Thread: what is this?

.......

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but "split bolt" comes to mind.
Jim

Yes, that's a 'split bolt connector', but, worse than that, are the breakers which are 'ON' in the down position (that's not allowed).

JP-- looks like it or the trip window would be showing 'red'

Those do not look like they were designed for a horizontal mount buss bar.

RR

Originally Posted by Richard Rushing

Those do not look like they were designed for a horizontal mount buss bar.

Correct, which means that anything else in that panel is a moot point - the electrician who replaces that panel with a proper and safe panel is charged with 'putting everything in the new panel correctly' - that's why they have a license (hopefully) and pull a permit (hopefully).

I'm not Richard, but the entire box would have to be designed for a horizontal mount, and since the lid implies it is an outdoor box, you can't turn it on its side. Right, Richard?

Jeff, it is not the breakers that are the problem, it is the panel that is designed so that the breaker handles are in the down position when on.
Lots of older panels have this design which is not allowed by modern codes. Jerry might post the exact wording here, but if you do a search in the archives, this has been discussed at length.

240.81 Indicating.
- Circuit breakers shall clearly indicate whether they are in the open “off” or closed “on” position.
- Where circuit breaker handles are operated vertically rather than rotationally or horizontally, the “up” position of the handle shall be the “on” position.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the panel as shown.

Answering the first question, the use of a split bolt to connect wires is proper, within the range of the connector. This one looks OK.

As to the horizontal bussing: The 'down is off' rule is fairly recent, and there is no basis to hold earlier panels to the newer rule. Square D did, in fact, manufacture panels that could be installed in no other way, than as shown. The newer versions of the panels will conform to the 'down is off' rule.

When in doubt, look for the UL label. UL is not about to list anything that is in violation of the NEC.

Wouldnt our jobs be easier if Home Depot quit selling electrical components to folks without a license.

Originally Posted by John Steinke

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the panel as shown.

Answering the first question, the use of a split bolt to connect wires is proper, within the range of the connector. This one looks OK.

As to the horizontal bussing: The 'down is off' rule is fairly recent, and there is no basis to hold earlier panels to the newer rule. Square D did, in fact, manufacture panels that could be installed in no other way, than as shown. The newer versions of the panels will conform to the 'down is off' rule.

When in doubt, look for the UL label. UL is not about to list anything that is in violation of the NEC.

Let's see John, when something is discovered to be inherently unsafe, but which was not known to be unsafe before it was discovered to be that way, it now becomes safe ... simply because it was considered so years earlier?

Yeah, like nail guns before they were required to have a safety built-into them which would not (at least should not) allow the nail gun to fire unless pressed against an object, unlike the old ones which would fire the nail simply by pulling the trigger.

Those are 'just as safe' as the newer ones with the built-in safety, right? The fact that many accidents happened with those old ones, which lead to the improved safer models, means nothing ... right?

I just want to get this straight ... even though this *is not rocket science*, you are saying that there is no need to take additional precautions to keep chunks of foam from falling off the fuel tank and damaging the shuttle, because, so many flights went off without a problem, that one little old incident does not therefore deem the old way "unsafe".

Got it. Thanks, John. As always, your posts are very entertaining, and, for an electrician, you never cease to amaze me as to what lengths you will go to 'to NOT FIX something which needs fixing'.

Originally Posted by imported_John Smith

Wouldnt our jobs be easier if Home Depot quit selling electrical components to folks without a license.

Or supply houses to some electricians. Jeez.

Been away for a wihile and just got around to reading this post. Great info guys!

One question I have is, Is that a SNAKE in the background against the back wall of the box? Looks like the skin of a brown snake to me!! I didn't see any other conductors in the box that had a similar covering.....

-DON-

That's old cloth covered wire.

Probably rubber insulated too. Which would mean it probably should be replaced.

Jerry,

I'm not sure about that! Look real closely just to the left of the split lug...looks like a snakes head!?

Enlarge the second photo, look closely at the old cloth covered insulated wire, you will see the woven pattern of the cloth covering.

Again, we need to distinguish what is desirable from what is required. We may not approve of everything we see, but it does not follow that what we see is "wrong."

That's an important distinction. There's hardly any part of a home that has not been extensively changed over the past thirty years. Not only have materials changed, so have methods, laws, codes, and expectations. If nothing else, it is not reasonable to expect every home to be rebuilt every time a code is changed.

As for this thread ... that panel met every standard when it was installed, and continues to serve well. there is no code violation. There is no imminent danger. Nothing is broke.

It's one thing to tell a customer that "things have improved over time, and a new panel would be nice to have" .... and quite another to say "that's wrong." In this instance, there simply isn't the documentation to say anything is wrong.

John, your absolutely correct, but your talking to the perfect home owner and inspector. If you ever get a chance to buy something from Jerry, by all means jump on it quick. He does not believe anything is safe or sane if it is not up to current code. Therefore he will replace everything including brick stem walls on a 100 year old house whether it is perfect or not just because there are better ways of doing it. Jerry writes up his inspections the same way, if it is not up to current standards it is A DEFECT and must be addressed. Therefore John, everyone on this board knows that you are correct and hopefully Dan will understand it too.

John,

Ignore Tony (or not, it is, of course, up to you) for Tony is an admitted 'do the absolute minimum allowed and required' practitioner, so, by agreeing with you, Tony is confirming what I stated ... Thank you, Tony.

The fact is, that, 110-3(B) "requires" that the proper breakers, those listed in the labeling, and ONLY THOSE listed in the labeling, be use.

- 110.3 Examination, Identification, Installation, and Use of Equipment.
- - (B) Installation and Use. Listed or labeled equipment shall be installed and used in accordance with any instructions included in the listing or labeling.

No maybe, no but, no kinda-sorta-if-you-want-to, no-but-this-one-will-fit, no options or alternatives other than those listed in the listing and labeling.

Noise makers aside, and there will always be noise makers, no "professional" 'professional electrician' should endorse doing otherwise, nor should any "professional" electrical inspector. TM, on the other hand, is only an HI, and has shown us that, if he is a professional, he is borderline so, and that true "professional" HIs have, by and large, low opinions of his actions in the past, and his professing to do the absolute minimum he can get away with.

TM, you still got that, what was it, diamond ring? Oh, right, you sold it for, what was it ... $20,000 or something like that . Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong and am thinking of someone else, others will, I am sure, correct me, or correct you for correcting me - correct which ever one of us has the most faded memory of that.

John, if you want Tony, take him ... PLEASE!

Jerry, whether you realize it or not ... we are in agreement.

"Listing and labeling" is determined by whoever does the listing and labeling ... which is NOT the manufacturer. In most cases, we're referring to UL. A statement on the panel door that you should use "Only Brand X breakers" is not considered as part of the listing and labeling. Nor is it considered part of the manufacturers' instructions.
Why is that? Because the instructions, and cautionary statements, are reviewed as part of the listing process. While the manufacturer is free to say whatever he wished in addition to the required / reviewed material, this additional material is not enforceable.
The only way to determine what is an ;instruction' and what is not is to consult the listing agency.

Likewise, time is a factor. I recently came across this with a panel made by, say, "Company T." Company T is no longer around. It was bought long ago by Company "G", who adopted Company T's design. To this day, it is perfectly proper to put "G" breakers into a "T" panel.
Again, the only way you would know this is to consult the listing agency.

Probably the most prolific company in 'cross listing' of breakers is Cutler-Hammer. They make breakers to fit almost every panel out there. Indeed, their AFCI clone of the Square D version has a better quality control record than the Square D version! In every case, C-H has submitted these breakers to UL for evaluation in the competitors' panels. UL considers them perfectly proper for installation in those other panels.
Yet, even if the competitor wished to mention the C-H model numbers on their panel .... they have no way to see into the future, and know that C-H will ever make such a breaker.
Again, the only sure check is to call the rating agency.

So, when you see a "Brand X" in a "Brand Y" panel .... you certainly have reason to dig further. You do not have an automatic problem.

I've pretty much laid out the arguments of UL on this matter. Some manufacturers may assert a different position. Fine; we're all entitled to opinions. IMO, those makers are being intellectually dishonest - and their position is indefensible .... even as a warranty issue.

Of course, I may be a bit cynical. One firm, who asserts to make better breakers than anyone else .... also continues to make, and market, FPE breakers (and panels) to our Canadian neighbors. But ... that's another discussion.