|
Home > Archive > Home Repair forum > December 2006 > Is There An Electrician in the House?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Is There An Electrician in the House?
|
|
| Arthur Shapiro 2006-12-20, 5:25 pm |
| I knew I had a problem yesterday morning when the furnace didn't come on at
the usual 6:30 time where it progresses from the thermostat's nighttime
setting into the waking time setting.
Investigation revealed about half the house was without power, and half
normal. I quickly ran extension cords to power the critical items (furnace,
refrigerator, computer) to working outlets. Clearly one leg of the 120v
supply was out. After cycling all the breakers, including the master, without
success I decided it was time to pick an electrician out of the phone book,
and the firm promised someone within an hour.
While waiting outside for the electrician, a neighbor came out with exactly
the same complaint. I knew then that it was a utility company problem, but
having commited to the service call decided there was no harm other than a few
$$$ in having the issue confirmed. (Turned out to be a burnt wire in an
underground connection vault, and it took them until 10:30 in the evening to
restore full power.)
The gentleman was quickly able to confirm my hypothesis, but then pointed out
some alleged issues in my breaker box. I personally choose not to fool with
breaker boxes, other than tightening the screws on the blasted aluminum wire
once every year or so; I'm comfortable with wiring and conduit manipulation
and the like, but feel breaker boxes are left to pros.
He pointed out one breaker which had two wires going into it. Being copper, I
knew this was a circuit I had had (professionally) added in the past, but
being on the nonfunctional leg neither he nor I could determine what was being
powered from this breaker. He claimed that was highly dangerous. Now that I
have power again, I'll be able to ascertain what's being powered from that
breaker, but my question is: is this automatically a Highly Bad Thing, or are
there instances where two wires into one breaker is a legitimate installation?
He wanted $450 to correct this, which given the triviality of snapping two
breakers into a box and connecting a wire to each seemed to me to be a ripoff
in the making, so I declined. He also suggested that since many of the
breakers were quite old (it's a 1969 house, although some circuits have been
added over the years), and since replacing them all would be expensive, that I
have him "lubricate" the breakers. I had visions of duct-cleaning "services"
in my head, and simply sent him on his merry way after paying the basic
service fee. Was he blowing smoke, or did he know something about circuit
breakers not apparent to me?
Art
| |
| marks542004@yahoo.com 2006-12-20, 5:25 pm |
|
Arthur Shapiro wrote:
> I knew I had a problem yesterday morning when the furnace didn't come on at
> the usual 6:30 time where it progresses from the thermostat's nighttime
> setting into the waking time setting.
>
> Investigation revealed about half the house was without power, and half
> normal. I quickly ran extension cords to power the critical items (furnace,
> refrigerator, computer) to working outlets. Clearly one leg of the 120v
> supply was out. After cycling all the breakers, including the master, without
> success I decided it was time to pick an electrician out of the phone book,
> and the firm promised someone within an hour.
>
> While waiting outside for the electrician, a neighbor came out with exactly
> the same complaint. I knew then that it was a utility company problem, but
> having commited to the service call decided there was no harm other than a few
> $$$ in having the issue confirmed. (Turned out to be a burnt wire in an
> underground connection vault, and it took them until 10:30 in the evening to
> restore full power.)
>
> The gentleman was quickly able to confirm my hypothesis, but then pointed out
> some alleged issues in my breaker box. I personally choose not to fool with
> breaker boxes, other than tightening the screws on the blasted aluminum wire
> once every year or so; I'm comfortable with wiring and conduit manipulation
> and the like, but feel breaker boxes are left to pros.
>
> He pointed out one breaker which had two wires going into it. Being copper, I
> knew this was a circuit I had had (professionally) added in the past, but
> being on the nonfunctional leg neither he nor I could determine what was being
> powered from this breaker. He claimed that was highly dangerous. Now that I
> have power again, I'll be able to ascertain what's being powered from that
> breaker, but my question is: is this automatically a Highly Bad Thing, or are
> there instances where two wires into one breaker is a legitimate installation?
> He wanted $450 to correct this, which given the triviality of snapping two
> breakers into a box and connecting a wire to each seemed to me to be a ripoff
> in the making, so I declined. He also suggested that since many of the
> breakers were quite old (it's a 1969 house, although some circuits have been
> added over the years), and since replacing them all would be expensive, that I
> have him "lubricate" the breakers. I had visions of duct-cleaning "services"
> in my head, and simply sent him on his merry way after paying the basic
> service fee. Was he blowing smoke, or did he know something about circuit
> breakers not apparent to me?
>
> Art
Hi, my little book on basic home wiring repairs says having two wires
on a screw down connection is not a good idea. It suggests a pigtail
and wire nut .
That said I have much the same in my breaker box.
I have heard suggestions that breakers be manually thrown and reset to
ensure they are functioning corectly about once a year. The lubrication
thing sounds reasonable to me for a mechanical device if in a high dust
area . After all I lubricate hinges , locksets , and stuff regularly. A
breaker inside a box though I dont know. I would have thought that
hinge points would be self lubricating materials .
Your post is a good tip though . If you lose one phase of the supply,
every other breaker its probably a supply problem .
| |
| Jim Redelfs 2006-12-20, 5:25 pm |
| In article <emc3gj$2820$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com>,
art.shapiro@unisys.com (Arthur Shapiro) wrote:
> one breaker which had two wires going into it.
> is this automatically a Highly Bad Thing
No.
The suggestion to "pigtail" the arrangement (one wire attached to the breaker
with a "three-way", just beyond the breaker, done with a wire nut) is probably
better. However, BOTH techniques are somewhat of a kludge, especially if
there are available (open) slots for additional breakers or one (or more)
single breakers that can be swapped-out with a double in the same space.
> "lubricate" the breakers.
That's a new one to me. It's probably in the same league as a muffler
bearing. I am unaware of HOW one might actually lubricate a circuit breaker
in the unlikely event that such is possible, much less necessary.
> Was he blowing smoke
Probably. Get a second, professional opinion AFTER the breaker(s) starts
malfunctioning.
--
JR
No project too small
All projects too big
| |
| 7 LAMPSTICKS 7 FEASTS 7 AGES OF DISPENSATION 2006-12-20, 5:25 pm |
|
I vote for smoke on this one.
Arthur Shapiro wrote:
> I knew I had a problem yesterday morning when the furnace didn't come on at
> the usual 6:30 time where it progresses from the thermostat's nighttime
> setting into the waking time setting.
>
> Investigation revealed about half the house was without power, and half
> normal. I quickly ran extension cords to power the critical items (furnace,
> refrigerator, computer) to working outlets. Clearly one leg of the 120v
> supply was out. After cycling all the breakers, including the master, without
> success I decided it was time to pick an electrician out of the phone book,
> and the firm promised someone within an hour.
>
> While waiting outside for the electrician, a neighbor came out with exactly
> the same complaint. I knew then that it was a utility company problem, but
> having commited to the service call decided there was no harm other than a few
> $$$ in having the issue confirmed. (Turned out to be a burnt wire in an
> underground connection vault, and it took them until 10:30 in the evening to
> restore full power.)
>
> The gentleman was quickly able to confirm my hypothesis, but then pointed out
> some alleged issues in my breaker box. I personally choose not to fool with
> breaker boxes, other than tightening the screws on the blasted aluminum wire
> once every year or so; I'm comfortable with wiring and conduit manipulation
> and the like, but feel breaker boxes are left to pros.
>
> He pointed out one breaker which had two wires going into it. Being copper, I
> knew this was a circuit I had had (professionally) added in the past, but
> being on the nonfunctional leg neither he nor I could determine what was being
> powered from this breaker. He claimed that was highly dangerous. Now that I
> have power again, I'll be able to ascertain what's being powered from that
> breaker, but my question is: is this automatically a Highly Bad Thing, or are
> there instances where two wires into one breaker is a legitimate installation?
> He wanted $450 to correct this, which given the triviality of snapping two
> breakers into a box and connecting a wire to each seemed to me to be a ripoff
> in the making, so I declined. He also suggested that since many of the
> breakers were quite old (it's a 1969 house, although some circuits have been
> added over the years), and since replacing them all would be expensive, that I
> have him "lubricate" the breakers. I had visions of duct-cleaning "services"
> in my head, and simply sent him on his merry way after paying the basic
> service fee. Was he blowing smoke, or did he know something about circuit
> breakers not apparent to me?
>
> Art
| |
| Toller 2006-12-20, 5:25 pm |
|
"Arthur Shapiro" <art.shapiro@unisys.com> wrote in message
news:emc3gj$2820$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
>I knew I had a problem yesterday morning when the furnace didn't come on at
> the usual 6:30 time where it progresses from the thermostat's nighttime
> setting into the waking time setting.
>
> Investigation revealed about half the house was without power, and half
> normal. I quickly ran extension cords to power the critical items
> (furnace,
> refrigerator, computer) to working outlets. Clearly one leg of the 120v
> supply was out. After cycling all the breakers, including the master,
> without
> success I decided it was time to pick an electrician out of the phone
> book,
> and the firm promised someone within an hour.
>
> While waiting outside for the electrician, a neighbor came out with
> exactly
> the same complaint. I knew then that it was a utility company problem,
> but
> having commited to the service call decided there was no harm other than a
> few
> $$$ in having the issue confirmed. (Turned out to be a burnt wire in an
> underground connection vault, and it took them until 10:30 in the evening
> to
> restore full power.)
>
> The gentleman was quickly able to confirm my hypothesis, but then pointed
> out
> some alleged issues in my breaker box. I personally choose not to fool
> with
> breaker boxes, other than tightening the screws on the blasted aluminum
> wire
> once every year or so; I'm comfortable with wiring and conduit
> manipulation
> and the like, but feel breaker boxes are left to pros.
>
> He pointed out one breaker which had two wires going into it. Being
> copper, I
> knew this was a circuit I had had (professionally) added in the past, but
> being on the nonfunctional leg neither he nor I could determine what was
> being
> powered from this breaker. He claimed that was highly dangerous. Now
> that I
> have power again, I'll be able to ascertain what's being powered from that
> breaker, but my question is: is this automatically a Highly Bad Thing, or
> are
> there instances where two wires into one breaker is a legitimate
> installation?
> He wanted $450 to correct this, which given the triviality of snapping two
> breakers into a box and connecting a wire to each seemed to me to be a
> ripoff
> in the making, so I declined. He also suggested that since many of the
> breakers were quite old (it's a 1969 house, although some circuits have
> been
> added over the years), and since replacing them all would be expensive,
> that I
> have him "lubricate" the breakers. I had visions of duct-cleaning
> "services"
> in my head, and simply sent him on his merry way after paying the basic
> service fee. Was he blowing smoke, or did he know something about circuit
> breakers not apparent to me?
>
If the breaker is rated for 2 wires, it is not a problem. If not, then you
can pigtail.
I am assuming that the breaker is properly rated for the smaller of the two
circuits. While that seems obvious, my cottage had three 20a circuits going
to a 50a breaker. Very dangerous.
The other issue is capacity; had they installed a 20a breaker at my cottage
the load on the three circuits would have tripped the breaker. I had to put
them on three 20a breakers.
Personally I would split it up. In all likelihood you can resolve it for
$10 and 5 minutes work. It is probably easier than putting an outlet in.
People are scared of the breaker box cause there is so much power there, but
120v is 120v. (I know there is 240v at the box, but you would have to
really try to contact more than 120v)
I have never heard of old breakers being dangerous or lubricating them, and
I surely wouldn't do anything to them that the manufacturer didn't
recommend. But if you are concerned, you can probably replace them all for
$100 in an hour.
As a matter of fact, I just had a 1965 breaker trip when a mouse chewed
through a wire and shorted it.
| |
| barry@sme-online.com 2006-12-20, 5:25 pm |
|
Arthur Shapiro wrote:
> I knew I had a problem yesterday morning when the furnace didn't come on at
> the usual 6:30 time where it progresses from the thermostat's nighttime
> setting into the waking time setting.
>
> Investigation revealed about half the house was without power, and half
> normal. I quickly ran extension cords to power the critical items (furnace,
> refrigerator, computer) to working outlets. Clearly one leg of the 120v
> supply was out. After cycling all the breakers, including the master, without
> success I decided it was time to pick an electrician out of the phone book,
> and the firm promised someone within an hour.
>
> While waiting outside for the electrician, a neighbor came out with exactly
> the same complaint. I knew then that it was a utility company problem, but
> having commited to the service call decided there was no harm other than a few
> $$$ in having the issue confirmed. (Turned out to be a burnt wire in an
> underground connection vault, and it took them until 10:30 in the evening to
> restore full power.)
>
> The gentleman was quickly able to confirm my hypothesis, but then pointed out
> some alleged issues in my breaker box. I personally choose not to fool with
> breaker boxes, other than tightening the screws on the blasted aluminum wire
> once every year or so; I'm comfortable with wiring and conduit manipulation
> and the like, but feel breaker boxes are left to pros.
>
> He pointed out one breaker which had two wires going into it. Being copper, I
> knew this was a circuit I had had (professionally) added in the past, but
> being on the nonfunctional leg neither he nor I could determine what was being
> powered from this breaker. He claimed that was highly dangerous. Now that I
> have power again, I'll be able to ascertain what's being powered from that
> breaker, but my question is: is this automatically a Highly Bad Thing, or are
> there instances where two wires into one breaker is a legitimate installation?
> He wanted $450 to correct this, which given the triviality of snapping two
> breakers into a box and connecting a wire to each seemed to me to be a ripoff
> in the making, so I declined. He also suggested that since many of the
> breakers were quite old (it's a 1969 house, although some circuits have been
> added over the years), and since replacing them all would be expensive, that I
> have him "lubricate" the breakers. I had visions of duct-cleaning "services"
> in my head, and simply sent him on his merry way after paying the basic
> service fee. Was he blowing smoke, or did he know something about circuit
> breakers not apparent to me?
>
> Art
Sounds totally bogus. In that a screw terminal will grab two similar
single-strand
Cu wires just as well as one. Only possible reason for splitting wires,
IMHO, would depend
on the circuits fed. $450 for popping in one breaker? End of
discussion.
When power's back on, you can check the draw on each wire with clamp-on
ammeter,
and see what's happening there. I assume you know what all the loads
are on that feed.
Lubricating breakers? Right.
OTOH, you mention Al wiring. I'd save up all small change to pay for
verifying, changing
all connections to safe ones; properly crimp on pigtails, whatever. Al
connections are a
huge danger.
J
| |
| JoeSpareBedroom 2006-12-20, 5:25 pm |
| "Arthur Shapiro" <art.shapiro@unisys.com> wrote in message
news:emc3gj$2820$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
>
> While waiting outside for the electrician, a neighbor came out with
> exactly
> the same complaint. I knew then that it was a utility company problem....
I'm just watching this discussion, but maybe someone can explain how a
problem with the utility's equipment could cause just half a house to go
dead.
| |
| Toller 2006-12-20, 5:25 pm |
|
"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xrhih.8052$Ka1.3393@news01.roc.ny...
> "Arthur Shapiro" <art.shapiro@unisys.com> wrote in message
> news:emc3gj$2820$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
>
>
> I'm just watching this discussion, but maybe someone can explain how a
> problem with the utility's equipment could cause just half a house to go
> dead.
You have two 120v circuits going to your house. Half the house's 120v
circuits are on each. It is important not to use any 240v devices while
there is a problem, since they would only get 120v.
| |
| JoeSpareBedroom 2006-12-20, 5:25 pm |
|
"Toller" <Toller@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:zwhih.8130$ya1.5624@news02.roc.ny...
>
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xrhih.8052$Ka1.3393@news01.roc.ny...
> You have two 120v circuits going to your house. Half the house's 120v
> circuits are on each. It is important not to use any 240v devices while
> there is a problem, since they would only get 120v.
>
Thanks.
| |
| HeyBub 2006-12-20, 5:25 pm |
| JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> "Arthur Shapiro" <art.shapiro@unisys.com> wrote in message
> news:emc3gj$2820$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
>
>
> I'm just watching this discussion, but maybe someone can explain how a
> problem with the utility's equipment could cause just half a house to
> go dead.
In the words of Mad Max: "There's a big difference between all dead and
mostly dead."
There are two phases dropped to the house, 120 each. If you lose one, you
still have the other. Circuit breaker boxes are designed to alternate the
phases to successive breakers. When you lose one phase, roughly half the
120v circuits go dead.
As to how the power company can lose a phase, think a half-fried
transformer. But sometimes they just lose things. About twenty years ago,
the light company lost one of my payments for about a year.
| |
| J.A. Michel 2006-12-20, 5:25 pm |
| Why not pull that breaker and install a tandem breaker? Or move one wire to
another breaker? That way the two circuits each have their own breaker.
"Arthur Shapiro" <art.shapiro@unisys.com> wrote in message
news:emc3gj$2820$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
>I knew I had a problem yesterday morning when the furnace didn't come on at
> the usual 6:30 time where it progresses from the thermostat's nighttime
> setting into the waking time setting.
>
> Investigation revealed about half the house was without power, and half
> normal. I quickly ran extension cords to power the critical items
> (furnace,
> refrigerator, computer) to working outlets. Clearly one leg of the 120v
> supply was out. After cycling all the breakers, including the master,
> without
> success I decided it was time to pick an electrician out of the phone
> book,
> and the firm promised someone within an hour.
>
> While waiting outside for the electrician, a neighbor came out with
> exactly
> the same complaint. I knew then that it was a utility company problem,
> but
> having commited to the service call decided there was no harm other than a
> few
> $$$ in having the issue confirmed. (Turned out to be a burnt wire in an
> underground connection vault, and it took them until 10:30 in the evening
> to
> restore full power.)
>
> The gentleman was quickly able to confirm my hypothesis, but then pointed
> out
> some alleged issues in my breaker box. I personally choose not to fool
> with
> breaker boxes, other than tightening the screws on the blasted aluminum
> wire
> once every year or so; I'm comfortable with wiring and conduit
> manipulation
> and the like, but feel breaker boxes are left to pros.
>
> He pointed out one breaker which had two wires going into it. Being
> copper, I
> knew this was a circuit I had had (professionally) added in the past, but
> being on the nonfunctional leg neither he nor I could determine what was
> being
> powered from this breaker. He claimed that was highly dangerous. Now
> that I
> have power again, I'll be able to ascertain what's being powered from that
> breaker, but my question is: is this automatically a Highly Bad Thing, or
> are
> there instances where two wires into one breaker is a legitimate
> installation?
> He wanted $450 to correct this, which given the triviality of snapping two
> breakers into a box and connecting a wire to each seemed to me to be a
> ripoff
> in the making, so I declined. He also suggested that since many of the
> breakers were quite old (it's a 1969 house, although some circuits have
> been
> added over the years), and since replacing them all would be expensive,
> that I
> have him "lubricate" the breakers. I had visions of duct-cleaning
> "services"
> in my head, and simply sent him on his merry way after paying the basic
> service fee. Was he blowing smoke, or did he know something about circuit
> breakers not apparent to me?
>
> Art
| |
|
| Arthur Shapiro wrote:
> I knew I had a problem yesterday morning when the furnace didn't come on at
> the usual 6:30 time where it progresses from the thermostat's nighttime
> setting into the waking time setting.
>
> Investigation revealed about half the house was without power, and half
> normal. I quickly ran extension cords to power the critical items (furnace,
> refrigerator, computer) to working outlets. Clearly one leg of the 120v
> supply was out. After cycling all the breakers, including the master, without
> success I decided it was time to pick an electrician out of the phone book,
> and the firm promised someone within an hour.
>
> While waiting outside for the electrician, a neighbor came out with exactly
> the same complaint. I knew then that it was a utility company problem, but
> having commited to the service call decided there was no harm other than a few
> $$$ in having the issue confirmed. (Turned out to be a burnt wire in an
> underground connection vault, and it took them until 10:30 in the evening to
> restore full power.)
>
> The gentleman was quickly able to confirm my hypothesis, but then pointed out
> some alleged issues in my breaker box. I personally choose not to fool with
> breaker boxes, other than tightening the screws on the blasted aluminum wire
> once every year or so; I'm comfortable with wiring and conduit manipulation
> and the like, but feel breaker boxes are left to pros.
>
> He pointed out one breaker which had two wires going into it. Being copper, I
> knew this was a circuit I had had (professionally) added in the past, but
> being on the nonfunctional leg neither he nor I could determine what was being
> powered from this breaker. He claimed that was highly dangerous. Now that I
> have power again, I'll be able to ascertain what's being powered from that
> breaker, but my question is: is this automatically a Highly Bad Thing, or are
> there instances where two wires into one breaker is a legitimate installation?
> He wanted $450 to correct this, which given the triviality of snapping two
> breakers into a box and connecting a wire to each seemed to me to be a ripoff
> in the making, so I declined. He also suggested that since many of the
> breakers were quite old (it's a 1969 house, although some circuits have been
> added over the years), and since replacing them all would be expensive, that I
> have him "lubricate" the breakers. I had visions of duct-cleaning "services"
> in my head, and simply sent him on his merry way after paying the basic
> service fee. Was he blowing smoke, or did he know something about circuit
> breakers not apparent to me?
>
> Art
Having 2 wires on a single breaker is a code violation unless the
breaker is rated for 2 wires - some SquardD ones are. It is not "highly
dangerous" and is very easy to fix by pigtailing as about everyone has said.
I have not heard of lubricating breakers. I very much doubt is possible
to lubricate breakers. If it is possible, it is probably a bad idea. The
whole thing smells like a scam.
A good site for general information on aluminum wire is:
http://www.inspect-ny.com/aluminum/
Much of the information is derived from the Consumer Product Safety
Commission, which did a lot of work on aluminum wiring.
IMHO the best link is:
http://www.inspect-ny.com/aluminum/alreduce.htm
This is a paper writen by an engineer who did extensive testing of
aluminum connections for the CPSC, and includes many options for what to
do with aluminum wiring.
--
bud--
| |
| indago 2006-12-20, 5:25 pm |
| Yeah, me too. If it ain't broke, don't fix it...
061220 1532 - 7 LAMPSTICKS 7 FEASTS 7 AGES OF DISPENSATION posted:
>
> I vote for smoke on this one.
>
> Arthur Shapiro wrote:
>
| |
|
| On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 19:38:59 GMT, art.shapiro@unisys.com (Arthur
Shapiro) wrote:
>I knew I had a problem yesterday morning when the furnace didn't come on at
>the usual 6:30 time where it progresses from the thermostat's nighttime
>setting into the waking time setting.
>
>Investigation revealed about half the house was without power, and half
>normal. I quickly ran extension cords to power the critical items (furnace,
>refrigerator, computer) to working outlets. Clearly one leg of the 120v
>supply was out. After cycling all the breakers, including the master, without
>success I decided it was time to pick an electrician out of the phone book,
>and the firm promised someone within an hour.
>
>While waiting outside for the electrician, a neighbor came out with exactly
>the same complaint. I knew then that it was a utility company problem, but
>having commited to the service call decided there was no harm other than a few
>$$$ in having the issue confirmed. (Turned out to be a burnt wire in an
>underground connection vault, and it took them until 10:30 in the evening to
>restore full power.)
>
>The gentleman was quickly able to confirm my hypothesis, but then pointed out
>some alleged issues in my breaker box. I personally choose not to fool with
>breaker boxes, other than tightening the screws on the blasted aluminum wire
>once every year or so; I'm comfortable with wiring and conduit manipulation
>and the like, but feel breaker boxes are left to pros.
>
>He pointed out one breaker which had two wires going into it. Being copper, I
>knew this was a circuit I had had (professionally) added in the past, but
>being on the nonfunctional leg neither he nor I could determine what was being
>powered from this breaker. He claimed that was highly dangerous. Now that I
>have power again, I'll be able to ascertain what's being powered from that
>breaker, but my question is: is this automatically a Highly Bad Thing, or are
>there instances where two wires into one breaker is a legitimate installation?
> He wanted $450 to correct this, which given the triviality of snapping two
>breakers into a box and connecting a wire to each seemed to me to be a ripoff
>in the making, so I declined. He also suggested that since many of the
>breakers were quite old (it's a 1969 house, although some circuits have been
>added over the years), and since replacing them all would be expensive, that I
>have him "lubricate" the breakers. I had visions of duct-cleaning "services"
>in my head, and simply sent him on his merry way after paying the basic
>service fee. Was he blowing smoke, or did he know something about circuit
>breakers not apparent to me?
>
>Art
I agree that this is much ado about nothing. I would make a note of
the company that your electrician works for and not invite them back.
| |
|
| On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 21:01:19 GMT, "Toller" <Toller@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:Xrhih.8052$Ka1.3393@news01.roc.ny...
>You have two 120v circuits going to your house. Half the house's 120v
>circuits are on each. It is important not to use any 240v devices while
>there is a problem, since they would only get 120v.
>
The appliance could still give you a shock if you were to work on it,
but turning it on wouldn't hurt anything. It would just not work.
| |
| volts500 2006-12-20, 8:25 pm |
|
Arthur Shapiro wrote:
> I knew I had a problem yesterday morning when the furnace didn't come on at
> the usual 6:30 time where it progresses from the thermostat's nighttime
> setting into the waking time setting.
>
> Investigation revealed about half the house was without power, and half
> normal. I quickly ran extension cords to power the critical items (furnace,
> refrigerator, computer) to working outlets. Clearly one leg of the 120v
> supply was out. After cycling all the breakers, including the master, without
> success I decided it was time to pick an electrician out of the phone book,
> and the firm promised someone within an hour.
>
> While waiting outside for the electrician, a neighbor came out with exactly
> the same complaint. I knew then that it was a utility company problem, but
> having commited to the service call decided there was no harm other than a few
> $$$ in having the issue confirmed. (Turned out to be a burnt wire in an
> underground connection vault, and it took them until 10:30 in the evening to
> restore full power.)
>
> The gentleman was quickly able to confirm my hypothesis, but then pointed out
> some alleged issues in my breaker box. I personally choose not to fool with
> breaker boxes, other than tightening the screws on the blasted aluminum wire
> once every year or so; I'm comfortable with wiring and conduit manipulation
> and the like, but feel breaker boxes are left to pros.
>
> He pointed out one breaker which had two wires going into it. Being copper, I
> knew this was a circuit I had had (professionally) added in the past, but
> being on the nonfunctional leg neither he nor I could determine what was being
> powered from this breaker. He claimed that was highly dangerous. Now that I
> have power again, I'll be able to ascertain what's being powered from that
> breaker, but my question is: is this automatically a Highly Bad Thing, or are
> there instances where two wires into one breaker is a legitimate installation?
> He wanted $450 to correct this, which given the triviality of snapping two
> breakers into a box and connecting a wire to each seemed to me to be a ripoff
> in the making, so I declined. He also suggested that since many of the
> breakers were quite old (it's a 1969 house, although some circuits have been
> added over the years), and since replacing them all would be expensive, that I
> have him "lubricate" the breakers. I had visions of duct-cleaning "services"
> in my head, and simply sent him on his merry way after paying the basic
> service fee. Was he blowing smoke, or did he know something about circuit
> breakers not apparent to me?
>
> Art
The molded-case circuit breakers used for residential applications are
_sealed_, one cannot lubricate them. The only thing that one can do is
exercise them every 6 to 12 months or so, by turning them off and on
several times. If any are binding, they should be replaced because
they may not trip if/when called upon to perform under fault
conditions. Large circuit breakers, such as is found in large
commercial, industrial switchgear or utility substations are very
complex mechanisms and do require periodic maintainance and lubrication
by highly skilled factory approved people in a shop
environment......_not_ by some electrician out in the field.
| |
| Arthur Shapiro 2006-12-20, 8:25 pm |
| In article <1166648124.964290.41340@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>, barry@sme-online.com wrote:
>OTOH, you mention Al wiring. I'd save up all small change to pay for
>verifying, changing
>all connections to safe ones; properly crimp on pigtails, whatever. Al
>connections are a
>huge danger.
>
When I moved in, in 1987, I pigtailed every outlet with NoAlOx filled wire
nuts. I've had to examine a couple of those outlets over the years and was
pleased to see the nuts were still tight and apparently filled with the gorp.
I know crimping is now the approved methodology, but I'm satisfied with what I
see. But I appreciate the suggestion (and everyone else's input on the
original issue).
Art
| |
| Jeff Wisnia 2006-12-20, 8:25 pm |
| Toller wrote:
> I have never heard of old breakers being dangerous or lubricating them, and
> I surely wouldn't do anything to them that the manufacturer didn't
> recommend.
Maybe he was describing removing the breakers and applying a little
Thomas & Betts Kopper Shield or a silver conductive grease to the "plug
in" prongs to make sure they maintained good contact:
http://www.elexp.com/che_8463.htm
But if you are concerned, you can probably replace them all for
> $100 in an hour.
> As a matter of fact, I just had a 1965 breaker trip when a mouse chewed
> through a wire and shorted it.
>
>
Did the rodent survive?
Jeff
--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
The speed of light is 1.8*10^12 furlongs per fortnight.
| |
|
| Jeff Wisnia wrote:
> Toller wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Maybe he was describing removing the breakers and applying a little
> Thomas & Betts Kopper Shield or a silver conductive grease to the "plug
> in" prongs to make sure they maintained good contact:
>
> http://www.elexp.com/che_8463.htm
I suspect removing and replacing the breakers compromises their
connections more than this stuff improves them. And I'd be concerned
it might migrate, too.
>
>
> But if you are concerned, you can probably replace them all for
>
>
> Did the rodent survive?
>
> Jeff
>
--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
| |
|
| HeyBub wrote:
>
> There are two phases dropped to the house, 120 each. If you lose one, you
> still have the other. ....................... snip ...................
Also: While agreeing that the term 'phase' is sometimes used
.........................
More correctly there are two 'legs' which are the opposite ends of the
same centre tapped 230 volt single phase!
Thus one can be considered (sort of, although incorrectly as far as AC
is concerned) as being plus 120 volts and the other as neg. 120 volts
and therefore about 240 volts between the two of them; which is used to
power heavy y items such as water heaters, electric cooking stoves
etc.
If the the two wires were really different phases they would have
voltages 120 degrees apart and there would be a peculiar voltage
between the two. Not the 230/240 volts (180 degrees with the two ends
always of opposite polarity) expected.
Same thing happened to my neighbours garage; they lost one side (or
leg) of the 230 volt supply. The 'electrician' they hired came over to
my house to borrow a multimeter and I went over and checked it for
them! Utility company fixed a defective over head drop later that day.
| |
| The Streets 2006-12-21, 9:26 am |
| "terry" <tsanford@nf.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:1166710048.138139.297850@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
> HeyBub wrote:
>
> Also: While agreeing that the term 'phase' is sometimes used
> ........................
>
> More correctly there are two 'legs' which are the opposite ends of the
> same centre tapped 230 volt single phase!
>
> Thus one can be considered (sort of, although incorrectly as far as AC
> is concerned) as being plus 120 volts and the other as neg. 120 volts
> and therefore about 240 volts between the two of them; which is used to
> power heavy y items such as water heaters, electric cooking stoves
> etc.
>
> If the the two wires were really different phases they would have
> voltages 120 degrees apart and there would be a peculiar voltage
> between the two. Not the 230/240 volts (180 degrees with the two ends
> always of opposite polarity) expected.
>
> Same thing happened to my neighbours garage; they lost one side (or
> leg) of the 230 volt supply. The 'electrician' they hired came over to
> my house to borrow a multimeter and I went over and checked it for
> them! Utility company fixed a defective over head drop later that day.
Losing one leg is not all that uncommon, at least around here. I've seen
this at least three time in the past year -- all problems that the local
utility
had to fix. As another poster has mentioned - the tip off is if every other
circuit is off. Also, be careful of back feeds through 220v appliances like
ranges, water heaters and dryers.
| |
| Puddin' Man 2006-12-21, 1:25 pm |
| On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 09:48:39 -0500, "The Streets" <streetsj.no.spam@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>"terry" <tsanford@nf.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>news:1166710048.138139.297850@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
>
>Losing one leg is not all that uncommon, at least around here. I've seen
>this at least three time in the past year -- all problems that the local
>utility
>had to fix. As another poster has mentioned - the tip off is if every other
>circuit is off. Also, be careful of back feeds through 220v appliances like
>ranges, water heaters and dryers.
I'll bite.
Suppose I've got a (residential) 200A main breaker panel, and the
street power fails.
I switch off the main breaker and use a gas powered 40A generator
to backfeed the 30A (220v) circuit for the elec. dryer.
What can I expect? Live circuits, dead circuits? Overload
conditions??
Elec. power around here (MO) seems to get less and less reliable
by the month, else I wouldn't ask.
Thx,
Puddin'
Pease pudding hot,
Pease pudding cold,
Pease pudding in the pot
Nine days old ...
| |
| Puddin' Man 2006-12-21, 1:25 pm |
| On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 19:38:59 GMT, art.shapiro@unisys.com (Arthur Shapiro) wrote:
>The gentleman was quickly able to confirm my hypothesis, but then pointed out
>some alleged issues in my breaker box. I personally choose not to fool with
>breaker boxes, other than tightening the screws on the blasted aluminum wire
>once every year or so; I'm comfortable with wiring and conduit manipulation
>and the like, but feel breaker boxes are left to pros.
OK ...
>He pointed out one breaker which had two wires going into it. Being copper, I
>knew this was a circuit I had had (professionally) added in the past, but
>being on the nonfunctional leg neither he nor I could determine what was being
>powered from this breaker. He claimed that was highly dangerous. Now that I
>have power again, I'll be able to ascertain what's being powered from that
>breaker, but my question is: is this automatically a Highly Bad Thing, or are
>there instances where two wires into one breaker is a legitimate installation?
Consider the notion that noone (including yourself) was in a position
to -say- if it was 100% "legitimate" as re any relevant concern ...
You omit relevant info (breaker spec, specs on the "two wires"), but,
in general, the little breakers are supposed to be co-specified for
a single circuit. Circuits are something thatcha kinda sorta -design-.
> He wanted $450 to correct this, which given the triviality of snapping two
>breakers into a box and connecting a wire to each seemed to me to be a ripoff
>in the making, so I declined. He also suggested that since many of the
>breakers were quite old (it's a 1969 house, although some circuits have been
>added over the years), and since replacing them all would be expensive, that I
>have him "lubricate" the breakers. I had visions of duct-cleaning "services"
>in my head, and simply sent him on his merry way after paying the basic
>service fee. Was he blowing smoke, or did he know something about circuit
>breakers not apparent to me?
>
>Art
Perhaps he noted that the breaker appeared to be jerry-rigged and
decided he didn't wanna fool with such without a sizable premium.
Blow some smoke re lube, and he's outa there.
I can tell you this. If your house were for sale, I stopped by, and
noted, say, 12 15A romex cables going into the service panel and
only 8 (or less) corresponding breakers, I'd likely pass your
property by.
Cheers,
Puddin'
Pease pudding hot,
Pease pudding cold,
Pease pudding in the pot
Nine days old ...
| |
|
| Puddin' Man wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 09:48:39 -0500, "The Streets" <streetsj.no.spam@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I'll bite.
>
> Suppose I've got a (residential) 200A main breaker panel, and the
> street power fails.
>
> I switch off the main breaker and use a gas powered 40A generator
> to backfeed the 30A (220v) circuit for the elec. dryer.
>
> What can I expect? Live circuits, dead circuits? Overload
> conditions??
>
That depends where you connect, and which breakers are "on."
There's a good chance you'll energize the whole house unless
you're careful, which might very well overload your generator.
What you suggest is _very_ dangerous. You should have a
proper transfer box.
> Elec. power around here (MO) seems to get less and less reliable
> by the month, else I wouldn't ask.
>
> Thx,
> Puddin'
>
> Pease pudding hot,
> Pease pudding cold,
> Pease pudding in the pot
> Nine days old ...
--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
| |
| Puddin' Man 2006-12-21, 5:25 pm |
| On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 18:38:30 GMT, "Pete C." <aux3.DOH.4@snet.net> wrote:
>Puddin' Man wrote:
>
>That's not the same kind of back feed.
>
>The back feed referenced is the potential for the leg that is "dead" due
>to a failed utility connection to become energized from the remaining
>live leg when a 240V appliance is switched on. The 240V appliance
>providing a connection between the two legs. The appliance will of
>course not operate since one of the hot legs it relies on is "dead", but
>it will provide a conduction path from the one that is live to the other
>presenting a hazard if you are carelessly working on that "dead" leg.
Well, that one got by po' me. Shoulda thought about it longer.
>Back feeding your house from a generator through a breaker other than
>the main in the panel works perfectly fine. The situation you indicated
>with the dryer outlet is not legal due to the lack of a safety interlock
>to insure the main is indeed off when power is being back fed through
>the dryer outlet. The electrically identical scenario is legal when the
>main breaker and the dedicated back feed breaker are interlocked with an
>approved device to insure the main is off when the back feed breaker is
>on.
So, for the safety interlock, I'd need to replace or rewire
the existing main breaker to a "safety interlock" box or
somesuch?
When you say "not legal", you refer to common bldg. codes?
Thx,
P
Pease pudding hot,
Pease pudding cold,
Pease pudding in the pot
Nine days old ...
| |
| Puddin' Man 2006-12-21, 5:25 pm |
| On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 13:31:22 -0600, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>Puddin' Man wrote:
>That depends where you connect, and which breakers are "on."
>
>There's a good chance you'll energize the whole house unless
>you're careful, which might very well overload your generator.
>
>What you suggest is _very_ dangerous. You should have a
>proper transfer box.
Suppose, in an emergency scenario, I pick a couple 15A circuits
and switch all the other breakers off? Safe?
Thanks,
P
Pease pudding hot,
Pease pudding cold,
Pease pudding in the pot
Nine days old ...
| |
| Toller 2006-12-21, 5:25 pm |
|
"Puddin' Man" <pudding.man@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:i7slo21c1a01sc1pm2ft0bsg4ai3651g8m@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 13:31:22 -0600, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>
> Suppose, in an emergency scenario, I pick a couple 15A circuits
> and switch all the other breakers off? Safe?
>
If you do it properly, and your circuit breakers work properly, it is safe.
If someone gets hurt while you are doing something illegal you are in very
deep trouble. Since a transfer switch costs maybe $150 and takes a couple
hours to install, it is not a risk I am willing to take.
Its sort of like driving without your seat belt on. It is safe (after all,
how often do you have a collision?) but it is just not smart.
| |
|
| Puddin' Man wrote:
<snip>
> Suppose, in an emergency scenario, I pick a couple 15A circuits
> and switch all the other breakers off? Safe?
>
Perhaps it would seem so, but I'd personally opt for extension cords.
There's too great a danger of somebody who is not fully aware of what's
going on flipping a breaker. I'd hate to be the guy responsible for
electrocuting a power company lineman working to restore power.
> Thanks,
> P
>
> Pease pudding hot,
> Pease pudding cold,
> Pease pudding in the pot
> Nine days old ...
--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
| |
| Mark Lloyd 2006-12-21, 5:25 pm |
| On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 21:01:19 GMT, "Toller" <Toller@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:Xrhih.8052$Ka1.3393@news01.roc.ny...
>You have two 120v circuits going to your house. Half the house's 120v
>circuits are on each. It is important not to use any 240v devices while
>there is a problem, since they would only get 120v.
The failed connection is probably open, not shorted to ground. You
would get nothing, not 120V.
--
4 days until the winter solstice celebration
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com
"Never underestimate the power of stupid
people in large groups"
| |
| Mark Lloyd 2006-12-21, 5:25 pm |
| On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 18:38:30 GMT, "Pete C." <aux3.DOH.4@snet.net>
wrote:
>Puddin' Man wrote:
>
>That's not the same kind of back feed.
>
>The back feed referenced is the potential for the leg that is "dead" due
>to a failed utility connection to become energized from the remaining
>live leg when a 240V appliance is switched on. The 240V appliance
>providing a connection between the two legs. The appliance will of
>course not operate since one of the hot legs it relies on is "dead", but
>it will provide a conduction path from the one that is live to the other
>presenting a hazard if you are carelessly working on that "dead" leg.
>
>Back feeding your house from a generator through a breaker other than
>the main in the panel works perfectly fine. The situation you indicated
>with the dryer outlet is not legal due to the lack of a safety interlock
>to insure the main is indeed off when power is being back fed through
>the dryer outlet. The electrically identical scenario is legal when the
>main breaker and the dedicated back feed breaker are interlocked with an
>approved device to insure the main is off when the back feed breaker is
>on.
>
>Pete C.
I once considered doing that last thing (generator to dryer outlet),
but changed my mind after reading here. One little mistake can have
very serious consequences.
--
4 days until the winter solstice celebration
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com
"Never underestimate the power of stupid
people in large groups"
| |
| Pete C. 2006-12-21, 5:25 pm |
| Puddin' Man wrote:
>
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 18:38:30 GMT, "Pete C." <aux3.DOH.4@snet.net> wrote:
>
>
> Well, that one got by po' me. Shoulda thought about it longer.
>
>
> So, for the safety interlock, I'd need to replace or rewire
> the existing main breaker to a "safety interlock" box or
> somesuch?
For a code approved (NEC and others) generator connection you need
either an approved transfer switch or the more recent option of an
approved interlock kit that is installed on your electrical panel.
One example of the interlock kits is one available for Square D panels
which provides a mechanical interlock between the main breaker and a
dedicated back feed breaker in the 2/4 position of the panel.
If you want an automatic generator system you will need an automatic
transfer switch. For manual systems there are a number of options with
the interlock kits being the most economical option in most cases.
>
> When you say "not legal", you refer to common bldg. codes?
>
National electrical code (NEC), other codes that reference it and
similar codes.
Pete C.
| |
| Pete C. 2006-12-21, 5:25 pm |
| Toller wrote:
>
> "Puddin' Man" <pudding.man@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:i7slo21c1a01sc1pm2ft0bsg4ai3651g8m@4ax.com...
> If you do it properly, and your circuit breakers work properly, it is safe.
> If someone gets hurt while you are doing something illegal you are in very
> deep trouble. Since a transfer switch costs maybe $150 and takes a couple
> hours to install, it is not a risk I am willing to take.
>
> Its sort of like driving without your seat belt on. It is safe (after all,
> how often do you have a collision?) but it is just not smart.
If you have a panel for which an approved interlock kit is available
such as Square D it's even cheaper, around $50 between the kit and a
dedicated breaker for the back feed.
Pete C.
| |
| Puddin' Man 2006-12-21, 5:25 pm |
| On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:03:01 -0600, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>Puddin' Man wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>Perhaps it would seem so, but I'd personally opt for extension cords.
Jeez, whotta mess ...
>There's too great a danger of somebody who is not fully aware of what's
>going on flipping a breaker.
That's a multi-occupant thingy. I shoulda stated there's noone
here 'cept me and my Crazy Birddawg.
>I'd hate to be the guy responsible for
>electrocuting a power company lineman working to restore power.
This would be possible given the main breaker in my house is
switched off? No comprendere, senor.
Thx,
Puddin'
Pease pudding hot,
Pease pudding cold,
Pease pudding in the pot
Nine days old ...
| |
| Puddin' Man 2006-12-21, 5:25 pm |
| On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 21:46:20 GMT, "Pete C." <aux3.DOH.4@snet.net> wrote:
>Toller wrote:
>
>If you have a panel for which an approved interlock kit is available
>such as Square D it's even cheaper, around $50 between the kit and a
>dedicated breaker for the back feed.
I have a 21 yr-old Cutler-Hammer panel that I installed myself back
around 1984.
No doubt there's numerous houses in which an interlock kit would
make sense. But there's nobody here but po' me, and, to my knowledge,
I don't need to idiot-proof the damned thang. Before any gas
generator were connected, the main breaker -would- be switched
off. And it would stay off until the gen. was removed.
True or False:
With the main breaker off, all I have to worry about is the
in-house circuitry (which I'm pretty familiar with).
Cheers,
Puddin'
Pease pudding hot,
Pease pudding cold,
Pease pudding in the pot
Nine days old ...
| |
|
|
isnt pigtailing in the panel also a code violation?
I thought you had to either put each home run or branch circuit on its
on breaker OR have it made up in a J-box intead of taking to the panel
and pigtailing
>Having 2 wires on a single breaker is a code violation unless the
>breaker is rated for 2 wires - some SquardD ones are. It is not "highly
>dangerous" and is very easy to fix by pigtailing as about everyone has said.
>
>I have not heard of lubricating breakers. I very much doubt is possible
>to lubricate breakers. If it is possible, it is probably a bad idea. The
>whole thing smells like a scam.
>
| |
|
| Puddin' Man wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:03:01 -0600, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Jeez, whotta mess ...
>
>
>
>
> That's a multi-occupant thingy. I shoulda stated there's noone
> here 'cept me and my Crazy Birddawg.
>
>
>
>
> This would be possible given the main breaker in my house is
> switched off? No comprendere, senor.
All it takes is a momentary lapse of attentiveness or (particularly
since we're talking about emergency conditions) somebody new on the
scene.
At any rate, I believe it violates code, is illegal, and is dangerous.
I understand all that might not stop you doing it, but I would advise
against it.
>
> Thx,
> Puddin'
>
> Pease pudding hot,
> Pease pudding cold,
> Pease pudding in the pot
> Nine days old ...
--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
| |
| Puddin' Man 2006-12-21, 8:25 pm |
| On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 23:41:51 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>Puddin' Man wrote:
>
>All it takes is a momentary lapse of attentiveness or (particularly
>since we're talking about emergency conditions) somebody new on the
>scene.
It's gotta be the Crazy Birddawg ('cause it couldn't be me).
The Crazy Birddawg is gonna flip the switch ... :-)
>At any rate, I believe it violates code, is illegal, and is dangerous.
>I understand all that might not stop you doing it, but I would advise
>against it.
Taken under advisement.
Thanks,
P[color=darkred]
Pease pudding hot,
Pease pudding cold,
Pease pudding in the pot
Nine days old ...
| |
| Pete C. 2006-12-21, 8:25 pm |
| Puddin' Man wrote:
>
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 21:46:20 GMT, "Pete C." <aux3.DOH.4@snet.net> wrote:
>
>
> I have a 21 yr-old Cutler-Hammer panel that I installed myself back
> around 1984.
>
> No doubt there's numerous houses in which an interlock kit would
> make sense. But there's nobody here but po' me, and, to my knowledge,
> I don't need to idiot-proof the damned thang. Before any gas
> generator were connected, the main breaker -would- be switched
> off. And it would stay off until the gen. was removed.
>
> True or False:
> With the main breaker off, all I have to worry about is the
> in-house circuitry (which I'm pretty familiar with).
Electrically, yes. In reality you have to worry about how certain you
are that you will remember the main breaker while fumbling in the dark
of the outage and what your sentence will be for negligent homicide.
Pete C.
| |
| Toller 2006-12-21, 8:25 pm |
|
"Puddin' Man" <pudding.man@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0f4mo2hosegh55nkpkevjq9fbpv5e8vens@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 21:46:20 GMT, "Pete C." <aux3.DOH.4@snet.net> wrote:
>
>
> I have a 21 yr-old Cutler-Hammer panel that I installed myself back
> around 1984.
>
> No doubt there's numerous houses in which an interlock kit would
> make sense. But there's nobody here but po' me, and, to my knowledge,
> I don't need to idiot-proof the damned thang. Before any gas
> generator were connected, the main breaker -would- be switched
> off. And it would stay off until the gen. was removed.
>
> True or False:
> With the main breaker off, all I have to worry about is the
> in-house circuitry (which I'm pretty familiar with).
>
Assuming the breaker really is off, then it is true.
But we all do stupid things. Forgetting to open the main breaker is not
inconceivable.
If you did forget, you would "probably" stall the generator as you tried to
power the neighborhood; but you could also kill a lineman.
You will not deserve any sympathy from the jury!
| |
| Doug Miller 2006-12-22, 9:25 am |
| In article <rp5mo25ijlof33u6grqf93k91ek4q2e5op@4ax.com>, Tazz <dbryce@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>
>isnt pigtailing in the panel also a code violation?
No.
>I thought you had to either put each home run or branch circuit on its
>on breaker OR have it made up in a J-box intead of taking to the panel
>and pigtailing
Lots of people think that -- but nobody's been able to show me where the Code
says that...
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
| |
| Doug Miller 2006-12-22, 9:25 am |
| In article <458B1BBE.9030708@prodigy.net>, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>Puddin' Man wrote:
"Flipping A breaker" isn't going to do any harm at all unless it's the MAIN
breaker.[color=darkred]
Keep the main breaker off, and that won't happen.[color=darkred]
>
>All it takes is a momentary lapse of attentiveness or (particularly
>since we're talking about emergency conditions) somebody new on the
>scene.
Flipping the main breaker from off to on isn't the sort of thing that's going
to happen due to a "momentary lapse of attentiveness".
>
>At any rate, I believe it violates code, is illegal, and is dangerous.
Yes, it's a Code violation. Yes, it's illegal. In an emergency, so what?
As for dangerous -- only if the main breaker is on.
>I understand all that might not stop you doing it, but I would advise
>against it.
Are you a lawyer?
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
| |
| Jim Redelfs 2006-12-22, 9:25 am |
| In article <5fglo2p11ff3dudcdpljetl4g3ugn3kjbu@4ax.com>,
Puddin' Man <pudding.man@gmail.com> wrote:
> I switch off the main breaker and use a gas powered 40A generator
> to backfeed the 30A (220v) circuit for the elec. dryer.
>
> What can I expect? Live circuits, dead circuits? Overload
> conditions??
Dead linemen?
Yeah, yeah... You switched off the main breaker, but, in your urgency and in
the dark, flipped the WRONG breaker.
Properly install and use a transfer switch or just run some extension cords to
essential appliances during the outage.
--
JR
Climb poles and dig holes
Have staplegun, will travel
| |
| Doug Miller 2006-12-22, 9:25 am |
| In article <jim.redelfs-F8427B.07090822122006@news.lga.highwinds-media.com>, Jim Redelfs <jim.redelfs@NOSPAMredelfs.com> wrote:
>In article <5fglo2p11ff3dudcdpljetl4g3ugn3kjbu@4ax.com>,
> Puddin' Man <pudding.man@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>Dead linemen?
>
>Yeah, yeah... You switched off the main breaker, but, in your urgency and in
>the dark, flipped the WRONG breaker.
Oh, puhleeeze... don't be ridiculous.
If he has enough light (from a flashlight, candle, oil lamp, moonlight,
sunlight, cig lighter, Coleman lantern, jar full of fireflies, or whatever) to
connect the generator, how do you imagine that he can't see which breaker is
the main?
For that matter, even in the dark, how does he not *feel* which breaker is the
main?
And of course it should be obvious that, once the generator is on, there
*will* be lights available to check to make *sure* that the main is off.
>
>Properly install and use a transfer switch or just run some extension cords to
>essential appliances during the outage.
Or be aware of the difference between real and imagined hazards, take steps to
prevent the real ones (such as making sure the main breaker is off), and
ignore the imagined ones. Yes, a transfer switch is the right way to do it.
No, you can't just run an extension cord to a furnace or a well pump. In an
emergency, you do what you have to do.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
| |
| Puddin' Man 2006-12-22, 1:25 pm |
| On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 14:23:34 GMT, spambait@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
>In article <jim.redelfs-F8427B.07090822122006@news.lga.highwinds-media.com>, Jim Redelfs <jim.redelfs@NOSPAMredelfs.com> wrote:
>
>Oh, puhleeeze... don't be ridiculous.
>
>If he has enough light (from a flashlight, candle, oil lamp, moonlight,
>sunlight, cig lighter, Coleman lantern, jar full of fireflies, or whatever) to
>connect the generator, how do you imagine that he can't see which breaker is
>the main?
>
>For that matter, even in the dark, how does he not *feel* which breaker is the
>main?
>
>And of course it should be obvious that, once the generator is on, there
>*will* be lights available to check to make *sure* that the main is off.
>
>Or be aware of the difference between real and imagined hazards, take steps to
>prevent the real ones (such as making sure the main breaker is off), and
>ignore the imagined ones. Yes, a transfer switch is the right way to do it.
>No, you can't just run an extension cord to a furnace or a well pump. In an
>emergency, you do what you have to do.
Thanks, Doug.
I purchased/installed/wired the svc. panel 21 years ago.
Chose it for it's simplicity. One huge 200A main breaker
in the top, well segregated from smaller breakers.
The entire planet could be plunged into eternal darkness
at the same time that gremlins from outer space put out
my eyes. I could -still- find my way downstairs and identify
the main breaker and switch off with no difficulty.
And if there were any doubt, I'd go outside, snip the seal,
pull the meter, and plop the damned thang down on my
workbench in the basement.
In an emergency, is a no-brainer.
Cheers,
Puddin'
PS: Who believes that linesmen just *grab* conductors without
testing for voltage, etc?
Who believes that 30A, 'tho admittedly dangerous, is really
likely to result in a fatality?
Pease pudding hot,
Pease pudding cold,
Pease pudding in the pot
Nine days old ...
| |
| Pete C. 2006-12-22, 1:25 pm |
| Doug Miller wrote:
>
> In article <rp5mo25ijlof33u6grqf93k91ek4q2e5op@4ax.com>, Tazz <dbryce@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>
> No.
>
>
> Lots of people think that -- but nobody's been able to show me where the Code
> says that...
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>
> It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Right, the panel is a listed enclosure where you can make splices. It's
more of a best practices thing since the panel tends to get crowded
anyway and having splices and pigtails in the panel just makes it that
much messier.
Pete C.
| |
| Goedjn 2006-12-22, 1:25 pm |
|
>
>PS: Who believes that linesmen just *grab* conductors without
> testing for voltage, etc?
> Who believes that 30A, 'tho admittedly dangerous, is really
> likely to result in a fatality?
>
Your logic is impeccapble, but linemen have indeed
died that way, which is why the ones that live get
so grumpy about it when they find you with a
non-compliant setup.
| |
| Mark Lloyd 2006-12-22, 1:25 pm |
| On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 11:43:23 GMT, spambait@milmac.com (Doug Miller)
wrote:
[snip]
>As for dangerous -- only if the main breaker is on.
>
Like the one time you forgot to turn it off before starting the
generator.
>
>Are you a lawyer?
--
3 days until the winter solstice celebration
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com
"Never underestimate the power of stupid
people in large groups"
| |
|
| Pete C. wrote:
> Doug Miller wrote:
>
>
>
> Right, the panel is a listed enclosure where you can make splices. It's
> more of a best practices thing since the panel tends to get crowded
> anyway and having splices and pigtails in the panel just makes it that
> much messier.
>
> Pete C.
I believe it is covered by NEC 312.8 - "Enclosures for switches or
overcurrent devices". Splices are allowed if the fill at any
cross-section is 75% or less.
Wires running through the enclosure are allowed if the fill at any
cross-section is 40% or less. An example would be if the panel ran out
of breakers, existing breakers could be removed to add a breaker for a
subpanel and the wires for the original breakers could be run through
the panel to the new subpanel.
--
bud--
| |
| Mark Lloyd 2006-12-22, 1:25 pm |
| On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 10:10:02 -0600, Puddin' Man
<pudding.man@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 14:23:34 GMT, spambait@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
>
>Thanks, Doug.
>
>I purchased/installed/wired the svc. panel 21 years ago.
>Chose it for it's simplicity. One huge 200A main breaker
>in the top, well segregated from smaller breakers.
>
>The entire planet could be plunged into eternal darkness
>at the same time that gremlins from outer space put out
>my eyes. I could -still- find my way downstairs and identify
>the main breaker and switch off with no difficulty.
>
Why do you expect perfection? Such a thing doesn't exist, and can't.
There is no way to be 100% certain of not making a mistake.
>And if there were any doubt, I'd go outside, snip the seal,
>pull the meter, and plop the damned thang down on my
>workbench in the basement.
>
>In an emergency, is a no-brainer.
>
> Cheers,
> Puddin'
>
>PS: Who believes that linesmen just *grab* conductors without
> testing for voltage, etc?
They could have just tested the line, found it dead, and touched it.
THEN you start your generator...
> Who believes that 30A, 'tho admittedly dangerous, is really
> likely to result in a fatality?
>
I suppose your generator outputs 240V/30A. Forget to disconnect from
the power lines, and that is connected to the lower voltage side of a
transformer with a ratio of around 80:1. Those "dead" main lines are
now carrying 19.2KV/375mA (somewhat less since the transformer won't
be 100% efficient). That's more than enough to be fatal.
>Pease pudding hot,
>Pease pudding cold,
>Pease pudding in the pot
>Nine days old ...
Was that supposed to be a sig? Where's the separator line?
--
3 days until the winter solstice celebration
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com
"Never underestimate the power of stupid
people in large groups"
| |
|
| Jim Redelfs wrote:
> In article <5fglo2p11ff3dudcdpljetl4g3ugn3kjbu@4ax.com>,
> Puddin' Man <pudding.man@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Dead linemen?
>
> Yeah, yeah... You switched off the main breaker, but, in your urgency and in
> the dark, flipped the WRONG breaker.
>
> Properly install and use a transfer switch or just run some extension cords to
> essential appliances during the outage.
Amen.
--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
| |
|
| Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <458B1BBE.9030708@prodigy.net>, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> "Flipping A breaker" isn't going to do any harm at all unless it's the MAIN
> breaker.
>
>
>
> Keep the main breaker off, and that won't happen.
>
>
>
> Flipping the main breaker from off to on isn't the sort of thing that's going
> to happen due to a "momentary lapse of attentiveness".
>
>
>
> Yes, it's a Code violation. Yes, it's illegal. In an emergency, so what?
>
> As for dangerous -- only if the main breaker is on.
>
>
>
>
> Are you a lawyer?
>
Ever heard of Murphy's law?
--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
| |
|
| Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <jim.redelfs-F8427B.07090822122006@news.lga.highwinds-media.com>, Jim Redelfs <jim.redelfs@NOSPAMredelfs.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Oh, puhleeeze... don't be ridiculous.
>
> If he has enough light (from a flashlight, candle, oil lamp, moonlight,
> sunlight, cig lighter, Coleman lantern, jar full of fireflies, or whatever) to
> connect the generator, how do you imagine that he can't see which breaker is
> the main?
>
> For that matter, even in the dark, how does he not *feel* which breaker is the
> main?
>
> And of course it should be obvious that, once the generator is on, there
> *will* be lights available to check to make *sure* that the main is off.
>
>
>
> Or be aware of the difference between real and imagined hazards, take steps to
> prevent the real ones (such as making sure the main breaker is off), and
> ignore the imagined ones. Yes, a transfer switch is the right way to do it.
> No, you can't just run an extension cord to a furnace or a well pump. In an
> emergency, you do what you have to do.
>
Since this is apparently an anticipated event (or we wouldn't be
discussing it), there's no excuse for allowing it to escalate into an
emergency.
--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
| |
|
| Puddin' Man wrote:
<snip>
>
> PS: Who believes that linesmen just *grab* conductors without
> testing for voltage, etc?
> Who believes that 30A, 'tho admittedly dangerous, is really
> likely to result in a fatality?
>
We don't have to speculate. It has happened.
> Pease pudding hot,
> Pease pudding cold,
> Pease pudding in the pot
> Nine days old ...
--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
| |
| Doug Miller 2006-12-22, 1:25 pm |
| In article <qvvno29pian8rrg75roimekm9ct1jd6dds@4ax.com>, Pudding Dot Man At Gmail Dot Com wrote:
> Who believes that 30A, 'tho admittedly dangerous, is really
> likely to result in a fatality?
Believe it. Why do you suppose ground-fault circuit interrupters have a trip
threshold of five *milli* amperes?
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
| |
| Doug Miller 2006-12-22, 1:25 pm |
| In article <8g4oo2d325ndncelb0mm92nu7gajbh09nu@4ax.com>, Goedjn <prose@mail.uri.edu> wrote:
>
>
>Your logic is impeccapble, but linemen have indeed
>died that way, which is why the ones that live get
>so grumpy about it when they find you with a
>non-compliant setup.
Well, maybe so, maybe not. I have very recent experience with that: three
weeks ago exactly, a tree limb fell on my service drop during a windstorm.
When the linemen came out to re-string the service, I asked them if they
wanted me to shut off my generator. Crew boss asked if the main breaker was
open (i.e., off). Told him it was. He said I could leave the genny running.
I'm sure they checked, first, before touching anything... but they did the
entire repair with the generator up.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
| |
| Doug Miller 2006-12-22, 5:25 pm |
| In article <5v6oo259773ac2egddf9l47opab6c973mm@4ax.com>, Mark Lloyd <mlloyd@xmail.com10.invalid> wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 10:10:02 -0600, Puddin' Man
><pudding.man@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Why do you expect perfection? Such a thing doesn't exist, and can't.
>There is no way to be 100% certain of not making a mistake.
Garbage.
This...[color=darkred]
>
... is a 100% certain way of not making the mistake of backfeeding the utility
lines.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
| |
| Doug Miller 2006-12-22, 5:25 pm |
| In article <458C27AF.6080604@prodigy.net>, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>Ever heard of Murphy's law?
>
Ever heard of paying attention to what you're doing?
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
| |
| Doug Miller 2006-12-22, 5:25 pm |
| In article <458C282B.1040301@prodigy.net>, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>
> Jim Redelfs <jim.redelfs@NOSPAMredelfs.com> wrote:
>
> to
> the
> to
> to
>Since this is apparently an anticipated event (or we wouldn't be
>discussing it), there's no excuse for allowing it to escalate into an
>emergency.
>
Sure, and in a perfect world ever home would have a transfer switch already
installed.
Is there one in your house?
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
| |
| Pete C. 2006-12-22, 5:25 pm |
| Doug Miller wrote:
>
> In article <8g4oo2d325ndncelb0mm92nu7gajbh09nu@4ax.com>, Goedjn <prose@mail.uri.edu> wrote:
>
> Well, maybe so, maybe not. I have very recent experience with that: three
> weeks ago exactly, a tree limb fell on my service drop during a windstorm.
> When the linemen came out to re-string the service, I asked them if they
> wanted me to shut off my generator. Crew boss asked if the main breaker was
> open (i.e., off). Told him it was. He said I could leave the genny running.
>
> I'm sure they checked, first, before touching anything... but they did the
> entire repair with the generator up.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>
> It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Right, their comfort level will vary with the situation. In your case
they were dealing with secondary voltage only since it was just your
drop that was down, not primaries on the street. They also only had a
single residence in question, with a generator already running. They
asked and in the process reminded you about the main breaker and also
got some impression of your competence. And of course at 120/240V their
gloves provide plenty of protection even if there was a back feed.
Pete C.
| |
| Pete C. 2006-12-22, 5:25 pm |
| CJT wrote:
>
> Jim Redelfs wrote:
>
>
> Amen.
>
> --
> The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
> minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
Another thought since it's been mentioned is furnaces and well pumps.
I'm not aware of any code requirement that they be hardwired. You can
easily and inexpensively make them cord connected devices with dedicated
outlets, allowing you to readily connect them via extension cords to
your generator.
Pete C.
| |
|
| Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <458C282B.1040301@prodigy.net>, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>
> Sure, and in a perfect world ever home would have a transfer switch already
> installed.
And in a perfect world, nobody would accidentally flip a breaker.
>
> Is there one in your house?
>
--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
| |
| Doug Miller 2006-12-22, 5:25 pm |
| In article <458C330F.28B9A950@snet.net>, "Pete C." <aux3.DOH.4@snet.net> wrote:
>
>Right, their comfort level will vary with the situation. In your case
>they were dealing with secondary voltage only since it was just your
>drop that was down, not primaries on the street. They also only had a
>single residence in question, with a generator already running. They
>asked and in the process reminded you about the main breaker and also
>got some impression of your competence.
Exactly so. I understood the foreman's question to me on two levels, and I
answered him on both levels as well:
"Is your main breaker open?" (Do you know what 'open' means?)
"Yes, it's off." (Yes, I know what you mean, and yes, it is.)
> And of course at 120/240V their
>gloves provide plenty of protection even if there was a back feed.
Yeah, those fellas have some major heavy-duty insulated gloves. :-)
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
| |
| Doug Miller 2006-12-22, 5:25 pm |
| In article <458C3581.3070004@prodigy.net>, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>And in a perfect world, nobody would accidentally flip a breaker.
Be realistic -- who's going to "accidentally" flip the MAIN??
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
| |
| Mark Lloyd 2006-12-22, 5:25 pm |
| On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 19:30:09 GMT, spambait@milmac.com (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>In article <458C27AF.6080604@prodigy.net>, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>Ever heard of paying attention to what you're doing?
Realize that you can never do that 100% of the time, with exactly 0%
chance of error. More simply: perfection isn't.
--
3 days until the winter solstice celebration
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com
"Never underestimate the power of stupid
people in large groups"
| |
| Mark Lloyd 2006-12-22, 5:25 pm |
| On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 19:26:38 GMT, spambait@milmac.com (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>In article <5v6oo259773ac2egddf9l47opab6c973mm@4ax.com>, Mark Lloyd <mlloyd@xmail.com10.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>Garbage.
>
>This...
>
>.. is a 100% certain way of not making the mistake of backfeeding the utility
>lines.
That is, 100% multiplied by the probability of no mistakes, and that
can NEVER be 100%. Not here. Hot anywhere anything like here.
--
3 days until the winter solstice celebration
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com
"Never underestimate the power of stupid
people in large groups"
| |
| larryc@teleport.com 2006-12-22, 5:25 pm |
| Puddin' Man wrote:
> I have a 21 yr-old Cutler-Hammer panel that I installed myself back
> around 1984.
>
> No doubt there's numerous houses in which an interlock kit would
> make sense. But there's nobody here but po' me, and, to my knowledge,
> I don't need to idiot-proof the damned thang. Before any gas
> generator were connected, the main breaker -would- be switched
> off. And it would stay off until the gen. was removed.
It's your choice. With my electrical utility, if you "tickle" a
lineman, they will stop work, trace down where the electricity is
coming from, cut your lines off, and you will NEVER get electrical
service again. It's a union thing. They will blacklist your address.
| |
| Doug Miller 2006-12-22, 5:25 pm |
| In article <i3eoo252pns97kq5r3ehmog166cj6n9d62@4ax.com>, Mark Lloyd <mlloyd@xmail.com10.invalid> wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 19:26:38 GMT, spambait@milmac.com (Doug Miller)
>wrote:
>
> <mlloyd@xmail.com10.invalid> wrote:
>
>That is, 100% multiplied by the probability of no mistakes, and that
>can NEVER be 100%. Not here. Hot anywhere anything like here.
What, you think there *is* some way to backfeed the utility with the meter
removed? Not unless you deliberately *try* to do it.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
| |
| Doug Miller 2006-12-22, 5:25 pm |
| In article <1166817824.077272.190930@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>, larryc@teleport.com wrote:
>Puddin' Man wrote:
>
>
>It's your choice. With my electrical utility, if you "tickle" a
>lineman, they will stop work, trace down where the electricity is
>coming from, cut your lines off, and you will NEVER get electrical
>service again. It's a union thing. They will blacklist your address.
>
Sounds like an urban legend to me...
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
| |
| Mark Lloyd 2006-12-22, 5:25 pm |
| On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 20:06:09 GMT, spambait@milmac.com (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>In article <i3eoo252pns97kq5r3ehmog166cj6n9d62@4ax.com>, Mark Lloyd <mlloyd@xmail.com10.invalid> wrote:
>
>What, you think there *is* some way to backfeed the utility with the meter
>removed? Not unless you deliberately *try* to do it.
I didn't say that. I said that nothing can ever be done with 100%
reliability. That is, there is never a 100% guarantee that you will
remember to remove the meter EVERY time and that that meter will STAY
removed.
I considered doing that (connecting generator that way) once but never
did it because of the small risk of severe consequences.
--
3 days until the winter solstice celebration
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com
"Never underestimate the power of stupid
people in large groups"
| |
| Mark Lloyd 2006-12-22, 5:25 pm |
| On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 19:48:30 GMT, spambait@milmac.com (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>In article <458C3581.3070004@prodigy.net>, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>
>Be realistic -- who's going to "accidentally" flip the MAIN??
By the time you find out, it'll be too late to stop it.
I never understood why people assume the one thing (perfection) that's
actually impossible.
--
3 days until the winter solstice celebration
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com
"Never underestimate the power of stupid
people in large groups"
| |
| Mark Lloyd 2006-12-22, 5:25 pm |
| On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 19:36:48 GMT, "Pete C." <aux3.DOH.4@snet.net>
wrote:
>CJT wrote:
>
>Another thought since it's been mentioned is furnaces and well pumps.
>I'm not aware of any code requirement that they be hardwired. You can
>easily and inexpensively make them cord connected devices with dedicated
>outlets, allowing you to readily connect them via extension cords to
>your generator.
>
>Pete C.
My furnace (burns gas so it doesn't need a lot of electricity) is cord
connected. The outlet in there is the only thing on that circuit,
although it's used for the doorbell transformer also.
--
3 days until the winter solstice celebration
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com
"Never underestimate the power of stupid
people in large groups"
| |
| Doug Miller 2006-12-22, 5:25 pm |
| In article <heioo25f05o5136f9ns85ve7urmi1iqqqq@4ax.com>, Mark Lloyd <mlloyd@xmail.com10.invalid> wrote:
>I didn't say that. I said that nothing can ever be done with 100%
>reliability. That is, there is never a 100% guarantee that you will
>remember to remove the meter EVERY time and that that meter will STAY
>removed.
This is getting absurd. Do you think the meter is going to get up off the
ground, climb the wall, and reinstall itself into the base?
>
>I considered doing that (connecting generator that way) once but never
>did it because of the small risk of severe consequences.
I guess if you don't trust yourself to throw the main breaker, and/or don't
trust other members of your household to leave it alone, then this makes
sense.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
| |
| Doug Miller 2006-12-22, 5:25 pm |
| In article <9mioo2pupci6933tm5ffuuaj04snv3gfnb@4ax.com>, Mark Lloyd <mlloyd@xmail.com10.invalid> wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 19:48:30 GMT, spambait@milmac.com (Doug Miller)
>wrote:
>
>
>By the time you find out, it'll be too late to stop it.
>
>I never understood why people assume the one thing (perfection) that's
>actually impossible.
Like I said... be realistic. Learn to distinguish real hazards from imagined
ones. Do what you can to prevent the real ones -- and ignore the ones that
arise only from your imagination.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
| |
|
| Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <9mioo2pupci6933tm5ffuuaj04snv3gfnb@4ax.com>, Mark Lloyd <mlloyd@xmail.com10.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
> Like I said... be realistic. Learn to distinguish real hazards from imagined
> ones. Do what you can to prevent the real ones -- and ignore the ones that
> arise only from your imagination.
>
Given that linemen have died in situations similar to what we're
discussing, I think we need to consider this a "real" hazard.
--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of | | |