Thread: horizontal "mast"

This is something I haven't seen before. There's the regular old vertical mast, and another conduit with weatherheads on both ends running horizontally to channel the SEC along the side of the house. I can't think of a reason why it wouldn't be acceptable, it just seems a bit odd. I did call out the slipped splice covers that leave a bit of the hot exposed.

Sorry 'bout the small photos. It's all I have.

Similar Threads:

• "I got it on this end Bud!!!"
• "Trying to do the American Dream thing..."
• Who needs 6" of clearance for single wall
• White "powder" at furnace exhaust tube
• Porch Re-Roof - How Should This Be "Flashed"

.......you can see the original 3-wire insulated connectors to the left of the "verticle" weatherhead. For whatever reason, when the service drop was upgraded to triplex, it was brought to the other end of that wall-thus the service "extension" cord. I agree that it's no problem........Greg.

Thanks, Greg!

Definitely a dated service. Horizontal service cables are a result of available power and the service loaction usually being on different exterior elevations. The original service is a lead jacketed SE cable, ( note the ground clamp on it ). That service is rife with potential problems and options. First; there is the then and now consideration when contemplating code legality, ( which applies ? ). Next there is local building code or utility company jurisdiction, ( which applies ? ). The conduit must be extending the service to a different utility strike location. Once conductors are put inside conduit you can no longer use free air ampacity ratings. The original SE cable is fastened with nails. Too many posssible OKs and too many possible wrongs. Pick your sides and post away.

Older service - original conduit and meter.

In the first photo the original insulators are still on the side of the house.

At some point in time service from utility was relocated from street to rear of house.

Likely 60 amp service from street.

In my opinion there is no concern, it certainly is not a new service and likely was installed at the time as per the local code.

Garry, I don't understand the part about lead jacketed SE cable. I thought the clamps were to bond the two conduits?

Can't remember a time around here when the service came from the street, but that does indeed seem to be the case. Surprising that I don't run across more evidence of it, since almost all the houses I inspect are pre-1960 (before my time!).

That reminds me of a question I've had for nine months now (seems like I always think of additional questions when I post a thread about electricity!). We were taught at the Mueller School of Home Inspection that round meter bases (not mounted on any box) were a sign of 60 A service, but I read on inspectapedia.com that some of the second generation of round bases were 100 A. Anybody come across this?

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

We were taught at the Mueller School of Home Inspection that round meter bases (not mounted on any box) were a sign of 60 A service, but I read on inspectapedia.com that some of the second generation of round bases were 100 A. Anybody come across this?

Yes, that round base rule is a myth. Lots of older 100 amp services have the round base.
The only clue on the exterior to the size of the service is the size of the conductors at the drip loop. Even then, you can't be sure if the conductors are copper or Aluminum, which need to be one size larger for the same amperage.

Thanks, John! Another Mueller Myth debunked. You'd think they'd know what they were talking about, after training 1000s of field reps. Crazy.

Well it wouldn't be the first time insurers knew what they were talking about.

The round base theory is in the Carson-Dunlop training manual, probably where the myth started. Somebody should edit that part.

There is no way the PoCo here (BC Hydro) would hook up service to that Mickey Mouse service mast.
Too easy to clamp jumper cables on it and conceal the theft with some ivy.

There is no "mast" pictured.
A Service head or gooseneck must be higher than a service drop-to-service entrance conductor(s) splice(s). That location is in the background right corner of the home, not what you hve pictured above the meter.


See NEC Art. 100 definitions beginning with "service" throught and including "service point"; see especially "Service-Entrance Conductors, Overhead System"; Review also Art. 100 definition for "raceway"; See further, NEC Art. 230 "Services", Parts I (General), II (Overhead Service-Drop Conductors), and IV (Service-Entrance Conductors); which address the requirements.

There is no such thing as a "service extension cord". The "service drop" is presently terminated at the far right corner of the building in the background.

The service entrance conductors begin at that service drop termination/splice to the service entrance conductors background right.

The interupted/open spliced, uninsulated, unprotected from weather, un-offset, and failing to properly provide for drainage or entrance of water, 'arrangement' for the service entrance conductors, service raceway, open, unprotected, accessible (expected to be accessed, as lower open gutters requiring service - as well as gutters above) splice (proximity to lower roof, gutter, overhang, upper roof overhang, interupted service raceway system, unprotected, non-offset system, etc. is not compliant, and is defective.

Clearances horizontal & vertical for open, uninsulated, unprotected, service conductors, in re roof, height, and the lower roof in the foreground neither meet the prescriptions nor the exception proscriptions.

Neither 230.41 nor 230.43 "...shall be installed in accordance with the applicable requirements of this Code covering the type of wiring method used and shall be limited to the following methods"; nor 230.46 "..shall be permitted to be spliced or tapped in accordance with 110.14, 300.6, 300.12, 300.13, and 300.15"; nor 230.50(B); nor 230.51; nor 230.53 Racewys to Drain; nor 230.54; especially not 230.54(G); nor 314.15.

Prescribed conductor length ends at terminations in enclosures, bending radius for same debunks the theory that the meter box would be satisfactory for larger conductors for higher rated amperage service.

The service drop termination location is obviously not original, neither are the extension of the service-entrance conductors to that location.

Suspect the Crimsom King Maple (tree) had something to do with the 'git-R-done' modifications to both the Service-entrance, service-raceway, and relocation of the service-drop termination(s), and that it was likely a temporary, emergency repair/restoration of service, that was intended to be remediated (permitted, inspected) and had since been forgotten and/or defaulted upon.

Remember, you can freely access the 2008 NEC (or the 2011 NEC) in read-only-mode at NFPA.org.

In the underwriting/property condition loss-control reporting world would be multiply noteworthy & usually require photos & diagrams, by "surveyor".

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

The service entrance conductors begin at that service drop termination/splice to the service entrance conductors background right.

Being as you are referring to, and addressing items according to, the definitions in Article 100: (bold and underlining are mine)
- Service-Entrance Conductors, Overhead System. The service conductors between the terminals of the service equipment and a point usually outside the building, clear of building walls, where joined by tap or splice to the service drop.

John said,

There is no way the PoCo here (BC Hydro) would hook up service to that Mickey Mouse service mast.
Too easy to clamp jumper cables on it and conceal the theft with some ivy.

Not sure what you mean. Isn't that true in pretty much any case? What makes this different?

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Well it wouldn't be the first time insurers knew what they were talking about.

I'm assuming you meant it wouldn't be the first time they didn't know...? Mueller isn't an insurer, they are hired by many insurers, but that's all the more reason they should teach this stuff right! A lot of companies consider 60A service a "hazard," affecting premiums or insurability.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

There is no "mast" pictured.
A Service head or gooseneck must be higher than a service drop-to-service entrance conductor(s) splice(s). That location is in the background right corner of the home, not what you hve pictured above the meter.

See NEC Art. 100 definitions beginning with "service" throught and including "service point"; see especially "Service-Entrance Conductors, Overhead System"; Review also Art. 100 definition for "raceway"; See further, NEC Art. 230 "Services", Parts I (General), II (Overhead Service-Drop Conductors), and IV (Service-Entrance Conductors); which address the requirements.

I could only find the 2004 NEC for free at the site you mentioned, but read the parts that seemed applicable.

There is no such thing as a "service extension cord". The "service drop" is presently terminated at the far right corner of the building in the background.

The service entrance conductors begin at that service drop termination/splice to the service entrance conductors background right.

The interupted/open spliced, uninsulated, unprotected from weather, un-offset, and failing to properly provide for drainage or entrance of water, 'arrangement' for the service entrance conductors, service raceway, open, unprotected, accessible (expected to be accessed, as lower open gutters requiring service - as well as gutters above) splice (proximity to lower roof, gutter, overhang, upper roof overhang, interupted service raceway system, unprotected, non-offset system, etc. is not compliant, and is defective.

Not sure what you're getting at with all this. Raceway is not open, it has goosenecks on both ends. Drainage is not considered, though. Service drop is attached below the gooseneck at the rear right, and has drip loops. I see splices all the time that are near gutters - the one on my home is. It's almost unavoidable when a mast goes up through an eave.

Clearances horizontal & vertical for open, uninsulated, unprotected, service conductors, in re roof, height, and the lower roof in the foreground neither meet the prescriptions nor the exception proscriptions.


Neither 230.41 nor 230.43 "...shall be installed in accordance with the applicable requirements of this Code covering the type of wiring method used and shall be limited to the following methods"; nor 230.46 "..shall be permitted to be spliced or tapped in accordance with 110.14, 300.6, 300.12, 300.13, and 300.15"; nor 230.50(B); nor 230.51; nor 230.53 Racewys to Drain; nor 230.54; especially not 230.54(G); nor 314.15.

This would be considered a damp or wet location?

Prescribed conductor length ends at terminations in enclosures, bending radius for same debunks the theory that the meter box would be satisfactory for larger conductors for higher rated amperage service.

Are you saying round meter bases not used for 100 A service? Or what's your point?

The service drop termination location is obviously not original, neither are the extension of the service-entrance conductors to that location.

Suspect the Crimsom King Maple (tree) had something to do with the 'git-R-done' modifications to both the Service-entrance, service-raceway, and relocation of the service-drop termination(s), and that it was likely a temporary, emergency repair/restoration of service, that was intended to be remediated (permitted, inspected) and had since been forgotten and/or defaulted upon.

Remember, you can freely access the 2008 NEC (or the 2011 NEC) in read-only-mode at NFPA.org.

In the underwriting/property condition loss-control reporting world would be multiply noteworthy & usually require photos & diagrams, by "surveyor".
We never do diagrams for anything but house dimensions. Insurers aren't interested in code violations per se. Insurers care more about liability issues (potential claims made by visitors to the property) than about the safety of the inhabitants, and about sources of property damage that might result in a claim. The only things I see as noteworthy here are the bare splices above the meter. Clearances aren't something we look at.

For general interest purposes, you've raised a few interesting points, and I appreciate the time you've taken. However, from my perspective it would be very helpful if you explained clearly the exact points you referred to, for example:
a) there is no allowance for drainage of the vertical raceway (NEC XXX.XX),
b) the splice above the meter is too close to the lower roof (XXX.XX),
c) there is a little bit of hot wire exposed at the same splice,
...etc. I have a feeling I'm not the only one in the forum that would appreciate such clarity.

Thanks, all!

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Being as you are referring to, and addressing items according to, the definitions in Article 100: (bold and underlining are mine)
- Service-Entrance Conductors, Overhead System. The service conductors between the terminals of the service equipment and a point usually outside the building, clear of building walls, where joined by tap or splice to the service drop.

What/where IS YOUR POINT!?! That you can remove the published formatting, add your own, in some twisted attempt to change the definition?


The NEC follows a STYLE GUIDE. It (and I) has/have NO use for "Peck's Editorialisms nor Peck's fondling of formatting & punctuation. I referenced the DEFINITIONS and other citations as they appear in the non-PECKed, Published "version".

The area photographed in close-up (above the meter) IS NOT THE Service Drop. It is an open, uninsulated, bare, SHORT-ENDED, unsecured, intermediate splice of THE Service-Entrance Conductors (See Art. 230, Part IV).

The Service Drop demark is at or around the corner of the home (yellow):

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

John said,

Not sure what you mean. Isn't that true in pretty much any case? What makes this different?

To the casual observer there will be one drip loop at the right hand corner. Nobody is likely to look for another drip loop, so the middle splice could be concealed behind bushes or siding and tapped for free power.

Anyway, it's not something you will see very often. Up here, the SEC's are not allowed to be spliced between the weatherhead and the meter can. As somebody said, it may have been a temporary patch.

Technically there is no mast, correct.

[QUOTE=H.G. Watson, Sr.;204303]What/where IS YOUR POINT!?! That you can remove the published formatting, add your own, in some twisted attempt to change the definition?[quote]

Watson,

What/where IS YOUR POINT!?!

I posted that definition IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHOUT ANY CHANGES.

IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, TOO BAD. That is EXACTLY HOW IT IS WRITTEN.

The NEC follows a STYLE GUIDE. It (and I) has/have NO use for "Peck's Editorialisms nor Peck's fondling of formatting & punctuation. I referenced the DEFINITIONS and other citations as they appear in the non-PECKed, Published "version".

Your posting as your perceived definition was INCOMPLETE ... *YOU*, WATSON ... *YOU* posted an incomplete definition - all *I* did was post the complete definition for all to see where the service entrance conductors start and where they end.

Sheesh!

YOU need to go back and re-read the NEC and you will see that I did not editorialize it at all - you did!

K. Sibler said (burried in altered "quote"):

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

I could only find the 2004 NEC for free at the site you mentioned, but read the parts that seemed applicable.

Apparently not, since there is no 2004 NEC, NFPA.org currently provides read-only free access to the 2008 and 2011 NEC (I referenced 2008 edition), and if you had read what I cited & referenced (and the inter-referenced citations) and understood same, you wouldn't have continued in the maner you did and is quoted below.

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

Not sure what you're getting at with all this. Raceway is not open

yes it is.

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

it has goosenecks on both ends.

what do you think a 'gooseneck' is?

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

Drainage is not considered, though.

On what basis do you make this declaration?

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

Service drop is attached below the gooseneck at the rear right, and has drip loops.

Again what do you think a 'gooseneck' is? A Service head?

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

I see splices all the time that are near gutters - the one on my home is.

Uninsulated splices, clearances. The splice pictured in closeup is not a service drop-to-service entrance conductors splice.

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

It's almost unavoidable when a mast goes up through an eave.

Has nothing to do with the pictured, nor the topic discussion title - there is no such thing as a "Horizontal 'mast'!"

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

This would be considered a damp or wet location?

Which location? Where, SPECIFICALLY, is the "this" of your question?

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

We never do diagrams for anything but house dimensions.

Never "draw" elevations, denote locations of attached, labeled photos? Really?? Who is "we" (just speaking for yourself, I'm thinking!)

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

Insurers aren't interested in code violations per se. Insurers care more about liability issues (potential claims made by visitors to the property) than about the safety of the inhabitants, and about sources of property damage that might result in a claim.

Ha! Perhaps your LIMITED experience based solely upon several months working on what your MUELLER manager, exposes YOU to, and what LIMITATIONS THEY (QA, Mgr, limited task oriented, 'verifications'; cheap, minimum, balance is for their own verification that the data they pass on was legitimately and timely acquired and accurate. REAL underwriting-commissioned TRUE loss-control reporting, and not just address & occupancy status.

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

The only things I see as noteworthy here are the bare splices above the meter. Clearances aren't something we look at.

Again the 'we'. Clearances are something that is 'looked at' you just don't grasp WHO looks at what, where & WHEN "in the process" of underwriting; risk analysis review, claims reporting, adjustment, immdemnity decision-making, post-occurance review, etc.

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

For general interest purposes, you've raised a few interesting points, and I appreciate the time you've taken. However, from my perspective it would be very helpful if you explained clearly the exact points you referred to, for example:a) there is no allowance for drainage of the raceway (NEC XXX.XX),b) the splice above the meter is too close to the lower roof (XXX.XX),c) there is a little bit of hot wire exposed at the same splice,...etc. I have a feeling I'm not the only one in the forum that would appreciate such clarity

The citations were already provided. If you had reviewed what was cited, and perhaps if you didn't overwrite what you quoted, inserting your comments (burried) within the quote (altering same) and actually read it through, you might have gleaned same.There is no "2004" NEC. There is however a 2002, 2005, 2008, and 2011 edition. The 2008 & 2011 editions ARE what is available to review in read-only mode at NFPA.org. You must register at the site in order to do so (this includes verifying your registration, and after having done so, "signing-in" to real-time view same).You will actually have to read the definitions I referenced (and Premisis Wiring (System) forgot to mention) from Article 100, read Parts I, II and IV of Article 230, cross reference the citations within those parts, and refer to the articles pertaining to the employed wiring methods, and the general requirements to installations, including 110, 300, etc..It would further benefit you to review the entirety of Article 100, including those terms which begin "Location, ..."

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

What/where IS YOUR POINT!?! That you can remove the published formatting, add your own, in some twisted attempt to change the definition?

What/where IS YOUR POINT!?!

Watson,

I posted that definition IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHOUT ANY CHANGES.

IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, TOO BAD. That is EXACTLY HOW IT IS WRITTEN.

No, you did not post it AS IT IS WRITTEN.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Your posting as your perceived definition was INCOMPLETE ... *YOU*, WATSON ... *YOU* posted an incomplete definition - all *I* did was post the complete definition for all to see where the service entrance conductors start and where they end.

You are SERIOUSLY off your rocker. YOU NEED TO GO BACK AND READ what was ACTUALLY WRITTEN fella, *I* did NOT POST A DEFINITION, I simply cited the definition(s).

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Sheesh!

Sheesh Yourself! You're making-$hit-up again!

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

YOU need to go back and re-read the NEC and you will see that I did not editorialize it at all - you did!

Nope. You deleted bolded FULL term being defined, then added bolding and underlining where they do NOT exist in the definition, in your typical manner so as to imply the definition reads other than it actually does. *YOU* EDITED the definition.

In the event there was some ambigousness as to the edition referenced previously, it was and is the un-Peckified 2008 NEC pubished by NFPA.

How old is this installation?

It may have been an approved installation for the time. We don't have that documentation to fall back on saying otherwise.

Any thing specifically stating otherwise is speculation in my opinion.

Yes it would be logical to upgrade the service, but should an insurer deny coverage based on todays installation requirements?

Is this a bigger problem from a home inspection point of view or an insurance pov?

Just asking.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

*I* did NOT POST A DEFINITION, I simply cited the definition(s).

No, you did not cite the definition, you only cited part of it.

All I did was provide the definition so that all would know what the definition actually stated ... and then you had a hissy fit thinking I was correcting you ... I was simply posting the actual wording, complete from start to finish. Sheesh!

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Is this a bigger problem from a home inspection point of view or an insurance pov?

Just asking.

Good question.

It possibly would be a problem, not sure how big, for the insurance company if they had an inspection such as Kristi does and the insurance company is made aware of its existence.

It is a potential problem the home inspector should write up for repair as needed and listing a few items which appear to be wrong with it (we do not have good photos which shows it from end to end, so what we see is incomplete and of limited use in making a full statement on it).

Which is the bigger problem? Potentially a bigger problem for the insurance company ... but that is not intended to downplay the home inspector write up of it.

Dig the rain gutter drip chain. Extends to the ground.

Best

Ron

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

Garry, I don't understand the part about lead jacketed SE cable. I thought the clamps were to bond the two conduits?

Can't remember a time around here when the service came from the street, but that does indeed seem to be the case. Surprising that I don't run across more evidence of it, since almost all the houses I inspect are pre-1960 (before my time!).

That reminds me of a question I've had for nine months now (seems like I always think of additional questions when I post a thread about electricity!). We were taught at the Mueller School of Home Inspection that round meter bases (not mounted on any box) were a sign of 60 A service, but I read on inspectapedia.com that some of the second generation of round bases were 100 A. Anybody come across this?

I could be wrong, but assumed the serpentined top of that riser was because it is somewhat flexible. Why would anyone make a conduit bend like that ? I've seen round meter bases handle up to 100 amps though more commonly 60 amps.

I see now that it's the NEC '04 Draft I was looking at.

Watson, you really are a total a$$. I tried to understand all the things you were getting at, looked at your citations, I was very polite, and you just come back and insult me - again. I don't know how you get away with it, you should have been banned long ago.

As far as insurance goes, I suspect they would be most concerned with the 60A service (and possibly the bare splice). As I understand it, they don't care when something was installed as far as code requirements go, they only care because older systems are more likely to have problems. For the most part, the data field reps collect about systems and hazards go into a template which is then fed to software that spits out numbers about risks based on statistical probabilities of claims. Different insurers use software tweaked to their own specifications, and weigh hazards differently. Underwriters add that to the other info they've gathered from credit reporting agencies, claims records, self-reported info from policy holders, photos and remarks from field reps, and other sources to make final decisions about policies. This is my impression from talking to underwriters and from gathering data for about 20 companies, all of which have different data reporting requirements.

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

I see now that it's the NEC '04 Draft I was looking at.

Watson, you really are a total a$$. I tried to understand all the things you were getting at, looked at your citations, I was very polite, and you just come back and insult me - again. I don't know how you get away with it, you should have been banned long ago.

'Silber',

As usual you 'bite the hand that feeds you'. You are not polite. You are petulant, demanding, selfish, bi-polar, procrastinating, disordered personality, who often plays the 'unsatiated female victim' card.

You HIDE your multiple unjustifiable statements and 'questions', in an ALTERED quote, then YOU get ugly and demanding as to the format of a reply to same?

There isn't a "NEC '04 Draft" at NFPA.org. You didn't reference or read anything.

You obviously don't know what a gooseneck actually is, and that there are no "goosenecks" in your photos, despite your claims otherwise. It remains apparent you still don't know what a "mast" or a "raceway" are either.

Raymond Wand and John Kogel are in Canada, and their system of a government-owned utility dually functioning as the safety authority (not AHJ) and their rules and regulations have nothing to do with the US. Terms used have distinctions with differences, that are not common with Canada.

There is NO prohibition to have splices in service-entrance conductors which are compliant in the unammended NEC. Local Utility connection rules may prohibit same in certain installations prior to the meter - but the unammended, published "Code" doesn't prohibit splices (when done according to the rules). The mere presence of a splice is NOT what is of concern!


Article 230 in the NEC contains rules and installation requirements for service conductors and equipment for control and protection of utility-supplied services.

Unlike branch circuits and feeders, service conductors do not have short-circuit and ground-fault protection at their supply end (service conductors are provided with "overload" protection at their load end).

Various rules in the NEC are in place to ensure that service conductors that are subjected to a catastrophic overcurrent event do not, in theory, compromise the safety of the building to which they are connected or attached. Ideally, service conductors subjected to a catastrophic event would burn clear of the building.

Service conductors and service-entrance conductors ARE permitted to be spliced in accordance with various rules in the NEC. The definition of a run of service conductors does not necessarily and automatically change simply because the run of conductors is interrupted by a terminal box, enclosure, metering equipment, pole, pedestal, or splice.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

'Silber',

As usual you 'bite the hand that feeds you'. You are not polite. You are petulant, demanding, selfish, bi-polar, procrastinating, disordered personality, who often plays the 'unsatiated female victim' card.

You HIDE your multiple unjustifiable statements and 'questions', in an ALTERED quote, then YOU get ugly and demanding as to the format of a reply to same?

There isn't a "NEC '04 Draft" at NFPA.org. You didn't reference or read anything.

You obviously don't know what a gooseneck actually is, and that there are no "goosenecks" in your photos, despite your claims otherwise. It remains apparent you still don't know what a "mast" or a "raceway" are either.

Raymond Wand and John Kogel are in Canada, and their system of a government-owned utility dually functioning as the safety authority (not AHJ) and their rules and regulations have nothing to do with the US. Terms used have distinctions with differences, that are not common with Canada.

There is NO prohibition to have splices in service-entrance conductors which are compliant in the unammended NEC. Local Utility connection rules may prohibit same in certain installations prior to the meter - but the unammended, published "Code" doesn't prohibit splices (when done according to the rules). The mere presence of a splice is NOT what is of concern!


Article 230 in the NEC contains rules and installation requirements for service conductors and equipment for control and protection of utility-supplied services.

Unlike branch circuits and feeders, service conductors do not have short-circuit and ground-fault protection at their supply end (service conductors are provided with "overload" protection at their load end).

Various rules in the NEC are in place to ensure that service conductors that are subjected to a catastrophic overcurrent event do not, in theory, compromise the safety of the building to which they are connected or attached. Ideally, service conductors subjected to a catastrophic event would burn clear of the building.

Service conductors and service-entrance conductors ARE permitted to be spliced in accordance with various rules in the NEC. The definition of a run of service conductors does not necessarily and automatically change simply because the run of conductors is interrupted by a terminal box, enclosure, metering equipment, pole, pedestal, or splice.

Watson you really do have issues. Your unfounded comment about John and I is unwarranted considering neither of us said anything about Canada's regulations.

You just can't help yourself from being a jerk, and you seem to relish being same with anyone.

I have reported your abusive, repetitive habitual and chauvinistic post.

Where is the nearest utility transformer to this residence? Why is the service lateral not running directly to the meter mast? If the transformer is on the far side of the building, why is the meter not located on the other side?

I know the answer to these questions is not part of your inspection.

Obviously, this installation was ok with the AHJ and the poco, at the time of connection, because it is connected with poco splices. However, the current NEC would require the meter to be on the side of the structure, closest to the utility transformer.

Originally Posted by Jimmy Roberts

Obviously, this installation was ok with the AHJ and the poco, at the time of connection, because it is connected with poco splices. However, the current NEC would require the meter to be on the side of the structure, closest to the utility transformer.

Could you please cite this code? Normally the location of the meter is set by the utility company.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

'Silber',

As usual you 'bite the hand that feeds you'. You are not polite. You are petulant, demanding, selfish, bi-polar, procrastinating, disordered personality, who often plays the 'unsatiated female victim' card.

You are a fu#k!n& a$$whole...you add nothing of value or merit when your derisive attacks drive people off topic and off point. Your pedantic tactics are pure hogwash. I will personally recommend to anyone who mentions your name to pay you nevermind and iterate what a douche you are.

Your posts are worthless. Good riddance.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Watson you really do have issues. Your unfounded comment about John and I is unwarranted considering neither of us said anything about Canada's regulations.

You just can't help yourself from being a jerk, and you seem to relish being same with anyone.

Hmmm. My "comment" was not UNFOUNDED. It was WELL-FOUNDED, and FACTUAL, as evidenced on this topic discussion:

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

Raymond Wand and John Kogel are in Canada, and their system of a government-owned utility dually functioning as the safety authority (not AHJ) and their rules and regulations have nothing to do with the US. Terms used have distinctions with differences, that are not common with Canada.

Nothing in that statement above is untrue. You both used incorrect, inaccurate terminology and mis-identified features in the photos, both expressed opinions characterizing the photographed conditions, and John twice made reference to what was "allowed" in his province by the authority.

The vast majority of electrical utilities in the United States (both area of territory and number of customers) are NOT OWNED by any governmental body. The laws, regulations, and rules which govern our Utilities are separate and distinct from the rules which govern other electrical installations. Our energy service suppliers are NOT AHJs.

Property maintenance and the level of same IS a concern of insurers, those holding a security interest in the property (asset valuation), and local authorities (maintaining safety, asset base valuation upon which forms the tax basis), etc.



You both used incorrect/inapplicable terminology as applies to the US - distinctions with significant differences regarding identifying and reporting the actual safety "issues" in context, as well as addressing the issues from the OP.

John made references to "what was allowed" "up here (sic)" not once, but TWICE.

You both mis-identified (and used incorrect terminology) as to what was present in the photos.

The observation/characterization I made was indeed WARRANTED, accurrate, factually based, and well-founded.

John Kogel said:

There is no way the PoCo here (BC Hydro) would hook up service to that Mickey Mouse service mast.

That's a reference to both BC Hydro and referring to anything in Silber's pictures as a "service mast".

Hmmm. both incorrect identification/terms and referring to Rules, regulations & by-laws for Canada (BC).

John Kogel said:

... Up here, the SEC's are not allowed to be spliced between the weatherhead and the meter can.

Hmmm. "allowed" + "up here" and a statement regarding the rules, regulations, by-laws in "Canada" (BC) his location (not applicable anywhere in the US - the location of the OP.


Raymond Wand said:

How old is this installation?

It may have been an approved installation for the time. We don't have that documentation to fall back on saying otherwise.

Any thing specifically stating otherwise is speculation in my opinion.

Yes it would be logical to upgrade the service, but should an insurer deny coverage based on todays installation requirements?

Doesn't matter what the state may have once been, the existing conditions evidence what once was done has DETERIORATED, and not been maintained even to the requirements that once were, and that same has been ALTERED in addition to not being maintained. The OP doesn't perform "code" inspections. The OP has pictured safety issues, that concern property insurers - and that is what the OP "works at" - reporting to same. The OP performs site surveys and property visits on behalf of a 3rd party contractor for the benefit of both property insurance companies (majority of customers), occasionally for mortgage servicing companies, and frequently (without the OPs knowledge) are commissioned pooled asset portfolios being valued, which are valued/revalued sometimes due to are overall insured (credit swaps), dumps, write-offs - asset valueation reductions, graded, and traded.

Any of which have the right to determine risk and value same, and demand maintenance, improvements, etc. subject to overlaying higher risk category coverages, cancelling or declining to cover (imdeminity) or in the case of mortgage servicers - engage corrective action at the HOs expense (charge back) or call the loan in default, and/or recourse charge-backs to the originator in the case of default or down-grading of the quality of the asset(s).

Raymond Wand said:

Older service - original conduit and meter.

In the first photo the original insulators are still on the side of the house.

At some point in time service from utility was relocated from street to rear of house.

Likely 60 amp service from street.

In my opinion there is no concern, it certainly is not a new service and likely was installed at the time as per the local code.

Conductive brackets, unused stand-offs aren't insulators. There are no 'original insulators" pictured on the side of the house. T Coverings, whether or not they may be recognized forms of insulation, serving NO ISOLATION FUNCTION, deteriorated, and hanging at the gravity base of drip loops, serving no safety function, do not cover the bare stripped conductor(s) nor splice points. There are likely "insulators" in the weatherhead fittings, of unknown integrity.

Conductive, presumably approved, raceway, pictured, not "conduit".

Important distinctions making a difference.

John acknowledged & corrected himself regarding his mischaracterization/"mast" statement.

The splices are open, uninsulated, intermediate, exposed, unguarded, uncovered. The service-entrance conductors and the wiring methods employed are in need of attention/correction. The securement and support of same along the building surface requires remediation (note bracket fasterners withdrawing).

What may or may not be "allowed" by your safety authorities who also supply the electric power, in Canada, is irrelevant to US. The OP is not an HI.

Read it again. I stated that this was an uncommon situation, adding that in fact, it would not be permitted here. I specifically stated that I am in another country, to avoid confusion.

OP asked for further explanation (why?), and I provided that. Not irrelevant, in that case, but answering a question. I try to answer questions here. Not forcing my opinions on anybody. If somebody wants to be ignorant, the printed word won't stop them. Do you need that in red?

"'unsatiated female victim' card"! Wow, that's priceless! Says more about Watson than it does about me. Funny how he seems to know more about my job than I do.

This doc says it's the 2005 Edition on the pages, something I missed before, but under the Bookmarks it says the title is NEC 04 draft. That's what I was looking at. Whatever it is, it's a version of the NEC. I misused "gooseneck" and "mast," true.

H.G., I was with you on your basic technical points, however.
May I humbly suggest you tone down the rhetoric (even when attacked) and try not to be argumentative (even when others are quick to be argumentative with you), the readers can then take advantage of your knowledge and insight.
Your have allot to offer to this site if they could only get the H.G. mind without the mind-set. I know your not the only one here who goes off time to time, but your definitely the one who seems to get under the skin of some others. Try to tone down (and ignore) the personal stuff and you will see what I'm talking about.

Again, this is just a humble suggestion to you personally, as I would not dare attempt to tell you or any other just how to conduct oneself.
I'm lucky I guess, as I personally could give a Blank about anyones rhetoric..
I just look for possible facts. Some are not so thick-skinned.

If my post offends you, it is not my intention. If you choose to respond in attack mode, I will just ignore it. Try my mind-set, You'll like it

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

"'unsatiated female victim' card"! Wow, that's priceless! Says more about Watson than it does about me. Funny how he seems to know more about my job than I do.

This doc says it's the 2005 Edition on the pages, something I missed before, but under the Bookmarks it says the title is NEC 04 draft. That's what I was looking at. Whatever it is, it's a version of the NEC. I misused "gooseneck" and "mast," true.

Kristi, Come on now... This is expanding my vocabulary! Now I already know what "...Watson, you really are a total a$$..." means (must have heard it some other time, maybe MANY other times), but "unsatiated" (this is a new one) sent me to the dictionary! He who casts the first arrow (in the movie "The Hunger Games") shall receive the result (or something like that).

I guess I'll have to get a bit more verbose in my insults to impress you, Rich! But you have a good point - we can all learn something from HG. He's evidently qualified to assess psychiatric disorders from afar based on no evidence, and I'm beginning to think he must be a corporate spy. Maybe he's omniscient! Or, maybe he's just a bitter old man who's had rotten luck with women (I wonder why?). We should all pity the poor guy.

Bob, why humble yourself before Watson? He's not worth it. My reaction to him has nothing to do with thin skin, if I was the among those you referred to. This is a public forum, and no one should have to tolerate either witnessing or being on the receiving end of repeated personal attacks. I don't like the way he treats others, either, but I seem to get insulted more consistently and vociferously than most. Even if I blocked his posts I would often end up reading what he said when others quoted him because they found him so offensive. Whatever he has to contribute is not worth the effect on the forum as a whole, especially because it drives people away - I know this because they've told me so in PMs.

Originally Posted by bob smit

H.G., I was with you on your basic technical points, however.
May I humbly suggest you tone down the rhetoric (even when attacked) and try not to be argumentative (even when others are quick to be argumentative with you), the readers can then take advantage of your knowledge and insight.
Your have allot to offer to this site if they could only get the H.G. mind without the mind-set. I know your not the only one here who goes off time to time, but your definitely the one who seems to get under the skin of some others. Try to tone down (and ignore) the personal stuff and you will see what I'm talking about.

Again, this is just a humble suggestion to you personally, as I would not dare attempt to tell you or any other just how to conduct oneself.
I'm lucky I guess, as I personally could give a Blank about anyones rhetoric..
I just look for possible facts. Some are not so thick-skinned.

If my post offends you, it is not my intention. If you choose to respond in attack mode, I will just ignore it. Try my mind-set, You'll like it

Bob,

Thank you for the thoughtful input.

Have you seen the newer "Off" brand personal mosquito protection devices yet?? They use a pair of AA batteries to run a tiny fan, take a cartridge pad with the repellant, you clip them on your belt and the skeeters, gnats, and other buggers stay away. They're great, no more spraying sticky gunk all over or applying lotions or wipes. Nice reassurance with the West Nile, RMSF, Lyme, and other nastiies-carrying buggers on the attack. Thing is, those personal repellant devices don't work too good if you don't have good batteries, or when you forget to turn on the fan switch!

I must remember to check for air flow as I step off the screen porch!! Since I can't hear the dang thing even when its running with new batteries.

Regards,

H.G.

The medication must have kicked in or dissociative identity disorder (DID).

Don't even get me started with Mo-skee-toes
Can anyone even do their job (HI's, AHJ's, Tradesmen) or can anyone enjoy the expensive deck they added to their home?
I was in a crawl space in the middle of winter and got blood-sucked by one WTF?? Think I might start a new thread on skeeters... as soon as I'm done scratcin

Originally Posted by bob smit

Don't even get me started with Mo-skee-toes
Can anyone even do their job (HI's, AHJ's, Tradesmen) or can anyone enjoy the expensive deck they added to their home?
I was in a crawl space in the middle of winter and got blood-sucked by one WTF?? Think I might start a new thread on skeeters... as soon as I'm done scratcin

Bob, don't get wimpy... have you met the infamous, the accursed, and unofficial “state bird” of New Jersey? There are stories of cows being carried away.....

Originally Posted by Rich Goeken

Bob, don't get wimpy... have you met the infamous, the accursed, and unofficial “state bird” of New Jersey? There are stories of cows being carried away.....

In Florida, we do things differently (sometimes with horrible results, a la 2000 and 2004 ), here, it's the small things that'll getcha.

We have those super-large mosquitoes, regular mosquitoes, mosquitoes which carry the West Nile virus, mosquitoes which carry other things too, but the smaller sand fleas are what'll drive you nuts! Sand fleas are so small that they make special screening with a closer weave to keep the sand fleas out. Sand fleas are known as "no see ums" 'cause you can't see them.

And, of course, we have the mosquito killer known as the dragon fly.

Now, those boys over in Texas have to do everything on a much larger scale ... I've heard that their small "no see ums" are the size of dragon flies ...