Thread: SEC splice

Junction box stress clamps to splice a #2awg SEC. Thats a new one on me , Nice work!

Similar Threads:

• GEC splice in panel
• funky SEC splice
• splice
• Splice to A/C
• interesting K&T splice

For one, Sec. 300.14 requires 6" inches of free conductor from the splice.
The tape as insulator begs a question.

Originally Posted by ROBERT YOUNG

For one, Sec. 300.14 requires 6" inches of free conductor from the splice.
The tape as insulator begs a question.

When you use these:
22a4dc5c-9889-40a4-98b5-1f9a7d561aef_1000.jpg
to splice feed wires, I suspect using electrical tape as an insulator is the least of your problems.

Thanks.
Resembles what's under the tape.

Originally Posted by Len Inkster

When you use these:
22a4dc5c-9889-40a4-98b5-1f9a7d561aef_1000.jpg
to splice feed wires,

And that's what they used.

I suspect using electrical tape as an insulator is the least of your problems.

When they use those to splice any kind of wire anywhere ... there are much bigger problems than just the tape or that exposed screw sticking out of the tape.

I concur. A safety hazard.

312.8 states, if the enclosure will retain any switching or overcurrent devices.

Originally Posted by ROBERT YOUNG

For one, Sec. 300.14 requires 6" inches of free conductor from the splice.

The NEC does not say past the splice. It just says free conductor.

I understand. 6" Past the splice was incorrect.

I think a better choice of compression cable splice,connector, or soldered would be suitable.
As well, properly insulated. Thoughts?
compresion fiting.JPGlink splice.JPG

Originally Posted by Jim Port

The NEC does not say past the splice. It just says free conductor.

Bold is mine.
NEC 300.14 Length of Free Conductors at Outlets, Junctions, and Switch Points states: "At least 150 mm (6 in.) of free conductor, measured from the point in the box where it emerges from its raceway or cable sheath, shall be left at each outlet..

Originally Posted by ROBERT YOUNG

I understand. 6" Past the splice was incorrect.

I think a better choice of compression cable splice,connector, or soldered would be suitable.
As well, properly insulated. Thoughts?
compresion fiting.JPGlink splice.JPG

Absolutely there are better choices of a splice to use to connect the wires. A NM clamp has no rated ampacity.

Much thanks, Jim.
Ampacity rating.

I did not want to post much. I wanted yourself, Jerry, Garry to chime in first.

The NM clamp, there are 3, one for each SEC cable improperly used, and one for the service equipment box, where I would expect a SEC clamp to be.

sec clamp.JPG

From my rudimentary knowledge on the subject, SEC clamps are to be installed in boxes to secure/anchor the cables "at the box."

Love being a member here. Much thanks Brian and members. What a great place to meet, learn and enjoy sharing with like minded colleagues.

I hope you do not mind me saying, we're not worthy.

Originally Posted by ROBERT YOUNG

Bold is mine.
NEC 300.14 Length of Free Conductors at Outlets, Junctions, and Switch Points states: "At least 150 mm (6 in.) of free conductor, measured from the point in the box where it emerges from its raceway or cable sheath, shall be left at each outlet..

Blue bold is mine.

NEC 300.14 applies to the electrical rough-in stage. This is to ensure there is sufficient length of conductor to complete the electrical finishing.

NEC 312 deals with the wiring requirement in a panel. As far as I'm aware there are no code that defines the length of insulated conductor inside the panel.

Common sense and industry practice dictates that as long as the sheathing of an NM Cable is properly secured as it enters the panel, and there is sufficient conductor stripped to allow connection to the neutral and hot sides of the panel connections (neutral bus-bar and breaker in this instance), and the conductors are not routed over the hot bus, then is more about the ability to work on the panel afterwards that matters.

For example:

The following box was in a home I inspected that belong to a master electrician who does both residential and commercial wiring. Very neat, but still wrong.

neat-but-wrong.jpg

This one was from a commercial inspection, with an ESA sticker on that identified it had JUST been sign-off. It's just plain ugly! but had NM sheathed and unsheathed inside the panel.

ugly-panel-small.jpg

This is deflecting from the point of the original post, which was about using incorrect splices for wiring inside the panel, and then compounding it by wrapping those clamps in electrical tape, but allowing the metallic screws to protrude making the initial attempt at insulation useless.

From a reporting perspective, all that needs to be said is "Amateur wiring visible in panel gives inspector serious safety concerns. Recommend immediate further inspection and corrective action by a qualified licensed electrician"

Your job is done. Not misquoting codes. No deflection from the actual defect. Simple, safe and efficient.

I will not be discussing any points on this MB with you Len.
The post is SEC splice.
I observed three.

I am sure there are others that wish to be corrected.
Best regards.
Robert

The correct connector is insulated, with set screws to hold the stripped ends of the conductors.
Polaris is one company that makes the correct connectors for those splices.

http://www.polarisconnectors.com/

How I remember this? - people like to splice wires when they install a sub panel.
Everybody knows that a sub panel is a panel on a submarine.
A famous submarine is the Polaris.

Not saying it is correct to splice those conductors in the first place. That would be up to the local authority. As we all know.

Originally Posted by John Kogel

The correct connector is insulated, with set screws to hold the stripped ends of the conductors.
Polaris is one company that makes the correct connectors for those splices.

http://www.nsiindustries.com/catalog...ectors/ipl4-3a

http://www.polarisconnectors.com/

How I remember this? - people like to splice wires when they install a sub panel.
Everybody knows that a sub panel is a panel on a submarine.
A famous submarine is the Polaris.

Ha ha ha. John, you hit all Jerry's sweet notes.


I do need some help though.
Would the NEC 300.14 be applicable in this situation. I would like some insight on this please.

NEC 300.14 The minimum length of conductors, including grounding conductors, at all
boxes shall be 6". At least 3", of every conductor, shall extend outside the box.

(All boxes)

Len, no offence.

Originally Posted by ROBERT YOUNG

Ha ha ha. John, you hit all Jerry's sweet notes.


I do need some help though.
Would the NEC 300.14 be applicable in this situation. I would like some insight on this please.

NEC 300.14 The minimum length of conductors, including grounding conductors, at all
boxes shall be 6". At least 3", of every conductor, shall extend outside the box.

(All boxes)

Len, no offence.

Robert,

With respect to you not wanting to discuss things on this MB with me (in which case you shouldn't have put "No offence Len" in your post), the NEC Code reference is entitled, and I quote "300.14 Length of Free Conductors at Outlets, Junctions, and Switch Points"

so, Sorry, no offence Robert, not ALL boxes.

My comments about the OP still stand, and everything else that others have posted have managed to stay on this topic too.

Originally Posted by ROBERT YOUNG

I do need some help though.
Would the NEC 300.14 be applicable in this situation. I would like some insight on this please.

NEC 300.14 The minimum length of conductors, including grounding conductors, at all
boxes shall be 6". At least 3", of every conductor, shall extend outside the box.

(All boxes)

Len, no offence.

2014 NEC
- 300.14 Length of Free Conductors at Outlets, Junctions, and Switch Points. At least 150 mm (6 in.) of free conductor, measured from the point in the box where it emerges from its raceway or cable sheath, shall be left at each outlet, junction, and switch point for splices or the connection of luminaires or devices. Where the opening to an outlet, junction, or switch point is less than 200 mm (8 in.) in any dimension, each conductor shall be long enough to extend at least 75 mm (3 in.) outside the opening.
Exception: Conductors that are not spliced or terminated at the outlet, junction, or switch point shall not be required to comply with 300.14.

That says:
- 300.14 Length of Free Conductors at Outlets, Junctions, and Switch Points.
- - At least 150 mm (6 in.) of free conductor,
- - - measured from the point in the box where it emerges from
- - - - its raceway or cable sheath,
- - - shall be left at each outlet, junction, and switch point for
- - - - splices or the connection of luminaires or devices.
- - Where the opening to an outlet, junction, or switch point is
- - - less than 200 mm (8 in.) in any dimension,
- - - - each conductor shall be long enough to extend at least 75 mm (3 in.) outside the opening.
- - Exception:
- - - Conductors that are not spliced or terminated at the outlet, junction, or switch point
- - - - shall not be required to comply with 300.14.

The first part tells you how long the minimum length of free conductors shall be - 6 inches.

Then it tells you where to measure from - where the conductors exit the raceway or cable sheath.

Then it tells you where that is required - at each outlet, junction, and switch point.

Then it tells you what for - splices, connection to luminaires or devices.

Then it tells you that if the opening is too small work in - less than 8 inches in any direction - that the free length of the conductors shall also extend outside that opening at least 3 inches so you can make up the connections to the splice, luminaire or device ... which means than the minimum length of free conductor may be required to be more than 6 inches because the conductors also have to reach at least 3 inches outside the opening to the box.

Then it tells you (the exception) that conductors which pass through the box and are not terminated or spliced at the box - the above does not apply to them because they are just passing through.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

2014 NEC
- 300.14 Length of Free Conductors at Outlets, Junctions, and Switch Points. At least 150 mm (6 in.) of free conductor, measured from the point in the box where it emerges from its raceway or cable sheath, shall be left at each outlet, junction, and switch point for splices or the connection of luminaires or devices. Where the opening to an outlet, junction, or switch point is less than 200 mm (8 in.) in any dimension, each conductor shall be long enough to extend at least 75 mm (3 in.) outside the opening.
Exception: Conductors that are not spliced or terminated at the outlet, junction, or switch point shall not be required to comply with 300.14.

That says:
- 300.14 Length of Free Conductors at Outlets, Junctions, and Switch Points.
- - At least 150 mm (6 in.) of free conductor,
- - - measured from the point in the box where it emerges from
- - - - its raceway or cable sheath,
- - - shall be left at each outlet, junction, and switch point for
- - - - splices or the connection of luminaires or devices.
- - Where the opening to an outlet, junction, or switch point is
- - - less than 200 mm (8 in.) in any dimension,
- - - - each conductor shall be long enough to extend at least 75 mm (3 in.) outside the opening.
- - Exception:
- - - Conductors that are not spliced or terminated at the outlet, junction, or switch point
- - - - shall not be required to comply with 300.14.

The first part tells you how long the minimum length of free conductors shall be - 6 inches.

Then it tells you where to measure from - where the conductors exit the raceway or cable sheath.

Then it tells you where that is required - at each outlet, junction, and switch point.

Then it tells you what for - splices, connection to luminaires or devices.

Then it tells you that if the opening is too small work in - less than 8 inches in any direction - that the free length of the conductors shall also extend outside that opening at least 3 inches so you can make up the connections to the splice, luminaire or device ... which means than the minimum length of free conductor may be required to be more than 6 inches because the conductors also have to reach at least 3 inches outside the opening to the box.

Then it tells you (the exception) that conductors which pass through the box and are not terminated or spliced at the box - the above does not apply to them because they are just passing through.

Thank you.

Originally Posted by Len Inkster

For example:

The following box was in a home I inspected that belong to a master electrician who does both residential and commercial wiring. Very neat, but still wrong.

neat-but-wrong.jpg

.

Care to explain what you think is wrong in this picture?

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Len Inkster

For example:

The following box was in a home I inspected that belong to a master electrician who does both residential and commercial wiring. Very neat, but still wrong.

neat-but-wrong.jpg

.

Care to explain what you think is wrong in this picture?

Originally Posted by Jim Port

Care to explain what you think is wrong in this picture?

- - - Updated - - -



Care to explain what you think is wrong in this picture?

No problem Jim.

Sorry it was my fault for posting such a small picture.

I don't know what is acceptable in your jurisdiction, but where I'm from this is decidedly NOT the way to go.

over-bus-bar.jpg

Originally Posted by Jim Port

Care to explain what you think is wrong in this picture?

- - - Updated - - -



Care to explain what you think is wrong in this picture?

And again, probably difficult to see because of the size of the photo, further up the panel.

double-tap-no-tape.jpg

I've tried to circle the areas, but they don't stand out too well. On the left we have a white (neutral) being used for hot with no Red/Black taping. On the right we have three double-tapped Stablok breakers (only designed for single conductor)

Please excuse me members.

Len, why did you do you even bother sending me a message?
Because you know it would truly offend me.
Shame on you you.

Please review the your post and indicate to me were you do not use yourself as an example to correct someone/anyone.
Look at the posts you have contributed to InspectionNews arguing with Kevin Wood needlessly.

Your InspectionNews personal message. "Sorry I hurt your feelings." with the post pasted and your explanation.
No need to explain.

You are truly a poor example of a flounder. Now please stop all communications and leave your kangaroo court tactics somewhere else.

Robert,

Instead of all those exclamation points, why not take your frustration out a different way ... ... hold an egg in your hand ... then smash it on a table ... now your frustrations turns into 'Why did I do that, now I have to clean that mess up.'

But your frustration will be gone.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Robert,

Instead of all those exclamation points, why not take your frustration out a different way ... ... hold an egg in your hand ... then smash it on a table ... now your frustrations turns into 'Why did I do that, now I have to clean that mess up.'

But your frustration will be gone.

The post has been edited without making a mess.
Sorry for my frustration everyone.

Robert,

Considering how you are treated on that other excuse of a forum by certain parties. I sympathize with your frustration, it's a standard form of discipline dished out by reprobates who have no idea of professionalism or how a professional body operates. Hey but we have been through all this before.

Best,

Originally Posted by ROBERT YOUNG

Please excuse me members.

Len, why did you do you even bother sending me a message?
Because you know it would truly offend me.
Shame on you you.

Please review the your post and indicate to me were you do not use yourself as an example to correct someone/anyone.
Look at the posts you have contributed to InspectionNews arguing with Kevin Wood needlessly.

Your InspectionNews personal message. "Sorry I hurt your feelings." with the post pasted and your explanation.
No need to explain.

You are truly a poor example of a FLOUNDER. Now please stop all communications and leave your kangaroo court tactics somewhere else.

LOL

"Poor example of a FLOUNDER" . Did not know he was a fish

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Robert,

Considering how you are treated on that other excuse of a forum by certain parties. I sympathize with your frustration, it's a standard form of discipline dished out by reprobates who have no idea of professionalism or how a professional body operates. Hey but we have been through all this before.

Best,

Raymond, thank you for chiming in.
There are only a handful of instigators left. 2 are very vengeful. One has stalked me for 7 years. I try my best to protest such actions. Now I will just ignore them.

Raymond, there are times you stand up for what is right. I knew when I attached my email address to the Ontario MMP email things would change. I openly exposed myself as well and I have no issues with that.

This bullying and intimidation by certain Ontario members has to stop. It went as far as being accused of allowing you through my members portal to access information.

I think Len is a very gifted individual. He has to learn how to use those gifts. It is certainly not through judgment, force, and intimidation.

I feel alot better now thanks to you chiming in.
Best.

Originally Posted by Jim Mosiuk

LOL

"Poor example of a FLOUNDER" . Did not know he was a fish

Robert may very well have intentionally used that reference - if YOU know what a flounder is and how it eats.

My understanding of a flounder is that it is a fish which basically resides on the bottom, and it feeds down near where it resides, thus a flounder could be referred to as a "bottom feeder" ... I will leave any other connections up to you ...

Robert,

Anytime, my pleasure.

Jerry, it was a typo.
Jim, can you not be civil and stop fueling this meltdown?
From the start "you" "your actions" became the target everyone poorly defends.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Robert may very well have intentionally used that reference - if YOU know what a flounder is and how it eats.

My understanding of a flounder is that it is a fish which basically resides on the bottom, and it feeds down near where it resides, thus a flounder could be referred to as a "bottom feeder" ... I will leave any other connections up to you ...

Good to know Jerry. I do sometimes thing that my life is spent running round picking up other peoples detritus. Maybe that's the reason.....I'm a flounder.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by ROBERT YOUNG

Jerry, it was a typo.
Jim, can you not be civil and stop fueling this meltdown?
From the start "you" "your actions" became the target everyone poorly defends.

Out of decency I sent Lenard a message. I have much respect for him and their endeavors and hope/pray the path becomes less anguish. I highly respect and admire the two members that offered mentoring. I wish more could have been learned before the directors pushed them away.

Thanks Robert. If wishes were kisses eh?!!

Originally Posted by ROBERT YOUNG

Maybe if they did not litter you would not be bottom cleaning and blaming others.

I can see you are going out of your way to keep the peace here Robert.

Originally Posted by Len Inkster

Thanks Robert. If wishes were kisses eh?!!

What are you talking about?

No need to quote me. If you do not agree with the professionals I highly admire, then ignore me Len. Why get frustrated like this guy here.

I defended my association, Kevin Wood's name being laughed at, the CMI, and hope you do the same.
This conversation is over. Go argue with someone else.

Originally Posted by Len Inkster

I can see you are going out of your way to keep the peace here Robert.

Please accept my apology members. I am looking for Brian Hannigan's email address and will email him directly to see if I have done anything wrong.

Leonard. I messaged you "be mindful to each other."

I admitted it was a typo to cut you some slack.
If you care to defend Jim, as past director, I will not be stopping you, but in my opinion this has been brought up several times and you keep stating, "my life is spent running round picking up other people's detritus."
Food for thought.
I corrected a typo. I hope you did not mind.

As well, I will not stop showing admiration to the members here at InspectionNews but will ignore you.
If you think for one second you can quote me because you disapprove with what I posted, you are certainly mistaken.

I defended my association, InterNACHI, Kevin Wood's name being laughed at, the CMI, Lisa, as well apologised to those I chose.
Raymond Wand, too whom I admire greatly remarks, stop apologizing before I slap you with a wet noodle.
I make mistakes. I am mindful, too which I have been throughout this thread, but I see no reason to move this conversation further.
If you really want to get the thread back on topic, then stop holding up that sign and say something, but please respect this message board and the members therein.

I am done.

A little RANT first.

My My, this thread really has deteriorated. If I didn't know better it looks like something I would expect and is promoted by the director of communications and others on the Internachi site. Then again this thread is being driven by that association's membership. Why not just give it a rest or go to the other sand box, PLEASE.

with not so much as a rant but admission of perspective.

The original post, thanks John, was about the obvious if you had some experience. Always find it interesting to see how a temporary fix turns permanent. Others see something that they may never see, which is what the OP was all about I am sure. Then as usual there is a discussion as to the code reference that makes what you see incorrect and the reference of what you should have seen. Aaaaaaaaa the forum at work in the positive, intellectual and educative manor. Providing knowledge to some and confirmation to others on what they already know a reaffirmation to the professional. All at no cost to those who are active or passive participants. Now that is what FREE is all about, what an association we have here. A thank you to Brian, though he does not require one to be a member. No cool aid to drink and nothing to have to defend. No agenda other than a portal to communication between interested associates.



P.S. John, touch typing allows you to blather along without spending inordinate amounts of time in the process. And I think that you would cut your report writing down by at least half.

How day you defame and slander the Nobel Flounder.

An evolutionary marvel. The flounder starts off like every other fish and then morphs into an unique fish. Eyes move to side so that it can lay flat on the bottom and wait for dinner to be served, while other fish have to swim around in circles looking for a meal or becoming a meal for the flounder. He is smart in not wasting hi effort swinging miles, rather by working smarter not harder. He is brave since he does not require a crowd (gang) of protection. He is an individual not a follower which demonstrated his confidence in himself. Though he feeds on the bottom he is not a bottom feeder.

Aaaaaaaah the Nobel Flounder. A majestic fish, one not to be slandered.

Sounds fishy to me!

From the National Electrical Code 2011
Chapter 3 Wiring Methods and Materials
Article 312 Cabinets, Cutout Boxes, and Meter Socket Enclosures

I. Installation
312.8 Switch and Overcurrent Device Enclosures with Splices, Taps, and Feed- Through Conductors. The wiring space of enclosures for switches or overcurrent devices shall be permitted for conductors feeding through, spliced, or tapping off to other enclosures, switches, or overcurrent devices where all of the following conditions are met:
(1) The total of all conductors installed at any cross section of the wiring space does not exceed 40 percent of the cross-sectional area of that space.
(2) The total area of all conductors, splices, and taps installed at any cross section of the wiring space does not exceed 75 percent of the cross-sectional area of that space.
(3) A warning label is applied to the enclosure that identifies the closest disconnecting means for any feed-through conductors.

Has there been an amendment?

The code used to have wording that said "Unless adequate space for this purpose is provided. ". This has been dropped. Some would have argued that splices were not allowed since there was no designated space delineated.

Would it be fair to say (Unless adequate space for this purpose is provided) was dropped because of the wording (xx percent cross-sectional area of that space) is more definitive?

Neither the manufacturer or testing agency could possibly know how the gutter space would be used and designate a space just for splices as some considered the wording to require. IME the inspectors just considered the cross sectional area. The change reinforces the accepted practice.

Much thanks for sharing John.
Considering there was a time I did not dismount dead fronts, I have learned a lot thanks to the members here at InspectionNews.

Originally Posted by Jim Port

Neither the manufacturer or testing agency could possibly know how the gutter space would be used and designate a space just for splices as some considered the wording to require. IME the inspectors just considered the cross sectional area. The change reinforces the accepted practice.

Jim, thank you for the explanation.
Manufacturers avoiding the tail wagging the dog just makes good business sense.
Best.