Challenger Panel

There are four problems I reported in this panel.

One of them is unusual and could easily be missed.

Take your best shot(s).

Is this suppose to be the service panel or a remote?
It the bottom left breaker controlling an outlet in a closet?:smiley:

If this is indeed a remote panel the neutral bars are not tied together

It’s a town home so the main disconnect is located near the meters.

The neutral bus bars are tied together(black plastic cover is over the tie strap)

I see multiple neutrals under a single termination and a mis-identified ungrounded conductor. The upper left breaker appears to be 100A (?), if so, the conductors are too small.

The feeders appear to be AL (?), if so that would be paste near the lugs, otherwise it would appear that they may have over-heated.

remote distibution panel.

1-Grounding conductors touching the grounded bus
2-Double lugged grounded conductors
3-Non re-identifed/marked white conductor on breaker
4-Is right side feeder insulation exposed at entry?
5-Is there a lack of romex connector at top right?

Yes there a double lugged neutral.

What looks like overheating is anti oxidant paste.

The pic is not clear enough but the breaker is not 100A. It’s a 40 A for the range(see attached pic)

This is remote distribution panel in a town home so the main breaker is located elsewhere.

The bending radius of the feeder conductors is far too tight.
**300.34 Conductor Bending Radius. **
The conductor shall not be bent to a radius less than 8 times the overall diameter for nonshielded conductors or 12 times the overall diameter for shielded or lead-covered conductors during or after installation. For multiconductor or multiplexed single-conductor cables having individually shielded conductors, the minimum bending radius is 12 times the diameter of the individually shielded conductors or 7 times the overall diameter, whichever is greater

Unless this panel is installed in Disney World or Disney Land then I don’t understand the use of Mickey Mouse ears in those conductors. Is this panel in Mickey’s house?

Are those EGCs touching that neutral bar? If yes then we need to slap the electrician.

The top left breaker is supplying a cooking appliance and appears to be SE type cable it will require four wires.

The third breaker on the left is supplying a 240 volt circuit and the white conductor has not been identified by marking as being a current carrying conductor.

The biggest problem I see is there is no IR image of the panel and the picture is stamped with a time of 8:18 AM and we all know that those electrons are still asleep at this time in the morning. lol :slight_smile:

As has already been pointed out the bottom left breaker is supplying a receptacle in a clothes closet and this is a real danger as someone might plug in an iron and leave it in the closet near a polyester dress and the whole world burn. Is this heat I am feeling right now the fire started by that iron? roflmao :roll:

You are going to help us a little aren’t you? You do know my last couple of comments are meant to be funny, right?

Larry’s got it with Number 1,2 and 3

There is a problem with the lower left hand breaker pair.(look at the thread title for a clue and pay attention to color ;-))

Since the neutral should float at this remote distribution panel having the grounding conductors touching the neutral bus defeats the purpose. :D:D

That’s just plain funny Mike. :D:cool::smiley:

I have to admit, I did not consider bend radius. Thanks

You see KEVIN, that’s how it’s done. You admit your error and move on. :wink:

Is that a square D breaker

Yes it is. :slight_smile:

And though not part of my concerns in this post it is a 30 A protecting 14 AWG to some added receptacles in the garage with no GFCI.

Homehandiman for sure:shock:

Going to call you Eagle Eye from now on. Couldn’t see the rating on the handle and didn’t see that it was a Square D at first but then again I didn’t see the two neutrals either.

I am still wondering if this was a panel at Disney World with those Mickey Mouse ears. :shock:

I will admit I did not think of the bending or the Mickey mouse ears.:smiley:

This pic should make the Square D issue and overprotection clear.

The NM connector in the bottom has the tightening mechanism on the inside of the panel.

Yeah that whole installation was bolox.

Wrong breaker mfg. wrong size, unsecured wiring, no gfci.

He had no clue.

You can forget about the bending radius. The section posted {300.34} is for installations over 600 volts.

I agree, I think all good electricians leave some slack for future repairs.
If the end of the wire gets burned they can cut it off and reconnect it.

There is nothing wrong with the clamp being on the inside of the enclosure. This is allowed.

You weren’t supposed to say that. I was doing a receptacle in the closet trick. I was hoping that someone would pick up on “shielded and nonshielded” in that first sentence but, alas no one did.

This is the idea of all this extra conductor in the panel but it is something I will not allow unless the one doing the installing is going to pay me for all that extra wire.
It just looks ugly as well as putting extra strain on the terminal.
If I am installing something planning on it having a problem I think I should take the “good” part off my title.
If I am installing something planning on it being there from now on then I will put the “good” back in my title.
In other words a good electrician will not put Mickey’s ears in a panel.

I am sorry to each and every one of you that has read this thread.
I just got off the phone talking with a friend who taught me a good lesson.

This fellow is a HVAC technician who called me with an electrical code question. I gave him the code reference that applied to wit he said something that brought my mind to this thread;
Mike, although you Paul and Speedy are without electrical gurus I know nothing about the codes so all this code section stuff you are throwing around means nothing to me. This fellow was a member of Paul’s Electrical Guru site that lives in my area and Paul’s site has been closed therefore the phone call.

Earlier in this thread I made a reference to a code section but I did it with humor in mind not thinking that for the most part members here wouldn’t have a clue of what I was trying to do.

For this I truly apologize. Sometimes I think that I expect everyone to have the same knowledge that I have concerning the electrical code.

Can each of you find it in your heart to forgive me for misleading you although in my heart I meant it to be funny thinking that you would pick up on the “shielded ad non-shielded” part of the code section. I now realize that for the most part no one here would have a clue what was being referenced.