# 3 pole breakers feeding 1pole/120volt loads



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

Why did the EE spec a 3 pole 20? Is this a MWBC perhaps?


----------



## NolaTigaBait (Oct 19, 2008)

Like Jlarson said, if its a mwbc, then you need to be able to simultaneously disconnect the power to all 3 circuits sharing the neutral.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

It's not illegal, at least by the NEC. If it's a MWBC, then it's required.


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

Actually, is this even an NEC issue. Are these circuits and breaker part of a piece of equipment or are they fixed building wiring?


----------



## Panel Builder (Jan 25, 2011)

The EE has multiple 3 pole 20's. Some feed 120volt lighting in a general area. Others feed 120v receptacles in a couple rooms. I have never known the main reason for a MWBC. I can't think of a good reason why they would want lose all receptacles in a couple rooms if somebody overloads a circuit. Or all lights in an area if a single 120volt ballast shorts.


----------



## sparks134 (Jan 30, 2009)

Panel Builder said:


> The EE has multiple 3 pole 20's. Some feed 120volt lighting in a general area. Others feed 120v receptacles in a couple rooms. I have never known the main reason for a MWBC. I can't think of a good reason why they would want lose all receptacles in a couple rooms if somebody overloads a circuit. Or all lights in an area if a single 120volt ballast shorts.


Why pull two extra nuetral when you don't have to, unless it's in the specs.


----------



## NolaTigaBait (Oct 19, 2008)

sparks134 said:


> Why pull two extra nuetral when you don't have to, unless it's in the specs.


Right. I like using them whenever I can...but I see the op's point, they can be a pain when/if the breaker trips.


----------



## Panel Builder (Jan 25, 2011)

Couldn't the neutral become overloaded due to harmonics if you were to pull a single neutral wire to multiple circuits feeding electronic ballasts?


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Panel Builder said:


> Couldn't the neutral become overloaded due to harmonics if you were to pull a single neutral wire to multiple circuits feeding electronic ballasts?


It could be if you loaded the crap out all the circuits and used cheap ballasts.

That said we use MWBCs for lighting all the time.


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

I really don't see an issue with some general outlets or lights going off because of a trip on a MWBC. When I say general I mean like lights over a couple cubicles, not somewhere important like a plant control room.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Panel Builder said:


> TI can't think of a good reason why they would want lose all receptacles in a couple rooms if somebody overloads a circuit. Or all lights in an area if a single 120volt ballast shorts.


That is a by product of using MWBCs

On the other hand MWBCs obviously save copper, they also reduce voltage drop issues and reduce the number of 'current carrying conductors' which allows us to put more conductors in a single conduit without derating the conductors.


----------



## NolaTigaBait (Oct 19, 2008)

BBQ said:


> That is a by product of using MWBCs
> 
> On the other hand MWBCs obviously save copper, they also reduce voltage drop issues and reduce the number of 'current carrying conductors' which allows us to put more conductors in a single conduit without derating the conductors.


Good call, Badger..


----------



## sparks134 (Jan 30, 2009)

Jlarson said:


> I really don't see an issue with some general outlets or lights going off because of a trip on a MWBC. When I say general I mean like lights over a couple cubicles, not somewhere important like a plant control room.


Yes I agree, there are certain instances where MWBC shouldn't be used...but you should follow the prints.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

NolaTigaBait said:


> Good call, Badger..



Who??? :whistling2:


----------



## NolaTigaBait (Oct 19, 2008)

BBQ said:


> Who??? :whistling2:


Who Dat?


----------



## OaklandElec (Jan 4, 2011)

NolaTigaBait said:


> Like Jlarson said, if its a mwbc, then you need to be able to simultaneously disconnect the power to all 3 circuits sharing the neutral.


Only if your location is on the '08 book already. His install is fine here.


----------



## NolaTigaBait (Oct 19, 2008)

OaklandElec said:


> Only if your location is on the '08 book already. His install is fine here.


:sleep1:...I guess i'm supposed to run down all changes in the code, huh?....I think if you're on the 93 code, you don't need a ground for dryer...just in case, you are, in fact, on the 93 code...


----------



## Awg-Dawg (Jan 23, 2007)

Panel Builder said:


> I have an engineer that is rejecting equipment submittals because I changed the 20amp 3pole breakers he showed feeding 120volt lighting and 120volt receptacles to 3 - 20amp 1 pole breakers. I cannot find anything in the NEC that says what he is doing is illegal. Is there any part of the code that addresses this?
> 
> Thanks in advance


 Seems like he wants the 3 pole breakers..


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Just put breaker ties on the single poles-- alot cheaper than three poles breakers.


----------



## Panel Builder (Jan 25, 2011)

Then lets get a final opinion on a some of the loads.

Would you still use MWBC on lighting loads that feed high foot traffic public areas?
One could say "don't be cheap with the neutral, this is a public safety issue"


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Dennis Alwon said:


> Just put breaker ties on the single poles-- alot cheaper than three poles breakers.


I agree, less expensive and NEC compliant but may not be acceptable to the engineer.


----------



## Awg-Dawg (Jan 23, 2007)

Panel Builder said:


> Would you still use MWBC on lighting loads that feed high foot traffic public areas?
> One could say "don't be cheap with the neutral, this is a public safety issue"


 
I would use MWBC on anything I could.......


----------



## sparks134 (Jan 30, 2009)

Sometimes it better not to think... Just do! There's a reason for the EE's madness, what ever that may be.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Panel Builder said:


> Would you still use MWBC on lighting loads that feed high foot traffic public areas?


Yes and we do.

We use them anyplace that makes sense ..... assuming the job specifications allow it. 



> One could say "don't be cheap with the neutral, this is a public safety issue"


Huh? :blink:


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

Panel Builder said:


> Would you still use MWBC on lighting loads that feed high foot traffic public areas?


I would and have.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Panel Builder said:


> .............One could say "don't be cheap with the neutral, this is a public safety issue"



I guess you'd better start running three neutrals into three-phase services then.:whistling2:


----------



## Panel Builder (Jan 25, 2011)

The thought about being cheap on the neutral. A ballast goes bad on a 3pole breaker and trips the breaker, you lose 3 times more lights than if they were on 1pole breakers.


----------



## NolaTigaBait (Oct 19, 2008)

Panel Builder said:


> The thought about being cheap on the neutral. A ballast goes bad on a 3pole breaker and trips the breaker, you lose 3 times more lights than if they were on 1pole breakers.


If If's were skiffs we'd all go rowing...


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

I guess I'd better start carrying three spare tires on every vehicle I drive. Just in case I have two flats, and one spare is bad.


----------



## NolaTigaBait (Oct 19, 2008)

480sparky said:


> I guess I'd better start carrying three spare tires on every vehicle I drive. Just in case I have two flats, and one spare is bad.


Thats how they do it in mamby pamby land...


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Panel Builder said:


> The thought about being cheap on the neutral. A ballast goes bad on a 3pole breaker and trips the breaker, you lose 3 times more lights than if they were on 1pole breakers.


A few points.

Up until the adoption of the 2008 NEC there was no requirement for a common disconnecting means for most MWBCs.

The 2008 and 2011 require only a common means of disconnect, one way is to use two or three pole breakers ........ but that is not required and as you point out has the disadvantage of one circuit taking out the others.

I agree that can be a problem.

What the NEC allows is the use of two or three single pole breakers connected only by means of a suitable handle tie. A handle tie should not trip the other breakers if one trips.


----------



## NolaTigaBait (Oct 19, 2008)

BBQ said:


> A few points.
> 
> Up until the adoption of the 2008 NEC there was no requirement for a common disconnecting means for most MWBCs.
> 
> ...


Do you ever get tired of being so awesome?


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

NolaTigaBait said:


> Do you ever get tired of being so awesome?



I think my first wife would have an issue with that .......:laughing:


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

NolaTigaBait said:


> Do you ever get tired of being so awesome?


 

He's just as impressive as that other dude.............


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

mcclary's electrical said:


> He's just as impressive as that other dude.............



Peter D? :laughing:


----------



## randas (Dec 14, 2008)

Thank god we we can still use single pole CBs on MWBCs up here in Canada


----------



## micromind (Aug 11, 2007)

BBQ said:


> A few points.
> 
> Up until the adoption of the 2008 NEC there was no requirement for a common disconnecting means for most MWBCs.
> 
> ...


True, and that's the way I would do them when we adopt 2008. 

One problem here is you'll have to kill all 3 circuits in order to reset the tripped breaker. Of course, this can be done at a time when the associated hazards are reduced.........


----------



## guest (Feb 21, 2009)

micromind said:


> <snip>
> 
> .........One problem here is you'll have to kill all 3 circuits in order to reset the tripped breaker..........



For the whole 2-3 seconds it takes to reset a breaker.....:whistling2::laughing:


----------



## Wireless (Jan 22, 2007)

mxslick said:


> For the whole 2-3 seconds it takes to reset a breaker.....:whistling2::laughing:


Doesn't matter to all those computers that have to be turned off!


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

Wireless said:


> Doesn't matter to all those computers that have to be turned off!


The way I look at it is if the stuff on those computers or whatever is so important they should have back up power or whateverthehell for them. 

It kills me when people say "that's critical, we can't shut that off" and they just have it plugged into any old outlet :laughing: I end up winning the argument and shutting it down.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

480sparky said:


> I guess I'd better start carrying three spare tires on every vehicle I drive. Just in case I have two flats, and one spare is bad.


 What will you do if some one slashes all 4 tires...:laughing::laughing:


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

Panel Builder said:


> I have an engineer that is rejecting equipment submittals because I changed the 20amp 3pole breakers he showed feeding 120volt lighting and 120volt receptacles to 3 - 20amp 1 pole breakers. I cannot find anything in the NEC that says what he is doing is illegal. Is there any part of the code that addresses this?
> 
> Thanks in advance


A three pole breaker is fine the purpose of the OCD is to protect the wires on the conected load...


----------



## TOOL_5150 (Aug 27, 2007)

BBQ said:


> A handle tie should not trip the other breakers if one trips.


Is this statement based on facts? Or is it "most of the time" it wont shut off the other handle tied circuits?



micromind said:


> True, and that's the way I would do them when we adopt 2008.
> 
> One problem here is you'll have to kill all 3 circuits in order to reset the tripped breaker. Of course, this can be done at a time when the associated hazards are reduced.........


I would pull the handle tie off, reset the 1 breaker, put it back on and go home. Of course, dependent on handle tie design, that may only work half the time.

~Matt


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

Panel Builder said:


> The EE has multiple 3 pole 20's. Some feed 120volt lighting in a general area. Others feed 120v receptacles in a couple rooms. I have never known the main reason for a MWBC. I can't think of a good reason why they would want lose all receptacles in a couple rooms if somebody overloads a circuit. Or all lights in an area if a single 120volt ballast shorts.


The code loves MWBCs. Save the trees, save the copper trees especially. Badger loves them. We've been down this road before. I won't allow them. My notes unconditionally forbid them. If the neutral ever opens on a MWBC, you can probably kiss the load good-bye, it's smokesville. This is how Saturday afternoon handyman electricians wreck lots of appliances in people's homes. Hey lady, I think we've got a problem here. :laughing:

If harmonics on neutrals weren't a problem there wouldn't be super neutrals, 200% neutrals, and harmonic rated transformers. There wouldn't be harmonic mitigating transformers either. Nobody would make them because nobody would buy them. It would be a solution to a problem that didn't exist.

On 277 volt lighting circuits, the SMPSs in electronic ballasts create enough harmonics that where the home run branches off, the voltage on the neutral can be high enough above ground to cause a shock to electricians working on them. This is because the impedence of the neutral to ground is much higher at higher frequencies where the harmonics are than they are at 60 hz. This is due to the fact that inductive impedance is proportional to frequency and the ferrous conduit in EMT, RMC, and even BX and MC creates sufficient inductance. Romex or even NMC if it were allowed would not create the same problem. Once electricians working on my projects complained, that was the end of MWBC on all lighting circuits for me. That was over 25 years ago. NEC has just caught up to me. It's the reason why the code changed. 

BTW, while it may only take a second to reset a breaker, if there is a fault that hasn't been cleared it will only trip out again and those on other affected circuits will have to wait until the problem is fixed. And if the breaker is in a panel in a locked electrical closet, they may have to wait half an hour or more until an electrician with a key comes to reset it even if that's all that's needed. In the right place like a law office lost productive time could pay for all the saved extra neutrals in an entire building.


----------



## micromind (Aug 11, 2007)

mxslick said:


> For the whole 2-3 seconds it takes to reset a breaker.....:whistling2::laughing:


Unless the load is HID lighting. Then it's a bit longer.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Shorty Circuit said:


> The code loves MWBCs. Save the trees, save the copper trees especially. Badger loves them. We've been down this road before. I won't allow them. My notes unconditionally forbid them. If the neutral ever opens on a MWBC, you can probably kiss the load good-bye, it's smokesville. This is how Saturday afternoon handyman electricians wreck lots of appliances in people's homes. Hey lady, I think we've got a problem here. :laughing:
> 
> If harmonics on neutrals weren't a problem there wouldn't be super neutrals, 200% neutrals, and harmonic rated transformers. There wouldn't be harmonic mitigating transformers either. Nobody would make them because nobody would buy them. It would be a solution to a problem that didn't exist.
> 
> ...



What a load of crap.:laughing:


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

BBQ said:


> What a load of crap.:laughing:


 Long in the tooth..:laughing:


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

BBQ said:


> What a load of crap.:laughing:


Open a neutral in your own house if you have MWBEs and see what happens. If one of the circuits has your computer plugged in and turned on you might just be off line for awhile  On second thought, you'd be smarter to try it with a pair of circuits where there are only lightbulbs. Watch 240 volts divide according to the relative size of the loads in series. You might even learn Ohm's law and how to apply it.:smartass:


----------



## RePhase277 (Feb 5, 2008)

Shorty Circuit said:


> Open a neutral in your own house if you have MWBEs and see what happens. If one of the circuits has your computer plugged in and turned on you might just be off line for awhile  On second thought, you'd be smarter to try it with a pair of circuits where there are only lightbulbs. Watch 240 volts divide according to the relative size of the loads in series. You might even learn Ohm's law and how to apply it.:smartass:


The thing is, lots of things can go wrong with an electric circuit that can damage equipment. Mutiwire circuits are no different. All we can do is install them properly and go home. IF some other jackleg opens that neutral later on, that isn't our problem. The only time an electrician should worry about a multiwire circuit is if that electrician f'd it up.


----------



## NormW64 (Jan 19, 2011)

I'm on Shorty's side. We got a call about overheated conduits in a facility that had just done a lighting upgrade (we didn't do the upgrade). Converted from magnetic ballast T12 to electronic T8. We found 13 Amps +- 2A per phase and 24 Amps on the neutral.


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

InPhase277 said:


> The thing is, lots of things can go wrong with an electric circuit that can damage equipment. Mutiwire circuits are no different. All we can do is install them properly and go home. IF some other jackleg opens that neutral later on, that isn't our problem. The only time an electrician should worry about a multiwire circuit is if that electrician f'd it up.


NO! We don't wait for the code to catch up with something we know from experience is a bad idea. The code is the minimum that is required to be legal. It doesn't tell you what to do that is smart. If it were, the multipole breaker rule would have been part of the code decades ago. Aluminum house wiring never would have happened. The code changes as the result of reports of misfortunes and tragedies that occurred when people followed it and there were problems anyway. 

There is much more to a good electrical design and installation than simply staying within the constraints of the code. There are considerations of buildability, maintainability, good practice, and knowledge gained beyond what the code knows. Usually people get away with dumb mistakes. That's no excuse to make them deliberately if they are legal. It is my judgement that the extra neutrals are worth the cost to avoid the potential problems that code legal MWBCs create. Not only does it mean they won't show up on my jobs, neither will contractors who are eager to install them to save a buck. They never make it to the bidder's list. There are places to save money and then there are places where a pound of cure hardly begins to pay for not buying an ounce of prevention.


----------



## JRaef (Mar 23, 2009)

I think the original intent of MWBCs has been usurped by the "saves copper" issue. As I was taught, you only did it when the loads needed separate circuits, but because of safety considerations if one tripped you didn't want a live circuit in the same box with the dead one that needs troubleshooting. The classic example was a duplex receptacle under the sink for a dishwasher and a garbage disposal. Both together is too much for a single breaker, but you don't want two separate boxes. So you split the duplex and feed each one with a separate breaker. But if one trips, half the wires in the box are still live. So you use a 2 pole breaker which kills both circuits if one trips, making it safer for the electrician when he comes out to troubleshoot (assuming the homeowner is smart enough to call one).

On one industrial job I was on in the 70's, the EE had us do MWBCs on lights and receptacles in a sample test lab that was unattended for long periods as tests ran. He said it was because if the receptacle circuit tripped and nobody knew, it was a problem. By putting the lights on a tied breaker the lights went out too, which is something people will notice and respond to. Just a thought on that one to help with the "why" question.


----------



## Shockdoc (Mar 4, 2010)

The whole handle ties code is a crock of sh1t. I ignore it on all unfiled jobs. I am not sworn to uphold the code as a peace officer so i can pick and choose which ones suite me and my customers best.


----------



## kaboler (Dec 1, 2010)

I was reading this:

http://www.electriciantalk.com/f2/mwbc-receptacle-termination-questions-2441/

because I didn't know what MWBC is. I guess it's multi-wire branch circuit. I looked at 480s really cool ppt presentation:

http://www.code-elec.com/userimages/Lost Neutral.ppt

I understand the math, and it's cool. But I'm only first year, so I don't know if I've ever run a mwbc. I've run red black blue, but they've never joined up anywhere except motors, but they've never had a neutral anyway!!! Can someone tell me what kind of loads would be on 480's ppt? I also don't understand what the wavy lines are in 480, what they represent. TY!!!!


----------



## kaboler (Dec 1, 2010)

Maybe I'll take the ppt to my boss and let him explain it.


----------



## BuzzKill (Oct 27, 2008)

my 2 cents (like it matters): I don't like mwbc's; I will pull those extra N's for recep's but lighting is fine in a mwbc, but I would upsize the N to handle the harmonics in fluorescent lighting; The N current and heating effect can nearly double, for one given phase, in a mwbc from non linear loads.


----------



## Rudeboy (Oct 6, 2009)

OaklandElec said:


> Only if your location is on the '08 book already. His install is fine here.


We are on the '08 here now. As of the first of the year anyway. If you have pulled a permit as of then, it's on the '08.


----------



## OaklandElec (Jan 4, 2011)

Rudeboy said:


> We are on the '08 here now. As of the first of the year anyway. If you have pulled a permit as of then, it's on the '08.


Yup, just realized that fact the other day. Ordered the '08 handbook yesterday.


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

kaboler said:


> Maybe I'll take the ppt to my boss and let him explain it.


The explanation is very simple and exactly what I was talking about. When the neutral opens up, you no longer have two 120 volt circuits with a common neutral, you have one 240 volt circuit with the loads in series. 240 volts will divide in inverse proportion to the resistance of each of the two loads (each load resistance is the equivalent of the parallel resistances between the common point and each leg of the transformer.) In the example the load with two 100 watt loads, say lamps, they will have only 80 volts across them and will not function very well but, they'll be quite dim but not to worry, that won't last long. The other 100 watt lamp will have 160 volts across it and will shine like a little nova...for about 10 seconds before it expires and opens the circuit. Note that the current isn't nearly high enough to trip the breaker. 

In the first link, look at the two receptacles at the left end in the second picture. If the neutral back to the transformer is open, the circuit is then through the receptacle starting at the black wire, then through the neutral to the other receptacle, and then out the red wire. Were appliances plugged into them, exactly what happened to to the lamps in the example above would happen to them. And it will happen with three phase circuits with an open neutral too. It's easier to visualize and calculate with only a center tapped single phase transformer but the principle is exactly the same. Only instead of lamps, what if they were PCs or photocopy machines, or expensive TV sets? Thousands up in smoke to save a few cents in wire. :no:


----------



## Rudeboy (Oct 6, 2009)

OaklandElec said:


> Yup, just realized that fact the other day. Ordered the '08 handbook yesterday.


Oakland inspectors have been scrambling around like little dogs for the past month. For some reason, they just realized it the other day too.
:laughing:


----------



## NormW64 (Jan 19, 2011)

Shockdoc said:


> The whole handle ties code is a crock of sh1t. I ignore it on all unfiled jobs. I am not sworn to uphold the code as a peace officer so i can pick and choose which ones suite me and my customers best.


Are you a licensed electrician? Why do you think we have codes in the first place? Do you own your own company or work for someone else? BTW your statement is the very definition of "HACK".


----------



## NormW64 (Jan 19, 2011)

OaklandElec said:


> Yup, just realized that fact the other day. Ordered the '08 handbook yesterday.


You guys need to be purchasing the code book before it is adopted, that way you are not scrambling to catch up on the new changes, plus seems like any good electrician would want to stay up-to-date. The 2011 books came out last year, you should already have one of those.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

kaboler said:


> .........Can someone tell me what kind of loads would be on 480's ppt?...


Two light bulbs. But the numbers really don't matter.... it's the concept that's important to understand. The more out-of-balance the loads are, the more the two voltages are going to stray from nominal. If the loads are 2:1, as in the example, then the voltages will be 2:1. If the loads are 3:1, then the resulting voltages will be 3:1. And the higher the resistance of the load (and consequently the lower amperage), the higher the applied voltage will be when the neutral is opened.




kaboler said:


> .I also don't understand what the wavy lines are in 480, what they represent. TY!!!!


The wavy lines are resistors (we call them 'loads').


----------



## OaklandElec (Jan 4, 2011)

NormW64 said:


> You guys need to be purchasing the code book before it is adopted, that way you are not scrambling to catch up on the new changes, plus seems like any good electrician would want to stay up-to-date. The 2011 books came out last year, you should already have one of those.



Well, I've had a pdf version of '08 on the laptop for a couple years, but now I need the hard copy for the truck. I'm only a month late on that part!


----------



## Rudeboy (Oct 6, 2009)

NormW64 said:


> You guys need to be purchasing the code book before it is adopted, that way you are not scrambling to catch up on the new changes, plus seems like any good electrician would want to stay up-to-date. The 2011 books came out last year, you should already have one of those.


I said the inspectors are scrambling not me. 
I'm fairly well versed on the '08 code since Ken hooked me up the pdf, a long time ago. I know the '11 changes fairly well too even though my state won't adopt it for another three years.


----------



## danickstr (Mar 21, 2010)

one thing about working on mwbc's is that while a lifted neutral at the panel is going to be big trouble (if both/all three circuits are energized), aren't most of us working on (pre 2008 panels) the troublesome circuit with the breaker thrown off?

I am not saying this is not a potentially hazardous issue, and that handle ties are not necessary, but the fact is that only if both/all three circuits are energized and THEN someone lifts the neutral after the load do you actually have the 240 makeshift circuit.


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

danickstr said:


> one thing about working on mwbc's is that while a lifted neutral at the panel is going to be big trouble (if both/all three circuits are energized), aren't most of us working on (pre 2008 panels) the troublesome circuit with the breaker thrown off?
> 
> I am not saying this is not a potentially hazardous issue, and that handle ties are not necessary, but the fact is that only if both/all three circuits are energized and THEN someone lifts the neutral after the load do you actually have the 240 makeshift circuit.


It would be nice if you knew at least something about electricity. When there are three, all it takes is two of them. And it's 208, not 240. You won't find 3 phase in over 99.9% of homes. Maybe in some gazillionaire's 50,000 square foot mansion but that's the only exception I know of.

What I love about guys like you and shockdoc is that your former customers are willing to pay me almost anything to fix things up...after the smoke clears. :laughing:


----------



## danickstr (Mar 21, 2010)

shorty I dont recall him saying it was single phase. But I find your tone quite acerbic.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Shorty Circuit said:


> NO! We don't wait for the code to catch up with something we know from experience is a bad idea. The code is the minimum that is required to be legal. It doesn't tell you what to do that is smart. If it were, the multipole breaker rule would have been part of the code decades ago. Aluminum house wiring never would have happened. The code changes as the result of reports of misfortunes and tragedies that occurred when people followed it and there were problems anyway.
> 
> There is much more to a good electrical design and installation than simply staying within the constraints of the code. There are considerations of buildability, maintainability, good practice, and knowledge gained beyond what the code knows. Usually people get away with dumb mistakes. That's no excuse to make them deliberately if they are legal. It is my judgement that the extra neutrals are worth the cost to avoid the potential problems that code legal MWBCs create. Not only does it mean they won't show up on my jobs, neither will contractors who are eager to install them to save a buck. They never make it to the bidder's list. There are places to save money and then there are places where a pound of cure hardly begins to pay for not buying an ounce of prevention.





Shorty Circuit said:


> The explanation is very simple and exactly what I was talking about. When the neutral opens up, you no longer have two 120 volt circuits with a common neutral, you have one 240 volt circuit with the loads in series. 240 volts will divide in inverse proportion to the resistance of each of the two loads (each load resistance is the equivalent of the parallel resistances between the common point and each leg of the transformer.) In the example the load with two 100 watt loads, say lamps, they will have only 80 volts across them and will not function very well but, they'll be quite dim but not to worry, that won't last long. The other 100 watt lamp will have 160 volts across it and will shine like a little nova...for about 10 seconds before it expires and opens the circuit. Note that the current isn't nearly high enough to trip the breaker.
> 
> In the first link, look at the two receptacles at the left end in the second picture. If the neutral back to the transformer is open, the circuit is then through the receptacle starting at the black wire, then through the neutral to the other receptacle, and then out the red wire. Were appliances plugged into them, exactly what happened to to the lamps in the example above would happen to them. And it will happen with three phase circuits with an open neutral too. It's easier to visualize and calculate with only a center tapped single phase transformer but the principle is exactly the same. Only instead of lamps, what if they were PCs or photocopy machines, or expensive TV sets? Thousands up in smoke to save a few cents in wire. :no:





Shorty Circuit said:


> It would be nice if you knew at least something about electricity. When there are three, all it takes is two of them. And it's 208, not 240. You won't find 3 phase in over 99.9% of homes. Maybe in some gazillionaire's 50,000 square foot mansion but that's the only exception I know of.
> 
> What I love about guys like you and shockdoc is that your former customers are willing to pay me almost anything to fix things up...after the smoke clears. :laughing:


Cool .... it is like a perpetual fountain of half truths, misinformation and fears all wrapped up into one. :laughing:


Shorty man, you should check out this link He finally got it, NO SHARED NEUTRALS (well ALMOST none) and you can join forces with an inspector that feels exactly like you do. Maybe you could combine forces and get these dangerous circuits outlawed.:laughing::laughing:


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

BBQ said:


> Cool .... it is like a perpetual fountain of half truths, misinformation and fears all wrapped up into one. :laughing:
> 
> 
> Shorty man, you should check out this link He finally got it, NO SHARED NEUTRALS (well ALMOST none) and you can join forces with an inspector that feels exactly like you do. Maybe you could combine forces and get these dangerous circuits outlawed.:laughing::laughing:


One difference between my work and yours is......I don't get to walk away. Another is.....I don't have to.


----------



## NormW64 (Jan 19, 2011)

I don't understand your opposition to outlawing MWBC's. If it is code to pull separate neutrals for every circuit it will drive the cost up. If you make 10% profit and 15% overhead on a job, then the higher the cost of the job the more profit you make. Trying to argue cost is ridiculous. 

There was a response in that other thread about dumbing it down for the morons, but the fact is there are more morons than there are bona fide qualified electricians, otherwise it wouldn't even have come up for discussion. 

There are quite a few people on the same side of this issue as Shorty. I received a PM from another member stating this, he just didn't want to say it on the thread and have you guys calling him an idiot too. BTW when did name calling become a good way to defend your position on a topic?


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

NormW64 said:


> I don't understand your opposition to outlawing MWBC's. If it is code to pull separate neutrals for every circuit it will drive the cost up. If you make 10% profit and 15% overhead on a job, then the higher the cost of the job the more profit you make.


I am not for putting in codes just to make money.

I am all for the customer getting to decide how they spend their money. We work for may types of customers, some have very detailed specifications and desires. We are happy to do their work and provide what they want.

On the other hand we have customers that want the least expensive electrical system they can get. We are also happy to work for those customers as well.




> There was a response in that other thread about dumbing it down for the morons, but the fact is there are more morons than there are bona fide qualified electricians, otherwise it wouldn't even have come up for discussion.


Again this is such a false argument, you think that if MWBCs were outlawed suddenly 'morons' would not do dangerous wiring.

That makes no sense at all.



> BTW when did name calling become a good way to defend your position on a topic?


You should think about that when calling people morons. :laughing:


----------



## NormW64 (Jan 19, 2011)

BBQ said:


> You should think about that when calling people morons. :laughing:


Good point.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Shorty Circuit said:


> One difference between my work and yours is......I don't get to walk away. Another is.....I don't have to.



The company has worked for the same large customers since the early 80s. 

Of course many times we just follow the prints that the customers engineers have provided complete with MWBCs. :thumbsup:


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

BBQ said:


> The company has worked for the same large customers since the early 80s.
> 
> Of course many times we just follow the prints that the customers engineers have provided complete with MWBCs. :thumbsup:


The nice thing about large companies is that when they make a mistake and there are consequences, they always find plenty of money to clean up the mess. But if you work for one, you find in many places in them that they are always looking for scapegoats to pin the blame on when things go wrong. I for one am not interested in saving multbillion dollar companies a few cents on buying extra wire. Maybe one day the code will change, maybe it won't. I have my point of view and it is more conservative than the code is. That is allowed. It's also based on decades of experience. BTW, one installation where a neutral burned up or caused a problem, if they know what contractor did it...they won't be back.

As for the customer's engineers, some of them are excellent an some of them are awful. It's amazing how many of them think they are saving money these days by switching from FO32T8s to FO25T8s. One more scam, energy saving lighting and they fall for it like a ton of bricks. All code legal too.


----------



## guest (Feb 21, 2009)

Shorty Circuit said:


> <snip>
> 
> In the example the load with *two 100 watt loads*, say lamps,_* they will have only 80 volts across them*_ and will not function very well but, they'll be quite dim but not to worry, that won't last long. The o_*ther 100 watt lamp will have 160 volts across it *_and will shine like a little nova...for about 10 seconds before it expires and opens the circuit. Note that the current isn't nearly high enough to trip the breaker.


I'm struggling with how you figure out that with TWO equal loads you come up with "80 volts across *THEM*" and how one of the two *EQUAL* 100 watt loads will somehow have 160 volts across it....:no::whistling2:

Must be that new revised version of Ohm's Law that I heard rumors about.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

Shorty, every night you sleep in a building that is fed by a MULTIWIRE Feeder. Should the neutral be opened up by a lineman your stuff goes up in smoke.. I think you better go outside and cut one of the hots coming into your house so you are safe from that happening......

I hate douchbags that read about such things as mwbc and Ideal 65's from hysteria websites and then take up the torch lock stock and barrel without applying a little of their own common sense or pratical knowledge gained from having run thousands and thousands of mwbc's on commercial installation jobs. It takes idiots to open up neutral connections without checking first , that is not a reason to want to outlaw mwbc's any more than trying to outlaw motor vehicles cause you saw one crash one time.....


----------



## RePhase277 (Feb 5, 2008)

---------------


----------



## RePhase277 (Feb 5, 2008)

We can't do a job anticipating that an unqualified jackleg will someday work on the system. If we did, we'd have to post an armed guard at ever junction box to check IDs. The FACT is a multiwire circuit, properly installed, is no more dangerous than a two-wire circuit. We can't know whether or not an unqualified person will ever open a neutral 20 years from now, nor should we even really care. Electricity is inherently dangerous, in ANY type of circuit. All we can do is install them properly and go home and sleep at night. I have installed thousands of MWBCs and I have a clear conscience.


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

macmikeman said:


> Shorty, every night you sleep in a building that is fed by a MULTIWIRE Feeder. Should the neutral be opened up by a lineman your stuff goes up in smoke.. I think you better go outside and cut one of the hots coming into your house so you are safe from that happening......
> 
> I hate douchbags that read about such things as mwbc and Ideal 65's from hysteria websites and then take up the torch lock stock and barrel without applying a little of their own common sense or pratical knowledge gained from having run thousands and thousands of mwbc's on commercial installation jobs. It takes idiots to open up neutral connections without checking first , that is not a reason to want to outlaw mwbc's any more than trying to outlaw motor vehicles cause you saw one crash one time.....


I wouldn't expect anyone whose experience is limited to wiring houses to have knowledge of electricians getting hit on neutrals of 277 volt lighting circuits where the fluorescent ballasts have SMPSs that generate harmonics. If it isn't dangerous, why do you think they changed the code? I was just 25 years ahead f them. 

Calling names doesn't make you one atom less wrong. It just makes me think of you as not only being ignorant but also a :1eye:


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

mxslick said:


> I'm struggling with how you figure out that with TWO equal loads you come up with "80 volts across *THEM*" and how one of the two *EQUAL* 100 watt loads will somehow have 160 volts across it....:no::whistling2:
> 
> Must be that new revised version of Ohm's Law that I heard rumors about.


Simple, they're not equal. One load is the equivalent parallel combination of two 100 watt lightbulbs that was on one circuit before the neutral opened up, the other a single 100 watt light bulb. You need a refresher course in basic electricity. I don't think even this would help if you haven't gotten it by now. :bangin:


----------



## randas (Dec 14, 2008)

Shorty Circuit said:


> I wouldn't expect anyone whose experience is limited to wiring houses to have knowledge of electricians getting hit on neutrals of 277 volt lighting circuits where the fluorescent ballasts have SMPSs that generate harmonics. If it isn't dangerous, why do you think they changed the code? I was just 25 years ahead f them.
> 
> Calling names doesn't make you one atom less wrong. It just makes me think of you as not only being ignorant but also a :1eye:


What do you want to BAN hot wires too :blink: Just because theres a potential for shock dosent mean your should ban it :laughing: If you don't know what your doing you have no business doing the work.

Single pole CBs on MWBCs are still legal for the most part up here in Canada and we dont have any problems :thumbup: Maybe its because we have mandatory licencing up here so we dont have as many morons blowing stuff up then blameing the code


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Shorty Circuit said:


> ............. The other 100 watt lamp will have 160 volts across it and will shine like a little nova...for about 10 seconds before it expires and opens the circuit. ...............


Wanna bet on that one?


----------



## TOOL_5150 (Aug 27, 2007)

Yeah...... youre wrong, it doesnt burn out.

480 is an expert....

~Matt


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

TOOL_5150 said:


> Yeah...... youre wrong, it doesnt burn out.
> 
> 480 did this experiment a while ago....
> 
> ~Matt










I'm trying to make some money here.


----------



## guest (Feb 21, 2009)

Shorty Circuit said:


> Simple, they're not equal. One load is the equivalent parallel combination of two 100 watt lightbulbs that was on one circuit before the neutral opened up, the other a single 100 watt light bulb. You need a refresher course in basic electricity. I don't think even this would help if you haven't gotten it by now. :bangin:


Dude, you are the one who needs the refresher course on basic electricity. The loads become a series circuit when the neutral is lifted and if they are equal in resistance they will divide the voltage equally between them. Basic Ohm's Law!! I find it very disturbing that as an EE you don't grasp the same concept I first learned in 7th grade science class. 

_*And you also need to lose the attitude. *_



TOOL_5150 said:


> Yeah...... youre wrong, it doesnt burn out.
> 
> 480 did this experiment a while ago....
> 
> ~Matt


Yep..as I have done the same to see what would happen. Guess what? Both lamps worked normally..until I substituted one with a lower wattage.


----------



## TOOL_5150 (Aug 27, 2007)

480sparky said:


> I'm trying to make some money here.


See my edit :thumbup:

~Matt


----------



## TOOL_5150 (Aug 27, 2007)

mxslick said:


> Yep..as I have done the same to see what would happen. Guess what? Both lamps worked normally..until I substituted one with a lower wattage.


Well sure, that changes resistance :thumbsup:

~Matt


----------



## guest (Feb 21, 2009)

TOOL_5150 said:


> Well sure, that changes resistance :thumbsup:
> 
> ~Matt


Yep, and makes for a fun surprise. :laughing:


----------



## TOOL_5150 (Aug 27, 2007)

mxslick said:


> Yep, and makes for a fun surprise. :laughing:


:laughing::thumbup:

~Matt


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

mxslick said:


> ..............Yep..as I have done the same to see what would happen. Guess what? Both lamps worked normally..until I substituted one with a lower wattage.


I couldn't get the one with the higher voltage to burn out.


----------



## guest (Feb 21, 2009)

480, how far apart in wattage did you go? I tried 100w/40w. 

And this was not too long ago, bulbs are a lot wimpier now. 

It was a fun experiment though. I may do it again, with pictures this time, since a certain person here needs to be taught a lesson. :whistling2:


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

Shorty Circuit said:


> I wouldn't expect anyone whose experience is limited to wiring houses to have knowledge of electricians getting hit on neutrals of 277 volt lighting circuits where the fluorescent ballasts have SMPSs that generate harmonics. If it isn't dangerous, why do you think they changed the code? I was just 25 years ahead f them.
> 
> Calling names doesn't make you one atom less wrong. It just makes me think of you as not only being ignorant but also a :1eye:


Shorty I bent more pipe in my first 5 years than you have in your career. I end my career by simple choice in house wiring. I have spent most of it in buildings and facilities. #1 real electricians don't get hit on neutrals they de-energize the circuits prior to working on them, they use lock out and tag out methods. Stupid hacks open neutrals on multiwire branch circuits, it is pretty obvious when you are working around them, mostly because real electricians color code the hots and that be a clue real electricians know about. Even if there is only blacks for all ungrounded conductors in a box I know enough to amp test the neutrals for current with a true rms instrument. I bet your getting knocked from neutrals is because you had to learn the hard way from your lack of experience in the first place. I always loved it when people start thinking just because they get a job that doesn't involve wiring houses that automatically puts them in some sort of higher grade of know how. Thats bunk. I have worked all types of electrical except lineman and I know for a fact that while multiwire branch circuits require a higher level of knowledge and caution when working on them, they are a standard form of electrical wiring and anybody worrying about one of their crew opening a neut on one, needs to train the crew better....
By the way have you done like I told you and cut down one of those hots coming into your house yet????????? Its multiwire and unsafe you know.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

Oh now I see, Shorty is an Electrical Engineer. Well now, that is different. 
I been wiping EE's asses up on projects for 35 years now. Shorty go back and sit down at your desk and write some more specs and reqirements and impress the other suits. Your stepping out of your office into the field now and getting your ass kicked. Oh yeah one other thing, it really gets my goat when you guys cannot even come out of your air conditioning long enough to actually go out and check an existing building service for whether it is wye supplied or 240 delta before you draw your purty one line diagrams on the blueprints. What up with that shory?


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

Thanks to electrical engineer's I have had to drive a billion ground rods in my life. Not one of them has served any purpose. 


On the other hand electrical engineers have brought us many many many wonderful inventions such as electronics, computers, airplane avionics and the like. I am in awe. But when they try to tell the sparky's what end of the screwdriver to hold they get themselves into trouble pretty fast.


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

macmikeman said:


> Shorty I bent more pipe in my first 5 years than you have in your career. I end my career by simple choice in house wiring. I have spent most of it in buildings and facilities. #1 real electricians don't get hit on neutrals they de-energize the circuits prior to working on them, they use lock out and tag out methods. Stupid hacks open neutrals on multiwire branch circuits, it is pretty obvious when you are working around them, mostly because real electricians color code the hots and that be a clue real electricians know about. Even if there is only blacks for all ungrounded conductors in a box I know enough to amp test the neutrals for current with a true rms instrument. I bet your getting knocked from neutrals is because you had to learn the hard way from your lack of experience in the first place. I always loved it when people start thinking just because they get a job that doesn't involve wiring houses that automatically puts them in some sort of higher grade of know how. Thats bunk. I have worked all types of electrical except lineman and I know for a fact that while multiwire branch circuits require a higher level of knowledge and caution when working on them, they are a standard form of electrical wiring and anybody worrying about one of their crew opening a neut on one, needs to train the crew better....
> By the way have you done like I told you and cut down one of those hots coming into your house yet????????? Its multiwire and unsafe you know.


"I bent more pipe in my first 5 years than you have in your career."

Rosie the Riviter installed more rivets in a month than most structural engineers installed in a lifetime yet she didn't know the first thing about how to design a building that wouldn't collapse. Your kind of logic demonstrates where you come from, your point of view is not based on real knowledge.

Until the 2008 code, electricians working on industrial lighting circuits were not required and most didn't shut off lighting circuits to those which had a common neutral with the circuit they were working on. In fact my electicians told me that getting hit on the neutral was sometimes even worse than getting hit on 277 itself. That is why the code changed. And it doesn't take somone to stupidly disconnect a neutral for it to be open. It can happen an any of several ways including burning up from overcurrent even when none of the phase currents are high enough to trip the breaker. I'm glad you retired. BTW, my house has no MWBCs. That was my instructions to the electrician who wired it and he told me he never put them in anyway. Not all electricians who wire houses are looking to shave every nickel out of a job they can legally get away with.


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

macmikeman said:


> Oh now I see, Shorty is an Electrical Engineer. Well now, that is different.
> I been wiping EE's asses up on projects for 35 years now. Shorty go back and sit down at your desk and write some more specs and reqirements and impress the other suits. Your stepping out of your office into the field now and getting your ass kicked. Oh yeah one other thing, it really gets my goat when you guys cannot even come out of your air conditioning long enough to actually go out and check an existing building service for whether it is wye supplied or 240 delta before you draw your purty one line diagrams on the blueprints. What up with that shory?


I regret the decline in standards and the general level of skill and knowledge in the engineering profession in general and in electrical engineering in particular over past decades. Now I regret that there seems to be a comparable decline in the knowledge of at least some electricians who often did bail them out. More potential future work for me.

I've gotten my hands as dirty on jobs as anyone. My first job out of school was in a steel mill and I paid my dues climbing around cranes, prying around in basements in transformer and equipment vaults, and in equipment so encrusted in coal dust and iron ore you had to scrape it away for 20 minutes just to read the nameplate. I've also been in plenty of excavations with a transit to design underground duct banks with adequate ground cover and drainage. Yes I've paid my dues. I know when you guys know what you are doing and I know when you screw up. And when you do, you don't get paid until you fix it and I say so. I 'm sure you don't like that idea at all. Usually you send the bill and it gets paid no matter how good or bad your work is. BTW, you're all OFF my bidder's list. :gun_bandana:


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

macmikeman said:


> Thanks to electrical engineer's I have had to drive a billion ground rods in my life. Not one of them has served any purpose.
> 
> 
> On the other hand electrical engineers have brought us many many many wonderful inventions such as electronics, computers, airplane avionics and the like. I am in awe. But when they try to tell the sparky's what end of the screwdriver to hold they get themselves into trouble pretty fast.


 
Just think, if you hadn't driven any of them, none of your installations would have been grounded at all. If I were giving the code test, that statement alone would have been sufficient to flunk you.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Shorty Circuit said:


> Until the 2008 code, electricians working on industrial lighting circuits were not required and most didn't shut off lighting circuits to those which had a common neutral with the circuit they were working on.



That is false, OSHA has required circuits being worked on to be shut off in all most all cases.





> In fact my electicians told me that getting hit on the neutral was sometimes even worse than getting hit on 277 itself.


That is another falsehood, getting hit by the neutral is no worse than getting hit on the hot.

And the only way they could have gotten hit from the neutral was by opening up a splice under load and not as you have claimed 'due to voltage drop caused by harmonics. That is just plain wrong. 






> And it doesn't take somone to stupidly disconnect a neutral for it to be open. It can happen an any of several ways including burning up from overcurrent even when none of the phase currents are high enough to trip the breaker.


It can, but if the currents are that high on the neutral that it is being damaged that signifies poor design.



> I'm glad you retired.


Try to pay attention, he is not retired. :laughing:




> BTW, my house has no MWBCs.



Great, if that is what makes you happy that is all good. I work to the specifications that the customers provide.




> That was my instructions to the electrician who wired it and he told me he never put them in anyway.


Well he is foolish to rule out a perfectly good wiring method. 




> Not all electricians who wire houses are looking to shave every nickel out of a job they can legally get away with.


And not all MWBCs are used in small buildings, not much to be saved by using them in a dwelling. There is a lot to be saved in large commercial buildings and that is what many of those customers desire.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

mxslick said:


> 480, how far apart in wattage did you go? I tried 100w/40w.
> 
> And this was not too long ago, bulbs are a lot wimpier now.
> 
> It was a fun experiment though. I may do it again, with pictures this time, since a certain person here needs to be taught a lesson. :whistling2:



Two 100w lamps: (Left to right, the meters read voltage applied to left lamp, voltage of entire circuit, amperage of entire circuit, voltage applied to right lamp). There is no neutral in either pix.... both are 100% series circuits.












One 60w (one left), one 100w:​









I let it 'cook' for 20 minutes..... 60 watt lamp did not burn out at 191 volts. 


I rest my case, Your Honor. :laughing:​


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

macmikeman said:


> Thanks to electrical engineer's I have had to drive a billion ground rods in my life. Not one of them has served any purpose. ................


The billion ground rods, or EEs? :laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing:


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

BBQ said:


> That is false, OSHA has required circuits being worked on to be shut off in all most all cases.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"That is false, OSHA has required circuits being worked on to be shut off in all most all cases."

The neutral is considered grounded, in fact it is called "the grounded electrode." But it isn't at ground potential at all, not at harmonic frequencies with SMPS a hundred or more feet away from the panel and maybe hundreds more feet to where the neutral is bonded to ground. That's the whole point, one that you missed. 

"That is another falsehood, getting hit by the neutral is no worse than getting hit on the hot."

I assume you are talking from experience. Thank you for proving my point for me. BTW, are you callling the electricians in Local 456 who told me this liars?

"And the only way they could have gotten hit from the neutral was by opening up a splice under load and not as you have claimed 'due to voltage drop caused by harmonics. That is just plain wrong." 

I've yet to meet an IBEW electrician I thought might make that mistake.

"It can, but if the currents are that high on the neutral that it is being damaged that signifies poor design."

Yes like using common neutrals on circuits where there are SMPSs like industrial lighting, PCs, photcopy machines, TV sets, or anything else.

"Try to pay attention, he is not retired."

I thought he said he was. How disappointing. Well the consolation is that for me it's more opportunities in the making. 

I've learned a lot from electricians over the years including on this blog site....but not on this thread.

BBQ, it smells like something is buring on your grill. You'd better go check to see what it is. It isn't one of those electric grills is it?:laughing:


----------



## randas (Dec 14, 2008)

Wheres your reply to 480's demonstration- proving you don't even understand basic ohms law :whistling2: Around here they teach that **** in high school :laughing:


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

480sparky said:


> Two 100w lamps: (Left to right, the meters read voltage applied to left lamp, voltage of entire circuit, amperage of entire circuit, voltage applied to right lamp). There is no neutral in either pix.... both are 100% series circuits.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Now try it with your PC or 55" LED television set. :laughing:


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Shorty Circuit said:


> Now try it with your PC or 55" LED television set. :laughing:



I sure don't see any Nova and it sure didn't burn out in the 10 seconds you claim it would.

Two PCs in series across 240v will work just fine. No LED Tvs will burn out if you put two of them in series across a 240v circuit either.


----------



## RePhase277 (Feb 5, 2008)

The "grounded electrode"?:laughing: Yeah, that's what it is called alright. And you guys take notice, the name dropping for his local union shop means that he thinks we will be impressed. We should all bask in the knowledge of those giants that he claims would never open a MWBC neutral.


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

480sparky said:


> I sure don't see no Nova and it sure didn't burn out in the 10 seconds you claim it would.


First of all, I said two one hunderd watt lightbulbs. So are you saying it's OK for an electrical system to potentially apply 191 volts to a circuit or receptacle rated for 125 volts without a device to protect it? Or 57 volts? Just build what's on the drawings, I'll do the worrying about what to build, that's my job, why don't you just stick to doing yours? :smartass:

Here's an idea, why not make one of the loads a refrigerator or window air conditioner. When the T-stat calls for the compressor to go on, the impedence will be so low almost all 240 volts will be on the other series load. But don't worry, the voltage across the compressor's locked rotor impedence will be so low it will almost certainly be below the stall out voltage, too low to start the motor. On the bright side if there is one it will probably only last for about 100 milliseconds....which should be about as long as it takes for the TV set to blow up. :laughing: If you're lucky the breaker will trip first. If you're not...well prices on new TV sets have dropped considerably. I think there's a 55" Vizio at Costco right now for under $1000. :yes: And while you're at the checkout counter waiting to pay, you can think of all the money you saved on those unneeded extra neutrals you didn't install all these years.:thumbup:


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

InPhase277 said:


> The "grounded electrode"?:laughing: Yeah, that's what it is called alright. And you guys take notice, the name dropping for his local union shop means that he thinks we will be impressed. We should all bask in the knowledge of those giants that he claims would never open a MWBC neutral.


Fie, fie, foe, fum, I smell the blood of an electrical contractor who wasn't allowed to bid a job he wanted because he was non union.

It's not that union guys don't sometimes screw up. It's that they know exactly what I'm talking about when I catch them.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Shorty Circuit said:


> First of all, I said two one hunderd watt lightbulbs.


Well, duh........... _that's what's in the first photo_. Didja miss that part?



Shorty Circuit said:


> So are you saying it's OK for an electrical system to potentially apply 191 volts to a circuit or receptacle rated for 125 volts without a device to protect it? Or 57 volts? Just build what's on the drawings, I'll do the worrying about what to build, that's my job, why don't you just stick to doing yours? :smartass:


Boy, you sure like putting words in someone else's statements. I simply posted the photos to show you that you are dead wrong about lamps shining like a nova and burning out in 10 seconds. You take that to mean I say it's acceptable to run LED television sets at 191 volts and computers at 57. 



Shorty Circuit said:


> Here's an idea, why not make one of the loads a refrigerator or window air conditioner. When the T-stat calls for the compressor to go on, the impedence will be so low almost all 240 volts will be on the other series load. But don't worry, the voltage across the compressor's locked rotor impedence will be so low it will almost certainly be below the stall out voltage, too low to start the motor. On the bright side if there is one it will probably only last for about 100 milliseconds....which should be about as long as it takes for the TV set to blow up. :laughing: If you're lucky the breaker will trip first. If you're not...well prices on new TV sets have dropped considerably. I think there's a 55" Vizio at Costco right now for under $1000. :yes: And while you're at the checkout counter waiting to pay, you can think of all the money you saved on those unneeded extra neutrals you didn't install all these years.:thumbup:


Here's a better idea. Let us 'stupid electricians' use a perfectly safe and legal wiring method. If DIYers and Handy-Hacks burn up your prcecious LED TV and computer, then you got what you paid for.


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

480sparky said:


> Well, duh........... _that's what's in the first photo_. Didja miss that part?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"Here's a better idea. Let us 'stupid electricians' use a perfectly safe and legal wiring method."

Aluminum wire was once considered safe and legal. Now you can't even sell a house wired with it. The people who write the code make mistakes just like everyone else. That is why it changes. They look at what was thought to be safe and legal and why it failed causing property damage, maybe killing someone. My job is to know when they are wrong before they even do. That is why for example I never allowed flatwire to be used under carpet tiles. The flaw in the concept was obvious immediately as soon as I saw the first sample. Seen a lot of it burned to a crisp during demolitions. That was considered safe and legal too. That's what they pay me the big bucks for.

I don't know what you guys have a beef about. If you bid my jobs, nobody else is allowed to wire MWBCs either. Everyone bids on a level playing field. Or are you just losing sleep wondering what's out there that might cause your phone to ring one day. :sweatdrop: You can always tell the insurance company and the judge it was code legal. Chance are they won't have read this thread. They won't care....unless their own house is wired that way too.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Shorty Circuit said:


> Aluminum wire was once considered safe and legal.


News flash, Skippy. _*It still is*_.



Shorty Circuit said:


> Now you can't even sell a house wired with it.


That's because there's HIs that have read the same book you did about it being 'unsafe'.



Shorty Circuit said:


> The people who write the code make mistakes just like everyone else. That is why it changes. They look at what was thought to be safe and legal and why it failed causing property damage, maybe killing someone.


And who, exactly, writes the code? And how long have MWBCs been in the Code? That long, huh? Gee, all those people who 'write the code' aren't collectively as smart as you. Damn!



Shorty Circuit said:


> My job is to know when they are wrong before they even do. That is why for example I never allowed flatwire to be used under carpet tiles. The flaw in the concept was obvious immediately as soon as I saw the first sample. Seen a lot of it burned to a crisp during demolitions. That was considered safe and legal too. That's what they pay me the big bucks for.


Oh, so you _are_ smarter than us, and all the people who have written the NEC since the 1920s. Gotcha.



Shorty Circuit said:


> I don't know what you guys have a beef about. If you bid my jobs, nobody else is allowed to wire MWBCs either. Everyone bids on a level playing field.


And that's the way I would bid it.... per specs. But if you and I were to bid the same job that allowed MWBCs, you'd be sitting at home watching your LED TV and dinking around on your PC because you lost out due to your self-professed claim to be superior to us 'dumb electricians' and bid yourself right out of a job.



Shorty Circuit said:


> Or are you just losing sleep wondering what's out there that might cause your phone to ring one day. :sweatdrop: You can always tell the insurance company and the judge it was code legal. Chance are they won't have read this thread. They won't care....unless their own house is wired that way too.


I don't lose any sleep over anything (save for the neighbors loud music). My conscience is clear when my pillow meets my head.

If you're so sure that MWBCs are that unsafe, then it is your responsibility given you're so smart and superior and all of us, to fill out the form in the back of any NEC and submit a proposal. Of course, you'll have to substantiate it with cold, hard facts about it being such a killer and arsonist. Perhaps you could enlighten all us 'dumb electricians' now with that information. 

And while you're at it, submit a proposal to eliminate all those unsafe aluminum wires.


----------



## RePhase277 (Feb 5, 2008)

Shorty Circuit said:


> Fie, fie, foe, fum, I smell the blood of an electrical contractor who wasn't allowed to bid a job he wanted because he was non union.
> 
> It's not that union guys don't sometimes screw up. It's that they know exactly what I'm talking about when I catch them.


No, not at all. The union doesn't have a big footprint around here. But here's the quote:



> The neutral is considered grounded, in fact it is called "the grounded electrode." But it isn't at ground potential at all, not at harmonic frequencies with SMPS a hundred or more feet away from the panel and maybe hundreds more feet to where the neutral is bonded to ground. That's the whole point, one that you missed.


You see, the neutral is NOT called the "grounded electrode". Never has been. The "ground*ing* electrode", on the other hand, is the ground rod we drive, or the water line, or Ufer that we tie onto the neutral.



> "That is another falsehood, getting hit by the neutral is no worse than getting hit on the hot."
> 
> I assume you are talking from experience. Thank you for proving my point for me. BTW, are you callling the electricians in Local 456 who told me this liars?


Here is where you began name dropping like someone would be impressed. And yes, I am calling them liars, or at least mis-informed. The old myth that the neutral will shock you worse than the hots is completely bogus and has no backing by electrical theory. The amount of shock you receive is dependent on your body impedance and the voltage applied. There is NO WAY that the voltage on an open neutral is higher than the voltage on any of the hots.

I think it is a psychological effect. You expect a hot to shock you but never a neutral. So you are a little more relaxed, and BANG! At any rate, you should not be opening neutral under load, MWBC or not.


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

InPhase277 said:


> No, not at all. The union doesn't have a big footprint around here. But here's the quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"You see, the neutral is NOT called the "grounded electrode". "

Well excUUUUUUSE me, "grounded conductor." Happy now?:whistling2:


----------



## RePhase277 (Feb 5, 2008)

Shorty Circuit said:


> "You see, the neutral is NOT called the "grounded electrode". "
> 
> Well excUUUUUUSE me, "grounded conductor." Happy now?:whistling2:


Yes, yes I am.


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

480sparky said:


> News flash, Skippy. _*It still is*_.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


" _*It still is*_."

I'd bet you'd still wire houses that way if the architect's spec allowed it. C'mon, fess up, how many of them did you wire with aluminum? Why not ask a realtor how much a house with aluminum wiring is worth? Or ask a local building department code official if they'd approve plans to build one that way now? Tell them it's still code legal and they'd probably look at you like you're stark raving crazy.

"And who, exactly, writes the code? And how long have MWBCs been in the Code?"

Since before there were SMPSs around to invalidate the assumption of phase cancellation. 

" Gee, all those people who 'write the code' aren't collectively as smart as you."

The code is not a substitute for eyes, ears, and a brain. When experience arrives at a conclusion that the code allows something that isn't very smart and people do it anyway, I have a word for that. But I'm not going to type it here. 

"But if you and I were to bid the same job that allowed MWBCs, you'd be sitting at home watching your LED TV and dinking around on your PC because you lost out due to your self-professed claim to be superior to us 'dumb electricians' and bid yourself right out of a job."

At least they wouldn't have blown up because of an open neutral. 

"If you're so sure that MWBCs are that unsafe, then it is your responsibility given you're so smart and superior and all of us, to fill out the form in the back of any NEC and submit a proposal."

Are you kidding, that could take years, even decades. Look at how long it took them to coming around to insist on mult-pole breakers for them. Besides, like I keep saying, the mess other people create are my future oppportunities. Why would I bite the hand that feeds me?


----------



## randas (Dec 14, 2008)

Shorty Circuit said:


> In the example the load with two 100 watt loads, say lamps, they will have only 80 volts across them and will not function very well but, they'll be quite dim but not to worry, that won't last long. The other 100 watt lamp will have 160 volts across it and will shine like a little nova...for about 10 seconds before it expires and opens the circuit.


Still not quite sure why you think anyone should take you seriously when you clearly failed high school physics.

Oh, and as far as blowing up your computer goes.. most power supplies in electronics can run on 240v. I just checked both my computers and the nameplate says 100-240v :thumbup:

So how long until you set your sights on the MWBC feeding your house? Should everyone switch to a 120v service? Come to think of it the only time I've seen open neutral problems it was at the service. hummmm


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Shorty Circuit said:


> I'd bet you'd still wire houses that way if the architect's spec allowed it. C'mon, fess up, how many of them did you wire with aluminum? Why not ask a realtor how much a house with aluminum wiring is worth? Or ask a local building department code official if they'd approve plans to build one that way now? Tell them it's still code legal and they'd probably look at you like you're stark raving crazy.


No. I don't wire houses with aluminum because no one sell aluminum NM in my area. But if I were to obtain aluminum NM and wire a house with it, it will pass inspection. I also don't ask Realtors electrical questions because they're not trained in the field.




Shorty Circuit said:


> Since before there were SMPSs around to invalidate the assumption of phase cancellation. ..........The code is not a substitute for eyes, ears, and a brain. When experience arrives at a conclusion that the code allows something that isn't very smart and people do it anyway, I have a word for that. But I'm not going to type it here.


Does "God Complex" come to mind? Get real. You're stating that you're smarter than everyone here, and everyone who has sat on a CMP.




Shorty Circuit said:


> At least they wouldn't have blown up because of an open neutral.


And properly installed, they won't open.




Shorty Circuit said:


> Are you kidding, that could take years, even decades. Look at how long it took them to coming around to insist on mult-pole breakers for them. Besides, like I keep saying, the mess other people create are my future oppportunities. Why would I bite the hand that feeds me?


What a cop-out. So 'too much time' takes precedence over saving all us heathens from ourselves......... all for money. I guess submitting just ONE proposal is too much work and is beneath you.

If you're so smart, maybe you can learn to multiquote.

Again, perhaps you could enlighten us poor working-class blue-collar slobs with this damning data you possess about MWBCs and aluminum wiring being so unsafe.


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

randas said:


> Still not quite sure why you think anyone should take you seriously when you clearly failed high school physics.
> 
> Oh, and as far as blowing up your computer goes.. most power supplies in electronics can run on 240v. I just checked both my computers and the nameplate says 100-240v :thumbup:
> 
> So how long until you set your sights on the MWBC feeding your house? Should everyone switch to a 120v service? Come to think of it the only time I've seen open neutral problems it was at the service. hummmm


No switch to throw, no change to the transformer taps like dual voltage appliances for export in the old days, just plug it in and it senses the voltage. How lucky for you, the manufacturer made it idiot proof. Unfortunately the receptacle is only rated for 125 volts. But why quibble, 190 volts isn't even twice that. How well will it work on 57 volts?


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

480sparky said:


> No. I don't wire houses with aluminum because no one sell aluminum NM in my area. But if I were to obtain aluminum NM and wire a house with it, it will pass inspection. I also don't ask Realtors electrical questions because they're not trained in the field.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"And properly installed, they won't open."

That is not true. In fact that is potentially a fatal error. Vibrations over time will loosen lugs no matter how tight they start out. This is why one of the critical activities on PM shutdowns is thermoscanning and torquing all connections. When they loosen, they arc. We had one 100 amp GE safety switch in the shop that was used for a reminder, the internal components had melted from the heat.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Shorty Circuit said:


> "And properly installed, they won't open."
> 
> That is not true. In fact that is a fatal error. Vibrations over time will loosen lugs no matter how tight they start out. This is why one of the critical activities on PM shutdowns is thermoscanning and torquing all connections. When they losen, they arc. We had one 100 amp GE safety switch in the shop that was used for a reminder, the internal components had melted from the heat.


That can happen with ANY conductor, not just the neutral. Nice try. Please insert another 75¢ to play again.

BTW, how many MWBCs are in YOUR house?


----------



## sparks134 (Jan 30, 2009)

480sparky said:


> That can happen with ANY conductor, not just the neutral. Nice try. Please insert another 75¢ to play again.
> 
> BTW, how many MWBCs are in YOUR house?


According to Shorty Circuit, we should all live be candle light then! 

Come on man!


----------



## randas (Dec 14, 2008)

Shorty Circuit said:


> "And properly installed, they won't open."
> 
> That is not true. In fact that is a fatal error. Vibrations over time will loosen lugs no matter how tight they start out. This is why one of the critical activities on PM shutdowns is thermoscanning and torquing all connections. When they losen, they arc. We had one 100 amp GE safety switch in the shop that was used for a reminder, the internal components had melted from the heat.



The lugs your hots are landed in will loosen up just as quick, what do you want to do? BAN electricity?? :blink: 

So have you disconnected one of the phases going into your house yet? Thats a deadly MWBC you got there


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

sparks134 said:


> According to Shorty Circuit, we should all live be candle light then!
> 
> Come on man!



No.. candles are too dangerous. They're killers and arsonists. We should use flashlights instead. All those dead batteries going into the landfills, leaching toxic chemicals into our groundwater is much better.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

Shorty Circuit said:


> "And properly installed, they won't open."
> 
> That is not true. In fact that is potentially a fatal error. Vibrations over time will loosen lugs no matter how tight they start out. This is why one of the critical activities on PM shutdowns is thermoscanning and torquing all connections. When they loosen, they arc. We had one 100 amp GE safety switch in the shop that was used for a reminder, the internal components had melted from the heat.


You probably caused the problem with all the intelligent retorquing damaging the conductor from over torquing....

Shorty Circuit, you have challenged me and now I am challenging you. Show me sir how the ground rods I have driven have served a real purpose other than assisting with high voltage fault events, not the nominal voltages found normally in the buildings. I am having fun watch how the more you write the farther you fall. I know you have a great distain for anything "residential" but I would like you to demonstrate how a ground rod assists in opening up a faulted 15 amp circuit breaker. Using Math. Go for it. Teach us wise one. If 15 is too resi for you substitute a 20 amp breaker.....


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

macmikeman said:


> You probably caused the problem with all the intelligent retorquing damaging the conductor from over torquing....
> 
> Shorty Circuit, you have challenged me and now I am challenging you. Show me sir how the ground rods I have driven have served a real purpose other than assisting with high voltage fault events, not the nominal voltages found normally in the buildings. I am having fun watch how the more you write the farther you fall. I know you have a great distain for anything "residential" but I would like you to demonstrate how a ground rod assists in opening up a faulted 15 amp circuit breaker. Using Math. Go for it. Teach us wise one. If 15 is too resi for you substitute a 20 amp breaker.....


I'll assume that at least some of those billion ground rods were used to ground a derived source. Why do we ground electrical systems instead of allowing all of them to float? Because when there is a fault to ground, the path of lowest resistance is to ground through any metal object connected to the building, not through a human being. That is the code requirement, that all metal objects in a building be grounded and the reason for it. That is why the chapter on grounding is the most important chapter in the NEC. The earth is an infinite source and sink of electrons with the same ionization potential to make electrons flow no matter how many electrons you add or remove from it. You could be electrocuted by an ungrounded system if you came in contact with a metal object in a building where a fault had caused a live conductor to come into contact with another metal object electrically conductive to it. The current required for fatal electrocution is far lower than 15 amps, 30 to 100 milliamps can do it if it passes through your heart. Only where the risk of electrocution is minimal and/or the consequences of power interruption is so great does the code allow for high impedence grounds or ungrounded systems. Anyone who does not understand the importance of electrical grounding to the safety of human life and protection of property should not be working in an industry related to the distribution and use of electrical power, they are not qualified. 

The reasons for redundant grounds may or may not be valid depending on a particular case. Some redundant grounds can be a code violation too. And example is grouding a transformer neutral at more than one point. Redundant grounds for establishing a quiet reference for communications and data networks has become common.

BTW, you must be a really fast worker to have installed a billion ground rods. No electrician I've ever met could proabably have installed more than a few million of them during an entire lifetime.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

​


----------



## RePhase277 (Feb 5, 2008)

Shorty Circuit said:


> I'll assume that at least some of those billion ground rods were used to ground a derived source. Why do we ground electrical systems instead of allowing all of them to float? Because when there is a fault to ground, the path of lowest resistance is to ground through any metal object connected to the building, not through a human being. That is the code requirement, that all metal objects in a building be grounded and the reason for it. That is why the chapter on grounding is the most important chapter in the NEC. The earth is an infinite source and sink of electrons with the same ionization potential to make electrons flow no matter how many electrons you add or remove from it. You could be electrocuted by an ungrounded system if you came in contact with a metal object in a building where a fault had caused a live conductor to come into contact with another metal object electrically conductive to it. The current required for fatal electrocution is far lower than 15 amps, 30 to 100 milliamps can do it if it passes through your heart. Only where the risk of electrocution is minimal and/or the consequences of power interruption is so great does the code allow for high impedence grounds or ungrounded systems. Anyone who does not understand the importance of electrical grounding to the safety of human life and protection of property should not be working in an industry related to the distribution and use of electrical power, they are not qualified.


Oh, wow... Oh, God... I passed smooth out when I read this. It took my breath away! I am still giggling. You, sir, have no grasp on the fundamentals of grounding, nor the reasoning behind it...:laughing:


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

Shorty Circuit said:


> I'll assume that at least some of those billion ground rods were used to ground a derived source. Why do we ground electrical systems instead of allowing all of them to float? Because when there is a fault to ground, the path of lowest resistance is to ground through any metal object connected to the building, not through a human being. That is the code requirement, that all metal objects in a building be grounded and the reason for it. That is why the chapter on grounding is the most important chapter in the NEC. The earth is an infinite source and sink of electrons with the same ionization potential to make electrons flow no matter how many electrons you add or remove from it. You could be electrocuted by an ungrounded system if you came in contact with a metal object in a building where a fault had caused a live conductor to come into contact with another metal object electrically conductive to it. The current required for fatal electrocution is far lower than 15 amps, 30 to 100 milliamps can do it if it passes through your heart. Only where the risk of electrocution is minimal and/or the consequences of power interruption is so great does the code allow for high impedence grounds or ungrounded systems. Anyone who does not understand the importance of electrical grounding to the safety of human life and protection of property should not be working in an industry related to the distribution and use of electrical power, they are not qualified.
> 
> The reasons for redundant grounds may or may not be valid depending on a particular case. Some redundant grounds can be a code violation too. And example is grouding a transformer neutral at more than one point. Redundant grounds for establishing a quiet reference for communications and data networks has become common.
> 
> BTW, you must be a really fast worker to have installed a billion ground rods. No electrician I've ever met could proabably have installed more than a few million of them during an entire lifetime.


Wrong answer, I win... Go back and study some more. The Grounded (neutral) conductor is the path back to the source (utility generator or separate derived source such as step down xfmr) and that is where your little bitty electron is aiming to get itself to, not to the "earth". Bonding the metal paths provides the fail safe path in the event of a fault to case. I asked you to provide me some math calcs and you did even better. You showed me how you are the one who doesn't understand current flow. The "earth" will allow current to flow if it overcomes the impedence of the dirt itself thru the "earth" back to the utility xfmr via their ground rods at the poles or substations, but it takes a high voltage to overcome the impedence. You have some of your info correct that you posted but not enough to fool me. There is no " Earth Sink" for the "electrons". You are clueless.


----------



## sparks134 (Jan 30, 2009)

Lightning = Ground rod

Pictures might help you Shorty!


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Shorty Circuit said:


> That is the code requirement, that all metal objects in a building be grounded and the reason for it.


Really, all metal objects in a building, can you point me to that section of the NEC?




Shorty Circuit;372393=Shorty Circuit;372393 said:


> That is why the chapter on grounding is the most important chapter in the NEC.


Chapter?

There is no chapter on grounding. :laughing:






Shorty Circuit said:


> The earth is an infinite source and sink of electrons with the same ionization potential to make electrons flow no matter how many electrons you add or remove from it.


OK, the wheels just fell off your wagon and they are not ever going to go back on. . :laughing::laughing::laughing:




Shorty Circuit said:


> Anyone who does not understand the importance of electrical grounding to the safety of human life and protection of property should not be working in an industry related to the distribution and use of electrical power, they are not qualified.


So I can expect to see you bagging groceries at the Quick E Mart next week?




Shorty Circuit said:


> Some redundant grounds can be a code violation too. And example is grouding a transformer neutral at more than one point. Redundant grounds for establishing a quiet reference for communications and data networks has become common.


As I mentioned before a perpetual fountain of half truths. 





InPhase277 said:


> Oh, wow... Oh, God... I passed smooth out when I read this. It took my breath away! I am still giggling. You, sir, have no grasp on the fundamentals of grounding, nor the reasoning behind it...:laughing:



The best part is he seems to have no idea how foolish he sounds. :laughing:


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

sparks134 said:


> Lightning = Ground rod
> 
> Pictures might help you Shorty!


Sparks its possible that it helps to deflect the strike from the building wiring, but the code does not allow relying on a ground rod to accomplish lightning strike protections. That is assigned to a proper lightning rod system, not the ground rod. It probably helps, but they don't have any real study proof (as far as I can tell, at least I spent way too much time trying to find some good published study evidence that it is effective) that it does good during a direct strike.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

​


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

_The earth is natures electron sponge_​


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)




----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

Shorty Circuit said:


> You could be electrocuted by an ungrounded system if you came in contact with a metal object in a building where a fault had caused a live conductor to come into contact with another metal object electrically conductive to it.



Oh, man another one, how did I miss this? You could be electrocuted by a fault to any unbonded metal object that has become energized by a case fault , no matter whether the building is supplied by an ungrounded system or not. Matter of fact it is more likely to happen in a grounded system than an ungrounded one if the bonding of metal objects that are possibly subject to becoming energized are not properly bonded to the fault return path back to the service neutral. Frankly I feel safer from electrical shock hazards where there is good bonding but no grounding in the system....


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

Up here on Planet Macmikeman we have a different electrical code than you folks on Earth. We learned from your mistakes. #1 It's mandatory to run multiwire branch circuits for all commercial lighting and receptacle outlet circuits in commercial buildings. #2 we bond up here, but we don't ground, our utilities have to run their own bonding conductor up on their poles, tough chit if it costs them more money to get er done...
#3 We execute any choche who poses as an EE on electrical forums......:laughing:


----------



## guest (Feb 21, 2009)

Guys, stop feeding this troll.....he obviously is arrogant and totally ignorant, doesn't know CRAP about electrical systems in the real world, still hasn't been man enough to admit he doesn't know Ohm's Law.....I could go on but what's the point? 

He gives EE's a very bad name.....and thank GOD he mentioned in one of his posts that we're all off of his bid list...I wouldn't take on one of his projects for all the money in the world. 

He's lucky I'm not a moderator or I would have banned him long ago. 

Since we're supposed to keep it clean I'll say  and go  and .











Oh. and before I forget, a huge thanks to 480Sparky for post #101:thumbup: which CLEARLY shows how Ohm's Law works in everyone's world (except Shorty Circuit's)


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

You're all under citizen's arrest for conspiring to violate the National Electrical Code. :cowboy: For those whose best shot at me was an insult, I accept your admission of defeat. :surrender: And you're still off the bidder's list.:2guns:


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

Thank you for removing me from your bidder's list. I hate lousy messed up design work done by troll engineer's. Worse yet is they are so close minded you could hit one over the head with a shovel and he still won't admit he has it wrong.......


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

I'm still waiting for you to show how the breaker is going to trip, I'm patient, you can take your time. But I will hound your ass every time you show up here, you can bank on that.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

I am still in hopes of seeing all this alleged evidence that MWBCs and aluminum wire are killers and arsonists.


----------



## Shockdoc (Mar 4, 2010)

Don't feel bad ken , here on LI we are forced to use only copper for all branch circuits, Aluminum is restricted to service equipment only for residential and by town(s) for commercial. Many who live out here work on wall St. " Aluminum wiring is dangerous and causes fires" according to the simple.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

Shockdoc said:


> Don't feel bad ken , here on LI we are forced to use only copper for all branch circuits, Aluminum is restricted to service equipment only for residential and by town(s) for commercial. Many who live out here work on wall St. " Aluminum wiring is dangerous and causes fires" according to the simple.


What does the local poco use? Copper or Aluminum?


----------



## Shockdoc (Mar 4, 2010)

macmikeman said:


> What does the local poco use? Copper or Aluminum?


mainly aluminum ,copper only on the upper class South shore and some underground networks.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Shockdoc said:


> mainly aluminum ,copper only on the upper class South shore and some underground networks.


And at those higher voltages, the whole state isn't on fire? :laughing:


----------



## Shockdoc (Mar 4, 2010)

480sparky said:


> And at those higher voltages, the whole state isn't on fire? :laughing:


What higher voltages ? We suffer from brown outs daily during the summer and heavy VDs under load. The average voltage i find out here is 110 to 118 volts on a good day. POCO believes that a single #2 cu can power 12 homes downstream of a transformer, when enough people complain they'll either split with a new transformer or upsize it to 3/0 al triplex.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Shockdoc said:


> What higher voltages ? We suffer from brown outs daily during the summer and heavy VDs under load. The average voltage i find out here is 110 to 118 volts on a good day. POCO believes that a single #2 cu can power 12 homes downstream of a transformer, when enough people complain they'll either split with a new transformer or upsize it to 3/0 al triplex.



Well, then. The NEC needs to outlaw voltage drop.


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

Each time the subject of MWBCs comes up, more and more of you come unglued. It's getting fun putting notches in my computer. Where's Bob Badger this time? Last time he led the charge in defense of the holy grail of cost cutting construction for fun and profit. Now that this one is getting stale, it may just be time to start up another thread about how painting wire negates its UL listing by adding untested thermal insulation. 

BTW, I have nothing against "residential" as one of you put it. In fact, surprise surprise I live in a residential building...a house. And the electrical contractor who wired it was to put it generously mediocre. Well it could have been worse I suppose. One of you guys....never mind.:laughing:


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Shorty Circuit said:


> Each time the subject of MWBCs comes up, more and more of you come unglued. It's getting fun putting notches in my computer. Where's Bob Badger this time? Last time he led the charge in defense of the holy grail of cost cutting construction for fun and profit.


As opposed to allowing wholly unsafe wiring methods to remain in use for profit. How dare he!

Maybe we should outlaw the knife you are using to put notches in computers. We all know how dangerous knives are.



Shorty Circuit said:


> Now that this one is getting stale, it may just be time to start up another thread about how painting wire negates its UL listing by adding untested thermal insulation.
> 
> BTW, I have nothing against "residential" as one of you put it. In fact, surprise surprise I live in a residential building...a house. And the electrical contractor who wired it was to put it generously mediocre. Well it could have been worse I suppose. One of you guys....never mind.:laughing:


Once again...... how many MWBC do you have in your house?


----------



## RePhase277 (Feb 5, 2008)

Shorty, you posted some pretty interesting statements on ground earlier in the thread. Care to educate the rest of us low-class worker drones?

Seems you think that earth ground somehow helps to clear branch faults? An interesting position indeed.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

Still waiting Shorty. Put up or shut up.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Shorty Circuit said:


> ....... The earth is an infinite source ....... of electrons .........



If that's true, then the earth is infinite in size.


----------



## RePhase277 (Feb 5, 2008)

I'm going to put a 14-3 Romex MWBC into a blue Carlon box with a Leviton receptacle. I'm going for the quintuple whammy.



That deadly Romex
That even deadlier #14
A Mass Murdering Arsonist of a MWBC
An attractively priced yet extremely combustible Blue Box of Death
And lastly A Home Depot bought Leviton 15 A residential grade duplex
I wonder how long that powder keg will teeter before going Chernobyl?


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

480sparky said:


> If that's true, then the earth is infinite in size.


And it has a restaurant down at the center that all electrical current must go to in order to eat....


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

Notice how shorty can't come up with anything of substance? Now he brags about notches in his computer. The notches are in your forehead, now post something of real content shorty not empty insults, and I might give you your capital first letter S back.....


----------



## RePhase277 (Feb 5, 2008)

The Earth as a source or sink of electrons is straight out of the chapter on electrostatics in most text books. And as far as electrostatic theory is involved, it is true, because the Earth acts as one plate of the capacitor you charge by shuffling your feet on the carpet. In that sense, the Earth is part of the capacitive circuit. In wiring, the Earth has ZERO to do with "grounding" the interior wiring.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

InPhase, shorty didn't know that. Now he does. He's not a real EE. He is a stockbroker in Chicago........:whistling2:


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

InPhase277 said:


> I'm going to put a 14-3 Romex MWBC into a blue Carlon box with a Leviton receptacle. I'm going for the quintuple whammy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



All that won't be a danger to anyone until you use Wagos. :laughing:


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

macmikeman said:


> InPhase, shorty didn't know that. Now he does. He's not a real EE. He is a stockbroker in Chicago........:whistling2:


 
Keep in mind this is the same clam brain that says a layer of paint on 4/0 SE would make it's ampacity derated.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

mcclary's electrical said:


> Keep in mind this is the same clam brain that says a layer of paint on 4/0 SE would make it's ampacity derated.


Sure it will, it will cover up the markings.... Hate to say this but I know several folks at M.Holt who would probably agree with him on that point. 

Joe T comes to mind, and a guy up in Ohio are two right off the top of my head.


----------



## RePhase277 (Feb 5, 2008)

480sparky said:


> All that won't be a danger to anyone until you use Wagos. :laughing:


I said go Chernobyl, not Hiroshima:laughing:


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

InPhase277 said:


> I said go Chernobyl, not Hiroshima:laughing:



Slobber on some Scotchcoat, and it will go Supernova. :whistling2:


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

macmikeman said:


> Sure it will, it will cover up the markings.... Hate to say this but I know several folks at M.Holt who would probably agree with him on that point.
> 
> Joe T comes to mind, and a guy up in Ohio are two right off the top of my head.


 
Man, you're talking just as looney as him now. It must be contageous. What happens if I put my SE in a wall? What happened to the ratings? What happens if that wall is spray foam insulation? WHat happenened to the ratings? I think you've lost it on this one.


----------



## danickstr (Mar 21, 2010)

480sparky said:


> Does "God Complex" come to mind? Get real. You're stating that you're smarter than everyone here, and everyone who has sat on a CMP.


It comes to mind for me.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

mcclary's electrical said:


> Man, you're talking just as looney as him now. It must be contageous. What happens if I put my SE in a wall? What happened to the ratings? What happens if that wall is spray foam insulation? WHat happenened to the ratings? I think you've lost it on this one.


Whoa, hold up there McClacky, I didn't say I agree with it, I said I know of a few who "Probably" do, and even that is a swag guess....


----------



## crosport (Apr 4, 2010)

randas said:


> Thank god we we can still use single pole CBs on MWBCs up here in Canada


 I hear ya.Not very practical to have mwbc's on tied breakers.I would'nt be surprised though if the c.e.c. adopted the same stupid rule in the near future.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

crosport said:


> I hear ya.Not very practical to have mwbc's on tied breakers.I would'nt be surprised though if the c.e.c. adopted the same stupid rule in the near future.


Course they will. Its the one world government way......


----------



## Tackdriver (Dec 3, 2010)

Man, I havent laughed so hard in a long time!!! Freakin hilarious, that comical Shorty.


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

480sparky said:


> Once again...... how many MWBC do you have in your house?


None. When my house was built I discussed the electrical system with the contractor before he started and he assured me that he never installed them anyway. This is one reason my assessment of him rose to mediocre. It could have been worse. I could have gotten one like some of.....nevermind.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Shorty Circuit said:


> None. When my house was built I discussed the electrical system with the contractor before he started and he assured me that he never installed them anyway. This is one reason my assessment of him rose to mediocre. It could have been worse. I could have gotten one like some of.....nevermind.



So you don't have any electric appliances?


----------



## RePhase277 (Feb 5, 2008)

480sparky said:


> So you don't have any electric appliances?


Clothes Line...


----------



## Shockdoc (Mar 4, 2010)

Shorty Circuit said:


> None. When my house was built I discussed the electrical system with the contractor before he started and he assured me that he never installed them anyway. This is one reason my assessment of him rose to mediocre. It could have been worse. I could have gotten one like some of.....nevermind.


So if you had two appliances calling for dedicated circuits such as a clothes washer and freezer in the same room next to each other you would run two runs of 12/2 100' away ?:blink:


----------



## Shockdoc (Mar 4, 2010)

Damn liberals taking over this nation, MWBCs,smoking on public sidewalks,etc. They need to be exterminated.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Shorty Circuit said:


> None. When my house was built I discussed the electrical system with the contractor before he started and he assured me that he never installed them anyway. This is one reason my assessment of him rose to mediocre. It could have been worse. I could have gotten one like some of.....nevermind.



Take your own advice



Shorty Circuit said:


> Anyone who does not understand the importance of electrical grounding to the safety of human life and protection of property should not be working in an industry related to the distribution and use of electrical power, they are not qualified.



You have more than proved you are not qualified.:laughing:


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

480sparky said:


> So you don't have any electric appliances?


No, not a single electrical appliance in the whole damn house. Every appliance in my house runs on something else. My TV set works off natural gas. My dishwasher, clothes washer, and food processor work off water wheels that are powered by a stream that runs past my house. And my computer.....that works directly off wind power I harvest from the internet, one site in particular! :laughing: What a set of gear trains I have for them all of them. It's a full time job keeping them well oiled. :whistling2:


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Shorty Circuit said:


> No, not a single electrical appliance in the whole damn house. Every appliance in my house runs on something else. My TV set works off natural gas. My dishwasher, clothes washer, and food processor work off water wheels that are powered by a stream that runs past my house. And my computer.....that works directly off wind power I harvest from the internet, one site in particular! :laughing: What a set of gear trains I have for them all of them. It's a full time job keeping them well oiled. :whistling2:



So I guess electric ranges and clothes dryers should be outlawed.


----------



## Shockdoc (Mar 4, 2010)

480sparky said:


> So I guess electric ranges and clothes dryers should be outlawed.


What you need to do for those is run a five wire feed, two power poles, one neutral for each pole and a ground.:jester:All liberals are personally invited to my property to tell me what they'd like to enact as law so i can't do it anymore.....


----------



## racerjim0 (Aug 10, 2008)

Well after 9 pages of reading, I just want the breaker manufactures to make breaker ties for all of their breakers and I want the supply house to keep them in stock.


----------



## Shockdoc (Mar 4, 2010)

racerjim0 said:


> Well after 9 pages of reading, I just want the breaker manufactures to make breaker ties for all of their breakers and I want the supply house to keep them in stock.


Never used a 8 penny nail and cut the end off ?


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Shockdoc said:


> ......All liberals are personally invited to my property to tell me what they'd like to enact as law so i can't do it anymore.....



As opposed to your ideal of eliminating a perfectly safe wiring method just because you don't like it. 

Thanks for the Hypocrite's Laugh of the Day. I gotta go change my britches now. :laughing:


----------



## open short (Oct 12, 2010)

Shockdoc said:


> Never used a 8 penny nail and cut the end off ?


which end do you cut off?:laughing::laughing::laughing:


----------



## guest (Feb 21, 2009)

BBQ said:


> You have more than proved you are not qualified.:laughing:


My vote for the best statement in this entire thread!!:thumbup:


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

Oh, I see, shorty's learned a new trick. Post while its middle of the night over here, and figure macmikeman will be sleeping. T.S. shorty, I'm awake now and I still demand you show me. 

PUT UP or RETRACT and go away...


----------



## guest (Feb 21, 2009)

Forget it macmikeman, shorty knows everything, and every electrician is below mediocre to him..I sure hope the poor EC who had the "pleasure" of wiring his home charged him triple. 

Living proof that horse's asses aren't only found on horses.


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

macmikeman said:


> Oh, I see, shorty's learned a new trick. Post while its middle of the night over here, and figure macmikeman will be sleeping. T.S. shorty, I'm awake now and I still demand you show me.
> 
> PUT UP or RETRACT and go away...


Hahahahahaha. I don't think you'll live to see the day when you aren't sleeping. :laughing:


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Shorty Circuit said:


> Hahahahahaha. I don't think you'll live to see the day when you aren't sleeping. :laughing:



Will Rogers never met you, did he?


----------

