Thread: Extra cables entering panel

If you look at the attached photos you'll see that in addition to the service conductors entering the panel there are another two cables (red and black) that enter along with them and terminate next to the neutral service conductor.

A friend of mine told me that in the past (i.e. 50+ yrs ago) electric hot water tanks used to be hooked up so a flat rate would be charged and that the conductors ran from the meter to the panel in this manner. I don't understand how this 'works' - and besides, in this case the home currently has a gas hot water tank.

Does anyone here know more about this type of installation or have any other ideas of what they could be for?

Similar Threads:

• Extra discharge pipe
• Electrical Cables contacting truss plates
• Electrical cables on top of A/C
• Electrical cables contacting each other
• FREA is now entering into the Bash Fest

Normally if the water heater was metered seperately there will be two meter bases on the house. The one for the water heater will no longer be in use.

Originally Posted by James Duffin

Normally if the water heater was metered seperately there will be two meter bases on the house. The one for the water heater will no longer be in use.

There was only one meter base. Also, the original system would have used fuses; so the panel has been upgraded yet the 'mystery' wires have been connected (re-connected) within the panel.

Do you have nay idea what these are there for (based on the outer jacket the wires are older)?

Ian Currie,

I'm not going to comment to your specifics, since I'm not picking up what your putting down regards the description or circumstances of the installation pictured.

I will say, however, it is abundantly obvious that as pictured that cabinet could not possible be as in the same state it could have been last inspected or approved (by its precise location or current status), by your electrical authority.

The state or condition of the concentric knockout in the cabinet back wall, to the left and above the panel, and the installation of this panel, is in and of itself sufficient justification to report/refer purchaser to demand to verification history, re-inspection by the authority and remediation unauthorized modifications and of the violations and hazardous conditions they impose.

Originally Posted by Ian Currie

If you look at the attached photos you'll see that in addition to the service conductors entering the panel there are another two cables (red and black) that enter along with them and terminate next to the neutral service conductor.

If they do as you say they do (at least what I am reading into what you said they do), then they are simply just more neutral wires and that would create multiple neutral paths, which is not allowed.

H. G. already pointed out the open knock out and what is might mean.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

I will say, however, it is abundantly obvious that as pictured that cabinet could not possible be as in the same state it could have been last inspected or approved (by its precise location or current status), by your electrical authority.

If you have been in this business for any length of time, HG, then you should know that there are more egregious examples of "approved" work by various AHJ's or municipal inspectors. It isn't prudent to condemn this work, or to "assume" that it was or wasn't approved, without all the facts.

Dom.

Originally Posted by Dom D'Agostino

If you have been in this business for any length of time, HG, then you should know that there are more egregious examples of "approved" work by various AHJ's or municipal inspectors. It isn't prudent to condemn this work, or to "assume" that it was or wasn't approved, without all the facts.

Dom.

Dom is, unfortunately, all too correct in the above.

I regularly see electrical work (and other work) which one would swear was done by an unknowing, unskilled, unknowledgeable homeowner, but I am doing the AHJ code inspection for the electrical contractor (or other trades contractor).

Dom is more correct than we would ever anticipate.

If this is a service panel, I see two blacks going to the breaker, a black neutral which should have white paint or tape wrapped around it, and two grounding wires, one of which is red. The bare ground wire goes to a clamp on the service conduit and exits the panel box on the right.

The question is what is the red wire connected to? Whatever it is, it will be at ground potential, I would think. It should be green or bare IF it is a grounding conductor..

I see the missing knockout is so tight to the plywood that a normal knockout plug could not be fitted. The AHJ may very well have forgiven all of the above. I would report what is there, and call for it to be corrected.

Originally Posted by John Kogel

The question is what is the red wire connected to? Whatever it is, it will be at ground potential, I would think. It should be green.

The neutral is also at "ground potential" at the service equipment ... should it be green too?

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

The neutral is also at "ground potential" at the service equipment ... should it be green too?

No, white. I know what you're saying. We can't be sure what it is without seeing where it leads to.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

Ian Currie,

I'm not going to comment to your specifics, since I'm not picking up what your putting down regards the description or circumstances of the installation pictured. . . .

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

If they do as you say they do (at least what I am reading into what you said they do), then they are simply just . . . .

Did I butcher the description of what I saw? What you see in the photos I posted is exactly what I saw. How would you describe 5 wires entering a panel from the service entry?

Seriously, I want to learn from this so I can better describe and understand what's going on.

Aside from multiple neutral paths could this be creating other problems?

Lastly, what I'm finding difficult to understand is where are the other ends of the 'mystery wires'? What could they possibly be connected to?

Originally Posted by Ian Currie

How would you describe 5 wires entering a panel from the service entry?

Just that way, without presuming where they came from (unless you had a strong suspicion based on what you saw).

You could report something to the effect of "There are at least two extra conductors in with the service entrance conductors, this is not allowed, unless those conductors are also service entrance conductors, which would require a second main service disconnect and service equipment - which were not present. Have electrical contractor determine where the extra conductors come from/go to and make corrections as necessary, which may be as simple as removing the extra conductors to installing additional service equipment, and the service entrance conductors would need to be in a wire gutter and not run through the existing service equipment to the new service equipment."

Aside from multiple neutral paths could this be creating other problems?

Energizing the extra conductors and being shocked or electrocuted.

Lastly, what I'm finding difficult to understand is where are the other ends of the 'mystery wires'? What could they possibly be connected to?

"What could they possibly be connected to?"

I have no idea, other than "no place good".

Originally Posted by Ian Currie

Did I butcher the description of what I saw? What you see in the photos I posted is exactly what I saw. How would you describe 5 wires entering a panel from the service entry?

Are there 5 wires entering the panel from the service entry? I see three black wires, two of which are connected to the main breaker and the other to the neutral lug, and a red wire connected to a tandem lug adjacent to the neutral lug, the second terminal of which contains a bare wire, and which I assume bonds the grounded and grounding conductors to the enclosure.

The bare wire appears to exit the enclosure to the right and one might presume it to provide a ground path. I wonder if the red sheathed wire might not be for bonding rather than a neutral for some unidentified circuit. The ground terminals on that panel are inconvenient and limited - the tandem terminal adjacent to the neutral lug seems like the a more ready choice for the "electrician" that installed/relocated this panel.

Originally Posted by Corn Walker

Are there 5 wires entering the panel from the service entry? I see three black wires, two of which are connected to the main breaker and the other to the neutral lug, and a red wire connected to a tandem lug adjacent to the neutral lug, the second terminal of which contains a bare wire, and which I assume bonds the grounded and grounding conductors to the enclosure.

Even zooming in 400% I cannot tell definitively that there is not an extra black wire.

I can definitively see the the two blacks to the line terminals of the service disconnect, I can definitively see the stranded copper ground which looks to be the grounding electrode conductor, I can definitively see the red conductor coming out of the raceway with the service entrance conductors, and I can ... or so it looks ... see a small black conductor the size of the red conductor paralleling black neutral service entrance conductor and see ... or so it looks ... where that smaller black is in the same terminal as the black neutral conductor.

Thus I am taking his word that there are 5 conductors, because that is what it seems to be zoomed in.

That is what it looks like to me when zoomed in.

I'll let Ian clarify what is where.

Corn,

I swear that I saw the bare wire running out of the raceway during the inspection - but I have to admit (as bad as it makes me look) that after reading your post I looked at the photo with a new perspective and you're right - it doesn't look as though the bare conductor exits the raceway.

That would make 4 wires exiting the raceway (three black and one red), not 5.

Jerry, the 'phantom' fourth wire you see must be a shadow (the low resolution uploads don't provide much detail).

Thanks.

Very possible that at some point there was a three phase service and a "delta breaker" for the individual three phase circuit. These were typically to feed an air conditioner. "Delta breakers" allowed utilization of two phases from the single phase load center and a third phase which was tied directly to the line side of the "delta breaker". NOTE: "Delta breakers" are no longer allowed per '1978 NFPA 70 National Electrical Code' Article 384-16(e) "A three phase disconnect or overcurrent device shall not be connected to the bus of any panelboard that has less than three phase buses. This is intended to prohibit the use of "delta breakers" in panelboards." (restated prohibition is currently located in '2008 NFPA 70 NEC' Article 408.36(C)). "Federal Pacific Electric" "Stab-Lok" load centers went away about the same time as the "delta breakers" were no longer allowed.
When the three phase service was eliminated as was also typical with many neighborhood utility retrofits the additional phase conductor (which was always reduced in size from the other phase conductors as it was sized for only the load it served and potentially red in this case) was grounded since no longer in use. The electrician would have had no access to the interior of the meter base which would have allowed him/her to remove the additional conductor and did a logical thing with the now unused phase conductor aka extra wire entering from the meter base. By grounding the conductor it was shown to not be a potentially live conductor entering the load center.
Additionally please note that conductor color coding was not rigidly enforced prior to the 1980s.
As to your statement that there is a single meter base and the original system must have been fuses just shows that there has been at least one upgrade (if you can consider 'FPE' to be an upgrade) this does not necessarily mean that there was not a second meter at some point in time. Many areas of the country had utilities that were still allowing dual metering up in to the late 1970s.
The size of the insulated solid conductor (appears to be a # 8 or # 6 AWG) also dates the installation as just like the FPE "Stab-Lok" load center. This size of solid insulated conductor is no longer in common use although they are still legal for use when not installed in conduit per '1978-2008 NFPA 70' Article 310.3 Stranded Conductors. You just do not find insulated # 8 AWG and larger solid conductors (wire) on newer installations.

For informational use, below is a copy and paste link to an electrical forum with a couple of pictures of a "delta breaker".

ECN Electrical Forums - Electrical and NEC Code Related Discussion for Electricians, Inspectors, Instructors and Related Professionals

This is just one potential scenario for the additional conductor(s). I do not claim to see all and know all however I usually provide code substantiation for my views.

When you don't know what you have found sometimes the best answer is I do not know what this is and it should be checked out by a qualified ________ (electrician in this case). Please do not misconstrue this statement to mean that you should not educate yourself on what you find.

Bill Nolte,
38 years of electrical experience
Master Electrician ('78 to present)
Certified Safety and Health Official
Authorized OSHA Safety Instructor

"It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so." Will Rogers 1879-1935.

Originally Posted by Dom D'Agostino

If you have been in this business for any length of time, HG, then you should know that there are more egregious examples of "approved" work by various AHJ's or municipal inspectors. It isn't prudent to condemn this work, or to "assume" that it was or wasn't approved, without all the facts.

Dom.

Dom,

Yes I have, for many, many decades. I have also familiaratiy although not since the begining of this decade, cases in Canada. Last "date" and time standard setting point for a case in Alberta I am "allowed" to discuss for example (Edmonton) was in the mid 90s and was "open" for years, Manitoba a case "allowed" or open to discuss had a set point a bit earlier, was a significant distance from the provincial seat.

The subject case is in Canada.

Frankly, the "authoritative" structure, and way things are done (enforcement wise, legal system, governmental structure & system), and legally approved, are quite DIFFERENT in Canada, they also, over the years, are significantly DIFFERENT by province.

Electrical Service Authorities have powers distinctly different than Here (U.S.). This includes, like some of our municipal owned gas utitilites (not since deregulated) control, approval, and access over equipment which is attached loadside of what we may call here the "service point", including repairs, and alterations. The entity which supplies the electricity (unlike the US) has authority that extends far beyond what we call "service point" and "service equipment".

Another prime example of differences in Canada will include segregation of Gnds and N even at the service equipment.

Terminology is also not the same - Rules and Standards for equipment is Not the same in Canada as it is in the U.S. Although some "harmonization" has begun to take place in some things, such as wiring standards, temperature specifics in cable componants - (by changing U.S. side not Canada side specifications), it has a long way to go.

NFPA-70 (U.S. National Electrical Code) has not ever, and remains inapplicable in Canadian installations outside "consulate" or foreign territory "occupations" and when envoked only when improving not lessening Canadian Provincial standards.

Although there exists a Canadian "national" electrical code, it is adopted by provincal authority, and last time I checked not every province had adopted the more recent version.

Work done on the "sly" and not bearing approval from the "safety authority" can haunt the purchaser, with no reprocussions to the former owner, or contractor once changed hands, but the authority cutting off power. Insurance also another dicey issue.

Next time you blast you might consider your own reasonably questionable experience in the country, province and territory to your own.

Now, back to on-topic and on-point, bonding and closure of this panel, and concentric knock-outs are of issue, in both Canada and the US, the difference HERE being, that alteration, unclosed, unfilled, and un bonded of the cabinet would not have been allowed and a safety inspection sticker applied at the time, nor would have been overlooked at a later date by the Safety Authority. It is an indication of uninspected, unauthorized modification of the electrical system and is sufficient to report with recommendation for a history review and inspection by the Electrical Safety Authority which only the present owner has the authority to acquire (at a very low or reasonable cost), which may then be shared to the prospective purchaser, or not, by the owner, which is the only way I am aware of (at least up to recently) to truly protect the future owner's interests. BTW that does not appear to be "plywood", but yellowed paper (such as never finished gyp board paper) behind the knockout.


Ian Currie,

As far as "not picking up what you're putting down", I see a four wire feed to this panel (metal conduit), not five. The bare copper does not appear to originate with the Cables/condutors from the back wall, it does appear to be bonded and restrained just to the left of where the feeder cable enters the panel.

I do see folded, overly bent sheath for the neutral, and broken/missing strands not making contact with the Lug.

What do I suspect?

Heading off into WAG (wild A.. Guess) territory here, but heregoes:

A former HOT conductor (red) to/from the former fuse panel was repurposed to be an undersized "Ground" Conductor/equipment bond when the power feeder circuit to the panel when this panel was "upgraded" to a breaker panel and new feeder "Hots" were installed, I suspect the feeder Size (amp rating, etc.) was "upgraded" or increased at that time. Most likely cable was "short" or difficult to BEND length wise and make contact with the LUGS (hot) and the cabinet was moved to the left, knocked out where we see the feeder entering now, and the cable (N) cable forced to its damaging bend radius so that the "hot" cables could be placed into position. I suspect at that time the formerly knocked out concentric opening which had been additionally stressed and torn was not properly closed/bonded at that time. Perhaps a change in conduit and bonding at that time.

P.S. There are also at least four infilled knock-outs on the bottom of the surface installed panel cabinet. If you scroll down and visualize cropped boarders you will see this is surface positioned however apparently floating and supported by entrance/feeder conduit, not actually mounted and supported, recycled install of this panel cabinet.

Although mostly metallic conduit and cable, I also see at least two nonmetallic sheathed circuit cables, one through unbushed, unprotected and unsecured knockout on the Left, the other with many inches of sheathing in the cabinet, and no circuit grounds. Note mystery path of red insulated subject questioned condutor and interesting similar at right panel grounds location.

Again, reason enough to be calling for inspection, approvals/authorized changes history, and to have it replaced/remediated/corrected for safety.

Everyone,

I appreciate your input. H.G. - what you've most recently described makes perfect sense to me.

By the way, there were many reasons to have an electrician visit this home: the missing knock-outs for one, open grounds, reversed polarity at receptacles, inoperative GFCI's, hydro service wires *way* to close to the deck (i.e. about 8 ft from the deck - I could have touched them with my outstretched hand if I stood on the tips of my toes - frightening!).

In the end, the issues in the panel are moot because the client claims they will be upgrading to a 100 amp panel anyway. Still, I wanted to learn as much as possible about this and you all helped me out with that.

Thanks again.

Originally Posted by Ian Currie

Everyone,

I appreciate your input. H.G. - what you've most recently described makes perfect sense to me.

By the way, there were many reasons to have an electrician visit this home: the missing knock-outs for one, open grounds, reversed polarity at receptacles, inoperative GFCI's, hydro service wires *way* to close to the deck (i.e. about 8 ft from the deck - I could have touched them with my outstretched hand if I stood on the tips of my toes - frightening!).

In the end, the issues in the panel are moot because the client claims they will be upgrading to a 100 amp panel anyway. Still, I wanted to learn as much as possible about this and you all helped me out with that.

Thanks again.

From the look of that panel and what you share in your most recent post, the client should be planning on budgeting for a whole-house re-wire, not just panel replacement, might be more prudent to insist on ESA inspection prior to sale and cover purchaser regards to requirements and assure scope of work, safety from day one, and insurability/coverage in the event of related loss.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

Next time you blast you might consider your own reasonably questionable experience in the country, province and territory to your own.

Say what?
You made a comment that made very little sense, and I simply pointed it out. Don't try to turn that around on me. Your Cut & Paste (ad nauseam) routine means very little to many here...

I don't care what Country you worked in years ago, or whatever smoke screen you want to throw in the air, the facts (or lack thereof) are the same.

Your mileage may vary, my (possibly) Canadian friend.

Peace be with you.
Dom.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

. . . I also see at least two nonmetallic sheathed circuit cables, one through unbushed, unprotected and unsecured knockout on the Left, the other with many inches of sheathing in the cabinet, and no circuit grounds. Note mystery path of red insulated subject questioned condutor and interesting similar at right panel grounds location.

Here's a photo from another angle. The circuit grounds on the left terminate under screws that are below the yellow arrow you added and the red insulated conductor on the right, that you pointed out does exit to the right (although it admittedly takes a wild cross-country route to do so). Perspective and resolution make the difference in this case. Still, as you say, plenty of reasons to call in an electrician.

Photo didn't post - maybe it will this time.

Originally Posted by James Risley

I am trying to visualize the "cropped boarders" referenced by HG in post #18 as he asked us to do and am having difficulty deciding between a surfer who has just had his feet nibbled off by a shark or a farm worker who has just picked the last strawberry (cropped out) and will be without board tomorrow.

Apparently you fail to recognize the object, and are unfamiliar with the meaning of the verb "crop" when used with an OBJECT.

The Subject here is a digitized (PHOTO)GRAPHIC IMAGE which has been cut, masked, trimmed, altered, as to content displayed versus originally captured; photo-shopped, clipped, etc.

Crop
- Verb (used with object) cropped or (Archaic) cropt; cropping

1. to cut off or remove the head or top of (a plant, grass, etc.).
2. to cut off the ends or a part of: to crop the ears of a dog.
3. to cut short.
4. to clip the ears, hair, etc., of.
5. Photography. to cut off or mask the unwanted parts of (an image, a print or negative).

To cut, clip, or mask the boarders, edges, trim.

So what was your point? And where is the humor? And what does this has to do with surfers, surfing, sharks, or strawberries?

HG, you might want to look at the difference between border and boarders. You misread your own mistake.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

P.S. There are also at least four infilled knock-outs on the bottom of the surface installed panel cabinet. If you scroll down and visualize cropped boarders you will see this is surface positioned however apparently floating and supported by entrance/feeder conduit, not actually mounted and supported, recycled install of this panel cabinet.