# What's more dangerous?



## Wpgshocker (Jan 25, 2013)

Imagine pushing in a breaker, everything is great. Unbeknownst to you, this old panel had worn almost all the way through the insulation between the buss and the back of the panel. That little push you gave the breaker was the preverbal straw that broke the camel's back. 

BOOM.... 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

That would depend on the available energy for the service. I would bet that in many cases the explosive energy of a battery would exceed that of a residential service for a single dwelling. It would likely be the other way around for larger multi-family dwelling unit services.


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

Also no acid spray involved in an arc flash.


----------



## ELECTRICK2 (Feb 21, 2015)

Wpgshocker said:


> Imagine pushing in a breaker, everything is great. Unbeknownst to you, this old panel had worn almost all the way through the insulation between the buss and the back of the panel. That little push you gave the breaker was the preverbal straw that broke the camel's back.
> 
> BOOM....
> 
> ...


I assume by your response you think changing a breaker is more dangerous.
Let's assume the car, panel, battery and breaker are all new and in good shape.....


----------



## Speedy Petey (Jan 10, 2007)

I also would put jump-starting a car as definitely more dangerous than replacing a 120V breaker in a 120/240V residential panel.


----------



## ELECTRICK2 (Feb 21, 2015)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> That would depend on the available energy for the service. I would bet that in many cases the explosive energy of a battery would exceed that of a residential service for a single dwelling. It would likely be the other way around for larger multi-family dwelling unit services.


Good point about the available power but since you are on the load side of the main breaker there is some protection. A battery there is no protection.
I probably didn't phrase my original question properly.
When is your sphincter tighter, changing a breaker or boosting a vehicle?


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

ELECTRICK2 said:


> Good point about the available power but since you are on the load side of the main breaker there is some protection. A battery there is no protection.
> I probably didn't phrase my original question properly.
> When is your sphincter tighter, changing a breaker or boosting a vehicle?


Neither, done correctly, both are safe.


----------



## controlled (Mar 22, 2011)

backstay said:


> Neither, done correctly, both are safe.


I know this thread is a few months old, but what is the correct way to change a breaker in a live panel???


----------



## Going_Commando (Oct 1, 2011)

I have no qualms doing either, so i cant really answer the question.


----------



## zac (May 11, 2009)

Going_Commando said:


> I have no qualms doing either, so i cant really answer the question.


But you just did! 


Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

silly question. both can do serious harm, both can have fatal operator error. the car (generally) speaking has more potential for multiple points of failure (not the least of which is error by parties not even involved, but the question is general and has no benefit to being answered, even if the answer was completely technically correct. Each procedure has to be done carefully, with skill, and with appropriate safety measures in force, and each can fail and do great harm.

similar question to point out the point:


What's more fun, a roller coaster or jet ski ?

etc.


----------



## ELECTRICK2 (Feb 21, 2015)

wildleg said:


> silly question. both can do serious harm, both can have fatal operator error. the car (generally) speaking has more potential for multiple points of failure (not the least of which is error by parties not even involved, but the question is general and has no benefit to being answered, even if the answer was completely technically correct. Each procedure has to be done carefully, with skill, and with appropriate safety measures in force, and each can fail and do great harm.
> 
> similar question to point out the point:
> 
> ...


 When I phrased the question "which is more dangerous" maybe I should have said which is more hazardous. My point being how many mechanics gear up with arc flash stuff to boost a car?


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

We had a welder up high belvee a battery on his manlift , the blast deafened everyone on the jobsite for a minute or two (enclosed big box store) , as well as send acid in a 30' radius 'effin the floor up

The only injury was ...our pride.....~CS~


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

controlled said:


> I know this thread is a few months old, but what is the correct way to change a breaker in a live panel???


There is one. The correct method is to kill the power ahead of the panel.


----------



## joebanana (Dec 21, 2010)

Big John said:


> Also no acid spray involved in an arc flash.


But I'm allergic to vaporized copper.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Yeah, my apprentice is on me all the time for that Don :whistling2:

I agree, and am thankful some things will change for the better in terms of safety in this trade :thumbsup:

~CS~


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> Yeah, my apprentice is on me all the time for that Don :whistling2:
> 
> I agree, and am thankful some things will change for the better in terms of safety in this trade :thumbsup:
> 
> ~CS~


New panels will make it easier. The UL standard for service panels has been revised to require the service OCPD to be in a separate enclosure within the service panel. Not sure when those panels will hit the market.


----------



## papaotis (Jun 8, 2013)

probly about a year after the code goes in affect!:whistling2:


----------



## frenchelectrican (Mar 15, 2007)

Hint.. Just look at our nortthen neghobors panels .. They seperated it for a quite a while..


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

Speedy Petey said:


> I also would put jump-starting a car as definitely more dangerous than replacing a 120V breaker in a 120/240V residential panel.



Unless its FPE :laughing::jester::jester:


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> Yeah, my apprentice is on me all the time for that Don :whistling2:
> 
> I agree, and am thankful some things will change for the better in terms of safety in this trade :thumbsup:
> 
> ~CS~



Listen to your apprentice. Words from an innocent mind are the ultimate source knowledge. :thumbsup::yes:


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> New panels will make it easier. The UL standard for service panels has been revised to require the service OCPD to be in a separate enclosure within the service panel. Not sure when those panels will hit the market.



:hang:


What do you know about this... As this could either be a really good idea, or a really bad one.


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

Speedy Petey said:


> I also would put jump-starting a car as definitely more dangerous than replacing a 120V breaker in a 120/240V residential panel.


Petey you said a mouthful.
I have seen the results of this procedure gone wrong on first aid calls.


----------



## j johnson (Jul 20, 2009)

changing pushmatic breaker in a 1954sh panel with no main!


----------



## zac (May 11, 2009)

j johnson said:


> changing pushmatic breaker in a 1954sh panel with no main!


Those busters have 2 screws too!
I pull the meter out. 

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

AcidTrip said:


> :hang:
> 
> 
> What do you know about this... As this could either be a really good idea, or a really bad one.


A_ good_ idea, if it sugars off to the Canadian model AT.....~CS~


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> A_ good_ idea, if it sugars off to the Canadian model AT.....~CS~



Perhaps, but what about know having to enter side ways?


----------



## B-Nabs (Jun 4, 2014)

AcidTrip said:


> Perhaps, but what about know having to enter side ways?


You don't "have to" install them sideways. Matter of fact, in my neck of the woods, it's downright uncommon. I think I've only ever seen one or two sideways panels in the flesh.

IMO the separate enclosure for the service breaker is a good idea.


----------



## B-Nabs (Jun 4, 2014)

I was on a trip to Mexico a few years back, during which we had rented a house from an expat American couple. They had told us we were welcome to use their minivan to explore the area, which we had been doing every day on the trip up to the time the following happened: One day we decided to take a little road trip to the next closest city, which was about an hour drive away. We got there, had lunch, looked around a bit, etc. When we went back to the van to go back to our house, we found it wouldn't start. There was a mechanic shop across the street, so my mom, the one with the best command of Spanish, went over and explained the situation. Bafflingly, they didn't have jumper cables, nor a jumpstart pack. In the end, they removed the battery from a vehicle they were working on, carried it across the street, and the mechanic proceeded to TURN IT UPSIDE DOWN so that he could touch the terminals of the two batteries together while my dad cranked the engine. It started, and nobody died, but needless to say I was standing a way off grumbling my objections to the whole procedure.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

B-Nabs said:


> You don't "have to" install them sideways. Matter of fact, in my neck of the woods, it's downright uncommon. I think I've only ever seen one or two sideways panels in the flesh.
> 
> IMO the separate enclosure for the service breaker is a good idea.



oK, I will ask... is there a history of people being injured or fires starting from an un-shielded main? Id vote shielded lugs, but an enclosure is off the wall imo.


----------



## Bruce's Spruce (Mar 21, 2016)

Knowing two gentlemen who have exploded otherwise innocuous-looking batteries near their faces, I would vote for the jump-start. All it takes is one shorted bus to case to make either a vicious injury.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

AcidTrip said:


> :hang:
> 
> 
> What do you know about this... As this could either be a really good idea, or a really bad one.


Well, it is my understanding that it is somewhat based on proposals I have submitted for the NEC for the past 3 code cycles. 

It should be a lot like what Canada has been using for years. The line side terminations and the main breaker are in an enclosure within the main enclosure. When the main is turned off, there are no accessible live parts in the panel, unless you take off an additional cover.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

AcidTrip said:


> oK, I will ask... is there a history of people being injured or fires starting from an un-shielded main? Id vote shielded lugs, but an enclosure is off the wall imo.


The real issue is that it is impossible to do work in a panel that contains the service disconnect and be in compliance with the electrical safe work rules unless you have the utility kill the line side power. We all know that is not going to happen for most work. With the service disconnect isolated from the rest of the panel, you can turn it off and work in the panel and comply with the electrical safe work rules without involving the utility.


----------



## dawgs (Dec 1, 2007)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> Well, it is my understanding that it is somewhat based on proposals I have submitted for the NEC for the past 3 code cycles. It should be a lot like what Canada has been using for years. The line side terminations and the main breaker are in an enclosure within the main enclosure. When the main is turned off, there are no accessible live parts in the panel, unless you take off an additional cover.


I have always wondered why panel were not designed that way in the first place. I would believe that one of these cycles your proposal will go through. With the rules of NFPA70E and osha.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

dawgs said:


> I have always wondered why panel were not designed that way in the first place. I would believe that one of these cycles your proposal will go through. With the rules of NFPA70E and osha.


With the change in the UL standard for service equipment, I don't think I will re-submit my proposal. Listed service equipment will meet the new standard and the problem will go away.


----------



## Mshea (Jan 17, 2011)

Depends on the user. Both have great potential to alter your life for the worse. by taking the safest approach I think they both can be done reasonably safe but only the house panel must be shut off in our rules.
Be darn careful with that last connection.


----------



## emtnut (Mar 1, 2015)

ELECTRICK2 said:


> You have to change a breaker in a live 120/240 residential panel.
> You have to boost a vehicle.
> Thoughts?


I'd go with boosting a vehicle.
Maybe it's cause I know more about electricity than chemistry ... 

Anytime I've had to boost someone, I always ask them why their battery is dead. If they left lights on... fairly safe. If they say it suddenly died .. then call a tow truck.
I never leave my engine running while boosting .... I like my alternator the way it is 
Either way, I make the last connection at MY truck ... at least I'm a few feet away :blink:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

AcidTrip said:


> Perhaps, but what about know having to enter side ways?


We got plenty of Northern brothers that'll help us figure it out AT
:thumbsup:
~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> With the change in the UL standard for service equipment, I don't think I will re-submit my proposal. Listed service equipment will meet the new standard and the problem will go away.


May I be the first to thank you as I suspect you may have had a hand shaming them into it Don :thumbsup:~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

emtnut said:


> I'd go with boosting a vehicle.
> Maybe it's cause I know more about electricity than chemistry ...
> 
> Anytime I've had to boost someone, I always ask them why their battery is dead. If they left lights on... fairly safe. If they say it suddenly died .. then call a tow truck.
> ...


A friend broke down in city traffic , and was under his hood trying different things while asking his wife in the car to '_try it_' , when he noticed the bum coil wire.

W/o thinking he took it off the distributor , and having no tools decides to strip it with his teeth

His wife, thinking his grunts translated to _'try it'_ , did just that:whistling2:

problem was, he never removed said wire from the coil.....::no:~CS~:laughing:


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> Well, it is my understanding that it is somewhat based on proposals I have submitted for the NEC for the past 3 code cycles.
> 
> It should be a lot like what Canada has been using for years. The line side terminations and the main breaker are in an enclosure within the main enclosure. When the main is turned off, there are no accessible live parts in the panel, unless you take off an additional cover.




Why not just shield the lugs?


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> The real issue is that it is impossible to do work in a panel that contains the service disconnect and be in compliance with the electrical safe work rules unless you have the utility kill the line side power. We all know that is not going to happen for most work. With the service disconnect isolated from the rest of the panel, you can turn it off and work in the panel and comply with the electrical safe work rules without involving the utility.



I work in live panels all the time and know enough not to touch without insulated tools or short out the main lugs.


----------



## BlackHowling (Feb 27, 2013)

AcidTrip said:


> Why not just shield the lugs?



I Thoth I heard/read at some point that the separate enclosure was to protected the unfused conductors as well as guarding against live parts. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

It's a sub-cover deal, quite simple in fact.....:thumbsup: i just can't seem to google one this a.m.....

*Could a kind Canadian please post a pix of a Canadian panel* for educational purposes _(rumor is we can be taught....)_:whistling2:~CS~


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

AcidTrip said:


> I work in live panels all the time and know enough not to touch without insulated tools or short out the main lugs.


You can do whatever you want to, but, in general, work in energized panels is not permitted by the electrical safe work rules. 

With the current design of service panels there is no way to follow the rules and work in the service panel unless you get the utility to kill the power. 

The new design lets you comply with the electrical safe work rules without having to involve the utility.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> You can do whatever you want to, but, in general, work in energized panels is not permitted by the electrical safe work rules.
> 
> With the current design of service panels there is no way to follow the rules and work in the service panel unless you get the utility to kill the power.
> 
> The new design lets you comply with the electrical safe work rules without having to involve the utility.



Cant shield main lugs do the same?


----------



## Going_Commando (Oct 1, 2011)

Big whoop. Its done every day. So now the top of the panel is covered so we get to come into the sides and fight 8,000,000 afci breakers? Thats going to be just ducky. Cant fricken wait.


----------



## Wpgshocker (Jan 25, 2013)

chicken steve said:


> It's a sub-cover deal, quite simple in fact.....:thumbsup: i just can't seem to google one this a.m.....
> 
> 
> 
> *Could a kind Canadian please post a pix of a Canadian panel* for educational purposes _(rumor is we can be taught....)_:whistling2:~CS~



Like this?











Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## B-Nabs (Jun 4, 2014)

Going_Commando said:


> Big whoop. Its done every day. So now the top of the panel is covered so we get to come into the sides and fight 8,000,000 afci breakers? Thats going to be just ducky. Cant fricken wait.


Not that it would help with a panel swap, but if you're setting a new panel, you could have the main on the bottom. That's how I like to arrange mine.


----------



## Going_Commando (Oct 1, 2011)

B-Nabs said:


> Not that it would help with a panel swap, but if you're setting a new panel, you could have the main on the bottom. That's how I like to arrange mine.


It will probably be easier just to set a meter/main outside versus trying to make that soup sandwich work in a basement. I hate the UL more and more every day.


----------

