Greg -- Thanks for that. Based on your other posts in this thread, I'll accept that. *Maybe* it is a local code where I live. Or, maybe I just am wrong about it, even locally. When I had a new circuit put in 20 years ago for a hand-me-down elec dryer that only needed 2+ground, the licensed electrician (whom I trusted) said I neeed 3 + ground. Maybe (or maybe not) he was just looking out for me for when I would get a new dyrer.
Or, maybe I am thinking about rules for home appliances that require they be configured for 2 hot and a neutral, plus ground...
The timer(s) and any lights/buzzers etc in your dryer, even one that old, probably required the neutral (3 + ground) for 120v operation. For most wREC purposes when adding 220 circuits for a saw, etc, 2+ground should meet any code in the country (US) as long as the hot wires are properly marked on both ends and correctly sized for the load.
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 long. The selection of fixture wires is really up to the manufacturer but they have strict guidelines. 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 breaker. 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 breaker. 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.
The dryer had been built in the mid 50's. Even when I retired it in the late 80s it still worked. It had a motor, a belt, and a heating element. Belt and element got replaced every few years. The timer was spring loaded and when it stopped the dryer it rang a bell. It was like one of those basic cheap white plastic counter-top timers, with some contacts added. It was gone from the alley an hour after I put it out there for what was supposed to be a city pick up a few days later. As long as belts and heating elements were available, that thing would probably still be serviceable.
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 threads.
Swingman is on target. The cases of ranges and dryers were allowed to share the current carrying grounded leg of the power cord from WWII until 1996. It was a way to save copper for the war effort. They finally decided the war was over and required that these 120v loads required a separate wire. That may be where the idea that all 240v circuits require a neutral come from. It is only true if there is a 120v load along with the 240v load. They assume most ranges and dryers will use 120v lights, clocks and motors so that is the standard but there are still a lot of "cook tops" with pure 240v loads and they are still legal on a 2 wire+ground wiring method. The same will be true if you have a piece of pure 240v shop equipment. The only reason I can think of to pull the neutral is if you think you may want a local work light at the machine. I have seen this question asked here a few times. The cost is minimal so it is your choice.
I mean precisely what I said several times: It is best to match cord size 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.
Sorry but I interpreted your post the same way he did. It is clear that you have failed to successfully communicate whatever you were trying to communicate.
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.
I'd go with the 10/3 and 30 amp. One point is that neither of these devices is of the kind you leave to operate unattended. If you're saw is overloaded and its built in protection fails to intervene, hopefully you're paying enough attention to notice "something's not quite right" and not be depending on the branch circuit protection to come into play.
I've never seen my fellow woodworkers get so pissy about any other question/topic. What gives guys? Everybody's manhood dependent on his ability to run an outlet to his table saw? Let's ease off. Don't tel the guy to do something totally illegal or dangerous. There's more than one way to skin a cat, though.
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 that much.
Proof: 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 concern. (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 the sale 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 hydroengery dam.
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 TECHNOLOGY "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.
Proof: "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 the 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 nuclear technology, and to get rid of its own nuclear weapons) Furthermore, Iran is surrounded by nuclear-armed or nuclear-capable states that threaten Iran's security.
So yes, by all means, go ahead and bomb or try to invade Iran and see what happens.
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 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.