Splices in panels

[Jody Humbert]

Is it ok to splice two circuits(one being the outside receptacles and the other the bathrooms) inside the panel to a single wire and then connecting to a single GFCI breaker? It also appeared that the splice is only wrapped with electrical tape. If it is twisted, they should have used wire nuts. If it is crimped, tape is probably sufficient if allowed. Not sure why they didn't just use another breaker. Thanks for your comments.

Similar Threads:

• Charred Copper wires in Main Panels
• Wire splices in service equipment panel
• Distribution Panels
• HELP House built in 1954, 3 panels???
• From the old board, Sprayed Panels

[Jerry Peck]

Is it ok to splice two circuits(one being the outside receptacles and the other the bathrooms) inside the panel to a single wire and then connecting to a single GFCI breaker?

Depends on when the house was built.

The bathroom circuits were required to have no other receptacles on them starting around 1993 (as I recall without looking it up).

However, that was likely done 'after the fact' in which case I would say 'No. Regardless when the house was constructed, the bathroom receptacles need their own GFCI.' Which is a simple fix - install another GFCI breaker for that circuit.

It also appeared that the splice is only wrapped with electrical tape. If it is twisted, they should have used wire nuts. If it is crimped, tape is probably sufficient if allowed.

Needs wire nuts. No crimping, not taped - wire nuts.

That 'taping job' makes me think Mr. DIY Homeowner did it - let a licensed electrician do it properly.

By the way, you've got a heck of a mess coming through the top of the panel with all of those NM cables coming through that one PVC fitting, which may, or may not, be a male adapter on PVC conduit (likely is conduit - regardless - each conductor is required to be secured to the cabinet in a proper clamp, which are typically rated for 1-2 NM cables only), and may, or may not, be longer than 24" (likely is longer than 24" which would then require derating).

Also looks like that is "service equipment", in which case the neutrals and grounds are allowed in the same terminal bar, just not the same holes - that looks okay on that aspect, however, that back-fed main does not shown any retaining clamp or screw to hold that breaker in place.

Looks like several ground conductors are twisted together and then inserted into the terminals, this is not good either.

And, to top it all off, there is a white conductor being used as a hot conductor, also not good.

Those will do for starters.

Additionally, it looks like that cabinet enclosure is back to the wall behind the peg board, it needs to be flush with, or extend out beyond, the peg board (risk of fire).

[Jim Port]

Also looks like that is "service equipment", in which case the neutrals and grounds are allowed in the same terminal bar, just not the same holes - that looks okay on that aspect, however, that back-fed main does not shown any retaining clamp or screw to hold that breaker in place.

Looks like several ground conductors are twisted together and then inserted into the terminals, this is not good either.

And, to top it all off, there is a white conductor being used as a hot conductor, also not good.

Jerry,

Could you please explain the hazard of having grounding conductors twisted together and inserted in the buss, as long as the buss is rated for that number of conductors?

The main neutral wire should have been identified.

[Jerry Peck]

First there is the code issue of the terminals being tested, listed and labeled for one or two conductors, not with two conductors twisted together - how tight, how many twists per inch, how much torque on the twist, how much length on the twist, etc., the terminals were not tested, listed, or labeled for that.

Second comes another code issue being that the wires are not being used in accordance with their listing and labeling, such as, is that now two #14s, or is a #10, no, it is not either, it is "nothing" as there is no listing for that (see above descriptions for reasons why not). You have just created an unlisted wire of unknown size and without the required number of strands to be called stranded, and with strands too large to be called stranded.

Then there is fact that twisted wires do not seat together the same as two separate wires in the terminal. When the terminal screw turns down, it binds on the top twist under the screw, and it is entirely possible (I used to try it and then understood why not to) for one of the two twisted wires to be totally loose in the terminal (happened to me several times before I realized that, hey, I should not be doing this anyway).

Unlike a wire nut (someone would bring the wire nut up if I did not) which has a metal tapered threaded insert inside the insulating cap, a tapered threaded insert which 'screws itself onto' the conductors, the terminal does not do that, it is simply a 'binding screw' which applies pressure to the conductor in contact with it.

Loose wires are not a good thing.

[Jim Port]

Not going to buy that line Jerry. Two # 14 twisted get bigger than two #14s not twisted? I you watch the two will roll flat under the screw, they don't stay upright.

Twist rate, length of twist, Why would you think that the ground buss would be affected? What the heck does that have to do with this ? How much twist could there be in a 1/4" buss? We are not talking about CAT 5 cables and crosstalk.

How would you deal with the neutral in SE cable? Would twisting that violate its' listing?

[Jerry Peck]

Not going to buy that line Jerry.

You don't have to buy anything, regardless of what you buy or do not buy, twisting TWO wires together is not approved in any manner, way, shape or form. Also ONE of those TWO wires is very likely to come loose.

[Jim Port]

First there is the code issue of the terminals being tested, listed and labeled for one or two conductors, not with two conductors twisted together - how tight, how many twists per inch, how much torque on the twist, how much length on the twist, etc., the terminals were not tested, listed, or labeled for that.

OK JP,

Which is it? What rule prohibits this besides JPs rule of I don't like it.

BTW, you didn't answer the question about the SE cable neutral.

[Jerry Peck]

OK JP,

Which is it? What rule prohibits this besides JPs rule of I don't like it.

I already told you, but here it is again: 110.3(B). Neither the conductor nor the terminal are tested, listed, or labeled for twisting two conductors together.

BTW, you didn't answer the question about the SE cable neutral.

Because I need to wait until Monday to call the person who should be able to direct me to the proper answer for that.

We "know" without documentation that twisting the SE cable neutral/ground into two separate groups is not acceptable. You do accept that, right? Or maybe it is just JP (Jim Port's) rule that such is allowed?

[Jim Port]

We "know" without documentation that twisting the SE cable neutral/ground into two separate groups is not acceptable.

What size would that make the wire? Do you see this a lot? Considering there is only one lug for this I don't know why you would bring it up.

Where did this come into the discussion? Please stay focused.

[Jerry Peck]

What size would that make the wire? Do you see this a lot? Considering there is only one lug for this I don't know why you would bring it up.

Where did this come into the discussion? Please stay focused.

Jim,

YOU are the one needing to stay focused.

YOU are asking about twisting wires.

I was talking about the twisting of TWO wires.

YOU brought up the twisting of the SEC uninsulated outer conductor.

I am only addressing what YOU brought up, and we have seen MANY PHOTOS posted here where the outer conductor of SE cable was twisted into two separate twists and inserted into two separate terminals.

JIM, when YOU bring something up, STAY FOCUSED ON IT, got it? Or do I have to explain it to you all over again.

[Richard Moore]

Let's return the focus to the single issue of the twisted grounds. First, it's a Cutler-Hammer panel and, according to Eaton, all their ground-bars may be used for up to 3 grounding wires (with some provisions). It looks like all the twists are 3 or less to me.

3. Bar wire holes are suitable
for (1) #14–4 or up to
(3) #14–10 aluminum or
copper wire. Multiple wires
in a single hole must be of

same size and material.

Which brings us to the twisting. It looks like loose twisting, maybe 4 or 5 inches per rotation. I would hardly call that making a odd size cable and I'm with Mr. Port that I just can't see that being an issue under the lug screw.

I already told you, but here it is again: 110.3(B). Neither the conductor nor the terminal are tested, listed, or labeled for twisting two conductors together.

Hmmm...

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

There's nothing in the Curtler-Hammer literature that says the wires have to be inserted into the lug in any particular fashion. No, it doesn't say you can, but it doesn't say you can't either. Which leaves us with common sense or a judgement call...

These are grounding conductors. The only time they should carry any current would be momentarily during a ground fault, until the breaker trips. Even if one wire was somehow not tightened down by the lug-screw, there is easily sufficient contact to trip the breaker. With the twisting, it's not like it could pull out of the lug. In fact, I think there is more chance of one of three wires pulling free if they weren't twisted together. Unlikely in either case.

Let's assume this was the only "issue" with this panel. Is it really unsafe? Sorry, I just don't see it. I certainly wouldn't be recommending that someone try to untwist the grounds. We always recommend an electrician do the work, but you know a home-owner is gonna say "Hey, I can do that", and make an ungodly mess if they don't kill themselves doing it. And I suspect that most electricians would say "WTF, it's fine the way it is".

Jerry, I know your opinion is different and won't change. That's OK. The above is my opinion. I believe this forum, if not you, still allows for more than one.

[Brian Robertson]

I hate to waste peoples time but could anyone point out the main's neutral for me ? Thanks

[Vern Heiler]

I hate to waste peoples time but could anyone point out the main's neutral for me ? Thanks

Follow the large black wire comming out at the bottom left corner, up past the main breaker, to the ground/neutral buss above the breakers.

[Brian Robertson]

Ok thanks, of course thats actually obvious isn't it, but I've got blinders on looking for something white. Is that very common, it being black, and I take it the GEC is running down through the hole bottom right but can you tell if there is a bare ground cable coming in to the box as well or just three black conductors? Thanks again!

[John Arnold]

... Is that very common, it being black...

Around here, the SEC neutral/ground is typically uninsulated, so neither black nor white.

[Brian Robertson]

Yes same here, but in this case its insulated and black, correct? Thanks

[Jerry Peck]

but I've got blinders on looking for something white. Is that very common, it being black,

Yes, but ... but it is also *required* to be identified white by an approved method, such as wrapping white phase tape around it.

I take it the GEC is running down through the hole bottom right

I would presume so, yes.

but can you tell if there is a bare ground cable coming in to the box as well or just three black conductors?

Just those three black insulated conductors. This is "service equipment" so the "neutral" and the "ground" can be/are the same conductor, in this case the un-reidentified black insulated conductor. No "bare" ground is required from the meter to the service equipment.

[Jerry Peck]

Jody,

Curious, how old is that house? Looks like a fairly new Cutler-Hammer panel.

The reason I ask is this other thread ( http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_i...ice-panel.html ) where Michael and I were discussing the drawing he posted, and which states that the panel shown in your photo would *not* be allowed (I think the information in that drawing may be wrong on this point).

[Jim Port]

Jim,

YOU are the one needing to stay focused.

YOU are asking about twisting wires.

I was talking about the twisting of TWO wires.

YOU brought up the twisting of the SEC uninsulated outer conductor.

I am only addressing what YOU brought up, and we have seen MANY PHOTOS posted here where the outer conductor of SE cable was twisted into two separate twists and inserted into two separate terminals.

JIM, when YOU bring something up, STAY FOCUSED ON IT, got it? Or do I have to explain it to you all over again.

Since the twisting issue is such a hazard I asked you to explain how the neutral would be dealt with in SE cable and if that would violate the listing of the cable. Nothing was said about splitting it into several lugs.


I will try to type slower so you can follow. Again it seems like your attitude gets in the way of your ability to answer a direct question.

[Jim Port]

Jerry,

Please see the picture in the first post from this thread.

What is missing? - InterNACHI Message Board

This is what I was referring to regarding the SE cable neutral, nothing else.

[Jerry Peck]

I will try to type slower so you can follow. Again it seems like your attitude gets in the way of your ability to answer a direct question.

JIM, when YOU bring something up, STAY FOCUSED ON IT, got it? Or do I have to explain it to you all over again.

I said:

Because I need to wait until Monday to call the person who should be able to direct me to the proper answer for that.

I cannot call him until the afternoons, and I got busy yesterday afternoon (which was, by the way, "Monday"), so I will make sure to remember to call him today ... in the afternoon.

You really need to ...

STAY FOCUSED ON IT,

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

I said:



I cannot call him until the afternoons, and I got busy yesterday afternoon (which was, by the way, "Monday"), so I will make sure to remember to call him today ... in the afternoon.

You really need to ...

So what was your "guy"s answer, Huh? its been 2-1/2 weeks!

[Jerry Peck]

So what was your "guy"s answer, Huh? its been 2-1/2 weeks!

Patience, patience, patience ... you will find it when you finish going through the threads.

Gosh, for a new guy here you sure are pushy, especially when you are incorrect, and now when you are just unaware ...

Shall I or shall I not give you a hint, or simply just let you trudge around until you finally find it ... ?

Ah, what to heck: http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_i...conductor.html

Oh ye of such unawares and lack of patience in working your way through the previous threads ...

[Jody Humbert]

Jerry, sorry for the delay on the age of the house.... around 12-13 years.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Patience, patience, patience ... you will find it when you finish going through the threads.

Gosh, for a new guy here you sure are pushy, especially when you are incorrect, and now when you are just unaware ...

Shall I or shall I not give you a hint, or simply just let you trudge around until you finally find it ... ?

Ah, what to heck: http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_i...conductor.html

Oh ye of such unawares and lack of patience in working your way through the previous threads ...

Not only do you have an exagerated opinion of yourself you are astoundingly rude, obnoxious and downright lazy. You made the committment to respond on this thread, not lazily hide it two days later requiring others to scrub through your multitude of daily argumentative posts to find it among your dizzying diatribes burried in bull chips.

Since the twisting issue is such a hazard I asked you to explain how the neutral would be dealt with in SE cable and if that would violate the listing of the cable. Nothing was said about splitting it into several lugs.


I will try to type slower so you can follow. Again it seems like your attitude gets in the way of your ability to answer a direct question.

I second that motion! He conveniently ignored.

[Jerry Peck]

Not only do you have an exagerated opinion of yourself you are astoundingly rude, obnoxious and downright lazy.

You get back what you give out.

Feel lucky that I decided to post that.

When, or should I say *IF*, YOUR attitude changes from holier-than-thou, you will begin to get some accommodation here.

Until then, your attitude will be just one of your short comings.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Not going to buy that line Jerry. Two # 14 twisted get bigger than two #14s not twisted? I you watch the two will roll flat under the screw, they don't stay upright.

Twist rate, length of twist, Why would you think that the ground buss would be affected? What the heck does that have to do with this ? How much twist could there be in a 1/4" buss? We are not talking about CAT 5 cables and crosstalk.

How would you deal with the neutral in SE cable? Would twisting that violate its' listing?

You don't have to buy anything, regardless of what you buy or do not buy, twisting TWO wires together is not approved in any manner, way, shape or form. Also ONE of those TWO wires is very likely to come loose.

OK JP,

Which is it? What rule prohibits this besides JPs rule of I don't like it.

BTW, you didn't answer the question about the SE cable neutral.

What size would that make the wire? Do you see this a lot? Considering there is only one lug for this I don't know why you would bring it up.

Where did this come into the discussion? Please stay focused.

Patience, patience, patience ... you will find it when you finish going through the threads.

Gosh, for a new guy here you sure are pushy, especially when you are incorrect, and now when you are just unaware ...

Shall I or shall I not give you a hint, or simply just let you trudge around until you finally find it ... ?

Ah, what to heck: http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_i...conductor.html

Oh ye of such unawares and lack of patience in working your way through the previous threads ...

Since the twisting issue is such a hazard I asked you to explain how the neutral would be dealt with in SE cable and if that would violate the listing of the cable. Nothing was said about splitting it into several lugs.


I will try to type slower so you can follow. Again it seems like your attitude gets in the way of your ability to answer a direct question.

I second that motion! He conveniently ignored.
Seems incapable of admitting he doesn't know something, incapable of admitting when he is wrong or makes a completely erroneous statement.

Resorts to flaming members, lengthy demented diatraibes, and burrying his remarks in bull chips.

[Jerry Peck]

I second that motion! He conveniently ignored.

If only you could be conveniently ignored.

Seems incapable of admitting he doesn't know something, incapable of admitting when he is wrong or makes a completely erroneous statement.

Could not have stated your attitude any better myself. Thank you for your self-description.

Resorts to flaming members, lengthy demented diatraibes, and burrying his remarks in bull chips.

Like that one above?

Sure was a good description of yourself, I must agree with you there.

You are the only member who has a god-complex. N.P.D. seek treatment.

I am somewhere way down the line from you and your holier-than-thou complex.

You need to go back and read what you posted in your post, you made a real good self-description/diagnosis of yourself.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Depends on when the house was built.

The bathroom circuits were required to have no other receptacles on them starting around 1993 (as I recall without looking it up).

However, that was likely done 'after the fact' in which case I would say 'No. Regardless when the house was constructed, the bathroom receptacles need their own GFCI.' Which is a simple fix - install another GFCI breaker for that circuit.



Needs wire nuts. No crimping, not taped - wire nuts.

That 'taping job' makes me think Mr. DIY Homeowner did it - let a licensed electrician do it properly.

By the way, you've got a heck of a mess coming through the top of the panel with all of those NM cables coming through that one PVC fitting, which may, or may not, be a male adapter on PVC conduit (likely is conduit - regardless - each conductor is required to be secured to the cabinet in a proper clamp, which are typically rated for 1-2 NM cables only), and may, or may not, be longer than 24" (likely is longer than 24" which would then require derating).

Also looks like that is "service equipment", in which case the neutrals and grounds are allowed in the same terminal bar, just not the same holes - that looks okay on that aspect, however, that back-fed main does not shown any retaining clamp or screw to hold that breaker in place.

Looks like several ground conductors are twisted together and then inserted into the terminals, this is not good either.

And, to top it all off, there is a white conductor being used as a hot conductor, also not good.

Those will do for starters.

Additionally, it looks like that cabinet enclosure is back to the wall behind the peg board, it needs to be flush with, or extend out beyond, the peg board (risk of fire).

When did mechanical splicing methods such as pig tail, knotted taps, traditional western-unions and modified western-unions; butt splices, WAGO connectors and split-bolt connections become outlawed?
There is more than one way to make a splice with smaller conductors. Wire-nuts aren't the only way. 110.14(B).

[Jerry Peck]

When did mechanical splicing methods such as pig tail, knotted taps, traditional western-unions and modified western-unions; butt splices, WAGO connectors and split-bolt connections become outlawed?
There is more than one way to make a splice with smaller conductors. Wire-nuts aren't the only way. 110.14(B).

Dr. Watson,

You really have gone off your rocker there.

When you get back down to earth, off your really, really high horse (don't fall getting off, you might get hurt), then maybe we can carry on a discussion.

Or is civility a foreign act for you?

Your ignorance is showing through your holier-than-thou attitude.

I suspect you may have some real knowledge you may be able to use in contributing to this board, but so far ... well, so far ... you have not shown ANY. Granted, there have been a few glimpses of it in there somewhere, but your attitude does not let it through.

[Roland Miller]

"When did mechanical splicing methods such as pig tail, knotted taps, traditional western-unions and modified western-unions; butt splices, WAGO connectors and split-bolt connections become outlawed?
There is more than one way to make a splice with smaller conductors. Wire-nuts aren't the only way. 110.14(B)."

Just for the record these are all acceptable methods. Even the tape on the splice in the picture is acceptable. as well as crimp splices.

[Ted Menelly]

An Inspection I did

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Is it ok to splice two circuits(one being the outside receptacles and the other the bathrooms) inside the panel to a single wire and then connecting to a single GFCI breaker? It also appeared that the splice is only wrapped with electrical tape. If it is twisted, they should have used wire nuts. If it is crimped, tape is probably sufficient if allowed. Not sure why they didn't just use another breaker. Thanks for your comments.

Jerry, sorry for the delay on the age of the house.... around 12-13 years.

When did mechanical splicing methods such as pig tail, knotted taps, traditional western-unions and modified western-unions; butt splices, WAGO connectors and split-bolt connections become outlawed?
There is more than one way to make a splice with smaller conductors. Wire-nuts aren't the only way. 110.14(B).

Jody,


The splice may be fine, we cannot see through the tape.
That would be one circuit.

Assuming the unammended NEC was the adopted, dedicated bathroom receptacle circuits 20 amps weren't introduced to the NEC until the 1996 edition If I recall correctly. Not all jurisdictions adopt editions without ammendments, nor do they (or did they) adopt them at the time they were published, many jurisdictions even skip(ped) Code cycles.

Although most outdoor receptacles required GFCI protection beginning around the '71 or 73 edition, and bathroom receptacles since about the '75 edition, there was not a prohibition to share protection or the same circuit. 1984 NEC permitted existing non-grounded receptacles to be replaced with GFCI receptacles where no other grounding means existed. However Code restricted this substitution to allow the GFCI receptacle to be wired to protection only the face not "downstream", and required a separate GFCI receptacle at EACH location on the circuit - This somewhat silly requirement was not changed until 1993. 1984 also introduced GFCI protection for bathroom outlets in hotels and motels.

The 1993 also required that if replacing an older receptacle in an area required by the 1993 Code to be GFCI protected it had to be upgraded upon receptacle replacement to provide GFCI protection, under 210-7(d):
"Ground-fault circuit interrupter protected receptacles shall be provided where replacements are made at receptacle outlets that are required to be so protected elsewhere in this Code." Under this language, 1993's 210-7(d) was a far-reaching requirement that went beyond the usual "grandfather" attitude of the Code, requiring that as receptacle outlets wear out in older homes in the kitchens, bathrooms, basements, etc. they MUST be replaced with GFCI type, or provided with GFCI protection, as they were replaced.

Hopefully that addresses your questions regarding the history, you would need to check with the authority having jurisdiction regarding code adoption (and ammendments) history for the location of the panel in question.

It is unfortunate that your thread was derailed.

[Jody Humbert]

H.G., Jerry, and everyone else.

Thanks for all the great info. I know this is the place to come for answers.

[Stuart Brooks]

Would someone provide a definition or explanation for the terms: (1) #14-4 and (3) #14-10, in the following statement taken from the CH panel sticker posted by Ted Menelly.

"...wire holes are suitable for (1) #14-4 or up to (3) #14-10 wires..."

[Roland Miller]

The #14-4 is a wire range for the termination-- it will accept #14 through #4 size conductors. The second one will accept #14 through #10 conductors. Anything outside (ie smaller or larger) is not permitted to be terminated there.

[Jerry Peck]

"...wire holes are suitable for (1) #14-4 or up to (3) #14-10 wires..."

Think of it this way:
- wire holes are suitable for:
- - (1) #14-4 or [meaning, as Roland said, one (1) conductor sized #14, to and including, one (1) conductor sized #4 and any one (1) conductor of any size between those sizes]
- - up to (3) #14-10 wires [meaning the terminal is rated for one (1), two (2), or three (3) conductors #14, #12, or #10 in size in the same terminal, and that would only apply to equipment grounding terminals]

[Fred Warner]

Think of it this way:
- wire holes are suitable for:
- - (1) #14-4 or [meaning, as Roland said, one (1) conductor sized #14 to and including one (1) conductor sized #4 and any one (1) conductor of any size between those sizes]

Jerry, I know you know the difference, but the way you've worded it seems to infer that a person could put a conductor of one size under this terminal and include another conductor of same or different size. That's what your conjunctions say, but I realize that is not what you're intending. Am I right?

[Stuart Brooks]

Jerry, I know you know the difference, but the way you've worded it seems to infer that a person could put a conductor of one size under this terminal and include another conductor of same or different size. That's what your conjunctions say, but I realize that is not what you're intending. Am I right?

The panel note states that all conductors must be of same size

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry, I know you know the difference, but the way you've worded it seems to infer that a person could put a conductor of one size under this terminal and include another conductor of same or different size. That's what your conjunctions say, but I realize that is not what you're intending. Am I right?

Fred,

Thank you for pointing that out, I went back and added two commas to help clear up the meaning.

Think of it this way:
- wire holes are suitable for:
- - (1) #14-4 or [meaning, as Roland said, one (1) conductor sized #14, to and including, one (1) conductor sized #4 and any one (1) conductor of any size between those sizes]
- - up to (3) #14-10 wires [meaning the terminal is rated for one (1), two (2), or three (3) conductors #14, #12, or #10 in size in the same terminal, and that would only apply to equipment grounding terminals]

The meaning is that the size range is from #14 ... to and including ... #4.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

It means that:

the terminations are suitable for a single conductor which is sized no smaller than AWG #14 and no larger than AWG #4.

And

terminations are suitable for up to three conductors if the conductors are sized no smaller than AWG #14 and no larger than AWG #10, and when terminating multiple (more than one) conductors in the same terminal those shared terminations must be of conductors that are of the same size (AWG #) and material.

The larger the American Wiring Gage (AWG) number, the smaller the diameter of the conductor, and the lesser the current carrying rating.

Hope that helps.

[Jerry Peck]

And the terminations are suitable for up to three conductors if the conductors are sized no smaller than AWG #14 and no larger than AWG #10.

.
As long as ...

The panel note states that all conductors must be of same size

...the 'up to three conductors' are the same size conductors. Conductors of different sizes are not to be intermixed in the same terminal.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

It means that:

the terminations are suitable for a single conductor which is sized no smaller than AWG #14 and no larger than AWG #4.

And

terminations are suitable for up to three conductors if the conductors are sized no smaller than AWG #14 and no larger than AWG #10, and when terminating multiple (more than one) conductors in the same terminal those shared terminations must be of conductors that are of the same size (AWG #) and of the same material.

The larger the American Wiring Gage (AWG) number, the smaller the diameter of the conductor, and the lesser the current carrying rating.

Hope that helps.

Emphasis on the conductors must be of the same material if they are sharing a termination point.

[Jerry Peck]

That label says:

"When used as service equipment, any unused neutral holes may be used for equipment grounding. For equipment grounding applications, wire holes are suitable for (1) #14-4 or up to (3) #14-10 wires. Multiple wires in the same hole MUST BE THE SAME SIZE and material."

Followed by:

"This device accepts Cutler-Hammer type GBK ground bards. Wire holes are suitable for (1) #14-4 or up to (3) #14-10 wires. Multiple wires in the same hole MUST BE THE SAME SIZE and material."

Emphasis on the "MUST BE THE SAME SIZE " as everyone already knows that copper and aluminum at not to be interconnected unless the terminal is so identified. That labeling clarifies that all conductors in one terminal hole must ALSO be the same SIZE.

[Roland Miller]

Thanks for the label--Jerry. That pretty much should put an end to the rhetoric. Can you and HG move forward now??

[Jerry Peck]

Thanks for the label--Jerry. That pretty much should put an end to the rhetoric. Can you and HG move forward now??

Not my call, seems to be his call.

For my part, yes, and has been yes for a while.

[Jerry Peck]

Roland,

I should add to the yes on my part that it depends on what his 'I've got mail' thing ends up being.

If it is something down and dirty, then my answer will, obviously, change to 'No.'

You may want to check with him to find out.

[Brian Robertson]

Hey, sorry guys but I'm not perfectly clear on this yet. Is the splice OK with the tape? If I saw a splice like that I just leave it alone and ignore it because its fine? Obviously I'm not unwraping it to check it out. Thats question one, and two, could you use the ground bar in the service panel for a neutral? Same way as you could use the neutral for an EGC? Thanks Brian

[Brian Robertson]

Jerry, Ted posted 3 pics a little earlier in this thread. In the 3rd pic there is 2 ground conductors twisted together in each of the top 3-4 holes and again at the bottom in a couple of the holes at least. Should that be called out? Thanks Brian And how would I word that in my report? Thanks again

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

as everyone already knows that copper and aluminum at not to be interconnected unless the terminal is so identified. That labeling clarifies that all conductors in one terminal hole must ALSO be the same SIZE.

Stranded vs. solid, tinned/coated copper vs. copper, same conductor material?

Instead of issuing edicts, so-called "corrections" of others, and opining on what "everyone already knows" stick to what "Jerry Peck" presumes to "know".

Lets see if you can overcome and keep it directly on point, fact-based, clear, concise and to the point, with a minimum of manure.

100 words or less.

[A.D. Miller]

Thanks for the label--Jerry. That pretty much should put an end to the rhetoric. Can you and HG move forward now??

Roland:

It appears that HG and JP are indeed moving forward - to a street fight

[Roland Miller]

It is all part of the right of passage...

The more you swat at the bees, the more bees there are.

[Brian Robertson]

Hey Roland, H.G. and A.D. Its probly more fun playing silly games but any response to my second last post(before this one) would be greatly appreciated! Thanks

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Hey, sorry guys but I'm not perfectly clear on this yet. Is the splice OK with the tape? If I saw a splice like that I just leave it alone and ignore it because its fine? Obviously I'm not unwraping it to check it out. Thats question one, and two, could you use the ground bar in the service panel for a neutral? Same way as you could use the neutral for an EGC? Thanks Brian

Jerry, Ted posted 3 pics a little earlier in this thread. In the 3rd pic there is 2 ground conductors twisted together in each of the top 3-4 holes and again at the bottom in a couple of the holes at least. Should that be called out? Thanks Brian And how would I word that in my report? Thanks again

Hey Roland, H.G. and A.D. Its probly more fun playing silly games but any response to my second last post(before this one) would be greatly appreciated! Thanks

Did you read the entire string (esp. posts 1, 2, 30, 32 & 34)? Did you read the panel label that was included with Ted Menley's (sp?) post? Are you expecting responses germain to CSA, Canada's Codes, etc. or what?

Who knows what you should or should not, may or may not do in Ontario, Canada? I don't.

Are you asking what a HI does when he/she views an area of concern and is not permitted to access/explore or unable to inspect, or is beyond the HI's knowledge base, and what one then does, or does not do, or are you suggesting that one would ever ignore a concern or question derived from a HI and not include same in one's report?

I may not be alone in my concern and confusion as to the basis and nature of your questions, the motivation for them, or the wisdom and safety of your removing a panel cover in the first place. Are you a student-in-training?

[Jerry Peck]

Stranded vs. solid, tinned/coated copper vs. copper, same conductor material?

Instead of issuing edicts, so-called "corrections" of others, and opining on what "everyone already knows" stick to what "Jerry Peck" presumes to "know".

Lets see if you can overcome megalomania and NPD; and keep it directly on point, fact-based, clear, concise and to the point, with a minimum of manure.

100 words or less.

You mean "instead of issuing edicts" like you just did?

You really have no idea what is going on, if it is not Waston's way, or one does not agree with Watson, then it is 'bad, bad, real bad'.

You really are a piece of cake with your do-as-I-say-but-not-as-I-do attitude and posts.

Roland, I think you have your answer from Watson for the question you asked above.

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry, Ted posted 3 pics a little earlier in this thread. In the 3rd pic there is 2 ground conductors twisted together in each of the top 3-4 holes and again at the bottom in a couple of the holes at least. Should that be called out? Thanks Brian And how would I word that in my report? Thanks again

Brian,

Yes you should call them out, at least I always did, those terminals are designed and intended to be used for one conductor inserted straight (not looped back on itself to double it up) and for - when rated for more than one conductor - more than one conductor to be inserted straight, not twisted.

I would simply write up that those terminals intended for conductors which are not twisted. If you get a reply back from an electrician saying they are, simply respond by asking for documentation that the terminals *are* tested, listed, and labeled for "twisting of the conductor" and then you can verify from your photo as to *whether the conductors are twisted properly* or not. *IF* twisting is going to be included, the listing and labeling instructions would include 'how many twists per inch' and 'how tightly they are to be twisted', so you will need to see that too.

Of course, the electrician will never be able to provide that, because they don't exist, in which case the solution is to remove the conductors, untwist them, then reinsert the conductors into the terminals properly.

As one can see by the three different stranded conductors in Ted's photo above, the size of the strands gets small and more numerous as the conductor gets smaller, so twisting two same size conductors together 'does not a stranded conductor make' - all one need to do is go look at a stranded conductor of the same size to realize that, and the electrician should, ... should ... , realize that right away.

You probably also noticed the same twist in the white conductors on the right side of the photo, indicating that they are also twisted together, and that is a real big no-no.

[Brian Robertson]

You know what Mr. Watson, forget it, are all codes exactly the same in all 50 states in your country? I don't here you calling out the other posters with, "well how the heck would we know, who knows what rules are followed where you come from" type reply, which is what I always get from you. I live in Canada, same basic rules apply here as there, my questions are about fairly generic issues, I'm not trying to pick the (you know what I mean). I can get into a panel as safely as any electrician and am not going to suggest to every client that they will need an electrician to tell them if everything is hunky dory inside that panel, my choice. I posted a fairly simple question, which was ignored in lieu of the enjoyment of a good scrap. Thats not what I thought this board was about. I thought that was rather rude. I'll have my questions answered some other way in the future. Brian

[Brian Robertson]

Thank you Jerry.

[A.D. Miller]

Thank you Jerry.

ding-ding-ding-ding-ding

ROUND TWO!

[Jerry Peck]

ding-ding-ding-ding-ding

ROUND TWO!

I sure hope this is not a 15 rounder 'contender determination fight', I keep getting hit below the belt, opponent even bit off a chunk of my ear in one round, am not sure how long I can keep up the good fight.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Mr. Brian Robertson,

The question remains regarding your opening a panel. Seems obvious that you know the answer to that question is negative.

The CSA rules are distinctly different and unique. Your questions are not generic in so far as what is permissible here is not permissible there. Here our version of "Hydro" does not have the authority to approve electrical equipment prior to its marketing, delivery, installation, nor mandate how it can be installed, used, etc. Standards and approvals for equipment are unique to Canada, listing by Cn UL voluntary, standards and scopes are unique. Methods and your CEC, specifically Part I of the OESC are VERY different.

The color coding systems in all areas of building including electrical are also DISTINCTIVELY DIFFERENT and have had different histories regarding use of color coding. You are barking up the wrong tree.

Ontario Regulation 183/84

In a prior post you indicated you didn't even know what the electrical code was in your region, let alone what it was called!

ESA
OESC
OBC

The Ontario Electrical Safety Code is distinctly different than the NEC and uniquely distinct from the CEC.

http://www.esasafe.com/pdf/Ontario_Amendments_Canadian_Electrical_Code.pdf

The newest edition will go into effect in May 2009.
Welcome to ESAsafe (ESA) is a stand-alone, financially self-sustaining not-for-profit corporation

Ontario Building Code:
Home

CAHPI-Ontario

OAHI

Find a Home Inspector

On December 9, 1994 the OAHI became a self-regulating professional body when the Ontario Associaton of Home Inpsectors Act received royal assent, granting the OAHI the exclusive right to define qualification requirements, regulate its members and grant the designation of "Registered Home Inspector" and RHI to qualified practitioners in the Province of Ontario.

Baseline Accreditation: (OAHI requirements)
Baseline Accreditation

Take a class, read a book, peruse the official Provincial web portal: ontario dot ca

[Jerry Peck]

Mr. Brian Robertson,

The question remains regarding your opening a panel. Seems obvious that you know the answer to that question is negative.

The CSA rules are distinctly different and unique. Your questions are not generic in so far as what is permissible here is not permissible there. Here our version of "Hydro" does not have the authority to approve electrical equipment prior to its marketing, delivery, installation, nor mandate how it can be installed, used, etc. Standards and approvals for equipment are unique to Canada, listing by Cn UL voluntary, standards and scopes are unique. Methods and your CEC, specifically Part I of the OESC are VERY different.

The color coding systems in all areas of building including electrical are also DISTINCTIVELY DIFFERENT and have had different histories regarding use of color coding. You are barking up the wrong tree.

Ontario Regulation 183/84

In a prior post you indicated you didn't even know what the electrical code was in your region, let alone what it was called!

ESA
OESC
OBC

The Ontario Electrical Safety Code is distinctly different than the NEC and uniquely distinct from the CEC.

http://www.esasafe.com/pdf/Ontario_Amendments_Canadian_Electrical_Code.pdf

The newest edition will go into effect in May 2009.
Welcome to ESAsafe (ESA) is a stand-alone, financially self-sustaining not-for-profit corporation

Ontario Building Code:
Home

CAHPI-Ontario

OAHI

Find a Home Inspector

On December 9, 1994 the OAHI became a self-regulating professional body when the Ontario Associaton of Home Inpsectors Act received royal assent, granting the OAHI the exclusive right to define qualification requirements, regulate its members and grant the designation of "Registered Home Inspector" and RHI to qualified practitioners in the Province of Ontario.

Baseline Accreditation: (OAHI requirements)
Baseline Accreditation

Take a class, read a book, peruse the official Provincial web portal: ontario dot ca

Clue us in - I have looked through the links you posted and was unable to find the reference you are saying exists which prohibits opening the cover of the electrical panel.

I am sure that Brian would also like to have that reference pointed out, right Brian?

[Brian Robertson]

Yes thats correct Jerry. Mr. Watson what I use for info. is the Ontario Electrical Safety Code 23rd edition and it's 2007 amendments. As far as you referencing OAHI for inspectors goes they are indeed one of the bigger Home Inspection outfits up here but they really hold no more merit than any of the many associations that operate down there. Most down there also operate up here. OAHI is an old boys club that could be heading the way of the dinosaur in fact. They are broke, horribly mis-managed and losing credibility fast. The only province here requiring government licencing is British Columbia. That is new. The standards and principles required to follow are written by CAHPI (Canadian Assoc.......) NACHI is getting more respect here than OAHI these days. Anyways colors are different and some other stuff as you say but but I believe our codes for the most part mirror the NEC. I personally have been a full-time firefighter for the past 20 something years and have been trying to learn everything I can about residential systems, but am particularly interested in electrical, heating, etc. anything where someone can get blowed up or fried in a heartbeat if they do something careless. After retiring I want to inspect houses, I've done close to twenty now, mostly friends and family who aren't moving. I've taken two online courses, been on tagalongs with inspectors and generally do self studying 3-4 hrs. every day for the last 3 yrs. There are of course precautionary steps to follow to open a panel safely, but I would like to do that for my clients to see if things look good in there.The questions I ask usually get responded to somewhere along the line by Jerry and another group of regular contributors whose main concern seems to be "follow the code, its there for a reason - SAFETY". You might argue, yeah but your up there what makes you think if its safe there just because its safe here. Like I said our electrical comes from NEC like yours, the insides of our panels look exactly like the inside of your panels, and black is hot and white is neutral. Most of what I've learned to be honest is from this board, these guys throw new and interesting scenarios, pics and all, out there every day, all stuff I could experience here. Anyways I'm rambling so maybe that clears up my situation a bit for you. Have a good day

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

....The standards and principles required to follow are written by CAHPI (Canadian Assoc.......)

....NACHI is getting more respect here than OAHI these days.

.....Like I said our electrical comes from NEC like yours, the insides of our panels look exactly like the inside of your panels, and black is hot and white is neutral.

Brian Robertson,

So you are self-studying, I get it. The Ontario chapter of CAHPI is OAHI. I respectfully disagree regarding your statements as to what OAHI is and is not, and your theory regarding what Ontario's Electrical Code is based upon. The CEC (Canadian Electrical Code) is the basis or model code prior to ammendments and adoption by Ontario for the Ontario Electrical Safety Code, NOT NFPA 70, the National Electrical Code (NEC).

Unlike the US, you have in Ontario, the ESC. I suggest you look into that if you're looking to represent prospective purchasers as an HPI in the future and doing your experimental and exploratory "inspections" of friends and associates properties and the requirements regarding maintaining certifications and documentation of one's electrical system.

Some more rural areas used to be supplied up there and some areas still supplied here with single wire earth/ground return, some still are. Some residences are developed in former commercial/industrial spaces, some are developed in mixed occupancy, some are free-standing residential but the street or supply is in a mixed use area. We are not always supplied with split single phase power - Not all are supplied 120/240 some are 120/208. There are even the occasional 120 only supplies for certain residential occupancies but they are increasingly rare to come across these days.

Some of the older panels and of course any work may not have been performed by licensed pro's or with permits/inspections. Older work may have been performed correctly at the time, but doesn't have protections required later, or that has become damaged.

Your local universities offer some great classes regarding identifying defects, how to report same, and electrical safety/systems and history as well as hazards identification regarding HPI's.

They offer you a well researched and rounded approach that can prove to be a good basis for you to expand upon.

Older installations may have a multitude of oddities with muliple generations of repairs, taps, corrections, additions, and "corrections".

One of the more concerning things for the HI to come across is a remote location, older equipment, older split-bus panel served by single wire earth return and a faulty or insufficient ground and a panel design that makes it nearly impossible to remove or replace a panel cover without closing a circuit.

I wonder if your status as a fire fighter might afford you some sort of discount for tuition credits - especially since the advanced knowledge and safety training regarding electrical panels and electrical safety might be considered (?) advancing your training as a fire/rescue professional as well??

It is fairly common to not find SEC identified especially in older equipment.
Especially if service disconnect is at the meter location (exterior). Our Electrical Service providers are not governed by the NEC. Some of our states have deregulated significantly, and the points of customer responsibility vary.

The CEC is very different than the NEC, Especially in its requirements for residential. I honestly think you will not be best served by comparing/confusing the two, but be better served comparing the history of electrical code development and ammendments and equipment approvals/requirements historically in your own region.

Your legal system, requirements, insurance, language of your contracts and reports are also very different.

Thus, the site/organization referenced and linked previously - the universities listings, course descriptions, etc. are valid and a worthy undertaking, despite your lacking the requisite 5 years of accredited professional/trades experience - the courses are a good jumping-off point.

It might help you to learn just what a "neutral" is and is not. It is a term often misused.

Some electrical theory study might be helpful.

Most single family free-standing dwellings here in the US (but by no means all) have 120/240 three-wire supplied from the power company, which is a split single phase service, two halves of a split single phase and a grounded conductor.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

I wouldn't get alarmed if the termination of a pigtail from a gfci breaker seemed mildly twisted or if 14 or 12-2-2 is neatened up with a turn or two. If pulled through conduit off a spool also not unusual to see a return to its manufactured orientation. I just don't see the "problem" mentioned by other regarding twisting of white insulated wire for branch circuits in the three photos posted by other than the original poster (or was that comment/question referring to the off-board topic string link provided by a different contributor?) getting out the magnifying glass and higher powered glasses - which photo, where?