Twayne, the more you post on this topic, the more you look like an idiot. Read
the thread from the very beginning. *My* first post in the thread was maybe
the third response the OP received -- and the first four words of that post
are "Call an electrician NOW".
I understand the dangers of the OP's situation just fine -- what you fail to
understand is that there is no reason at all to suppose that his problems are
in any way related to an Edison circuit.
If you knew anything at all about the subject, you would know that's not true.
Tell me this: if Edison circuits are "inherently dangerous", why are they
permitted under both the NEC and the CEC?
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 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.
Often you'll find excellent advice on a newsgroup.
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
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....
I'm the one who responded to *your* posts that were in error, not the other
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.
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 00:05:58 GMT, email@example.com (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
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.
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 03:39:27 GMT, firstname.lastname@example.org (Doug Miller)
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.
Hot conduit is NOT a sign of wrong amperage breakers! Hot conduit means
there is a LOT of current trying to find earth ground! There should never
be any current in it under non-fault conditions and to get hot, it's a hell
of a LOT of current. I think there's more to it than those two breakers
unless it's the case that one ganged breaker cannot overcome the
non-overloaded one to open them up. Compliance labs routinely test conduit
for 60A withstand, measureing voltage across every joint encountered, and
the conduit never heated up. Something's awfully wrong and IMO very
Thus it's a seriously miswired and dangerous ckt; agreed.
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 20:20:28 GMT, email@example.com (Doug Miller)
In a parallel conductor (conduit) totally surrounding the load
current? where you have both conductors of a circuit running parallel
to each other inside the same conduit????
I'd like to see that work.
That, my friend, is assuming facts not in evidence. That the conduit gets hot
enough to burn paint (as the OP stated) is strongly suggestive that both
conductors of the circuit are *not* in fact "running parallel to each other
inside the same conduit". If they *are*, then of course there would be no
heating. Given the apparent mess that is the OP's wiring, and given his
confused description of it, I should say there's no reason whatever to assume
that the circuit was installed correctly with both conductors inside the same
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.