wrote:
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.

I've always looked at the disparate voltage ratings on the various
pieces of equipment I've stumbled across in my lifetime to be the
reference point for the current and wattage specifications. There
has to be a reference point if that makes any sense to you. "This
is a 500 watt widget." "Oh yea, at what voltage?" When I look at a
piece of gear and see the voltage/wattage spec, I always know for
sure without any calculation if the facilities are going to be able
to power it. The stuff adds up, since I've done a lot of primary
and backup generator work, I automatically think of surge and motor
start loads also. So many times I have to argue with someone who
wants to plug in 3 refrigerators and 2 freezers on the same circuit
because the nameplates show 3 amps. ARGGGGG!

TDD

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.

nate

So you meant resistance heating?

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 14:41:38 -0500, 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.

nate
One reason why I am dead against using EMT as a safety ground.

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 20:19:31 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

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.
And you are claiming 60 hz induction heating will make that conduit
hot???

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 20:20:28 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

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.
In a parallel conductor (conduit) totally surrounding the load
current? where you have both conductors of a circuit running parallel
to each other inside the same conduit????

I'd like to see that work.

On Dec 27, 4:29*pm, wrote:
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 volts, 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.

Yes; accept the correction. It's a VOLTAGE increase (difference) of
6.19%
Making the assumption that the resistance (or AC impedance) remains
the same the WATTAGE will increase by approx. 13%. That should have
been fairly obvious?

But the way one often explains it to the technically challenged is to
first ask; "If the voltage was say 120 volts and is then doubled to
240 volts, how much more CURRENT will flow (assuming all other circuit
components remain unchanged)?

The answer is obviously "Twice as much". One then says '' Well with
twice the voltage and twice the current there will be four times power
(wattage). Right?". (2 times volts) x (2 times amps) = 4 times volt-
amps.

That usually gets them thinking and it's then possible to explain the
simple math derivation from Ohm's law that Voltage squared divided by
Resistance = Power (wattage).

And suggest then; so what would happen if the voltage increased by say
ten percent? The answer is about 20%. i.e. 1.1 x 1.1 = 1.21 (i.e.
Twenty one per-cent power increase)!

But I've met electricians who can wire a dream but must understand
basic electircity in a manner different to one's own!

Doug Miller wrote:
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 handle of a breaker does not have to move to a tripped position when
a breaker trips. If there is enough force (as from another breaker) the
handle can stay in the on position. Breakers are "trip free" (which you
edited out).

As a matter of experience, handle-tied breakers do not always both open
if one is tripped by overload. Some brands might.

You can handle-tie 3 breakers for 3 phase circuits. I would expect them
to be less likely to all trip.

I would not rely on handle-tied breakers to all trip open. If you want a
reliable trip of all poles use a multi-pole breaker instead of a handle tie.


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

There's no practical difference.

"Common disconnect" means that when the breaker is *manually* turned off
all breakers are opened. (The language is "simultaneously disconnect".)

"Common trip" means if one breaker trips by *overload* both breakers open.

They are not the same.

Handle-tied breakers are necessarily "common disconnect". They may or
may not be "common trip".

--
bud--

wrote:

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.

But its that funny Canadian stuff.

The explanation I have heard is 120/240V is the nominal supply voltage
(at the service). And 115/230V is the nominal voltage at equipment
(after voltage drop). (Would be interesting where 117V comes from.)

The NEC says to use 120/240 for calculations. The values for current in
the NEC motor tables are for 115/230V.

IMHO arguments about what is "correct" are useless.

--
bud--

In article , wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 20:20:28 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

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.
In a parallel conductor (conduit) totally surrounding the load
current? where you have both conductors of a circuit running parallel
to each other inside the same conduit????

That, my friend, is assuming facts not in evidence. That the conduit gets hot
enough to burn paint (as the OP stated) is strongly suggestive that both
conductors of the circuit are *not* in fact "running parallel to each other
inside the same conduit". If they *are*, then of course there would be no
heating. Given the apparent mess that is the OP's wiring, and given his
confused description of it, I should say there's no reason whatever to assume
that the circuit was installed correctly with both conductors inside the same
conduit.

I'd like to see that work.

In article , wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 20:19:31 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

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.
And you are claiming 60 hz induction heating will make that conduit
hot???

60Hz works for induction cooktops, doesn't it??

On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 02:08:24 -0600, bud--
wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:
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 handle of a breaker does not have to move to a tripped position when
a breaker trips. If there is enough force (as from another breaker) the
handle can stay in the on position. Breakers are "trip free" (which you
edited out).

As a matter of experience, handle-tied breakers do not always both open
if one is tripped by overload. Some brands might.

Any that passes CSA approval WILL. Don't know about the lame US
regualatory bodies.

You can handle-tie 3 breakers for 3 phase circuits. I would expect them
to be less likely to all trip.

I would not rely on handle-tied breakers to all trip open. If you want a
reliable trip of all poles use a multi-pole breaker instead of a handle tie.


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

There's no practical difference.

"Common disconnect" means that when the breaker is *manually* turned off
all breakers are opened. (The language is "simultaneously disconnect".)

"Common trip" means if one breaker trips by *overload* both breakers open.

They are not the same.

Handle-tied breakers are necessarily "common disconnect". They may or
may not be "common trip".

On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 02:12:10 -0600, bud--
wrote:

wrote:

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.

But its that funny Canadian stuff.

Made in the "good old USA" back in the day when USA still HAD
industry.

The explanation I have heard is 120/240V is the nominal supply voltage
(at the service). And 115/230V is the nominal voltage at equipment
(after voltage drop). (Would be interesting where 117V comes from.)

The NEC says to use 120/240 for calculations. The values for current in
the NEC motor tables are for 115/230V.

IMHO arguments about what is "correct" are useless.

On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 09:54:26 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 20:19:31 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

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.
And you are claiming 60 hz induction heating will make that conduit
hot???

60Hz works for induction cooktops, doesn't it??
Nope. Induction cooktops use a very high frequency inverter circuit.

wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 20:20:28 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

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.
In a parallel conductor (conduit) totally surrounding the load
current? where you have both conductors of a circuit running parallel
to each other inside the same conduit????

I'd like to see that work.

Me, too.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 20:19:31 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

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.
And you are claiming 60 hz induction heating will make that conduit
hot???

60Hz works for induction cooktops, doesn't it??

Once it's converted to 25 KHz +/- :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_cooker

On Dec 28, 11:32*am, cjt wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 20:19:31 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "Twayne"
wrote:
,
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.
And you are claiming 60 hz induction heating will make that conduit
hot???

60Hz works for induction cooktops, doesn't it??

Once it's converted to 25 KHz +/- :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_cooker

Had an electrician out today....the problem was a hot and a ground
were fused together inside the panel and a bad breaker. looks like the
panel was getting some water in it and making some wires rot. Thanks
guys

Well, since I've a little time, I guess I'll have to help you understand the
English Language and perhaps a little comprehension assistance too.


In ,
Doug Miller typed:
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.


Sure, links have been posted online as available from the sites you
mentioned and many more. I have on the shelf here the 2005 book which
serves well yet but is outdated of course in some areas, plus I think it's
the 2003 rev; I can't quite make out the writing on the binding.
I said I searched for the NEC, NOT for a "book on the NEC" or the "NEC
book", etc..
I use it so seldom anymore now I'm retired that paying for it again isn't
something I want to do anymore. Normally I can find pieces of it scattered
around the 'net to satisfy my needs, should they come up, so that suffices
for insuring the latest developments.
I've always thought it was something that should be reproduced on the
web anyway, and until very recently haven't come across it in full. It's
been quite awhile now since I've bothered to look for it, but I've come
across at least 3 sources for it now: One the NFPA presentation ala yours,
another a micro-fiche scan put online and a third that looks like it might
be illegally placed so I don't expect it to be there long.
What's really needed is an online searchable database or file so lookups
are made more efficient. And before you go off on how "they" deserve to be
paid for it, I disagree: Anything akin to rules & regulations belongs on the
'net ala the FCC and other Fed documents such as CFRs etc., state rules &
regs, even local gvt rules & regs. Most are online with the exception of
small local governments and that's pretty much understandable due to the
cost of equipment to maintain such things. Hmm, just thought of another
possible source of the NEC; I'll have to take a look at it. If anyone cares
I'll post back if it's there.


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.

I could not care less what you think; you do appear to be narcissistic and
to have trolish tendencies though, as your posts show quite clearly IMO.
So, NO, I hadn't read the 2008 NEC; you're right. And I thanked you for
the links to which you had nothing but a trollish response. I knew there
were changes since the 2005 but couldn't get a clear and concise explanation
of them w/r to your Edison toys.
Your childish attempts at redirecting and otherwise changing the subject
are lost on me as are anyone else's. It's blatantly apparent that you often
cut loose on subjects you know nothing about in fact, as evidenced by your
suppositions above. Now it's apparent you go off on self-serving crusades
and hope to issue directives to people that are downright silly to begin
with and useless to boot. If you want more control, you'll have to go to a
monitored group or forums on the subject.


; 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.

And for dumping your credibility rating into the toilet, on top of a few
other things. It's easy to have a few links one can provide; making proper
use of them is another story. The para 10.4 reference was nearly useless;
however, other parts were useful for the subject, and I have to wonder if
you are/were even aware of them.

It's rather telling too, the way you rant as though not having read the 2008
NEC and asking questions about it here were a mortal sin, only because you
have it yourself. I even picked up a bunch of info on the 2009 proposals
and status; hope you have too, else you're one gigantic ass, using your own
methodology.


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.

Boy, you're really challenged in reading comprehension, aren't you? You
can't see the "under fault conditions" in that sentence? Or is it that you
don't know the scope of the phrase "fault condition"? I don't really care;
it's just one more example of your inability to function properly.


especially in a miswired
case.

You mean, *only* if miswired.

No, I meant especially in a miswired case. Where did I say there was an
alternative case? It means, especially in the case of a miswire, ... .


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.

But in reality it's seldom the case. With ganged breakers, balanced currents
would be the only way one breaker wouldn't be influenced by the other. It's
funny, and strange, that you missed the other breaker types that could have
been used. Turned out to not require a lot of research to pin it down for my
self and get my head around them. Thus I have to assume you simply decided
not to part with such information, OR you don't know the specifics of
how/why they trip.


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.

No, it appears that way because it actually IS that way.

In a
properly wired Edison circuit, the current in the neutral can never
exceed the
current in *one* hot leg.

I never said it could. There's that reading comprehension issue again.

You love the phrase "Edison Circuit", don't you? Stuck in a rut?

snipped no longer trusted nor of any interest drivel question/responses

=============

Couldn't send this due to a storm apparently killing our avaialable routes
out of here and still had a little time left. I went out to the shop, fired
up the genset, and grabbed a couple of 15A breakers with holes in the levers
to toggle them together.
First I tested each one, using two DC power supplies tied togther via
diodes. I used DC because I wanted the current limiting abilities of my
power supplies.
One breaker tripped at about 15.9A, the other one at 16.3A, with long-term
loads applied. I was limited to 20A total, less whatever the diodes & supply
specs dictated, and I covered them with a plexiglas box to contain the heat.
By themselves, they tripped rather readily and strongly once they got hot
enough long enough.
Then I installed a GenRad bar (they're from a GenRad panel) and tied the
two levers together. Very little slop, but some; you could feel it.
Applying Common mode current, they tripped at around 16.7 Amps; don't
know the time, I wasn't there when they popped.
While they were still warm, I removed the current thru one breaker and
set my meters to max I and flipped the power on. It measured out at about
19.25 Amps on both my Triplett and Radio Shack Special. I've no scope so I
wasn't able to view the waveforms from the supplies, but ... DC is pretty
much DC.
The breaker gave an initial jump after about 20 seconds, but didn't open
and after about 1 1/2 minutes, jumped again, trying to open. Long story
short, it still hadn't opened after about ten minutes. My poor power
supplies were starting to smell hot, so I suspended the test.
Perhaps a sudden surge of many more amps would have created a satisfactory
event where it popped both breakers open, but at least in this test, it was
never able to overcome the other breaker's resistance. It took very little
added physical pressure on the lever to pop it, but still, it didn't open on
its own.
I then reversed the connections, intending to use the opposite breaker as
the driver, and the genset ran out of gas!! I quit!
This has turned into a real curiousity fest for me now. I have a couple
huge wire-wound rheostats that might take the current I need; I'm going to
check. Then I could use 120Vac and perhaps the spare 20A breakers from my
own existing panel. I might even pop for a couple of the other type
breakers too; it seems there's more here than meets the eye. If the test
results so far hold, that makes it pretty dangerous to use a ganged breaker
in place of the other type, whose name escapes me at the moment. Also,
everyting I've found on ganged breakers so far indicates they're intended to
have equivalent loads on each side, which intimates not using them for
multi-branch ckts. If my spare time will hold out, that is.

Enjoy;

Twayne

....

Had an electrician out today....the problem was a hot and a ground
were fused together inside the panel and a bad breaker. looks like the
panel was getting some water in it and making some wires rot. Thanks
guys

Hoo, mercy! Glad you're still kicking around! That pretty much explains
everything. Sure good that no one got hurt in the tub! Thanks for coming
back with the solution.

Twayne



--
--
Cats land on their feet.
but Toast lands PB side down;
A cat glued to some jelly toast will
hover in quantum indecision forever.

In article , "Twayne" wrote:
Well, since I've a little time, I guess I'll have to help you understand the
English Language and perhaps a little comprehension assistance too.


In ,
Doug Miller typed:
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.


Sure, links have been posted online as available from the sites you
mentioned and many more. I have on the shelf here the 2005 book which
serves well yet but is outdated of course in some areas, plus I think it's
the 2003 rev; I can't quite make out the writing on the binding.
I said I searched for the NEC, NOT for a "book on the NEC" or the "NEC
book", etc..

If you pay more attention when you read, you won't make yourself look like
such a fool.

I said *nothing* about "book[s] on the NEC". I told you where you can get
_the NEC_. Sources include libraries, eBay, Amazon, and major bookstores.

Do I need to look up the ISBN for you too?

[snip a lot of irrelevant garbage -- none of which changes the fact that you
haven't the least idea how multiwire branch circuits work, or what the Code
provides]

Now that you know where to get a copy of the Code, you no longer have any
excuse for not knowing what it says.

In ,
typed:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 02:08:24 -0600, bud--
wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:
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 handle of a breaker does not have to move to a tripped position
when
a breaker trips. If there is enough force (as from another breaker)
the handle can stay in the on position. Breakers are "trip free"
(which you edited out).

As a matter of experience, handle-tied breakers do not always both
open
if one is tripped by overload. Some brands might.

Any that passes CSA approval WILL. Don't know about the lame US
regualatory bodies.

UL 1459, its successor, and CSA are the same on these points. What's
important in reading them is "properly installed" w/r to their "purpose".
Ganged breakers are expected to have the same current in each leg; thus they
don't impede each other. Using a ganged breaker in a split or multi-
situation would be an improper application. All breakers and fuses are
specced and include a time-chart of current vs time for opening so that
makes it obvious too.

Cheers,

Twayne


You can handle-tie 3 breakers for 3 phase circuits. I would expect
them
to be less likely to all trip.

I would not rely on handle-tied breakers to all trip open. If you
want a reliable trip of all poles use a multi-pole breaker instead
of a handle tie.


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

There's no practical difference.

"Common disconnect" means that when the breaker is *manually* turned
off all breakers are opened. (The language is "simultaneously
disconnect".)

"Common trip" means if one breaker trips by *overload* both breakers
open.

They are not the same.

Handle-tied breakers are necessarily "common disconnect". They may or
may not be "common trip".



--
--
Cats land on their feet.
but Toast lands PB side down;
A cat glued to some jelly toast will
hover in quantum indecision forever.

In ,
typed:
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.

The US Grid (PSC etc) say it's 120/240 +- 5% and 60 Hz nominal over, I
think, 24 hours. THOSE are the specs used transformers outputs. Not in that
range? There is a problem or you're in a brownout/overvoltage mode at the
grid. The misnomers come from a time when different areas of the country
actually did have various nominal voltages such as 115, 117, 120, etc.

--
--
Cats land on their feet.
but Toast lands PB side down;
A cat glued to some jelly toast will
hover in quantum indecision forever.

In ,
cshenk typed:
"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.

Nope, not at all. You must have a comprehension issue, too. That means you
don't get the proper meaning out of the words you read, in case it's too
tekkie for you.


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.

Definitely so with a ganged breaker, which you snipped. It's been proven
physically in fact.



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?

So did I, you poor non-comprehending dufus. It's easy to make unsupported
statements. Like, I'm not so sure you ever even graduated from grade school.
Maroon is definitely your color.

--
--
Cats land on their feet.
but Toast lands PB side down;
A cat glued to some jelly toast will
hover in quantum indecision forever.

In ,
Doug Miller typed:
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.

Oh yeah? And I suppose you totally ignore your local ordinances, don't you?
I have to wonder if you didn't get dinged for it, too since you consider it
such a great, wonderful thing and assumed on your own that it's what the OP
had. You become more of a dunce with every post I see of yours. You're a
real troll, I guess.


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".)

Nonsense is right; it's extremely easy to misinstall something; I've seen it
time after time and luckily always caught it but - it's amazing the kinds of
mistakes even electricians can make. They work drunk, hung over and worse
sometimes, especially in Chgo when we lived there. I had one inspector out
to get one guy fired at one install. Hmm, that wasn't you, was it?


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.

I never said that wasn't so. People commonly refer to several different
numbers they see on their equipment. You're a myopic egotist from the look
of it; you post just to see yourself in writing.

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...

See, there's your assumptions again, and stated as a fact this time, which
makes it a lie. So now you're a liar, on top of everything else. You're
getting to be fun.


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.

No, it's not false; you are seriously misinformed of the dangers of such
circuits. This is an exposure of an ignorance that plummets your credibility
even further than it has been. Such a ckt could only ever be "safe" if it
could never develop a fault; which it can, on top of miswiring and other
possibilities you'd know if you actually knew much about it. Knowing a buzz
word doesn't make you an expert in any way. Look it up.

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.

Until a fault arises. Neutral pops off a stressed outlet with a poor
mechanical connect, improperly protected by a ganged breaker, etc. etc.
etc.. It's much more dangerous than other ckts given even the same faults
in many instances. Your ignorance must really be bliss. ALL of the
following make perfect sense and come from the first page of google hits.
Audiophiles just abhor them!

http://www.phy.ornl.gov/divops/ESH/98-2.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_neutral
http://www.mikeholt.com/technical.ph...hrough%20 240
http://www.equitech.com/articles/enigma.html

http://www.mikeholt.com/technical.ph...hrough%20 240

Twayne
--
--
Cats land on their feet.
but Toast lands PB side down;
A cat glued to some jelly toast will
hover in quantum indecision forever.

In ,
Doug Miller typed:
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.

No, the opportunties for such ckt is exponentially above the others.

--
--
Cats land on their feet.
but Toast lands PB side down;
A cat glued to some jelly toast will
hover in quantum indecision forever.

"Twayne" wrote

Nope, not at all. You must have a comprehension issue, too. That means
you don't get the proper meaning out of the words you read, in case it's
too tekkie for you.

Twayne, you lose and your best 'response' is childish insults.

Fortunately the guy listened to the rest and got in an electricain as the
rest of us were telling him to do.

You are dangerous.

On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 17:28:08 -0500, "Twayne"
wrote:


Any that passes CSA approval WILL. Don't know about the lame US
regualatory bodies.

UL 1459, its successor, and CSA are the same on these points. What's
important in reading them is "properly installed" w/r to their "purpose".
Ganged breakers are expected to have the same current in each leg; thus they
don't impede each other. Using a ganged breaker in a split or multi-
situation would be an improper application. All breakers and fuses are
specced and include a time-chart of current vs time for opening so that
makes it obvious too.

Cheers,

Twayne

So what breaker DO you use for a split receptacle if not a "ganged"
breaker????

Is it just a terminology thing, or are there two commonly available
dual-cuircuit breakers ?

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

Oh yeah? And I suppose you totally ignore your local ordinances, don't you?

That's not the reason for our disagreement, you ass. I never suggested anyone
should ignore local ordinances. We disagree because you claim that multiwire
branch circuits are inherently dangerous -- and that just isn't true.

[snip]

Nonsense is right; it's extremely easy to misinstall something; I've seen it
time after time and luckily always caught it but - it's amazing the kinds of
mistakes even electricians can make. They work drunk, hung over and worse
sometimes, especially in Chgo when we lived there. I had one inspector out
to get one guy fired at one install. Hmm, that wasn't you, was it?

Please explain how you can misinstall a double-pole breaker.


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.

I never said that wasn't so.

No, you just kept referring to the wrong voltages -- more evidence that you
have no idea what you're talking about.

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...

See, there's your assumptions again, and stated as a fact this time, which
makes it a lie. So now you're a liar, on top of everything else. You're
getting to be fun.

Oh, so you *have* read the Code then? How come you didn't know that it
permitted multiwire branch circuits? Why did you claim it prohibited them?


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.

No, it's not false; you are seriously misinformed of the dangers of such
circuits.

You are the *only* person in this thread making this claim. Edison circuits
are explicitly permitted by the NEC, and -- subject to correction by our
friends north of the border -- I believe explicity *required* by the CEC for
kitchen appliance circuits.

These facts together suggest to any thinking person that you are mistaken.

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

No, the opportunties for such ckt is exponentially above the others.

Only for the incompetent -- which explains why you think they're dangerous.

On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 17:52:41 -0500, "Twayne"
wrote:

In ,
cshenk typed:
"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.

Yes, he is "off the bat". For one thing, there is technically no such
thing as a "ganged breaker" - they are technically Double Pole
-"common trip" breakers - and if one side trips, unless someone has
tampered and put some kind of restraint on it, BOTH sides WILL trip.
If they don't, the breaker is defective.

There are also Twin breakers - or "thin-twins" that are NOT linked,
and NOT common trip, and can NOT be installed to supply 220 (or 230 or
240, whatever you want to cal it) They are supplied to get more
circuits into a panel and are illegat to use on split receptacles or
"edison" circuits under NEC2008.

Nope, not at all. You must have a comprehension issue, too. That means you
don't get the proper meaning out of the words you read, in case it's too
tekkie for you.


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.

Definitely so with a ganged breaker, which you snipped. It's been proven
physically in fact.



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?

So did I, you poor non-comprehending dufus. It's easy to make unsupported
statements. Like, I'm not so sure you ever even graduated from grade school.
Maroon is definitely your color.

--

On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 12:26:38 -0800 (PST), fzbuilder
wrote:

On Dec 28, 11:32*am, cjt wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 20:19:31 GMT, (Doug Miller)


Had an electrician out today....the problem was a hot and a ground
were fused together inside the panel and a bad breaker. looks like the
panel was getting some water in it and making some wires rot. Thanks
guys

That doesn't say much for your breaker or your ground.

Glad you found the problem.

Twayne wrote:
In ,
typed:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 02:08:24 -0600, bud--
wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:
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 handle of a breaker does not have to move to a tripped position
when
a breaker trips. If there is enough force (as from another breaker)
the handle can stay in the on position. Breakers are "trip free"
(which you edited out).

As a matter of experience, handle-tied breakers do not always both
open
if one is tripped by overload. Some brands might.

Any that passes CSA approval WILL. Don't know about the lame US
regualatory bodies.

I doubt Canadian breakers are different from US ones.

Because breakers are "trip free" there is not much force available to
trip a handle-tied breaker - or for 3 phase, 2 other handle-tied breakers.

I presume you saw this is separate breakers that have been handle-tied.
Multipole breakers have an internal common trip [actually some don't and
are marked].

====================

UL 1459,

UL 1459 is "Telephone Equipment"

Circuit breakers in this thread are UL 489, "Molded-Case Circuit
Breakers, Molded-Case Switches and Circuit Breaker Enclosures"

its successor, and CSA are the same on these points. What's
important in reading them is "properly installed" w/r to their
"purpose".

Provide manufacturers instructions that agree with you.

Ganged breakers are expected to have the same current in each
leg;

Complete nonsense for both multipole and handle-tied breakers.

thus they don't impede each other.

I assume you are talking about multipole breakers. There is no problem.
Each pole has a trip element. If one pole trips the other poles are
tripped mechanically. Nothing is impeded.

Using a ganged breaker in a
split or multi- situation would be an improper application.

Complete nonsense.

As clare says these breakers are used for Canadian split wired kitchen
outlets, and they are now required on US multiwire (Edison) circuits.

And as clare says, "ganged breaker" has no clear meaning.

All breakers
and fuses are specced and include a time-chart of current vs time for
opening so that makes it obvious too.

The current - time curve is for each trip element, which should be obvious.

Twayne continues to be out of touch with reality.

--
bud--

Twayne wrote:

Until a fault arises. Neutral pops off a stressed outlet with a poor
mechanical connect, improperly protected by a ganged breaker, etc. etc.
etc.. It's much more dangerous than other ckts given even the same
faults in many instances. Your ignorance must really be bliss. ALL of
the following make perfect sense and come from the first page of google
hits.

Google is not always your friend. Some links are totally irrelevant. All
other concerns are addressed by changes in the 2008 NEC.

Maybe if you read and understood the links....

But your ignorance is bliss.

Audiophiles just abhor them!

Your link does not support that.

And audiophiles also like gold plated speaker wire.


http://www.phy.ornl.gov/divops/ESH/98-2.html
The change in the 2008 NEC requires breakers "simultaneously disconnect"
which addressees any problem in this link.
And a competent electrician will verify all wires in an enclosure are
dead. This is rather easily done with a "non-contact" voltage indicator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_neutral
Suggests using a breaker that disconnects all wires. As above, that is
required starting in the 2008 NEC. In some cases it was required before
that.

http://www.mikeholt.com/technical.ph...hrough%20 240
Totally irrelevant - nothing on "Edison circuits".
Talks about "Edison base" fuses and circuit breakers that screw into
those fuseholders.

http://www.equitech.com/articles/enigma.html
Also totally irrelevant. (But does include the phrase "Edison Circuit".)

http://www.mikeholt.com/technical.ph...hrough%20 240
Repeat of the irrelevant link above.

Just continued delusions about multiwire branch circuits (Edison circuits).

Maybe you could write a code change proposal. I am sure it would get the
appropriate consideration.

--
bud--