Electrical lead exposure

[John Stephenson]

................

[Jerry Peck]

Technically ...

No more insulation should be removed than is required to allow insertion into the terminal fitting.

On the other hand ...

I don't see what harm that will do.

I think we need to look at the bigger fish than try to minutely and microscopically examine each component for things like that.

I'd rather spend that extra time in the attic or crawlspace - where there is more to look at which could be a problem.

[Richard Rushing]

JP wrote: " think we need to look at the bigger fish than try to minutely and microscopically examine each component for things like that.

I'd rather spend that extra time in the attic or crawlspace - where there is more to look at which could be a problem."

I AGREE..

[Jerry Peck]

John,

Besides, did you write up all those NM cables going up into that one bushing/locknut/raceway?

How about the excessively small bending radius on the feeders?

How about all those grounds going into that one terminals?

All potentially much more critical than those over-stripped wires.

[Jon Randolph]

What about the solid #12 aluminum wires?

[Randy Aldering]

The improper bend is readily apparent on the gray sheathed conductor, which appears to make a 180 degree turn to mate with the lug. If I were to note anything on the neutrals, it would be the apparent overheating that has discolored several of them. Not the kind of panel that I would call "safe". It may be working fine for now, but that does not mean it will continue to work fine for another week. The panel might be overloaded. Why do I see 5 breakers, but 7 neutrals? There are no 240 volt breakers visible. It appears that the SE conductors were connected to the wrong lugs? Yikes ... looks like an electrician needs to go through this panel. An electrician other than the one who last worked on it.

[Jerry Peck]

What about the solid #12 aluminum wires?

I think that's just 'flash washout' and they are really copper.

[Jerry Peck]

The improper bend is readily apparent on the gray sheathed conductor, which appears to make a 180 degree turn to mate with the lug.

John, that one.


It appears that the SE conductors were connected to the wrong lugs?

My thought at first glance, but they are correct. (But, I did a double take on it.)

Let's see, 7 neutrals, which means 7 hots, plus the 3 red hots = 17 current carrying conductors ... going up through that nipple (for how far is unknown) ... not only is that overfilled, but derating *most likely* needs to be done to those conductors. 17 current carrying conductors = 50% derating. Let's say that there are 3 neutrals which are really 'neutrals' (because they are part of a multi-wire circuit, being are there are no 240 volt circuits there), which now makes only 14 current carrying conductors (true neutrals are not counted for derating) = 50% derating. 10-20 conductors bundled or lack of maintaining spacing for greater than 24" means derating of 50%, either way, those fit in that 50% derating number.

BUT WAIT, I erred ... (on purpose, so I could include that part about the neutrals) ...

*IF* the "neutrals" are true "neutrals", i.e., part of a 240 volt circuit and only carry unbalanced load, then, yes, those neutrals are not required to be counted (*can be counted*, just *not required to be counted*).

However, with multi-wire circuits, most times the neutral *IS* carrying current, thus, for multi-wire circuits, the neutral MUST be counted.

Did I muddy it up or clear it up some?

[Mike Parks]

I would have recommended that the panel be reworked by a licensed electrical contractor.