Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    John Stephenson's Avatar
    John Stephenson Guest

    Default Electrical lead exposure

    Last edited by John Stephenson; 12-21-2007 at 09:15 AM.
    Inspection Referral SOC

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    25,315

    Default Re: Electrical lead exposure

    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.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  3. #3
    Richard Rushing's Avatar
    Richard Rushing Guest

    Default Re: Electrical lead exposure

    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..


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    25,315

    Default Re: Electrical lead exposure

    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.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  5. #5
    Jon Randolph's Avatar
    Jon Randolph Guest

    Default Re: Electrical lead exposure

    What about the solid #12 aluminum wires?


  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    South-West Michigan
    Posts
    469

    Default Re: Electrical lead exposure

    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.

    Randall Aldering GHI BAOM MSM
    Housesmithe Inspection
    www.housesmithe.com

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    25,315

    Default Re: Electrical lead exposure

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Randolph View Post
    What about the solid #12 aluminum wires?
    I think that's just 'flash washout' and they are really copper.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    25,315

    Default Re: Electrical lead exposure

    Quote Originally Posted by Randy Aldering View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Randy Aldering View Post
    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?

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  9. #9
    Mike Parks's Avatar
    Mike Parks Guest

    Default Re: Electrical lead exposure

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


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •