wording

[wayne soper]

My braain is not working AGAIN!, how would you guys word this.
Billy, not the squirrel goes around the tree and through the hole thing please

Similar Threads:

• Your wording?
• Re-inspection wording
• What wording to use about windows
• Proper wording
• Foundation repair wording

[Jerry Peck]

My braain is not working AGAIN!, how would you guys word this.

Dumb arse electrician (or someone else) screwed up again!

No like?

Which thing in there are you referring to?

[wayne soper]

The black wire going through and over the open bars under the main breaker. Wire should not be going through here correct?

[Jerry Peck]

Dumb arse electrician (or someone else) screwed up again!

The black wire going through and over the open bars under the main breaker. Wire should not be going through here correct?

That's what I thought you were talking about. You are correct, and my response stands on its merits.

[Ron Bibler]

My braain is not working AGAIN!, how would you guys word this.
Billy, not the squirrel goes around the tree and through the hole thing please

Just say what you see. Wires crossing over the main open bars.
Call sparky He can fix anything...

Best

Ron

[wayne soper]

Dumb arse electrician (or someone else) screwed up again!

That is just is how I worded it and I signed it Jerry Peck along with your phone #
Thanks alot

Just kidding, Yeah, I was just having a brain fart and being lazy. Ended up with a finished report except for the stupid sparky shot.
Whacked it and on to bigger and better things.
Like a big glass of Scotch

[Jerry Peck]

Dumb arse electrician (or someone else) screwed up again!

That is just is how I worded it and I signed it Jerry Peck along with your phone #
Thanks alot

No problemo, as long as you got the phone number correct ... let's see, that's be ... 203-855-7682

[wayne soper]

HAHAHA yeah, that's it all right. how about the SS#

[Bill Kriegh]

The placement of the wire isn't good practice but it isn't a code violation.

I think a more serious issue is the obvious signs of overheating on the right hand buss and contactor terminal. This is usually evidence of a loose connection and/or corrosion problem. It could also be evidence of a bad contactor.

[Jerry Peck]

The placement of the wire isn't good practice but it isn't a code violation.

Actually it is as the manufacturer put those bars up there to protect from and keep wires from crossing those exposed main bus bars. Thus it is not installed in accordance with its listing and labeling and thus is a violation of NEC 110.3(B) Listing and Labeling.

[Bill Kriegh]

I would venture to guess we don't know what the UL listing says about this particular enclosure and the associated barriers. The "apparent" purpose of some parts in UL listed items is frequently a moot point as non essential pieces are frequently removed for testing and listing purposes.

My experience with these barriers is to keep accidental (human) contact with live parts to a minimum. Most enclosures with contactors are constructed with the thought in mind that there is going to be manual actuation of the contactors for testing and maintenance purposes, hopefully by knowledgeable persons. If a UL listing was in question here concerning the function of the barriers there likely wouldn't be a hole to put the wire through in the first place, or room above the divider to install the wire across the same bussbars. I think that if this was the concern being addressed by the barriers that the side holes wouldn't be there and the dividers would extend past the bottom of the breaker preventing any possibility of a wire being installed in the space. Or are we saying that the wire can't be installed in the holes it's in but above the barrier and across the buss bars is OK? To be UL listed as part of a means to keep wire out of a particular place the barrier has to prevent it, not suggest it is good common sense.

Realistically, this wire is in the same precarious position as any insulated piece of wire that touches the sides of a metal box or the inside of metal conduit.

Again, it's a bad installation. But, absent literature that says you can't run wire through those holes I think you'd have a tough time calling it a code violation. You can run around all day and see crappy work that isn't a violation.

[Michael Thomas]

BTW, what's happening here:

[Jerry Peck]

Most enclosures with contactors are constructed with the thought in mind that there is going to be manual actuation of the contactors for testing and maintenance purposes, hopefully by knowledgeable persons.

First, they are not "contactors" - they are "breakers" (contactors are basically "relays" where one circuit, usually low voltage or a lower voltage, operates the relay and pulls "the contacts" into position - for NO units - or out of position - for NC units, thus their common name of "contactors").

Second, that manual operation you are referring to would be performed WITH the dead front cover ON, not with it removed, not for "normal" manual operation.

Most/many panels provide posts or other obstructions by which to guide the electrician to keep the conductor around the panelboard area and to serves as demarcation for the wiring space area.

Thus, the intent and reason for those is to keep the wiring out of where the wiring should not be and into the proper wiring space "around" the panelboard.

But, absent literature that says you can't run wire through those holes I think you'd have a tough time calling it a code violation.

Actually is was and is quite easy to call it a code violation unless the labeling says you can run the conductors across the open and exposed bus bars as shown, and, again, that NEC code violation would be, and is, 110.3.(B).

[Jerry Peck]

BTW, what's happening here:

Michael,

Look like that is the paper inside the old cloth covered NM cable you see one conductor from. At least that's my guess based on what little that photo shows of that area.

[Bill Kriegh]

Well, I guess if there was any question about you writing your own rules it's not a mystery any more.

[Jerry Peck]

Well, I guess if there was any question about you writing your own rules it's not a mystery any more.

Bill,

What, because I don't agree with the rule YOU are trying to write?

Yeah, that makes sense. (sigh)

[Terry Fitzgerald]

Jerry, I'm out-of-town and don't have my NEC with me. This is getting curious for me, and I would like to know how 110 reads. Would it be too much to ask you to post it? I say this respectfully since I think you are probably correct in your assessment. It's always a good rule to use the old adage, "When in doubt, don't do it." Especially with codes which are designed for safety, not to hassle anyone.

[Terry Fitzgerald]

I just googled 110.3 (B), and it actually came up! Amazing! In (B), it says "Listed or Labeled equipment shall be installed and used in accordance with any instructions included in the Listing or Labeling." In other words, use the product as intended. Unauthorized modifications void the listing. Is this what you were talking about as a code violation?

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry, I'm out-of-town and don't have my NEC with me. This is getting curious for me, and I would like to know how 110 reads. Would it be too much to ask you to post it?

Terry,

From the 2008 NEC (but it's been this way with very little changes for a very long time).

(bold and underlining are mine)
- 110.3 Examination, Identification, Installation, and Use of Equipment.
- (B) Installation and Use. Listed or labeled equipment shall be installed and used in accordance with any instructions included in the listing or labeling.

[Jerry Peck]

I just googled 110.3 (B), and it actually came up! Amazing! In (B), it says "Listed or Labeled equipment shall be installed and used in accordance with any instructions included in the Listing or Labeling." In other words, use the product as intended. Unauthorized modifications void the listing. Is this what you were talking about as a code violation?

(bold and underlining are mine)
- 110.3 Examination, Identification, Installation, and Use of Equipment.
- (B) Installation and Use. Listed or labeled equipment shall be installed and used in accordance with any instructions included in the listing or labeling.

Not only unauthorized modifications, but uses for which it was not approved.

Here is a common example:

Two neutral under one screw. Not only is that a violation of the NEC itself, it also makes the panel 'NOT installed and NOT used' "in accordance with any instructions included in th listing or labeling", thus multiple tapping ALSO makes it a violation of 110.3(B) in addition to the code section against multiple tapping neutrals.

Here is another example:

A panelboard has wiring space "around" the panelboard which is installed in the enclosure. All conductors are to be brought in through proper clamps in the sides, top, or bottom, the labeling on the enclosure depicts the schematic showing the conductors "around" the panel board, not "across" it. That makes the panelboard not installed in accordance with the instructions, which *is not a "violation" of the instructions*, but *is no in "accordance with" the instructions", and, NOT BEING INSTALLED AND USED "in accordance with" the instructions *is the code violation* - 110.3(B).

One can also use common sense on things like that wire, it is cross out the main bus bars, and if the insulation is damaged or nicked, could be energized by those bus bars, making the only protection on that small conductor the main disconnect, the wire would likely arc and burn up long before tripping that main - hopefully ...

[Terry Fitzgerald]

Thanks, Jerry. Since there is no available literature describing how this was designed, is there a clear code or common practice that states you cannot run that conductor as shown? I am not being the least bit argumentative here as I think you are correct, but I'm curious how, in your experience, you think an inspector would react to this. This is a larger question than just this scenario, of course, since we all are faced with local rather than national codes and inspectors that have their own interpretations of the vague stuff.

[Jerry Peck]

Thanks, Jerry. Since there is no available literature describing how this was designed, is there a clear code or common practice that states you cannot run that conductor as shown?

Terry,

The best way to think about this is the way the code addresses them: in two parts.

1) The enclosure.

2) The panelboard.

Install the panelboard into the enclosure, the space "around" the panelboard is the wiring space. No wires should cross the panelboard, either go around it or terminate at a terminal in the panelboard.

Thinking of them that way allows you to visualize that you are 'placing a smaller box (the panelboard) within a larger box (the enclosure)' and the wiring goes around the inner, smaller, box not 'through it'.

[Terry Fitzgerald]

You are certainly right about wires are not to cross the panelboard! Brings back memories of apprenticeship class (lol). Maybe we should ALL go back to basics. You think, then, that an inspector would view this application in that light? I have to admit that I was thinking about the pictures from a safety view such as you described it rather than a particular code. I would still like your comments on a piece of equipment that no longer has the specifications available; is questionable in how it's put together; and how an inspector might react to it if the code is not absolutely clear.

[Jerry Peck]

I would still like your comments on a piece of equipment that no longer has the specifications available; is questionable in how it's put together; and how an inspector might react to it if the code is not absolutely clear.

I would write it up, explain why, and include a statement that when an electrician says "It is okay." that the electrician provide backup documentation for the obvious safety potential of the condition.

Most electricians who might say 'It's okay." instead of just correcting it would likely consider just correcting it anyway rather than have to try to go back and contact the manufacturer or UL and find out that it was not allowed anyway. For something like that wire, it will take less time to just correct it than it would take to say it is okay and then try to defend that.

There will, however, always be some electricians who would rather spend the time trying to defend not doing something than just do it and spend much less time just doing it.

Not having taken photos of every wiring schematic I have seen (probably some, but don't know where they are) the schematics I've seen have always ... ALWAYS ... shown wiring going AROUND the panelboard interior. So my position would be to let them prove otherwise, and, if they by chance were able to prove otherwise (that it was allowed in THAT panel) I would tell my client to pay an electrician to correct it as it is UNSAFE - regardless that it may not have been considered that way 60 years ago - levels of safety have been improved since then, and unsafe things recognized and no longer allowed.

Either way, end result is that it is written up and stays written up.

Just because something may not have been recognized as being unsafe 60 years ago does not now make it safe, it is still unsafe and was back then, only back then no one recognized it as such.

[Terry Fitzgerald]

And your comments on the reactions of inspectors?

[Jerry Peck]

And your comments on the reactions of inspectors?

What type of inspector?

Code inspector? The good ones will take the most restrictive route which is the best route to safety ... and the easiest to defend against when/if a compliant comes in. That is were 110.3(A) comes in.

Home inspector? See above posts.

- 110.3 Examination, Identification, Installation, and Use of Equipment.
- - (A) Examination. In judging equipment, considerations such as the following shall be evaluated:
- - - (1) Suitability for installation and use in conformity with the provisions of this Code
- - - - FPN: Suitability of equipment use may be identified by a description marked on or provided with a product to identify the suitability of the product for a specific purpose, environment, or application. Suitability of equipment may be evidenced by listing or labeling.
- - - (2) Mechanical strength and durability, including, for parts designed to enclose and protect other equipment, the adequacy of the protection thus provided
- - - (3) Wire-bending and connection space
- - - (4) Electrical insulation
- - - (5) Heating effects under normal conditions of use and also under abnormal conditions likely to arise in service
- - - (6) Arcing effects
- - - (7) Classification by type, size, voltage, current capacity, and specific use
- - - (8) Other factors that contribute to the practical safeguarding of persons using or likely to come in contact with the equipment
- - (B) Installation and Use. Listed or labeled equipment shall be installed and used in accordance with any instructions included in the listing or labeling.

[Terry Fitzgerald]

Sorry for not being specific. I meant a building inspector. Since there is no spec sheet on this panel, in your opinion how would the average inspector deal with it? If he chooses to red tag it because of 110.3, how would he go about justifying it? Make the electrician provide the documentation? Since this is an older application, would it be likely to be red-tagged during any future renovation? Please do not misunderstand me, I agree completely with you that this is a potentially dangerous situation. I am just looking for a specific, non-debatable code a building inspector might use in these situations. As good as it is, without the spec sheets, 110.3 (B) seems to me to be open to a bit too much interpretation unless you start consistently turning down anything that is not documented (maybe that's a good idea,anyway) or there is another code that is clearly violated. Your comments?

[Jerry Peck]

Your comments?

My post above - 110.3(A).

[Terry Fitzgerald]

Very well, but specifically what would a building inspector cite in that code to red-tag the job? And, again, if no documentation is available, what is likely to happen? Really, I am more interested in your comments on building inspectors (who, after all, have the final say) and their actions on interpretations of the more vague codes than I am this particular model. I'm really not trying to back you into a corner or bore you. This is a problem active electricians face many times a year, as you well know. Primarily, I ask because I travel around the country teaching residential electricity and get these questions all of the time. Nice to hear someone else's reaction.

[Jerry Peck]

Very well, but specifically what would a building inspector cite in that code to red-tag the job?

I've already stated SPECIFICALLY what could be cited, there are other sections, however, and more importantly ...

... the BUILDING INSPECTOR is not going to be even looking at that panel, not even if there is a fire and the house burns down, then it will be the fire inspector looking at it, and they may determine 'indeterminate cause' or 'there is evidence that a conductor contacted the two bus bars, causing an arc, which was the ignition point in the fire' ... more likely though 'indeterminate cause', possibly adding "electrical in origin'.

This is a problem active electricians face many times a year, as you well know. Primarily, I ask because I travel around the country teaching residential electricity and get these questions all of the time. Nice to hear someone else's reaction.

If an electrical inspector was inspecting the job to help determine what might be included in the remodeling and upgrade work, that panel would most likely be recommended for replacement.

Code inspectors are not out inspecting "old work" unless "new work" is being done, in which case that panel would likely be called for replacement.

Thus I don't follow your premise about the question and its frequency of being asked of electricians. Most likely, the code inspectors would never see it.

If there is any doubt about an electrical installation or electrical equipment, the phrase should always be "correct it" (regarding electrical installation) or "replace it" (regarding electrical equipment).

[Terry Fitzgerald]

Sorry Jerry, but you did not specifically cite a case for red tagging this application (although I think that it ought to be as you said). You cited 110.3 A and B which gives a broad range of reasons. Which specific reasons would the inspector give on the tag? They don't just list a code number. If this thing burned down the house, what specific rather than general code violation would be quoted if the thing wound up in litigation?

If I was the electrician who got red-tagged on this, I would want to know exactly what code violation was being talked about and how to fix it. If it was just an opinion, well...

[Jerry Peck]

Sorry Jerry, but you did not specifically cite a case for red tagging this application (although I think that it ought to be as you said). You cited 110.3 A and B which gives a broad range of reasons. Which specific reasons would the inspector give on the tag? They don't just list a code number. If this thing burned down the house, what specific rather than general code violation would be quoted if the thing wound up in litigation?

110.3(B) is a SPECIFIC code number reference and not a general code number reference and it is a SPECIFIC code reference and not a general code reference.

What is it that you do not understand about:

(bold and underlining are mine)
- 110.3 Examination, Identification, Installation, and Use of Equipment.
- (B) Installation and Use. Listed or labeled equipment shall be installed and used in accordance with any instructions included in the listing or labeling.

?????

If I was the electrician who got red-tagged on this, I would want to know exactly what code violation was being talked about and how to fix it. If it was just an opinion, well...

Like I said, what do you not understand about "Listed or labeled equipment shall be installed and used in accordance with any instructions included in the listing or labeling."????

If you were an electrician and got red tagged on that, then the panel would be NEW, and the label would be RIGHT THERE, but you are addressing this as OLD with the label MISSING, in which case ... I get back to 'why would be red tagged on it by the CODE inspector?

Your premise and question does not follow through and make sense.

You are talking about 1) code inspectors, then 2) old work with labels missing, then 3) red tag for new work????

If the CODE inspector red tagged NEW WORK because the label was missing, you would replace the equipment, or be required to show that it meet the code and was indeed listed and labeled equipment and installed in accordance with its listing and labeling.

But your premise and question is mixing code inspectors with old work and red tags ... ????

Provide a specific example of such a situation and I may be able to answer your question as it may then make sense and follow through the sequence, but asking a GENERAL question and expecting a SPECIFIC response is like asking for a nail and being given a 16d and you saying, no, that is not THE NAIL I asked for, I want THE NAIL I asked for ... yet you only asked for A NAIL.

Do you see where the problem with your question and premise is?

[Terry Fitzgerald]

Sorry that you seem to be having a problem following me. I thought that we talking about a specific problem in the panel where the black wire crosses through those holes and above the busses. You were talking to Bill Kriegh about this earlier in the posting. You cited 101.3 B as the code violation. I am simply asking where in this general code is the violation to this specific application. Is this specifically addressed or is it just a general statement? If so, where is it specifically addressed? If documentation is needed and is not available (as I think is suggested) then how is this handled by anyone in authority who has to deal with it? Let me be as specific as I can: if there is going to be an upgrade that will be inspected such as a new circuit run off this panel, what SPECIFIC code violation will be cited to make the homeowner replace this panel as you suggested? In the real world where we still have to do this stuff and deal with codes and inspectors, the normal electrician would just mutter and fix the blasted thing. Since I both teach and still have to pull wire, I'm curious about the mindset that we sometimes find in inspectors who have a predisposition towards something and cite some general code to get their way. Many times, they are right (as we agree they would be in this case we're talking about), but I think that they should have to give a very clear, precise reason for what they demand. Do you agree?

[Jerry Peck]

Sorry that you seem to be having a problem following me. I thought that we talking about a specific problem in the panel where the black wire crosses through those holes and above the busses.

We were, then you started asking about code inspectors ... and what they ask of electricians ... and neither would be occurring over that black conductor as the code inspector would not be out there looking at the old panel with no label.

Agreed?

[Terry Fitzgerald]

Yepper...as I tried to say, I'm more interested in hearing about your general experiences with inspection departments than this particular problem. Obviously, I rambled a bit too much.

However, I noticed this thread because when you were talking to Bill earlier, you cited 110.3 (B) as the violation for the horizontal black wire. I was curious about that so I looked it up and did not see a specific violation referring to that wire. Bill said something to the effect that although it was a very poor job, he did not think it was an actual code violation. You were quite adament that it was covered by 110.3.

Please show me specifically, not in general language, where the violation is in 110.3 a or b. Again, let me say that I think that you are absolutely right in your conclusion about the wire. Bill also seemed to agree, but both of us also seem to wonder exactly where or if this is addressed.

[Jerry Peck]

You were talking to Bill Kriegh about this earlier in the posting. You cited 101.3 B as the code violation. I am simply asking where in this general code is the violation to this specific application.

The specific application is that conductor we are talking about crossing "through" the panelboard area over those exposed energized bus bars and that the installation instructions and labeling on the panel would show the wire ways to be around the panelboard interior.

Is this specifically addressed or is it just a general statement?

That would be specifically addressed in the labeling and would be not installed as specifically addressed, which means it would not be in accordance with the listing and labeling instructions which means it would be a code violation of the specific, while also being general, the specific code requirements of 110.3(B).

If so, where is it specifically addressed?

In the labeling on/in the panelboard and any other instructions which came with the panelboard.

If documentation is needed and is not available (as I think is suggested) then how is this handled by anyone in authority who has to deal with it?

That is where 110.3(A) came in, which is also specific, while also being general, specific in what to address for conformance.

Let me be as specific as I can: if there is going to be an upgrade that will be inspected such as a new circuit run off this panel, what SPECIFIC code violation will be cited to make the homeowner replace this panel as you suggested?

In the real world the "new circuit" would be inspected by the inspector, they may, or may not, be concerned if the "new circuit" is or is not on a "new breaker" as there is not going to be an overloaded panel regardless. Most circuits are so lightly loaded that adding another circuit and tying it to an existing circuit with another conductor which is then run to the breaker eliminates the multiple tapping which would have otherwise occurred, and it would be up to the electrician to verify before hand that the circuit (the existing and new circuit combined) would not cause overloading and tripping of the existing breaker.

In the real world where we still have to do this stuff and deal with codes and inspectors, the normal electrician would just mutter and fix the blasted thing.

Which, as I have said in previous posts, is what would likely happen.

The electrician could, however, track down the original listing and labeling information and, if it supports his position of leaving the wire there, he could then show that to the inspector and say "I told you it was okay.", however, being as that would be very difficult to do, both in finding the old listing and labeling which information which was missing and expecting it to say you could run a conductor across those exposed energized bus bars, the electrician takes the easy way out and makes the repair.

The equipment is supposed to be permanently labeled with its listing information, and if that listing information is missing, then it "may not even be listed" ... or it could have been, but how do you now prove it?

A difficult position to be in, and, if listing and labeling cannot be confirmed, then it is entirely reasonable for the inspector to request, and the electrician to comply with that request, either listing and labeling information, independent listing as installed, or replacement, at the electricians option.

One of my doctors has an old x-ray equipment in one of his offices, probably $40,000 when he bought it 20 years ago, and it is still used for special uses for which newer equipment is not needed. He relocated his office to another building nearby and the equipment was reinstalled as it had originally been installed.

The inspector had nothing to check and verify its installation to, so the inspector gave him the choice of obtaining the old listing information (from who knows where, the company which made it was in Germany and no longer in business) or having it inspected by a NRTL as installed on site.

The equipment was probably only worth about $2,000, if that (but to replace it would be $60,000), so he had a NRTL send an engineer down and inspect it and certify it. Sure, that cost more than the equipment was worth, but much less than replacing it.

Granted, that would not be worthwhile for a panelboard, so the panelboard gets replaced.

Since I both teach and still have to pull wire, I'm curious about the mindset that we sometimes find in inspectors who have a predisposition toward something and cite some general code to get their way. Many times, they are right (as we agree they would be in this case we're talking about), but I think that they should have to give a very clear, precise reason for what they demand. Do you agree?

I agree, and 110.3.(B) is a very precise code reference, one which I do not understand why you do not understand it. If anything about the installation is not in accordance with the listing and labeling, then it is NOT installed in accordance with ITS LISTING AND LABELING, and THAT is the very precise, yet also general, nature of 110.3(B).

That is the part I do not get, why you do not get that.

[Jerry Peck]

Please show me specifically, not in general language, where the violation is in 110.3 a or b. Again, let me say that I think that you are absolutely right in your conclusion about the wire. Bill also seemed to agree, but both of us also seem to wonder exactly where or if this is addressed.

Terry,

I was typing my last post (I wanted the last two posts to be separate) while you were responding.

If that post does not address this, I will try again to address it.

[Terry Fitzgerald]

Thank you Jerry. That was a very detailed explanation. The only problem I see is that it still leaves the question up in the air until the documentation is found. While it does say exactly what you say, it is in essence saying, "I'm not going to say you are wrong until you prove you are right." It does not address the specific problem of the horizontal wire but rather talks in a general way about anything dealing with the installation and wiring of the panel. It does not specifically say that wire cannot be horizontal. That is what I have been getting at. That is what I mean by a "general" or "specific" statement.

If I go to 110.3 A or B to find out if that wire is correct, what I find is that I have to have documentation to prove it is correct. Now, if I have to prove it is correct, that means that it is not specifically addressed or I would not have to prove it. It would already be there. If it might be right, how do I know it's wrong? It's not specifically stated in the code that we can't have that wire the way it is. It boils down to documentation, and that failing, to someone's experience which may or may not be fallible.

In this instance, it would not take much of an electrician to see it's messed up, but since the code does not specifically state "Thou shalt not have a horizontal conductor there", it is not an actual code violation until proven beyond 110.3. Chances are that even if you can find the specs, it won't address the issue and the description of the violation will be somewhere else. If you can't find the specs, then you still can't use 110.3 because it is open ended until you DO find them and will have to show the violation somewhere else.

I can't believe that somewhere in the 100's of pages of the 2008 NEC (thank goodness for tabs for the book) there isn't a clause dealing with horizontal conductors across the face of the busses. Gotta be there, but I don't remember where. If you went through apprenticeship, you KNOW they taught it there.

[Terry Fitzgerald]

Oh, by the way Jerry, you had some really good stuff in that post. Really, those were the kind of replies and stories I was hoping for. Good class material!

[Jerry Peck]

The only problem I see is that it still leaves the question up in the air until the documentation is found. While it does say exactly what you say, it is in essence saying, "I'm not going to say you are wrong until you prove you are right."

Actually it does the opposite. It says "I'm saying you are wrong. You make corrections or prove to me you are right."

It does not address the specific problem of the horizontal wire but rather talks in a general way about anything dealing with the installation and wiring of the panel. It does not specifically say that wire cannot be horizontal. That is what I have been getting at. That is what I mean by a "general" or "specific" statement.

To the contrary, it says that it cannot be that way because nothing says it can be that way, and, being as it cannot be that way, it is therefore wrong.

Again, go to 110.3(A) (see it in my other posts) for how to determine if it is right or wrong, and it is wrong in several ways, so, it is wrong ... unless you can prove it is right.

[Jerry Peck]

I can't believe that somewhere in the 100's of pages of the 2008 NEC (thank goodness for tabs for the book) there isn't a clause dealing with horizontal conductors across the face of the busses. Gotta be there, but I don't remember where.

Terry,

Why should it be there?

Similar to the old (and now specifically addressed) "only one conductor per terminal -*which included neutral conductors* - " language "unless so identified".

And no manufacturer identified their terminals for more than one neutral conductor, however, it allowed for such confusion on the part of so many that the code itself now say 'only one neutral conductor per terminal'.

You sound like the kind of person who wants to take common sense and basic construction knowledge and throw it away and instead have every conceivable circumstance SPECIFICALLY addressed in the code.

If there were done, the code would be larger than the 32 volume set Encyclopedia Britannica, then you would complain because it was so large you could not find what you were looking for.

The code DOES NOT, CANNOT, address stupidity or common sense (lack thereof). The code would be unusably large if it were to even attempt such.

[Terry Fitzgerald]

Ok, Jerry. If we've gotten to the point of having to explain the basics of logic and syllogisms, then we're not getting anywhere.

Take care and let's remain friends.

[Jerry Peck]

Ok, Jerry. If we've gotten to the point of having to explain the basics of logic and syllogisms, then we're not getting anywhere.

Agreed, I kept wondering why I had to ... "explain the basics of logic and syllogisms" to those basic questions you kept asking over and over, and I definitely felt like I was "not getting anywhere".

[Terry Fitzgerald]

Your ego just won't let go will it? Why couldn't you just accept my friendly answer? Please don't write back.

[Jerry Peck]

Your ego just won't let go will it? Why couldn't you just accept my friendly answer? Please don't write back.

Terry,

No ego, you responded, so when I came back on I responded.

Are you saying that your ego cannot accept a reply? Sheesh!

[Ted Menelly]

Agreed, I kept wondering why I had to ... "explain the basics of logic and syllogisms" to those basic questions you kept asking over and over, and I definitely felt like I was "not getting anywhere".

You folks are really ticking me off

"syllogisms"

1. "Logic. A form of deductive reasoning consisting of a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion; for example, All humans are mortal, the major premise, I am a human, the minor premise, therefore, I am mortal, the conclusion.
2. Reasoning from the general to the specific; deduction.
3. A subtle or specious piece of reasoning. "

Do not make me look up another word!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nobody talks like that. The only ones that do are those that wish to try to impress morons like me and I take offense to it.

[Billy Stephens]

You folks are really ticking me off

"Do not make me look up another word!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nobody talks like that.

The only ones that do are those that wish to try to impress morons like me and I take offense to it.

.
Take a Half a breath Ted.
* words be Good for Ted.
.

[Ted Menelly]

.
Take a Half a breath Ted.
* words be Good for Ted.
.

Breath taken

They bein a hurtin my brainy cells with dem big woyds

[Jerry Peck]

Do not make me look up another word!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Stay calm, Ted, relax, breathe deeply and slowly, ... I had to look it up too.

Nobody talks like that. The only ones that do are those that wish to try to impress morons like me and I take offense to it.

I feel the same way, but to respond I had to look it up, and, no, I will not likely remember it and will have to look it up again the next time someone uses it.

I use simple words, 'such as git yer finger outta yer nose, tain't time fer suppr yet'.