# how is this a code violation



## r_merc (Jul 5, 2008)

Just for fun


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

If the neutral wire is split, as it seems to be, then it is a violation. The wire must be terminated in one lug not split into 2 lugs.


----------



## mattsilkwood (Sep 21, 2008)

Maybe re-identifying the smaller neutral too, I cant tell how big it is.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

mattsilkwood said:


> Maybe re-identifying the smaller neutral too, I cant tell how big it is.


Yes that also. I think it is a bogus rule but nonetheless it is there.


----------



## r_merc (Jul 5, 2008)

you got a code section for that


----------



## r_merc (Jul 5, 2008)

*or how about this one*

more fun


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

r_merc said:


> you got a code section for that


code section for what?


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

I'll throw out 408.41 for shîts and giggles.

Also, given that 99.9% of stranded conductors have an odd number of strands, then I'll throw 300.3(B)(1) into the fray.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

It also looks like there are two neutrals under one lug in the second picture near the top.


----------



## mattsilkwood (Sep 21, 2008)

Dennis Alwon said:


> Yes that also. I think it is a bogus rule but nonetheless it is there.


 I agree, That's one of them that doesn't get enforced here.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

480sparky said:


> I'll throw out 408.41 for shîts and giggles.
> 
> Also, given that 99.9% of stranded conductors have an odd number of strands, then I'll throw 300.3(B)(1) into the fray.


What about art. 200 for taping wires...


----------



## NormW64 (Jan 19, 2011)

480sparky said:


> I'll throw out 408.41 for shîts and giggles.
> 
> Also, given that 99.9% of stranded conductors have an odd number of strands, then I'll throw 300.3(B)(1) into the fray.


Right on target with 408.41, but what does 300.3(B)(1) have to do with a single conductor split into two terminations or number of strands in a conductor. It deals with conductors in parallel.


----------



## iJuke (Jan 27, 2011)

In the first pic upper left look like there's a black terminated on the neutral bar... Also 2nd pic black elec tape on the bundled neutral. Plus the re-identification factor...


----------



## farlsincharge (Dec 31, 2010)

You guys terminate your grounds on the neutral bar?


----------



## mattsilkwood (Sep 21, 2008)

farlsincharge said:


> You guys terminate your grounds on the neutral bar?


 If that is where the service is bonded, sure.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

NormW64 said:


> ......... but what does 300.3(B)(1) have to do with a single conductor split into two terminations or number of strands in a conductor. It deals with conductors in parallel.


You've created two conductors out of one, in parallel with each other. There are parallel paths for current to flow.


----------



## Fiki (Sep 28, 2010)

There is a bit to much wire coming from the other side of the lug for my liking, especially in the second pic. Im still a rookie but I was taught early on just to leave a pinch of wire coming out of the lug. Not a violation but the inspectors like it .


----------



## doubleoh7 (Dec 5, 2009)

mattsilkwood said:


> If that is where the service is bonded, sure.


On a main panel, I always install 2 ground bar kits and bond.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

IMO, splitting the neutral like that is a code violation but I don't you would ever see a problem from it as current will go thru both equally. Now if one terminal got loose then the other could overheat.

I agree with 408.41



> 408.41 Grounded Conductor Terminations.
> Each grounded conductor shall terminate within the panelboard in an individual terminal that is not also used for another conductor.
> Exception: Grounded conductors of circuits with parallel conductors shall be permitted to terminate in a single terminal if the terminal is identified for connection of more than one conductor.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Dennis Alwon said:


> IMO, splitting the neutral like that is a code violation but I don't you would ever see a problem from it as current will go thru both equally. Now if one terminal got loose then the other could overheat.



How can it split the current 50-50 when they're not the same size? Most building conductors I've seen have an odd number of strands (7, 19, 37, 61, 91, 127....). How do you divide that by 2 and come up with an equal amount of cross-section area?


----------



## oldtimer (Jun 10, 2010)

480sparky said:


> How can it split the current 50-50 when they're not the same size? Most building conductors I've seen have an odd number of strands (9, 17, 37, 61, 91, 127....). How do you divide that by 2 and come up with an equal amount of cross-section area?


 You've Got It PONTIAC!!!!!!!

Why not just use a lug, which is the right size. They are available!


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

480sparky said:


> How can it split the current 50-50 when they're not the same size? Most building conductors I've seen have an odd number of strands (7, 19, 37, 61, 91, 127....). How do you divide that by 2 and come up with an equal amount of cross-section area?


It may not be 50/50 but close enough that I bet you will have no issue. Do you really think you can calculate this to be significantly different.

Think about the load on most residential panel neutrals. I am not condoning this but I have seen it hundreds of times without issues. 

They make a fitting for it, I agree, so why no use it-- I always have a few on my vehicle but have not had to use one in years.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

I agree with you Dennis........ but it's just a technical point. In theory, it's wrong... in the field, it works.

I've got a couple of those terminals I've removed from scrapped-out panels. I just have no clue where they are these days.


----------



## Jefro (Jul 28, 2009)

Not a code violation, but I've been yelled at for kinking a wire like that white-tape neutral in pic 1...


----------



## DeOx5 (Nov 9, 2010)

The reason it's a violation is because of heating, once you split that neutral each half alone will not carry the current that the original sized wire would have causing heat.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

DeOx5 said:


> The reason it's a violation is because of heating, once you split that neutral each half alone will not carry the current that the original sized wire would have causing heat.



If you call it a violation, we would like a Code reference to back it up.


----------



## desar (Feb 6, 2011)

*desar*

Article 90 follow the manufactuers listing the terminals are listed with a max wire size , by splitting the wire to fit you could violate the listing.

Also the manufacturers listing for the number of ground wires under one terminal.


----------

