On Saturday, August 2, 2014 9:15:32 PM UTC-4, Doug Miller wrote:
wrote in :



On Sat, 2 Aug 2014 22:31:25 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller

wrote:



trader_4 wrote in news:721afe4d-95af-4321-a785-f2428f838f82

:



On Saturday, August 2, 2014 3:51:59 PM UTC-4, wrote:

On Sat, 2 Aug 2014 14:05:32 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller

wrote:

wrote in news:e8not9po55dsmu3f1ap92udfqh327crtle@

4ax.com:

And remember - if the unit draws a constant 26 amps, it is over-spec

for a 30 amp circuit (maximum 80% rated current for continuous use)



The term "continuous" has a clear, specific definition in the Code -- and an air

conditioner

does not meet that definition.



You really should stop trying to give electrical advice.



OK - what does "continuous" mean?



It would seem if you're giving out the advice, you should know that

no? And if not, googling "code definition continous load" should work.



Not knowing what the Code says hasn't ever previously prevented him from giving

electrical advice; no reason to expect that to change now, is there?

If the AC runs for 3 hours and 1 minute without shutting down at 26

amps, a #10 cable is undersized for the application.



Still wrong. Go back and read the definition I quoted. I was going to say, "read it *again*" but

it doesn't appear that you've read it once.



That is according to your interpretation of the code.



"Interpretation"?? The language is pretty plain -- but you have to actually, you know, *read*

it first, before you know what it says.



Is it inconceiveable that this air conditioner could run for over 3

hours at a time???



It says, "... expected to continue for three hours or more".

Plus it doesn't matter, because all of that was taken into account by
the engineers when they put "min circuit amapacity 26" on the UL label.
He's trying to analyze the load all over again, when it's been done and
the load is saying "hook me up to a 26A or better circuit".