On this week's episode of Ask This Old House, an electrician was
replacing the service wire and panel in a house. There were code
problems within the panel (broken breakers, doubled up circuits, etc.)
There were at least 3 generations of wiring at the panel: BX cable,
cloth cover Romex and modern Romex. There was a rat's nest of wiring
in and around the panel.

He noted that he would normally mark all the wires before removing
them but since the existing labeling was wrong, he chose to simply cut
all of the wires and "figure it out afterwards".

As he was connecting the wires to the new breakers he used this simple
method to determine which wires to connect to which breakers:

"There are 3 sizes of wires. The smaller wires go to the 15A breakers,
the mid-size wires go to the 20A breakers and the largest wires go to
the 30A breaker."

Doesn't this seem to be an oversimplified, possibly dangerous, method?

Since it was obvious that whoever came before him violated codes by
doubling up breakers and who knows what else, isn't it dangerous to
assume that the correct wire sizes were used as the mess grew over the
years?

Maybe they were just saving air time by using that explanation, but it
seems to me that a lot more investigation should have been done as
opposed to simply letting the wire size determine the breaker size. To
even imply that the wire size is the determining factor seems
irresponsible on their part.

"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
...
On this week's episode of Ask This Old House, an electrician was
replacing the service wire and panel in a house. There were code
problems within the panel (broken breakers, doubled up circuits, etc.)
There were at least 3 generations of wiring at the panel: BX cable,
cloth cover Romex and modern Romex. There was a rat's nest of wiring
in and around the panel.

He noted that he would normally mark all the wires before removing
them but since the existing labeling was wrong, he chose to simply cut
all of the wires and "figure it out afterwards".

As he was connecting the wires to the new breakers he used this simple
method to determine which wires to connect to which breakers:

"There are 3 sizes of wires. The smaller wires go to the 15A breakers,
the mid-size wires go to the 20A breakers and the largest wires go to
the 30A breaker."

Doesn't this seem to be an oversimplified, possibly dangerous, method?

Since it was obvious that whoever came before him violated codes by
doubling up breakers and who knows what else, isn't it dangerous to
assume that the correct wire sizes were used as the mess grew over the
years?

Maybe they were just saving air time by using that explanation, but it
seems to me that a lot more investigation should have been done as
opposed to simply letting the wire size determine the breaker size. To
even imply that the wire size is the determining factor seems
irresponsible on their part.

Sounds good to me. If the wires were checked out to be 14, 12, and wiring
large enough to carry 30 amps. The breakers are to make sure the wires are
large enough to carry the current.

The devices plugged into the wiring should have fuses or breakers to protect
them built in.

Maybe more time could be spent, but if the house has been that way for a
long time, hopefully the wireing is close enough not to be a hazzard.

On 1/15/2012 12:13 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On this week's episode of Ask This Old House, an electrician was
replacing the service wire and panel in a house. There were code
problems within the panel (broken breakers, doubled up circuits, etc.)
There were at least 3 generations of wiring at the panel: BX cable,
cloth cover Romex and modern Romex. There was a rat's nest of wiring
in and around the panel.

He noted that he would normally mark all the wires before removing
them but since the existing labeling was wrong, he chose to simply cut
all of the wires and "figure it out afterwards".

As he was connecting the wires to the new breakers he used this simple
method to determine which wires to connect to which breakers:

"There are 3 sizes of wires. The smaller wires go to the 15A breakers,
the mid-size wires go to the 20A breakers and the largest wires go to
the 30A breaker."

Doesn't this seem to be an oversimplified, possibly dangerous, method?

Since it was obvious that whoever came before him violated codes by
doubling up breakers and who knows what else, isn't it dangerous to
assume that the correct wire sizes were used as the mess grew over the
years?

Maybe they were just saving air time by using that explanation, but it
seems to me that a lot more investigation should have been done as
opposed to simply letting the wire size determine the breaker size. To
even imply that the wire size is the determining factor seems
irresponsible on their part.


He did it exactly the way I normally would. The most important thing to
determine, are small gauge circuits that are 240 volt. Pretty much any
#10,8, 6 or larger gauge cables are going to be 240 volt circuits, but
you don't want to miswire a 15 or 20 amp circuit. As you disconnect the
wires from the breakers, you'd take notice of anything unusual about the
fusing and make a notation if necessary. Overall, you're pretty much
going to reconnect the conductors to the proper amperage and voltage of
the conductor size.

On 1/15/2012 12:13 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On this week's episode of Ask This Old House, an electrician was
replacing the service wire and panel in a house. There were code
problems within the panel (broken breakers, doubled up circuits, etc.)
There were at least 3 generations of wiring at the panel: BX cable,
cloth cover Romex and modern Romex. There was a rat's nest of wiring
in and around the panel.

He noted that he would normally mark all the wires before removing
them but since the existing labeling was wrong, he chose to simply cut
all of the wires and "figure it out afterwards".

As he was connecting the wires to the new breakers he used this simple
method to determine which wires to connect to which breakers:

"There are 3 sizes of wires. The smaller wires go to the 15A breakers,
the mid-size wires go to the 20A breakers and the largest wires go to
the 30A breaker."

Doesn't this seem to be an oversimplified, possibly dangerous, method?

Since it was obvious that whoever came before him violated codes by
doubling up breakers and who knows what else, isn't it dangerous to
assume that the correct wire sizes were used as the mess grew over the
years?

Maybe they were just saving air time by using that explanation, but it
seems to me that a lot more investigation should have been done as
opposed to simply letting the wire size determine the breaker size. To
even imply that the wire size is the determining factor seems
irresponsible on their part.


You are barking up the wrong tree. first off, it is a boiler not a
furnace. If it makes hot water, the issue is not with the boiler, it's
with the heating zone system. First you need to describe the components .
Is the hot water, from a coil within the boiler, or do you have an
indirect tank?
How many heating zones?
Do you have circulator pumps or zone valves, and how many of each?
What type of relay controls, aquastats, etc. do you have?

On 1/15/2012 12:13 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:

"There are 3 sizes of wires. The smaller wires go to the 15A breakers,
the mid-size wires go to the 20A breakers and the largest wires go to
the 30A breaker."

Doesn't this seem to be an oversimplified, possibly dangerous, method?


LOL. I saw the show and thought the same thing.

But on the other hand, was the customer willing to pay extra to have the
electrician pull every outlet, switch and fixture in the entire house to
make sure the proper sized wire was used on each circuit?

Of course, the safest fix would be to rip out all the old wiring and
replace it with new.

On 1/15/2012 1:16 PM, RBM wrote:
On 1/15/2012 12:13 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On this week's episode of Ask This Old House, an electrician was
replacing the service wire and panel in a house. There were code
problems within the panel (broken breakers, doubled up circuits, etc.)
There were at least 3 generations of wiring at the panel: BX cable,
cloth cover Romex and modern Romex. There was a rat's nest of wiring
in and around the panel.

He noted that he would normally mark all the wires before removing
them but since the existing labeling was wrong, he chose to simply cut
all of the wires and "figure it out afterwards".

As he was connecting the wires to the new breakers he used this simple
method to determine which wires to connect to which breakers:

"There are 3 sizes of wires. The smaller wires go to the 15A breakers,
the mid-size wires go to the 20A breakers and the largest wires go to
the 30A breaker."

Doesn't this seem to be an oversimplified, possibly dangerous, method?

Since it was obvious that whoever came before him violated codes by
doubling up breakers and who knows what else, isn't it dangerous to
assume that the correct wire sizes were used as the mess grew over the
years?

Maybe they were just saving air time by using that explanation, but it
seems to me that a lot more investigation should have been done as
opposed to simply letting the wire size determine the breaker size. To
even imply that the wire size is the determining factor seems
irresponsible on their part.


You are barking up the wrong tree. first off, it is a boiler not a
furnace. If it makes hot water, the issue is not with the boiler, it's
with the heating zone system. First you need to describe the components .
Is the hot water, from a coil within the boiler, or do you have an
indirect tank?
How many heating zones?
Do you have circulator pumps or zone valves, and how many of each?
What type of relay controls, aquastats, etc. do you have?

Sorry, I'm barking up the wrong tree. News server issues

In article ,
Juan Deere wrote:

On 1/15/2012 12:13 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:

"There are 3 sizes of wires. The smaller wires go to the 15A breakers,
the mid-size wires go to the 20A breakers and the largest wires go to
the 30A breaker."

Doesn't this seem to be an oversimplified, possibly dangerous, method?


LOL. I saw the show and thought the same thing.

But on the other hand, was the customer willing to pay extra to have the
electrician pull every outlet, switch and fixture in the entire house to
make sure the proper sized wire was used on each circuit?

I was assuming that they would do it this way, go through and switch
each one on and off to see what it really did (for labeling) and then
change things if this indicated it was needed.


Of course, the safest fix would be to rip out all the old wiring and
replace it with new.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Jan 15, 12:26*pm, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:
"DerbyDad03" wrote in message

...





On this week's episode of Ask This Old House, an electrician was
replacing the service wire and panel in a house. There were code
problems within the panel (broken breakers, doubled up circuits, etc.)
There were at least 3 generations of wiring at the panel: BX cable,
cloth cover Romex and modern Romex. There was a rat's nest of wiring
in and around the panel.

He noted that he would normally mark all the wires before removing
them but since the existing labeling was wrong, he chose to simply cut
all of the wires and "figure it out afterwards".

As he was connecting the wires to the new breakers he used this simple
method to determine which wires to connect to which breakers:

"There are 3 sizes of wires. The smaller wires go to the 15A breakers,
the mid-size wires go to the 20A breakers and the largest wires go to
the 30A breaker."

Doesn't this seem to be an oversimplified, possibly dangerous, method?

Since it was obvious that whoever came before him violated codes by
doubling up breakers and who knows what else, isn't it dangerous to
assume that the correct wire sizes were used as the mess grew over the
years?

Maybe they were just saving air time by using that explanation, but it
seems to me that a lot more investigation should have been done as
opposed to simply letting the wire size determine the breaker size. To
even imply that the wire size is the determining factor seems
irresponsible on their part.

Sounds good to me. *If the wires were checked out to be 14, 12, and wiring
large enough to carry 30 amps. *The breakers are to make sure the wires are
large enough to carry the current.

The devices plugged into the wiring should have fuses or breakers to protect
them built in.

Maybe more time could be spent, but if the house has been that way for a
long time, hopefully the wireing is close enough not to be a hazzard.

But that's my point. "Hopefully" seems like a risky thing to base the
wiring on. It was obvious that prior work was not compliant, so why
would the electrician simply assume that the correct wire sizes were
used?

I'd be concerned with the possibilty that, let's say, 12g was used at
the panel but is connected to 14g in a nearby junction box or
something like that.

If it was a neat installation I'd have more confidence, but this panel
was such a mess, with obvious violations, that I'd have to suspect
violations outside the box.

I guess my main concern was the broadcasting of the practice as if the
wire size is all you ever have to be concerned with. It just struck me
as a dangerous assumption, especially in the sloppy conditions in
which the assumption was made.

"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
...

But that's my point. "Hopefully" seems like a risky thing to base the
wiring on. It was obvious that prior work was not compliant, so why
would the electrician simply assume that the correct wire sizes were
.used?

I'd be concerned with the possibilty that, let's say, 12g was used at
the panel but is connected to 14g in a nearby junction box or
something like that.

If it was a neat installation I'd have more confidence, but this panel
was such a mess, with obvious violations, that I'd have to suspect
violations outside the box.

I guess my main concern was the broadcasting of the practice as if the
wire size is all you ever have to be concerned with. It just struck me
as a dangerous assumption, especially in the sloppy conditions in
which the assumption was made.

It all boiles down to how much time and money is to be spent. The breaker
box can be changed in a few hours. To check out the whole house may take a
day or two. The job description was to change the box, not check out all
the wiring in the house.

It would be up to the home owner to determin if all the wiring should be
checked out at a much larger cost, after finding a code violation or two
with the instalation.

On 1/15/2012 2:20 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
wrote in message
...

But that's my point. "Hopefully" seems like a risky thing to base the
wiring on. It was obvious that prior work was not compliant, so why
would the electrician simply assume that the correct wire sizes were
.used?

I'd be concerned with the possibilty that, let's say, 12g was used at
the panel but is connected to 14g in a nearby junction box or
something like that.

If it was a neat installation I'd have more confidence, but this panel
was such a mess, with obvious violations, that I'd have to suspect
violations outside the box.

I guess my main concern was the broadcasting of the practice as if the
wire size is all you ever have to be concerned with. It just struck me
as a dangerous assumption, especially in the sloppy conditions in
which the assumption was made.

It all boiles down to how much time and money is to be spent. The breaker
box can be changed in a few hours. To check out the whole house may take a
day or two. The job description was to change the box, not check out all
the wiring in the house.

It would be up to the home owner to determin if all the wiring should be
checked out at a much larger cost, after finding a code violation or two
with the instalation.



That's it in a nutshell. The service is one job. If, while doing the
service the electrician has reason to suspect rube wiring in other areas
of the house, he'll bring his suspicions to the home owner, with
suggestions for how to proceed.

On Jan 15, 11:13*am, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On this week's episode of Ask This Old House, an electrician was
replacing the service wire and panel in a house. There were code
problems within the panel (broken breakers, doubled up circuits, etc.)
There were at least 3 generations of wiring at the panel: BX cable,
cloth cover Romex and modern Romex. There was a rat's nest of wiring
in and around the panel.

He noted that he would normally mark all the wires before removing
them but since the existing labeling was wrong, he chose to simply cut
all of the wires and "figure it out afterwards".

As he was connecting the wires to the new breakers he used this simple
method to determine which wires to connect to which breakers:

"There are 3 sizes of wires. The smaller wires go to the 15A breakers,
the mid-size wires go to the 20A breakers and the largest wires go to
the 30A breaker."

Doesn't this seem to be an oversimplified, possibly dangerous, method?

Since it was obvious that whoever came before him violated codes by
doubling up breakers and who knows what else, isn't it dangerous to
assume that the correct wire sizes were used as the mess grew over the
years?

Maybe they were just saving air time by using that explanation, but it
seems to me that a lot more investigation should have been done as
opposed to simply letting the wire size determine the breaker size. To
even imply that the wire size is the determining factor seems
irresponsible on their part.

The OP is correct. Just because a heavy gauge wire was used at the
panel does NOT mean that all the wiring from that point down to the
far end of the circuit is the same heavy gauge. What would happen if
there were a smaller gauge wire in the midpoint, and a heavy load
placed at the far end of the circuit. The breaker would hold, but the
smaller wire in the intermediate point of the chain would act as a
fuse (maybe), or maybe set the whole house on fire.

On 1/15/2012 2:41 PM, hr(bob) wrote:
On Jan 15, 11:13 am, wrote:
On this week's episode of Ask This Old House, an electrician was
replacing the service wire and panel in a house. There were code
problems within the panel (broken breakers, doubled up circuits, etc.)
There were at least 3 generations of wiring at the panel: BX cable,
cloth cover Romex and modern Romex. There was a rat's nest of wiring
in and around the panel.

He noted that he would normally mark all the wires before removing
them but since the existing labeling was wrong, he chose to simply cut
all of the wires and "figure it out afterwards".

As he was connecting the wires to the new breakers he used this simple
method to determine which wires to connect to which breakers:

"There are 3 sizes of wires. The smaller wires go to the 15A breakers,
the mid-size wires go to the 20A breakers and the largest wires go to
the 30A breaker."

Doesn't this seem to be an oversimplified, possibly dangerous, method?

Since it was obvious that whoever came before him violated codes by
doubling up breakers and who knows what else, isn't it dangerous to
assume that the correct wire sizes were used as the mess grew over the
years?

Maybe they were just saving air time by using that explanation, but it
seems to me that a lot more investigation should have been done as
opposed to simply letting the wire size determine the breaker size. To
even imply that the wire size is the determining factor seems
irresponsible on their part.

The OP is correct. Just because a heavy gauge wire was used at the
panel does NOT mean that all the wiring from that point down to the
far end of the circuit is the same heavy gauge. What would happen if
there were a smaller gauge wire in the midpoint, and a heavy load
placed at the far end of the circuit. The breaker would hold, but the
smaller wire in the intermediate point of the chain would act as a
fuse (maybe), or maybe set the whole house on fire.


Correct, and that would be the fault of the person that improperly
installed the undersized wire. Stuff like that can go undetected even
after a careful inspection. You can't see inside walls.

On Jan 15, 2:25*pm, RBM wrote:
On 1/15/2012 2:20 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:







*wrote in message
....

But that's my point. "Hopefully" seems like a risky thing to base the
wiring on. It was obvious that prior work was not compliant, so why
would the electrician simply assume that the correct wire sizes were
.used?

I'd be concerned with the possibilty that, let's say, 12g was used at
the panel but is connected to 14g in a nearby junction box or
something like that.

If it was a neat installation I'd have more confidence, but this panel
was such a mess, with obvious violations, that I'd have to suspect
violations outside the box.

I guess my main concern was the broadcasting of the practice as if the
wire size is all you ever have to be concerned with. It just struck me
as a dangerous assumption, especially in the sloppy conditions in
which the assumption was made.

It all boiles down to how much time and money is to be spent. *The breaker
box can be changed in a few hours. *To check out the whole house may take a
day or two. *The job description was to change the box, not check out all
the wiring in the house.

It would be up to the home owner to determin if all the wiring should be
checked out at a much larger cost, after finding a code violation or two
with the instalation.

That's it in a nutshell. The service is one job. If, while doing the
service the electrician has reason to suspect rube wiring in other areas
of the house, he'll bring his suspicions to the home owner, with
suggestions for how to proceed.

RBM:

I'm not a lawyer nor a licensed electrician, so this is are legitimate
(i.e. not a smart ass) questions. I always respect your answers
related to electrical questions, so...

If you had reason to suspect rube wiring based on what you saw at the
panel, would you...

1 - Mention it to the homeowner
2 - Accept his choice not to address your suspicions
3 - Connect the wires based on size
4 - Sleep comfortably even knowing that your suspicions were not
addressed?

If indeed there was rube wiring elsewhere, and a problem occurred e.g.
at that 12g to 14g junction later on, could the electrician be held
liable if he simply matched wire size to breaker size at the panel?
Isn't there some deeper level of responsibility, as in perhaps
refusing to take the panel replacement job, if the electrician has
reason to believe other parts of the system are unsafe?

On 1/15/2012 3:01 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Jan 15, 2:25 pm, wrote:
On 1/15/2012 2:20 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:







wrote in message
...

But that's my point. "Hopefully" seems like a risky thing to base the
wiring on. It was obvious that prior work was not compliant, so why
would the electrician simply assume that the correct wire sizes were
.used?

I'd be concerned with the possibilty that, let's say, 12g was used at
the panel but is connected to 14g in a nearby junction box or
something like that.

If it was a neat installation I'd have more confidence, but this panel
was such a mess, with obvious violations, that I'd have to suspect
violations outside the box.

I guess my main concern was the broadcasting of the practice as if the
wire size is all you ever have to be concerned with. It just struck me
as a dangerous assumption, especially in the sloppy conditions in
which the assumption was made.

It all boiles down to how much time and money is to be spent. The breaker
box can be changed in a few hours. To check out the whole house may take a
day or two. The job description was to change the box, not check out all
the wiring in the house.

It would be up to the home owner to determin if all the wiring should be
checked out at a much larger cost, after finding a code violation or two
with the instalation.

That's it in a nutshell. The service is one job. If, while doing the
service the electrician has reason to suspect rube wiring in other areas
of the house, he'll bring his suspicions to the home owner, with
suggestions for how to proceed.

RBM:

I'm not a lawyer nor a licensed electrician, so this is are legitimate
(i.e. not a smart ass) questions. I always respect your answers
related to electrical questions, so...

If you had reason to suspect rube wiring based on what you saw at the
panel, would you...

1 - Mention it to the homeowner
2 - Accept his choice not to address your suspicions
3 - Connect the wires based on size
4 - Sleep comfortably even knowing that your suspicions were not
addressed?

If indeed there was rube wiring elsewhere, and a problem occurred e.g.
at that 12g to 14g junction later on, could the electrician be held
liable if he simply matched wire size to breaker size at the panel?
Isn't there some deeper level of responsibility, as in perhaps
refusing to take the panel replacement job, if the electrician has
reason to believe other parts of the system are unsafe?

Very often people have finished basements that were never filed for or
inspected. When they go to sell the house, the non compliant area pops
up, and the town requires them to get a certificate of occupancy. In
order to get a C/O from the town, they need an electrical certificate.
(in my area), to get this, I as a licensed electrician, have to hire a
certified electrical inspection agency to do the inspection. The walls
are closed. You can only determine so much, so they issue a "closed
wall" inspection or "electrical survey". As part of the form, it
specifies that the inspection is, "to the best of our knowledge" and
terms like we're not liable for things unseen, etc, etc.

When someone hires us to do a service,or any other job, we price that
job alone. We absolutely bring anything unseemly or dangerous to the
attention of the customer, with recommendations for repairing or
replacing, as a separate job
..
When we do a service. We have that work inspected and provide a
certificate of compliance, as part of the job. If there was some wiring
problem downstream of the electrical service, it would still exist, but
wouldn't have anything to do with the work we did, nor would we have any
way to know

On Jan 15, 3:34*pm, RBM wrote:
On 1/15/2012 3:01 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:









On Jan 15, 2:25 pm, *wrote:
On 1/15/2012 2:20 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:

* *wrote in message
....

But that's my point. "Hopefully" seems like a risky thing to base the
wiring on. It was obvious that prior work was not compliant, so why
would the electrician simply assume that the correct wire sizes were
.used?

I'd be concerned with the possibilty that, let's say, 12g was used at
the panel but is connected to 14g in a nearby junction box or
something like that.

If it was a neat installation I'd have more confidence, but this panel
was such a mess, with obvious violations, that I'd have to suspect
violations outside the box.

I guess my main concern was the broadcasting of the practice as if the
wire size is all you ever have to be concerned with. It just struck me
as a dangerous assumption, especially in the sloppy conditions in
which the assumption was made.

It all boiles down to how much time and money is to be spent. *The breaker
box can be changed in a few hours. *To check out the whole house may take a
day or two. *The job description was to change the box, not check out all
the wiring in the house.

It would be up to the home owner to determin if all the wiring should be
checked out at a much larger cost, after finding a code violation or two
with the instalation.

That's it in a nutshell. The service is one job. If, while doing the
service the electrician has reason to suspect rube wiring in other areas
of the house, he'll bring his suspicions to the home owner, with
suggestions for how to proceed.

RBM:

I'm not a lawyer nor a licensed electrician, so this is are legitimate
(i.e. not a smart ass) questions. I always respect your answers
related to electrical questions, so...

If you had reason to suspect rube wiring based on what you saw at the
panel, would you...

1 - Mention it to the homeowner
2 - Accept his choice not to address your suspicions
3 - Connect the wires based on size
4 - Sleep comfortably even knowing that your suspicions were not
addressed?

If indeed there was rube wiring elsewhere, and a problem occurred e.g.
at that 12g to 14g junction later on, could the electrician be held
liable if he simply matched wire size to breaker size at the panel?
Isn't there some deeper level of responsibility, as in perhaps
refusing to take the panel replacement job, if the electrician has
reason to believe other parts of the system are unsafe?

Very often people have finished basements that were never filed for or
inspected. When they go to sell the house, the non compliant area pops
up, and the town requires them to get a certificate of occupancy. *In
order to get a C/O from the town, they need an electrical certificate.
(in my area), to get this, I as a licensed electrician, have to hire a
certified electrical inspection agency to do the inspection. The walls
are closed. You can only determine so much, so they issue a "closed
wall" inspection or "electrical survey". As part of the form, it
specifies that the inspection is, "to the best of our knowledge" and
terms like we're not liable for things unseen, etc, etc.

When someone hires us to do a service,or any other job, we price that
job alone. We absolutely bring anything unseemly or dangerous to the
attention of the customer, with recommendations for repairing or
replacing, as a separate job
.
When we do a service. We have that work inspected and provide a
certificate of compliance, as part of the job. If there was some wiring
problem downstream of the electrical service, it would still exist, but
wouldn't have anything to do with the work we did, nor would we have any
way to know

Makes sense...Thanks!

"Juan Deere" wrote in message
...
On 1/15/2012 12:13 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:

"There are 3 sizes of wires. The smaller wires go to the 15A breakers,
the mid-size wires go to the 20A breakers and the largest wires go to
the 30A breaker."

Doesn't this seem to be an oversimplified, possibly dangerous, method?


LOL. I saw the show and thought the same thing.

Me three! Sadly, it wasn't the first time I thought: "WTF?" about something
they did on This Old House (and spinoffs). I agree with DD. That was not
what I would consider "world class" workmanship just to clip wires without
retaining any original connection information. Especially when it would
take about 5 minutes with a sheet of small labels to mark the wires and note
the corresponding breakers.

Since I'm an X-10 junkie, my panel is not only marked as to circuits, I've
numbered all the outlets in the house and have a chart inside the box that
tells me what breaker they are on. Kitchen fridge is 6A, counter outlets,
7A, 7B and 7C, etc. It's very useful for X-10 system debugging and easy to
expand if I add new outlets.

But on the other hand, was the customer willing to pay extra to have the
electrician pull every outlet, switch and fixture in the entire house to
make sure the proper sized wire was used on each circuit?

My major heartache was not labeling the existing connections. With the
price of digital film these days (compared to Kodak film of old) I would
*never* attempt anything like that without having taken close-ups of what
existed originally. I can't tell you how many times being able to refer to
things the way they were before disassembly began has turned out to be a
lifesaver.

Of course, the safest fix would be to rip out all the old wiring and
replace it with new.

Not often practical, I agree, but that's what I ended up doing when I bought
the fixer-upper I live in now. I could easily tell from inspection of the
age, condition and date of manufacture on the breakers that 15A breakers had
been replaced by newer 20A units. All of the circuits used the same gauge
wire, so I knew *something* was rotten in Denmark. While a "bump up" might
be fine, especially for circuits that see only an occasional peak like a
kitchen circuit powering countertop outlets and a refrigerator, the wire
could heat up enough to start a fire if the current draw is steady.

That's what motivated me to change. If the fridge kicked off when the
toaster oven was on, the breaker would trip, and that was even with a 20A
breaker on a 15A circuit. The typical breaker can't tell what's downstream
and whether it's drawing more current than the *wire* can handle. It only
"cares" whether there's more current flowing out of the breaker than the
*breaker* can handle.

Considering how screwed up my panel was after decades of home-schooled
electricians and other nit-wits had been at it, I wouldn't assume the rating
of any breaker was right. The idiots that owned the house before me pulled
neutrals from other circuits to power things like wall-mounted light
switch-type timers. The kitchen circuit was "protected" (and I use the term
loosely!) by a 20A breaker but had the same wire size as all the other
circuits in the panel. The older, original equipment breakers were all 15A.
It was easy to discern that from a number of clues. Since 15 amps wasn't
good enough for a modern kitchen, I assume they may have upped the breaker
to 20A just to keep it from tripping all the time without realizing the
potential fire hazard they were creating.

I've backed that circuit down to a 15A breaker and ran three new circuits
from the panel with 12/2 and two dual skinny breakers. One is breaker is a
dual 15A for the original circuit and the fridge circuit. The other dual is
a 20A that powers the countertop outlets. While the new fridge circuit is
12/2 and can handle 20A, it's protected with a 15A breaker simply because
dual skinnies don't come split 15A/20A (AFAICT). Well, at least there
weren't any at my local big box stores. That's just another reminder that
the breaker may not match the circuit for a number of different reasons.

--
Bobby G.

On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 10:42:16 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Jan 15, 12:26Â*pm, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:
"DerbyDad03" wrote in message

...





On this week's episode of Ask This Old House, an electrician was
replacing the service wire and panel in a house. There were code
problems within the panel (broken breakers, doubled up circuits, etc.)
There were at least 3 generations of wiring at the panel: BX cable,
cloth cover Romex and modern Romex. There was a rat's nest of wiring
in and around the panel.

He noted that he would normally mark all the wires before removing
them but since the existing labeling was wrong, he chose to simply cut
all of the wires and "figure it out afterwards".

As he was connecting the wires to the new breakers he used this simple
method to determine which wires to connect to which breakers:

"There are 3 sizes of wires. The smaller wires go to the 15A breakers,
the mid-size wires go to the 20A breakers and the largest wires go to
the 30A breaker."

Doesn't this seem to be an oversimplified, possibly dangerous, method?

Since it was obvious that whoever came before him violated codes by
doubling up breakers and who knows what else, isn't it dangerous to
assume that the correct wire sizes were used as the mess grew over the
years?

Maybe they were just saving air time by using that explanation, but it
seems to me that a lot more investigation should have been done as
opposed to simply letting the wire size determine the breaker size. To
even imply that the wire size is the determining factor seems
irresponsible on their part.

Sounds good to me. Â*If the wires were checked out to be 14, 12, and wiring
large enough to carry 30 amps. Â*The breakers are to make sure the wires are
large enough to carry the current.

The devices plugged into the wiring should have fuses or breakers to protect
them built in.

Maybe more time could be spent, but if the house has been that way for a
long time, hopefully the wireing is close enough not to be a hazzard.

But that's my point. "Hopefully" seems like a risky thing to base the
wiring on. It was obvious that prior work was not compliant, so why
would the electrician simply assume that the correct wire sizes were
used?

I'd be concerned with the possibilty that, let's say, 12g was used at
the panel but is connected to 14g in a nearby junction box or
something like that.

If it was a neat installation I'd have more confidence, but this panel
was such a mess, with obvious violations, that I'd have to suspect
violations outside the box.

I guess my main concern was the broadcasting of the practice as if the
wire size is all you ever have to be concerned with. It just struck me
as a dangerous assumption, especially in the sloppy conditions in
which the assumption was made.
Short of tearing out the walls to find the wire, how ELSE would you
recommend he do it?? SOMEWHERE on a 12 guage circuit someone COULD
have connected a 14 guage wire. ANd there is no law saying you can NOT
fuse a 12 guage at 15 amps.

Assuming the correct breakers were installed in the first place is
also risky.


Personally I'd identify what goes out when the (20 amp) breaker on a
#12 is tripped to see if it NEEDED to be a 20, or should be a 15, and
connect ALL 14s to 15 amp breakers.

On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 14:25:30 -0500, RBM wrote:

On 1/15/2012 2:20 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
wrote in message
...

But that's my point. "Hopefully" seems like a risky thing to base the
wiring on. It was obvious that prior work was not compliant, so why
would the electrician simply assume that the correct wire sizes were
.used?

I'd be concerned with the possibilty that, let's say, 12g was used at
the panel but is connected to 14g in a nearby junction box or
something like that.

If it was a neat installation I'd have more confidence, but this panel
was such a mess, with obvious violations, that I'd have to suspect
violations outside the box.

I guess my main concern was the broadcasting of the practice as if the
wire size is all you ever have to be concerned with. It just struck me
as a dangerous assumption, especially in the sloppy conditions in
which the assumption was made.

It all boiles down to how much time and money is to be spent. The breaker
box can be changed in a few hours. To check out the whole house may take a
day or two. The job description was to change the box, not check out all
the wiring in the house.

It would be up to the home owner to determin if all the wiring should be
checked out at a much larger cost, after finding a code violation or two
with the instalation.



That's it in a nutshell. The service is one job. If, while doing the
service the electrician has reason to suspect rube wiring in other areas
of the house, he'll bring his suspicions to the home owner, with
suggestions for how to proceed.
And simply not connect the "rube" circuit if he deams it dangerous.

On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 12:01:04 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Jan 15, 2:25Â*pm, RBM wrote:
On 1/15/2012 2:20 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:







Â*wrote in message
...

But that's my point. "Hopefully" seems like a risky thing to base the
wiring on. It was obvious that prior work was not compliant, so why
would the electrician simply assume that the correct wire sizes were
.used?

I'd be concerned with the possibilty that, let's say, 12g was used at
the panel but is connected to 14g in a nearby junction box or
something like that.

If it was a neat installation I'd have more confidence, but this panel
was such a mess, with obvious violations, that I'd have to suspect
violations outside the box.

I guess my main concern was the broadcasting of the practice as if the
wire size is all you ever have to be concerned with. It just struck me
as a dangerous assumption, especially in the sloppy conditions in
which the assumption was made.

It all boiles down to how much time and money is to be spent. Â*The breaker
box can be changed in a few hours. Â*To check out the whole house may take a
day or two. Â*The job description was to change the box, not check out all
the wiring in the house.

It would be up to the home owner to determin if all the wiring should be
checked out at a much larger cost, after finding a code violation or two
with the instalation.

That's it in a nutshell. The service is one job. If, while doing the
service the electrician has reason to suspect rube wiring in other areas
of the house, he'll bring his suspicions to the home owner, with
suggestions for how to proceed.

RBM:

I'm not a lawyer nor a licensed electrician, so this is are legitimate
(i.e. not a smart ass) questions. I always respect your answers
related to electrical questions, so...

If you had reason to suspect rube wiring based on what you saw at the
panel, would you...

1 - Mention it to the homeowner
2 - Accept his choice not to address your suspicions
3 - Connect the wires based on size
4 - Sleep comfortably even knowing that your suspicions were not
addressed?

If indeed there was rube wiring elsewhere, and a problem occurred e.g.
at that 12g to 14g junction later on, could the electrician be held
liable if he simply matched wire size to breaker size at the panel?
Isn't there some deeper level of responsibility, as in perhaps
refusing to take the panel replacement job, if the electrician has
reason to believe other parts of the system are unsafe?
My dad was an electrician.
He replaced a LOT of service panels.
Often the new panel was the first step in rehabilitating the entire
house wiring system. It can NEVER be the last step.

In quite a few houses he connected what he knew to be "safe" and did
not connect what he knew to be "unsafe" and told the owner what
really needed to be addressed first.

He often got the dirty job of rewiring the whole house - often piece
at a time.

On Jan 15, 4:24*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 10:42:16 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03





wrote:
On Jan 15, 12:26*pm, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:
"DerbyDad03" wrote in message

....

On this week's episode of Ask This Old House, an electrician was
replacing the service wire and panel in a house. There were code
problems within the panel (broken breakers, doubled up circuits, etc..)
There were at least 3 generations of wiring at the panel: BX cable,
cloth cover Romex and modern Romex. There was a rat's nest of wiring
in and around the panel.

He noted that he would normally mark all the wires before removing
them but since the existing labeling was wrong, he chose to simply cut
all of the wires and "figure it out afterwards".

As he was connecting the wires to the new breakers he used this simple
method to determine which wires to connect to which breakers:

"There are 3 sizes of wires. The smaller wires go to the 15A breakers,
the mid-size wires go to the 20A breakers and the largest wires go to
the 30A breaker."

Doesn't this seem to be an oversimplified, possibly dangerous, method?

Since it was obvious that whoever came before him violated codes by
doubling up breakers and who knows what else, isn't it dangerous to
assume that the correct wire sizes were used as the mess grew over the
years?

Maybe they were just saving air time by using that explanation, but it
seems to me that a lot more investigation should have been done as
opposed to simply letting the wire size determine the breaker size. To
even imply that the wire size is the determining factor seems
irresponsible on their part.

Sounds good to me. *If the wires were checked out to be 14, 12, and wiring
large enough to carry 30 amps. *The breakers are to make sure the wires are
large enough to carry the current.

The devices plugged into the wiring should have fuses or breakers to protect
them built in.

Maybe more time could be spent, but if the house has been that way for a
long time, hopefully the wireing is close enough not to be a hazzard.

But that's my point. "Hopefully" seems like a risky thing to base the
wiring on. It was obvious that prior work was not compliant, so why
would the electrician simply assume that the correct wire sizes were
used?

I'd be concerned with the possibilty that, let's say, 12g was used at
the panel but is connected to 14g in a nearby junction box or
something like that.

If it was a neat installation I'd have more confidence, but this panel
was such a mess, with obvious violations, that I'd have to suspect
violations outside the box.

I guess my main concern was the broadcasting of the practice as if the
wire size is all you ever have to be concerned with. It just struck me
as a dangerous assumption, especially in the sloppy conditions in
which the assumption was made.

*Short of tearing out the walls to find the wire, how ELSE would you
recommend he do it?? *SOMEWHERE on a 12 guage circuit someone COULD
have connected a 14 guage wire. ANd there is no law saying you can NOT
fuse a 12 guage at 15 amps.

Assuming the correct breakers were installed in the first place is
also risky.

*Personally I'd identify what goes out when the *(20 amp) breaker on a
#12 is tripped to see if it NEEDED to be a 20, or should be a 15, and
connect ALL 14s to 15 amp breakers.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

safest to see what each wire services, and only use 12 gauge wire at
panel to loads that absolutely need 20 amp breakers.

everything else goes to 15 amp breakers.

except 240 volt loads, probably few of those, so they could be checked
for wire gauge.'

14 gauge 15 amp is on consertive side, its unlikely a 14 gauge wire
would get hot enough to cause a fire on a 20 amp breaker

"Robert Green" wrote in message
...
That's what motivated me to change. If the fridge kicked off when the
toaster oven was on, the breaker would trip, and that was even with a 20A
breaker on a 15A circuit. The typical breaker can't tell what's
downstream
and whether it's drawing more current than the *wire* can handle. It only
"cares" whether there's more current flowing out of the breaker than the
*breaker* can handle.

As I mentioned before, you do not size the breaker for what is downstream,
you size it for the wire. If you need to have a certain amount of current
for several devices, you use large wire and a breaker to match.

Older houses were wired when the kitchen did not have many high current
devices in use. Now many people have the several things going at once.
Toaster, microwave, coffee pot. About 30 years ago I lived in a 2 bedroom
apartment that was built in the 1950s or before. It had 2 20 amp fuses in
it for the whole thing except the stove.

On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 13:33:55 -0800 (PST), bob haller
wrote:

On Jan 15, 4:24Â*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 10:42:16 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03





wrote:
On Jan 15, 12:26Â*pm, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:
"DerbyDad03" wrote in message

...

On this week's episode of Ask This Old House, an electrician was
replacing the service wire and panel in a house. There were code
problems within the panel (broken breakers, doubled up circuits, etc.)
There were at least 3 generations of wiring at the panel: BX cable,
cloth cover Romex and modern Romex. There was a rat's nest of wiring
in and around the panel.

He noted that he would normally mark all the wires before removing
them but since the existing labeling was wrong, he chose to simply cut
all of the wires and "figure it out afterwards".

As he was connecting the wires to the new breakers he used this simple
method to determine which wires to connect to which breakers:

"There are 3 sizes of wires. The smaller wires go to the 15A breakers,
the mid-size wires go to the 20A breakers and the largest wires go to
the 30A breaker."

Doesn't this seem to be an oversimplified, possibly dangerous, method?

Since it was obvious that whoever came before him violated codes by
doubling up breakers and who knows what else, isn't it dangerous to
assume that the correct wire sizes were used as the mess grew over the
years?

Maybe they were just saving air time by using that explanation, but it
seems to me that a lot more investigation should have been done as
opposed to simply letting the wire size determine the breaker size. To
even imply that the wire size is the determining factor seems
irresponsible on their part.

Sounds good to me. Â*If the wires were checked out to be 14, 12, and wiring
large enough to carry 30 amps. Â*The breakers are to make sure the wires are
large enough to carry the current.

The devices plugged into the wiring should have fuses or breakers to protect
them built in.

Maybe more time could be spent, but if the house has been that way for a
long time, hopefully the wireing is close enough not to be a hazzard.

But that's my point. "Hopefully" seems like a risky thing to base the
wiring on. It was obvious that prior work was not compliant, so why
would the electrician simply assume that the correct wire sizes were
used?

I'd be concerned with the possibilty that, let's say, 12g was used at
the panel but is connected to 14g in a nearby junction box or
something like that.

If it was a neat installation I'd have more confidence, but this panel
was such a mess, with obvious violations, that I'd have to suspect
violations outside the box.

I guess my main concern was the broadcasting of the practice as if the
wire size is all you ever have to be concerned with. It just struck me
as a dangerous assumption, especially in the sloppy conditions in
which the assumption was made.

Â*Short of tearing out the walls to find the wire, how ELSE would you
recommend he do it?? Â*SOMEWHERE on a 12 guage circuit someone COULD
have connected a 14 guage wire. ANd there is no law saying you can NOT
fuse a 12 guage at 15 amps.

Assuming the correct breakers were installed in the first place is
also risky.

Â*Personally I'd identify what goes out when the Â*(20 amp) breaker on a
#12 is tripped to see if it NEEDED to be a 20, or should be a 15, and
connect ALL 14s to 15 amp breakers.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

safest to see what each wire services, and only use 12 gauge wire at
panel to loads that absolutely need 20 amp breakers.

everything else goes to 15 amp breakers.

except 240 volt loads, probably few of those, so they could be checked
for wire gauge.'

14 gauge 15 amp is on consertive side, its unlikely a 14 gauge wire
would get hot enough to cause a fire on a 20 amp breaker
Actually unlikey on a 30 unless loaded to the ragged limit. Voltage
drop can be an issue if the undersized wire is very long.

DerbyDad03 wrote:

But that's my point. "Hopefully" seems like a risky thing to base the
wiring on. It was obvious that prior work was not compliant, so why
would the electrician simply assume that the correct wire sizes were
used?

I'd be concerned with the possibilty that, let's say, 12g was used at
the panel but is connected to 14g in a nearby junction box or
something like that.

If it was a neat installation I'd have more confidence, but this panel
was such a mess, with obvious violations, that I'd have to suspect
violations outside the box.

I guess my main concern was the broadcasting of the practice as if the
wire size is all you ever have to be concerned with. It just struck me
as a dangerous assumption, especially in the sloppy conditions in
which the assumption was made.

What alternative makes more sense than the voice of experience that's
probably older than the funky wiring?
* Assume the possibility that somewhere there might be a junction box with a
bell wire connection, therefore every breaker should be 5 amps?
* Find, and inspect, every junction box, outlet, and switch to determine
wire sizes and hope there's not a hidden junction box behind a plaster wall?

You're right, it is a dangerous assumption. But it's also a trade-off.

Plus, the TV show you saw may have simply been using poetic license.

On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 17:06:52 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:


"Robert Green" wrote in message
...
That's what motivated me to change. If the fridge kicked off when the
toaster oven was on, the breaker would trip, and that was even with a 20A
breaker on a 15A circuit. The typical breaker can't tell what's
downstream
and whether it's drawing more current than the *wire* can handle. It only
"cares" whether there's more current flowing out of the breaker than the
*breaker* can handle.

As I mentioned before, you do not size the breaker for what is downstream,
you size it for the wire. If you need to have a certain amount of current
for several devices, you use large wire and a breaker to match.

Older houses were wired when the kitchen did not have many high current
devices in use. Now many people have the several things going at once.
Toaster, microwave, coffee pot. About 30 years ago I lived in a 2 bedroom
apartment that was built in the 1950s or before. It had 2 20 amp fuses in
it for the whole thing except the stove.


The house my Dad bought in 1957 had 2 fuses. One for the lights. One
for the receptacles. 6 room 2 story house with basement. I think
there were 7 lights and 4 or 5 receptacles in the whole houe

"Ralph Mowery" wrote in message
m...

"Robert Green" wrote in message
...
That's what motivated me to change. If the fridge kicked off when the
toaster oven was on, the breaker would trip, and that was even with a
20A
breaker on a 15A circuit. The typical breaker can't tell what's
downstream
and whether it's drawing more current than the *wire* can handle. It
only
"cares" whether there's more current flowing out of the breaker than the
*breaker* can handle.

As I mentioned before, you do not size the breaker for what is downstream,
you size it for the wire. If you need to have a certain amount of current
for several devices, you use large wire and a breaker to match.

I don't think I said otherwise. What I said was in relation to finding an
breaker too large for the circuit. It could easily allow enough current to
pass to cause a fire. That's what I found. Someone had put 20A breakers
that seemed pretty clear too large for the size wire they were connected to.
In that case, a 19.5A load wouldn't trip the breaker but would warm up the
in-wall wires pretty well, perhaps melting the insulation and causing an
arc. IIRC, that's why arc-fault breakers came into being. (-:

IMHO, to be completely sure, you need to inspect the panel to make sure that
all the wires pulled are of the same era if you want to use sizing as your
only guide. Even then, every obvious new addition to the panel is suspect,
especially if there aren't any matching inspection stickers. There's also
no way to tell whether some home electrician added four 150 watt floods to a
front door sconce circuit and has severely overloaded the circuit way
downstream of the wire at the panel. The older the house, the more likely
circuits have been tapped. That's why I mentioned investigating to see
which breakers were original to the panel. Tapped and overloaded outside
circuits might be fine in the cold weather and heat to the point of failure
at the peak of summer.

Ralph, let me ask you what would you think if you found an older panel (50
years old) with cloth covered wire that all looked to be about the same age
and gauge. They're hooked up to a mix of half 20A and 15A breakers with the
20A breakers being obviously much newer than any of the 15A breakers. The
20A breakers were all made 10 years after the panel. The 15A breakers have
the same manufacture date (almost) as the panel itself. (I'm excluded some
of the newer circuits that were obvious late-comers like central A and
grounded outlets near windows for window A/C's for the sake of simplicity.)

Older houses were wired when the kitchen did not have many high current
devices in use. Now many people have the several things going at once.
Toaster, microwave, coffee pot. About 30 years ago I lived in a 2 bedroom
apartment that was built in the 1950s or before. It had 2 20 amp fuses in
it for the whole thing except the stove.

Wow. Ironically, we may see a time when devices become so efficient that
you can live on 40A all over again.

It's interesting how the patterns of electrical usage have changed.
Nowadays, since everything has a charger or line cord you can almost never
have enough outlets. I don't think I know a single person who doesn't use
multiple outlet strips throughout the house. In the modern kitchen, even
three 20 amp circuits might not be enough for some households.

--
Bobby G.

DerbyDad03 wrote:
On this week's episode of Ask This Old House, an electrician was
replacing the service wire and panel in a house. There were code
problems within the panel (broken breakers, doubled up circuits, etc.)
There were at least 3 generations of wiring at the panel: BX cable,
cloth cover Romex and modern Romex. There was a rat's nest of wiring
in and around the panel.

He noted that he would normally mark all the wires before removing
them but since the existing labeling was wrong, he chose to simply cut
all of the wires and "figure it out afterwards".

As he was connecting the wires to the new breakers he used this simple
method to determine which wires to connect to which breakers:

"There are 3 sizes of wires. The smaller wires go to the 15A breakers,
the mid-size wires go to the 20A breakers and the largest wires go to
the 30A breaker."

Doesn't this seem to be an oversimplified, possibly dangerous, method?

Since it was obvious that whoever came before him violated codes by
doubling up breakers and who knows what else, isn't it dangerous to
assume that the correct wire sizes were used as the mess grew over the
years?

Maybe they were just saving air time by using that explanation, but it
seems to me that a lot more investigation should have been done as
opposed to simply letting the wire size determine the breaker size. To
even imply that the wire size is the determining factor seems
irresponsible on their part.

In my house, a 12 gauge might feed a 14 gauge circuit. So, whether that is
legal, don't know. I do know it exists. That circuit might have been on a
15 amp breaker, and it should have been noted.

Greg

"Robert Green" wrote in message
...
Ralph, let me ask you what would you think if you found an older panel (50
years old) with cloth covered wire that all looked to be about the same
age
and gauge. They're hooked up to a mix of half 20A and 15A breakers with
the
20A breakers being obviously much newer than any of the 15A breakers. The
20A breakers were all made 10 years after the panel. The 15A breakers have
the same manufacture date (almost) as the panel itself. (I'm excluded
some
of the newer circuits that were obvious late-comers like central A and
grounded outlets near windows for window A/C's for the sake of
simplicity.)


As stated above, the job is to replace the panel, not check out everything
in the house. I would look at the size of the wires and put in the correct
breakers for the wires leaving the panel. Then report to the home owner
what I found. Really report first, then let the home owner make the
decision on how much he wanted to spend.

Much the same when you take a car in for tires. If a mechanic finds other
issues such as bad breaks or out of alignment, he will change the tires, and
report the other issues to the car owner.

gregz wrote:
DerbyDad03 wrote:
On this week's episode of Ask This Old House, an electrician was
replacing the service wire and panel in a house. There were code
problems within the panel (broken breakers, doubled up circuits, etc.)
There were at least 3 generations of wiring at the panel: BX cable,
cloth cover Romex and modern Romex. There was a rat's nest of wiring
in and around the panel.

He noted that he would normally mark all the wires before removing
them but since the existing labeling was wrong, he chose to simply cut
all of the wires and "figure it out afterwards".

As he was connecting the wires to the new breakers he used this simple
method to determine which wires to connect to which breakers:

"There are 3 sizes of wires. The smaller wires go to the 15A breakers,
the mid-size wires go to the 20A breakers and the largest wires go to
the 30A breaker."

Doesn't this seem to be an oversimplified, possibly dangerous, method?

Since it was obvious that whoever came before him violated codes by
doubling up breakers and who knows what else, isn't it dangerous to
assume that the correct wire sizes were used as the mess grew over the
years?

Maybe they were just saving air time by using that explanation, but it
seems to me that a lot more investigation should have been done as
opposed to simply letting the wire size determine the breaker size. To
even imply that the wire size is the determining factor seems
irresponsible on their part.

In my house, a 12 gauge might feed a 14 gauge circuit. So, whether that is
legal, don't know. I do know it exists. That circuit might have been on a
15 amp breaker, and it should have been noted.

Greg

I also installed 85 foot of 10 gauge wire to my garage. Does not mean to
use over 20 amp breaker.

Greg

On Jan 15, 10:41*pm, gregz wrote:
gregz wrote:
DerbyDad03 wrote:
On this week's episode of Ask This Old House, an electrician was
replacing the service wire and panel in a house. There were code
problems within the panel (broken breakers, doubled up circuits, etc.)
There were at least 3 generations of wiring at the panel: BX cable,
cloth cover Romex and modern Romex. There was a rat's nest of wiring
in and around the panel.

He noted that he would normally mark all the wires before removing
them but since the existing labeling was wrong, he chose to simply cut
all of the wires and "figure it out afterwards".

As he was connecting the wires to the new breakers he used this simple
method to determine which wires to connect to which breakers:

"There are 3 sizes of wires. The smaller wires go to the 15A breakers,
the mid-size wires go to the 20A breakers and the largest wires go to
the 30A breaker."

Doesn't this seem to be an oversimplified, possibly dangerous, method?

Since it was obvious that whoever came before him violated codes by
doubling up breakers and who knows what else, isn't it dangerous to
assume that the correct wire sizes were used as the mess grew over the
years?

Maybe they were just saving air time by using that explanation, but it
seems to me that a lot more investigation should have been done as
opposed to simply letting the wire size determine the breaker size. To
even imply that the wire size is the determining factor seems
irresponsible on their part.

In my house, a 12 gauge might feed a 14 gauge circuit. So, whether that is
legal, don't know. I do know it exists. That circuit might have been on a
15 amp breaker, and it should have been noted.

Greg

I also installed 85 foot of 10 gauge wire to my garage. Does not mean to
use over 20 amp breaker.

Greg

When a panel is well marked and distances of a run are known, you can
size a breaker based on the designed and intended capacity of the
circuit based on the over-sized conductor being used to combat voltage
drop...

But on a panel where every circuit except for the 240 volt appliances
was double tapped ?

Right, it would cost more than the panel replacement to trace down all
of those circuits and examine every junction on each line to assess
that situation -- all that has been described was the service upgrade
from 100amps to 200amps and the breaker panel replacement...

This is why people who see a shiny new electrical panel in a house
shouldn't be taken in an ASSUME the house has been "rewired" when
the only work which was done was that the electrical service and panel
were replaced...

~~ Evan

"hr(bob) " wrote in message
news:90525220-bd56-48b7-9ace-

stuff snipped

The OP is correct. Just because a heavy gauge wire was used at the
panel does NOT mean that all the wiring from that point down to the
far end of the circuit is the same heavy gauge. What would happen if
there were a smaller gauge wire in the midpoint, and a heavy load
placed at the far end of the circuit. The breaker would hold, but the
smaller wire in the intermediate point of the chain would act as a
fuse (maybe), or maybe set the whole house on fire.

What I've seen happen far too often is someone tapping into a circuit
instead of pulling a new wire from the circuit breaker box. While a light
circuit is probably no big deal, adding outlets can easily overload a
circuit in a way that causes wires to overheat in the wall. That's one of
the reason I mark outlets and fixed lighting loads on the inside door of my
circuit panel. It's a Word document I print out on card stock and revise as
necessary.

--
Bobby G.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 23:37:26 -0500, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"hr(bob) " wrote in message
news:90525220-bd56-48b7-9ace-

stuff snipped

What I've seen happen far too often is someone tapping into a circuit
instead of pulling a new wire from the circuit breaker box. While a
light
circuit is probably no big deal, adding outlets can easily overload a
circuit in a way that causes wires to overheat in the wall. That's one
of
the reason I mark outlets and fixed lighting loads on the inside door of
my
circuit panel. It's a Word document I print out on card stock and revise
as
necessary.


NFPA somewhat saves you on 15 and 20a circuits with 240.4(D). A 14
gauge wire actually has an ampacity of 20a at 60c rating in 310.16 but
they make you put it on a 15a breaker to build in a 80% safety
factor. They know users may keep plugging in stuff until the breaker
trips, then unplug the clock to see if it will hold
I agree if you put a 20a continuous load on a 14 gauge wire it will
get warmer than it should but it really should not cause a fire.
The one you see in older houses, with fuses, that is really troubling
is the 30a fuse on that 14 gauge wire.

I agree with a "yeah, but . . . " (-:

When bad things happen, it's often because two or more things have gone
wrong at the same time. I think one of the reasons that backstabbing is no
longer allowed on 12 gauge wires is that they can develop serious arc faults
that won't be caught by a normal breaker. Even with the built-in safety
margin you described, a breaker that's too big for the circuit it's
protecting is a step up the ladder of bad outcomes. (-: It can allow
another fault downstream (like a bad back-stab or a nicked connecting wire)
to become much more likely to cause a problem.

If your experience is anything like mine I am sure you've seen your share of
wire nicked by strippers that reduce the effective gauge of the wire which
can cause that section of the wire to heat up tremendously. I've seen
serious problems occur with badly twisted wire-nut connections, back-stabs
have cut into the wire and others. I've seen high-current devices like
space heaters melt outlets because of a poor connection. That's why I
prefer to use two space heaters running at 750 watts on different circuits
than to run a 1500 watt unit on a single breaker.

I certainly agree that a 30A fuse on 14 gauge wire is really asking for
trouble that's almost as bad as putting a penny in the old-style fuse
holders. The NFPA is certainly on the right track when they try to
anticipate the stupid things that people are likely to do. I've had
roommates who didn't realize that letting a breaker trip time and time again
can destroy its ability to trigger reliably in the future.

--
Bobby G.

Well, from my understanding of wiring, wire size is one factor that
determines the breaker size. 14 gage, 15 amps. 12 gage, 20 amps, 10 gage,
30 amps.

For aluminum wire, down rate the breaker by one size.

What should they have done instead?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
...
On this week's episode of Ask This Old House, an electrician was
replacing the service wire and panel in a house. There were code
problems within the panel (broken breakers, doubled up circuits, etc.)
There were at least 3 generations of wiring at the panel: BX cable,
cloth cover Romex and modern Romex. There was a rat's nest of wiring
in and around the panel.

He noted that he would normally mark all the wires before removing
them but since the existing labeling was wrong, he chose to simply cut
all of the wires and "figure it out afterwards".

As he was connecting the wires to the new breakers he used this simple
method to determine which wires to connect to which breakers:

"There are 3 sizes of wires. The smaller wires go to the 15A breakers,
the mid-size wires go to the 20A breakers and the largest wires go to
the 30A breaker."

Doesn't this seem to be an oversimplified, possibly dangerous, method?

Since it was obvious that whoever came before him violated codes by
doubling up breakers and who knows what else, isn't it dangerous to
assume that the correct wire sizes were used as the mess grew over the
years?

Maybe they were just saving air time by using that explanation, but it
seems to me that a lot more investigation should have been done as
opposed to simply letting the wire size determine the breaker size. To
even imply that the wire size is the determining factor seems
irresponsible on their part.

"Ralph Mowery" wrote in message
m...

"Robert Green" wrote in message
...
Ralph, let me ask you what would you think if you found an older panel
(50
years old) with cloth covered wire that all looked to be about the same
age
and gauge. They're hooked up to a mix of half 20A and 15A breakers with
the
20A breakers being obviously much newer than any of the 15A breakers.
The
20A breakers were all made 10 years after the panel. The 15A breakers
have
the same manufacture date (almost) as the panel itself. (I'm excluded
some
of the newer circuits that were obvious late-comers like central A and
grounded outlets near windows for window A/C's for the sake of
simplicity.)


As stated above, the job is to replace the panel, not check out everything
in the house. I would look at the size of the wires and put in the
correct
breakers for the wires leaving the panel. Then report to the home owner
what I found. Really report first, then let the home owner make the
decision on how much he wanted to spend.

I was asking my question independent of the above case because it's the
situation I found when I began work on my own house's breaker panel. I've
always wondered if all the original circuits were 15A (which I suspect) or
that there was a legitimate mix of 15A and 20A breakers from the very
beginning.

Much the same when you take a car in for tires. If a mechanic finds other
issues such as bad breaks or out of alignment, he will change the tires,
and
report the other issues to the car owner.

There's a difference between electrical work and automobile repair work, I
think. If there's a safety issue discovered during an upgrade, IIRC it MUST
be corrected in order to receive approval from the electrical inspector.

As I noted in my original post, cutting the wires willy-nilly during an
upgrade could easily miss a situation where a lower value breaker was
deliberately placed on a circuit. It could be because the person that did
it was accommodating a circuit tap that he installed that put a greater than
original load on the circuit. In that case, the electrician sees a 15A
breaker on a 12 gauge wire and replaces it with a 20A breaker, not knowing
the circuit had 14 gauge wire somewhere downstream.

Derby Dad had it right in the first post. Cutting or disconnecting all the
panel wires without noting what breakers the wires were connected to is
wrong, wrong, wrong. Unless all the breakers are the same value, there's
too much potential to destroy clues relating to what might be special cases.

--
Bobby G.

On Jan 15, 11:37*pm, "Robert Green"
wrote:
"hr(bob) " wrote in message

news:90525220-bd56-48b7-9ace-

stuff snipped

The OP is correct. *Just because a heavy gauge wire was used at the
panel does NOT mean that all the wiring from that point down to the
far end of the circuit is the same heavy gauge. * What would happen if
there were a smaller gauge wire in the midpoint, and a heavy load
placed at the far end of the circuit. *The breaker would hold, but the
smaller wire in the intermediate point of the chain would act as a
fuse (maybe), or maybe set the whole house on fire.

What I've seen happen far too often is someone tapping into a circuit
instead of pulling a new wire from the circuit breaker box. *While a light
circuit is probably no big deal, adding outlets can easily overload a
circuit in a way that causes wires to overheat in the wall.


It can't if the breaker is sized correcly to the wire size as it's
supposed to be.
Put a 15 amp breaker on a circuit with 14 gauge wire and you
can put as many outlets as you please on it without the wire
overheating.




*That's one of
the reason I mark outlets and fixed lighting loads on the inside door of my
circuit panel. *It's a Word document I print out on card stock and revise as
necessary.

--
Bobby G.

On 1/15/2012 1:48 PM, RBM wrote:
On 1/15/2012 2:41 PM, hr(bob) wrote:
On Jan 15, 11:13 am, wrote:
On this week's episode of Ask This Old House, an electrician was
replacing the service wire and panel in a house. There were code
problems within the panel (broken breakers, doubled up circuits, etc.)
There were at least 3 generations of wiring at the panel: BX cable,
cloth cover Romex and modern Romex. There was a rat's nest of wiring
in and around the panel.

He noted that he would normally mark all the wires before removing
them but since the existing labeling was wrong, he chose to simply cut
all of the wires and "figure it out afterwards".

As he was connecting the wires to the new breakers he used this simple
method to determine which wires to connect to which breakers:

"There are 3 sizes of wires. The smaller wires go to the 15A breakers,
the mid-size wires go to the 20A breakers and the largest wires go to
the 30A breaker."

Doesn't this seem to be an oversimplified, possibly dangerous, method?

Since it was obvious that whoever came before him violated codes by
doubling up breakers and who knows what else, isn't it dangerous to
assume that the correct wire sizes were used as the mess grew over the
years?

Maybe they were just saving air time by using that explanation, but it
seems to me that a lot more investigation should have been done as
opposed to simply letting the wire size determine the breaker size. To
even imply that the wire size is the determining factor seems
irresponsible on their part.

The OP is correct. Just because a heavy gauge wire was used at the
panel does NOT mean that all the wiring from that point down to the
far end of the circuit is the same heavy gauge. What would happen if
there were a smaller gauge wire in the midpoint, and a heavy load
placed at the far end of the circuit. The breaker would hold, but the
smaller wire in the intermediate point of the chain would act as a
fuse (maybe), or maybe set the whole house on fire.


Correct, and that would be the fault of the person that improperly
installed the undersized wire. Stuff like that can go undetected even
after a careful inspection. You can't see inside walls.

I didn't see the episode. Electricians have not been my favorite
mechanics on TOH in general (but better than Trethewey doing electrical
work).

It is not a problem if a circuit with #14 wire, but #12 at the panel, is
connected to a 15A circuit breaker. Occasionally #12 or #10 may be used
for voltage drop with smaller wire downstream. In a rewire a #14 ckt
might have #12 connecton to the panel. Would seem like a minimal check
would be to feel if the wire size matched the breaker, and if the
breaker was smaller than the wire use the smaller breaker in the new panel.

There are also anomalies, like you can legitimately have perhaps a 40A
breaker on a #10 wire for an air conditioning compressor.

If enforced, the NEC requires meaningful labeling of circuits (408.4-A).
("Lights and receptacles" is not meaningful.) The original panel may
have had some of this information (or maybe not).

--
bud--

"gregz" wrote in message
...
DerbyDad03 wrote:

stuff snipped

Maybe they were just saving air time by using that explanation, but it
seems to me that a lot more investigation should have been done as
opposed to simply letting the wire size determine the breaker size. To
even imply that the wire size is the determining factor seems
irresponsible on their part.

In my house, a 12 gauge might feed a 14 gauge circuit. So, whether that is
legal, don't know. I do know it exists. That circuit might have been on a
15 amp breaker, and it should have been noted.

In an old house, there's no telling if the circuit's been under
semi-permanent overload and has tripped and reset so many times that the
breaker itself has or is about to fail. I sure there are at least some
tenants or homeowners who, when discovering that a breaker no longer trips
the way it used to, assume the problem is fixed and not that the breaker has
failed. For me the bottom line is that it's not likely labeling the wire
and which breaker it went to is going to rob the job of all its profit.

I've seen electricians do other questionable things on This Old House, etc.
I watched one electrician take long wires in the attic and instead of
stripping them out where the light was good and she could sit in a
comfortable position she chose to lie prone in a dark corner and strip the
wires after they had been fed into the box, mounted far into the edge of the
attic. I like to strip the wire in the best light possible so I can see any
potential problems. Wires nicked during stripping can lead to arc faults
and I would say that wires nicked while being stripped is one of the more
common issues I've seen, especially from DIY electricians who don't do it
every day.

She also couldn't drive a straight staple - it went crooked and looked like
the next hammer blow would drive the narrow edge of the staple into the
insulation. I also saw her put more than one cable under the stable, which
I've read makes some AHJ inspectors unhappy but is probably compliant with
the NEC if the right staples are used.

I use separate staples just because it's a few seconds extra time and a few
cents of extra cost to make a cleaner looking install that means less chance
of damaging the insulation if for any reason you have to replace one of the
wires. She did, however, make sure the cables were laying flat on each
other. I think the inspectors worry that the staples used to tack down
multiple wires might not be long enough to securely anchor them.

--
Bobby G.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 09:13:08 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

He noted that he would normally mark all the wires before removing
them but since the existing labeling was wrong, he chose to simply cut
all of the wires and "figure it out afterwards".

Sounds like an idiot to me. It's not that hard to label wires. The
guy must have been short on work, so opted to do it where it would
consume the most amount of time......

I tend to agree. At least take a few digital pictures. It's not an
activity that's going to take more than 5 minutes.

Of course, this is TV. Take it with a grain of salt. Most of these
shows seem to find the most costly methods available to do these
repairs and use every hi-tech gadget available (to advertise the
crap). You have to be very wealthy to do it like they do it on those
shows. In fact I've always wondered why they even start with an old
building, when they end up destroying or removing most of it. Seems
cheaper to begin new..... People buy older homes that need work mostly
because they cant afford to build new, and because the older homes are
also built sturdier.

I rarely watch those programs anymore. They're just not practical.

Oh, I still learn things from them. I saw them pull cable through a conduit
using a mouse on twine that pulled a stronger rope and then finally the
cable itself (looked like 10 or 8 gauge feeder) using a winch with two foot
pedals. If either the puller or the pusher guy took his foot off their
footswitch, the winch stopped. I never thought of using a winch for that,
and if I ever have to pull cable like that, I might invest in two foot
pedals and a heavy duty relay to make the same sort of treadle switch
safety.

But sadly, I agree, much of the stuff they do is fast-forwarded. Especially
the "What it it?" segments.

--
Bobby G.

"bud--" wrote in message
...

stuff snipped

I didn't see the episode. Electricians have not been my favorite
mechanics on TOH in general (but better than Trethewey doing electrical
work).

(-:

It is not a problem if a circuit with #14 wire, but #12 at the panel, is
connected to a 15A circuit breaker. Occasionally #12 or #10 may be used
for voltage drop with smaller wire downstream. In a rewire a #14 ckt
might have #12 connecton to the panel. Would seem like a minimal check
would be to feel if the wire size matched the breaker, and if the
breaker was smaller than the wire use the smaller breaker in the new
panel.

It seemed to me that he was "throwing away" potentially valuable information
by not matching the wire to its original breaker.

There are also anomalies, like you can legitimately have perhaps a 40A
breaker on a #10 wire for an air conditioning compressor.

If enforced, the NEC requires meaningful labeling of circuits (408.4-A).
("Lights and receptacles" is not meaningful.) The original panel may
have had some of this information (or maybe not).

I've got a very detailed description of the loads (and even outlets) that
each circuit powers on my circuit panel door. I update it every time I make
a change to the panel. I created it by checking each circuit out
individually to see what did and didn't work after I flipped the breakers.
I figure it's the least I can do for the next guy to own the house.

--
Bobby G.

Don't use no double negatives, nohow. I am not going to fail to tell you
again, definitely not.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

wrote in message
...

In fact there are situations when it could be a 40a breaker on 14 ga
wire but don't do it without the proper code guidance (a common
question on the inspector's test).

On 1/16/2012 10:40 AM, bud-- wrote:
On 1/15/2012 1:48 PM, RBM wrote:
On 1/15/2012 2:41 PM, hr(bob) wrote:
On Jan 15, 11:13 am, wrote:
On this week's episode of Ask This Old House, an electrician was
replacing the service wire and panel in a house. There were code
problems within the panel (broken breakers, doubled up circuits, etc.)
There were at least 3 generations of wiring at the panel: BX cable,
cloth cover Romex and modern Romex. There was a rat's nest of wiring
in and around the panel.

He noted that he would normally mark all the wires before removing
them but since the existing labeling was wrong, he chose to simply cut
all of the wires and "figure it out afterwards".

As he was connecting the wires to the new breakers he used this simple
method to determine which wires to connect to which breakers:

"There are 3 sizes of wires. The smaller wires go to the 15A breakers,
the mid-size wires go to the 20A breakers and the largest wires go to
the 30A breaker."

Doesn't this seem to be an oversimplified, possibly dangerous, method?

Since it was obvious that whoever came before him violated codes by
doubling up breakers and who knows what else, isn't it dangerous to
assume that the correct wire sizes were used as the mess grew over the
years?

Maybe they were just saving air time by using that explanation, but it
seems to me that a lot more investigation should have been done as
opposed to simply letting the wire size determine the breaker size. To
even imply that the wire size is the determining factor seems
irresponsible on their part.

The OP is correct. Just because a heavy gauge wire was used at the
panel does NOT mean that all the wiring from that point down to the
far end of the circuit is the same heavy gauge. What would happen if
there were a smaller gauge wire in the midpoint, and a heavy load
placed at the far end of the circuit. The breaker would hold, but the
smaller wire in the intermediate point of the chain would act as a
fuse (maybe), or maybe set the whole house on fire.


Correct, and that would be the fault of the person that improperly
installed the undersized wire. Stuff like that can go undetected even
after a careful inspection. You can't see inside walls.

I didn't see the episode. Electricians have not been my favorite
mechanics on TOH in general (but better than Trethewey doing electrical
work).

It is not a problem if a circuit with #14 wire, but #12 at the panel, is
connected to a 15A circuit breaker. Occasionally #12 or #10 may be used
for voltage drop with smaller wire downstream. In a rewire a #14 ckt
might have #12 connecton to the panel. Would seem like a minimal check
would be to feel if the wire size matched the breaker, and if the
breaker was smaller than the wire use the smaller breaker in the new panel.

There are also anomalies, like you can legitimately have perhaps a 40A
breaker on a #10 wire for an air conditioning compressor.

If enforced, the NEC requires meaningful labeling of circuits (408.4-A).
("Lights and receptacles" is not meaningful.) The original panel may
have had some of this information (or maybe not).

I agree, which is why I would make a notation of anything unusual while
disconnecting the loads.