Don't try to send me off to rec.homerepairs; I don't know anybody over
there. I've seen enough good electrical advice here to know somebody
will have the answer.
Yesterday I noticed that neither of the bathroom lights worked.
Knowing that the lights are on the same circuit as my wife's hair dryer
(because the lights dim a little when she fires it up), I deduced that
the GFCI breaker had probably tripped. It didn't look tripped, but I
flipped it back and forth to be sure.
Still no lights.
I checked the hair dryer receptacle to be sure; no power there either.
Back out to the breaker box with my handy-dandy digital electric
tester. The wire lug on the suspect GFCI breaker reads 121.6 volts to
the neutral/ground buss.
But still no lights.
I snapped the breaker out of the panel and looked for corrosion or
evidence of arcing. Found none. Snapped it back in, but forgot to
check the results before moving on to the next step. Left the breaker
off.
One of the receptacles has gotten old and tired from
plugging/unplugging and doesn't grab the prongs good anymore. It seems
to be closer to the panel box than anything else, so I pull that
receptacle out of the box to check the feed wire for voltage. Flipped
the breaker on and . . . voila! Voltage . . .and lights . . . and hair
dryer! Everything works!
Since the receptacle was old and tired and I already had it out of the
box, I replaced it and two other elderly and infirm receptacles on the
same circuit. Everything works.
Bragged to SWMBO about how much I saved by not calling an electrician.
She was unimpressed. Expected no less. Said that's why she keeps me
around.
But I don't know what the problem was!
I'm about to go out of town for 2 months, and I know she's gonna flip
the switch and find the bathroom stays dark. Then I'll have to pay a
repairman for the first time in about 10 years because I won't be there
to troubleshoot it.
When our kids were young, SWMBO used to tell them that Dad can fix
anything but a broken heart. My reputation is on the line.
What was wrong?
DonkeyHody
"In theory, theory and practice should be the same. But in practice,
they're not."
Swingman wrote:
>
> Simply put, and from your description, most likely just a bad connection in
> the first receptacle in the run.
>
That was my guess too, but I'm unsure about the connection between the
breaker and the hot buss. I thought maybe the connection was good
enough to show up on the meter, but not good enough to carry the amps
needed. However, if the connection there were loose, the load on the
circuit would bleed off the voltage downstream of the loose connection,
and I wouldn't have 120+ volts on the breaker's wire lug, right??
DonkeyHody
Just to clarify a few points . . .
1. I'm talking about a Sqare D 15 amp GVCI circuit breaker. The GFCI
is provided at the breaker, not on a receptacle.
2. I checked the voltage at the wire lug on the breaker several times
and flipped the breaker on and off to verify that the voltage drops to
zero when the breaker is off. By the way, the digital tester
apparently doesn't carry enough current to trip the GFCI when I tested
the voltage from wire lug to ground.
3. All the wiring in the house is copper. This circuit happens to be
14 gauge copper. The house was built in 1976 with 14 gauge wire and a
single GFCI breaker serving lights and receptacles in two bathrooms,
two receptacles in the living room, two kitchen counter receptacles by
the sink and two outside receptacles. Several years ago I split the
circuit, added a second 20 Amp GFCI breaker, and ran 12 gauge copper to
the OTHER bathroom because a hair dryer in either bathroom dimmed the
lights so much, and two at once would trip the breaker (DUH). Without
so many loads on the wire, the 20 amp circuit doesn't dim at all with
the hair dryer, and the 15 amp dims just enough to notice if you're
watching it.
My main question was whether the most likely culprit was the old
receptacle with stab-in connectors or a loose connection at the
breaker. I think you've convinced me it was probably the receptacle.
Thanks for all the replies.
DonkeyHody
"Every man is my superior in that I can learn from him."
Markem (sixoneeight) wrote:
> On 4 Jan 2007 12:40:38 -0800, "DonkeyHody" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >What was wrong?
>
>
> Was the device use to connect the wires in the run. If so that is what
> was wrong, pigtailing to the device ensures voltage beyond a bad plug
> (device).
>
> Mark
This the most significant post in this thread. Good electrical
workmanship requires receptacles in series to be pigtailed. Most
building codes require it. And sadly, way too few DIY'ers ever do it.
My pair of pennies.
Joe
Joe wrote:
> This the most significant post in this thread. Good electrical
> workmanship requires receptacles in series to be pigtailed. Most
> building codes require it. And sadly, way too few DIY'ers ever do it.
> My pair of pennies.
>
See, I learn something new every day. I didn't know wiring in series
was a substandard way of doing it. Most every receptacle I ever pull
out of a box uses the receptacle itself to transfer the power down the
line. And most of them have the wires stabbed in the back instead of
screwed to the side. I can see the advantages of pigtails, and I'll do
it that way from now on. I don't think I'll go yanking my receptacles
out to retrofit though. Thanks for the tip.
DonkeyHody
"Every man is my superior in that I can learn from him."
I'm no electrician, but it sounds like a bad connection in that
receptacle was keeping the juice from making the rest of the circuit.
This would make sense since it was the closes one to the box. Pulling it
out of the wall jiggled things enough to work temporarily, and replacing
it was the permanent solution.
"Charlie M. 1958" <[email protected]> writes:
>I'm no electrician, but it sounds like a bad connection in that
>receptacle was keeping the juice from making the rest of the circuit.
>This would make sense since it was the closes one to the box. Pulling it
>out of the wall jiggled things enough to work temporarily, and replacing
>it was the permanent solution.
Current code requires pigtails if the circuit continues downstream. I'm
sure things like this is the reason they don't allow receptacles to be
used to continue circuits except GCFI receptacles.
Brian Elfert
"DonkeyHody" <[email protected]> writes:
>See, I learn something new every day. I didn't know wiring in series
>was a substandard way of doing it. Most every receptacle I ever pull
>out of a box uses the receptacle itself to transfer the power down the
>line. And most of them have the wires stabbed in the back instead of
>screwed to the side. I can see the advantages of pigtails, and I'll do
>it that way from now on. I don't think I'll go yanking my receptacles
>out to retrofit though. Thanks for the tip.
I believe pigtails are required by National Electric code now. The city
here gives out a booklet to homeowners doing their own wiring and lists
common things that homeowners miss and pigtails are listed as a
requirement.
Brian Elfert
[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>>[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>
>>>Yep -- that's because opening the neutral on a multiwire branch circuit
>>>results instantly in a 240V potential across 120V devices. AFAIK there's no
>>>general requirement to pigtail anything, just in that one circumstance.
>>
>>I don't see how a 120 device (wired with one current carrying conductor,
>>a grounded conductor and a grounding conductor) can suddenly have a
>>240V potential simply because the grounded conductor no longer is.
>
>Consider for example a duplex receptacle wired so that the top and bottom
>outlets are on opposite legs of the 240V service. Now plug something into each
>outlet and turn it on. If the neutral is no longer grounded, you've just
>completed a 240V circuit through that 120V duplex receptacle and the devices
>plugged into it. In effect, removing the neutral turns it from two loads in
>parallel on two 120V circuits, to two loads in series on one 240V circuit.
>
Ah yes, thank you. Didn't consider the effect of the load.
scott
DonkeyHody wrote:
>
> Swingman wrote:
> >
> > Simply put, and from your description, most likely just a bad connection in
> > the first receptacle in the run.
> >
>
> That was my guess too, but I'm unsure about the connection between the
> breaker and the hot buss. I thought maybe the connection was good
> enough to show up on the meter, but not good enough to carry the amps
> needed. However, if the connection there were loose, the load on the
> circuit would bleed off the voltage downstream of the loose connection,
> and I wouldn't have 120+ volts on the breaker's wire lug, right??
>
> DonkeyHody
Digital meters have very high input impedance and are notorious for
showing "phantom" voltages on circuits that are dead, but adjacent to
live ones. The solenoid "Wiggy" testers are popular since they don't
have this trait.
BTW, not that you've found one loose connection at a failing receptacle,
buy yourself a couple boxes of spec grade receptacles and perhaps
switches as well and spend a weekend replacing the old ones and checking
and tightening all the connections. Time well spent in improving safety.
That bad connection was likely getting pretty warm every time the hair
dryer was in use before it finally failed.
Pete C.
Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
> Pete C. wrote:
>
> > BTW, not that you've found one loose connection at a failing
> receptacle,
> > buy yourself a couple boxes of spec grade receptacles and perhaps
> > switches as well and spend a weekend replacing the old ones and
> checking
> > and tightening all the connections.
>
> Define "spec grade"<G>.
>
> Every wiring device on the planet is "spec grade", just depends on
> what is defined as "spec".
>
> Lew
I don't need to define it, the electrical manufacturers already have and
"spec grade" is stamped right into the devices. HD and Lowe's tend to
label the bins "commercial grade" or "industrial grade", but the devices
are marked "spec grade". They are vastly better than the $0.50 pieces of
junk that I'm surprised are even approved for use.
Pete C.
Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
> Pete C. wrote:
>
> >
> > I don't need to define it, the electrical manufacturers already
> have and
> > "spec grade" is stamped right into the devices.
>
> You're right, we did it and so did all the competitors.
>
> Was and still is a good marketing gimmick.
>
> Lew
So you're claiming that there is no difference between the $0.50 garbage
and the "spec grade" devices other than the "spec grade" marking? I've
compared the two side by side and they are vastly different in quality,
particularly contact area and contact pressure.
Pete C.
DonkeyHody wrote:
>
> Joe wrote:
> > This the most significant post in this thread. Good electrical
> > workmanship requires receptacles in series to be pigtailed. Most
> > building codes require it. And sadly, way too few DIY'ers ever do it.
> > My pair of pennies.
> >
> See, I learn something new every day. I didn't know wiring in series
> was a substandard way of doing it. Most every receptacle I ever pull
> out of a box uses the receptacle itself to transfer the power down the
> line. And most of them have the wires stabbed in the back instead of
> screwed to the side. I can see the advantages of pigtails, and I'll do
> it that way from now on. I don't think I'll go yanking my receptacles
> out to retrofit though. Thanks for the tip.
>
> DonkeyHody
> "Every man is my superior in that I can learn from him."
You've already located one potential fire hazard so in all probability
there are others lurking. Even if you don't replace devices or change to
pigtails I would certainly pull each device and change them from push
wire to the screw terminals.
Pete C.
Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
> Pete C. wrote:
>
> > So you're claiming that there is no difference between the $0.50
> garbage
> > and the "spec grade" devices other than the "spec grade" marking? I've
> > compared the two side by side and they are vastly different in quality,
> > particularly contact area and contact pressure.
>
> No, you are missing the point.
>
> As you call it, "$0.50 garbage", am assuming you are referring to
> residential grade devices, can actually be called "spec grade", the
> "spec" being "residential".
>
> The term "spec grade" is strictly generic and can be used to define
> almost any family of devices.
>
> BTW, I'm with you, I wouldn't use the "$0.50 garbage" either.
>
> Next time you need receptacles, take a look at a 5262.
>
> It is back/side wired and designed for the high end industrial market.
>
> Think you might will be happy with it.
>
> Lew
I suppose it's like the "blueprinted engine" term, not very meaningful
or specific, but with a generally accepted definition indicating built
to tighter tolerances.
Pete C.
On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 17:39:18 -0700, Lew Hodgett wrote
(in article <[email protected]>):
> Jim Behning wrote:
>
> > Now you have me curious. But I do not have any electrician friends and
> > do not want to bother a supply house with a "Can I see all three
> > receptacles?" What differs among the three grades?
>
> I have been away from the industry to intelligently answer your question.
>
> As far as I can remember, it has to do with the internal construction of
> the device, the number of insertion/withdrawal cycles, etc, etc.
Mostly.
It also includes more contact surfaces for the sockets (edge and sides of the
plug prongs) and a much more robust metal frame for the mounts and center
screw that holds on the cover plate.
The plastic is also more forgiving against chipping and cracking.
>
> Lew
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 12:15:59 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>If you have information to the contrary, I'd like to see it.
Nothing contrary actually, just that almost all electricians I know do
it this way. Reason fewer call backs.
Mark
(sixoneeight) = 618
In article <8Aenh.643$Jf.297@trndny03>, Nova <[email protected]> wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> In article <Glenh.641$Jf.589@trndny03>, Nova <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The circuit breaker was most likely tripped. On a variety of different
>>>brands of breakers its very difficult to tell if they're tripped by
>>>visual inspection.
>>>
>>
>> Don't think so. He said near the beginning of his post:
>>
>> " It didn't look tripped, but I flipped it back and forth to be sure."
>>
>
>I read that to mean the GFCI.
I read that to mean the "GFCI breaker" that the OP said he checked and
flipped.
The relevant paragraph in full:
"Yesterday I noticed that neither of the bathroom lights worked. Knowing that
the lights are on the same circuit as my wife's hair dryer (because the lights
dim a little when she fires it up), I deduced that the GFCI breaker had
probably tripped. It didn't look tripped, but I flipped it back and forth to
be sure."
Two specific references in the original post to a "GFCI breaker" mean either
that the GFCI and the breaker are one and the same, or that the OP is using
terminology incorrectly.
I'm gonna go with the former.
>
>I did notice that the OP said he checked the voltage at the wire lug of
>the breaker and read 120V to ground. I've be known to measure voltage
>on the wrong breaker occasionally. :-(
I've *never* done anything *that* dumb.
<shuffle, shuffle, mumble, mumble>
Not often, anyway.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>>In article <[email protected]>, simplfy markem,
> (sixoneeight)@hotmail wrote:
>>>On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 15:31:24 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <[email protected]>, Brian Elfert
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I believe pigtails are required by National Electric code now.
>>>>
>>>>Got a cite for that?
>>>>
>>>>>The city
>>>>>here gives out a booklet to homeowners doing their own wiring and lists
>>>>>common things that homeowners miss and pigtails are listed as a
>>>>>requirement.
>>>>
>>>>Might be a requirement in your local jurisdiction, but AFAIK this is *not*
> in
>>>>the NEC.
>>>
>>>Only NEC requirement I know of is that a device will be removable with
>>>out interrupting the neutral in a run. Kind of implies that the
>>>neutral be pigtailed.
>>
>>Got a cite for that? <g>
>>
>>Seriously, I've never seen that one either. Doesn't mean it isn't there... but
>>I'll have to see it in the Code before I believe it.
>
>Section 300-13 (b) (1999 NEC). Only applies to multiwire branch circuits.
Yep -- that's because opening the neutral on a multiwire branch circuit
results instantly in a 240V potential across 120V devices. AFAIK there's no
general requirement to pigtail anything, just in that one circumstance.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <Glenh.641$Jf.589@trndny03>, Nova <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>The circuit breaker was most likely tripped. On a variety of different
>>brands of breakers its very difficult to tell if they're tripped by
>>visual inspection.
>>
>
> Don't think so. He said near the beginning of his post:
>
> " It didn't look tripped, but I flipped it back and forth to be sure."
>
I read that to mean the GFCI.
I did notice that the OP said he checked the voltage at the wire lug of
the breaker and read 120V to ground. I've be known to measure voltage
on the wrong breaker occasionally. :-(
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 15:31:24 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Brian Elfert <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I believe pigtails are required by National Electric code now.
>
>Got a cite for that?
>
>>The city
>>here gives out a booklet to homeowners doing their own wiring and lists
>>common things that homeowners miss and pigtails are listed as a
>>requirement.
>
>Might be a requirement in your local jurisdiction, but AFAIK this is *not* in
>the NEC.
Only NEC requirement I know of is that a device will be removable with
out interrupting the neutral in a run. Kind of implies that the
neutral be pigtailed.
Mark
(sixoneeight) = 618
[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>>[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>>>In article <[email protected]>, simplfy markem,
>> (sixoneeight)@hotmail wrote:
>>>>On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 15:31:24 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <[email protected]>, Brian Elfert
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>I believe pigtails are required by National Electric code now.
>>>>>
>>>>>Got a cite for that?
>>>>>
>>>>>>The city
>>>>>>here gives out a booklet to homeowners doing their own wiring and lists
>>>>>>common things that homeowners miss and pigtails are listed as a
>>>>>>requirement.
>>>>>
>>>>>Might be a requirement in your local jurisdiction, but AFAIK this is *not*
>> in
>>>>>the NEC.
>>>>
>>>>Only NEC requirement I know of is that a device will be removable with
>>>>out interrupting the neutral in a run. Kind of implies that the
>>>>neutral be pigtailed.
>>>
>>>Got a cite for that? <g>
>>>
>>>Seriously, I've never seen that one either. Doesn't mean it isn't there... but
>>>I'll have to see it in the Code before I believe it.
>>
>>Section 300-13 (b) (1999 NEC). Only applies to multiwire branch circuits.
>
>Yep -- that's because opening the neutral on a multiwire branch circuit
>results instantly in a 240V potential across 120V devices. AFAIK there's no
>general requirement to pigtail anything, just in that one circumstance.
I don't see how a 120 device (wired with one current carrying conductor,
a grounded conductor and a grounding conductor) can suddenly have a
240V potential simply because the grounded conductor no longer is.
My assumption here vis-a-vis multiwire circuits are those
where two current carrying conductors
from different legs are paired with a grounded conductor to allow
e.g. 12-3NM w/g to provide two distinct 120V branch circuits, or
in a commercial setting using 208 three phase using 4 wires to
provide 4 120 circuits.
scott
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Pete C. wrote:
>
> > So you're claiming that there is no difference between the $0.50 garbage
> > and the "spec grade" devices other than the "spec grade" marking? I've
> > compared the two side by side and they are vastly different in quality,
> > particularly contact area and contact pressure.
>
> No, you are missing the point.
>
> As you call it, "$0.50 garbage", am assuming you are referring to
> residential grade devices, can actually be called "spec grade", the
> "spec" being "residential".
>
> The term "spec grade" is strictly generic and can be used to define
> almost any family of devices.
>
> BTW, I'm with you, I wouldn't use the "$0.50 garbage" either.
>
> Next time you need receptacles, take a look at a 5262.
>
> It is back/side wired and designed for the high end industrial market.
>
> Think you might will be happy with it.
>
>
> Lew
Old horse I guess. When I did my house I did 5252 from P&S. It is
labeled specification grade on the box. Side and back wire screw. No
wimpy push the wire in buzz and spark connections. They were a few
dollars more than the cheap ones but they might last a long time. I do
not know how many I used but I guess it added a few hundred dollars in
materials. I also used the same spec grade type switches. Maybe overkill
like wiring the circuits with 12 guage but oh well. Another 10 years and
the mortgage is paid off. I think I will not have to replace any
receptacles or light switches by then. Who knows. I first saw those
wimpy electrical receptacles and switches when I worked in home
construction setting tile and sometimes installed trim or framed. When I
got a job in a 80,000 sf building I got to touch quality receptacles.
Kind of like using a Bosch sabre saw after using $30 sabre saws. On the
other hand friends who had houses built the same time have not replaced
receptacles or switches so maybe I wasted money. It would not be the
first time.
DonkeyHody wrote:
> Back out to the breaker box with my handy-dandy digital electric
> tester. The wire lug on the suspect GFCI breaker reads 121.6 volts to
> the neutral/ground buss.
>
> But still no lights.
>
> I snapped the breaker out of the panel and looked for corrosion or
> evidence of arcing. Found none. Snapped it back in, but forgot to
> check the results before moving on to the next step. Left the breaker
> off.
Breaker switched off...
>
> One of the receptacles has gotten old and tired from
> plugging/unplugging and doesn't grab the prongs good anymore. It seems
> to be closer to the panel box than anything else, so I pull that
> receptacle out of the box to check the feed wire for voltage. Flipped
> the breaker on
... breaker switched on.
> and . . . voila! Voltage . . .and lights . . . and hair
> dryer! Everything works!
The circuit breaker was most likely tripped. On a variety of different
brands of breakers its very difficult to tell if they're tripped by
visual inspection.
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]
Pete C. wrote:
> BTW, not that you've found one loose connection at a failing
receptacle,
> buy yourself a couple boxes of spec grade receptacles and perhaps
> switches as well and spend a weekend replacing the old ones and
checking
> and tightening all the connections.
Define "spec grade"<G>.
Every wiring device on the planet is "spec grade", just depends on
what is defined as "spec".
Lew
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>>Yep -- that's because opening the neutral on a multiwire branch circuit
>>results instantly in a 240V potential across 120V devices. AFAIK there's no
>>general requirement to pigtail anything, just in that one circumstance.
>
>I don't see how a 120 device (wired with one current carrying conductor,
>a grounded conductor and a grounding conductor) can suddenly have a
>240V potential simply because the grounded conductor no longer is.
Consider for example a duplex receptacle wired so that the top and bottom
outlets are on opposite legs of the 240V service. Now plug something into each
outlet and turn it on. If the neutral is no longer grounded, you've just
completed a 240V circuit through that 120V duplex receptacle and the devices
plugged into it. In effect, removing the neutral turns it from two loads in
parallel on two 120V circuits, to two loads in series on one 240V circuit.
>My assumption here vis-a-vis multiwire circuits are those
>where two current carrying conductors
>from different legs are paired with a grounded conductor to allow
>e.g. 12-3NM w/g to provide two distinct 120V branch circuits, or
>in a commercial setting using 208 three phase using 4 wires to
>provide 4 120 circuits.
Your assumption is exactly correct. That's why it's so dangerous to lose the
neutral in a multiwire circuit: because the entire circuit downstream of the
failure goes to the highest potential available.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, Brian Elfert <[email protected]> wrote:
>Current code requires pigtails if the circuit continues downstream. I'm
>sure things like this is the reason they don't allow receptacles to be
>used to continue circuits except GCFI receptacles.
I don't think so. Citation, please?
I've just read Article 406, which "covers the rating, type and installation of
receptacles, cord connectors, and attachment plugs (cord caps)" [2005 NEC,
Art. 406.1] from beginning to end, and I find no such requirement there.
406 also incorporates Article 210 Part III by reference; I don't find it there
either.
I'm not going to say it isn't there... but I will say that I've never seen it,
and when I went looking for it, I couldn't find it. So: if you say the Code
requires this, please cite the article of the Code where the requirement can
be found.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <Glenh.641$Jf.589@trndny03>, Nova <[email protected]> wrote:
>The circuit breaker was most likely tripped. On a variety of different
>brands of breakers its very difficult to tell if they're tripped by
>visual inspection.
>
Don't think so. He said near the beginning of his post:
" It didn't look tripped, but I flipped it back and forth to be sure."
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> wrote:
>>>[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>>
>>>>Yep -- that's because opening the neutral on a multiwire branch circuit
>>>>results instantly in a 240V potential across 120V devices. AFAIK there's no
>>>>general requirement to pigtail anything, just in that one circumstance.
>>>
>>>I don't see how a 120 device (wired with one current carrying conductor,
>>>a grounded conductor and a grounding conductor) can suddenly have a
>>>240V potential simply because the grounded conductor no longer is.
>>
>>Consider for example a duplex receptacle wired so that the top and bottom
>>outlets are on opposite legs of the 240V service. Now plug something into each
>>outlet and turn it on. If the neutral is no longer grounded, you've just
>>completed a 240V circuit through that 120V duplex receptacle and the devices
>>plugged into it. In effect, removing the neutral turns it from two loads in
>>parallel on two 120V circuits, to two loads in series on one 240V circuit.
>>
>
>Ah yes, thank you. Didn't consider the effect of the load.
Oddly, if there's no load, there's no problem. But the moment there's a load,
there's a BIG problem -- it's basically the same as losing the neutral on the
feed from the power company, except that it affects only two circuits, instead
of all of them.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Jim Behning wrote:
> Old horse I guess. When I did my house I did 5252 from P&S. It is
> labeled specification grade on the box. Side and back wire screw. No
> wimpy push the wire in buzz and spark connections.
There are actually 3 grades of receptacles for commercial/industrial work:
5242 (lowest), 5252(medium) & 5262(highest).
After that you get into the really high cotton with 8300 which is
hospital grade.
H/G devices are very easy to spot. They have a green dot on the face.
Lew
In article <[email protected]>, simplfy markem, (sixoneeight)@hotmail wrote:
>On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 15:31:24 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, Brian Elfert
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>I believe pigtails are required by National Electric code now.
>>
>>Got a cite for that?
>>
>>>The city
>>>here gives out a booklet to homeowners doing their own wiring and lists
>>>common things that homeowners miss and pigtails are listed as a
>>>requirement.
>>
>>Might be a requirement in your local jurisdiction, but AFAIK this is *not* in
>>the NEC.
>
>Only NEC requirement I know of is that a device will be removable with
>out interrupting the neutral in a run. Kind of implies that the
>neutral be pigtailed.
Got a cite for that? <g>
Seriously, I've never seen that one either. Doesn't mean it isn't there... but
I'll have to see it in the Code before I believe it.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"DonkeyHody"
the
> breaker and the hot buss. I thought maybe the connection was good
> enough to show up on the meter, but not good enough to carry the amps
> needed. However, if the connection there were loose, the load on the
> circuit would bleed off the voltage downstream of the loose connection,
> and I wouldn't have 120+ volts on the breaker's wire lug, right??
I doubt that was/is the problem ... but then again, I hire electrical
contractors for everything but my own shop needs, so take my advice for what
it cost you.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 1/02/07
In article <[email protected]>, "Joe" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>This the most significant post in this thread. Good electrical
>workmanship requires receptacles in series to be pigtailed.
No argument there...
>Most building codes require it.
.. but I'll give you one here. I'm pretty close to 100% certain that (a) the
National Electrical Code requires no such thing, and (b) even the thirty-nine
cent made-in-Mexico receptacles at Home Depot are UL-listed (and therefore
Code-approved) for feed-through connections.
If you have information to the contrary, I'd like to see it.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, "DonkeyHody" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Don't try to send me off to rec.homerepairs; I don't know anybody over
>there. I've seen enough good electrical advice here to know somebody
>will have the answer.
>
>Yesterday I noticed that neither of the bathroom lights worked.
>Knowing that the lights are on the same circuit as my wife's hair dryer
>(because the lights dim a little when she fires it up), I deduced that
>the GFCI breaker had probably tripped. It didn't look tripped, but I
>flipped it back and forth to be sure.
>
>Still no lights.
>
>I checked the hair dryer receptacle to be sure; no power there either.
>
>
>Back out to the breaker box with my handy-dandy digital electric
>tester. The wire lug on the suspect GFCI breaker reads 121.6 volts to
>the neutral/ground buss.
>
>But still no lights.
>
>I snapped the breaker out of the panel and looked for corrosion or
>evidence of arcing. Found none. Snapped it back in, but forgot to
>check the results before moving on to the next step. Left the breaker
>off.
>
>One of the receptacles has gotten old and tired from
>plugging/unplugging and doesn't grab the prongs good anymore. It seems
>to be closer to the panel box than anything else, so I pull that
>receptacle out of the box to check the feed wire for voltage. Flipped
>the breaker on and . . . voila! Voltage . . .and lights . . . and hair
>dryer! Everything works!
>
>Since the receptacle was old and tired and I already had it out of the
>box, I replaced it and two other elderly and infirm receptacles on the
>same circuit. Everything works.
>
>Bragged to SWMBO about how much I saved by not calling an electrician.
>She was unimpressed. Expected no less. Said that's why she keeps me
>around.
>
>But I don't know what the problem was!
>
>I'm about to go out of town for 2 months, and I know she's gonna flip
>the switch and find the bathroom stays dark. Then I'll have to pay a
>repairman for the first time in about 10 years because I won't be there
>to troubleshoot it.
>
>When our kids were young, SWMBO used to tell them that Dad can fix
>anything but a broken heart. My reputation is on the line.
>
>What was wrong?
Bad connection on the first receptacle. When you pulled it out to check it,
you jogged it around enough to make contact. The other outlets were fed
through that one.
I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the connections at that receptacle were
"backstabbed" (using push-in terminals on the back side). If so, you just
found out why backstabbed connections aren't a real good thing. I hope you
used the screw terminals when you installed the new ones.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, M Berger <[email protected]> wrote:
>It sounds like it only applies to the ground conductor
>itself, not the hot or neutral.
No. It says "grounded conductor". That's the neutral. The ground conductor is,
in Code parlance, the ground-ING conductor.
I sure wish they'd use the terms "neutral" and "ground" like everyone else
does, but they don't, and that's the way it is.
>
>Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>> 1999 code:
>>
>> Section 300-13 (b):
>>
>> In multiwire branch circuits, the continuity of a grounded conductor
>> shall not depend on device connections such as ..., receptacles, etc.,
>> where removal of such devices would interrupt the continuity.
>>
>> ====
>>
>> Looks like it only applies to three+ wire circuits with a shared grounded
>> conductor, not the more typical 12-2NM w/g single branch circuit.
>>
>> scott
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>In article <[email protected]>, simplfy markem, (sixoneeight)@hotmail wrote:
>>On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 15:31:24 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>, Brian Elfert
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I believe pigtails are required by National Electric code now.
>>>
>>>Got a cite for that?
>>>
>>>>The city
>>>>here gives out a booklet to homeowners doing their own wiring and lists
>>>>common things that homeowners miss and pigtails are listed as a
>>>>requirement.
>>>
>>>Might be a requirement in your local jurisdiction, but AFAIK this is *not* in
>>>the NEC.
>>
>>Only NEC requirement I know of is that a device will be removable with
>>out interrupting the neutral in a run. Kind of implies that the
>>neutral be pigtailed.
>
>Got a cite for that? <g>
>
>Seriously, I've never seen that one either. Doesn't mean it isn't there... but
>I'll have to see it in the Code before I believe it.
Section 300-13 (b) (1999 NEC). Only applies to multiwire branch circuits.
scott
Jim Behning wrote:
> Now you have me curious. But I do not have any electrician friends and
> do not want to bother a supply house with a "Can I see all three
> receptacles?" What differs among the three grades?
I have been away from the industry to intelligently answer your question.
As far as I can remember, it has to do with the internal construction of
the device, the number of insertion/withdrawal cycles, etc, etc.
Lew
On 4 Jan 2007 17:50:31 -0800, "DonkeyHody" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>I don't think I'll go yanking my receptacles
>out to retrofit though.
Wire nuts with pigtails with a machine crimped lug. Fast efficent and
now when the problem reoccurs (and it will) having some around will
make for quick repairs.
Mark
(sixoneeight) = 618
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Jim Behning wrote:
>
> > Now you have me curious. But I do not have any electrician friends and
> > do not want to bother a supply house with a "Can I see all three
> > receptacles?" What differs among the three grades?
>
> I have been away from the industry to intelligently answer your question.
>
> As far as I can remember, it has to do with the internal construction of
> the device, the number of insertion/withdrawal cycles, etc, etc.
>
> Lew
OK. Thanks for the info.
It sounds like it only applies to the ground conductor
itself, not the hot or neutral.
Scott Lurndal wrote:
> 1999 code:
>
> Section 300-13 (b):
>
> In multiwire branch circuits, the continuity of a grounded conductor
> shall not depend on device connections such as ..., receptacles, etc.,
> where removal of such devices would interrupt the continuity.
>
> ====
>
> Looks like it only applies to three+ wire circuits with a shared grounded
> conductor, not the more typical 12-2NM w/g single branch circuit.
>
> scott
In article <[email protected]>, Brian Elfert <[email protected]> wrote:
>I believe pigtails are required by National Electric code now.
Got a cite for that?
>The city
>here gives out a booklet to homeowners doing their own wiring and lists
>common things that homeowners miss and pigtails are listed as a
>requirement.
Might be a requirement in your local jurisdiction, but AFAIK this is *not* in
the NEC.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, simplfy markem, (sixoneeight)@hotmail wrote:
>On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 12:15:59 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>wrote:
>
>>If you have information to the contrary, I'd like to see it.
>
>Nothing contrary actually, just that almost all electricians I know do
>it this way. Reason fewer call backs.
>
Yes, I know that. I agreed that it was best practice. I was disputing the
claim that "most building codes require it."
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>,
Scott Lurndal <[email protected]> wrote:
<...snipped...>
>I don't see how a 120 device (wired with one current carrying conductor,
>a grounded conductor and a grounding conductor) can suddenly have a
>240V potential simply because the grounded conductor no longer is.
>
>My assumption here vis-a-vis multiwire circuits are those
>where two current carrying conductors
>from different legs are paired with a grounded conductor to allow
>e.g. 12-3NM w/g to provide two distinct 120V branch circuits, or
>in a commercial setting using 208 three phase using 4 wires to
>provide 4 120 circuits.
>
>scott
Quick example, suppose a shared neutral as you describe has say a cell
phone charger that draws 20 watts on one circuit, and a 1500 watt
heater on the other. Turn them both on and cut the neutral, now all of
a sudden you are dropping almost the entire 240 volts through the cell
phone charger since the resistance of the heater is so much less in
comparison.
You can play with the E=IR etc. to calculate the actual voltage drop
on each load, but the effect will be that the lower-wattage appliance
will be exposed to a way-too-high voltage.
--
Make it as simple as possible, but no simpler.
Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - [email protected]
[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>In article <[email protected]>, Brian Elfert <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Current code requires pigtails if the circuit continues downstream. I'm
>>sure things like this is the reason they don't allow receptacles to be
>>used to continue circuits except GCFI receptacles.
>
>I don't think so. Citation, please?
>
>I've just read Article 406, which "covers the rating, type and installation of
>receptacles, cord connectors, and attachment plugs (cord caps)" [2005 NEC,
>Art. 406.1] from beginning to end, and I find no such requirement there.
>
>406 also incorporates Article 210 Part III by reference; I don't find it there
>either.
>
>I'm not going to say it isn't there... but I will say that I've never seen it,
>and when I went looking for it, I couldn't find it. So: if you say the Code
>requires this, please cite the article of the Code where the requirement can
>be found.
>
1999 code:
Section 300-13 (b):
In multiwire branch circuits, the continuity of a grounded conductor
shall not depend on device connections such as ..., receptacles, etc.,
where removal of such devices would interrupt the continuity.
====
Looks like it only applies to three+ wire circuits with a shared grounded
conductor, not the more typical 12-2NM w/g single branch circuit.
scott
DonkeyHody wrote:
<snip>
> Since the receptacle was old and tired and I already had it out of the
> box, I replaced it and two other elderly and infirm receptacles on the
> same circuit. Everything works.
> What was wrong?
My guess is that the old receptacles were of the "strip & stuff"
residential grade.
Basically, you strip the insulation of the solid conductor wire, then
stuff the bare wire in the hole in the back of the receptacle.
The wire is retained in the receptacle by using the Chinese finger
puzzle technique on a spring. Basically, a one way clamp.
If the receptacle carries enough load for a long enough period of
time, the spring gets tired.
Replacing the receptacles with a better grade that has side wired
screw terminals should solve the problem.
One other possibility I really don't want to think about.
What is the age of the home?
Any chance we you have aluminum wiring?
Lew
Pete C. wrote:
> So you're claiming that there is no difference between the $0.50
garbage
> and the "spec grade" devices other than the "spec grade" marking? I've
> compared the two side by side and they are vastly different in quality,
> particularly contact area and contact pressure.
No, you are missing the point.
As you call it, "$0.50 garbage", am assuming you are referring to
residential grade devices, can actually be called "spec grade", the
"spec" being "residential".
The term "spec grade" is strictly generic and can be used to define
almost any family of devices.
BTW, I'm with you, I wouldn't use the "$0.50 garbage" either.
Next time you need receptacles, take a look at a 5262.
It is back/side wired and designed for the high end industrial market.
Think you might will be happy with it.
Lew
On 4 Jan 2007 12:40:38 -0800, "DonkeyHody" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>What was wrong?
Was the device use to connect the wires in the run. If so that is what
was wrong, pigtailing to the device ensures voltage beyond a bad plug
(device).
Mark
(sixoneeight) = 618
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Jim Behning wrote:
>
> > Old horse I guess. When I did my house I did 5252 from P&S. It is
> > labeled specification grade on the box. Side and back wire screw. No
> > wimpy push the wire in buzz and spark connections.
>
> There are actually 3 grades of receptacles for commercial/industrial work:
>
> 5242 (lowest), 5252(medium) & 5262(highest).
>
> After that you get into the really high cotton with 8300 which is
> hospital grade.
>
> H/G devices are very easy to spot. They have a green dot on the face.
>
> Lew
>
Now you have me curious. But I do not have any electrician friends and
do not want to bother a supply house with a "Can I see all three
receptacles?" What differs among the three grades? The back wire and
clamp was what I wanted along with heavier duty. HD carried them
sometimes. I did have to hit a few stores after I emptied out the first
store.