On Fri, 11 May 2007 13:53:02 -0000, (Chris Lewis)
wrote:

According to Solar Flaire :
That might be but stop using the trained lineman as an excuse to put
proper interlocks in your generator/grid tie-in. It's just crap.

_I_ wasn't. Backfed wires are a hazard to everyone. Linesmen
are just one.

Even trained linesmen get tired, make mistakes, or just
get zapped by something unforeseen.

You have an ice storm that takes out power for weeks. The crews are
dead tired. There's wire draped over _everything_, buried under snow
and ice. Linesmen are hanging out the side of helicopters 200' up at
-40F and strong winds (not to mention the windchill factor from the
helicopter itself!) trying to repair HT lines. The army is out dragging
out power poles and the remains of high tension towers, rescuing people
from frozen homes, stuck cars, and houses filled full of CO. Everybody
is just trying to survive and get the job done as quickly as
possible.[+]

How do you think they'd feel about idiots backfeeding?

Then is not the time to set booby traps. It's just stupid. Do
it right.

There's a special place in hell reserved for those who endanger
emergency crews or steal emergency equipment during an emergency.



Has everybody missed the point that fitting proper interlocks is _precisely_
what Iggy is proposing to do? OK he's not buying a nice idiot homeowner retail
kit from home-generators_R_us. He is engineering a solution that is at least
as foolproof and effective. Good luck to him!



Mark Rand
RTFM

According to Mark Rand :

Has everybody missed the point that fitting proper interlocks is _precisely_
what Iggy is proposing to do? OK he's not buying a nice idiot homeowner retail
kit from home-generators_R_us. He is engineering a solution that is at least
as foolproof and effective. Good luck to him!

It doesn't appear to have enough poles to be effective - it doesn't
switch both sides of the panel. Secondly, it's probably not
approved for the purpose of switching residential feeds, and there
may well be a reason why it wouldn't be.

To do it right is to do it within the NEC (or CEC) with devices
UL or CSA-approved for the purpose, or be able to find an electrical
engineer who is willing to sign off on it.
--
Chris Lewis,

Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

Mark Rand wrote:


Has everybody missed the point that fitting proper interlocks is _precisely_
what Iggy is proposing to do? OK he's not buying a nice idiot homeowner retail
kit from home-generators_R_us. He is engineering a solution that is at least
as foolproof and effective. Good luck to him!



Mark Rand
RTFM

No point missed. He isn't engineering anything. He is trying to cobble
stuff together to avoid the use of a proven, approved for the purpose
and readily available DPDT transfer switch.

You design, test and submit for approval alternative devices when a
suitable device is not manufactured.

On Fri, 11 May 2007 18:02:20 -0000, (Chris Lewis)
wrote:

According to Mark Rand :

Has everybody missed the point that fitting proper interlocks is _precisely_
what Iggy is proposing to do? OK he's not buying a nice idiot homeowner retail
kit from home-generators_R_us. He is engineering a solution that is at least
as foolproof and effective. Good luck to him!

It doesn't appear to have enough poles to be effective - it doesn't
switch both sides of the panel. Secondly, it's probably not
approved for the purpose of switching residential feeds, and there
may well be a reason why it wouldn't be.

To do it right is to do it within the NEC (or CEC) with devices
UL or CSA-approved for the purpose, or be able to find an electrical
engineer who is willing to sign off on it.


It's not a switch, it's an interlock. To be interfaced with the switch to
prevent it closing unless the interlock bar is retracted. It thus becomes
physically impossible to have both switches closed at once, since the switch
must be opened in order to be able to extract the key and the key must be in
the interlock in order to close the switch. Since there is only one key
available, only one switch can be closed at a time... even if they are a mile
apart.


Iggy's solution is far safer than the silly panels with switches linked
together. Specifically, it is fail safe.


Mark Rand
RTFM

On Fri, 11 May 2007 14:20:29 -0400, George wrote:

Mark Rand wrote:


Has everybody missed the point that fitting proper interlocks is _precisely_
what Iggy is proposing to do? OK he's not buying a nice idiot homeowner retail
kit from home-generators_R_us. He is engineering a solution that is at least
as foolproof and effective. Good luck to him!



Mark Rand
RTFM

No point missed. He isn't engineering anything. He is trying to cobble
stuff together to avoid the use of a proven, approved for the purpose
and readily available DPDT transfer switch.

You design, test and submit for approval alternative devices when a
suitable device is not manufactured.


A double pole double throw switch is _not_ a safe design for a transfer switch
an inductive load that causes arcing on the opening contacts can result in
connecting both sources together or one source onto a fault. A panel that has
pairs of switches tied together can connect both sources to the load if one
switch or the link fails, with no opportunity to verify that the disconnect
occurred before the connect occurred. Neither protect against trying to
synchronise the source network a long way out of phase with the load network

Iggy's solution requires that one source is isolated well before the other
source can be connected.

Oh, and I have, in my role as an electrical engineer, in the last year had to
refuse to connect UL and CE marked equipment supplied by a major (Blue)
manufacturer because it was unsafe as assembled. When the installation
"engineer" claimed that similar equipment had been installed all over the
country, I had to state that it's use would be illegal in each of those
installations. I'm not that bothered about safety except where the lack of it
endangers people, then I get quite particular.

regards
Mark Rand
RTFM

Mark Rand wrote:
... Since there is only one key
available, only one switch can be closed at a time... even if they are a mile
apart.

Iggy's solution is far safer than the silly panels with switches linked
together. Specifically, it is fail safe.

It's only safe as long as someone follows the rules and there is
only one key. You could just as easily leave out the key and just
keep the rule, "Thou shalt switch OFF the one before you switch ON
the other", which is nothing at all like a proper transfer switch.

Anthony

On Fri, 11 May 2007 14:42:33 -0700, Anthony Matonak wrote:
Mark Rand wrote:
... Since there is only one key
available, only one switch can be closed at a time... even if they are a mile
apart.

Iggy's solution is far safer than the silly panels with switches linked
together. Specifically, it is fail safe.

It's only safe as long as someone follows the rules and there is
only one key. You could just as easily leave out the key and just
keep the rule, "Thou shalt switch OFF the one before you switch ON
the other", which is nothing at all like a proper transfer switch.

Anthony

I will put the second key in the bank safe deposit box. Or even throw
it away.

i

Seems to me that having a transfer switch feed a subpanel with only certain
circuits on it is far too limiting. And one of those panels where
individual circuits can be flipped one way or the other is a neat idea but
again it's limiting. I think it's preferrable just to have a big switch
that cuts the whole house over so *everything* is live. Obviously that
doesn't mean you have the power to run everything at once but how much
easier not to have to run extension cords because only certain outlets are
hot. And of course the matter of hard wired fixtures and devices. Sure,
you'd have your furnace powered but what about the lights in the bathroom?
Energize the whole house and just take care on what's on at the same time.

"Steve Kraus" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Seems to me that having a transfer switch feed a subpanel with only certain
circuits on it is far too limiting.

"You take your choice and you pay your money." Every solution has both
advantages and disadvantages. As Iggy pointed out, sometimes a proper whole
house transfer switch can be virtually impossible without major (read expensive)
renovations.

Also, if you have any chance of a protracted outage in your area, avoid the urge
to install a large generator! You can't believe how much gas even a modest
genny can burn in a week or three. Our stationary generator is only 4 KW. We
have to live without central air, and do without our electric range, but
otherwise life in our home is just about normal. We have a window unit in our
bedroom to provide us with a cool refuge.

Mark Rand wrote:
On Fri, 11 May 2007 14:20:29 -0400, George wrote:

Mark Rand wrote:

Has everybody missed the point that fitting proper interlocks is _precisely_
what Iggy is proposing to do? OK he's not buying a nice idiot homeowner retail
kit from home-generators_R_us. He is engineering a solution that is at least
as foolproof and effective. Good luck to him!



Mark Rand
RTFM
No point missed. He isn't engineering anything. He is trying to cobble
stuff together to avoid the use of a proven, approved for the purpose
and readily available DPDT transfer switch.

You design, test and submit for approval alternative devices when a
suitable device is not manufactured.


A double pole double throw switch is _not_ a safe design for a transfer switch
an inductive load that causes arcing on the opening contacts can result in
connecting both sources together or one source onto a fault.

Really? I think there are at least a few in everyday use...


A panel that has
pairs of switches tied together can connect both sources to the load if one
switch or the link fails, with no opportunity to verify that the disconnect
occurred before the connect occurred. Neither protect against trying to
synchronise the source network a long way out of phase with the load network

Iggy's solution requires that one source is isolated well before the other
source can be connected.

Oh, and I have, in my role as an electrical engineer, in the last year had to
refuse to connect UL and CE marked equipment supplied by a major (Blue)
manufacturer because it was unsafe as assembled. When the installation
"engineer" claimed that similar equipment had been installed all over the
country, I had to state that it's use would be illegal in each of those
installations. I'm not that bothered about safety except where the lack of it
endangers people, then I get quite particular.

regards
Mark Rand
RTFM

Steve Kraus wrote:
Seems to me that having a transfer switch feed a subpanel with only certain
circuits on it is far too limiting. And one of those panels where
individual circuits can be flipped one way or the other is a neat idea but
again it's limiting. I think it's preferrable just to have a big switch
that cuts the whole house over so *everything* is live. Obviously that
doesn't mean you have the power to run everything at once but how much
easier not to have to run extension cords because only certain outlets are
hot. And of course the matter of hard wired fixtures and devices. Sure,
you'd have your furnace powered but what about the lights in the bathroom?
Energize the whole house and just take care on what's on at the same time.

It depends, if you have a big switch and don't have generator capacity
to support your total load someone still needs to manage loads. If you
are the "expert" you need to consider how other occupants will manage
things if you aren't there.

My buddy lives in a rural area with frequent power outages. He bought a
genset with an small automatic transfer switch. We selected all of the
critical loads such as the heating system, well pump, sewage pump,
refrigeration and basic lighting and ran them into a smaller panel which
is fed by the transfer switch. The advantage of this is that his family
doesn't have to scramble when the generator stalls because loads are
managed properly and they really don't have to do anything since all of
the essential needs are covered.

No one needs to know the "secret method" to make it work.

And a good side benefit is that since no intervention is required the
system will startup on its own. So say they are away the house isn't
going to be frozen in the winter or have a refrigerator of rotten food
in the summer.

On Sun, 13 May 2007 14:43:04 GMT, Howard Eisenhauer
wrote:

I'm coming in late on this, didn't see the original post but from
reading the replies I'm infering Iggy wants to use a couple of keyed
lock mechanical doohickies to prevent his genny breaker & mains
disconnect from both being "on" at the same time.

This is, everyplace I've ever been, perfectly legal as long as theres
only one key & it can only be withdrawn from the lock when the
doohicky has the breaker in the "off" position. I've had a number of
systems like this in sites where the feeds were physically seperated.

Now, that isn't to say I don't prefer a single changeover switch type
of deal, 'cause I very much do, but the keyed switchs are perfectly
acceptable if properly designed.

This has been discussed before somewheres on usenet, I remember
posting on it.

Yes, a "Kirk Key®" interlock is legal - but ONLY where access is
restricted to trained and responsible personnel like at power plants
and industrial buildings. People who know what will happen if they
screw up, and that they'll be held fully to account for it.

It is too easy to deliberately bypass that type of mechanical
interlock and cause a backfeed, as easy as unbolting the front panel
of the switchboard that the interlocks are secured to and operating
the circuit breakers out of sequence. Takes only seconds.

And there are too many fools who are ready and willing to do it out
of total and deliberate ignorance of the consequences.

For residential and light commercial/industrial applications where
the transfer equipment is not secured and can and will be operated by
untrained personnel, it HAS TO BE type accepted for that use. That
calls for a pre-packaged automatic or manual transfer switch of some
sort that has failsafes against backfeeds, and eliminates any "Kirk
Key®" type systems from consideration.

Unless you want to be up for multiple counts of Murder 2 for
backfeeding the utility service and killing a few workers on the line
gang, out trying to restore power after the storm...

-- Bruce --

"Bruce L. Bergman" wrote in message
...
Unless you want to be up for multiple counts of Murder 2 for
backfeeding the utility service and killing a few workers ...snip

OK, you just went over the top.

Vaughn

Bruce L. Bergman wrote:
On Sun, 13 May 2007 14:43:04 GMT, Howard Eisenhauer
wrote:

I'm coming in late on this, didn't see the original post but from
reading the replies I'm infering Iggy wants to use a couple of keyed
lock mechanical doohickies to prevent his genny breaker & mains
disconnect from both being "on" at the same time.

This is, everyplace I've ever been, perfectly legal as long as theres
only one key & it can only be withdrawn from the lock when the
doohicky has the breaker in the "off" position. I've had a number of
systems like this in sites where the feeds were physically seperated.

Now, that isn't to say I don't prefer a single changeover switch type
of deal, 'cause I very much do, but the keyed switchs are perfectly
acceptable if properly designed.

This has been discussed before somewheres on usenet, I remember
posting on it.

Yes, a "Kirk Key®" interlock is legal - but ONLY where access is
restricted to trained and responsible personnel like at power plants
and industrial buildings. People who know what will happen if they
screw up, and that they'll be held fully to account for it.

It is too easy to deliberately bypass that type of mechanical
interlock and cause a backfeed, as easy as unbolting the front panel
of the switchboard that the interlocks are secured to and operating
the circuit breakers out of sequence. Takes only seconds.

And there are too many fools who are ready and willing to do it out
of total and deliberate ignorance of the consequences.

For residential and light commercial/industrial applications where
the transfer equipment is not secured and can and will be operated by
untrained personnel, it HAS TO BE type accepted for that use. That
calls for a pre-packaged automatic or manual transfer switch of some
sort that has failsafes against backfeeds, and eliminates any "Kirk
Key®" type systems from consideration.

That's exactly why the codes REQUIRE, not suggest, a transfer switch.
Anything else is basically moot in a residential setting. Both code AND
emergency services AND insurance companies will frown very deeply and react
vehemently if/when they come across a device such as this discussion is
about in a residence where it's not expected nor allowed to be.

Vaughn Simon wrote:
"Bruce L. Bergman" wrote in
message ...
Unless you want to be up for multiple counts of Murder 2 for
backfeeding the utility service and killing a few workers ...snip

OK, you just went over the top.

Vaughn

He may have been a little melodramatic, but it IS within the realm of
possibility. I didn't get to see it happen, but I did get to see a genset
once after it'd attempted to back-power the neighborhood. Its protection
didn't react quite quickly enough for such a load g. But, for half second
or so, it was powering the transformer!

On Mon, 14 May 2007 00:20:44 GMT, "Pop`"
wrote:

Vaughn Simon wrote:
"Bruce L. Bergman" wrote in
message ...
Unless you want to be up for multiple counts of Murder 2 for
backfeeding the utility service and killing a few workers ...snip

OK, you just went over the top.

Vaughn

He may have been a little melodramatic, but it IS within the realm of
possibility. I didn't get to see it happen, but I did get to see a genset
once after it'd attempted to back-power the neighborhood. Its protection
didn't react quite quickly enough for such a load g. But, for half second
or so, it was powering the transformer!



And how long does it take to electrocute someone?

On 2007-05-14, Sam E wrote:

And how long does it take to electrocute someone?

If you get unlucky, a fraction of a second is enough to cause
ventricular fibrillation.

It won't matter. Any inpsector worth more than two pennies will reject
a voluntary interlock.

"Ignoramus3938" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 May 2007 14:42:33 -0700, Anthony Matonak
wrote:
Mark Rand wrote:
... Since there is only one key
available, only one switch can be closed at a time... even if they
are a mile
apart.

Iggy's solution is far safer than the silly panels with switches
linked
together. Specifically, it is fail safe.

It's only safe as long as someone follows the rules and there is
only one key. You could just as easily leave out the key and just
keep the rule, "Thou shalt switch OFF the one before you switch ON
the other", which is nothing at all like a proper transfer switch.

Anthony

I will put the second key in the bank safe deposit box. Or even
throw
it away.

i

Exactly!
All the promises and keys in thw orld do not make a transfer switch.

"Pop`" wrote in message
news:SUN1i.8303$NY3.6517@trnddc03...
Bruce L. Bergman wrote:

That's exactly why the codes REQUIRE, not suggest, a transfer
switch. Anything else is basically moot in a residential setting.
Both code AND emergency services AND insurance companies will frown
very deeply and react vehemently if/when they come across a device
such as this discussion is about in a residence where it's not
expected nor allowed to be.

I am the local electrical utilty. You are confused and blaming
unrelated things on lineman stupidity. Trained and legal linesmen do
not take these chances. If they ever do, they are not linesmen anymore
here.


wrote in message
ups.com...
On May 9, 6:44 pm, "Solar Flaire"
wrote:
Maybe the colour should be a factor too. I don't know why you make
such silly statements when the text is black.

When you have a statement from any credible source that agrees with
your position that backfeeding a utility line with a generator is
only
a safety hazard if the lineman is retarded, please post it. Why
don't
you start with contacting your local electric company and see what
they have to say. Don;t you think it just a little bit strange,
that
in this whole thread, you're the only one with that position? Or
perhaps you're not aware that linemen have been killed by this. Or
maybe, by your expertise, they were retarded.






wrote in message

ps.com...



On May 8, 6:31 pm, "Solar Flaire"

wrote:
How are these two subject related or was no answer required?

I think it's pretty obvious how these subjects are related. You
asked who was going to live there after hte OP has installed his
key
interlock system. From that, one would infer that you were
questioning what would happen if a new owner took possession, who
may
not keep a key in a safe, or even know or care about the correct
procedure to keep the generator from backfeeding the utility.
But
previously you had stated that only a retarded lineman could have
a
safety issue with a generator backfeeding the utility lines, that
it
was no big deal. That lead to my question, as to why you would
then
care about who takes over the house after the OP.

wrote in message

groups.com...

On May 7, 9:59 pm, "Solar Flaire"

wrote:
Who will live there after you leave?

Why would you care? A few posts back you claimed that a
generator
backfeeding into the utility was only a safety issue if the
lineman
was retarded.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Sun, 13 May 2007 18:52:33 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
wrote:
"Bruce L. Bergman" wrote in message
.. .

Unless you want to be up for multiple counts of Murder 2 for
backfeeding the utility service and killing a few workers ...snip

OK, you just went over the top.

Not at all - a person properly trained in electricity theories,
construction codes and the like would know the risks involved, and if
he did cause a backfeed into the utility system anyway and someone
dies, Murder 2 (done deliberately but with no premeditation) would be
a reasonable charge to level.

Though I'd bet most career prosecutors would charge it as Murder 2
just so they could plea-bargain it down to an easy Manslaughter.

IANAL, but even 120VAC is a potentially lethal voltage. And when it
kicks backward through a transformer and is suddenly boosted to 5KV to
35KV or more, then it's really easy to "reach out and touch someone."

And I have personal knowledge of how massive screw-ups of this
magnitude can and do happen, but please DAMHIKT. Let's just say it
wasn't pretty, and leave it at that.

-- Bruce --

On Mon, 14 May 2007 19:41:30 -0500, "Solar Flaire"
wrote:

It won't matter. Any inpsector worth more than two pennies will reject
a voluntary interlock.


What do you not understand? an interlock is not voluntary. it is an interlock.



Mark Rand
RTFM

"Bruce L. Bergman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 May 2007 18:52:33 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"

Not at all - a person properly trained in electricity theories,

I am both an electronics technician and a licensed electrician, so I think
I have had a bit of training in electricity theories.

construction codes and the like would know the risks involved, and if
he did cause a backfeed into the utility system anyway and someone
dies, Murder 2 (done deliberately but with no premeditation) would be
a reasonable charge to level.

That is absolute bull****.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in doing things right. In fact, I have a
proper transfer switch on my own home. But why must this transfer switch
conversation always disintegrate into such childish nonsense?

Vaughn

According to Mark Rand :
It's not a switch, it's an interlock. To be interfaced with the switch to
prevent it closing unless the interlock bar is retracted. It thus becomes
physically impossible to have both switches closed at once, since the switch
must be opened in order to be able to extract the key and the key must be in
the interlock in order to close the switch. Since there is only one key
available, only one switch can be closed at a time... even if they are a mile
apart.

If the devices are installed properly, and _present_. How would
they be installed? Bolted to the panel face plate? What if the
plate has been removed?

Iggy's solution is far safer than the silly panels with switches linked
together. Specifically, it is fail safe.

Not quite. A large DPDT knife switch is failsafe.
--
Chris Lewis,

Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

On Tue, 15 May 2007 07:37:21 GMT, Bruce L. Bergman
wrote:

On Sun, 13 May 2007 18:52:33 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
wrote:
"Bruce L. Bergman" wrote in message
. ..

Unless you want to be up for multiple counts of Murder 2 for
backfeeding the utility service and killing a few workers ...snip

OK, you just went over the top.

Not at all - a person properly trained in electricity theories,
construction codes and the like would know the risks involved, and if
he did cause a backfeed into the utility system anyway and someone
dies, Murder 2 (done deliberately but with no premeditation) would be
a reasonable charge to level.

Though I'd bet most career prosecutors would charge it as Murder 2
just so they could plea-bargain it down to an easy Manslaughter.

IANAL, but even 120VAC is a potentially lethal voltage. And when it
kicks backward through a transformer and is suddenly boosted to 5KV to
35KV or more, then it's really easy to "reach out and touch someone."

And I have personal knowledge of how massive screw-ups of this
magnitude can and do happen, but please DAMHIKT. Let's just say it
wasn't pretty, and leave it at that.

-- Bruce --


There is a video on YuTube where a nutcase climbed a power pole..and a
crew was trying to get him down. The audio segment can be heard "its
ok..the power is off" followed by one of the guys grabbing a line to
reach over to grab the crazy guy. Needless to say..the power wasnt off.

Ayup..not pretty.

Gunner

This Message is guaranteed environmentally friendly
Manufactured with 10% post consumer ASCII
Meets all EPA regulations for clean air
Using only naturally occuring fibers
Use the Message with confidance.
(Some settling may occure in transit.)
(Best if Used before May 13, 2009)

On Tue, 15 May 2007 16:42:47 -0400, daestrom wrote:

"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...
According to Mark Rand :
It's not a switch, it's an interlock. To be interfaced with the switch to
prevent it closing unless the interlock bar is retracted. It thus becomes
physically impossible to have both switches closed at once, since the
switch
must be opened in order to be able to extract the key and the key must be
in
the interlock in order to close the switch. Since there is only one key
available, only one switch can be closed at a time... even if they are a
mile
apart.

If the devices are installed properly, and _present_. How would
they be installed? Bolted to the panel face plate? What if the
plate has been removed?

Iggy's solution is far safer than the silly panels with switches linked
together. Specifically, it is fail safe.

Not quite. A large DPDT knife switch is failsafe.

Unless of course one blade comes loose from the handle and sticks in one
position while the other blade moves to the other position. Some folks
would notice that and probably do something about it, but a knife switch
isn't 'failsafe'.

That would not connect the generator to the utility, however.

i

Designing relay and control systems to be truly 'failsafe' is a whole
science unto its own. :-)

"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...
According to Mark Rand :
It's not a switch, it's an interlock. To be interfaced with the switch to
prevent it closing unless the interlock bar is retracted. It thus becomes
physically impossible to have both switches closed at once, since the
switch
must be opened in order to be able to extract the key and the key must be
in
the interlock in order to close the switch. Since there is only one key
available, only one switch can be closed at a time... even if they are a
mile
apart.

If the devices are installed properly, and _present_. How would
they be installed? Bolted to the panel face plate? What if the
plate has been removed?

Iggy's solution is far safer than the silly panels with switches linked
together. Specifically, it is fail safe.

Not quite. A large DPDT knife switch is failsafe.

Unless of course one blade comes loose from the handle and sticks in one
position while the other blade moves to the other position. Some folks
would notice that and probably do something about it, but a knife switch
isn't 'failsafe'.

Designing relay and control systems to be truly 'failsafe' is a whole
science unto its own. :-)

daestrom

"Vaughn Simon" wrote in message
...

"Bruce L. Bergman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 May 2007 18:52:33 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"

Not at all - a person properly trained in electricity theories,

I am both an electronics technician and a licensed electrician, so I
think I have had a bit of training in electricity theories.

construction codes and the like would know the risks involved, and if
he did cause a backfeed into the utility system anyway and someone
dies, Murder 2 (done deliberately but with no premeditation) would be
a reasonable charge to level.

That is absolute bull****.


Nope. It's called, 'reckless disregard for others resulting in the death of
someone'. In many states that fits the statute of murder. In NY it's not
called Murder-2 since that is 'premeditated' while Murder-1 is 'causing the
death of a law enforcement person while committing a felony act'. In NY it
would be manslaughter in the first-degree.

All it would take is an accident and the DA being able to prove that you 1)
had the prerequisite knowledge yet 2) choose to deliberately ignore the code
requirements and that 3) your actions resulted in the death.

daestrom

On Tue, 15 May 2007 16:49:19 -0400, daestrom wrote:

"Vaughn Simon" wrote in message
...

"Bruce L. Bergman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 May 2007 18:52:33 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"

Not at all - a person properly trained in electricity theories,

I am both an electronics technician and a licensed electrician, so I
think I have had a bit of training in electricity theories.

construction codes and the like would know the risks involved, and if
he did cause a backfeed into the utility system anyway and someone
dies, Murder 2 (done deliberately but with no premeditation) would be
a reasonable charge to level.

That is absolute bull****.


Nope. It's called, 'reckless disregard for others resulting in the death of
someone'. In many states that fits the statute of murder. In NY it's not
called Murder-2 since that is 'premeditated' while Murder-1 is 'causing the
death of a law enforcement person while committing a felony act'. In NY it
would be manslaughter in the first-degree.

All it would take is an accident and the DA being able to prove that you 1)
had the prerequisite knowledge yet 2) choose to deliberately ignore the code
requirements and that 3) your actions resulted in the death.

daestrom


Let's be careful making legal judgments.

Making a mistake while trying to do a good job is not reckless.

"Reckless" in this context would be, for example, deliberately
connecting the generator to utility side as an experiment.

i

"daestrom" wrote in message
...

Nope. It's called, 'reckless disregard for others resulting in the death of
someone'.

Are you a lawyer in real life or do you just play one on the Internet? If
the former, can you provide us a link to a comparable case?

Frankly, I am tired of the silliness that always results from these transfer
switch threads.

Vaughn

Call it what you like..it won't pass inspection and therefore an
illegal device.

or

You could get an Electrical Engineer to put his stamp of approval on
the design documents and state it's specific usage...maybe. Apply to
CSA or UL for an approval. You may have to submit a few prototype
samples to get the approval though.

"Mark Rand" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 May 2007 19:41:30 -0500, "Solar Flaire"
wrote:

It won't matter. Any inpsector worth more than two pennies will
reject
a voluntary interlock.


What do you not understand? an interlock is not voluntary. it is an
interlock.



Mark Rand
RTFM

It would if the live fed through your house load and back fed the
neutral from the grid.


"Ignoramus10518" wrote in
message ...
On Tue, 15 May 2007 16:42:47 -0400, daestrom
wrote:
Unless of course one blade comes loose from the handle and sticks
in one
position while the other blade moves to the other position. Some
folks
would notice that and probably do something about it, but a knife
switch
isn't 'failsafe'.

That would not connect the generator to the utility, however.

i

Designing relay and control systems to be truly 'failsafe' is a
whole
science unto its own. :-)

I have to agree with you on that one!

It all starts with "if the lineman has complete disregard of....."
"Then the child reaches out and touches the 115kV lne that was backfed
from the home generator"

Our HV lines, especially the 500kV lines are always within easy reach
so we can connect our appliances.

****! people. It is illegal and stupid to shortcut the safety stuff.

"Vaughn Simon" wrote in message
...

"daestrom" wrote in message
...

Nope. It's called, 'reckless disregard for others resulting in the
death of someone'.

Are you a lawyer in real life or do you just play one on the
Internet? If the former, can you provide us a link to a comparable
case?

Frankly, I am tired of the silliness that always results from
these transfer switch threads.

Vaughn

Sounds like Ignoramusville. That happens a lot there.

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 May 2007 07:37:21 GMT, Bruce L. Bergman
wrote:

On Sun, 13 May 2007 18:52:33 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
wrote:
"Bruce L. Bergman" wrote in
message
...

Unless you want to be up for multiple counts of Murder 2 for
backfeeding the utility service and killing a few workers
...snip

OK, you just went over the top.

Not at all - a person properly trained in electricity theories,
construction codes and the like would know the risks involved, and
if
he did cause a backfeed into the utility system anyway and someone
dies, Murder 2 (done deliberately but with no premeditation) would
be
a reasonable charge to level.

Though I'd bet most career prosecutors would charge it as Murder 2
just so they could plea-bargain it down to an easy Manslaughter.

IANAL, but even 120VAC is a potentially lethal voltage. And when
it
kicks backward through a transformer and is suddenly boosted to 5KV
to
35KV or more, then it's really easy to "reach out and touch
someone."

And I have personal knowledge of how massive screw-ups of this
magnitude can and do happen, but please DAMHIKT. Let's just say it
wasn't pretty, and leave it at that.

-- Bruce --


There is a video on YuTube where a nutcase climbed a power pole..and
a
crew was trying to get him down. The audio segment can be heard
"its
ok..the power is off" followed by one of the guys grabbing a line to
reach over to grab the crazy guy. Needless to say..the power wasnt
off.

Ayup..not pretty.

Gunner

This Message is guaranteed environmentally friendly
Manufactured with 10% post consumer ASCII
Meets all EPA regulations for clean air
Using only naturally occuring fibers
Use the Message with confidance.
(Some settling may occure in transit.)
(Best if Used before May 13, 2009)

According to Solar Flaire :
Call it what you like..it won't pass inspection and therefore an
illegal device.

You could get an Electrical Engineer to put his stamp of approval on
the design documents and state it's specific usage...maybe. Apply to
CSA or UL for an approval. You may have to submit a few prototype
samples to get the approval though.

Last I saw (quite a while ago), CSA "type approvals" cost in the
neighborhood of $10K. It may not have gone up now that UL and CSA
are now more-or-less competitors in the same markets because of NAFTA.

[NAFTA meant that UL is more-or-less accepted in place of CSA in Canada,
and vice-versa in the US (where the standards are equivalent).]

In Ontario, it used to be that you could get a "Hydro Inspector" (power
utility) in to do a "unit approval" for $75. Which would stand in place
of CSA approval for a single device. Subsequent copies had to be inspected
independently. Intended for very low volume items. Ontario's power
regulations have changed drastically and with the breakup the inspection
agency is "ESA", and that is probably not available anymore.

If such a thing were available in the US, that's probably Igor's
least expensive option.

CSA also lists certain engineering testing companies as approvers
in place of CSA. NEC probably does as well. Eg: Warnock Hersey.
But that's also largely intended for production runs, and it's
not cheap.
--
Chris Lewis,

Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

According to daestrom :

"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...
According to Mark Rand :
It's not a switch, it's an interlock. To be interfaced with the switch to
prevent it closing unless the interlock bar is retracted. It thus becomes
physically impossible to have both switches closed at once, since the
switch
must be opened in order to be able to extract the key and the key must be
in
the interlock in order to close the switch. Since there is only one key
available, only one switch can be closed at a time... even if they are a
mile
apart.

If the devices are installed properly, and _present_. How would
they be installed? Bolted to the panel face plate? What if the
plate has been removed?

Iggy's solution is far safer than the silly panels with switches linked
together. Specifically, it is fail safe.

Not quite. A large DPDT knife switch is failsafe.

Unless of course one blade comes loose from the handle and sticks in one
position while the other blade moves to the other position. Some folks
would notice that and probably do something about it, but a knife switch
isn't 'failsafe'.

Okay, okay. Sigh ;-)

Designing relay and control systems to be truly 'failsafe' is a whole
science unto its own. :-)

Being in computer security, there's no such thing as failsafe, it's
simply a matter of deciding how failsafe you want it compared to
how much you're willing to pay for it.
--
Chris Lewis,

Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

On Tue, 15 May 2007 22:43:36 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 15 May 2007 21:16:55 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
wrote:

Frankly, I am tired of the silliness that always results from these transfer
switch threads.

I'd rather see some silliness, as long as the subject is fresh in
your mind when you go to hook up a generator - it's always the
preferred attitude over death-ness.

Although I would never advise someone to use a generator without a
listed transfer device (and that can be a breaker interlock if it was
tested on that panel by a NRTL) but I agree, these threads get silly.
Your puny little generator will not handle "the grid" for more than a
few miliseconds. When it hits the locked rotor of your neighbor's AC
units it will trip out. Linemen are not going to die since they have
procedures that assume NOTHING is dead until they prove it and then
they short it out. I suppose if you did have a very localized failure
you might light up a neighbor but the power company is likely to do
that too when they restore power.

The trick is where the primary line feeding your transformer goes
physically open, so you aren't trying to backfeed "the rest of the
grid" you are only energizing your own service transformer. If you
are the only house on that line there are no foreign loads to drag
down and stall your generator, but you're still boosting that 120V and
sending 5KV to 35KV back down that string of poles.

(Gee, why is our streetlight out at the highway back on?)

If the line crew is out fixing the downed circuits, they know that
the line is off from the feed end, they've already done the
Lockout/Tagout and ground bond cable safety procedures. It's dead,
they made sure of it.

But if they are too far away from your homestead to hear your little
generator chugging away, and they don't use the same level of caution
in checking, ground bonding and handling the supposedly dead load-side
power line that you are backfeeding...

"Don't worry about that line Charlie, it's dead..."

-- Bruce --

According to Solar Flaire :
It would if the live fed through your house load and back fed the
neutral from the grid.

That's only one wire, and it's grounded anyway. The problem is
more along the lines of if you're using a 240V circuit = you're
backfeeding the grid's connected hot via the house load from the
generator's connected hot. Plus the neutral = you're backfeeding
half of the grid feed.
--
Chris Lewis,

Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

You totally mised the point here.

Get the proper equipment and stop fooling with Linemen's lives.

"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...
According to Solar Flaire :
Call it what you like..it won't pass inspection and therefore an
illegal device.

You could get an Electrical Engineer to put his stamp of approval
on
the design documents and state it's specific usage...maybe. Apply
to
CSA or UL for an approval. You may have to submit a few prototype
samples to get the approval though.

Last I saw (quite a while ago), CSA "type approvals" cost in the
neighborhood of $10K. It may not have gone up now that UL and CSA
are now more-or-less competitors in the same markets because of
NAFTA.

[NAFTA meant that UL is more-or-less accepted in place of CSA in
Canada,
and vice-versa in the US (where the standards are equivalent).]

In Ontario, it used to be that you could get a "Hydro Inspector"
(power
utility) in to do a "unit approval" for $75. Which would stand in
place
of CSA approval for a single device. Subsequent copies had to be
inspected
independently. Intended for very low volume items. Ontario's power
regulations have changed drastically and with the breakup the
inspection
agency is "ESA", and that is probably not available anymore.

If such a thing were available in the US, that's probably Igor's
least expensive option.

CSA also lists certain engineering testing companies as approvers
in place of CSA. NEC probably does as well. Eg: Warnock Hersey.
But that's also largely intended for production runs, and it's
not cheap.
--
Chris Lewis,

Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after
them.

That too but the neutral is only grounded (bonded) in one spot. It is
not grounded everywhere and can and will carry current and can induce
voltages in other parts of the circuits. This is why the neutral must
be transfered also.

"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...
According to Solar Flaire :
It would if the live fed through your house load and back fed the
neutral from the grid.

That's only one wire, and it's grounded anyway. The problem is
more along the lines of if you're using a 240V circuit = you're
backfeeding the grid's connected hot via the house load from the
generator's connected hot. Plus the neutral = you're backfeeding
half of the grid feed.
--
Chris Lewis,

Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after
them.