Bryant Panel and Gould Breakers

The Bryant sub panel I inspected today had a sticker…it specified that only Bryant breakers should be used w/ this panel…but it had several Gould breakers…any chance they are one and the same…?

Also, as long as we are in this panel…the ground and the neutral from the same circuit are double tapped into this buss.

And…anybody else have a problem w/ this exposed wiring in a bedroom closet? Seems unsafe to me :wink:

Ok…now tear me apart.

Thanks in advance.

511Mtviewunit3 025.jpg

511Mtviewunit3 025.jpg

511Mtviewunit3 056.jpg

511Mtviewunit3 055.jpg

I don’t have a problem with it as it is not my house Tony. :slight_smile: But romex is supposed to be protected from physical damage, recommend conduit and an electrician…

All components are required to be used according to their listing and the manufacturers recommendations. Bryant panel boards should have Bryant breakers.

Grounds and neutrals cannot share the same termination in any panel (service or otherwise).

The grounding conductors are required to be bonded to the distribution (sub) panel and that bus bar is isolated (as it should be for the neutral conductors).

My thoughts exactly…well not exactly, my thoughts were much more discombobulated than yours as to be expected :slight_smile:

Thanks Jeff…I was proud of myself for knowing that the bus bar was to be isolated as the panel is actually a “sub”…shame I cannot spell bus properly.

I am recommending sparky repair as necessary. There are other problems anyway…broken receptacles…etc.

Thanks again.

I hate that statement. I hope you didn’t really say that.

Actually I am recommending a licensed electrical contractor repair the specific problems I mentioned in my report…faux pas in my post.

We should start a thread of trite HI statements…

Appears to be…
repair as necessary…

Goes right up there with "Recommend further evaluation. . . blah, blah, blah."

Appears Serviceable…I like that one the best…it can be used in either direction.

The Zinsco Appeared Serviceable…:smiley: …It was not on fire…:smiley:

Near the end of its’ useful life…

“She Ain’t What She Used To Be”

When it comes to electrical stuff, for which I am not a licensed electrician, I would use “Recommend further evaluation by a licensed electrician, and repair or replacement, as necessary.”

I let the licensed electrician determine if repairs are practical or possible, or whether something needs to be replaced. That’s where the “as necessary” part comes in.

And “Recommend further evaluation” means that because he is a licensed electrician, there is a great possibility that he might find more problems than a unlicensed, generalist nobody like me.

I had a real nice call from a licensed electrician yesterday who complimented me on my report and on the wording I used in my report, and then specifically thanked me for not trying to do the work of a licensed electrician. I asked him which report he had, and I was soooooooooo thankful for his unsolicited phone call because his Client is the one that I, for the first time ever, offered to return the Client’s home inspection fee for a general release of all liability. She was the most difficult person I have ever dealt with outside of any religious schtick. So I know that if the licensed electrician was making an unsolicited, complimentary call to me, then he was probably saying good things about me to my Client. So maybe she will end up liking me after all, even though I have a distinct distaste in my mouth for her. I was sooooooooooo hoping she would sign the release form and send it back to me.

We’ve engaged on this matter before and you are comfortable with these statements where I am not.

Recommending “further evaluation” is simply a way of saying that you don’t know how this should be corrected.

Granted, there are situations where “further evaluation” is warranted and I would even expect that to be followed up with “repair as necessary.” However, these statements should not be used as a “catchall” for every defect we discover.

Jeff, As a licensed Journeyman electrician of 20 years, I could almost guarantee I could find things you didn’t find or recommend things be done differently than you suggest to your client (unless you’re an experienced electrician). Our job as HI’s/generalists is to refer and defer to specialists when warranted, not go throwing our opinions around. Judging from your posts your a very competent HI but to volunteer specialist information based on an incomplete electrical inspection isn’t wise in my opinion. Maybe I’m misunderstanding your position on this, but I would agree with Russell’s statement, a competent electrician would probably have more complete evaluation skills of the entire electrical system just based on the amount of time a HI has to give the electrical portion of his inspection. Are you checking all of the branch circuit/device wiring, doing load and branch ckt.calcs, evaluating all aspects of the electrical system? If you tell your client what’s wrong and exactly how to fix it and then the specialist comes in and tells them something different, who is the client going to believe? What if the repairs needed are much more extensive, will the client come back to you for the difference? If you had just defered to the specialist using generalist terms rather than specifics you limit your liability.

When I find 3 or 4 things wrong with a panel that’s usually enough for me to call for further evaluation and repair/replacement as needed by qualified electrician.

Then I move on.

Not by any stretch of the imagination. You make a bold presumption there.

What further evaluation means is that I, as a generalist, am not going to take the liability for determining how something should be corrected, especially in a licensed profession for which I hold no license. Having come from a large, poor, Catholic/Mormon family, I know how to do a lot of stuff. However, I have to resist practicing in certain professions because I am not licensed to practice in those professions. Now if California can get some licensing for home inspectors, it might be a different story.

As I also state in my report, “when I recommend further evaluation by a licensed professional, it is highly likely that such licensed professionals might find additional problems which a generalist home inspector would not. After all, California law implies that a licensed professional is, or at least should be, much more knowledgable about the profession in which he is licensed than a generalist home inspector would be.”

A great example is that my E&O insurance company wants me to recommend AFCI upgrades. In many cases, such upgrades cannot be done practically or in a financially feasible way, and, quite frankly, it is stupid for me to recommend such upgrades. Of course, my E&O provider doesn’t understand that because I’m not a licensed electrician. So they demand that I recommend “further evaluation by a licensed electrician” and let him make the call as to whether or not AFCI upgrades can be done in a reasonabe fashion.

So it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not I know how to do something. In virtually every case, I do know how to do something, sometimes even better than the licensed professionals. However, I don’t want to practice in their professions, and I sure don’t want the additional liability for practicing in their professions. It is not unheard of for licensed professionals to report to the appropriate authorities unlicensed individuals practicing in professions that are licensed.

Of course, one should check with one’s own attorneys to help determine one’s own business, inspection, and reporting protocols.

I agree. I use them only for licensed professions where I don’t hold a license.

To continue with the drift. . .

As I stated, we’ve engaged in this topic before and neither of us (apparently) is going to change their position.

Whether I’m a licensed or journeyman tradesman, or a first year HI makes no difference.

If I see a double tapped breaker, I’m going to recommend correction, not evaluation.

If I see a reverse slope on a drain/waste line, I’m going to recommend correction, not evaluation.

If I see a B-vent in contact with with the roof framing, I’m going to recommend correction, not evaluation.

If I find indications or symtoms of a defect, I will recommend evaluation.

Back-drafting furnace, water/moisture stains, reduction in water flow, dimming lights, excessive voltage drop, tripping breakers, unlevel floors, truss uplift - these (and many other conditions) would warrant evaluation.

If you have evaluated it and know what the problem is, there’s no point in recommending further evaluation.

If you have evaluated it and don’t know what the problem is, by all means, recommend further evaluation.

Yes, of course we are generalists, however, we are professionals as well. If we are going to recommend evaluation of every defect we find, we’re doing a disservice to our clients.

Also, for additional information:

Panelboards are not allowed in clothes closets. This rule was first added to the NEC in the 1981 addition.


I get where you’re coming from now Jeff. I agree when something is, as Rumsfeld would say, “a known known” we should recomend the fix vs. further evaluation. Save the “further evaluation” recomendations for the “known unknowns”.

That is my point. . .

YEAH…besides…I hate the term Sparky anyway…:slight_smile: