After running two separate circuits for my daughter's dishwasher and waste disposal, I was told that I could have simply run a three wire cable (still 2 breakers) from the panel box and fed the appliances separately.
I understand the concept, but, there would be 2 hot wires and only one neutral.
Would not that neutral carry twice the current it is designed for?
Thanks for explanations and comments.
Ivan Vegvary

Ivan Vegvary writes:
After running two separate circuits for my daughter's dishwasher and waste disposal, I was told that I could have simply run a three wire cable (still 2 breakers) from the panel box and fed the appliances separately.
I understand the concept, but, there would be 2 hot wires and only one neutral.
Would not that neutral carry twice the current it is designed for?

It depends. This is commonly known as an "edison circuit". If each
of the two breakers were on different legs of the 240v service, then the
current in the grounded conductor will cancel out, such that if full load is
drawn on both of the two hot conductors, the current flow in the
grounded conductor (aka neutral) will sum to zero.

If they're on the same leg, then yes, you'll draw 2x the current
on the grounded conductor, which would be a code violation.

Using a commercial handle-tie 240v breaker is recommended, as it will ensu

a) That the two circuits are on opposite legs
b) That both circuits must be disconnected simultaneously.

On Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 11:01:20 AM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:

To add to that, if you have two 20 amp circuits on opposite
legs, the current in the neutral will always be between
0 and 20 amps. Only the unbalanced portion, ie the difference
between the two flows in the neutral. For example, 15 amps
on one, 5 amps on the other, you have 10 amps in the neutral.

On Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 10:42:48 AM UTC-4, Ivan Vegvary wrote:
After running two separate circuits for my daughter's dishwasher and waste disposal, I was told that I could have simply run a three wire cable (still 2 breakers) from the panel box and fed the appliances separately.
I understand the concept, but, there would be 2 hot wires and only one neutral.
Would not that neutral carry twice the current it is designed for?
Thanks for explanations and comments.
Ivan Vegvary

you really did this the best way. makes future troubleshhoting easier, and its a one time expense, so a little extra now doesnt matter.

plus witheach item on its own breaker service is easier.

On 05/21/2015 10:42 AM, Ivan Vegvary wrote:
After running two separate circuits for my daughter's dishwasher and waste disposal, I was told that I could have simply run a three wire cable (still 2 breakers) from the panel box and fed the appliances separately.
I understand the concept, but, there would be 2 hot wires and only one neutral.
Would not that neutral carry twice the current it is designed for?
Thanks for explanations and comments.
Ivan Vegvary


My Whirlpool dishwasher and a KitchenAid disposer are on the same 20 amp circuit and never had a problem.

I don't know if it meets code but I can't imagine it is unsafe in any way.

On Thu, 21 May 2015 12:43:38 -0400, Mayhem wrote:

On 05/21/2015 10:42 AM, Ivan Vegvary wrote:
After running two separate circuits for my daughter's dishwasher and waste disposal, I was told that I could have simply run a three wire cable (still 2 breakers) from the panel box and fed the appliances separately.
I understand the concept, but, there would be 2 hot wires and only one neutral.
Would not that neutral carry twice the current it is designed for?
Thanks for explanations and comments.
Ivan Vegvary


My Whirlpool dishwasher and a KitchenAid disposer are on the same 20 amp circuit and never had a problem.

I don't know if it meets code but I can't imagine it is unsafe in any way.

Same here. A receptacle under the sink. One side is "hot" for the DW
and the GD side is "switched".

On Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 2:11:38 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2015 12:43:38 -0400, Mayhem wrote:

On 05/21/2015 10:42 AM, Ivan Vegvary wrote:
After running two separate circuits for my daughter's dishwasher and waste disposal, I was told that I could have simply run a three wire cable (still 2 breakers) from the panel box and fed the appliances separately.
I understand the concept, but, there would be 2 hot wires and only one neutral.
Would not that neutral carry twice the current it is designed for?
Thanks for explanations and comments.
Ivan Vegvary


My Whirlpool dishwasher and a KitchenAid disposer are on the same 20 amp circuit and never had a problem.

I don't know if it meets code but I can't imagine it is unsafe in any way.

Same here. A receptacle under the sink. One side is "hot" for the DW
and the GD side is "switched".

I think the potential issue here is whether a 20A circuit has
enough capacity to serve both a disposal and a dishwasher.
You'd have to see the spec sheets on both. AFAIK, there is
no specific reqt for separate circuits, as long as the circuit
can handle the current for both. Some cities may have their own
rules too.

On 5/21/2015 12:43 PM, Mayhem wrote:
On 05/21/2015 10:42 AM, Ivan Vegvary wrote:
After running two separate circuits for my daughter's dishwasher and
waste disposal, I was told that I could have simply run a three wire
cable (still 2 breakers) from the panel box and fed the appliances
separately.
I understand the concept, but, there would be 2 hot wires and only one
neutral.
Would not that neutral carry twice the current it is designed for?
Thanks for explanations and comments.
Ivan Vegvary


My Whirlpool dishwasher and a KitchenAid disposer are on the same 20 amp
circuit and never had a problem.

I don't know if it meets code but I can't imagine it is unsafe in any way.


Did the same here, running two 20 amp lines seemed silly to me. I did
run them both at the same time right after I installed them to see if it
would trip the breaker while I still had the downstairs wall open. No
problems showed up with both under load.

Here the disposal only runs while we are cleaning off the plates to put
in the dishwasher. The dishwasher isn't turned on until that step is
done so in reality they never run at the same time anyway.

John

"bob haller" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 10:42:48 AM UTC-4, Ivan Vegvary wrote:
After running two separate circuits for my daughter's dishwasher and
waste disposal, I was told that I could have simply run a three wire cable
(still 2 breakers) from the panel box and fed the appliances separately.
I understand the concept, but, there would be 2 hot wires and only one
neutral.
Would not that neutral carry twice the current it is designed for?
Thanks for explanations and comments.
Ivan Vegvary

you really did this the best way. makes future troubleshhoting easier, and
its a one time expense, so a little extra now doesnt matter.

plus witheach item on its own breaker service is easier.

+1 Saving the cost of a single wire and an extra breaker isn't worth the
problems that can arise from using Edison circuits. He's dead. They should
be, too. (-:

--
Bobby G.

On Thu, 21 May 2015 15:01:15 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Ivan Vegvary writes:
After running two separate circuits for my daughter's dishwasher and waste disposal, I was told that I could have simply run a three wire cable (still 2 breakers) from the panel box and fed the appliances separately.
I understand the concept, but, there would be 2 hot wires and only one neutral.
Would not that neutral carry twice the current it is designed for?

It depends. This is commonly known as an "edison circuit". If each
of the two breakers were on different legs of the 240v service, then the
current in the grounded conductor will cancel out, such that if full load is
drawn on both of the two hot conductors, the current flow in the
grounded conductor (aka neutral) will sum to zero.

If they're on the same leg, then yes, you'll draw 2x the current
on the grounded conductor, which would be a code violation.

Using a commercial handle-tie 240v breaker is recommended, as it will ensu

a) That the two circuits are on opposite legs
b) That both circuits must be disconnected simultaneously.
It is NOT recommended. It is required by code. It is mandatory. Doing
it any other way is total stupidity

On Thu, 21 May 2015 20:58:14 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"bob haller" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 10:42:48 AM UTC-4, Ivan Vegvary wrote:
After running two separate circuits for my daughter's dishwasher and
waste disposal, I was told that I could have simply run a three wire cable
(still 2 breakers) from the panel box and fed the appliances separately.
I understand the concept, but, there would be 2 hot wires and only one
neutral.
Would not that neutral carry twice the current it is designed for?
Thanks for explanations and comments.
Ivan Vegvary

you really did this the best way. makes future troubleshhoting easier, and
its a one time expense, so a little extra now doesnt matter.

plus witheach item on its own breaker service is easier.

+1 Saving the cost of a single wire and an extra breaker isn't worth the
problems that can arise from using Edison circuits. He's dead. They should
be, too. (-:
Up here they are called "split" circuits, particularly when feeding a
single duplex outlet..

On Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 11:43:43 AM UTC-5, Mayhem wrote:
On 05/21/2015 10:42 AM, Ivan Vegvary wrote:
After running two separate circuits for my daughter's dishwasher and waste disposal, I was told that I could have simply run a three wire cable (still 2 breakers) from the panel box and fed the appliances separately.
I understand the concept, but, there would be 2 hot wires and only one neutral.
Would not that neutral carry twice the current it is designed for?
Thanks for explanations and comments.
Ivan Vegvary


My Whirlpool dishwasher and a KitchenAid disposer are on the same 20 amp circuit and never had a problem.

I don't know if it meets code but I can't imagine it is unsafe in any way..

It could trip the breaker if the appliances are run at the same time but that's not a safety issue since it shows you have protection for your wiring. A fuse or circuit breaker on house wiring is there to protect the wiring not necessarily the appliance. A gizmo can short out and burn up without drawing enough current to overload the circuit it's plugged into. 8-)

[8~{} Uncle Electric Monster

On Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 4:31:05 PM UTC-5, John wrote:
On 5/21/2015 12:43 PM, Mayhem wrote:
On 05/21/2015 10:42 AM, Ivan Vegvary wrote:
After running two separate circuits for my daughter's dishwasher and
waste disposal, I was told that I could have simply run a three wire
cable (still 2 breakers) from the panel box and fed the appliances
separately.
I understand the concept, but, there would be 2 hot wires and only one
neutral.
Would not that neutral carry twice the current it is designed for?
Thanks for explanations and comments.
Ivan Vegvary


My Whirlpool dishwasher and a KitchenAid disposer are on the same 20 amp
circuit and never had a problem.

I don't know if it meets code but I can't imagine it is unsafe in any way.


Did the same here, running two 20 amp lines seemed silly to me. I did
run them both at the same time right after I installed them to see if it
would trip the breaker while I still had the downstairs wall open. No
problems showed up with both under load.

Here the disposal only runs while we are cleaning off the plates to put
in the dishwasher. The dishwasher isn't turned on until that step is
done so in reality they never run at the same time anyway.

John

If your dishwasher is the type with an electric heating element that's on during the drying cycle, I wonder how much current it draws? 8-)

[8~{} Uncle Overload Monster

On 5/22/2015 6:01 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 4:31:05 PM UTC-5, John wrote:
On 5/21/2015 12:43 PM, Mayhem wrote:
On 05/21/2015 10:42 AM, Ivan Vegvary wrote:
After running two separate circuits for my daughter's dishwasher and
waste disposal, I was told that I could have simply run a three wire
cable (still 2 breakers) from the panel box and fed the appliances
separately.
I understand the concept, but, there would be 2 hot wires and only one
neutral.
Would not that neutral carry twice the current it is designed for?
Thanks for explanations and comments.
Ivan Vegvary


My Whirlpool dishwasher and a KitchenAid disposer are on the same 20 amp
circuit and never had a problem.

I don't know if it meets code but I can't imagine it is unsafe in any way.


Did the same here, running two 20 amp lines seemed silly to me. I did
run them both at the same time right after I installed them to see if it
would trip the breaker while I still had the downstairs wall open. No
problems showed up with both under load.

Here the disposal only runs while we are cleaning off the plates to put
in the dishwasher. The dishwasher isn't turned on until that step is
done so in reality they never run at the same time anyway.

John

If your dishwasher is the type with an electric heating element that's on during the drying cycle, I wonder how much current it draws? 8-)

[8~{} Uncle Overload Monster



Dunno - but the breaker has never tripped.

John

On 05/23/2015 06:39 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2015 20:58:14 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

+1 Saving the cost of a single wire and an extra breaker isn't worth the
problems that can arise from using Edison circuits. He's dead. They should
be, too. (-:

--
Bobby G.



What "problems"? There are certainly advantages beyond saving 2 wires
per circuit. Not the least of which is voltage drop mitigation. (up to
50%). You also get to use smaller/fewer boxes. It is only a problem
for people who do not understand what they are looking at and they
shouldn't be fooling with them in the first place.


Statistically, multiwire/Edison circuits don't have a bad track record but I still wouldn't have one in my home. Not worth the risk.

On Saturday, May 23, 2015 at 9:08:10 AM UTC-4, Mayhem wrote:
On 05/23/2015 06:39 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2015 20:58:14 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

+1 Saving the cost of a single wire and an extra breaker isn't worth the
problems that can arise from using Edison circuits. He's dead. They should
be, too. (-:

--
Bobby G.



What "problems"? There are certainly advantages beyond saving 2 wires
per circuit. Not the least of which is voltage drop mitigation. (up to
50%). You also get to use smaller/fewer boxes. It is only a problem
for people who do not understand what they are looking at and they
shouldn't be fooling with them in the first place.


Statistically, multiwire/Edison circuits don't have a bad track record but I still wouldn't have one in my home. Not worth the risk.

The risk of what exactly?

On Sat, 23 May 2015 06:39:36 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 21 May 2015 20:58:14 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

+1 Saving the cost of a single wire and an extra breaker isn't worth the
problems that can arise from using Edison circuits. He's dead. They should
be, too. (-:

--
Bobby G.



What "problems"? There are certainly advantages beyond saving 2 wires
per circuit. Not the least of which is voltage drop mitigation. (up to
50%). You also get to use smaller/fewer boxes. It is only a problem
for people who do not understand what they are looking at and they
shouldn't be fooling with them in the first place.
+1. To an electrician they are absolutely no problem when properly
used. Any time there are 2 circuits in a single box, it is the "only"
way to be legal.

On Sat, 23 May 2015 09:08:06 -0400, Mayhem wrote:

On 05/23/2015 06:39 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2015 20:58:14 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

+1 Saving the cost of a single wire and an extra breaker isn't worth the
problems that can arise from using Edison circuits. He's dead. They should
be, too. (-:

--
Bobby G.



What "problems"? There are certainly advantages beyond saving 2 wires
per circuit. Not the least of which is voltage drop mitigation. (up to
50%). You also get to use smaller/fewer boxes. It is only a problem
for people who do not understand what they are looking at and they
shouldn't be fooling with them in the first place.


Statistically, multiwire/Edison circuits don't have a bad track record but I still wouldn't have one in my home. Not worth the risk.
What risk? And to be legal in Ontario kitchen countertop outlets have
had to be "splits" for decades - and the "only" way to do that legally
is with a "split" circuit and tied breakers.

Ivan,

After running two separate circuits for my daughter's dishwasher and
waste disposal, I was told that I could have simply run a three wire
cable (still 2 breakers) from the panel box and fed the appliances
separately. I understand the concept, but, there would be 2 hot wires
and only one neutral. Would not that neutral carry twice the current
it is designed for?

For that kind of "Edison" circuit, the two breakers must be on opposite
sides of the incoming 240V supply. That way each 120V "hot" leg is out of
phase with the other as the AC cycles back and forth. When one leg is
positive, the other leg is negative. The neutral never has more than a
single load on it.

It's a safe and common way to wire some circuits, but I still prefer to run
separate cables for each circuit. That way breakers can be moved around in
the panel if needed without fear of overloading the cable (if both breakers
were placed on the same phase the neutral would carry twice the load). The
cost difference of two cables vs a three-wire cable is usually minimal for
most homes.

Anthony Watson
www.mountainsoftware.com
www.watsondiy.com

On Saturday, May 23, 2015 at 11:22:49 AM UTC-4, HerHusband wrote:
Ivan,

After running two separate circuits for my daughter's dishwasher and
waste disposal, I was told that I could have simply run a three wire
cable (still 2 breakers) from the panel box and fed the appliances
separately. I understand the concept, but, there would be 2 hot wires
and only one neutral. Would not that neutral carry twice the current
it is designed for?

For that kind of "Edison" circuit, the two breakers must be on opposite
sides of the incoming 240V supply. That way each 120V "hot" leg is out of
phase with the other as the AC cycles back and forth. When one leg is
positive, the other leg is negative. The neutral never has more than a
single load on it.

AFAIK, there is no other kind of Edison circuit. The whole point
of an Edison circuit *requires* that it be on opposite legs.

On 5/23/2015 9:19 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, May 23, 2015 at 9:08:10 AM UTC-4, Mayhem wrote:
On 05/23/2015 06:39 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2015 20:58:14 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

+1 Saving the cost of a single wire and an extra breaker isn't worth the
problems that can arise from using Edison circuits. He's dead. They should
be, too. (-:

--
Bobby G.



What "problems"? There are certainly advantages beyond saving 2 wires
per circuit. Not the least of which is voltage drop mitigation. (up to
50%). You also get to use smaller/fewer boxes. It is only a problem
for people who do not understand what they are looking at and they
shouldn't be fooling with them in the first place.


Statistically, multiwire/Edison circuits don't have a bad track record but I still wouldn't have one in my home. Not worth the risk.

The risk of what exactly?


Suppose you have a heavy resistive load on leg 1 and a light load on leg 2 and then suddenly lose the neutral.
What happens to the voltage across the light load on leg 2?
Would 230 volts smoke a small radio on leg 2?

"Bill" wrote in message
b.com...
On 5/23/2015 9:19 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, May 23, 2015 at 9:08:10 AM UTC-4, Mayhem wrote:
On 05/23/2015 06:39 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2015 20:58:14 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

+1 Saving the cost of a single wire and an extra breaker isn't worth
the
problems that can arise from using Edison circuits. He's dead. They
should
be, too. (-:

--
Bobby G.



What "problems"? There are certainly advantages beyond saving 2 wires
per circuit. Not the least of which is voltage drop mitigation. (up to
50%). You also get to use smaller/fewer boxes. It is only a problem
for people who do not understand what they are looking at and they
shouldn't be fooling with them in the first place.


Statistically, multiwire/Edison circuits don't have a bad track record
but I still wouldn't have one in my home. Not worth the risk.

The risk of what exactly?


Suppose you have a heavy resistive load on leg 1 and a light load on leg 2
and then suddenly lose the neutral.
What happens to the voltage across the light load on leg 2?
Would 230 volts smoke a small radio on leg 2?


That is what happens when the power company's neutral feeding the house goes
haywire.

On Saturday, May 23, 2015 at 11:49:50 AM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
On 5/23/2015 9:19 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, May 23, 2015 at 9:08:10 AM UTC-4, Mayhem wrote:
On 05/23/2015 06:39 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2015 20:58:14 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

+1 Saving the cost of a single wire and an extra breaker isn't worth the
problems that can arise from using Edison circuits. He's dead. They should
be, too. (-:

--
Bobby G.



What "problems"? There are certainly advantages beyond saving 2 wires
per circuit. Not the least of which is voltage drop mitigation. (up to
50%). You also get to use smaller/fewer boxes. It is only a problem
for people who do not understand what they are looking at and they
shouldn't be fooling with them in the first place.


Statistically, multiwire/Edison circuits don't have a bad track record but I still wouldn't have one in my home. Not worth the risk.

The risk of what exactly?


Suppose you have a heavy resistive load on leg 1 and a light load on leg 2 and then suddenly lose the neutral.
What happens to the voltage across the light load on leg 2?
Would 230 volts smoke a small radio on leg 2?

That's a valid point. If it happens, you could wind up with
up to ~240V on the unfortunate load side, something that can't
happen if it's a regular circuit.

"Bill" wrote in message news:5560a19a$0$34404

stuff snipped

The risk of what exactly?

Suppose you have a heavy resistive load on leg 1 and a light load
on leg 2 and then suddenly lose the neutral.
What happens to the voltage across the light load on leg 2?
Would 230 volts smoke a small radio on leg 2?

Magic smoke will be forced out of the small radio perhaps even a loud magic
noise, too.
(-:

While a reputable electrician would probably not make this particular
mistake, it's possible for a future modification or rearrangement of
breakers in the panel to inadvertently move one or both individual breakers
(especially in older work) so that they both end up on the same 120V leg of
the panel - which is improper when a shared neutral is involved. If the
split circuit is installed that way, the shared unbalanced load could exceed
the rating of the wire.

Maybe some NEC expert can tell us when the use of a double-pole breaker
became a code requirement for Edison circuits because I know it wasn't
always that way (or that way in 1988). My kitchen had an Edison circuit
*without* a tied breaker until I rewired it with separate runs. Without the
tied breakers or a double pole breaker that kills power to both phases, it
is quite possible for someone to be shocked while working on the circuit,
since the neutral wire of the supposedly "dead" circuit could be carrying
current from the sister "live" circuit. DAMHIKT. (-:

There's so little benefit, IMHO, that the risk of using Edison circuits
today doesn't seem worth it. If voltage drop is a problem, use a larger
diameter wire. If you can't afford the extra wire, check the car's seat
cushions for spare change or sell some blood. (-:

Besides, the last time we had this discussion I believe I pointed out that
because "Romex" 12/2 w/G and 14/2 w/G is so widely used, it can often be had
on sale for much less than 12/3 or 14/3 w/G, thus totally negating any real
savings in wire costs.

Same problem with the 2 pole GFCIs needed to protect an Edison circuit. I
can always find a good sale price on the single circuit GFCIs. I don't
recall ever seeing a double pole unit on sale. I do recall when I looked at
2P GFCIs they cost way more than 2 separate 1P GFCIs. I recall paying a
little more than $10 a pop for 20A Leviton GFCIs just a while back when I
ran a new sump pump circuit.

http://www.google.com/search?q=cost+dual+pole+GFCI

The 2P units Google shows are in the $80-$110 range. So it looks like the
Edison circuit is going to end up costing way more than two comparable
single branches, at least if you don't pay list price for your components.

I don't see the tradeoffs being worth it but obviously some people do. For
me it violates the KISS rule.

--
Bobby G.

On Sat, 23 May 2015 11:49:39 -0400, Bill wrote:

On 5/23/2015 9:19 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, May 23, 2015 at 9:08:10 AM UTC-4, Mayhem wrote:
On 05/23/2015 06:39 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2015 20:58:14 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

+1 Saving the cost of a single wire and an extra breaker isn't worth the
problems that can arise from using Edison circuits. He's dead. They should
be, too. (-:

--
Bobby G.



What "problems"? There are certainly advantages beyond saving 2 wires
per circuit. Not the least of which is voltage drop mitigation. (up to
50%). You also get to use smaller/fewer boxes. It is only a problem
for people who do not understand what they are looking at and they
shouldn't be fooling with them in the first place.


Statistically, multiwire/Edison circuits don't have a bad track record but I still wouldn't have one in my home. Not worth the risk.

The risk of what exactly?


Suppose you have a heavy resistive load on leg 1 and a light load on leg 2 and then suddenly lose the neutral.
What happens to the voltage across the light load on leg 2?
Would 230 volts smoke a small radio on leg 2?

How is that different than loosing the line neutral (which,
statistically is much more likely) Then EVERY circuit in the panel
will have extra high voltage on the lower load side, and low voltage
on the heavily loaded side/

On Sat, 23 May 2015 17:53:06 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"Bill" wrote in message news:5560a19a$0$34404

stuff snipped

The risk of what exactly?

Suppose you have a heavy resistive load on leg 1 and a light load
on leg 2 and then suddenly lose the neutral.
What happens to the voltage across the light load on leg 2?
Would 230 volts smoke a small radio on leg 2?

Magic smoke will be forced out of the small radio perhaps even a loud magic
noise, too.
(-:

While a reputable electrician would probably not make this particular
mistake, it's possible for a future modification or rearrangement of
breakers in the panel to inadvertently move one or both individual breakers
(especially in older work) so that they both end up on the same 120V leg of
the panel - which is improper when a shared neutral is involved. If the
split circuit is installed that way, the shared unbalanced load could exceed
the rating of the wire.

Maybe some NEC expert can tell us when the use of a double-pole breaker
became a code requirement for Edison circuits because I know it wasn't
always that way (or that way in 1988). My kitchen had an Edison circuit
*without* a tied breaker until I rewired it with separate runs. Without the
tied breakers or a double pole breaker that kills power to both phases, it
is quite possible for someone to be shocked while working on the circuit,
since the neutral wire of the supposedly "dead" circuit could be carrying
current from the sister "live" circuit. DAMHIKT. (-:

I believe it was a code requirement long before 1988, at least in
Ontario. My 1974 house, with a fuse panel, has ganged fuse pullouts
for all the split circuits, and they were a requirement back when I
helped my electrician father wiring houses as far back as 1965 or
1966.

Canadian code is often much more strict than american code when it
comes to safety - so what it was in the US of A is anyone's guess.

There's so little benefit, IMHO, that the risk of using Edison circuits
today doesn't seem worth it. If voltage drop is a problem, use a larger
diameter wire. If you can't afford the extra wire, check the car's seat
cushions for spare change or sell some blood. (-:

Besides, the last time we had this discussion I believe I pointed out that
because "Romex" 12/2 w/G and 14/2 w/G is so widely used, it can often be had
on sale for much less than 12/3 or 14/3 w/G, thus totally negating any real
savings in wire costs.

Same problem with the 2 pole GFCIs needed to protect an Edison circuit. I
can always find a good sale price on the single circuit GFCIs. I don't
recall ever seeing a double pole unit on sale. I do recall when I looked at
2P GFCIs they cost way more than 2 separate 1P GFCIs. I recall paying a
little more than $10 a pop for 20A Leviton GFCIs just a while back when I
ran a new sump pump circuit.

http://www.google.com/search?q=cost+dual+pole+GFCI

The 2P units Google shows are in the $80-$110 range. So it looks like the
Edison circuit is going to end up costing way more than two comparable
single branches, at least if you don't pay list price for your components.

I don't see the tradeoffs being worth it but obviously some people do. For
me it violates the KISS rule.

On Sat, 23 May 2015 15:21:36 +0000 (UTC), HerHusband
wrote:

Ivan,

After running two separate circuits for my daughter's dishwasher and
waste disposal, I was told that I could have simply run a three wire
cable (still 2 breakers) from the panel box and fed the appliances
separately. I understand the concept, but, there would be 2 hot wires
and only one neutral. Would not that neutral carry twice the current
it is designed for?

For that kind of "Edison" circuit, the two breakers must be on opposite
sides of the incoming 240V supply. That way each 120V "hot" leg is out of
phase with the other as the AC cycles back and forth. When one leg is
positive, the other leg is negative. The neutral never has more than a
single load on it.

It's a safe and common way to wire some circuits, but I still prefer to run
separate cables for each circuit. That way breakers can be moved around in
the panel if needed without fear of overloading the cable (if both breakers
were placed on the same phase the neutral would carry twice the load). The
cost difference of two cables vs a three-wire cable is usually minimal for
most homes.

Anthony Watson
www.mountainsoftware.com
www.watsondiy.com
You end up needing to use oversized boxes to handle the wire fill in
many cases, and again, CANADIAN code requires (or at least required in
the past) 2 circuits in the same box to be on a tied breaker or a
pullout fuse block whether they are split/siamesed or totally
separate. If you kill a circuit in a box, you have (in canada) the
assurance that if wired to code, the entire box is deader than a
herring.

On Saturday, May 23, 2015 at 7:04:47 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 23 May 2015 11:49:39 -0400, Bill wrote:

On 5/23/2015 9:19 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, May 23, 2015 at 9:08:10 AM UTC-4, Mayhem wrote:
On 05/23/2015 06:39 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2015 20:58:14 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

+1 Saving the cost of a single wire and an extra breaker isn't worth the
problems that can arise from using Edison circuits. He's dead. They should
be, too. (-:

--
Bobby G.



What "problems"? There are certainly advantages beyond saving 2 wires
per circuit. Not the least of which is voltage drop mitigation. (up to
50%). You also get to use smaller/fewer boxes. It is only a problem
for people who do not understand what they are looking at and they
shouldn't be fooling with them in the first place.


Statistically, multiwire/Edison circuits don't have a bad track record but I still wouldn't have one in my home. Not worth the risk.

The risk of what exactly?


Suppose you have a heavy resistive load on leg 1 and a light load on leg 2 and then suddenly lose the neutral.
What happens to the voltage across the light load on leg 2?
Would 230 volts smoke a small radio on leg 2?

How is that different than loosing the line neutral (which,
statistically is much more likely) Then EVERY circuit in the panel
will have extra high voltage on the lower load side, and low voltage
on the heavily loaded side/

I guess the argument can be made that the less points of
potential failure like that, the better. And if it's the
service netural that goes open, it's probably less
likely that you'd have a
big imbalance because for a whole house, there would be many
loads on each leg, tending to average things out.
So, I think the possibility that you'd
see close to 240V appear on one leg would be a lot less.

wrote in message

stuff snipped in line

Maybe some NEC expert can tell us when the use of a double-pole
breaker became a code requirement for Edison circuits because I know
it wasn't always that way (or that way in 1988). My kitchen had an
Edison circuit *without* a tied breaker until I rewired it with separate
runs.

I believe it was a code requirement long before 1988, at least in
Ontario.

I don't live in Canada. Best I can find is that it became part of the code
in 2008, but that's certainly not definitive - just came across a few
discussions that seem to indicate that's when the NEC required the tie
handle or dual pole breakers.

My 1974 house, with a fuse panel, has ganged fuse pullouts
for all the split circuits, and they were a requirement back when I
helped my electrician father wiring houses as far back as 1965 or
1966.

In Canada, perhaps, but I don't think that was the rule in the US based on
the reading I've done. Perhaps an American NEC expert has the answer. I
know we used to have some NEC-heads here once upon a time.

Canadian code is often much more strict than american code when it
comes to safety - so what it was in the US of A is anyone's guess.

Well, I suspect it's not a guess, but a very clearly documented fact that we
just don't have yet and since I cleared my browser history, I can't even
provide the cites that implied it was a relatively new code requirement in
the US. I believe it became mandatory in 2008, but that's a guess - it
wasn't what I was paying attention to.

The bottom line for me is WHY would anyone use an Edison circuit and a
*very* costly two pole GFCI (compared to two single pole) when they could
get by easily with two discrete circuits? It also seems counter-intuitive
to plug two power-hungry devices into the same outlet which is what gets
done with a split-wire receptacle.

Maybe you save some bucks by not having to rough in a second outlet but my
personal rule of thumb is that you can't have enough outlets in today's
modern kitchen. Using a split-wire receptacle seems to reduce rather than
increase the total outlet count. Then, someone might use one of those
one-to-six outlet adapters which, depending on how they are wired, will burn
up when plugged in because it combines the hots of both sides of the
split-wire receptacle. I'm sorry, but just because Canada does it that way
doesn't mean it's superior in any way. From what I can determine, it's NOT
safer and it's not cheaper. So why bother?

If you list out the pros and cons, the biggest con turns out to be the high
cost of a two pole GFCI protector. That cost totally negates any potential
saving in wiring $ except in huge houses. The fact that 12/3 and 14/3 is
far more difficult to find on sale also tends to negate the cost saving.

In addition, running two high amperage devices like skillets and toasters
out of one outlet box would, IMHO, tend to increase the chances of
overheating something in that box. It could be anything from a bad backstab
to an improperly inserted plug. And if that neutral back stab fails for any
reason, you've got the potential magic smoke problem again.

There's also the question of whether bringing 240 volts into a wet kitchen
area into one single box is a good idea to begin with. Anything that goes
wrong becomes a potentially much more lethal 240 volt event.

So what makes an Edison circuit so great that they are mandated in Canada,
eh? (-: I still don't see it. A second outlet run to the kitchen would
probably cost less, in materials at least, than wiring up an Edison circuit.
That second, standard 20A circuit would also be much more likely to survive
a repair attempt by a homeowner than an Edison-type circuit.

I seem to recall someone here in the past had trouble distinguishing a
switched outlet from an Edison circuit, yet another reason to avoid them.

I believe the only reason I had an Edison circuit here is that the house was
built in the year of the steel penny when copper was in such short supply
the US Mint stopped using it to make pennies that year.

When WWIII comes and copper becomes incredibly precious *again* I'll
consider wiring with Edison circuits, but until then I'm happy with my
on-sale $10USD GFCIs, my 250 ft coils of 12/2 w/g (blue, by the way, in case
anyone from the color coding of NM wire thread is reading) and my extra
*metal* junction and outlet boxes. KISS unless you live in the Great White
North, I guess. (-:

--
Bobby G.

On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 8:11:24 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 23 May 2015 10:00:38 -0400, wrote:


What "problems"? There are certainly advantages beyond saving 2 wires
per circuit. Not the least of which is voltage drop mitigation. (up to
50%). You also get to use smaller/fewer boxes. It is only a problem
for people who do not understand what they are looking at and they
shouldn't be fooling with them in the first place.
+1. To an electrician they are absolutely no problem when properly
used. Any time there are 2 circuits in a single box, it is the "only"
way to be legal.
Huh? There is nothing "illegal" about 2 circuits in a box.

As usual, he likes to just make it up as he goes.

On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 7:15:51 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
wasn't what I was paying attention to.

The bottom line for me is WHY would anyone use an Edison circuit and a
*very* costly two pole GFCI (compared to two single pole) when they could
get by easily with two discrete circuits? It also seems counter-intuitive
to plug two power-hungry devices into the same outlet which is what gets
done with a split-wire receptacle.


Another factor is if you go the peculiar split receptacle approach
that Clare says they use up north, you can forget about having the
GFCI at the receptacle, where it's easy to reset/test. I've never
seen a receptacle with built-in GFCI that's double pole. So, you'd
need a double pole one at the panel. I'd rather have it near where
the receptacle is.

I don't get the whole idea behind splitting a receptacle and putting
each half on different legs. Here I see it done sometimes to put
one half on a switch, the other on all the time, on the *same* circuit.
That makes sense. Say what you want about Edison circuits, but this
Canadian thing, I don't understand what the purpose is all about.
And also, if you want to start in about potentially having two
different circuits in a box live, it's funny that Edison gets dragged
in as the solution. It would seem to me the finger should be pointed
at whoever up in Canada required their screwy split outlets.



There's also the question of whether bringing 240 volts into a wet kitchen
area into one single box is a good idea to begin with. Anything that goes
wrong becomes a potentially much more lethal 240 volt event.


For the most part, it's not going to create a more lethal environment.
If it gets wet, energizes some metal, etc, you still only wind up with
120V to ground. To get 240V, you'd have to somehow wind up across
both legs, and that kind of fault would be extremely rare.

On 05/24/2015 07:57 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 23 May 2015 09:08:06 -0400, Mayhem wrote:

On 05/23/2015 06:39 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2015 20:58:14 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

+1 Saving the cost of a single wire and an extra breaker isn't worth the
problems that can arise from using Edison circuits. He's dead. They should
be, too. (-:

--
Bobby G.



What "problems"? There are certainly advantages beyond saving 2 wires
per circuit. Not the least of which is voltage drop mitigation. (up to
50%). You also get to use smaller/fewer boxes. It is only a problem
for people who do not understand what they are looking at and they
shouldn't be fooling with them in the first place.


Statistically, multiwire/Edison circuits don't have a bad track record but I still wouldn't have one in my home. Not worth the risk.

You have several (dryers, ranges and any other 240v appliance with a
120v load), get over it.

There's nothing to "get over".
The shared 120 volt control circuit contained within the metal cabinet of the 240 volt appliance is typically protected (current limited) by a 1 amp fuse or so.

The $10 chinese radio plugged into an Edison circuit wall outlet...not so much.

There may also be some on the 120v circuits
you do not know about.

Not in my home but you are welcome to as many Edison circuits as you like. I fully support your right to do so.

It was common to wire bedrooms on a multiwire
if they were on the other end of the house and split them out in a
ceiling light box.

It's also common and code compliant to use clamps on ground rods too but they always seem to corrode and become loose over time.
I always use an exothermic CADWELD connection. Does the fact I don't use mechanical clamps bother you too?

On 05/23/2015 07:04 PM, wrote:
How is that different than loosing the line neutral (which,
statistically is much more likely)

Losing the neutral in *my* entrance panel is extremely unlikely. I actually check my panel and meter pan connection every 5 years. Of course the poco neutral is tagged to ground
at my panel as well.

Then EVERY circuit in the panel
will have extra high voltage on the lower load side, and low voltage
on the heavily loaded side/

"Mayhem" wrote in message
...
On 05/23/2015 07:04 PM, wrote:
How is that different than loosing the line neutral (which,
statistically is much more likely)

Losing the neutral in *my* entrance panel is extremely unlikely. I
actually check my panel and meter pan connection every 5 years. Of course
the poco neutral is tagged to ground
at my panel as well.

Then EVERY circuit in the panel
will have extra high voltage on the lower load side, and low voltage
on the heavily loaded side/


I have lost the power company's neutral TWICE in the past year and a half.
Once it just broke in the middle of the span from the pole to the house, and
once it broke right at the pole mounted transformer. the first time I had
no damage, the second time (when I was not even at home with anything on but
maybe a couple security lights) I had a couple of blown GFCI outlets - and I
mean BLOWN. Fire! Luckily the wallboard was not flammable, but there were
scorch marks, even on the kitchen cabinets. Utility paid off quickly, but
it didn't amount to much (maybe I should have put in for a new TV?)

On 05/24/2015 11:45 AM, taxed and spent wrote:
I have lost the power company's neutral TWICE in the past year and a half.
Once it just broke in the middle of the span from the pole to the house, and
once it broke right at the pole mounted transformer.

Since you lose poco neutral so frequently, consider having a proper ground rod system installed.

"Mayhem" wrote in message
...
On 05/24/2015 11:45 AM, taxed and spent wrote:
I have lost the power company's neutral TWICE in the past year and a
half.
Once it just broke in the middle of the span from the pole to the house,
and
once it broke right at the pole mounted transformer.

Since you lose poco neutral so frequently, consider having a proper ground
rod system installed.

I do, but that will not end the problems created with a lost neutral.

On Sun, 24 May 2015 06:59:58 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

wrote in message

stuff snipped in line

Maybe some NEC expert can tell us when the use of a double-pole
breaker became a code requirement for Edison circuits because I know
it wasn't always that way (or that way in 1988). My kitchen had an
Edison circuit *without* a tied breaker until I rewired it with separate
runs.

I believe it was a code requirement long before 1988, at least in
Ontario.

I don't live in Canada. Best I can find is that it became part of the code
in 2008, but that's certainly not definitive - just came across a few
discussions that seem to indicate that's when the NEC required the tie
handle or dual pole breakers.

My 1974 house, with a fuse panel, has ganged fuse pullouts
for all the split circuits, and they were a requirement back when I
helped my electrician father wiring houses as far back as 1965 or
1966.

In Canada, perhaps, but I don't think that was the rule in the US based on
the reading I've done. Perhaps an American NEC expert has the answer. I
know we used to have some NEC-heads here once upon a time.

Canadian code is often much more strict than american code when it
comes to safety - so what it was in the US of A is anyone's guess.

Well, I suspect it's not a guess, but a very clearly documented fact that we
just don't have yet and since I cleared my browser history, I can't even
provide the cites that implied it was a relatively new code requirement in
the US. I believe it became mandatory in 2008, but that's a guess - it
wasn't what I was paying attention to.

The bottom line for me is WHY would anyone use an Edison circuit and a
*very* costly two pole GFCI (compared to two single pole) when they could
get by easily with two discrete circuits? It also seems counter-intuitive
to plug two power-hungry devices into the same outlet which is what gets
done with a split-wire receptacle.

Maybe you save some bucks by not having to rough in a second outlet but my
personal rule of thumb is that you can't have enough outlets in today's
modern kitchen. Using a split-wire receptacle seems to reduce rather than
increase the total outlet count. Then, someone might use one of those
one-to-six outlet adapters which, depending on how they are wired, will burn
up when plugged in because it combines the hots of both sides of the
split-wire receptacle. I'm sorry, but just because Canada does it that way
doesn't mean it's superior in any way. From what I can determine, it's NOT
safer and it's not cheaper. So why bother?

It makes it virtually impossible to overload a circuit when each half
of a duplex receptacle is on a separate circuit. You can plug a
toaster and a coffemaker into one "outlet" with no danger of
overloading it - and only have one wire required to be pulled for each
"outlet" - giving you, in effect, a 30 amp circuit.

What I have seen done for dual GFCI (And even single gfci) protection
is to run from the panel to a box with a gfci outlet, and feed-through
from there to the house circuit. The GFCI protector is on the panel
board with the electrical service panel, but is not IN the panel (for
cases where a gfci or dual gfci is either not available or
rediculously over-priced)

If you list out the pros and cons, the biggest con turns out to be the high
cost of a two pole GFCI protector. That cost totally negates any potential
saving in wiring $ except in huge houses. The fact that 12/3 and 14/3 is
far more difficult to find on sale also tends to negate the cost saving.

In addition, running two high amperage devices like skillets and toasters
out of one outlet box would, IMHO, tend to increase the chances of
overheating something in that box. It could be anything from a bad backstab
to an improperly inserted plug. And if that neutral back stab fails for any
reason, you've got the potential magic smoke problem again.

There's also the question of whether bringing 240 volts into a wet kitchen
area into one single box is a good idea to begin with. Anything that goes
wrong becomes a potentially much more lethal 240 volt event.

So what makes an Edison circuit so great that they are mandated in Canada,
eh? (-: I still don't see it. A second outlet run to the kitchen would
probably cost less, in materials at least, than wiring up an Edison circuit.
That second, standard 20A circuit would also be much more likely to survive
a repair attempt by a homeowner than an Edison-type circuit.

I seem to recall someone here in the past had trouble distinguishing a
switched outlet from an Edison circuit, yet another reason to avoid them.

I believe the only reason I had an Edison circuit here is that the house was
built in the year of the steel penny when copper was in such short supply
the US Mint stopped using it to make pennies that year.

When WWIII comes and copper becomes incredibly precious *again* I'll
consider wiring with Edison circuits, but until then I'm happy with my
on-sale $10USD GFCIs, my 250 ft coils of 12/2 w/g (blue, by the way, in case
anyone from the color coding of NM wire thread is reading) and my extra
*metal* junction and outlet boxes. KISS unless you live in the Great White
North, I guess. (-:

On Sun, 24 May 2015 12:12:02 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 24 May 2015 05:54:04 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 7:15:51 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
wasn't what I was paying attention to.

The bottom line for me is WHY would anyone use an Edison circuit and a
*very* costly two pole GFCI (compared to two single pole) when they could
get by easily with two discrete circuits? It also seems counter-intuitive
to plug two power-hungry devices into the same outlet which is what gets
done with a split-wire receptacle.


Another factor is if you go the peculiar split receptacle approach
that Clare says they use up north, you can forget about having the
GFCI at the receptacle, where it's easy to reset/test. I've never
seen a receptacle with built-in GFCI that's double pole. So, you'd
need a double pole one at the panel. I'd rather have it near where
the receptacle is.

I don't get the whole idea behind splitting a receptacle and putting
each half on different legs. Here I see it done sometimes to put
one half on a switch, the other on all the time, on the *same* circuit.
That makes sense. Say what you want about Edison circuits, but this
Canadian thing, I don't understand what the purpose is all about.
And also, if you want to start in about potentially having two
different circuits in a box live, it's funny that Edison gets dragged
in as the solution. It would seem to me the finger should be pointed
at whoever up in Canada required their screwy split outlets.


I was never really sure why they wanted them on the same duplex
anyway. If you really need both 20 a circuits in one box, why not use
a 1900 box and put in 2 duplex outlets?

This was code in Canada before 20 amp circuits became code.
You usually run out of sockets long before you run out of amps.
I ended up with three 2 gang boxes serving the countertop along with a
few singles.



There's also the question of whether bringing 240 volts into a wet kitchen
area into one single box is a good idea to begin with. Anything that goes
wrong becomes a potentially much more lethal 240 volt event.


For the most part, it's not going to create a more lethal environment.
If it gets wet, energizes some metal, etc, you still only wind up with
120V to ground. To get 240V, you'd have to somehow wind up across
both legs, and that kind of fault would be extremely rare.

+1

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 May 2015 06:59:58 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:
wrote in message

stuff snipped in line

I'm sorry, but just because Canada does it that way
doesn't mean it's superior in any way. From what I can determine,
it's NOT safer and it's not cheaper. So why bother?

It makes it virtually impossible to overload a circuit when each half
of a duplex receptacle is on a separate circuit. You can plug a
toaster and a coffemaker into one "outlet" with no danger of
overloading it - and only have one wire required to be pulled for each
"outlet" - giving you, in effect, a 30 amp circuit.

Disagree. Teaching people to plug high amperage appliances into the SAME
outlet is just wrong. They'll tend to generalize and think EVERY outlet can
handle 30 or 40A loads. What does your average Joe Homeowner know about
Edison circuits? Nada, zip, bupkiss.

Because it's SO simple to add an extra box and circuit when you're doing the
work, it seems like very false economy to save a little money (maybe -
you've read my comments on wire costs and sales) and create an outlet that
encourages people to overload *all* outlets because "the one in the kitchen
never blows a breaker." Joe Homeowner is hardly likely to know that just
those outlets in the kitchen can handle multiple high-amp loads plugged into
them.

If running large loads out of one duplex outlet is the main reason for using
Edison circuits (and it's a weak one IMHO) I counter by saying you can do
exactly the same thing with a discrete feed from two breakers at the panel
with no shared neutral. Same effect.

Then you can pull 40A from one duplex outlet if that's what floats your
boat. Doing it with two discrete circuits and no shared neutral means you
can use single pole (and MUCH cheaper) GFCIs using the downstream options or
GFCI breakers in the circuit panel.

I'm still not convinced Edison circuits are saving anyone any money or makes
them safer in any way. Mostly what I've heard is "gee, you can run one less
conductor" as if that's really a substantial savings in wiring or labor
costs. It's not if you're going to run a new cable anyway.

What I have seen done for dual GFCI (And even single gfci) protection
is to run from the panel to a box with a gfci outlet, and feed-through
from there to the house circuit. The GFCI protector is on the panel
board with the electrical service panel, but is not IN the panel (for
cases where a gfci or dual gfci is either not available or
rediculously over-priced)

Explain to me again how you can GFCI protect an Edison circuit with two one
pole GFCIs? The current in a shared neutral fluctuates with the load on
both phases. Only a dual pole GFCI can monitor both hots simultaneously as
I understand it. From what I've read at least some people who have tried to
install two single pole GFCIs on an Edison circuit have been plagued by
nuisance trips. Others have had success, apparently, by separating the
shared neutral into two discrete wires before connection to the GFCIs. But
that's no longer a true Edison circuit.

There may be a proper way to do it, but it seems inordinately "klugy" to try
to force two single pole GFCIs to do something they weren't designed to do.
It seems a long way to go for very little reward. Just run two circuits
instead of an Edison circuit and you can use the much cheaper single pole
GFCIs and you can use them in the pass-through mode to protect all
downstream outlets.

I'm not the only one who isn't sanguine about MWCs:

https://www.mikeholt.com/mojonewsarc...200202 18.htm

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------
Destruction of Equipment. Never remove the grounded (neutral) conductor from
the grounded terminal bar in the panelboard if the phase conductors are
energized. The grounded (neutral) conductor you remove could be part of a
multiwire branch circuit, so this could result in destruction of electrical
equipment. More important, even if the return conductor is not part of a
multiwire circuit, removing a conductor from the grounded terminal bar when
the circuit is energized could result in injury due to shock or arcing.

A typical 3-wire circuit is actually two otherwise-separate parallel
circuits with a common conductor. If the grounded (neutral) conductor is
accidentally opened, the circuit changes from two separate parallel 120 V
circuits to one 240 V series circuit. This can result in fires and the total
destruction of electrical equipment.

For example: A single-phase, 3-wire, 120/240 V circuit supplies a 1,275 W,
120 V hair dryer and a 600 W, 120V television. If the grounded (neutral)
conductor is interrupted, it will cause the 120 V television to operate at
163 V and consume 1,110 W of power (instead of 600 W) for only a few seconds
before it burns up. Figure

Step 1. Determine the resistance of each appliance, R = E2/P.


a.. Hair dryer rated 1275 watts at 120 volts.
b.. R = E2/P, R = 1202/1275 = 11.3 ohms
c.. Television rated 600 watts at 120 volts.
d.. R = E2/P, R = 1202/600 = 24 ohms
Step 2. Determine the circuit resistance: RT = R1 + R2


a.. RT = 11.3 ohms + 24 ohms = RT = 35.3 ohms
Step 3. Determine the current of the circuit: IT = ES/RT


a.. IT = 240 V/35.3 ohms = 6.8 A
Step 4. Determine the voltage for each appliance: E = IT x Rx


a.. Hair dryer: 6.8 A x 11.3 ohms = 76.84 volts
b.. Television: 6.8 A x 24 ohms = 163.2 volts
The 120 V rated TV in the split second before it burns up or explodes is
operating at 163.2 volts.

Step 5. Determine the power consumed by each appliance: P = E2/R


a.. Hair Dryer: P = 76.82/11.3 = 522 watts
b.. Television: P = 163.22/24 = 1100 watts
The 600 W, 120 V rated TV will operate at 163 volts and consume 1110 watts.
You can kiss this TV goodbye!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------

All to save (perhaps) a few bucks on cable costs. Not worth it.

--
Bobby G.

wrote in message

You usually run out of sockets long before you run out of amps.

No truer words were ever spoken. It seems to me that the MWC *reduces* the
available outlet count and encourages people to use "cheaters" like six-way
plug-in adapters to get more outlets. They can be pretty dangerous if the
hots are connected in the adapter. I've used some. The older ones did tie
the neutrals together but the newer ones don't. The cheapest of them had
press-fit connectors between the outlets and the internal bus bar of the
adapter. When one of the connections came loose, it arced and melted the
adapter.

--
Bobby G.