Electric Problem or overloading the circuit

Page 2 of 6  

Doug Miller wrote:

Nice answers to some bizarre misinformation. I would disagree only that if you have multiple breakers with a handle tie, one breaker tripping will not necessarily trip the other breaker. The NEC requirement (if I remember right) is for a common disconnect, not a common trip.
The common disconnect requirement was added in the 2008 NEC (or possibly 2005). Before that an edison circuit could have independent (and separated) breakers. AFCI requirements do effectively limit edison circuit usage.
Circuit breakers are "trip free". What you do with the handle )like propping it with a 2x4) does not keep the breaker from tripping normally.

Multiple pole breakers (not just a handle tie) do have a common *mechanical* trip and all poles will trip together.
--
bud--



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Perhaps you'd like to explain how it's possible for one handle of a pair tied together to move from the on to the tripped position, while the other member of that tied pair remains in the on position...? :-)

There's no practical difference.

2008 -- and way past time, too, IMHO.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Miller wrote:

The handle of a breaker does not have to move to a tripped position when a breaker trips. If there is enough force (as from another breaker) the handle can stay in the on position. Breakers are "trip free" (which you edited out).
As a matter of experience, handle-tied breakers do not always both open if one is tripped by overload. Some brands might.
You can handle-tie 3 breakers for 3 phase circuits. I would expect them to be less likely to all trip.
I would not rely on handle-tied breakers to all trip open. If you want a reliable trip of all poles use a multi-pole breaker instead of a handle tie.

"Common disconnect" means that when the breaker is *manually* turned off all breakers are opened. (The language is "simultaneously disconnect".)
"Common trip" means if one breaker trips by *overload* both breakers open.
They are not the same.
Handle-tied breakers are necessarily "common disconnect". They may or may not be "common trip".
--
bud--

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Any that passes CSA approval WILL. Don't know about the lame US regualatory bodies.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In wrote:

UL 1459, its successor, and CSA are the same on these points. What's important in reading them is "properly installed" w/r to their "purpose". Ganged breakers are expected to have the same current in each leg; thus they don't impede each other. Using a ganged breaker in a split or multi- situation would be an improper application. All breakers and fuses are specced and include a time-chart of current vs time for opening so that makes it obvious too.
Cheers,
Twayne

--
--
Cats land on their feet.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

So what breaker DO you use for a split receptacle if not a "ganged" breaker????

Is it just a terminology thing, or are there two commonly available dual-cuircuit breakers ?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Twayne wrote:

I doubt Canadian breakers are different from US ones.
Because breakers are "trip free" there is not much force available to trip a handle-tied breaker - or for 3 phase, 2 other handle-tied breakers.
I presume you saw this is separate breakers that have been handle-tied. Multipole breakers have an internal common trip [actually some don't and are marked].
===================>

UL 1459 is "Telephone Equipment"
Circuit breakers in this thread are UL 489, "Molded-Case Circuit Breakers, Molded-Case Switches and Circuit Breaker Enclosures"

Provide manufacturers instructions that agree with you.

Complete nonsense for both multipole and handle-tied breakers.

I assume you are talking about multipole breakers. There is no problem. Each pole has a trip element. If one pole trips the other poles are tripped mechanically. Nothing is impeded.

Complete nonsense.
As clare says these breakers are used for Canadian split wired kitchen outlets, and they are now required on US multiwire (Edison) circuits.
And as clare says, "ganged breaker" has no clear meaning.

The current - time curve is for each trip element, which should be obvious.
Twayne continues to be out of touch with reality.
--
bud--

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Well, since I've a little time, I guess I'll have to help you understand the English Language and perhaps a little comprehension assistance too.
In wrote:

Sure, links have been posted online as available from the sites you mentioned and many more. I have on the shelf here the 2005 book which serves well yet but is outdated of course in some areas, plus I think it's the 2003 rev; I can't quite make out the writing on the binding. I said I searched for the NEC, NOT for a "book on the NEC" or the "NEC book", etc.. I use it so seldom anymore now I'm retired that paying for it again isn't something I want to do anymore. Normally I can find pieces of it scattered around the 'net to satisfy my needs, should they come up, so that suffices for insuring the latest developments. I've always thought it was something that should be reproduced on the web anyway, and until very recently haven't come across it in full. It's been quite awhile now since I've bothered to look for it, but I've come across at least 3 sources for it now: One the NFPA presentation ala yours, another a micro-fiche scan put online and a third that looks like it might be illegally placed so I don't expect it to be there long. What's really needed is an online searchable database or file so lookups are made more efficient. And before you go off on how "they" deserve to be paid for it, I disagree: Anything akin to rules & regulations belongs on the 'net ala the FCC and other Fed documents such as CFRs etc., state rules & regs, even local gvt rules & regs. Most are online with the exception of small local governments and that's pretty much understandable due to the cost of equipment to maintain such things. Hmm, just thought of another possible source of the NEC; I'll have to take a look at it. If anyone cares I'll post back if it's there.

I could not care less what you think; you do appear to be narcissistic and to have trolish tendencies though, as your posts show quite clearly IMO. So, NO, I hadn't read the 2008 NEC; you're right. And I thanked you for the links to which you had nothing but a trollish response. I knew there were changes since the 2005 but couldn't get a clear and concise explanation of them w/r to your Edison toys. Your childish attempts at redirecting and otherwise changing the subject are lost on me as are anyone else's. It's blatantly apparent that you often cut loose on subjects you know nothing about in fact, as evidenced by your suppositions above. Now it's apparent you go off on self-serving crusades and hope to issue directives to people that are downright silly to begin with and useless to boot. If you want more control, you'll have to go to a monitored group or forums on the subject.

And for dumping your credibility rating into the toilet, on top of a few other things. It's easy to have a few links one can provide; making proper use of them is another story. The para 10.4 reference was nearly useless; however, other parts were useful for the subject, and I have to wonder if you are/were even aware of them.
It's rather telling too, the way you rant as though not having read the 2008 NEC and asking questions about it here were a mortal sin, only because you have it yourself. I even picked up a bunch of info on the 2009 proposals and status; hope you have too, else you're one gigantic ass, using your own methodology.

Boy, you're really challenged in reading comprehension, aren't you? You can't see the "under fault conditions" in that sentence? Or is it that you don't know the scope of the phrase "fault condition"? I don't really care; it's just one more example of your inability to function properly.

No, I meant especially in a miswired case. Where did I say there was an alternative case? It means, especially in the case of a miswire, ... .

But in reality it's seldom the case. With ganged breakers, balanced currents would be the only way one breaker wouldn't be influenced by the other. It's funny, and strange, that you missed the other breaker types that could have been used. Turned out to not require a lot of research to pin it down for my self and get my head around them. Thus I have to assume you simply decided not to part with such information, OR you don't know the specifics of how/why they trip.

No, it appears that way because it actually IS that way.

I never said it could. There's that reading comprehension issue again.
You love the phrase "Edison Circuit", don't you? Stuck in a rut?
<snipped no longer trusted nor of any interest drivel question/responses>
============ Couldn't send this due to a storm apparently killing our avaialable routes out of here and still had a little time left. I went out to the shop, fired up the genset, and grabbed a couple of 15A breakers with holes in the levers to toggle them together. First I tested each one, using two DC power supplies tied togther via diodes. I used DC because I wanted the current limiting abilities of my power supplies. One breaker tripped at about 15.9A, the other one at 16.3A, with long-term loads applied. I was limited to 20A total, less whatever the diodes & supply specs dictated, and I covered them with a plexiglas box to contain the heat. By themselves, they tripped rather readily and strongly once they got hot enough long enough. Then I installed a GenRad bar (they're from a GenRad panel) and tied the two levers together. Very little slop, but some; you could feel it. Applying Common mode current, they tripped at around 16.7 Amps; don't know the time, I wasn't there when they popped. While they were still warm, I removed the current thru one breaker and set my meters to max I and flipped the power on. It measured out at about 19.25 Amps on both my Triplett and Radio Shack Special. I've no scope so I wasn't able to view the waveforms from the supplies, but ... DC is pretty much DC. The breaker gave an initial jump after about 20 seconds, but didn't open and after about 1 1/2 minutes, jumped again, trying to open. Long story short, it still hadn't opened after about ten minutes. My poor power supplies were starting to smell hot, so I suspended the test. Perhaps a sudden surge of many more amps would have created a satisfactory event where it popped both breakers open, but at least in this test, it was never able to overcome the other breaker's resistance. It took very little added physical pressure on the lever to pop it, but still, it didn't open on its own. I then reversed the connections, intending to use the opposite breaker as the driver, and the genset ran out of gas!! I quit! This has turned into a real curiousity fest for me now. I have a couple huge wire-wound rheostats that might take the current I need; I'm going to check. Then I could use 120Vac and perhaps the spare 20A breakers from my own existing panel. I might even pop for a couple of the other type breakers too; it seems there's more here than meets the eye. If the test results so far hold, that makes it pretty dangerous to use a ganged breaker in place of the other type, whose name escapes me at the moment. Also, everyting I've found on ganged breakers so far indicates they're intended to have equivalent loads on each side, which intimates not using them for multi-branch ckts. If my spare time will hold out, that is.
Enjoy;
Twayne
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If you pay more attention when you read, you won't make yourself look like such a fool.
I said *nothing* about "book[s] on the NEC". I told you where you can get _the NEC_. Sources include libraries, eBay, Amazon, and major bookstores.
Do I need to look up the ISBN for you too?
[snip a lot of irrelevant garbage -- none of which changes the fact that you haven't the least idea how multiwire branch circuits work, or what the Code provides]
Now that you know where to get a copy of the Code, you no longer have any excuse for not knowing what it says.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Dec 25, 10:29pm, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
amcop.net> wrote:

Forget the insults. Something (anything) getting hot, as described, IS NOT SAFE; whatever the reason. And since none of us are there to see/check this either IS a troll or the OP hasn't bothered to check back. Almost impossible to diagnose by long distance. Just hoping if this not a troll there will not be tragedy.
Not only not safe but some possibility electricity is being expensively wasted! e.g going to ground????
BTW since this thread started we have, in this particular province of Canada with a population of just over 500,000 persons had one (electrical they think) fire that rendered a family's house uninhabitable. Smoke damage etc. also ruined some/most of their Christmas gifts.
In the meantime in another instance, a few weeks ago, a family who were building a new home behind their existing but old home in a small community had a fire (cause unknown but possibly electrical, in the 'old' house ). Following that many members of the community (plumbers, carpenters, electricians etc.) are there on a volunteer basis over the Christmas and New Year period helping to finish the new house to a stage that is habitable. Was on local news with thanks to all those helping out.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Of course it is -- which is why I told the OP, shortly after he posted this, to "Call an electrician NOW". I hope he took that advice.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In wrote:

You did, and a few other people followed suit too. Good sense usually prevails even in the face of trolls & ignorants. It must be the holidays; normally I just peruse here and hope to learn something new but lately the quality of several posters is, well, less than functional. The worst danger I see here is that the OP (neglecting maybe being a troll) has improperly stated his problem/s and is getting advice about things other than whatever situation might really exist. I always feel a lot better when I see an OP come back and say he's getting a pro in. Most of the ones I know would respond to something like that very, very quickly as in the same day.
Twayne
--
--
We've already reached
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Now posting at alt.engineering.electrical instead...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Dec 26, 11:56am, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

Thanks Doug.
I'd hate to live with some of wiring described in this thread! 'Splitting apart a breaker etc.' on a circuit with 230 volt wiring! Sheesh!!!!**
Reading between the lines, of the OP, one suspects something is seriously overloaded (e.g. hot tub with big 230 volt electric heaters and pumps etc.) maybe tacked on to an existing circuit and somebody dangerously adding larger breakers? But that's not Edison circuit outlets; AIUI?
BTW: First learnt they were called 'Edison' circuits on this news group many years ago. But had wired them before that; especially in our first house (1960).
We did it to obtain greater capacity from many of our duplex outlet circuits and to allow the possibility of adding small (less that 1500 watt) auxiliary heaters later. Back then power was not reliable and we depended then on a oil fired heater that did not require electrcity to run. Fifteen years later and now today the power is extremely reliable has no brown-outs and is almost 100% water power generated a few hundred miles away. That first house still in use without electrical problems to it's fourth owner. This current house (1970s) is all- electric.
We recently rewired a relatives garage. He has provided himself with 120 and and 230 volt outlets and with separate 230 volt outlets/ circuits for a small welder and a compressor. On advice from his work mates, who include industrial electricians, he has provided a sub/pony circuit breaker panel in the garage fed from the main house panel via (IIRC) a 60 amp breaker and has the properly sized wiring and breakers in the sub panel.
We also improved the garage ceiling lighting (leaving that on entirely separate breakers) and well below limits for #14 AWG 15 amp along with door opener); still wired in same manner as house was bought. Lights will stay on even if the 'working' sub panel were to trip.
** Which reminds me; we printed up and attached a warning label other day because discovered in this house we have one box that has the live wires from 'two different breakers in it'! Must investigate but seems to have the wiring for some 115 volt outlets on one breaker and a 230 volt heater via wall thermostat from another breaker also. Will also put wire into separate boxes asap. Do this because someone other than myself may unwittingly work on that box some day!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In wrote:

I watch a lot of Canadian TV; sorry I missed those. We get mostly east coast though and one station from Vancouver is repeated over this way. Congrats to news media that have the gumption to follow up with good news to such tragedies.
Twayne
--
--
We've already reached
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Which is exactly what I advised the original poster, shortly after he posted it. While others were dicking around trying to tell him what to look for, this is what I wrote:
"Call an electrician NOW. This is a very dangerous condition."
*Do* try to keep up, eh?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Twayne, you have no idea what you're talking about. Google "Edison circuit" or "multiwire branch circuit", and stop giving electrical advice. You're completely ignorant.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In wrote:

Got reiteritus? Can't recall what you've already said? What about an Edison ckt would you like to discuss? DC? AC? Audio noise? Symmetry? Doubling the power of a 120Vac ckt? Where the number of neutrals define such a ckt? Transverse & longitudinal loading? Maybe Differential mode? RF filtering? The inherent dangers of working on an Edison ckt? Live Neutral, dead Hot? Something in the ESH bulletins? Physics, so far, still holds on this world and certain things are just going to happen based on other things. They all fit and are part of it. Because you're too thick to understand the dangers of the OP's situation is your problem, not mine. Edison ckts are inherently dangerous to humans working on them and when you consider the other angles of the op's query, he's in a rather dangerous situation. So I'd suggest that you are the one who needs to spend some time in research to determine what your reaility really is. Then of course you should stop trolling as food if going to become very scarce and you'll never find a way to overcome your impotence here. If ignorance is bliss, I see you must be a very happy person.
--
--
We've already reached
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You need to: A) Start taking your prescription meds again or B) Stop self medicating.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

After filtering out all the total nonsense that you just interjected into the discussion, you've finally hit on one thing that has some truth. I agree, Edison circuits can be more dangerous for those working on them, mainly those who have limited experience with electricity. That is why the NEC now requires the breakers be interconnected so one cannot be on without the other.
However the above is very different from coming in here calling Doug a troll and claiming that 120V edison circuits are not allowed under the NEC. That is totally wrong and shows that you are in fact clueless. Do you see anyone else in this thread agreeing with you on that claim? Hmmm? And I'd say someone clueless pretending to know what he's talking about is far more dangerous than an Edison circuit.

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.