EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
Electronics => Beginners => Topic started by: DW1961 on July 02, 2023, 07:49:59 pm
-
A question about home electrical codes in California.
Does a clothes washer need it's own dedicated circuit?
I've also noticed that our clothes washing machine is plugged into a non GFCI receptacle, although there is a sink in the washroom less than 3' from it.
-
From a municipal guideline giving excerpts from the 2022 CEC (California Electrical Code)
Laundry Rooms
Electrical:
• All new or altered lighting shall be high efficacy. [CNC 150.0(k)1A]
• At least one light shall be controlled by a vacancy sensor (a manual-on, automatic-off
occupancy sensor). [CNC 150.0(k)2AJ
• All 125-volt receptacles in laundry areas GFCI protection, including the clothes washer
receptacle. [CEC 210.8A10].
• Receptacle outlets shall be tamper-resistant except those within dedicated space for an
appliance not easily moved from one place to another (behind clothes washer). [CEC 406.12A]
• A separate 20-amp circuit is required for the laundry equipment. The lights and other
receptacles in the room cannot be on that circuit [CEC 210C2].
• All circuits supplying outlets or devices in the laundry area (including laundry areas in garages)
must be AFCI protected [CEC210.12A]
So yes, you need a dedicated circuit for the "laundry equipment" although this would include not only the washer, but the dryer (gas) and perhaps other things like a clothes iron, steamer, etc. GFCI required, but it appears you could have multiple outlets as long as they were just for the laundry equipment. I would expect that most installations would use one duplex GFCI outlet and any other configuration could invite unwanted questions or objections from the inspector.
However, keep in mind that this is the 2022 CEC and if your installation was done some time ago, it would only be required to meet the code as of that date.
-
• Receptacle outlets shall be tamper-resistant except those within dedicated space for an
appliance not easily moved from one place to another (behind clothes washer). [CEC 406.12A]
Are they fucking kidding? Those things are the opposite of safe because they so easily break leaving the operator to pound on the plug to either insert or remove it. They are as bad as "spill proof" EPA fuel containers which leak fuel all over the place and take twice as long to empty.
-
From a municipal guideline giving excerpts from the 2022 CEC (California Electrical Code)
Laundry Rooms
Electrical:
• All new or altered lighting shall be high efficacy. [CNC 150.0(k)1A]
• At least one light shall be controlled by a vacancy sensor (a manual-on, automatic-off
occupancy sensor). [CNC 150.0(k)2AJ
• All 125-volt receptacles in laundry areas GFCI protection, including the clothes washer
receptacle. [CEC 210.8A10].
• Receptacle outlets shall be tamper-resistant except those within dedicated space for an
appliance not easily moved from one place to another (behind clothes washer). [CEC 406.12A]
• A separate 20-amp circuit is required for the laundry equipment. The lights and other
receptacles in the room cannot be on that circuit [CEC 210C2].
• All circuits supplying outlets or devices in the laundry area (including laundry areas in garages)
must be AFCI protected [CEC210.12A]
So yes, you need a dedicated circuit for the "laundry equipment" although this would include not only the washer, but the dryer (gas) and perhaps other things like a clothes iron, steamer, etc. GFCI required, but it appears you could have multiple outlets as long as they were just for the laundry equipment. I would expect that most installations would use one duplex GFCI outlet and any other configuration could invite unwanted questions or objections from the inspector.
However, keep in mind that this is the 2022 CEC and if your installation was done some time ago, it would only be required to meet the code as of that date.
There are only two outlets in the washing area, 240 for the dryer and 120, which the washing machine is plugged into. I'm assuming that 120 outlet is it's own dedicated circuit?
-
A question about home electrical codes in California.
Does a clothes washer need it's own dedicated circuit?
I've also noticed that our clothes washing machine is plugged into a non GFCI receptacle, although there is a sink in the washroom less than 3' from it.
The answer to your question would depend on when the home was built, or when everything was installed, and what codes were applicable on that date.
Old installations were required to meet the code on the date of installation. They are not required to be updated when the code changes, unless the installation is being upgraded such as during a remodel.
-
There are only two outlets in the washing area, 240 for the dryer and 120, which the washing machine is plugged into. I'm assuming that 120 outlet is it's own dedicated circuit?
It should be by current code and AFAIK most of the recent previous ones. Of course, I've no idea whether yours actually is or not.
-
There are only two outlets in the washing area, 240 for the dryer and 120, which the washing machine is plugged into. I'm assuming that 120 outlet is it's own dedicated circuit?
Approximately how old is your home? Without that answer, no assumptions can be made, nor can we tell you what the requirements at the time were. As has already been said, residential electrical codes are grandfathered in most cases, and there is no requirement to bring existing wiring up to todays standard.
Looking at your circuit breaker panel may tell you how many circuits you have, and if there is a separate laundry room circuit (in addition to the 240V dryer circuit). Hopefully they're all labeled correctly.
In practical terms, there's no problem operating a typical washer on a shared circuit, if that's all you're worried about.
-
From a municipal guideline giving excerpts from the 2022 CEC (California Electrical Code)
• Receptacle outlets shall be tamper-resistant except those within dedicated space for an
appliance not easily moved from one place to another (behind clothes washer). [CEC 406.12A]
OK so what's California's rational for requiring that washing machine outlets be "tamper-resistant"? I don't see how anyone would be more likely to "tamper" with that outlet than any other outlet in the house (most of which are probably much more accessible!)
-
OK so what's California's rational for requiring that washing machine outlets be "tamper-resistant"? I don't see how anyone would be more likely to "tamper" with that outlet than any other outlet in the house (most of which are probably much more accessible!)
All those other accessible outlets are also required to be tamper resistant. Only those outlets that are deemed inaccessible to children can be without the tamper shield mechanism.
-
• Receptacle outlets shall be tamper-resistant except those within dedicated space for an
appliance not easily moved from one place to another (behind clothes washer). [CEC 406.12A]
Are they fucking kidding? Those things are the opposite of safe because they so easily break leaving the operator to pound on the plug to either insert or remove it. They are as bad as "spill proof" EPA fuel containers which leak fuel all over the place and take twice as long to empty.
It's California. What else did you expect? ::)
For a more common-sense approach, check the peak amperage of your washing machine and see if the circuit you plan on putting it on will meet that rating. The GFCI requirement does sound like a good thing, however.
-
There are only two outlets in the washing area, 240 for the dryer and 120, which the washing machine is plugged into. I'm assuming that 120 outlet is it's own dedicated circuit?
Approximately how old is your home? Without that answer, no assumptions can be made, nor can we tell you what the requirements at the time were. As has already been said, residential electrical codes are grandfathered in most cases, and there is no requirement to bring existing wiring up to todays standard.
Looking at your circuit breaker panel may tell you how many circuits you have, and if there is a separate laundry room circuit (in addition to the 240V dryer circuit). Hopefully they're all labeled correctly.
In practical terms, there's no problem operating a typical washer on a shared circuit, if that's all you're worried about.
It was built in 1961 and the kitchen w as recently remodeled and has GFCI circuits where they should be. however, the laundry room was not remodeled.
-
OK so what's California's rational for requiring that washing machine outlets be "tamper-resistant"? I don't see how anyone would be more likely to "tamper" with that outlet than any other outlet in the house (most of which are probably much more accessible!)
California doesn't give 'rationale' for requirements. They give ultimatums. lol
-
As others have said, the circuits in the house only need to meet the code that was in effect at the time of installation. So the washer may not be required to be on a separate circuit from other parts of the house.
Also, GFCI protection can be provided to an entire circuit, by installing a GFCI receptacle on the first outlet of the circuit and appropriately connecting the wire running to the rest of the circuit. This one receptacle then provides protection to the entire circuit. So, look for the GFCI receptacle elsewhere, and verify the washer outlet is off, when you test the GFCI.
GFCI is an important protection and should be installed even if not strictly required by grandfathered code.
-
OK so what's California's rational for requiring that washing machine outlets be "tamper-resistant"? I don't see how anyone would be more likely to "tamper" with that outlet than any other outlet in the house (most of which are probably much more accessible!)
California doesn't give 'rationale' for requirements. They give ultimatums. lol
Changes to the electrical code are typically made in reaction to accidents. If you care to dig, I expect you can find these causes.
-
OK so what's California's rational for requiring that washing machine outlets be "tamper-resistant"? I don't see how anyone would be more likely to "tamper" with that outlet than any other outlet in the house (most of which are probably much more accessible!)
California doesn't give 'rationale' for requirements. They give ultimatums. lol
Changes to the electrical code are typically made in reaction to accidents. If you care to dig, I expect you can find these causes.
Typically, but back in the mid 90s CA passed a law that got rid of 40 watt florescent bulbs and replaced them with I think 33 watts. The rationale was to 'save energy'. But the dunce that pushed that through didn't realize that all of the fixtures were analyzed decades earlier to provide enough light to be conducive to human eyes, like in schools and shops. So what happened was that people and new installations started buying extra lamps to make up for the shortfall in watts, but that actually increased energy usage. They got rid of the 33 watt bulb law. They had a lot of feedback from professionals on the issues be refused to back off until they realized people were installing extra fixture and using more energy.
-
California doesn't give 'rationale' for requirements. They give ultimatums. lol
The CEC is largely based on the NEC, so it isn't a California thing.
-
• Receptacle outlets shall be tamper-resistant except those within dedicated space for an
appliance not easily moved from one place to another (behind clothes washer). [CEC 406.12A]
Are they fucking kidding? Those things are the opposite of safe because they so easily break leaving the operator to pound on the plug to either insert or remove it. They are as bad as "spill proof" EPA fuel containers which leak fuel all over the place and take twice as long to empty.
It's California. What else did you expect? ::)
For a more common-sense approach, check the peak amperage of your washing machine and see if the circuit you plan on putting it on will meet that rating. The GFCI requirement does sound like a good thing, however.
I'm trying to figure out how I can charge our new EV at 12 amps from the 120 garage outlet. I'll just trip the offending breaker and test the sockets to see which are off and which are on that particular circuit.
It will charge ok without tripping the breaker, but if I try to run the micro -- snap!
I know from last night that the fridge, garage outlet, and microwave are on the same circuit. I'll check other outlets tonight. Hopefully i can rearrange the microwave so it's on another kitchen circuit and then if the washer is on its own circuit, I can charge 120 at 12A anytime without issues. Otherwise I'll have to watch it.
I've called the owner about the CA rebate for a 240 installation in the garage, but they only give you 1000.00 for installation and 250 for any permitting. If you want a 240 in your garage, and it costs more than that, you're out of pocket for it. He's interested but said if it will cost him too much, probably not.
The panel is only 100A also, so it may need a 200 A main installed, and if you can't just put a 200A main in it, then it would need a new panel. It would get expensive fast.
The outfit that is contracted to do the evaluations and installations will come out soon at let us know.
-
The panel is only 100A also,
What brand are the panel and breakers?
-
California doesn't give 'rationale' for requirements. They give ultimatums. lol
The CEC is largely based on the NEC, so it isn't a California thing.
The key word there is "largely". Every state approves their own electrical code.
-
The key word there is "largely". Every state approves their own electrical code.
True, but NEC 406.12A (2014) reads the same as CEC 406.12A in the excerpt that I quoted. Tamper-proof receptacles are not a 'California' thing. They're a PITA everywhere.
-
I'm trying to figure out how I can charge our new EV at 12 amps from the 120 garage outlet. I'll just trip the offending breaker and test the sockets to see which are off and which are on that particular circuit.
It will charge ok without tripping the breaker, but if I try to run the micro -- snap!
I know from last night that the fridge, garage outlet, and microwave are on the same circuit. I'll check other outlets tonight. Hopefully i can rearrange the microwave so it's on another kitchen circuit and then if the washer is on its own circuit, I can charge 120 at 12A anytime without issues. Otherwise I'll have to watch it.
I've called the owner about the CA rebate for a 240 installation in the garage, but they only give you 1000.00 for installation and 250 for any permitting. If you want a 240 in your garage, and it costs more than that, you're out of pocket for it. He's interested but said if it will cost him too much, probably not.
The panel is only 100A also, so it may need a 200 A main installed, and if you can't just put a 200A main in it, then it would need a new panel. It would get expensive fast.
The outfit that is contracted to do the evaluations and installations will come out soon at let us know.
I charge a model X from a 120V, 15A outlet. Of course, the car only draws 12A because of the code limitations. It works for me, but it is slow. In 12 hours, I can charge around 50 miles, which is enough for average driving. Other people won't be happy with that.
A wiring change I have thought of would be to upgrade the outlet to 240V, without running a new wire. It would use a NEMA 6-15 outlet, which is rated for 240V, 15A. This would provide more than twice the charging capacity, as there's some taken off the top to power various things in the car and efficiency issues.
I have had discussions with people over the Internet, asking if this is legit. The existing wires are black and white with a bare or green ground (don't remember which, but I think it's bare). I found language in the NEC that allows the white wire to be marked with tape as a red wire (the other hot in a 240V line). There is no requirement to have a neutral, and since the car doesn't need it, you will be good. The only issue is if the electrician is happy marking the wire, vs. installing a new one. This would be a very quick job for an electrician, so very inexpensive, and would more than double the charging rate.
In your case, you would need to run a wire from the electrical panel, to where ever the line from the garage meets the rest of the circuit.
-
The panel is only 100A also,
What brand are the panel and breakers?
1961 brand. lol who knows the panel itself has no writing on it. I'm not going to take off the panel front because the electricians are coming to do all that. They will know exactly how many extra amps they need to provide the level 2 charging outlet.
Here is a picture of it.
-
The key word there is "largely". Every state approves their own electrical code.
True, but NEC 406.12A (2014) reads the same as CEC 406.12A in the excerpt that I quoted. Tamper-proof receptacles are not a 'California' thing. They're a PITA everywhere.
When we added a new room to our house, the contractor installed those receptacles per code (new construction).
They are an especial PITA when plugging in two-prong plugs for double-insulated appliances such as a vacuum cleaner.
-
When we added a new room to our house, the contractor installed those receptacles per code (new construction).
They are an especial PITA when plugging in two-prong plugs for double-insulated appliances such as a vacuum cleaner.
I accidentally bought and installed a tamper-proof receptacle without realizing. It is nearly impossible to get a plug into it. I have to push with all my might while wiggling the plug. An elderly person with frail hands would find it unusable.
-
I'm trying to figure out how I can charge our new EV at 12 amps from the 120 garage outlet. I'll just trip the offending breaker and test the sockets to see which are off and which are on that particular circuit.
It will charge ok without tripping the breaker, but if I try to run the micro -- snap!
I know from last night that the fridge, garage outlet, and microwave are on the same circuit. I'll check other outlets tonight. Hopefully i can rearrange the microwave so it's on another kitchen circuit and then if the washer is on its own circuit, I can charge 120 at 12A anytime without issues. Otherwise I'll have to watch it.
I've called the owner about the CA rebate for a 240 installation in the garage, but they only give you 1000.00 for installation and 250 for any permitting. If you want a 240 in your garage, and it costs more than that, you're out of pocket for it. He's interested but said if it will cost him too much, probably not.
The panel is only 100A also, so it may need a 200 A main installed, and if you can't just put a 200A main in it, then it would need a new panel. It would get expensive fast.
The outfit that is contracted to do the evaluations and installations will come out soon at let us know.
I charge a model X from a 120V, 15A outlet. Of course, the car only draws 12A because of the code limitations. It works for me, but it is slow. In 12 hours, I can charge around 50 miles, which is enough for average driving. Other people won't be happy with that.
A wiring change I have thought of would be to upgrade the outlet to 240V, without running a new wire. It would use a NEMA 6-15 outlet, which is rated for 240V, 15A. This would provide more than twice the charging capacity, as there's some taken off the top to power various things in the car and efficiency issues.
I have had discussions with people over the Internet, asking if this is legit. The existing wires are black and white with a bare or green ground (don't remember which, but I think it's bare). I found language in the NEC that allows the white wire to be marked with tape as a red wire (the other hot in a 240V line). There is no requirement to have a neutral, and since the car doesn't need it, you will be good. The only issue is if the electrician is happy marking the wire, vs. installing a new one. This would be a very quick job for an electrician, so very inexpensive, and would more than double the charging rate.
In your case, you would need to run a wire from the electrical panel, to where ever the line from the garage meets the rest of the circuit.
The wires are only going to be good for AWG. If it's 15 amp breaker then the wire is probably 15 amp Romex. the level 2 charger for the Bolt needs 32 amps. If its 3 wire then I guess the two black and white would be 15 amps each but that would still not be enough.
-
1961 brand. lol who knows the panel itself has no writing on it.
Oh good lord, that's what I was afraid of. You don't want to charge an EV with that panel, even at 12A. Just move out of the house before you all burn!
Google "Zinsco" for details.
-
the level 2 charger for the Bolt needs 32 amps.
You can buy chargers that plug in and can be set for 240VAC and 12A. But see my other post--your panel is going to be a serious problem.
-
For a more common-sense approach, check the peak amperage of your washing machine and see if the circuit you plan on putting it on will meet that rating. The GFCI requirement does sound like a good thing, however.
The recent construction where I live has all outlets protected by GFCI. Hilarity ensued when I tripped a GFCI which was hidden behind a cabinet. We had to cut a hole through the side of the cabinet to gain access and reset it.
The key word there is "largely". Every state approves their own electrical code.
True, but NEC 406.12A (2014) reads the same as CEC 406.12A in the excerpt that I quoted. Tamper-proof receptacles are not a 'California' thing. They're a PITA everywhere.
But none of the outlets are tamper-proof. This is New Hampshire though.
Everywhere I have lived had a separate circuit for the washer, which was *not* shared with the 120VAC for a dryer, which leads to an interesting story...
Where I lived in Anaheim, the laundry area had separate circuits for the washer and dryer, but only gas for the dryer and no 240VAC connection. However the circuits were on separate phases ... so we used two 120VAC plugs with hot and neutral from one, and hot from the other, to power a 240VAC dryer with half of the electric heating elements disconnected.
-
The recent construction where I live has all outlets protected by GFCI. Hilarity ensued when I tripped a GFCI which was hidden behind a cabinet. We had to cut a hole through the side of the cabinet to gain access and reset it.
It seems that should be against code? A GFCI receptacle must be readily accessible so you can test it at regular intervals to ensure it is operating properly, otherwise how could it be safe?
-
The recent construction where I live has all outlets protected by GFCI. Hilarity ensued when I tripped a GFCI which was hidden behind a cabinet. We had to cut a hole through the side of the cabinet to gain access and reset it.
It seems that should be against code? A GFCI receptacle must be readily accessible so you can test it at regular intervals to ensure it is operating properly, otherwise how could it be safe?
The cabinet was added after the construction and inspection. I *heard* the GFCI trip, but it took days to find it.
Interestingly enough, the same GFCI circuit protects a refrigerator outlet, so the refrigerator does not have a separate circuit.
In a different area of the house, there are wall sockets protected by a GFCI that is on a completely different floor, and I know that the state inspector passed that.
If I had to put up with tamper-resistant sockets, and I could not replace them, I would take a small chisel and break the sliding elements out. In my experience those sockets are a major hazard.
-
In a different area of the house, there are wall sockets protected by a GFCI that is on a completely different floor.
It's tedious and costly ,but I don't use additional sockets in series with GFCI outlets. Each outlet can have it's own GFCI, that way it is obvious what tripped and I don't have to worry about some random failure tripping off my fridge and freezer while I'm out of town. Fridge and freezer have no GFCI either, don't want a spider to ruin all my food.
-
I'm trying to figure out how I can charge our new EV at 12 amps from the 120 garage outlet. I'll just trip the offending breaker and test the sockets to see which are off and which are on that particular circuit.
It will charge ok without tripping the breaker, but if I try to run the micro -- snap!
I know from last night that the fridge, garage outlet, and microwave are on the same circuit. I'll check other outlets tonight. Hopefully i can rearrange the microwave so it's on another kitchen circuit and then if the washer is on its own circuit, I can charge 120 at 12A anytime without issues. Otherwise I'll have to watch it.
I've called the owner about the CA rebate for a 240 installation in the garage, but they only give you 1000.00 for installation and 250 for any permitting. If you want a 240 in your garage, and it costs more than that, you're out of pocket for it. He's interested but said if it will cost him too much, probably not.
The panel is only 100A also, so it may need a 200 A main installed, and if you can't just put a 200A main in it, then it would need a new panel. It would get expensive fast.
The outfit that is contracted to do the evaluations and installations will come out soon at let us know.
I charge a model X from a 120V, 15A outlet. Of course, the car only draws 12A because of the code limitations. It works for me, but it is slow. In 12 hours, I can charge around 50 miles, which is enough for average driving. Other people won't be happy with that.
A wiring change I have thought of would be to upgrade the outlet to 240V, without running a new wire. It would use a NEMA 6-15 outlet, which is rated for 240V, 15A. This would provide more than twice the charging capacity, as there's some taken off the top to power various things in the car and efficiency issues.
I have had discussions with people over the Internet, asking if this is legit. The existing wires are black and white with a bare or green ground (don't remember which, but I think it's bare). I found language in the NEC that allows the white wire to be marked with tape as a red wire (the other hot in a 240V line). There is no requirement to have a neutral, and since the car doesn't need it, you will be good. The only issue is if the electrician is happy marking the wire, vs. installing a new one. This would be a very quick job for an electrician, so very inexpensive, and would more than double the charging rate.
In your case, you would need to run a wire from the electrical panel, to where ever the line from the garage meets the rest of the circuit.
The wires are only going to be good for AWG. If it's 15 amp breaker then the wire is probably 15 amp Romex. the level 2 charger for the Bolt needs 32 amps. If its 3 wire then I guess the two black and white would be 15 amps each but that would still not be enough.
What??? A 240V circuit uses black and red to carry the power. An optional white wire is neutral for a 120V connection (which the car doesn't need) and a green, green/yellow or bare wire for the ground.
I have no idea what you are talking about AWG? In this context it would mean American Wire Gauge, but that's not relevant. If the cable is rated for 15 amps in the usage given, that is independent of carrying 120V or 240V.
I don't know anything about Bolts. The way the Tesla connector cable works, is each adapter knows the ratings of the NEMA connector it uses. This is relayed to the car and the car will not draw more than the appropriate level, in this case, 12A.
If the Bolt cable is only designed for a 40A outlet (32 amps in operation), it will have a different connector, likely a NEMA 14-50. Oddly enough, there is no NEMA connector for a 40 amp circuit, so they use the 50 amp connector. The rest of the circuit is designed for 40 amps, including the breaker. You will not be able to use the Bolt cable on any other type of circuit.
As I said, the Tesla connector cable has adapter ends for six or seven types of receptacles, each of which specifies the current rating to the car.
-
It's tedious and costly ,but I don't use additional sockets in series with GFCI outlets. Each outlet can have it's own GFCI, that way it is obvious what tripped and I don't have to worry about some random failure tripping off my fridge and freezer while I'm out of town. Fridge and freezer have no GFCI either, don't want a spider to ruin all my food.
The state does not care a whit about economic damage, especially when the cost is born by someone else, like its citizens. It is all about virtue signalling. California later admitted that the high efficiency bulb requirements actually cost more money than they saved because the bulbs are so much more expensive and less reliable than originally assumed.
Where I lived in Missouri, I had to change CFL and LED bulbs *more* often than the incandescent they replaced because of poor power quality and thunderstorms. For LED bulbs, the manufacturers like to advertise "50,000 hour lifetime", which had nothing to do with the reliability or mean time to failure of the bulb. 50,000 hours is the operating life of the LEDs before they reach half brightness.
-
Part of the rationale, to keep a washer (on 120 VAC) solely by itself might be due to keeping the lights on, so a washing machine that trips breaker can be examined, as some event occurred. That prevents having to take a flashlight into laundry room, to start figuring out what happened. You don't lose both the washer AND the room lights.
Just a guess.
-
1961 brand. lol who knows the panel itself has no writing on it.
Oh good lord, that's what I was afraid of. You don't want to charge an EV with that panel, even at 12A. Just move out of the house before you all burn!
Google "Zinsco" for details.
Oh great. Another thing to worry about: Getting cooked in our sleep. Wonderful.
-
the level 2 charger for the Bolt needs 32 amps.
You can buy chargers that plug in and can be set for 240VAC and 12A. But see my other post--your panel is going to be a serious problem.
I'm sure the electrician will tell us and the owners all about it when the inspect it for possible 240 outlet in the garage.
-
If the Bolt cable is only designed for a 40A outlet (32 amps in operation), it will have a different connector, likely a NEMA 14-50. Oddly enough, there is no NEMA connector for a 40 amp circuit, so they use the 50 amp connector. The rest of the circuit is designed for 40 amps, including the breaker. You will not be able to use the Bolt cable on any other type of circuit.
As I said, the Tesla connector cable has adapter ends for six or seven types of receptacles, each of which specifies the current rating to the car.
Yes I was confused. If it's a 15 amp wire then that's it.
The Bolt charger is dual 120/240 and comes with both connectors. The max it will allow from a 120 is 12 A.
-
Part of the rationale, to keep a washer (on 120 VAC) solely by itself might be due to keeping the lights on, so a washing machine that trips breaker can be examined, as some event occurred. That prevents having to take a flashlight into laundry room, to start figuring out what happened. You don't lose both the washer AND the room lights.
Just a guess.
The lights in the kitchen and laundry room which is right next to the kitchen were still on after the breaker tripped. I'm going to find out tonight if the circuit that tripped last night shares with the washer.
-
If the Bolt cable is only designed for a 40A outlet (32 amps in operation), it will have a different connector, likely a NEMA 14-50. Oddly enough, there is no NEMA connector for a 40 amp circuit, so they use the 50 amp connector. The rest of the circuit is designed for 40 amps, including the breaker. You will not be able to use the Bolt cable on any other type of circuit.
As I said, the Tesla connector cable has adapter ends for six or seven types of receptacles, each of which specifies the current rating to the car.
Yes I was confused. If it's a 15 amp wire then that's it.
The Bolt charger is dual 120/240 and comes with both connectors. The max it will allow from a 120 is 12 A.
When you say "both" connectors, it sounds like you are not aware of the plethora of NEMA power connectors.
The 15 amp cable in your home, can be used for a 240V, 15A circuit as well as a 120V, 15A circuit. The receptacle must be replaced, and the white wire on each end must be tagged on each end with red tape. In your case, you would also need to extend this cable to the circuit panel, since it seems to be sharing a circuit with your kitchen. Add a new 240V, 15A circuit breaker, and you should be in business.
If you car does not support the 240V, 15A NEMA 6-15 receptacle, then you can't use this. Teslas support a number of different connectors, that may be available. One I was surprised to learn about was the TT-30, 120V, 30A, which Tesla does not have an adapter for.
One other note. The circuit has a rating, which is the same as the number on the breaker. So a NEMA 14-50 is a 50 amp circuit. But for "continuous" loads, such as charging a car, this much be derated by 20% to 40 amps. So your charger is designed to draw up to 32 amps from a 40 amp circuit.
-
It was built in 1961 and the kitchen w as recently remodeled and has GFCI circuits where they should be. however, the laundry room was not remodeled.
Then the answer is easy. 1961 is long before GFCI or AFCI were even a thing. If your dryer outlet is original, it's the obsolete 3-prong type. I can't make out all the labels on your breaker panel, but It's unlikely the washer outlet has its own circuit. 100 amp service was considered good at the time, but not by todays standards.
As you noted, new and remodel work would have triggered the code requirements at that time.
-
I've been thinking of having a T-shirt printed with the text:
"This T-shirt is known to cause cancer in the state of California"
And that is while I live in Europe.
Those Californians seem to be making rules and texts just for the fun of it. (Although EU is also doing some weird stuff).
-
Everywhere I have lived had a separate circuit for the washer, which was *not* shared with the 120VAC for a dryer, which leads to an interesting story...
Where I lived in Anaheim, the laundry area had separate circuits for the washer and dryer, but only gas for the dryer and no 240VAC connection. However the circuits were on separate phases ... so we used two 120VAC plugs with hot and neutral from one, and hot from the other, to power a 240VAC dryer with half of the electric heating elements disconnected.
I've seen a lot of people make a Y cable to connect two out of phase 120VAC outlets so that they could get 240 VAC to run small welders, small air compressors and the like. The only 240 VAC power available in most homes are at the dryer, the stove, the HAC system and the water heater and those were too hard to get to so they got "creative". The biggest problem with using two 120 VAC outlets is that most 115VAC circuits are only designed to handle 15 Amps. Most 230 VAC circuits in a home are designed to handle 30 to 50 Amps. I'm guessing that you had to remove some of the heating elements to reduce the current draw of the dryer to 15 Amps or less.
-
I found language in the NEC that allows the white wire to be marked with tape as a red wire (the other hot in a 240V line). There is no requirement to have a neutral, and since the car doesn't need it, you will be good. The only issue is if the electrician is happy marking the wire, vs. installing a new one. This would be a very quick job for an electrician, so very inexpensive, and would more than double the charging rate.
You can never tell what a given electrician will have a problem with but I've never had electricians have a problem with marking wires like that. In fact I had the reverse, an electrician installed a sub panel for us and used black wires with green tape for ground. I assume he ran out of green wire in the right gauge on his truck but I didn't think it was very professional for a new install.
-
I see large insulated wires for industrial power installation that are all black insulation with appropriate (green, white, red, blue) electrical tape to denote PE, neutral, and phases.
For example, 500 MCM wire is usually black, although it is available in colors.
I believe that the relevant codes specify how much length of wire needs to be taped to use this labeling.
-
When you say "both" connectors, it sounds like you are not aware of the plethora of NEMA power connectors.
The 15 amp cable in your home, can be used for a 240V, 15A circuit as well as a 120V, 15A circuit. The receptacle must be replaced, and the white wire on each end must be tagged on each end with red tape. In your case, you would also need to extend this cable to the circuit panel, since it seems to be sharing a circuit with your kitchen. Add a new 240V, 15A circuit breaker, and you should be in business.
If you car does not support the 240V, 15A NEMA 6-15 receptacle, then you can't use this. Teslas support a number of different connectors, that may be available. One I was surprised to learn about was the TT-30, 120V, 30A, which Tesla does not have an adapter for.
One other note. The circuit has a rating, which is the same as the number on the breaker. So a NEMA 14-50 is a 50 amp circuit. But for "continuous" loads, such as charging a car, this much be derated by 20% to 40 amps. So your charger is designed to draw up to 32 amps from a 40 amp circuit.
It comes with Both 120 and a 240 connectors. The 120 is your standard NEMA 5-15 wall outlet and the 240 is the NEMA 14-50.
I did check the circuit last night. The Fridge and three other outlets, one of which had the microwave on it, are all that is one that circuit.
20A Circuit and the only thing on it now is the fridge at a max of 2A and 12A for charging. Deducting 20% for continuous use, that leaves 16 amps total and 14 in use maximum (when the fridge come on to defrost) otherwise it's lower than 2A.
1. Wall outlet in garage with GFCI (where I am charging it)
2. Microwave outlet with GFCI
3. Opposite wall of kitchen outlet with no GFCI
4. Wall outlet that the fridge is plugged into, with no GFCI.
-
It was built in 1961 and the kitchen w as recently remodeled and has GFCI circuits where they should be. however, the laundry room was not remodeled.
Then the answer is easy. 1961 is long before GFCI or AFCI were even a thing. If your dryer outlet is original, it's the obsolete 3-prong type. I can't make out all the labels on your breaker panel, but It's unlikely the washer outlet has its own circuit. 100 amp service was considered good at the time, but not by todays standards.
As you noted, new and remodel work would have triggered the code requirements at that time.
It is the 3 prong 240 type. I know the washer isn't on the 120 circuit I'm using for charging at 12A so it's all good in that area.
-
I've been thinking of having a T-shirt printed with the text:
"This T-shirt is known to cause cancer in the state of California"
And that is while I live in Europe.
Those Californians seem to be making rules and texts just for the fun of it. (Although EU is also doing some weird stuff).
No one knows why CA does half of what it does. I think the regulators are bored and ignorant a lot of the time. My brother is in the fishing business, and the stories he tells about that department are beyond mystifying. They regularly have to take the departments to court in order to get idiotic regulations rescinded.
One of the most egregious, which has now been litigated away, is that if you owned a house is say Nevada, and you owned a house in say, CA, and your family was in CA but you had a residency in Nevada, for tax reasons, CA would litigate to get CA tax, saying you were still a CA resident even though you could prove you were a Nevada resident. There rationale was that you were just trying to get out of paying CA taxes, which isn't illegal. I remember one of the cases where the person litigated and it cost him 60K, and it cost the state who knows how much, but they would not let it go. Finally the judge rules in the civilians favor and that's when things started to cahnge. One of their arguments was that he owned a house in CA, therefore, he was still a resident. I mean, it was bizaroland.
-
I found language in the NEC that allows the white wire to be marked with tape as a red wire (the other hot in a 240V line). There is no requirement to have a neutral, and since the car doesn't need it, you will be good. The only issue is if the electrician is happy marking the wire, vs. installing a new one. This would be a very quick job for an electrician, so very inexpensive, and would more than double the charging rate.
You can never tell what a given electrician will have a problem with but I've never had electricians have a problem with marking wires like that. In fact I had the reverse, an electrician installed a sub panel for us and used black wires with green tape for ground. I assume he ran out of green wire in the right gauge on his truck but I didn't think it was very professional for a new install.
Why would you care? It meets the code and everyone doing work on it will know what the tape means.
The issue is not what the electrician has a problem with. The issue is what the code says. If the electrician has a problem, get an electrician who knows his job.
-
When you say "both" connectors, it sounds like you are not aware of the plethora of NEMA power connectors.
The 15 amp cable in your home, can be used for a 240V, 15A circuit as well as a 120V, 15A circuit. The receptacle must be replaced, and the white wire on each end must be tagged on each end with red tape. In your case, you would also need to extend this cable to the circuit panel, since it seems to be sharing a circuit with your kitchen. Add a new 240V, 15A circuit breaker, and you should be in business.
If you car does not support the 240V, 15A NEMA 6-15 receptacle, then you can't use this. Teslas support a number of different connectors, that may be available. One I was surprised to learn about was the TT-30, 120V, 30A, which Tesla does not have an adapter for.
One other note. The circuit has a rating, which is the same as the number on the breaker. So a NEMA 14-50 is a 50 amp circuit. But for "continuous" loads, such as charging a car, this much be derated by 20% to 40 amps. So your charger is designed to draw up to 32 amps from a 40 amp circuit.
It comes with Both 120 and a 240 connectors. The 120 is your standard NEMA 5-15 wall outlet and the 240 is the NEMA 14-50.
Yes, you've already explained this. Obviously GM is not very interested in charging, even today. Before I bought my Tesla, I looked at the Bolt. The salesman was well informed and was happy to share info on the car. When I asked about charging, he sort of stared at the ground and said something equivalent to "charging happens". GM had zero interest in helping with charging, even in the home! By only having two connectors to choose from, they continue to ignore charging.
I did check the circuit last night. The Fridge and three other outlets, one of which had the microwave on it, are all that is one that circuit.
20A Circuit and the only thing on it now is the fridge at a max of 2A and 12A for charging. Deducting 20% for continuous use, that leaves 16 amps total and 14 in use maximum (when the fridge come on to defrost) otherwise it's lower than 2A.
1. Wall outlet in garage with GFCI (where I am charging it)
2. Microwave outlet with GFCI
3. Opposite wall of kitchen outlet with no GFCI
4. Wall outlet that the fridge is plugged into, with no GFCI.
I'm not sure you understand my point. You may be happy with level 1 charging. I am, mostly. But there are definitely times when I'd like to have level 2 charging. I guess your reluctance largely comes from the fact that it's not your house. I get that. But level 1 charging will only support 50 miles a night. If you don't charge at peak use times, you may not even get 50 miles.
-
The key word there is "largely". Every state approves their own electrical code.
True, but NEC 406.12A (2014) reads the same as CEC 406.12A in the excerpt that I quoted. Tamper-proof receptacles are not a 'California' thing. They're a PITA everywhere.
All the states adopt the NEC codes for the most part, with some additions. The big difference between the states is how fast they adopt them. NEC 2020 applied to California as of the beginning of 2023. Several states are still using NEC 2008, I think. Many are currently on 2014 or 2017 standards. And some states adopt codes at the local rather than state level (Missouri comes to mind), so may not be uniform.
-
When you say "both" connectors, it sounds like you are not aware of the plethora of NEMA power connectors.
The 15 amp cable in your home, can be used for a 240V, 15A circuit as well as a 120V, 15A circuit. The receptacle must be replaced, and the white wire on each end must be tagged on each end with red tape. In your case, you would also need to extend this cable to the circuit panel, since it seems to be sharing a circuit with your kitchen. Add a new 240V, 15A circuit breaker, and you should be in business.
If you car does not support the 240V, 15A NEMA 6-15 receptacle, then you can't use this. Teslas support a number of different connectors, that may be available. One I was surprised to learn about was the TT-30, 120V, 30A, which Tesla does not have an adapter for.
One other note. The circuit has a rating, which is the same as the number on the breaker. So a NEMA 14-50 is a 50 amp circuit. But for "continuous" loads, such as charging a car, this much be derated by 20% to 40 amps. So your charger is designed to draw up to 32 amps from a 40 amp circuit.
It comes with Both 120 and a 240 connectors. The 120 is your standard NEMA 5-15 wall outlet and the 240 is the NEMA 14-50.
Yes, you've already explained this. Obviously GM is not very interested in charging, even today. Before I bought my Tesla, I looked at the Bolt. The salesman was well informed and was happy to share info on the car. When I asked about charging, he sort of stared at the ground and said something equivalent to "charging happens". GM had zero interest in helping with charging, even in the home! By only having two connectors to choose from, they continue to ignore charging.
I did check the circuit last night. The Fridge and three other outlets, one of which had the microwave on it, are all that is one that circuit.
20A Circuit and the only thing on it now is the fridge at a max of 2A and 12A for charging. Deducting 20% for continuous use, that leaves 16 amps total and 14 in use maximum (when the fridge come on to defrost) otherwise it's lower than 2A.
1. Wall outlet in garage with GFCI (where I am charging it)
2. Microwave outlet with GFCI
3. Opposite wall of kitchen outlet with no GFCI
4. Wall outlet that the fridge is plugged into, with no GFCI.
I'm not sure you understand my point. You may be happy with level 1 charging. I am, mostly. But there are definitely times when I'd like to have level 2 charging. I guess your reluctance largely comes from the fact that it's not your house. I get that. But level 1 charging will only support 50 miles a night. If you don't charge at peak use times, you may not even get 50 miles.
What is your point? You mean about level 1 vs lvl 2? I understand your point perfectly, if so. I'm not 'reluctant' to do anything, but like you said, it's not our house and more importantly, the 100A panel will probably not allow the 240V system to be installed anyway. And, if it does, it's going to cost extra because the panel isn't in the garage or near it. It's about 30 feet from it. They can run the wires however they ran them originally, but it's still going to be around a 40-50 foot drop for wire length. If they need to replace the panel, that's going to be 1000s of dollars and the owner isn't going to do it. He already said if it isn't too much over the rebate price, then he would do it. This brings me to my point: We're probably stuck with 120 and stuck with the circuits we have now. That's why I'm trying to get it so it will charge without tripping the breaker, which I have done by swapping the microwave to another location in the kitchen.
The only other option we have is to pay 1000s of dollars out of our own pocket, which we aren't reluctant to do, we just simply will not do it.
We generally travel less than 30 miles a day, and so far the car has finished charging in less time than we are ready to drive it again, by several hours. I have it set to 80% capacity, and yesterday we drove around 40 miles. I plugged it in last night around 3:30AM it was done. That means we will have plenty of time to charge after midnight and until 12 Noon. For us 120 will work, but it would be nice to have a dedicated 120 circuit just for charging.
What is wrong with the Bolt charging options?
-
The key word there is "largely". Every state approves their own electrical code.
True, but NEC 406.12A (2014) reads the same as CEC 406.12A in the excerpt that I quoted. Tamper-proof receptacles are not a 'California' thing. They're a PITA everywhere.
All the states adopt the NEC codes for the most part, with some additions. The big difference between the states is how fast they adopt them. NEC 2020 applied to California as of the beginning of 2023. Several states are still using NEC 2008, I think. Many are currently on 2014 or 2017 standards. And some states adopt codes at the local rather than state level (Missouri comes to mind), so may not be uniform.
The NEC does not need to be adopted in whole. It is common for some parts to be adopted and not others. NEC is a standards organization, they create standards. The states are responsible for regulations.
-
When you say "both" connectors, it sounds like you are not aware of the plethora of NEMA power connectors.
The 15 amp cable in your home, can be used for a 240V, 15A circuit as well as a 120V, 15A circuit. The receptacle must be replaced, and the white wire on each end must be tagged on each end with red tape. In your case, you would also need to extend this cable to the circuit panel, since it seems to be sharing a circuit with your kitchen. Add a new 240V, 15A circuit breaker, and you should be in business.
If you car does not support the 240V, 15A NEMA 6-15 receptacle, then you can't use this. Teslas support a number of different connectors, that may be available. One I was surprised to learn about was the TT-30, 120V, 30A, which Tesla does not have an adapter for.
One other note. The circuit has a rating, which is the same as the number on the breaker. So a NEMA 14-50 is a 50 amp circuit. But for "continuous" loads, such as charging a car, this much be derated by 20% to 40 amps. So your charger is designed to draw up to 32 amps from a 40 amp circuit.
It comes with Both 120 and a 240 connectors. The 120 is your standard NEMA 5-15 wall outlet and the 240 is the NEMA 14-50.
Yes, you've already explained this. Obviously GM is not very interested in charging, even today. Before I bought my Tesla, I looked at the Bolt. The salesman was well informed and was happy to share info on the car. When I asked about charging, he sort of stared at the ground and said something equivalent to "charging happens". GM had zero interest in helping with charging, even in the home! By only having two connectors to choose from, they continue to ignore charging.
I did check the circuit last night. The Fridge and three other outlets, one of which had the microwave on it, are all that is one that circuit.
20A Circuit and the only thing on it now is the fridge at a max of 2A and 12A for charging. Deducting 20% for continuous use, that leaves 16 amps total and 14 in use maximum (when the fridge come on to defrost) otherwise it's lower than 2A.
1. Wall outlet in garage with GFCI (where I am charging it)
2. Microwave outlet with GFCI
3. Opposite wall of kitchen outlet with no GFCI
4. Wall outlet that the fridge is plugged into, with no GFCI.
I'm not sure you understand my point. You may be happy with level 1 charging. I am, mostly. But there are definitely times when I'd like to have level 2 charging. I guess your reluctance largely comes from the fact that it's not your house. I get that. But level 1 charging will only support 50 miles a night. If you don't charge at peak use times, you may not even get 50 miles.
What is your point? You mean about level 1 vs lvl 2? I understand your point perfectly, if so. I'm not 'reluctant' to do anything, but like you said, it's not our house and more importantly, the 100A panel will probably not allow the 240V system to be installed anyway. And, if it does, it's going to cost extra because the panel isn't in the garage or near it.
That's my point. You don't have to run a new wire between the house and garage to get 240V in the garage. I've already explained how to do that twice. I won't bother you with a third try. But, this may not work, if GM doesn't provide the adapter for the right connector. What came with the car or the cable may not be the only ones available.
It's about 30 feet from it. They can run the wires however they ran them originally, but it's still going to be around a 40-50 foot drop for wire length. If they need to replace the panel, that's going to be 1000s of dollars and the owner isn't going to do it.
It is not likely to need a new panel, unless they simply can't find the breakers to install. I saw one slot where an oven breaker was removed. That says to me, that you have power to spare. Ovens are typically 30 or 40 amps.
[/quote]He already said if it isn't too much over the rebate price, then he would do it. This brings me to my point: We're probably stuck with 120 and stuck with the circuits we have now. That's why I'm trying to get it so it will charge without tripping the breaker, which I have done by swapping the microwave to another location in the kitchen.
The only other option we have is to pay 1000s of dollars out of our own pocket, which we aren't reluctant to do, we just simply will not do it.[/quote]
Sorry, that sounds rather reluctant to me.
We generally travel less than 30 miles a day, and so far the car has finished charging in less time than we are ready to drive it again, by several hours. I have it set to 80% capacity, and yesterday we drove around 40 miles. I plugged it in last night around 3:30AM it was done. That means we will have plenty of time to charge after midnight and until 12 Noon. For us 120 will work, but it would be nice to have a dedicated 120 circuit just for charging.
What is wrong with the Bolt charging options?
I know you are not understanding what I'm writing. Let me say this very clearly. The choice is not binary, 240V, 40A vs. 120V, 15A. There are many current levels on each voltage. GM limits the choices with their adapter to the two, not the NEC. But, it may be that GM offers other connectors, you just need to ask.
If you charge from midnight to noon, you are charging through a peak use time in the morning. Ask your power company about their ToU billing, specifically the hours. Mine is split summer/winter, with summer being just four months. Summer peak hours are something like 3 pm to 7 pm or 8 pm. The rest of the year (winter) it is 6 am to 9 am and 5 pm to 8 pm. Charging during peak times increases the wholesale per kWh cost of electricity and raises the rates for everyone.
-
Always exceptions.
We added a detached garage to our lot back around 1985.
The electrical cable from the breaker box through an underground conduit to the garage is single phase, 120 V, at 15 A rating.
Sufficient for the door opener and lights.
I added another outlet on that circuit for 120 V power tools .
-
Everywhere I have lived had a separate circuit for the washer, which was *not* shared with the 120VAC for a dryer, which leads to an interesting story...
Where I lived in Anaheim, the laundry area had separate circuits for the washer and dryer, but only gas for the dryer and no 240VAC connection. However the circuits were on separate phases ... so we used two 120VAC plugs with hot and neutral from one, and hot from the other, to power a 240VAC dryer with half of the electric heating elements disconnected.
I've seen a lot of people make a Y cable to connect two out of phase 120VAC outlets so that they could get 240 VAC to run small welders, small air compressors and the like. The only 240 VAC power available in most homes are at the dryer, the stove, the HAC system and the water heater and those were too hard to get to so they got "creative". The biggest problem with using two 120 VAC outlets is that most 115VAC circuits are only designed to handle 15 Amps. Most 230 VAC circuits in a home are designed to handle 30 to 50 Amps. I'm guessing that you had to remove some of the heating elements to reduce the current draw of the dryer to 15 Amps or less.
What actually happened was it was an old dryer, and one of the elements had broken in two, and it had been repaired by looping the ends of the broken element and using a machine screw and nut to bind them back together. When running on the y-adapter 240VAC 15 amp circuit, we undid the screw holding that element together so it ran at half power, which was plenty.
-
• At least one light shall be controlled by a vacancy sensor (a manual-on, automatic-off
occupancy sensor). [CNC 150.0(k)2AJ
Hard to believe those horrid things are actually required, well I guess with California it's not hard to believe, nowhere else I can think of has so many ridiculous and ineffective laws based on good intentions. Those occupancy sensors are notorious for shutting off the light while you're in there still, and they encourage people to develop a habit of leaving the light on instead of just turning it off when you leave the room like a normal person. On top of that the sensor itself consumes power and with modern LED lighting power consumption being almost negligible it would not surprise me if the sensor itself consumes more power in the long run than the light in something like a laundry room where that light is typically not on much anywya.
-
When you say "both" connectors, it sounds like you are not aware of the plethora of NEMA power connectors.
The 15 amp cable in your home, can be used for a 240V, 15A circuit as well as a 120V, 15A circuit. The receptacle must be replaced, and the white wire on each end must be tagged on each end with red tape. In your case, you would also need to extend this cable to the circuit panel, since it seems to be sharing a circuit with your kitchen. Add a new 240V, 15A circuit breaker, and you should be in business.
If you car does not support the 240V, 15A NEMA 6-15 receptacle, then you can't use this. Teslas support a number of different connectors, that may be available. One I was surprised to learn about was the TT-30, 120V, 30A, which Tesla does not have an adapter for.
One other note. The circuit has a rating, which is the same as the number on the breaker. So a NEMA 14-50 is a 50 amp circuit. But for "continuous" loads, such as charging a car, this much be derated by 20% to 40 amps. So your charger is designed to draw up to 32 amps from a 40 amp circuit.
It comes with Both 120 and a 240 connectors. The 120 is your standard NEMA 5-15 wall outlet and the 240 is the NEMA 14-50.
Yes, you've already explained this. Obviously GM is not very interested in charging, even today. Before I bought my Tesla, I looked at the Bolt. The salesman was well informed and was happy to share info on the car. When I asked about charging, he sort of stared at the ground and said something equivalent to "charging happens". GM had zero interest in helping with charging, even in the home! By only having two connectors to choose from, they continue to ignore charging.
I did check the circuit last night. The Fridge and three other outlets, one of which had the microwave on it, are all that is one that circuit.
20A Circuit and the only thing on it now is the fridge at a max of 2A and 12A for charging. Deducting 20% for continuous use, that leaves 16 amps total and 14 in use maximum (when the fridge come on to defrost) otherwise it's lower than 2A.
1. Wall outlet in garage with GFCI (where I am charging it)
2. Microwave outlet with GFCI
3. Opposite wall of kitchen outlet with no GFCI
4. Wall outlet that the fridge is plugged into, with no GFCI.
I'm not sure you understand my point. You may be happy with level 1 charging. I am, mostly. But there are definitely times when I'd like to have level 2 charging. I guess your reluctance largely comes from the fact that it's not your house. I get that. But level 1 charging will only support 50 miles a night. If you don't charge at peak use times, you may not even get 50 miles.
What is your point? You mean about level 1 vs lvl 2? I understand your point perfectly, if so. I'm not 'reluctant' to do anything, but like you said, it's not our house and more importantly, the 100A panel will probably not allow the 240V system to be installed anyway. And, if it does, it's going to cost extra because the panel isn't in the garage or near it.
That's my point. You don't have to run a new wire between the house and garage to get 240V in the garage. I've already explained how to do that twice. I won't bother you with a third try. But, this may not work, if GM doesn't provide the adapter for the right connector. What came with the car or the cable may not be the only ones available.
It's about 30 feet from it. They can run the wires however they ran them originally, but it's still going to be around a 40-50 foot drop for wire length. If they need to replace the panel, that's going to be 1000s of dollars and the owner isn't going to do it.
It is not likely to need a new panel, unless they simply can't find the breakers to install. I saw one slot where an oven breaker was removed. That says to me, that you have power to spare. Ovens are typically 30 or 40 amps.
He already said if it isn't too much over the rebate price, then he would do it. This brings me to my point: We're probably stuck with 120 and stuck with the circuits we have now. That's why I'm trying to get it so it will charge without tripping the breaker, which I have done by swapping the microwave to another location in the kitchen.
The only other option we have is to pay 1000s of dollars out of our own pocket, which we aren't reluctant to do, we just simply will not do it.[/quote]
Sorry, that sounds rather reluctant to me.
We generally travel less than 30 miles a day, and so far the car has finished charging in less time than we are ready to drive it again, by several hours. I have it set to 80% capacity, and yesterday we drove around 40 miles. I plugged it in last night around 3:30AM it was done. That means we will have plenty of time to charge after midnight and until 12 Noon. For us 120 will work, but it would be nice to have a dedicated 120 circuit just for charging.
What is wrong with the Bolt charging options?
I know you are not understanding what I'm writing. Let me say this very clearly. The choice is not binary, 240V, 40A vs. 120V, 15A. There are many current levels on each voltage. GM limits the choices with their adapter to the two, not the NEC. But, it may be that GM offers other connectors, you just need to ask.
If you charge from midnight to noon, you are charging through a peak use time in the morning. Ask your power company about their ToU billing, specifically the hours. Mine is split summer/winter, with summer being just four months. Summer peak hours are something like 3 pm to 7 pm or 8 pm. The rest of the year (winter) it is 6 am to 9 am and 5 pm to 8 pm. Charging during peak times increases the wholesale per kWh cost of electricity and raises the rates for everyone.
[/quote]
You're pretty sure of yourself, aren't you?
e.g., "If you charge from midnight to noon, you are charging through a peak use time in the morning."
No, I am not. Go here to my utility rate information:
https://www.smud.org/en/Rate-Information/Time-of-Day-rates/Time-of-Day-5-8pm-Rate/Rate-details (https://www.smud.org/en/Rate-Information/Time-of-Day-rates/Time-of-Day-5-8pm-Rate/Rate-details)
SUMMER
"Off-Peak
Midnight – noon
$0.1350 kWh
+All day weekends and holidays"
"The choice is not binary, 240V, 40A vs. 120V, 15A. . . .GM limits the choices with their adapter to the two, not the NEC."
I never said it was binary and it's not just the adapter, it's the car itself.
From what I have read on the Chevy forums, not only the charger but the Bolt itself IS Binary for 120v charging. It's either 8A or 12A. It doesn't matter how many amps the 120 outlet is or the charge equipment will allow, the Bolt will simply not charge any faster than 12A on a 120v. There are only two options inside the car for a 120V outlet, 8A and 12A, regardless of the charger type or circuit amperage. I'd call that binary.
e.g, a conversation from Chevy Bolt forums from 2017: Q: If your EVSE claims it's capable of 20A at 120V, what does the Bolt do?
A: It has no choice, it will max out at 12amps on 120v regardless of what the EVSE advertises.
120V charging is capped at 12amps period.
https://www.chevybolt.org/threads/120v-charging-limitations.9858/ (https://www.chevybolt.org/threads/120v-charging-limitations.9858/)
And a 2023 discussion here says the internal Bolt charger limits any 120V to 12A, period.
https://www.chevybolt.org/threads/is-there-such-a-thing-as-a-16amp-120volt-charger.48498/ (https://www.chevybolt.org/threads/is-there-such-a-thing-as-a-16amp-120volt-charger.48498/)
The Bolt can use up to 48A on level 2 (owner's manual).
-
When you say "both" connectors, it sounds like you are not aware of the plethora of NEMA power connectors.
The 15 amp cable in your home, can be used for a 240V, 15A circuit as well as a 120V, 15A circuit. The receptacle must be replaced, and the white wire on each end must be tagged on each end with red tape. In your case, you would also need to extend this cable to the circuit panel, since it seems to be sharing a circuit with your kitchen. Add a new 240V, 15A circuit breaker, and you should be in business.
If you car does not support the 240V, 15A NEMA 6-15 receptacle, then you can't use this. Teslas support a number of different connectors, that may be available. One I was surprised to learn about was the TT-30, 120V, 30A, which Tesla does not have an adapter for.
One other note. The circuit has a rating, which is the same as the number on the breaker. So a NEMA 14-50 is a 50 amp circuit. But for "continuous" loads, such as charging a car, this much be derated by 20% to 40 amps. So your charger is designed to draw up to 32 amps from a 40 amp circuit.
It comes with Both 120 and a 240 connectors. The 120 is your standard NEMA 5-15 wall outlet and the 240 is the NEMA 14-50.
Yes, you've already explained this. Obviously GM is not very interested in charging, even today. Before I bought my Tesla, I looked at the Bolt. The salesman was well informed and was happy to share info on the car. When I asked about charging, he sort of stared at the ground and said something equivalent to "charging happens". GM had zero interest in helping with charging, even in the home! By only having two connectors to choose from, they continue to ignore charging.
I did check the circuit last night. The Fridge and three other outlets, one of which had the microwave on it, are all that is one that circuit.
20A Circuit and the only thing on it now is the fridge at a max of 2A and 12A for charging. Deducting 20% for continuous use, that leaves 16 amps total and 14 in use maximum (when the fridge come on to defrost) otherwise it's lower than 2A.
1. Wall outlet in garage with GFCI (where I am charging it)
2. Microwave outlet with GFCI
3. Opposite wall of kitchen outlet with no GFCI
4. Wall outlet that the fridge is plugged into, with no GFCI.
I'm not sure you understand my point. You may be happy with level 1 charging. I am, mostly. But there are definitely times when I'd like to have level 2 charging. I guess your reluctance largely comes from the fact that it's not your house. I get that. But level 1 charging will only support 50 miles a night. If you don't charge at peak use times, you may not even get 50 miles.
What is your point? You mean about level 1 vs lvl 2? I understand your point perfectly, if so. I'm not 'reluctant' to do anything, but like you said, it's not our house and more importantly, the 100A panel will probably not allow the 240V system to be installed anyway. And, if it does, it's going to cost extra because the panel isn't in the garage or near it.
That's my point. You don't have to run a new wire between the house and garage to get 240V in the garage. I've already explained how to do that twice. I won't bother you with a third try. But, this may not work, if GM doesn't provide the adapter for the right connector. What came with the car or the cable may not be the only ones available.
It's about 30 feet from it. They can run the wires however they ran them originally, but it's still going to be around a 40-50 foot drop for wire length. If they need to replace the panel, that's going to be 1000s of dollars and the owner isn't going to do it.
It is not likely to need a new panel, unless they simply can't find the breakers to install. I saw one slot where an oven breaker was removed. That says to me, that you have power to spare. Ovens are typically 30 or 40 amps.
He already said if it isn't too much over the rebate price, then he would do it. This brings me to my point: We're probably stuck with 120 and stuck with the circuits we have now. That's why I'm trying to get it so it will charge without tripping the breaker, which I have done by swapping the microwave to another location in the kitchen.
The only other option we have is to pay 1000s of dollars out of our own pocket, which we aren't reluctant to do, we just simply will not do it.
Sorry, that sounds rather reluctant to me.
We generally travel less than 30 miles a day, and so far the car has finished charging in less time than we are ready to drive it again, by several hours. I have it set to 80% capacity, and yesterday we drove around 40 miles. I plugged it in last night around 3:30AM it was done. That means we will have plenty of time to charge after midnight and until 12 Noon. For us 120 will work, but it would be nice to have a dedicated 120 circuit just for charging.
What is wrong with the Bolt charging options?
I know you are not understanding what I'm writing. Let me say this very clearly. The choice is not binary, 240V, 40A vs. 120V, 15A. There are many current levels on each voltage. GM limits the choices with their adapter to the two, not the NEC. But, it may be that GM offers other connectors, you just need to ask.
If you charge from midnight to noon, you are charging through a peak use time in the morning. Ask your power company about their ToU billing, specifically the hours. Mine is split summer/winter, with summer being just four months. Summer peak hours are something like 3 pm to 7 pm or 8 pm. The rest of the year (winter) it is 6 am to 9 am and 5 pm to 8 pm. Charging during peak times increases the wholesale per kWh cost of electricity and raises the rates for everyone.
[/quote]
You're pretty sure of yourself, aren't you?
e.g., "If you charge from midnight to noon, you are charging through a peak use time in the morning."
No, I am not. Go here to my utility rate information:
https://www.smud.org/en/Rate-Information/Time-of-Day-rates/Time-of-Day-5-8pm-Rate/Rate-details (https://www.smud.org/en/Rate-Information/Time-of-Day-rates/Time-of-Day-5-8pm-Rate/Rate-details)
SUMMER
"Off-Peak
Midnight – noon
$0.1350 kWh
+All day weekends and holidays"
"The choice is not binary, 240V, 40A vs. 120V, 15A. . . .GM limits the choices with their adapter to the two, not the NEC."
I never said it was binary and it's not just the adapter, it's the car itself.
From what I have read on the Chevy forums, not only the charger but the Bolt itself IS Binary for 120v charging. It's either 8A or 12A. It doesn't matter how many amps the 120 outlet is or the charge equipment will allow, the Bolt will simply not charge any faster than 12A on a 120v. There are only two options inside the car for a 120V outlet, 8A and 12A, regardless of the charger type or circuit amperage. I'd call that binary.
e.g, a conversation from Chevy Bolt forums from 2017: Q: If your EVSE claims it's capable of 20A at 120V, what does the Bolt do?
A: It has no choice, it will max out at 12amps on 120v regardless of what the EVSE advertises.
120V charging is capped at 12amps period.
https://www.chevybolt.org/threads/120v-charging-limitations.9858/ (https://www.chevybolt.org/threads/120v-charging-limitations.9858/)
And a 2023 discussion here says the internal Bolt charger limits any 120V to 12A, period.
https://www.chevybolt.org/threads/is-there-such-a-thing-as-a-16amp-120volt-charger.48498/ (https://www.chevybolt.org/threads/is-there-such-a-thing-as-a-16amp-120volt-charger.48498/)
The Bolt can use up to 48A on level 2 (owner's manual).
[/quote]
I don't know why you still don't seem to understand anything I've written. But that's ok. It's your charging, not mine. Enjoy.
-
I don't know why you still don't seem to understand anything I've written. But that's ok. It's your charging, not mine. Enjoy.
I understand the problem now. You don't seem to understand your own comments:
"If you charge from midnight to noon, you are charging through a peak use time in the morning."
That's your comment. It's wrong. I linked you to the rate evidence stating so.
If I still don't understand, maybe you should write more clearly, or at least not ignore your own mistakes?
-
I don't know why you still don't seem to understand anything I've written. But that's ok. It's your charging, not mine. Enjoy.
I understand the problem now. You don't seem to understand your own comments:
"If you charge from midnight to noon, you are charging through a peak use time in the morning."
That's your comment. It's wrong. I linked you to the rate evidence stating so.
If I still don't understand, maybe you should write more clearly, or at least not ignore your own mistakes?
Even though your utility does not charge you higher rates in the morning peak, it is there, and they pay higher rates for peak use. I'm sure you can find the info if you care.
-
Oh good lord, that's what I was afraid of. You don't want to charge an EV with that panel, even at 12A. Just move out of the house before you all burn!
Google "Zinsco" for details.
Could be worse, could be FPE 'stab lock', also a 1950s shit show of a design, also prone to fail to trip and catch fire instead.
I would be looking at getting this sorted out before worrying about the car charging arrangements (Which could easily be 15A 240V) without needing to replace anything except outlet and breaker, but get that trash panel replaced first it is a real hazard.
I am unsure where the lines are for a panel replacement requiring the rest to be bought up to current code, or what the landlord is required to do here, but it Cali so there probably are some fairly insane requirements.
-
I don't know why you still don't seem to understand anything I've written. But that's ok. It's your charging, not mine. Enjoy.
I understand the problem now. You don't seem to understand your own comments:
"If you charge from midnight to noon, you are charging through a peak use time in the morning."
That's your comment. It's wrong. I linked you to the rate evidence stating so.
If I still don't understand, maybe you should write more clearly, or at least not ignore your own mistakes?
Even though your utility does not charge you higher rates in the morning peak, it is there, and they pay higher rates for peak use. I'm sure you can find the info if you care.
Seriously?
-
Oh good lord, that's what I was afraid of. You don't want to charge an EV with that panel, even at 12A. Just move out of the house before you all burn!
Google "Zinsco" for details.
Could be worse, could be FPE 'stab lock', also a 1950s shit show of a design, also prone to fail to trip and catch fire instead.
I would be looking at getting this sorted out before worrying about the car charging arrangements (Which could easily be 15A 240V) without needing to replace anything except outlet and breaker, but get that trash panel replaced first it is a real hazard.
I am unsure where the lines are for a panel replacement requiring the rest to be bought up to current code, or what the landlord is required to do here, but it Cali so there probably are some fairly insane requirements.
I was looking at the panel and saw the Zinsco sticker. Right below it it said:
Panel Type: Flamethrower.
So, that's not good.
In seriousness, there are no CA or Federal requirements to replace these panels. Since this is a duplex specifically for renting, every time they change title owner, they have a full inspection. We've had two new owners since we have been here. Also, since it is a rental in CA, they have to have it inspected every so often but I'm not sure when. I think it is on the move out of each tenet.
-
In seriousness, there are no CA or Federal requirements to replace these panels.
That's true, they never actually issued a recall of these or the Federal Pacific panels (which were worse) because the companies were defunct or something like that. I think most of the Federal Pacific ones did get replaced or retrofitted with new bus bars and breakers (I think Cutler-Hammer made kits for both IIRC), but someone came out with replacement Magnetrip breakers for the Zinsco panels and electricians will pry your toasted breakers off, clean up and grease the bus bars and put on a new breaker. Prior to this there was a big market for used (refurb) Magnetrip and FPE breakers--and there still is for the FPE versions. It amazes me that people will go to those lengths to avoid spending a few thousand dollars protecting a million-dollar house and their family.
The three biggest risks for these panels are 1) the breakers may not trip off under even an extreme overload 2) the circuit may remain energized even if the breaker is physically turned off and 3) the breakers may arc on the bus bars and light the whole thing on fire. I don't know how much of this is mitigated by cleaning the bus bars and installing replacement breakers. I think the retrofit kit fixes the issue for good, but I don't know how much this saves over just putting in a new panel.
-
I'm sure you can find the info if you care.
Here it is. Renewables have erased the morning peak and most California rates now are 'off-peak' from sometime in the night until the late afternoon. I'm off-peak (lowest rate) from 9PM to 4PM the next day. Of course my off-peak rate is still $0.26/kWh (thanks SCE!) so my solar is still paying dividends.
https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/default.aspx (https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/default.aspx)
-
In seriousness, there are no CA or Federal requirements to replace these panels.
That's true, they never actually issued a recall of these or the Federal Pacific panels (which were worse) because the companies were defunct or something like that. I think most of the Federal Pacific ones did get replaced or retrofitted with new bus bars and breakers (I think Cutler-Hammer made kits for both IIRC), but someone came out with replacement Magnetrip breakers for the Zinsco panels and electricians will pry your toasted breakers off, clean up and grease the bus bars and put on a new breaker. Prior to this there was a big market for used (refurb) Magnetrip and FPE breakers--and there still is for the FPE versions. It amazes me that people will go to those lengths to avoid spending a few thousand dollars protecting a million-dollar house and their family.
The three biggest risks for these panels are 1) the breakers may not trip off under even an extreme overload 2) the circuit may remain energized even if the breaker is physically turned off and 3) the breakers may arc on the bus bars and light the whole thing on fire. I don't know how much of this is mitigated by cleaning the bus bars and installing replacement breakers. I think the retrofit kit fixes the issue for good, but I don't know how much this saves over just putting in a new panel.
It's a good thing the charger is on a GFCI outlet, then.
-
I'm sure you can find the info if you care.
Here it is. Renewables have erased the morning peak and most California rates now are 'off-peak' from sometime in the night until the late afternoon. I'm off-peak (lowest rate) from 9PM to 4PM the next day. Of course my off-peak rate is still $0.26/kWh (thanks SCE!) so my solar is still paying dividends.
https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/default.aspx (https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/default.aspx)
I'm on SMUD which is Sacramento's own utility, so we have the lowest rates, except for other municipalities that have their own utility, like Los Angeles. I remember when all utilities were "public" and we went with private to "lower costs."
Our summer rates are SO much lower than SCE or PG&E.
Peak: 5pm - 8pm weekdays only: .32 kWh
Mid Peak: Noon-5PM and 8PM to Midnight: .18 kWh
Off Peak Midnight to Noon and all weekends and holidays: .135 kWh and with the EV incentive for SMUD another -1.5kWh so .12 off peak.
Needless to say, you don't want to be doing anything electrically between 5-8 PM. lol
NO ONE in Sacramento will ever vote to privatize our electrical grid. lol F*** PG&E
-
It's a good thing the charger is on a GFCI outlet, then.
I'm not sure what difference that would make. Your plug-in EVSE has an internal GFCI and your GFCI outlet won't trip on overload AFAIK. However, absent a bad connection at the socket, there's very little risk from the EVSE itself. It's just a PF corrected 12A load, not much different than a 1440W space heater. My main concern would be that the continuous load might heat up the breaker where it attaches to the bus bar in the panel. Maybe a new breaker and some grease will be good enough for awhile.
-
Could be worse, could be FPE 'stab lock', also a 1950s shit show of a design, also prone to fail to trip and catch fire instead.
I would be looking at getting this sorted out before worrying about the car charging arrangements (Which could easily be 15A 240V) without needing to replace anything except outlet and breaker, but get that trash panel replaced first it is a real hazard.
I am unsure where the lines are for a panel replacement requiring the rest to be bought up to current code, or what the landlord is required to do here, but it Cali so there probably are some fairly insane requirements.
The Zinsco panels are not great, but they're not as bad as the reputation would suggest, I've seen quite a few of them still in use. You can get modern breakers for them that are improved and have better contacts that mate with the bus bars. The FPE panels though are really bad, if I had one of those I would replace it, I haven't seen one of them in a long time.
-
I'm sure you can find the info if you care.
Here it is. Renewables have erased the morning peak and most California rates now are 'off-peak' from sometime in the night until the late afternoon. I'm off-peak (lowest rate) from 9PM to 4PM the next day. Of course my off-peak rate is still $0.26/kWh (thanks SCE!) so my solar is still paying dividends.
https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/default.aspx (https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/default.aspx)
I don't see anything in these curves that relate to renewables. Am I missing something? I see RA used, but no explanation as to what it means.
-
I don't see anything in these curves that relate to renewables. Am I missing something? I see RA used, but no explanation as to what it means.
The first curve simply shows you that there is no morning peak. As for the reasons, renewables and such you'd have to dig deeper or take my word for it, which is based on knowing the history. A decade ago there used to be a bump in the morning and not as much of a dip midday.
-
I don't see anything in these curves that relate to renewables. Am I missing something? I see RA used, but no explanation as to what it means.
The first curve simply shows you that there is no morning peak. As for the reasons, renewables and such you'd have to dig deeper or take my word for it, which is based on knowing the history. A decade ago there used to be a bump in the morning and not as much of a dip midday.
So, there's nothing in the graphs about the cause of the morning peak being absent?
So what is the rationale for saying it's due to renewables? I don't know of a strong dependence of wind with morning hours and solar is barely providing power during the morning peak. What do you know about this that the rest of us don't?
-
What do you know about this that the rest of us don't?
It's 9AM here and my solar system is putting out ~3kW--and sending most of that back to the grid. It's been producing a fair amount, probably enough to reduce my usage to zero, since 7:45AM or so. I don't know what caused the 'morning peak' in the first place--people getting up and making coffee and toast? Yesterday was a holiday, if you look today you'll see a little bump around 8AM. That bump used to be bigger and the only relevant thing that has changed is residential solar. Commercial solar and wind are accounted for differently, residential solar just shows up as reduced demand AFAIK.
-
It's a good thing the charger is on a GFCI outlet, then.
I'm not sure what difference that would make. Your plug-in EVSE has an internal GFCI and your GFCI outlet won't trip on overload AFAIK. However, absent a bad connection at the socket, there's very little risk from the EVSE itself. It's just a PF corrected 12A load, not much different than a 1440W space heater. My main concern would be that the continuous load might heat up the breaker where it attaches to the bus bar in the panel. Maybe a new breaker and some grease will be good enough for awhile.
My mistake. GFCI does not offer over current protection. However, the GFCI was tripped in the EVSE outlet when the breaker overloaded and tripped a few nights ago.
-
Usually, when a GFCI trips, the result trips the circuit breaker ahead of it.
-
However, the GFCI was tripped in the EVSE outlet when the breaker overloaded and tripped a few nights ago.
That can happen--a GFIC can be tripped by things other than an actual ground fault--but the main thing is to be happy that your breaker actually tripped as that means that it is working.
-
What do you know about this that the rest of us don't?
It's 9AM here and my solar system is putting out ~3kW--and sending most of that back to the grid. It's been producing a fair amount, probably enough to reduce my usage to zero, since 7:45AM or so. I don't know what caused the 'morning peak' in the first place--people getting up and making coffee and toast? Yesterday was a holiday, if you look today you'll see a little bump around 8AM. That bump used to be bigger and the only relevant thing that has changed is residential solar. Commercial solar and wind are accounted for differently, residential solar just shows up as reduced demand AFAIK.
Both morning and afternoon peaks are caused by the overlap of residential and commercial power use. Commercial tends to drop off at night. Residential tends to have a peak in the morning, steady through the day, rising in the afternoon into the evening as people arrive home. The afternoon peak is the more significant of the two, but this all varies with location and season.
Once, I saw a graph that broke power usage into categories to the level of A/C vs. washing machines, etc. But I don't have that link.
-
Usually, when a GFCI trips, the result trips the circuit breaker ahead of it.
None of mine do! I trip GFCI breakers at least once per week but I've never had one trip one of the main breakers.
(The GFCIs that I trip are the ones for outside outlets and are used to operate corded AC lawn equipment and with our frequent rain and heavy early morning dew, the dampness often trips the GFI breakers due to leakage to earth ground.)
I also have a GFI breaker on a bath room and there is an electric fan in there and when I turn it off, it frequently trips the GFI breaker (but not a main breaker). It's a small fan and there is no dampness involved and the only reason that I can think of that it trips the GFI is because of the inductive spike generated when the AC motor is turned off.
I think that there's something wrong with your electric system if your GFI is tripping a 15 or 20 amp breaker.
PS AND speaking of rain, it's just after 2 PM and it just started raining again! It almost never completely dries out here in the summer time before it starts raining again.
-
Usually, when a GFCI trips, the result trips the circuit breaker ahead of it.
Why did it trip? Did the over current create an imbalance in voltage?
-
Usually, when a GFCI trips, the result trips the circuit breaker ahead of it.
Why did it trip? Did the over current create an imbalance in voltage?
A GFCI works by comparing the current in the two legs. When they are significantly different, the assumption is that there is current leaving the loop and going to ground. Since this could be through a person, the GFCI trips to remove the power.
A GFCI is not sensitive to high currents. But it can be sensitive to transients, such as turning on a large load. In theory, this should still create equal currents in the two wires, but maybe there are effects that cause the currents on the two wires to be unequal for a brief interval.
I've never seen this happen, only heard reports from the UK, where it is not uncommon for the entire house to be on a single GFCI (which I think they call an RCD).
But it is not customary for a GFCI trip to also trip the circuit breaker, which is tripped on excessive current in the circuit (amps vs. mA).
-
1961 brand. lol who knows the panel itself has no writing on it.
Oh good lord, that's what I was afraid of. You don't want to charge an EV with that panel, even at 12A. Just move out of the house before you all burn!
Google "Zinsco" for details.
RETROFIT KIT describes how to replace Zinsco or Zinsco-type Sylvania Electric Panels in buildings using a retrofit kit provided by Eaton Corp., Cutler Hammer Products (E-CH):
https://inspectapedia.com/electric/Zinsco_Panel_Replacement.php
-
Usually, when a GFCI trips, the result trips the circuit breaker ahead of it.
Why did it trip? Did the over current create an imbalance in voltage?
I retract my original statement: I misremembered the details about a problem with a basement dehumidifier that tripped the GFCI.
-
RETROFIT KIT describes how to replace Zinsco or Zinsco-type Sylvania Electric Panels in buildings using a retrofit kit provided by Eaton Corp., Cutler Hammer Products (E-CH):
https://inspectapedia.com/electric/Zinsco_Panel_Replacement.php
Those retrofit kits don't really look much easier than replacing the whole panel. I just finished a panel replacement the other day and most of the work is connecting all the individual wires and making everything tidy which is harder when you're working with existing wiring that was cut to length for the original panel.
-
I've been thinking of having a T-shirt printed with the text:
"This T-shirt is known to cause cancer in the state of California"
And that is while I live in Europe.
Those Californians seem to be making rules and texts just for the fun of it. (Although EU is also doing some weird stuff).
No one knows why CA does half of what it does. I think the regulators are bored and ignorant a lot of the time. My brother is in the fishing business, and the stories he tells about that department are beyond mystifying. They regularly have to take the departments to court in order to get idiotic regulations rescinded.
One of the most egregious, which has now been litigated away, is that if you owned a house is say Nevada, and you owned a house in say, CA, and your family was in CA but you had a residency in Nevada, for tax reasons, CA would litigate to get CA tax, saying you were still a CA resident even though you could prove you were a Nevada resident. There rationale was that you were just trying to get out of paying CA taxes, which isn't illegal. I remember one of the cases where the person litigated and it cost him 60K, and it cost the state who knows how much, but they would not let it go. Finally the judge rules in the civilians favor and that's when things started to cahnge. One of their arguments was that he owned a house in CA, therefore, he was still a resident. I mean, it was bizaroland.
That's the problem with having such a plethora of taxing regimes.
In Oz, you pay your normal income taxes to the Federal Govt, so it doesn't matter what State you live in.
You will be liable for various taxes for houses in each State, so, if say, you had a house in Western Australia & one in Victoria, you would need to pay any fees associated with those houses to the State they are in.
On top of that, the Local Authority (Council, etc.) each property is in will charge you land tax, rates, etc.
(The State & Local Authority taxes are associated with the property, not you!)
It's nice & clear cut, with no tax advantage to having houses in other States, so you are not tempted to try that.
There are possible investment opportunities, but that is a different kettle of fish.
-
I've been thinking of having a T-shirt printed with the text:
"This T-shirt is known to cause cancer in the state of California"
And that is while I live in Europe.
Those Californians seem to be making rules and texts just for the fun of it. (Although EU is also doing some weird stuff).
No one knows why CA does half of what it does. I think the regulators are bored and ignorant a lot of the time. My brother is in the fishing business, and the stories he tells about that department are beyond mystifying. They regularly have to take the departments to court in order to get idiotic regulations rescinded.
One of the most egregious, which has now been litigated away, is that if you owned a house is say Nevada, and you owned a house in say, CA, and your family was in CA but you had a residency in Nevada, for tax reasons, CA would litigate to get CA tax, saying you were still a CA resident even though you could prove you were a Nevada resident. There rationale was that you were just trying to get out of paying CA taxes, which isn't illegal. I remember one of the cases where the person litigated and it cost him 60K, and it cost the state who knows how much, but they would not let it go. Finally the judge rules in the civilians favor and that's when things started to cahnge. One of their arguments was that he owned a house in CA, therefore, he was still a resident. I mean, it was bizaroland.
That's the problem with having such a plethora of taxing regimes.
In Oz, you pay your normal income taxes to the Federal Govt, so it doesn't matter what State you live in.
You will be liable for various taxes for houses in each State, so, if say, you had a house in Western Australia & one in Victoria, you would need to pay any fees associated with those houses to the State they are in.
On top of that, the Local Authority (Council, etc.) each property is in will charge you land tax, rates, etc.
(The State & Local Authority taxes are associated with the property, not you!)
It's nice & clear cut, with no tax advantage to having houses in other States, so you are not tempted to try that.
There are possible investment opportunities, but that is a different kettle of fish.
That's how the US is. You pay Federal tax no matter where you live, but states have the Constitutional right of taxation themselves.
-
RETROFIT KIT describes how to replace Zinsco or Zinsco-type Sylvania Electric Panels in buildings using a retrofit kit provided by Eaton Corp., Cutler Hammer Products (E-CH):
https://inspectapedia.com/electric/Zinsco_Panel_Replacement.php
Those retrofit kits don't really look much easier than replacing the whole panel. I just finished a panel replacement the other day and most of the work is connecting all the individual wires and making everything tidy which is harder when you're working with existing wiring that was cut to length for the original panel.
Ours is an external panel, too.
The electrical outfit that accepted the job is going to come out soon, so we'll see if they can do it or not. Initially, it said there would be no charge, but then it said a bunch of exclusionary stuff, like the quote: "Does not cover obsolete breakers such as Zinsco, Federal Pacifica, and Bulldog Pushmatic."
I wonder if the can use an updated breaker for the same panel, or if they mean any Zinsko like breakers?
-
It probably means that they're not going to source obsolete breakers, and they may charge extra for modern Zinsco compatible replacements which IIRC are around 4x the price of most standard breakers.
-
I wonder if the can use an updated breaker for the same panel, or if they mean any Zinsko like breakers?
Given that you have spaces remaining and breakers are available (although expensive) they'll probably just add a breaker and run the wires and not even mention the Zinsco panel because they're used to landlords not wanting to spend $4K replacing them. Hopefully they'll use the double-width version and perhaps they'll want a few extra bucks for it.
https://www.grainger.com/product/3YMW5?gucid=N:N:PS:Paid:GGL:CSM-2295:4P7A1P:20501231&gclid=CjwKCAjwzJmlBhBBEiwAEJyLu6bFjCTzbw6qDezof_O5avqAOL2p49tTbjikTgIxNF0CCL_JFYRR-BoC_FoQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds (https://www.grainger.com/product/3YMW5?gucid=N:N:PS:Paid:GGL:CSM-2295:4P7A1P:20501231&gclid=CjwKCAjwzJmlBhBBEiwAEJyLu6bFjCTzbw6qDezof_O5avqAOL2p49tTbjikTgIxNF0CCL_JFYRR-BoC_FoQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds)
-
From a municipal guideline giving excerpts from the 2022 CEC (California Electrical Code)
• Receptacle outlets shall be tamper-resistant except those within dedicated space for an
appliance not easily moved from one place to another (behind clothes washer). [CEC 406.12A]
OK so what's California's rational for requiring that washing machine outlets be "tamper-resistant"? I don't see how anyone would be more likely to "tamper" with that outlet than any other outlet in the house (most of which are probably much more accessible!)
Knowing how some of these code requirements come about, somebody had a financial interest in tamper resistant outlets and lubricated the pouring of the requirement into the regs. There is no rational reason for tamper resistant outlets in single owner dwellings.
-
Maybe if you yanks had a decent plug,not something were the pins bend if you look at em funny you'd have a better experience.Us brits with our far superior plug top have been dealing with shuttered sockets of one kind or another for nearly 100 years without any problems.
-
From a municipal guideline giving excerpts from the 2022 CEC (California Electrical Code)
• Receptacle outlets shall be tamper-resistant except those within dedicated space for an
appliance not easily moved from one place to another (behind clothes washer). [CEC 406.12A]
OK so what's California's rational for requiring that washing machine outlets be "tamper-resistant"? I don't see how anyone would be more likely to "tamper" with that outlet than any other outlet in the house (most of which are probably much more accessible!)
Knowing how some of these code requirements come about, somebody had a financial interest in tamper resistant outlets and lubricated the pouring of the requirement into the regs. There is no rational reason for tamper resistant outlets in single owner dwellings.
What is meant by "single owner dwellings"??? Why do you think they should have different receptacles in different homes? What happens when a home is sold? All the receptacles need to be replaced?
-
Maybe if you yanks had a decent plug,not something were the pins bend if you look at em funny you'd have a better experience.Us brits with our far superior plug top have been dealing with shuttered sockets of one kind or another for nearly 100 years without any problems.
That's a bit funny, coming from someone in a country where half the people think they will never be able to support electric vehicles.
-
Maybe if you yanks had a decent plug,not something were the pins bend if you look at em funny you'd have a better experience.Us brits with our far superior plug top have been dealing with shuttered sockets of one kind or another for nearly 100 years without any problems.
Us Yanks will always go with cheap over quality or even safe -- lol. To me the C and F outlets look really over built. Then I look at our and they look flimsy.
-
I wonder if the can use an updated breaker for the same panel, or if they mean any Zinsko like breakers?
Given that you have spaces remaining and breakers are available (although expensive) they'll probably just add a breaker and run the wires and not even mention the Zinsco panel because they're used to landlords not wanting to spend $4K replacing them. Hopefully they'll use the double-width version and perhaps they'll want a few extra bucks for it.
https://www.grainger.com/product/3YMW5?gucid=N:N:PS:Paid:GGL:CSM-2295:4P7A1P:20501231&gclid=CjwKCAjwzJmlBhBBEiwAEJyLu6bFjCTzbw6qDezof_O5avqAOL2p49tTbjikTgIxNF0CCL_JFYRR-BoC_FoQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds (https://www.grainger.com/product/3YMW5?gucid=N:N:PS:Paid:GGL:CSM-2295:4P7A1P:20501231&gclid=CjwKCAjwzJmlBhBBEiwAEJyLu6bFjCTzbw6qDezof_O5avqAOL2p49tTbjikTgIxNF0CCL_JFYRR-BoC_FoQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds)
Hopefully they can do it for the price of that breaker. The owner said he would pay extra, but not thousands. Can't blame him, really.
-
Maybe if you yanks had a decent plug,not something were the pins bend if you look at em funny you'd have a better experience.Us brits with our far superior plug top have been dealing with shuttered sockets of one kind or another for nearly 100 years without any problems.
Us Yanks will always go with cheap over quality or even safe -- lol.
That goes double for homes that are leased out and that the owner doesn't live in himself. They're going to install the cheapest and most poorly constructed sockets, wiring, breakers, appliances, plumbing, etc etc that is available.
-
From a municipal guideline giving excerpts from the 2022 CEC (California Electrical Code)
• Receptacle outlets shall be tamper-resistant except those within dedicated space for an
appliance not easily moved from one place to another (behind clothes washer). [CEC 406.12A]
OK so what's California's rational for requiring that washing machine outlets be "tamper-resistant"? I don't see how anyone would be more likely to "tamper" with that outlet than any other outlet in the house (most of which are probably much more accessible!)
Knowing how some of these code requirements come about, somebody had a financial interest in tamper resistant outlets and lubricated the pouring of the requirement into the regs. There is no rational reason for tamper resistant outlets in single owner dwellings.
The NEC requires tamper resistant outlets everywhere in houses and has for at least a decade so the California requirement to use them for washing machines is redundant. The "rational reason" is to prevent children from inserting objects into the slots and getting electrocuted, which can certainly happen in single family dwellings. Personally I'm not a fan of them, they're cheaply made residential grade stuff and I much prefer commercial grade receptacles but if you're doing a new install and getting it inspected then you have to use TR receptacles everywhere.
-
Maybe if you yanks had a decent plug,not something were the pins bend if you look at em funny you'd have a better experience.Us brits with our far superior plug top have been dealing with shuttered sockets of one kind or another for nearly 100 years without any problems.
The British 13A plug is nice and robust, and safer than the NEMA-15 plugs we use, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it "far superior", it has disadvantages too. It's huge and clunky making compact devices like the modern mobile phone chargers we have impossible, power strips and multiple outlet extension cords are bulky and impractical, and if you drop one on the ground it almost always lands with the prongs pointed upward which really hurt to step on.
The shutters work fine on British plugs because they're designed from the start to have them and all of the plugs have a ground pin which can be used to open the shutters. In our case compatibility with the 2 prong NEMA plug is required, you can't count on having a ground pin present and thus the shutters are crap and tend to be fiddly. It's easier to just teach kids not to poke things into receptacles and lamp sockets, kids are adept at defeating all manner of "child proof" mechanisms anyway. I still remember when I was maybe 4 or 5 my grandmother used to have me open the child proof lids on her medications regularly, I could do it easily while she struggled with them due to arthritis and other issues that come with old age.
-
and if you drop one on the ground it almost always lands with the prongs pointed upward which really hurt to step on
you see it as a problem,i see it as a security device,leave upturned plugs scattered around your property and you'll be alerted when someone who shouldn't be there stands on one
the plugs have a ground pin which can be used to open the shutters
we also manage ok wth shutters on 2 pin sockets as found on stuff like shavers
-
Sitting on the toilet in a Saudi hotel bathroom, I looked up and saw how to wire the exhaust fan in a room equipped with British outlets.
The two-wire zip cord had been stripped to roughly 1 cm bare stranded wires, which had been inserted into the spring-loaded L and N sockets after a screwdriver into the ground socket had opened them.
-
Yeap, that sounds like Pakistani workmanship.
-
It's huge and clunky making compact devices like the modern mobile phone chargers we have impossible, power strips and multiple outlet extension cords are bulky and impractical
While I'll admit it's large, these points are nonsense. Phone chargers with folding pins have existed for many years and are very compact, power strips are available in plenty of perfectly practical forms considering they are static objects, and multiple outlet extensions simply come as reels which are far more practical than coiling a 50ft or more cord by hand.
-
It's huge and clunky making compact devices like the modern mobile phone chargers we have impossible, power strips and multiple outlet extension cords are bulky and impractical
While I'll admit it's large, these points are nonsense. Phone chargers with folding pins have existed for many years and are very compact, power strips are available in plenty of perfectly practical forms considering they are static objects, and multiple outlet extensions simply come as reels which are far more practical than coiling a 50ft or more cord by hand.
The folding pins are not as important as not blocking adjacent sockets.
My smallest USB chargers do not block adjacent sockets, but all of my QC chargers, which have folding pins, do.
-
While I'll admit it's large, these points are nonsense. Phone chargers with folding pins have existed for many years and are very compact, power strips are available in plenty of perfectly practical forms considering they are static objects, and multiple outlet extensions simply come as reels which are far more practical than coiling a 50ft or more cord by hand.
Look at a North American iPhone charger and compare it to a UK charger. The UK charger is around 4x the volume before you even consider the pins due to the fact that you need to have 3 pins and they're all so far apart. We have those reel cords too although personally I don't like them, it's too tempting to use the cord without fully unrolling it which can lead to overheating (I've seen it) and I've never found coiling up a cord to be difficult, I just coil it around my palm and elbow into a nice neat coil. There's no way around a power strip that can accommodate 6 or 8 UK plugs being massive compared to one for the same number of NEMA15 plugs and it gets more significant the more you get, such as the 16 socket strips I have under my lab bench similar to those pictured.
Now I'm not arguing that NEMA plugs are better, nor am I saying the UK plug is crap, indeed it's quite nicely made and has many advantages, but it has some disadvantages too so I don't consider it "vastly superior", having used both quite a bit I consider them to be roughly comparable overall. They both do the job they're intended to do, they're both reliable provided you buy the real stuff and not the cheapest of cheap, and you don't really hear about injuries or fires occurring with either one.
-
The electric codes are written so that they are really difficult to understand. I have a degree in physics and I find it difficult. On top of that, instead of supplying them FREE to all who request copies, you must PAY to get them. DUHHHHH!
Is it any wonder that people in other professions, PROFESSIONALS do not know or follow them. So a carpenter installs a cabinet that blocks access to an electrical device that needs access. He probably didn't know that was a code violation. Or if he did, he knew he could get away with it.
As for those tamper resistant sockets, I have to wonder just how my children and grandchildren ever survived in houses without them. Or for that matter; myself, my mother and father, and grandparents.
And I wonder just how a device that is going to be sold on the mass market so therefore made for pennies, is expected to function properly? Such devices themselves are a danger because people WILL devise methods of using them that the designers never anticipated. I am assuming that your "small chisel" would be one made from CONDUCTIVE metal which would be INSERTED into the socket's slot to cut the offending shutter off. You and I may do that in a safe manner, like turning the breaker off first, but I worry when others of the great unwashed get the same idea.
The recent construction where I live has all outlets protected by GFCI. Hilarity ensued when I tripped a GFCI which was hidden behind a cabinet. We had to cut a hole through the side of the cabinet to gain access and reset it.
It seems that should be against code? A GFCI receptacle must be readily accessible so you can test it at regular intervals to ensure it is operating properly, otherwise how could it be safe?
The cabinet was added after the construction and inspection. I *heard* the GFCI trip, but it took days to find it.
Interestingly enough, the same GFCI circuit protects a refrigerator outlet, so the refrigerator does not have a separate circuit.
In a different area of the house, there are wall sockets protected by a GFCI that is on a completely different floor, and I know that the state inspector passed that.
If I had to put up with tamper-resistant sockets, and I could not replace them, I would take a small chisel and break the sliding elements out. In my experience those sockets are a major hazard.
-
From a municipal guideline giving excerpts from the 2022 CEC (California Electrical Code)
• Receptacle outlets shall be tamper-resistant except those within dedicated space for an
appliance not easily moved from one place to another (behind clothes washer). [CEC 406.12A]
OK so what's California's rational for requiring that washing machine outlets be "tamper-resistant"? I don't see how anyone would be more likely to "tamper" with that outlet than any other outlet in the house (most of which are probably much more accessible!)
Knowing how some of these code requirements come about, somebody had a financial interest in tamper resistant outlets and lubricated the pouring of the requirement into the regs. There is no rational reason for tamper resistant outlets in single owner dwellings.
The NEC requires tamper resistant outlets everywhere in houses and has for at least a decade so the California requirement to use them for washing machines is redundant.
You don't seem to understand electrical codes. They are state level regulations. The NEC is simply a standards organization that has zero authority to require the implementation of their recommendations. Every state, including California, can decide if and when to make any of the NEC into law in their state.
-
and if you drop one on the ground it almost always lands with the prongs pointed upward which really hurt to step on
you see it as a problem,i see it as a security device,leave upturned plugs scattered around your property and you'll be alerted when someone who shouldn't be there stands on one
the plugs have a ground pin which can be used to open the shutters
we also manage ok wth shutters on 2 pin sockets as found on stuff like shavers
I thought the plugs were designed so the shutters open when a ground plug was inserted, or pins are inserted in both of the power shutters simultaneously.
-
While I'll admit it's large, these points are nonsense. Phone chargers with folding pins have existed for many years and are very compact, power strips are available in plenty of perfectly practical forms considering they are static objects, and multiple outlet extensions simply come as reels which are far more practical than coiling a 50ft or more cord by hand.
Look at a North American iPhone charger and compare it to a UK charger. The UK charger is around 4x the volume before you even consider the pins due to the fact that you need to have 3 pins and they're all so far apart. We have those reel cords too although personally I don't like them, it's too tempting to use the cord without fully unrolling it which can lead to overheating (I've seen it) and I've never found coiling up a cord to be difficult, I just coil it around my palm and elbow into a nice neat coil. There's no way around a power strip that can accommodate 6 or 8 UK plugs being massive compared to one for the same number of NEMA15 plugs and it gets more significant the more you get, such as the 16 socket strips I have under my lab bench similar to those pictured.
Now I'm not arguing that NEMA plugs are better, nor am I saying the UK plug is crap, indeed it's quite nicely made and has many advantages, but it has some disadvantages too so I don't consider it "vastly superior", having used both quite a bit I consider them to be roughly comparable overall. They both do the job they're intended to do, they're both reliable provided you buy the real stuff and not the cheapest of cheap, and you don't really hear about injuries or fires occurring with either one.
When people talk about not buying the "cheapest" products to avoid the low quality devices, I've never found an IEEE spec on quality vs. price. So, how do you determine the cut off?
I have this problem in buying a lot of things. I'm told not to buy the "cheap stuff", but no one defines what the "cheap stuff" is.
Personally, I've bought low priced things that worked horribly. I've bought high priced stuff that worked well. I've also bought cheap stuff that worked well and high priced stuff that worked poorly. The correlation ratio is often close to zero, or even negative in some cases.
Ever see an ad for "super high-quality audio speaker cables"? It's virtually always an oxymoron.
-
As for those tamper resistant sockets, I have to wonder just how my children and grandchildren ever survived in houses without them. Or for that matter; myself, my mother and father, and grandparents.
One thing I can say in confidence of the NEC is that they don't add requirements for no reason. Electrocution of a child is nothing to make fun of. How many deaths of children does a change like this need to prevent, to be useful? This change was made because of the number of deaths it can prevent.
Unfortunately, the older sockets (including ones without ground pins) are grandfathered in, to this day. When the grounding pin was new, a very popular accessory was the 2 to 3 pin adapter. It had a flying wire which was supposed to be anchored under the grounded screw holding the outlet cover on. But in such installations, there was not a grounding wire to the outlet, so the screw was not grounded and the fly wire was pointless. Any number of people died from using devices plugged in this way, but the code can not stop people from buying and using such dangerous devices, improperly.
I feel very lucky I was never electrocuted from the various things I did, when I didn't understand how dangerous they were. I know people who will not use a high current power tool with an extension cord, because of the risk of damage to their tool from the excess voltage drop, but don't worry about the ground pin being broken off.
-
I have to wonder just how my children and grandchildren ever survived in houses without them. Or for that matter; myself, my mother and father, and grandparents.
You demonstrate so-called survival bias. Obviously they survived, otherwise you would not be here posting this. This does not negate the fact that some others did not survive; you are just not personally seeing it, blinded by the survival bias. What you should do is try to take objective look, find statistics, etc., but that's of course a lot of work.
Electrocution is not common of course, traffic accidents are a lot more likely, but on the other hand electrocution is much simpler to prevent, so-called low-hanging fruit.
I used to read descriptions of deaths by electrocution in Finland as published by authorities for amusement and learning purposes, and I did notice the trend that while in 1980's 20 people died every year (out of less than 5 000 000, it was not a lot compared to 2000 in traffic accidents of the time, but still something), over half of them in households, that dropped to 0.5 per year in 2000's, 1:40 reduction. Meanwhile, traffic accident deaths saw 1:10 reduction, and a lot more work has been required to achieve that, mostly in car design.
-
You can also post this question to Mike holt forum. I found this place good for electrical works, wiring codes etc.
https://forums.mikeholt.com/
-
I thought the plugs were designed so the shutters open when a ground plug was inserted, or pins are inserted in both of the power shutters simultaneously.
I thought the sockets were designed to make insertion or removal of the plug more difficult, thereby increasing safety and saving the planet by discouraging the use of electricity. At least *all* of the sockets I tested a couple weeks ago worked that way.
-
The "mechanical AND logic" in shutters used to irritate me, but either it has got better (in Schuko sockets, here), or I have just grown used to it. People adapt to things like having to insert a plug in a certain way, or give it a small specific wiggle, so that it becomes second nature and stops being irritating.
-
I thought the plugs were designed so the shutters open when a ground plug was inserted, or pins are inserted in both of the power shutters simultaneously.
I thought the sockets were designed to make insertion or removal of the plug more difficult, thereby increasing safety and saving the planet by discouraging the use of electricity. At least *all* of the sockets I tested a couple weeks ago worked that way.
How does difficult removal discourage electricity usage?
-
The folding pins are not as important as not blocking adjacent sockets.
We don't generally have that problem because our plug footprint isn't as tiny and we don't design extension strips which can only fit non-rewireable plugs side by side.
Look at a North American iPhone charger and compare it to a UK charger. The UK charger is around 4x the volume before you even consider the pins due to the fact that you need to have 3 pins and they're all so far apart.
"before you even consider the pins consider the pins" - okay. Many companies make chargers which aren't meaningfully larger than US ones (and smaller than EU ones).
Hmm, fact check time:
(https://b2c-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Apple-20W-Wall-Charger-US-UK-AU.jpg?quality=50&strip=all)
Wow, so big. Note the flimsy pins you can't fold away.
We have those reel cords too although personally I don't like them, it's too tempting to use the cord without fully unrolling it which can lead to overheating (I've seen it) and I've never found coiling up a cord to be difficult, I just coil it around my palm and elbow into a nice neat coil.
Non-issue. Know what you're plugging in and use a suitable length extension, or simply know how much you can draw coiled. Your nice neat coil takes more time to coil, more space to store and is more vulnerable to damage.
There's no way around a power strip that can accommodate 6 or 8 UK plugs being massive compared to one for the same number of NEMA15 plugs and it gets more significant the more you get, such as the 16 socket strips I have under my lab bench similar to those pictured.
And it's also a non-issue because the equipment plugging into it is a lot larger. And, huge secret, you can use other systems if you need greater density.
-
The electric codes are written so that they are really difficult to understand. I have a degree in physics and I find it difficult. On top of that, instead of supplying them FREE to all who request copies, you must PAY to get them. DUHHHHH!
Actually, there is a free option for the NEC: https://www.nfpa.org/NEC/About-the-NEC/Free-online-access-to-the-NEC-and-other-electrical-standards (https://www.nfpa.org/NEC/About-the-NEC/Free-online-access-to-the-NEC-and-other-electrical-standards)
-
I thought the sockets were designed to make insertion or removal of the plug more difficult, thereby increasing safety and saving the planet by discouraging the use of electricity. At least *all* of the sockets I tested a couple weeks ago worked that way.
How does difficult removal discourage electricity usage?
Difficult removal means breaking the fragile shutter on the socket and then nothing can be inserted.
The folding pins are not as important as not blocking adjacent sockets.
We don't generally have that problem because our plug footprint isn't as tiny and we don't design extension strips which can only fit non-rewireable plugs side by side.
I am in the US and have to cut the coat to fit the cloth.
We have the problem that extension strips may be designed with the socket oriented either way in an attempt to solve the problem, which leads to plug in devices being in either orientation, so they will not interfere in one direction but will in the other.
But even the narrow devices that I have are not quite narrow enough.
My solution is to make my own extension strips using steel outlet box hardware, which has the advantage of making them heavy so they do not shift around. The spacing between boxes is often enough. My example below shows only wall warts which go horizontally, which might be the best compromise for US sockets, but there are vertical ones as well.
-
I just coil it around my palm and elbow into a nice neat coil.
How not to coil a cable,well not unless you want to introduce a permanent kink in the cable.
-
The electric codes are written so that they are really difficult to understand. I have a degree in physics and I find it difficult. On top of that, instead of supplying them FREE to all who request copies, you must PAY to get them. DUHHHHH!
Actually, there is a free option for the NEC: https://www.nfpa.org/NEC/About-the-NEC/Free-online-access-to-the-NEC-and-other-electrical-standards (https://www.nfpa.org/NEC/About-the-NEC/Free-online-access-to-the-NEC-and-other-electrical-standards)
From your link, emphasis mine:
Note: You will be asked to "sign-in" or create a profile to access the document. NFPA standards cannot be downloaded or printed. More about free online access to NFPA standards.
There is a longstanding argument about whether law can be copyrighted and restricted. This part is a lie:
NFPA delivers free online access to all NFPA standards to enhance public safety and to serve the public's increasing interest in technical information
The reason it is made nominally available is to make legal challenges more difficult. As it stands now, law in the US may be kept from those who will be criminally charged for violating it, and there is no indication that this will change in the future.
-
The electric codes are written so that they are really difficult to understand. I have a degree in physics and I find it difficult. On top of that, instead of supplying them FREE to all who request copies, you must PAY to get them. DUHHHHH!
Actually, there is a free option for the NEC: https://www.nfpa.org/NEC/About-the-NEC/Free-online-access-to-the-NEC-and-other-electrical-standards (https://www.nfpa.org/NEC/About-the-NEC/Free-online-access-to-the-NEC-and-other-electrical-standards)
From your link, emphasis mine:
Note: You will be asked to "sign-in" or create a profile to access the document. NFPA standards cannot be downloaded or printed. More about free online access to NFPA standards.
There is a longstanding argument about whether law can be copyrighted and restricted. This part is a lie:
NFPA delivers free online access to all NFPA standards to enhance public safety and to serve the public's increasing interest in technical information
The reason it is made nominally available is to make legal challenges more difficult. As it stands now, law in the US may be kept from those who will be criminally charged for violating it, and there is no indication that this will change in the future.
I agree it's a insufficient level of access for a professional who may need constant references in the field. But for a homeowner or curious individual, it's sufficient to look things up. And if you really need an offline copy of certain pages, you can always use the camera on your phone.
-
I just coil it around my palm and elbow into a nice neat coil.
How not to coil a cable,well not unless you want to introduce a permanent kink in the cable.
Huh? What on earth are you talking about? It produces a nice tidy roll, do you think my elbow is sharpened to a razor edge or something? The result is a nice tidy elongated hoop the diameter of the length of my forearm, I have cords that are 30 years old that I've always rolled up this way that have no kinks in them. You don't pull it as tight as you possibly can, you just coil it gently, I'm really not sure how you could kink it like this even if that was your goal.
-
I used to read descriptions of deaths by electrocution in Finland as published by authorities for amusement and learning purposes, and I did notice the trend that while in 1980's 20 people died every year (out of less than 5 000 000, it was not a lot compared to 2000 in traffic accidents of the time, but still something), over half of them in households, that dropped to 0.5 per year in 2000's, 1:40 reduction. Meanwhile, traffic accident deaths saw 1:10 reduction, and a lot more work has been required to achieve that, mostly in car design.
20 a year out of 5,000,000 is negligible IMO, forget traffic accidents and look at less common stuff like falling down stairs, drowning in bathtubs and choking on food, I would bet that electrocution is not even on the top 10 causes of untimely death. It would be interesting to further break down the electrocution deaths and look at additional details, if you wanted to compare plug safety for example it would make sense to look only at cases involving that.
-
I just coil it around my palm and elbow into a nice neat coil.
How not to coil a cable,well not unless you want to introduce a permanent kink in the cable.
Huh? What on earth are you talking about? It produces a nice tidy roll, do you think my elbow is sharpened to a razor edge or something? The result is a nice tidy elongated hoop the diameter of the length of my forearm, I have cords that are 30 years old that I've always rolled up this way that have no kinks in them. You don't pull it as tight as you possibly can, you just coil it gently, I'm really not sure how you could kink it like this even if that was your goal.
themadhippy is correct; coiling the cable that way also twists it, and repeatedly doing it will twist it even more until it kinks. This does not matter for shorter lengths which are easy to untwist, but there is a way to coil longer cables by twisting alternate loops over and then under so that the twist evens out.
https://youtu.be/OeUgSzH8GHQ
-
I thought the sockets were designed to make insertion or removal of the plug more difficult, thereby increasing safety and saving the planet by discouraging the use of electricity. At least *all* of the sockets I tested a couple weeks ago worked that way.
How does difficult removal discourage electricity usage?
Difficult removal means breaking the fragile shutter on the socket and then nothing can be inserted.
Have you ever used one of these sockets? They don't break on removing a plug. They break when people force the plug into the socket, rather than trying to work it in.
I don't care what you are making. If someone is ham-fisted enough, they can break it.
-
I agree it's a insufficient level of access for a professional who may need constant references in the field. But for a homeowner or curious individual, it's sufficient to look things up. And if you really need an offline copy of certain pages, you can always use the camera on your phone.
That's some serious BS. A photo is probably the absolute worst form of a document known to man. Maybe it's a tie with inscription on large boulders.
-
I used to read descriptions of deaths by electrocution in Finland as published by authorities for amusement and learning purposes, and I did notice the trend that while in 1980's 20 people died every year (out of less than 5 000 000, it was not a lot compared to 2000 in traffic accidents of the time, but still something), over half of them in households, that dropped to 0.5 per year in 2000's, 1:40 reduction. Meanwhile, traffic accident deaths saw 1:10 reduction, and a lot more work has been required to achieve that, mostly in car design.
20 a year out of 5,000,000 is negligible IMO, forget traffic accidents and look at less common stuff like falling down stairs, drowning in bathtubs and choking on food, I would bet that electrocution is not even on the top 10 causes of untimely death. It would be interesting to further break down the electrocution deaths and look at additional details, if you wanted to compare plug safety for example it would make sense to look only at cases involving that.
But looking at deaths isn't the whole story. There are at least ten times that many non-fatal injuries from electricity. And if you look at fires started by electrical faults, it's orders of magnitude. I know that GFCI has resulted in a measurable safety improvement where it's implemented.
I don't know how effective tamper outlets are statistically, since less than 10 years only on new construction (some states haven't implemented it at all yet) isn't long enough when the average age of housing is 40+ years. I do remember that when I was in middle school some 50+ years ago, there was someone leaving paper clips sticking out of the hot prong of outlets. I saw one kid get shocked, not seriously. Was a big deal, and teachers were checking outlets every class for a while.
-
I agree it's a insufficient level of access for a professional who may need constant references in the field. But for a homeowner or curious individual, it's sufficient to look things up. And if you really need an offline copy of certain pages, you can always use the camera on your phone.
That's some serious BS. A photo is probably the absolute worst form of a document known to man. Maybe it's a tie with inscription on large boulders.
Exaggerate much? Unless you're still using a phone camera from the stone age. For many it's preferable to actually paying the price for a physical copy they're only going to need for one project. For professionals, paying that price is a reasonable cost of business. Also, there are other ways to get things for free on the internet, but I'll let people explore such grey areas on their own.
-
I used to read descriptions of deaths by electrocution in Finland as published by authorities for amusement and learning purposes, and I did notice the trend that while in 1980's 20 people died every year (out of less than 5 000 000, it was not a lot compared to 2000 in traffic accidents of the time, but still something), over half of them in households, that dropped to 0.5 per year in 2000's, 1:40 reduction. Meanwhile, traffic accident deaths saw 1:10 reduction, and a lot more work has been required to achieve that, mostly in car design.
20 a year out of 5,000,000 is negligible IMO, forget traffic accidents and look at less common stuff like falling down stairs, drowning in bathtubs and choking on food, I would bet that electrocution is not even on the top 10 causes of untimely death. It would be interesting to further break down the electrocution deaths and look at additional details, if you wanted to compare plug safety for example it would make sense to look only at cases involving that.
Taking ratios with the population is pointless, as is comparing to other accident types. If there are 20 deaths per year, that is 20 deaths per year that can be prevented.
I have a dock, and my neighbors have docs with electricity. There is a fault mode where the electric line develops a loss of containment and electricity leaks into the water. The current flows out from the source and flows through the body of people in the water, paralyzing them, so that they drown.
Since this is not a category previously defined, and it is not well known to the people who investigate such matters, it seldom is reported as the type of problem it is. So there is little data showing it is a problem which needs to be addressed. Catch-22. Until there are more reports of deaths, they won't even create a category for it. Until there is an appropriate category for it, there won't be more reports of deaths due to this problem.
-
I just coil it around my palm and elbow into a nice neat coil.
How not to coil a cable,well not unless you want to introduce a permanent kink in the cable.
Huh? What on earth are you talking about? It produces a nice tidy roll, do you think my elbow is sharpened to a razor edge or something? The result is a nice tidy elongated hoop the diameter of the length of my forearm, I have cords that are 30 years old that I've always rolled up this way that have no kinks in them. You don't pull it as tight as you possibly can, you just coil it gently, I'm really not sure how you could kink it like this even if that was your goal.
themadhippy is correct; coiling the cable that way also twists it, and repeatedly doing it will twist it even more until it kinks. This does not matter for shorter lengths which are easy to untwist, but there is a way to coil longer cables by twisting alternate loops over and then under so that the twist evens out.
https://youtu.be/OeUgSzH8GHQ
I manage to undo the twists as I unroll it. It's not hard, you just have to pay attention as you go, and make sure when you are done, it is fully untwisted.
-
I agree it's a insufficient level of access for a professional who may need constant references in the field. But for a homeowner or curious individual, it's sufficient to look things up. And if you really need an offline copy of certain pages, you can always use the camera on your phone.
That's some serious BS. A photo is probably the absolute worst form of a document known to man. Maybe it's a tie with inscription on large boulders.
Exaggerate much? Unless you're still using a phone camera from the stone age. For many it's preferable to actually paying the price for a physical copy they're only going to need for one project. For professionals, paying that price is a reasonable cost of business. Also, there are other ways to get things for free on the internet, but I'll let people explore such grey areas on their own.
So, you take 1,000 photos of 1,000 pages? No, I'm not exaggerating. You can't search these "documents" and your phone memory fills with them. I guess you could buy a phone just for this an use a 128 GB flash drive.
-
I agree it's a insufficient level of access for a professional who may need constant references in the field. But for a homeowner or curious individual, it's sufficient to look things up. And if you really need an offline copy of certain pages, you can always use the camera on your phone.
That's some serious BS. A photo is probably the absolute worst form of a document known to man. Maybe it's a tie with inscription on large boulders.
Exaggerate much? Unless you're still using a phone camera from the stone age. For many it's preferable to actually paying the price for a physical copy they're only going to need for one project. For professionals, paying that price is a reasonable cost of business. Also, there are other ways to get things for free on the internet, but I'll let people explore such grey areas on their own.
So, you take 1,000 photos of 1,000 pages? No, I'm not exaggerating. You can't search these "documents" and your phone memory fills with them. I guess you could buy a phone just for this an use a 128 GB flash drive.
Yes you are exaggerating the need to copy 1000 pages, unless you're in the professional category that I've already acknowledged need more. Suppose I want to install a new circuit from the breaker box to my workshop (we'll ignore the fact I already know how to do that). First off, the pages I need to review for that task are a relatively small subset of 1000. Second, I'm never more than a minute away from my desktop computer to review documents online. Third, there's very little I'd photo. Simply reading for comprehension on my desktop, taking a few notes for my situation, and maybe photos of a few charts/figures (which could then be printed, if I cared to do so) would do the trick.
As for buying a dedicated phone, the hard copy would likely be cheaper.
-
I agree it's a insufficient level of access for a professional who may need constant references in the field. But for a homeowner or curious individual, it's sufficient to look things up. And if you really need an offline copy of certain pages, you can always use the camera on your phone.
That's some serious BS. A photo is probably the absolute worst form of a document known to man. Maybe it's a tie with inscription on large boulders.
Exaggerate much? Unless you're still using a phone camera from the stone age. For many it's preferable to actually paying the price for a physical copy they're only going to need for one project. For professionals, paying that price is a reasonable cost of business. Also, there are other ways to get things for free on the internet, but I'll let people explore such grey areas on their own.
So, you take 1,000 photos of 1,000 pages? No, I'm not exaggerating. You can't search these "documents" and your phone memory fills with them. I guess you could buy a phone just for this an use a 128 GB flash drive.
Yes you are exaggerating the need to copy 1000 pages, unless you're in the professional category that I've already acknowledged need more. Suppose I want to install a new circuit from the breaker box to my workshop (we'll ignore the fact I already know how to do that). First off, the pages I need to review for that task are a relatively small subset of 1000. Second, I'm never more than a minute away from my desktop computer to review documents online. Third, there's very little I'd photo. Simply reading for comprehension on my desktop, taking a few notes for my situation, and maybe photos of a few charts/figures (which could then be printed, if I cared to do so) would do the trick.
As for buying a dedicated phone, the hard copy would likely be cheaper.
You don't actually know much about the NEC. I was considering adding a 240V connection for charging my car using the existing 120V wiring. I had some ideas. To find all the details that would impact this, was many pages, scattered over much of the document. What you are suggesting is like saying you only need a dozen pages from the USB spec for designing a particular interface.
I'm not going to keep discussing this with you. You can have the last comment.
-
Have you ever used one of these sockets? They don't break on removing a plug. They break when people force the plug into the socket, rather than trying to work it in.
I have used them many times in the past, with the results that I described. And a couple weeks ago I tested all of them that I could find at Home Depot. They were all terrible.
I don't care what you are making. If someone is ham-fisted enough, they can break it.
If it does not insert/extract, then force it. If it breaks, then it was defective anyway.
So, you take 1,000 photos of 1,000 pages? No, I'm not exaggerating. You can't search these "documents" and your phone memory fills with them. I guess you could buy a phone just for this an use a 128 GB flash drive.
There have been lawsuits and threats over people doing exactly that. The companies and government do not really expect people to gain access to the NEC that way; they expect them to pay for access to the text of the law.
You don't actually know much about the NEC. I was considering adding a 240V connection for charging my car using the existing 120V wiring. I had some ideas. To find all the details that would impact this, was many pages, scattered over much of the document. What you are suggesting is like saying you only need a dozen pages from the USB spec for designing a particular interface.
The trick would be knowing what sections you need ahead of time. A computer searchable copy would sure be nice.
-
I am not sure about washing machines, but for drying machines, knowing california electrical code, I recommend that your clothes line be at least a 1/4 inch rope and preferably hung high enough so that someone does not walk into the line.
-
Have you ever used one of these sockets? They don't break on removing a plug. They break when people force the plug into the socket, rather than trying to work it in.
I have used them many times in the past, with the results that I described. And a couple weeks ago I tested all of them that I could find at Home Depot. They were all terrible.
Can you explain to me how you break the shutters by removing the plug? I think that would take some special skill that I don't possess.
I don't care what you are making. If someone is ham-fisted enough, they can break it.
If it does not insert/extract, then force it. If it breaks, then it was defective anyway.
Still, how does it not extract. I've never seen an electric outlet that the plug would jam into and not be removed.
But, I can clearly see why you have trouble inserting plugs into sockets. I bet you are fun on a date. LOL
So, you take 1,000 photos of 1,000 pages? No, I'm not exaggerating. You can't search these "documents" and your phone memory fills with them. I guess you could buy a phone just for this an use a 128 GB flash drive.
There have been lawsuits and threats over people doing exactly that. The companies and government do not really expect people to gain access to the NEC that way; they expect them to pay for access to the text of the law.
You don't actually know much about the NEC. I was considering adding a 240V connection for charging my car using the existing 120V wiring. I had some ideas. To find all the details that would impact this, was many pages, scattered over much of the document. What you are suggesting is like saying you only need a dozen pages from the USB spec for designing a particular interface.
The trick would be knowing what sections you need ahead of time. A computer searchable copy would sure be nice.
That's why photos totally suck!
-
I have very clearly said that photos are NOT my primary resource. You are clearly choosing not to comprehend that I am willing to use the indexed and searchable computer online resource for necessary research. If that's beyond your comprehension, that's your problem, not mine.
-
20 a year out of 5,000,000 is negligible IMO
On population level, it's statistically negligible but those early deaths, many children, are still tragedies and so unnecessary, as those are damn easy to prevent, which is exactly why they went down to zero with not much effort. Compare to choking in food, there is not much you can do about it, you can't force people only eat mashed foods.
Electricity-originated fires are much more common and to reduce them you must have authorities, rules and supervision anyway, electrocution risks get caught at the same time for not much extra effort.
-
Can you explain to me how you break the shutters by removing the plug? I think that would take some special skill that I don't possess.
...
Still, how does it not extract. I've never seen an electric outlet that the plug would jam into and not be removed.
The tight tolerances needed for the tamper mechanism in the socket are not commensurate with the dimensions and finish of commonly encountered plugs, so invariably some plugs will fit very tightly, or even not at all. This is only vary rarely a problem with non-tamper resistant sockets.
Like I said, I tested this a couple weeks ago at Home Depot with their various tamper resistant plugs, and they all jammed with some plugs more often than not. I was thinking of using them in the heavy outlet box strips that I make figuring the doors would keep debris out, but abandoned the idea when I found that they have not improved over the ones I remember from decades ago.
The trick would be knowing what sections you need ahead of time. A computer searchable copy would sure be nice.
That's why photos totally suck!
Some OCR systems which produce text searchable PDFs work really well, but I sure would not want to scan 1000s of pages, and at least in my experience the government office will object and stop you if you try.
-
Can you explain to me how you break the shutters by removing the plug? I think that would take some special skill that I don't possess.
...
Still, how does it not extract. I've never seen an electric outlet that the plug would jam into and not be removed.
The tight tolerances needed for the tamper mechanism in the socket are not commensurate with the dimensions and finish of commonly encountered plugs, so invariably some plugs will fit very tightly, or even not at all. This is only vary rarely a problem with non-tamper resistant sockets.
So, you are saying the plug goes into the socket ok, but when you try to remove it, the plug jams in the shutter somehow, and the shutter breaks as you remove it?
Never seen that one!!!
Like I said, I tested this a couple weeks ago at Home Depot with their various tamper resistant plugs, and they all jammed with some plugs more often than not. I was thinking of using them in the heavy outlet box strips that I make figuring the doors would keep debris out, but abandoned the idea when I found that they have not improved over the ones I remember from decades ago.
"Jammed" meaning what exactly? You couldn't get the plug in? You couldn't take it out?
The trick would be knowing what sections you need ahead of time. A computer searchable copy would sure be nice.
That's why photos totally suck!
Some OCR systems which produce text searchable PDFs work really well, but I sure would not want to scan 1000s of pages, and at least in my experience the government office will object and stop you if you try.
So the document is largely unavailable other than sitting in front of your computer and reading one page at a time?
This conversation has gotten very stale.
-
Hmm, fact check time:
(https://b2c-contenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Apple-20W-Wall-Charger-US-UK-AU.jpg?quality=50&strip=all)
Wow, so big. Note the flimsy pins you can't fold away.
Before you act like a smug prick, you might consider that you're looking at a different charger than I'm talking about. These are the sort of iPhone chargers I have, which as you can see are considerably smaller than a UK plug. I have a handful of things with SMPS wall warts that are similarly sized. I don't care about folding prongs, that makes zero difference on the space it takes up when it's plugged into a receptacle which is where the dimensions matter the most in terms of blocking adjacent sockets and reasonable density power strips.
-
The tight tolerances needed for the tamper mechanism in the socket are not commensurate with the dimensions and finish of commonly encountered plugs, so invariably some plugs will fit very tightly, or even not at all. This is only vary rarely a problem with non-tamper resistant sockets.
Like I said, I tested this a couple weeks ago at Home Depot with their various tamper resistant plugs, and they all jammed with some plugs more often than not. I was thinking of using them in the heavy outlet box strips that I make figuring the doors would keep debris out, but abandoned the idea when I found that they have not improved over the ones I remember from decades ago.
The biggest issue is that TR receptacles are only required in residences so they are (as far as I've seen) only available in "builder grade" which is garbage and not commercial "spec grade" receptacles which are vastly superior. Additionally the low quality TR receptacles cost about as much as the standard spec grade stuff and for what gain? Is there any evidence at all that TR receptacles reduce the number of electrical injuries?
-
Before you act like a smug prick, you might consider that you're looking at a different charger than I'm talking about.
I went looking for a comparison of current generation chargers. So sorry you didn't specify which tiny obsolete 5W one you were concerned about.
I don't care about folding prongs, that makes zero difference on the space it takes up when it's plugged into a receptacle which is where the dimensions matter the most in terms of blocking adjacent sockets and reasonable density power strips.
It makes a difference regarding its portability, which is the only reason it needs to be that compact. Blocking is a non-issue (wait.. it's a non-issue for us. Your problems are your own, don't blame them on our design being larger..), and density is rarely a concern for most users - for actual density sensitive applications, may I introduce you to IEC 60320?
E: I should clarify, blocking is a non-issue until you combine one of these with a top-exit wart put on the market by a sadist:
(https://www.inta-audio.com/images/belkin-surgemaster-8-way-surge-protector-p479-15561_medium.jpg)
-
So, you are saying the plug goes into the socket ok, but when you try to remove it, the plug jams in the shutter somehow, and the shutter breaks as you remove it?
...
"Jammed" meaning what exactly? You couldn't get the plug in? You couldn't take it out?
Usually the plug is difficult to insert, and once inserted the plug is difficult to remove. Either operation may break something. And if one of the windows inside breaks, then it tends to jam the mechanism.
Sometimes they work, at least for a while.
Back in the 70s I remember having plastic outlet covers which plugged in to achieve the same thing.
-
So, you are saying the plug goes into the socket ok, but when you try to remove it, the plug jams in the shutter somehow, and the shutter breaks as you remove it?
...
"Jammed" meaning what exactly? You couldn't get the plug in? You couldn't take it out?
Usually the plug is difficult to insert, and once inserted the plug is difficult to remove. Either operation may break something. And if one of the windows inside breaks, then it tends to jam the mechanism.
Sometimes they work, at least for a while.
Back in the 70s I remember having plastic outlet covers which plugged in to achieve the same thing.
I don't know how to help you. Perhaps you should try a lubricant that is safe to use on electric outlets?
If this is truly the problem you make it out to be, I would expect they'd be taken off the market.
-
Back in the 70s I remember having plastic outlet covers which plugged in to achieve the same thing.
Unfortunately such things are available here and many of the "but think of the children" brigade try to promote there use without realising they can actually reduce the safety of our shuttered sockets.
-
If this is truly the problem you make it out to be, I would expect they'd be taken off the market.
IMO there are many laws and regulations that don't make any sense and are never changed. They just keep adding more $hitty regulations each year.
Gasoline cans are a great example. Hardly any of them work, easily break, and leaking more gas and fumes than the old non-epa approved ones, yet they are still on the market.
-
Gasoline cans are a great example. Hardly any of them work, easily break, and leaking more gas and fumes than the old non-epa approved ones, yet they are still on the market.
I have now spilled more diesel in one incident because of those fucking EPA approved storage containers than all of the fuel I have spilled in decades, and now containers that used to cost $5 cost $30.
-
In CA home owners have to follow a lot of regulations when it comes to electrically and fire safety. It is interesting that the homeless have zero worries about blatant violations of the same regulations and outright utility theft when it comes to electrical wiring and using fires for cooking and heating.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBDaHM4WUoA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBDaHM4WUoA)
Do you think these people are using GFCI outlets, or following proper plumbing codes? They wouldn't worry at all about using a jerry rigged clothes washing machine without the correct plug and wiring?
-
If this is truly the problem you make it out to be, I would expect they'd be taken off the market.
IMO there are many laws and regulations that don't make any sense and are never changed. They just keep adding more $hitty regulations each year.
Gasoline cans are a great example. Hardly any of them work, easily break, and leaking more gas and fumes than the old non-epa approved ones, yet they are still on the market.
Those approved gas cans are awful, they glug fuel all over the place, I've spilled way more fuel with those things than I ever did with the old fashioned kind and yet they're still required. Thankfully you can buy replacement nozzles sold for "potable water" cans which you can use to fix the gas cans so they actually work. I solved the issue for myself by buying a nato jerry can which was also sold as a water can for legal reasons, it works great, seals tightly so the gas keeps longer and it doesn't slop it all over.
-
If this is truly the problem you make it out to be, I would expect they'd be taken off the market.
IMO there are many laws and regulations that don't make any sense and are never changed. They just keep adding more $hitty regulations each year.
Gasoline cans are a great example. Hardly any of them work, easily break, and leaking more gas and fumes than the old non-epa approved ones, yet they are still on the market.
It's not every day that bad designs are blamed on government regulations. But it is every other day. Talk is cheap.
I don't recall ever seeing a good gas can until they started making them from plastic. What's wrong with them now?
-
The valve often fail seal and leak, or open as when it suppose to. The cap seals fail and leak. When the seals and valves do work holding the gas fumes inside as designed the plastic can blows up like a balloon due to the hydro carbon's vapor pressure, weakening the container. I haven't had one fail yet, but I did have a 5 gallon look like a soda can left inside the freezer.
-
It's not every day that bad designs are blamed on government regulations. But it is every other day. Talk is cheap.
The problem is disconnection with requirements, and practical engineering reality. You can, with good intentions, add as many legal requirements as you wish, but if they are difficult to engineer into practice, then broken implementations ensue. In such case, the government should spend a lot of extra money to supervise, recall bad products, support companies in order to make better products. This is almost never done, regulations are fire-and-forget with no aftercare, leaving companies to produce broken shit on their own. Thus, aiming for regulations that are simple to implement and hard to get wrong, yet give good enough results is superior to more complex regulations even if they offer better safety on paper.
-
This is exactly it. In the case of the gas cans, the law provides what is essentially a bucket list of features they must have but little in the way of specifics. The result is a bunch of products that comply with the law but in practical use utterly fail to do what they are designed to do. I honestly don't see how anyone who has ever actually used one of these gas cans in the field could conclude that they accomplish the intended goal of the law which is reduced vapor emissions and reduced spills, oh and being child resistant, as if anything actually is. Apparently there are a small few models that actually work more or less acceptably well but they are relatively expensive and the exception to the norm.
-
It's not every day that bad designs are blamed on government regulations. But it is every other day. Talk is cheap.
The problem is disconnection with requirements, and practical engineering reality. You can, with good intentions, add as many legal requirements as you wish, but if they are difficult to engineer into practice, then broken implementations ensue. In such case, the government should spend a lot of extra money to supervise, recall bad products, support companies in order to make better products. This is almost never done, regulations are fire-and-forget with no aftercare, leaving companies to produce broken shit on their own. Thus, aiming for regulations that are simple to implement and hard to get wrong, yet give good enough results is superior to more complex regulations even if they offer better safety on paper.
I don't know why I would expect engineering types to understand engineering failures. It's just so much easier to expect someone else to do their work for them.
-
I don't know why I would expect engineering types to understand engineering failures. It's just so much easier to expect someone else to do their work for them.
There aren't any shortages of engineers fitting your description. However I would hardly call them competent.
-
The problem is likely not the engineers but the requirements they are given due to business realities and the fact that the requirements laid out by the law are difficult to achieve. I think if someone could invent a gas can that complies with the law, works as well as the old style ones with a manually configured nozzle and separate vent, is durable and inexpensive to produce then they could make a bundle.
The gas can law is a bit like mandating that all cars get at least 80mpg and a 5 star crash safety rating, it's easy to write a law mandating something if you give no thought to how it can actually be achieved. You can have the best engineers around and they will still struggle to come up with something compliant that actually works well. Engineering is full of compromises.
On the other hand it's easy to make an old style gas can that works well, doesn't leak, doesn't spill, and doesn't leak vapor. The metal jerry can I use now is better than any other fuel can I've owned. It seals so well that I store it inside my house on a shelf in the utility room, and I can transport it on its side in the back of my car without fear that it will leak or spill. If I cared I could make it child resistant by installing a padlock in place of the clevis pin that keeps the spout locked. I've never had a consumer gas can I could do any of those things with. Despite not complying with the law, it is superior at accomplishing everything the compliant cans are supposed to do. The law is defective, plain and simple.
-
The gas can law is a bit like mandating that all cars get at least 80mpg and a 5 star crash safety rating, it's easy to write a law mandating something if you give no thought to how it can actually be achieved. You can have the best engineers around and they will still struggle to come up with something compliant that actually works well. Engineering is full of compromises.
Limit the vehicle's speed to 25 miles per hour, problem solved.
-
The gas can law is a bit like mandating that all cars get at least 80mpg and a 5 star crash safety rating, it's easy to write a law mandating something if you give no thought to how it can actually be achieved. You can have the best engineers around and they will still struggle to come up with something compliant that actually works well. Engineering is full of compromises.
Limit the vehicle's speed to 25 miles per hour, problem solved.
Well, except for the "that actually works well" part.
That "solution" is pretty much what the designers of the gas cans did, try transferring the contents of a 5 gallon EPA compliant gas can into the gas tank of a car and you'll see what I mean. How many people do you think will be happy with a car that can only do 25 mph?
-
The gas can law is a bit like mandating that all cars get at least 80mpg and a 5 star crash safety rating, it's easy to write a law mandating something if you give no thought to how it can actually be achieved. You can have the best engineers around and they will still struggle to come up with something compliant that actually works well. Engineering is full of compromises.
Limit the vehicle's speed to 25 miles per hour, problem solved.
Well, except for the "that actually works well" part.
That "solution" is pretty much what the designers of the gas cans did, try transferring the contents of a 5 gallon EPA compliant gas can into the gas tank of a car and you'll see what I mean. How many people do you think will be happy with a car that can only do 25 mph?
Once upon a time, they were delighted with 25 mph! While it could go somewhat faster, that is the comfortable cruising speed of the Model T Ford.
-
Once upon a time, they were delighted with 25 mph! While it could go somewhat faster, that is the comfortable cruising speed of the Model T Ford.
The Model T Ford would be quite at home in London then, since nearly all roads within Greater London now have a 20 mph speed limit. I wonder if anyone considered how many stress-induced illnesses are caused by having to drive at 20 mph on a wide, straight road?
-
If this is truly the problem you make it out to be, I would expect they'd be taken off the market.
Why? Firstly, there are no effective regulations about the quality of electrical fittings used within the USA. Receptacles with back-stab wiring and springs so weak that plugs and wires fall out of them are evidence of that. Instead of requiring proper quality, they just mandated the use of AFCIs instead, so that when the wires and plugs do fall out the resulting arcing does not cause a fire.
Secondly, the builders who install the products are not the ones who suffer the consequences. So there is no market pressure to produce better products.
-
Once upon a time, they were delighted with 25 mph! While it could go somewhat faster, that is the comfortable cruising speed of the Model T Ford.
Once upon a time, people were delighted to be able to ride a horse at 10 mph, it beats walking. I still remember how excited I was to have access to a PC with a whole 4 megabytes of RAM, it was revolutionary, my struggles with memory shortages were over. Expectations change though, what people were happy with a century ago is not very relevant now.
-
If this is truly the problem you make it out to be, I would expect they'd be taken off the market.
Why? Firstly, there are no effective regulations about the quality of electrical fittings used within the USA. Receptacles with back-stab wiring and springs so weak that plugs and wires fall out of them are evidence of that. Instead of requiring proper quality, they just mandated the use of AFCIs instead, so that when the wires and plugs do fall out the resulting arcing does not cause a fire.
Secondly, the builders who install the products are not the ones who suffer the consequences. So there is no market pressure to produce better products.
Electricians love the backstab terminals, they can have a couple of apprentices install all the receptacles and switches in a house in an afternoon. Of course not many of them will use them in their own house. The only reason they're allowed is because the unions lobby for stuff like that, it makes their jobs a lot easier and they don't have to deal with the results. And they do work ok, most of them will work for years without failing, but enough of them do fail that I refuse to use them.
-
Once upon a time, they were delighted with 25 mph! While it could go somewhat faster, that is the comfortable cruising speed of the Model T Ford.
Driving in LA traffic, I'm still thrilled with 25mph as the alternative is usually zero.
-
If this is truly the problem you make it out to be, I would expect they'd be taken off the market.
Why? Firstly, there are no effective regulations about the quality of electrical fittings used within the USA. Receptacles with back-stab wiring and springs so weak that plugs and wires fall out of them are evidence of that. Instead of requiring proper quality, they just mandated the use of AFCIs instead, so that when the wires and plugs do fall out the resulting arcing does not cause a fire.
Secondly, the builders who install the products are not the ones who suffer the consequences. So there is no market pressure to produce better products.
Because people have to be pretty stupid to buy and use them. Don't tell me there's no accountability for using crap equipment. I remember when houses were burning down because they used aluminum wiring and no one had invented proper switches and outlets to work with it. The builders got sued massively.
Same with FRT plywood used in townhouse roofs.
Yeah, if there really are the problems you mention, there would have been lawsuits all over the place.