I am finishing up the basement and have determined that I will need to
add two circuits to the panel to provide for these outlets. My
question is:

Should I install both circuits next too each other (one circuit
breaker above the other in the panel) or skip one place. If I skip one
place, this will allow for both hot leads to be in phase with each
other and eliminate the possibility of ever getting between the two
circuits for a 240 shock as well as a lot less wasted electricity
through the capacitance of the wires being out of phase in the same
conduit ?

Thanks

"sid" wrote in message
...
I am finishing up the basement and have determined that I will need to
add two circuits to the panel to provide for these outlets. My
question is:

Should I install both circuits next too each other (one circuit
breaker above the other in the panel) or skip one place. If I skip one
place, this will allow for both hot leads to be in phase with each
other and eliminate the possibility of ever getting between the two
circuits for a 240 shock as well as a lot less wasted electricity
through the capacitance of the wires being out of phase in the same
conduit ?

Thanks

I think you are thinking way to hard on this. Personally I'd make sure they
were on different legs in the panel. When the meter on my bother-in-law's
house fried a terminal he lost 1/2 the circuits in the house. Most of the
living area was on the dead side of the panel, meaning until he could get an
electrician to repair the meter box most of his house was going to be in the
dark for an entire holiday weekend. We moved a couple circuits to the
other side to give them some lights until the repair could be made.

On 11/8/2009 6:26 PM sid spake thus:

I am finishing up the basement and have determined that I will need to
add two circuits to the panel to provide for these outlets. My
question is:

Should I install both circuits next too each other (one circuit
breaker above the other in the panel) or skip one place. If I skip one
place, this will allow for both hot leads to be in phase with each
other and eliminate the possibility of ever getting between the two
circuits for a 240 shock as well as a lot less wasted electricity
through the capacitance of the wires being out of phase in the same
conduit ?

Both of those concerns--potential shocks from out-of-phase conductors
and capacitance losses--are totally unfounded. Put the breakers wherever
you like; next to each other would make more sense, but if putting them
on the same phase will let you sleep better at night, then do it that way.

Just don't think that your fears have any justification.


--
Who needs a junta or a dictatorship when you have a Congress
blowing Wall Street, using the media as a condom?

- harvested from Usenet

On Nov 8, 11:26*pm, sid wrote:
I am finishing up the basement and have determined that I will need to
add two circuits to the panel to provide for these outlets. *My
question is:

Should I install both circuits next too each other (one circuit
breaker above the other in the panel) or skip one place. If I skip one
place, this will allow for both hot leads to be in phase with each
other and eliminate the possibility of ever getting between the two
circuits for a 240 shock as well as a lot less wasted electricity
through the capacitance of the wires being out of phase in the same
conduit ?

Thanks
..
OP is treating a straightforward job in a complicated manner!

Any 'capacitance loss' is hokey. Also by the way the two hot wires in
a standard domestic North American 3 wire sytem are not actually 'out
of phase'! The two wires are the opposite ends of a single phase 230
volt secondary winding of the distribution transformer. That winding
is centre-tapped to provide the neutral.

At 60 hertz the capacitance coupling between two wires which run
parallel and/or closely together for even several hundred feet is
inconsequential. See note.

As suggested just put em wherever convenient.

Note: Using a typical capacitance per foot for wiring with a much
closer or more intimate association of say 50 micro.microfarads per
foot (that's 50 times 10 to minus 12!); we have for say 100 feet of
wiring 10^2 x 50 x 10 minus 12 = 50 x 10 to minus 10!

At 60 hertz the amount of current that would 'leak' or couple through
that very small amount of capacitance, provided that 'other' wire was
connected and provided a path for the very slight capacitive coupled
current to something, would be infinitesimal an inconsequential.

Now at radio frequencies of say a million hertz such coupling 'might'
be of interest.

On 11/8/2009 10:31 PM terry spake thus:

OP is treating a straightforward job in a complicated manner!

Any 'capacitance loss' is hokey. Also by the way the two hot wires in
a standard domestic North American 3 wire sytem are not actually 'out
of phase'! The two wires are the opposite ends of a single phase 230
volt secondary winding of the distribution transformer. That winding
is centre-tapped to provide the neutral.

You're correct about the capacitance issue, but dead wrong about the
phase thing.

North American domestic power does consist of two opposite ends of a
center (notice spelling) tapped transformer; the two legs are 180° out
of phase, which is about as close to "oppposite" as is possible to get.


--
Who needs a junta or a dictatorship when you have a Congress
blowing Wall Street, using the media as a condom?

- harvested from Usenet

I am finishing up the basement and have determined that I will need to
add two circuits to the panel to provide for these outlets. My
question is:

Should I install both circuits next too each other (one circuit
breaker above the other in the panel) or skip one place. If I skip one
place, this will allow for both hot leads to be in phase with each
other and eliminate the possibility of ever getting between the two
circuits for a 240 shock as well as a lot less wasted electricity
through the capacitance of the wires being out of phase in the same
conduit ?


*If you are feeding the circuits with a three wire cable which share the
neutral, you must have the hot wires on opposite phases. If you are using
two 2 conductor cables you can put the cables on whatever phases that you
want. Ideally you want to balance the load as best as possible so that each
phase has the same amount of current flowing through it.

I'd want the sockets on different legs. It's not common, but
I know of at least two cases where one leg was cold. One
time was AM, when we were about to start church services,
and half the stuff didn't work. Another was after an ice
storm. I was asked about supplying power to a guy's furnace.
The furnace was on the cold leg, as the power co was going
about restoring power.

I don't think the capacitance bit is a big issue.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"sid" wrote in message
...
I am finishing up the basement and have determined that I
will need to
add two circuits to the panel to provide for these outlets.
My
question is:

Should I install both circuits next too each other (one
circuit
breaker above the other in the panel) or skip one place. If
I skip one
place, this will allow for both hot leads to be in phase
with each
other and eliminate the possibility of ever getting between
the two
circuits for a 240 shock as well as a lot less wasted
electricity
through the capacitance of the wires being out of phase in
the same
conduit ?

Thanks

On 11/9/2009 5:10 AM Stormin Mormon spake thus:

I don't think the capacitance bit is a big issue.

It's not even a small issue. It's a non-issue.

You're dealing with very low-frequency AC here, which would require
massive values of capacitance (many many microfarads) for there to be
any measurable effect.


--
Who needs a junta or a dictatorship when you have a Congress
blowing Wall Street, using the media as a condom?

- harvested from Usenet

On Nov 9, 3:36*am, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 11/8/2009 10:31 PM terry spake thus:

OP is treating a straightforward job in a complicated manner!

Any 'capacitance loss' is hokey. Also by the way the two hot wires in
a standard domestic North American 3 wire sytem are not actually 'out
of phase'! The two wires are the opposite ends of a single phase 230
volt secondary winding of the distribution transformer. That winding
is centre-tapped to provide the neutral.

You're correct about the capacitance issue, but dead wrong about the
phase thing.

North American domestic power does consist of two opposite ends of a
center (notice spelling) tapped transformer; the two legs are 180° out
of phase, which is about as close to "oppposite" as is possible to get.

--
Who needs a junta or a dictatorship when you have a Congress
blowing Wall Street, using the media as a condom?

- harvested from Usenet

Sorry David; just because the two ends of a 'single phase' transformer
winding have opposite polarity at any one moment, does not make them
into separate 'phases'. Although the term phase is often (incorrectly)
used for the two legs, A and B, of a domestic single phase electrcity
supply.

And yes at any one moment in time (60 times a second in North America)
the RMS voltages at the two ends will be opposite but 'in' phase. Both
ends will pass through zero at the same point in time and then will
pass through maximum potential of 1.414 times RMS at the same point in
time.

In other words they 'are' in phase or synchronism.

Also if one wants to consider each end with respect to that centre
tap* the 'top' end will peak at +169.7 volts (120 x sq.rt of 2) at
same instant that the 'bottom' end will peak (negative) at -169.7
volts. That's 339.4 peak volts or 240 volts RMS between them.

It is possible to have separate 'phases' as in say a 3 phase
commercial supply. As an example I have a couple of light fixtures
that came from a super market rearrangement. In that case the voltage
between the three separate phases which were truly 'not in phase' but
120 degrees apart, was an effective 347 volts RMS. Not 240 volt or 120
volts.

*BTW: 'Centre' is listed on page 117 of our Webster's dictionary
published by Berkley Publishing, 200 Madison Av. New York. It's the
old "You say tomAtoe and I say tomARto, thing. Eh?

One error/misuse that does aggravate though is 'meter'. The word
'meter' means something that measures, such as voltmeter, barometer,
anemometer, micrometer etc. The correct term for wavelength, the
standard measurment for measurement of length, distance, thickness
etc. is metre, kilometre, millimetre etc. Same with 'litre' come to
think of it.

Also btw have just thought of another way of demonstrating that single
phase definition. Consider a typical two wire 240 volt single phase
domestic supply to most UK homes. One end is live, the other is the
neutral. No centre tap is used. So there is no Leg A and Leg B etc. At
any one point in time the voltage between the two ends are opposite,
one end is going postive or negative with respect to the other. Again
that doesn't make the two ends into separate phases; thay are the
opposite ends of the same phase.

Living in the middle east for a while we did encounter domestic 3
phase supply. The residential circuit breaker panel was in three
sections, one for each phase of the four wire supply. Three pahse
wires and a neutral. The various house loads were distributed among
the three phases using single pole circuit breakers. There were no
actual 3 phase loads. The voltage on each phase with respect to
neutral was 230 volts RMS (50 hertz).

Have also encountered a couple of other weird arrangements; one where
the service to a building was 230 volt RMS, 3 phase 'delta'. with no
'proper' neutral as it were. Instead one of the phases was centre
tapped at the distribution transformer to provide a neutral with
respect to the two adjacent phases. That created some real funny
voltage combinations btween the neutral and the third phase and we had
a couple of regular (but not very formally trained) electricians
scratching their heads until it was explained (in fairly simple terms)
what was going on an thy had to rethink some of their wiring. We
replaced the whole lot later when a 3 phase standby generator was also
installed. For DC and electronics trained guys we learned quite lot
about AC supplies.

Have fun.

On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:51:33 -0800, terry wrote:
Both
ends will pass through zero at the same point in time and then will
pass through maximum potential of 1.414 times RMS at the same point in
time.

I think that's the crucial point, and what a lot of folk forget - well
put.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-phase_electric_power

*BTW: 'Centre' is listed on page 117 of our Webster's dictionary
published by Berkley Publishing, 200 Madison Av. New York. It's the old
"You say tomAtoe and I say tomARto, thing. Eh?

I was surprised when I moved UK-US at how much variation there is in
US spelling and pronunciation for some words, where I'd grown up thinking
there was just one way it was ever done in the US. Technically there
probably is "one correct way", but the diversity is huge.

cheers

Jules

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:55:30 -0800, David Nebenzahl wrote:
F'rinstance, we (US) don't write:

o advertise, amortise ... any other verb forms ending in "-ise"
o coloUr, neighboUr, etc.
o theatre (although this is becoming distressingly more common)
o aluminIum

Yes, the theatre case is one that surprised me, as I seem to see
theater/theatre in equal measure in the US.

I think I once read that 'aluminum' was originally the UK-English
spelling, too, but at some point the UK ended up with the extra 'i'. I've
become used to spelling it without the extra, but it still feels a bit
strange to pronounce it that way!

'buoy' is the one I don't think I'll ever quite get my head around! :-)
(I think I saw somewhere that the US pronunciation derives from French, or
something, which is why it's not pronounced as 'boy' here)

I've seen the
o treating corporations, etc., as plural, rather than singular entities
(e.g., "Stanley do make ...", instead of "Stanley *does* make ...")

That's an interesting one. I think I've seen both ways over in England,
and it's not something I'd ever given much thought to before. I'm not even
sure which I'd naturally use.

People who write this way here are usually guilty of affectation--that
is, trying to fancy-up their writing by making it sound British, which
is, supposedly, more "proper". (What this reveals more than anything, I
contend, is that we colonists still suffer from a massive inferiority
complex, lo these hundreds of years after our separation from the mother
country.)

I'm really not sure there. It is a big country though, and there's a lot
of regional variation in both spelling and terminology. When I first
moved up here to the wilds of MN I kept hearing all these terms and
assuming they were 'American' (i.e. national), only to later hear the
exact same terms that I would have used in England in use elsewhere within
the US.

"mother country" made me smile - the UK's been settled and invaded by so
many groups in the past that I'm not sure anyone could really define what
it means to be 'English' :-)

While I admit that much British usage sounds, to my 'Merkin ear, quaint,
belabored and affected, I do grant them one thing: their "lift" is so
much more succinct and elegant than our mouthful, "elevator".

The strange thing there is that I grew up amongst farming folk in
England, and 'elevator' was always the term for anything that raised
something from one height to another - yet 'lift' is used in the UK when
referring to people. I'm not sure what the reason is for the difference
(although I suppose we talk about forklift trucks, not fork-elevator
trucks, so it's not reserved exclusively for passengers).

cheers

Jules

On 11/10/2009 12:59 PM Jules spake thus:

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:55:30 -0800, David Nebenzahl wrote:

People who write this way here are usually guilty of affectation--that
is, trying to fancy-up their writing by making it sound British, which
is, supposedly, more "proper". (What this reveals more than anything, I
contend, is that we colonists still suffer from a massive inferiority
complex, lo these hundreds of years after our separation from the mother
country.)

I'm really not sure there. It is a big country though, and there's a lot
of regional variation in both spelling and terminology. When I first
moved up here to the wilds of MN I kept hearing all these terms and
assuming they were 'American' (i.e. national), only to later hear the
exact same terms that I would have used in England in use elsewhere within
the US.

MN, huh? I was there a couple of months ago, visiting family. I tried to
annoy my sister as much as possible by trying out my Minnesota accent
(dontcha know, etc.). My favorite phrase: "What a guy would want to do
is ...". That Minnesota accent really is quite a prominent thing, isn't it?

While I admit that much British usage sounds, to my 'Merkin ear, quaint,
belabored and affected, I do grant them one thing: their "lift" is so
much more succinct and elegant than our mouthful, "elevator".

The strange thing there is that I grew up amongst farming folk in

There ya go--we'd *never* say "amongst", unless we're a) trying to
impress our high-school English teacher, or b) trying to impress someone
else. (And don't even get me started on "whilst". I think you have to
whistle while you speak to make that one come out right ...)

England, and 'elevator' was always the term for anything that raised
something from one height to another - yet 'lift' is used in the UK when
referring to people. I'm not sure what the reason is for the difference
(although I suppose we talk about forklift trucks, not fork-elevator
trucks, so it's not reserved exclusively for passengers).

Perhaps similar to the distinction in the UK between "taxi" and "cab",
where over here they're two words for the same thing (or sometimes, just
to make things more confusing, "taxicab").


--
Who needs a junta or a dictatorship when you have a Congress
blowing Wall Street, using the media as a condom?

- harvested from Usenet

On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 23:51:33 -0800 (PST), terry
wrote:


*BTW: 'Centre' is listed on page 117 of our Webster's dictionary
published by Berkley Publishing, 200 Madison Av. New York. It's the
old "You say tomAtoe and I say tomARto, thing. Eh?

TomaRto? You must be thinking of Vince Lombardo and his orchestra.

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:07:09 -0500, mm
wrote:

On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 23:51:33 -0800 (PST), terry
wrote:


*BTW: 'Centre' is listed on page 117 of our Webster's dictionary
published by Berkley Publishing, 200 Madison Av. New York. It's the
old "You say tomAtoe and I say tomARto, thing. Eh?

TomaRto? You must be thinking of Vince Lombardo and his orchestra.

Maybe a "tomaRTo" is a tomato with a small brain added to the middle
:-)

David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 11/10/2009 5:39 AM Jules spake thus:

Well, just for the record, there *are* correct (and incorrect) spellings
for each of the two "peoples separated by a common language" (i.e., the
U.S. and U.K.).

F'rinstance, we (US) don't write:

o aluminIum

An interesting one. AluminIum is consistent with the ending of most
elements that are metals. Any etymologists around?

It would, of course, be just as improper for the reverse to occur
(someone in the UK using US spellings, usages, etc.).

What are you - a communist? Culture is defined by US practice.

--
bud--

bud-- wrote:
David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 11/10/2009 5:39 AM Jules spake thus:

Well, just for the record, there *are* correct (and incorrect)
spellings for each of the two "peoples separated by a common language"
(i.e., the U.S. and U.K.).

F'rinstance, we (US) don't write:

o aluminIum

An interesting one. AluminIum is consistent with the ending of most
elements that are metals. Any etymologists around?
....

Like in that "tin" and "iron", for examples...

--

On 11/11/2009 7:48 AM dpb spake thus:

bud-- wrote:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 11/10/2009 5:39 AM Jules spake thus:

Well, just for the record, there *are* correct (and incorrect)
spellings for each of the two "peoples separated by a common language"
(i.e., the U.S. and U.K.).

F'rinstance, we (US) don't write:

o aluminIum

An interesting one. AluminIum is consistent with the ending of most
elements that are metals. Any etymologists around?
...

Like in that "tin" and "iron", for examples...

.... which actually fall into the "-um" family of elements (as in some
Roman going "Um, what should we call this stuff?").

Tin = stannum
Iron = ferrum
Copper = cuprum
Silver = argentum

etc.


--
Who needs a junta or a dictatorship when you have a Congress
blowing Wall Street, using the media as a condom?

- harvested from Usenet

David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 11/11/2009 7:48 AM dpb spake thus:

bud-- wrote:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 11/10/2009 5:39 AM Jules spake thus:

Well, just for the record, there *are* correct (and incorrect)
spellings for each of the two "peoples separated by a common
language" (i.e., the U.S. and U.K.).

F'rinstance, we (US) don't write:

o aluminIum

An interesting one. AluminIum is consistent with the ending of most
elements that are metals. Any etymologists around?
...

Like in that "tin" and "iron", for examples...

... which actually fall into the "-um" family of elements (as in some
Roman going "Um, what should we call this stuff?").

Tin = stannum
Iron = ferrum
Copper = cuprum
Silver = argentum

....

don't see an "ium" in the lot...

Chill, dood...

--

On 11/11/2009 11:49 AM dpb spake thus:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 11/11/2009 7:48 AM dpb spake thus:

bud-- wrote:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 11/10/2009 5:39 AM Jules spake thus:

Well, just for the record, there *are* correct (and incorrect)
spellings for each of the two "peoples separated by a common
language" (i.e., the U.S. and U.K.).

F'rinstance, we (US) don't write:

o aluminIum

An interesting one. AluminIum is consistent with the ending of most
elements that are metals. Any etymologists around?
...

Like in that "tin" and "iron", for examples...

... which actually fall into the "-um" family of elements (as in some
Roman going "Um, what should we call this stuff?").

Tin = stannum
Iron = ferrum
Copper = cuprum
Silver = argentum

...

don't see an "ium" in the lot...

That was my point exactly.

Chill, dood...

No worries, so long as I get my 5:00 martini ... (which had *better* be
chilled, goddamnit) ...


--
Who needs a junta or a dictatorship when you have a Congress
blowing Wall Street, using the media as a condom?

- harvested from Usenet

On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:13:35 -0600, bud-- wrote:
o aluminIum

An interesting one. AluminIum is consistent with the ending of most
elements that are metals. Any etymologists around?

Actually, turns out I had this one bookmarked, I'd just forgotten about
it:

http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/aluminium.htm

Something of a convoluted history at the very least. I think I'd go by
the IUPAC standardization, I think, which makes 'aluminum' correct in the
US less than 100 years ago.

What are you - a communist? Culture is defined by US practice.

:-) But given how many Chinese there are in the world...

cheers

Jules

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:53:51 -0800, David Nebenzahl wrote:
MN, huh? I was there a couple of months ago, visiting family. I tried to
annoy my sister as much as possible by trying out my Minnesota accent
(dontcha know, etc.). My favorite phrase: "What a guy would want to do
is ...". That Minnesota accent really is quite a prominent thing, isn't it?

Now that's the strange thing - I really haven't noticed. Maybe that's from
growing up in a crowded island where folk are always bumping into a huge
variety of strong accents, much more so than people typically do in the US
due to the size.

I'm finding it harder to differentiate between a 'mild' US accent and a
'mild' UK one these days. My wife (who was born in the US) sometimes
points out that someone's from 'my side of the Pond' and I really hadn't
noticed :-)

There ya go--we'd *never* say "amongst", unless we're a) trying to
impress our high-school English teacher, or b) trying to impress someone
else. (And don't even get me started on "whilst". I think you have to
whistle while you speak to make that one come out right ...)

Heh I really cannot shake using 'whilst'. I try, but it's one of
those words that just won't go away; I'll be typing something or saying
something and kinda think "I should use while here" - but it just sounds
wrong somehow. There are times when 'while' is right and times when
'whilst' is right, but I couldn't tell you for sure what sets the rules...
it's a subtle thing, I guess.

Perhaps similar to the distinction in the UK between "taxi" and "cab",
where over here they're two words for the same thing (or sometimes, just
to make things more confusing, "taxicab").

I'm not sure there - I think I've heard all three in England. Certainly
those old black taxis seen in quaint old British movies set in London
would have been referred to as "black cabs" and "London taxis" in equal
measure when I was a kid. The use of "cab" has probably died out a bit
over there now, though.

cheers

Jules

dpb wrote:
bud-- wrote:
David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 11/10/2009 5:39 AM Jules spake thus:

Well, just for the record, there *are* correct (and incorrect)
spellings for each of the two "peoples separated by a common
language" (i.e., the U.S. and U.K.).

F'rinstance, we (US) don't write:

o aluminIum

An interesting one. AluminIum is consistent with the ending of most
elements that are metals. Any etymologists around?
...

Like in that "tin" and "iron", for examples...

I believe that most (?all?) the exceptions are old names that were in
use long before anyone knew what an "element" was.

==============
Thanks for the reference Jules - interesting.

--
bud--

On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 18:26:58 -0800 (PST), sid
wrote:

I am finishing up the basement and have determined that I will need to
add two circuits to the panel to provide for these outlets. My
question is:

Should I install both circuits next too each other (one circuit
breaker above the other in the panel) or skip one place. If I skip one
place, this will allow for both hot leads to be in phase with each
other and eliminate the possibility of ever getting between the two
circuits for a 240 shock as well as a lot less wasted electricity
through the capacitance of the wires being out of phase in the same
conduit ?

Thanks


Put your added breakers wherever convenient in the panel. Usually I
add a new breakers at the topmost location, maybe looks neater that
way (?)