I have a friend who just moved to the US from the UK. He went from a
Victorian house with a gas (I think) tankless heating system to a modern
apartment with an electric water heater tank; a new situation for him. He
is responsible for the apartment utility bills.

He is frugal by nature and is used to having his domestic hot water system
on a timer. I doubt it would be practical to put a timer on the apartment's
water heater for the time he'll be there (and the apartment management might
not like the modification), but he has asked me whether he should turn off
the water heater when he leaves for work, and I wasn't sure of the answer.

My first thought was that he won't save much electricity -- it's not
especially hot water (set to child-safe temps by management, I assume) and
it's in an under-stair closet near the center of the building, so it's not
leaking a lot of heat to cold outdoors -- I think it might be served well
enough by wrapping the tank in an insulating blanket and wrapping the short
exposed length of pipe.

But I also began to wonder whether a circuit-breaker switch is designed to
hold up being switched on and off a couple of times a day, every day. Any
trouble liable to result from him using the circuit breaker to turn off the
water heater on a daily basis?

Thanks.

"Robert E. Lewis" wrote in message

he has asked me whether he should turn off
the water heater when he leaves for work, and I wasn't sure of the answer.

My first thought was that he won't save much electricity --

But I also began to wonder whether a circuit-breaker switch is designed to
hold up being switched on and off a couple of times a day, every day. Any
trouble liable to result from him using the circuit breaker to turn off
the
water heater on a daily basis?

It may end up costing him more to overcome the temperature swings than to
just leave it hot. It is also false economy to cool and heat some units and
subject them to expansion and contraction over time, although the swings are
minimal compared to a boiler.

Using the breaker as a switch is not a good idea either. It servers a
purpose and it was designed to be a protection device, not a switch. Yes,
I've seen it done often in industrial setting where breakers do control
lighting.

The added insulation may help, especially if it is an older unit. The newer
ones are more efficient.

It may end up costing him more to overcome the temperature swings than to
just leave it hot.

That MAY be true with a heat pump but it just ain't do with a water heater.

It is also false economy to cool and heat some units and
subject them to expansion and contraction over time, although the swings
are
minimal compared to a boiler.

That's another issue. I can think of several ways an electric water
heater can fail. I suppose temperature cycling might be one. But
operating time at full temperature might be another. (Hot water is more
reactive than cold water.)

But in this case, the capital expense is the landlord's but the operating
expense is the tenants.





Using the breaker as a switch is not a good idea either. It servers a
purpose and it was designed to be a protection device, not a switch. Yes,
I've seen it done often in industrial setting where breakers do control
lighting.

The added insulation may help, especially if it is an older unit. The
newer
ones are more efficient.

In article DQcgd.8488$Ae3.1841@trndny02,
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

"Robert E. Lewis" wrote in message

he has asked me whether he should turn off
the water heater when he leaves for work, and I wasn't sure of the answer.

My first thought was that he won't save much electricity --

But I also began to wonder whether a circuit-breaker switch is designed to
hold up being switched on and off a couple of times a day, every day. Any
trouble liable to result from him using the circuit breaker to turn off
the
water heater on a daily basis?

It may end up costing him more to overcome the temperature swings than to
just leave it hot.

That is nonsense. The water heater will always use less electricity
if you let it cool down. Admittedly, the difference might be
irrelevantly small. Think about it this way: If the unit is being
kept hot, it needs to use energy to overcome the leakage of energy.
This leakage is probably heating the house or basement around the
water heater. But if you let it cool down, it will always leak less
energy. Admittedly, if you let it cool down, you will eventually
(when you heat it back up) have to use a lot of energy at once to
bring it back up to temperature; but still less than if you had kept
it at higher temperature.

Remember: In temperature swings, there is no friction. Getting the
heater back up to temperature costs as much energy as the heater
released when the temperature went down. Where did the heater release
the energy to? Into the leakage - while the power was off. If we had
kept the heater on, we would have had to pay for leakage. But there
was less leakage (due to the lower temperature as the heater cooled
down), so we have a small net gain.

There is an interesting counter-argument: It could be that the water
heater is effectively heating the house. So if you let it cool down,
then the house will get colder, which will then cause you to require
more heating to keep the house comfortable. If the house heating were
electrical, and you had a perfect thermostat on the house, this
additional expense would exactly cancel the saving at the water
heater. With other forms of heating, and in particular in warm
weather, this can go either way.

It is also false economy to cool and heat some units and
subject them to expansion and contraction over time, although the swings are
minimal compared to a boiler.

True, but maybe irrelevant (there are other effects that counteract
this effect - for example it doesn't corrode as fast as when it is
cold, and the thermostat doesn't have to switch off and on as often
while the heater is off). Can't tell whether this is a good or a bad
effect.

Using the breaker as a switch is not a good idea either. It servers a
purpose and it was designed to be a protection device, not a switch. Yes,
I've seen it done often in industrial setting where breakers do control
lighting.

Some breakers are rates as switches. Some are not. Some are rated to
switch only resistive loads, while some are rated also for inductive
loads (which may or may not include lighting loads, looking at
fluorescents). Look at the Square D catalog (just as an example), and
you will find a wide variety of breakers.

The garden-variety breakers installed in residences are TYPICALLY BUT
NOT ALWAYS rated for switching duty. But two-pole (or 240V breakers)
are TYPICALLY NOT rated for switching duty. Again, for example an
look at the Square D catalog, and look for HOM120 breaker (a
garden-variety 20A single-pole circuit breaker, the cheapest one you
can get from Square D). The footnotes to it say:

a UL Listed as SWD (switching duty) rated. Suitable for switching 120
Vac fluorescent lighting loads.
b UL Listed as HACR type for use with air conditioning, heating and
refrigeration equipment having motor group combinations and marked for
use with HACR type circuit breakers.

The 2-pole 30A breaker (which is what one would typically use for a
water heater) does NOT have footnote A.

The added insulation may help, especially if it is an older unit. The newer
ones are more efficient.

This is EXCELLENT advice. We put a "heater blanket" (special pre-made
encapsulated fiberglas insulation) around our heater (which was
admittedly outdoors), and it saved about $10 per month.

--
The address in the header is invalid for obvious reasons. Please
reconstruct the address from the information below (look for _).
Ralph Becker-Szendy

My ballpark estimates by doing same power cycling concluded
that energy saved per day was about one shower of heat. That
is heat expended every day to maintain hot water heater at 120
degrees. Again, these were only ball park numbers.

Ralph Becker-Szendy wrote:
That is nonsense. The water heater will always use less electricity
if you let it cool down. Admittedly, the difference might be
irrelevantly small. Think about it this way: If the unit is being
kept hot, it needs to use energy to overcome the leakage of energy.
This leakage is probably heating the house or basement around the
water heater. But if you let it cool down, it will always leak less
energy. Admittedly, if you let it cool down, you will eventually
(when you heat it back up) have to use a lot of energy at once to
bring it back up to temperature; but still less than if you had kept
it at higher temperature.

Remember: In temperature swings, there is no friction. Getting the
heater back up to temperature costs as much energy as the heater
released when the temperature went down. Where did the heater release
the energy to? Into the leakage - while the power was off. If we had
kept the heater on, we would have had to pay for leakage. But there
was less leakage (due to the lower temperature as the heater cooled
down), so we have a small net gain.

There is an interesting counter-argument: It could be that the water
heater is effectively heating the house. So if you let it cool down,
then the house will get colder, which will then cause you to require
more heating to keep the house comfortable. If the house heating were
electrical, and you had a perfect thermostat on the house, this
additional expense would exactly cancel the saving at the water
heater. With other forms of heating, and in particular in warm
weather, this can go either way.

It is also false economy to cool and heat some units and
subject them to expansion and contraction over time, although the swings are
minimal compared to a boiler.

True, but maybe irrelevant (there are other effects that counteract
this effect - for example it doesn't corrode as fast as when it is
cold, and the thermostat doesn't have to switch off and on as often
while the heater is off). Can't tell whether this is a good or a bad
effect.

Using the breaker as a switch is not a good idea either. It servers
a ose and it was designed to be a protection device, not a switch.
Yes, I've seen it done often in industrial setting where breakers do
control lighting.

Some breakers are rates as switches. Some are not. Some are rated to
switch only resistive loads, while some are rated also for inductive
loads (which may or may not include lighting loads, looking at
fluorescents). Look at the Square D catalog (just as an example), and
you will find a wide variety of breakers.

The garden-variety breakers installed in residences are TYPICALLY BUT
NOT ALWAYS rated for switching duty. But two-pole (or 240V breakers)
are TYPICALLY NOT rated for switching duty. Again, for example an
look at the Square D catalog, and look for HOM120 breaker (a
garden-variety 20A single-pole circuit breaker, the cheapest one you
can get from Square D). The footnotes to it say:

a UL Listed as SWD (switching duty) rated. Suitable for switching 120
Vac fluorescent lighting loads.
b UL Listed as HACR type for use with air conditioning, heating and
refrigeration equipment having motor group combinations and marked for
use with HACR type circuit breakers.

The 2-pole 30A breaker (which is what one would typically use for a
water heater) does NOT have footnote A.

The added insulation may help, especially if it is an older unit.
The newer ones are more efficient.

This is EXCELLENT advice. We put a "heater blanket" (special pre-made
encapsulated fiberglas insulation) around our heater (which was
admittedly outdoors), and it saved about $10 per month.

Robert E. Lewis wrote:

[...]

But I also began to wonder whether a circuit-breaker switch is designed to
hold up being switched on and off a couple of times a day, every day. Any
trouble liable to result from him using the circuit breaker to turn off the
water heater on a daily basis?

We turned off lights with circuit breakers daily at the bookstore where
I worked all the way through college. No problems.

I'd encourage your friend to try this for a month and then try leaving
it on for a month and compare, though. I doubt he'll save much money
turning it off, and it may even be more expensive.
--
Bo Williams -
http://hiwaay.net/~williams/

"Bo Williams" wrote in message
...
Robert E. Lewis wrote:

[...]

But I also began to wonder whether a circuit-breaker switch is designed
to
hold up being switched on and off a couple of times a day, every day.
Any
trouble liable to result from him using the circuit breaker to turn off
the
water heater on a daily basis?

We turned off lights with circuit breakers daily at the bookstore where I
worked all the way through college. No problems.

I'd encourage your friend to try this for a month and then try leaving it
on for a month and compare, though. I doubt he'll save much money turning
it off, and it may even be more expensive.

may? its a sure thing it will be more expensive doing this on a daily
basis. basic physics dictate this.

randy

"xrongor" wrote in message
...

"Bo Williams" wrote in message
...
Robert E. Lewis wrote:

[...]

But I also began to wonder whether a circuit-breaker switch is designed
to
hold up being switched on and off a couple of times a day, every day.
Any
trouble liable to result from him using the circuit breaker to turn off
the
water heater on a daily basis?

We turned off lights with circuit breakers daily at the bookstore where
I
worked all the way through college. No problems.

I'd encourage your friend to try this for a month and then try leaving
it
on for a month and compare, though. I doubt he'll save much money
turning
it off, and it may even be more expensive.

may? its a sure thing it will be more expensive doing this on a daily
basis. basic physics dictate this.

You are dead wrong about that. Basic physics dictates it will be cheaper to
turn the heater off. But the difference will probably be trivial.
No, I will not argue physics with you; if it is not obvious to you, you
don't know enough to grasp it. (though I will give you a hint; heat loss is
proportional to the difference in temperature)

"toller" wrote in message
...

"xrongor" wrote in message
...

"Bo Williams" wrote in message
...
Robert E. Lewis wrote:

[...]

But I also began to wonder whether a circuit-breaker switch is
designed
to
hold up being switched on and off a couple of times a day, every day.
Any
trouble liable to result from him using the circuit breaker to turn
off
the
water heater on a daily basis?

We turned off lights with circuit breakers daily at the bookstore where
I
worked all the way through college. No problems.

I'd encourage your friend to try this for a month and then try leaving
it
on for a month and compare, though. I doubt he'll save much money
turning
it off, and it may even be more expensive.

may? its a sure thing it will be more expensive doing this on a daily
basis. basic physics dictate this.

You are dead wrong about that. Basic physics dictates it will be cheaper
to
turn the heater off. But the difference will probably be trivial.
No, I will not argue physics with you; if it is not obvious to you, you
don't know enough to grasp it. (though I will give you a hint; heat loss
is
proportional to the difference in temperature)

go back to community college and finish your degree...

randy

xrongor wrote:
"toller" wrote in message
...

"xrongor" wrote in message
...

"Bo Williams" wrote in message
...

Robert E. Lewis wrote:

[...]


But I also began to wonder whether a circuit-breaker switch is
designed
to
hold up being switched on and off a couple of times a day, every day.
Any
trouble liable to result from him using the circuit breaker to turn
off
the
water heater on a daily basis?

We turned off lights with circuit breakers daily at the bookstore where

I

worked all the way through college. No problems.

I'd encourage your friend to try this for a month and then try leaving

it

on for a month and compare, though. I doubt he'll save much money

turning

it off, and it may even be more expensive.

may? its a sure thing it will be more expensive doing this on a daily
basis. basic physics dictate this.


You are dead wrong about that. Basic physics dictates it will be cheaper
to
turn the heater off. But the difference will probably be trivial.
No, I will not argue physics with you; if it is not obvious to you, you
don't know enough to grasp it. (though I will give you a hint; heat loss
is
proportional to the difference in temperature)


go back to community college and finish your degree...

randy



Just so you don't think that it's only one person picking on you Randy,
I also firmly believe you are wrong about that point.

Now, instead of your just flinging insults, why don't you give us all
your technical reasoning involving "basic physics" please.

Jeff

--
My name is Jeff Wisnia and I approved this message....

(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)

"As long as there are final exams, there will be prayer in public
schools"

it off, and it may even be more expensive.

may? its a sure thing it will be more expensive doing this on a daily
basis. basic physics dictate this.

randy


not a chance, it's cheaper to turn it off & back on rahter than leaving it on
all day.

If it used more energy why would utilities give rebates for setback
thermostats????

I run all stop signs without causing problems. That proves
stop signs can be ignored. You have violated a basic
principle. Just because circuit breakers work as switched in
one place does not mean it is acceptable everywhere. Do you
know that those bookstore circuit breakers are specially
designed to be switched? You should know such facts - the
underlying theory - before posting.

If one cannot answer the question based both on the
specifications (theoretical knowledge) and practical
experience (experimental knowledge), then one does not have an
answer. Experimentally I have proved that stop signs can be
ignored. Given these two above requirements, can we say I
have sufficient information to promote running stop signs?
Obviously not.

Circuit breakers, like all switches, have life expectancy
numbers and other parameters. The question can only be
answered by providing the numbers - the specs. Anything less
would be junk science reasoning.

Bo Williams wrote:
We turned off lights with circuit breakers daily at the bookstore where
I worked all the way through college. No problems.

I'd encourage your friend to try this for a month and then try leaving
it on for a month and compare, though. I doubt he'll save much money
turning it off, and it may even be more expensive.

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 19:41:05 -0400, w_tom wrote:

Circuit breakers, like all switches, have life expectancy
numbers and other parameters. The question can only be
answered by providing the numbers - the specs. Anything less
would be junk science reasoning.

No...the question can only be answered by reality...after the fact.

All specs are theoretical.


Have a nice one...

Trent

Budweiser: Helping ugly people have sex since 1876!

Yikes. Much ado about next to nothing.

People do this stuff every day, I skimmed one post on here where
a guy told of using the breakers every single day of the year to
turn the store lights on and off. I would hazard a guess that
this happens a few hundred thousand times a day in our world.

Is it "code", is it "right", is it "safe"??? Is it reality?
Probably not, don't judge, for all but total morons, you bet.

Results of repeated applications: breaker wears out, won't hold
one position or the other. Solution: $4.00 and 10 minutes for
installing a new breaker.

Results of REALLY repeated applications: you wear out the stub
on the bus bar, the breaker won't stay in it's slot. Solution:
$5 for a new breaker and a snap-in hole filler, move breaker
to a new position.

What the fugg is all of the fuss about???

--
The real Tom Pendergast [ So if you meet me, have some courtesy,
aka I-zheet M'drurz [ have some sympathy, and some taste.
Accept no substitutes! [ Use all your well-learned politesse,
$1 to Mick for the .sig ---[ or I'll lay your soul to waste.

BTW the real answer to the original question is in the U/L white book. Breakers
that are rated for switching duty are marked "SWD". Otherwse you are in an
"untested" area. If it is a name brand breaker of recent manufacture
(read:"hanging on the wall at the hardware store") I bet you are fine. If this
is some "collector model" breaker with no markings I wouldn't screw with it too
much. You might be looking for something that is going for $100 on Ebay ...
when you can find one.

Fire is not a 'nothing'. Some breakers are constructed to
also turn off power. Therefore they are rated for that task.
Another classic example of why someone must know the
underlying theory - the principles - in this case the
electrical code - long before jumping to conclusions that all
breakers can be switched repeatedly.

Have we not had enough murders because the decision maker
did not even understand basic decision making concepts? Its
called the Challenger - where decisions were made by those who
say, "It worked last time so it will always work". We should
have been putting them (ditto for Columbia) on trial.

Principles could not be demonstrated more obviously. "I run
every stop sign and have not yet killed anyone. That proves
we can all run stop signs." Exactly the type of decision
making that murders people. Some foolishly call them
accidents. Exactly the same type of decision makers who
should be charged with involuntary manslaughter.

Just because one does something daily and the building does
not burn down does not even begin to prove anything. Provided
by responsible posters in this thread are facts. Some
breakers are rated to operate as power switches. Others are
not.

As for those FPE breakers:
http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpepanel.htm
This should scare the original poster. History of FPE
products should be common knowledge.

I-zheet M'drurz wrote:
Yikes. Much ado about next to nothing.

People do this stuff every day, I skimmed one post on here where
a guy told of using the breakers every single day of the year to
turn the store lights on and off. I would hazard a guess that
this happens a few hundred thousand times a day in our world.

Is it "code", is it "right", is it "safe"??? Is it reality?
Probably not, don't judge, for all but total morons, you bet.

Results of repeated applications: breaker wears out, won't hold
one position or the other. Solution: $4.00 and 10 minutes for
installing a new breaker.

Results of REALLY repeated applications: you wear out the stub
on the bus bar, the breaker won't stay in it's slot. Solution:
$5 for a new breaker and a snap-in hole filler, move breaker
to a new position.

What the fugg is all of the fuss about???

w_tom wrote:
I run all stop signs without causing problems. That proves
stop signs can be ignored. You have violated a basic
principle. Just because circuit breakers work as switched in
one place does not mean it is acceptable everywhere. Do you
know that those bookstore circuit breakers are specially
designed to be switched? You should know such facts - the
underlying theory - before posting.

I didn't know there were switch-rated circuit breakers and
non-switch-rated circuit breakers. I know that now, as several people
pointed that out, even before I got to your condescending diatribe.

I welcome opportunities to fill gaps in my ignorance. It's not
necessary to be nasty when you perceive such a gap.

[...]
--
Bo Williams -
http://hiwaay.net/~williams/

There is always one who feels it is 'adult' to demand
political correctness. Adults never need politically correct
posts. The post stands technically correct. If it insults Bo
Williams, then that part of Bo Williams is bluntly reminded
that no intent to be condescending existed in any word. It
was posted exactly as was necessary to make a technical
point. Adults say, "Good, I now understand". Lesser people
worry about insults - that actually did not exist in that
post.

Junk science reasoning was demonstrated bluntly and
accurately without wasting words on how it might be
emotionally perceived. Those who must have everything spun in
a politically correct world will be upset with the post and
therefore expose themselves. In some quarters, you can get
arrested for exposing yourself.

The only part 'nasty' in that post was how Bo Williams
emotionally perceived it. A principle of logical thinking -
that something must exist both theoretically and
experimentally - should never be posted any other way but
straight up and blunt. Some find that painful - like hard
whiskey. Sorry you worry too much about how it hurts your
throat.

But fact remains: what you do in a bookstore does not prove
anything other than junk science reasoning. Provided was
knowledge about circuit breaker ratings AND how to tell the
difference between junk science verse technically logical
posts. Did your post meet the criteria of being based both on
theory and experimental evidence? No - absolutely not.
Therefore it demonstrated the principles of junk science - too
often found in that store's fiction section. If there is
insult in this, then insult is only in the mind of that
reader. Defined is the difference between a post based in
junk science verses logical reasoning.

Bo Williams wrote:
I didn't know there were switch-rated circuit breakers and
non-switch-rated circuit breakers. I know that now, as several people
pointed that out, even before I got to your condescending diatribe.

I welcome opportunities to fill gaps in my ignorance. It's not
necessary to be nasty when you perceive such a gap.

[...]

w_tom wrote:

There is always one who feels it is 'adult' to demand
political correctness. Adults never need politically correct
posts. The post stands technically correct. If it insults Bo
Williams, then that part of Bo Williams is bluntly reminded
that no intent to be condescending existed in any word. It
was posted exactly as was necessary to make a technical
point. Adults say, "Good, I now understand".

[snip much more blather]

Many adults learn manners, too, present company obviously excepted.
Bye, now. Take the last word (or 500, as seems to be your wont).

plonk
--
Bo Williams -
http://hiwaay.net/~williams/

"Robert E. Lewis" wrote in message
.. .
I have a friend who just moved to the US from the UK. He went from a
Victorian house with a gas (I think) tankless heating system to a modern
apartment with an electric water heater tank; a new situation for him. He
is responsible for the apartment utility bills.

He is frugal by nature and is used to having his domestic hot water system
on a timer. I doubt it would be practical to put a timer on the
apartment's
water heater for the time he'll be there (and the apartment management
might
not like the modification), but he has asked me whether he should turn off
the water heater when he leaves for work, and I wasn't sure of the answer.

My first thought was that he won't save much electricity -- it's not
especially hot water (set to child-safe temps by management, I assume) and
it's in an under-stair closet near the center of the building, so it's not
leaking a lot of heat to cold outdoors -- I think it might be served well
enough by wrapping the tank in an insulating blanket and wrapping the
short
exposed length of pipe.

But I also began to wonder whether a circuit-breaker switch is designed to
hold up being switched on and off a couple of times a day, every day. Any
trouble liable to result from him using the circuit breaker to turn off
the
water heater on a daily basis?

Thanks.

There are switch rated breakers available from most manufactures. Required
for switching loads since I think 1999 NEC. It would probably be cheaper and
safer to go to Lowes and by their water heater time clock. Absolutely the
least expensive I could find ~$35.
This time clock needs an neutral to work and only switches one leg. I
installed mine last February and no problems since. Remove it when he leaves

We've gone through 2 sets of breakers in my church in 20 years by using
them as switches ... thanks Mr. Architect. Now there are switch rated
breakers installed ... time will tell. BTW, the breakers were replaced
because they would run real hot and then trip. Each 20A breaker has an
800 watt load.

SQLit wrote:

"Robert E. Lewis" wrote in message
.. .

I have a friend who just moved to the US from the UK. He went from a
Victorian house with a gas (I think) tankless heating system to a modern
apartment with an electric water heater tank; a new situation for him. He
is responsible for the apartment utility bills.

He is frugal by nature and is used to having his domestic hot water system
on a timer. I doubt it would be practical to put a timer on the

apartment's

water heater for the time he'll be there (and the apartment management

might

not like the modification), but he has asked me whether he should turn off
the water heater when he leaves for work, and I wasn't sure of the answer.

My first thought was that he won't save much electricity -- it's not
especially hot water (set to child-safe temps by management, I assume) and
it's in an under-stair closet near the center of the building, so it's not
leaking a lot of heat to cold outdoors -- I think it might be served well
enough by wrapping the tank in an insulating blanket and wrapping the

short

exposed length of pipe.

But I also began to wonder whether a circuit-breaker switch is designed to
hold up being switched on and off a couple of times a day, every day. Any
trouble liable to result from him using the circuit breaker to turn off

the

water heater on a daily basis?

Thanks.


There are switch rated breakers available from most manufactures. Required
for switching loads since I think 1999 NEC. It would probably be cheaper and
safer to go to Lowes and by their water heater time clock. Absolutely the
least expensive I could find ~$35.
This time clock needs an neutral to work and only switches one leg. I
installed mine last February and no problems since. Remove it when he leaves

SQLit wrote:

There are switch rated breakers available from most manufactures. Required
for switching loads since I think 1999 NEC. It would probably be cheaper and
safer to go to Lowes and by their water heater time clock. Absolutely the
least expensive I could find ~$35.
This time clock needs an neutral to work and only switches one leg. I
installed mine last February and no problems since. Remove it when he leaves

Mine is an intermatic water heater timer. The timer motor runs on the
full 240 volts, no neutral needed.
--Mike

The amount of energy he will save is trivial and the circuit breaker will
wear out unless (and this is unlikely) it is made to be used as a switch.

Bad idea.

I used to do it weekly on my cottage water heater, but then I put a real
switch on it. Costs about $15 if there is enough slack in the wiring. (I
ended up rewiring the whole circuit because I found out they used undersized
wire!)

Thanks for the responses.

The breakers are pretty old Federal Pacific (I remember because my house had
FP breakers once upon a time), and I'm guessing they're not rated as
switches, so I'll dissuade him from that approach. I suspect the apartment
management would disapprove of my tinkering with the wiring to the water
heater (though we did ask about changing out an unattractive light fixture),
and I don't recall it having much slack.

I think I'll wait until he gets some real winter weather before I mention
that leaving the water heater on may be warming his apartment slightly -- he
left near-freezing weather in the UK and arrived to record highs in the
nineties, and is worried his air conditioning bill will be ruinous.

I'll just suggest an insulating blanket and will take him some leftover pipe
insulation.

Robert E. Lewis wrote:

Thanks for the responses.

The breakers are pretty old Federal Pacific (I remember because my house had
FP breakers once upon a time), and I'm guessing they're not rated as
switches, so I'll dissuade him from that approach. I suspect the apartment
management would disapprove of my tinkering with the wiring to the water
heater (though we did ask about changing out an unattractive light fixture),
and I don't recall it having much slack.

I think I'll wait until he gets some real winter weather before I mention
that leaving the water heater on may be warming his apartment slightly -- he
left near-freezing weather in the UK and arrived to record highs in the
nineties, and is worried his air conditioning bill will be ruinous.

I'll just suggest an insulating blanket and will take him some leftover pipe
insulation.

WARNING NOTICE DANGER

FEDERAL PACIFIC ELECTRIC BREAKERS CAN FAIL TO OPERATE AFTER A SINGLE
MANUAL SWITCHING CYCLE OR A SINGLE AUTOMATIC TRIPPING OPERATION. They
are not to be trusted to do the job for which they were originally
installed and they must never be used as switches. The two pole
breakers are especially vulnerable to this sort of failure.
--
Tom H

Robert E. Lewis wrote:
I have a friend who just moved to the US from the UK. He went from a
Victorian house with a gas (I think) tankless heating system to a modern
apartment with an electric water heater tank; a new situation for him. He
is responsible for the apartment utility bills.

He is frugal by nature and is used to having his domestic hot water system
on a timer. I doubt it would be practical to put a timer on the apartment's
water heater for the time he'll be there (and the apartment management might
not like the modification), but he has asked me whether he should turn off
the water heater when he leaves for work, and I wasn't sure of the answer.

My first thought was that he won't save much electricity -- it's not
especially hot water (set to child-safe temps by management, I assume) and
it's in an under-stair closet near the center of the building, so it's not
leaking a lot of heat to cold outdoors -- I think it might be served well
enough by wrapping the tank in an insulating blanket and wrapping the short
exposed length of pipe.

But I also began to wonder whether a circuit-breaker switch is designed to
hold up being switched on and off a couple of times a day, every day. Any
trouble liable to result from him using the circuit breaker to turn off the
water heater on a daily basis?

Thanks.



If the circuit breaker is rated "SWD" (switch duty), it is designed to
be used as a switch as well as a breaker. If it is rated "FLD"
(fluorescent duty?) it is further rated to be used as a switch for
lighting circuits with an inductive load.

An SWD breaker would be just fine for switching a water heater. I just
looked at my breaker panel and the 30A 2-pole breaker for the clothes
dryer is SWD listed. The 60A 2-pole breaker is not SWD listed, it is
HACR listed, which I haven't looked up to see what it means (probably
has something to do with heating and air conditioning circuits)

Notice how I avoided the part about whether switching the water heater
was a good idea.

Best regards,
Bob

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 20:26:30 GMT, "Robert E. Lewis"
wrote:

I have a friend who just moved to the US from the UK. He went from a
Victorian house with a gas (I think) tankless heating system to a modern
apartment with an electric water heater tank; a new situation for him. He
is responsible for the apartment utility bills.

He is frugal by nature and is used to having his domestic hot water system
on a timer. I doubt it would be practical to put a timer on the apartment's
water heater for the time he'll be there (and the apartment management might
not like the modification), but he has asked me whether he should turn off
the water heater when he leaves for work, and I wasn't sure of the answer.

My first thought was that he won't save much electricity -- it's not
especially hot water (set to child-safe temps by management, I assume) and
it's in an under-stair closet near the center of the building, so it's not
leaking a lot of heat to cold outdoors -- I think it might be served well
enough by wrapping the tank in an insulating blanket and wrapping the short
exposed length of pipe.

You can save a LOT of money by turning it off...and only turning it on
an hour or so before you actually need it. Most families don't need
hot water during the day. When I was single, I would turn the tank on
in the morning...then have coffee and breakfast while the water got
hot. I'd turn it off when I left for work.

But I also began to wonder whether a circuit-breaker switch is designed to
hold up being switched on and off a couple of times a day, every day. Any
trouble liable to result from him using the circuit breaker to turn off the
water heater on a daily basis?

Many, many retail and commercial businesses shut off breakers at the
end of the day.

Do some investigative work on your own...at some of the breaker
company web sites...and check out their specs. Most breakers are
rated for thousands upon thousands of cycles.


Have a nice one...

Trent

Budweiser: Helping ugly people have sex since 1876!

If you really don't use a lot of hot water the biggest saving is by taking the
wire off the bottom element. The heater will heat the top foot of water and
quit.
My mom's house ran like this for 30 years and it was only when she had the
grandkids over that the hot water got skimpy.

Robert E. Lewis wrote:
I have a friend who just moved to the US from the UK. He went from a
Victorian house with a gas (I think) tankless heating system to a modern
apartment with an electric water heater tank; a new situation for him. He
is responsible for the apartment utility bills.

He is frugal by nature and is used to having his domestic hot water system
on a timer. I doubt it would be practical to put a timer on the apartment's
water heater for the time he'll be there (and the apartment management might
not like the modification), but he has asked me whether he should turn off
the water heater when he leaves for work, and I wasn't sure of the answer.

My first thought was that he won't save much electricity -- it's not
especially hot water (set to child-safe temps by management, I assume) and
it's in an under-stair closet near the center of the building, so it's not
leaking a lot of heat to cold outdoors -- I think it might be served well
enough by wrapping the tank in an insulating blanket and wrapping the short
exposed length of pipe.

But I also began to wonder whether a circuit-breaker switch is designed to
hold up being switched on and off a couple of times a day, every day. Any
trouble liable to result from him using the circuit breaker to turn off the
water heater on a daily basis?

Thanks.

However you look at it, the savings on a day by day basis would be near
nothing. Too small to be concerned with. If your friend is like me,
he'll forget to turn it on, and end up with a cold shower.

When I lived in an apartment I would turn the breaker off when I would
leave town for a few days. Once the water heater cooled to outdoor
temperature, it couldn't consume any more when heating back up than if I
left it on, right? So there was cost savings.

Now that I have my own house, I have my water heater on a timer. I'm on
the electric company's "time of use plan" so I have the water heater set
to turn off half an hour before the peak time, and turn on half an hour
after peak time.

Let's pretend the water heater must turn on for 5 minutes total during
the 7 hour peak time. That would be 5 minutes of energy costs at the
peak rate. But if the water heater is off, it cannot use this energy.

Once the timer clicked on, it would run for the same (or close) 5
minutes, but at the cheaper rate.

Now consider this, after the timer is off, there is still more than
enough hot water in the tank to take a shower or do a load of laundry.
(For me, that is.) So in essence, the hot shower consumes NO electricity
during peak times. Once the time kicks on again during the off peak
times, THEN is when the shower costs money. So I am "delaying" the
costs. :-)
--Mike

Mike Fritz wrote:
...he'll forget to turn it on, and end up with a cold shower.


I hate it when that happens.

Bob