Breakers compatible with Federal Pacific Stab-Lok Load Center

[cmyers]

Hi all. I want to replace my existing Federal Pacific Stab-Lok Load
Center breaker box because the reports that I've heard about it scare
me, and I want to rewire my whole house because the old wiring scares
me. I have a replacement plan in mind, and before I bring in someone
that knows more than I do, I'd like to get as much lined up as
possible.

I plan to install a 100amp breaker into my existing FPE (200 amp
service) box to service a new breaker box (also 200 amp service), then
rewire the house to the new box, and because of other reasons we will
be moving the incoming service to the new box. Note: I say "we" but
in this case "we" means electricians and the electric company as far
as they need to be involved.

Anyway, if anyone is familiar with the FPE Stab-Lok load center, I'd
appreciate some advice about the 100amp breaker. I've found the
NA2100 (Type NA, 2 poles, 100 amp) breakers, but I'm not sure if this
is the one I need for this breaker box or not. My existing breakers
are type NC. Apparently the type NB breakers bolt in ("B" is for
"Bolt" obviously). I have found several of the 30amp or less breakers
as type NC, but anything over that seem to be type NA. I just want to
know if the NA2100 will work in my box...or if you need more
information to make that determination.

Thanks,
Charlie

[RBM]

"cmyers" <cmy...@nrao.edu> wrote in message
news:d3d1f237-d1e0-4243...@r9g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

I'm not exactly understanding why you want to feed the panel from the
existing FPE panel, if you're moving the service to the new panel, unless
this is just for a temporary setup. I wouldn't replace the FPE equipment out
of fear of fire. I would replace it simply because it's garbage. I believe
the difference between the NA and NC is that the NA, possibly because of
it's 100 amp rating stabs into four places on the buss, as opposed to just
two

[dpb]

cmyers wrote:
...

> Anyway, if anyone is familiar with the FPE Stab-Lok load center, I'd
> appreciate some advice about the 100amp breaker. I've found the
> NA2100 (Type NA, 2 poles, 100 amp) breakers, but I'm not sure if this
> is the one I need for this breaker box or not. My existing breakers
> are type NC. Apparently the type NB breakers bolt in ("B" is for
> "Bolt" obviously). I have found several of the 30amp or less breakers
> as type NC, but anything over that seem to be type NA. I just want to
> know if the NA2100 will work in my box...or if you need more
> information to make that determination.

I _believe_ all NA and NC are allowed in any FPE panel that takes one or
the other, but the real answer is on the sticker on the inside of your
panel -- it will list the allowable breakers it accepts.

I'm assuming this is intended simply as a temporary feed to the new
panel? Be sure you use adequately-sized cable to feed it -- don't try
to "get by" w/ something too small just because it's temporary and
short-time expected...

--

[RBM]

"RBM" <r...@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:480666e5$0$11626$607e...@cv.net...

Let me retract that, it appears that the NA breakers are full sized double
pole, and the NC are half sized double pole. My guess is that they don't
make half sized double pole breakers in the larger sizes, like 100 amp. In
any event the 2/100 NA will fit in the panel in a location where you'd
install four full size single pole breakers, two on each side of the buss
>

[cmyers]

> I'm not exactly understanding why you want to feed the panel from the
> existing FPE panel, if you're moving the service to the new panel, unless
> this is just for a temporary setup.

Yes, it's only temporary. Rather than replacing everything at once,
it will let me rewire the different circuits as I can, and would
ensure minimal downtime when it comes time to move the service to the
new box. The old FPE is history after that.

Thanks for the response.

-Charlie

[cmyers]

RBM,

You're correct that it's listed inside the box...I found that after
I'd sent this question to the group. It accepts NA, NC, & 2B
(whatever that is?) breakers. And yes, I've spoken with an
electrician and will be using 2 gauge 4 conductor (2 hots, 1 common, 1
ground) copper from this breaker to the new breaker box.

Thanks a bunch.
Charlie

[John Grabowski]

"cmyers" <cmy...@nrao.edu> wrote in message
news:d3d1f237-d1e0-4243...@r9g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

I think it's a waste of time and those FPE breakers are more expensive than
other brands. Many service changes to single family houses are done in a
day. Unless there is some other reason to temporarily feed a new panel I
suggest that you start talking to qualified electrical contractors about
what you are trying to accomplish. If you don't want to swing over the old
circuits to the new 200 amp panel, have the electricians run a feed from the
new panel to the old panel thereby making it a sub panel.

[HeyBub]

cmyers wrote:
> Hi all. I want to replace my existing Federal Pacific Stab-Lok Load
> Center breaker box because the reports that I've heard about it scare
> me, and I want to rewire my whole house because the old wiring scares
> me. I have a replacement plan in mind, and before I bring in someone
> that knows more than I do, I'd like to get as much lined up as
> possible.

It might be cheaper, and certainly less trouble, to deal with your fears.

There may even be a twelve-step program available.

[cmyers]

> If you don't want to swing over the old
> circuits to the new 200 amp panel, have the electricians run a feed from the
> new panel to the old panel thereby making it a sub panel.

John,

Excellent suggestion! Actually I have spoken with a couple
electricians, but they mostly just agreed that what I had planned
would work and was a good way to approach it. I guess that my idea
was the reverse of what you suggested...make the new panel a sub-
panel, rewire, then switch the service. Moving the service and then
making the old one a sub-panel I think is indeed a better approach.
It'll be much easier to find the appropriate 100amp breaker for the
new panel, and I'd certainly trust it much more than another old Stab-
Lok double-pole breaker in the FPE breaker box.

Thanks for the new approach.
Charlie

[cmyers]

> There may even be a twelve-step program available.

HeyBub,

I'm afraid that I have a fear of twelve-step programs.

Charlie

[hal...@aol.com]

YOU WILL NEED A NEW 200 AM SERVICE DROP and meter can.erhaps its me
but one step is easier.

or install the new main panel and feed each new breaker to a feed in
the old FPE box, after stripping out all the old breakers and
hardware.

just use the old box as a pass thru.

i have thought about doing that at a home, since the wires are too
short and a garage door track obstructs the area,.

better one pass thru box than 10 or 12 junction boxes.eater smaller
less work

[HeyBub]

Well, back to plan one.

About your plan to put a 100-amp breaker in the existing box and feed a
200-Amp box from that:

I suspect pulling 100 Amps through one breaker will melt the stab-on bar.

I'd replace the existing box with a new, 200A one. You won't have to splice
wires either.

[cmyers]

> I suspect pulling 100 Amps through one breaker will melt the stab-on bar.
>
> I'd replace the existing box with a new, 200A one. You won't have to splice
> wires either.

Just because it'd be a 100 amp breaker doesn't mean that 100 amps will
be drawn through it...but that's mute at this point anyway.

If I trusted the wiring AND didn't want to move the service entrance,
I would indeed do a simple breaker box replacement. The new plan as
per John's suggestion is to install the new 200Amp breaker box, have
the service moved to the new breaker box, install a 100Amp breaker in
the NEW breaker box (instead of the old one), and use that breaker to
feed the old Federal Pacific breaker box until I can rewire everything
to the new box.

As a benefit of doing this, when I remove the old FPE breaker box,
I'll replace it with a 100Amp sub panel and feed it with the same
100Amp breaker that temporarily fed the old FPE box. Because some of
my heavier wires feeding ranges, dryers, etc are already there and are
somewhat more recent wires than the rest of the house, I'll just
connect those to the 100Amp sub panel and won't have to rewire those.
The rest of the house can be rewired room by room as I get time (it's
definitely a priority!).

I'll definitely consult with an electrician(s) as for the components
to use and how to load each circuit & leg in the box, but I'll also
save a few $$$ by breaking my own back and dropping my own wires.

Thanks again everyone for their suggestions!
Charlie

[Been there!]

replying to cmyers, Been there! wrote:

Replacing just the circuit breaker in a Stab-Loc panel will not solve the
latent fire/electrical hazard of the equipment. The Stab-Loc equipment is
"LISTED" with Stab-Loc breakers only. Replacing the Stab-Loc breakers
with any other make of breaker results in a combination "NEVER" evaluated
by the Listing Agency. In fact, the result could be worse than the
already existing latent fire/electrical hazard.

--

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

I think what the OP wants to do is install a new, non-fpe panel and
TEMPORARILY feed it from the old panel with a 100 amp breaker. There
is no 100 amp stab-lock breaker made to fit the load side of that
panel. There is no 100 amp breaker PERIOD made to fit the load side of
that panel. The 100 amp bolt-in is for the service side of the panel.

An electrican would likely temporaitly feed the service breaker of the
new panel directly from the service breaker of the old panel. I assume
this is to allow the old circuitry to continue to run untill the new
circuitry is installed and connected to the new panel... Might
actually be better to install the new panel FIRST, and connect the
service to it - and feed the old panel temporarilly from the new - 50
amps shuld do it for the short term if you are carefull - and move the
heavy loads to the new panel first - - -

[TomR]

"Been there!" <caedfaa9ed1216d60e...@example.com> wrote in
message news:36a54$52a9f5e2$cf3aab60$31...@news.flashnewsgroups.com...

This is from a old Homeowners Hub forum post back in April, 2008. Here's
the link:
http://www.homeownershub.com/maintenance/breakers-compatible-with-federal-pacific-stab-lok-load-cente-300875-.htm .

[dpb]

On 12/12/2013 11:44 AM, Been there! wrote:
...

> Replacing just the circuit breaker in a Stab-Loc panel will not solve the
> latent fire/electrical hazard of the equipment. The Stab-Loc equipment is
> "LISTED" with Stab-Loc breakers only. Replacing the Stab-Loc breakers
> with any other make of breaker results in a combination "NEVER" evaluated
> by the Listing Agency. In fact, the result could be worse than the
> already existing latent fire/electrical hazard.

There are at least the UBI replacements available 3rd-party that are
certified to have met the applicable ANSI Standard altho these
particular ones' manufacturer has not expended the bucks to get the UL
listed.

It seems I recall at least one other outfit in Canada but it may be that
the two are the same parent just the one dealing w/ US and the other
Canadian markets; won't swear one way or t'other.

The unfortunate thing w/ the UBI is that they are quite expensive in
comparison to alternatives for other manufacturers so it may be more
economical in the long run to go ahead and swap out the panel anyway.

--

[Let's get it right!]

replying to dpb , Let's get it right! wrote:
> none wrote:
>
> ...

> There are at least the UBI replacements available 3rd-party that are
> certified to have met the applicable ANSI Standard altho these
> particular ones' manufacturer has not expended the bucks to get the UL
> listed.
> It seems I recall at least one other outfit in Canada but it may be that
> the two are the same parent just the one dealing w/ US and the other
> Canadian markets; won't swear one way or t'other.
> The unfortunate thing w/ the UBI is that they are quite expensive in
> comparison to alternatives for other manufacturers so it may be more
> economical in the long run to go ahead and swap out the panel anyway.

According to NEC, a listed device is considered "PROTECTED" when applied
in accordance with it's listing and/or labeling requirements.
Any alteration to a "LISTED" device voids it's protection (ref: NEC
paragraph 110.3(b)).

Which raises an interesting fact. Most homes and office buildings I've
inspected have 20 ampere circuit breakers providing branch circuit
protection to wall outlets, switch, listed cord and direct connected
equipment. If the listed cord connected equipment utilizes a NEMA 5-15
plug, it's not protected, and because it cannot be applied to such branch
circuit protection and still be considered "PROTECTED" (Ref: NEC paragraph
240.5(B) (1)). This also explains the fires caused by "overloaded"
extension cord you hear about every X-mas season, and couldn't happen if
branch circuit protection were done in accordance with NEC (ref: NEC
paragraph 110.3(A)(8)).

--

[bud--]

On 12/13/2013 11:44 AM, Let's get it right! wrote:
> replying to dpb , Let's get it right! wrote:
>> none wrote:
>>
>> ... There are at least the UBI replacements available 3rd-party that
>> are certified to have met the applicable ANSI Standard altho these
>> particular ones' manufacturer has not expended the bucks to get the UL
>> listed. It seems I recall at least one other outfit in Canada but it
>> may be that the two are the same parent just the one dealing w/ US and
>> the other Canadian markets; won't swear one way or t'other. The
>> unfortunate thing w/ the UBI is that they are quite expensive in
>> comparison to alternatives for other manufacturers so it may be more
>> economical in the long run to go ahead and swap out the panel anyway.
>
>
> According to NEC, a listed device is considered "PROTECTED" when applied
> in accordance with it's listing and/or labeling requirements.
> Any alteration to a "LISTED" device voids it's protection (ref: NEC
> paragraph 110.3(b)).
>
> Which raises an interesting fact. Most homes and office buildings I've
> inspected have 20 ampere circuit breakers providing branch circuit
> protection to wall outlets, switch, listed cord and direct connected
> equipment. If the listed cord connected equipment utilizes a NEMA 5-15
> plug, it's not protected, and because it cannot be applied to such branch
> circuit protection and still be considered "PROTECTED" (Ref: NEC paragraph
> 240.5(B) (1)).

(B-1 is protection of the cord of a listed device)
Also B-3 (protection of listed extension cords).

15A receptacles are allowed on 20A circuits. You are saying that the
listing requirements of devices and extension cords with a 15A plug do
not allow them on 20A circuits? I see no reason to believe that is true
(and it would be absurd). Perhaps a cite?

> This also explains the fires caused by "overloaded"
> extension cord you hear about every X-mas season, and couldn't happen if
> branch circuit protection were done in accordance with NEC (ref: NEC
> paragraph 110.3(A)(8)).

Try 110.2 (approved). "Listed" apparatus is normally "approved" and
110.3-A (examination) would not normally be done.

But 110.3-B (used in accordance with listing) is applicable. Fires are
likely from not using according to the instructions.

[Irreverent Maximus]

"bud--" <nu...@void.com> wrote in message news:52ac89f7$0$1381$c3e8da3$b135...@news.astraweb.com...

I guess this device should be unlisted:

http://www.cesco.com/b2c/product/471640

It appears that it accepts both 15 and 20 amp plugs. I wonder why that is?

I have shopped at many stores and have yet to see an appliance with a true
twenty amp plug. I am so confused...

[k...@attt.bizz]

Why? It allows you to use both 15A and 20A appliances.

>It appears that it accepts both 15 and 20 amp plugs. I wonder why that is?

Because it allows both sorts of appliances to be plugged in? Note
that it would be against code to install this outlet on a 15A circuit.

>I have shopped at many stores and have yet to see an appliance with a true
>twenty amp plug. I am so confused...

You haven't looked hard enough. They aren't all that common because
most appliances draw less than 15A, so 15A cords are plenty. However,
they do exist. Many air conditioners have 20A plugs. The plugs are
also available at the usual places.

[Irreverent Maximus]

<k...@attt.bizz> wrote in message news:vqmpa95fbdk97fhen...@4ax.com...

>>I guess this device should be unlisted:
>>
>>http://www.cesco.com/b2c/product/471640
>
> Why? It allows you to use both 15A and 20A appliances.

LOL!

Duh... (face palm)

[Mis-application of listed appliances --- inadequate branch circuit protection.]

replying to bud-- , Mis-application of listed appliances --- inadequate
branch circuit protection. wrote:

> null wrote:
>
> (B-1 is protection of the cord of a listed device)
> Also B-3 (protection of listed extension cords).
> 15A receptacles are allowed on 20A circuits. You are saying that the
> listing requirements of devices and extension cords with a 15A plug do
> not allow them on 20A circuits? I see no reason to believe that is true
> (and it would be absurd). Perhaps a cite?

> Try 110.2 (approved). "Listed" apparatus is normally "approved" and
> 110.3-A (examination) would not normally be done.
> But 110.3-B (used in accordance with listing) is applicable. Fires are
> likely from not using according to the instructions.

Let's say your listed device utilizes a power cord with a NEMA 5-15 plug,
and your branch circuit protection is rated at 20 amperes.

1) the listed device is rated for use from not more than a 15 ampere
circuit breaker (look at the ratings on extension cords).
2) the power cord is essentially a resistor wired in series with an
appliance (light, microwave, refrigerator, etc.)
3) I square * R = the "real" power of this resistive component of the
"listed" device.
4) a 20 ampere circuit breaker will allow approximately 78% more real
power in that power cord than what it was evaluated as for it's "Listing".
5) 78% more "real" power can easily burn up an extension cord.

Now try to tell the Fire Marshall it's OK to interface "Listed" appliances
that utilize NEMA 5-15 plugs and cord sets with branch circuit protection
of 20-amperes. I've tried ... and I'm convinced all of the rework &
repair due to the hurricane damage in New Orleans is deficient ... and
that they still have latent shock and fire hazards due to their arrogance
and ignorance. We will always have fires at X-mas due to "overloading" as
long as they ignore the requirements. No one is held accountable.

--

[Irreverent Maximus]

On 12/16/2013 10:44 AM, Mis-application of listed appliances ---

http://preview.tinyurl.com/m8jmo9c

[Nate Nagel]

On 12/16/2013 11:44 AM, Mis-application of listed appliances ---

Your argument is somewhat valid, but you're not going to get anywhere
with it as the NEC specifically allows the use of NEMA 5-15 or
combination 5-15/5-20 receptacles on a 20A branch circuit.

This is the ONLY instance that I'm aware that a receptacle is allowed
which accepts a plug/cord cap of a lower nominal amperage than the
circuit breaker, however.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

[Let's get it right!]

replying to Irreverent Maximus , Let's get it right! wrote:

> nospam wrote:
>
> "bud--" <nu...@void.com> wrote in message
news:52ac89f7$0$1381$c3e8da3$b135...@news.astraweb.com...

> I guess this device should be unlisted:
> http://www.cesco.com/b2c/product/471640
> It appears that it accepts both 15 and 20 amp plugs. I wonder why that
is?
> I have shopped at many stores and have yet to see an appliance with a true
> twenty amp plug. I am so confused...
>

Not unlisted! It's rated for 20-ampere service ... however .. you can't
interface any listed appliance that has a NEMA 5-15 plug, and the
appliance be considered protected unless the branch circuit protection is
no greater than 15-amperes.

The regulatory agencies that inspect these services really screwed up on
this little problem. It's not just a matter of swapping out circuit
breakers to correct the property ... as this fix would create a
nuisscannce tripping problem (because it wasn't done right to begin with).

--

[Let's get it right!]

replying to bud-- , Let's get it right! wrote:

> null wrote:
>
> (B-1 is protection of the cord of a listed device)
> Also B-3 (protection of listed extension cords).
> 15A receptacles are allowed on 20A circuits. You are saying that the
> listing requirements of devices and extension cords with a 15A plug do
> not allow them on 20A circuits? I see no reason to believe that is true
> (and it would be absurd). Perhaps a cite?

> Try 110.2 (approved). "Listed" apparatus is normally "approved" and
> 110.3-A (examination) would not normally be done.
> But 110.3-B (used in accordance with listing) is applicable. Fires are
> likely from not using according to the instructions.

The problem isn't the listed device. The problem is branch circuit
protection (20-amperes) is not compatible with the listed devices.
Subsequently, the listed device is being allowed to operated beyond the
parameters for which it was listed (up to 15-ampere branch circuit
protection), and creates a fire/shock hazard because the listed device
could/does have the opportunity to fail not-safe!

Got any listed appliances that have NEMA 5-15 plug and cord sets that are
protected according to NEC? Highly likely. The regulatory inspection
agency in change of inspecting your home/office probably screwed up!

Proof: On a 20-ampere branch circuit, load an extension cord until the
current draw approached 20-amperes. It can be done ... and have a fire
extinguisher on hand ... because it most probably will burn up ... and the
circuit breaker will not trip ... until there is a dead short.

--

[Let's get it right!]

replying to Irreverent Maximus , Let's get it right! wrote:

> nospam wrote:
>
> "bud--" <nu...@void.com> wrote in message
news:52ac89f7$0$1381$c3e8da3$b135...@news.astraweb.com...

> I guess this device should be unlisted:
> http://www.cesco.com/b2c/product/471640
> It appears that it accepts both 15 and 20 amp plugs. I wonder why that
is?
> I have shopped at many stores and have yet to see an appliance with a true
> twenty amp plug. I am so confused...
>

If you've only 20-ampere or greater circuit breakers providing branch
circuit protection in your home/office, then possibly "all" listed cord
and direct connected appliances and luminaires are not protected. Why
protect a fractional horsepower bathroom vent fan with a 20-ampere circuit
breaker when a 15-ampere circuit breaker would provide greater protection?


As long as you don't plug in a listed appliance that has a NEMA 5-15 plug
and cord set into a receptacle provided with 20-ampere branch circuit
protection ... everything is protected. In other words, no TV, no lights,
no coffee maker, no refrigerator, no microwave, no dishwasher, no garbage
disposal, no computer, no battery chargers, etc.

The "PROBLEM" is the branch circuit interface is not compatible with
"Listed" appliances. That "Problem" is associated with regulatory
inspectors not following NEC properly.



--

[Let's get it right!]

replying to bud-- , Let's get it right! wrote:

> null wrote:
>
> (B-1 is protection of the cord of a listed device)
> Also B-3 (protection of listed extension cords).
> 15A receptacles are allowed on 20A circuits. You are saying that the
> listing requirements of devices and extension cords with a 15A plug do
> not allow them on 20A circuits? I see no reason to believe that is true
> (and it would be absurd). Perhaps a cite?

> Try 110.2 (approved). "Listed" apparatus is normally "approved" and
> 110.3-A (examination) would not normally be done.
> But 110.3-B (used in accordance with listing) is applicable. Fires are
> likely from not using according to the instructions.

The regulatory inspection agency has the responsibility for 110.3B also
.. and they should understand and acknowledge that Listed equipment will
be interfaced with such branch circuity protection. You either go all the
wall with NEC ... or accept fire and shock hazards as a daily part of
life. If done in strict accordance with NEC, fire and shock hazards
should not exist. This just isn't happening in the real world!

--

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

It's NOT a NEW problem. Virtually every outlet in the house in the
past has been protected with a 15 amp fuse or breaker - and virtually
every radio, TV, lamp, and small non-heating appliance has had a 16 or
18ga cord - whether or not it has an internal fuse. NONE of the
non-fused items are "protected" by the circuit fuse, and if something
shorts before the fuse on a fused device, the cord is not protected
either.

A 20 amp receptacle is CAPABLE of safely handling 20 amps current, and
can handle 2 10 amp, or 1 15 and 1 5, without being overloaded. It can
also handle a 20 amp device - with its special plug - which a 15 amp
outlet cannot - You still can't opperate 2 15 amp devices on the same
circuitbecause the CIRCUIT is protected to 20 amps maximum.

Im a lot of Europe, each plug has it's own fuse - and a bigger fuse
cannot be installed than the plug is rated for.

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 13:15:05 -0500, Nate Nagel <njn...@roosters.net>
wrote:

Note that the NEMA 5-15 receptacle *is* rated for 20A. The plug that
fits into it is only rated for 15A, though. As has been point out
here many times, the outlet can have two 10A appliances plugged in.

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 16:44:01 +0000, Mis-application of listed

appliances --- inadequate branch circuit protection.

Not "easily", but it's possible. The flaw in your argument is that
the circuit breaker is there to protect the wiring in the house, not
the appliance plugged into it.

>Now try to tell the Fire Marshall it's OK to interface "Listed" appliances
>that utilize NEMA 5-15 plugs and cord sets with branch circuit protection
>of 20-amperes.

How does a "listed appliance" cord with branch protection of 20A get a
NEMA 5-15 plug on it? That sounds very fishy.

[Irreverent Maximus]

On 12/16/2013 7:48 PM, k...@attt.bizz wrote:

> Note that the NEMA 5-15 receptacle *is* rated for 20A. The plug that
> fits into it is only rated for 15A, though. As has been point out
> here many times, the outlet can have two 10A appliances plugged in.
>

Okay, I approached this thread as a joke. I mean, seriously. As you
have pointed out, the breaker protects the wiring of branch circuits.
That is the primary focus of the breaker since the breaker and branch
circuits are the only controllable factors. Once people start plugging
things into outlets, all bets are off.

With the advent of more and more electrical devices the need for a
reasonable compromise in providing more outlets, without dedication,
was needed and it was deemed that it was okay to increase the amperage
of branch circuits (110-120v duplex receptacles to be specific). The
protection and wiring of these receptacles is only to the face of the
receptacle. After that, it is up to the user to not be an idiot.

The U.L. listing is the rating that a device/cord is tested at, not the
rating of what it will be plugged into, nor is it the failure point that
the U.L. listed device has. The listing only proves that the device
will perform up to claimed rating. That is all. I could go on, but to
keep it short and simple I can give an example of something that might
surprise some people.

Look around your house, place of work, or any store that sells the
following:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/lubg6n9

Check out the U.L. listing tag near the plug. What does it state?
If it is a 16ga cord, like the one shown, it will have 13A as its
tested rating. I have a cord, don't know the AWG, but it is only
rated for 10A. Ever check out the 7A rating that the power cord that
plugs into the power supply of a Desktop? One might think that the
ampacity rating is solely because of the wire size, but they would be
wrong. Rather, It is the type of insulation versus intended voltage
that the insulation type of the wiring is made of. IIRC this is under
table 450.5(A) for flexible cords.

Anyone ever see a clock radio, with an 18ga cord, rated for 15A? A
lamp? I am not going to call "Get it Right", or whatever its nym is,
a troll, but maybe it can get this right:

How much horsepower is available at a 20A receptacle?

Merry Christmas!

[The Daring Dufas]

In business offices where I've installed phone systems, networks,
computers and backup power supplies, many of the women(I adore many of
them), will plug a 1,500watt electric heater into the UPS and wonder
where the smoke came from. There are places where I installed separate
circuits just for things like electric heaters and made it clear to the
gals that the only place they were to ever plug in a heater was the
labeled outlet. Me and the guys have been using white vinyl plastic
downspouts to carry the MC power cables, phone and network cables from
the suspended ceilings in offices down to the floor. I can pre-build the
vinyl power poles at the office before they're taken to the job site and
installed. The reason we use the plastic downspouts is because the metal
tela-power poles from manufacturers cost close to $100.00 from the
electrical supply houses. If someone slams a desk into one of the
expensive metal power poles, it can be dented, bent and damaged enough
to require replacement. The vinyl pops back into place. ^_^

http://www.cableorganizer.com/tele-power-poles/

TDD

[jamesgang]

On Wednesday, April 16, 2008 4:30:05 PM UTC-4, cmyers wrote:
> Hi all. I want to replace my existing Federal Pacific Stab-Lok Load
> Center breaker box because the reports that I've heard about it scare
> me, and I want to rewire my whole house because the old wiring scares
> me. I have a replacement plan in mind, and before I bring in someone
> that knows more than I do, I'd like to get as much lined up as
> possible.
>
> I plan to install a 100amp breaker into my existing FPE (200 amp
> service) box to service a new breaker box (also 200 amp service), then
> rewire the house to the new box, and because of other reasons we will
> be moving the incoming service to the new box. Note: I say "we" but
> in this case "we" means electricians and the electric company as far
> as they need to be involved.
>
> Anyway, if anyone is familiar with the FPE Stab-Lok load center, I'd
> appreciate some advice about the 100amp breaker. I've found the
> NA2100 (Type NA, 2 poles, 100 amp) breakers, but I'm not sure if this
> is the one I need for this breaker box or not. My existing breakers
> are type NC. Apparently the type NB breakers bolt in ("B" is for
> "Bolt" obviously). I have found several of the 30amp or less breakers
> as type NC, but anything over that seem to be type NA. I just want to
> know if the NA2100 will work in my box...or if you need more
> information to make that determination.
>
> Thanks,
> Charlie

I would not bother. Simply get the appropriate replacement panel and do the replacement. Many of the wires will not be long enough to reach your "temporary" location and you will have to make the splice in the old box. And your "temporary" box will be sub panel requiring isolated ground. Of course you will find electricians that are fine with your plan because they work by the hour.

If you need to upgrade the service from outside from 100 to 200 you can do that ahead of time. There is nothing that prevents you from connecting a 100amp main to 200amp service. Then replace the panel. If you don't have the money to do it, start saving until you do. It's a one day job if the materials are on site.

[Let's get it right!]

replying to Irreverent Maximus , Let's get it right! wrote:

> nospam wrote:
>
> "bud--" <nu...@void.com> wrote in message
news:52ac89f7$0$1381$c3e8da3$b135...@news.astraweb.com...

> I guess this device should be unlisted:
> http://www.cesco.com/b2c/product/471640
> It appears that it accepts both 15 and 20 amp plugs. I wonder why that
is?
> I have shopped at many stores and have yet to see an appliance with a true
> twenty amp plug. I am so confused...
>

You can't apply a direct or cord connected appliance that is rated for use
from a branch circuit greater that 15-amperes and consider it "Protected"
according to NEC. I verified it with U.L. I suggest you do the same.
With respect to branch circuit protection, NEC is not being practiced as
written.

--

[Let's get it right!]

replying to Irreverent Maximus , Let's get it right! wrote:

> nospam wrote:
>
> "bud--" <nu...@void.com> wrote in message
news:52ac89f7$0$1381$c3e8da3$b135...@news.astraweb.com...

> I guess this device should be unlisted:
> http://www.cesco.com/b2c/product/471640
> It appears that it accepts both 15 and 20 amp plugs. I wonder why that
is?
> I have shopped at many stores and have yet to see an appliance with a true
> twenty amp plug. I am so confused...
>

Articles 100 thru 400 of NEC are mandatory. Only after Article 400 can
you deviate from for specific applications.

A "Listed" device is only "Protected" when applied within it's listing
requirements and labeling. If you don't provide branch circuit protection
compatible with the "Listed" device listing requirements and labeling, it
not "Protected" according to NEC. Subsequently, if you provide 20-ampere
branch circuit protection to circuit intended to interface with "Listed"
devices, the "Listed" devices will not be "Protected".

A single, dedicated NEMA 5-15 receptacle is allowed to be interfaced with
a 20-ampere circuit breaker ... but not multiple 15 ampere receptacles.
In addition, the steady state current draw on a NEMA 5-15 receptacle
should be limited to about 13-amperes (allowing for a 2-ampere margin)
according to NEC. A 20-ampere circuit breaker would allow for a 7-ampere
margin which would expose resistive components (such as power cords) to
over 75% more real power than what they are listed at. The power cord,
plug, etc. will burn up under such circumstances, and a fused "Listed"
device will not protect the power cord of that "Listed" device.

--

[bud--]

On 12/16/2013 10:44 AM, Mis-application of listed appliances ---

inadequate branch circuit protection. wrote:
> replying to bud-- , Mis-application of listed appliances --- inadequate
> branch circuit protection. wrote:
>> null wrote:
>>
>> (B-1 is protection of the cord of a listed device) Also B-3
>> (protection of listed extension cords). 15A receptacles are allowed on
>> 20A circuits. You are saying that the listing requirements of devices
>> and extension cords with a 15A plug do not allow them on 20A circuits?
>> I see no reason to believe that is true (and it would be absurd).
>> Perhaps a cite? Try 110.2 (approved). "Listed" apparatus is normally
>> "approved" and 110.3-A (examination) would not normally be done. But
>> 110.3-B (used in accordance with listing) is applicable. Fires are
>> likely from not using according to the instructions.
>
>
> Let's say your listed device utilizes a power cord with a NEMA 5-15 plug,
> and your branch circuit protection is rated at 20 amperes.
>
> 1) the listed device is rated for use from not more than a 15 ampere
> circuit breaker (look at the ratings on extension cords).

Extension cords may have an amp rating that is the current the end user
can use the cord at. If there is a 15A rating that does not mean the
cord can not be used on a 20A circuit. The cord would have to be marked
"for use only on 15A circuits". I have never seen such a cord, and
considering the way UL and the NEC work I doubt they exist.

>
> Now try to tell the Fire Marshall it's OK to interface "Listed" appliances
> that utilize NEMA 5-15 plugs and cord sets with branch circuit protection
> of 20-amperes.

Fire marshals can enforce UL requirements. Your opinion is not
consistent with UL requirements.

> I've tried ... and I'm convinced all of the rework &
> repair due to the hurricane damage in New Orleans is deficient ... and
> that they still have latent shock and fire hazards due to their arrogance
> and ignorance. We will always have fires at X-mas due to "overloading" as
> long as they ignore the requirements. No one is held accountable.

Requirements are not being ignored. You just don't understand UL and NEC
requirements.

Anyone can submit a code change proposal.

And anyone can petition the UL to change their standards.

I am sure your proposals will be appropriately considered.

[bud--]

On 12/16/2013 3:45 PM, Let's get it right! wrote:
> replying to bud-- , Let's get it right! wrote:
>> null wrote:
>>
>> (B-1 is protection of the cord of a listed device) Also B-3
>> (protection of listed extension cords). 15A receptacles are allowed on
>> 20A circuits. You are saying that the listing requirements of devices
>> and extension cords with a 15A plug do not allow them on 20A circuits?
>> I see no reason to believe that is true (and it would be absurd).
>> Perhaps a cite? Try 110.2 (approved). "Listed" apparatus is normally
>> "approved" and 110.3-A (examination) would not normally be done. But
>> 110.3-B (used in accordance with listing) is applicable. Fires are
>> likely from not using according to the instructions.
>
>
> The problem isn't the listed device. The problem is branch circuit
> protection (20-amperes) is not compatible with the listed devices.
> Subsequently, the listed device is being allowed to operated beyond the
> parameters for which it was listed (up to 15-ampere branch circuit
> protection), and creates a fire/shock hazard because the listed device
> could/does have the opportunity to fail not-safe!

Listed extension cords made with #18 wire are readily available. The
rating in the NEC for #18 cord is 10A (400.5). According to you, that
can't be used on even a 15A breaker.

The requirements for overcurrent protection of cords is in 240.5. There
are several methods of protection. "Listed" cords are considered
protected (240.5-B-3). UL know that cords with a 15A plug may be used on
20A circuits. The system is working as intended. The cord will have a
current or wattage rating. It up to the user to use the cord according
to the ratings provided.

For cordsets that we put together (field assembly), the wire must be #16
or larger on a 20A circuit (240.5-B-4). The NEC rating for #16 is 13A
(400.5). The NEC explicitly allows cords rated 13A on a 20A breaker.

>
> Got any listed appliances that have NEMA 5-15 plug and cord sets that are
> protected according to NEC? Highly likely.

Yes, it is highly likely.

Listed appliance (and lamps, etc) will have a cord large enough to
supply the appliance when used as instructed. Cords of listed appliance
cords are considered protected (240.5-B-1).

Appliances are protected as UL and the NEC intended.

> The regulatory inspection
> agency in change of inspecting your home/office probably screwed up!

Nonsense. They are enforcing the code as written.

> Proof: On a 20-ampere branch circuit, load an extension cord until the
> current draw approached 20-amperes. It can be done ... and have a fire
> extinguisher on hand ... because it most probably will burn up ... and the
> circuit breaker will not trip ... until there is a dead short.

Your breakers may only trip on dead shorts. Mine trip at the rated current.

And I use cords according to their rating.

[bud--]

On 12/16/2013 3:47 PM, Let's get it right! wrote:
> replying to bud-- , Let's get it right! wrote:
>> null wrote:
>>
>> (B-1 is protection of the cord of a listed device) Also B-3
>> (protection of listed extension cords). 15A receptacles are allowed on
>> 20A circuits. You are saying that the listing requirements of devices
>> and extension cords with a 15A plug do not allow them on 20A circuits?
>> I see no reason to believe that is true (and it would be absurd).
>> Perhaps a cite? Try 110.2 (approved). "Listed" apparatus is normally
>> "approved" and 110.3-A (examination) would not normally be done. But
>> 110.3-B (used in accordance with listing) is applicable. Fires are
>> likely from not using according to the instructions.
>
>
> The regulatory inspection agency has the responsibility for 110.3B also
> .. and they should understand and acknowledge that Listed equipment will
> be interfaced with such branch circuity protection.

As I have already explained, "listed" devices will be "approved" by the
AHJ under 110.2.

110.3 (inspection) is irrelevant to listed devices -inspectors do not
"inspect" listed devices. They determine that the listed devices are
used according to the manufactures instructions and the conditions of
listing.

> You either go all the
> wall with NEC ... or accept fire and shock hazards as a daily part of
> life. If done in strict accordance with NEC, fire and shock hazards
> should not exist. This just isn't happening in the real world!

The system is working as intended by the NEC and UL.

[bud--]

On 12/17/2013 9:45 AM, Let's get it right! wrote:
> replying to Irreverent Maximus , Let's get it right! wrote:
>> nospam wrote:
>>
>> "bud--" <nu...@void.com> wrote in message
> news:52ac89f7$0$1381$c3e8da3$b135...@news.astraweb.com...
>> I guess this device should be unlisted:
>> http://www.cesco.com/b2c/product/471640 It appears that it accepts
>> both 15 and 20 amp plugs. I wonder why that
> is?
>> I have shopped at many stores and have yet to see an appliance with a
>> true twenty amp plug. I am so confused...
>
>
> Articles 100 thru 400 of NEC are mandatory. Only after Article 400 can
> you deviate from for specific applications.
>
> A "Listed" device is only "Protected" when applied within it's listing
> requirements and labeling. If you don't provide branch circuit protection
> compatible with the "Listed" device listing requirements and labeling, it
> not "Protected" according to NEC. Subsequently, if you provide 20-ampere
> branch circuit protection to circuit intended to interface with "Listed"
> devices, the "Listed" devices will not be "Protected".

Cord overcurrent protection for listed cords and appliances is covered
in 240.5-B-1 and 3. "Listed" cords and appliances are protected when
listing requirements are followed.

> A single, dedicated NEMA 5-15 receptacle is allowed to be interfaced with
> a 20-ampere circuit breaker ... but not multiple 15 ampere receptacles.

A single 15A receptacle can not be the only receptacle on a 20A breaker.
Multiple 15A receptacles are allowed.

> In addition, the steady state current draw on a NEMA 5-15 receptacle
> should be limited to about 13-amperes (allowing for a 2-ampere margin)
> according to NEC.

"Continuous" loads (over 3 hours) are limited to 80%.

When there are 2 or more receptacles, the NEC also wants an 80% limit.
This is not enforceable. And UL does not have that restriction. A 15A
load may have a 15A plug.

> A 20-ampere circuit breaker would allow for a 7-ampere
> margin which would expose resistive components (such as power cords) to
> over 75% more real power than what they are listed at.


> The power cord,
> plug, etc. will burn up under such circumstances, and a fused "Listed"
> device will not protect the power cord of that "Listed" device.

A "listed device" will have a cord large enough to be adequate when the
device is used according to manufacturer instructions. The cord is
allowed by the NEC (240.5-B-1).

[Let's get it right!]

replying to Nate Nagel , Let's get it right! wrote:

> njnagel wrote:
>
> On 12/16/2013 11:44 AM, Mis-application of listed appliances ---

> Your argument is somewhat valid, but you're not going to get anywhere
> with it as the NEC specifically allows the use of NEMA 5-15 or
> combination 5-15/5-20 receptacles on a 20A branch circuit.
> This is the ONLY instance that I'm aware that a receptacle is allowed
> which accepts a plug/cord cap of a lower nominal amperage than the
> circuit breaker, however.
> nate
> --
> replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
> http://members.cox.net/njnagel

I agree that NEC allows using a NEMA 5-20 and 5-15 receptacle protected
with a 20-ampere branch circuit breaker, and as long as you don't
interface a Listed appliance rated at not more than 15-amperes with these
receptacles, it's a non-problem.

However, the mere fact that someone provide such interfaces, and those
interfaces can be used by "Listed" cord connected equipment is proof that
NEC Article 110.3 (A) (8) was not done

110.3 Examination, Identification, Installation, and Use of Equipment
(A) Examination. In judging equipment, considerations such as the
following shall be evaluated:
(8) Other factors that contribute to the practical safeguarding of persons
using or likely to come in contact with the equipment.

These are the responsibilities of the engineer of record as well as the
local regulatory and code inspection agency. They have totally ignored
the "Testing for Public Safety**" aspect of the "Listing" effort.

They've failed miserably with respect to this NEC article. The public is
not protected because the require interfaces (receptacles) for "Listed"
equipment utilizing NEMA 5-15 plugs and cord sets has not been provided
for "Protection" as defined by NEC. Additionally, try to find a power
cord set with NEMA 5-15 plug in your McMaster Carr catalog that's rated
for more than 15 amperes! If there are any, then "ALL" listed cord
connected equipment would have to use it. We have NEMA 5-20 plugs for
that ... and they won't interface with a NEMA 5-15 receptacle for good
reason!

--

[Let's get it right!]

replying to krw , Let's get it right! wrote:

> krw wrote:
>
> On Sat, 14 Dec 2013 14:45:17 -0600, "Irreverent Maximus"

> Why? It allows you to use both 15A and 20A appliances.

> Because it allows both sorts of appliances to be plugged in? Note
> that it would be against code to install this outlet on a 15A circuit.

> You haven't looked hard enough. They aren't all that common because
> most appliances draw less than 15A, so 15A cords are plenty. However,
> they do exist. Many air conditioners have 20A plugs. The plugs are
> also available at the usual places.

A NEMA 5-15 plug and cord set applied to a 20-ampere branch circuit could
be exposed to approximately 78% more real power than it's Listed rating.
The conductors are essentially resistors ... and in a resistive circuit,
power increases as the square of current. Subsequently (20 amperes)^2 is
much greater than (15-amperes)^2. As a result, the power cord will
overheat and possibly burn up. It's really quite easy to conduct this
experiment with an extension cord ... but have a fire extinguisher present
.. because loading up a "Listed" extension cord beyond it's listing or
labeling requirements will most probably result in a fire/electrical
hazard ... and since it's listing efforts (Testing for Public Safety) did
not include exposing the extension cord to possible overloading (up to
20-amperes).



--

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 20:45:08 +0000, Let's get it right!
<caedfaa9ed1216d60e...@example.com> wrote:

>replying to krw , Let's get it right! wrote:
>> krw wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 14 Dec 2013 14:45:17 -0600, "Irreverent Maximus"
>> Why? It allows you to use both 15A and 20A appliances.
>> Because it allows both sorts of appliances to be plugged in? Note
>> that it would be against code to install this outlet on a 15A circuit.
>> You haven't looked hard enough. They aren't all that common because
>> most appliances draw less than 15A, so 15A cords are plenty. However,
>> they do exist. Many air conditioners have 20A plugs. The plugs are
>> also available at the usual places.
>
>
>A NEMA 5-15 plug and cord set applied to a 20-ampere branch circuit could
>be exposed to approximately 78% more real power than it's Listed rating.
>The conductors are essentially resistors ... and in a resistive circuit,
>power increases as the square of current.

Wrong. What is the rating of 18ga wire? ...or are you saying that
there are no appliances with 18ga wire? I suppose it's illegal to plug
a lamp into a NEMA 5-15 outlet on a 20A circuit? You'd probably shit
if you caught me plugging a lamp into a NEMA 5-20 outlet! <sheesh>

>Subsequently (20 amperes)^2 is
>much greater than (15-amperes)^2. As a result, the power cord will
>overheat and possibly burn up. It's really quite easy to conduct this
>experiment with an extension cord ... but have a fire extinguisher present
>.. because loading up a "Listed" extension cord beyond it's listing or
>labeling requirements will most probably result in a fire/electrical
>hazard ... and since it's listing efforts (Testing for Public Safety) did
>not include exposing the extension cord to possible overloading (up to
>20-amperes).

Completely irrelevant. The circuit breaker is *NOT* there to protect
your cord, or appliance. Good grief! LEARN SOMETHING!

[Tekkie®]

The Daring Dufas posted for all of us...

And I know how to SNIP

Waaa, you are going to put Panduit & such outta
business... I have used foam pipe insulation too
for low voltage cabling.

--
Tekkie

[Let's get it right!]

replying to Let's get it right!, Let's get it right! wrote:
> Let's get it right! wrote:
>

> news:52ac89f7$0$1381$c3e8da3$b135...@news.astraweb.com...

> Articles 100 thru 400 of NEC are mandatory. Only after Article 400 can you
> deviate from for specific applications.
> A "Listed" device is only "Protected" when applied within it's listing
> requirements and labeling. If you don't provide branch circuit protection
> compatible with the "Listed" device listing requirements and labeling, it
not
> "Protected" according to NEC. Subsequently, if you provide 20-ampere
branch
> circuit protection to circuit intended to interface with "Listed" devices,
the
> "Listed" devices will not be "Protected".
> A single, dedicated NEMA 5-15 receptacle is allowed to be interfaced with a
> 20-ampere circuit breaker ... but not multiple 15 ampere receptacles. In
> addition, the steady state current draw on a NEMA 5-15 receptacle should be
> limited to about 13-amperes (allowing for a 2-ampere margin) according to
NEC.
> A 20-ampere circuit breaker would allow for a 7-ampere margin which would
expose
> resistive components (such as power cords) to over 75% more real power than
what
> they are listed at. The power cord, plug, etc. will burn up under such
> circumstances, and a fused "Listed" device will not protect the power cord
of
> that "Listed" device.

Your missing the point. If branch circuit protection in a home is
20-amperes or greater, and use NEMA 5-15 and/or NEMA 5-20 receptacles, the
"Listed" appliances are not protected, and because they cannot be applied
in accordance with their listing and labeling requirements.

On the other hand, if branch circuit protection in a home is 15-amperes,
and use NEMA 5-15 and/or NEMA 5-20 receptacles, "Listed" appliances will
be considered "Protected" according to NEC because they can be applied in
accordance with their listing and labeling requirements.

This argument is a lot like which came first .... the chicken (branch
circuit protection) ... and the egg ("Listed" appliances). The argument
boils down to "Do you protect Listed appliances" or not? If not, get use
to having latent fire/shock hazards ... and overloaded extension cord
fires every X-mas!



--

[Let's get it right!]

replying to krw , Let's get it right! wrote:
> krw wrote:
>
> On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 20:45:08 +0000, Let's get it right!

> Wrong. What is the rating of 18ga wire? ...or are you saying that
> there are no appliances with 18ga wire? I suppose it's illegal to plug
> a lamp into a NEMA 5-15 outlet on a 20A circuit? You'd probably shit
> if you caught me plugging a lamp into a NEMA 5-20 outlet! <sheesh>

> Completely irrelevant. The circuit breaker is *NOT* there to protect
> your cord, or appliance. Good grief! LEARN SOMETHING!

Now there's a response that clarifies absolutely NOTHING! KRW ... Review
Articles 100, 200, 300, and 400 of the latest NEC for clarification of the
purpose of circuit protection. I also encourage you to contact U.L. for
clarification of requirements of Listed and Labelled equipment.


--

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 18:45:08 +0000, Let's get it right!
<caedfaa9ed1216d60e...@example.com> wrote:

>replying to krw , Let's get it right! wrote:
>> krw wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 20:45:08 +0000, Let's get it right!
>> Wrong. What is the rating of 18ga wire? ...or are you saying that
>> there are no appliances with 18ga wire? I suppose it's illegal to plug
>> a lamp into a NEMA 5-15 outlet on a 20A circuit? You'd probably shit
>> if you caught me plugging a lamp into a NEMA 5-20 outlet! <sheesh>
>> Completely irrelevant. The circuit breaker is *NOT* there to protect
>> your cord, or appliance. Good grief! LEARN SOMETHING!
>
>
>Now there's a response that clarifies absolutely NOTHING! KRW ...

Now there's a response I completely expected; zero intelligence.

>Review
>Articles 100, 200, 300, and 400 of the latest NEC for clarification of the
>purpose of circuit protection. I also encourage you to contact U.L. for
>clarification of requirements of Listed and Labelled equipment.

You're an idiot, plain and simple (with an emphasis on "simple").

[Let's get it right!]

replying to Irreverent Maximus , Let's get it right! wrote:

.. and you totally ignored NEC 110.3(1) (8): "Other factors that
contribute tothe practical safeguarding of persons using or likely to come

in contact with the equipment".

The issue if not about the ampacity of power cords, wall receptacles,
etc.. The issue is a "Listed" appliance can and is being interfaced with
a branch circuit that is beyond the Listing and/or labeling requirements
of the "Listed" appliance. It not "all bets are off" at the consumer
level. Such thinking totally ignores the "Testing for Public Safety" of
the Listing effort. The Engineers and Architect's of Record and well as
the local regulatory inspection agencies are NOT doing their job. The
installations cannot be NEC compliant because latent fire and shock
hazards do exists ... and the consumer doesn't even get a vote!

The smallest standard size circuit breaker is 15-amperes. Do you really
think a "Listing" agency, such as U.L., AGA, CSA, ETL, etc. would put
their listing mark on a product that couldn't operate safely from a
15-ampere circuit?

Does it make any sense to protect a fractional horsepower bathroom exhaust
fan with a 20-ampere circuit breaker? A 15-ampere circuit breaker would
provide more protected ... and is most likely what the "Listed" equipment
is rated for anyhow ... because of it's fractional horsepower load.

Horsepower available from a 20-ampere receptacle: 746 watts per
horsepower/hr. However, a motor is not a purely resisttive device. It
has inductive and capacitive characteristics. Subsequently to answer your
question, I'll need to know how many vars (a measure of imaginary power)
or volt-amperes (a measure of total power), or the power factor of the
motor to answer your question. In addition, is the line to line voltage
120, 240, etc? Makes a difference ... but obviously you already know that!

--

[tra...@optonline.net]

If you can't have multiple 15 amp receptacles on a 20 amp circuit,
because someone could plug one of the everyday common devices like
lamps, TV, coffee pot, etc into one,
why is it that they are being installed and passed by electrical inspectors
all around the country every day? Sound like the electrical inspectors
who understand the code disagree with your opinion.

Your contention is that the circuit breaker has to be capable of protecting
the load and it's wiring? Why then is this safety issue unique to 20 amp circuits?
As has been pointed out, most lights have 18 gauge wire cords and they
are connected to 15 amp receptacles, 15 amp breakers. The current carrying
capability of that wire is less than the breaker rating. How is that
different? When it was brought up, you just ignored it.

[tra...@optonline.net]

Perhaps you can show us examples of UL listing tags that say:
"This appliance may only be used on a circuit with a 15 amp breaker".
"Using it on a circuit with a 20 amp breaker is not allowed and dangerous".
I've bought and used a lot of appliances, lights, etc and don't
ever recall seeing any such thing. If this issue was 1% of the problem
you make it out to be, you would think there would be required warning
labels like that all over the place. I've never seen one.

>
> Does it make any sense to protect a fractional horsepower bathroom exhaust
>
> fan with a 20-ampere circuit breaker? A 15-ampere circuit breaker would
>
> provide more protected ... and is most likely what the "Listed" equipment
>
> is rated for anyhow ... because of it's fractional horsepower load.
>
>

Does it make any sense to protect floor lamps that have 18 gauge cords
with 15 amp breakers on the circuits they get plugged into?
Yet apparently the UL and NEC are OK with that.
As for protecting the small fan with a 20 amp breaker, it depends on
what else is on that circuit. If it serves other loads, that warrant
a 20 amp breaker, then AFAIK, it's allowed. The motor has it's own
overload protection. And if it's not allowed, perhaps you can show us
the install instructions for some typical bath fans that say you can't
put them on a 20 amp breaker.

[Let's get it right!]

replying to krw , Let's get it right! wrote:
> krw wrote:
>
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 18:45:08 +0000, Let's get it right!

> Now there's a response I completely expected; zero intelligence.

> You're an idiot, plain and simple (with an emphasis on "simple").
>

It appears you have a denial problem ... and either refuse to debate the
issue ... or just can't. When you grow up, I'll explain it again to you
.. but with crayons!

Power: there is real, total, and imaginary power. Goggle it for yourself
and perhaps you'll be enlightened.

May the force be with you.

--

[tra...@optonline.net]

Speaking of explaining things, why haven't you explained why the same
alleged safety problem related to breaker sizing with 20 amp circuits
doesn't exist when we all plug floor lamps, radios, clocks, etc that
draw an amp into 15 amp receptacles.

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 19:44:01 +0000, Let's get it right!
<caedfaa9ed1216d60e...@example.com> wrote:

>replying to krw , Let's get it right! wrote:
>> krw wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 18:45:08 +0000, Let's get it right!
>> Now there's a response I completely expected; zero intelligence.
>> You're an idiot, plain and simple (with an emphasis on "simple").
>>
>
>
>It appears you have a denial problem

It appears that you're just stupid.

... and either refuse to debate the
>issue ... or just can't.

You can't even read, so it's difficult to debate.

>When you grow up, I'll explain it again to you
>.. but with crayons!

When mommy changes your diapers, little boy, perhaps she can teach you
to read.

>Power: there is real, total, and imaginary power. Goggle it for yourself
>and perhaps you'll be enlightened.

I am an EE. I know a little more about this stuff than you pretend
to, little boy. The fact that you even bring this up shows that
you're flailing, trying to get *SOMETHING* to hang onto. What a doof.

>May the force be with you.

You are the farce.

[Malcom "Mal" Reynolds]

In article <7op6b91b5eg226dte...@4ax.com>, k...@attt.bizz
wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 19:44:01 +0000, Let's get it right!
> <caedfaa9ed1216d60e...@example.com> wrote:
>
> >replying to krw , Let's get it right! wrote:
> >> krw wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 18:45:08 +0000, Let's get it right!
> >> Now there's a response I completely expected; zero intelligence.
> >> You're an idiot, plain and simple (with an emphasis on "simple").
> >>
> >
> >
> >It appears you have a denial problem
>
> It appears that you're just stupid.
>
> ... and either refuse to debate the
> >issue ... or just can't.
>
> You can't even read, so it's difficult to debate.

just like a fundie...blame everyone else for their failures. your
inability to debate is demonstrated on almost all of your posts, unless
in your feeble mind calling someone a PLCCF or Liberal or Lefty
qualifies as debate

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 14:36:15 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
<atlas-...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>In article <7op6b91b5eg226dte...@4ax.com>, k...@attt.bizz
>wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 19:44:01 +0000, Let's get it right!
>> <caedfaa9ed1216d60e...@example.com> wrote:
>>
>> >replying to krw , Let's get it right! wrote:
>> >> krw wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 18:45:08 +0000, Let's get it right!
>> >> Now there's a response I completely expected; zero intelligence.
>> >> You're an idiot, plain and simple (with an emphasis on "simple").
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >It appears you have a denial problem
>>
>> It appears that you're just stupid.
>>
>> ... and either refuse to debate the
>> >issue ... or just can't.
>>
>> You can't even read, so it's difficult to debate.
>
>just like a fundie...blame everyone else for their failures. your
>inability to debate is demonstrated on almost all of your posts, unless
>in your feeble mind calling someone a PLCCF or Liberal or Lefty
>qualifies as debate

Another lefty who believes that his lies trump facts. OTOH, if you
couldn't lie, you would be mute.

[Irreverent Maximus]

On 12/19/2013 11:04 AM, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

> If you can't have multiple 15 amp receptacles on a 20 amp circuit,
> because someone could plug one of the everyday common devices like
> lamps, TV, coffee pot, etc into one,
> why is it that they are being installed and passed by electrical inspectors
> all around the country every day? Sound like the electrical inspectors
> who understand the code disagree with your opinion.
>
> Your contention is that the circuit breaker has to be capable of protecting
> the load and it's wiring? Why then is this safety issue unique to 20 amp circuits?
> As has been pointed out, most lights have 18 gauge wire cords and they
> are connected to 15 amp receptacles, 15 amp breakers. The current carrying
> capability of that wire is less than the breaker rating. How is that
> different? When it was brought up, you just ignored it.
>

Hey, every 8 feet there shall be every outlet known to man, with all
devices properly "plugged" for "protection". Mr. "I can't get it
right" obviously cannot figure out that by design devices are
protected barring misuse or catastrophic failure. No that never
happens. Far be it for a breaker to fail to trip, or a fuse. No,
such things never happen.

It is not like a 4 amp short could start a fire, like something like
that would ever happen.

Everything must be comfy and safe, just like life. Like something like
that would ever happen.

[The Daring Dufas]

MAY THE FARCE BE WITH YOU!!! ^_^

TDD

[Let's get it right!]

replying to The Daring Dufas , Let's get it right! wrote:

> the-daring-dufas wrote:
>
> MAY THE FARCE BE WITH YOU!!! ^_^
> TDD

Your ignorance amazes me! Finish HS?


--

[Let's get it right!]

replying to Malcom , Let's get it right! wrote:

> atlas-bugged wrote:
>
> In article <7op6b91b5eg226dte...@4ax.com>, k...@attt.bizz

> just like a fundie...blame everyone else for their failures. your
> inability to debate is demonstrated on almost all of your posts, unless
> in your feeble mind calling someone a PLCCF or Liberal or Lefty
> qualifies as debate

The difference between my debate and yours is that presented the facts.
Tells me you're in denial! Grow UP!

--

[Let's get it right!]

replying to clare , Let's get it right! wrote:
> clare wrote:
>
> On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 21:46:09 +0000, Let's get it right!
> It's NOT a NEW problem. Virtually every outlet in the house in the
> past has been protected with a 15 amp fuse or breaker - and virtually
> every radio, TV, lamp, and small non-heating appliance has had a 16 or
> 18ga cord - whether or not it has an internal fuse. NONE of the
> non-fused items are "protected" by the circuit fuse, and if something
> shorts before the fuse on a fused device, the cord is not protected
> either.
> A 20 amp receptacle is CAPABLE of safely handling 20 amps current, and
> can handle 2 10 amp, or 1 15 and 1 5, without being overloaded. It can
> also handle a 20 amp device - with its special plug - which a 15 amp
> outlet cannot - You still can't opperate 2 15 amp devices on the same
> circuitbecause the CIRCUIT is protected to 20 amps maximum.
> Im a lot of Europe, each plug has it's own fuse - and a bigger fuse
> cannot be installed than the plug is rated for.


It not a matter of what a NEMA 5-15 receptacle can handle during normal
operation. It's what can it handle during a non-fail-safe incident. For
example, say you have to Listed devices interfaced with a NEMA 5-15
receptacle, and each listed device is rated at 6 amperes full load. Not a
problem! However, what happens when one or both fail in a non-safe manner?

Circuit breakers at the plug is a good way of getting around the problem
we have in the U.S. ... and the U.S. will eventually follow their lead if
branch circuit protection is not done in a manner that is compatible with
"Listed" equipment.



--

[Let's get it right!]

replying to tra...@optonline.net , Let's get it right! wrote:

> trader4 wrote:
>
> Perhaps you can show us examples of UL listing tags that say:
> "This appliance may only be used on a circuit with a 15 amp breaker".
> "Using it on a circuit with a 20 amp breaker is not allowed and
dangerous".
> I've bought and used a lot of appliances, lights, etc and don't
> ever recall seeing any such thing. If this issue was 1% of the problem
> you make it out to be, you would think there would be required warning
> labels like that all over the place. I've never seen one.
>

> Does it make any sense to protect floor lamps that have 18 gauge cords
> with 15 amp breakers on the circuits they get plugged into?
> Yet apparently the UL and NEC are OK with that.
> As for protecting the small fan with a 20 amp breaker, it depends on
> what else is on that circuit. If it serves other loads, that warrant
> a 20 amp breaker, then AFAIK, it's allowed. The motor has it's own
> overload protection. And if it's not allowed, perhaps you can show us
> the install instructions for some typical bath fans that say you can't
> put them on a 20 amp breaker.
>

That label "15-ampere" is there for a purpose. Surely you're not
advocating ignoring it ... are you? (Ref: NEC Article 240.5(b)(1))

Also look at NEC Article 240.5 (B) (2) regarding ampacity of fixture wire.

Your ignorance is showing. Either get with the NEC program ...or get the
hell out of it. You may be a source for fire/shock hazards that exist
today!.

A 15-ampere circuit breaker provides more protection than a 20-ampere
circuit breaker, and is a standard ampere rating for circuit breakers
(REF: NEC Article 240.6 (A).

Either provide backup for your argument ... or get the hell out of the
way.

--

[The Daring Dufas]

I'm ignorant about a lot of things but I can learn. It's obvious to me
that you may be suffering from H.I.S.I., Pronounced "hissy". It stands
for Humor Irony Sarcasm Impairment. It afflicts most Progressive Liberal
Leftist Commiecrat Freaks who don't have a clue when someone is
pulling their leg. You probably missed the movie "Spaceballs", a Mel
Brooks SciFi parody film. It's a shame you don't understand a catch
phrase from pop culture. You poor thing. ^_^

TDD

[Let's get it right!]

replying to bud-- , Let's get it right! wrote:
> null wrote:
>
> As I have already explained, "listed" devices will be "approved" by the
> AHJ under 110.2.
> 110.3 (inspection) is irrelevant to listed devices -inspectors do not
> "inspect" listed devices. They determine that the listed devices are
> used according to the manufactures instructions and the conditions of
> listing.

> The system is working as intended by the NEC and UL.
> Anyone can submit a code change proposal.
> And anyone can petition the UL to change their standards.
> I am sure your proposals will be appropriately considered.

What your failing to recognize is they are approving installations that do
no protect "listed" equipment (tenant owned, property owned, etc.).
What's the purpose of NEC if it isn't to protect the public? What's the
purpose of the listing effort (Testing for Public Safety) if the
application of listed equipment in facilities allegedly complying to NEC
do not protect the public after all?

If you have an appreciation for "real" power, you could acknowledge
I-squared x resistance .... that's what a power cord would see. Protected
by a 20-ampere circuit breaker could allow for up to 78% more exposure to
power than what the power cord is rated for if it has a NEMA 5-15 plug
and/or cord set. A 20-ampere circuit breaker does not limit the exposure
of the 15-ampere rated device to 15-amperes! A 15-ampere circuit breaker
does.

You can overload an extension cord utilizing a NEMA 5-15 plug if protected
by a circuit breaker rated at 20-amperes. However, you cannot overload
such extension cord if protected by a 15-ampere circuit breaker.
Acknowledge?

I find it amazing this concept is so difficult to understand by the
masses. I encourage you to contact any listing agency regarding my
claims. I cannot imagine how anyone can misinterpret NEC in such a way
that justifies listed devices not being protected. The words are quite
clear in NEC Articles 100, 200, 300, and 400. I've responded to many post
on this forum ... and have yet to be presented an argument that justifies
not protecting Listed equipment. In fact, one response stated "All bets
are off" once the installation has been approved by the regulatory agency
.. and "We can't control what the user will interface with the
receptacles" ... which is just not true if NEC is followed as written
(REF: Article 110.3(A)(8) which states: "Other factors that contribute to

the practical safeguarding of persons using or likely to come in contact

with the equipment". The key words are "contribute", "practical",
"safeguarding" .... ACKNOWLEDGED? It just isn't happening if 20-ampere
circuit breakers used in branch circuits are interfaced with "Listed
equipment" rated for use from branch circuit rated at not more than
15-amperes.

I've said enough in the forum to realize the concepts in the NEC are way
above your head, and you just don't have what it takes to understand how
it's suppose to work. Your logic is extensively flawed, and you've not
presented anything resembling a logical argument except for what's
referred to as "Appeal to Authority". If you are an authority, then
present a logical argument.



--

[Malcom "Mal" Reynolds]

In article <8bb45$52b465fd$cf3aab60$24...@news.flashnewsgroups.com>,

Let's get it right!

oh, more sarcasm

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

You can easily overload a listed 10 amp extension cord with a NEMA
5-15 plug even on a 15 amp breaker - You seem to be a very strong
advocate for "nanny state" interference at all levels of life - the
government has to protect everybody because they are too stupid to
protect themselves. It's bad enough that way in Canada already. You
can't legislate intelligence, and you can't outlaw stupid. And getting
the government involved in "protecting the people" against everything
just guarantees that "stupid" wins.

>
>I find it amazing this concept is so difficult to understand by the
>masses. I encourage you to contact any listing agency regarding my
>claims. I cannot imagine how anyone can misinterpret NEC in such a way
>that justifies listed devices not being protected. The words are quite
>clear in NEC Articles 100, 200, 300, and 400. I've responded to many post
>on this forum ... and have yet to be presented an argument that justifies
>not protecting Listed equipment. In fact, one response stated "All bets
>are off" once the installation has been approved by the regulatory agency
>.. and "We can't control what the user will interface with the
>receptacles" ... which is just not true if NEC is followed as written
>(REF: Article 110.3(A)(8) which states: "Other factors that contribute to
>the practical safeguarding of persons using or likely to come in contact
>with the equipment". The key words are "contribute", "practical",
>"safeguarding" .... ACKNOWLEDGED? It just isn't happening if 20-ampere
>circuit breakers used in branch circuits are interfaced with "Listed
>equipment" rated for use from branch circuit rated at not more than
>15-amperes.

Are you a lawyer, or do you just play one on TV?????

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Friday, December 20, 2013 10:47:01 AM UTC-5, Let's get it right! wrote:
> replying to tra...@optonline.net , Let's get it right! wrote:
>
> > trader4 wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Perhaps you can show us examples of UL listing tags that say:
>
> > "This appliance may only be used on a circuit with a 15 amp breaker".
>
> > "Using it on a circuit with a 20 amp breaker is not allowed and
>
> dangerous".
>
> > I've bought and used a lot of appliances, lights, etc and don't
>
> > ever recall seeing any such thing. If this issue was 1% of the problem
>
> > you make it out to be, you would think there would be required warning
>
> > labels like that all over the place. I've never seen one.
>
> >
>
> > Does it make any sense to protect floor lamps that have 18 gauge cords
>
> > with 15 amp breakers on the circuits they get plugged into?
>
> > Yet apparently the UL and NEC are OK with that.
>
> > As for protecting the small fan with a 20 amp breaker, it depends on
>
> > what else is on that circuit. If it serves other loads, that warrant
>
> > a 20 amp breaker, then AFAIK, it's allowed. The motor has it's own
>
> > overload protection. And if it's not allowed, perhaps you can show us
>
> > the install instructions for some typical bath fans that say you can't
>
> > put them on a 20 amp breaker.
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> That label "15-ampere" is there for a purpose.

What 15 ampere label? I just looked at a cordless phone base
station, a hair dryer, a Breville electric kettle, and a Brother
multi-function copier/printer. All say UL listed, 120 V, 60 Hz
and the amps/watts, the printer being 9.6A. No where does it
say that it can't be plugged into an outlet that is on a 20 amp
circuit. So, what label exactly are you referring to? If this
is such a danger, then is should be easy to find a user manual
for any of this common appliances that says not to plug it into
a circuit that is greater than 15 amps. I've yet to see one.

Surely you're not
>
> advocating ignoring it ... are you? (Ref: NEC Article 240.5(b)(1))
>
>

What "it" is that? There is nothing on my appliances labels or
instructions that I'm ignoring. It shows they are UL listed,
120V 50/60 hz, 5 amps, 600 watts, that's all.

>
> Also look at NEC Article 240.5 (B) (2) regarding ampacity of fixture wire.
>
>
>
> Your ignorance is showing. Either get with the NEC program ...or get the
>
> hell out of it. You may be a source for fire/shock hazards that exist
>
> today!.
>
>

You must be a troll. Do you not realize that 20 amp circuits with
15 amp outlets are permitted in the NEC and that they are being
installed by licensed electricians in millions of houses? And
passed by the electrical inspectors?

And you have yet to explain the alleged fire/shock hazard that this
presents compared to a simple floor lamp that uses an 18 gauge cord
on a 15 amp circuit.

>
> A 15-ampere circuit breaker provides more protection than a 20-ampere
>
> circuit breaker, and is a standard ampere rating for circuit breakers
>
> (REF: NEC Article 240.6 (A).
>

Nonsense. There are standard ratings for circuit breakers of
100 amp too, so what? You really are confused.

>
> Either provide backup for your argument ... or get the hell out of the
>
> way.
>
>
>
> --

I just did. I'm waiting for you to show us an appliance manual for
any commonly used household appliances that say that it can only
be used on a 15 amp circuit. I've read many of them over decades and
I don't ever recall seeing any such thing. Cite please.

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Friday, December 20, 2013 1:44:01 PM UTC-5, Let's get it right! wrote:
> replying to bud-- , Let's get it right! wrote:
>
> > null wrote:
>
> >
>
> > As I have already explained, "listed" devices will be "approved" by the
>
> > AHJ under 110.2.
>
> > 110.3 (inspection) is irrelevant to listed devices -inspectors do not
>
> > "inspect" listed devices. They determine that the listed devices are
>
> > used according to the manufactures instructions and the conditions of
>
> > listing.
>
> > The system is working as intended by the NEC and UL.
>
> > Anyone can submit a code change proposal.
>
> > And anyone can petition the UL to change their standards.
>
> > I am sure your proposals will be appropriately considered.
>
>
>
>
>
> What your failing to recognize is they are approving installations that do
>
> no protect "listed" equipment (tenant owned, property owned, etc.).
>
> What's the purpose of NEC if it isn't to protect the public? What's the
>
> purpose of the listing effort (Testing for Public Safety) if the
>
> application of listed equipment in facilities allegedly complying to NEC
>
> do not protect the public after all?
>
>

It's quite obvious that the NEC doesn't agree with your fire and
shock hazard argument. If this were a real problem of any significance,
then the NEC would simply not allow 15 amp receptacles on a 20 amp
circuit. Everyone knows that 95% of people are going to plug any
appliance with a matching plug into a 15 amp receptacle. Very few
are going to go find the panel and figure out whether it has a 15
or 20 amp breaker. And they wouldn't look because not one appliance
manual I've ever bought has said that it had to be used only on a
15 amp circuit. So, why wouldn't the average person just plug it
in? And the NEC, UL, electrical inspectors all know this is going
on in hundreds of millions of homes. Obviously they don't agree that it's a
code violation, illegal, dangerous or why wouldn't they do something
about it?


So, if this were indeed a real problem, the
NEC would simply ban putting 15 amp receptacles on a 20 amp circuit.
The fact that they allow it, the fact that electrical inspectors pass these installs every day, says you'be full of baloney.

Why don't you show us some appliance manuals that say the appliance
can only be used on a circuit with a 15 amp rating? Or some fire,
shocks attributed specifically to this. With millions of appliances
and millions of 15 amp outlets on 20 amp circuits that should be
easy to do......

>
> If you have an appreciation for "real" power, you could acknowledge
>
> I-squared x resistance .... that's what a power cord would see. Protected
>
> by a 20-ampere circuit breaker could allow for up to 78% more exposure to
>
> power than what the power cord is rated for if it has a NEMA 5-15 plug
>
> and/or cord set. A 20-ampere circuit breaker does not limit the exposure
>
> of the 15-ampere rated device to 15-amperes! A 15-ampere circuit breaker
>
> does.
>
>
>
> You can overload an extension cord utilizing a NEMA 5-15 plug if protected
>
> by a circuit breaker rated at 20-amperes. However, you cannot overload
>
> such extension cord if protected by a 15-ampere circuit breaker.
>
> Acknowledge?
>
>
>

Here's an 18 gauge extension cord. It's rated at 10 amps. You
could overload that on a 15 amp circuit.

http://www.monoprice.com/Product?seq=1&format=2&p_id=6450&CAWELAID=1329453513&catargetid=320013720000011051&cadevice=c&cagpspn=pla&gclid=CNH32YfPv7sCFSEV7AodH2cAvA

Here's another one sold at HD, rated at 13 amps. You could overload
that on a 15 amp circuit.

http://www.homedepot.com/p/GE-9-ft-2-Wire-16-Gauge-Polarized-Indoor-Extension-Cord-51947/203806531?cm_mmc=shopping-_-googleads-_-pla-_-203806531&skwcid&kwd=&ci_sku=203806531&ci_kw=&ci_gpa=pla&ci_src=17588969

Acknowledge?



> I find it amazing this concept is so difficult to understand by the
>
> masses. I encourage you to contact any listing agency regarding my
>
> claims. I cannot imagine how anyone can misinterpret NEC in such a way
>
> that justifies listed devices not being protected. The words are quite
>
> clear in NEC Articles 100, 200, 300, and 400. I've responded to many post
>
> on this forum ... and have yet to be presented an argument that justifies
>
> not protecting Listed equipment. In fact, one response stated "All bets
>
> are off" once the installation has been approved by the regulatory agency
>
> .. and "We can't control what the user will interface with the
>
> receptacles" ... which is just not true if NEC is followed as written
>
> (REF: Article 110.3(A)(8) which states: "Other factors that contribute to
>
> the practical safeguarding of persons using or likely to come in contact
>
> with the equipment". The key words are "contribute", "practical",
>
> "safeguarding" .... ACKNOWLEDGED? It just isn't happening if 20-ampere
>
> circuit breakers used in branch circuits are interfaced with "Listed
>
> equipment" rated for use from branch circuit rated at not more than
>
> 15-amperes.
>
>
>
> I've said enough in the forum to realize the concepts in the NEC are way
>
> above your head, and you just don't have what it takes to understand how
>
> it's suppose to work.

Yes, after all you only have EE's and electricians telling your you're
wrong. We haven't heard from gfre who is/was an electrical inspector,
but I bet he won't agree with you.

And again, if this is indeed a serious safety issue, why the hell does
the NEC allow putting 15 amp receptacles on 20 amp circuits at all?
Everyone knows that people plug all kinds of things into them and almost
no one is going to go look at the breaker. Not that they would even
know to look, because
I'm still waiting for some appliance manuals that say that the appliance
may only be plugged into and used on a 15 amp circuit.

Your logic is extensively flawed, and you've not
>
> presented anything resembling a logical argument except for what's
>
> referred to as "Appeal to Authority". If you are an authority, then
>
> present a logical argument.
>
>

Many have, it's just that you ignore it all.

[bob haller]

not wanting to blunder into your p**sing match but I have had stupid customers plug 15 amp machines into 18 gauge extension cords, most notably one stapled to a carpeted wall. they used a 3 prong to 2 prong adapter too so theunit wasnt grounded.

so people can and do overload circuits.

really each and every appliance should be over current protected to whatever its normal current is...

[Stormin Mormon]

Years ago, I got a call from a woman whose window
AC wasn't running. Her son the handyman for apart-
ment complex had used a grey cheater, and then a
lamp cord extension to the power socket on the
far wall.

--
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

[Irreverent Maximus]

A device is plugged into a "protected circuit". The "device" is
inherently protected by its own design.

[k...@attt.bizz]

Can't be, Malformed. You're too damned stupid to understand sarcasm.

[k...@attt.bizz]

LGIR is, it is.

[bud--]

On 12/20/2013 12:44 PM, Let's get it right! wrote:
> replying to bud-- , Let's get it right! wrote:
>> null wrote:
>>
>> As I have already explained, "listed" devices will be "approved" by
>> the AHJ under 110.2. 110.3 (inspection) is irrelevant to listed
>> devices -inspectors do not "inspect" listed devices. They determine
>> that the listed devices are used according to the manufactures
>> instructions and the conditions of listing. The system is working as
>> intended by the NEC and UL. Anyone can submit a code change proposal.
>> And anyone can petition the UL to change their standards. I am sure
>> your proposals will be appropriately considered.
>
>
> What your failing to recognize is they are approving installations that do
> no protect "listed" equipment (tenant owned, property owned, etc.).
> What's the purpose of NEC if it isn't to protect the public?

Write a code change proposal. I am confident you will receive the
appropriate consideration.

> What's the
> purpose of the listing effort (Testing for Public Safety) if the
> application of listed equipment in facilities allegedly complying to NEC
> do not protect the public after all?

Petition UL to change its standards. I am confident you will receive the
appropriate consideration.

> A 20-ampere circuit breaker does not limit the exposure
> of the 15-ampere rated device to 15-amperes! A 15-ampere circuit breaker
> does. You can overload an extension cord utilizing a NEMA 5-15 plug if protected
> by a circuit breaker rated at 20-amperes. However, you cannot overload
> such extension cord if protected by a 15-ampere circuit breaker.
> Acknowledge?

A 15A circuit breaker does not protect #16 or #18 wires. Include in your
petition to UL and the NEC prohibiting anything smaller than #14 wire.
My desk lamp deserves a #14 cord.

And include in your code change proposal correction for the blatant
over-sizing of protection for fixture wires in 240.5-B-2.

Also include in your code change proposal correction for the blatant
over-sizing of circuit breakers for motors, and even worse, welders. And
I don't even want to think about what they do with fire pumps - it could
cause a fire.

>
> I find it amazing this concept is so difficult to understand by the
> masses.

Everyone understands your argument.

> (REF: Article 110.3(A)(8) which states: "Other factors that contribute to
> the practical safeguarding of persons using or likely to come in contact
> with the equipment". The key words are "contribute", "practical",
> "safeguarding" .... ACKNOWLEDGED?

As I have explained several times, including quoted above, 110.3
(inspection) is not used for "listed" equipment. The AHJ does not second
guess the listing standard. The AHJ determines the device is used
according to the manufacturers instructions and conditions of listing.

> I've said enough in the forum to realize the concepts in the NEC are way
> above your head, and you just don't have what it takes to understand how
> it's suppose to work.

I am a licensed master electrician. I have explained how the NEC and UL
work.

Are you Pete C. in drag?

[Let's get it right!]

replying to bud-- , Let's get it right! wrote:
> null wrote:
>
> Write a code change proposal. I am confident you will receive the
> appropriate consideration.

> Petition UL to change its standards. I am confident you will receive the
> appropriate consideration.

> A 15A circuit breaker does not protect #16 or #18 wires. Include in your
> petition to UL and the NEC prohibiting anything smaller than #14 wire.
> My desk lamp deserves a #14 cord.
> And include in your code change proposal correction for the blatant
> over-sizing of protection for fixture wires in 240.5-B-2.
> Also include in your code change proposal correction for the blatant
> over-sizing of circuit breakers for motors, and even worse, welders. And
> I don't even want to think about what they do with fire pumps - it could
> cause a fire.

> Everyone understands your argument.

> As I have explained several times, including quoted above, 110.3
> (inspection) is not used for "listed" equipment. The AHJ does not second
> guess the listing standard. The AHJ determines the device is used
> according to the manufacturers instructions and conditions of listing.

> I am a licensed master electrician. I have explained how the NEC and UL
> work.
> Are you Pete C. in drag?

U.L. isn't the problem. They are doing it right!
The problem is interpretation of NEC. You can't protect a listed device
that utilizes a NEMA 5-15 power cord set from a 20 ampere circuit breaker.
Goggle McMaster Carr, extension cords. None are rated at more than
15-amperes @ 125 VAC. See the problem?

--

[Let's get it right!]

replying to clare , Let's get it right! wrote:

> clare wrote:
>
> On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 18:44:01 +0000, Let's get it right!

> You can easily overload a listed 10 amp extension cord with a NEMA
> 5-15 plug even on a 15 amp breaker - You seem to be a very strong
> advocate for "nanny state" interference at all levels of life - the
> government has to protect everybody because they are too stupid to
> protect themselves. It's bad enough that way in Canada already. You
> can't legislate intelligence, and you can't outlaw stupid. And getting
> the government involved in "protecting the people" against everything
> just guarantees that "stupid" wins.

> Are you a lawyer, or do you just play one on TV?????

This is called an "Appeal to Authority" argument (Goggle it!).

No, I'm not a lawyer. However, I am a Licensed Professional Engineer.
I've engineered "Listed" equipment, and designed branch circuit protection
for DOD facilities. I'm not aware of any fires/shock hazards attributed
to my works over the past 45-years.. However, I've determined the cause
of fires of several facilities .... all due to improper branch circuit
protection, and yet the "As-Built" drawing, reviewed and certified by the
local regulatory agency as complying with NEC, didn't comply!

If there we're accountability for improper branch circuit protection, and
the resulting fires and shock hazards, this problem would be cleaned up.
The forum has really exposed the ignorance and arrogance of the user's of
NEC ... and at all levels.

I'm prepared to support my argument in court, as I've done in the past!
Would you?

--

[Let's get it right!]

replying to tra...@optonline.net , Let's get it right! wrote:

> trader4 wrote:
>
> It's quite obvious that the NEC doesn't agree with your fire and
> shock hazard argument. If this were a real problem of any significance,
> then the NEC would simply not allow 15 amp receptacles on a 20 amp
> circuit. Everyone knows that 95% of people are going to plug any
> appliance with a matching plug into a 15 amp receptacle. Very few
> are going to go find the panel and figure out whether it has a 15
> or 20 amp breaker. And they wouldn't look because not one appliance
> manual I've ever bought has said that it had to be used only on a
> 15 amp circuit. So, why wouldn't the average person just plug it
> in? And the NEC, UL, electrical inspectors all know this is going
> on in hundreds of millions of homes. Obviously they don't agree that it's
a

> code violation, illegal, dangerous or why wouldn't they do something
> about it?
> So, if this were indeed a real problem, the
> NEC would simply ban putting 15 amp receptacles on a 20 amp circuit.
> The fact that they allow it, the fact that electrical inspectors pass these
installs every day, says you'be full of baloney.
> Why don't you show us some appliance manuals that say the appliance
> can only be used on a circuit with a 15 amp rating? Or some fire,
> shocks attributed specifically to this. With millions of appliances
> and millions of 15 amp outlets on 20 amp circuits that should be
> easy to do......
>

> Here's an 18 gauge extension cord. It's rated at 10 amps. You
> could overload that on a 15 amp circuit.
>
http://www.monoprice.com/Product?seq=1&format=2&p_id=6450&CAWELAID=1329453513&catargetid=320013720000011051&cadevice=c&cagpspn=pla&gclid=CNH32YfPv7sCFSEV7AodH2cAvA
> Here's another one sold at HD, rated at 13 amps. You could overload
> that on a 15 amp circuit.
>
http://www.homedepot.com/p/GE-9-ft-2-Wire-16-Gauge-Polarized-Indoor-Extension-Cord-51947/203806531?cm_mmc=shopping-_-googleads-_-pla-_-203806531&skwcid&kwd=&ci_sku=203806531&ci_kw=&ci_gpa=pla&ci_src=17588969
> Acknowledge?

> Yes, after all you only have EE's and electricians telling your you're
> wrong. We haven't heard from gfre who is/was an electrical inspector,
> but I bet he won't agree with you.
> And again, if this is indeed a serious safety issue, why the hell does
> the NEC allow putting 15 amp receptacles on 20 amp circuits at all?
> Everyone knows that people plug all kinds of things into them and almost
> no one is going to go look at the breaker. Not that they would even
> know to look, because
> I'm still waiting for some appliance manuals that say that the appliance
> may only be plugged into and used on a 15 amp circuit.
> Your logic is extensively flawed, and you've not

> Many have, it's just that you ignore it all.

They would both be protected with a 15-ampere circuit breaker. The
listing you quote is the steady state current ratings of the device.
There is a reserve ... and at that reserve current (15-amperes), the
reliability of the conductors deteriorates ... but not to the point it
would ignite cheesecloth (Ref: U.L. Standards for listed extension cords
and power cords".

You acknowledge a 15-ampere circuit breaker provides more protection than
a 20-ampere circuit breaker?

The GFRE with the City of New Orleans certainly does't agree with me ...
and after I proved him wrong. What an arrogant SOB ... and he lacking
BACKBONE!

Have a great X-mas season!


--

[Let's get it right!]

And you point? This is hardly the forum to vent gas. Grow Up!

--

[Let's get it right!]

replying to tra...@optonline.net , Let's get it right! wrote:
> trader4 wrote:
>
> What 15 ampere label? I just looked at a cordless phone base
> station, a hair dryer, a Breville electric kettle, and a Brother
> multi-function copier/printer. All say UL listed, 120 V, 60 Hz
> and the amps/watts, the printer being 9.6A. No where does it
> say that it can't be plugged into an outlet that is on a 20 amp
> circuit. So, what label exactly are you referring to? If this
> is such a danger, then is should be easy to find a user manual
> for any of this common appliances that says not to plug it into
> a circuit that is greater than 15 amps. I've yet to see one.
> Surely you're not

> What "it" is that? There is nothing on my appliances labels or
> instructions that I'm ignoring. It shows they are UL listed,
> 120V 50/60 hz, 5 amps, 600 watts, that's all.

> You must be a troll. Do you not realize that 20 amp circuits with
> 15 amp outlets are permitted in the NEC and that they are being
> installed by licensed electricians in millions of houses? And
> passed by the electrical inspectors?
> And you have yet to explain the alleged fire/shock hazard that this
> presents compared to a simple floor lamp that uses an 18 gauge cord
> on a 15 amp circuit.
>

> Nonsense. There are standard ratings for circuit breakers of
> 100 amp too, so what? You really are confused.
>

> I just did. I'm waiting for you to show us an appliance manual for
> any commonly used household appliances that say that it can only
> be used on a 15 amp circuit. I've read many of them over decades and
> I don't ever recall seeing any such thing. Cite please.

You missed the point. Even if the label say 0.1 amperes, it's appropriate
to apply the device to a branch circuit of not more than 15-amperes, the
smallest standard size breaker ... which provides the maximum protection..


Goggle McMaster Carr, Three conductor indoor/outdoor extension cords.
Nearly all are rated at a maximum of 10 to 15 amperes at 125 VAC. A
20-ampere circuit breaker will not protect such devices. A 15-ampere
circuit breaker will.

Just because this is the way it's been done in millions of houses doesn't
make it right. In fact, it supports my argument (Get it Right).



--

[The Daring Dufas]

You poor thing, I suppose someone has to pity you. ^_^

TDD

[The Daring Dufas]

We had a bit of disagreement here when I stated that I installed
breakers sized to protect the wiring not necessarily the equipment.
The argument was that according to the NEC, you can use #12 to an
AC unit and a 30 amp breaker. In my experience I've seen burnt
connections and melted insulation when the wiring is installed in that
way. I've measured actual LRA on an AC unit when it was 102�F outdoors
and the current far exceeded what was on the nameplate. ^_^

Happy Horror Days!

TDD

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

A 15 amp breaker will no more protect a 10 amp cord than a 20 will
protect a 15 amp cord

>
>Just because this is the way it's been done in millions of houses doesn't
>make it right. In fact, it supports my argument (Get it Right).

You cannot legislate intelligence

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

A good friend of mine is working on an "intelligent " power plug
system that would read the power rating of the load and program the
protection level of the outlet to match - but it cannot support an
extention cord.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

I still think you'd make a better lawyer - - -

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

Funny, I have both 20 and 30 amp extention cords.

[k...@attt.bizz]

How does that work? Why not just fuse the plugs, as the Brits do?
Simple beats complicated all to hell.

[The Daring Dufas]

I'm sure you know that a lot of gear has a fused IEC14 inlet on the back
of the case. If the equipment short circuits, the fuse blows and
I would guess prevent an over current on an undamaged power cord. ^_^

TDD

[tra...@optonline.net]

Nothing was missed either by me or the others here, like CL, none
of whom agree with you. Like most people, I plug most appliances, lamps,
etc into whatever receptable is closest and convenient. Exceptions
would be if it were a large load and then I would consider what else
is on the circuit. The folks who write the NEC obviously understand
that and they are OK with putting 15 amps receptacles on 20 amp
circuits. If you disagree, as Bud suggested, feel free to take it
up with them.

And my point is that if this is in fact a safety issue, that you
should not plug a 1 amp device into an outlet on a 20 amp circuit,
why exactly doesn't any device manual say that? Curious thing.
They have all kinds of safety warnings, but I don't ever recall one
for an appliance, light, etc saying "Warning! Not to be used on a
circuit with a breaker larger than 15 amps" Can he show us some
examples?

> >
>
> >Goggle McMaster Carr, Three conductor indoor/outdoor extension cords.
>
> >Nearly all are rated at a maximum of 10 to 15 amperes at 125 VAC. A
>
> >20-ampere circuit breaker will not protect such devices. A 15-ampere
>
> >circuit breaker will.
>
> A 15 amp breaker will no more protect a 10 amp cord than a 20 will
>
> protect a 15 amp cord
>
>

Right. You could overload a 10 amp cord on a 15 amp breaker by 33%.
If you put a 15 amp cord on to a circuit with a 20 amp breaker, you
only overload it by 25%.

>
>
> >Just because this is the way it's been done in millions of houses doesn't
>
> >make it right. In fact, it supports my argument (Get it Right).
>
> You cannot legislate intelligence

As Bud suggested, he should take that up with the NEC and UL who are
obviously OK with it.

[k...@attt.bizz]

Sure, but that doesn't protect the cord. It's obviously not a
sufficient problem to get the NFPA's interest.

[The Daring Dufas]

I seem to recall reading something about New York City not allowing any
power strips whatsoever. Those ubiquitous surge arrester strips were not
to be used by anyone and I found it quite puzzling. If it's true and I'm
not just remembering things that aren't there, perhaps one of my Damn
Yankee cousins could set me straight. ^_^

TDD

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 14:34:59 -0600, The Daring Dufas

When I was working for IBM, the normal commercial power strips were
forbidden. They had some "listed" ones that were used sparingly. The
strips mounted on benches were allowed, but pretty well controlled.
Extension cords were strictly forbidden for anything other than a
*temporary* installation. At my CPoE, I am allotted *one* duplex
outlet. That has to do for not only my four computers (laptops),
three monitors, and all of my lab equipment (scope, power supplies,
meters, etc.). I have power strips plugged into power strips, three
deep. Everyone is in the same situation and some have even more
equipment in their cubes.

[The Daring Dufas]

When I worked as a bench tech at a repair depot, guys were bad about
pranking each other. Our benches had a master switch which controlled
the power outlets on the bench. One hapless victim came in, sat down,
flipped the master switch and it was as though the sun suddenly appeared
for one second because some prankster had wired a bunch of 12 volt dial
lights across the 120 volt supply. I was always switching the contents
of freeze spray and tuner wash in the cans. I'd get an empty can for
each then using my handheld vacuum pump, pull as much of a vacuum as I
could on the empty can after which I simply plugged the small extension
tube between the spay nozzles and depressed them. Freeze spray into the
tuner wash can and tuner wash into the freeze spray can. When the victim
tried to spot cool a component, he got tuner wash all over his work. Of
course it evaporated in a few minutes. I wasn't so mean as to put water
in a can unless I was making a super squirt gun. ^_^

TDD

[bud--]

On 12/23/2013 1:45 PM, Let's get it right! wrote:
> replying to bud-- , Let's get it right! wrote:
>> null wrote:
>>
>> Write a code change proposal. I am confident you will receive the
>> appropriate consideration. Petition UL to change its standards. I am
>> confident you will receive the appropriate consideration. A 15A
>> circuit breaker does not protect #16 or #18 wires. Include in your
>> petition to UL and the NEC prohibiting anything smaller than #14 wire.
>> My desk lamp deserves a #14 cord. And include in your code change
>> proposal correction for the blatant over-sizing of protection for
>> fixture wires in 240.5-B-2. Also include in your code change proposal
>> correction for the blatant over-sizing of circuit breakers for motors,
>> and even worse, welders. And I don't even want to think about what
>> they do with fire pumps - it could cause a fire. Everyone understands
>> your argument. As I have explained several times, including quoted
>> above, 110.3 (inspection) is not used for "listed" equipment. The AHJ
>> does not second guess the listing standard. The AHJ determines the
>> device is used according to the manufacturers instructions and
>> conditions of listing. I am a licensed master electrician. I have
>> explained how the NEC and UL work. Are you Pete C. in drag?
>
>
> U.L. isn't the problem. They are doing it right!

UL lists #18 extension cords. UL knows they know those cords will be
used on 20A circuits. #18 wire in a cord is rated 10A, too low for a 15A
circuit.

> The problem is interpretation of NEC. You can't protect a listed device
> that utilizes a NEMA 5-15 power cord set from a 20 ampere circuit breaker.
> Goggle McMaster Carr, extension cords. None are rated at more than
> 15-amperes @ 125 VAC. See the problem?

The NEC explicitly allows home-made cord sets with #16 wire (13A) on 20A
circuits.

The NEC allows UL listed extension cords with 15A plugs on 15 and 20A
circuits.

The system is working as intended by UL and the NEC.

You are "an arrogant SOB" wanting New Orleans to enforce the NEC other
than how it is clearly written.


If you don't like how it works write a code change proposal and petition
UL to make changes in its standards.

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 17:44:05 -0600, The Daring Dufas

Forty years ago, we used to prank on each other at work, all the time.
One of my coworkers was a particular target. One time I took the
insulation off some coax (matching all the coax between instruments)
and ran it across the bench in back of his, under the setup he was
testing. When he put a cover on it to do temperature sensing, I blew
smoke through the tube.

One of the other guys filled the tech's pipe tobacco pouch with pencil
shavings and chopped up rubber bands. What was really funny is that
he didn't notice, though everyone else was running for the doors.

[The Daring Dufas]

I only prank those I like and and my pranks are never destructive of
property, unless I supplied the item to be destroyed. I don't prank
those people I don't like because I'm afraid I might become malicious
and I don't like to hurt people, even nasty people. I believe in Karma
and what goes around comes around. I've seen so many ambulatory turds
eventually get their butts nailed to the wall and it's well deserved. ^_^

TDD

[Let's get it right!]

replying to clare , Let's get it right! wrote:

> clare wrote:
>
> On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 19:49:02 +0000, Let's get it right!

> A 15 amp breaker will no more protect a 10 amp cord than a 20 will
> protect a 15 amp cord

> You cannot legislate intelligence


Intelligence? You realize a 15-ampere circuit breaker provides more
protection than a 20-ampere circuit breaker? You are aware of that ...
aren't you?

As far as the ampacity of the conductors, it has nothing to do with the
problem ... as long as it's been evaluated as part of the "Listing"
effort.

So ... you gonna do it like the NEC requires, or or you gonna ignore the
responsibilities imposed upon you by NEC?

Have a save 2014! I'm done trying to educate the "EXPERTS"(?).

--

[sms]

On 12/13/2013 9:44 AM, Let's get it right! wrote:

> Which raises an interesting fact. Most homes and office buildings I've
> inspected have 20 ampere circuit breakers providing branch circuit
> protection to wall outlets, switch, listed cord and direct connected
> equipment. If the listed cord connected equipment utilizes a NEMA 5-15
> plug, it's not protected, and because it cannot be applied to such branch
> circuit protection and still be considered "PROTECTED".

Your theory is that every device plugged into a circuit with a 20A
breaker must have wiring that can handle 20A in case the device
malfunctions and draws the full 20A.

It's an interesting theory though you're wrong of course. The breaker
protects the internal building wiring, not each individual cord or
device plugged into that wiring, each of which draws less than the total
available current.

The cord or device needs its own protection. For example, at my
daughter's dorm the rule is that power strips must have their own
circuit breakers. She complied with this, but most cheap power strips
don't have circuit breakers and the university never checks up on this.

If an unprotected device with wire that was rated for 15A had a short
that caused a high current through the wiring then the 20A circuit
breaker would still trip long before the wire caught fire.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

OK You cannot legislate COMMON SENSE. No matter what nanny-state
laws are put in place, stupid people will continue to kill themselves
and burn down their homes. When you get close to Idiot Proof, they
just come up with a better idiot.

If you never put more load on a cord than it was designed for AND
maintain the cord properly, using it for the purpose it was made for,
you won't have a problem.

If, on the other hand, you require 5 amp devices ONLY be plugged into
circuits that are protected to 5 amps, and 15 amp devices only be
connected to 15 amp protected circuits, you will need EVERY outlet
separately protected, and you will need numerous different outlets in
all locations so you can plug everything into an outlet that is
protected to the rating of the device, or you will require every
device to have it's own user resettable overcurrent protection in the
plug - which is how it has been done in some european countries
(where, by the way, the building wiring is not nearly as well
"protected" as it is in North America. Ring wiring topology is a real
bugger to adequately protect as it is fed from both ends.

So have a happy new year, and I'mm GLAD you are done trying to educate
experts. That way I don't need to add you to my filter.

[sms]

On 12/30/2013 4:50 PM, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

<snip>

> So have a happy new year, and I'mm GLAD you are done trying to educate
> experts. That way I don't need to add you to my filter.

He's a troll. The whole "Let's get it right!" schtick when he's
knowingly posting incorrect information should have been your first clue.

[Irreverent Maximus]

That was my summation. <PLONKED> and moved on. Either that or he is
an incompetent idiot.