Thread: Splice in remote panel

Is this fixable with Kearneys or do will new feeders most likely have to be pulled?

Similar Threads:

• Aluminum (?) to copper SEC splice
• Ridge Beam Splice
• New Splice Type
• Feed From Main Panel to Sub Panel
• interesting K&T splice

Might be able to turn the interior 180 degrees, then they will be plenty long....

Originally Posted by Rollie Meyers

Might be able to turn the interior 180 degrees, then they will be plenty long....

Good idea..how come "might"?

Originally Posted by Marc M

Good idea..how come "might"?

Not every one is able to be flipped.

Please educate me. What is a "Kearney"?

If you are speaking of butt connectors then yes, they may be splice with a Listed Butt Connector.

The cabinet can hold splices, providing on the percentage of space available.

Don

Originally Posted by Rollie Meyers

Not every one is able to be flipped.

I asked for that...
Hey Rollie...arent you an electrician?

Marc:

Could you indicate what you mean by Kearneys?

Originally Posted by David Day

Marc:

Could you indicate what you mean by Kearneys?

Kearneys are a type of wire connector that looks a lot like a wire nut externally. It consists of a brass collar that has a setscrew to connect the inserted wires and an insulating cover that screws on to the collar - the cover being the part that resembles a wire nut. Kearney is also a brand name that is associated with this specific type of connector like Romex is with NM-B

This seems to be a mostly Canadian used product although they are UL approved here and available by special order from most supply houses.

With regard to this thread, I'm not aware of any Kearneys that are approved for use with aluminum wire or large enough for the wire in question although they may exist.

Split bolt connectors (some were made by Kearney) are made in very large sizes and we routinely use them on 1000kcm (1" diameter) wires, some are rated for aluminum also. You can use them in panel feeds but not on the service panel neutral in most places. I would be concerned that the ground bar appears to have neutrals landed in it, the unclosed k.o. at the top center, and the raceway? that the feed enters through does not have a bushing and looks undersized. Although, the last item is not very clear in the photo.

Originally Posted by Marc M

Is this fixable with Kearneys or do will new feeders most likely have to be pulled?

I always use the word 'cheesy' in these situations ....

I notice that the splice point appears to be smaller in diameter than the diameter of the wire plus insulation. Kinda strange as to what connector they used ??

Maybe a Burndy then just wrapped with tape?

Originally Posted by Roger Frazee

I always use the word 'cheesy' in these situations ....

I notice that the splice point appears to be smaller in diameter than the diameter of the wire plus insulation. Kinda strange as to what connector they used ??

Maybe a Burndy then just wrapped with tape?

They actually look like some big a$$ 12V butt connectors...

Tell me about the grounds in that panel.

Originally Posted by Steven Turetsky

Tell me about the grounds in that panel.

Well....there are bare copper wire thingies and there are white wire thingies...
They're separated, just a crappy pic. Just trying to capture the feeds.

Originally Posted by Steven Turetsky

Tell me about the grounds in that panel.

The equipment grounds appear to be terminated to a bar on the left side of the panel. If you look on the right hand side between the neutral bar and the breaker column you will see that the main bonding strap is just hanging on the back wall of the enclosure and not connected to the neutral bus.

Originally Posted by Marc M

They actually look like some big a$$ 12V butt connectors...

That is much like a crimped on bundy connector. I do not think that panel is listed to be turned main lugs down ... I don't see it embossed in the metal. It would have the word LINE right side up and upside down.

Originally Posted by Roger Frazee

The equipment grounds appear to be terminated to a bar on the left side of the panel. If you look on the right hand side between the neutral bar and the breaker column you will see that the main bonding strap is just hanging on the back wall of the enclosure and not connected to the neutral bus.

I see nothing on the left side.

Originally Posted by Marc M

Is this fixable with Kearneys or do will new feeders most likely have to be pulled?

No.

Won't reduce the number of switches to fully de-energize, won't close the open KO or heal those partially open, won't remove the contaminants in the main power panel cabinet, the paint/plaster off the wiring the "can" front allowing bonding of the DF when installed, won't remove the oxidation, won't change the obsolete listing of the panel, breakers-and locations of vs. listing specifications and/or classifications (or non-classified use) of the breakers within, won't change the original restrictions of the panel, won't "un-identify" the wiring insulation for hot conductors for the circuits fed from the 240V breakers at the lowest right and the second from the lowest left, and won't increase the ga. of the undersized neutral for the main power feeder, does nothing for maintaining isolation of the N from the can, doesn't clamp the cable at the bottom R, cannot re-mark, and certainly won't bring the unit's main power center up to today's safety standards.

P.S. there also appears to be at least one green insulated "thingy"

Originally Posted by Steven Turetsky

I see nothing on the left side.

Look just above the red conductor on the bottom left hand breaker column. You will see an insulated green conductor and then above that several bare coppers terminating to the grounding bus. Its very hard to see because the angle of the picture is letting the breakers in the left column obscure the grounding terminal bar.

Still won't meet the rule-of-six, let alone the rule-of-two.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

Still won't meet the rule-of-six, let alone the rule-of-two.

Did he say this is a service panel?

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

Still won't meet the rule-of-six, let alone the rule-of-two.

Originally Posted by John Kogel

Did he say this is a service panel?

No, he said they were "feeders", which means it was NOT the service panel, and that Watson just did not bother to read things again.

Of course I read, and looked at the panel too, and what's been installed on it, and where.

Its an OLD main power panel for an occupancy, located within the occupancy, supplied by a FEEDER; not a "service".

Its also "remote" from the "service" (hence the title of the thread "Splice in remote panel").

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

Of course I read, and looked at the panel too, and what's been installed on it, and where.

Its an OLD main power panel for an occupancy, located within the occupancy, supplied by a FEEDER; not a "service".

Its also "remote" from the "service" (hence the title of the thread "Splice in remote panel").

Then explain your non-applicable post.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

Still won't meet the rule-of-six, let alone the rule-of-two.

YOU are the one who gets on OTHERS for posting frivolous and non-applicable information ...

Its not "non-applicable" its MOST LIKELY APPLICABLE.The photo file name is four images after the (NOT A TOWNHOME) passage hall to garage space thread's photo.Puts the panel in a CONDO unit, which we do NOT know if has access 24/7 or has on-site managment (unlikely) who can provide access 24/7. We further do not know if the garage space is electrified (likely it is), nor from WHERE it is electrified.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

Its not "non-applicable" its MOST LIKELY APPLICABLE.The photo file name is four images after the (NOT A TOWNHOME) passage hall to garage space thread's photo.

You, Watson, definitely are weird.

*I* am not reading more into what is being put forth than what is being put forth, and the panel was but forth as being in a townhouse.

Nonetheless, though ...

Puts the panel in a CONDO unit, which we do NOT know if has access 24/7 or has on-site managment (unlikely) who can provide access 24/7. We further do not know if the garage space is electrified (likely it is), nor from WHERE it is electrified.

IT IS STILL NOT APPLICABLE, EVEN BEING IN A CONDO. THAT IS A PANEL, "NOT THE SERVICE EQUIPMENT" ... there is no requirement for that panel to have 6 or fewer disconnects - whether installed in a townhouse or in a condo. Crimeny, and sometimes you seem so smart ... other times ... well, other times (like this) one wonders where your smarts went to, maybe you are sitting on them?

Its a remote panel in a condo.

Originally Posted by Marc M

Its a remote panel in a condo.

For which Watson's post of 6 or fewer 'mains' is still not applicable ... and he is the one who frequently jumps on others for posting non-applicable stuff.

He still has not addressed why he posted that as making a difference when it does not - not for a townhouse OR a condo.

There is only one service equipment at each building, and only the service equipment has that 6 or fewer requirement, remote panels do not.

With a townhouse, each townhouse is a "separate building" and there is a separate service to and for each townhouse.

With condos, there is but one "building" and it has THE service and THE service equipment, from there each condo has a remote panel and there is no requirement for a condo to have 6 or fewer 'mains' (although I have long thought that would be an excellent safety feature to be required, but it is not "required" ... "good idea" - you bet, but we are talking about "required").