Where is "around here"?
Why should I believe your sometimes wild ideas are actually what is
required "around here"?
Why should I even care what is required "around here"?
What is the NEC problem with what RBM said?
And from a different post:
> Not since when constructed or last modified they were
> required to be provided with separate 200 amp services...
Why do you think 200A services were "required"?
What determines how large a service is "required" under the NEC?
How many times do I have to tell you: I don't HAVE a zoning board! This is
MY property and my city allows me to do with it pretty much whatever I want.
I could convert it into a Stop-And-Rob, a hotel, or a parking lot and the
city does not want to be bothered.
I agree I live in a laissez-faire environment. But population density is
irrelevant here as well. Houston is the nation's 4th largest (population)
city and we seem to be muddling along acceptably well. Except for the
football team of course.
I have no direct experience with persnickety regulations and zoning in other
cities, but it is my distinct impression that the need for safety pales in
comparison to the need for graft, corruption, and political favortism.
Sounds like you have one drop and two standpipes. I can't imagine two
drops, but I suppose it's possible.
If each standpipe is 200 amp, I would remove the unnecessary standpipe,
meter pan and service entrance cable to it's respective panel, and blank
If you only want to feed the now dead panel with a 2 pole 60 amp
breaker, I would relocate the airconditioning condenser cable from that
panel and move it to the main panel. This will minimize dimming when it
starts. You will also need to remove the bonding jumper on the now "sub
panel", and probably install a ground bar and remove all the bare
equipment grounding conductors from the neutral bar and move them to it.
Your feeder from the main panel will require 4 conductors, two hot, one
neutral, one ground
If you get your power company involved in any way, you will HAVE to have
a licensed electrician do the work and he/she will have to get local
permits which will require inspection from your local government agent.
There is no way around it.
Says who and for where? What's allowed in TX is likely very different
from NYC. Here in NJ a homeowner is
allowed to do work on their own home that they occupy.
Perfectly legal as long as you get the necessary permit.
I'm in Houston. What's this "permit" silliness?
When I replaced the circuit breaker box, I called the light company to
un-seal the meter. After I finished the job, I called the light company
again. They came out an re-sealed the meter. No permits, licensed experts,
or genuflections required.
On 1/28/2012 7:13 PM, email@example.com wrote:
Scary isn't it. I feel like I'm over regulated, but when I read some of
these posts, OMG it really is scary. What really kills me is that some
of these folks really believe that we couldn't function without a
plethora of government regulators, inspectors, agents, and what have
you, following us around and wiping our noses
I am sorry, but until each homeowner who does such "work"
receives a $150,000 bill on top of whatever rebuilding costs
are involved after they burn down their house as they are going
to be making use of the fire department my property tax money
helps to fund to put out the fire that would result from improperly
done "work" which was never inspected nor correctly done, I want
those government regulators, inspectors and agents at least
verifying that the "work" that the DIY types have done won't
immediately set the house on fire... Especially if said home
is only 30 feet away from mine...
Do you think that your trade would function better without that
layer of the uninterested 3rd party (a.k.a. the wiring inspector)
protecting your business/license in the event something happens
down the line... Your word that you completed the work properly
isn't very compelling evidence if a fire or worse occurs... But
when you have the documentation that the work done passed
inspection, you would not remain the default suspected cause
of the problems, if some other cause wasn't glaringly obvious...
Not to mention that the wiring inspector is interested in having
safe work done in their jurisdiction that meets or exceeds the
code standards that the jurisdiction has accepted and operate
So how close to your home would you want an amateur hour
electrical job that even a first year student in the trade wouldn't
do work that badly located to where you sleep at night putting
your life in possible danger ? Hmm, if not for wiring, as you feel
safe with idiots being allowed to risk not only their lives but others
as well, what about for gas piping or plumbing... Would your
opinion on the matter change if you were at risk of your neighbor
blowing you up in a gas explosion or having the hot water heater
they tried to "fix" by removing safety devices from the tank land
on you as you sleep in bed at night and you still feel the way
you do about "over regulation" in your own trade... LOL...
Nope... Up in the civilized educated part of the country,
BOTH the building inspector AND the fire department inspectors
are involved in the construction oversight process...
Actually, your trade wouldn't...
Your word against your customer's word in court is an even wash,
the inspector's report and certificate speaks volumes as an
uninterested 3rd party to the transaction... Without a 3rd party
to provide impartial evidence you would be on the hook for
any fire caused by an "electrical" problem... Would be your
burden to prove it wasn't you -- civil cases are much different
than criminal ones, all a plaintiff has to do is have a causation
to bring the suit against you which is supported by the barest
minimum of evidence... The ball is in your court after that to
show by producing evidence that you weren't at fault...
Your knowledge of the law is as deficient as many other things you opine
I agree a disinterested 3rd party's opinion would count for a substantial
amount. But look at your first sentence in the above paragraph. I'll repeat
it here: "Your word against your customer's word in court is an even
With no other evidence submitted, I, the defendant, win. The customary rule
in civil matters is "preponderance of the evidence," which usually means 51%
or more. If, as you said, it's a wash, the plaintiff loses. Further, and
contrary to your claim, the plaintiff need not have ANY evidence at all to
initiate a suit.
One more error and I'm done. I do NOT have to produce any evidence that I'm
not at fault. It is the duty of the plaintiff to introduce evidence to the
contrary. If he cannot produce said evidence, and his claim is NOT evidence,
I can remain mute and win a default judgment.
Now it may be true in your benighted jurisdiction that someone can come to
court with a preposterous claim and automatically the defendant is removed
to a dark and dank cell to dangle upside-down. But when I went to law
school, such tactics are not to be found in my state's Code of Civil
I'm a big believer in self regulation. Where I live and work, it's
actually a misdemeanor to do electrical wiring without a license, which
I think is probably unconstitutional, but until someone takes it to
court, it's the law. On his property, if he wants to do any kind of
construction, plumbing, wiring, etc. it should be his business. Yes, on
occasion people do things wrong or sloppy and bad things happen. Such is
life. I think there is something about the human, or at least the
American spirit, that doesn't want to be protected from itself.
As a second generation electrician, I can tell you that having a layer
of bureaucracy between me and my work, does little to benefit me if the
work I or my employees does, causes fire or death.
Having known dozens of electrical inspectors over the years, lets just
say that they are human too and all to often very corrupted
On another note, some years ago, I pulled into a restaurant parking lot
and as I was backing into a space, a car came into the entrance and
began to try to go behind me, where there wasn't enough room to get
between me and the one parked car adjacent to me. Following the laws of
physics, she hit the parked car next to me and grazed the back of my
truck. When she got out of the car, I asked what exactly happened, and
she told me that she just left the service station down the street,
where she had gotten a brake job. Needless to say, her brakes failed.
OK, here is an example where you have a 5000 pound moving machine,
capable of doing all manner of death and destruction, improperly
serviced, causing a major malfunction. Should this and every service
station have a government inspector on hand to assure each potentially
deadly job was done correctly? What about do it yourself mechanics?
Where do you draw the line?
I think, to follow the laws of ~~ Evan, we'd need an army of
government inspectors to invade all aspects of our lives... for our own
benefit. I also think that this is exactly what our current president
has in mind
That Sir is a mighty fine question and a good example.
Next thing the folks in favor of big govt will want to
regulate that too. Here in NJ we had annual car inspections
done only by state facilities for years. There was no
statistically significant difference in accident rates
attributable to mechanical malfunction from states
where there was no inspection. Now new cars are
exempt for 5 years and old cars only get inspected
On 1/29/2012 1:35 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Holy Connolly, I had no idea that NJ relaxed those rules. In NY it's
just getting uglier and just another reason I feel over regulated. I
have a new 2010 diesel Sprinter. Three countys in the state require a
special diesel emissions inspection annually, mine being one of them. My
regular mechanic is not going to spend the whatever thousands of dollars
to buy the machine, for the few diesel customers he has, so I'm forced
to go out of my way, to mechanics I don't like, to have this done.
Unlike in ~~Evan's world, where the government does this sort of thing,
we have a more Fascist system, where the government forces the private
sector to do this stuff.In any event, it's just another example of
government interference restricting my choice
I have a 1980-Mercedes 300SD tubodiesel. One day a
couple years ago it was due for inspection. I drove over
to the state inspection facility and they told me to go
away and NEVER COME BACK. A new addition to
the law is that diesels older than like 1996 don't need
to be inspected at all. The problem is that before that
they don't have an OBD computer with emissions
data which is all they use now.
Which gets into another story about govt waste. Back
in the days of Christie Whitman, the feds imposed
inspection requirements on the NY area states for
emissions. They wanted the cars dyno tested at
highway speeds while the emissions were read.
Instead of refusing to do it, taking
it all the way to the supreme court, etc, she just bent
over. Cost us about $500mil, complete with cost
overruns, late deployment, inspection lines 4 blocks
Then, within about 3 years, the EPA decides that the
info from the computers in the cars is all that's needed.
As if they didn't know that was on the way already.
So, they ripped all of it out within 5 years. Now about
all they check is emissions via connecting to the car
OBD computer and test the brakes on a device where
they roll up and hit them and it shows force at each
wheel. They used to check horn,
wipers, headlights, headlight aiming, turn signals, brake
lights, tires, glass cracks, chips, etc... They lifted the
front-end and tried to rock the wheels to see if ball
joints were loose.
Now it;s emissions, brake, bye.
On 1/29/2012 5:05 PM, email@example.com wrote:
It's funny, I read these posts from guys like Heybub, who live in these
"lawless" lands, and I'm jealous. DPB showed some pix of his place,
absolutely God's country, and there is poor ~~Evan, the mere thought has
him trembling. Wonder where he lives? Maybe Vermont
Just wait... You will experience those statistically higher
numbers of accidents when people realize that they only
have to do repairs on their vehicles once every 2 years,
and then only enough to pass inspection...
What studies were these ? Because just like causes
of death on an autopsy report, there are secondary
and tertiary causes of car accidents... Is that like those
mortality studies which blame death by gunshot when
the effect of being shot caused someone with high
blood pressure to have a heart attack ?
"Operator error" can be compounded by "cell phone use"
which was all made worse by an underlying mechanical
defect which was not repaired... Both the secondary
and tertiary causes here increased the amount of time
needed for the vehicle to stop, one due to a distraction
which increased the operator's response time and the
other which caused the vehicle's stopping distance to
be more than it otherwise would have been if the car
was in good repair...
Often times the people deciding why an accident
happened are measuring yaw marks on the road
and basing that decision off the speeds involved
and whatever witness testimony is available... No
one pulls the vehicles into an inspection bay to
check them unless there has been a serious injury
or fatality where criminal charges might result...
So until every last fender bender is investigated
by certified accident reconstruction investigators
I would call the data you refer to as flawed based
on being decided with only a cursory glance at the
actual facts involved...
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.