|
Posted by RBM on November 11, 2007, 11:38 am
I'm not exactly sure about your descriptions, however there was probably
only one neutral\ground buss in the panel. There should be a bonding screw
or jumper attaching the box to the buss. Sometimes it's hard to see through
all the wires. Another buss may have been added at a later date, which is
fine.
> Cutler Hammer Main Service Panel circa 1960.
>
> Is anyone familiar with these main service panels from that time?
>
> This is a 100 amp service with breakers.
>
> I had some receptacles grounded by running the ground wires back to
> panel. I had assumed these panels just had a neutral bus and
> everything was put on that since there were not that many grounds.
> Indeed, on the top is a horizontal bus that is basically a round piece
> of copper (like a straw), and all the neutral/ground wires (incuding
> main house ground) are wrapped around the bar--no screws.
>
> I was surprised when I saw the electrician putting the new grounds on
> another bus. This one is lower in the panel (also horizontal) and
> looks like a flat peg board, but this had screws for connections. I
> didn't get a good look, but it didn't look like there was any wires on
> it.
>
> Now that I am thinking about this, I am wondering if the two buses are
> bonded.
>
> In the late 60s or early 70s a central AC/Heater unit was added and
> they used aluminum wire for it. So now I am wondering if it is more
> likely that the bus bar with the screws was original or is it more
> likely it was added when they did the Air conditioning wiring? I was
> distracted so I am not sure, but I did see a piece of alumium wire
> around there, but not sure if it was to the breaker or to that bar.
>
> Anyway, has anyone seen this type of Cutler Hammer panel from 1960?
> What would your take on this be? IF both buses were original, would
> they have been bonded even though only the top one was used? If the
> second was added, would the design be such that it would be bonded via
> the case of the panel?
>
> Obviously, I am new to this stuff, but I hope I was able to describe
> it, even if I didn't use the correct terms.
>
> --
> John
>
|