I have this generator:

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/onan/Diesel/

I bought these interlocks on eBay:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=300106024488

They are actually quite large, the photo does not do them justice.

My plan is to place interlocks so that either the generator's
disconnect is closed, or the main panel breaker is closed, but never
both.

That's what they were designed for, if it is unclear to anyone, I can
explain it in more detail, or see: http://www.kirkkey.com/index.html

I would lock up another key (they are keyed alike) in my safe so
that its use cannot defeat this system.

I believe that this arrangement fully satisfies the rule that a
mechanical interlock device should prevent both sources of power from
coming in contact.

Any comments?

i

Ignoramus23720 wrote:

I have this generator:

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/onan/Diesel/

I bought these interlocks on eBay:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=300106024488

They are actually quite large, the photo does not do them justice.

My plan is to place interlocks so that either the generator's
disconnect is closed, or the main panel breaker is closed, but never
both.

That's what they were designed for, if it is unclear to anyone, I can
explain it in more detail, or see: http://www.kirkkey.com/index.html

I would lock up another key (they are keyed alike) in my safe so
that its use cannot defeat this system.

I believe that this arrangement fully satisfies the rule that a
mechanical interlock device should prevent both sources of power from
coming in contact.

Any comments?

i

I don't think your local inspector is likely to approve of such a setup.
You would be better off with an approved interlock system produced by
the manufacturer of the electrical panel such as the Square D setup I
use.

Pete C.

Ignoramus23720 wrote:
I have this generator:

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/onan/Diesel/

I bought these interlocks on eBay:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=300106024488

They are actually quite large, the photo does not do them justice.

My plan is to place interlocks so that either the generator's
disconnect is closed, or the main panel breaker is closed, but never
both.

That's what they were designed for, if it is unclear to anyone, I can
explain it in more detail, or see: http://www.kirkkey.com/index.html

I would lock up another key (they are keyed alike) in my safe so
that its use cannot defeat this system.

I believe that this arrangement fully satisfies the rule that a
mechanical interlock device should prevent both sources of power from
coming in contact.

Any comments?

i

AT&T had this arrangement on a battery plant that was in two cabinets.
The interlock
depended on one key that had to turned to release the key so it could be
used in the
other cabinet..

So some idiot had a spare key made so he didn't have to move the key.
Some time later
he disconnected both battery strings and failed the service.

Not much is idiot proof

Bill K7NOM

In article ,
Ignoramus23720 wrote:

I believe that this arrangement fully satisfies the rule that a
mechanical interlock device should prevent both sources of power from
coming in contact.

Any comments?

Not acceptable.

Currently approved mechanical interlock devices physically do not permit
both breakers to be on.

With this, a second key already exists, and if it did not, a hardware
store could make one - nothing to prevent both from being turned on at
once, other than the assumption that there's only one key. A key in a
safe can be removed from a safe, a key in place can be copied. Your
taste for weird old surplus has got the better of you - there's a reason
this stuff is surplus.

--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by

On Mon, 07 May 2007 18:05:13 -0500, Ignoramus23720
wrote:

I have this generator:

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/onan/Diesel/

I bought these interlocks on eBay:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=300106024488

They are actually quite large, the photo does not do them justice.

My plan is to place interlocks so that either the generator's
disconnect is closed, or the main panel breaker is closed, but never
both.

That's what they were designed for, if it is unclear to anyone, I can
explain it in more detail, or see: http://www.kirkkey.com/index.html

I would lock up another key (they are keyed alike) in my safe so
that its use cannot defeat this system.

I believe that this arrangement fully satisfies the rule that a
mechanical interlock device should prevent both sources of power from
coming in contact.

Any comments?

i


It's a perfectly acceptable solution and I've used it on power station
transfer boards.


Regards
Mark Rand
RTFM

On Tue, 08 May 2007 01:00:31 +0100, Mark Rand wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2007 18:05:13 -0500, Ignoramus23720
wrote:

I have this generator:

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/onan/Diesel/

I bought these interlocks on eBay:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=300106024488

They are actually quite large, the photo does not do them justice.

My plan is to place interlocks so that either the generator's
disconnect is closed, or the main panel breaker is closed, but never
both.

That's what they were designed for, if it is unclear to anyone, I can
explain it in more detail, or see: http://www.kirkkey.com/index.html

I would lock up another key (they are keyed alike) in my safe so
that its use cannot defeat this system.

I believe that this arrangement fully satisfies the rule that a
mechanical interlock device should prevent both sources of power from
coming in contact.

Any comments?

i


It's a perfectly acceptable solution and I've used it on power station
transfer boards.

Mark, thanks. To answer other people's concerns, I am not going to
duplicate the keys. I think that to prevent use of the second key, I
may simply put both keys on one steel "connecting link" (a shackle
used to connect chains) and will weld the link shut so that they
cannot be separated. Or else I will bolt it to a wall in some secret
location or save it in the safe.

These interlock keys are indeed used relatively widely in industry for
all sorts of purposes. See the kirkkey.com website for examples.

i

Ignoramus3938 wrote:

On Tue, 08 May 2007 01:00:31 +0100, Mark Rand wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2007 18:05:13 -0500, Ignoramus23720
wrote:

I have this generator:

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/onan/Diesel/

I bought these interlocks on eBay:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=300106024488

They are actually quite large, the photo does not do them justice.

My plan is to place interlocks so that either the generator's
disconnect is closed, or the main panel breaker is closed, but never
both.

That's what they were designed for, if it is unclear to anyone, I can
explain it in more detail, or see: http://www.kirkkey.com/index.html

I would lock up another key (they are keyed alike) in my safe so
that its use cannot defeat this system.

I believe that this arrangement fully satisfies the rule that a
mechanical interlock device should prevent both sources of power from
coming in contact.

Any comments?

i


It's a perfectly acceptable solution and I've used it on power station
transfer boards.

Mark, thanks. To answer other people's concerns, I am not going to
duplicate the keys. I think that to prevent use of the second key, I
may simply put both keys on one steel "connecting link" (a shackle
used to connect chains) and will weld the link shut so that they
cannot be separated. Or else I will bolt it to a wall in some secret
location or save it in the safe.

These interlock keys are indeed used relatively widely in industry for
all sorts of purposes. See the kirkkey.com website for examples.

i

A power station which is presumed to be accessible only to qualified
persons. A residential setting which is presumed to be accessible to
unqualified persons. Your interlock may well be acceptable in a power
station, it will not however be acceptable in a residence. Inspection
requirements and codes applicable are also very different between
residential (NEC) and power station (NESC).

Yes but many of these "Kirk key" locks have keys that cannot be
duplicated easily.

"Ignoramus3938" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 08 May 2007 01:00:31 +0100, Mark Rand
wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2007 18:05:13 -0500, Ignoramus23720
wrote:

I have this generator:

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/onan/Diesel/

I bought these interlocks on eBay:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=300106024488

They are actually quite large, the photo does not do them justice.

My plan is to place interlocks so that either the generator's
disconnect is closed, or the main panel breaker is closed, but
never
both.

That's what they were designed for, if it is unclear to anyone, I
can
explain it in more detail, or see:
http://www.kirkkey.com/index.html

I would lock up another key (they are keyed alike) in my safe so
that its use cannot defeat this system.

I believe that this arrangement fully satisfies the rule that a
mechanical interlock device should prevent both sources of power
from
coming in contact.

Any comments?

i


It's a perfectly acceptable solution and I've used it on power
station
transfer boards.

Mark, thanks. To answer other people's concerns, I am not going to
duplicate the keys. I think that to prevent use of the second key, I
may simply put both keys on one steel "connecting link" (a shackle
used to connect chains) and will weld the link shut so that they
cannot be separated. Or else I will bolt it to a wall in some secret
location or save it in the safe.

These interlock keys are indeed used relatively widely in industry
for
all sorts of purposes. See the kirkkey.com website for examples.

i

I suppose that being a somewhat ethical and caring person, and like
the KISS principle (Keep it Simple Stupid), I would have to go with
the tradition 3-pole, 3-position, transfer switch. On these, one
position puts your home on grid power, in the center postion it is
connected to nothing, and in the thrid position it is connected to
your generator.

Only a week or two ago I was running my home on generator power, with
the generator connected to the house with a "suicide cord", and the
master breakers to the house pulled. I went outside and spent some
time talking with the line crew that was replairing the down line in
front of my home, in the rain. Having noticed that I was running a
generator, one of the guys asked me if I was sure that I was
disconnected from the grid. I replied that I knew I was, because the
breaker connecting me to the grid was not only turned off an pulled,
so I could see about 2-3 inches of physical separation.

No problem, he replied to me, and also informed me that the top like
supplying the transformers on my street was an 8,000 volt line. I'm
not a lineman but am an electrical engineer, and would not sleep at
night if I were risking backfeeding a distribution transformer that
stepped the voltage up to 8,000-volts, or even 2,200, no matter how
clever the interlocking arrangement. I am not that desperate to power
my home, and as an engineer I recognize the too frequent failure of
such arrangements, let alone to build one myself. It's not so much the
design of such interlocks, but the failure modes that amateur
designers often fail to take into account, with tragic consequences.

Harry C.



On May 7, 7:05 pm, Ignoramus23720 ignoramus23...@NOSPAM.
23720.invalid wrote:
I have this generator:

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/onan/Diesel/

I bought these interlocks on eBay:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=300106024488

They are actually quite large, the photo does not do them justice.

My plan is to place interlocks so that either the generator's
disconnect is closed, or the main panel breaker is closed, but never
both.

That's what they were designed for, if it is unclear to anyone, I can
explain it in more detail, or see:http://www.kirkkey.com/index.html

I would lock up another key (they are keyed alike) in my safe so
that its use cannot defeat this system.

I believe that this arrangement fully satisfies the rule that a
mechanical interlock device should prevent both sources of power from
coming in contact.

Any comments?

i

Especially the retarded lineman that doesn't use equi-potential
technique grounding devices to protect himself from induction and
static charges that exist on lines running accross the countryside
just by laws of nature. Your little generator is not a problem for any
lineman that isn't a lazy and lucky jerk.

Interlocks are still necessary to help prevent frying the lazy and
lucky jerk though. You are right. You don't want to run the child
over, green light or not.


wrote in message
oups.com...
I suppose that being a somewhat ethical and caring person, and like
the KISS principle (Keep it Simple Stupid), I would have to go with
the tradition 3-pole, 3-position, transfer switch. On these, one
position puts your home on grid power, in the center postion it is
connected to nothing, and in the thrid position it is connected to
your generator.

Only a week or two ago I was running my home on generator power,
with
the generator connected to the house with a "suicide cord", and the
master breakers to the house pulled. I went outside and spent some
time talking with the line crew that was replairing the down line in
front of my home, in the rain. Having noticed that I was running a
generator, one of the guys asked me if I was sure that I was
disconnected from the grid. I replied that I knew I was, because the
breaker connecting me to the grid was not only turned off an pulled,
so I could see about 2-3 inches of physical separation.

No problem, he replied to me, and also informed me that the top like
supplying the transformers on my street was an 8,000 volt line. I'm
not a lineman but am an electrical engineer, and would not sleep at
night if I were risking backfeeding a distribution transformer that
stepped the voltage up to 8,000-volts, or even 2,200, no matter how
clever the interlocking arrangement. I am not that desperate to
power
my home, and as an engineer I recognize the too frequent failure of
such arrangements, let alone to build one myself. It's not so much
the
design of such interlocks, but the failure modes that amateur
designers often fail to take into account, with tragic consequences.

Harry C.



On May 7, 7:05 pm, Ignoramus23720 ignoramus23...@NOSPAM.
23720.invalid wrote:
I have this generator:

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/onan/Diesel/

I bought these interlocks on eBay:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=300106024488

They are actually quite large, the photo does not do them justice.

My plan is to place interlocks so that either the generator's
disconnect is closed, or the main panel breaker is closed, but
never
both.

That's what they were designed for, if it is unclear to anyone, I
can
explain it in more detail, or see:http://www.kirkkey.com/index.html

I would lock up another key (they are keyed alike) in my safe so
that its use cannot defeat this system.

I believe that this arrangement fully satisfies the rule that a
mechanical interlock device should prevent both sources of power
from
coming in contact.

Any comments?

i

On 7 May 2007 17:53:42 -0700, wrote:
I suppose that being a somewhat ethical and caring person, and like
the KISS principle (Keep it Simple Stupid), I would have to go with
the tradition 3-pole, 3-position, transfer switch. On these, one
position puts your home on grid power, in the center postion it is
connected to nothing, and in the thrid position it is connected to
your generator.

Only a week or two ago I was running my home on generator power, with
the generator connected to the house with a "suicide cord", and the
master breakers to the house pulled. I went outside and spent some
time talking with the line crew that was replairing the down line in
front of my home, in the rain. Having noticed that I was running a
generator, one of the guys asked me if I was sure that I was
disconnected from the grid. I replied that I knew I was, because the
breaker connecting me to the grid was not only turned off an pulled,
so I could see about 2-3 inches of physical separation.

No problem, he replied to me, and also informed me that the top like
supplying the transformers on my street was an 8,000 volt line. I'm
not a lineman but am an electrical engineer, and would not sleep at
night if I were risking backfeeding a distribution transformer that
stepped the voltage up to 8,000-volts, or even 2,200, no matter how
clever the interlocking arrangement. I am not that desperate to power
my home, and as an engineer I recognize the too frequent failure of
such arrangements, let alone to build one myself. It's not so much the
design of such interlocks, but the failure modes that amateur
designers often fail to take into account, with tragic consequences.

What you did was considerably more failure prone than an interlock
arrangement.

i

Harry C.



On May 7, 7:05 pm, Ignoramus23720 ignoramus23...@NOSPAM.
23720.invalid wrote:
I have this generator:

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/onan/Diesel/

I bought these interlocks on eBay:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=300106024488

They are actually quite large, the photo does not do them justice.

My plan is to place interlocks so that either the generator's
disconnect is closed, or the main panel breaker is closed, but never
both.

That's what they were designed for, if it is unclear to anyone, I can
explain it in more detail, or see:http://www.kirkkey.com/index.html

I would lock up another key (they are keyed alike) in my safe so
that its use cannot defeat this system.

I believe that this arrangement fully satisfies the rule that a
mechanical interlock device should prevent both sources of power from
coming in contact.

Any comments?

i

Ignoramus23720 wrote:
I have this generator:

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/onan/Diesel/

I bought these interlocks on eBay:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=300106024488

They are actually quite large, the photo does not do them justice.

My plan is to place interlocks so that either the generator's
disconnect is closed, or the main panel breaker is closed, but never
both.

That's what they were designed for, if it is unclear to anyone, I can
explain it in more detail, or see: http://www.kirkkey.com/index.html

I would lock up another key (they are keyed alike) in my safe so
that its use cannot defeat this system.

I believe that this arrangement fully satisfies the rule that a
mechanical interlock device should prevent both sources of power from
coming in contact.

Any comments?

i



Before you invest allot of time and effort check with your local
inspector as in the end he's the final authority. If he doesn't like it
go with whatever he recommends, he's the one you need to keep happy. If
he's OK with it you should be good. Kirk keys are a common interlocking
means in power distribution schemes, and in settings other than the
power company. You'd have a tough time duplicating the key as they are
only available from Kirk, I don't know what they require before they
sell you another. The only problems apparent are the presence of the
second key, remove it from the premises to a safe deposit box or such,
and the ultimate design of the locking mechanism that the locks are
applied to.

Paul



--
-----------------------------------------
It's a Linux world....well, it oughta be.
-----------------------------------------

On May 7, 7:05 pm, Ignoramus23720 ignoramus23...@NOSPAM.
23720.invalid wrote:

I believe that this arrangement fully satisfies the rule that a
mechanical interlock device should prevent both sources of power from
coming in contact.

Any comments?

Yeah, I don't think an inspector would go for it. The inspector would
say "but if someone had the other key..." and you'd say "but it's in
the safe" and the inspector would say "but if someone had the other
key..." and out would come the [REJECTED] stamp.

That kind of stuff, the safety is in physical impossibility of linking
sources, not the reliance on a meat puppet to do the right thing and
not throw both switches at once.

In a restricted industrial setting, there can be different rules.
Residential is another matter...

DJ

Who will live there after you leave?

"DJ" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 7, 7:05 pm, Ignoramus23720 ignoramus23...@NOSPAM.
That kind of stuff, the safety is in physical impossibility of
linking
sources, not the reliance on a meat puppet to do the right thing and
not throw both switches at once.

In a restricted industrial setting, there can be different rules.
Residential is another matter...

DJ

Ignoramus23720 writes:

Any comments?

The code inspector is likely to treat this with the same respect he treats
a Wilma interlock.

What's a Wilma interlock? A piece of electrical tape across the main
breaker handle. What every household was using with a portable generator
and suicide cord for a disconnect after Hurricane Wilma here in Palm Beach
County, Florida.

Sure, it works, but they won't trust your discipline and brains. Nor
should they.

Locking things in a safe? C'mon.

On Mon, 7 May 2007 21:59:26 -0500, Solar Flaire wrote:
Who will live there after you leave?

If your question is addressed to me, I am not going to leave this
stuff to the next owners, I will remove it and take with me.

i

"DJ" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 7, 7:05 pm, Ignoramus23720 ignoramus23...@NOSPAM.
That kind of stuff, the safety is in physical impossibility of
linking
sources, not the reliance on a meat puppet to do the right thing and
not throw both switches at once.

In a restricted industrial setting, there can be different rules.
Residential is another matter...

DJ

Ignoramus17686 wrote:
On Mon, 7 May 2007 21:59:26 -0500, Solar Flaire wrote:
Who will live there after you leave?

If your question is addressed to me, I am not going to leave this
stuff to the next owners, I will remove it and take with me.

i

Certainly not wishing anything but how could you know that? Anything can
happen.

Part of the reason for doing a safe/standard installation is so that no
"hocus pocus" is required so it will be safe if you aren't there or are
incapacitated etc.

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.





"DJ" wrote in message

oups.com...



On May 7, 7:05 pm, Ignoramus23720 ignoramus23...@NOSPAM.
That kind of stuff, the safety is in physical impossibility of
linking
sources, not the reliance on a meat puppet to do the right thing and
not throw both switches at once.

In a restricted industrial setting, there can be different rules.
Residential is another matter...

DJ- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mark Rand wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2007 18:05:13 -0500, Ignoramus23720
wrote:

I have this generator:

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/onan/Diesel/

I bought these interlocks on eBay:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=300106024488

They are actually quite large, the photo does not do them justice.

My plan is to place interlocks so that either the generator's
disconnect is closed, or the main panel breaker is closed, but never
both.

That's what they were designed for, if it is unclear to anyone, I can
explain it in more detail, or see: http://www.kirkkey.com/index.html

I would lock up another key (they are keyed alike) in my safe so
that its use cannot defeat this system.

I believe that this arrangement fully satisfies the rule that a
mechanical interlock device should prevent both sources of power from
coming in contact.

Any comments?

i


It's a perfectly acceptable solution and I've used it on power station
transfer boards.


Regards
Mark Rand
RTFM

Mark
I don't know were you or the OP are located so I'll answer as if both of
you are in the United States. It may indeed be acceptable in a power
station that is operated by a utility under the National Electrical
Safety Code (NESC). The NESC is the code that is enforced by the public
utility regulatory bodies in most states to govern the installation and
operation of electrical generating and distribution systems. It is not
however compliant with the National Electric Code (NEC) that is adopted
and enforced as law by the vast majority of local or state governments
in the United States. The NEC is also incorporated by reference into
the vast majority of insurance contracts in the US. The NEC requires
that materials be approved by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ).
The AHJ can be the local building official, electrical inspector, or the
insurance companies loss prevention department. No responsible AHJ will
approve the use of an interlock that is not listed by a national
electrical testing laboratory.
--
Tom Horne

"This alternating current stuff is just a fad. It is much too dangerous
for general use." Thomas Alva Edison

On May 8, 11:24�am, "Tom Horne, Electrician"
wrote:
Mark Rand wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2007 18:05:13 -0500, Ignoramus23720
wrote:

I have this generator:

*http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/onan/Diesel/

I bought these interlocks on eBay:

*http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=300106024488

They are actually quite large, the photo does not do them justice.

My plan is to place interlocks so that either the generator's
disconnect is closed, or the main panel breaker is closed, but never
both.

That's what they were designed for, if it is unclear to anyone, I can
explain it in more detail, or see:http://www.kirkkey.com/index.html

I would lock up another key (they are keyed alike) in my safe so
that its use cannot defeat this system.

I believe that this arrangement fully satisfies the rule that a
mechanical interlock device should prevent both sources of power from
coming in contact.

Any comments?

i

It's a perfectly acceptable solution and I've used it on power station
transfer boards.

Regards
Mark Rand
RTFM

Mark
I don't know were you or the OP are located so I'll answer as if both of
you are in the United States. *It may indeed be acceptable in a power
station that is operated by a utility under the National Electrical
Safety Code (NESC). *The NESC is the code that is enforced by the public
utility regulatory bodies in most states to govern the installation and
operation of electrical generating and distribution systems. *It is not
however compliant with the National Electric Code (NEC) that is adopted
and enforced as law by the vast majority of local or state governments
in the United States. *The NEC is also incorporated by reference into
the vast majority of insurance contracts in the US. *The NEC requires
that materials be approved by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ).
The AHJ can be the local building official, electrical inspector, or the
insurance companies loss prevention department. *No responsible AHJ will
approve the use of an interlock that is not listed by a national
electrical testing laboratory.
--
Tom Horne

"This alternating current stuff is just a fad. *It is much too dangerous
for general use." *Thomas Alva Edison- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

some people will do endless work to save a buck but create possible
hazards later. The OP asked his question so posters could agree, and
must be disappointed so many dont.........

According to Tom Horne, Electrician :
Mark Rand wrote:

It's a perfectly acceptable solution and I've used it on power station
transfer boards.

Mark
I don't know were you or the OP are located so I'll answer as if both of
you are in the United States. It may indeed be acceptable in a power
station that is operated by a utility under the National Electrical
Safety Code (NESC). The NESC is the code that is enforced by the public
utility regulatory bodies in most states to govern the installation and
operation of electrical generating and distribution systems. It is not
however compliant with the National Electric Code (NEC) that is adopted
and enforced as law by the vast majority of local or state governments
in the United States.

Ditto in Canada. It's permitted under the CEC, but not in residential
setups. In a residential situation, I do not believe that an inspector
would approve _anything_ like that that didn't have a full CSA approval
for the specific purpose.
--
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 Solar Flaire :
Especially the retarded lineman that doesn't use equi-potential
technique grounding devices to protect himself from induction and
static charges that exist on lines running accross the countryside
just by laws of nature. Your little generator is not a problem for any
lineman that isn't a lazy and lucky jerk.

Waht about the casual bystander or neighborhood kid who doesn't
notice the house-end of your feed lying in the dirt?
--
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 May 7, 7:05 pm, Ignoramus23720 ignoramus23...@NOSPAM.
23720.invalid wrote:
I have this generator:

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/onan/Diesel/

I bought these interlocks on eBay:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=300106024488

They are actually quite large, the photo does not do them justice.

My plan is to place interlocks so that either the generator's
disconnect is closed, or the main panel breaker is closed, but never
both.

That's what they were designed for, if it is unclear to anyone, I can
explain it in more detail, or see:http://www.kirkkey.com/index.html

I would lock up another key (they are keyed alike) in my safe so
that its use cannot defeat this system.

I believe that this arrangement fully satisfies the rule that a
mechanical interlock device should prevent both sources of power from
coming in contact.

Any comments?

i

All juristictions are different but where I am I know the response of
the building inspector because it is the same response he gives to
EVERYTHING he is not familiar with. It is a response borne of sheer
necessity and practicallity.

He will look at the interlock and ask to see the UL listing on it to
ensure it is listed for this purpose. No UL listing, no approval.
Plain, simple, consistant. Not a lot of creativity there, but a good
measure of practicality.

If the house end of the conductors are lying in the dirt then your
service is disconnected and can't feed anything and the kid has to
worry about the utility power instead.

"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...
According to Solar Flaire :
Especially the retarded lineman that doesn't use equi-potential
technique grounding devices to protect himself from induction and
static charges that exist on lines running accross the countryside
just by laws of nature. Your little generator is not a problem for
any
lineman that isn't a lazy and lucky jerk.

Waht about the casual bystander or neighborhood kid who doesn't
notice the house-end of your feed lying in the dirt?
--
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.

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

wrote in message
oups.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.





"DJ" wrote in message

oups.com...



On May 7, 7:05 pm, Ignoramus23720 ignoramus23...@NOSPAM.
That kind of stuff, the safety is in physical impossibility of
linking
sources, not the reliance on a meat puppet to do the right thing
and
not throw both switches at once.

In a restricted industrial setting, there can be different rules.
Residential is another matter...

DJ- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

this is one of those moments, it's best to go with the industry
standard. Don't try to make a complicated, and irregular set up
of your own.

Incidentally, the disconnects appear to be single pole.

--

Christopher A. Young
You can't shout down a troll.
You have to starve them.
..

"Ignoramus23720" wrote in
message ...
: I have this generator:
:
: http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/onan/Diesel/
:
: I bought these interlocks on eBay:
:
:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=300106024488
:
: They are actually quite large, the photo does not do them
justice.
:
: My plan is to place interlocks so that either the generator's
: disconnect is closed, or the main panel breaker is closed, but
never
: both.
:
: That's what they were designed for, if it is unclear to anyone,
I can
: explain it in more detail, or see:
http://www.kirkkey.com/index.html
:
: I would lock up another key (they are keyed alike) in my safe
so
: that its use cannot defeat this system.
:
: I believe that this arrangement fully satisfies the rule that a
: mechanical interlock device should prevent both sources of
power from
: coming in contact.
:
: Any comments?
:
: i

According to Solar Flaire :
If the house end of the conductors are lying in the dirt then your
service is disconnected and can't feed anything and the kid has to
worry about the utility power instead.

If you're backfeeding, you have a lethal boobytrap lying in the dirt.

Worse if it's upstream of the last polepig.
--
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 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

oups.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.

Ignoramus23720 wrote:
I have this generator:

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/onan/Diesel/

I bought these interlocks on eBay:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=300106024488

They are actually quite large, the photo does not do them justice.

My plan is to place interlocks so that either the generator's
disconnect is closed, or the main panel breaker is closed, but never
both.

That's what they were designed for, if it is unclear to anyone, I can
explain it in more detail, or see: http://www.kirkkey.com/index.html

I would lock up another key (they are keyed alike) in my safe so
that its use cannot defeat this system.

I believe that this arrangement fully satisfies the rule that a
mechanical interlock device should prevent both sources of power from
coming in contact.

Any comments?

i

Code says you must have break before make and no way of ever allowing both
to be connected at the same time. Those do not appear to provide that.
Basically, you need a large dptt switch, which is what the transfer switches
create for you.
Besides, with that sort of thing, you have no easy control of which ckts
are drawing power; you can't insure that some are off and some are on.
Unless you have a HUGE generator, that could end up being a pretty big
problem and hard on the generator to boot.
You'll need a transfer switch to meet fire and building codes, plus a
quick disconnect outside (here in NY at least) for emergency services to
use. This is also definitely an insurance issue; not something they'd miss
or overlook should a disaster occur.

Pop`


HTH
Pop`

On Wed, 09 May 2007 15:13:11 GMT, Pop` wrote:
Ignoramus23720 wrote:
I have this generator:

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/onan/Diesel/

I bought these interlocks on eBay:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=300106024488

They are actually quite large, the photo does not do them justice.

My plan is to place interlocks so that either the generator's
disconnect is closed, or the main panel breaker is closed, but never
both.

That's what they were designed for, if it is unclear to anyone, I can
explain it in more detail, or see: http://www.kirkkey.com/index.html

I would lock up another key (they are keyed alike) in my safe so
that its use cannot defeat this system.

I believe that this arrangement fully satisfies the rule that a
mechanical interlock device should prevent both sources of power from
coming in contact.

Any comments?

i

Code says you must have break before make and no way of ever allowing both
to be connected at the same time. Those do not appear to provide that.

Um, yes, they do if they are mounted properly and one key is used.

Basically, you need a large dptt switch, which is what the transfer switches
create for you.
Besides, with that sort of thing, you have no easy control of which ckts
are drawing power; you can't insure that some are off and some are
on.

That's what the breaker panel is for.

i

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.

"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...
According to Solar Flaire :
If the house end of the conductors are lying in the dirt then your
service is disconnected and can't feed anything and the kid has to
worry about the utility power instead.

If you're backfeeding, you have a lethal boobytrap lying in the
dirt.

Worse if it's upstream of the last polepig.
--
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.

Maybe the colour should be a factor too. I don't know why you make
such silly statements when the text is black.

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

oups.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.

Kirk keyed interlocks are not an open point for human safety. Make
before break interlocks can be.

"Ignoramus8836" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 09 May 2007 15:13:11 GMT, Pop`
wrote:
Ignoramus23720 wrote:
I have this generator:

http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/onan/Diesel/

I bought these interlocks on eBay:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=300106024488

They are actually quite large, the photo does not do them justice.

My plan is to place interlocks so that either the generator's
disconnect is closed, or the main panel breaker is closed, but
never
both.

That's what they were designed for, if it is unclear to anyone, I
can
explain it in more detail, or see:
http://www.kirkkey.com/index.html

I would lock up another key (they are keyed alike) in my safe so
that its use cannot defeat this system.

I believe that this arrangement fully satisfies the rule that a
mechanical interlock device should prevent both sources of power
from
coming in contact.

Any comments?

i

Code says you must have break before make and no way of ever
allowing both
to be connected at the same time. Those do not appear to provide
that.

Um, yes, they do if they are mounted properly and one key is used.

Basically, you need a large dptt switch, which is what the transfer
switches
create for you.
Besides, with that sort of thing, you have no easy control of
which ckts
are drawing power; you can't insure that some are off and some are
on.

That's what the breaker panel is for.

i

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 -

Code says you must have break before make and no way of ever allowing both
to be connected at the same time. Those do not appear to provide that.
Basically, you need a large dptt switch, which is what the transfer
switches create for you.
Besides, with that sort of thing, you have no easy control of which ckts
are drawing power; you can't insure that some are off and some are on.
Unless you have a HUGE generator, that could end up being a pretty big
problem and hard on the generator to boot.
You'll need a transfer switch to meet fire and building codes, plus a
quick disconnect outside (here in NY at least) for emergency services to
use. This is also definitely an insurance issue; not something they'd
miss or overlook should a disaster occur.

I have a question. I have wondered about taking two of the breaker/fuse
boxes with the levers on the outside as opposed to having a breaker inside
the box. Mounting one right side up and the other upside down then
connecting the levers by welding a rod to each. That one when one is opened
the other would be closed. The problem that jumped to my mind was the fact
that there could be a small amount of time when they both COULD be connected
because the throw on one box might be a little longer than the other. But
this would be a fraction of a second and could be gotten around by making
sure your genny and the line breaker both are thrown before switching.

On Thu, 10 May 2007 15:32:13 GMT, no spam wrote:
Code says you must have break before make and no way of ever allowing both
to be connected at the same time. Those do not appear to provide that.
Basically, you need a large dptt switch, which is what the transfer
switches create for you.
Besides, with that sort of thing, you have no easy control of which ckts
are drawing power; you can't insure that some are off and some are on.
Unless you have a HUGE generator, that could end up being a pretty big
problem and hard on the generator to boot.
You'll need a transfer switch to meet fire and building codes, plus a
quick disconnect outside (here in NY at least) for emergency services to
use. This is also definitely an insurance issue; not something they'd
miss or overlook should a disaster occur.

I have a question. I have wondered about taking two of the breaker/fuse
boxes with the levers on the outside as opposed to having a breaker inside
the box. Mounting one right side up and the other upside down then
connecting the levers by welding a rod to each. That one when one is opened
the other would be closed. The problem that jumped to my mind was the fact
that there could be a small amount of time when they both COULD be connected
because the throw on one box might be a little longer than the other. But
this would be a fraction of a second and could be gotten around by making
sure your genny and the line breaker both are thrown before switching.



If you have space for installing two large disconnects, it is easier
and cheaper to install one proper transfer switch than two disconnects
in an odd configuration.

And that "making sure that your genny and the line breaker both are
thrown before switching" is exactly what the interlocks that I
mentioned, are supposed to prevent without fail. If interlocks are in
place, it is impossible to do wrong.

My problem is that it is very difficult to place a transfer switch
properly due to location of service entrance vs. electrical panel
vs. the ceiling of the basement.

i

Code says you must have break before make and no way of ever allowing
both
to be connected at the same time. Those do not appear to provide that.
Basically, you need a large dptt switch, which is what the transfer
switches create for you.
Besides, with that sort of thing, you have no easy control of which
ckts
are drawing power; you can't insure that some are off and some are on.
Unless you have a HUGE generator, that could end up being a pretty big
problem and hard on the generator to boot.
You'll need a transfer switch to meet fire and building codes, plus a
quick disconnect outside (here in NY at least) for emergency services to
use. This is also definitely an insurance issue; not something they'd
miss or overlook should a disaster occur.

I have a question. I have wondered about taking two of the breaker/fuse
boxes with the levers on the outside as opposed to having a breaker
inside
the box. Mounting one right side up and the other upside down then
connecting the levers by welding a rod to each. That one when one is
opened
the other would be closed. The problem that jumped to my mind was the
fact
that there could be a small amount of time when they both COULD be
connected
because the throw on one box might be a little longer than the other.
But
this would be a fraction of a second and could be gotten around by making
sure your genny and the line breaker both are thrown before switching.



If you have space for installing two large disconnects, it is easier
and cheaper to install one proper transfer switch than two disconnects
in an odd configuration.

I have plenty of space and I have several of these old switch/fuse/breaker
boxes laying around which is why I was thinking of trying this.


And that "making sure that your genny and the line breaker both are
thrown before switching" is exactly what the interlocks that I
mentioned, are supposed to prevent without fail. If interlocks are in
place, it is impossible to do wrong.

Done correctly my correctly would be fool proof. You'd just have to make
sure that each switch has enough throw. Being a 'better over save than
sorry' type I'd still toss the main breaker in the box before moving the
switch.


My problem is that it is very difficult to place a transfer switch
properly due to location of service entrance vs. electrical panel
vs. the ceiling of the basement.

Run into a lot of problems like that with older houses.

"Ignoramus7204" wrote in message
...
My problem is that it is very difficult to place a transfer switch
properly due to location of service entrance vs. electrical panel
vs. the ceiling of the basement.

This style of transfer panel (available from 2 or 3 manufacturers) may fix that.
http://www.nbmc.com/emergen/10-7501.html

You don't have to mess with your service entrance conductors, and you can come
out the side or bottom of your electrical box.

I like mine for three reasons:
1) Since it transfers on a "per circuit" basis, I can exercise the generator on
part of my house while leaving other circuits undisturbed, still connected to
the grid. and;
2) I can unplug my main generator at any time and substitute a portable
generator, or even an inverter by simply plugging it into my transfer panel.
This feature has come in very handy twice when my (trusty, reliable, faithful?)
old Onan has died halfway through a week-long power outage. Also it gives me
the option of substituting my very frugal EU2000 during times of light load.
When you have a several-day-long outage, the cost of fuel becomes a major
consideration.
3) The built-in metering is very handy and eliminates guesswork about your
generator's load.

OK, it isn't cheap. You can't have everything! Thanks to a tip I received
right here on this group, I bought mine off a clearance table at Home Depot at
an obscene discount.

Vaughn

On Thu, 10 May 2007 23:02:52 GMT, Vaughn Simon wrote:

"Ignoramus7204" wrote in message
...
My problem is that it is very difficult to place a transfer switch
properly due to location of service entrance vs. electrical panel
vs. the ceiling of the basement.

This style of transfer panel (available from 2 or 3 manufacturers) may fix that.
http://www.nbmc.com/emergen/10-7501.html

You don't have to mess with your service entrance conductors, and you can come
out the side or bottom of your electrical box.

I like mine for three reasons:
1) Since it transfers on a "per circuit" basis, I can exercise the generator on
part of my house while leaving other circuits undisturbed, still connected to
the grid. and;
2) I can unplug my main generator at any time and substitute a portable
generator, or even an inverter by simply plugging it into my transfer panel.
This feature has come in very handy twice when my (trusty, reliable, faithful?)
old Onan has died halfway through a week-long power outage. Also it gives me
the option of substituting my very frugal EU2000 during times of light load.
When you have a several-day-long outage, the cost of fuel becomes a major
consideration.
3) The built-in metering is very handy and eliminates guesswork about your
generator's load.

OK, it isn't cheap. You can't have everything! Thanks to a tip I received
right here on this group, I bought mine off a clearance table at Home Depot at
an obscene discount.

I went through that discussion too many times and I do not want to
restart it. My house is big, has way too many circuits, which use
minimal current but which are necessary, for these sorts of panels.

I need to power sump pump, furnace, two fridges, freezer, computer, it
is an absolute must. All 115v and all on different circuits. Then I
have a dozen circuits for lights. Not all have to work but some are
needed. All use minimal current due to use of compact fluorescent and
regular fluorescent lighting. At most I expect 300-500 watts total.

Connecting the "must have" lines to this little transfer panel, would
leave me totally in the dark and without any comfort. I am not sure if
the 20 amp circuits are two pole for 220v connections or can be
rewired. In any case, not enough circuits. I have no interest in those
Emergen panels, though it would be different if I lived in a smaller
house -- I admit their utility for smaller homes.

I went through this issue a little bit too much. I hope that I have
not tired anyone, and apologize if I did. I am going to install the
interlocks securely. That will, practically, solve the backfeeding
issue to my satisfaction. I "might one day" install a whole house
transfer switch, which is quite difficult due to location of service
panel and service entrance (not enough space).

I do not care too much about obscure scenarios such as "what happens
if I die". If I die, no one is going to maintain and use this
generator. And if I do not die and move to another house, I will take
it and the interlocks with me.

i

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.

[+] Great ice storm of 1998. I helped out in that. Inspecting/doing
generator hookup in homes and emergency depots. You better believe
we were careful making it _impossible_ for backfeed to occur.
--
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.