I'm renovating my basement and have a pretty fundamental question about the
romex cable I'll be running throughout the space for lights and wall jacks.
I'm having my old Federal Pacific breaker panel (150 amps) replaced with a
new Cutler Hammer 200 amp box. Have hired an electrician to do that work for
me. But I wondered why I'd bother with 15 amp circuits (14-2 romex). Is
there a reason not to simply make all three of the circuits I'll be creating
for the new basement 20 amp circuits, using 12-2 romex? Or is there a
fire/shock hazard caused by using the higher amperage circuit breakers on
those standard circuits.

Also, does on GFI protect the entire circuit on which it is located or do I
need to install more? My basement, like so many, sometimes gets wet when the
outside drains are blocked.

"mdb" wrote in message
newsWxJi.584$9r4.364@trnddc04...
I'm renovating my basement and have a pretty fundamental question about
the romex cable I'll be running throughout the space for lights and wall
jacks. I'm having my old Federal Pacific breaker panel (150 amps) replaced
with a new Cutler Hammer 200 amp box. Have hired an electrician to do that
work for me. But I wondered why I'd bother with 15 amp circuits (14-2
romex). Is there a reason not to simply make all three of the circuits
I'll be creating for the new basement 20 amp circuits, using 12-2 romex?
Or is there a fire/shock hazard caused by using the higher amperage
circuit breakers on those standard circuits.

Also, does on GFI protect the entire circuit on which it is located or do
I need to install more? My basement, like so many, sometimes gets wet when
the outside drains are blocked.
Wire costs a bit more, and its a bit harder to work with, but there is no
downside other than that. I haven't used #14 in years. It has the added
benefit of reducing voltage drop a little.

Properly installed, GFCIs protect the entire circuit.

mdb wrote:

I'm renovating my basement and have a pretty fundamental question about the
romex cable I'll be running throughout the space for lights and wall jacks.
I'm having my old Federal Pacific breaker panel (150 amps) replaced with a
new Cutler Hammer 200 amp box. Have hired an electrician to do that work for
me. But I wondered why I'd bother with 15 amp circuits (14-2 romex). Is
there a reason not to simply make all three of the circuits I'll be creating
for the new basement 20 amp circuits, using 12-2 romex? Or is there a
fire/shock hazard caused by using the higher amperage circuit breakers on
those standard circuits.

Also, does on GFI protect the entire circuit on which it is located or do I
need to install more? My basement, like so many, sometimes gets wet when the
outside drains are blocked.

Cutlet Hammer isn't my favorite brand, but it's certainly better than
FP. As for 15 Amp circuits, while it theoretically saves you a couple
dollars worth of copper, I wouldn't consider it worthwhile. 15 and 20 A
circuit breakers cost the same as do all the other devices you'll be
using so only the wire would be different.

A GFCI circuit breaker will provide protection for everything connected
to it. A GFCI receptacle will provide protection for everything
connected downstream of it as well as what's plugged into it. A GFCI
circuit breaker costs about 5X the price of a GFCI receptacle while
providing the same protection. Generally it's best to simply insure that
the first device on a given circuit is a GFCI receptacle.

mdb wrote:
I'm renovating my basement and have a pretty fundamental question about the
romex cable I'll be running throughout the space for lights and wall jacks.
I'm having my old Federal Pacific breaker panel (150 amps) replaced with a
new Cutler Hammer 200 amp box. Have hired an electrician to do that work for
me. But I wondered why I'd bother with 15 amp circuits (14-2 romex). Is
there a reason not to simply make all three of the circuits I'll be creating
for the new basement 20 amp circuits, using 12-2 romex? Or is there a
fire/shock hazard caused by using the higher amperage circuit breakers on
those standard circuits.

Also, does on GFI protect the entire circuit on which it is located or do I
need to install more? My basement, like so many, sometimes gets wet when the
outside drains are blocked.




I use 15A for lighting circuits, and the occasional dedicated circuit
where 15 is enough -- the wire is much easier to work with. I use 20A
for all branch circuits.

One GFCI can protect the whole circuit, or part of the circuit, or just
itself. Depends how and where you wire it.

Bob

mdb wrote:
I'm renovating my basement and have a pretty fundamental question about the
romex cable I'll be running throughout the space for lights and wall jacks.
I'm having my old Federal Pacific breaker panel (150 amps) replaced with a
new Cutler Hammer 200 amp box. Have hired an electrician to do that work for
me. But I wondered why I'd bother with 15 amp circuits (14-2 romex). Is
there a reason not to simply make all three of the circuits I'll be creating
for the new basement 20 amp circuits, using 12-2 romex? Or is there a
fire/shock hazard caused by using the higher amperage circuit breakers on
those standard circuits.

Also, does on GFI protect the entire circuit on which it is located or do I
need to install more? My basement, like so many, sometimes gets wet when the
outside drains are blocked.


Hi,
If you need for 20 Amp circuits for higher demand devices or whatever.
There is nothng wrong overdoing anything but economics. Copper price is
very high lately. Anything load on GFI breaker or outlet is all protected.

"mdb" wrote in message newsWxJi.584$9r4.364@trnddc04...
Have hired an electrician to do that work for me. But I wondered why I'd bother
with 15 amp circuits (14-2 romex). Is there a reason not to simply make all
three of the circuits I'll be creating for the new basement 20 amp circuits,
using 12-2 romex?

No extra hazard. Your electrician will prefer to work with #14 because it
is easier (and therefore quicker) to deal with. Particularly if you might be
running power tools, heaters or AC on those outlets, insist on #12.


Also, does on GFI protect the entire circuit on which it is located

Yes.


Vaughn

Hi mdb;

mdb wrote:

I'm renovating my basement and have a pretty
fundamental question about the Romex cable I'll be
running throughout the space for lights and wall
jacks.

I'm having my old Federal Pacific breaker panel
(150 amps) replaced with a new Cutler Hammer 200
amp box. Have hired an electrician to do that work
for me. But I wondered why I'd bother with 15 amp
circuits (14-2 Romex). Is there a reason not to
simply make all three of the circuits I'll be
creating for the new basement 20 amp circuits,
using 12-2 Romex?

I concur with the others. I would, and have, used
12-2 Romex 20A circuits on my circuits.
(Well, possibly with the exception of the lighting
circuits which will most likely be low current.)

Or is there a fire/shock hazard caused by using
the higher amperage circuit breakers on those
standard circuits.

Also, does on GFI protect the entire circuit on
which it is located or do I need to install more?

Yes, the circuit breaker types do protect the entire
circuit. As do the receptacle types if wired that way.

My basement, like so many, sometimes gets wet when
the outside drains are blocked.

All the better to use GFIs.

Several recomendations:
1. Install larger boxes than the minimum standard
code recommends. They are roomier and easier to
work with.
2. Install double or triple the number of outlets
per wall than the minimum standard code
recommends. You can thank me in the future.
3. Use the $1.50 or $2.00 receptacles instead of the
cheap $.49 types. They are much better built and
sturdier.
4. Don't use the simple push in terminals on the
receptacles, use the old fashion screw terminals.
The contact resistance is lower, I have measured
this. OK, they do pass the UL code, but lower
resistance has to be better.

Have fun!

Duane

--
Home of the $35 Solar Tracker Receiver
http://www.redrok.com/led3xassm.htm[*]
Powered by \ \ \ //|
Thermonuclear Solar Energy from the Sun / |
Energy (the SUN) \ \ \ / / |
Red Rock Energy \ \ / / |
Duane C. Johnson Designer \ \ / \ / |
1825 Florence St Heliostat,Control,& Mounts |
White Bear Lake, Minnesota === \ / \ |
USA 55110-3364 === \ |
(651)426-4766 use Courier New Font \ |
(my email: address) \ |
http://www.redrok.com (Web site) ===

"Duane C. Johnson" wrote:

4. Don't use the simple push in terminals on the
receptacles, use the old fashion screw terminals.
The contact resistance is lower, I have measured
this. OK, they do pass the UL code, but lower
resistance has to be better.

Second this, *do not* use the "push wire" type connections, they are the
ones with the little release slots next to the holes. Do not however
confuse "push wire" with "back wire" as they are not the same thing.
With the better spec grade devices you will find many offer the "back
wire" option which is a screw clamp type connection that works well and
saves you the fuss of wrapping the wire around the screw. I've become a
fan of these back wire clamp connections, particularly when using
stranded wire pulled through conduit, where the back clamp eliminates
the hassles of stray strands popping out from under the screw when you
try to do a wrap around connection.

"mdb" wrote in message
newsWxJi.584$9r4.364@trnddc04...
I'm renovating my basement and have a pretty fundamental question about
the romex cable I'll be running throughout the space for lights and wall
jacks. I'm having my old Federal Pacific breaker panel (150 amps) replaced
with a new Cutler Hammer 200 amp box. Have hired an electrician to do that
work for me. But I wondered why I'd bother with 15 amp circuits (14-2
romex). Is there a reason not to simply make all three of the circuits
I'll be creating for the new basement 20 amp circuits, using 12-2 romex?
Or is there a fire/shock hazard caused by using the higher amperage
circuit breakers on those standard circuits.

Also, does on GFI protect the entire circuit on which it is located or do
I need to install more? My basement, like so many, sometimes gets wet when
the outside drains are blocked.


I agree with all the posts so far regarding this and here are my own reasons
for using all 20A stuff: Less wiring voltage drop (already mentioned) and
receptacles are usually built better and have thicker copper in them so they
hold a plug tighter. Other than that I personally don't find #12 that much
harder to work with but then again I have run 4/0 aluminum wire for a main
service entrance before.

The only rule I am aware of is that a single outlet 20amp circuit must have
a 20 amp receptacle (multiple 15 amp receptacles are OK on a 20 amp circuit)
but since I use 20 amp receptacles anyway for the better plug retention this
is a moot point.

"Daniel Who Wants to Know" wrote in
message

Other than that I personally don't find #12 that much harder to work with
but then again I have run 4/0 aluminum wire for a main service entrance
before.

Most amateurs try to bend the end of the wire around the screw to form a
loop, thus making it difficult. I did the same until I watched an
electrician strip the sheathing off about a foot of wire, then stripped the
individual wire about 9" from the end and he used the 9" to easily wrap the
wire around the screw, then cut off the excess. It was speed and ease over
the cost of a foot of wasted wire.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

"Daniel Who Wants to Know" wrote in
message

Other than that I personally don't find #12 that much harder to work with
but then again I have run 4/0 aluminum wire for a main service entrance
before.

Most amateurs try to bend the end of the wire around the screw to form a
loop, thus making it difficult. I did the same until I watched an
electrician strip the sheathing off about a foot of wire, then stripped the
individual wire about 9" from the end and he used the 9" to easily wrap the
wire around the screw, then cut off the excess. It was speed and ease over
the cost of a foot of wasted wire.

I've never found any problem with just stripping the normal 3/4" off and
using the pliers tip of the combo pliers/stripper/crimper/screw cutters
to put the loop in it for hooking over the screw. It takes about a
second since you already have the tool in your hand from stripping the
wire. That said, as I noted in another post, I've become quite fond of
the "back wire" clamp type connections found on many spec grade devices,
not to be confused with the terrible "push wire" connections which
should never have been approved.

Just about all the electricians I know and work with use the hole
in the side of stripper that is made for making the loop that fits
on the terminal screw. Insert tip of stripped copper - fold it
over the side of the cutter - install on screw. The tips of the
strippers can be used to close the loop tight.
http://www.mygreenlee.com/Products/main.shtml?p_search=test&greenlee_category_id=100& Submit=Find&portalProcess_2=showGreenleeProductTem plate&upc_number=31889



--
______________________________
Keep the whole world singing . . . .
DanG (remove the sevens)




"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
et...

"Daniel Who Wants to Know"
wrote in message

Other than that I personally don't find #12 that much harder
to work with but then again I have run 4/0 aluminum wire for a
main service entrance before.

Most amateurs try to bend the end of the wire around the screw
to form a loop, thus making it difficult. I did the same until
I watched an electrician strip the sheathing off about a foot of
wire, then stripped the individual wire about 9" from the end
and he used the 9" to easily wrap the wire around the screw,
then cut off the excess. It was speed and ease over the cost of
a foot of wasted wire.

I guess it's my job to disagree with most of the other posters. 15A
circuits let you work with 14 gauge wire. It is orders of magnitude easier
to wire outlets and lights with 14 rather than 12. I use 12 only for
workshops and kitchens where they might actually be needed. Most radios,
TV's , and computers use less power today than even a decade ago. When was
the last time you tripped a 15 A circuit breaker by overloading it?

mike

"mdb" wrote in message
newsWxJi.584$9r4.364@trnddc04...
I'm renovating my basement and have a pretty fundamental question about
the romex cable I'll be running throughout the space for lights and wall
jacks. I'm having my old Federal Pacific breaker panel (150 amps) replaced
with a new Cutler Hammer 200 amp box. Have hired an electrician to do that
work for me. But I wondered why I'd bother with 15 amp circuits (14-2
romex). Is there a reason not to simply make all three of the circuits
I'll be creating for the new basement 20 amp circuits, using 12-2 romex?
Or is there a fire/shock hazard caused by using the higher amperage
circuit breakers on those standard circuits.

Also, does on GFI protect the entire circuit on which it is located or do
I need to install more? My basement, like so many, sometimes gets wet when
the outside drains are blocked.

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 20:22:38 -0400, "Mike Payne"
wrote:

I guess it's my job to disagree with most of the other posters. 15A
circuits let you work with 14 gauge wire. It is orders of magnitude easier
to wire outlets and lights with 14 rather than 12. I use 12 only for
workshops and kitchens where they might actually be needed.

That makes 2 of us. A friend tried to talk me into using #12 for
everything (as he'd done at his own place). When I told him that the
bulk of the long runs were one light per circuit, and that nearly all
of them would be 12W CFs, he started the "what about the next guy"
angle. Sheesh! If there's a next guy, and if he wants to use 150W
bulbs, and if he thinks that'll stress the #14, then too bad. :-)

Wayne

wrote:

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 20:22:38 -0400, "Mike Payne"
wrote:

I guess it's my job to disagree with most of the other posters. 15A
circuits let you work with 14 gauge wire. It is orders of magnitude easier
to wire outlets and lights with 14 rather than 12. I use 12 only for
workshops and kitchens where they might actually be needed.

That makes 2 of us. A friend tried to talk me into using #12 for
everything (as he'd done at his own place). When I told him that the
bulk of the long runs were one light per circuit, and that nearly all
of them would be 12W CFs, he started the "what about the next guy"
angle. Sheesh! If there's a next guy, and if he wants to use 150W
bulbs, and if he thinks that'll stress the #14, then too bad. :-)

Wayne

I have to disagree, I find the "workability" difference between 12 ga
and 14 ga virtually unnoticeable. 2 ga copper is a bit of a pain to deal
with, but much of anything below that is all the same to me.

wrote:

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 18:06:13 GMT, "mdb" wrote:

I'm renovating my basement and have a pretty fundamental question about the
romex cable I'll be running throughout the space for lights and wall jacks.
I'm having my old Federal Pacific breaker panel (150 amps) replaced with a
new Cutler Hammer 200 amp box. Have hired an electrician to do that work for
me. But I wondered why I'd bother with 15 amp circuits (14-2 romex). Is
there a reason not to simply make all three of the circuits I'll be creating
for the new basement 20 amp circuits, using 12-2 romex? Or is there a
fire/shock hazard caused by using the higher amperage circuit breakers on
those standard circuits.

Also, does on GFI protect the entire circuit on which it is located or do I
need to install more? My basement, like so many, sometimes gets wet when the
outside drains are blocked.


I read the dozen or so replies and two things come to light. If you
are using #12 the push in terminals are not an option anyway. They are
only listed for #14. #12 won't even fit unless you really force/drill
it into the hole.

The second issue is 15a vs 20a O/C protection. There are people who
say you are giving up 33% of your safety when you put an 18ga lamp
cord on a 20a circuit. It is still legal but bear in mind you are
protecting 7a wire with a 20a breaker.

How is this substantially different from putting that 7A wire on a 15A
circuit? The circuit breaker is there to protect the wiring in the house
(i.e. the 12 or 14 ga wire), not to protect the appliance wire.
Appliances typically have their own fuses, basic lamps being one
exception. If that 18ga lamp cord gets damaged and shorts, the short
circuit current is not limited to the 7A rating of the 18ga cord, and
will be well over 20A, tripping the circuit breaker regardless of
whether it is a 15A or 20A breaker. If it's in a bedroom, the new AFCI
breakers will trip if the cord is damaged and arcing, but not a full
short.

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:53:10 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
"Duane C. Johnson" wrote:

4. Don't use the simple push in terminals on the
receptacles, use the old fashion screw terminals.
The contact resistance is lower, I have measured
this. OK, they do pass the UL code, but lower
resistance has to be better.

Second this, *do not* use the "push wire" type connections, they are the
ones with the little release slots next to the holes. Do not however
confuse "push wire" with "back wire" as they are not the same thing.
With the better spec grade devices you will find many offer the "back
wire" option which is a screw clamp type connection that works well and

OK, now I am confused. I recently did a basement (15 amp for the
lighting circuits, and 20 amp for the power outlets). I fought for
a while with the receptacles that need the 'hook' on the end of the
wire to go around the screw. With the 12 gauge wire I was spending
an inordinate amount of time swearing at the wire not doing as needed.
So I instead used the wee hole on the back of the receptacle - I stripped
the end of the wire, pushed it in the hole and then screwed it down
with a screw from the side. Is that what you are calling the "back
wire"?

Cheers, Liam

mdb wrote:
I'm renovating my basement and have a pretty fundamental question about the
romex cable I'll be running throughout the space for lights and wall jacks.
I'm having my old Federal Pacific breaker panel (150 amps) replaced with a
new Cutler Hammer 200 amp box. Have hired an electrician to do that work for
me. But I wondered why I'd bother with 15 amp circuits (14-2 romex). Is
there a reason not to simply make all three of the circuits I'll be creating
for the new basement 20 amp circuits, using 12-2 romex? Or is there a
fire/shock hazard caused by using the higher amperage circuit breakers on
those standard circuits.

Also, does on GFI protect the entire circuit on which it is located or do I
need to install more? My basement, like so many, sometimes gets wet when the
outside drains are blocked.



As others have said, there is no real reason to opt for 15A over 20A
other than a minor saving in wire cost and the difficulty of working
with the heavier wire. But since you are having an electrician do the
job it doesn't seem as though either one of those will matter at all to
you. But I can vouch for the difficulty factor if you are doing the work
yourself.

I recently added circuits and changed existing ones while doing a
basement remodel and 12-2 wire is incredibly stiffer than 14-2 and
pulling it through tight spaces above an existing finished ceiling
really slowed me down. Even worse was pulling three 10-3 from the box at
one side of the house to my workshop near the other end. That stuff felt
like steel bar after a few hours of wrestling with it and if I hadn't
been building a convenient soffit to cover ductwork for a goodly part of
the run I might still be slaving away at it.

Oh, and if you do go with the 20A circuits, make sure that the
electrician doesn't cut corners by using lesser-rated receptacles and GFCIs.

--
John McGaw
[Knoxville, TN, USA]
http://johnmcgaw.com

If you are a home builder and are building 50 homes, then you want to cut
costs as much as possible to maximize profit. So 15 amp outlets where not
required and as few as possible is the rule.

However if you are that same home builder building your own home, then 20
amp outlets everywhere and plenty of them (no 15 amp outlets)...


"mdb" wrote in message
I'm renovating my basement and have a pretty fundamental question about
the romex cable I'll be running throughout the space for lights and wall
jacks. I'm having my old Federal Pacific breaker panel (150 amps) replaced
with a new Cutler Hammer 200 amp box. Have hired an electrician to do that
work for me. But I wondered why I'd bother with 15 amp circuits (14-2
romex). Is there a reason not to simply make all three of the circuits
I'll be creating for the new basement 20 amp circuits, using 12-2 romex?
Or is there a fire/shock hazard caused by using the higher amperage
circuit breakers on those standard circuits.

Also, does on GFI protect the entire circuit on which it is located or do
I need to install more? My basement, like so many, sometimes gets wet when
the outside drains are blocked.

How is this substantially different from putting that 7A wire on a 15A
circuit? The circuit breaker is there to protect the wiring in the house
(i.e. the 12 or 14 ga wire), not to protect the appliance wire.
Appliances typically have their own fuses, basic lamps being one
exception. If that 18ga lamp cord gets damaged and shorts, the short
circuit current is not limited to the 7A rating of the 18ga cord, and
will be well over 20A, tripping the circuit breaker regardless of
whether it is a 15A or 20A breaker. If it's in a bedroom, the new AFCI
breakers will trip if the cord is damaged and arcing, but not a full
short.


I agree it is not a serious concern but it is the one argument I have
heard about using 20a circuits for general lighting circuits.

The key concern is overloads. Both 15 and 20 amp breakers will trip
on direct shorts (if they are working properly).

There is a tradeoff.

20A circuits have a convenience factor with the ability to delivery a
considerable greater amount of power to a given situation. A typical
example today would be a home office with multiple monitors, printers,
computers and accessories in addition to whatever other routine loads
(vacuum cleaners, electric heaters, etc.) are placed on the circuit.

That extra 5A capability might just be the difference between adaquate
wiring or a long-term headache of a constantly tripping circuit
breaker.

On the other hand, the subloads on a 20A circuit might (possible) pose
a safety issue. The 18 gauge lamp cord example has already been
mentioned.

The danger being that if the 18 g. wire is overloaded just enough for
the 18 g. wire to melt, but not enough to trip a 20A breaker. (In
such a case, a 15A circuit breaker might be more likely to trip than a
20A breaker, but not necessarily). This is the reason that most
power strips contain their own internal circuit breakers.

15A circuits were standardized during a time when there where few
constant electrical loads and the loads were generally light. (a few
lamps, a fan, etc.).

These days, many people have home entertainment systems, hefty audio
amplifiers, air conditioners, computers, big-screen plasma tv's,
monitors, laser printers, and a whole lot of loads that could not be
imagined 60, 70 or 80 years ago.

In my opinion, this makes the argument favor the 20A circuits over 15A
circuits, just for the added capacity and convenience.

Beachcomber

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:10:22 GMT, (Beachcomber)
wrote:
The key concern is overloads. Both 15 and 20 amp breakers will trip
on direct shorts (if they are working properly).

There is a tradeoff.

20A circuits have a convenience factor with the ability to delivery a
considerable greater amount of power to a given situation. A typical
example today would be a home office with multiple monitors, printers,
computers and accessories in addition to whatever other routine loads
(vacuum cleaners, electric heaters, etc.) are placed on the circuit.

The CORRECT solution to this situation is a split 15 amp circuit.
15 amps to the top outlet, 15 to the bottom. Done by using 14/3 cable
and double breakers. The legal way is a "tied breaker" which means if
you blow one, it trips the other as well. This is to prevent half of
the box being live.
Untied breakers are often used for this reason.

That extra 5A capability might just be the difference between adaquate
wiring or a long-term headache of a constantly tripping circuit
breaker.

On the other hand, the subloads on a 20A circuit might (possible) pose
a safety issue. The 18 gauge lamp cord example has already been
mentioned.

The danger being that if the 18 g. wire is overloaded just enough for
the 18 g. wire to melt, but not enough to trip a 20A breaker. (In
such a case, a 15A circuit breaker might be more likely to trip than a
20A breaker, but not necessarily). This is the reason that most
power strips contain their own internal circuit breakers.

15A circuits were standardized during a time when there where few
constant electrical loads and the loads were generally light. (a few
lamps, a fan, etc.).

These days, many people have home entertainment systems, hefty audio
amplifiers, air conditioners, computers, big-screen plasma tv's,
monitors, laser printers, and a whole lot of loads that could not be
imagined 60, 70 or 80 years ago.

In my opinion, this makes the argument favor the 20A circuits over 15A
circuits, just for the added capacity and convenience.

Beachcomber



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Liam Greenwood wrote:

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:53:10 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
"Duane C. Johnson" wrote:

4. Don't use the simple push in terminals on the
receptacles, use the old fashion screw terminals.
The contact resistance is lower, I have measured
this. OK, they do pass the UL code, but lower
resistance has to be better.

Second this, *do not* use the "push wire" type connections, they are the
ones with the little release slots next to the holes. Do not however
confuse "push wire" with "back wire" as they are not the same thing.
With the better spec grade devices you will find many offer the "back
wire" option which is a screw clamp type connection that works well and

OK, now I am confused. I recently did a basement (15 amp for the
lighting circuits, and 20 amp for the power outlets). I fought for
a while with the receptacles that need the 'hook' on the end of the
wire to go around the screw. With the 12 gauge wire I was spending
an inordinate amount of time swearing at the wire not doing as needed.
So I instead used the wee hole on the back of the receptacle - I stripped
the end of the wire, pushed it in the hole and then screwed it down
with a screw from the side. Is that what you are calling the "back
wire"?

Cheers, Liam

If it the wire from the back was clamped when you screwed it down, that
is the good "back wire" type connection. Less prep time and good solid
connections, particularly good for stranded wire. Nothing wrong with
these connections at all.

The "push wire" type have a hole with a flimsy little spring tab that
grabs the wire and a little slot next to the hole where you insert a
small screwdriver to release the tab if you want to remove the wire.
These are the horrendous ones with tiny contact area, low contact
pressure and frequent intermittent connections.

clare, at, snyder.on.ca wrote:

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:10:22 GMT, (Beachcomber)
wrote:
The key concern is overloads. Both 15 and 20 amp breakers will trip
on direct shorts (if they are working properly).

There is a tradeoff.

20A circuits have a convenience factor with the ability to delivery a
considerable greater amount of power to a given situation. A typical
example today would be a home office with multiple monitors, printers,
computers and accessories in addition to whatever other routine loads
(vacuum cleaners, electric heaters, etc.) are placed on the circuit.

The CORRECT solution to this situation is a split 15 amp circuit.
15 amps to the top outlet, 15 to the bottom. Done by using 14/3 cable
and double breakers. The legal way is a "tied breaker" which means if
you blow one, it trips the other as well. This is to prevent half of
the box being live.
Untied breakers are often used for this reason.

Doing that will also put the two outlets on opposite poles / phases,
giving 240V between the upper and lower hot connections. I'm not sure
how that works with the ratings of the break off tabs on a duplex
receptacle. At any rate a hinky solution at best.

The truly correct solution is to just install more circuits in locations
that need them. Basically instead of the all too common situation of
every receptacle in a room being on a single 15A or 20A they should be
individual circuits or at least two circuits alternated so any given
location is within reach of both circuits.

The alleged safety concerns of 18ga lamp cord on a 20A vs. 15A circuit
are pretty much all bunk. The wire is rated at less than half of what
even the 15A circuit is rated at, the 20A circuit introduces no
additional risk. In both cases the circuit breaker properly protects
what it is designed to protect - the wires in the walls. In neither case
is the circuit breaker supposed to be the protection for the lamp cord
and the liklihood of a fault developing in the lamp cord that would trip
a 15A breaker, but not trip a 20A breaker is virtually non existent.

On Sep 23, 9:42 pm, "Pete C." wrote:
If it's in a bedroom, the new AFCI
breakers will trip if the cord is damaged and arcing, but not a full
short.

I seem to recall seeing that the 2008 version of the NEC will require
AFCIs on just about all of the 120Vac circuits, not just the ones for
bedrooms.

Pete C. wrote:

Doing that will also put the two outlets on opposite poles / phases,
giving 240V between the upper and lower hot connections. I'm not sure
how that works with the ratings of the break off tabs on a duplex
receptacle. At any rate a hinky solution at best.

No, this is not a hinky solution. It's called a splitwire or multiwire
circuit, and has been the standard for kitchen counter receptacles in
Canada for decades.

The truly correct solution is to just install more circuits in locations
that need them. Basically instead of the all too common situation of
every receptacle in a room being on a single 15A or 20A they should be
individual circuits or at least two circuits alternated so any given
location is within reach of both circuits.

Having every receptacle on its own circuit is ridiculous overkill. Even
having two circuits per room is overkill for many rooms. That said,
there are some rooms (kitchens, home theaters, home workshops) that
would benefit from more circuits, and just about any room would benefit
from more receptacles.

Chris

In article , "Pete C." wrote:

Doing that will also put the two outlets on opposite poles / phases,
giving 240V between the upper and lower hot connections.

So?

I'm not sure
how that works with the ratings of the break off tabs on a duplex
receptacle. At any rate a hinky solution at best.

You're not sure how it works, but you're sure it's a "hinky solution." :-)

Actually, it's a perfectly fine solution.

The truly correct solution is to just install more circuits in locations
that need them. Basically instead of the all too common situation of
every receptacle in a room being on a single 15A or 20A they should be
individual circuits or at least two circuits alternated so any given
location is within reach of both circuits.

How is having two circuits available at alternating receptacles any
improvement over having two circuits available at *every* receptacle?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Chris Friesen wrote:

Pete C. wrote:

Doing that will also put the two outlets on opposite poles / phases,
giving 240V between the upper and lower hot connections. I'm not sure
how that works with the ratings of the break off tabs on a duplex
receptacle. At any rate a hinky solution at best.

No, this is not a hinky solution. It's called a splitwire or multiwire
circuit, and has been the standard for kitchen counter receptacles in
Canada for decades.

I'm sure the world will get right on adopting those superior Canadian
electrical standards...

My kitchen has I believe four separate 20A circuits in it, and it was
that way when I got here. I did have to replace the Federal Pacific
Stab-Loc main panel incendiary device with a proper Square D QO panel
however.


The truly correct solution is to just install more circuits in locations
that need them. Basically instead of the all too common situation of
every receptacle in a room being on a single 15A or 20A they should be
individual circuits or at least two circuits alternated so any given
location is within reach of both circuits.

Having every receptacle on its own circuit is ridiculous overkill. Even
having two circuits per room is overkill for many rooms. That said,
there are some rooms (kitchens, home theaters, home workshops) that
would benefit from more circuits, and just about any room would benefit
from more receptacles.

My shop is wired with a "quad" every 6', with a "quad" being a 4" square
box containing a 20A GFCI duplex receptacle paired with a 20A regular
duplex receptacle. Every "quad" is an separate circuit. All wiring is in
surface mounted conduit for ease of additions / changes. 240V
receptacles are located where needed. The walls are type X fire code
sheetrock. I'm pretty happy with it for a home shop.

daestrom wrote:

"Chris Friesen" wrote in message
...
Pete C. wrote:

Doing that will also put the two outlets on opposite poles / phases,
giving 240V between the upper and lower hot connections. I'm not sure
how that works with the ratings of the break off tabs on a duplex
receptacle. At any rate a hinky solution at best.

No, this is not a hinky solution. It's called a splitwire or multiwire
circuit, and has been the standard for kitchen counter receptacles in
Canada for decades.


It's also quite common in office building environment. A variant of this is
when you have 3-phase 208VAC available. You can run all three phases and a
neutral in the conduit and use a different phase and neutral in each box.
There are some issues with the size of the neutral, but I won't go into that
here.

He's talking about splitting poles / phases on the upper and lower
halves of a duplex receptacle, not using a different phase in successive
box locations.


By using just one phase and neutral in each box, you avoid having higher
than 120VAC available in one outlet. This can also be done with residential
circuits, use alternating 'hots' in each successive box. So box 1, 3, 5,
etc... is off of the first 'hot' and 2, 4, 6, etc... is off the second
'hot'.

I'm good with cycling through the phases from box to box, but not
splitting upper and lower of a duplex.


The truly correct solution is to just install more circuits in locations
that need them. Basically instead of the all too common situation of
every receptacle in a room being on a single 15A or 20A they should be
individual circuits or at least two circuits alternated so any given
location is within reach of both circuits.

Having every receptacle on its own circuit is ridiculous overkill. Even
having two circuits per room is overkill for many rooms. That said, there
are some rooms (kitchens, home theaters, home workshops) that would
benefit from more circuits, and just about any room would benefit from
more receptacles.

There are many times I wish there were two receptacle boxes side by side in
a 'quad-outlet' arrangement. Just because of the number of things to plug
in, not the overall VA requirement. In a modern home office you might need
a total of about 400 VA (about 1/3 of a 15A circuit capacity), but it's
split into six or more 'plugs' (couple of watts for speakers, couple of
watts for radio, couple of watts for cordless phone, 7-15 watts for CFL,
rest for computer and printer).

I wired my shop with all "quads", each one is a 20A GFCI receptacle
paired with a 20A regular receptacle, and each "quad" is a separate
circuit. The "quads" are spaced every 6'. The shop has a 125A 32 space
Square D QO sub panel.


Even my bedroom, with a reading lamp, wireless telephone, alarm clock for
me, and an alarm clock for the Mrs., I end up needing an 'adapter' while the
four other outlets in the bedroom are empty. Total load: about 11 watts
(when the 7 watt CFL reading lamp is on).

That's another issue, a zillion tiny loads in one spot. I have a power
strip under my night stand for the table lamp, alarm clock, cordless
phone charger, cell phone charger, bluetooth headset charger and weather
radio (tornado alley).

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , "Pete C." wrote:

Doing that will also put the two outlets on opposite poles / phases,
giving 240V between the upper and lower hot connections.

So?

I'm not sure
how that works with the ratings of the break off tabs on a duplex
receptacle. At any rate a hinky solution at best.

You're not sure how it works, but you're sure it's a "hinky solution." :-)

Actually, it's a perfectly fine solution.

It's hinky in my book, and I wouldn't wire it that way.


The truly correct solution is to just install more circuits in locations
that need them. Basically instead of the all too common situation of
every receptacle in a room being on a single 15A or 20A they should be
individual circuits or at least two circuits alternated so any given
location is within reach of both circuits.

How is having two circuits available at alternating receptacles any
improvement over having two circuits available at *every* receptacle?

It avoids having 240V on a device where most people expect only 120V.
I'm fine with cycling through poles / phases box to box, but I don't
like it within a single box in a residential application where joe bozo
might mess with it. People blow things up with some regularity in
industrial environments with three phase "wild leg" delta service, and
in an industrial environment they're supposed to have a clue. Give joe
bozo homeowner an unexpected red wire in the box and he's likely to blow
stuff up too. I think it's an unnecessary risk in a residential
environment.

wrote:

On Sep 23, 9:42 pm, "Pete C." wrote:
If it's in a bedroom, the new AFCI
breakers will trip if the cord is damaged and arcing, but not a full
short.

I seem to recall seeing that the 2008 version of the NEC will require
AFCIs on just about all of the 120Vac circuits, not just the ones for
bedrooms.

Good thing I did my electrical rebuild in 2006 eh? Actually it wouldn't
have mattered since I'm outside city limits and per the city building
department I didn't need any permits or inspections. I was a little
worried about how the AFCIs for the bedrooms would react to the TIG
welder and plasma cutter on the shop sub panel, but they seem to be
fine.

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
Chris Friesen wrote:

Pete C. wrote:

Doing that will also put the two outlets on opposite poles / phases,
giving 240V between the upper and lower hot connections. I'm not sure
how that works with the ratings of the break off tabs on a duplex
receptacle. At any rate a hinky solution at best.

It's called an Edison circuit. It's used all over. There's nothing "hinky"
about it.

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 00:49:33 GMT, "Pete C."
wrote:

wrote:

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 20:22:38 -0400, "Mike Payne"
wrote:

I guess it's my job to disagree with most of the other posters. 15A
circuits let you work with 14 gauge wire. It is orders of magnitude easier
to wire outlets and lights with 14 rather than 12. I use 12 only for
workshops and kitchens where they might actually be needed.

That makes 2 of us. A friend tried to talk me into using #12 for
everything (as he'd done at his own place). When I told him that the
bulk of the long runs were one light per circuit, and that nearly all
of them would be 12W CFs, he started the "what about the next guy"
angle. Sheesh! If there's a next guy, and if he wants to use 150W
bulbs, and if he thinks that'll stress the #14, then too bad. :-)

Wayne

I have to disagree, I find the "workability" difference between 12 ga
and 14 ga virtually unnoticeable. 2 ga copper is a bit of a pain to deal
with, but much of anything below that is all the same to me.

I don't agree, but even if there was zero workability difference, that
wouldn't be a valid reason to spend even a nickel extra on a 12W
circuit, or any low-power circuit. The only half-way reasonable
argument I've heard for using 12 on low-power circuits is that it's
more forgiving of bad workmanship. But anyone who needs that crutch
shouldn't be doing electrical work anyway.

Lots of people (including me) waste money when they don't need to, but
we shouldn't encourage the newbs to do that. Ask any question on
Usenet, and far more people will tell you to overdo things than
underdo them. If a guy with a normal budget started building a home,
and followed the Usenet consensus on how to do it, he'd probably run
out of money before he finished the foundation. :-)

Wayne

In article , "Pete C." wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

In article , "Pete C."
wrote:

Doing that will also put the two outlets on opposite poles / phases,
giving 240V between the upper and lower hot connections.

So?

I'm not sure
how that works with the ratings of the break off tabs on a duplex
receptacle. At any rate a hinky solution at best.

You're not sure how it works, but you're sure it's a "hinky solution." :-)

Actually, it's a perfectly fine solution.

It's hinky in my book, and I wouldn't wire it that way.

Fine, don't wire it that way -- but don't tell others it's a bad solution,
just because you don't like/understand it.


The truly correct solution is to just install more circuits in locations
that need them. Basically instead of the all too common situation of
every receptacle in a room being on a single 15A or 20A they should be
individual circuits or at least two circuits alternated so any given
location is within reach of both circuits.

How is having two circuits available at alternating receptacles any
improvement over having two circuits available at *every* receptacle?

It avoids having 240V on a device where most people expect only 120V.

So how, exactly, is that an issue? You can't plug a *single* device into both
sockets of a duplex receptacle at once. Each socket has only 120V; that there
is a 240V potential between the two hots is of no relevance whatever.

I'm fine with cycling through poles / phases box to box, but I don't
like it within a single box in a residential application where joe bozo
might mess with it. People blow things up with some regularity in
industrial environments with three phase "wild leg" delta service, and
in an industrial environment they're supposed to have a clue. Give joe
bozo homeowner an unexpected red wire in the box and he's likely to blow
stuff up too. I think it's an unnecessary risk in a residential
environment.

I'd love to hear your explanation of how this will "blow stuff up."

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Pete C. wrote:
clare, at, snyder.on.ca wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:10:22 GMT, (Beachcomber)
wrote:
The key concern is overloads. Both 15 and 20 amp breakers will trip
on direct shorts (if they are working properly).

There is a tradeoff.

20A circuits have a convenience factor with the ability to delivery a
considerable greater amount of power to a given situation. A typical
example today would be a home office with multiple monitors, printers,
computers and accessories in addition to whatever other routine loads
(vacuum cleaners, electric heaters, etc.) are placed on the circuit.
The CORRECT solution to this situation is a split 15 amp circuit.
15 amps to the top outlet, 15 to the bottom. Done by using 14/3 cable
and double breakers. The legal way is a "tied breaker" which means if
you blow one, it trips the other as well. This is to prevent half of
the box being live.
Untied breakers are often used for this reason.

Doing that will also put the two outlets on opposite poles / phases,
giving 240V between the upper and lower hot connections. I'm not sure
how that works with the ratings of the break off tabs on a duplex
receptacle. At any rate a hinky solution at best.
I see people below disagree with "hinky". I don't know the term.
However, as the "Joe Blow" guy who messes with outlets occasionally,
I would be quite unhappily surprised to discover by accident that I
could get 220 between some wires on the same outlet. Yikes. Also, I've
got some house intercoms that apparently don't work right when plugged
into "different legs" of the 240. On the other hand, if I were doing it
to my own house, it won't be a surprise so who cares?
(just my 2 cents, etc...)


The truly correct solution is to just install more circuits in locations
that need them. Basically instead of the all too common situation of
every receptacle in a room being on a single 15A or 20A they should be
individual circuits or at least two circuits alternated so any given
location is within reach of both circuits.

Noozer wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
Chris Friesen wrote:

Pete C. wrote:

Doing that will also put the two outlets on opposite poles / phases,
giving 240V between the upper and lower hot connections. I'm not sure
how that works with the ratings of the break off tabs on a duplex
receptacle. At any rate a hinky solution at best.

It's called an Edison circuit. It's used all over. There's nothing "hinky"
about it.

No, it is not called an Edison circuit, though it connects to one.
Feeding separate 120V devices from a three wire feed is called an
"Edison circuit", feeding upper and lower halves of a duplex receptacle
from separate legs / phases is not in the definition of an "Edison
circuit".

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , "Pete C." wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

In article , "Pete C."
wrote:

Doing that will also put the two outlets on opposite poles / phases,
giving 240V between the upper and lower hot connections.

So?

I'm not sure
how that works with the ratings of the break off tabs on a duplex
receptacle. At any rate a hinky solution at best.

You're not sure how it works, but you're sure it's a "hinky solution." :-)

Actually, it's a perfectly fine solution.

It's hinky in my book, and I wouldn't wire it that way.

Fine, don't wire it that way -- but don't tell others it's a bad solution,
just because you don't like/understand it.

I understand it, and I recommend against using it in a residential
environment for a good reason.



The truly correct solution is to just install more circuits in locations
that need them. Basically instead of the all too common situation of
every receptacle in a room being on a single 15A or 20A they should be
individual circuits or at least two circuits alternated so any given
location is within reach of both circuits.

How is having two circuits available at alternating receptacles any
improvement over having two circuits available at *every* receptacle?

It avoids having 240V on a device where most people expect only 120V.

So how, exactly, is that an issue? You can't plug a *single* device into both
sockets of a duplex receptacle at once. Each socket has only 120V; that there
is a 240V potential between the two hots is of no relevance whatever.

It has plenty of relevance. See below.


I'm fine with cycling through poles / phases box to box, but I don't
like it within a single box in a residential application where joe bozo
might mess with it. People blow things up with some regularity in
industrial environments with three phase "wild leg" delta service, and
in an industrial environment they're supposed to have a clue. Give joe
bozo homeowner an unexpected red wire in the box and he's likely to blow
stuff up too. I think it's an unnecessary risk in a residential
environment.

I'd love to hear your explanation of how this will "blow stuff up."

It has a decent potential to "blow stuff up", when Joe Bozo homeowner
yanks on the vacuum cleaner cord, cracks the receptacle and goes to
replace it. Joe Bozo homeowner who has no business being in the box to
begin with and doesn't remember which wire went where. I've seen some
pretty screwed up stuff like that and I see no good reason to add this
risk when simply installing a separate box and outlet for the $2.50 will
eliminate that risk.

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 17:34:40 GMT, "Pete C."
wrote:

clare, at, snyder.on.ca wrote:

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:10:22 GMT, (Beachcomber)
wrote:
The key concern is overloads. Both 15 and 20 amp breakers will trip
on direct shorts (if they are working properly).

There is a tradeoff.

20A circuits have a convenience factor with the ability to delivery a
considerable greater amount of power to a given situation. A typical
example today would be a home office with multiple monitors, printers,
computers and accessories in addition to whatever other routine loads
(vacuum cleaners, electric heaters, etc.) are placed on the circuit.

The CORRECT solution to this situation is a split 15 amp circuit.
15 amps to the top outlet, 15 to the bottom. Done by using 14/3 cable
and double breakers. The legal way is a "tied breaker" which means if
you blow one, it trips the other as well. This is to prevent half of
the box being live.
Untied breakers are often used for this reason.

Doing that will also put the two outlets on opposite poles / phases,
giving 240V between the upper and lower hot connections. I'm not sure
how that works with the ratings of the break off tabs on a duplex
receptacle. At any rate a hinky solution at best.

Not "hinkey" Required by code in kitchen countertop applications in
Canada. The breakoff tabs are there for that purpose. You remove them.

The truly correct solution is to just install more circuits in locations
that need them. Basically instead of the all too common situation of
every receptacle in a room being on a single 15A or 20A they should be
individual circuits or at least two circuits alternated so any given
location is within reach of both circuits.

The alleged safety concerns of 18ga lamp cord on a 20A vs. 15A circuit
are pretty much all bunk. The wire is rated at less than half of what
even the 15A circuit is rated at, the 20A circuit introduces no
additional risk. In both cases the circuit breaker properly protects
what it is designed to protect - the wires in the walls. In neither case
is the circuit breaker supposed to be the protection for the lamp cord
and the liklihood of a fault developing in the lamp cord that would trip
a 15A breaker, but not trip a 20A breaker is virtually non existent.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

wrote:

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 00:49:33 GMT, "Pete C."
wrote:

wrote:

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 20:22:38 -0400, "Mike Payne"
wrote:

I guess it's my job to disagree with most of the other posters. 15A
circuits let you work with 14 gauge wire. It is orders of magnitude easier
to wire outlets and lights with 14 rather than 12. I use 12 only for
workshops and kitchens where they might actually be needed.

That makes 2 of us. A friend tried to talk me into using #12 for
everything (as he'd done at his own place). When I told him that the
bulk of the long runs were one light per circuit, and that nearly all
of them would be 12W CFs, he started the "what about the next guy"
angle. Sheesh! If there's a next guy, and if he wants to use 150W
bulbs, and if he thinks that'll stress the #14, then too bad. :-)

Wayne

I have to disagree, I find the "workability" difference between 12 ga
and 14 ga virtually unnoticeable. 2 ga copper is a bit of a pain to deal
with, but much of anything below that is all the same to me.

I don't agree, but even if there was zero workability difference, that
wouldn't be a valid reason to spend even a nickel extra on a 12W
circuit, or any low-power circuit.

That would almost make sense if circuits always remained in the same
usage and with the same loads on them. When someone decides they need to
add something to the circuit or upgrade lighting things can change
dramatically and the 14ga circuit that was feeding the old circular
flouro in the kitchen may suddenly be feeding several halogen populated
cans and a pile of halogen under cabinet and soffit lighting in a
kitchen remodel.

The only half-way reasonable
argument I've heard for using 12 on low-power circuits is that it's
more forgiving of bad workmanship. But anyone who needs that crutch
shouldn't be doing electrical work anyway.

I've never hear that, and can't even fathom the (il)logic behind it.


Lots of people (including me) waste money when they don't need to, but
we shouldn't encourage the newbs to do that. Ask any question on
Usenet, and far more people will tell you to overdo things than
underdo them. If a guy with a normal budget started building a home,
and followed the Usenet consensus on how to do it, he'd probably run
out of money before he finished the foundation. :-)

Perhaps, but I don't think the cost difference is that significant, even
with a complete home since you still can't use 14ga everywhere.

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 17:38:39 -0700, Roy Terry
wrote:

Pete C. wrote:
clare, at, snyder.on.ca wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:10:22 GMT, (Beachcomber)
wrote:
The key concern is overloads. Both 15 and 20 amp breakers will trip
on direct shorts (if they are working properly).

There is a tradeoff.

20A circuits have a convenience factor with the ability to delivery a
considerable greater amount of power to a given situation. A typical
example today would be a home office with multiple monitors, printers,
computers and accessories in addition to whatever other routine loads
(vacuum cleaners, electric heaters, etc.) are placed on the circuit.
The CORRECT solution to this situation is a split 15 amp circuit.
15 amps to the top outlet, 15 to the bottom. Done by using 14/3 cable
and double breakers. The legal way is a "tied breaker" which means if
you blow one, it trips the other as well. This is to prevent half of
the box being live.
Untied breakers are often used for this reason.

Doing that will also put the two outlets on opposite poles / phases,
giving 240V between the upper and lower hot connections. I'm not sure
how that works with the ratings of the break off tabs on a duplex
receptacle. At any rate a hinky solution at best.
I see people below disagree with "hinky". I don't know the term.
However, as the "Joe Blow" guy who messes with outlets occasionally,
I would be quite unhappily surprised to discover by accident that I
could get 220 between some wires on the same outlet. Yikes. Also, I've
got some house intercoms that apparently don't work right when plugged
into "different legs" of the 240. On the other hand, if I were doing it
to my own house, it won't be a surprise so who cares?
(just my 2 cents, etc...)

It's no surprise anyway if you know what you are doing. 3 colours in
the box means their's 220 in there somewhere. Splits will have both
red and black "lives" plus the white "nuetral"


The truly correct solution is to just install more circuits in locations
that need them. Basically instead of the all too common situation of
every receptacle in a room being on a single 15A or 20A they should be
individual circuits or at least two circuits alternated so any given
location is within reach of both circuits.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 00:58:06 GMT, "Pete C."
wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , "Pete C." wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

In article , "Pete C."
wrote:

Doing that will also put the two outlets on opposite poles / phases,
giving 240V between the upper and lower hot connections.

So?

I'm not sure
how that works with the ratings of the break off tabs on a duplex
receptacle. At any rate a hinky solution at best.

You're not sure how it works, but you're sure it's a "hinky solution." :-)

Actually, it's a perfectly fine solution.

It's hinky in my book, and I wouldn't wire it that way.

Fine, don't wire it that way -- but don't tell others it's a bad solution,
just because you don't like/understand it.

I understand it, and I recommend against using it in a residential
environment for a good reason.



The truly correct solution is to just install more circuits in locations
that need them. Basically instead of the all too common situation of
every receptacle in a room being on a single 15A or 20A they should be
individual circuits or at least two circuits alternated so any given
location is within reach of both circuits.

How is having two circuits available at alternating receptacles any
improvement over having two circuits available at *every* receptacle?

It avoids having 240V on a device where most people expect only 120V.

So how, exactly, is that an issue? You can't plug a *single* device into both
sockets of a duplex receptacle at once. Each socket has only 120V; that there
is a 240V potential between the two hots is of no relevance whatever.

It has plenty of relevance. See below.


I'm fine with cycling through poles / phases box to box, but I don't
like it within a single box in a residential application where joe bozo
might mess with it. People blow things up with some regularity in
industrial environments with three phase "wild leg" delta service, and
in an industrial environment they're supposed to have a clue. Give joe
bozo homeowner an unexpected red wire in the box and he's likely to blow
stuff up too. I think it's an unnecessary risk in a residential
environment.

I'd love to hear your explanation of how this will "blow stuff up."

It has a decent potential to "blow stuff up", when Joe Bozo homeowner
yanks on the vacuum cleaner cord, cracks the receptacle and goes to
replace it. Joe Bozo homeowner who has no business being in the box to
begin with and doesn't remember which wire went where. I've seen some
pretty screwed up stuff like that and I see no good reason to add this
risk when simply installing a separate box and outlet for the $2.50 will
eliminate that risk.

That's not a problem with the solution, it's a problem with the
problem - and Joe Bozo is the problem - split circuit or not he's got
about a 90% chance of screwing something up.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com