Bull****. When you get proper training in line maitenance techniques
you will agree the whole argument that reappears every two months for
the last ten years is bull****.

and why? All because some amateur thinks he can beat the law and save
a few bucks and wants somebody here to back his scheme up so he can
feel smarter than the rules.


"Bruce L. Bergman" wrote in
message ...
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 --

It would seem to me that if your power is off you actually are not connected
to "the grid". How much of the distribution sysetm is dead but still
connected to your house is often an unknown variable. All of the pros and
cons of every conceivable type of situation have been mentioned many times.
There are no new arguments for either position.

I think it is just a matter of whether you want to do the correct, legal,
and safest thing or not. Some people even stop at stop signs when no other
cars are present. Others do not. Neither group is likely to change its
habits.

Don Young

wrote in message
...
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.

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.

On Wed, 16 May 2007 19:14:29 -0500, "Solar Flaire"
wrote:

Bull****. When you get proper training in line maitenance techniques
you will agree the whole argument that reappears every two months for
the last ten years is bull****.

and why? All because some amateur thinks he can beat the law and save
a few bucks and wants somebody here to back his scheme up so he can
feel smarter than the rules.

Do me a favor, please. Drop the belligerence when I'm On Your Side.

I don't want the amateur to cockamamie the connections and create a
potential backfeed in the first place. The OP of this thread (Igor)
is a r.c.metalworking regular and will get "great ideas" like using a
set of Kirk Key interlocks he got for real cheap (or free) on a home
install, but will also abandon the idea when you prove your point as
to where the flaws are with them.

(I think that he already conceded on the idea a while back, but the
bickering^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h discussion plays on...)

And I am aware of the precautions that the linemen need to make. I
normally don't touch anything over 480V, but I've seen the switch
tag-outs and the safety ground-out jumpers on the 34.5KV lines in the
area when they're adding a new service. We had a vehicle shear off
the pole that dropped our neighborhood at 2 AM, and took out three 5KV
feeders. I stood there watching them do all the substation lockouts
over the radio, and getting clearance to work.

But whenever you develop safety equipment or work procedures that
are meant to be "Idiot Proof", Mother Nature rises to the challenge
and develops a craftier idiot. There are ways to screw up Just Right
and create a backfeed that doesn't stall the generator set or trip out
the protection...

And there are always linemen that don't follow every rule in the
book to the letter every single time, be it through fatigue (working a
week of 20-hour days during an ice storm or other disaster will do
that...), inattention, lack of ground-out cables on hand, or just
plain apathy since "That never happens."

And that's when the million-to-one potential exists for somebody to
touch a "dead" line and ground at the same time and get nailed.

-- Bruce --

Chris Lewis wrote:


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


His least expensive option might be to just use a readily available
transfer switch which is already tested and approved, commonly used and
quite suitable for the purpose.



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.

According to Solar Flaire :
You totally mised the point here.

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

Er, what? I was agreeing with you.
--
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.

Yup.

"George" wrote in message
...
Chris Lewis wrote:


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


His least expensive option might be to just use a readily available
transfer switch which is already tested and approved, commonly used
and quite suitable for the purpose.



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.

Or they might walk across the street, overtired and the boom will fall
on the neighbour's nailgun and fire a framing nail through the
lineman's heart and kill him too.

I have to agree with you, whatever it was now...LOL.. The best one was
everybody is sick of the "is it OK to bypass safety if I do it this
way ot that way?" question. Have a good one!


"Bruce L. Bergman" wrote in
message ...
And there are always linemen that don't follow every rule in the
book to the letter every single time, be it through fatigue (working
a
week of 20-hour days during an ice storm or other disaster will do
that...), inattention, lack of ground-out cables on hand, or just
plain apathy since "That never happens."

And that's when the million-to-one potential exists for somebody to
touch a "dead" line and ground at the same time and get nailed.

-- Bruce --

Good post and nicely done!

One section forgotten (I can't rememeber the section and I don't have
my code book handy) is the quality of the workmanship claus. The
inspector can reject it if he doesn't think it appropriate.

The other item is "qualified". I believe you would have to have
somebody deem you qualified to apply this one.

I wonder where "drunk wife" comes into play here?


"Howard Eisenhauer" wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 13 May 2007 16:59:19 GMT, 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.

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 --


Interesting points Bruce, got me curious as to what exactly the
regulations actually say so I invested some time the other day at
the
library .

First, just so everybody is on the same wavelength (5,000,000 meters
if I've done the math right) I checked the definition of "Transfer
Switch" The closest I could come to a definition in the Canadian
Electrical Code is more of a functional description, section 14-612
(pg 88, 2006 edition) -

"Transfer equipment for standby power systems

Transfer equipment for standby power systems shall prevent the
inadvertant interconnection of normal and standby sources of supply
in
any operation of the transfer equipment" Duh.

Rememer the "inadvertant" part for later.

The only other mention I could find in the document to transfer
switches was in section 32-208 requiring that transfer switches used
to power fire equipment has to be, along with some location &
labelling requirements, "approved for fire pump service"

Thats all there is in the CEC.


Onwards to the NEC, where apparently a larger budget allows for far
more verbose descriptions & More Capital Letters-

First, we get a real defintion for a transfer switch or "Switch,
Transfer" as the book in article 100-1 ( pg. 108 2005 ed.) prefers-

"An automatic or nonautomatic device for transferring one or
more load conductor connections from one power source to another"
Duh.

Additionaly, the NEC goes into far more detail on
when/where/what/why
for requirements, the real meat & potatoes of which is in chapter
seven "Special Conditions" where we are variously informed &
entertained with the requirements for "Emergency Systems" (Article
700, pg. 563), "Legally Required Systems" (701, pg. 567), and, most
applicable to us, "Optional Standby Systems" (702, pg. 570).
Obviously I'm not going to sit here & type in 8 or 9 pages of text.
Hell, I won't even type in "eight" or "nine". I will however,
provide
some selected highlights-


Article 700- "Emergency Sytems" covers installations legally
required by municiple, state, federal, other codes or by goverment
agencies & are automatic in operation (apart from heath care
institutions covered in article 517). It applies to stuff like
emergency lighting, fire systems, required ventilation, pretty much
anything & everything that relates to public safety.

Pertinant to our thread Paragraph 700.3 states that "All equipment
shall be approved for use on emergency systems" The rest of the
section applies to things like testing, maintenance, specific wiring
requirements, genny maintenance etc. which, Thank God, is outside
the
scope of this discussion.


Article 701- "Legally Required Systems" is again for, obviously,
Legally Required Systems. but not "Emergency Systems" as coverd by
article 700. As opposed to things in 700 such as "Fire", 701
applies
to things such as "Sewage".

Again, pertinant info (to us)- of interest is paragraph 701.7
"Transfer Equipment" that requires automatic operation & to be
"approved by the authority having juristiction". The following pages
cover pretty much the same ground as 700 does.


Article 702- "Optional Standby Systems" is where we start hitting
both portable & permanent installations used in places such farms,
homes, industrial/commercial sites etc. where loss of power "could
cause disscomfort, serious interruptions of the process, damage to
the
product or process, or the like". I'm guessing Iggy's ice box fits
in there somewheres.

For our puposes the information of interest is located in paragraphs
702.4 "Equipment Approval"- "All equipment shall be approved for
the
intended use" and 702.6- (Wait For It-) "Transfer Equipment". I'm
going to argravate my repetitive stress injury here & type in the
whole damn thing .

"Transfer equipment shall be suitable for the intended use and
designed and installed as to prevent the inadvertant (ed.- theres
that
word again) interconnection of normal and alternative sources of
supply in any operation of the transfer equipment. Transfer
equipment
and electric power production systems installed to permit operation
in
parallel with the normal source (ed- i.e. UPSs) shall meet the
requirements of Article 705.
Transfer euipment located on the load side of branch circuit
protection, shall be permitted to contain supplementary overcurrent
protection having an interuppted rating sufficient for the available
fault current that the generator can deliver. The supplementary
overcurrent protection devices shall be part of the listed transfer
equipment.
Transfer equipment shall be required for all standby systems
subject to the provisions of this article and for which an electric
-utility supply is either the normal or standby source.

Exception: Temporary connection of a portable generator without
transfer equipment shall be permitted where conditions of
maintenance
and supervision ensure that only qualified persons service the
installation and where the normal supply is physically isolated by a
lockable disconnect means or by disconnection of normal supply
conductors."



All donations for Howard's Right Arm Medical Relief Fund are
gratefully accepted.




So, where does all this leave us? As for "type acceptance", its not
mentioned anywheres. To me the term "Type Accepted" applies to a
specific design or form factor. Nowheres have I found any mention
of
approved or required designs for the actual switching mechanism. I
personally have dealt with, both in Canada & the U.S., units
designed
around manually operated & motor driven knife switches, spring
loaded
contacts, breakers with mechanical interlocks, ganged breakers,
breakers with the "Kirk" locks and bizzare mechanical monstrosities
too evilly complicated to discuss here. These were all commercialy
built and/or installed, no home handyman hacked up higgledy piggledy
anywheres.

As for "Approval" itself, in Canada things appear to be pretty
(perhaps too much) straightforward, per CEC 32.208 "Approval" is
only
required for units suppling fire pumps. Doesn't say by whom but I'm
guessing its up to the various local fire codes/inspectors to
address
it. Same in the NEC , "Approval", and again it comes from the
entity
legally responsible for approval of the equipment the transfer
switch
is feeding per NEC 700.3, & 701.4.


We'll leave Articles 700 & 701 here as they don't apply to the
situation we're disscussing, namely Iggy's icebox. No goverment
agency in their right mind would ever wan't to take responsibility
for
that :\.


702.4 leaves in a bit of of a limbo situation, "All equipment shall
be
approved for the intended use" begs the question "By Who". And does
it apply to the setup as a whole or to it's constituant components?
Consider- I'm aware of transfer setups used for homes (In Canada)
that
consist of two main disconnect breakers, one on the main panel &
one
on a seperated box next to the main panel (for the genset) that have
a
sliding bar mounted between them so that it is impossible for both
breaker handles to be in the "On" postion at the same time. This was
deemed acceptable by the utility inspector. ( In fact I've seen the
same idea on commercial units albeit both breakers are in the same
panel) Both breakers were either UL or CSA approved, both installed
in acceptable boxes. Does the bar itself need approval from the
un-named, possibly un-maned agency?? Inquiring Minds Want To Know.
Until they find out it appears that the bar is kosher.

Yes, its possible to deliberately bugger the thing up & get both
breakers on at once,

But Not (theres that word again) Inadvertantly.

I honestly don't see the difference between this and the Kirk (or
similar) lock setup I described in my original post. Yes you can
defeat them if you want too,

But Not Inadvertantly.

Now, ask anybody who knows me & they'll tell you I'm an Idiot.
Actually, I'm a pretty darned good one. Hell, I've put in long hard
years deliberately honing my idiocy to a Dull Edge .

I'll be damned If I could figure a way to *inadvertantly* defeat the
systems using the keyed locks.



Nor is there any mention, apart from the temporary connection
mentioned in702.6, of a requirement for trained personnel to operate
the transfer equipent. I think that any good lawyer (oxymoron?)
could
make the point that, given tha the lack of a definition of
"qualified
personnel" the guy who did the setup is the guy who is qualifed to
operate it. I can see where you may have nightmares over this, & I
personaly don't blame you, but there it is .

Now, niether I, Iggy, or anybody else here is out to murder linemen.
Hopefully we've moved pass the days when farmers would hook up thier
gensets to the main panel with an old pair of jumper cables.
Unfortunately we *are* seeing homeowners hooking up by plugging
double
ended extension cords into wall outlets, these are the fools you
should really be worried about . Nothing but education is going to
fix this . However, it would appear that what Iggy is trying to
accomplish, & should be applauded for, is a safe system that meets
his
particular requirements. From what I've been able to discover what
I
think he intends appears to be, arguably. legal and apparently safe.

Now, if I've missed something in either the CEC or NEC, or theres
other pertinant (to this situation) regulations I'm unaware of I'd
love to hear about them as I think we can all satand to be better
educated on this subject.

Regards,

Howard.

"Ignoramus10518" wrote in message
...
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.


That's true. But the other poster is talking about blatently ignoring the
code requirements and claims to be an electrical engineering type.

So, in his situation, he is dancing on the edge of 'reckless disregard for
human life'. He knows the risks, he knows it's against the code, he knows
it could put someone else in jeopardy, yet he's talking about willfully
doing it anyway. He may 'get away with it' several times and even be lulled
into a false sense of safety. But if there is an accident, he can't claim,
"I didn't know any better."

Now, if he was just some amateur Joe, with a 'suicide cord' and didn't know
any better, then that would not necessarily be 'reckless disregard'. But
that ain't what the other poster said.

daestrom

i

"Solar Flaire" wrote in message
.. .
Bull****. When you get proper training in line maitenance techniques you
will agree the whole argument that reappears every two months for the last
ten years is bull****.


And yet, linemen do get electrocuted while working on lines. One can sit
smugly back and say, "It's because they didn't follow procedures." But they
are still dead.

In
http://www.powerlineman.com/lforum/s...home+generator
there is story that a back feed killed someone in Flomonton AL. They
specifically mention backfeeding from a home generator.
http://www.brewtonstandard.com/artic...ews/news02.txt
http://blog.constructionlawblog.net/...es/004368.html (sixth paragraph)

FEMA seems to think there is a risk to 'unwary utility lineman'
http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=18018

Cayman Islands Health Service Authority seems to think wiring a generator
improperly is a risk.
http://www.gov.ky/pls/portal/docs/PA.../GENSAFETY.PDF

Team Florida seems to think you could be, "... responsible for the
electrocution of a lineman."
http://www.myflorida.com/dms/tf2k/citizens_gas_oil.html

So, is one life enough to stop calling it 'bull****', or do should we google
for some more?

Just about every utility in the country will tell you that an improperly
connected generator can be an electrocution risk for their linemen. Yet
some arm-chair wannabe's still think it's 'bull****' because they took a
Saturday afternoon course on wiring at a big box store and bought a book.

I don't know which is worse, the one's that don't know any better and are
just trying to avoid paying a professional, or the 'experts' that 'know
better' and 'would never leave the mains breaker shut'. They know there's a
risk, but talk themselves into believing, "It could never happen. I won't
make that mistake. Besides, linemen are supposed to be properly trained."
Tell it to the widows and children...

Do a web search, ask your utility, go to a professional lineman's forum and
ask them what they think of the idea. Ask *them* if the whole idea of a
backfeeding generator killing someone is 'Bull****'.

daestrom

"Howard Eisenhauer" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 May 2007 16:59:19 GMT, Bruce L. Bergman

snip some good stuff.
For our puposes the information of interest is located in paragraphs
702.4 "Equipment Approval"- "All equipment shall be approved for the
intended use" and 702.6- (Wait For It-) "Transfer Equipment". I'm
going to argravate my repetitive stress injury here & type in the
whole damn thing .

"Transfer equipment shall be suitable for the intended use and
designed and installed as to prevent the inadvertant (ed.- theres that
word again) interconnection of normal and alternative sources of
supply in any operation of the transfer equipment. Transfer equipment
and electric power production systems installed to permit operation in
parallel with the normal source (ed- i.e. UPSs) shall meet the
requirements of Article 705.

I think a lot of AHJ could have some fun with, "...prevent the inadvertant
interconnection...in any operation of the transfer equipment."

One could take the position that "any operation" could include using two
keys simultaneously. And that's the crux of the whole argument. A real
transfer switch can't be put into two different positions at the same time.

Sort of like NEMA reversable motor controllers. Not only is there an
electrical interlock to prevent both contactors being picked up at the same
time, there is a mechanical bar that will not let one side pull in if the
other side is somehow jammed in.

While keylocks are familiar to many of us, and certainly the AHJ, they may
seem foreign to some homeowners. Someone's wife, who called the neighbor in
the middle of the night, may decide that in order to turn that second lock,
she needs to go get the key from the safe. No problem, she trots upstairs
with a torch, gets the second key and hands it over to the 'helpful
neighbor'. Who promptly 'interconnects' the normal and alternative sources
of supply. Inadvertantly.

"Qualified" personnel understand that the key-lock is meant to ensure only
one lock can be operated at a time. But someone 'unqualified' may just
assume the other key is kept in a 'safe place' and just needs to go retrieve
it. OOPS.

A simple slide-bar or other mechanical interlock is more 'foolproof' then
keylocks. Keylocks are more for when the two switches/breakers are too far
apart for a simple mechanical interlock.

daestrom

daestrom wrote:

"Qualified" personnel understand that the key-lock is meant to ensure only
one lock can be operated at a time. But someone 'unqualified' may just
assume the other key is kept in a 'safe place' and just needs to go
retrieve it. OOPS.

It boggles my mind that people will put so much effort into justifying their
schemes to bypass the need for a proper transfer switch. It's not that
difficult - if you're sure your system is safe, call the people who do
electrical inspections in your area and ask. If they say "no", then are
you really stupid enough to do it anyway? Knowing that an unapproved
electrical installation is going to cause hell with your insurance if you
ever have a problem... If they say yes, get it in writing, do it, and
don't bother Usenet with the details.
--
derek

I have, and it is bull****, to use trained linemen as an excuse.

You profess to have so much vast knowledge of electrical systems and
utilities. Ask them yourself.

Utilty workers have the lowest compensation rates of any profession.
there is a reason for that. Oh yeah, I forgot the US is about 30 years
behind in safety measures according to the trainers training in most
states. This may not apply there.

"daestrom" wrote in message
...

"Solar Flaire" wrote in message
.. .
Bull****. When you get proper training in line maitenance
techniques you will agree the whole argument that reappears every
two months for the last ten years is bull****.


And yet, linemen do get electrocuted while working on lines. One
can sit smugly back and say, "It's because they didn't follow
procedures." But they are still dead.

In
http://www.powerlineman.com/lforum/s...home+generator
there is story that a back feed killed someone in Flomonton AL.
They specifically mention backfeeding from a home generator.
http://www.brewtonstandard.com/artic...ews/news02.txt
http://blog.constructionlawblog.net/...es/004368.html (sixth
paragraph)

FEMA seems to think there is a risk to 'unwary utility lineman'
http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=18018

Cayman Islands Health Service Authority seems to think wiring a
generator improperly is a risk.
http://www.gov.ky/pls/portal/docs/PA.../GENSAFETY.PDF

Team Florida seems to think you could be, "... responsible for the
electrocution of a lineman."
http://www.myflorida.com/dms/tf2k/citizens_gas_oil.html

So, is one life enough to stop calling it 'bull****', or do should
we google for some more?

Just about every utility in the country will tell you that an
improperly connected generator can be an electrocution risk for
their linemen. Yet some arm-chair wannabe's still think it's
'bull****' because they took a Saturday afternoon course on wiring
at a big box store and bought a book.

I don't know which is worse, the one's that don't know any better
and are just trying to avoid paying a professional, or the 'experts'
that 'know better' and 'would never leave the mains breaker shut'.
They know there's a risk, but talk themselves into believing, "It
could never happen. I won't make that mistake. Besides, linemen are
supposed to be properly trained." Tell it to the widows and
children...

Do a web search, ask your utility, go to a professional lineman's
forum and ask them what they think of the idea. Ask *them* if the
whole idea of a backfeeding generator killing someone is 'Bull****'.

daestrom

According to Howard Eisenhauer :
As for "Approval" itself, in Canada things appear to be pretty
(perhaps too much) straightforward, per CEC 32.208 "Approval" is only
required for units suppling fire pumps. Doesn't say by whom but I'm
guessing its up to the various local fire codes/inspectors to address
it.

Not quite.

Some background:

The legislative framework (eg: "The Ontario Electrical Power Act"
(or something like that)) in Canada says that following the CEC is
mandatory (subject to fines or imprisonment), and secondly that all
utility-powered devices (up to the "last" enclosure that receives line
voltage, and some downstream[+]) must be approved in accordance with the
CEC's requirements before they can be sold, and that for the most
part custom alterations void approvals.

Then, the CEC enumerates _who_ gets to approve things. General
electrical devices always have to be type approved by the CSA (and/or
UL/ULC now), _or_ unit-approval by the electrical utility, or
by certain accredited labs (eg: Warnock Hersey). Beyond that point,
it also says that certain classes of devices that include other
regulated things (eg: gas, emergency fire equipment etc) must
_also_ be approved by certain other agencies.

In general, then, a transfer switch must always be approved by one
of the "electrical inspection" agencies they enumerate, and further
a "emergency fire pump" must also be approved by the agency relevant
to that - I don't have my book handy, so I can't say for sure what
that is. NFPA equivalent.

702.4 leaves in a bit of of a limbo situation, "All equipment shall be
approved for the intended use" begs the question "By Who". And does
it apply to the setup as a whole or to it's constituant components?
Consider- I'm aware of transfer setups used for homes (In Canada) that
consist of two main disconnect breakers, one on the main panel & one
on a seperated box next to the main panel (for the genset) that have a
sliding bar mounted between them so that it is impossible for both
breaker handles to be in the "On" postion at the same time. This was
deemed acceptable by the utility inspector.

Are these manufactured devices? Eg: is the bar assembly manufactured
(and presumably approved) or, is this cobbled together by an electrician?

Secondly, residential versus other?

There are some blanket differences between single occupant residential
and everything else. One of the more important things is that, except
for single occupant residential, DIY is essentially forbidden - a
licensed electrician is always required. And secondly, because of the
blanket requirements for CSA/UL etc approvals for the purpose within
the type of installation involved (eg: access etc) something
acceptable, say, in an industrial situation wouldn't be in residential.

I'll be damned If I could figure a way to *inadvertantly* defeat the
systems using the keyed locks.

You certainly have a point there. In Canada from a _code_ perspective
(rather than an inspector's personal druthers) it'd boil down to whether
such a device was permissible in a residential system, eg: whether
requirements for such things as "access to authorized [read:
licensed in some cases] personnel only" would override. There are
many things permissible in industrial/commercial that aren't in
residential.

[+] Wallwarts largely exist to "stop" the noses of CSA/UL at
a wallwart, and not to the low voltage connected devices.
--
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.

I don't know where you are located but check out this item available
in south Florida.

www.fpl.com/oneplug

The Oneplug is essentially an isolator/ transfer switch that takes
your home off the grid when your generator powers up, it is installed
by the power company, and doesn't have to be tied into your wiring
inside the house.

We sell industrial generators and transfer switches, but I like the
concept of this item so much, I'm recommending it to my customers as
an alternative.

Good luck,

Ed

toolguy wrote:

I don't know where you are located but check out this item available
in south Florida.

www.fpl.com/oneplug

The Oneplug is essentially an isolator/ transfer switch that takes
your home off the grid when your generator powers up, it is installed
by the power company, and doesn't have to be tied into your wiring
inside the house.

We sell industrial generators and transfer switches, but I like the
concept of this item so much, I'm recommending it to my customers as
an alternative.

Wow. I'd be really interested in one of these, but I'm not an FPL customer and
that price seems a bit high. Seems that you could do a traditional transfer
switch and a couple of hours of professional labor for quite a bit less than
that.



--
"Tell me what I should do, Annie."
"Stay. Here. Forever." - Life On Mars

"toolguy" wrote in message
ups.com...
I don't know where you are located but check out this item available
in south Florida.

www.fpl.com/oneplug


The product has been available for a few years. It is a very good concept,
and would offer a particularly good alternative for renters because it involved
no modifications to the house and can be moved from house to house.

As offered by FP&L, the price is just crazy.

Vaughn

"Vaughn Simon" wrote:

As offered by FP&L, the price is just crazy.

I agree. Essenitally, all it has to be are a couple of sets of honkin diodes or
solid state switches and a connector inside an extention tube. Granted, the
price quoted includes removing the meter and replacing it, but that would take
all of 5 minutes.

On the other hand, a quick Google search suggests that $1000 seems to be the
going rate from several other utilities & coops.

Kind of reminds me of a program the local utility had going around here a few
years ago. They had not done a very good job at the time of engineering for
lightning, so surges were a big problem. Their short term response was to offer
a meter mounted surge arrestor for something like $20/month plus a several
hundred dollar install fee.

--
"Tell me what I should do, Annie."
"Stay. Here. Forever." - Life On Mars

Solar Flaire wrote:

Sounds like Ignoramusville. That happens a lot there.


How long have you been the Mayor?


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Good post and nicely done!

One section forgotten (I can't rememeber the section and I don't have
my code book handy) is the quality of the workmanship claus. The
inspector can reject it if he doesn't think it appropriate.

Good point.

If the inspector ever sees it :\.

Do you really believe all those folks buying wireing & boxes &
outlets & switches at Home Despot on Saturday afternoons all have
building permits & are going to hand the stuff over to a liscensed
electrician to do the work??


I know they don't. I'm not a licensed electrician. Personal story below.

Where I used to live if you went to the county court house and asked about
a permit they would have told you that you'd have to go to the next county
to get your driver's permit. I now live in an area where you have to have a
permit before you can even think about what you might build five years from
now. With that said, after jumping through many hoops, paying more money
than I make in 6 months and filling almost one complete drawer in my filing
cabinet with the necessary paperwork I started to work. I called and told
them I was ready for the county inspector to come out and see if things were
up to standards. He drove up, we talked about military service, his days
flying an old PBYand told me that ever thing looked fine and signed. He
never got of his truck.


Lets just AssUMe everybody smart enough the be on Usenet can do house
wiring to acceptable standards .

To be honest with you if the codes are written clearly you don't need much
over a 60 IQ to wire a house. Code tells you what size wire from point A to
point B, how many outlets and/or lights allowed per circuit, max distance
between outlets, where GFI's are required. The problems start when you have
a strong electrictions union around.


The other item is "qualified". I believe you would have to have
somebody deem you qualified to apply this one.

True, but "qualified" is a loaded term- I'm sure we all know of
presumably "qualified" electricians who shouldn't be allowed to plug a
wallwart into a wall recepticle. My experience is that utility
inspecters will pass something if it's "right", even if it isn't done
by the "right" person.

A lot of them will pass stuff if its done wrong but done by the "right"
person, usually a "licensed" insert profession here. Let some "idiot home
owner" install things OVER CODE (i.e. using 10 ga wire when code only
requires 12) and see what happens.

no spam wrote:

Good post and nicely done!

One section forgotten (I can't rememeber the section and I don't have
my code book handy) is the quality of the workmanship claus. The
inspector can reject it if he doesn't think it appropriate.

Good point.

If the inspector ever sees it :\.

Do you really believe all those folks buying wireing & boxes &
outlets & switches at Home Despot on Saturday afternoons all have
building permits & are going to hand the stuff over to a liscensed
electrician to do the work??

I know they don't. I'm not a licensed electrician. Personal story below.

Where I used to live if you went to the county court house and asked about
a permit they would have told you that you'd have to go to the next county
to get your driver's permit. I now live in an area where you have to have a
permit before you can even think about what you might build five years from
now. With that said, after jumping through many hoops, paying more money
than I make in 6 months and filling almost one complete drawer in my filing
cabinet with the necessary paperwork I started to work. I called and told
them I was ready for the county inspector to come out and see if things were
up to standards. He drove up, we talked about military service, his days
flying an old PBYand told me that ever thing looked fine and signed. He
never got of his truck.


Lets just AssUMe everybody smart enough the be on Usenet can do house
wiring to acceptable standards .

To be honest with you if the codes are written clearly you don't need much
over a 60 IQ to wire a house. Code tells you what size wire from point A to
point B, how many outlets and/or lights allowed per circuit, max distance
between outlets, where GFI's are required. The problems start when you have
a strong electrictions union around.

The other item is "qualified". I believe you would have to have
somebody deem you qualified to apply this one.

True, but "qualified" is a loaded term- I'm sure we all know of
presumably "qualified" electricians who shouldn't be allowed to plug a
wallwart into a wall recepticle. My experience is that utility
inspecters will pass something if it's "right", even if it isn't done
by the "right" person.

A lot of them will pass stuff if its done wrong but done by the "right"
person, usually a "licensed" insert profession here. Let some "idiot home
owner" install things OVER CODE (i.e. using 10 ga wire when code only
requires 12) and see what happens.


You should try building a TV station in a city with no heavy
industry, if you want to meet idiot inspectors.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

On Fri, 18 May 2007 13:14:57 GMT, Howard Eisenhauer wrote:
True, but "qualified" is a loaded term- I'm sure we all know of
presumably "qualified" electricians who shouldn't be allowed to plug a
wallwart into a wall recepticle. My experience is that utility

At least, not on a monday morning or a friday afternoon!

inspecters will pass something if it's "right", even if it isn't done
by the "right" person.

And just about as often they will pass something done by the "right"
person, if, at a glance, nothing looks egregiously wrong.

Have a look here for some examples of transer setups approved by
"qualified" electricians-

http://members.rennlist.org/warren/generator.html

At least the owner's made the claim they were approved. I guess maybe
my opinion of professionals still has room to fall.

sdb
--
What's seen on your screen? http://pcscreenwatch.com
sdbuse1 on mailhost bigfoot.com

You still use DDT?

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...
Solar Flaire wrote:

Sounds like Ignoramusville. That happens a lot there.


How long have you been the Mayor?


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214
to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Sounds to me like a $2K Kirk interlock system in order to replace a
$200 transfer switch.

One other point. Many of the Home Depot transfer switches will never
pass code in Canada. Home Depot has them hidden from the shelves in an
attempt to cover up their lack of code knowledge.


"Howard Eisenhauer" wrote in
message ...
On Thu, 17 May 2007 19:38:09 -0400, "daestrom"
wrote:


"Howard Eisenhauer" wrote in
message
. ..
On Sun, 13 May 2007 16:59:19 GMT, Bruce L. Bergman

snip some good stuff.
For our puposes the information of interest is located in
paragraphs
702.4 "Equipment Approval"- "All equipment shall be approved for
the
intended use" and 702.6- (Wait For It-) "Transfer Equipment". I'm
going to argravate my repetitive stress injury here & type in the
whole damn thing .

"Transfer equipment shall be suitable for the intended use and
designed and installed as to prevent the inadvertant (ed.- theres
that
word again) interconnection of normal and alternative sources of
supply in any operation of the transfer equipment. Transfer
equipment
and electric power production systems installed to permit
operation in
parallel with the normal source (ed- i.e. UPSs) shall meet the
requirements of Article 705.

I think a lot of AHJ could have some fun with, "...prevent the
inadvertant
interconnection...in any operation of the transfer equipment."

One could take the position that "any operation" could include using
two
keys simultaneously. And that's the crux of the whole argument. A
real
transfer switch can't be put into two different positions at the
same time.

Yes, two keys *could* be a problem, but I've never encountered an
installation where two keys were available. Kirk seems to make it
damned hard to actually get a spare key. The fact is keyed
interlocks
are in use & therefore presumably acceptable by some, if not all,
authorities.

As for a "real" transfer switch not being able to be put into two
positions at the same time-don't believe it. I've seen lots that
with
a little messing around, or even failure of a simple spring clip,
can
most certainly be in two positions at the same time. Caveot Emptor.


Sort of like NEMA reversable motor controllers. Not only is there
an
electrical interlock to prevent both contactors being picked up at
the same
time, there is a mechanical bar that will not let one side pull in
if the
other side is somehow jammed in.

While keylocks are familiar to many of us, and certainly the AHJ,
they may
seem foreign to some homeowners. Someone's wife, who called the
neighbor in
the middle of the night, may decide that in order to turn that
second lock,
she needs to go get the key from the safe. No problem, she trots
upstairs
with a torch, gets the second key and hands it over to the 'helpful
neighbor'. Who promptly 'interconnects' the normal and alternative
sources
of supply. Inadvertantly.

"Qualified" personnel understand that the key-lock is meant to
ensure only
one lock can be operated at a time. But someone 'unqualified' may
just
assume the other key is kept in a 'safe place' and just needs to go
retrieve
it. OOPS.

If you have two keys, nail the spare to the wall.
Or get rid of it . Placard the breakers against using two keys at
once.
Tattoo operating instructions to the wifes forehead.
In reverse.
So she can read them by looking in a mirror.

The installations I've worked with certainly had lottsa little
lamiplax signs all over the place with operating instructions,
warnings, contact info- in short everything but next week's winning
lotto numbers . If the people can read & they read the sign, well
then I'd say they're qualified.

A simple slide-bar or other mechanical interlock is more 'foolproof'
then
keylocks. Keylocks are more for when the two switches/breakers are
too far
apart for a simple mechanical interlock.

daestrom

Agreed, but I was under the impression that was Igor's problem, the
physical layout of the existing panels ruled out the use of a single
box transfer switch.

H.

I doubt this would ever be approved for Canadian usage. I am not sure
if automatic transfer switches would be allowed without a lockable
manual switch between it and the grid.

If you broke the seal for the meter mounting to the base it would be
considered stealing power and probably never allowed.

Is UL listed the same as UL approved?

"Rick Blaine" wrote in message
...
"Vaughn Simon" wrote:

As offered by FP&L, the price is just crazy.

I agree. Essenitally, all it has to be are a couple of sets of
honkin diodes or
solid state switches and a connector inside an extention tube.
Granted, the
price quoted includes removing the meter and replacing it, but that
would take
all of 5 minutes.

On the other hand, a quick Google search suggests that $1000 seems
to be the
going rate from several other utilities & coops.

Kind of reminds me of a program the local utility had going around
here a few
years ago. They had not done a very good job at the time of
engineering for
lightning, so surges were a big problem. Their short term response
was to offer
a meter mounted surge arrestor for something like $20/month plus a
several
hundred dollar install fee.

--
"Tell me what I should do, Annie."
"Stay. Here. Forever." - Life On Mars

Solar Flaire wrote:

You still use DDT?


No. I've never used it, but I could probably find some for you if
you're thirsty, Mayor.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Solar Flaire wrote:

Sounds to me like a $2K Kirk interlock system in order to replace a
$200 transfer switch.

One other point. Many of the Home Depot transfer switches will never
pass code in Canada. Home Depot has them hidden from the shelves in an
attempt to cover up their lack of code knowledge.


So, are you telling us that Home Depot can't find anyone in Canada
that knows what they are doing?


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in
:

Solar Flaire wrote:

You still use DDT?


No. I've never used it, but I could probably find some for you if
you're thirsty, Mayor.



It turns out DDT is not as bad as the greenies would have you believe.
There's a drive to bring it back for non-aeriel spraying,like ground
spraying for termite control.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On May 15, 6:08 am, "Vaughn Simon"
wrote:
"Bruce L. Bergman" wrote in messagenews:grni43tidnvrqosemqrh7j15ni9hq5v7fk@4ax .com...

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

Protecting peoples lives is not nonsense!

I am amazed at how many truly ignorant people are advising that some
variety of interlock is OK for a transfer switch. It is not only
dangerous but
illegal in both Canada and the US.

The emphasis is on Ignorant.

According to Solar Flaire :
I doubt this would ever be approved for Canadian usage. I am not sure
if automatic transfer switches would be allowed without a lockable
manual switch between it and the grid.

Automatic transfer switches are permitted. Otherwise, we'd not
have automatic cutover generators, as sold at HD.

If you broke the seal for the meter mounting to the base it would be
considered stealing power and probably never allowed.

This device conceptually just makes the meter base larger, and has
provisions for security sealing it too. Otherwise, FPL wouldn't
permit it. Obviously they do.

But I would imagine that the local power authority has to approve
of the device before they'd allow you to install one.

[I believe that contractors have to contact the power
company to inform them that the meter base has been diddled
with so they can come out to reseal the meter.]

If you were to somehow get a hold of one up here, you really should
call the power company before installation.

Is UL listed the same as UL approved?

Yes. Which means it's approved up here unless it runs afoul of
something specific in the CEC, or Hydro throws a fit.

[Ontario Hydro has two separate "special" meter trial programmes going
on, similarly restricted in region. "Smart meters" and something
else I forget...]

To tell you the truth, I'm _very_ much surprised I haven't seen
something like this before. It's the obvious place. It's
just not something a homeowner is usually able to install
themselves ....

An even simpler way would be to have some sort of object that "mimics"
the back of the meter and has a plug for the generator. Power out, yank
the meter, install the adapter, plugin the generator, and voila!

When power comes back, pull out the adapter and plug the meter back
in.

Problem being that you'd have to get the power company back to
reseal the meter after grid power is restored.

[I have some experience with our power company that indicates that
they don't have too much trouble with things like this, especially
during emergencies. But if everybody started doing it, they would
change their minds pretty quick!]
--
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.

True, but "qualified" is a loaded term- I'm sure we all know of
presumably "qualified" electricians who shouldn't be allowed to plug a
wallwart into a wall recepticle. My experience is that utility
inspecters will pass something if it's "right", even if it isn't done
by the "right" person.

A lot of them will pass stuff if its done wrong but done by the "right"
person, usually a "licensed" insert profession here. Let some "idiot
home
owner" install things OVER CODE (i.e. using 10 ga wire when code only
requires 12) and see what happens.


You should try building a TV station in a city with no heavy
industry, if you want to meet idiot inspectors.

No thanks, I have enough around me.

Sounds to me like a $2K Kirk interlock system in order to replace a
$200 transfer switch.

One other point. Many of the Home Depot transfer switches will never
pass code in Canada. Home Depot has them hidden from the shelves in an
attempt to cover up their lack of code knowledge.


So, are you telling us that Home Depot can't find anyone in Canada
that knows what they are doing?

I don't know about Canada but in the US I'd think any company would fire an
employee that started giving out code info. Too many lawyers running just
looking for a chance to sue.

You still use DDT?


No. I've never used it, but I could probably find some for you if
you're thirsty, Mayor.


If you do can you send some my way? I have fire ants, sand gnats, deer
flies, mosquitoes and several other biting bugs I'd like to get rid of.

According to no spam :
Sounds to me like a $2K Kirk interlock system in order to replace a
$200 transfer switch.

One other point. Many of the Home Depot transfer switches will never
pass code in Canada. Home Depot has them hidden from the shelves in an
attempt to cover up their lack of code knowledge.

So, are you telling us that Home Depot can't find anyone in Canada
that knows what they are doing?

I don't know about Canada but in the US I'd think any company would fire an
employee that started giving out code info. Too many lawyers running just
looking for a chance to sue.

At least in the electrical isle, just about any advice that the employees
give is potentially "code info". There's likely plenty of legal CYA
going on, but it can't be _that_ cut-and-dried.

At least in the Canadian HDs I'm familiar with, the contractor desk,
electrical and plumbing areas has at least one licensed tradesmen on
staff most of the time, and I've not found them to give out any really
stupid info, nor avoid commenting on something to do with code.

The original comment:

One other point. Many of the Home Depot transfer switches will never
pass code in Canada. Home Depot has them hidden from the shelves in an
attempt to cover up their lack of code knowledge.

I find really hard to take at face value. HD isn't going to risk
large fines (and potentially jail time) for selling unapproved
electrical equipment.

[Selling unapproved electrical gear is against the law in Canada.
Actions are rare, but they will do it.]

Given that his other comment about "automatic transfer switches" being
illegal here, and obviously they aren't, I'm not sure he'd recognize
an unapproved device if it bit him.

I've never looked for a transfer switch at HD. Their catalog carries
one, the generac one, I think. But, I don't have a clue about the
"hide" bit.

If they're "hiding them", it's probably because they _prefer_ to sell
these devices to people who know enough (eg: electricians) to ask for
one. And/or simply not enough people would want one to use up shelf
space for them.
--
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.

"sparky" wrote in message
ups.com...
On May 15, 6:08 am, "Vaughn Simon"
wrote:
"Bruce L. Bergman" wrote in
messagenews:grni43tidnvrqosemqrh7j15ni9hq5v7fk@4ax .com...

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

Protecting peoples lives is not nonsense!

I was talking about the LEGAL advice, not the electrical advice!

I am amazed at how many truly ignorant people are advising that some
variety of interlock is OK for a transfer switch. It is not only
dangerous but
illegal in both Canada and the US.

You obviously did not bother to read what I wrote or what I was responding
to.

The emphasis is on Ignorant.

You should not put yourslf down that way. We honestly have no way about
knowing how ignorant you really are, but your above post certainly sets a
terrible example.

Vaughn

In article , (Chris Lewis) writes:

| This device conceptually just makes the meter base larger, and has
| provisions for security sealing it too. Otherwise, FPL wouldn't
| permit it. Obviously they do.
|
| But I would imagine that the local power authority has to approve
| of the device before they'd allow you to install one.
|
| [I believe that contractors have to contact the power
| company to inform them that the meter base has been diddled
| with so they can come out to reseal the meter.]
|
| If you were to somehow get a hold of one up here, you really should
| call the power company before installation.
|
| Is UL listed the same as UL approved?
|
| Yes. Which means it's approved up here unless it runs afoul of
| something specific in the CEC, or Hydro throws a fit.
|
| [Ontario Hydro has two separate "special" meter trial programmes going
| on, similarly restricted in region. "Smart meters" and something
| else I forget...]
|
| To tell you the truth, I'm _very_ much surprised I haven't seen
| something like this before. It's the obvious place. It's
| just not something a homeowner is usually able to install
| themselves ....

One concern I have is the neutral/ground connection between the base
and meter. To the extent that it exists at all it is not intended to
handle much current; most split-phase meters are 4-wire devices. I
assume (hope?) that installation of the adapter involves some sort of
jumper which in turn might require an additional lug to be added to the
original base.

| An even simpler way would be to have some sort of object that "mimics"
| the back of the meter and has a plug for the generator. Power out, yank
| the meter, install the adapter, plugin the generator, and voila!
|
| When power comes back, pull out the adapter and plug the meter back
| in.
|
| Problem being that you'd have to get the power company back to
| reseal the meter after grid power is restored.

In addition to the neutral/ground problem, what if you accidentally
install the adapter upside down? Around here bases are typically
symmetrical so I'm not sure you could make the adapter failsafe
against back-feeding without modifying the base. But then you'd
want to arrange that the adapter couldn't be inserted into an
unmodified base which would make the base incompatible with a
normal meter...

Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com

Sorry!..Wronmg! wrong! wrong!

That device is not legal in Canada and would never be passed on an
inspection!

Where is the neutral disconnected?

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 May 2007 11:00:54 -0400, wrote:

On 21 May 2007 19:51:29 -0700, sparky wrote:

I am amazed at how many truly ignorant people are advising that
some
variety of interlock is OK for a transfer switch. It is not only
dangerous but
illegal in both Canada and the US.


There are certainly legal, listed breaker interlock systems that are
legal in the US. Look in a Square D or Siemens catalog.
I can't speak for canada but I bet these are CSA listed too.


http://ecatalog.squared.com/pubs/Ele...1100HO0701.pdf

Many cannot read and/or love to twist the meaning of your words.

I think your statement was quite clear that the nonsense was the
continuous raising of the "can I cheat the system" argument not the
danger imposed by doing it.


"Vaughn Simon" wrote in message
...

"sparky" wrote in message
ups.com...
On May 15, 6:08 am, "Vaughn Simon"

wrote:
"Bruce L. Bergman" wrote in
messagenews:grni43tidnvrqosemqrh7j15ni9hq5v7fk@4ax .com...

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

Protecting peoples lives is not nonsense!

I was talking about the LEGAL advice, not the electrical advice!

I am amazed at how many truly ignorant people are advising that
some
variety of interlock is OK for a transfer switch. It is not only
dangerous but
illegal in both Canada and the US.

You obviously did not bother to read what I wrote or what I was
responding to.

The emphasis is on Ignorant.

You should not put yourslf down that way. We honestly have no
way about knowing how ignorant you really are, but your above post
certainly sets a terrible example.

Vaughn

Maybe DD214 would do the same thing???

"no spam" wrote in message
. net...

You still use DDT?


No. I've never used it, but I could probably find some for you if
you're thirsty, Mayor.


If you do can you send some my way? I have fire ants, sand gnats,
deer flies, mosquitoes and several other biting bugs I'd like to get
rid of.

There is that reading ability thing again!
Where did you see me say they were selling illegal transfer switches?

The comment, once again to clarify was . HD has a shelf full of
illegal (in Canada) transfer switches and they hide them (not sell
them) to cover up their code ignorance. (the purchasing agent thinks
he is still in the US)

"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...

The original comment:

One other point. Many of the Home Depot transfer switches will
never
pass code in Canada. Home Depot has them hidden from the shelves
in an
attempt to cover up their lack of code knowledge.

I find really hard to take at face value. HD isn't going to risk
large fines (and potentially jail time) for selling unapproved
electrical equipment.

--
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.