"REL" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 15:48:59 GMT, "volts500"
wrote:
http://homewiringandmore.com/homewir...hvac/hvac.html
If you find supporting information I will own my mistake infront of
god and everybody. Perhaps that is a difference you do not see in me.
I do not care if I am wrong, I only seek to correct it when I am.
the other rich
THIS DOCUMENT IS BASED ON THE 1999 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE AND IS
DESIGNED TO GIVE YOU AN OPTION, AS A SELF HELP, THAT SHOULD PASS
MINIMUM CODE REQUIREMENTS. WHILE EXTREME CARE HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED IN
THE PREPARATION OF THIS SELF HELP DOCUMENT, THE AUTHOR AND / OR
PROVIDER OF THIS DOCUMENT ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ERRORS OR
OMISSIONS, NOR IS ANY LIABILITY ASSUMED FROM TNE USE OF THE
INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THIS DOCUMENT BY THE AUTHOR OR PROVIDER.
Good thing he has that in place wouldn't you say.
Standard ho hum disclaimer.
This is the one you showed me before, it is NOT compelling at all sir.
The author is stating that a unit with a MCA of 27Amps and a MOCP of
45 may be connected with number 10 wire and a 100 amp fuse. All
because of the LRA of the compressor motor.
He is full of ****.
Did I not say there was a typo? If the typo were brought to his attention,
and he did not correct it within a reasonable time, yes, I agree he would
most definitely be full of ****.
He even discusses the MOCP lol.
So, you're gonna knock down the rest of his discussion because of a typo?
Volts500 this is the SAME thing again. Here is the deal. By exceeding
the MOCP stated on the plate, he is wrong.
As far as the typo, yes he's wrong. The MOCP as _illustrated_ was 45 amps,
not 100 amps.
Now before you go into a
long drawn out disertation about how it is just MY opinion I will
check into this very situation.
I agree that it's wrong, again it's a typo. I knew there was a typo when I
read it, I _said_ there was a typo right next to the link, and of course I
expected you to make a big deal about it.
I am certianly of the opinion that should you opt to wire this with
number 10 wire and protect it with a 100amp HACR fuse or breaker not
only would you find yourself in violation of the minimum standards of
the NEC, you would have also VOIDED any warranty on the unit.
Again, no disagreement.
I will print this out and submit it to no less than one master
electrician, one double E and 3 major manufactures to determine if
they would honor warranty next week.
I won't argue either. They will probably laugh at you for making such a big
deal out of a typo though.
I certianly found your own argument of being allowed to size to MOCP a
bit more reasonable, but perhaps I have forgotten enough of it to
realize you also indicated it was acceptable to exceed the MOP on the
name plate.
No, never have, never will. Please don't make things up.
FYI HACR breakers and fuses are DESIGNED to withstand damn it I forget
now, but if I recall correctly 6 times the rating for a few seconds to
prevent trips due to LRA. I find the idea of placing a 100 amp breaker
on number 10 wire to a device with normal loading of under 30 amps
flat out idiotic and a significant diservice to the client.
For the seventh time..........I AGREE.......can you say TYPO!?
OK, you made your point about the typo......YOU FOUND THE TYPO!!! Now plug
in the (illustrated) nameplate numbers and try to make the same argument. I
find it interesting that you conveniently had ABSOLUTELY NO COMMENT
regarding the very _first_ link that I provided. Here let me post it again:
http://www.ecmag.com/editorial_detail.aspx?id=1086
It's time to settle this, Rich. Please comment on the above link.