|
Can improper wiring actually cause a fire?
As you all know, a troll hijacked one of my posts and kept insisting that
omitting a neutral on a pure 240v circuit would cause a fire, which would invalidate the insurance. But that brought up the question in my mind, can improper wiring actually cause a fire? Presumably any fool is capable of using the right gauge cable and breaker for the current, terminating all cables in junction boxes, using a suitable cover on the boxes, and securing the cable so it won't rip out of the box. Given that, could doing anything improper actually result in a fire? Seems to me that errors will result in the circuit not working, or a problem occur in the (presumably) fire resistant boxes. Given those basics being done right; what errors would result in fires? (I suppose one example might come from my cottage. It has cable entering the back of a kitchen cabinet and then going up to, and across the top. A mouse chewed through the wire to get into the cabinet and short circuited it, inches away from a pile of paper napkins. Seeing what happened to the mouse, I have to think I was lucky it didn't catch the napkins on fire. Obviously the cable shouldn't have been in the cabinet.) |
Can improper wiring actually cause a fire?
"Toller" wrote in message ... As you all know, a troll hijacked one of my posts and kept insisting that omitting a neutral on a pure 240v circuit would cause a fire, which would invalidate the insurance. But that brought up the question in my mind, can improper wiring actually cause a fire? Presumably any fool is capable of using the right gauge cable and breaker for the current, terminating all cables in junction boxes, using a suitable cover on the boxes, and securing the cable so it won't rip out of the box. Given that, could doing anything improper actually result in a fire? Seems to me that errors will result in the circuit not working, or a problem occur in the (presumably) fire resistant boxes. Given those basics being done right; what errors would result in fires? (I suppose one example might come from my cottage. It has cable entering the back of a kitchen cabinet and then going up to, and across the top. A mouse chewed through the wire to get into the cabinet and short circuited it, inches away from a pile of paper napkins. Seeing what happened to the mouse, I have to think I was lucky it didn't catch the napkins on fire. Obviously the cable shouldn't have been in the cabinet.) This is an experiment I suggest to everyone. Go to the store. Buy one of the testers you insert into a three pronged plug that has the three lights. It gives you three indicator lights that tell you if the circuit is wired correctly, or if the wires are not correct. It is absolutely amazing how many circuits are wired wrong. Both in homes and in commercial buildings. Wiring that was done by professionals. I cannot say from my limited experience with electrical circuits whether or not what you suggest can actually start a fire. I can say from experience as a safety inspector how absolutely amazing it is that so many circuits are wired incorrectly. Steve |
Can improper wiring actually cause a fire?
"Steve B" wrote:
I can say from experience as a safety inspector how absolutely amazing it is that so many circuits are wired incorrectly. Tell me about it. About 7 years ago, I did a gut renovation on the house I'm living in now. 100-year old wiring out. Complete new 240V 150A electric system from the meter in. Licensed electrical contractor, permits, city inspector, the whole nine yards. Just one problem -- the electrical contractor apparently didn't have the right tool to properly crimp the neutral connection to the overhead drop from the utility pole. So he faked it with some screw-down clamp connector he had. A couple of days after I moved in, I'm noticing the lights getting dimmer and brighter and various things get turned on and off. I called Con Ed. They had a guy in a bucket truck at my house within the hour. He diagnosed the problem as a bad neutral, took a look at all the connections, found the problem, re-did the connection with a big mongo crimp tool, and all was well. |
Can improper wiring actually cause a fire?
|
Can improper wiring actually cause a fire?
In article , "Toller" wrote:
As you all know, a troll hijacked one of my posts and kept insisting that omitting a neutral on a pure 240v circuit would cause a fire, which would invalidate the insurance. But that brought up the question in my mind, can improper wiring actually cause a fire? Absolutely it can. Don't you ever read your local newspaper? It happens with disturbing frequency. Presumably any fool is capable of using the right gauge cable and breaker for the current, terminating all cables in junction boxes, using a suitable cover on the boxes, and securing the cable so it won't rip out of the box. That's an awfully big presumption, in my opinion, based on some of the stuff I've seen by previous owners of every house I've lived in. Given that, could doing anything improper actually result in a fire? Seems to me that errors will result in the circuit not working, or a problem occur in the (presumably) fire resistant boxes. Given those basics being done right; what errors would result in fires? Improper connections with aluminum wiring is the biggie. A fellow I used to carpool with lived across the street from a subdivision that was built in the 70s, with all homes wired with aluminum. One morning when I came to pick him up, I saw that one of the homes had clearly just had a massive fire; he told me it was common in that subdivision -- that about one house a year burned, all due to faulty wiring. Inadequate overcurrent protection is another. Just last week, at Lowe's, I had to explain to another customer why it was not a good idea to replace a 15A breaker with a 20A. "But it keeps tripping...." Backstabbed connections on receptacles and switches, that work loose over time and spark. Receptacles recessed too far into a combustible wall (e.g. wood paneling). Not dangerous in and of itself, but when combined with one of the problems cited above, it's a disaster waiting to happen. Much more information he http://www.cpsc.gov/volstd/afci/AFCIFireTechnology.pdf Note this excerpt: There are two basic types of arcing faults – series and parallel. Series arcing faults occur when the current-carrying path in series with the load is unintentionally broken. Arcing may occur across the broken gap and create localized heating. The magnitude of the current in a series arc is limited by the load. The series arcing currents are typically well below the typical circuit breaker’s ampacity rating (often referred to as handle rating) and, therefore, would never trip the conventional circuit breaker either thermally or magnetically. Series arcing can lead to overheating that can be hazardous. Examples of conditions that may result in series arcing faults include loose connections to a receptacle or a wire splice, a worn conductor from over flexing of a cable, or a pinched cable in which the conductor has been severed. A parallel arcing fault occurs when there is an unintentional conducting path between conductors of opposite polarity. Parallel arcing is only limited by the available fault current of the source and the impedance of the fault. If the fault is of low impedance, then the overcurrent device should open. However, when the fault impedance is relatively high, there may be insufficient energy to open the overcurrent device. This can cause arcing that can propel particles of molten metal onto nearby combustibles. A short circuit caused by an intermittent contact is one type of parallel arcing fault that can create hazardous arcs. A line-to-ground arcing fault is another form of parallel arcing fault and occurs when an ungrounded line conductor is faulted to a metal enclosure or other metal structure in contact with a grounding conductor. Examples of these are cords cut by furniture with a metal leg or loose wires that contact a grounded surface. Parallel arcing faults are known to develop in three stages: leakage, tracking, and arcing. Leakage currents normally occur in every electrical wiring system due to parasitic capacitance and resistance of the cable insulation. Leakage current values below 0.5 mA are considered safe. If the wiring is maintained in good condition, the wiring may be used safely for several decades. However, when the wiring is subjected to moisture, conductive dusts, salts, sunlight, excessive heat, or high-voltage lightning strikes, the insulation can break down and conduct higher leakage currents. As leakage current increases – undetected across the conduction path – the surface can heat up and pyrolyze the insulation. This process, known as tracking, produces carbon that generates more heat and progressively more carbon. Although this process may continue for weeks, months, or longer without incident, eventually, sustained arcing may occur. Parallel arcing faults are generally considered more hazardous than series arcing faults, since there is more energy associated with a parallel arcing fault than a series arcing fault. Parallel arcing faults usually result in peak currents above the handle rating of the conventional circuit breaker. This may trip the circuit breaker magnetically, if the impedance of the fault is low and the available fault current is sufficient. However, in many instances, the available short-circuit (fault) current is not sufficient to trip the circuit breaker instantaneously (magnetic trip). In addition, in many instances, the fault may be intermittent, so the overcurrent will not be sustained long enough to trip the conventional circuit breaker thermally. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
Can improper wiring actually cause a fire?
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 04:50:26 GMT, "Toller" wrote:
As you all know, a troll hijacked one of my posts and kept insisting that omitting a neutral on a pure 240v circuit would cause a fire, which would invalidate the insurance. But that brought up the question in my mind, can improper wiring actually cause a fire? Sure it can- but there's "improper" as in *not-quite-up-to-code," but still done in a relatively sane manner, and then there's "improper" as in the case of a guy who hooks a shop full of tools up to a light-duty extension cord and plugs them all into one outlet- maybe with a quarter stuck in the box in place of a fuse. Or the guy who wraps stripped wires around a light bulb, and sticks the other end of the bare wires directly into the recepticle because a plug and a light socket are too much bother. It's the latter that makes the electrical code such a good idea in the big picture. While it's tough to imagine someone actually doing things like that, I've seen it plenty of times when doing remodeling work in the past. Presumably any fool is capable of using the right gauge cable and breaker for the current, terminating all cables in junction boxes, using a suitable cover on the boxes, and securing the cable so it won't rip out of the box. Given that, could doing anything improper actually result in a fire? Seems to me that errors will result in the circuit not working, or a problem occur in the (presumably) fire resistant boxes. Given those basics being done right; what errors would result in fires? Given the basics being done right, very few. Once you've got the basics done properly, and I stress properly, you're then worrying about what the code has to say about the worst case senario- like having wire in conduit or MC for commerical structures. It's not that the absence of a metal coating will cause a fire- it's that there's a chance that some yahoo will drive forklift tines into the wall and rip the insulation off the wires causing them to short. That's the part that will cause the fire, not the intact wiring. I've got a couple of things that are not strictly to code in my shop, like using a plastic box outside of a wall cavity in one or two places, but there's a common sense rule of thumb going there- namely, that if anything were to whack one of those boxes and break it, it will have been me that did the whacking, and I'll be right there to shut off the breaker and grab the fire extinguisher if need be. If someone else were using my shop, I'd make a point of replacing those. (I suppose one example might come from my cottage. It has cable entering the back of a kitchen cabinet and then going up to, and across the top. A mouse chewed through the wire to get into the cabinet and short circuited it, inches away from a pile of paper napkins. Seeing what happened to the mouse, I have to think I was lucky it didn't catch the napkins on fire. Obviously the cable shouldn't have been in the cabinet.) That's a case where code will at least help you avoid a problem. Within sane limits, you should always try to keep things up to code- there's a good reason why those rules are in place. If you deviate from them, you may never have a problem- but then again, you might. Not worth the risk, IMO- especially when they sell books with the information a guy needs to do the job right for less than a single electrian's visit. |
Can improper wiring actually cause a fire?
Toller wrote:
But that brought up the question in my mind, can improper wiring actually cause a fire? It probably depends on the error. One small anecdote: One time, a crewmember of mine plugged a 220v "distro panel" into what was supposed to be a standard 220v / 50A / 1PH range plug. The plug was wired (3) phase, so as each amp in a rack of (4) that was plugged in was switched on, the smoke was let out. The cost to repair all four Crown amps was well over $1200 US (1992). Breakers never tripped, but there was no fire. Before the amps were switched on, several people got nailed by hot grounds while wiring the stage. None of the "nailees" mentioned it to the others. Fortunately, nobody tried to turn anything else on, especially the FOH racks or consoles. I'd be more worried about electrocution than fire, but I'd still worry about fire. If the amps were coated with woodshop dust, I'll bet there would have been a fire. |
Can improper wiring actually cause a fire?
"Roy Smith" wrote in message
he had. A couple of days after I moved in, I'm noticing the lights getting dimmer and brighter and various things get turned on and off. Here's one for you in that same vein: A couple of years ago, in a brand new house I'd just finished, the same things suddenly started happening. No 220v in the house where the circuits had worked before, timers/clocks in appliances were going wacko and turning off and on, lights were dimming/brightening ... gave me cold chill thinking that here was a _serious_ electrical problem in a house that we had just that very day accepted an offer on. Since it was after 6 in the evening when I noticed the problem, and scratching my worried head, I shut off the Main power, tried to call the electrical contractor to no avail, and had no choice but to wait until morning to take any further action. Around 10PM that evening I decided to go for a walk, and on the spur of the moment decided to walk back by that house. On the way I noticed an HL&P company truck working late on a pole about a block away from the new house. Hmmmm ... walked over out of curiosity and, long story short, the electric company had put in a new transformer earlier that day after it's pole had been hit by a construction truck, and wired it wrong! Apparently the neighbors had been calling electricians all evening and everyone was scratching their heads as to why there was a back feed on their neutrals. Damn thing is that, if I hadn't decided to go for a walk that evening, I would have called the electrical contractor the next morning, jumped all over his ass, he would come out and have found NOTHING wrong, we would have never known what, why, or how, and I would probably still be waking up at 3AM in the morning, in a cold sweat, worrying about the electrical wiring in that house with kids living in it! -- www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 10/29/06 |
Can improper wiring actually cause a fire?
"Doug Miller" wrote in message ... In article , "Toller" wrote: As you all know, a troll hijacked one of my posts and kept insisting that omitting a neutral on a pure 240v circuit would cause a fire, which would invalidate the insurance. But that brought up the question in my mind, can improper wiring actually cause a fire? Absolutely it can. Don't you ever read your local newspaper? It happens with disturbing frequency. Presumably any fool is capable of using the right gauge cable and breaker for the current, terminating all cables in junction boxes, using a suitable cover on the boxes, and securing the cable so it won't rip out of the box. That's an awfully big presumption, in my opinion, based on some of the stuff I've seen by previous owners of every house I've lived in. Given that, could doing anything improper actually result in a fire? Seems to me that errors will result in the circuit not working, or a problem occur in the (presumably) fire resistant boxes. Given those basics being done right; what errors would result in fires? Improper connections with aluminum wiring is the biggie. A fellow I used to carpool with lived across the street from a subdivision that was built in the 70s, with all homes wired with aluminum. One morning when I came to pick him up, I saw that one of the homes had clearly just had a massive fire; he told me it was common in that subdivision -- that about one house a year burned, all due to faulty wiring. Inadequate overcurrent protection is another. Just last week, at Lowe's, I had to explain to another customer why it was not a good idea to replace a 15A breaker with a 20A. "But it keeps tripping...." Backstabbed connections on receptacles and switches, that work loose over time and spark. The aluminum wire and the inadequate overcurrent protection fall outside my conditions, but not the backstab receptacles. They can give the series arc your article speaks of. (my mouse gave the parallel arc...) Would a proper junction box, properly covered, contain the arcs? Your article does not address that issue, but it seems important. Arc are obviously bad, but if the box contains them... Receptacles recessed too far into a combustible wall (e.g. wood paneling). Not dangerous in and of itself, but when combined with one of the problems cited above, it's a disaster waiting to happen. Much more information he http://www.cpsc.gov/volstd/afci/AFCIFireTechnology.pdf Note this excerpt: There are two basic types of arcing faults - series and parallel. Series arcing faults occur when the current-carrying path in series with the load is unintentionally broken. Arcing may occur across the broken gap and create localized heating. The magnitude of the current in a series arc is limited by the load. The series arcing currents are typically well below the typical circuit breaker's ampacity rating (often referred to as handle rating) and, therefore, would never trip the conventional circuit breaker either thermally or magnetically. Series arcing can lead to overheating that can be hazardous. Examples of conditions that may result in series arcing faults include loose connections to a receptacle or a wire splice, a worn conductor from over flexing of a cable, or a pinched cable in which the conductor has been severed. A parallel arcing fault occurs when there is an unintentional conducting path between conductors of opposite polarity. Parallel arcing is only limited by the available fault current of the source and the impedance of the fault. If the fault is of low impedance, then the overcurrent device should open. However, when the fault impedance is relatively high, there may be insufficient energy to open the overcurrent device. This can cause arcing that can propel particles of molten metal onto nearby combustibles. A short circuit caused by an intermittent contact is one type of parallel arcing fault that can create hazardous arcs. A line-to-ground arcing fault is another form of parallel arcing fault and occurs when an ungrounded line conductor is faulted to a metal enclosure or other metal structure in contact with a grounding conductor. Examples of these are cords cut by furniture with a metal leg or loose wires that contact a grounded surface. Parallel arcing faults are known to develop in three stages: leakage, tracking, and arcing. Leakage currents normally occur in every electrical wiring system due to parasitic capacitance and resistance of the cable insulation. Leakage current values below 0.5 mA are considered safe. If the wiring is maintained in good condition, the wiring may be used safely for several decades. However, when the wiring is subjected to moisture, conductive dusts, salts, sunlight, excessive heat, or high-voltage lightning strikes, the insulation can break down and conduct higher leakage currents. As leakage current increases - undetected across the conduction path - the surface can heat up and pyrolyze the insulation. This process, known as tracking, produces carbon that generates more heat and progressively more carbon. Although this process may continue for weeks, months, or longer without incident, eventually, sustained arcing may occur. Parallel arcing faults are generally considered more hazardous than series arcing faults, since there is more energy associated with a parallel arcing fault than a series arcing fault. Parallel arcing faults usually result in peak currents above the handle rating of the conventional circuit breaker. This may trip the circuit breaker magnetically, if the impedance of the fault is low and the available fault current is sufficient. However, in many instances, the available short-circuit (fault) current is not sufficient to trip the circuit breaker instantaneously (magnetic trip). In addition, in many instances, the fault may be intermittent, so the overcurrent will not be sustained long enough to trip the conventional circuit breaker thermally. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
Can improper wiring actually cause a fire?
"insisting that omitting a neutral on a pure 240v circuit would cause a
fire" A, now we understand why you are so incensed. You miss read my posts. I did not say that as you allege, above. As regards liability, I simply said that you could be held liable for a fire caused by improper wiring and that your insurer might well be off the hook if it was shown that you did so in violation of the codes or law in the area. The 10/2 vs. 10/3 argument made was that it would be prudent to install the later regardless the immediate plans for the use of the new 20VAC run. You concatenated several posts into an argument not intended. My apologies for getting you off track. "Toller" wrote in message ... As you all know, a troll hijacked one of my posts and kept insisting that omitting a neutral on a pure 240v circuit would cause a fire, which would invalidate the insurance. But that brought up the question in my mind, can improper wiring actually cause a fire? Presumably any fool is capable of using the right gauge cable and breaker for the current, terminating all cables in junction boxes, using a suitable cover on the boxes, and securing the cable so it won't rip out of the box. Given that, could doing anything improper actually result in a fire? Seems to me that errors will result in the circuit not working, or a problem occur in the (presumably) fire resistant boxes. Given those basics being done right; what errors would result in fires? (I suppose one example might come from my cottage. It has cable entering the back of a kitchen cabinet and then going up to, and across the top. A mouse chewed through the wire to get into the cabinet and short circuited it, inches away from a pile of paper napkins. Seeing what happened to the mouse, I have to think I was lucky it didn't catch the napkins on fire. Obviously the cable shouldn't have been in the cabinet.) |
Can improper wiring actually cause a fire?
I have one of those testers and found the circuit to my microwave had the
hot an neutral reversed as I was trying to remove a broken bulb. I did NOZT unplug the thing and caused a short across the bulb socket and ground (I assume). Instead of tripping the breaker downstairs, it fried the component board in the Microwave. I suspect that, had the outlet been properly wired, the short I caused would have tripped the breaker an I would have a working Microwave after resetting it. No way, now, to prove this suspicion, but I should have 1. unplugged the damn thing and 2. rewired the outlet too. I did re-wire the outlet before the warranty repair guy got there and I didn't share the entire story with them when I called or when he was there. So I can't report that the improperly wired outlet voided my warranty repair (a new motherboard) and cost me a $300 Microwave. But I have my suspicions. "Steve B" wrote in message ... "Toller" wrote in message ... As you all know, a troll hijacked one of my posts and kept insisting that omitting a neutral on a pure 240v circuit would cause a fire, which would invalidate the insurance. But that brought up the question in my mind, can improper wiring actually cause a fire? Presumably any fool is capable of using the right gauge cable and breaker for the current, terminating all cables in junction boxes, using a suitable cover on the boxes, and securing the cable so it won't rip out of the box. Given that, could doing anything improper actually result in a fire? Seems to me that errors will result in the circuit not working, or a problem occur in the (presumably) fire resistant boxes. Given those basics being done right; what errors would result in fires? (I suppose one example might come from my cottage. It has cable entering the back of a kitchen cabinet and then going up to, and across the top. A mouse chewed through the wire to get into the cabinet and short circuited it, inches away from a pile of paper napkins. Seeing what happened to the mouse, I have to think I was lucky it didn't catch the napkins on fire. Obviously the cable shouldn't have been in the cabinet.) This is an experiment I suggest to everyone. Go to the store. Buy one of the testers you insert into a three pronged plug that has the three lights. It gives you three indicator lights that tell you if the circuit is wired correctly, or if the wires are not correct. It is absolutely amazing how many circuits are wired wrong. Both in homes and in commercial buildings. Wiring that was done by professionals. I cannot say from my limited experience with electrical circuits whether or not what you suggest can actually start a fire. I can say from experience as a safety inspector how absolutely amazing it is that so many circuits are wired incorrectly. Steve |
Can improper wiring actually cause a fire?
Annually, over 40,000 fires are attributed to home electrical distribution
systems. These fires result in more than 300 deaths and over 1,400 injuries each year. Statistics from 1992-1996 show level trends in each of these estimates with no indications of decline. In 1996, $680 million in property loss was attributed to home electrical distribution fires.1 Arcing faults are one of the major causes of electrical wiring fires.2 A 1994 insurance company survey of 660 electrical fires indicated that over 33% of these fires were from arcing conditions.3 This data is further supported in a report by Smith and McCoskrie4 that summarized the characteristics of 149 investigated residential fires. http://www.cpsc.gov/volstd/afci/AFCIFireTechnology.pdf "Toller" wrote in message ... As you all know, a troll hijacked one of my posts and kept insisting that omitting a neutral on a pure 240v circuit would cause a fire, which would invalidate the insurance. But that brought up the question in my mind, can improper wiring actually cause a fire? Presumably any fool is capable of using the right gauge cable and breaker for the current, terminating all cables in junction boxes, using a suitable cover on the boxes, and securing the cable so it won't rip out of the box. Given that, could doing anything improper actually result in a fire? Seems to me that errors will result in the circuit not working, or a problem occur in the (presumably) fire resistant boxes. Given those basics being done right; what errors would result in fires? (I suppose one example might come from my cottage. It has cable entering the back of a kitchen cabinet and then going up to, and across the top. A mouse chewed through the wire to get into the cabinet and short circuited it, inches away from a pile of paper napkins. Seeing what happened to the mouse, I have to think I was lucky it didn't catch the napkins on fire. Obviously the cable shouldn't have been in the cabinet.) |
Can improper wiring actually cause a fire?
In article , "Toller" wrote:
The aluminum wire and the inadequate overcurrent protection fall outside my conditions, but not the backstab receptacles. They can give the series arc your article speaks of. (my mouse gave the parallel arc...) Would a proper junction box, properly covered, contain the arcs? One hopes it would, but for how long? They use electric arcs to weld steel, you know... One of the saddest, and at the same time most infuriating, things I've ever read was an article in the Anderson (Indiana) Herald some ten years ago, back when we lived in the area, about an Anderson family that had died in a house fire. Mom, Dad, three or four kids. One survived. Said there had been problems with the electrical outlets sparking, feeling hot to the touch, and smelling of smoke -- but they slept in the house anyway. No smoke detectors, either, by the way. Your article does not address that issue, but it seems important. Arc are obviously bad, but if the box contains them... Like I said, for how long? -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
Can improper wiring actually cause a fire?
In article IIAfh.8227$Q36.5885@trnddc08, "resrfglc" wrote:
"insisting that omitting a neutral on a pure 240v circuit would cause a fire" A, now we understand why you are so incensed. You miss read my posts. I did not say that as you allege, above. He wasn't the only one to draw that inference from your mistaken posts. As regards liability, I simply said that you could be held liable for a fire caused by improper wiring and that your insurer might well be off the hook if it was shown that you did so in violation of the codes or law in the area. The wiring scheme into which you injected that red herring was in no wise "improper", despite your repeated insistence that it is. The 10/2 vs. 10/3 argument made was that it would be prudent to install the later regardless the immediate plans for the use of the new 20VAC run. You said "A missing neutral would be hard to disguise". Toller responded, "But if code doesn't require it and it isn't connected to anything..." And you then said, "CODES DO REQUIRE IT." The fact is that the NEC does NOT require it for 240V loads. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
Can improper wiring actually cause a fire?
In article S2Bfh.3647$LL4.1369@trnddc04, "resrfglc" wrote:
I have one of those testers and found the circuit to my microwave had the hot an neutral reversed as I was trying to remove a broken bulb. I did NOZT unplug the thing and caused a short across the bulb socket and ground (I assume). Instead of tripping the breaker downstairs, it fried the component board in the Microwave. I suspect that, had the outlet been properly wired, the short I caused would have tripped the breaker an I would have a working Microwave after resetting it. If the outlet had been properly wired, the shell of the socket would have been connected to the neutral conductor, instead of the hot. Bridging the neutral to ground would not have tripped the breaker, since the two are at the same potential anyway. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
Can improper wiring actually cause a fire?
In article T2Bfh.3648$LL4.1086@trnddc04, "resrfglc" wrote:
Annually, over 40,000 fires are attributed to home electrical distribution systems. [snip remainder] How many of those 40,000 fires are due to having omitted neutrals from 240V circuits that don't need them in the first place? -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
Can improper wiring actually cause a fire?
Toller wrote: "Doug Miller" wrote in message ... In article , "Toller" wrote: ... Given that, could doing anything improper actually result in a fire? ... Improper connections with aluminum wiring is the biggie. .... The aluminum wire and the inadequate overcurrent protection fall outside my conditions, ... The conditions you stated were "doing anything improper". I daresay that installing aluminum wiring, the same way you would install copper, which is what is usually blamed for the fire, meets that condition. -- FF |
Can improper wiring actually cause a fire?
My sincere apologies to you and tofler. In my area, my 220 circuits (to
stove, ac, Water healer all contain a neutral and a bare ground wire. It seemed that this was done in accordance with the electrical codes in my area as the work was inspected by the City when the house was built. Maybe "code" allows it in my area. It seems to me that running a length of conductors to one's shop to operate a 220VAC device is an expense of time, energy and money that would warrant the (initially) redundant neutral given the minimal additional cost of the fourth conductor. My experience retrofitting homes and garages to serve new uses convinced me that one never knows how something may be used down the road. Oh, screw it. The OP is long out of the conversation and you guys are not so much interested in his issue as you are in winning. You win. Wire it your way, I'll wire it my way. "Doug Miller" wrote in message et... In article IIAfh.8227$Q36.5885@trnddc08, "resrfglc" wrote: "insisting that omitting a neutral on a pure 240v circuit would cause a fire" A, now we understand why you are so incensed. You miss read my posts. I did not say that as you allege, above. He wasn't the only one to draw that inference from your mistaken posts. As regards liability, I simply said that you could be held liable for a fire caused by improper wiring and that your insurer might well be off the hook if it was shown that you did so in violation of the codes or law in the area. The wiring scheme into which you injected that red herring was in no wise "improper", despite your repeated insistence that it is. The 10/2 vs. 10/3 argument made was that it would be prudent to install the later regardless the immediate plans for the use of the new 20VAC run. You said "A missing neutral would be hard to disguise". Toller responded, "But if code doesn't require it and it isn't connected to anything..." And you then said, "CODES DO REQUIRE IT." The fact is that the NEC does NOT require it for 240V loads. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
Can improper wiring actually cause a fire?
In article IdCfh.3117$Ft4.1932@trnddc02, "resrfglc" wrote:
My sincere apologies to you and tofler. In my area, my 220 circuits (to stove, ac, Water healer all contain a neutral and a bare ground wire. The stove needs it, because the control and lighting circuits are 120V, and the 120V loads require a neutral. The air conditioner probably does not, and the water heater almost certainly does not, need or use a neutral. And what exactly do you mean by "contain a neutral and a bare ground wire"? I wouldn't be surprised if your water heater, for example, is wired with 10/2 with ground -- black, white, and bare. The white is *not* a neutral in that case. It's supposed to be permanently re-identified to show that it's a hot conductor, but many electricians never bother, and many inspectors don't notice, or don't care. It seemed that this was done in accordance with the electrical codes in my area as the work was inspected by the City when the house was built. It's never a Code violation to add unnecessary wires that aren't connected to anything. Maybe "code" allows it in my area. The NEC doesn't *prohibit* it anywhere. The dispute Toller and I have with you is over your insistence that Code *requires* it -- which is complete nonsense. It seems to me that running a length of conductors to one's shop to operate a 220VAC device is an expense of time, energy and money that would warrant the (initially) redundant neutral given the minimal additional cost of the fourth conductor. It's a *waste* of money. 240V devices do not need -- in fact, do not even *use* -- a neutral conductor. My experience retrofitting homes and garages to serve new uses convinced me that one never knows how something may be used down the road. If Toller installs a 3-wire 240V outlet (two hots and a ground), there is absolutely no concern that "down the road" somebody else is going to try to plug a load that requires a neutral into that receptacle -- the plug won't fit. Oh, screw it. The OP is long out of the conversation and you guys are not so much interested in his issue as you are in winning. I'm interested in seeing *accurate* information posted about electrical wiring. You win. In other words -- you actually read the Code for the first time... Wire it your way, I'll wire it my way. Go right ahead. Nobody is stopping you -- it's your money you're wasting by adding wires that are not used. And as long as you're done insisting that the Code "requires" things that anyone who has actually read it knows that it manifestly does not, then I'm done telling you you're full of beans. Fair enough? -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
Can improper wiring actually cause a fire?
"Toller" wrote in
: As you all know, a troll hijacked one of my posts and kept insisting that omitting a neutral on a pure 240v circuit would cause a fire, which would invalidate the insurance. What he said was absolutely 100% wrong. The neutral in a pure 220vac does nothing but serve as a safety ground in the rare event that something were to go wrong and will help keep one from being shocked. But that brought up the question in my mind, can improper wiring actually cause a fire? Sure.....anything can happen even in properly wired situations. Presumably any fool is capable of using the right gauge cable and breaker for the current, terminating all cables in junction boxes, using a suitable cover on the boxes, and securing the cable so it won't rip out of the box. Given that, could doing anything improper actually result in a fire? Seems to me that errors will result in the circuit not working, or a problem occur in the (presumably) fire resistant boxes. Given those basics being done right; what errors would result in fires? Fires that started from electricty are generally due to a few factors. A poorly made connection will causes things to heat up and get hot and could eventually cause a fire. An piece of wire carrying too much current will do the same thing. (I suppose one example might come from my cottage. It has cable entering the back of a kitchen cabinet and then going up to, and across the top. A mouse chewed through the wire to get into the cabinet and short circuited it, inches away from a pile of paper napkins. Seeing what happened to the mouse, I have to think I was lucky it didn't catch the napkins on fire. Obviously the cable shouldn't have been in the cabinet.) That situation is one that could happen at any time. Romex is common in walls, ceilings and attics...eveywhere a mouse is likely to be found. There are no 100% safe electric wiring, devices, etc. There are circumstances that can arise that will cause fire, death, injury, etc. |
Can improper wiring actually cause a fire?
|
Can improper wiring actually cause a fire?
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 04:50:26 GMT, "Toller" wrote:
As you all know, a troll hijacked one of my posts and kept insisting that omitting a neutral on a pure 240v circuit would cause a fire, which would invalidate the insurance. But that brought up the question in my mind, can improper wiring actually cause a fire? You betcha. I encourage you to ask your local firemen. They will be happy to tell you some stories. Presumably any fool is capable of using the right gauge cable and breaker for the current, terminating all cables in junction boxes, using a suitable cover on the boxes, and securing the cable so it won't rip out of the box. Given that, could doing anything improper actually result in a fire? Seems to me that errors will result in the circuit not working, or a problem occur in the (presumably) fire resistant boxes. Given those basics being done right; what errors would result in fires? (I suppose one example might come from my cottage. It has cable entering the back of a kitchen cabinet and then going up to, and across the top. A mouse chewed through the wire to get into the cabinet and short circuited it, inches away from a pile of paper napkins. Seeing what happened to the mouse, I have to think I was lucky it didn't catch the napkins on fire. Obviously the cable shouldn't have been in the cabinet.) |
Can improper wiring actually cause a fire?
In article , "R. Pierce Butler" wrote:
"Toller" wrote in : As you all know, a troll hijacked one of my posts and kept insisting that omitting a neutral on a pure 240v circuit would cause a fire, which would invalidate the insurance. What he said was absolutely 100% wrong. The neutral in a pure 220vac does nothing but serve as a safety ground in the rare event that something were to go wrong and will help keep one from being shocked. Unfortunately, what you said is *also* absolutely 100% wrong. The neutral in a pure 240V circuit does nothing. Period. It serves no purpose. There is nothing to connect it to, and in fact in most cases it is omitted. The safety ground is the equipment ground, the bare wire. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
Can improper wiring actually cause a fire?
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 04:50:26 GMT, "Toller" wrote:
As you all know, a troll hijacked one of my posts and kept insisting that omitting a neutral on a pure 240v circuit would cause a fire, which would invalidate the insurance. But that brought up the question in my mind, can improper wiring actually cause a fire? Yes. See here for one example: http://www.douglassclan.com/ManufacturedHomeDanger.html -- "We need to make a sacrifice to the gods, find me a young virgin... oh, and bring something to kill" Tim Douglass http://www.DouglassClan.com |
Can improper wiring actually cause a fire?
|
Can improper wiring actually cause a fire?
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:07:36 GMT, "resrfglc"
wrote: My sincere apologies to you and tofler. In my area, my 220 circuits (to stove, ac, Water healer all contain a neutral and a bare ground wire. It seemed that this was done in accordance with the electrical codes in my area as the work was inspected by the City when the house was built. Maybe "code" allows it in my area. It seems to me that running a length of conductors to one's shop to operate a 220VAC device is an expense of time, energy and money that would warrant the (initially) redundant neutral given the minimal additional cost of the fourth conductor. My experience retrofitting homes and garages to serve new uses convinced me that one never knows how something may be used down the road. One of the things you must keep in mind is what code is today vs what code was yesterday, and even what it was the day before. Your four wire 240V circuit to the stove is what is currently required by the NEC. It's also required to a clothes dryer. But it wasn't so long ago--perhaps within the last five years, certainly within the last ten--that there was a code exception that permitted using the bare ground as a neutral. In other words, using three wires as a feed. In fact, when I remodeled the kitchen in my 30 year old house, I pulled out the three wire range cord (which was permitted in 1973) and pulled in a four wire for the new range. In my laundry room, the water heater was fed with 10/2 (no ground--also permitted in '73) and the dryer was fed with 10/2 (w/ground--again, okay in '73). I pulled the heater wire out entirely and moved the 10/2 wg from the dryer over to the heater, then pulled a brand new 10/3 for the dryer. There are a couple of issues that seem to crop up regularly in these electrical threads that seem to confuse a lot of people. One is that folks as old as I am, especially if they worked in a hardware store (as did I), don't automatically assume a ground wire when talking about 10/2 or 12/3, even though that's the only way it's sold now. Back in the day, if you wanted a ground wire with your two wire non-metallic, you better have said, "with ground," because if you didn't, you were SOL when you got home if you needed a ground wire. Yes, it was sold both ways. The other issue that confuses is what's needed electrically and what's needed by code. 240V devices only "need" two wires to run. Period. They are both hot--there's no such thing as a "neutral" when you're talking about 240V. Now, the code requires (in most cases) a ground, so practically speaking, the 240V device "needs" a three wire circuit--not to run, but to meet code. When it comes to devices like dryers and stoves, it's a similar story. The old code (up to 97?) permitted a three wire circuit (6/2 wg typically, for a stove; 10/2 wg typically, for a dryer). That was, as Doug says, to permit 120V clocks, microprocessors, etc. to function. The current code requires four wires to eliminate the congruence of the grounded and grounding functions in one wire, which is not a good idea. Frankly, if people would start thinking of a neutral more as a return path than as the same thing as a ground (which it is at the main load center, and only at the main load center) we would be a lot better off. A neutral carries current, a ground in a properly functioning circuit does not. That's why there's no "neutral" in a pure 240V device (like a motor). both legs carry current. Just like in a 120V device, where both legs carry current. It's just that in a 120V device, the one current carrying leg is at the same potential as the ground. At 240V, they're both above ground. A lot of people are confused by that. Someone mentioned a heater needing a four wire circuit, but I think that is inaccurate. There shouldn't be anything about a water heater that needs a neutral connection. However, I don't have an NEC book at hand to confirm that. You have to remember that not all 240V circuits have the same purpose. As has been mentioned, a 240V motor circuit doesn't need a neutral. By the way, a water heater, of all things, would be the best device to cite that doesn't need a ground. In most cases it's in the very path of what the electrical service is bonded to in the first place. That's why the two wire feed was not only sufficient but safe enough to pass muster for many years. Probably the advent of CPVC plumbing brought about the necessity of a separate ground. Alright, I've said that enough different ways for everyone to have a shot at grasping it. I hope it helps. -- LRod Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999 http://www.woodbutcher.net Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997 email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month. If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't care to correspond with you anyway. |
Can improper wiring actually cause a fire?
In article , "R. Pierce Butler" wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in t: In article , "R. Pierce Butler" wrote: "Toller" wrote in : As you all know, a troll hijacked one of my posts and kept insisting that omitting a neutral on a pure 240v circuit would cause a fire, which would invalidate the insurance. What he said was absolutely 100% wrong. The neutral in a pure 220vac does nothing but serve as a safety ground in the rare event that something were to go wrong and will help keep one from being shocked. Unfortunately, what you said is *also* absolutely 100% wrong. The neutral in a pure 240V circuit does nothing. Period. It serves no purpose. There is nothing to connect it to, and in fact in most cases it is omitted. The safety ground is the equipment ground, the bare wire. But there was no mention of a ground wire. ALl that was mentioned was the two wires to supply the 220vac and the neutral which, in this case, is the ground. Still 100% incorrect, in at least two respects. First, the original post proposed using 10/2 romex cable, which consists of a black, a white, and a bare wire -- which are two hots and a ground. The 'troll' to which Toller refers insisted, incorrectly, that the circuit also needed a neutral in order to comply with Code; this is false. Second, a 240V supply consists of two hots and a *ground*. Not a "neutral which ... is the ground." Neutral is not ground. They are not the same. And there is no neutral in a [North American] 240V circuit. Period. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
Can improper wiring actually cause a fire?
Tim Douglass wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 04:50:26 GMT, "Toller" wrote: As you all know, a troll hijacked one of my posts and kept insisting that omitting a neutral on a pure 240v circuit would cause a fire, which would invalidate the insurance. But that brought up the question in my mind, can improper wiring actually cause a fire? Yes. See here for one example: http://www.douglassclan.com/ManufacturedHomeDanger.html Ouch! I stopped to read that page, thinking it might have something interesting or that I hadn't come across, and indeed, it did. The amount of misinformation there is large, especially with the assumed theories that were stated. I don't doubt your initial experience as I've seen it myself, but ... I think you exaggerated greatly and unfortunately made a lot of wrong guesses about what what and why. If you'd like some assistance in updating that page so it's accurate and usable as an FYI, I'm sure there are people here who would assist you in that endeavor, myself included. As it stands, it's a badly expressed example of a bad situation but your understanding of electricity is obviously lacking and in need of improvement. Reagrds, Pop` |
Can improper wiring actually cause a fire?
Now, that's a response worthy of such a list. And he didn't take a shot at
anyone in the process. Just to clarify, my original intent (poorly done though it might have been) was to refer to installing a 240VAC run to a shop. While the OP indicated it was for a motor, my advice was to run a generic 240VAC run (thinking "down the line" as it were) that would serve the intended initial purpose and prove adaptable to others (run a 110VAC branch off, for instance) should the need arise - saving a re-wiring (not always a "pull" as most folks (and the OP indicated) use romex rather than individual conductors pulled through EMT (or equivalent). I maintain that the advice/suggestion to use 10/3 (three conductors and equipment ground) over the alternative 10/2 (two conductors and equipment ground) would better serve the OP and most all of us save those who never err nor fail to plan perfectly for the future. Or, for that matter, get confused by return path, ground, equipment grounds, neutral vs. ground, grounding buss bars and so on and so forth. (my category) "LRod" wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:07:36 GMT, "resrfglc" wrote: My sincere apologies to you and tofler. In my area, my 220 circuits (to stove, ac, Water healer all contain a neutral and a bare ground wire. It seemed that this was done in accordance with the electrical codes in my area as the work was inspected by the City when the house was built. Maybe "code" allows it in my area. It seems to me that running a length of conductors to one's shop to operate a 220VAC device is an expense of time, energy and money that would warrant the (initially) redundant neutral given the minimal additional cost of the fourth conductor. My experience retrofitting homes and garages to serve new uses convinced me that one never knows how something may be used down the road. One of the things you must keep in mind is what code is today vs what code was yesterday, and even what it was the day before. Your four wire 240V circuit to the stove is what is currently required by the NEC. It's also required to a clothes dryer. But it wasn't so long ago--perhaps within the last five years, certainly within the last ten--that there was a code exception that permitted using the bare ground as a neutral. In other words, using three wires as a feed. In fact, when I remodeled the kitchen in my 30 year old house, I pulled out the three wire range cord (which was permitted in 1973) and pulled in a four wire for the new range. In my laundry room, the water heater was fed with 10/2 (no ground--also permitted in '73) and the dryer was fed with 10/2 (w/ground--again, okay in '73). I pulled the heater wire out entirely and moved the 10/2 wg from the dryer over to the heater, then pulled a brand new 10/3 for the dryer. There are a couple of issues that seem to crop up regularly in these electrical threads that seem to confuse a lot of people. One is that folks as old as I am, especially if they worked in a hardware store (as did I), don't automatically assume a ground wire when talking about 10/2 or 12/3, even though that's the only way it's sold now. Back in the day, if you wanted a ground wire with your two wire non-metallic, you better have said, "with ground," because if you didn't, you were SOL when you got home if you needed a ground wire. Yes, it was sold both ways. The other issue that confuses is what's needed electrically and what's needed by code. 240V devices only "need" two wires to run. Period. They are both hot--there's no such thing as a "neutral" when you're talking about 240V. Now, the code requires (in most cases) a ground, so practically speaking, the 240V device "needs" a three wire circuit--not to run, but to meet code. When it comes to devices like dryers and stoves, it's a similar story. The old code (up to 97?) permitted a three wire circuit (6/2 wg typically, for a stove; 10/2 wg typically, for a dryer). That was, as Doug says, to permit 120V clocks, microprocessors, etc. to function. The current code requires four wires to eliminate the congruence of the grounded and grounding functions in one wire, which is not a good idea. Frankly, if people would start thinking of a neutral more as a return path than as the same thing as a ground (which it is at the main load center, and only at the main load center) we would be a lot better off. A neutral carries current, a ground in a properly functioning circuit does not. That's why there's no "neutral" in a pure 240V device (like a motor). both legs carry current. Just like in a 120V device, where both legs carry current. It's just that in a 120V device, the one current carrying leg is at the same potential as the ground. At 240V, they're both above ground. A lot of people are confused by that. Someone mentioned a heater needing a four wire circuit, but I think that is inaccurate. There shouldn't be anything about a water heater that needs a neutral connection. However, I don't have an NEC book at hand to confirm that. You have to remember that not all 240V circuits have the same purpose. As has been mentioned, a 240V motor circuit doesn't need a neutral. By the way, a water heater, of all things, would be the best device to cite that doesn't need a ground. In most cases it's in the very path of what the electrical service is bonded to in the first place. That's why the two wire feed was not only sufficient but safe enough to pass muster for many years. Probably the advent of CPVC plumbing brought about the necessity of a separate ground. Alright, I've said that enough different ways for everyone to have a shot at grasping it. I hope it helps. -- LRod Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999 http://www.woodbutcher.net Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997 email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month. If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't care to correspond with you anyway. |
Can improper wiring actually cause a fire?
In article Nf_fh.6773$bj5.3077@trnddc07, "resrfglc" wrote:
I maintain that the advice/suggestion to use 10/3 (three conductors and equipment ground) over the alternative 10/2 (two conductors and equipment ground) would better serve the OP and most all of us save those who never err nor fail to plan perfectly for the future. Nobody *ever* criticized anyone for suggesting that 10/3 might be a better choice. You still don't seem to have figured out that you were catching heat for your insistence that 10/3 was required by Code for a pure 240V circuit -- and, by the way, it's not "taking shots at" you to point out that a false statement you made is in fact false. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
Can improper wiring actually cause a fire?
"10/3 was required by Code for a pure 240V circuit "
OK, let's get off this "You're Right, He's Wrong" track for a moment. Let's say you call your County Electrical Code Inspector and tell him you want to run a 240VAC Circuit from your Main Breaker Box (say sixty-feet?) out to your Garage/Shop. what size conductors you should pull for a (40AMP?) load and see what he recommends. My point being that, given that information, e.g. MAX 40AMP load @ 220VAC he's likely to suggest you pull the three conductors and the mechanical ground. I agree he will, if pressed, allow that - if the circuit is dedicated to a water heater, for instance, that you only need pull the two conductors and the mechanical ground. And, of course, the same would apply were you to specify the circuit would be dedicated to a specific electrical motor. conductors "Doug Miller" wrote in message t... In article Nf_fh.6773$bj5.3077@trnddc07, "resrfglc" wrote: I maintain that the advice/suggestion to use 10/3 (three conductors and equipment ground) over the alternative 10/2 (two conductors and equipment ground) would better serve the OP and most all of us save those who never err nor fail to plan perfectly for the future. Nobody *ever* criticized anyone for suggesting that 10/3 might be a better choice. You still don't seem to have figured out that you were catching heat for your insistence that 10/3 was required by Code for a pure 240V circuit -- and, by the way, it's not "taking shots at" you to point out that a false statement you made is in fact false. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
Can improper wiring actually cause a fire?
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 02:47:03 GMT, "resrfglc"
wrote: "10/3 was required by Code for a pure 240V circuit " OK, let's get off this "You're Right, He's Wrong" track for a moment. Let's say you call your County Electrical Code Inspector and tell him you want to run a 240VAC Circuit from your Main Breaker Box (say sixty-feet?) out to your Garage/Shop. what size conductors you should pull for a (40AMP?) load and see what he recommends. But that isn't enough information to give a definitive answer. As Marisa Tomei said in "My Cousin Vinnie", "it's a bogus question." My point being that, given that information, e.g. MAX 40AMP load @ 220VAC he's likely to suggest you pull the three conductors and the mechanical ground. I don't agree. Based on my foregoing, I believe your imaginary inspector is going to ask the question you hint at below in order to find which of two or possibly three correct answers he should give you. I agree he will, if pressed, allow that - if the circuit is dedicated to a water heater, for instance, that you only need pull the two conductors and the mechanical ground. The only pressing in the conversation will be him pressing you for more information before he gives an answer, namely, what are you going to run on the circuit? And, of course, the same would apply were you to specify the circuit would be dedicated to a specific electrical motor. Which is exactly the kind of information he needs before he will ever give you a definitive answer, because there isn't a definitive answer without those parameters. That's what makes it a bogus question. And, by the way, if it's a county inspector, he's far more likely to not really have that much interest, as opposed to a village, or worse, city inspector. Finally, in addition to the fact that this is usenet and all answers are suspect by definition, whatever anyone says here, even if it's solid gold in the jurisdiction in which they live, there are places that not only have more stringent requirements than those in the NEC, but may not even base their own standards on it (Chicago is the largest notable example of the latter, I'm told). -- LRod Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999 http://www.woodbutcher.net Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997 email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month. If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't care to correspond with you anyway. |
Can improper wiring actually cause a fire?
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 06:02:53 +0000, LRod
wrote: On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 02:47:03 GMT, "resrfglc" wrote: "10/3 was required by Code for a pure 240V circuit " OK, let's get off this "You're Right, He's Wrong" track for a moment. Let's say you call your County Electrical Code Inspector and tell him you want to run a 240VAC Circuit from your Main Breaker Box (say sixty-feet?) out to your Garage/Shop. what size conductors you should pull for a (40AMP?) load and see what he recommends. But that isn't enough information to give a definitive answer. As Marisa Tomei said in "My Cousin Vinnie", "it's a bogus question." My point being that, given that information, e.g. MAX 40AMP load @ 220VAC he's likely to suggest you pull the three conductors and the mechanical ground. I don't agree. Based on my foregoing, I believe your imaginary inspector is going to ask the question you hint at below in order to find which of two or possibly three correct answers he should give you. I agree he will, if pressed, allow that - if the circuit is dedicated to a water heater, for instance, that you only need pull the two conductors and the mechanical ground. The only pressing in the conversation will be him pressing you for more information before he gives an answer, namely, what are you going to run on the circuit? And, of course, the same would apply were you to specify the circuit would be dedicated to a specific electrical motor. Which is exactly the kind of information he needs before he will ever give you a definitive answer, because there isn't a definitive answer without those parameters. That's what makes it a bogus question. And, by the way, if it's a county inspector, he's far more likely to not really have that much interest, as opposed to a village, or worse, city inspector. Finally, in addition to the fact that this is usenet and all answers are suspect by definition, whatever anyone says here, even if it's solid gold in the jurisdiction in which they live, there are places that not only have more stringent requirements than those in the NEC, but may not even base their own standards on it (Chicago is the largest notable example of the latter, I'm told). Maybe this will help..... http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ic/hsehld.html |
Can improper wiring actually cause a fire?
In article HW2gh.4458$LL4.1957@trnddc04, "resrfglc" wrote:
Let's say you call your County Electrical Code Inspector and tell him you want to run a 240VAC Circuit from your Main Breaker Box (say sixty-feet?) out to your Garage/Shop. what size conductors you should pull for a (40AMP?) load and see what he recommends. And what does that have to do with whether Code requires a neutral or not? My point being that, given that information, e.g. MAX 40AMP load @ 220VAC he's likely to suggest you pull the three conductors and the mechanical ground. He's more likely to first ask what kind of load it's serving. And when he hears that it's a 240V motor, with no 120V loads, he's likely to suggest two conductors plus equipment ground. I agree he will, if pressed, allow that - if the circuit is dedicated to a water heater, for instance, that you only need pull the two conductors and the mechanical ground. If the circuit is serving 240V receptacles with no 120V loads, you only need to pull two conductors and equipment ground. And, of course, the same would apply were you to specify the circuit would be dedicated to a specific electrical motor. It doesn't have to be dedicated to *anything*. It can supply a 240V receptacle, or several 240V receptacles, and as long as there is no 120V load anywhere on the circuit, two conductors plus ground will be sufficient. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
Can improper wiring actually cause a fire?
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 06:21:14 -0500, Joe Bemier wrote:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 06:02:53 +0000, LRod wrote: On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 02:47:03 GMT, "resrfglc" wrote: "10/3 was required by Code for a pure 240V circuit " OK, let's get off this "You're Right, He's Wrong" track for a moment. Let's say you call your County Electrical Code Inspector and tell him you want to run a 240VAC Circuit from your Main Breaker Box (say sixty-feet?) out to your Garage/Shop. what size conductors you should pull for a (40AMP?) load and see what he recommends. But that isn't enough information to give a definitive answer. As Marisa Tomei said in "My Cousin Vinnie", "it's a bogus question." My point being that, given that information, e.g. MAX 40AMP load @ 220VAC he's likely to suggest you pull the three conductors and the mechanical ground. I don't agree. Based on my foregoing, I believe your imaginary inspector is going to ask the question you hint at below in order to find which of two or possibly three correct answers he should give you. I agree he will, if pressed, allow that - if the circuit is dedicated to a water heater, for instance, that you only need pull the two conductors and the mechanical ground. The only pressing in the conversation will be him pressing you for more information before he gives an answer, namely, what are you going to run on the circuit? And, of course, the same would apply were you to specify the circuit would be dedicated to a specific electrical motor. Which is exactly the kind of information he needs before he will ever give you a definitive answer, because there isn't a definitive answer without those parameters. That's what makes it a bogus question. And, by the way, if it's a county inspector, he's far more likely to not really have that much interest, as opposed to a village, or worse, city inspector. Finally, in addition to the fact that this is usenet and all answers are suspect by definition, whatever anyone says here, even if it's solid gold in the jurisdiction in which they live, there are places that not only have more stringent requirements than those in the NEC, but may not even base their own standards on it (Chicago is the largest notable example of the latter, I'm told). Maybe this will help..... http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ic/hsehld.html The trouble is that the Code is law and regulation, not physics. -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
Can improper wiring actually cause a fire?
"The standard U.S. household wiring design has two 120 volt "hot" wires and
a neutral which is at ground potential. The two 120 volt wires are obtained by grounding the centertap of the transformer supplying the house so that when one hot wire is swinging positive with respect to ground, the other is swinging negative. This versatile design allows the use of either hot wire to supply the standard 120 volt household circuits. For higher power applications like clothes dryers, electric ranges, air conditioners, etc. , both hot wires can be used to produce a 240 volt circuit." http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ic/hsehld.html Hah! "Joe Bemier" wrote in message ... On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 06:02:53 +0000, LRod wrote: On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 02:47:03 GMT, "resrfglc" wrote: "10/3 was required by Code for a pure 240V circuit " OK, let's get off this "You're Right, He's Wrong" track for a moment. Let's say you call your County Electrical Code Inspector and tell him you want to run a 240VAC Circuit from your Main Breaker Box (say sixty-feet?) out to your Garage/Shop. what size conductors you should pull for a (40AMP?) load and see what he recommends. But that isn't enough information to give a definitive answer. As Marisa Tomei said in "My Cousin Vinnie", "it's a bogus question." My point being that, given that information, e.g. MAX 40AMP load @ 220VAC he's likely to suggest you pull the three conductors and the mechanical ground. I don't agree. Based on my foregoing, I believe your imaginary inspector is going to ask the question you hint at below in order to find which of two or possibly three correct answers he should give you. I agree he will, if pressed, allow that - if the circuit is dedicated to a water heater, for instance, that you only need pull the two conductors and the mechanical ground. The only pressing in the conversation will be him pressing you for more information before he gives an answer, namely, what are you going to run on the circuit? And, of course, the same would apply were you to specify the circuit would be dedicated to a specific electrical motor. Which is exactly the kind of information he needs before he will ever give you a definitive answer, because there isn't a definitive answer without those parameters. That's what makes it a bogus question. And, by the way, if it's a county inspector, he's far more likely to not really have that much interest, as opposed to a village, or worse, city inspector. Finally, in addition to the fact that this is usenet and all answers are suspect by definition, whatever anyone says here, even if it's solid gold in the jurisdiction in which they live, there are places that not only have more stringent requirements than those in the NEC, but may not even base their own standards on it (Chicago is the largest notable example of the latter, I'm told). Maybe this will help..... http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ic/hsehld.html |
Can improper wiring actually cause a fire?
"as long as there is no 120V load "
My point, exactly. The run, w/o he neutral, would be "dedicate" to 240VAC by your approach while mine affords he flexibility to employ the run otherwise without re-wiring from the MAIN. "Is the ground wire necessary? The appliance will operate normally without the ground wire because it is not a part of the conducting path which supplies electricity to the appliance. In fact, if the ground wire is broken or removed, you will normally not be able to tell the difference. But if high voltage has gotten in contact with the case, there may be a shock hazard. In the absence of the ground wire, shock hazard conditions will often not cause the breaker to trip unless the circuit has a ground fault interrupter in it. Part of the role of the ground wire is to force the breaker to trip by supplying a path to ground if a "hot" wire comes in contact with the metal case of the appliance." http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...bregnd.html#c3 "Doug Miller" wrote in message t... In article HW2gh.4458$LL4.1957@trnddc04, "resrfglc" wrote: Let's say you call your County Electrical Code Inspector and tell him you want to run a 240VAC Circuit from your Main Breaker Box (say sixty-feet?) out to your Garage/Shop. what size conductors you should pull for a (40AMP?) load and see what he recommends. And what does that have to do with whether Code requires a neutral or not? My point being that, given that information, e.g. MAX 40AMP load @ 220VAC he's likely to suggest you pull the three conductors and the mechanical ground. He's more likely to first ask what kind of load it's serving. And when he hears that it's a 240V motor, with no 120V loads, he's likely to suggest two conductors plus equipment ground. I agree he will, if pressed, allow that - if the circuit is dedicated to a water heater, for instance, that you only need pull the two conductors and the mechanical ground. If the circuit is serving 240V receptacles with no 120V loads, you only need to pull two conductors and equipment ground. And, of course, the same would apply were you to specify the circuit would be dedicated to a specific electrical motor. It doesn't have to be dedicated to *anything*. It can supply a 240V receptacle, or several 240V receptacles, and as long as there is no 120V load anywhere on the circuit, two conductors plus ground will be sufficient. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
Can improper wiring actually cause a fire?
Toller wrote: As you all know, a troll hijacked one of my posts and kept insisting that omitting a neutral on a pure 240v circuit would cause a fire, which would invalidate the insurance. But that brought up the question in my mind, can improper wiring actually cause a fire? I don't know if it could cause a fire, but if you use a wire guage that is too small, the wire will definitely get very hot. Obviously, if not wired correctly, there's a possibility that the electricity can arc, causing sparks which could ignite something. But you're right, if done with care and common sense, wiring really isn't dangerous. |
Can improper wiring actually cause a fire?
In article hsegh.5632$yZ4.852@trnddc05, "resrfglc" wrote:
"as long as there is no 120V load " My point, exactly. Your "point" originally was that _even_in_the_absence_ of 120V loads, the neutral wire was supposedly "required by code". It's not. The run, w/o he neutral, would be "dedicate" to 240VAC by your approach Which was what the OP was describing -- and you told him he needed a neutral too. He doesn't. while mine affords he flexibility to employ the run otherwise without re-wiring from the MAIN. While true, that's a separate issue from whether he needs a neutral when he does *not* have a 120V load. [further red herring ground wire removed] -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
Can improper wiring actually cause a fire?
In article hsegh.5631$yZ4.4045@trnddc05, "resrfglc" wrote:
"The standard U.S. household wiring design has two 120 volt "hot" wires and a neutral which is at ground potential. The two 120 volt wires are obtained by grounding the centertap of the transformer supplying the house so that when one hot wire is swinging positive with respect to ground, the other is swinging negative. This versatile design allows the use of either hot wire to supply the standard 120 volt household circuits. For higher power applications like clothes dryers, electric ranges, air conditioners, etc. , both hot wires can be used to produce a 240 volt circuit." http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ic/hsehld.html Hah! What do you mean, "Hah!" ?? Nobody has disputed what you quoted above. The *entire* dispute in this thread has been over your uninformed, misinformed, erroneous insistence that the neutral wire was required for a 240V circuit that had _no_ 120V loads. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:39 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter