What I have here is built-in, where the oven and cooktop are separate units. Each unit is on a separate 30A breaker.
The coils on the cooktop are the same size you mentioned (2 6 inch and
2 8 inch). That would seem to mean that would all require 35A. I have had all 4 on high and it hasn't tripped the breaker.That breaker (Square D) has a red trip indicator that is visible no matter what (on of off, I've never had it trip). Could it be defective?
What I was trying to say before, is that I'd expect the vast majority of overloads to be momentary.
Thanks to you and Dave for this. I know we've veered way off topic and much of this is so technical it can be a little hard to digest unless you happen to have some background in this area, but you've both done a pretty good job of explaining it in a way those of us less knowledgeable, like myself, might understand (and that can't be an easy task).
One of the things that continues to amaze me about this forum (and others like it) is the amount of knowledge out there and, moreover, the willingness to help others. I've certainly benefited from this myself, many times over, both in practical, everyday matters and some of these more theoretical concerns as well.
Cheers, Paul
Hi Mark,
Good question. I wonder if any of these burners are lower in wattage, even though they're of the same physical size. Is there anything stamped on the burner itself (e.g., at the prong ends) that might indicate their wattage or do you happen to have the owner's manual?
At the outer edge, thirty amps at 240-volts provides us with a maximum of 7,200 watts and the 80 per cent rule drops us down to just 5,760 watts. Your breaker might tolerate some minor, short-term overloading (I honestly don't know), but four burners on high must be pushing that
30-amp circuit pretty hard, especially if your supply voltage should fall much below 240.Cheers, Paul
OK. Brace yourself, because I'm going to confirm what I understand you to have said and the results could be a tad ugly. :-0
This electronic thermostat is simply cycling power on and off more frequently than its mechanical counterpart, and any power disturbances are rather trivial and occur only at the time the load is dropped and then again as it is subsequently picked back up. It's really no different from a conventional bimetal thermostat in this regard, except that these minor transients [insert appropriate terminology here] happen perhaps every 5 to 10 seconds, as opposed to once every three to four minutes.
Hmm... no screaming, no gnashing of teeth, no hair pulling... I'm taking that as a good sign....
Cheers, Paul
:)
Basically true -- only real difference is use of solid state switching and the zero-crossing switching, but it still is basically "just a switch". These both have advantages in reliability, but in reality the frequency of control is probably overkill for the application but it doesn't cost any more once go to the electronics anyway, so why not? is one way to look at it. Of course, if they use the fancy words and "high technology" to justify a high initial cost, that's another thing, but it didn't seem all that far out of line...
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.