On 9/8/2015 11:00 AM, Terry Coombs wrote:
Just bought our first electric dryer , wewe have always used gas in the
past . No natgas here , and propane would require installing a big tank . So
what size brbreaker do I need in the panel to power this thing ? Current
draw according to the model plate says it dawaws 22-24 amps , but there's
also the start current surge - I'm not sure if the heating element comes on
at power up .
So will a 30A breaker handle this , or do I need to go with a 40 ?
--
Snag



Every clothes drier I've seen used a double 30.

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

On 9/8/2015 12:12 PM, Terry Coombs wrote:
Thanks , I was leaning towards a 30A , but wasn't sure . The wiring will
be new , the plan is to run 10/2 w/gnd , the run is about 25 feet or a bit
more - unless she wants it somewhere other than where I plan to put it . The
other likely location is right next to the power panel , a run of maybe 5-6
feet .


The dryer plug will tell you a lot. The older driers
used a three prong plug, the newer ones four prong.

In case of an older three prong, your 10/2wg works
fine.

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

On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 8:35:18 AM UTC-4, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 9/8/2015 12:12 PM, Terry Coombs wrote:
Thanks , I was leaning towards a 30A , but wasn't sure . The wiring will
be new , the plan is to run 10/2 w/gnd , the run is about 25 feet or a bit
more - unless she wants it somewhere other than where I plan to put it . The
other likely location is right next to the power panel , a run of maybe 5-6
feet .


The dryer plug will tell you a lot. The older driers
used a three prong plug, the newer ones four prong.


Every new dryer I've seen can be used with either a 3 wire
or 4 wire cord. They typically don't include a cord, because
they don't know if you have a 3 wire or 4 wire receptacle,
so you buy that separately.



In case of an older three prong, your 10/2wg works
fine.


It isn't fine, it's a code violation. Installation of a new
dryer circuit requires 4 wires.

On 09/08/2015 9:39 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 21:58:13 -0400, wrote:
....

They were just trying to make the code more consistent. The only
exceptions to the rule were dryers and ranges and since you were going
to be using 10/3 Romex anyway, why not use the ground wire that was in
there?
As I said before there were other restrictions on this.
I've seen a lot of 10/2 with ground used for driers in the past, and
8/2 for ranges YEARS ago.

I have seen stuff wired with lamp cord but that didn't make it legal.

The fact remains that the exception allowed the neutral to also be
used for the ground and the neutral has always been required to be a
white insulated conductor.
....

No, that's not entirely so. Service cable with bare ground was allowed
for the run from service equipment to the receptacle allowing the
uninsulated ground to serve as the neutral providing it (the ground) was
also #10 or larger for ranges and dryers.

But from a branch circuit the insulated ground/shared neutral was
required to be insulated, yes. But normally 10/3 w/oG was run, not 4-wire.

The height of absurdity in Code (or misinterpretation, I'm not sure,
I've not researched to see for certain) was illustrated last summer here
when the well pump dropped owing to a failure in a plastic joint
(discovered it had been cross-threaded on installation as root cause)
and fishing it out ended up ruining existing down-hole wire. They ran
4-wire cable claiming it was required by Code down the hole to a 240V
pump with no connection or use whatever for the neutral. Stupid is as
stupid does...

--

Frankly, this was settled on the second poast. Just proves there are lots
of dummies out there with too much tyme on their hands.
LOL

"trader_4" wrote in message
...
Yes, that remote possibility has always existed, for half
a century. The point is the comment was made that it is "very dangerous".
If it's very dangerous, why do dryers still ship configured for 3 wire
cords?
Why do the manufacturers give instructions for using it with 3 wire
installs?
Why is it still perfectly code compliant to install a new dryer with a
3 wire cord? There are lots of small safety improvements that have been
made over the years, that doesn't make what was there previously very
dangerous.

It is not code compliant to install the house wiring for a 3 wire dryer. A
new socket must be wired for 4 wires.

As there are many old houses that have a 3 wire socket installed, it is ok
to sell a 3 wire cord to match them. I don't know of anyting in the code
book that says you have to change the old wiring in the house, just any new
wiring must be installed in a certain way.

As someone else pointed out , it is not all that much of a need or safey
improvement, but just slightly safer.

Often I think the people in some government safety agency must come up with
some kind of idea no matter how crazy just to keep their job.

On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 9:58:25 AM UTC-4, Ralph Mowery wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message
...
Yes, that remote possibility has always existed, for half
a century. The point is the comment was made that it is "very dangerous".
If it's very dangerous, why do dryers still ship configured for 3 wire
cords?
Why do the manufacturers give instructions for using it with 3 wire
installs?
Why is it still perfectly code compliant to install a new dryer with a
3 wire cord? There are lots of small safety improvements that have been
made over the years, that doesn't make what was there previously very
dangerous.

It is not code compliant to install the house wiring for a 3 wire dryer. A
new socket must be wired for 4 wires.

+1



As there are many old houses that have a 3 wire socket installed, it is ok
to sell a 3 wire cord to match them. I don't know of anyting in the code
book that says you have to change the old wiring in the house, just any new
wiring must be installed in a certain way.

Agree, there isn't anything in NEC that says you have to update the
wiring.


As someone else pointed out , it is not all that much of a need or safey
improvement, but just slightly safer.

+1


Often I think the people in some government safety agency must come up with
some kind of idea no matter how crazy just to keep their job.

4 wire is a better way of doing it. My issue, DPB's issue was
taking exception to the comment that 3 wire is "very dangerous".
If something was very dangerous I'd want it corrected immediately.
The 3 wire vs 4 wire is probably lower down the safety list than say AFCI
and I don't see people calling existing non-AFCI circuits very dangerous.

Yes, that remote possibility has always existed, for half
a century. The point is the comment was made that it is "very dangerous"..
If it's very dangerous, why do dryers still ship configured for 3 wire cords?
Why do the manufacturers give instructions for using it with 3 wire installs?

Trader
I said it ___CAN___ create a dangerous shock hazard.

Most dryers are installed next to washing machines whose cases are grounded..
With a 3 wire system, all it takes is for the the neutral/ground connection to come loose anywhere along the line, in the plug, in the panel or in the appliance which is subject to vibration, and the case of the dryer WILL be energized with 120V. Now someone doing laundry with wet hands leans one hand on the washer and one on the dryer and presto....

The dryer in my house is wired with a 3 wire plug and I felt it was too dangerous so I added a dedicated ground wire to the dryer case.

I belive the NEC made a mistake when they allowed the 3 wire exception and now they have corrected that mistake. This is one case where there actually IS added saftey and not just added complication.

Mark

On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 10:39:44 AM UTC-4, wrote:

Yes, that remote possibility has always existed, for half
a century. The point is the comment was made that it is "very dangerous".
If it's very dangerous, why do dryers still ship configured for 3 wire cords?
Why do the manufacturers give instructions for using it with 3 wire installs?

Trader
I said it ___CAN___ create a dangerous shock hazard.

Most dryers are installed next to washing machines whose cases are grounded.
With a 3 wire system, all it takes is for the the neutral/ground connection to come loose anywhere along the line, in the plug, in the panel or in the appliance which is subject to vibration, and the case of the dryer WILL be energized with 120V. Now someone doing laundry with wet hands leans one hand on the washer and one on the dryer and presto....

The dryer in my house is wired with a 3 wire plug and I felt it was too dangerous so I added a dedicated ground wire to the dryer case.

I belive the NEC made a mistake when they allowed the 3 wire exception and now they have corrected that mistake. This is one case where there actually IS added saftey and not just added complication.

Mark

You're entitle to your opinion and feelings. I've never heard of a single
case where someone was electrocuted, seriously shocked, etc. despite
this "mistake" being used on ovens, ranges, and dryers for half a century.
It's possible for the wire to come undone, but the vast majority are home
runs from the receptacle to the panel, diminishing the possibility of
that happening.

Apparently the appliance manufacturers agree, because they all
provide install instructions for dryer, ovens, etc that show how to
hook it up for 3 wire. The dryers I've seen, in fact came from the
factory configured for 3 wire and you had to change it to use 4 wire.
If it was creating real world serious events, you would think they
would be getting their pants sued off.

On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 04:33:38 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

Why do the manufacturers give instructions for using it with 3 wire installs?

Because they sell more dryers than builders sell new houses.

On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 04:38:14 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 4:40:58 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 15:10:24 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 9/8/2015 12:12 PM, Terry Coombs wrote:

30 amps is pretty much the standard

Thanks , I was leaning towards a 30A , but wasn't sure . The wiring will
be new , the plan is to run 10/2 w/gnd , the run is about 25 feet or a bit
more - unless she wants it somewhere other than where I plan to put it . The
other likely location is right next to the power panel , a run of maybe 5-6
feet .


New installation requires 10/3 with ground. You may still be able to buy
the old cordsets, but I'm not sure.

Yes you can but they are not legal on a new installation, only for
replacement.

Some people might take that to mean the installation of a new dryer.
Just to clarify, that's a new *circuit* installation. It's still
code compliant to use a brand new dryer with a 3 wire cord on
an existing 3 wire circuit and there are loads of them out there.



The instructions do say you should use a supplemental ground but that
is a violation in itself.

On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 08:35:18 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

In case of an older three prong, your 10/2wg works
fine.

Not legally. The 3d wire must be insulated

On Wed, 09 Sep 2015 08:39:58 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 09/08/2015 9:39 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 21:58:13 -0400, wrote:
...

They were just trying to make the code more consistent. The only
exceptions to the rule were dryers and ranges and since you were going
to be using 10/3 Romex anyway, why not use the ground wire that was in
there?
As I said before there were other restrictions on this.
I've seen a lot of 10/2 with ground used for driers in the past, and
8/2 for ranges YEARS ago.

I have seen stuff wired with lamp cord but that didn't make it legal.

The fact remains that the exception allowed the neutral to also be
used for the ground and the neutral has always been required to be a
white insulated conductor.
...

No, that's not entirely so. Service cable with bare ground was allowed
for the run from service equipment to the receptacle allowing the
uninsulated ground to serve as the neutral providing it (the ground) was
also #10 or larger for ranges and dryers.

There are different rules for service conductors because they are on
the line side of the grounding electrode.
I agree there was an exception for SE cable for a dryer but that came
with it's own set of rules.
We were talking about 10/2 romex

But from a branch circuit the insulated ground/shared neutral was
required to be insulated, yes. But normally 10/3 w/oG was run, not 4-wire.

I have not seen much w/o ground wire. It has been in the listing
standard since the 60s.


The height of absurdity in Code (or misinterpretation, I'm not sure,
I've not researched to see for certain) was illustrated last summer here
when the well pump dropped owing to a failure in a plastic joint
(discovered it had been cross-threaded on installation as root cause)
and fishing it out ended up ruining existing down-hole wire. They ran
4-wire cable claiming it was required by Code down the hole to a 240V
pump with no connection or use whatever for the neutral. Stupid is as
stupid does...

That was misinterpretation.

On 09/08/2015 02:10 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

[snip]

New installation requires 10/3 with ground. You may still be able to buy
the old cordsets, but I'm not sure.

I see those cordsets at Wal-Mart. Strangely, not the 4-wire ones.

I needed a 3-wire for my dryer, bought in 2009. This house already had
the receptacle for it (likely wired in 1969).

--
107 days until the winter celebration (Friday December 25, 2015 12:00:00
AM for 1 day).

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Faith is deciding to allow yourself to believe something your intellect
would otherwise cause you to reject -- otherwise there's no need for
faith."

On 09/08/2015 03:21 PM, wrote:


Years ago the dryers and stoves only used 3 wire plugs and the neutral and
frame were hooked together, but that is not the correct (code) way to do it
now.

It can also create a very dangerous shock hazard.

Voltage drop in that situation (N/G combined, and dryer running) would
make the dryer case voltage greater than 0. I doubt it would be enough
to qualify as "very dangerous". Probably not even enough to feel if you
licked the dryer.

BTW, unless you were doing open-heart surgery in your laundry room :-)

All new installs should be with 4 wire plug.

Mark




--
107 days until the winter celebration (Friday December 25, 2015 12:00:00
AM for 1 day).

"Nobody has ever taken notable pains to locate the legendary heaven; but
probably that is because nobody ever thought seriously of going to a
heaven." [E. Haldeman-Julius, "The Meaning Of Atheism"]

On 09/08/2015 06:57 PM, CRNG wrote:

[snip]

Just curious. Why "not anymore"? Has the nature of electricity
changed, or just the code? If just the code, what justifies the
increased complications?


2-year old child with serious heart condition runs away from hospital,
licks detergent spill on dryer with 3-wire cord, found dead with green
tongue :-)

On 9/9/2015 11:53 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 08:35:18 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

In case of an older three prong, your 10/2wg works
fine.

Not legally. The 3d wire must be insulated


In the modern post Constitutional north
America, legal and safe might not be the
same thing, now days.

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

On 9/9/2015 2:23 PM, hah wrote:
On 09/08/2015 06:57 PM, CRNG wrote:

[snip]

Just curious. Why "not anymore"? Has the nature of electricity
changed, or just the code? If just the code, what justifies the
increased complications?


2-year old child with serious heart condition runs away from hospital,
licks detergent spill on dryer with 3-wire cord, found dead with green
tongue :-)


And thus was passed the green tongue dryer cord
licking detergent spill protection For The
Children bill.

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

On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 2:13:28 PM UTC-4, Sam E wrote:
On 09/08/2015 03:21 PM, wrote:


Years ago the dryers and stoves only used 3 wire plugs and the neutral and
frame were hooked together, but that is not the correct (code) way to do it
now.

It can also create a very dangerous shock hazard.

Voltage drop in that situation (N/G combined, and dryer running) would
make the dryer case voltage greater than 0. I doubt it would be enough
to qualify as "very dangerous". Probably not even enough to feel if you
licked the dryer.

BTW, unless you were doing open-heart surgery in your laundry room :-)

All new installs should be with 4 wire plug.

Mark


It ___CAN___ easily become dangerous if the combined N/G wire suffers an open fault.

Its simple enough to make it better.

Use a 4 wire plug or add a supplemental ground wire.

No big deal.

Mark

On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 3:52:05 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 2:13:28 PM UTC-4, Sam E wrote:
On 09/08/2015 03:21 PM, wrote:


Years ago the dryers and stoves only used 3 wire plugs and the neutral and
frame were hooked together, but that is not the correct (code) way to do it
now.

It can also create a very dangerous shock hazard.

Voltage drop in that situation (N/G combined, and dryer running) would
make the dryer case voltage greater than 0. I doubt it would be enough
to qualify as "very dangerous". Probably not even enough to feel if you
licked the dryer.

BTW, unless you were doing open-heart surgery in your laundry room :-)

All new installs should be with 4 wire plug.

Mark


It ___CAN___ easily become dangerous if the combined N/G wire suffers an open fault.

Its simple enough to make it better.

Use a 4 wire plug or add a supplemental ground wire.

No big deal.

Mark

An existing 3 wire circuit is code compliant. Adding a supplemental
ground wire is a code violation, assuming the existing circuit is a
cable, which is what you have 99% of the time.

On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 13:34:15 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

Use a 4 wire plug or add a supplemental ground wire.

No big deal.

Mark

An existing 3 wire circuit is code compliant. Adding a supplemental
ground wire is a code violation, assuming the existing circuit is a
cable, which is what you have 99% of the time.

Not exactly true (see ex-1)

(B) With Circuit Conductors. By connecting to an equipment
grounding conductor contained within the same raceway,
cable, or otherwise run with the circuit conductors.

Exception No. i: As provided in 250. 130(C), the equipment
grounding conductor shall be permitted to be run
separately from the circuit conductors.

250.130(C) Nongrounding Receptacle Replacement or Branch
Circuit Extensions. The equipment grounding conductor
of a grounding-type receptacle or a branch-circuit extension
shall be permitted to be connected to any of the following:
(1) Any accessible point on the grounding electrode system
as described in 250.50
(2) Any accessible point on the grounding electrode conductor
(3) The equipment grounding terminal bar within the enclosure
where the branch circuit for the receptacle or
branch circuit originates
(4) An· equipment grounding conductor that is part of another
branch circuit that originates from the enclosure
where the branch circuit for the receptacle or branch
circuit originates
(5) For grounded systems, the grounded service conductor
within the service equipment enclosure

You are replacing a nongrounding receptacle when you replace a 10-40r
with a 14-30r

On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 12:42:34 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 13:34:15 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

Use a 4 wire plug or add a supplemental ground wire.

No big deal.

Mark

An existing 3 wire circuit is code compliant. Adding a supplemental
ground wire is a code violation, assuming the existing circuit is a
cable, which is what you have 99% of the time.

Not exactly true (see ex-1)

(B) With Circuit Conductors. By connecting to an equipment
grounding conductor contained within the same raceway,
cable, or otherwise run with the circuit conductors.

Exception No. i: As provided in 250. 130(C), the equipment
grounding conductor shall be permitted to be run
separately from the circuit conductors.

250.130(C) Nongrounding Receptacle Replacement or Branch
Circuit Extensions. The equipment grounding conductor
of a grounding-type receptacle or a branch-circuit extension
shall be permitted to be connected to any of the following:
(1) Any accessible point on the grounding electrode system
as described in 250.50
(2) Any accessible point on the grounding electrode conductor
(3) The equipment grounding terminal bar within the enclosure
where the branch circuit for the receptacle or
branch circuit originates
(4) An· equipment grounding conductor that is part of another
branch circuit that originates from the enclosure
where the branch circuit for the receptacle or branch
circuit originates
(5) For grounded systems, the grounded service conductor
within the service equipment enclosure

You are replacing a nongrounding receptacle when you replace a 10-40r
with a 14-30r

Interesting, I didn't know that exception existed.

On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 04:24:57 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 12:42:34 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 13:34:15 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

Use a 4 wire plug or add a supplemental ground wire.

No big deal.

Mark

An existing 3 wire circuit is code compliant. Adding a supplemental
ground wire is a code violation, assuming the existing circuit is a
cable, which is what you have 99% of the time.

Not exactly true (see ex-1)

(B) With Circuit Conductors. By connecting to an equipment
grounding conductor contained within the same raceway,
cable, or otherwise run with the circuit conductors.

Exception No. i: As provided in 250. 130(C), the equipment
grounding conductor shall be permitted to be run
separately from the circuit conductors.

250.130(C) Nongrounding Receptacle Replacement or Branch
Circuit Extensions. The equipment grounding conductor
of a grounding-type receptacle or a branch-circuit extension
shall be permitted to be connected to any of the following:
(1) Any accessible point on the grounding electrode system
as described in 250.50
(2) Any accessible point on the grounding electrode conductor
(3) The equipment grounding terminal bar within the enclosure
where the branch circuit for the receptacle or
branch circuit originates
(4) An· equipment grounding conductor that is part of another
branch circuit that originates from the enclosure
where the branch circuit for the receptacle or branch
circuit originates
(5) For grounded systems, the grounded service conductor
within the service equipment enclosure

You are replacing a nongrounding receptacle when you replace a 10-40r
with a 14-30r

Interesting, I didn't know that exception existed.

It has been around since the 60s and before the rise of plastic
plumbing, it allowed just grabbing a cold water pipe.

On 09/09/2015 03:34 PM, trader_4 wrote:

[snip]

An existing 3 wire circuit is code compliant. Adding a supplemental
ground wire is a code violation, assuming the existing circuit is a
cable, which is what you have 99% of the time.


There's these three connections:

1. 3-wire cable, shared N/G

2. 4-wire cable, separate n and G

3. as #1, but internal jumper removed and dryer grounded separate from
cable.

#1 is somewhat less safe. How is #3 less safe than #2? Is it any better
than #1?

--
106 days until the winter celebration (Friday December 25, 2015 12:00:00
AM for 1 day).

"When people learn no tools of judgment and merely follow their hopes,
the seeds of political manipulation are sown." -- Stephen Jay Gould

On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 4:35:30 PM UTC-4, Sam E wrote:
On 09/09/2015 03:34 PM, trader_4 wrote:

[snip]

An existing 3 wire circuit is code compliant. Adding a supplemental
ground wire is a code violation, assuming the existing circuit is a
cable, which is what you have 99% of the time.


There's these three connections:

1. 3-wire cable, shared N/G

2. 4-wire cable, separate n and G

3. as #1, but internal jumper removed and dryer grounded separate from
cable.


#1 is somewhat less safe. How is #3 less safe than #2? Is it any better
than #1?


I don't believe you can do #3 and be code compliant. It appears what
you're suggesting is to keep the existing 3 wire dryer cord and receptacle
and run a separate ground wire from a connection point at the dryer to
an appropriate point on the grounding system for the house. Code requires
that ground wires be run in the same cable as the conductors. GFRE explained
that there is an exception for the case where you are replacing a non-grounding
receptacle with a grounding type receptacle. So, if you replace the 3 wire
receptacle with a 4 wire receptacle, you would use that exception, ground
the receptacle to an allowed point on the grounding system, and then change
to a 4 wire cord. Unless you use that exception, a separate ground wire
is not code compliant. I think I have that right, GFRE can weigh in.

Purely from a safety standpoint, if you did what you suggested in #3,
I don't see it as a safety issue, if otherwise done right, the dryer
would be grounded. But safe and code compliant are not always the same
thing. And if #3 were done right, while I believe it's a code violation,
from a functional standpoint the grounding effect would be the same
as #2 and having a ground would be better than #1. The issue here is
do you want to now create a code violation while marginally
improving a perfectly code compliant, widely used setup? If you go
to sell the house, no home inspector would fail a 3 wire arrangement.
But if he sees a ground wire coming out of the dryer separately,
going who knows where, there is a good chance he would flag it.

Also, I think I still was right, that what Mako suggested, which
I believe is actually your #3 method, is a
code violation, though I focused on the wrong part of it. He
posted:

"Its simple enough to make it better. Use a 4 wire plug or add a
supplemental ground wire."

I said that would not be code compliant because the ground would
not be in the same cable, assuming it is cable, which is reasonable.
As GFRE pointed out, there is an exception that allows that. But
to use that exception, you'd still have to change to a 4 wire receptacle
and use a 4 wire plug. You can't keep the 3 wire cord/plug/receptacle
and just add the ground wire directly to the dryer. That's my
interpretation, again, GFRE can weigh in.

On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 05:11:09 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 4:35:30 PM UTC-4, Sam E wrote:
On 09/09/2015 03:34 PM, trader_4 wrote:

[snip]

An existing 3 wire circuit is code compliant. Adding a supplemental
ground wire is a code violation, assuming the existing circuit is a
cable, which is what you have 99% of the time.


There's these three connections:

1. 3-wire cable, shared N/G

2. 4-wire cable, separate n and G

3. as #1, but internal jumper removed and dryer grounded separate from
cable.


#1 is somewhat less safe. How is #3 less safe than #2? Is it any better
than #1?


I don't believe you can do #3 and be code compliant. It appears what
you're suggesting is to keep the existing 3 wire dryer cord and receptacle
and run a separate ground wire from a connection point at the dryer to
an appropriate point on the grounding system for the house. Code requires
that ground wires be run in the same cable as the conductors. GFRE explained
that there is an exception for the case where you are replacing a non-grounding
receptacle with a grounding type receptacle. So, if you replace the 3 wire
receptacle with a 4 wire receptacle, you would use that exception, ground
the receptacle to an allowed point on the grounding system, and then change
to a 4 wire cord. Unless you use that exception, a separate ground wire
is not code compliant. I think I have that right, GFRE can weigh in.

Purely from a safety standpoint, if you did what you suggested in #3,
I don't see it as a safety issue, if otherwise done right, the dryer
would be grounded. But safe and code compliant are not always the same
thing. And if #3 were done right, while I believe it's a code violation,
from a functional standpoint the grounding effect would be the same
as #2 and having a ground would be better than #1. The issue here is
do you want to now create a code violation while marginally
improving a perfectly code compliant, widely used setup? If you go
to sell the house, no home inspector would fail a 3 wire arrangement.
But if he sees a ground wire coming out of the dryer separately,
going who knows where, there is a good chance he would flag it.

Also, I think I still was right, that what Mako suggested, which
I believe is actually your #3 method, is a
code violation, though I focused on the wrong part of it. He
posted:

"Its simple enough to make it better. Use a 4 wire plug or add a
supplemental ground wire."

I said that would not be code compliant because the ground would
not be in the same cable, assuming it is cable, which is reasonable.
As GFRE pointed out, there is an exception that allows that. But
to use that exception, you'd still have to change to a 4 wire receptacle
and use a 4 wire plug. You can't keep the 3 wire cord/plug/receptacle
and just add the ground wire directly to the dryer. That's my
interpretation, again, GFRE can weigh in.

On a 3 wire connection you still need the bonding jumper in the dryer,
no matter what.
They used to tell you to run a ground wire to the cold water pipe and
some even included a short green wire but that went away years ago.
There is still a tapped hole for the grounding screw with the ground
symbol in old designs but I assume it is just because they never
changed the design for the back cover.
If you want to run a supplemental wire from the dryer case to the 120v
box for the washer, I am not sure what article you are breaking. It
just will not be the only ground you need.
Some might argue that you are putting objectionable current on the EGC
for the washer (250.6) but having the 2 cases bonded together is
safer than not.

On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 10:59:53 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 05:11:09 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 4:35:30 PM UTC-4, Sam E wrote:
On 09/09/2015 03:34 PM, trader_4 wrote:

[snip]

An existing 3 wire circuit is code compliant. Adding a supplemental
ground wire is a code violation, assuming the existing circuit is a
cable, which is what you have 99% of the time.


There's these three connections:

1. 3-wire cable, shared N/G

2. 4-wire cable, separate n and G

3. as #1, but internal jumper removed and dryer grounded separate from
cable.


#1 is somewhat less safe. How is #3 less safe than #2? Is it any better
than #1?


I don't believe you can do #3 and be code compliant. It appears what
you're suggesting is to keep the existing 3 wire dryer cord and receptacle
and run a separate ground wire from a connection point at the dryer to
an appropriate point on the grounding system for the house. Code requires
that ground wires be run in the same cable as the conductors. GFRE explained
that there is an exception for the case where you are replacing a non-grounding
receptacle with a grounding type receptacle. So, if you replace the 3 wire
receptacle with a 4 wire receptacle, you would use that exception, ground
the receptacle to an allowed point on the grounding system, and then change
to a 4 wire cord. Unless you use that exception, a separate ground wire
is not code compliant. I think I have that right, GFRE can weigh in.

Purely from a safety standpoint, if you did what you suggested in #3,
I don't see it as a safety issue, if otherwise done right, the dryer
would be grounded. But safe and code compliant are not always the same
thing. And if #3 were done right, while I believe it's a code violation,
from a functional standpoint the grounding effect would be the same
as #2 and having a ground would be better than #1. The issue here is
do you want to now create a code violation while marginally
improving a perfectly code compliant, widely used setup? If you go
to sell the house, no home inspector would fail a 3 wire arrangement.
But if he sees a ground wire coming out of the dryer separately,
going who knows where, there is a good chance he would flag it.

Also, I think I still was right, that what Mako suggested, which
I believe is actually your #3 method, is a
code violation, though I focused on the wrong part of it. He
posted:

"Its simple enough to make it better. Use a 4 wire plug or add a
supplemental ground wire."

I said that would not be code compliant because the ground would
not be in the same cable, assuming it is cable, which is reasonable.
As GFRE pointed out, there is an exception that allows that. But
to use that exception, you'd still have to change to a 4 wire receptacle
and use a 4 wire plug. You can't keep the 3 wire cord/plug/receptacle
and just add the ground wire directly to the dryer. That's my
interpretation, again, GFRE can weigh in.

On a 3 wire connection you still need the bonding jumper in the dryer,
no matter what.
They used to tell you to run a ground wire to the cold water pipe and
some even included a short green wire but that went away years ago.
There is still a tapped hole for the grounding screw with the ground
symbol in old designs but I assume it is just because they never
changed the design for the back cover.
If you want to run a supplemental wire from the dryer case to the 120v
box for the washer, I am not sure what article you are breaking. It
just will not be the only ground you need.
Some might argue that you are putting objectionable current on the EGC
for the washer (250.6) but having the 2 cases bonded together is
safer than not.

It's safer from the standpoint of the two cases then being grounded
and at the same potential. But from a system standpoint, I'd say it
is problem, for the reason you just gave. With the dryer now using
the washer circuit as part of it's combined neutral and ground
path, the ground wire of the washer back to the panel becomes a
current carrying conductor for part of the 120V dryer load, something
that a person working on the washer circuit isn't going to be expecting.

On 09/11/2015 10:19 AM, trader_4 wrote:

[snip]

It's safer from the standpoint of the two cases then being grounded
and at the same potential. But from a system standpoint, I'd say it
is problem, for the reason you just gave. With the dryer now using
the washer circuit as part of it's combined neutral and ground
path, the ground wire of the washer back to the panel becomes a
current carrying conductor for part of the 120V dryer load, something
that a person working on the washer circuit isn't going to be expecting.


The connection I described had neutral and ground SEPARATED at the
dryer. This new ground wire should never be carrying neutral current.

--
105 days until the winter celebration (Friday December 25, 2015 12:00:00
AM for 1 day).

On 09/11/2015 07:11 AM, trader_4 wrote:

[snip]

Also, I think I still was right, that what Mako suggested, which
I believe is actually your #3 method, is a
code violation, though I focused on the wrong part of it. He
posted:

"Its simple enough to make it better. Use a 4 wire plug or add a
supplemental ground wire."

[snip]

This is a private residence, which I'm not about to sell. I'm more
concerned with safety here than code.

I do like the idea of changing the receptacle (and dryer cord) better
than just adding a ground wire. I wish I had thought of that. For one
thing, it makes it a normal installation as far as the dryer is concerned.

Another problem here is where to connect the ground. The cold water pipe
is probably OK for now but there is always the possibility of problems
later. The washer receptacle is grounded but only #12.

--
105 days until the winter celebration (Friday December 25, 2015 12:00:00
AM for 1 day).

On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 1:51:53 PM UTC-4, Sam E wrote:
On 09/11/2015 10:19 AM, trader_4 wrote:

[snip]

It's safer from the standpoint of the two cases then being grounded
and at the same potential. But from a system standpoint, I'd say it
is problem, for the reason you just gave. With the dryer now using
the washer circuit as part of it's combined neutral and ground
path, the ground wire of the washer back to the panel becomes a
current carrying conductor for part of the 120V dryer load, something
that a person working on the washer circuit isn't going to be expecting.


The connection I described had neutral and ground SEPARATED at the
dryer. This new ground wire should never be carrying neutral current.

Well, I believe GFRE posted that's a code violation, or at least something
is wrong with it:

"On a 3 wire connection you still need the bonding jumper in the dryer,
no matter what. "


Though I agree that from what I see, if you're going to add a separate
ground, you're method would be safer, because there would be no current
in the ground. But the 100% code compliant
way would be to replace the receptacle and cord with 4 wires, and
simply connect the new separate ground wire to the receptacle and
attach the other end to one of the approved grounding points permitted
by the code exception. It's also not likely to get squawked by a
home inspector, where a ground wire attached directly to an appliance
that is also plugged in is almost surely going to attract attention.

On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 2:01:32 PM UTC-4, Sam E wrote:
On 09/11/2015 07:11 AM, trader_4 wrote:

[snip]

Also, I think I still was right, that what Mako suggested, which
I believe is actually your #3 method, is a
code violation, though I focused on the wrong part of it. He
posted:

"Its simple enough to make it better. Use a 4 wire plug or add a
supplemental ground wire."

[snip]

This is a private residence, which I'm not about to sell. I'm more
concerned with safety here than code.

I do like the idea of changing the receptacle (and dryer cord) better
than just adding a ground wire. I wish I had thought of that. For one
thing, it makes it a normal installation as far as the dryer is concerned.

Another problem here is where to connect the ground. The cold water pipe
is probably OK for now but there is always the possibility of problems
later. The washer receptacle is grounded but only #12.


Well, you've identified more problems, which is where it's
code compliant to attach the ground wire and what size must it
be. The water pipe is almost always out, unless it happens
to meet the narrow reqts outlined in the exception. Washer
receptacle would be OK, but to be code compliant, it would have
to be a #10 for a 40 amp dryer circuit. I could live with it
being connected to #12, but then I can live with the dryer being
3 wire and 100% code compliant as is, just like millions of homes
built prior to about 2000.
of the tough

trader_4 writes:

Well, you've identified more problems, which is where it's
code compliant to attach the ground wire and what size must it
be. The water pipe is almost always out, unless it happens
to meet the narrow reqts outlined in the exception. Washer
receptacle would be OK, but to be code compliant, it would have
to be a #10 for a 40 amp dryer circuit. I could live with it
being connected to #12, but then I can live with the dryer being
3 wire and 100% code compliant as is, just like millions of homes
built prior to about 2000.
of the tough

IIRC, the grounding connector is permitted be one size smaller than the
grounded and current carrying conductors.

On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 2:23:38 PM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
trader_4 writes:

Well, you've identified more problems, which is where it's
code compliant to attach the ground wire and what size must it
be. The water pipe is almost always out, unless it happens
to meet the narrow reqts outlined in the exception. Washer
receptacle would be OK, but to be code compliant, it would have
to be a #10 for a 40 amp dryer circuit. I could live with it
being connected to #12, but then I can live with the dryer being
3 wire and 100% code compliant as is, just like millions of homes
built prior to about 2000.
of the tough

IIRC, the grounding connector is permitted be one size smaller than the
grounded and current carrying conductors.

Which is why the #10 ground would be OK for a 40 amp dryer circuit using
#8 current carrying conductors, but a #12 would not.

posted for all of us...



On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 22:07:20 -0600, Tony Hwang
wrote:

dpb wrote:
On 09/08/2015 6:30 PM, John wrote:
On 9/8/2015 4:54 PM, dpb wrote:
On 09/08/2015 3:21 PM, wrote:


Years ago the dryers and stoves only used 3 wire plugs and the
neutral and
frame were hooked together, but that is not the correct (code) way
to do it
now.

It can also create a very dangerous shock hazard.
...

Which is why there's been a news story every night over it for the
last 60+ years...oh, yeah, "not!"

Yah, putting in a proper 4-wire circuit is soooooooooooooo much more
expensive.

Immaterial; it the point is it gains virtually nothing in either safety
or operation. Not that it isn't _marginally_ better, but there's a
_long_ history that indicates it's a solution to an essentially
non-existent problem.

--
Marginally better is still better.

More than marginally. If you really feel that way, why run 23 wire to
your receptacle outlets anywhere. Just tag the neutral.

The error in your ways will quickly become apparent when you are
sitting on the garage floor with a metal cased tool in your hand.
Any voltage drop in the neutral will be imposed on the tool's case.

Some people just don't get it...

--
Tekkie

On 9/11/2015 2:01 PM, Sam E wrote:
105 days until the winter celebration (Friday December 25, 2015 12:00:00
AM for 1 day).

Happy Festivus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dS7-jcsB_WQ

On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 4:14:09 PM UTC-4, Tekkie® wrote:


The error in your ways will quickly become apparent when you are
sitting on the garage floor with a metal cased tool in your hand.
Any voltage drop in the neutral will be imposed on the tool's case.

Some people just don't get it...

--
Tekkie

I think there is agreement here that 4 wires for a dryer is a better method
than 3 wire. The fact remains that 3 wire is still perfectly legal
per NEC and per all the dryer manufacturer install instructions.
And that despite 3 wire being in use for half a century, until ~2000,
no one here can point to a single bad thing happening. We don't know
how many incidents, if any or what the code change was actually based on.
Presumably it;s not all that bad, because they addressed many other
things in the code during that half century and only more recently arrived
at requiring 4 wire for new circuits.

The remaining question is if you want to live with what is there, that's code
compliant and in widespread use or do something to marginally improve it.
If you choose the latter, is it going to be a *******ized,
non-compliant solution or one that is code compliant. If you choose the latter, the two solutions I see are to:

1 - Run a whole new 4 wire circuit, change the cord to 4 wire, change
the jumpering in the dryer..

2 - Change the cord to 4 wire, change the jumpering in the dryer,
replace the receptacle with a 4 wire and install a separate ground
wire from the receptacle that gets terminated pursuant to the code
exception that GFRE cited. And that last part isn't likely to be
easy because nearby grounding system points aren't likely to have
the required 10g ground conductor.

You could also choose some level of *******ization within choice
#2, eg hook the ground to a smaller than #10 grounding conductor, etc.
I know what I would do which is to leave it connected as 3 wire,
code compliant.

On 9/11/2015 6:58 PM, trader_4 wrote:
I think there is agreement here that 4 wires for a dryer is a better method
than 3 wire. The fact remains that 3 wire is still perfectly legal
per NEC and per all the dryer manufacturer install instructions.
And that despite 3 wire being in use for half a century, until ~2000,
no one here can point to a single bad thing happening. We don't know
how many incidents, if any or what the code change was actually based on.
Presumably it;s not all that bad, because they addressed many other
things in the code during that half century and only more recently arrived
at requiring 4 wire for new circuits.


What amazes me is the in the amount of time some people spend half-assing
something when they could do the entire job properly with just a bit more
effort.

Peace of mind is priceless.