Geez, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Do you realize that
you're coming across as something of a wanker with this kind of hair
splitting do you not? Something that is improper is something that one
shouldn't do. Something that is undesirable is something that one
shouldn't do. Regardless of the exact terminology you use, it appears that
you believe that plugging one's desk lamp, answering machine, or other
small, low powered device into a 20 amp socket is something that one
shouldn't do. If you believe otherwise then you should clarify this rather
than arguing that your words mean something other than most people will
percieve them to mean.
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
to the breaker size when reasonable to do so. It generally normal, safe,
and legal to use smaller cords when it is not reasonable to match them.
No one would dissagree with that, except to hear their own voice.
LR picked up on this and claims that I said it is improper to use smaller
cords than the breaker. I did not.
So, rather than just cop to asserting a ridiculous proposition using
apparently ambiguous English, you fall back to a spelling lame. And
you clearly knew what my typo'd "synonymous" meant and no, it was not
used incorrectly. It was exactly the correct word.
You definitely should recuse yourself from posting on electrical
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
This is why I wired my entire house with the same 4 ga wire coming in from
the utility pole. Using similar logic, one thing led to another. Works
great now, but I have yet to get to changing my lamp cords to 4 ga. I'll
get there, though. Safest house on the block.
If you have no circuit breakers in your house, then yes, you would have to
wire the whole house in with #4.
You have a breaker box that enables you to use smaller wires, since they are
protected by breakers.
But you probably knew this already and were just being childish.
I know this thread has digressed but there are lots of rules about what sized
wires are allowed on various O/C devices. For your normal 15 and 20a circuits
18ga is the smallest size you can use for fixture and appliance wires. Chapter
4 expands on this. When you go look at the tap rules in article 230 you see
other places where this is specified.
It still gets back to the difference between overcurrent (shorts) and overloads
like a locked rotor on a motor. A wire that is sufficient to trip the breaker
in a short will not carry an overload, less than the breaker size, for very
The selection of fixture wires is really up to the manufacturer but they have
The example we see of lamp cords is based on the size and number of bulbs you
can screw into that lamp.
If you simply have a short in the lamp the 18ga will be plenty to trip the
That is why extension cords can be such a problem. The manufacturer has no
control over what loads may get plugged into the far end.
Shorts are still not the usual problem it is an unprotected overload..
Where shorts become a problem is when it isn't a "bolted" fault and you have an
intermittent short that is not of sufficient average current to trip the
That is where the Arc Fault Circuit Interrupter came from.
The NEC is a "coffee table book" sized tome over 1000 pages and there is not
much that is not addressed in there somewhere. I do see a lot of urban legends
on the net about what is "against the code" based on misreading or
misinterpreting one article and ignoring the exceptions.
I have been living with this document daily for over 2 decades and I still find
new things occasionally. The seminars on the changes every 3 years usually run
2 or 3 8 hour days and they still don't cover everything.
Your dust collector is likely to draw its full rated current most of the
time. The saw will only draw max when heavily loaded. If the DC is
drawing 12 amps constant and you try ripping that 8/4 piece of oak and
the saw hits its 12 amps, sounds like your 20 amp breaker will trip, no?
Excuse, short break. Be right back. Got to get the wife straightened
out. She's running the coffee maker and the mixer at the same time.
Darned radio is on same circuit (kitchen outlets) One breaker, one GFI
for the whole bunch. Be back shortly.
Lew Hodgett wrote:
If the issue is room, here is an idea you might consider: For the
"standard" circuits (such as lights, hand tools, etc.), if your box is
capable/proper for such things, consider using a couple of double-circuit
breakers -- that is, 2 20 amp breakers in the space of a normal-sixed
breaker. (RIght now, I cannot recall the name for these things.) That can
help you with the space concern. I don't know why one cannot use as many
as will actually fit in a box, but there is a limit as to how many
circuits, not just breakers, one is supposed to have in a box. Maybe it
has something to do with the amount of wire you can have in a box -- code
talks about this.
BTW, if you do go this route and use two sets of double breakers, I suggest
(though I cannot tell you that the theory and/or code supports this) that
you put them in the box so that they are on opposite sides of the 220 --
for example, put one in right above the other (at least that is how it
works in Square D boxes).
[Warning: Digression.] HTH. Either way, this is an interesting thread you
started. One of the things I love about this NG is that there is some real
expertise around here on all sorts of subjects. I would not be surprised
(notwithstanding all of the refs to SWMBO) that if someone asked what's a
good snack to eat while working in the shop, there would be recipes flying
about. Or, if someone asked whether Iran's nuclear program is a threat, a
group of woodworker/physicists would have at it. Then there would be
someone telling a story about this great cake he makes by putting the pan
on a steam pipe down at the nuclear plant. (Or is that "nucular", Mr.
President?) Myself, I always try to help here on software and other
Along this same train of thought, anyone remember a long-ago Sat Night Live
routine about the ultimate hardware store? It's just a series of people
coming in asking for stuff. First the basics, such as nails. "Is that
finishing nails or common?" Then less and less typical stuff - but every
time the guy had it in stock. Maybe it was on the third shelf in the back
behind the new flame throwers, but they had it. Then, someone comes in and
asks for a chocolate violin. "Is that light chocolate or dark chocolate?"
If you didn't hang out a lot in real hardware stores as a kid, that skit
must have made no sense whatsoever. But for me, it was a great moment. --
Among the smoke-and-mirror and fear-mongering innuendo, these are some
facts about Iran's nuclear program that aren't being mentioned:
1- The Bushehr reactor-which was started under the Shah with US
support-is not a weapons proliferation threat since it is a lightwater
reactor which is under IAEA safeguard. Even the IAEA itself admits
UN clears Iran nuclear facility
The head of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency has said
Russia's nuclear co-operation with Iran is no longer a matter of
(SOURCE: BBC Online Tuesday, 29 June, 2004)
2- Note how the articles confuse a nuclear "weapons" program with
a plain "nuclear program". In fact according to Article 4 of the
Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has an "INALIENABLE RIGHT"
to possess nuclear technology, as does any othe country. Several other
nations use the same technology too, such as Brazil and Holland and
Japan. So a nuclear
program is not the same as a nuclear weapons program.
3- A common refrain is that Iran's nuclear program can't possibly be
for anything except weapons because Iran has so much oil and natural
gas. In fact Iran needs nuclear energy despite possessing extensive
oil and gas because of rising domestic consumption and the reliance on
oil and gas for earning hard currency. The Stanford Research
Institute advised the Shah's government that Iran could not rely on
oil and gas for energy way back in the mid 1970's. Other nations which
have extensive oil and gas resources also have nuclear energy - such
as Russia and the USA. Iran has also been experimenting with
geothermal energy and wind-turbines, as well as building its largest
4- There is in fact no evidence of an actual nuclear WEAPONS program
in Iran, as admitted by the IAEA itself - there is only the INFERENCE
that Iran COULD ONE DAY POSSIBLY use the legitimate technology to
build a weapon of POSSIBLY desires to do so. Needless to say, ANY
"could" be used to make nukes, and so could any country. And the
reason why Iran would want to build nukes is to DEFEND ITSELF.
"IAEA: No evidence of Iran nukes
VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- The U.N. nuclear watchdog agency has found 'no
evidence' Iran is trying to make nuclear weapons...
SOURCE: AP Monday, November 10, 2003
" 'The United States has no concrete evidence of a nuclear-weapons
program,' Albright told me. 'It's just an inference. There's no
smoking gun.' "
SOURCE: New Yorker by SEYMOUR M. HERSH Issue of 2004-06-28
"One Vienna-based diplomat who follows the IAEA expressed concern that
hard-liners from the United States and some of its allies were
conducting a smear campaign against Iran that was similar to what it
did to Iraq before the 2003 U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam
Hussein...David Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector and
president of the Institute for Science and International Security
(ISIS) believes Tehran wants to keep the nuclear option open, but said
the United States had a weak case for its view that Tehran is rushing
to complete an atomic bomb. 'They have weak evidence. I think even
(the U.S. hard-liners) are worried they don't have a case," Albright
said, adding that the U.S. policy of confronting and isolating Iran
was 'bankrupt' and might push Iran to rush to get the bomb. 'The
hard-liners in the U.S. could really trigger Iran to race to get a
nuclear weapon,' he added."
SOURCE: REUTERS Mon Aug 23, 2004
5- Iran can't be compared to Iraq: The bombing of Iraq's Osirak
reactor did not signficantly affect Iraq's nuclear program, since the
centrifuge sites were not bombed. If anything, it encouraged them to
speed up the process. But in any case, Iran has signed the Additional
Protocol which permits IAEA inspections anywhere-anytime, and Iraq had
not. Iraq also used chemical weapons and invaded its neighbors- with
blessing and support of the USA, by the way.
6- In fact, according to the NonProliferation Treaty, not only is Iran
entitled to have nuclear technology, but other countries are required
to share their nuclear technology. That was the quid-pro-quo that the
nuclear-haves and have-nots agreed upon when they signed the NPT.
However, the nuclear-haves are not living up to their side of the
Non-Proliferation Treaty bargain.
7- Don't mix up Iran and North Korea either: Currently, Iran has
signed the Nonproliferation Treaty and its nuclear installations are
all under IAEA safeguards - unlike North Korea.
8- If Iran is attacked, Iran will withdraw from the Non-Proliferation
Treaty (as it is legally do pursuant to Article X) and will start
working on a nuclear weapons program in earnest. Centrifuge sites will
pop up like mushrooms all over the country - too many to be bombed -
and the IAEA inspectors will not be around to check them. Within 6
mos. the first nuclear test will occur, and within a year Iran's
missiles will be armed with nuclear warheads.
9- The people of Iran will rally to support their government if Iran
is attacked, as their nationalism is stirred by such an act. Iran's
decision to develop nuclear deterrence will occur with the full
support of the people of the government too, so changing governments
will not change the decision to build nukes. Iranians know that their
country has a right to nuclear technology, they are proud of their
nuclear accomplishments, and have a long history of resenting foreign
superpowers trying to deprive them of their rights.
10- Attacking Iran's nuclear installations will prove once and for all
to the people of Iran the necessity of obtaining nuclear weapons as a
deterrence. There are already many Iranians who believe that Iran
should withdraw from the NonProliferation Treaty since the US has
failed to abide by ITS OWN obligations under the same treaty (to share
and to get rid of its own nuclear weapons) Furthermore, Iran is
surrounded by nuclear-armed or nuclear-capable states that threaten
So yes, by all means, go ahead and bomb or try to invade Iran and see
My apologies to the NG. Give them a hint of a nanometer and they'll take a
lightyear. All I wrote was, "... if someone asked whether Iran's nuclear
program is a threat". IF! Does context mean nothing? Arghhh! That'll
teach me to ruminate about a digressive hypothetical question. Humor
people. Please. It's like that observation I stole from someone here a
while back: When it comes to base two there are 10 kinds of people. Those
who understand it and those who don't. -- Igor
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.