Electric Problem or overloading the circuit

(snips)

Yup. I have the top 8 (4 on each side, has a little '30' showing) ganged in sets of 2.

2/4- Dryer

1/3- Range (once electric, this one now relabeled Garage and runs a 240 for previous owners power tools, left in 'off' position' except when a few contractors needed it. Works fine when turned on)

5/7- HVAC

6/8- Old AC (a 240 outlet near the ceiling where once a wall 'whole house AC' was, also 'off' but tests fine)

Nothing else is ganged but that doesnt mean it's not done but wrongly marked (which is against code I gather). The few times and electrician worked on our house though, they've not found any circuits that were not as they should be, just that some are still older 2 prongs and to fix thse areas of the house, they need to snake new wires (assume ground which is in place in part of the house but not all?).

Due to lack of background experience, this is one thing Don and I do not DIY. There's a time when it's best to get a professional. This is one of them. We are sure all the bad stuff the Bos'un who owned the house before us has been removed or *properly* dead ended (electrician used to check all). What we need to do is fix the remaining ones to 3 prong *properly* (system ready for it and about 2/3 of the house uses it) then have 4 lines run to the back porch to properly handle a portion of the now dead ended outlets out there. Foolish Bos'un had run 19 outlets off only 2 lines on the back porch. They've been properly detached leaving only 4 correctly done ones working.

Electrician said we have plenty of excess and don't even need to sub-panel if that is all we want although that would be very easy. Apparently the original 100 amp panel (in a bedroom closet, nothing hooked to it now) can be easily re-vamped in which case he'd re-string all the back porch and lights across the back of the house off it. What that sub-panel will do apparently is let him easier (cheaper) add also more outlets to the kitchen plus properly power even more of the detached 15 back porch outlets.

We are pondering options. No rush. Just looking over where we want new outlets added (neither bathroom has an outlet).

Reply to
cshenk
Loading thread data ...

Reading comprehension problems, huh?

Reply to
Twayne

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

Reply to
Twayne

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

Reply to
Twayne

In news:4b362a27$0$31282$ snipped-for-privacy@cv.net, John Grabowski typed:

No need to apologize John. You obviously know your stuff pretty well and you've raised only salient points. I've seen posts from you in the past that exhibit the same virtues, too. I haven't seen the OP respond anywhere, not that I blame him now, and except for myself (I don't recall your previous post; maybe you too) I'm about the only one who tried to allow for differences in meanings of the OPs descriptions. The number of spoken and non-spoken problems could well contain many different things due to the lack of information. I may have made a mistake in that I didn't ASK direct questions but instead tried to leave responses open ended for him. For example the hot conduit: It takes a hell of a current to heat conduit, assuming it's metal and not plastic, which wasn't mentioned but was assumed to be metal. What length of conduit got hot? Was it just heat transfer from the furnace? Or was it due to current flow? I kind of doubt current flow, but ... it's not safe to ignore the possibility. And then the "double breaker" clarification you pointed out; excellent point as the OP left the audience to guess again. And then of course you have the egos and narcissists who crawled out of their hiding places. It's interesting to see how that happens but I assume it's something to do for them during their holiday season. Some of them might not be very happy people. Anyway, I'd think you were one of the last who should be apologizing; you stayed on track from what I can see and added useful thoughts. Yes, I know this will bring on more of the egoes and narcy's but they don't bother me. I simply say what I mean and mean what I say, assuming I don't make too many typos.

Cheers,

Twayne`

Reply to
Twayne

Mmm, I shold probably direct YOU to the reread and who said what. I did not even come close to using the phrase "Edison Ciruit" until someone magically inserted it into the thread. Then, since I know such circuits fairly well, I invited him to clarify which part of Edicon Circuit" he was referring to, he had nothing to say. That says to me he was parroting something, hoping to change the subject to an area he could better argue instead of the OPs issues, which is known to be a tactic of, well, certain types of ng participants who really don't participate. It almost worked, too; I wasn't careful enough in my wording back to him I guess. I don't anywhere in this thread recall EVER saying that YOU didn't tell the OP to call a pro, the only logical thing for his apparent expertise level. If I did, I apologize, because there WERE several posts telling him to get a pro in. I think I hit Send too soon and had to add mine as a PS, but I recommended the same thing. It's often difficult to tell who is responding to whom unless the entire thread is displayed onscreen, but you seem to have erred.

That's not to say I didn't respond to another part of your post that was in error; I don't recall it and don't feel it worth looking up the whole thread. I'd simply respond with the same answer again. When details don't exist in a post, nothing useful can be gotten from it. It appears that my attitude was that you lacked an understanding of something in the OP's post and had stated it more than once, prompting my "if you're too thick" comment. You can live in the past if you wish, but I prefer to look forward. If you have something specific you'd like to work out, I'll be OK with that but otherwise I think our communicatiosn are pretty much at an end here.

Twayne

In news:hh583u$1bb$ snipped-for-privacy@news.eternal-september.org, Doug Miller typed:

Reply to
Twayne

EXCELLENT link, Doug! I've often searched for a cohesive presentation of the NEC and never found it; only pieces here & there and those never allow you to check into the outside references, etc.. I definitely appreciate it as I'm sure others do and it definitely gives you a top-credibility rating. It does provide verification, IMO, that one overloaded ckt on one leg and very light load on the other, under fault conditions on the first leg, could cause overheating and other unforeseen problems, especially in a miswired case. In theory equal loads on each leg will result in zero current flow in the neutral, which is as I understood it. It does still appear though, that a fault on one leg and little load on the other could result in substantial current flow, then adding the fault conditions ... .

These following aren't critical questions at the moment so feel free to ignore them if you find them intrusive:

  1. One thing is confusing however, that you might be able to explain. In Definitions (100) for Branch Ckt, Multiwire, it states that: "... branch ckt that consists of two or more ungrounded conductors that have a voltage between them, and a grounded conductor that has equal voltage between it and each ungrounded conductor of the ckt and that is connected to the neutral or grounded conductor of the system"

It _seems_ to say the voltage between the two ungrounded conductors and the neutral will be at the same potential as the ungrounded connectors? I seem to have a brain-freeze again! Can you clarify what that means? The following ref to "neutral or ungrounded conductor of the system" seems to make no sense then and obviously it has to.

  1. I've never actually had my hands on a double pole breaker and Google hasn't given me the answer to this one: Are the breakers still independent of each other? I don't think that makes sense so, assuming I'm right, how is it that an overload on one isn't affected (delayed, held from tripping) by the force the other needs to be opened? I thought maybe there was a different internal structure somehow and they were electonically opened somehow, but I can't find proof of that either. I did find one page (crecibility unknown) that said both breakers operated simultaneously, but without internal electronics of some sort I can't see how the drag from one doesn't affect the other?

Thanks again for the very valuable lead,

Twayne

Reply to
Twayne

Actually, I figured out just a few minutes ago what the discrepencies between what I'm saying and what you guys are talking about are. I'd left a voicemail for our local code enforcement officer and decided he wouldn't be returning calls this late, but he did. Once we got by his disdain for newsgroups, it turns out that our local codes forbid the use of multi-wire branches. We're in far upstate NY state. That does make me feel better since multi-wire branches look and sound, even though there are advantages to using them, like they are dangerous. He related the normal set of problems found 'round the 'net and a few others I hadn't thought of. Apparently they're pretty easy to mis-install 220V or

110V wise; hadn't thought of that. And a few other sundries along the same lines. Sometimes I tend to forget that NEC isn't the last word; it's just a bible of the minimums, so to speak. So your comment to "educate" myself is backwards: I've been talking about OUR local codes, not specifically the NEC so I am guilty of using an "over" educated viewpoint. Tim's not exactly a personal friend but he is a close acquaintance; this is a small rural area.

Regards,

Twayne

Reply to
Twayne

In that case, you haven't searched very hard; the NEC has been online at least since the 2002 version, and links have been posted in this newsgroup repeatedly. Any of the major chain bookstores (Barnes&Noble, Borders, etc) will have a copy in stock or be able to order one. You can buy it directly from the NFPA. There are copies on eBay. You can buy it from Amazon.

Since you have as good as admitted that you haven't read it, perhaps you can understand why nobody takes you seriously when you proclaim your misconceived notions as fact -- and why I keep telling you to stop giving electrical advice: you don't know what you're talking about.

Now that you know where the Code is, you no longer have any excuse for not knowing what it says.

It does nothing of the kind. Overloading either leg will trip the breaker and disconnect both legs.

You mean, *only* if miswired.

Correct. Unfortunately, that is the *only* thing you got right.

It appears that way only because you don't understand how it works. In a properly wired Edison circuit, the current in the neutral can never exceed the current in *one* hot leg.

Yes....

No, it neither says that, nor "seems to". There is absolutely *nothing* in that paragraph to indicate, imply, or suggest that. In fact, it means exactly the opposite: that they will *not* be at the same potential WRT each other as each is WRT the neutral.

One clause at a time:

"branch circuit that consists of two or more ungrounded conductors" = a branch circuit having two or more hot wires

"with a voltage between them" = each of the hot wires is on a different leg of the service (if they were on the same leg, there would be no voltage between them)

"and a grounded conductor" = and a neutral wire

"that has equal voltage between it and each ungrounded conductor of the circuit" = voltage between the neutral and each hot wire is the same as between the neutral and every other hot wire

"and that is connected to the neutral or grounded conductor of the system" = the circuit neutral must be grounded at the panel.

And you accuse trader4 of having reading comprehension problems -- !

It doesn't say that. It says "neutral or GROUNDED conductor" -- which makes perfect sense to anyone who understands residential electrical wiring.

Yet you consider yourself competent to comment on what types of circuits may or may not be used with them, and the relative safety thereof.

Amazing. Simply amazing.

No, of course not. They are mechanically connected with a handle tie; some also are connected internally ("internal common trip"). If they were independent, it wouldn't be a double-pole breaker. It would be two single-pole breakers.

It trips with ample force to bring the other one along with it, even if the only connection is an external tie.

Move a breaker handle from the 'off' position to the 'on' position; notice how much force you have to apply to it. Now nudge it from 'on' to 'tripped' -- see how easy that was, and how forcefully it snaps over? More than enough to trip a second handle tied to it.

I guess that depends on what kind of time lag you would consider "simultaneous". In the case of an internal common trip, they would in fact trip simultaneously. With an external handle tie, there must be some tiny lag due to mechanical play in the connection, but it's very small.

The effect is minuscule.

Like I said -- now that you know where the Code is, you no longer have any excuse for being ignorant of it, or dispensing clueless advice that contradicts it.

Reply to
Doug Miller

Hi Twayne, thanks to you all for your advice. I am having an electrician on Monday come out if I can't fix this. I have figured out now that the junction box on the wall that has the conduit going to the furnace is actually where the 115v comes in and ties off to the furnace which is 115v. The little transformer on the front of the junction box is for the door bell. I killed the power to the furnace (which is on its own breaker) and the (2) 20 amp breakers that is branched together and opened the box. My meter measured 0 volts. I hit the breaker and got 115v so I felt confident this my power. I killed the power and un-tied everything in the box and went around with my meter and got 0v. I flipped back on the (2) 20amp breaker and re- measured and still got 0. I went and turned on my hot tub (120v) and then the box started buzzing and then the conduit started getting hot again. I double checked that this is the only power source to my furnace. So I turned off the hot tub. Went back measuring everything and 0v. I am getting 2.4volt when I read the incoming neutral to ground. Is that normal? I then proceed to to start to undo the conduit from the top of the box on there was a spark . I am now getting convinced this box is somehow screwed in the wall shorting other wires going down the wall. Anything else to look for? I will undo the pole connecting the (2) 20amp breakers as I am sure you right that one can't pull the other and it should be tripping a breaker. I will be keeping both breakers off till I get the guy out so stop with call the guy yesterday please. I am the type that likes to figure stuff out like a lot of us, but I will admit I am stumped.

Reply to
fzbuilder

True -- you described one, without knowing what it was called, and said that double-pole breakers weren't supposed to be used "to provide two 110 vac lines" (which is absolutely false).

!!!

In another post, you say you've never actually had your hands on a double-pole breaker -- so how in the world do you know *anything* about an Edison circuit?? [snip]

No, you said I was "too thick to understand the dangers of the OP's situation". Since my *very first* post in the thread said "Call an electrician NOW", it should be obvious -- even to you -- that I very clearly understand "the dangers of the OP's situation".

I don't have any trouble keeping track of who's responding to whom....

ROTFLMAO!

I'm the one who responded to *your* posts that were in error, not the other way around.

The details are there -- you just weren't paying attention.

And, as noted, it's glaringly obvious to anyone with an even rudimentary ability to comprehend written English that I understand very clearly that the OP's situation is quite dangerous.

Our communication will continue as long as you continue to dispense dangerous and factually incorrect advice.

Reply to
Doug Miller

FZ, nice to see you are safe. Now keep safe and use the electricial. Twayne here is really FAR off the bat.

Guffaw. Dangerous but funny stuff even *I* know better than.

Electrician please and just turn off the hot tub and unplug. There's something wrong but Twayne's advice is down right dangerous. Even the others said get an electrician in. If not sure what a 'ganged circuit' is or how to test it, this aint time to die learning how based on newsgroup nitwits ok?

Reply to
cshenk

Only to the uninformed.

Nonsense -- they're almost impossible to mis-install, if you use the right equipment. (And you said this is a type of circuit you "know well".)

BTW -- it hasn't been 220/110 in the United States for a loooooong time. It's been 240/120 for at least the last 25 or 30 years.

The NEC which you haven't read because you haven't been able to find it anywhere...

No, you are guilty of using an ignorant, uninformed, uneducated viewpoint. You stated, repeatedly, that Edison circuits are dangerous. That, quite simply, is false. And that has nothing to do with national vs. local codes. That's an issue only of truth vs. falsehood. There is nothing inherently dangerous about a properly installed Edison circuit, your uninformed delusions to the contrary notwithstanding.

Reply to
Doug Miller

Actually you are wrong too. It is by definition 115/230 and in reality USUALLY from 115 to 117 per side.

Properly installed is the key - and in areas with mandatory electrical inspection MOST are properly installed and not an issue.

In areas WITHOUT mandatory inspections, the chance of having an improperly installed "edison circuit" improves dramatically, and improperly installed, they CAN be dangerous - so the safest way to handle it in those areas has been deemed to make them illegal.

Reply to
clare

Guess again.

formatting link
lists both Canada and the U.S. as 120/240.

[snip]

*Any* circuit is potentially dangerous if not installed properly. The problem isn't with Edison circuits -- it's with incompetent installers.
Reply to
Doug Miller

Perhaps he is familiar with them in a "fused" panel? My house has at least 3 "edison circuits" and not a single breaker, ganged or otherwise. What it DOES have is double fuse "pullouts" which. by the way, can NOT be accidentally installed so that both circuits are on the same "leg" of the service. Unfortuneately, in the vast majority of breaker panels, improper installation is VERY easy, resulting in the situation where the neutral carries twice (actually the sum of) the individual circuit current when both circuits are loaded.

When installed this way - they ARE dangerous.

Our local code, last time I checked, allowed "edison" circuits ONLY for "split" receptacles, and those "split" receptacles were restricted to a single area. IE, one "edison circuit" could feed (split) kitchen countertop receptacles and, for instance, an over counter light IN THE KITCHEN, but could not be extended to the bathroom next to the kitchen.

A ganged breaker (or fuse pullout) can also be used on a non-edison circuit to act as a "disconnect" to either a sub-panel or to 2 circuits serving a particular area/function for safety or convenience purposes. For example, to kill ALL power to a basement, a garage, a shed, or a particular room which is served by 2 circuits. In this application it would be perfectly legal and safe to have the 2 circuits on the same "leg" (note I do not refer to them as "phases") of the service.

Reply to
clare

His other posts make it abundantly clear he isn't familiar with them at all.

I believe that's not just "local code" for you -- I'm pretty sure that's required by the CEC. Here in the U.S., though, the NEC does not apply such restrictions to their use.

Reply to
Doug Miller

Well, I monitor the voltage on my home office power as well as at a customer site and it is very consistent at 115-117 volts at both sites. Has been for years. This is in urban Waterloo Ontario and Kitchener Ontario.

Also virtually every motor or electrical device sold in North America for residential use is rated at 115 or 230 volts. In industrial and large multi unit residential applications with 3 phase power it is 120/208. Virtually everywhere else in Ontario, at least, it is 115/230 single phase.

BC Hydro specifies voltage to be within the limits of 110 to 125 volts. That is a range of 15 volts, with a center "target" voltage of

117.5

Reply to
clare

There are a lot of things that are not allowed in Canada when it comes to safety. CSA approved means more stringent requirements than UL, for instance.

Americans shout "socialism" and "tea party" when the government sticks their noses into their everyday lives. Up here we have resigned ourselves to the fact that the "nanny state" is here to stay, and many of us are better off for it, regardless how bad it sometimes tastes.

Our BANKING industry is also much more closely regulated - for which I am also thankfull this last year or so.

Reply to
clare

FWIW, as I sit here in Austin, Texas, the power line monitor in front of me indicates that we're getting 122.8 volts from the local utility. When it's hot (i.e. when the air conditioning load is high) that can drop quite a bit. I think a nominal 117.5 is pretty close to right for the median.

Reply to
cjt

HomeOwnersHub website 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.