220 wiring question for saw & dust collector

Page 3 of 4  
toller wrote:

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.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:30:14 -0400, "J. Clarke"

Thank you. Someone else gets it.
- - LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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

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.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
- - LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"toller"

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

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

Do yourself a favor. LIGHTEN UP and learn to recognize a joke when you see one.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nate -- Well, for one, I liked the joke at this stage in the thread.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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

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

NO.
One load, one circuit protective device.
HTH
--
Lew

S/A: Challenge, The Bullet Proof Boat, (Under Construction in the Southland)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.
bob g.
Lew Hodgett wrote:

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

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

YES . . with Bob Newhart.
"Oh . . I also need Isaac Stern's nephew"
(shouts after Frank) "Hey Frank? Bring up the Stern kid while you're at it!"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 18:26:38 GMT, "U-CDK_CHARLES\\Charles" <"Charles

I had forgotten who was hosting. Now I'll be able to look for the episode. Thanks!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
GET LOST THELASIAN THIS IS A WOODWORKERS NEWS GROUP, NOT A POLITICAL ONE DORK!
wrote:

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

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

Proof: Israel has not blown it to flinders.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
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.