Yes it was and I expect it to be just as neat when they do it over.jar546 said:It was done neatly
The neutral violation that I see is what Chris pointed out. If that is not the fatal flaw then I would like to know what is? Bends like that we mention not to do again but let go.ICE said:Yes it was and I expect it to be just as neat when they do it over.I do see a neutral violation but that would be easy to fix.
Some of the bends are too tight. But that's not the fatal flaw either.
I believe correcting 200.2(B) will automatically correct 250.24(A)rnapier said:If those bare wires are GEC than it also is a 250.24(A) violation.
What code section would pertain to the bends?jar546 said:The neutral violation that I see is what Chris pointed out. If that is not the fatal flaw then I would like to know what is? Bends like that we mention not to do again but let go. I am assuming this is not a subfed panel.
This guy ^jj1289 said:Don't forget to check the number of mini breakers permitted in the panel by the mfg.
But they all come in their own raceway?....300.3?rshuey said:So they braided all of the grounding conductors together to look pretty?
If you enlarge the pic enough you can see a bus running between the bottoms of the neutral bars.TimNY said:Does the mfr allow field modification of the panelboard?Would the 200.2(B) violation be corrected by running a conductor from one bar to the other? Chris says it's not a violation.. so is it an issue or no?
Thanks, Chris. If there were no bus between them, could a conductor be run between them to satisfy the requirement?chris kennedy said:If you enlarge the pic enough you can see a bus running between the bottoms of the neutral bars.