In article , terry wrote:

Forget the insults. Something (anything) getting hot, as described, IS
NOT SAFE; whatever the reason.

Of course it is -- which is why I told the OP, shortly after he posted this,
to "Call an electrician NOW". I hope he took that advice.

"Twayne" wrote in message
...
In ,
John Grabowski typed:
Hey Guys, I have a double 20 amp breaker that is connected to each
other. I have one side running the kitchen and one side running the
washing machine in the garage. I was told this is a standard
practice, however, I have a portable hot tub that I use in my garage
that I only use when not using the washing machine. The hot tub is
plugged into a GFCI outlet located about 5 feet down the wall off
the washer receptical that was installed before I moved in.

Here is the big problem, I have just noticed a piece of conduit that
comes off the furnace that was buzzing, getting hot and it stopped
after turning off the hot tub, the other day I was running items from
the kitchen and the conduit got so hot it was burning paint off the
wall. I shut off the double 20 amp breaker and it cooled down. It now
gets hot with that breaker off and running a space heater upstairs
that is on another breaker. I have the breaker off on the furnace and
am stumped to what is going on or how this my be wired. The conduit
going to the furnace goes to a junction box on the wall that has some
sort of relay on the top of it. Any help would be great. Thanks


*This is something I would need to see to figure out what is going on.
Obviously there is a problem or perhaps multiple problems. My first
thought is that perhaps the neutral conductor is being overloaded by
having two circuits on the same phase sharing it. I'm thinking that
the two circuits are connected to a twin breaker and not a double
pole.

If it's a ganged breaker set approved for the panel, then it can only
connect to both sides of the line, resulting in 220 between the two output
screws. Two next to each other breakers in almost every panel made will
give the same results.


*The OP said a double breaker. Since he is not an electrican that could
mean a two pole breaker or a twin breaker. A twin breaker has both loads
connected to the same buss and requires separate neutrals. If he has one
neutral for both loads on a twin breaker it can get very hot depending on
the loads and would not trip a breaker.

I agree that a pro is the best way to go, but some people will insist on
doing things themselves. I apologize for trying to be helpful.


That relay might be a transformer for the low voltage control for the
furnace.

You would need to start at one end or the other and identify each
conductor and determine what it is being used for. I would probably
start at the circuit breaker panel. An electrician could do this
faster than you and identify everything that is not safe and code
compliant.
Do you know if the previous homeowner did his own wiring?

With a conduit getting hot you prescribe troubleshooting? Nuh, uh! He
needs a pro and quickly. Else they could be searching thru basement rubble
for keepsakes rather soon.

Twayne
--
We've already reached
tomorrow's yesterday
but we're still far away from
yesterday's tomorrow.

trader4@ wrote
"Twayne" wrote:
fzbuilder typed:

(snips)

If that were true, the same problem would exist with ANY double ganged
breaker, regardless of what it is hooked to.

Yup. I have the top 8 (4 on each side, has a little '30' showing) ganged in
sets of 2.

2/4- Dryer

1/3- Range (once electric, this one now relabeled Garage and runs a 240 for
previous owners power tools, left in 'off' position' except when a few
contractors needed it. Works fine when turned on)

5/7- HVAC

6/8- Old AC (a 240 outlet near the ceiling where once a wall 'whole house
AC' was, also 'off' but tests fine)

Nothing else is ganged but that doesnt mean it's not done but wrongly marked
(which is against code I gather). The few times and electrician worked on
our house though, they've not found any circuits that were not as they
should be, just that some are still older 2 prongs and to fix thse areas of
the house, they need to snake new wires (assume ground which is in place in
part of the house but not all?).

Due to lack of background experience, this is one thing Don and I do not
DIY. There's a time when it's best to get a professional. This is one of
them. We are sure all the bad stuff the Bos'un who owned the house before
us has been removed or *properly* dead ended (electrician used to check
all). What we need to do is fix the remaining ones to 3 prong *properly*
(system ready for it and about 2/3 of the house uses it) then have 4 lines
run to the back porch to properly handle a portion of the now dead ended
outlets out there. Foolish Bos'un had run 19 outlets off only 2 lines on
the back porch. They've been properly detached leaving only 4 correctly
done ones working.

Electrician said we have plenty of excess and don't even need to sub-panel
if that is all we want although that would be very easy. Apparently the
original 100 amp panel (in a bedroom closet, nothing hooked to it now) can
be easily re-vamped in which case he'd re-string all the back porch and
lights across the back of the house off it. What that sub-panel will do
apparently is let him easier (cheaper) add also more outlets to the kitchen
plus properly power even more of the detached 15 back porch outlets.

We are pondering options. No rush. Just looking over where we want new
outlets added (neither bathroom has an outlet).

In ,
typed:
On Dec 25, 10:13 pm, "Twayne" wrote:
,
Stormin Mormon typed:

Hmm. Refuses to go research the subject he's advising. Why
am I not reassured?

It is only the ignorant who decide what has not been displayed to
them or proven in any way. Your opinion does not create fact
regadless of your god-spam.


Twayne, why is it that there is not a single poster in this thread
that agrees with you that an Edison circuit with ganged breakers is
not code compliant? And facing that, why is it that you expect us to
do the simple googling that proves you are wrong. In fact, your
continued ranting and attacks, while handing out dangerous advice,
shows that you're not just wrong, but a complete imbecile.

Reading comprehension problems, huh?

--
--
We've already reached
tomorrow's yesterday
but we're still far away from
yesterday's tomorrow.

In ,
terry typed:
On Dec 25, 10:29 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , "Twayne"
wrote:
,
typed:
On Dec 23, 11:37 pm, terry wrote:
On Dec 24, 12:56 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
And the double pole breakers can (and should) be used with split
receptacles, but NEVER with different circuits physically in
different parts of the house.

Piffle. That is *not* a requirement of the U.S. NEC -- it might
be of the CEC,
I don't know, but it's definitely not a requirement here.

You need to re-read his situation unless you're trolling, too.

There's nothing wrong with running a 3-wire circuit from the
panel to a point some distance away, then splitting it out into
two individual circuits that go
in opposite directions.

On ganged breakers? I can't cite it, but no, that's not allowed.

Of course you can't cite it -- because (a) you don't know anything
about
electricity, (b) you don't know the Code, and (c) it's not a Code
violation.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Forget the insults. Something (anything) getting hot, as described, IS
NOT SAFE; whatever the reason.
And since none of us are there to see/check this either IS a troll or
the OP hasn't bothered to check back.
Almost impossible to diagnose by long distance.
Just hoping if this not a troll there will not be tragedy.

Not only not safe but some possibility electricity is being
expensively wasted! e.g going to ground????

BTW since this thread started we have, in this particular province of
Canada with a population of just over 500,000 persons had one
(electrical they think) fire that rendered a family's house
uninhabitable. Smoke damage etc. also ruined some/most of their
Christmas gifts.

In the meantime in another instance, a few weeks ago, a family who
were building a new home behind their existing but old home in a small
community had a fire (cause unknown but possibly electrical, in the
'old' house ). Following that many members of the community (plumbers,
carpenters, electricians etc.) are there on a volunteer basis over the
Christmas and New Year period helping to finish the new house to a
stage that is habitable. Was on local news with thanks to all those
helping out.

I watch a lot of Canadian TV; sorry I missed those. We get mostly east
coast though and one station from Vancouver is repeated over this way.
Congrats to news media that have the gumption to follow up with good news to
such tragedies.

Twayne
--
--
We've already reached
tomorrow's yesterday
but we're still far away from
yesterday's tomorrow.

In ,
Doug Miller typed:
In article
,
terry wrote:

Forget the insults. Something (anything) getting hot, as described,
IS NOT SAFE; whatever the reason.

Of course it is -- which is why I told the OP, shortly after he
posted this,
to "Call an electrician NOW". I hope he took that advice.

You did, and a few other people followed suit too. Good sense usually
prevails even in the face of trolls & ignorants. It must be the holidays;
normally I just peruse here and hope to learn something new but lately the
quality of several posters is, well, less than functional.
The worst danger I see here is that the OP (neglecting maybe being a
troll) has improperly stated his problem/s and is getting advice about
things other than whatever situation might really exist. I always feel a lot
better when I see an OP come back and say he's getting a pro in. Most of the
ones I know would respond to something like that very, very quickly as in
the same day.

Twayne

--
--
We've already reached
tomorrow's yesterday
but we're still far away from
yesterday's tomorrow.

In ,
John Grabowski typed:
"Twayne" wrote in message
...
In ,
John Grabowski typed:
Hey Guys, I have a double 20 amp breaker that is connected to each
other. I have one side running the kitchen and one side running the
washing machine in the garage. I was told this is a standard
practice, however, I have a portable hot tub that I use in my
garage that I only use when not using the washing machine. The hot
tub is plugged into a GFCI outlet located about 5 feet down the
wall off the washer receptical that was installed before I moved
in. Here is the big problem, I have just noticed a piece of conduit
that comes off the furnace that was buzzing, getting hot and it
stopped after turning off the hot tub, the other day I was running
items from the kitchen and the conduit got so hot it was burning
paint off the wall. I shut off the double 20 amp breaker and it
cooled down. It now gets hot with that breaker off and running a
space heater upstairs that is on another breaker. I have the
breaker off on the furnace and am stumped to what is going on or
how this my be wired. The conduit going to the furnace goes to a
junction box on the wall that has some sort of relay on the top of
it. Any help would be great. Thanks


*This is something I would need to see to figure out what is going
on. Obviously there is a problem or perhaps multiple problems. My
first thought is that perhaps the neutral conductor is being
overloaded by having two circuits on the same phase sharing it. I'm
thinking that the two circuits are connected to a twin breaker
and not a double pole.

If it's a ganged breaker set approved for the panel, then it can only
connect to both sides of the line, resulting in 220 between the two
output screws. Two next to each other breakers in almost every panel
made will give the same results.


*The OP said a double breaker. Since he is not an electrican that
could mean a two pole breaker or a twin breaker. A twin breaker has
both loads connected to the same buss and requires separate neutrals.
If he has one neutral for both loads on a twin breaker it can get
very hot depending on the loads and would not trip a breaker.

I agree that a pro is the best way to go, but some people will insist
on doing things themselves. I apologize for trying to be helpful.

No need to apologize John. You obviously know your stuff pretty well and
you've raised only salient points. I've seen posts from you in the past that
exhibit the same virtues, too. I haven't seen the OP respond anywhere, not
that I blame him now, and except for myself (I don't recall your previous
post; maybe you too) I'm about the only one who tried to allow for
differences in meanings of the OPs descriptions. The number of spoken and
non-spoken problems could well contain many different things due to the lack
of information. I may have made a mistake in that I didn't ASK direct
questions but instead tried to leave responses open ended for him.
For example the hot conduit: It takes a hell of a current to heat conduit,
assuming it's metal and not plastic, which wasn't mentioned but was assumed
to be metal. What length of conduit got hot? Was it just heat transfer from
the furnace? Or was it due to current flow? I kind of doubt current flow,
but ... it's not safe to ignore the possibility. And then the "double
breaker" clarification you pointed out; excellent point as the OP left the
audience to guess again. And then of course you have the egos and
narcissists who crawled out of their hiding places. It's interesting to see
how that happens but I assume it's something to do for them during their
holiday season. Some of them might not be very happy people.
Anyway, I'd think you were one of the last who should be apologizing; you
stayed on track from what I can see and added useful thoughts. Yes, I know
this will bring on more of the egoes and narcy's but they don't bother me. I
simply say what I mean and mean what I say, assuming I don't make too many
typosg.

Cheers,

Twayne`






That relay might be a transformer for the low voltage control for
the furnace.

You would need to start at one end or the other and identify each
conductor and determine what it is being used for. I would probably
start at the circuit breaker panel. An electrician could do this
faster than you and identify everything that is not safe and code
compliant.
Do you know if the previous homeowner did his own wiring?

With a conduit getting hot you prescribe troubleshooting? Nuh, uh!
He needs a pro and quickly. Else they could be searching thru
basement rubble for keepsakes rather soon.

Twayne
--
We've already reached
tomorrow's yesterday
but we're still far away from
yesterday's tomorrow.



--
--
Often you'll find excellent advice on a newsgroup.
Before you use that advice though, consider the
ramifications of it being wrong or even dangerous;
how important IS that to you?
ALWAYS verify and confirm ANY advice from a
newsgroup!

Mmm, I shold probably direct YOU to the reread and who said what. I did not
even come close to using the phrase "Edison Ciruit" until someone magically
inserted it into the thread. Then, since I know such circuits fairly well, I
invited him to clarify which part of Edicon Circuit" he was referring to,
he had nothing to say. That says to me he was parroting something, hoping to
change the subject to an area he could better argue instead of the OPs
issues, which is known to be a tactic of, well, certain types of ng
participants who really don't participate.
It almost worked, too; I wasn't careful enough in my wording back to him
I guess.
I don't anywhere in this thread recall EVER saying that YOU didn't tell
the OP to call a pro, the only logical thing for his apparent expertise
level. If I did, I apologize, because there WERE several posts telling him
to get a pro in. I think I hit Send too soon and had to add mine as a PS,
but I recommended the same thing.
It's often difficult to tell who is responding to whom unless the entire
thread is displayed onscreen, but you seem to have erred.

That's not to say I didn't respond to another part of your post that was in
error; I don't recall it and don't feel it worth looking up the whole
thread. I'd simply respond with the same answer again. When details don't
exist in a post, nothing useful can be gotten from it. It appears that my
attitude was that you lacked an understanding of something in the OP's post
and had stated it more than once, prompting my "if you're too thick"
comment. You can live in the past if you wish, but I prefer to look forward.
If you have something specific you'd like to work out, I'll be OK with that
but otherwise I think our communicatiosn are pretty much at an end here.

Twayne



In ,
Doug Miller typed:
In article , "Twayne"
wrote:

Because you're too thick to understand
the dangers of the OP's situation is your problem, not mine.

Twayne, the more you post on this topic, the more you look like an
idiot. Read
the thread from the very beginning. *My* first post in the thread was
maybe
the third response the OP received -- and the first four words of
that post
are "Call an electrician NOW".

I understand the dangers of the OP's situation just fine -- what you
fail to
understand is that there is no reason at all to suppose that his
problems are
in any way related to an Edison circuit.

Edison ckts are
inherently dangerous to humans working on them

If you knew anything at all about the subject, you would know that's
not true.
Tell me this: if Edison circuits are "inherently dangerous", why are
they
permitted under both the NEC and the CEC?



--
--
Often you'll find excellent advice on a newsgroup.
Before you use that advice though, consider the
ramifications of it being wrong or even dangerous;
how important IS that to you?
ALWAYS verify and confirm ANY advice from a
newsgroup!

In ,
Doug Miller typed:
In article , "Twayne"
wrote:
In ,
Doug Miller typed:
In article , "Twayne"
wrote:
In
,
typed:
On Dec 23, 11:37 pm, terry wrote:
On Dec 24, 12:56 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
And the double pole brakers can (and should) be used with split
receptacles, but NEVER with different circuits physically in
different parts of the house.

Piffle. That is *not* a requirement of the U.S. NEC -- it might
be of the CEC,
I don't know, but it's definitely not a requirement here.

You need to re-read his situatioin unless you're trolling, too.


There's nothing wrong with running a 3-wire circuit from the
panel to a point some distance away, then splitting it out into
two individual circuits that go
in opposite directions.

On ganged breakers? I can't cite it, but no, that's not allowed.

Of course you can't cite it -- because (a) you don't know anything
about electricity, (b) you don't know the Code, and (c) it's not a
Code violation.

Then perhaps you can cite something. Show me an Edison ckt in the
NEC. Or even in your local code books; I'm not fussy.

Here you go. The 2008 NEC is online at
http://nfpaweb3.gvpi.net/rrserver/br...NFPASTD/7008SB

Multiwire branch circuits (aka Edison circuits) are described in
Article 210.4

EXCELLENT link, Doug! I've often searched for a cohesive presentation of the
NEC and never found it; only pieces here & there and those never allow you
to check into the outside references, etc.. I definitely appreciate it as
I'm sure others do and it definitely gives you a top-credibility rating.
It does provide verification, IMO, that one overloaded ckt on one leg and
very light load on the other, under fault conditions on the first leg, could
cause overheating and other unforeseen problems, especially in a miswired
case. In theory equal loads on each leg will result in zero current flow in
the neutral, which is as I understood it.
It does still appear though, that a fault on one leg and little load on
the other could result in substantial current flow, then adding the fault
conditions ... .

These following aren't critical questions at the moment so feel free to
ignore them if you find them intrusive:

1. One thing is confusing however, that you might be able to explain. In
Definitions (100) for Branch Ckt, Multiwire, it states that:
"... branch ckt that consists of two or more ungrounded conductors that have
a voltage between them, and a grounded conductor that has equal voltage
between it and each ungrounded conductor of the ckt and that is connected to
the neutral or grounded conductor of the system"

It _seems_ to say the voltage between the two ungrounded conductors and the
neutral will be at the same potential as the ungrounded connectors? I seem
to have a brain-freeze again! Can you clarify what that means? The
following ref to "neutral or ungrounded conductor of the system" seems to
make no sense then and obviously it has to.

2. I've never actually had my hands on a double pole breaker and Google
hasn't given me the answer to this one: Are the breakers still independent
of each other?
I don't think that makes sense so, assuming I'm right, how is it that an
overload on one isn't affected (delayed, held from tripping) by the force
the other needs to be opened? I thought maybe there was a different internal
structure somehow and they were electonically opened somehow, but I can't
find proof of that either. I did find one page (crecibility unknown) that
said both breakers operated simultaneously, but without internal electronics
of some sort I can't see how the drag from one doesn't affect the other?

Thanks again for the very valuable lead,

Twayne

--
--
Often you'll find excellent advice on a newsgroup.
Before you use that advice though, consider the
ramifications of it being wrong or even dangerous;
how important IS that to you?
ALWAYS verify and confirm ANY advice from a
newsgroup!

In ,
Doug Miller typed:
In article , "Twayne"
wrote:
In ,
Doug Miller typed:
In article , "Twayne"
wrote:
In
,
fzbuilder typed:
Hey Guys, I have a double 20 amp breaker that is connected to each
other. I have one side running the kitchen and one side running
the washing machine in the garage. I was told this is a standard
practice,

110Vac appliances, right?

A "ganged" 20A breaker? If one breaker resets, they both have to,
right? Is that what you mean?
That's what it sounds like and definitely is non-code, NOT
standard practice, and as you're discovering can be dangerous!
Such breakers are intended to provide 220Vac to some piece of
equpiment, NOT as you are using it, to provide two 110Vac lines.

Wrong. Google "Edison circuit". Then stop giving advice on subjects
you're
completely ignorant of.

Don't have to. Everything still stands as written in its entirety.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with using a ganged 20A breaker to
power two 120V circuits -- as you would learn if you took the time to
educate yourself.

Actually, I figured out just a few minutes ago what the discrepencies
between what I'm saying and what you guys are talking about are. I'd left a
voicemail for our local code enforcement officer and decided he wouldn't be
returning calls this late, but he did.
Once we got by his disdain for newsgroups, it turns out that our local
codes forbid the use of multi-wire branches. We're in far upstate NY state.
That does make me feel better since multi-wire branches look and sound, even
though there are advantages to using them, like they are dangerous. He
related the normal set of problems found 'round the 'net and a few others I
hadn't thought of. Apparently they're pretty easy to mis-install 220V or
110V wise; hadn't thought of that. And a few other sundries along the same
lines.
Sometimes I tend to forget that NEC isn't the last word; it's just a bible
of the minimums, so to speak. So your comment to "educate" myself is
backwards: I've been talking about OUR local codes, not specifically the NEC
so I am guilty of using an "over" educated viewpoint. Tim's not exactly a
personal friend but he is a close acquaintance; this is a small rural area.

Regards,

Twayne

--
--
Often you'll find excellent advice on a newsgroup.
Before you use that advice though, consider the
ramifications of it being wrong or even dangerous;
how important IS that to you?
ALWAYS verify and confirm ANY advice from a
newsgroup!

In article , "Twayne" wrote:
EXCELLENT link, Doug! I've often searched for a cohesive presentation of the
NEC and never found it

In that case, you haven't searched very hard; the NEC has been online at least
since the 2002 version, and links have been posted in this newsgroup
repeatedly. Any of the major chain bookstores (Barnes&Noble, Borders, etc)
will have a copy in stock or be able to order one. You can buy it directly
from the NFPA. There are copies on eBay. You can buy it from Amazon.

Since you have as good as admitted that you haven't read it, perhaps you can
understand why nobody takes you seriously when you proclaim your misconceived
notions as fact -- and why I keep telling you to stop giving electrical
advice: you don't know what you're talking about.

; only pieces here & there and those never allow you
to check into the outside references, etc.. I definitely appreciate it as
I'm sure others do and it definitely gives you a top-credibility rating.

Now that you know where the Code is, you no longer have any excuse for not
knowing what it says.

It does provide verification, IMO, that one overloaded ckt on one leg and
very light load on the other, under fault conditions on the first leg, could
cause overheating and other unforeseen problems,

It does nothing of the kind. Overloading either leg will trip the breaker and
disconnect both legs.

especially in a miswired
case.

You mean, *only* if miswired.

In theory equal loads on each leg will result in zero current flow in
the neutral, which is as I understood it.

Correct. Unfortunately, that is the *only* thing you got right.

It does still appear though, that a fault on one leg and little load on
the other could result in substantial current flow, then adding the fault
conditions ... .

It appears that way only because you don't understand how it works. In a
properly wired Edison circuit, the current in the neutral can never exceed the
current in *one* hot leg.

These following aren't critical questions at the moment so feel free to
ignore them if you find them intrusive:

1. One thing is confusing however, that you might be able to explain. In
Definitions (100) for Branch Ckt, Multiwire, it states that:
"... branch ckt that consists of two or more ungrounded conductors that have
a voltage between them, and a grounded conductor that has equal voltage
between it and each ungrounded conductor of the ckt and that is connected to
the neutral or grounded conductor of the system"

Yes....

It _seems_ to say the voltage between the two ungrounded conductors and the
neutral will be at the same potential as the ungrounded connectors?

No, it neither says that, nor "seems to". There is absolutely *nothing* in
that paragraph to indicate, imply, or suggest that. In fact, it means exactly
the opposite: that they will *not* be at the same potential WRT each other as
each is WRT the neutral.

I seem
to have a brain-freeze again! Can you clarify what that means?

One clause at a time:

"branch circuit that consists of two or more ungrounded conductors" = a branch
circuit having two or more hot wires

"with a voltage between them" = each of the hot wires is on a different leg of
the service (if they were on the same leg, there would be no voltage between
them)

"and a grounded conductor" = and a neutral wire

"that has equal voltage between it and each ungrounded conductor of the
circuit" = voltage between the neutral and each hot wire is the same as
between the neutral and every other hot wire

"and that is connected to the neutral or grounded conductor of the system" =
the circuit neutral must be grounded at the panel.

The
following ref to "neutral or ungrounded conductor of the system" seems to
make no sense then and obviously it has to.

And you accuse trader4 of having reading comprehension problems -- !

It doesn't say that. It says "neutral or GROUNDED conductor" -- which makes
perfect sense to anyone who understands residential electrical wiring.

2. I've never actually had my hands on a double pole breaker

Yet you consider yourself competent to comment on what types of circuits may
or may not be used with them, and the relative safety thereof.

Amazing. Simply amazing.

and Google
hasn't given me the answer to this one: Are the breakers still independent
of each other?

No, of course not. They are mechanically connected with a handle tie; some
also are connected internally ("internal common trip"). If they were
independent, it wouldn't be a double-pole breaker. It would be two single-pole
breakers.

I don't think that makes sense so, assuming I'm right, how is it that an
overload on one isn't affected (delayed, held from tripping) by the force
the other needs to be opened?

It trips with ample force to bring the other one along with it, even if the
only connection is an external tie.

Move a breaker handle from the 'off' position to the 'on' position; notice how
much force you have to apply to it. Now nudge it from 'on' to 'tripped' -- see
how easy that was, and how forcefully it snaps over? More than enough to
trip a second handle tied to it.

I thought maybe there was a different internal
structure somehow and they were electonically opened somehow, but I can't
find proof of that either. I did find one page (crecibility unknown) that
said both breakers operated simultaneously,

I guess that depends on what kind of time lag you would consider
"simultaneous". In the case of an internal common trip, they would in fact
trip simultaneously. With an external handle tie, there must be some tiny lag
due to mechanical play in the connection, but it's very small.

but without internal electronics
of some sort I can't see how the drag from one doesn't affect the other?

The effect is minuscule.

Thanks again for the very valuable lead,

Like I said -- now that you know where the Code is, you no longer have any
excuse for being ignorant of it, or dispensing clueless advice that
contradicts it.

On Dec 25, 1:38*pm, "Twayne" wrote:
,
fzbuilder typed:

Hey Guys, I have a double 20 amp breaker that is connected to each
other. I have one side running the kitchen and one side running the
washing machine in the garage. I was told this is a standard practice,

110Vac appliances, right?

A "ganged" 20A breaker? If one breaker resets, they both have to, right? Is
that what you mean?
* That's what it sounds like and definitely is non-code, NOT standard
practice, and as you're discovering can be dangerous! *Such breakers are
intended to provide 220Vac to some piece of equpiment, NOT as you are using
it, to provide two 110Vac lines. If I'm right AND it's installed properly,
the right one for you box, etc, then you will measure 220Vac between the two
breaker hots, which is its intended use.

So if one breaker is overloaded and tries to break, it's going to try to
take the other breaker with it, right? *That's where it becomes DANGEROUS!
If one breaker starts to heat up due to overload, it can't break the ckt
because the other breaker ganged to it is holding it closed, especially if
it's nice and cool. *So who knows how high the overload will have to get
before that overloaded breaker can overcome the non-overloaded breaker and
open, carrying the other one along with it. *Or IF it can even do so period?
It's possible the overloaded breaker never will be able to overcome the
holding power of the other one, and maybe never open up but simply keep on
providing power until something burns open. As you are seeing. *This could
not happen if it were a 220Vac appliance having the problem and it were
wired properly and to code.

It's easy enough to fix, IF the overloaded breaker hasn't been ruined by the
overloads! *Just remove the pin/screw, whatever that gangs the levers
together and allow them to operate on their own.
* *A much better fix would be to replace the ganged breaker set with two
single breakers, since you're using them for 110Vac anyway. *If you need
220Vac, THEN use a ganged breaker, and ONLY for the 220 equipment.

however, I have a portable hot tub that I use in my garage that I only
use when not using the washing machine. The hot tub is plugged into a
GFCI outlet located about 5 feet down the wall off the washer
receptical that was installed before I moved in.

Irrelevant, but; isn't the hot tub 220V? *Is this a case of mixing 110 and
220 on a ganged breaker? *Ouch! *Don't do that.



Here is the big problem, I have just noticed a piece of conduit that
comes off the furnace that was buzzing, getting hot and it stopped
after turning off the hot tub, the other day I was running items from
the kitchen and the conduit got so hot it was burning paint off the
wall. I shut off the double 20 amp breaker and it cooled down. It now
gets hot with that breaker off and running a space heater upstairs
that is on another breaker. I have the breaker off on the furnace and
am stumped to what is going on or how this my be wired. The conduit
going to the furnace goes to a junction box on the wall that has some
sort of relay on the top of it. Any help would be great. Thanks

If I've understood you properly, that's all explained by the preceding info
about ganged vs non-ganged breakers.

I hope you'll keep us advised,

Twayne

--
We've already reached
tomorrow's yesterday
*but we're still far away from
*yesterday's tomorrow.

Hi Twayne, thanks to you all for your advice. I am having an
electrician on Monday come out if I can't fix this. I have figured out
now that the junction box on the wall that has the conduit going to
the furnace is actually where the 115v comes in and ties off to the
furnace which is 115v. The little transformer on the front of the
junction box is for the door bell. I killed the power to the furnace
(which is on its own breaker) and the (2) 20 amp breakers that is
branched together and opened the box. My meter measured 0 volts. I hit
the breaker and got 115v so I felt confident this my power. I killed
the power and un-tied everything in the box and went around with my
meter and got 0v. I flipped back on the (2) 20amp breaker and re-
measured and still got 0. I went and turned on my hot tub (120v) and
then the box started buzzing and then the conduit started getting hot
again. I double checked that this is the only power source to my
furnace. So I turned off the hot tub. Went back measuring everything
and 0v. I am getting 2.4volt when I read the incoming neutral to
ground. Is that normal? I then proceed to to start to undo the
conduit from the top of the box on there was a spark . I am now
getting convinced this box is somehow screwed in the wall shorting
other wires going down the wall. Anything else to look for? I will
undo the pole connecting the (2) 20amp breakers as I am sure you right
that one can't pull the other and it should be tripping a breaker. I
will be keeping both breakers off till I get the guy out so stop with
call the guy yesterday please. I am the type that likes to figure
stuff out like a lot of us, but I will admit I am stumped.

In article , "Twayne" wrote:
Mmm, I shold probably direct YOU to the reread and who said what. I did not
even come close to using the phrase "Edison Ciruit" until someone magically
inserted it into the thread.

True -- you described one, without knowing what it was called, and said that
double-pole breakers weren't supposed to be used "to provide two 110 vac
lines" (which is absolutely false).

Then, since I know such circuits fairly well,

!!!

In another post, you say you've never actually had your hands on a double-pole
breaker -- so how in the world do you know *anything* about an Edison
circuit??

[snip]
I don't anywhere in this thread recall EVER saying that YOU didn't tell
the OP to call a pro,

No, you said I was "too thick to understand the dangers of the OP's
situation". Since my *very first* post in the thread said "Call an electrician
NOW", it should be obvious -- even to you -- that I very clearly understand
"the dangers of the OP's situation".

the only logical thing for his apparent expertise
level. If I did, I apologize, because there WERE several posts telling him
to get a pro in. I think I hit Send too soon and had to add mine as a PS,
but I recommended the same thing.
It's often difficult to tell who is responding to whom unless the entire
thread is displayed onscreen, but you seem to have erred.

I don't have any trouble keeping track of who's responding to whom....

That's not to say I didn't respond to another part of your post that was in
error;

ROTFLMAO!

I'm the one who responded to *your* posts that were in error, not the other
way around.

I don't recall it and don't feel it worth looking up the whole
thread. I'd simply respond with the same answer again. When details don't
exist in a post, nothing useful can be gotten from it.

The details are there -- you just weren't paying attention.

It appears that my
attitude was that you lacked an understanding of something in the OP's post
and had stated it more than once, prompting my "if you're too thick"
comment.

And, as noted, it's glaringly obvious to anyone with an even rudimentary
ability to comprehend written English that I understand very clearly that the
OP's situation is quite dangerous.

You can live in the past if you wish, but I prefer to look forward.
If you have something specific you'd like to work out, I'll be OK with that
but otherwise I think our communicatiosn are pretty much at an end here.

Our communication will continue as long as you continue to dispense dangerous
and factually incorrect advice.

Twayne



In ,
Doug Miller typed:
In article , "Twayne"
wrote:

Because you're too thick to understand
the dangers of the OP's situation is your problem, not mine.

Twayne, the more you post on this topic, the more you look like an
idiot. Read
the thread from the very beginning. *My* first post in the thread was
maybe
the third response the OP received -- and the first four words of
that post
are "Call an electrician NOW".

I understand the dangers of the OP's situation just fine -- what you
fail to
understand is that there is no reason at all to suppose that his
problems are
in any way related to an Edison circuit.

Edison ckts are
inherently dangerous to humans working on them

If you knew anything at all about the subject, you would know that's
not true.
Tell me this: if Edison circuits are "inherently dangerous", why are
they
permitted under both the NEC and the CEC?

"fzbuilder" wrote
"Twayne" wrote:

A "ganged" 20A breaker? If one breaker resets, they both have to, right?
Is
that what you mean?
That's what it sounds like and definitely is non-code, NOT standard

because the other breaker ganged to it is holding it closed, especially if

FZ, nice to see you are safe. Now keep safe and use the electricial. Twayne
here is really FAR off the bat.

It's possible the overloaded breaker never will be able to overcome the
holding power of the other one, and maybe never open up but simply keep on

Guffaw. Dangerous but funny stuff even *I* know better than.

Hi Twayne, thanks to you all for your advice. I am having an
electrician on Monday come out if I can't fix this. I have figured out

Electrician please and just turn off the hot tub and unplug. There's
something wrong but Twayne's advice is down right dangerous. Even the others
said get an electrician in. If not sure what a 'ganged circuit' is or how
to test it, this aint time to die learning how based on newsgroup nitwits
ok?

In article , "Twayne" wrote:
In ,
Doug Miller typed:
In article , "Twayne"
wrote:
In ,
Doug Miller typed:
In article , "Twayne"
wrote:
In
,
fzbuilder typed:
Hey Guys, I have a double 20 amp breaker that is connected to each
other. I have one side running the kitchen and one side running
the washing machine in the garage. I was told this is a standard
practice,

110Vac appliances, right?

A "ganged" 20A breaker? If one breaker resets, they both have to,
right? Is that what you mean?
That's what it sounds like and definitely is non-code, NOT
standard practice, and as you're discovering can be dangerous!
Such breakers are intended to provide 220Vac to some piece of
equpiment, NOT as you are using it, to provide two 110Vac lines.

Wrong. Google "Edison circuit". Then stop giving advice on subjects
you're
completely ignorant of.

Don't have to. Everything still stands as written in its entirety.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with using a ganged 20A breaker to
power two 120V circuits -- as you would learn if you took the time to
educate yourself.

Actually, I figured out just a few minutes ago what the discrepencies
between what I'm saying and what you guys are talking about are. I'd left a
voicemail for our local code enforcement officer and decided he wouldn't be
returning calls this late, but he did.
Once we got by his disdain for newsgroups, it turns out that our local
codes forbid the use of multi-wire branches. We're in far upstate NY state.
That does make me feel better since multi-wire branches look and sound, even
though there are advantages to using them, like they are dangerous.

Only to the uninformed.

He
related the normal set of problems found 'round the 'net and a few others I
hadn't thought of. Apparently they're pretty easy to mis-install 220V or
110V wise; hadn't thought of that. And a few other sundries along the same
lines.

Nonsense -- they're almost impossible to mis-install, if you use the right
equipment. (And you said this is a type of circuit you "know well".)

BTW -- it hasn't been 220/110 in the United States for a loooooong time. It's
been 240/120 for at least the last 25 or 30 years.

Sometimes I tend to forget that NEC isn't the last word;

The NEC which you haven't read because you haven't been able to find it
anywhere...

it's just a bible
of the minimums, so to speak. So your comment to "educate" myself is
backwards: I've been talking about OUR local codes, not specifically the NEC
so I am guilty of using an "over" educated viewpoint.

No, you are guilty of using an ignorant, uninformed, uneducated viewpoint. You
stated, repeatedly, that Edison circuits are dangerous. That, quite simply, is
false. And that has nothing to do with national vs. local codes. That's an
issue only of truth vs. falsehood. There is nothing inherently dangerous about
a properly installed Edison circuit, your uninformed delusions to the contrary
notwithstanding.

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 00:40:52 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , "Twayne" wrote:
In ,
Doug Miller typed:
In article , "Twayne"
wrote:
In ,
Doug Miller typed:
In article , "Twayne"
wrote:
In
,
fzbuilder typed:
Hey Guys, I have a double 20 amp breaker that is connected to each
other. I have one side running the kitchen and one side running
the washing machine in the garage. I was told this is a standard
practice,

110Vac appliances, right?

A "ganged" 20A breaker? If one breaker resets, they both have to,
right? Is that what you mean?
That's what it sounds like and definitely is non-code, NOT
standard practice, and as you're discovering can be dangerous!
Such breakers are intended to provide 220Vac to some piece of
equpiment, NOT as you are using it, to provide two 110Vac lines.

Wrong. Google "Edison circuit". Then stop giving advice on subjects
you're
completely ignorant of.

Don't have to. Everything still stands as written in its entirety.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with using a ganged 20A breaker to
power two 120V circuits -- as you would learn if you took the time to
educate yourself.

Actually, I figured out just a few minutes ago what the discrepencies
between what I'm saying and what you guys are talking about are. I'd left a
voicemail for our local code enforcement officer and decided he wouldn't be
returning calls this late, but he did.
Once we got by his disdain for newsgroups, it turns out that our local
codes forbid the use of multi-wire branches. We're in far upstate NY state.
That does make me feel better since multi-wire branches look and sound, even
though there are advantages to using them, like they are dangerous.

Only to the uninformed.

He
related the normal set of problems found 'round the 'net and a few others I
hadn't thought of. Apparently they're pretty easy to mis-install 220V or
110V wise; hadn't thought of that. And a few other sundries along the same
lines.

Nonsense -- they're almost impossible to mis-install, if you use the right
equipment. (And you said this is a type of circuit you "know well".)

BTW -- it hasn't been 220/110 in the United States for a loooooong time. It's
been 240/120 for at least the last 25 or 30 years.

Actually you are wrong too. It is by definition 115/230 and in reality
USUALLY from 115 to 117 per side.

Sometimes I tend to forget that NEC isn't the last word;

The NEC which you haven't read because you haven't been able to find it
anywhere...

it's just a bible
of the minimums, so to speak. So your comment to "educate" myself is
backwards: I've been talking about OUR local codes, not specifically the NEC
so I am guilty of using an "over" educated viewpoint.

No, you are guilty of using an ignorant, uninformed, uneducated viewpoint. You
stated, repeatedly, that Edison circuits are dangerous. That, quite simply, is
false. And that has nothing to do with national vs. local codes. That's an
issue only of truth vs. falsehood. There is nothing inherently dangerous about
a properly installed Edison circuit, your uninformed delusions to the contrary
notwithstanding.

Properly installed is the key - and in areas with mandatory electrical
inspection MOST are properly installed and not an issue.

In areas WITHOUT mandatory inspections, the chance of having an
improperly installed "edison circuit" improves dramatically, and
improperly installed, they CAN be dangerous - so the safest way to
handle it in those areas has been deemed to make them illegal.

In article , wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 00:40:52 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

BTW -- it hasn't been 220/110 in the United States for a loooooong time. It's
been 240/120 for at least the last 25 or 30 years.

Actually you are wrong too. It is by definition 115/230 and in reality
USUALLY from 115 to 117 per side.

Guess again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mains_p...ound_the_world

lists both Canada and the U.S. as 120/240.

[snip]

Properly installed is the key - and in areas with mandatory electrical
inspection MOST are properly installed and not an issue.

In areas WITHOUT mandatory inspections, the chance of having an
improperly installed "edison circuit" improves dramatically, and
improperly installed, they CAN be dangerous - so the safest way to
handle it in those areas has been deemed to make them illegal.

*Any* circuit is potentially dangerous if not installed properly. The problem
isn't with Edison circuits -- it's with incompetent installers.

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 00:05:58 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , "Twayne" wrote:
Mmm, I shold probably direct YOU to the reread and who said what. I did not
even come close to using the phrase "Edison Ciruit" until someone magically
inserted it into the thread.

True -- you described one, without knowing what it was called, and said that
double-pole breakers weren't supposed to be used "to provide two 110 vac
lines" (which is absolutely false).

Then, since I know such circuits fairly well,

!!!

In another post, you say you've never actually had your hands on a double-pole
breaker -- so how in the world do you know *anything* about an Edison
circuit??


Perhaps he is familiar with them in a "fused" panel? My house has at
least 3 "edison circuits" and not a single breaker, ganged or
otherwise. What it DOES have is double fuse "pullouts" which. by the
way, can NOT be accidentally installed so that both circuits are on
the same "leg" of the service.
Unfortuneately, in the vast majority of breaker panels, improper
installation is VERY easy, resulting in the situation where the
neutral carries twice (actually the sum of) the individual circuit
current when both circuits are loaded.

When installed this way - they ARE dangerous.

Our local code, last time I checked, allowed "edison" circuits ONLY
for "split" receptacles, and those "split" receptacles were restricted
to a single area. IE, one "edison circuit" could feed (split) kitchen
countertop receptacles and, for instance, an over counter light IN THE
KITCHEN, but could not be extended to the bathroom next to the
kitchen.

A ganged breaker (or fuse pullout) can also be used on a non-edison
circuit to act as a "disconnect" to either a sub-panel or to 2
circuits serving a particular area/function for safety or convenience
purposes. For example, to kill ALL power to a basement, a garage, a
shed, or a particular room which is served by 2 circuits.
In this application it would be perfectly legal and safe to have the 2
circuits on the same "leg" (note I do not refer to them as "phases")
of the service.
[snip]

In article , wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 00:05:58 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , "Twayne"
wrote:
Mmm, I shold probably direct YOU to the reread and who said what. I did not
even come close to using the phrase "Edison Ciruit" until someone magically
inserted it into the thread.

True -- you described one, without knowing what it was called, and said that
double-pole breakers weren't supposed to be used "to provide two 110 vac
lines" (which is absolutely false).

Then, since I know such circuits fairly well,

!!!

In another post, you say you've never actually had your hands on a double-pole
breaker -- so how in the world do you know *anything* about an Edison
circuit??


Perhaps he is familiar with them in a "fused" panel? [snip]

His other posts make it abundantly clear he isn't familiar with them at all.

When installed this way - they ARE dangerous.

Our local code, last time I checked, allowed "edison" circuits ONLY
for "split" receptacles, and those "split" receptacles were restricted
to a single area. IE, one "edison circuit" could feed (split) kitchen
countertop receptacles and, for instance, an over counter light IN THE
KITCHEN, but could not be extended to the bathroom next to the
kitchen.

I believe that's not just "local code" for you -- I'm pretty sure that's
required by the CEC. Here in the U.S., though, the NEC does not apply such
restrictions to their use.

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 03:24:59 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 00:40:52 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

BTW -- it hasn't been 220/110 in the United States for a loooooong time. It's
been 240/120 for at least the last 25 or 30 years.

Actually you are wrong too. It is by definition 115/230 and in reality
USUALLY from 115 to 117 per side.

Guess again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mains_p...ound_the_world

lists both Canada and the U.S. as 120/240.
Well, I monitor the voltage on my home office power as well as at a
customer site and it is very consistent at 115-117 volts at both
sites. Has been for years. This is in urban Waterloo Ontario and
Kitchener Ontario.

Also virtually every motor or electrical device sold in North America
for residential use is rated at 115 or 230 volts.
In industrial and large multi unit residential applications with 3
phase power it is 120/208. Virtually everywhere else in Ontario, at
least, it is 115/230 single phase.

BC Hydro specifies voltage to be within the limits of 110 to 125
volts. That is a range of 15 volts, with a center "target" voltage of
117.5


[snip]

Properly installed is the key - and in areas with mandatory electrical
inspection MOST are properly installed and not an issue.

In areas WITHOUT mandatory inspections, the chance of having an
improperly installed "edison circuit" improves dramatically, and
improperly installed, they CAN be dangerous - so the safest way to
handle it in those areas has been deemed to make them illegal.

*Any* circuit is potentially dangerous if not installed properly. The problem
isn't with Edison circuits -- it's with incompetent installers.

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 03:39:27 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 00:05:58 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , "Twayne"
wrote:
Mmm, I shold probably direct YOU to the reread and who said what. I did not
even come close to using the phrase "Edison Ciruit" until someone magically
inserted it into the thread.

True -- you described one, without knowing what it was called, and said that
double-pole breakers weren't supposed to be used "to provide two 110 vac
lines" (which is absolutely false).

Then, since I know such circuits fairly well,

!!!

In another post, you say you've never actually had your hands on a double-pole
breaker -- so how in the world do you know *anything* about an Edison
circuit??


Perhaps he is familiar with them in a "fused" panel? [snip]

His other posts make it abundantly clear he isn't familiar with them at all.

When installed this way - they ARE dangerous.

Our local code, last time I checked, allowed "edison" circuits ONLY
for "split" receptacles, and those "split" receptacles were restricted
to a single area. IE, one "edison circuit" could feed (split) kitchen
countertop receptacles and, for instance, an over counter light IN THE
KITCHEN, but could not be extended to the bathroom next to the
kitchen.

I believe that's not just "local code" for you -- I'm pretty sure that's
required by the CEC. Here in the U.S., though, the NEC does not apply such
restrictions to their use.
There are a lot of things that are not allowed in Canada when it
comes to safety. CSA approved means more stringent requirements than
UL, for instance.

Americans shout "socialism" and "tea party" when the government sticks
their noses into their everyday lives. Up here we have resigned
ourselves to the fact that the "nanny state" is here to stay, and many
of us are better off for it, regardless how bad it sometimes tastes.

Our BANKING industry is also much more closely regulated - for which I
am also thankfull this last year or so.

wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 03:24:59 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 00:40:52 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:
BTW -- it hasn't been 220/110 in the United States for a loooooong time. It's
been 240/120 for at least the last 25 or 30 years.
Actually you are wrong too. It is by definition 115/230 and in reality
USUALLY from 115 to 117 per side.
Guess again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mains_p...ound_the_world

lists both Canada and the U.S. as 120/240.
Well, I monitor the voltage on my home office power as well as at a
customer site and it is very consistent at 115-117 volts at both
sites. Has been for years. This is in urban Waterloo Ontario and
Kitchener Ontario.

Also virtually every motor or electrical device sold in North America
for residential use is rated at 115 or 230 volts.
In industrial and large multi unit residential applications with 3
phase power it is 120/208. Virtually everywhere else in Ontario, at
least, it is 115/230 single phase.

BC Hydro specifies voltage to be within the limits of 110 to 125
volts. That is a range of 15 volts, with a center "target" voltage of
117.5


FWIW, as I sit here in Austin, Texas, the power line monitor in front of
me indicates that we're getting 122.8 volts from the local utility.
When it's hot (i.e. when the air conditioning load is high) that can
drop quite a bit. I think a nominal 117.5 is pretty close to right
for the median.

[snip]

Properly installed is the key - and in areas with mandatory electrical
inspection MOST are properly installed and not an issue.

In areas WITHOUT mandatory inspections, the chance of having an
improperly installed "edison circuit" improves dramatically, and
improperly installed, they CAN be dangerous - so the safest way to
handle it in those areas has been deemed to make them illegal.
*Any* circuit is potentially dangerous if not installed properly. The problem
isn't with Edison circuits -- it's with incompetent installers.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "Twayne" wrote:

I don't think that makes sense so, assuming I'm right, how is it that an
overload on one isn't affected (delayed, held from tripping) by the force
the other needs to be opened?

It trips with ample force to bring the other one along with it, even if the
only connection is an external tie.

Move a breaker handle from the 'off' position to the 'on' position; notice how
much force you have to apply to it. Now nudge it from 'on' to 'tripped' -- see
how easy that was, and how forcefully it snaps over? More than enough to
trip a second handle tied to it.


Nice answers to some bizarre misinformation. I would disagree only that
if you have multiple breakers with a handle tie, one breaker tripping
will not necessarily trip the other breaker. The NEC requirement (if I
remember right) is for a common disconnect, not a common trip.

The common disconnect requirement was added in the 2008 NEC (or possibly
2005). Before that an edison circuit could have independent (and
separated) breakers. AFCI requirements do effectively limit edison
circuit usage.

Circuit breakers are "trip free". What you do with the handle )like
propping it with a 2x4) does not keep the breaker from tripping normally.


I thought maybe there was a different internal
structure somehow and they were electonically opened somehow, but I can't
find proof of that either. I did find one page (crecibility unknown) that
said both breakers operated simultaneously,

I guess that depends on what kind of time lag you would consider
"simultaneous". In the case of an internal common trip, they would in fact
trip simultaneously. With an external handle tie, there must be some tiny lag
due to mechanical play in the connection, but it's very small.


Multiple pole breakers (not just a handle tie) do have a common
*mechanical* trip and all poles will trip together.

--
bud--

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article
, terry
wrote:

Forget the insults. Something (anything) getting hot, as described, IS
NOT SAFE; whatever the reason.

Of course it is -- which is why I told the OP, shortly after he posted
this,
to "Call an electrician NOW". I hope he took that advice.

Now posting at alt.engineering.electrical instead...

In article , wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 03:24:59 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 00:40:52 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

BTW -- it hasn't been 220/110 in the United States for a loooooong time.
It's
been 240/120 for at least the last 25 or 30 years.

Actually you are wrong too. It is by definition 115/230 and in reality
USUALLY from 115 to 117 per side.

Guess again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mains_p...ound_the_world

lists both Canada and the U.S. as 120/240.
Well, I monitor the voltage on my home office power as well as at a
customer site and it is very consistent at 115-117 volts at both
sites. Has been for years. This is in urban Waterloo Ontario and
Kitchener Ontario.

And what comes into your house must there be the standard. :-)

Also virtually every motor or electrical device sold in North America
for residential use is rated at 115 or 230 volts.

Not true.

A quick random sample of half a dozen of my portable power tools and kitchen
appliances shows five marked "120V" and one marked "120V only". In fact, the
only thing I could find in the house that's marked for 115 is an electric
clock that to my certain knowledge is _at least_ forty years old.

In industrial and large multi unit residential applications with 3
phase power it is 120/208. Virtually everywhere else in Ontario, at
least, it is 115/230 single phase.

And therefore it's the same everywhere?

In article , bud-- wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "Twayne"
wrote:

I don't think that makes sense so, assuming I'm right, how is it that an
overload on one isn't affected (delayed, held from tripping) by the force
the other needs to be opened?

It trips with ample force to bring the other one along with it, even if the
only connection is an external tie.

Move a breaker handle from the 'off' position to the 'on' position; notice
how
much force you have to apply to it. Now nudge it from 'on' to 'tripped' --
see
how easy that was, and how forcefully it snaps over? More than enough to
trip a second handle tied to it.


Nice answers to some bizarre misinformation. I would disagree only that
if you have multiple breakers with a handle tie, one breaker tripping
will not necessarily trip the other breaker.

Perhaps you'd like to explain how it's possible for one handle of a pair tied
together to move from the on to the tripped position, while the other member
of that tied pair remains in the on position...? :-)

The NEC requirement (if I
remember right) is for a common disconnect, not a common trip.

There's no practical difference.

The common disconnect requirement was added in the 2008 NEC (or possibly
2005).

2008 -- and way past time, too, IMHO.

9snip]

BTW -- it hasn't been 220/110 in the United States for a loooooong time. It's
been 240/120 for at least the last 25 or 30 years.

Actually you are wrong too. It is by definition 115/230 and in reality
USUALLY from 115 to 117 per side.

I've heard 110, 115, 117, 118, 120, and 125 for one side. What I
measure here is almost exactly 120 (it drops as low as 118 sometimes).
I seem to remember reading it was 100 at one time.

Older people often say 110 and 220. I will when I'm talking to them,
otherwise I sway 120 and 240.

[snip]
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us

"How could you ask me to believe in God when there's
absolutely no evidence that I can see?" -- Jodie Foster

On Dec 26, 11:56*am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , terry wrote:

Forget the insults. Something (anything) getting hot, as described, IS
NOT SAFE; whatever the reason.

Of course it is -- which is why I told the OP, shortly after he posted this,
to "Call an electrician NOW". I hope he took that advice.

Thanks Doug.

I'd hate to live with some of wiring described in this thread!
'Splitting apart a breaker etc.' on a circuit with 230 volt wiring!
Sheesh!!!!**

Reading between the lines, of the OP, one suspects something is
seriously overloaded (e.g. hot tub with big 230 volt electric heaters
and pumps etc.) maybe tacked on to an existing circuit and somebody
dangerously adding larger breakers? But that's not Edison circuit
outlets; AIUI?

BTW: First learnt they were called 'Edison' circuits on this news
group many years ago.
But had wired them before that; especially in our first house (1960).

We did it to obtain greater capacity from many of our duplex outlet
circuits and to allow the possibility of adding small (less that 1500
watt) auxiliary heaters later. Back then power was not reliable and we
depended then on a oil fired heater that did not require electrcity to
run. Fifteen years later and now today the power is extremely reliable
has no brown-outs and is almost 100% water power generated a few
hundred miles away. That first house still in use without electrical
problems to it's fourth owner. This current house (1970s) is all-
electric.

We recently rewired a relatives garage. He has provided himself with
120 and and 230 volt outlets and with separate 230 volt outlets/
circuits for a small welder and a compressor. On advice from his work
mates, who include industrial electricians, he has provided a sub/pony
circuit breaker panel in the garage fed from the main house panel via
(IIRC) a 60 amp breaker and has the properly sized wiring and breakers
in the sub panel.

We also improved the garage ceiling lighting (leaving that on entirely
separate breakers) and well below limits for #14 AWG 15 amp along with
door opener); still wired in same manner as house was bought. Lights
will stay on even if the 'working' sub panel were to trip.

** Which reminds me; we printed up and attached a warning label other
day because discovered in this house we have one box that has the live
wires from 'two different breakers in it'! Must investigate but seems
to have the wiring for some 115 volt outlets on one breaker and a 230
volt heater via wall thermostat from another breaker also. Will also
put wire into separate boxes asap. Do this because someone other than
myself may unwittingly work on that box some day!

On Dec 27, 10:37*am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 03:24:59 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 00:40:52 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

BTW -- it hasn't been 220/110 in the United States for a loooooong time.
It's
been 240/120 for at least the last 25 or 30 years.

Actually you are wrong too. It is by definition 115/230 and in reality
USUALLY from 115 to 117 per side.

Guess again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mains_p...ound_the_world

lists both Canada and the U.S. as 120/240.
Well, I monitor the voltage on my home office power as well as at a
customer site and it is very consistent at 115-117 volts at both
sites. Has been for years. *This is in urban Waterloo Ontario and
Kitchener Ontario.

And what comes into your house must there be the standard. :-)



Also virtually every motor or electrical device sold in North America
for residential use is rated at 115 or 230 volts.

Not true.

A quick random sample of half a dozen of my portable power tools and kitchen
appliances shows five marked "120V" and one marked "120V only". In fact, the
only thing I could find in the house that's marked for 115 is an electric
clock that to my certain knowledge is _at least_ forty years old.

In industrial and large multi unit residential applications with 3
phase power it is 120/208. Virtually everywhere else in Ontario, at
least, it is 115/230 single phase.

And therefore it's the same everywhere?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What are the USA and Canadian limits for voltage variation from a
nominal of say 117 volts?

For exam[ple:
Using 117v as a base;
Minus 5% = 111.15 (say 112v RMS)
Plus 10% = 128.70 (say 129v RMS)

And as mentioned in some installations the higher voltage can be
either 230/115 volt (Usually domestically) or 208/115 (most likely
commercially and/or from 3 phase supply).

We have electric baseboard heaters that came, marked; 1200 watts at
230 volts, 970 watts at 208 volts. (The V squared divided by R = W
thing)

On Dec 27, 2:29*pm, terry wrote:
On Dec 27, 10:37*am, (Doug Miller) wrote:





In article , wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 03:24:59 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 00:40:52 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

BTW -- it hasn't been 220/110 in the United States for a loooooong time.
It's
been 240/120 for at least the last 25 or 30 years.

Actually you are wrong too. It is by definition 115/230 and in reality
USUALLY from 115 to 117 per side.

Guess again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mains_p...ound_the_world

lists both Canada and the U.S. as 120/240.
Well, I monitor the voltage on my home office power as well as at a
customer site and it is very consistent at 115-117 volts at both
sites. Has been for years. *This is in urban Waterloo Ontario and
Kitchener Ontario.

And what comes into your house must there be the standard. :-)

Also virtually every motor or electrical device sold in North America
for residential use is rated at 115 or 230 volts.

Not true.

A quick random sample of half a dozen of my portable power tools and kitchen
appliances shows five marked "120V" and one marked "120V only". In fact, the
only thing I could find in the house that's marked for 115 is an electric
clock that to my certain knowledge is _at least_ forty years old.

In industrial and large multi unit residential applications with 3
phase power it is 120/208. Virtually everywhere else in Ontario, at
least, it is 115/230 single phase.

And therefore it's the same everywhere?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What are the USA and Canadian limits for voltage variation from a
nominal of say 117 volts?

For exam[ple:
Using 117v as a base;
Minus 5% *= 111.15 (say 112v RMS)
Plus *10% *= 128.70 (say 129v RMS)

And as mentioned in some installations the higher voltage can be
either 230/115 volt (Usually domestically) or 208/115 *(most likely
commercially and/or from 3 phase supply).

We have electric baseboard heaters that came, marked; 1200 watts at
230 volts, *970 watts at 208 volts. (The V squared divided by R = W
thing)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

BTW. Further to this discussion about higher mains supply voltages and
permissible limits for variations these days; the topic has come up
often in another news group that deals with vintage radio restoration
etc.
The more consistently higher voltages these days can have an impact on
older radios that were operated back when on, say 115 volts or less.
But which today often face 120 or higher.
Again (for simplicity) doing the V squared business, the difference
between say 113 volts and say 120 volts is almost a 13% increase (plus
one sixth!) in power and therefore additional heat within an old
radio.
The radio restorers therefore use their expertise and various means to
either further protect (extra fuses etc) and/or to reduce voltage to
protect the older equipment components.

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 00:36:40 -0600, cjt
wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 03:24:59 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 00:40:52 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:
BTW -- it hasn't been 220/110 in the United States for a loooooong time. It's
been 240/120 for at least the last 25 or 30 years.
Actually you are wrong too. It is by definition 115/230 and in reality
USUALLY from 115 to 117 per side.
Guess again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mains_p...ound_the_world

lists both Canada and the U.S. as 120/240.
Well, I monitor the voltage on my home office power as well as at a
customer site and it is very consistent at 115-117 volts at both
sites. Has been for years. This is in urban Waterloo Ontario and
Kitchener Ontario.

Also virtually every motor or electrical device sold in North America
for residential use is rated at 115 or 230 volts.
In industrial and large multi unit residential applications with 3
phase power it is 120/208. Virtually everywhere else in Ontario, at
least, it is 115/230 single phase.

BC Hydro specifies voltage to be within the limits of 110 to 125
volts. That is a range of 15 volts, with a center "target" voltage of
117.5


FWIW, as I sit here in Austin, Texas, the power line monitor in front of
me indicates that we're getting 122.8 volts from the local utility.
When it's hot (i.e. when the air conditioning load is high) that can
drop quite a bit. I think a nominal 117.5 is pretty close to right
for the median.


And right now, Sunday afternoon of a mild "holiday" weekend with no
industrial power usage, and very little heating requirement (compared
to average for this time of year) my power in Waterloo Ontario is
sitting at a relatively high 117.6 volts RMS

[snip]

Properly installed is the key - and in areas with mandatory electrical
inspection MOST are properly installed and not an issue.

In areas WITHOUT mandatory inspections, the chance of having an
improperly installed "edison circuit" improves dramatically, and
improperly installed, they CAN be dangerous - so the safest way to
handle it in those areas has been deemed to make them illegal.
*Any* circuit is potentially dangerous if not installed properly. The problem
isn't with Edison circuits -- it's with incompetent installers.

In article , terry wrote:

The more consistently higher voltages these days can have an impact on
older radios that were operated back when on, say 115 volts or less.
But which today often face 120 or higher.
Again (for simplicity) doing the V squared business, the difference
between say 113 volts and say 120 volts is almost a 13% increase

No, it's not. It's an increase of 6.19%.

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 13:37:09 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 03:24:59 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 00:40:52 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

BTW -- it hasn't been 220/110 in the United States for a loooooong time.
It's
been 240/120 for at least the last 25 or 30 years.

Actually you are wrong too. It is by definition 115/230 and in reality
USUALLY from 115 to 117 per side.

Guess again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mains_p...ound_the_world

lists both Canada and the U.S. as 120/240.
Well, I monitor the voltage on my home office power as well as at a
customer site and it is very consistent at 115-117 volts at both
sites. Has been for years. This is in urban Waterloo Ontario and
Kitchener Ontario.

And what comes into your house must there be the standard. :-)

Also virtually every motor or electrical device sold in North America
for residential use is rated at 115 or 230 volts.

Not true.

A quick random sample of half a dozen of my portable power tools and kitchen
appliances shows five marked "120V" and one marked "120V only". In fact, the
only thing I could find in the house that's marked for 115 is an electric
clock that to my certain knowledge is _at least_ forty years old.

In industrial and large multi unit residential applications with 3
phase power it is 120/208. Virtually everywhere else in Ontario, at
least, it is 115/230 single phase.

And therefore it's the same everywhere?

My US built 4 year old Tempstar furnace says for 115 volts AC
operation.. One of my (2 way) radio power supplies says 117 volt AC
in..
My compressor motor says 115/230 volts AC. (it is a year old).
My Beam central vaccum says 115 volts.
My stereo pre-amp says 117 volts AC.
Heck, my model train transformer says 117 volts. Then most of my
computer stuff says 84 - 240 volts AC or 100-240 VAC.

My experience is that 20 years ago, average voltage around here was
much higher than it is today. 117 was low, and 123 was not uncommon.
For the last 5-10 years if I see 120, it is high. 117 is common, and
as low as 114 is certainly not unheard of.

My central air unit says 230 VAC.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , terry wrote:

The more consistently higher voltages these days can have an impact on
older radios that were operated back when on, say 115 volts or less.
But which today often face 120 or higher.
Again (for simplicity) doing the V squared business, the difference
between say 113 volts and say 120 volts is almost a 13% increase

No, it's not. It's an increase of 6.19%.

I think a visit to the electrical engineering and/or calculus books
might be in order. Remember that the issue is power rather than
just voltage.

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 19:07:49 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , terry wrote:

The more consistently higher voltages these days can have an impact on
older radios that were operated back when on, say 115 volts or less.
But which today often face 120 or higher.
Again (for simplicity) doing the V squared business, the difference
between say 113 volts and say 120 volts is almost a 13% increase

No, it's not. It's an increase of 6.19%.
An increase of 6.19% in voltage from 113 is 120 vots, but the
increase in POWER would be at least 13% because the resistance stays
the same, so when the voltage goes up, the current also goes up, and
the power is the product of the two.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "Twayne" wrote:
In ,
Mikepier typed:
First, make sure you do not have 20A breakers on 14 guage wire. If you
do, change them to 15A breakers now. Thats what could be causing your
conduit to get hot.
Hot conduit is NOT a sign of wrong amperage breakers! Hot conduit means
there is a LOT of current trying to find earth ground!

Actually, it's much more likely to mean hysterisis heating.

Huh? As in magnetic? What's being magnetized?

But you wouldn't
know that. Stick to giving advice on subjects you know something about (if
there are any). This isn't one of them.

cjt wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "Twayne"
wrote:
In
,
Mikepier typed:
First, make sure you do not have 20A breakers on 14 guage wire. If you
do, change them to 15A breakers now. Thats what could be causing your
conduit to get hot.
Hot conduit is NOT a sign of wrong amperage breakers! Hot conduit
means there is a LOT of current trying to find earth ground!

Actually, it's much more likely to mean hysterisis heating.

Huh? As in magnetic? What's being magnetized?

The OP mentioned loosening the conduit fitting and getting a spark.
That says to me that the conduit is carrying current.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

In article , lid wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article
, terry
wrote:

The more consistently higher voltages these days can have an impact on
older radios that were operated back when on, say 115 volts or less.
But which today often face 120 or higher.
Again (for simplicity) doing the V squared business, the difference
between say 113 volts and say 120 volts is almost a 13% increase

No, it's not. It's an increase of 6.19%.

I think a visit to the electrical engineering and/or calculus books
might be in order. Remember that the issue is power rather than
just voltage.

Right, my fault -- I was just looking at the voltage. Sorry. Brain fart.

In article , lid wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "Twayne"
wrote:
In ,
Mikepier typed:
First, make sure you do not have 20A breakers on 14 guage wire. If you
do, change them to 15A breakers now. Thats what could be causing your
conduit to get hot.
Hot conduit is NOT a sign of wrong amperage breakers! Hot conduit means
there is a LOT of current trying to find earth ground!

Actually, it's much more likely to mean hysterisis heating.

Huh? As in magnetic? What's being magnetized?

The conduit, of course -- pretty easy to happen when the hot wire of a circuit
is inside a metal conduit, and the neutral isn't, or vice versa.

In article , Nate Nagel wrote:
cjt wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "Twayne"
wrote:
In
,
Mikepier typed:
First, make sure you do not have 20A breakers on 14 guage wire. If you
do, change them to 15A breakers now. Thats what could be causing your
conduit to get hot.
Hot conduit is NOT a sign of wrong amperage breakers! Hot conduit
means there is a LOT of current trying to find earth ground!

Actually, it's much more likely to mean hysterisis heating.

Huh? As in magnetic? What's being magnetized?

The OP mentioned loosening the conduit fitting and getting a spark.
That says to me that the conduit is carrying current.

It could be an induced current.