|
H110Hawk posted:I just assume they were high and explaining potential in the best potential way. For further reading material I suggest http://free-energy.ws/nikola-tesla/ .  It is about electrons going from your ground through your electrical appliance. Yes, I know about AC. And this doesn't explain it at all! But it should explain why it doesn't matter if your neutral is still connected after the phase is turned off. If you have a better explanation how power works, go ahead. I like to learn about other ways to explain it 
RabbitWizard fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Feb 18, 2019 |
#
?
Feb 18, 2019 18:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 06:40 |
|
|
I guessed correctly and passed inspection of two new circuits in my garage. Rather than run romex through exposed EMT conduit I ran THHN. Inspector confirmed he would have not passed the work because of the length of the run. But also, gently caress running 6-12 gauge wires through half inch EMT, never doing that again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2019 19:10
|
|
|
RabbitWizard posted:I agree with the first part, but don't know why you mentioned the second. Also, after reading over my post again, I'm laughing but I'm still right I never said you were wrong. But if you want to have a laugh about electricity while high then Tesla is hilarious reading, largely because he was literally insane. The conspiracy stuff goes down a whole other rabbit hole.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2019 21:58
|
|
|
H110Hawk posted:I never said you were wrong. But yes, I never read a lot about Tesla (still know what a tesla coil is, but those are cool) but met a person irl that asked me what I thought about his free energy machine. I know he made some bulbs light up up 30 feet away from his home and I guess he just had to turn a switch so it works worldwide. He probably didn't understand magnet(ic field)s.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2019 15:43
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:"It's not up to code" is a sufficient answer in terms of liability, I agree. Again, I've agreed with that all along. But I want to know not "am I liable" but rather "is this unsafe?" Not trying to dredge this up, but another point that I thought of while catching up on the thread which I thought might be illuminating to you: BIGFOOT EROTICA posted:Building codes are not about completely eliminating dangers and failures. They're about mitigating them. Eliminating the vast majority of easily avoidable dangers. This statement isn't just about the pure physics of "safe" vs "unsafe". One thing that it's important to realize is that [as I understand it -- IANAE, but have read a few postmortems on failures] the NEC guidelines are based at least somewhat on looking back at previous incidents, trying to identify common root causes, determining what the best general solution would be to avoid/reduce the various classes of incidents, and deciding if the risks and probabilities relative to the mitigation costs are worth a code change. There are tons of things that were considered OK at one point, until enough incidents occurred that it was decided the code should be changed. Knob and Tube is perfectly safe unless something goes wrong. Romex/NM is perfectly safe unless something goes wrong. It's (much) harder for something to go wrong with NM than K&T, and easier to prevent with other best practices. So the code says K&T is bad, NM is OK where it can be protected by practices, and AC/MC/EMT is needed in cases where it can't. The reason I bring this up is because something "not being best practice" isn't just a hand-wave of a potentially valid idea, it's a risk in itself. The design might be something that seems like it would be OK; however, it also doesn't have the decades of real-world testing that "in-code" wiring does, so the degree to which you know what is or isn't going to go wrong is much less. If you are sticking closely to the code then a lot of your testing variables have already been accounted for. Once you start getting into "not strictly illegal" territory then that prior testing work isn't as applicable, and you end up in a place where you probably need the expertise of an actual certified engineer to design and test to achieve the same degree of certainty. A good analog is UL certification. A design might be perfectly sound, go through UL testing, and go from prototype to production without any necessary changes. However, the potential failures and safety issues you run into aren't always obvious, and so there's always a decent chance that you run into some nasty failure mode that requires a change. Adhering to best practices eliminates some of the more common issues, but even that isn't iron-clad and UL testing isn't just about making sure people don't "cut corners" too much. If we were confident we could design things safely purely from first principles then we wouldn't have to do any in-vivo testing (and probably wouldn't in most cases, because  ).So in other words, doing something that is fairly unusual is (in a sense) inherently unsafe. The more off-book it is the more important relevant expertise is in mitigating risks, and the more likely it is that expertise will say "this isn't something we can design safely just on paper". So even though it isn't satisfying in terms of your desire for root understanding, the instinct of a professional to say "it isn't strictly against code, but I wouldn't do it that way" isn't an arbitrary call, it's just rooted (consciously or not) in concepts beyond pure electrical engineering. Hubis fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Feb 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2019 16:26
|
|
|
Hubis is right. A related example: the building code defines a very specific method for framing out houses, with tables saying "if your studs are this dimension, they must be placed at least this frequently", similarly for joists and rafters, demanding that you use one of a small number of methods for connecting this bit to that bit, etc. It's not that you can't build houses any other way, but if you do want to build a house in a way that's not covered by the building code, then you have to get an engineer to sign off on your plans, saying "if built according to these plans, this house won't pose an undue safety risk". In other words, the code provides methods for doing things that are known to be reasonably sound. In your specific circumstance, other methods not approved by code may be equally sound, but you need an expert to make that judgement. Typically it's easier and cheaper to just do things the way the code requires. (And note that the engineer that signs off on your plans is putting their livelihood on the line; if the structure fails then they might lose their license)
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2019 16:49
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:(And note that the engineer that signs off on your plans is putting their livelihood on the line; if the structure fails then they might lose their license) A good portion of what you're paying for when they stamp those plans is their professional liability insurance burden for stamping your plans.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2019 16:52
|
|
|
Blindeye posted:I saw your post and unfortunately any convenient ground has eluded me, which is why I posted in the first place (though I liked your guide). Near as I can tell with my tester the boxes are not grounded and the wires are wrapped in what seems to be a braided black material that doesn't seem metallic (it's almost like fabric, maybe synthetic?) but the three boxes on this circuit all are well and truly fixed in the wall and I am not going to risk tugging the cable to see if I can expose an unused ground. I might check the attic space for splices/junction boxes to see if I can learn more. I have those same boxes. They are, indeed, awful. I think I also have the same cloth-wrapped NM, as well, although in my case I also have a bunch of old armored cable that carries a suitable ground to the boxes. Blindeye posted:I would consider a GFCI except for the fact that I don't know which outlet is the first in the circuit, the old boxes are pretty tight, and I loathe the idea of people plugging three-pronged electronics into an ungrounded GFCI and thinking it's "protected." Two prong outlets just seem like a way to idiot-proof it. With a GFCI they would, in fact, still be "protected". There is no risk of having an ungrounded GFCI outlet: It's one of the (the only?) ways to safely add a 3-prong outlet without a ground from the box explicitly listed in the NEC. I believe in that case the ground will still be "floating" [the GFCI doesn't bond the Ground to the Neutral right?] but the GFCI circuitry will detect any current fault greater than 5mA and shut off the power. You might get nuisance trips, but you won't be putting anyone at risk. The one exception is that you'd have to add the "No Equipment Ground" sticker to them -- things like surge protectors or power supplies that try to condition power using the ground will not work properly. That said, this: Blindeye posted:Any concerns with just restoring these to two-prong? is also perfectly allowed. If you really cannot establish grounding in the boxes (I was able to for all but one in my house, which I suspect might in fact just be a grounding wire not hooked up somewhere because my PO did that EVERYWHERE) then that's probably what I would do. Blindeye posted:As for the ground to the neutral I meant the wire from the lamp intended for grounding, not tying a neutral to ground. I am mostly just concerned about the risk a ceiling fan might be an electrical fire risk on an ungrounded circuit. Same thing. The risks from not having a ground are (again, IANAE) 1) Shock from metal enclosures that become energized due to a wiring fault but don't trip the breaker because there's no route to ground to create a fault current 2) Some devices not being able to operate properly without a separate ground (see above about power strips and electronics) There shouldn't be a fire risk; however, there might be a shock risk if the metal housing of the ceiling fan isn't grounded properly and independently from the neutral. The reason it has to be separate from the neutral is that if a device on your circuit is on (and thus current is flowing through the neutral) then it's possible that someone touching a grounded surface (switch plate, housing of a plugged in device) could provide an equivalent/better path to ground than the neutral. Electricity doesn't just take the "shortest" path to ground, it takes all available paths along the voltage gradient preferentially based on resistance. When the neutral and ground are bonded together in the box (and near the base grounding point) the risk of providing a competitive path is eliminated/dramatically reduced. Hubis fucked around with this message at 17:06 on Feb 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2019 17:02
|
|
|
Is there any requirement that a panel be filled top to bottom? I've got some circuits that would be easier to have them come out of the bottom, so I'd like to but the breakers for them in the bottom row of the panel, even though the top isn't full yet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2019 17:18
|
|
|
Doubtful, probably just habit to keep as large a contiguous open space as possible. My back-fed breaker for my solar into my main panel comes in on the bottom of the panel, a good ways away from the bottom-most breaker above it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2019 17:25
|
|
|
Hubis posted:I have those same boxes. They are, indeed, awful. I confirmed I have two 15 amp circuits that are ungrounded 2-wire NM: The lighting circuit that meanders around the attic and the exterior wall of the house all the way over to the attached garage (4 outlets, 4 ceiling lights). A funny single outlet that has its own 15 amp dedicated circuit that I am guessing was isolated from the newer 20 amp living room circuit. Now that leaves 1 ungrounded outlet I haven't tested yet, but my guess is it was existing wiring that was spliced into the new 20 amp circuit. Stay tuned.... The good news is I have a fairly good wiring map of my house now and from the attic new Romex can go straight down to each of these outlets following the path of the old NM without going through studs, so fishing the line might not be so bad if it comes to that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2019 20:55
|
|
|
BIGFOOT EROTICA posted:Is there any requirement that a panel be filled top to bottom? I've got some circuits that would be easier to have them come out of the bottom, so I'd like to but the breakers for them in the bottom row of the panel, even though the top isn't full yet. Nope. I often have the top filled, then a gap, and then the heat circuits from the bottom up (here they're run through a co-op supplied current transformer for an electric heat discount, and it makes for a cleaner panel).
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2019 23:31
|
|
|
BIGFOOT EROTICA posted:Is there any requirement that a panel be filled top to bottom? I've got some circuits that would be easier to have them come out of the bottom, so I'd like to but the breakers for them in the bottom row of the panel, even though the top isn't full yet. No sir, just that there aren't any open slots in the face plate. Stick in one of the plastic filler bezels for your model or just leave a breaker not attached to anything in that slot and mark it "spare".
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2019 21:42
|
|
|
Not sure if there's a lighting specific thread, so I'll ask here: I'm looking to install these in a room that's roughly 15x10. How many should I look to get? It will be the only light in the room (no windows.) https://www.homedepot.com/p/Halo-HL...1EMWR/306051064
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2019 22:17
|
|
|
They are dimmable, so I'd get as many as you have the space for & capacity on the circuit. You can always leave them turned down.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2019 22:25
|
|
|
SouthShoreSamurai posted:Not sure if there's a lighting specific thread, so I'll ask here: Those are like 120 degree beam angle (and they are an awesome choice) so you could cover the room with 4. But I'd go with more like 6 + a dimmer so you have fewer shadows.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2019 22:27
|
|
|
Nevets posted:They are dimmable, so I'd get as many as you have the space for & capacity on the circuit. You can always leave them turned down. It's a full reno and I have space in my box (which also happens to be like 5 feet away), so really it can be as many as I want. I'm actually splitting one giant room into two, and they'll each be similar size. So like 12 total?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2019 22:56
|
|
|
SouthShoreSamurai posted:It's a full reno and I have space in my box (which also happens to be like 5 feet away), so really it can be as many as I want. I'm actually splitting one giant room into two, and they'll each be similar size. So like 12 total? If you're making two functional areas that sounds like a good plan. I really dislike insufficient lighting in a room that causes shadows or the need to have one or a few things on really bright. I'd always rather go a bit overboard with cans and a dimmer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2019 23:06
|
|
|
Seconding six of those lights. Four would be fine in a bedroom, but I'd def go for six in an office. I love those types of lights; I'll never have to install a can light again (and these look nice).
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 00:53
|
|
|
SouthShoreSamurai posted:Not sure if there's a lighting specific thread, so I'll ask here: You're looking for illumination, which is measured in lux or foot-candles. 1 lux is 1 lumen/m2. Office spaces are ~500 lux, supermarkets ~750, and drafting areas ~1000. 10x15' is ~14m2 and those lights are ~1000 lumens each, so you need 7-14 of them to get as bright as a normal workroom. Oddly enough, actual journeyman electricians get classes on lighting design. This is all straight out of a textbook I have.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 12:27
|
|
|
babyeatingpsychopath posted:You're looking for illumination, which is measured in lux or foot-candles. 1 lux is 1 lumen/m2. You need only 10-20 lumens per foot in bedrooms. 1500-3000 for the 150' sq space, which would be 2 or 3 of these lights (4 plus a dimmer would be best). You want about 40 lumens per square-foot in a home office, which would be 6000, or about 6 1000 lumen fixtures. Could definitely be more if the paint is dark or you just want more lights+dimmer. 14,000 lumens in a 150 ft square room would be a bit much for me personally. Edit: Oddly enough, actual journeyman electricians get lighting suppliers' and designers' recommendations instead of planning residential lighting with a commercial lighting textbook. 93 lumens per foot is more than they recommend for areas like sinks and stoves that need the most light in a home. Blackbeer fucked around with this message at 17:46 on Feb 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 15:37
|
|
|
SouthShoreSamurai posted:Not sure if there's a lighting specific thread, so I'll ask here: Selectable temperature and 90 CRI? Rad. My only concern about planning to leave therm dimmed is buzzing, but as far as I can tell thats usually a crapshoot on a per-bulb basis. Are these suitable for a drop ceiling, or are the clips only for sheetrock? I have a roughly 12'x30' basement rumpus room with exactly two 1' square recessed fixtures rated for a 100W bulb each (and rge ceilings are like 6'8" so throw is short as well).
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 16:13
|
|
|
I have 4 outlets on presumably the same circuit in a room of my house. Last night they all worked fine and my computer was being powered from one of them. We did not have any power outages during the night. This morning the outlets don't work which I have confirmed that I am getting no electrical current to the outlets with a 3 prong tester. All of the breakers in the breaker box are in the "ON" position. I am not 100% sure which breaker controls the room but I flipped a bunch of them off and on labelled "plugs" and that didn't help. A friend of mine suggested there could be a short in the circuit. We've had a lot of rain here the past week and the crawlspace doesn't have the best drainage so there could be increased humidity in the air however all the electrical wiring should be (the last time I was down there) multiple feet off the ground. My current plan is to wait a few days and see if it magically fixes itself but what is the best way to test this situation to figure out the problem and fix it? edit: FIXED - turns out I have a GFCI in the bathroom that is on the same circuit and was tripped, the messed up thing is 2 of the 6 outlets in my room are the ones closest to the bathroom aren't on that circuit so they were still working and I didn't think to look in there 
tangy yet delightful fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Feb 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 16:30
|
|
|
Hubis posted:Selectable temperature and 90 CRI? Rad. I don't use this brand, but have put in a couple hundred jbox mounted/can retrofit WAC 6" led lights like these and haven't had an issue with dimmer noise. These would be ok in a drop ceiling; by code you'd want to make sure the jbox part is fastened to something other than the drop ceiling. edit: err I guess it doesn't matter where the box part is fastened exactly, just need it secure and not weight supported by the grid, not that the weight would matter for a few fixtures in your own basement. Blackbeer fucked around with this message at 16:48 on Feb 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 16:44
|
|
|
Blackbeer posted:I don't use this brand, but have put in a couple hundred jbox mounted/can retrofit WAC 6" led lights like these and haven't had an issue with dimmer noise. These would be ok in a drop ceiling; by code you'd want to make sure the jbox part is fastened to something other than the drop ceiling. In this case these are all cellulose tiles glued directly to what appear to be furring strips perpendicular to the joists (which I suspect will make them a PITA to do anything with short of demolition); however, if I ever get around to it I can just place them adjacent to joists. Seems like it'll still be easier than installing full can housings.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 17:03
|
|
|
Hubis posted:In this case these are all cellulose tiles glued directly to what appear to be furring strips perpendicular to the joists (which I suspect will make them a PITA to do anything with short of demolition); however, if I ever get around to it I can just place them adjacent to joists. Seems like it'll still be easier than installing full can housings. Yeah that would be a pain, I'm sure you'd be fine not having them attached. It's not like they're heavy or the boxes are subject to damage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2019 17:08
|
|
|
So, we're gutting our bathroom, 1950 bungalow, the breaker box is modern Day one: I turn off the breaker, remove the light fixture from the wall and cap with a wire nut (but don't touch any of the switches or outlets) and rip out some drywall. End of the day I flip the breaker back on, no problem. Day two: I flip the breaker, remove an outlet, cap it with a wire nut, and rip out more drywall, but now the breaker won't reset. We haven't moved into the house yet so I know there isn't anything plugged in and none of the switches are on. Everything I can find says unplug and turn off or that the breaker itself is dead. Thoughts on trouble shooting? I'll call an electrician if I have to, but I'd rather not.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 04:50
|
|
|
Take a multimeter, put it in continuity mode and test the circuit neutral and hot and make sure they aren't shorted.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 06:46
|
|
|
Dukket posted:So, we're gutting our bathroom, 1950 bungalow, the breaker box is modern Do you have AF or GFI breakers? Are the loose ground and neutral touching? I assume it's the same breaker that's running the light and outlet. Is everything you've disconnected still disconnected? If you have a probe tester, do like Bigfoot said and see where the short is (hot to ground or neutral).
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 16:26
|
|
|
Dukket posted:Thoughts on trouble shooting? Edit: Some more advanced advice (maybe) Dukket posted:or that the breaker itself is dead. If your breakers don't tell you that, switch one of the cables from a working circuit to the suspect breaker. If it stops working because breaker still won't turn on breaker is broken. RabbitWizard fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Feb 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 17:46
|
|
|
 So I went to replace the kitchen dimmers with switches and found some hosed up poo poo I can't quite understand. For one thing, one of the wires off one of the dimmers came disconnected as I pulled the dimmer and I can't tell where it went. The dimmers control separate banks of lights. The one on the left, a set of 3 track lights over the sink. The one on the right, a set of track lights on the ceiling. There are three cloth-wrapped wire bundles coming into the box. The two on the left only have black and white wires. The one on the right has black, white, and red. All the white wires are joined together in the back of the box. The two black wires from the left bundles are tied together and connected to one leg of the left dimmer. The black wire in the right bundle is connected to a leg of the right dimmer. The red wire from the right is tied to the other side of the left dimmer, and I kind of suspect the other side of the right dimmer *was* connected there too before I pulled them out. Is there a safe way to figure out which wires are which from here? Edit: figured it out by turning power back on and measuring voltages. The two ganged black wires are hot. The red wire goes to one bank of lights, the right-most black wire goes to the other set. Pham Nuwen fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Feb 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 20:30
|
|
|
RabbitWizard posted:Did your wire-nut every cable on it's own or just all of them together? I wire-nuted the wires together - that is how I've always been told and have done. Blackbeer posted:Do you have AF or GFI breakers? Are the loose ground and neutral touching? Yes, it is just one breaker.  I haven't had a chance to use the multimeter yet...dealing with some plumbing first, hopefully today. There is also this: on the left is a switch for bathroom fan and the right is dimmable light (for the bathroom?). Also the same breaker. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2019 15:03
|
|
|
Isolate the incoming hot and neutral wires and test for resistance between hot and neutral/ground. That will at least tell us if the fault is before or after that point. Make sure you fix those bare wires feeding from the metal box to the plastic one. Blackbeer fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Feb 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2019 16:39
|
|
|
Maybe I'm seeing things, but sure looks like a jumper going from the black to the white in the plastic box.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2019 17:07
|
|
|
I was replacing some worn out outlets and I found an aluminum wire backstabbed into one which then leads to some underground conduit attached to an outdoor outlet. Short of pulling new copper, what is the best way to handle this? A special copper/aluminum outlet with anti corrosion coating?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2019 22:05
|
|
|
FogHelmut posted:I was replacing some worn out outlets and I found an aluminum wire backstabbed into one which then leads to some underground conduit attached to an outdoor outlet. noalox and put it on the screw instead of backstabbing
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2019 22:11
|
|
|
Just spent the last 2 hours consolidating 3 different boxes of varying out-of-code levels into this one. One of them was a bakelite box that was literally crumbling. So if you have any of those in your house, you might want to check or replace them. The switch goes to the attic light, which I am going to upgrade to LED bar lights. The GFCI is only powering my security cameras, the middle black wire is powering a little fan in the bathroom, and the 2 black wires on the right go to a transformer that I am 99% sure is powering the door bell chime. So nothing with any demanding amperage. I did use some of those WAGO lever nuts and I have to say, they are SO easy to use. I'd still be leery of using them in a heavy use situation though. 
SpartanIvy fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Feb 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2019 23:01
|
|
|
Dukket posted:I wire-nuted the wires together - that is how I've always been told and have done. Dukket posted:remove an outlet, cap it with a wire nut, and rip out more drywall, but now the breaker won't reset. Just to be sure here, you removed an outlet and put the cables that were attached to that outlet all together with a wire-nut and now your breaker won't reset? Or did I miss something? RabbitWizard fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Feb 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2019 23:19
|
|
|
SpartanIvy posted:Just spent the last 2 hours consolidating 3 different boxes of varying out-of-code levels into this one. One of them was a bakelite box that was literally crumbling. So if you have any of those in your house, you might want to check or replace them. GET DOWN ON THE GROUND AND PUT YOUR HAND OVER YOUR HEAD WHERE I CAN SEE THEM. quote:334.30 Securing and Supporting Nonmetallic-sheathed cable shall be supported and secured by staples, cable ties, straps, hangers, or similar fittings designed and installed so as not to damage the cable, at intervals not exceeding 1.4 m (4 1⁄2 ft) and within 300 mm (12 in.) of every outlet box. junction box, cabinet, or fitting. Flat cables shall not be stapled on edge. Sections of cable protected from physical damage by raceway shall not be required to be secured within the raceway. (seriously....good job. Sounds like it was a nightmare before)
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2019 00:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 06:40 |
|
|
RabbitWizard posted:Just to be sure here, you removed an outlet and put the cables that were attached to that outlet all together with a wire-nut and now your breaker won't reset? Or did I miss something? Correct- I don't know that was the cause, but I am not aware of anything else that changed between the first time I flip it off and the 2nd. I intend to get in there with my multi meter when I have chance- which I hope is tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2019 01:40
|
|