Results 1 to 59 of 59
  1. #1
    mathew stouffer's Avatar
    mathew stouffer Guest

    Default 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    House was built in late 80's, single family. 200 amp service disconnect. This does not look a 4/0 cable to me, looks like a 2/0. Both manufactures tags were removed from the distribution panel and service disconnect. Cable is Au. Need sec or 5th opinions

    Similar Threads:
    ***IMPORTANT*** You Need To Register To View Images ***IMPORTANT*** You Need To Register To View Images
    Inspection Referral

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Snowbird (this means I'm retired and migrate between locations), FL/MI
    Posts
    4,086

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    Curious ?s:

    There is a yellow label on the L side of that disconnect - what does it say? (You sure its not a 125A disconnect or even 60A?)

    Is that actually "The" solitary service disconnect in an enclosure, one of two or more? or a service "rated" disconnect for remote structure? Surface mounted on the exterior? (ped. ledge or pad mount? inset? gutter, trough or wireway below?) Is that wall insulation beyond poorly punched knockout, without conduit, bushing, clamp, etc. where cable & conductor run through the back?

    Is the MLO panel interior or exterior? Any taps or other destination other than first to MLO panel?

    Am I seeing two differing sizes copper, correct?



    Last edited by H.G. Watson, Sr.; 02-09-2011 at 11:17 AM.

  3. #3
    mathew stouffer's Avatar
    mathew stouffer Guest

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    HG
    The two pics on the left are of the disconnect. 100 percent sure it is a 200amp breaker. The two pics on the right are the distribution panel. Wanted to show multiple pics of the feeders.


  4. #4
    mathew stouffer's Avatar
    mathew stouffer Guest

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    Here is another pic

    ***IMPORTANT*** You Need To Register To View Images ***IMPORTANT*** You Need To Register To View Images

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    NY State
    Posts
    440

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    Definitely does NOT look like 4/0 to me.


  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Snowbird (this means I'm retired and migrate between locations), FL/MI
    Posts
    4,086

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    Last photo posted shows the enclosure is not surface mounted either. Not allowed to use baby table either. Parallel egc, unconventional tap, undersized gec.


  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,049

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    One should be careful in judging the rating of SEC's simply by size. There is what's called "compact" design. These conductors can look smaller but still be 4/0.

    Here is a thread on TIJ that discusses it.

    CDR 2/0 AWG - The Inspector's Journal Forums


  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,899

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    The enclosure is surface mounted. You can see the conduit under the bottom edge on the right side in the last pic.

    Unconventional tap? Are you talking about the stripped section thru the lug? Done all the time and nothing wrong with it.

    Undersized GEC? It is only required to be a #6 if it is going to the rods. looks at least that large.


  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Southern Vancouver Island
    Posts
    4,549

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    Matthew, don't use you finger for a pointer like that, one hand in the panel, one eye on the camera. You're scaring me.
    Raymond uses a tongue depressor (Buy a popsicle, save the stick).

    Since there is a cable clamp or conduit missing, it's a good bet a qualified electrician did not install that service, and you can call for an electrician to check it over and make repairs.

    John Kogel, RHI, BC HI Lic #47455
    www.allsafehome.ca

  10. #10
    mathew stouffer's Avatar
    mathew stouffer Guest

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    John, I was waiting for someone to say that. I shut the power off. The rating was on the interior of the panel and I had to move cables to read it, so turned the power off. The house was vacant bank owned, so I figured freddie and fannie would not mind. Since I pay their bills


  11. #11
    Jeff Cieslik's Avatar
    Jeff Cieslik Guest

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    What size wire is coming into meter base from the electric company and from the meter base to the disconnect? If it is 2/0 AL then this is fine. The wire has to be the same size or larger than the cable that is pulled to the meter base if it has a lower rating than the wire. In this case 2/0 AL is not rated for 200A BUT if they pulled in 2/0 AL from the pole to the meter base and from the meter base to this disconnect then you should be in the clear.

    Now the right way according to the NEC 2008 code book table 310.15(B)(6) is 2/0 copper or 4/0 aluminum with a #4 ground to a grounding rod and also one to copper water pipe (if applicable).


  12. #12
    Guy W Opie's Avatar
    Guy W Opie Guest

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    Ony a # 6cu is needed to go to ground rods. #4 to waterpipe This could be 4/0 compact conductors. The best course is to have a qualified electrician take a look at it.


  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,899

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Cieslik View Post
    In this case 2/0 AL is not rated for 200A BUT if they pulled in 2/0 AL from the pole to the meter base and from the meter base to this disconnect then you should be in the clear.
    This is not properly sized to the 200 amp overcurrent device and you would not be in the clear.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Cieslik View Post
    Now the right way according to the NEC 2008 code book table 310.15(B)(6) is 2/0 copper or 4/0 aluminum with a #4 ground to a grounding rod and also one to copper water pipe (if applicable).
    You have the proper conductor sizes listed for the service conductors. The conductor to the rod never needs to be larger than a #6.


  14. #14
    Jeff Cieslik's Avatar
    Jeff Cieslik Guest

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Port View Post
    This is not properly sized to the 200 amp overcurrent device and you would not be in the clear.
    Please refer to 210.15(B)(6) in the 2008 NEC code book. ...For application of this section, the main power feeder shall be the feeder between the main disconnect and the panelboard that supplies, either by branch circuits or by feeders, or both, all loads that are part or associated with the dwelling unit. The feeder conductors to a dwelling unit shall not be required to have an allowable ampacity rating greater than their service-entrance conductors.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Port View Post
    You have the proper conductor sizes listed for the service conductors. The conductor to the rod never needs to be larger than a #6.
    Sorry, to clarify per table 250.66 in NEC 2008 if you are running 2/0 copper or 4/0 aluminum it states #4 for copper and #2 for AL. However, per 250.66(A)the grounding electrode shall not be required to be larger than #6 cu or #4 AL. I stand corrected on this point.


  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,899

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Cieslik View Post
    Please refer to 210.15(B)(6) in the 2008 NEC code book. ...For application of this section, the main power feeder shall be the feeder between the main disconnect and the panelboard that supplies, either by branch circuits or by feeders, or both, all loads that are part or associated with the dwelling unit. The feeder conductors to a dwelling unit shall not be required to have an allowable ampacity rating greater than their service-entrance conductors.
    Correct, my point was that the service conductors and feeders were 2/0 AL, as you stated was ok, would be undersized for a 200 amp OCPD.

    In this case 2/0 AL is not rated for 200A BUT if they pulled in 2/0 AL from the pole to the meter base and from the meter base to this disconnect then you should be in the clear


    Last edited by Jim Port; 02-11-2011 at 08:03 AM.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Snowbird (this means I'm retired and migrate between locations), FL/MI
    Posts
    4,086

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Port
    The enclosure is surface mounted. You can see the conduit under the bottom edge on the right side in the last pic.


    What "conduit" on the bottom Right? Please point it out.
    I see a raceway for the GEC presumed to electrode bottom left, not identified at that point. I see no "conduit" or raceway out the bottom right back either, nor signs of a condulet, nipple, bushing, or clamp at the back where the feeder cable and unterminated GEC leaves the enclosure through the rough knockout or punch rear wall right.

    Surface mounted? I see siding run right up to the left side of enclosure not exposed, are we looking at the same pictures (see top left of first picture below)? I see distribution MLO panel likewise flush mounted in-the-wall, not surface mounted, in obviously different location, different wall surface materials.

    Dollars to donuts Service Lateral.

    The multi conductor w/gnd feeder cable terminates indoors, upon non-service equipment.

    There is no conduit or raceway, nipple, bushing or clamp shown for the feeder cable leaving the enclosure through a knockout at the rear.

    If underground service entrance cable Type USE conductor insulation is not marked as an RHW conductor, can USE cable be used inside for premise wiring? | IAEI Blog

    ul-854.11

    TYLZ.GuideInfo - Service-entrance Cable





    I am not going to debate the meaning of the words terminate, termination, or terminal with you. The white book, the listing standards, and the NEC speak for themselves.


  17. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,899

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    What "conduit" on the bottom Right? Please point it out.
    Look to the right of the tapped hole in the lip of the enclosure. You should see a difference in texture.

    I see a raceway for the GEC presumed to electrode bottom left, not identified at that point.
    It is identified within inches of entering the enclosure.

    I see no "conduit" or raceway out the bottom right back either, nor signs of a condulet, nipple, bushing, or clamp at the back where the feeder cable
    I agree.

    and unterminated GEC leaves the enclosure through the rough knockout or punch rear wall right.
    The green conductor enters the bottom left, goes up and hits the lug on the neutral buss, it then is routed thru a lug mounted to the can and then out to presumably the interior water line. There is no unterminated conductor. You can follow the conductor by looking at several of the pics.

    Last edited by Jim Port; 02-17-2011 at 08:48 AM. Reason: corrected conductor destination

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Snowbird (this means I'm retired and migrate between locations), FL/MI
    Posts
    4,086

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    You are apparently referring to the painted smooth surface which may well be service lateral riser raceway on the POCO side of the combo equipment; and ignoring the wall finish to the left and top, and the securing supporting hardware protruding and penetrating the bottom of the enclosure opening pictured in two places at the underside of this compartment.

    The equipment does not appear to be surface mounted, with all sides exposed to free air, it appears to be enclosed/flush mounted/inset to the building surface finish with the bottom right of the combination equipment only exposed for the service lateral riser raceway, which I presume to be metallic, not plastic conduit.

    The multi-conductor feeder cable w/gnd has its own bare ecg (apparently making contact with the unterminated copper gec look closely at this location). There would be no reason to continue gec to the load-side panelinside, a water pipe, a ufer, elsewhere perhaps. It is going through a punch/knockout in the back wall of the enclosure, and into the wall of the structure, not running along the surface - it is unprotected not in a listed raceway or conduit, nor is it exposed.

    The gec is not terminated, it is contacting, not ending or landing, there is no terminal "end" and that is inconsistant with the listing standards for the lug, the equipment, and the NEC.

    Last edited by H.G. Watson, Sr.; 02-11-2011 at 10:41 AM.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Snowbird (this means I'm retired and migrate between locations), FL/MI
    Posts
    4,086

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    Mat,

    This home wouldn't be a "manufactured" one, would it?


  20. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,899

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    [quote


    [/quote]

    You can cleary see that the CU is terminated in this picture.

    The gec is not terminated, it is contacting, not ending or landing, there is no terminal "end" and that is inconsistant with the listing standards for the lug, the equipment, and the NEC.
    Are you saying that somehow the conductor continuing thru the lug is somehow different than if the conductor ended 1/4" past the lug? How far past the lug can the conductor extend before you would consider its listing to be violated? The lug is listed for a size range and conductor material. Period. Would you say that the acorn on a rod could not be used if the conductor were continuous to the second rod? Give me a break.


  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    112

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    Place a vernier caliper across the exposed part of the lead, next to the connector. If it measures 0.3648 inch, then it is 2/0. 0.460 in is 4/0. Removes the guesswork.


  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Snowbird (this means I'm retired and migrate between locations), FL/MI
    Posts
    4,086

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    It passes through the lug and thus the tail serves as the bonding jumper to the enclosure, where as a bonding jumper, it should have been terminated. That is to say ENDED - an end, a termination, a terminal end - where there is no more - an end to the conductor. You seem to ignore what even you acknowledged before - it continues beyond the bonding jumper to the enclosure and travels through the unprotected rough punch/knockout aside the multi-conductor with gnd feeder cable and into the building's wall.

    When tapping a GEC for a service containing multiple disconnecting means the gec taps to each disconnect are sized to the largest ungrounded conductor serving that disconnect.

    The 6awg cu max sizing limitation is only for the portion of the gec terminating to a ground rod, not ground ring, not ufer, or gec taps to multiple service disconnecting means.

    Last edited by H.G. Watson, Sr.; 02-11-2011 at 11:02 AM.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    112

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    I have to agree with Jim Port. The meter base appears to enter at the top of the Service Disconnect (200 amp), from the raceway at the right of the enclosure. Then a cable runs from the bottom (switched) side of the breaker (service disconnect), through the unprotected knock-out. This consists of two phase conductors, one neutral conductor, and one ground bonding conductor, all equal size conductors, running through the unprotected knock-out, to the (presumed) service panel. Then, a separate GEC is passed through and tapped to, each enclosure. It is also presumed (because we cannot see the service panel) that the GEC is terminated in the primary service panel. By doing so, each enclosure is connected directly to the Ground Electrode, by the continuous Green GEC conductor. It is expected that the HI has followed this through, and verified connections in the Primary Service Panel.


  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Snowbird (this means I'm retired and migrate between locations), FL/MI
    Posts
    4,086

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Roberts View Post
    I have to agree with Jim Port. The meter base appears to enter at the top of the Service Disconnect (200 amp), from the raceway at the right of the enclosure. Then a cable runs from the bottom (switched) side of the breaker (service disconnect), through the unprotected knock-out. This consists of two phase conductors, one neutral conductor, and one ground bonding conductor, all equal size conductors, running through the unprotected knock-out, to the (presumed) service panel. Then, a separate GEC is passed through and tapped to, each enclosure. It is also presumed (because we cannot see the service panel) that the GEC is terminated in the primary service panel. By doing so, each enclosure is connected directly to the Ground Electrode, by the continuous Green GEC conductor. It is expected that the HI has followed this through, and verified connections in the Primary Service Panel.
    No, not quite right, therefore I disagree.

    First this IS the service point, it is within a combination service/meter equipment and IS the service equipment. There is no "other service panel" This IS the service equipment!

    Next, the GEC which enters this area of the enclosure at the bottom right, bonds the POCO grounded conductor and leaves this part of the enclosure, at the back right - presummed to later connect to either a UFER, water pipe within five feet of entrance, metal building componant(s)or some other made electrode has been inappropriately through tapped to the enclosure as an intermediate bond jumper, which is incorrect, as the enclosure itself and the intermediate through near landing is inappropriate and via equipment not appropriate for GEC.

    The load side MLO panel is NOT service equipment and would be inappropriate to route, land, park or directly connect to the GEC directly. It (the MLO panel elsewhere, inside) is supplied, load side, via a three conductor with ground feeder cable, which consists of two ungrounded conductors, a grounded conductor, and a slightly smaller sized equipment grounding conductor (bare), all aluminum, through the back right wall of this equipment.

    There are right ways to install a bonding jumper from the gec to the service equipment enclosure, as pictured is not one of them.


  25. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,251

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminum Cable

    H. G.,

    I have to agree with Jim Port - that is surface mounted. I can draw the enclosure edges on the photos and add arrows to show the enclosure is surface mounted.

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

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Snowbird (this means I'm retired and migrate between locations), FL/MI
    Posts
    4,086

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    Sure Jerry, please do, I'd appreciate that. Could you use the last picture mat posted by itself, and note the other earlier picture of the opened portion of the enclosure with the fasteners to the lower framing at half depth of the combo equipment. I'd like to see how the left side of the enclosure is proud of the building surface and exposed to air. I believe I'm seeing what is not all that uncommon to see of that vintage - mounted in a framed opening in the wall resting and secured in the wall - with part, not all, of the combo equipment slightly protuding and the surface finishing materials abutting the equipment - not on the surface of the building mount for a service lateral riser under a building overhang, and where the "first floor" is often slightly above grade and cantillevered over the crawl space or basement, common to the area served. Note proximity of inside panel close to finished ceiling. Of course Mat could easily confirm or deny, and could throw up a long shot or uncropped photo too. I could be wrong, but I'm going by the visual clues shown in the five photographs.

    Last edited by H.G. Watson, Sr.; 02-11-2011 at 09:13 PM.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,251

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminum Cable

    Quote Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr. View Post
    Sure Jerry, please do, I'd appreciate that. Could you use the last picture mat posted by itself
    I've outlined the side and top of the enclosure, and the siding going behind the enclosure. Also the siding down in the lower right corner.

    Hope that helps.

    You will also see the conduit Jim (I think it was Jim) was referring to next to the siding label at the lower right corner.

    ***IMPORTANT*** You Need To Register To View Images ***IMPORTANT*** You Need To Register To View Images
    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Snowbird (this means I'm retired and migrate between locations), FL/MI
    Posts
    4,086

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    Thank you Jerry, but I continue to disagree.

    You have detailed a tiny side wall which is required to be exposed to replace the cover for this area of the combination equipment. This equipment is normally contained in a cubically shaped frame.

    You have failed to take into account the depth of the enclosure. please note the inside walls which clearly show the depth is far greater than the tiny sliver you have highlighted as being "exposed" on the right side. If you are unclear that the depth of the equipment is equally "deep" on the left - Mat posted to additional photos of this area. If you'd like I'll mark it up for you.

    I've linked Mat up with the POCO in his area rules and requirements before, assuming he's in the same territory, and on a few occasions linked up the specifics on particular combination equipment and ratings. I don't wish to belabor a point to those who don't get it, or care to familiarize themselves with the territorial circumstances and conditions for the geographical region.

    Yes, I am aware of the raceway protection for the service lateral riser to the POCO sealed side of the combination equipment - this protects the POCO service lateral where it is brought above grade to the combination equipment. As I have explained previously, I suspect this is EMT or heavy wall, not conduit; but its presence, nor entrance through knock/punch-out has nothing to do with the feeder in quesiton, load side of the service, that would be line side poco to the service point. The meter and its socket is not part of the "service" equipment. However it is possible to have same in a partially inset/enclosed not surface mounted, not all sides exposed to free air combination equipment, the enclosure is plenty deep and has same front of center depth.

    However, most of this is somewhat off-topic, and pointless if you do not address the original topic - the multi-conductor cable with ground is not terminating at meter or service equipment inside the premisis - it is terminating on load side to service equipment indoors, past insulation etc. to an inset panel. There is no metal conduit, etc. where same exits the service equipment enclosure.

    Have you identified the cable assembly and its use/temperature/allowable ampacity limitations for the application?

    Last edited by H.G. Watson, Sr.; 02-11-2011 at 10:02 PM. Reason: Feeling like the solitary one in the story who declares "but the emperor has no clothes"!

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,251

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminum Cable

    Quote Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr. View Post
    Thank you Jerry, but I continue to disagree.

    You have detailed a tiny side wall which is required to be exposed to replace the cover for this area of the combination equipment. This equipment is normally contained in a cubically shaped frame.

    You have failed to take into account the depth of the enclosure. please note the inside walls which clearly show the depth is far greater than the tiny sliver you have highlighted as being "exposed" on the right side. If you are unclear that the depth of the equipment is equally "deep" on the left - Mat posted to additional photos of this area.

    H. G.,

    It's called "perspective" and that is why the enclosure side where siding goes behind the enclosure on the left side appears as though the left side of the enclosure is much less than the right side of the enclosure ... even though that very same siding goes out from behind the enclosure off to the right BEHIND that conduit (using the GENERIC term "conduit" to mean just that, that it is "conduit", whether it be rigid metal conduit or intermediate metal conduit, galvanized, or aluminum).

    "Perspective" is something you seem to miss on regular occasions.

    However, most of this is somewhat off-topic, and pointless if you do not address the original topic - the multi-conductor cable with ground is not terminating at meter or service equipment inside the premisis - it is terminating on load side to service equipment indoors, past insulation etc. to an inset panel. There is no metal conduit, etc. where same exits the service equipment enclosure.
    You may consider this discussion to be pointless as you are incorrect, and instead of recognizing that you are incorrect you simply try to write this off as "pointless". In truth, trying to have any type of discussion with you is "pointless".

    *I* was only addressing the surface mounted aspect, not the wiring inside, and to use your words ... it would be "pointless" to attempt to discuss the wiring inside with you too.

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

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,899

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    Quote Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr. View Post
    As I have explained previously, I suspect this is EMT or heavy wall, not conduit; but its presence, nor entrance through knock/punch-out has nothing to do with the feeder in quesiton, load side of the service, that would be line side poco to the service point.
    There is a divider between the disconect and the socket portion of the enclosure. You cannot see into the meter side, therefore it is hard to tell if the conduit enters thru a knockout or not unless someone were phycic.(sp)

    What would you call heavy wall if not a conduit? EMT, even tho called electrical metallic tubing is still called a conduit.

    What does the mounting height of the inside panel have to do with any part of theis discussion or whether the combination equipment is flush, semi-flush or recessed?


  31. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Snowbird (this means I'm retired and migrate between locations), FL/MI
    Posts
    4,086

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    The point(s) which escape you both,

    i.e. the inappropriate, and restricted, materials choices and methods for the application, the limitations as to temperature use, relative to the "allowable ampacity" of the feeder conductors, which are determined not by the individual conductors, but the overall cable assembly and the overall application.

    Application of the "baby table" as displayed earlier, has been incorrect and short-sighted for the method, as have generalizations (incorrect) regarding the sizing or path of gec.

    It frankly matters not the size of the individual conductors of the cable, for the selection of and installation of the materials/equipment is incorrect and incompatible in the application as presented.


  32. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Snowbird (this means I'm retired and migrate between locations), FL/MI
    Posts
    4,086

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Port View Post
    There is a divider between the disconect and the socket portion of the enclosure. You cannot see into the meter side, therefore it is hard to tell if the conduit enters thru a knockout or not unless someone were phycic.(sp)

    What would you call heavy wall if not a conduit? EMT, even tho called electrical metallic tubing is still called a conduit.

    What does the mounting height of the inside panel have to do with any part of theis discussion or whether the combination equipment is flush, semi-flush or recessed?
    Obviously, and I am very familiar with combination equipment. Understanding and being familiar with same doesn't require ESP.

    It is unfortunate that you do not know the distinctions of what is and is not "conduit".


  33. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,251

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    Quote Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr. View Post
    As I have explained previously, I suspect this is EMT or heavy wall, not conduit;
    Quote Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr. View Post
    It is unfortunate that you do not know the distinctions of what is and is not "conduit".
    as I am seeing that photo, that conduit likely goes down into the ground, in which case it should not be EMT ... it should be conduit.

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

  34. #34
    Guy W Opie's Avatar
    Guy W Opie Guest

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    RMC,PVC,EMT etc are all types of conduit.
    Conduit is a rugged, protective tube through which wires are pulled.
    Also there is nothing that states "EMT" to protect the EGC to the ground rods.


  35. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,899

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    Could someone explain what this "baby table" is? Over thirty years in the trade and never heard it.


  36. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Snowbird (this means I'm retired and migrate between locations), FL/MI
    Posts
    4,086

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Port View Post
    Could someone explain what this "baby table" is? Over thirty years in the trade and never heard it.
    Jeff C up in post #11 cited the oft referred to as "baby table", a common reference by those in the trades regarding residential or "flat" work. You'll find substantial re-codification/numbering of sections and tables in 2011.

    However, as you should well know, the materials referenced are not allowed to be used contrary to their listing, or as otherwise prohibited and/or restricted. Multi-conductor cable assemblies are NOT allowed to be used contrary to the restrictions or allowable ampacity as to temperature. For example said "baby table" does not provide for a permissive exception allowing the use of USE or USE-2 cable interior to premisis when terminating on other than metering and/or service equipment - i.e. not as feeder anywhere indoors. Further example, when a cable assembly is limited to use at its allowable ampacity ratings at 60C it may not be used at its higher 75C ampacity limits.

    Allowable ampacity does not equate to trade size. It is limited as to conditions, circumstances, location, path, and wiring method employed.

    As far as the inappropriate use of the term "conduit" and its application, it is false to represent what you have both "J.P."s.

    For E.C. Jerry, who has for nearly a decade claiming the terms sub-panel and sub-feeder did not and never existed or were used in the NEC, has been oftentimes proven false, and terms which in the trades have been clearly defined - and continuing to resort to the "submarine" crapola when the prefix "sub" has not much at all to do with the slang abbreviation for a submarine other than an incontext reference to the compound noun's origin as being pompus, crass, and stupendous.

    EMT and heavy wall are NOT "conduit", the CMPs, and NEC does indeed make the distinction, with a difference. As far as the enclosed or semi-enclosed manner of the combination equipment installation via service lateral - again yet another distinction with major differences. As far as the original topic question - yet more distinctions with major differences - the question is moot, it matters not the size, it is incorrect. As far as Jim P's unqualifed statements regarding ECG sizing, again, incorrect. The size stated for CU as a "max" is only so limited to same terminating upon a rod, however unfortunate it may be that doesn't understand what it means to terminate, the incorporation of the listing standards into the NEC, etc.

    It doesn't matter if this aluminum multi-conductor cable w/ground were 2/0-2/0-2/0, 2/0-2/0-4/0, or 4/0-4/0-4/0, it is still wrong.

    Last edited by H.G. Watson, Sr.; 02-13-2011 at 09:46 AM.

  37. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,899

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    For example said "baby table" does not provide for a permissive exception allowing the use of USE or USE-2 cable interior to premisis when terminating on other than metering and/or service equipment - i.e. not as feeder anywhere indoors.
    It would help if you would refer to the proper type of cable. The cable shown leaving the enclosure through the knockout without a clamp is type SE cable. There is no prohibition listed in 338.12 against its usage inside.

    Here is a complete quote of post #11.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Cieslik View Post
    What size wire is coming into meter base from the electric company and from the meter base to the disconnect? If it is 2/0 AL then this is fine. The wire has to be the same size or larger than the cable that is pulled to the meter base if it has a lower rating than the wire. In this case 2/0 AL is not rated for 200A BUT if they pulled in 2/0 AL from the pole to the meter base and from the meter base to this disconnect then you should be in the clear.

    Now the right way according to the NEC 2008 code book table 310.15(B)(6) is 2/0 copper or 4/0 aluminum with a #4 ground to a grounding rod and also one to copper water pipe (if applicable).
    I do not see where the term "baby table" was used anywhere in this post. I know there are several people here that keep harping that the usage of the proper terminolgy be used. I guess that only applies to some.

    Quote Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr. View Post
    Jeff C up in post #11 cited the oft referred to as "baby table", a common reference by those in the trades regarding residential or "flat" work. You'll find substantial re-codification/numbering of sections and tables in 2011.



  38. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,899

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    heavy wall are NOT "conduit",
    NFPA CMP update,

    We have noticed some errata in recent copies of NFPA 70. We we misquoted when we titled Article 344 Rigid Metal Conduit. Our sincerest apologies to all that were led astray.


  39. #39
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Snowbird (this means I'm retired and migrate between locations), FL/MI
    Posts
    4,086

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    Mr. Port,

    I did not "say" J.C. used the trade term "baby table", I USED THE TERM. What I did say, was J.C. CITED the "baby table". You claimed you were/are unfamiliar with the TRADE term "baby table" and claimed ignorance as to the meaning of the TERM.

    I did NOT "identify" the multi-conductor cable. I gave an EXAMPLE as to just WHAT the "baby table" does and does NOT provide for.

    I further disagree with the vast majority of the assertions you have made on this thread.

    This feeder installation is limited to the permissible allowable ampacity limitation at 60C.


  40. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,899

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    Quote Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr. View Post
    As far as Jim P's unqualifed statements regarding ECG sizing, again, incorrect. The size stated for CU as a "max" is only so limited to same terminating upon a rod, however unfortunate it may be that doesn't understand what it means to terminate, the incorporation of the listing standards into the NEC, etc.
    Prove it. From post #8.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Port View Post
    Undersized GEC? It is only required to be a #6 if it is going to the rods. looks at least that large.
    Mike Holt seems to agree. Graphic used from separate structure but is applies to 250.53 also.Article 250.53(E) also mirrors that a connection to the rod only needs to be #6 CU.

    The above was in rebuttal to this.

    Quote Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr. View Post
    Last photo posted shows the enclosure is not surface mounted either. Not allowed to use baby table either. Parallel egc, unconventional tap, undersized gec.


    Last edited by Jim Port; 02-13-2011 at 10:14 AM. Reason: image formatting

  41. #41
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,899

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    Quote Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr. View Post
    For example said "baby table" does not provide for a permissive exception allowing the use of USE or USE-2 cable interior to premisis when terminating on other than metering and/or service equipment - i.e. not as feeder anywhere indoors.
    I don't think anyone even mentioned USE except you. I don't know why someone would try to bring a type of cable not used into the discussion.

    However, given the proper wiring method between a service panel and non-service equipment, Table 310.15(B)(6) (baby table) would apply to proper feeder sizing, as long as the entire load of the dwelling is supplied. No need to go off on another tangent. The system is 120/240 3 wire, single phase.


  42. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Snowbird (this means I'm retired and migrate between locations), FL/MI
    Posts
    4,086

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    Mr. Port,

    I did NOT identify the feeder cable in Mat's photos as Type USE or Type USE-2, I gave an EXAMPLE as to the NON-permissive use of a Cable TYPE referenced in "the baby table" for other than service equipment or meter terminations. You continue to infer OLD language of an OUTDATED edition of the NEC. You ignore even changes in the "baby table" itself, and INFER what is not present in both the table, the sections, and in the instant discussion. As usual you twist what has been stated, where, when, and why. The preposition "for example" - is just that, an EXAMPLE. It remains unfortunate that one has to use a virtual sledge hammer to get through to you even the most obvious.

    You continue fail to grasp that the cable is AL, and not CU, and that the FEEDER is not upon the exterior surface of the premisis, but within, enclosed in exterior walls, insulation, framing, etc. and terminates on OTHER than service or metering equipment. You further ignore gross inadequacies of the installation. This is NOT an exterior or surface run feeder.

    It is NOT permitted to be used at 75C ampacities in Mat's Installation, load side, THROUGH insulation, not along the surface exterior originating load side through the wall insulation, through a floor/ceiling assembly, behind the wall and terminating as installed in inset MLO distribution panel at 75C ampacities.

    Type SE Style R (SER) aluminum cable is another example of a conductor type that has a limited ampacity.

    A change in the 2008 edition of the NEC limits the allowable ampacities of SER aluminum cables. Prior to the 2008 edition, if the temperature ratings of the SER aluminum cable terminations were rated 75C, it was permissible to use the allowable ampacity in the 75C (167F) column of Table 310.16. Prior to 2008, the stipulation in 338.10(B)(4)(a) stated that, in addition to the provisions of Article 338, Type SE service-entrance cable used for interior wiring shall comply with the installation requirements of Parts I and II of Article 334, excluding 334.80. As previously discussed, Section 334.80 limits the ampacity of nonmetallic-sheathed cables to the 60C column of Table 310.16. By excluding 334.80, the ampacity was not limited to the 60C column. Section 338.10(B)(4)(a) now states that in addition to the provisions of Article 338, Type SE service-entrance cable used for interior wiring shall comply with the installation requirements of Part II of Article 334. It is important to see that the change made to this section is the text that was deleted. Section 334.80 is no longer excluded. It also is important to note that this section is in Part II of Article 334. Therefore, because 334.80 is no longer excluded, the ampacity of Type SE service-entrance cable (used for interior wiring) shall be in accordance with the 60C (140F) conductor temperature rating (334.80).

    Although the conductor insulation is rated 90C and the terminations are rated 75C, the ampacity of the conductor must be selected from the 60C column of Table 310.16 (338.10(B)(4)(a) and 334.80).

    Additionally note the change in the language of the baby table itself.


    As far as your having grabbed an illustration from one of Mike Holt's OLD articles, he has corrected and reversed himself on several of his long-held misconceptions regarding GEC and bonding requirements more recently. I suggest you review his more recent contributions on the topic, which are more in keeping with the actual NEC language, the ROP commentary, and the CMP's discussion and correction on the topic; I recall at least one of not several articles published including his having admitted to having made and repeated such an error for quite some time.

    Perhaps as you become more familiar with the two most recent editions of the NEC and the changes incorporated therein, it may become more obvious or apparent to you, perhaps not.

    Although I doubt that, since you often post conclusionary statements and dispute intra-article definitions and definitions on many safety subjects, including what constitutes wet, damp, and dry environments, or the requirements therein, and redebate old, tired, and sometimes downright erroneous arguments which have since been resolved by both the CMPs and language changes in subsequent editions of the NEC.

    The combination equipment itself has specific requirements as well as to installation, exposure to free air, especially when service is lateral.

    However, since your location is Maryland, and the OP is in Utah, there is no concern that you, personally, would be the electrician consulted, when the referal is/was made for evaluation and correction.

    As usual, continued discussion with you on this, as so many, topic is and has been proven to be futile.

    Have a nice day.

    Last edited by H.G. Watson, Sr.; 02-13-2011 at 11:10 AM.

  43. #43
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Snowbird (this means I'm retired and migrate between locations), FL/MI
    Posts
    4,086

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Port View Post
    Prove it. From post #8.



    Mike Holt seems to agree. Graphic used from separate structure but is applies to 250.53 also.Article 250.53(E) also mirrors that a connection to the rod only needs to be #6 CU.

    The above was in rebuttal to this.
    Nope you again, as usual overlook what was actually stated, and what is stated even in your inappropriate example. That is only regarding termination upon a ground ROD, you again ignore that the GEC is entering the structure. I find it very humorous you had to reach back to a 2001 illustration, with a completely differing application, and that it further contradicts your own assertions as you continue to miss the points completely.

    As I indicated before, that maximum CU size limitation does not apply to terminations upon a UFER, the metallic building structure, a ground ring, etc.

    I find it doubtful the copper conductor entering the premisis wall via the same unprotected pathway as the feeder cable is terminating upon a ground ROD.

    It is further being continued inappropriately from the BONDING JUMPER portion to the exterior enclosure. All along, I have made it CLEAR as to what I was refering. You seem fixated at the lower left of the enclosure - I am referring to opposite direction pathway, which has been inappropriately and incorrectly continued beyond what should have been a bonding jumper TERMINATION. It is an incorrect and inappropriate method which has been employed.

    Last edited by H.G. Watson, Sr.; 02-13-2011 at 11:45 AM.

  44. #44
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Snowbird (this means I'm retired and migrate between locations), FL/MI
    Posts
    4,086

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Port View Post
    I don't think anyone even mentioned USE except you. I don't know why someone would try to bring a type of cable not used into the discussion.

    However, given the proper wiring method between a service panel and non-service equipment, Table 310.15(B)(6) (baby table) would apply to proper feeder sizing, as long as the entire load of the dwelling is supplied. No need to go off on another tangent. The system is 120/240 3 wire, single phase.
    There you go again, not grasping what T310.15(B)(6) actually does and does not state, how it is used, and its proper application, and limitations; or you are mixing and matching differing editions and selectively ignoring the changes therein.

    2008 and forward. NOT your misconceptions from 2002 and 2005. The wiring method and system requires corrections already, to do so is not a "repair", it is also not "maintenance". As photographed and described, it is defective, less-than-safe, non-compliant and doubtfully "as original" in its entirety.

    "Allowable ampacity" does not equate to trade size, and does not provide for a non-permissive use at 75C ampacity maximums in THIS installation! Allowable Ampacity is dependant upon the temperature restrictions/limitations of the application, wiring method applied, including the location, conditions, and equipment.

    The type and style feeder cable path through the wall, floor/ceiling, through building insulation, terminating upon other than service or metering equipment, interior to the premisis, restricts its maximum allowable ampacity application to the 60C column.

    Last edited by H.G. Watson, Sr.; 02-13-2011 at 11:48 AM.

  45. #45
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,899

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    Given the vintage of the equipment installed it would be ludicris to think that rules that were not even thought of when the installation was installed would apply.

    I find it doubtful the copper conductor entering the premisis wall via the same unprotected pathway as the feeder cable is terminating upon a ground ROD.
    Perhaps there is only one continuous conductor from the interior water line that terminates on the rod after passing thru the service equipment.

    As I indicated before, that maximum CU size limitation does not apply to terminations upon a UFER, the metallic building structure, a ground ring, etc.
    Since there is no confirmation of whether a UFER or another method exists. It would all be speculation. My citation was based strictly on a rod connection and I never maintained anything else. BTW it is a minimum size, not a maximum size. You also might want to read thru this thread.

    Area controversy around sizing of GEC for ground rod


    "Allowable ampacity" does not equate to trade size, and does not provide for a non-permissive use at 75C ampacity maximums in THIS installation! Allowable Ampacity is dependant upon the temperature restrictions/limitations of the application, wiring method applied, including the location, conditions, and equipment.
    This reduction in temperature based ampacity changed in the 08 NEC. Until the adoption of the 08, which may or may not even be adopted at this point in that jurisdicion, the ampacity was based on the 75 degree column for SE type cables. You seem to overlook that the code is not retroactive. On a side note, IIRC, the 011 or 014 will again be raised back to the 75 degree ampacity for SE type cables.

    Last edited by Jim Port; 02-17-2011 at 08:45 AM. Reason: fixed quote format

  46. #46
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Snowbird (this means I'm retired and migrate between locations), FL/MI
    Posts
    4,086

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    The table to which you rely has always been subject to 86 degrees F ambient limitations described earlier in the subsection, in its application and use and without adjustment. Furthermore, it (the "baby table", or Table being relied upon) did NOT provide for the use of Type SE Style U or R until 1999 NEC or thereabouts.

    The removal of language which used to exclude incorporating a section on NM cable temperature limitations for allowable ampacity as a feeder to indoors to other than service equipment was in fact submitted by Manufacturer(s) of type SE cable.

    It is quite OBVIOUS the installation is NOT AS ORIGINAL to the vintage of the structure.

    I realize the fine points and nuances will be lost upon you Mr. Port, but since you seem "crusin' for a history lesson" suggest you review the attached. It covers the HISTORY of the development of and the use of "the baby table" in the NEC, and for that matter SER, thus very on-topic discussion quite well.

    For those who prefer to open or download directly, the NFPA letter is located at a number of sites, including IAEI.org, here: http://www.iaei.org/ohio/Poe_4_29_09.pdf


    Your assertions that changes are yet forthcoming, as in not yet determined, for the 2011 NEC seem to speak to an ignorance as to that code development cycle having been completed, and the 2011 edition already having been published.

    Something that continues relatively unchanged and has been around for a LONG TIME (1993) and pre-dates the inclusion of Type SE Cable to said "baby table" use exterior or interior as main power Feeder, are the NEC's requirement text throughout the entirety of section (and its subdivisions)110.14(C) titled Temperature Limitation, have a read.

    However, 90.7 and 110.3 require that electrical materials and equipment be installed in accordance with instructions supplied with the product by the manufacturer. And 110.3(B) requires that electrical equipment be installed to comply with any requirements that are included in the listing or labeling of the product.

    These parts of the NEC suggest that the product directory published by Underwriters Laboratories Inc. be reviewed. You may find this information In the General Information for Electrical Equipment Directory (White Book). You may also source the appropriate UL Standards and NEMA materials.

    You cannot "have your cake" and "eat it too" if your argument is that Old rules apply, yet obvious changes have been made, and the old rules didn't permit the installation as pictured. Furthermore, as already indicated by many, corrections are required at a minimum to the unclosed, unprotected, unsecured, right rear of the photographed enclosure, and to correct the undersided feeder for the application or oversized OCPD to the MLO panel indoors.

    Finally the connection at the enclosure back is not rated or sized for Bonding and grounding or as a GEC terminal/connector, etc. The GEC has been inappropriately routed to dual use as an unterminated bonding jumper and GEC beyond the enclosure between two electrodes and has not been appropriately tapped. You seem to be slightly acknowledging that the copper conductor leaving the enclosure and into the wall cavity at the right rear is obviously destined for OTHER than a ground ROD if landing indoors, perhaps we're making progress.

    Do hope you make the choice to read, can follow and understand the attached. It might prove helpful if you bothered to consider when one is refering to something other than 2002 or 2005; and that all service equipment is not supplied via an overhead drop.

    Some day, hopefully, you WILL grasp that HI is NOT code inspection, and when correcting a condition which was not compliant at the time the work was done, or making changes to the overall SYSTEM, one is not allowed to CREATE a non-compliant, unsafe, condition.




    Attached Files Attached Files
    Last edited by H.G. Watson, Sr.; 02-13-2011 at 03:07 PM.

  47. #47
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,899

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    Quote Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr. View Post

    Your assertions that changes are yet forthcoming, as in not yet determined, for the 2011 NEC seem to speak to an ignorance as to that code development cycle having been completed, and the 2011 edition already having been published.
    I am quite aware the 2011 has been published. As it has not been adopted in this area there has been no call for me to purchase it, nor did I feel the need to reference the on-line version. It was a side note, nothing more than a comment that a recent change will revert back as it was in a prior edition.


  48. #48
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Snowbird (this means I'm retired and migrate between locations), FL/MI
    Posts
    4,086

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    Why do you pontificate on editions you have neither read, researched, nor utilized, and code cycles you have not done the same, or bother to note the location of an original poster before carrying on so?

    It has been my understanding that Utah has been using at least/oldest the 2008 NEC since at least January 1, 2009, statewide.

    I realize this might be difficult to grasp for one who is from a state which has no overall statewide adoption, and in fact has local jurisdictions utilizing super-ammended versions in some cases prior to 2002, or dependant on original IRC editions repleat with ammendments, including numerous intra-and inter-jurisdictional irregularities as to what is and is not a modification to a premisis wiring system.

    Last edited by H.G. Watson, Sr.; 02-13-2011 at 03:56 PM.

  49. #49
    mathew stouffer's Avatar
    mathew stouffer Guest

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    Thx for all of the responses, I always learn a lot from the chatter I will take a few more pics tomorrow I will be right next to the place. I identified the feeders as possible being undersized, see what the sparky says.


  50. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,899

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    Finally the connection at the enclosure back is not rated or sized for Bonding and grounding or as a GEC terminal/connector, etc. The GEC has been inappropriately routed to dual use as an unterminated bonding jumper and GEC beyond the enclosure between two electrodes and has not been appropriately tapped. You seem to be slightly acknowledging that the copper conductor leaving the enclosure and into the wall cavity at the right rear is obviously destined for OTHER than a ground ROD if landing indoors, perhaps we're making progress.
    And we know that it is undersized how?

    Try not to forget to answer all the other questions you have avoided answering so far also.


  51. #51
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,251

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminum Cable

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    (using the GENERIC term "conduit" to mean just that, that it is "conduit", whether it be rigid metal conduit or intermediate metal conduit, galvanized, or aluminum).
    Quote Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr. View Post
    EMT and heavy wall are NOT "conduit", the CMPs, and NEC does indeed make the distinction, with a difference.
    H. G. is wrong again, and also wrong in saying I was wrong (but that is nothing new, he is wrong much of the time).

    From the NEC: (bold and underlining are mine)
    Raceway. An enclosed channel of metal or nonmetallic materials designed expressly for holding wires, cables, or busbars, with additional functions as permitted in this Code. Raceways include, but are not limited to, rigid metal conduit, rigid nonmetallic conduit, intermediate metal conduit, liquidtight flexible conduit, flexible metallic tubing, flexible metal conduit, electrical nonmetallic tubing, electrical metallic tubing, underfloor raceways, cellular concrete floor raceways, cellular metal floor raceways, surface raceways, wireways, and busways.

    Seems to me that the two terms I used above ("rigid metal conduit or intermediate metal conduit") are included in the "conduit" parts of that definition.

    I can't wait for H. G. to explain his way out of the above ... oh, wait, he never does, he just ignores things like that and continues on like it never happened.

    (If the CMP do not want that to be "conduit", then the CMP need to CHANGE the definition to fit what they want, in the meantime, though, those items ARE "conduit" by definition.)

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

  52. #52
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,899

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    Other items that have been said in this thread and still not proven include:

    The GEC to the rod needs to be greater than #6. I checked my outdated 08 NEC and 250.66(A) still only calls for #6 CU.

    How a lug with a continuous conductor thru it violates its listing.

    Why the word conduit is used in an Article when the raceway name is Rigid Metal Conduit. After all heavywall is not conduit.

    Why some are discussing the rules that will apply to the fix that will happen in the future vs the rules that were in effect during the time when the install and/or modification happened.


  53. #53
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Snowbird (this means I'm retired and migrate between locations), FL/MI
    Posts
    4,086

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    To the two "JPs":

    I did NOT say that a GEC as the SOLE connection to a singular solitary electrode had to be greater than #6. You BOTH like to IGNORE what WAS ACTUALLY said, and make-up your own versions.

    I know how you so like to twist what IS and IS not said and re-write history, and how you BOTH like to PRETEND what you yourselves have said doesn't mean what you typed and posted.

    THE conductor, which is present takes an alternate path BEYOND its bonding JUMPERING POINT of service neutral to service enclosure on the right, it travels BEYOND the enclosure to the RIGHT. To the LEFT of service it appears and as we all have presumed, it travels to an ELECTRODE. I AM NOT REFERRING to the path to the LEFT from having been bonded to the service neutral. Cannot make it clearer, as you choose to IGNORE what has been said many, many times. I am referring to its PATH to the RIGHT BEYOND the bond to the SERVICE ENCLOSURE ITSELF.

    I realize you cannot seem to follow the distinctions with differences between a GEC, an electrode bonding jumper, an enclosure bonding jumper, or the distinctions with significant differences between a direct SOLE connection to a ROD electrode, vs. an enclosure bonding jumper, vs. an electrode bonding jumper, vs. a GEC to OTHER than an exterior ROD electrode. Your suggestion that the conductor should or would terminate to the interior panel spoke volumes .

    It is ironic that Mr. Port refers to a recent, 21-page discussion on another forum, yet FAILS TO READ or COMPREHEND what it does, indeed state, nor what it does not, and furthermore cannot apply for follow what was and was NOT discussed in it. <sigh>.

    It is also not surprising that neither Mr. Peck, NOR Mr. Port have the ability to discern what is so very abundantly OBVIOUS in a photograph of an outdoors enclosure, exposed to weather, not "realize" that there is not even the required minimum offset, air space, on the entirety of an obviously DEEP exterior (left) side wall, and call it "surface mounted" .

    As far as your nonsense regarding what technically is and is not conduit, technically...you are both "out of gas". Akin to Mr. Peck's claims that in order to be safety glass, glass must be fully tempered, which is untrue, and his failure to recognize distinctions with differences, and that there are other forms of SAFETY GLASS -- he again fails to recognize that not all raceways or wireways are "conduit".

    Patience! Mat promised you more photos and information regarding the installation, and since neither of you seem to be able to figure anything out or understand until you are hit over the head with a hammer or your "nose is rubbed in it", especially when your experience or knowledge is so limited, suggest you contain yourselves, AND WAIT FOR THEM.

    I really don't care if you chose to keep ignoring the obvious failures in your flawed circular logic, or that neither of you can properly apply any edition of the code that might have applied to the origination of the system, or any of its modifications to date, nor the local requirements/ammendments over the years, nor the requirements of the POCO, then and now. Neither of you have bothered to explore upon your own, nor followed up on any of the resources offered to Mat herein, NOR in similar posts in the past.

    Pick an edition and time period and apply it to the entirety of the circumstances of the instant system as photographed and described. It fails.

    Last edited by H.G. Watson, Sr.; 02-15-2011 at 10:05 AM.

  54. #54
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,899

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    HGW I believe you might have mis-read several items.

    In post #8 I wrote:

    Undersized GEC? It is only required to be a #6 if it is going to the rods. looks at least that large.
    Yet somehow you turned that into this:

    As far as Jim P's unqualifed statements regarding ECG sizing, again, incorrect. The size stated for CU as a "max" is only so limited to same terminating upon a rod, however unfortunate it may be that doesn't understand what it means to terminate, the incorporation of the listing standards into the NEC, etc.
    Notice the difference GEC vs ECG. Yet in post #52 you still post this:

    I realize you cannot seem to follow the distinctions with differences between a GEC, an electrode bonding jumper, an enclosure bonding jumper, or the distinctions with significant differences between a direct SOLE connection to a ROD electrode, vs. an enclosure bonding jumper, vs. an electrode bonding jumper, vs. a GEC to OTHER than an exterior ROD electrode. Your suggestion that the conductor should or would terminate to the interior panel spoke volumes .
    Who said anything about the terminating in the interior panel?

    From post #45:

    Perhaps there is only one continuous conductor from the interior water line that terminates on the rod after passing thru the service equipment.
    Are you saying that the metal interior water lines would not be required to bonded or grounded? Somehow it seems 250.53 seems to think so.

    From your post #18. Color change by me.
    The multi-conductor feeder cable w/gnd has its own bare ecg (apparently making contact with the unterminated copper gec look closely at this location). There would be no reason to continue gec to the load-side panelinside, a water pipe, a ufer, elsewhere perhaps. It is going through a punch/knockout in the back wall of the enclosure, and into the wall of the structure, not running along the surface - it is unprotected not in a listed raceway or conduit, nor is it exposed.
    .
    In fact it says that the water line shall be supplemented with a rod, plate etc. That would make the water line the primary grounding means.


  55. #55
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,899

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    Quote Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr. View Post
    It is ironic that Mr. Port refers to a recent, 21-page discussion on another forum, yet FAILS TO READ or COMPREHEND what it does, indeed state, nor what it does not, and furthermore cannot apply for follow what was and was NOT discussed in it. <sigh>.

    .
    From post #153 of the link I posted regarding the conductor size to a rod.

    Well here is what they had to say when asked this question

    Thank you for your email concerning the National Electrical Code (NEC).

    The following reply is based upon the provisions of the NEC 2011.

    The key to understanding this is in the text of the NEC. The largest required size for a grounding electrode conductor (250.66) or a bonding jumper (250.53(C) and 250.66) as the sole connection to or between two rod electrodes is provided in 250.66(A), that is a 6 AWG copper wire. The provision does not prohibit the use of Table 250.66 for sizing a grounding electrode conductor or bonding jumper when run to a rod electrode.
    This reply from an NFPA employee seems to agree with what many others also said, that the #6 was all that was required and an inspector that would require otherwise was ill informed. I don't see where I posted anything different.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Port View Post
    Undersized GEC? It is only required to be a #6 if it is going to the rods. looks at least that large.



  56. #56
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,899

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    More from HG.

    As far as your nonsense regarding what technically is and is not conduit, technically...you are both "out of gas".
    Lets try to follow along. Article 300.5(1) Emerging from Grade. Direct buried conductors and cables emerging from grade and specified in columns 1 and 4 of Table 300.5 shall be protected by enclosures or raceways extending from the minimum cover distance below grade required by 300.5(A) to a point at least 2.5m above finished grade. In no case shall the protection be required to exceed 450mm below finished grade.

    From Article 100 - Raceway. An enclosed channel of metal or non-metallic designed expressly for holding wires, cables or busbars, with additional functions as permitted in this Code. Raceways include, but are not limited to, rigid metal conduit, rigid nonmetallic conduit, intermediate metal conduit, liquidtight flexible conduit, flexible metallic tubing, flexible metal conduit, electrical metallic tubing...

    Article 344.2 Definition. Rigid Metal Conduit (RMC). A threadable raceway of circular cross section designed for the physical protection and routing of conductors and cables and for use as an equipment grounding conductor when installed with its integral or associated fittings. RMC is generally made of steel (ferrous) with protective coatings or aluminum (nonferrous). Special use types are red brass and stainless steel.

    Article 352.2 mirrors RMC. Rigid Polyvinyl Chloride Conduit (PVC) A rigid nonmetallic conduit (RNC) of circular cross section, with integral or associated couplings, connector and fittings for the installation of electrical conductors and cables.

    Individual conductors need to be installed in conduit or raceway system. Cables and direct buried conductors emerging from grade require protection provided by a raceway, some of which are called conduits. As the appearance of some sort of protection below the combination equipment probably contains conductors, unless this is a wireless supply, and looks circular I don't think it would be so hard to call it a conduit. Even if this is only a sleeve and not a complete conduit system it is still conduit.


  57. #57
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,899

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    Quote Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr. View Post
    It has been my understanding that Utah has been using at least/oldest the 2008 NEC since at least January 1, 2009, statewide.
    So any installation installed before that adoption would not need to meet those forthcoming requirements.


  58. #58
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,251

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminum Cable

    Quote Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr. View Post
    It is also not surprising that neither Mr. Peck, NOR Mr. Port have the ability to discern what is so very abundantly OBVIOUS in a photograph of an outdoors enclosure, exposed to weather, not "realize" that there is not even the required minimum offset, air space, on the entirety of an obviously DEEP exterior (left) side wall, and call it "surface mounted" .
    It really is a shame that Mat has not responded with the answer to the question of whether that enclosure is surface mounted ... as most of us who have commented on it said, or that it is recessed ... as H. G. has said.

    Mat?

    As far as your nonsense regarding what technically is and is not conduit, technically...you are both "out of gas". Akin to Mr. Peck's claims that in order to be safety glass, glass must be fully tempered, which is untrue, and his failure to recognize distinctions with differences, and that there are other forms of SAFETY GLASS -- he again fails to recognize that not all raceways or wireways are "conduit".
    As with the comment regarding conduit, I have not claimed that that all safety glass is must be fully tempered, that is but another figment of H. G.'s imagination - he ought to go to work for Disney in imagineering ...

    Tempered glass is safety glass, yes, that would be a correct statement is stated that way.

    H. G. refuses to accept what the code calls "conduit", even after I posted where the NEC defines other raceways as ... "conduit".

    I will leave H. G. to continue this battle of wits ... witlessness on his part ... and let him battle himself in his continuing attempt to dig the hole in even deeper while thinking he is digging his way out.

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

  59. #59
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Snowbird (this means I'm retired and migrate between locations), FL/MI
    Posts
    4,086

    Default Re: 4/0 or 2/0 Aluminium Cable

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Port View Post
    HGW I believe you might have mis-read several items.

    In post #8 I wrote:

    Yet somehow you turned that into this:

    Notice the difference GEC vs ECG. Yet in post #52 you still post this:

    Who said anything about the terminating in the interior panel?

    From post #45:

    Are you saying that the metal interior water lines would not be required to bonded or grounded? Somehow it seems 250.53 seems to think so.

    From your post #18. Color change by me.


    In fact it says that the water line shall be supplemented with a rod, plate etc. That would make the water line the primary grounding means.
    Who said it? YOU DID.

    In YOUR post #17 (last paragraph):
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Port View Post
    The green conductor enters the bottom left, goes up and hits the lug on the neutral buss, it then is routed thru a lug mounted to the can and then out to presumably the interior panel. There is no unterminated conductor. You can follow the conductor by looking at several of the pics.

    My response MY post 18 was (as you have highlighted):
    The multi-conductor feeder cable w/gnd has its own bare ecg (apparently making contact with the unterminated copper gec look closely at this location). There would be no reason to continue gec to the load-side panelinside, a water pipe, a ufer, elsewhere perhaps. It is going through a punch/knockout in the back wall of the enclosure, and into the wall of the structure, not running along the surface - it is unprotected not in a listed raceway or conduit, nor is it exposed.
    There would be no reason to continue GEC to the load-side panel. (To) inside, a water pipe, a ufer, elsewhere perhaps.

    GEC doesn't belong at inside at MLO distribution panel, the feeder has a bare ECG. But that's not a GEC (right side of the lug) anymore at that point - it is wired as a service enclosure equipment bonding jumper, bonding the outdoor service enclosure ("can") to the service "neutral" (grounded conductor) which has been "earthed" (left side of the lug its the GEC to an electrode) at the service point.

    GECs are the conductors between service neutral and the "local" (earthed)grounding electrode(s). Conductors between electrodes are electrode bonding jumpers. Different sections for the different applications within the grounding electrode system(s).

    The as wired service enclosure bonding jumper "side" of the conductor seems to have made contact with the feeder (bare AL) ECG at the top of the enclosure left of the disconnect. Note the discoloration above.


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
  •