Buried LB

[oldsparky52]

We never had an issue with it and actually embraced it,,,, still do.

I think it's a good rule.

 

[jimmyglen]

I have never seen a "shepherds hook" around St. Louis too much
learn something new everyday

 

[electrofelon]

It seems they've recently extended it to 5' from 3' as was previously required.

Whatever the voices in your head tell you JAP

 

[jap]

Whatever the voices in your head tell you JAP

I thought you said you were done with this.

Evidently your voices are telling you something different also.

JAP>

 

[jap]

I have never seen a "shepherds hook" around St. Louis too much
learn something new everyday

I've never seen an actual one, but, have come across a few in the "field" if you know what I mean.

JAP>

 

[sameguy]

Baaaa, I know

 

[electrofelon]

I thought you said you were done with this.

Evidently your voices are telling you something different also.

JAP>

You got me there.....

 

[kwired]

Yes, a back to back is allowed as long as it's within 5', but, the 5' is pretty strictly enforced.

It seems they've recently extended it to 5' from 3' as was previously required.

Thus the reasoning I mentioned the OP's install more than likely wouldn't pass in area since it was well past the 3' we were previously allowed.

If it was less than that all would be good.

This requirement has been in place for several years and was actually ahead of it's time.

We never had an issue with it and actually embraced it,,,, still do.

BTW,,,,,Your more than welcome for the post of the requirement.

JAP>

So they want limitation on the non protected conductors on load side of meter, but you can easily have longer line side of meter conductors attached to the building whether it be overhead or underground fed.

NEC itself does not have any limitation and as earlier mentioned you could wrap the house with service conductor/cables and there is no length limitations until you enter the building, though that length is not specific in NEC and does vary from place to place.

 

[electrofelon]

So they want limitation on the non protected conductors on load side of meter, but you can easily have longer line side of meter conductors attached to the building whether it be overhead or underground fed.

NEC itself does not have any limitation and as earlier mentioned you could wrap the house with service conductor/cables and there is no length limitations until you enter the building, though that length is not specific in NEC and does vary from place to place.

Obviously jap is making this up, but to play along, yeah that is one of the big flaws with the wording in the fake rule is there is no length restriction on the service conductors on the line side of the meter, so as long as you have flexibility with meter placement, the "rule" is meaningless.

Also, I guess we are to assume "main disconnect" means "service disconnect". Such a rule would need to use more specific terms.

I guess cold sequence metering would be allowed as the "rule" didn't state which side of the meter the "main disconnect" could be on.

 

[jap]

Obviously jap is making this up, but to play along, yeah that is one of the big flaws with the wording in the fake rule is there is no length restriction on the service conductors on the line side of the meter, so as long as you have flexibility with meter placement, the "rule" is meaningless.

Also, I guess we are to assume "main disconnect" means "service disconnect". Such a rule would need to use more specific terms.

I guess cold sequence metering would be allowed as the "rule" didn't state which side of the meter the "main disconnect" could be on.

I got to say it.
Your nothing but an internet bully.
Someone who takes something they don't agree with and blow it completely out of proportion and keep antagonizing over something that doesn't even concern them.

I for the life of me don't know what I did to upset you so much other than post a requirement in my area.

I don't need to be a part of your hatefulness.

There's enough of that in the world already.

Jap>

 

[jap]

So they want limitation on the non protected conductors on load side of meter, but you can easily have longer line side of meter conductors attached to the building whether it be overhead or underground fed.

NEC itself does not have any limitation and as earlier mentioned you could wrap the house with service conductor/cables and there is no length limitations until you enter the building, though that length is not specific in NEC and does vary from place to place.

That's correct.

Jap

 

[jap]

All the rule actually does is keep the Service Disconnect close to the meter.

Jap>

 

[electrofelon]

All the rule actually does is keep the Service Disconnect close to the meter.

Jap>

Take it easy. Sorry to upset you. Im just busting on you for you apparently extreme desire to remain totally anonymous. I just find it perplexing. Perhaps Im not coming across as light hearted as I intend to be, my apologies.


If an AHJ wanted to limit the amount of total service conductor,perhaps a phrase such as "the meter shall be as close as practicable to the service point." would also be needed. OR the rules could be combined to "the service disconnect shall be as close to the service point as practicable." Kinda hard to give a max distance considering variables from the serving utility. Not sure what exactly would be accomplished in safety by keeping a hot sequence meter close to the service disconnect.

 

[jap]

You've taken this too far.

I'm not a liar.

 

[oldsparky52]

You've taken this too far.

I'm not a liar.

He apologized, can you accept it?

I agree with you, but I also want to believe that electrofelon is sincere in his apology.

I also find it a little odd that you didn't want to share the jurisdiction, but it was not something to get aggressive about (like electrofelon did).

If I was a mod, I'd lock this thread.

 

[electrofelon]

I'm not a liar.

No you are not. Another member helped me find that city and the document with the electrical rules. I'll respect your privacy and not post it here, since you apparently are very adamant about it not being public. If anyone else wants to see the actual documents they can PM me.

 

[kwired]

All the rule actually does is keep the Service Disconnect close to the meter.

Jap>

Is there a benefit to this? There is still no overcurrent protection until you hit the service disconnect.

Have had houses before where lateral comes up on side of house then metered conductors go back underground and enter at different area of the house, still limited amount of conductor that enters the house, they are still service conductors in that situation. Have many places where meter is on a pole at edge of property and load conductors go underground to the house and no meter or disconnect on exterior of house. On rural properties is almost always meter on a pole and may be multiple buildings on the property all supplied with service conductors.

 

[jap]

No you are not. Another member helped me find that city and the document with the electrical rules. I'll respect your privacy and not post it here, since you apparently are very adamant about it not being public. If anyone else wants to see the actual documents they can PM me.

Glad to see you finally got the proof you needed.

It proves I'm not a liar.

You should trust more.

You don't have to belittle people.

Jap>

 

[jap]

Is there a benefit to this? There is still no overcurrent protection until you hit the service disconnect.

Have had houses before where lateral comes up on side of house then metered conductors go back underground and enter at different area of the house, still limited amount of conductor that enters the house, they are still service conductors in that situation. Have many places where meter is on a pole at edge of property and load conductors go underground to the house and no meter or disconnect on exterior of house. On rural properties is almost always meter on a pole and may be multiple buildings on the property all supplied with service conductors.

I don't see the benefit to the rule.

I feel it's simply a rule that's been around for so long it has become habit.

No one has probably felt the rule was a bad one and never felt the need to question it.

I know I don't think it's such a bad rule

Jap>

 

[electrofelon]

Glad to see you finally got the proof you needed.

It proves I'm not a liar.

You should trust more.

You don't have to belittle people.

Jap>

Don't take it personally. Pretty much I'm not going to trust someone with an anonymous persona on the internet who makes a claim about a seemingly odd nonsensical rule with questionable wording and won't say where it is. What is that the KGB used to say: "trust but verify."

I didn't intend to "belittle" you but sorry you felt that way.

Haven't had the best luck trusting people honestly, I really can't recommend it.