed by section 250.118 of the NEC).Mr. Peck's Quote:

Joe,

As common as you think it is, it is not a CORRECT TERM and your use of it is even less correct.

How many conductors to a submarine panel? I've never worked on submarines, so I don't know how they are wired, but they probably have back-up power wired in.

There are at least 3 conductors required for SERVICE EQUIPMENT:
- 2 hot phase conductors
- 1 neutral / ground conductor-OPPS!!!!
- 1 ground conductor (optional to be separate from the neutral, but which gets bonded to neutral at both of its ends)

There are 4 conductors required for A PANEL (A PANEL OF ANY TYPE):
- 2 hot phase conductors
- 1 hot neutral conductor
- 1 equipment ground conductor

If the panel is part of the SERVICE EQUIPMENT then the SERVICE EQUIPMENT gets wired as stated above for SERVICE EQUIPMENT, the panel in it has no controlling nature on how the SERVICE EQUIPMENT is wired.

ANY PANEL downstream from the SERVICE EQUIPMENT (outside the SERVICE EQUIPMENT enclosure) GETS WIRED THE SAME WAY - presuming, of course, we are discussing 120 volt / 240 volt panels.

[Jerry Peck]

Mr. Peck's Quote:





Joe,

As common as you think it is, it is not a CORRECT TERM and your use of it is even less correct.

How many conductors to a submarine panel? I've never worked on submarines, so I don't know how they are wired, but they probably have back-up power wired in.

There are at least 3 conductors required for SERVICE EQUIPMENT:
- 2 hot phase conductors
- 1 neutral / ground conductor (Paul wrote OOPS!! here, but there is not OOPS!! here - see below)
- 1 ground conductor (optional to be separate from the neutral, but which gets bonded to neutral at both of its ends)

There are 4 conductors required for A PANEL (A PANEL OF ANY TYPE):
- 2 hot phase conductors
- 1 hot neutral conductor
- 1 equipment ground conductor

If the panel is part of the SERVICE EQUIPMENT then the SERVICE EQUIPMENT gets wired as stated above for SERVICE EQUIPMENT, the panel in it has no controlling nature on how the SERVICE EQUIPMENT is wired.

ANY PANEL downstream from the SERVICE EQUIPMENT (outside the SERVICE EQUIPMENT enclosure) GETS WIRED THE SAME WAY - presuming, of course, we are discussing 120 volt / 240 volt panels.

There are at least 3 conductors required for SERVICE EQUIPMENT:
- 2 hot phase conductors
- 1 neutral / ground conductor (Paul wrote OOPS!! here, but there is not OOPS!! here - see below)
- 1 ground conductor (optional to be separate from the neutral, but which gets bonded to neutral at both of its ends)

Paul,

I see you are into making assumptions too.

The above was stating that there are 2-hot phase UNGROUNDED conductors, 1-neutral GROUNDED conductor, and 1-GROUNDING conductor.

I was listing them in numerical order as follows:
- 2 hot phase conductors
- 1 neutral / ground conductor

Now, remember, Paul, this is for service entrance conductors, and the neutral serves double duty as a groundED conductor and a groundING conductor, thus the neutral is a "neutral / ground".

Thus there is 1 neutral / ground conductor and 2 hot phase conductors.

ADDITIONALLY ... one may ... MAY ... but is not required to ... install a separate groundING conductor, thus I added " - 1 ground conductor (optional to be separate from the neutral, but which gets bonded to neutral at both of its ends)" - Paul, note the "OPTIONAL TO BE SEPARATE FROM THE NEUTRAL" part.

Seems you were so intent to jump on me that you did not actually read and comprehend what I was stating.

Do you understand it now? If so, do you concur?

Paul, don't worry about the red text, I used it as Joe used blue text, for whatever reasons Joe had, he did not want to use the normal black text, so I replied with red text to separate it from the normal black text as (I guess) to Joe it has special meaning to not use black text.

[Paul W Abernathy]

lol....so you see..it is not about you knowing what Ground versus Grounded means.....it is that without reading the entire posts being made you can't make assumptions......I believe I have made my point and sorry I had to post it to get you to reply....see the fact is I knew what you were saying....even if maybe all the proper terms where not being used....

An educator knows how to work around this........and correct when needed and not turn it into a *issing contest......However you need to look at the definitions in the National Electrical Code of which you speak.

It may serve a double duty....but it does have a name for the duty to which it serves. When we educate about the conductor to which is intentially connected to ground it becomes the grounded conductor.


Ground. The earth.


Grounded Conductor. A system or circuit conductor that
is intentionally grounded.


Grounded (Grounding). Connected (connecting) to
ground or to a conductive body that extends the ground
connection.

Ahhh...but you did not say "grounded" conductor as you claim...you said and I quote:

- 1 neutral / ground conductor

Why cause confusion in the terms since you don't give electricians or home inspectors credit for knowing your "/" means dual purpose....anyway my point is made........don't throw stones when you live in a glass house...I never said anything about teaching people to use the term "sub-Panel" but you did infer people to confuse "ground" with "grounded"....I didn't.

Why am I even going into this with you.....oh thats right you assumed false information about my teaching style...thats right..I remember now.

[Paul W Abernathy]

Also....what is your point.

Eternal savior of the Home Inspection Industry, to embark on defaming other educators for self promotion? Go back to the original post, do a search on MikeHolt.Com and read some of Mr. Holt's technical information and see if he ever uses the term "Sub-Panel"...newsflash....it gets used and not because he does not know the difference....but because we went with the flow of the question being asked.....and adapted it to the person learning as that is what Mr. Holt is good at....teaching people.

If Mr.Farsetta wants to train HI's and call it a "Sub-Panel" and say the reason it is that is because it is a sub structured system of the electrical panelboard structure....then all the power to him.....who made you god of educators and primevil controller of Mr. Farsetta's teaching style?

OH...BTW..I was wrong.....Subpanel does appear in the 2008 NEC...lol...my mistake


409.2 Definitions.
Control Circuit. The circuit of a control apparatus or system
that carries the electric signals directing the performance
of the controller but does not carry the main power
current.

Industrial Control Panel.

An assembly of two or more
components consisting of one of the following:


(1) Power circuit components only, such as motor controllers,

overload relays, fused disconnect switches, and

circuit breakers
(2) Control circuit components only, such as pushbuttons,
pilot lights, selector switches, timers, switches, control
relays
(3) A combination of power and control circuit
components
These components, with associated wiring and terminals,
are mounted on or contained within an enclosure or
mounted on a subpanel. The industrial control panel does
not include the controlled equipment.


I know......but then again I don't think their version of "Subpanel" is located in a submarine either....gotta ask the CMP on that one.


The point is....who cares.....I don't use the term "sub-panel" and speak againsts it in my book, video's and seminars...but far be it for me to tell Mr. Farsetta how to speak about it or degrade his ability because of it...and if his johnson is longer than mine or feet are bigger...hell man I dont care....as long as his INTENT is to give proper methods I can correct the "sub-panel" fiction at the NEXT level of education....


The point is....Home Inspectors are not Electricians and they don't want to be. They are not Electrical Code Officials and don't want to be....They understand what a "sub-panel" is....and they know it is not the service disconnection means.....give them credit for knowing something man !


If they all want to know that the term "Sub-Panel" really is.....buy my book...heck I dont get any of the proceeds from it....just a name on the cover and a pat on the back.........I did it because I care about the Home Inspectors.....nothing more...nothing less.

Inclosing, my point is I dont even know you Mr. Peck. I have no opinion of you and I have never read anything by you. I have never met Mr. Farsetta either but I know of the man and he does try to help educate and make things better for Home Inspectors. His intent of his original post was to educate and not partake in a Tit-for-tate over symantics of a term used by millions of people whom I will NEVER get a chance to educate....but alteast he is trying to help...and now we have who knows how many pages of WORTHLESS BANTER of a freakin term "Sub-Panel"....quite frankly I am ashamed to even be aprt of the freakin debate.......maybe he used a term that was technically not correct....you knew his intent and well saw fit to slam him for a weakness in the delivery......come on now.....are we not professionals?

[Paul W Abernathy]

Mr. Peck,

You need to understand a few things. We have alot educators around the country using the term "SubPanel" and they are not your everyday throw away educators you speak of.

1.) Visit mike holts website and notice a book being sold regarding EMF and by an EMF expert in the electrical industry. Here is a snippit of what he says and is supported by Mr. Holt in sales.

ELF Magnetic Surveys
Tracing EMFs in Building Wiring and Grounding,
by Karl Riley, 133p, many illustrations, MSI, 1995, $28.00
Mike Holt (http://www.mikeholt.com/technical.php?id=grounding/unformatted/emf&type=u&title=Electro%20Magnetic%20Fields%20(EMF))

Notice his use of the term "SubPanel" in his publication.

Illustrated Guide to the National Electrical Code- By Charles Miller ( whom I hold high respect for ) uses the term SUBPANEL on no less than (4) specfic pages of his publications in the same nature as Mr. Farsetta uses it. View pages 168, 182, 195 and 238. You can view these on google right now without owning the book.

How about Mr. James Stallcup, a well respected author and is endorsed by the NFPA® as well as selling his books nationwide via their NFPA® website...he uses the term "subpanel" in his book on section 2-1 to describe it in just the nature Mr. Farsetta has used it.....You do know Mr. Stallcup right?

How about Phil Simmons, another WELL respected electrical educator who uses the term in his book called Electrical Grounding and Bonding. I would consider him the leading authority on the subject to be honest with you and he makes reference to the term "SUBPANEL" on page 206 of his very popular book...yes I have this one also...I love his work....

Now....how about Page 399 of the very popular NEC 2008 mcgraw-hill handbook....where they use the term: Copied below;



equipment enclosures or any other grounded parts on the load side of the service.




That is, bonding of equipment-grounding and neutral buses within subpanels (or any other connection between the neutral or other grounded conductor and equipment enclosures) is prohibited by the NEC Code.




Or yet again here




grounded system conductor to a grounding electrode (through the enclosure


and raceway system to the water pipe or driven ground rod). Such connections,

like bonding of subpanels, can be dangerous, as shown in Fig. 250-13.







and yet again in the figure 250-13 they talk about...see the quote below under the figure.





Fig. 250-13. NEC prohibits bonding of subpanels because of these reasons.

(Sec. 250.24.)







and yet again on page 417.........see below:




exactly the same as any wiring within the originating building that originates in a subpanel. The previous allowance for bonding equipment grounding and grounded circuit conductors at the building disconnect for the second building


I could go on...and on...and on...and on.......so you have a busy job ahead of you Mr. Peck in that their are alot of well known and well respected electrical educators out their in the same company as Mr. Farsetta using the term "subpanel" in their publications and as educators.


Oh wait...yet even again in the 2008 mcgraw-hill 2008 NEC Handbook..




is common in many parts of the country, with an outdoor service panel
breaking out major loads and an indoor subpanel supplying the various
lighting, small appliance, and receptacle circuits. A panelboard with two
main breakers is covered in the next topic.








Wait..what about the REAL NEC® endorsed handbook....lets check...



Yep....check their commentary under 250.96(A), Their exhibit 250.45, 250.146 commentary , 408.40 commentary but I digress......you need to also call Jeffrey Seargent and Mark Early and inform them also to not use the term "subpanel" in their commentary to explain the NEC®...are they not educators?


Honestly...did you really want to turn down that path?????

[Jerry Peck]

Mr. Peck,

You need to understand a few things. We have alot educators around the country using the term "SubPanel" and they are not your everyday throw away educators you speak of.


Paul,

I see you have now slipped into the same trap you tried to set for me, and you have been bitten by that trap as well ... :rolleyes:

You came here and interrupted and interjected into a discussion things not pertinent to the discussion, and when the the discussion continued, you are now trying to apply the discussion to others outside those being discussed.

The discussion started with, and was about, Joe and what Joe was stating ... not about Mike Holt and others (who state other things). In trying to turn the discussion away from the topic being discussed, you made an typical educator mistake - thinking that you can interrupt a discussion and make it applicable to what you what it to be applicable to, instead of being applicable to what, and who, was being discussed and trying to lead those discussion to the right ending.

Your last 2-3 posts (too many to bother counting in a single repetitive response trying to make a point outside the discussion) show you really are only coming here to try to toot your own horn. Why is not my concern, but the discussion was, and is, about what was being discussed, not about your interjection of others.

You still have not responded to the fact that "service equipment" is where the neutral (groundED conductor) gets bonded to ground (the ground established by the groundING electrode conductor being groundED to the service equipment enclosure and in turn groundING that to the groundING electrode system, which establishes a earth GROUND) and that the point of bonding the neutral (groundED conductor) to the ground has nothing to do with any panel, whatever name you want to call it, which includes calling it a "main" panel.

The only point (location) of bonding the neutral to ground is at the "service equipment" ... not at a so called "main" panel.

You can continue to try your distractions, and continue to ignore the discussion, but that will simply show your real self - whatever that is you want to show us. Your call.

[Erby Crofutt]

Give it up, guys. You don't have enough time on your hands to out post Jerry.

It ain't YOU!

It's the "sub-panel" thingy he's after.

He's been hammering on it everytime it comes up for the last umpteen years.

Almost funny now, I've seen it so many times.

-

[Paul W Abernathy]

Agreed Erby...it is pointless as the TRAP is Mr. Farsetta is in good company with many well known educators around the country who do teach to electricians and do use the proper terms and still happen to use the term "subpanel" in their publications. Why, because they feel the term needed in getting their point accross.

Clearly he has not read any of my work or he would know I don't use the term "SubPanel" in my educational moments....but if an educator does It would not bother me in the least......

The only TRAP is admiting when you are wrong and beating a dead horse for many, many years ( or post counts ) it seems.

You go right ahead Mr. Farsetta and use the term "SUBPANEL" if you wish, the educators who know what you are talking about will smooth out the rough ends down the line....just keep up the education fella.

In the end...I don't wish to keep pace with you Mr. Peck as I don't even consider you worthy of my time.....have a nice day !

[Paul W Abernathy]

You still have not responded to the fact that "service equipment" is where the neutral (groundED conductor) gets bonded to ground (the ground established by the groundING electrode conductor being groundED to the service equipment enclosure and in turn groundING that to the groundING electrode system, which establishes a earth GROUND) and that the point of bonding the neutral (groundED conductor) to the ground has nothing to do with any panel, whatever name you want to call it, which includes calling it a "main" panel.

The only point (location) of bonding the neutral to ground is at the "service equipment" ... not at a so called "main" panel.


lol....now I am not sure where to begin but "Service Equipment" is the nature of the equipment. Do you even know what actually makes it service equipment...probably not. However, the location to which the grounded conductor ( yes, grounded conductor ) makes it connection to the electrical system is where 250.24(A) allows us to....this is not hard to understand.....is it?

Trust me, I am not a person you wish to get into a code debate with and I don't really have time to play your little games on such petty issues.

Please take the time to read 250.24(A)(1)


(A) System Grounding Connections.

A premises wiring


system supplied by a grounded ac service shall have a

grounding electrode conductor connected to the grounded
service conductor, at each service, in accordance with
250.24(A)(1) through (A)(5).


(1) General.




The grounding electrode conductor connection


shall be made at any accessible point from the load end

of the service drop or service lateral to and including the
terminal or bus to which the grounded service conductor is
connected at the service disconnecting means.


But anyway...you are correct and I am new to this forum and can only guess you got upset with Mr.Farsetta because he is stepping on your "electrical toes" and you are not happy about it....it's all good.


Be sure to tell me how it goes when you get off the phone with Mr. Karl Riley, James Stallcup, Charles Miller, Phil Simmons, Mark Early and lets not forget Jeffrey Sargent. Please inform them of their improper use of the term "subpanel"....let me know how that works out for you...;)


Oh please also give Mr. Mike Holt a call and tell him that Mike Culbreath needs to change all those graphics in his books that he labels as "MAIN" which is in many of his images the actual service disconnection means being depicted in his representations of service equipment.......lord knows we don't want that corupting the legends of future electricians.


So lets jump back to the 2005 NEC.....you say the only place you would bond a "grounded" conductor to ground is at the service equipment. Then we are going to have one heck of a time explaining 250.32 to some of the electricians still using the 2005 NEC in regards to detached structures. The last I checked ( and yes, Virginia is still on the 2005 NEC ) 3 wire to a detached structure was acceptable if the conditions were met...and ofcourse you establish a GES at that detached structure. You would have to bond the grounded conductor to the case and thus ground via the GEC of that detached structures GES. Now, I am not in the mood to give you a lesson on the application but since we know the electrical enclosure and panelboard at that seperate enclosure has to be suitable as service equipment...it is not and I am sure you will agree not in itself a service but it is indeed service equipment by nature of 225.36's mandate.


So why are you even bringing this up???....we all know that the location where the GEC connection to the grouded conductor takes place in service equipment....who has debated that???....the debate is on the use of the term "SubPanel" and Mr. Farsetta's use of it if my memory serves me right...


FYI....their are many panels out their installed in a remote distribution setup that are rated as service equipment....that does not make that the location the GEC must be connected too so I fail to see your point or why you think it is a question that needs to be answered.


The questions were.......is it wrong for Mr. Farsetta to use the term "subpanel" in his education to which you began your blast of him. It has come to light that many high profile electrical educators also use the term in their publications. You appear to have a problem with him calling the Service Disconnection Means a "MAIN" yet most of the electrical panelboards today on the market have a sticker labled "MAIN" and one of the leading educators in the country actually produces images with this label on the service disconnection means depicted in his graphics as "Main"........none of which are grounds to berate Mr. Farsetta's teaching ability or judgement as an educator.


Ok....I am done with you Mr. Peck. If you wish to really get into some CODE debates that will actually teach you something maybe you could visit my site...The Electrical Guru - Bring your electrical questions to the Electrical Guru ! (http://www.TheElectricalGuru.com) and we shall explain some finer points of electrical education...until then....BASH AWAY......it appears to be in good standing of the company you keep.

[Joseph Farsetta]

Jerry,

You wrote the following as a rebuttal to one of Paul Abernathy’s posts:

"thinking that you can interrupt a discussion and make it applicable to what you what it to be applicable to, instead of being applicable to what, and who, was being discussed and trying to lead those discussion to the right ending"

I think I got whiplash from reading that one....

"Why is not my concern, but the discussion was, and is, about what was being discussed, not about your interjection of others."

Whoa... nearly lost it with that one, as well. Excedrin headache # 250..

"You still have not responded to the fact that "service equipment" is where the neutral (groundED conductor) gets bonded to ground (the ground established by the groundING electrode conductor being groundED to the service equipment enclosure and in turn groundING that to the groundING electrode system, which establishes a earth GROUND) and that the point of bonding the neutral (groundED conductor) to the ground has nothing to do with any panel, whatever name you want to call it, which includes calling it a "main" panel. "

Now you’ve done is… My head is spinning.

Honestly... your point is totally lost in your frustration and apparent fury at those who do not subscribe to the Gospel of electricity according to Jerry Peck. I am truly sorry I have upset you. However, I standby my initial comments, and submit that they are far more helpful than the gobbledygook you have attempted to hammer me with for the last day and a half.

To with, you have now back-peddled away from the sarcasm you threw in my direction, talking of submarine panels. When Mr. Abernathy pointed out that the reference does exist, and more importantly is RECOGNIZED by industry experts, you start spinning out of control. Come on, Jerry… You are much better than this.

But, I digress. Why I chose to lower myself to your level is beyond me. In the future, I will likely regard your rebuffs as comments of a bitter person.


I'll leave you with this...

The difference between educators is where a so-called “educator” truly believes that education is a science, where in actuality it is an ART.



You speak of science and the written word in terms of absolutes. If we are speaking of quantum physics and the laws of the Universe, then perhaps your argument carries some merit. Unfortunately, we are not.



As one who professes to be an expert at the NEC and its many interpretations (while I am not), I may also remind you that the NEC is full of alternates, and some contradictions. It serves as the electrical bible for minimum safety standards of electrical installations. It does not speak of theory or concepts. It does not explain every chapter and verse. It is a guide. Simply because a word is not seen in its content, does not mean that the word does not exist, or should be ignored. You of all should know that. But back to the subject of education...



Where the inspection concepts and facts I offer are made for the everyman, yours are not. That's really okay.



When an educator offers a tidbit or idea in the classroom, he or she needs to do so in a way that keeps the student interested, and spur the thought process. Sometimes, that means painting a mental picture. Often, follow on comments or questions serve to clarify or make for interesting discussion. Its rarely one sided, as in education this is counter-productive.



To Paul Abernathy's comments and insight... Here we have a working electrical and NEC expert who holds a position as such, getting your point yet offering an alternative; a bridge if you will between what is the difference between technical correctness and practical knowledge and application. Instead of self reflecting, as I have through this thread, you have chosen to take a defensive position, to the point of attacking Mr. Abernathy. This was predictable on your part. But, Jerry… there is nothing to get defensive about.



I ask you to put yourself in the shoes of the average, or above average home inspector. Now please read your many posts, especially the ones where you seemingly talk in circles in an effort to discredit me (I don’t particularly care, by the way).



Now ask yourself how many students you would have lost by the second paragraph. Although you think I don’t understand electrical theory, you are so far off the mark it is laughable. Sometime I'll tell you of the electrical projects I oversee.



THAT's the difference between you and I, Jerry. That's why I am regarded as a quality educator. In this world, there is black and white and grey. Educators understand grey, and more importantly, shades of grey. Educators are typically HUNGRY for more education. I consider myself to be in that category.



In practice, many inspectors are weak, or under some common misconceptions, in electrical areas. As we deal with different eras of construction in our practices, different iterations of various codes apply. As code inspections are not a part of a home inspection, intricate details of codes and interpretations of codes need not be known to the level of detail you suggest we should all know. Teaching to the written word of the NEC is not what this is about. Concepts are what this is all about.



As I have stated, if my comment evoked thought and someone benefitted from it, I was successful. If another comment to mine evoked further thought, knowledge, or clarification, then I was doubly successful.



Other than trying to discredit me, what was your purpose? Absolute correctness?



Okay... if that was your intent, then you could have approached it differently. You may have started with something like "Hey Joe, good thoughts, but I'd like to expand on this concept and get into what the NEC describes as panels and disconnects..." Could you have done this? Sure. So why did you choose not to? Must be something much deeper.



I submit that my thoughts were not the issue, as is supported by Mr. Abernathy's spin on the discussion you have chastised him for entering. The fact that the initial posting came from ME is the issue. The only thing you have accomplished is your uncanny ability to talk technicalities to the point of nearly boring me to death.



For future classes I teach, where I may choose to speak in generalities about panels, disconnects, and such.. I may also glean some of your "electrical political correctness" into these presentations. My problem is trying to explain it in 5-minutes or less without having students eyes glaze over in the process. That is my challenge.



However, the biggest lesson I have learned through this discourse is that, where I recognize and embrace opportunities for improvement, you simply want to try and crush those whose opinions are not in perfect sync with your own... even when those who disagree are bonafide experts in the field.


You've learned nothing in the process. How very sad for you.

[Jerry Peck]

It's the "sub-panel" thingy he's after.


Erby,

Actually, it is not the "subpanel" thingy I am after, it is those who teach that the neutral is bonded to ground at the main panel and not bonded to ground at the subpanel, when in fact the neutral is bonded to ground at the service equipment and not at any thing called a "main panel", and that a "main panel" and a "sub panel" would be wired the same.

Those who teach that refuse to admit that the proper way to teach this, and the way the NEC they are supposedly teaching addressed this, is that the neutral is bonded to ground at the "service equipment".

No amount of tricker, deception, mis-direction, re-direction, play faking, whatever you want to call it, will alter the fact that the neutral is bonded to ground at the ... "service equipment".

Their method of teaching "main panel" as the bonding point for the neutral to ground only leads to confusion - which shows up fairly often here, and other places.

The simplicity of the thing is that if they were to teach what they say they are ... the NEC ... they would teach that it is at the "service equipment" that the neutral is bonded to ground.

If they would only do that, the confusion would stop.

See, the entire thing is propagated by the simple fact that they are teaching the wrong thing. And the solution is as simple as making that change to teaching the correct thing.

Which, really, is a shame.

[imported_John Smith]

This is getting good. My money is on Jerry though. I consider Jerry the Inspectors Inspector. I for one genuinely appreciate all the help he has given me and others over the years.

Im not sure why the NACHO guys want to come to IN and try to bash such a solid member.

I think I am going to start referring to myself as the grand poobah of home inspection.

[Terry Heller]

So I'm scheduled to inspect a submarine this afternoon. Can anyone tell me who many conducotrs there should be? I thought conductors were only on trains. :D

[Raymond Wand]

Did you know ....

This is what happens when you have a home inspector who is a vendor and not a qualified electrician teaching courses. This is exactly what happened up here in Ontario a couple of years ago with a well inspection course. The attendees where left with the impression that they were somehow qualified to inspect wells and were advertising the fact they were qualified after a one day course.

Jerry don't be dissuaded by your detractors!

[Paul Johnston]

Joseph Farsetta, (http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/members/joseph-farsetta.html)
Yes your article is helpful to newbie's, it would much more helpful to explain why the ground and neutral have to be separated. It is easy to tell someone to "do it this way or that way" but if they understand why is of greater benefit.

[Dan Harris]

The reason I come to this site is to learn from the shared experiences, and failures from other experienced inspectors, then I can apply those failures and experiences to my way of doing business.


I think there are some that think we still need to be taught how to do something by the book only.
It does not take long to realize what the books tell you can vary greatly from the real life in the field.
I don't come here to be taught by self annointed / proclaimed gerus, and self annointed /proclaimed elete educators with big egos.

Now I'll go back to inspecting those submarine electrical panels :D

[Fred Warner]

The reason I come to this site is to learn the shares experiences, and failures from other experienced inspectors, then I can apply those failures and experiences to my way of doing business.........................
:D
The reason I come is to watch the pole-vaulting over mouse turds.:D (More times than not, during that enjoyable(:p ) sport, I find I actually learn something):)

[Dan Harris]

The reason I come is to watch the pole-vaulting over mouse turds.:D (More times than not, during that enjoyable(:p ) sport, I find I actually learn something):)

A few turds thrown in once a while help the web ratings :D

[Michael Farha]

If all of you have this much time to make all of these posts, you are either not working or doing after dark. Lets try and keep it civil. All info is a good thing!

[Fred Warner]

If all of you have this much time to make all of these posts, you are either not working or doing after dark. Lets try and keep it civil. All info is a good thing!
Not doing what after dark??? :confused: :D

[Erby Crofutt]

Terry,

You have to broaden your horizons.

Conductors are also in the operas.

:) :) :)

Remember,

neutrals are only bonded to ground at the Service Equipment!!

[Michael Greenwalt]

Just me and my area but this is actually one of the "least" defects I see.

[Joseph Farsetta]

For Paul Johnston, an answer to your question. I tried to craft something in as simplified a manner as possible, and gleaned something good from my archives...

The following explanation is an abridged version of an answer to essentially the same question, originally authored by Mike Holt, on MikeHolt.com. It is from May of 2003. Read the entire explanation at Grounding and Bonding of sub-panels - Mike Holt's Forum (http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=72499&highlight=egfp). One may also note the use of the term “sub-panel” in this and other articles throughout the electrical forums, and as an accepted term throughout the industry, despite what anyone may tell you.

Here goes an expert’s explanation, in a nutshell and in laymen’s terms. I think Mike does a superb job with this simple explanation, BTW…

Neutral-to-ground connection can be cause by wiring errors such as neutral-to-ground shorts in receptacles, shorted surge suppressor, ballast wires caught under ballasts or ballast covers, etc. But most commonly, improper neutral-to-ground connections are made when the neutral conductor is bonded to the metal case of a subpanel.

An improper neutral-to-ground connection can create a condition where neutral current has multiple parallel paths to return to the power supply. This condition (parallel neutral paths) creates “ground loops”, “net currents” and the condition of “objections current” on the EGFP (effective ground-fault current path), a violation of Section 250-6.

Objectionable (neutral) current flowing on the metal parts of the electrical system can cause fires, electrocution, and power quality issues with sensitive electronic equipment.

Improper wiring resulting in a condition where neutral current flows through the EGFP can cause the temperature at loose connections to rise to a level that can cause a fire. In addition, arcing at loose connections because of neutral current flowing through the EGFP is particularly dangerous in areas containing easily ignitable and explosive gases, vapors, or dust.

When a neutral-to-ground connection is made at more than one location (ground loop), objectionable neutral current will return to the source through much of the electrical system and building. The result will be a rise in the voltage difference between the metal parts of the electrical system and the earth.

Paul, I hope this helped

[Fred Warner]

...........................................
Neutral-to-ground connection can be cause by wiring errors such as neutral-to-ground shorts in receptacles, shorted surge suppressor, ballast wires caught under ballasts or ballast covers, etc. But most commonly, improper neutral-to-ground connections are made when the neutral conductor is bonded to the metal case of a subpanel.
.................................................. ......

I believe it's important to clarify that a neutral-to-ground connection is NOT a "short", but rather a "ground fault", similar to a phase-to-ground connection. A phase-to-neutral or a phase-to-phase connection is a "short".
This may seem like "pole vaulting over mouse turds" just as the improper addressing of "sub"-panel may seem - rather than clarifying it as a "remote distribution panel", etc., but the precision of language is very important so that a permanent bit of mis-information is not created.
Once a bit of mis-information goes out of a classroom, how is it retrieved?:confused: :)

[Paul W Abernathy]

The reason I come to this site is to learn from the shared experiences, and failures from other experienced inspectors, then I can apply those failures and experiences to my way of doing business.


I think there are some that think we still need to be taught how to do something by the book only.
It does not take long to realize what the books tell you can vary greatly from the real life in the field.
I don't come here to be taught by self annointed / proclaimed gerus, and self annointed /proclaimed elete educators with big egos.

Now I'll go back to inspecting those submarine electrical panels :D

lol....well what have YOU done Sir for your industry?

-I appear as an Expert on Mike Holts Video's
-I appear in Mike Holts Book
-I Won his Top Gun Award ( closed book code tests )
-Help Establish the CEU Requirement in VA
-Write articles for IAEI Magazine and other Publications
-Licensed Master Electrician and owner for over 20 years
-Author
-Certified from ICC and IAEI in all Electrical Areas
-Conduct Seminars all over the USA

So doubt it is SELF Proclaimed.........what have you done for YOUR industry. If HI's feel they dont need help.....fine but if you rely on someone who shows no pedigree....So has Mr. Peck ever been a licensed Electrician?....ever pulled a single conductor, service change, wire an entire commercial complex.....teach hundreds of electrical inspectors at advanced levels....I doubt it.....

You all can rip me....I dont give a rats A$$.....those that do will always be nothing and will total nothing. They want to earn they seek people like me....otherwise they end up messing it up like those who could careless what is right or wrong......

As for Mr. Peck, It is clear he skips the question of all the leading educators in the country and their use of terms.....it is his way or the highway....better stay in litigation as education is not where he is good.

grow up people.........the only TURD in the forum is the one who things their was is the only way while the educational industry says otherwise. Good luck guys....You are gonna need it !

As for Mr. Farsetta....you have to be insane to want to help these people and then take their flack......screw em !

[Raymond Wand]

And is Farsetta an electrician? Nope.

Thanks Paul, at least you are credible and not as dubious as JF.

[Dan Harris]

lol....well what have YOU done Sir for your industry?

So doubt it is SELF Proclaimed.........what have you done for YOUR industry. If HI's feel they dont need help.....fine but if you rely on someone who shows no pedigree....So has Mr. Peck ever been a licensed Electrician?....ever pulled a single conductor, service change, wire an entire commercial complex.....teach hundreds of electrical inspectors at advanced levels....I doubt it.....

You all can rip me....I dont give a rats A$$.....
As for Mr. Peck, It is clear he skips the question of all the leading educators in the country and their use of terms.....it is his way or the highway....better stay in litigation as education is not where he is good.

grow up people.........the only TURD in the forum is the one who things their was is the only way while the educational industry says otherwise. Good luck guys....You are gonna need it !

As for Mr. Farsetta....you have to be insane to want to help these people and then take their flack......screw em !


Gosh Paul, your not going away mad from here like you did when challanged on the nacho site are you? :)

What have I done for the HI profession?
I, like a lot of other inspectors choose to do things with out bragging, and reminding everone how I great I am and how I did this and that.

RE: Mr Peck.. In my 9 plus years in this business, I can honestly say there has not been any other inspector that has more helpfull to my business.

Nothing personal, but if I want to get an electrical question answered that Jerry or someone else here cannot answer, the first person I would go to is another electrician, and also a Home Inspector is Doug Hansen

[Dan Harris]

Thanks Paul, at least you are credible and not as dubious as JF.

Joe's posts get a lot of hits, and he does make us think... something :D :D

[Raymond Wand]

The only thing he makes me think is his involvement in too many questionable things. :confused:

[Paul W Abernathy]

Gosh Paul, your not going away mad from here like you did when challanged on the nacho site are you? :)

What have I done for the HI profession?
I, like a lot of other inspectors choose to do things with out bragging, and reminding everone how I great I am and how I did this and that.

RE: Mr Peck.. In my 9 plus years in this business, I can honestly say there has not been any other inspector that has more helpfull to my business.

Nothing personal, but if I want to get an electrical question answered that Jerry or someone else here cannot answer, the first person I would go to is another electrician, and also a Home Inspector is Doug Hansen
Lol...you can call it anything you like Mr.Harris...i call it facts. I never questioned Mr.Pecks intent but he has alot of top notch educators laughing at his stance....i know as i called a few of them...lol......also where did i run from Nachi...check out my post count fella.......

BTW.....i also believe in a book Mr.Hansen wrote he used SubPanel also...someone owes Mr.Farsetta an appology as he again is in good company...hell man..it appears im the only one not calling them Subpanels.......well....ofcourse Mr.Peck also...lol

it is just worthless to try and teach closed minds....oh...its again not braggin.....its a fact and proud of it....

[Richard Stanley]

I used to think that Abernathy was the one credible thing about nachi...that has been reduced to zero.

An educator should teach the absolute correct thing, not the version that makes the students happy.
That relates diectly to inspectors that inspect to keep realtors happy instead of doing right for the clients.

[Paul W Abernathy]

I used to think that Abernathy was the one credible thing about nachi...that has been reduced to zero.

An educator should teach the absolute correct thing, not the version that makes the students happy.
That relates diectly to inspectors that inspect to keep realtors happy instead of doing right for the clients.

This shows you don't read ALL the posts.....I don't use the term "Subpanel" in my classes or publications. But ofcourse in order to take a dig at me and NACHI....you had to just give your 2 cents.

Do you guys really think I care what you think of me....or NACHI?

[Billy Stephens]

.

Do you guys really think I care what you think of me....or NACHI?
.
Excuse Me,
But according to The Court Order it's internachi. :D
.
.

[Jim Hintz]

WOW !!! This topic has the longest thread I've ever read !!! Paul, you were great and I will be visiting your site soon. Jerry, you can be too technical sometimes - everyone in the whole country knows what a sub panel is. To me, remote means out in the "Boonies" or something wireless. Mr Farsetta, posting information in "Layman's Terms" works for me - and 99% of the rest of the world too.

This site is good, but it shouldn't be turned into a rant forum. Who is right and who is wrong is not important, what is important is all the information all of you seasoned and knowledgeable people post that the rest of us can learn from. Being too technical just complicates things. :D

[Matt Fellman]

This site is good, but it shouldn't be turned into a rant forum.

As a totally impartial observer to this thread (and one who appreciates all there is learn from it)... it seems that most of the ranting is coming from the the newest few posters.

[Raymond Wand]

Did anyone think that JF would not draw controversy?

[Fred Warner]

...................Who is right and who is wrong is not important, what is important is all the information all of you seasoned and knowledgeable people post that the rest of us can learn from. ...............

The information posted should be correct. Precision of language is important. If you learn incorrect information, how does this affect the industry? "Seasoned" and "knowledgeable" people should be held to a higher standard. Especially those engaged in the activity of educating others less informed. :)

[Richard Stanley]

"I don't use the term "Subpanel" in my classes or publications. But ofcourse in order to take a dig at me and NACHI....you had to just give your 2 cents.

Do you guys really think I care what you think of me....or NACHI?"

lol.. here ya go fella ... Here is another 2 pesos. I don't care if you use the term sub panel. If you allow your students to use it without correcting them, you are condoning it. That then causes them to think it is ok, but, it is your class and your choice.

From what I see there isn't anything left to dig at nachi. I seems to be about gone. I guess thats why some of the nachi board people are over here. There is nothing going on at the nachi board.

The original poster of this thread was a 'big deal' at nachi...now he is over here begging for business .... without paying for advertising..

Do you care what we think? I think so. You have signed off several times saying that you were done, etc., but, here you are again.
Oh yeah, you posted your credentials and said something about being challenged about code. You might want to check out Jerrys list!!!

[Joseph Farsetta]

Mr. Stanley,

I am still quite active at NACHI, and I beg to differ that I am "over here" begging for business. I write many articles and tidbits which are posted and published in a variety of forums, including this one.

The fact that some of those who frequest this board appreciate the post is what makes it worthwhile. I can imagine some folks afraid of posting questions or comments "over here" for fear of reprimand by some of the more experienced inspectors. How sad.

Also, one mentioned "newer posters" ranting. I do not consider myself as a "ranter" as I simply published a statement, and was "corrected" by someone with an apparent axe to grind. Folks have accused me of educating "incorrectly". Hogwash. The concepts are sound, and statements defensible.

The sole legitimate question goes to my assertion that this was one of the more common defects. In my experience, and in my area, the statement is true.

All the rest of the rants, including your characterization of "begging for business" is unfounded. Please show where I have "begged" for anything, solicited anything, or have done any more than making innocuous posts for the benefit of some who may actually learn something.

[Michael Greenwalt]

"talked about. In many of my seminars around the country I even have to call it "sub-panel" so the electricians in the room actually know what I am talking about and then and only then do I explain to them "Sub-Panel" does not exist anywhere in the code but it is what many of them have come to learn so a GOOD educator will roll with it and help them understand without confusing them at this point."

Maybe just me but a confused electrician on basics is a little scary. I could personally care less on the description disagreement tho, as long as my client understands.

[Jerry Peck]

The information posted should be correct. Precision of language is important. If you learn incorrect information, how does this affect the industry? "Seasoned" and "knowledgeable" people should be held to a higher standard. Especially those engaged in the activity of educating others less informed. :)

I absolutely agree with Fred, however, some self-professed "educators" appear to think otherwise.

If you are teaching incorrect and imprecise terminology before experienced individuals - THEY KNOW what you were meaning to say and may ignore the apparent ignorance or inconsistencies in what you say, because they are reading between the lines ... that does not make you a good educator, it simply means you audience ALREADY KNOWS the material.

Trying to do the same when you are actually "educating" someone and you will confuse the heck out of them for they do not "already know the material" and cannot read between the lines and correct your teaching mistakes - they take it like it is taught ... and do so incorrectly as it was taught incorrectly.

Fred is right, if you are an "educator" you are, and should be, held to a higher standard, and that higher standard is one of correctness and being precise.

As simple as teaching "The neutral is bonded to ground at the SERVICE EQUIPMENT."

That is: simple, precise, concise, and ... correct.

[Fred Warner]

I absolutely agree with Fred, however, some self-professed "educators" appear to think otherwise.

If you are teaching incorrect and imprecise terminology before experienced individuals - THEY KNOW what you were meaning to say and may ignore the apparent ignorance or inconsistencies in what you say, because they are reading between the lines ... that does not make you a good educator, it simply means you audience ALREADY KNOWS the material.

Trying to do the same when you are actually "educating" someone and you will confuse the heck out of them for they do not "already know the material" and cannot read between the lines and correct your teaching mistakes - they take it like it is taught ... and do so incorrectly as it was taught incorrectly.

Fred is right, if you are an "educator" you are, and should be, held to a higher standard, and that higher standard is one of correctness and being precise.

As simple as teaching "The neutral is bonded to ground at the SERVICE EQUIPMENT."

That is: simple, precise, concise, and ... correct.

Jerry, these are very astute observations. You've made a clear and concise distinction between the two "schools".
It is a tireless, endless, and perhaps thankless job that educators have to at once teach new material while undermining old memes that were created by ignorant and permanent acts of intentionality.

[Brad Deal]

When I was in college some 30 years ago I had a very much respected management professor warn us about regional differences in technical descriptions commonly found in the construction industry. Names of devices, systems and techniques could vary from state to state, east and west, north to south. To be successful in communicating it is incumbent on the project manager to be aware of this circumstance and guard against mis-communication.

If I mention service equipment to my clients they stare at me with blank eyes. If I say main panel they show a spark of recognition and they say, "Oh, you mean the electric meter.."

I mention distribution boxes and my clients have no idea, but mention sub panel and at least some of the men will know at least a little about it.

The problem here is that we have experts who are involved in different professions arguing over semantics, issues that are way outside the scope of a general home inspection. All these men are probably correct from their point of view, however they are unwilling to recognize their regional/professional differences in semantics. Their inability to reconcile these differences throws doubt over the entire thread.

None of these men perform home inspections full time but make their living in some other profession. Codes are specfically excluded by SOP and contract; codes cannot be applied retro actively. These men are attempting to overlay standards from other professions onto home inspection industry. This is a very important distinction. Until the home inspection industry recognizes this fact, that it is not codes, but rather theory, i.e., the professional judgement of the inspector whether a system is safe, is what matters. We are being paid to provide a professional judgement that a home buyer can use to make an informed purchase decision. If I tell them their mid 1970 home is defective because it has a 3 wire service conductor rather than the modern 4 wire service conductor then I have retro actively applied modern codes to an older house. In the opinion of the real estate industry I have done a grave injustice to my client by suggesting the home is not safe, where in fact it is safe, but not quite as safe as a modern house with a 4 wire conductor. Our industry will never achieve the recognition from the real estate industry it deserves until this conflict of interest is resolved.

How safe is safe enough?

I now have to re-learn bonding/grounding/grounded/grounded conductors/ and ground round to keep my sanity.

[Richard Stanley]

Brad,

Do you believe that the client has the right to know that a particular system / device is less safe than current standards would provide?

Do you feel that you have a right / obligation to tell them about it, if you are aware of it?

If a house was built 50-60 years ago and every thing was approved / acceptable then, should you not mention anything that would require / suggest upgrades to meet a higher safety standard??

[Paul W Abernathy]

lol....ignorance run wild.....oh well.....better start correcting the "pioneer" educators of the country...Mike Holt, James Stallcup Sr., Phil Simmons, Charles Miller and the others........you people are quite insane.

Reality is....you NEVER read all the posts but make comments on things you know nothing about...simply amazing...lol

Anyway....best of luck to you all...and trust me......Of your "EXISTING" "litigators" here.....None are real educators and those who comment on educators could not teach their way out of a wet paper bag...lol...

So I consider the source and laugh at you all in your replies...simply insane if you ask me. BTW....hope you all NEVER use any slang again when you "educate" someone.....lol...oh but wait..none of you are real educators anyway( Except Mr. Farsetta who I know educates people )....go figure.

[Jerry Peck]

oh but wait..none of you are real educators anyway( Except Mr. Farsetta who I know educates people )....go figure.


It is amazingly funning that the two people who come here professing to be educators and professing that teaching incorrectly is acceptable come from one organization: Internachi.

I try to keep from commenting on organizations, but Joe and Paul make that impossible.

Then there is Paul, who continues to say we have seen the last of him only to keep coming in and repeating it while trying to defend teaching it incorrectly, even trying to show it is okay by trying to tie himself to the coattails of well know and respected individuals, such as Mike Holt.

Paul, I can tell you that Mike is open to learning and suggestions, and making corrections in his presentations to they are as correct as possible, unlike you, who refuses to acknowledge the simple facts of electrical installation, electrical code, and electrical teachings.

Paul, do you, or do you not, agree that the location where the neutral is bonded to ground is at the "service equipment"?

I asked that quite some time ago and you still have not responded with your answer.

[Jerry Peck]

If I mention service equipment to my clients they stare at me with blank eyes. If I say main panel they show a spark of recognition and they say, "Oh, you mean the electric meter.."

I suspect that if you used the proper name and called it "electrical panel" you would get a knowing response "Oh, you mean where the breakers are.", however, you persist in continuing using misleading names and resist in advancing forward with the proper names, names which your clients would also recognize.


I mention distribution boxes and my clients have no idea, but mention sub panel and at least some of the men will know at least a little about it.

Likewise, if you said "electrical panel" you would have the same, and probably even more, number of people know and understand you meant the breaker panel (also a very commonly used name, and one which does not try to separate "electrical panels" into separate categories).


The problem here is that we have experts who are involved in different professions arguing over semantics, ...

No, the problem is that we have so-called educator who continue to teach incorrect information to home inspectors, among others.

If those so-called educator would teach properly, there would be no problem.

Brad, question for you: Is the neutral bonded to ground at the "service equipment"? If not, where is the neutral bonded to ground?


We are being paid to provide a professional judgment that a home buyer can use to make an informed purchase decision.

Very true. And that professional judgment can only come with proper knowledge, it is, after all "professional" "judgment" and not "guessing".


If I tell them their mid 1970 home is defective because it has a 3 wire service conductor rather than the modern 4 wire service conductor then I have retro actively applied modern codes to an older house.

Brad, you've lost me there.

Many modern installations (most modern installations) use 3 wires for SERVICE conductors (*you* did specify SERVICE conductors) - there is nothing wrong with that.

Now, if you are thinking "feeders" and that older systems used 3 wire feeders and newer systems use 4 wire feeders, you are also incorrect as the "feeders" were always required to be 4 wires (since grounded systems came into being). "Service entrance" was, and still is, allowed to be 3 wires.

Thus, what you are saying makes no sense, and what you are saying implies that you do not have a "professional" "understanding" of what is and was required.

[Fred Warner]

lol....ignorance run wild.....oh well.....better start correcting the "pioneer" educators of the country...Mike Holt, James Stallcup Sr., Phil Simmons, Charles Miller and the others........you people are quite insane.

A person who has great technical skill or knowledge is trained in the minute, formal points, and details. That such a technical expert would likely be required to be aware of subtle changes in terminology seems obvious when one reads Article 100 "Definitions".


Reality is....you NEVER read all the posts but make comments on things you know nothing about...simply amazing...lol

Not sure who you're addressing here since your post lacks clarity.


Anyway....best of luck to you all...and trust me......Of your "EXISTING" "litigators" here.....None are real educators and those who comment on educators could not teach their way out of a wet paper bag...lol...

I've commented on educators here in this post, so it's fair to assume your post is aimed at me, as well as others. So in that light, before you tire yourself out from "educating" me, you might want to work on your website a little more to improve the poor and digressive use of language and diction. It's clear, at least to me, that precision in language or fact is running secondarily along your primary interest, which appears to be self-aggrandizement.


So I consider the source and laugh at you all in your replies...simply insane if you ask me. BTW....hope you all NEVER use any slang again when you "educate" someone.....lol...oh but wait..none of you are real educators anyway( Except Mr. Farsetta who I know educates people )....go figure.

Merely more of your obstinacy and solecism emulating from your alimentary canal, further proving your imprecise research methods and insolent, defiant disrespect for posters on this forum.

[Paul W Abernathy]

Very big words from a nobody....yet no real background in the electrical industry to back it up. Typical.

[Fred Warner]

Very big words from a nobody....yet no real background in the electrical industry to back it up. Typical.

The overpowering temptation for you must be to imagine that your motives on this site and in this thread in particular, are good motives all the while masking the real motive which is to win a useless argument.

Your pride having been dealt a blow, has caused ego-fear to develop and your mocking superiority is but a rationalization to justify the point that you are ignorant about memes and the long term effect they have on education.

But on your website you downplay education and suggest that you are better educated on electricity than college graduates holding electrical engineering degrees. Here, upon close examination, your motives aren't hard to see or understand. You hide your criticism of educated individuals by your "constructive" arguments hoping to pull them down and elevate yourself. In this thread, your self-righteousness isn't as subtle, though.:rolleyes:

[Jerry DeLong]

So, after all this discussion,what conclusion have we arrived at?:)

[Jerry Peck]

So, after all this discussion,what conclusion have we arrived at?:)


That neutrals are bonded to ground at the ... "service equipment". :D

[Stacey Van Houtan]

I live in Kansas City and we had our first frost today. This made my nose run and i asked for a kleenex. Since Mr. Peck was not around to correct me as i should have said Tissue. I was handed a TISSUE and did not have to use my sleeve. Although considered a cowtown, by some coasters, at least we don't have snot on our face.

Oh, by the way, since i asume that some newbies are on this site, we should tell them that on a 2-wire home 3 wires to a sub...... i mean a distrubation panel would have been approved in the past and may still be safe as designed.

How many angles can dance on the head of a needle?

[Jerry Peck]

Oh, by the way, since i asume that some newbies are on this site, we should tell them that on a 2-wire home 3 wires to a sub...... i mean a distrubation panel would have been approved in the past and may still be safe as designed.

Probably only 2-wires to a ... "panel" ... on those houses as they were likely not grounded systems at the time. :p :rolleyes:


How many angles can dance on the head of a needle?

All the needles I've seen were rounded with no angles, you must have some strange needles there with angles on the head, much less angles which move around (dance). :)

[Stacey Van Houtan]

Poke fun at my typos ( angels) I can take it- I work with realtors there for i have thick skin.

But on a seriious note. Check the Denver CO code site, The use the word subpanel is in a update notice for the 2008 NEC. The real world where i have built including buildings from coast to coast in 20-30 states all sparkies i have met understand what subpanel means when building.

More important - how about a real question

What if i install a new outlet with a 12/3 w ground wire that is connected to a two prong sub panel (the panel is located in a closet and has a spae opening at one edison type fuse ) NOW do we need a 4 wire feeder to the panel - should the panel be moved out of the closet -If I need a fourth wire can i just run one wire and if so what size would it be and would it be for the ground or neutral bare or insulated and what size. or do i need a complete new feeder - or can i put a GFCI marking it non-grounded on the outlet and not use the ground and leave the panel alone ?

I await a answer o wise ones

[Jerry Peck]

Poke fun at my typos ( angels) I can take it- I work with realtors there for i have thick skin.

Stacey,

You made a fun and unnecessary comment, I returned with same. Seems like it was good enough for you to do but not for anyone else to do? Sheesh, you sure do not sound like you have a thick skin.


The real world where i have built including buildings from coast to coast in 20-30 states all sparkies i have met understand what subpanel means when building.

Okay, define what a "subpanel" is.

I look forward to your answer and definition.

More important - how about a real question


What if i install a new outlet with a 12/3 w ground wire that is connected to a two prong sub panel (the panel is located in a closet and has a spae opening at one edison type fuse ) NOW do we need a 4 wire feeder to the panel - should the panel be moved out of the closet -If I need a fourth wire can i just run one wire and if so what size would it be and would it be for the ground or neutral bare or insulated and what size. or do i need a complete new feeder - or can i put a GFCI marking it non-grounded on the outlet and not use the ground and leave the panel alone ?


Okay, let's state that in different wording, correct and proper wording, as (after all) that is what has been discussed here.

- What if i install a new outlet with a 12/3 w ground wire that is connected to a two prong panel (the panel is located in a closet and has a space opening at one edison type fuse ).

Note for the above: I must ask what you are referring to when you say "two prong" panel? Are you referring to a 2-wire, ungrounded, fuse panel?

(continuing with the question)
- NOW do we need a 4 wire feeder to the panel - should the panel be moved out of the closet[/quote]

Answer for part of the question: "Should the panel be moved out of the closet?" Absolutely yes.

Note for the above: How can you run a grounded circuit from an ungrounded panel? Besides, now that the panel is being relocated, the new panel is required to be grounded, so that solves that problem.

(continuing with the question)
- If I need a fourth wire can i just run one wire and if so what size would it be and would it be for the ground or neutral bare or insulated and what size. or do i need a complete new feeder[/quote]

Answer for the above part of the question: "or do I need a complete new feeder"? Being as you are relocating the panel, you would need a new feeder appropriate for the new panel.

(continuing with the question)
- or can i put a GFCI marking it non-grounded on the outlet and not use the ground and leave the panel alone ?

Answer to the above part of the question: Relcoating the panel as already been addressed, which means a new panel and a grounded installation, which means the new circuit to the receptacle will have a properly grounded circuit and the receptacle will be properly grounded. Which means that GFCI protection is only required if the new receptacle is in a location which the current code requires to be GFCI protected.

Note, in the code section below, that you are referring to INSTALLING a NEW receptacle, not a REPLACEMENT receptacle. INSTALLED (i.e., "installing a new" receptacle requires a grounding-type receptacle.

From the 2008 NEC. (underlining and bold are mine)
- 406.3 General Installation Requirements.
- - Receptacle outlets shall be located in branch circuits in accordance with Part III of Article 210. General installation requirements shall be in accordance with 406.3(A) through (F).
- - - (A) Grounding Type. Receptacles installed on 15- and 20-ampere branch circuits shall be of the grounding type. Grounding-type receptacles shall be installed only on circuits of the voltage class and current for which they are rated, except as provided in Table 210.21(B)(2) and Table 210.21(B)(3).
- - - - Exception: Nongrounding-type receptacles installed in accordance with 406.3(D).
- - - (B) To Be Grounded. Receptacles and cord connectors that have equipment grounding conductor contacts shall have those contacts connected to an equipment grounding conductor.
- - - - Exception No. 1: Receptacles mounted on portable and vehicle-mounted generators in accordance with 250.34.
- - - - Exception No. 2: Replacement receptacles as permitted by 406.3(D).
- - - (C) Methods of Grounding. The equipment grounding conductor contacts of receptacles and cord connectors shall be grounded by connection to the equipment grounding conductor of the circuit supplying the receptacle or cord connector.
- - - - - FPN: For installation requirements for the reduction of electrical noise, see 250.146(D).
- - - - The branch-circuit wiring method shall include or provide an equipment grounding conductor to which the equipment grounding conductor contacts of the receptacle or cord connector are connected.
- - - - - FPN No. 1: See 250.118 for acceptable grounding means.
- - - - - FPN No. 2: For extensions of existing branch circuits, see 250.130.
- - - (D) Replacements. Replacement of receptacles shall comply with 406.3(D)(1), (D)(2), and (D)(3) as applicable.
- - - - (1) Grounding-Type Receptacles. Where a grounding means exists in the receptacle enclosure or an equipment grounding conductor is installed in accordance with 250.130(C), grounding-type receptacles shall be used and shall be connected to the equipment grounding conductor in accordance with 406.3(C) or 250.130(C).
- - - - (2) Ground-Fault Circuit Interrupters. Ground-fault circuit-interrupter protected receptacles shall be provided where replacements are made at receptacle outlets that are required to be so protected elsewhere in this Code.
- - - - (3) Non–Grounding-Type Receptacles. Where attachment to an equipment grounding conductor does not exist in the receptacle enclosure, the installation shall comply with (D)(3)(a), (D)(3)(b), or (D)(3)(c).
- - - - - (a) A non–grounding-type receptacle(s) shall be permitted to be replaced with another non–grounding-type receptacle(s).
- - - - - (b) A non–grounding-type receptacle(s) shall be permitted to be replaced with a ground-fault circuit interrupter-type of receptacle(s). These receptacles shall be marked “No Equipment Ground.” An equipment grounding conductor shall not be connected from the ground-fault circuit-interrupter-type receptacle to any outlet supplied from the ground-fault circuit-interrupter receptacle.
- - - - - (c) A non–grounding-type receptacle(s) shall be permitted to be replaced with a grounding-type receptacle(s) where supplied through a ground-fault circuit interrupter. Grounding-type receptacles supplied through the ground-fault circuit interrupter shall be marked “GFCI Protected” and “No Equipment Ground.” An equipment grounding conductor shall not be connected between the grounding-type receptacles.
- - - (E) Cord-and-Plug-Connected Equipment. The installation of grounding-type receptacles shall not be used as a requirement that all cord-and-plug-connected equipment be of the grounded type.
- - - - FPN: See 250.114 for types of cord-and-plug-connected equipment to be grounded.
- - - (F) Noninterchangeable Types. Receptacles connected to circuits that have different voltages, frequencies, or types of current (ac or dc) on the same premises shall be of such design that the attachment plugs used on these circuits are not interchangeable.

[Brad Deal]

The demeaning comments on this thread show a fundamental lack of character and presents a poor representation of the home inspection industry. There is an inability by some to see the overall theme of a post and they driven to cross examine the poster in such a manner as to drive them away from posting anything of a significant nature.

In order to post one must be willing to be subjected to a voir dere where every single bit of minutiae is singled out and cross examined to expose supposed flaws in the comments. In order to protect himself, the poster must first thoroughly research the material and be ridiculously precise in the presentation, and be prepared for a deposition.

I am pretty sure this is not the intent of this forum. Perhaps the ICC forum or Mike Holt forum would be a more appropriate platform to expound on the intricacies of building code enforcement. Home Inspections are not code inspections. Building codes are not retroactive. They play a relatively small role in the home inspection business, but yet they seem to be the standard by which all things are judged.

I inspect property every day. I try to stay away from attorneys for fear of catching a communicable disease and the so called expert witnesses I have come across are generally corrupt.

What do you do for a living?

[Jerry Peck]

Home Inspections are not code inspections. Building codes are not retroactive. They play a relatively small role in the home inspection business, but yet they seem to be the standard by which all things are judged.

Brad,

That is because building codes ARE the standard by which many things are judged in home inspections.

You are, after all, and as a home inspector, inspecting a structure which was (or should have been) constructed to a code - the building codes (which includes the NEC for electrical). Unless you have a fairly good grasp on the building code, how on earth can you know and understand what is "acceptable" and what is not?

Yes, home inspectors DO inspect with codes in mind, and, yes, you are correct, home inspectors are not doing "code inspections" per se, but home inspectors certainly should know and understand what they are inspecting ... and that means being familiar with and understand codes.

Why is that stairway wrong? Want documentation? It is in the codes.

Why is that (whatever) wrong? Want documentation? It is in the codes.

More to the point .. Why is that (whatever) acceptable? Want documentation? It is in the codes. As well as the reasons it is acceptable (or not acceptable).

[Jerry Peck]

Just to put this discussion back on track:

Here is a piece from the UL Panelboard Marking Guide (at the back of the UL White Book). (underlining and bold are mine)




19. In general, the grounding-electrode connection in service equipment is required to be made to the grounded service conductor at the neutral bar. However, Section 250.24(A)(4) of the NEC® permits this connection to be made to the equipment grounding terminal bar, provided the main bonding jumper is a wire or a bus bar and is installed from the neutral bar to the equipment grounding terminal bar. If in a panelboard suitable for use as service equipment, the main bonding jumper wire or bus bar is provided for field installation, instructions are marked on the panelboard for proper installation of the jumper.






50. Most installers recognize the importance of bonding the neutral to the enclosure at the service. Many do not realize, however, that it is just as important to omit the bonding and provide a fully insulated neutral when the panelboard is used in non-service applications.


If neutrals are bonded at distribution points on the load side of the service disconnecting means, the neutral currents take parallel paths through neutral conductors and the grounding conductor (which may include metal raceways). If neutral conductors open, the full neutral current flows over the grounding conductor system (which may include metal raceways). As a result of this loss of the neutral connection, steel raceway joints and box connections overheat, creating a potential fire hazard.





A thank you to Joe Tedesco for sending some of that information to me to post here.



I frequently post the official name is "panelboard", then recommend simply using the term "panel" or "electrical panel" to differentiate "service equipment" from "panels".



"Service equipment" is where the main disconnect is, which is a specialized "panelboard".


"Panels" (i.e., panelboards) which are suitable for use as "service equipment" will either be marked "Suitable only for use as service equipment." or "Suitable for use as service equipment.", the key difference is the word "only" in the first one. That word "only" is a big deal and makes a big difference.


Panels which are "Suitable only for use as service equipment." will have the ground and neutral made such that the are not separable, the neutral cannot be isolated from ground.


Panels which are "Suitable for use as service equipment." will have the neutral and ground made such that the neutral is isolated from ground and the two may be bonded (electrically connected) together when used as service equipment, and left with the neutral isolated from ground when used as (my other common phrase) 'other than service equipment' or 'not service equipment', i.e., regular old "panels".

[Joe Tedesco]

Thanks Jerry!

Here's an old proposal for the 2002 NEC:

http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/pdf/A100.pdf

(Log #2499)

1- 191 - (100-Subpanel (New) ): Reject

SUBMITTER: Andre R. Cartal, Bldg Dept., Princeton Borough, NJ
RECOMMENDATION: Add a definition of "Subpanel" as a
panelboard located in the same building as the service equipment
that supplies it.

SUBSTANTIATION: The use of the term subpanel seems to be on
the increase in many code articles and seminars and while the NEC
does not use this word we would then all know what the word meant
when it was used.

PANEL ACTION: Reject.

PANEL STATEMENT: The term "subpanel" is not used in the Code
and therefore does not warrant a definition.

NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 12
NOT RETURNED: 1 Macias

See this:

we don't need no stinkin' ... - Home Inspection & Home Inspector Services For Inspections and Inspectors (http://inspectionnews.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000980.html)

[Joseph Farsetta]

Brad and Stacey,

Now you understand why some newer inspectors are a bit gunshy at posting comments on this message board. I am not, however. There is no boogy man, and Jerry Peck and Co do not scare me. For education is an art and not a science. I am licensed as an instructor in many states, and have provided quality continuing education, and qualifying education here in NY, for several years.

While I may sometimes digress from what some purists believe is the ONLY way for anyone to teach, what they fail to address is the fact that, beyond semantics, my initial post was in fact valid. One may argue whether the observation is pervasive in their area, but I doubt many electricians will argue that the problem I described is not valid.

Mr. Peck once again fails to addres the TRUE problem, in that he simply does not appreciate me posting on this forum. Those who have chastised me (primarily) have long-standing opinions which differ from my own. Their lack of acknowledgement of the validity in my post only serves to illustrate that they are more interested in bashing their inane point across, as opposed to taking the opportunity to educate in the process.

I submit that they are not educators. They may be competent inspectors, but their inability to see grey and shades of grey, make them ill-suited for any classroom. Inspectors rarely deal in pure black and white.

To those who seek the answer to code specific questions, and who have asked Jerry for advice in the past, I am confident that he provided precisely what you needed. That is to his credit. However, there is more than one way to skin a cat. Jerry apparently still refuses to acknowledge the word sub-panel, even when the verbiage is presented to him affirming its validity and common use.

So, sure.. Old Joe didnt use the words some would have liked him to use. And, no I do not believe that codes play as critical a role in inspections as some would like us all to think. General understanding of building science, plumbing, electrical, foundations, framing and more go just as far if not farther..

What can I say? To a handful, no matter what the opposition believes simply cannot be recognized as correct. Fortunately, they remain in the minority.While I acknowledge the technical correctness of Mr. Peck, his electrical lesson got lost in the sauce.

I hope a few of you benefitted from this lively exchange. Maybe some actually learned something.

[Joseph Farsetta]

Fred wrote:

"...suggest that you are better educated on electricity than college graduates holding electrical engineering degrees."

Disregarding all the rhetoric having to do with "correctness", and more to the point illustrated above, I am in the position of interfacing with degreed engineers of all disciplines, including structural, mechanical, civil, and yes... electrical.

In fact, no fewer than four electrical engineers I deal with on nearly a daily basis are also licensed professional engineers. While I would not burden all of them with this inane argument, I did ask two of them to read my initial statement and comment. I asked them to tell me the truth, in that if the concept and delivery was not sound I wanted to know from two men with no axes to grind. If truly wrong, I asked them to help me understand why.

They both thought my statement was correct, and acknowledged that it was a common mistake that some electricians and homeowners make. When I scrolled down and pointed to some of the posts which followed, they questioned the point that Mr. Peck was making, and both thought that (while technically correct), the information was essentially useless as it failed to address or augment the correctness of the initial statement. They were equally confused, not by the code references, but by Mr. Peck's explanation. They felt it could have been explained in much clearer terms. They felt that my explanation was correct, to the point, and presented in a manner which could be understood from the electrical engineer to the homeowner. They took no exception to it.

So, too your comment and apparent dig to Mr Abernathy, I thought I'd use the opportunity to illustrate the point that those with electrical engineering degrees generally have no problem with my initial concept and statement. But, in the minds of some, there is no room for differing points of view, and that the purist of conceptsd are the ONLY concepts which are correct or are deserving of use... anywhere and at any time..

As to degreed engineers.... it's not to say that one couldn't find two electrical engineers who disagree about my statement. The difference is that I doubt that either would think it important enough to burn up the bandwidth we all have over an essentially sound concept, over these past few days.

[Fred Warner]

Fred wrote:

"...suggest that you are better educated on electricity than college graduates holding electrical engineering degrees."

Disregarding all the rhetoric having to do with "correctness", and more to the point illustrated above, I am in the position of interfacing with degreed engineers of all disciplines, including structural, mechanical, civil, and yes... electrical.

In fact, no fewer than four electrical engineers I deal with on nearly a daily basis are also licensed professional engineers. While I would not burden all of them with this inane argument, I did ask two of them to read my initial statement and comment. I asked them to tell me the truth, in that if the concept and delivery was not sound I wanted to know from two men with no axes to grind. If truly wrong, I asked them to help me understand why.

They both thought my statement was correct, and acknowledged that it was a common mistake that some electricians and homeowners make. When I scrolled down and pointed to some of the posts which followed, they questioned the point that Mr. Peck was making, and both thought that (while technically correct), the information was essentially useless as it failed to address or augment the correctness of the initial statement. They were equally confused, not by the code references, but by Mr. Peck's explanation. They felt it could have been explained in much clearer terms. They felt that my explanation was correct, to the point, and presented in a manner which could be understood from the electrical engineer to the homeowner. They took no exception to it.

So, too your comment and apparent dig to Mr Abernathy, I thought I'd use the opportunity to illustrate the point that those with electrical engineering degrees generally have no problem with my initial concept and statement. But, in the minds of some, there is no room for differing points of view, and that the purist of conceptsd are the ONLY concepts which are correct or are deserving of use... anywhere and at any time..

As to degreed engineers.... it's not to say that one couldn't find two electrical engineers who disagree about my statement. The difference is that I doubt that either would think it important enough to burn up the bandwidth we all have over an essentially sound concept, over these past few days.

Joseph: I have in no way, shape or manner inferred (intentionally or otherwise) that an engineer is not educated or that you are not educated.

Also, I was not discussing your website or your credentials. I've been to your website and read several articles you've written and found them to be interesting and factual.:cool: The only discussion I've had that was pointed at your post here has been the improper use of the term "short" in place of "ground fault" other than the use of the term "sub" used in place of "remote distribution". Just want to clear that up. :)

I do think that the article could use some technical scrubbing to be more exact, but that is only my opinion. I am thankful that you posted the article for debate.

[Dan Harris]

Brad and Stacey,

Now you understand why some newer inspectors are a bit gunshy at posting comments on this message board. I am not, however. There is no boogy man, and Jerry Peck and Co do not scare me.

I submit that they are not educators. They may be competent inspectors, but their inability to see grey and shades of grey, make them ill-suited for any classroom. Inspectors rarely deal in pure black and white.

I hope a few of you benefitted from this lively exchange. Maybe some actually learned something.

Come on Joe, why would you state newer inspectors are a bit gunshy to post here.
Where else can an inspector go if they truly believe they need to learn more about this profession, with out getting pressured to pay $s to join, get pressured to spend more $s, then after doing that be embarrsed by the crap on the site they paid to be a member of.

If they can not figure out how to use information here, and are going to be intiminated by JP and others, they better get out of this profession NOW.....

I've been here for a long time, I have yet to see any reason not to post.
The only reason I've seen to be gun shy, or get challanged, is by coming here and claiming to be an expert, or geru, or due to having some hyped up non verified cert.

[Fred Warner]

.........................................I've been here for a long time, I have yet to see any reason not to post.
The only reason I've seen to be gun shy, or get challanged, is by coming here and claiming to be an expert, or geru, or due to having some hyped up non verified cert.

Gee, a Guru with hyped-up non-verified certification........now that's educational! :D

[Jerry Peck]

Mr. Peck once again fails to addres the TRUE problem, in that he simply does not appreciate me posting on this forum.


Yet again Joe F. does not have a grasp on reality.

The only thing I have been impressing on Joe F. is that posting incorrect information in not suitable anywhere by anyone who thinks they are knowledgeable, let alone thinks they are an educator.

Educators should make sure they only post correct information, and they should be willing to change their incorrect teachings to be correct.

Joe F. has such a high opinion of himself the he believes my posts are aimed only at him, they are not. I have a problem with anyone (whether their name is Joe F. or not) who posts incorrect information and tries to pass it off as being correct, then compounds and confuses the situation by trying to claim they are "educators" as though that justifies teaching whatever they want to teach, even though it is incorrect.

[Joseph Farsetta]

Jerry,

Beyond nomenclature which you believe to be incorrect, but for illustrative purposes IS, in fact, correct, you have failed to disprove the context of my initial post.

As to me "allegedly" being an educator, my credentials and success in that field are verifiable and documented. Sure.... it aint about me at all Jerry. Never was...


There is another forum titled something like two-pronged receptacles. This response is for Richard:

Richard,

Not wanting to use the incorrect terminology (heaven forbid), I will ask you a bit of what you have described as "BX". Some armor-sheathed cable also carry an narrow aluminum tracer, visible as part of the sheath's winding. If this is present, then the matallic sheath carries the grounding conductor.

But, you need to look

[Jerry Peck]

Beyond nomenclature which you believe to be incorrect, but for illustrative purposes IS, in fact, correct, you have failed to disprove the context of my initial post.

Joe,

Being as there are no "main panels" and no "subpanels", for illustrative purposes there is no definition to illustrate to.

For illustrative purposes, the neutrals are bonded to ground at the "service equipment" panel and are not bonded to ground at "other-than service equipment" panels.


Sure.... it aint about me at all Jerry. Never was...

You sure fooled me ... you sure do make it look like it is all about you in the way you post.

[Fred Warner]

Is the following illustrative?

"A plug with one of those test-type buttons on it is hooked to a wire that goes back to the subpanel in a back room. Then there's a bigger wire that goes from there to the main panel next to the big switch in the cellar where the ground wire goes through that pipe and hooks to the water coming in."

Most anyone slightly familiar with electrical systems could "get" this picture. However, most professionals would be more informative. How could it be painted with more detail and accuracy? Hint: "goes back" might be worded "originates".
:) :)

1st sentence might read: "A GFCI-protected, 15 ampere, duplex receptacle is connected to a non-metallic cable branch-circuit that originates in a remote distribution panel located in the north-eastern bedroom."

[Hugh Howard]

DID YOU KNOW...

... that one of the most frequently seen electrical defect has to do with the wiring of electrical sub-panels? It's true. A majority of sub-panels, which are secondary electrical panels wired to the main electrical panel, require four-conductor feeder cables. Once these conductors reach the sub-panel, the grounded (neutral) conductor and grounding (bare-ground) conductor must be SEPARATED. In fact, the neutral conductor must be on its own termination bus bar, which is not in any way connected to the panel case, or housing. The ground conductor must be connected to the case. In addition to this, each individual branch circuit cable's neutral and ground conductors must also be separated, and correctly terminated onto the corresponding terminal bus bar. Often, inspectors see these wired co-mingled and terminated on a single terminal bus bar. This is a common electrical defect, which related directly to safety, and which must be corrected via re-termination. Sometimes, the feeder cable has an insufficient number of conductors (four are needed) which makes correcting this defect more costly and complicated.

Interesting point. About two years ago I put a subpanel into a property that I own. Before doing so, I researched the local codes knowing that there was some degree of contraversy on the subject.

I had always (known) and believed that the ground and neutral needed to be isolated everywhere but at the Main. The reason had to do with potential (voltage) differences that can (and do) occur as distance increases from the Main where the neutral and ground are bonded.

As I did my research, I found an amazing amount of contraversy on the subject. There were schools of thought that suggested that sub-panels should be wired both ways, and suggestions that electrical codes in different areas allowed different configurations.

Just some thoughts.

[Lee Barnes]

Why don't you skunks return to the corners of your yard and leave each other alone?

I am one of the many who monitor this board (for over six years now) in order to gain insight and benefit from those whose experience is different from mine. I have been in the construction and inspection business for over 25 years and can always learn something. Always!

Increasingly I have seen discussions degenerate to vitriolic and personal attacks that appear to be driven by ego or testostorine poisoning.

I have never been compeled to respond before, but this CRAP makes me crazy and I want to stop reading. STOP IT. You guys should know better. Just think of the consumers who also monitor your discussions.

[Hugh Howard]

Why don't you skunks return to the corners of your yard and leave each other alone?

I am one of the many who monitor this board (for over six years now) in order to gain insight and benefit from those whose experience is different from mine. I have been in the construction and inspection business for over 25 years and can always learn something. Always!

Increasingly I have seen discussions degenerate to vitriolic and personal attacks that appear to be driven by ego or testostorine poisoning.

I have never been compeled to respond before, but this CRAP makes me crazy and I want to stop reading. STOP IT. You guys should know better. Just think of the consumers who also monitor your discussions.


Huh? I am sure that many others feel this way... wht are you talking about? Are you sure you responding to the thread you intended to? Your comments don't make any sense.

[Dan Harris]

Why don't you skunks return to the corners of your yard and leave each other alone?

I am one of the many who monitor this board (for over six years now) in order to gain insight and benefit from those whose experience is different from mine. I have been in the construction and inspection business for over 25 years and can always learn something. Always!

Increasingly I have seen discussions degenerate to vitriolic and personal attacks that appear to be driven by ego or testostorine poisoning.

I have never been compeled to respond before, but this CRAP makes me crazy and I want to stop reading. STOP IT. You guys should know better. Just think of the consumers who also monitor your discussions.

Lee .. Welcome to the site.
I agree, those dang elete self proclaimed educators and gerus, skunks from that other site succeded in stinking that one up, and now decided to come and stink this one up also. :D :D

[Fred Warner]

Joe,

Can ANYTHING which is 240 volts ONLY (i.e., NOT 120 volt / 240 volt) be wired without a neutral? If that is what you are trying to ask, the answer to that is "Yes.", and that includes 240 volt ONLY electrical equipment and appliances.

Those 240 volt ONLY equipment and appliances require 2-hots and 1- equipment ground.

Joe and Jerry: I'm sure you both realize this, but perhaps those who are monitoring this thread may not.....A set of service conductors must contain a grounded conductor*. So even if you had a 240 volt service with no grounded conductors required for any of the branch circuits originating from the panelboard, you would not be permitted to install 2 phase conductors and an equipment grounding conductor. You would have to install the 2 phase conductors and a grounded conductor as your service conductors. I know you know this, but others may not understand this.:) Panels downstream are regulated differently. (*there are exceptions)

[Jerry Peck]

Joe and Jerry: I'm sure you both realize this, but perhaps those who are monitoring this thread may not.....A set of service conductors must contain a grounded conductor*. So even if you had a 240 volt service with no grounded conductors required for any of the branch circuits originating from the panelboard, you would not be permitted to install 2 phase conductors and an equipment grounding conductor. You would have to install the 2 phase conductors and a grounded conductor as your service conductors. I know you know this, but others may not understand this.:) Panels downstream are regulated differently. (*there are exceptions)

Fred,

"you would not be permitted to install 2 phase conductors and an equipment grounding conductor. You would have to install the 2 phase conductors and a grounded conductor as your service conductors."

Unless the "equipment grounding conductor" in that service entrance (which is all you are referring to here - "service" entrance, not "feeders") was serving the normal dual purpose as the grounded conductor and the equipment ground conductor - which gets back to our previous discussion about being permitted to run an equipment ground conductor with a grounded conductor - where the grounded conductor also serves to ground the equipment (because it is connected to ground at each end). See the other thread for our discussion on this very issue. It seems to me that you are now taking the opposite position you took on that thread? :)

[Fred Warner]

Fred,

"you would not be permitted to install 2 phase conductors and an equipment grounding conductor. You would have to install the 2 phase conductors and a grounded conductor as your service conductors."

Unless the "equipment grounding conductor" in that service entrance (which is all you are referring to here - "service" entrance, not "feeders") was serving the normal dual purpose as the grounded conductor and the equipment ground conductor - which gets back to our previous discussion about being permitted to run an equipment ground conductor with a grounded conductor - where the grounded conductor also serves to ground the equipment (because it is connected to ground at each end). See the other thread for our discussion on this very issue. It seems to me that you are now taking the opposite position you took on that thread? :)

No Jerry: I am not taking the opposite side as on the other thread. I am clarifying that a grounded conductor must always be run with service conductors. I'm not saying feeders, but rather service conductors and I wanted to make that point clear for readers of this post.
Typical services in which a grounded conductor must be installed with the service conductors are: 120/240 V 1-Phase 3-wire system; 3-Phase, 4-wire Wye system where neutral is used as a conductor; and 3-Phase, 4-wire Delta where the midpoint of one phase winding is used as a conductor.
The services where grounded conductors are not run with service conductors are typically for cranes that operate over combustible fibers in class 3 locations; for isolated power systems in hospitals; and for electrolytic cell circuits.
Just because a panelboard is located within an enclosure containing a service disconnect and that panel is comprised wholly of branch circuits that do not require neutrals, the requirement for a grounded conductor to be included with the service conductors is still there for those types of services mentioned above.
In other words, If I have a building that is entirely wired with 240 volt lighting, 240 V receptacles and baseboard heaters, and I feed it with a 120/240 volt 1-phase service, I must include a grounded conductor in the service conductor set. Not an equipment grounding conductor. This is a different discussion than the other thread.

[Stacey Van Houtan]

The view from Cowtown is that many of these post are wrong some of the time, In our industry NO ONE ( ME, Joe or Peck included) are correct all the time, and most of the quesitons I have seen posted do not give enough information to give one single correct answer. And on some question any answer will be only a opinion no mater what.

[Jerry Peck]

In other words, If I have a building that is entirely wired with 240 volt lighting, 240 V receptacles and baseboard heaters, and I feed it with a 120/240 volt 1-phase service, I must include a grounded conductor in the service conductor set.


And, my point was, that grounded conductor is allowed to be bare, uninsulated.

The neutral grounded conductor is not required to be insulated until it is at the load side of the service equipment. From that point on, the neutral grounded conductor is required to be insulated.

[Bill Kriegh]

Gotta love ithttp://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r231/itsunclebill/popcorn.gif Guy makes a statement about sub panels that is only half right and it runs over a hundred posts.

[Joe Tedesco]

Gotta love ithttp://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r231/itsunclebill/popcorn.gif Guy makes a statement about sub panels that is only half right and it runs over a hundred posts.

Hey Bill:

It gets even better here!

we don't need no stinkin' ... - Home Inspection & Home Inspector Services For Inspections and Inspectors (http://inspectionnews.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000980.html)

[Mike Schulz]

Joe the years fly by. I remember that thread well. Jerry stand your "ground" :) they come and they go but you don't waiver..........

[Joe Tedesco]

Bump! I could not resist! Please forgive me!

http://inspectionnews.com/ubb/uploads/Subpanel1.jpg
http://inspectionnews.com/ubb/uploads/Subpanel2.jpg

IMAGES (http://images.google.com/images?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=SUNA,SUNA:2005-44,SUNA:en&q=subpanel)

[Rick Cantrell]

Joe
I guess you know that you may not be on Jerry's Christmas card list this year.:)
Sorry, make that "Mid Winter Celebration" greeting card list.;)

[Mike Schulz]

Joe, :)

Even Sq. D tries to put it in layman terms for the nimrods like myself that shop the big box stores..:p Doesn't make it right ;)

But it sure puts a damper on Jerry's crusade :rolleyes:

[Jerry Peck]

Joe, :)

Even Sq. D tries to put it in layman terms for the nimrods like myself that shop the big box stores..:p Doesn't make it right ;)

But it sure puts a damper on Jerry's crusade :rolleyes:


Mike,

Not really.

I keep asking someone, maybe you will step up to the plate, to define the following, and explain why they are different.
- "main" panel
- "sub" panel

Hint - they are both wired the same.

[Mike Schulz]

Hi Jerry,

When someone say's main panel to me my first thought is "First means of disconnect"
When someone say's Sub-panel to me first thought is panel down stream from first means of disconnect.

To me with the above mentioned the so called "main" is where ground and neutrals are bonded and is where you cut power to all other equipment/house.

Sub-panel is down stream and there can be several and the neutrals and grounds are isolated from each other.

Remember Jerry I just know enough to fry myself...........But I feel comfortable I could wire a home with no problem. May not know all the physics of it but we all have our weakness.

Now for your Question. Your hint both are wired the same. I'm perplexed because it must be a trick question. Both are not wired the same because the so called sub panel has the neutrals and grounds separated while the "main" can share the same bar.

Let the beating begin...........:D

[Jerry Peck]

When someone say's main panel to me my first thought is "First means of disconnect".

Mike,

In many installations, there is a disconnect outside, no panel, and the one-and-only panel, which would therefore be the "main panel" is inside.


When someone say's Sub-panel to me first thought is panel down stream from first means of disconnect.

So, that would mean that the one-and-only panel was a "subpanel"?


To me with the above mentioned the so called "main" is where ground and neutrals are bonded and is where you cut power to all other equipment/house.

Sub-panel is down stream and there can be several and the neutrals and grounds are isolated from each other.

In my scenario above, which is quite common, what would you call the one-and-only panel and how would it be wired?


Now for your Question. Your hint both are wired the same. I'm perplexed because it must be a trick question.

It is not a trick question.


Both are not wired the same because the so called sub panel has the neutrals and grounds separated while the "main" can share the same bar.

ALL "panels" are wired the same.

It is "service equipment" which is wired differently, whether or not there is a panel there.

What you are calling "the main panel" is in reality "service equipment" and THAT IS THE ONLY REASON the neutral is bonded to ground there - because the main service disconnect is located there, no other reason ... without regard to whether or not there is a "panelboard" within the same enclosure.

[brian schmitt]

[quote=Mike Schulz;106043]Hi Jerry,

When someone say's main panel to me my first thought is "First means of disconnect"
When someone say's Sub-panel to me first thought is panel down stream from first means of disconnect.

To me with the above mentioned the so called "main" is where ground and neutrals are bonded and is where you cut power to all other equipment/house.

Sub-panel is down stream and there can be several and the neutrals and grounds are isolated from each other.

mike,
well stated and easy to understand for the common man!
jerry,
you are beginning to sound like bubbler with his waterproofing issues, not very becoming for a man of your stature:D

[Fred Warner]

Memes such as the term "subpanel" parasitize people into propagating them similar to the way viruses work.

The continuance of replicating the meme "sub" in place of the more definitive or descriptive term "remote" is a unit of cultural evolution having evolved and survived over the many years of use in the electrical and mechanical trades.

The term "sub" has mutated from a misunderstanding through misapplication and has recombined with the term "sub-feed" (and other similar terms) used in the code to become an elemental and mutually supportive form which has organized into an adaptive idea used in place of the term "remote".

The fact that a manufacturer persists in using the term in advertising has no bearing on its authenticity, rather, only in the continuance of an effect after its cause has been removed. This also speaks to it's inclusion in an Article in the NEC.

Jerry Peck, my self and other educators and instructors can clearly see the need to distance ourselves from the pertinacity associated with this term; thus accounting for Jerry's doggedness toward the same. :)