# Bonding



## 51360 (Jun 9, 2014)

Ok, let's start it off with. We all know the code!

But, why do you think it's important that the ground only be bonded at the main service?

I have seen many times, on older services and older systems, where this is NOT done! I will post pictures when I figure out my iPad copy and paste issues! 

Thanks, Borgi


----------



## 51360 (Jun 9, 2014)

Oops

To clarify. I am sure most of you understand what I meant, but there are many nit pickers who will not.

The neutral should only be grounded and bonded at the main point of supply. We all know the code, so let's not quivel!

Thanks, Borgi


----------



## Big Pickles (Oct 25, 2014)

You don't want current on the grounding conductor , only the grounded conductor. It is not good for electronics to have that magnetic field either.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

If it is bonded anywhere else, even accidentally, if the grounded conductor connections fails on that circuit, then all metallic surfaces on that circuit will now become energized to full line potential.


----------



## 51360 (Jun 9, 2014)

Big Pickles said:


> You don't want current on the grounding conductor , only the grounded conductor. It is not good for electronics to have that magnetic field either.


I know what you meant. 

If the neutral is solidly bonded to ground, how does current flow in the ground? Unless there is a fault, and all the wires mysteriously got disconnected.

Trust me, I have lost this arguement with customers many times! :laughing:

Thanks, Borgi


----------



## 51360 (Jun 9, 2014)

mcclary's electrical said:


> If it is bonded anywhere else, even accidentally, if the grounded conductor connections fails on that circuit, then all metallic surfaces on that circuit will now become energized to full line potential.


I was posting when you posted. I agree!

But, all the wires must have failed as well. The neutral, the ground, the conduit if it applies. 

Thanks, Borgi


----------



## BSK3720 (Mar 29, 2014)

Bonding in more than one place provides parallel paths back to the source. The current WILL take both paths. Now you have neutral current flowing on grounded parts - the housing of the washer, the building steel, ductwork, etc. The code refers to this as "objectionable current". The thing to keep in mind is that by bundling conductors together in a conduit or cable, the EMFs cancel each other. When we allow neutral current on grounded parts, the fields no longer cancel.


----------



## 51360 (Jun 9, 2014)

BSK3720 said:


> Bonding in more than one place provides parallel paths back to the source. The current WILL take both paths. Now you have neutral current flowing on grounded parts - the housing of the washer, the building steel, ductwork, etc. The code refers to this as "objectionable current". The thing to keep in mind is that by bundling conductors together in a conduit or cable, the EMFs cancel each other. When we allow neutral current on grounded parts, the fields no longer cancel.


I agree, not sure that emf makes a difference unless over 200 amps, but not the thread issue.

The solidly grounded neutral will never allow current on the bond wire. NEVER?
Unless the neutral get's disconnected! 

Good input!

Thanks, Borgi


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

It's a common misunderstanding that a sole MBJ mitigates all _'return current'_, up to and including Mr Kirchoffs take.

The serving Xformer will entertain all avenues_ relevant _to their impedance.:thumbsup:

The existence of M.E.N. within any given structure, basically turns the entire metallic portion of _and/or _metallic infrastructure into a noodle is a grand example:whistling2:

This is something i've read to be more prevalent on this side of the pond, as opposed to our euro counterparts _(any of you foreign devils who wish to opine on the errors of our ways ,please feel free)_:whistling2:

That we seem to have no compunction earthing multiple noodles for SDS's , while insisting the electrons will all behave _'to code'_ is somewhat a stretch :no:

~CS~


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

Borgi said:


> I agree, not sure that emf makes a difference unless over 200 amps, but not the thread issue.
> 
> The solidly grounded neutral will never allow current on the bond wire. NEVER?
> Unless the neutral get's disconnected!
> ...


Not true. In a city with municipal water, I've seen 1/2 current on the grounded conductor, and 1/2 on the gec.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

The water dept hates us....

but boy have they saved some serious appliances and sensitive electronics in those storm damage deals.....:thumbsup:

~CS~


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

Borgi said:


> Ok, let's start it off with. We all know the code!
> 
> But, why do you think it's important that the ground only be bonded at the main service?
> 
> ...


Parallel circuit currents on the egc comes to mind.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> The water dept hates us....
> 
> but boy have they saved some serious appliances and sensitive electronics in those storm damage deals.....:thumbsup:
> 
> ~CS~


Amen steve


----------



## 51360 (Jun 9, 2014)

mcclary's electrical said:


> Not true. In a city with municipal water, I've seen 1/2 current on the grounded conductor, and 1/2 on the gec.


Ok, it's possible. How? 

If the neutral is grounded properly, how does current split, unless !

Prove it!:laughing:


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

RIVETER said:


> Parallel circuit currents on the egc comes to mind.


Whats wrong with a parallel egc? To be the guru, you shouldn't me mixing terminology. ...


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

RIVETER said:


> Parallel circuit currents on the egc comes to mind.


Except that is not really a parallel run. They are only connected in the panel no different than if you wired the circuit to a main panel. 

I really doubt this is a big issue but it is not allowed. If the conductors are landed on the bars I believe most of the current will travel back to the main panel and not go thru the panel can. I guess there is a potential for trouble


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

mcclary's electrical said:


> Whats wrong with a parallel egc? To be the guru, you shouldn't me mixing terminology. ...


Don't know what you mixed as far as terminology but, in a way, you are correct if you are wondering what the heck could go wrong. However, bottom line is that if and when someone comes in contact with what they consider a safe wire because it is grounded and it is actually a "parallel" circuit conductor...AND they get in series with that current. what do you suppose could happen?:thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## 51360 (Jun 9, 2014)

RIVETER said:


> Don't know what you mixed as far as terminology but, in a way, you are correct if you are wondering what the heck could go wrong. However, bottom line is that if and when someone comes in contact with what they consider a safe wire because it is grounded and it is actually a "parallel" circuit conductor...AND they get in series with that current. what do you suppose could happen?:thumbsup::thumbsup:


I think all electricians at this site understand that, but it is highly unlikely, and I don't see it as that important!

I hot wire livens the can of a panel, or tries. If the neutral is properly grounded, trip! 

Just stirring the pot! :laughing:


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Riveter is correct that if you break a splice on the equipment grounding conductor in a jb there is a potential for shock if you grab the equipment grounding conductor and touch another ground but the neutral will take most of the current is going to the source where there is less impedance.


----------



## BSK3720 (Mar 29, 2014)

Sounds "objectionable" to me!


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

Borgi said:


> I think all electricians at this site understand that, but it is highly unlikely, and I don't see it as that important!
> 
> I hot wire livens the can of a panel, or tries. If the neutral is properly grounded, trip!
> 
> Just stirring the pot! :laughing:


Let me give you an example. You are running a new circuit above the lay-in ceiling at a mall store that was built in the seventies when the neutral was usually a bare wire. Now, you are up in the ceiling on a twelve foot ladder and trying not to look towards the women's changing room over to the right and you notice an emt pipe pulled slightly apart and you reach over to just pull them together with both hands because there are no girls in the change room anyway


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

Dennis Alwon said:


> Except that is not really a parallel run. They are only connected in the panel no different than if you wired the circuit to a main panel.
> 
> I really doubt this is a big issue but it is not allowed. If the conductors are landed on the bars I believe most of the current will travel back to the main panel and not go thru the panel can. I guess there is a potential for trouble


Your last sentence is totally correct.:thumbsup:


----------



## BSK3720 (Mar 29, 2014)

:laughing:


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

Dennis Alwon said:


> Riveter is correct that if you break a splice on the equipment grounding conductor in a jb there is a potential for shock if you grab the equipment grounding conductor and touch another ground but the neutral will take most of the current is going to the source where there is less impedance.


On this site we talk a lot about loose neutrals...As you said, the potential is there for a problem so it is important to keep it in mind about the separation of the egc from the neutral except at the panel.:thumbsup:


----------



## 51360 (Jun 9, 2014)

Larks aside, let me give you a real life example.

I work from time to time at a campsite that has three 200 amp panels in the field. I considered them sub panels fed from the main. There is no seperate grounding at the sub.

Anyway, the neutral is isolated, but for some reason, a bonding jumper is installed from the neutral to case.

Now, I tell the customer that that is a no no. He asks why?

That is why I started this thread!

A wire livens up faulty equipment fed from the 200 amp sub in the camp ground. How does the breaker not trip, or put voltage on any non-current carrying metal, exposing persons to risk of electrocution?

Have at it! 

Thanks, Borgi


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

Borgi said:


> Ok, it's possible. How?
> 
> If the neutral is grounded properly, how does current split, unless !
> 
> Prove it!:laughing:


Electricity takes "all possible paths". This is literally infinity number of paths back to the source, especially when soil is entered into the equitation.


The old "path of least resistance" is simply ...... not true.


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

Borgi said:


> Larks aside, let me give you a real life example.
> 
> I work from time to time at a campsite that has three 200 amp panels in the field. I considered them sub panels fed from the main. There is no seperate grounding at the sub.
> 
> ...


I'll have a try. Any current in a circuit will flow from the source back to the source of it's voltage. It is intended for the current to go to the load...and then back to the source. If the current finds a path back to the source prior to reaching the intended load and that path is properly bonded , it is "taking a shortcut"....hence the term "SHORT" circuit. If your breaker does not trip you are not properly bonded.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

Borgi said:


> Larks aside, let me give you a real life example.
> 
> I work from time to time at a campsite that has three 200 amp panels in the field. I considered them sub panels fed from the main. There is no seperate grounding at the sub.
> 
> ...


If this is built before 2002, it's perfectly legal. Secondly, if it's a 3 wire feed, there SHOULD BE A MBJ in place. Actually, removing that mbj would be EXTREMELY DANGEROUS


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

mcclary's electrical said:


> Electricity takes "all possible paths". This is literally infinity number of paths back to the source, especially when soil is entered into the equitation.
> 
> 
> The old "path of least resistance" is simply ...... not true.


Stray currents going back to their source of voltage have a direct proportion to ALL of the different resistances they encounter in the unintended paths. Did I say that right??? Anyway, I still don't like Whirlpool.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

RIVETER said:


> Stray currents going back to their source of voltage have a direct proportion to ALL of the different resistances they encounter in the unintended paths. Did I say that right??? Anyway, I still don't like Whirlpool.


ABSOLUTELY NOT. Nothing direct about it. If there's SOME impedance in the neutral path to the xfmr in the wire, the rest is gonna take a path back through the earth. Mathematically, literally, there are billions and billions of paths back to the xfmr. That equation is not only so complicated it cannot be comprehended, BUT NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BE considered "direct"


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

mcclary's electrical said:


> ABSOLUTELY NOT. Nothing direct about it. If there's SOME impedance in the neutral path to the xfmr in the wire, the rest is gonna take a path back through the earth. Mathematically, literally, there are billions and billions of paths back to the xfmr. That equation is not only so complicated it cannot be comprehended, BUT NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BE considered "direct"


 Hey, guy. You...and me...and the moderators need to have a talk. What you just said is very close to being in the DIY forum.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

RIVETER said:


> Hey, guy. You...and me...and the moderators need to have a talk. What you just said is very close to being in the DIY forum.


Uh huh


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

mcclary's electrical said:


> ABSOLUTELY NOT. Nothing direct about it. If there's SOME impedance in the neutral path to the xfmr in the wire, the rest is gonna take a path back through the earth. Mathematically, literally, there are billions and billions of paths back to the xfmr. That equation is not only so complicated it cannot be comprehended, BUT NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BE considered "direct"


There are possibly many paths for current to attempt to get back to its source but what significant amount of conductibility would the dirt provide? And don't bring up rods and the like. I am talking about dirt. AND, don't forget...you are talking to the GURU.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

I would say it is dependent on soil ph and moisture content Riv....








~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

That Tesla could light up A bulbs through thin air should ring a bell with some here

~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Borgi said:


> Larks aside, let me give you a real life example.
> 
> I work from time to time at a campsite that has three 200 amp panels in the field. I considered them sub panels fed from the main. There is no seperate grounding at the sub.
> 
> ...


As McClary states, the MBJ is a crucial element. 

However, feel free to experiment Borgi

Perhaps it's possible to touch two of those service panel shells under full load, with a low watt bulb in yer beak....

~CS~


----------



## 51360 (Jun 9, 2014)

chicken steve said:


> As McClary states, the MBJ is a crucial element.
> 
> However, feel free to experiment Borgi
> 
> ...


I see you have not changed! 

Explain! In today's code a bond jumper from neutral to case is not allowed! In the case I am describing.

Thanks, Borgi


----------



## Bad Electrician (May 20, 2014)

Borgi said:


> I agree, not sure that emf makes a difference unless over 200 amps, but not the thread issue.


 As little as ONE amp ground current can cause issues with video, sound and other sensitive electronic equipment.



> The solidly grounded neutral will never allow current on the bond wire. NEVER?
> Unless the neutral get's disconnected!
> 
> Good input!
> ...


 I thing you are wrong here. It would depend on how and where a neutral is disconnected.


----------



## Bad Electrician (May 20, 2014)

Borgi said:


> Ok, it's possible. How?
> 
> If the neutral is grounded properly, how does current split, unless !
> 
> Prove it!:laughing:


 In any property with multiple services where there is a common transformer, common utility piping and multiple Neutral to Ground Bonds, there will be current on the utility piping impossible to avoid and if you take a second to think about it you will realize why.

No one here should need to prove this to an electrician he should be able to understand it. 

If you need a more in-depth explanation let me know.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Borgi said:


> I see you have not changed!
> 
> Explain! In today's code a bond jumper from neutral to case is not allowed! In the case I am describing.
> 
> Thanks, Borgi


You've described an old *3* wire scenario Borgi

Please _correct me if i'm off_ sir....

Your choice are to run a groundING conductor , making it a *4 *wire, isolating your noodle

*OR* maintaining an MBJ from noodle bar to the casing of the panel in question

~CS~


----------



## 51360 (Jun 9, 2014)

Bad Electrician said:


> In any property with multiple services where there is a common transformer, common utility piping and multiple Neutral to Ground Bonds, there will be current on the utility piping impossible to avoid and if you take a second to think about it you will realize why.
> 
> No one here should need to prove this to an electrician he should be able to understand it.
> 
> If you need a more in-depth explanation let me know.


Trust me I understand.

It's how code get's changed for the better!



Thanks, Borgi


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Borgi said:


> Let me give you an in-depth reply! **** off you arrogant ****ing asshole!


You couldn't touch the Badone's level of theory on your best day Borgi

Methinks we're  done here

~CS~


----------



## Going_Commando (Oct 1, 2011)

Borgi said:


> Trust me I understand.
> 
> It's how code get's changed for the better!
> 
> ...


Really? Calling one of the more humble people on this website an arrogant asshole? I wish I could buy class like you have, buckwheat. Maybe you should lay off the sauce and re-read some of Brian's posts over the years, and realize you are just being a gigantic, know-nothing douchebag. I think you should take a little break from the internet, because it is obviously damaging your hyper sensitive ego. I think you should stick to reading the Twilight series and comic books in your spare time, they are probably more your speed.


----------



## Voltron (Sep 14, 2012)

Borgi said:


> Trust me I understand.
> 
> It's how code get's changed for the better!
> 
> ...












Ibtl


----------



## 51360 (Jun 9, 2014)

chicken steve said:


> You've described an old *3* wire scenario Borgi
> 
> Please _correct me if i'm off_ sir....
> 
> ...


Let's be clear here. Every ELECTRICIAN at this site understands why the code writers want the ground isolated at a sub panel. I don't always agree!

I can't show pictures yet, but the existing panel, which I believe is a sub from the main, has a bonding jumper from the neutral to the case. I have no problem with that! BUT, our current CEC does not allow that. I would like to hear other opinions because I think this should be looked at again.

Not trying to argue without a chance of a solution, if I wanted that I would get married! :laughing:

Thanks, Borgi


----------



## 51360 (Jun 9, 2014)

chicken steve said:


> You couldn't touch the Badone's level of theory on your best day Borgi
> 
> Methinks we're  done here
> 
> ~CS~


Explain it then. I call bull**** on all of you! :laughing:

Nothing has changed, Sad!


----------



## Bad Electrician (May 20, 2014)

Borgi said:


> Let's be clear here. Every ELECTRICIAN at this site understands why the code writers want the ground isolated at a sub panel. I don't always agree!


 Actually if you follow the long threads that often cover this topic you will see there is often confusion regarding this subject.


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

Borgi said:


> Trust me I understand.
> 
> It's how code get's changed for the better!
> 
> ...


 :blink: That escalated quickly.


----------



## Bad Electrician (May 20, 2014)

Borgi said:


> Trust me I understand.
> 
> It's how code get's changed for the better!
> 
> ...


First I was not trying to start an argument with you and second in your previous post you alluded to the fact that you did not see how there would be ground current and third that some level of ground current was acceptable.


----------



## 51360 (Jun 9, 2014)

Bad Electrician said:


> First I was not trying to start an argument with you and second in your previous post you alluded to the fact that you did not see how there would be ground current and third that some level of ground current was acceptable.


I agree. You may have made that assumption. I may have implied that. 

What I am saying is, i don't agree that it is BAD to bond the neutral to case in all scenarios!

I know my theory, as well you do. I don't appreciate the implication that I do not.

Thanks, Borgi


----------



## 8V71 (Dec 23, 2011)

I wish Brian John was still around. He was real good with this stuff.


----------



## 51360 (Jun 9, 2014)

chicken steve said:


> You've described an old *3* wire scenario Borgi
> 
> Please _correct me if i'm off_ sir....
> 
> ...


It is a parallel fed panel, USE cable with concentric neutral, seperate ground wire run to panel from main. Bonding jumper in place!

When you and others say MBJ, I assume you mean bonding jumper! Correct?

Thanks, Borgi


----------



## Bad Electrician (May 20, 2014)

8V71 said:


> I wish Brian John was still around. He was real good with this stuff.


I am here.


----------



## 51360 (Jun 9, 2014)

chicken steve said:


> You couldn't touch the Badone's level of theory on your best day Borgi
> 
> Methinks we're  done here
> 
> ~CS~


Why would you say this? Explain!

Borgi


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Bad Electrician said:


> I am here.


He knows. Just joking


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Borgi said:


> It is a parallel fed panel, USE cable with concentric neutral, seperate ground wire run to panel from main. Bonding jumper in place!
> 
> When you and others say MBJ, I assume you mean bonding jumper! Correct?
> 
> Thanks, Borgi



MBJ is a main bonding jumper


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Let me remind everyone about the language and the lack of respect that is going on in this thread. Please refrain from name calling and using vulgarity-- spelling a work with an * in it does not get it either-- thanks


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

So the question was ask of you if there is are 4 wires going to the buildings or 3 wires. Not sure about Canada but it was allowed at one time to be 3 wire and bonding between neutral and ground was needed. Today in the NEC you must run 4 wires and separate the hot and neutral.

If you have 4 wires then you will have parallel paths if they are bonded together. If it is 3 wire then let it be-- the code used to consider this similar to service conductors going to the building.


----------



## 51360 (Jun 9, 2014)

I agree! Back to thread.

I don't believe a bonding jumper allowed in the old code is a bad thing.

I would like to see this looked at again!

Thanks, Borhi


----------



## 51360 (Jun 9, 2014)

Dennis Alwon said:


> So the question was ask of you if there is are 4 wires going to the buildings or 3 wires. Not sure about Canada but it was allowed at one time to be 3 wire and bonding between neutral and ground was needed. Today in the NEC you must run 4 wires and separate the hot and neutral.
> 
> If you have 4 wires then you will have parallel paths if they are bonded together. If it is 3 wire then let it be-- the code used to consider this similar to service conductors going to the building.


I thought I answered that.

4 wire, 2 conductors, one concentric netral, one big ole ground.

Makes no difference, the ground is connected to case, and the neutral is bonded to case as well. But, I don't know theory! :laughing:

Thanks, Borgi


----------



## 51360 (Jun 9, 2014)

Dennis Alwon said:


> So the question was ask of you if there is are 4 wires going to the buildings or 3 wires. Not sure about Canada but it was allowed at one time to be 3 wire and bonding between neutral and ground was needed. Today in the NEC you must run 4 wires and separate the hot and neutral.
> 
> If you have 4 wires then you will have parallel paths if they are bonded together. If it is 3 wire then let it be-- the code used to consider this similar to service conductors going to the building.


I don't know code, nor have I won pro of the month, but I certainly do NOT take a mar off with one hand! :laughing:

Borgi!


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

Borgi said:


> I thought I answered that.
> 
> 4 wire, 2 conductors, one concentric netral, one big ole ground.
> 
> ...


Is your bonding jumper on the ground bar or is out on the neutral bar?


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Borgi said:


> I thought I answered that.
> 
> 4 wire, 2 conductors, one concentric netral, one big ole ground.
> 
> ...


In this case the neutral and ground should be separated as you thought. Easiest explanation is to tell the owners the CEC will not allow that install because of the parallel paths. You can then explain that a neutral carries current all the time while an equipment grounding conductor is only carrying current during a fault. Leave it at that


----------



## 51360 (Jun 9, 2014)

Dennis Alwon said:


> In this case the neutral and ground should be separated as you thought. Easiest explanation is to tell the owners the CEC will not allow that install because of the parallel paths. You can then explain that a neutral carries current all the time while an equipment grounding conductor is only carrying current during a fault. Leave it at that


Really! I started this thread because I wanted opinions other than mine!

I told him the code! Read the thread? :laughin

Denis! Stop bothering me!


----------



## AK_sparky (Aug 13, 2013)

I think we should all settle this over a beer!

I just read all 4 pages, and I gotta ask: What are we trying to get at here?

Borgi: If you think grounding the neutral at a sub, explain why. What is the reasoning?


----------



## Pharon (Jan 20, 2014)

Borgi said:


> What I am saying is, i don't agree that it is BAD to bond the neutral to case in all scenarios!


I don't understand why you say this. If you bond the neutral and the EGC downstream of the main bonding jumper, you will have normally carrying current on all upstream feeder EGC's. Why would you want that, ever?


----------



## 51360 (Jun 9, 2014)

AK_sparky said:


> I think we should all settle this over a beer!
> 
> I just read all 4 pages, and I gotta ask: What are we trying to get at here?
> 
> Borgi: If you think grounding the neutral at a sub, explain why. What is the reasoning?



It's en existing panel!

Probably allowed back when. It is not now, but I am ok with it, and want opinions from electricians who work with both hands! 

Thanks, Borgi


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Borgi said:


> Denis! Stop bothering me!


No problem=-- I am done..


----------



## 51360 (Jun 9, 2014)

Pharon said:


> I don't understand why you say this. If you bond the neutral and the EGC downstream of the main bonding jumper, you will have normally carrying current on all upstream feeder EGC's. Why would you want that, ever?


Good thought! I don't think the current would flow, and if it did, it would be non hazardous.

We are not sheep, we should ask why!

Thanks, Borgi


----------



## 51360 (Jun 9, 2014)

Code writers agree with my thoughts in this regard.

BUT, I am not a pro of the month, nor do I remove wire nuts with one hand. I am a simple electrician! 

:laughing:


----------



## Semi-Ret Electrician (Nov 10, 2011)

Borgi said:


> It's en existing panel!
> 
> Probably allowed back when. It is not now, but I am ok with it, and want opinions from electricians who work with both hands!
> 
> Thanks, Borgi


Congratulations, you just insulted one of the most helpful guys on ET.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

I closed it as I am tired of the insults... You want respect then show some.


----------

