Changing 120v lighting to 240v

Page 3 of 3  

On Sep 21, 12:38 pm, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

I'd like to see a reference in the NEC where it says both sides of a 240V circuit need to be switched. It's true for circuit breakers, but switches? I would personally want to switch both sides, but is it an absolute requirement? I was recently looking at a buying a solar pool pump controller that was UL listed. It was designed to control a 240V pool pump and it only switched one leg to turn it on and off via a single pole relay. Would seem strange if the code says you can't do it.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 17:29:54 -0700 (PDT), snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

reasons" Anyone who would do it any other way is a fool - pure and simple. PARTICULARLY in a lighting circuit - where NOBODY is expecting a "live neutral" and 240 volts. We are talking lethal power here, where things are done according to a STANDARD to make it safe, although not idiot proof. Deviating from that standard adds multiple significant risks.
You do it however you want in your own home, and make sure your liability insurance is up to date if you or your family/survivors/whatever ever have to have someone other than you work on the system after you are gone.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sep 21, 8:42 pm, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

Yawn... You emphasize following a standard, yet are unable to cite any. I agreed from my first post that it's safer to use a switch on both legs and said that is how I would do it. But I would also use a double pole relay for the solar pool controller I mentioned and that controller, while UL listed, uses a single pole relay to control the 240V pool pump. Seems strange they are selling them if they are a code violation and so dangerous. Of course a large part of the danger is taken care of by turning off the breaker to a circuit prior to working on it, which I think we all agree must be a double breaker.

Next time try adding somthing to the discussion.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote: ...

Don't see a reference to the Code section but my Wiring Simplified Handbook says each leg must be switched if neither is grounded. This is quite old so would seem to have been in Code a long time. While the book isn't particularly concerned in identifying chapter/verse, it isn't prone to saying things that aren't so...
The specific paragraph in the book says
"Double-pole switches are required by the Code when neither of the two wires is grounded. In practice this means you must use double-pole switches for 240 Volt motors or appliances."
Whether there are other exceptions or not I can't say.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 17:29:54 -0700 (PDT), snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

I know for fact that the 240V submercible pump in my well is only switched on one side of the line. I'm not going to even try to explain it because it's a rather odd setup. The control box and capacitor was originally outdoors on a pole, with wires out in the open and running across the surface of the ground. There is an underground concrete pit about 5 feet from the well, where the storage tank is located. The pipe from the well comes into the pit and exits from the same place. There is no way to really puncture this concrete pit because the walls are over 2 feet thick, so there was originally just one of those well cables going in thru the entrance lid that lifts off the pit for access.
When I moved here, I moved that control box into the garage, which is 8 feet from the pit, and I ran gray PVC conduit into the pit, but its still on the surface of the pit because there is no way I'm going to even try to cut thru those thick concrete walls. But I bolted it down, and ran it into the garage, and put the control box in the garage instead of outdoors in the weather.
In the end, I have a 3 wire UF romex w/gnd going into the pit. To wire it, where BOTH legs would shut off, I would need a 4 wire UF romex w/gnd. There is no such thing, so that owuld mean more wires, large PVC conduit, and changing other stuff. The pump was installed in the 1960's and worked fine all those years. Aside from moving that control indoors and making the wiring more suitable and less messy, I just figure it was not worth all the extra hassle to shut off both sides. When I shut off the breaker, both sides are off, but normally one side is always left on. It works, so why screw with it....
Now if some chinaman comes up from the bottom of my well and tampers with my pump, he might get an unwelcome shock, but thats what he deserves for messing around with my well and pump.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 17:29:54 -0700 (PDT), snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

OK We are talking about lamp holders.
410.93 Double-Pole Switched Lampholders. Where supplied by the ungrounded conductors of a circuit, the switching device of lampholders of the switched type shall simultaneously disconnect both conductors of the circuit.
There is also a similar rule in the motor section, the appliance section etc.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sep 22, 1:16 pm, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Which makes sense to me. Here's the manual for the solar pool controller that I was talking about. It has a single pole relay to control the 240V pool pump. Take a look at pages 8 and 9, that show how to install it and notice that only one leg is switched. Kind of amazing, no? We went with a different controller for two reasons, this being one of them. In the case of the solar pool controller I think it's especially bad to have only one leg switched because the controller essentially parallels the existing pool pump timer. So, one could forget about the solar controller, just make sure the timer is set to off and go to work on the pool pump wiring, which would have one leg always hot, unless the breaker were opened.
http://www.haywardnet.com/products/manuals/pdfs/Manual342.pdf
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote: ...

I'm _presuming_ here, but I'd guess there's required to be a disconnect in front of the controller? If so, my guess is there's a dispensation for the controller.
I think the Section above applies to branch circuits, not necessarily to individual controls on gear w/ dedicated disconnects. Again, that's a presumption w/o having a copy of Code to refer to. Seems like I've seen similar stuff fairly often in automation that the controllers only switch a single leg; isolation is from a disconnect.
Or, of course, whoever said stuff always follows Standards, too? :)
--
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 06:06:15 -0700 (PDT), snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

You can have a single pole "controller" but you still need a 2 pole disconnect, marked with an "off" position.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sep 23, 11:06 am, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

So apparently there is a distinction in the code between lamp holders and other circuits, eg pool pumps? Lamp holders must have a two pole switch but other loads not necesarilly. Agree?
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 08:56:12 -0700 (PDT), snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Yes, that is why the disconnect rules are specific to each type of equipment. The fear with a lamp holder is that someone will assume it is off when relamping and contact a hot screw shell.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 08:56:12 -0700 (PDT), snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

and "premises wiring", which includes lighting.
The controller is part of an "electrical apparatus or appliance" which must have a dual pole disconnect or safety interlock - which is usually outside the device, while the "controller" is generally inside the device for compliance. A safety interlock shuts off the power if the case is opened.
That's how it is SUPPOSED to be done - but (code) compliance enforcement is very lax until someone gets killed.
Another possibility is the controller is european - where one side of the 240 line IS grounded - which does not change the code enforcement issue. - Or the safety issue
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 12:38:59 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

Captain Obvious strikes again. So what? That wasn't what was being discussed.

Moron.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 22:54:35 -0500, " snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 13:04:35 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

What a witty comeback!
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

240V incandescents produce less light than 120V ones of the same warrage and life expectancy, due to economies of scale having to do with the diameter of the filament.
There are other exemptions to the upcoming USA incandescent lamp ban. One is incandescents that meet a certain energy efficiency standard, and they do exist (but they are not widespread). For example, there is the Philips Halogena "Energy saver" 70 watt, which produces 1600 lumens - nearly "full 100 watt equivalence". Home Depot has them.
Reflectorized floodlight and spotlight bulbs are also exempt from the upcoming ban. There are even a few Philips Halogena "Energy Saver" ones.
--
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sep 18, 11:34 am, snipped-for-privacy@myplace.com wrote:

You will still be able to get "rough service" 120V incandescent bulbs...
If you're that hung up on the old soft whites, stock up with a 20 year supply. Certainly something else will be along that'll be acceptable to you in that timeframe..
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 11:51:38 -0700 (PDT), snipped-for-privacy@rochester.rr.com wrote:

That's my plan. I should have nearly 500 unfrosted bulbs by then. They may be a good hedge against the inevitable hyper-inflation.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sep 24, 10:16 pm, " snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

== Yes and you could hawk them for five times what you payed for them. Let the good times roll...
==
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.