Maker Pro
Maker Pro

250V plug wiring question

D

Don Bowey

Jan 1, 1970
0
Code doesn't prevent people from doing stupid things with electricity, as
should be obvious from DJ Delorie's description of a 120V receptacle that was
wired onto the two hot legs of a 240V circuit. I was responding to your
contention that this situation would somehow be made less hazardous by the use
of proper color-coding on the wires. Code obviously did not prevent some fool
from having wired the receptacle that way; there is no particular reason to
suppose that proper color-coding would have done any better. Given that the
outlet ALREADY EXISTS in that condition, it is not made any more, or less,
hazardous by altering the colors of the wires that feed it.

Got it now?

Yes, indeed. I got that you have a small learning disorder.
 
C

Charlie Siegrist

Jan 1, 1970
0
Circa Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:57:38 GMT recorded as
Code doesn't prevent people from doing stupid things with electricity, as
should be obvious from DJ Delorie's description of a 120V receptacle that was
wired onto the two hot legs of a 240V circuit.

Code does indeed prevent people from doing stupid things with electricity,
as should be obvious from DJ Delorie's description of a 120V receptacle
that was wired onto the two hot legs of a 240V circuit. Had the wires been
marked according to code, the receptacle would not have been connected to
the wires, as per code.

I hope it can be forgiven that I have replied twice with a similar defense
of adherence to the NEC, but I feel it is an important defense to make, as
the intent of the NEC is to prevent people from doing stupid things with
electricity.
 
D

Doug Miller

Jan 1, 1970
0
Circa Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:57:38 GMT recorded as


Code does indeed prevent people from doing stupid things with electricity,

Nonsense. It does nothing of the kind. You are confusing "prevent" with
"prohibit".
as should be obvious from DJ Delorie's description of a 120V receptacle
that was wired onto the two hot legs of a 240V circuit.

To the contrary. That the receptacle exists at all is prima facie evidence
that neither the Code nor anything else *prevented* its installation in that
manner.
Had the wires been
marked according to code, the receptacle would not have been connected to
the wires, as per code.

Rubbish. You assume without any foundation whatsoever that a person stupid
enough to have wired a 120V receptacle to the two hot legs of a 240V circuit
would have been deterred from doing so by proper color-coding of the wires.
I hope it can be forgiven that I have replied twice with a similar defense
of adherence to the NEC, but I feel it is an important defense to make, as
the intent of the NEC is to prevent people from doing stupid things with
electricity.

You're missing the point rather badly, I'm afraid. Go back a few posts in the
thread, and see where this started -- I'm not arguing against color-coding.
I'm arguing against the utterly absurd contention that color-coding is
_in_and_of_itself_ sufficient to ensure safety. It's not.
 
D

Doug Miller

Jan 1, 1970
0
Code doesn't prevent people from doing stupid things with electricity, as
should be obvious from DJ Delorie's description of a 120V receptacle that was
wired onto the two hot legs of a 240V circuit. I was responding to your
contention that this situation would somehow be made less hazardous by the use
of proper color-coding on the wires. Code obviously did not prevent some fool
from having wired the receptacle that way; there is no particular reason to
suppose that proper color-coding would have done any better. Given that the
outlet ALREADY EXISTS in that condition, it is not made any more, or less,
hazardous by altering the colors of the wires that feed it.

Got it now?

Yes, indeed. I got that you have a small learning disorder.
[/QUOTE]
And I just got that you resort to personal abuse when you find yourself unable
to rebut.
 
D

Doug Miller

Jan 1, 1970
0
Circa Mon, 04 Jun 2007 18:31:53 GMT recorded as


Certainly it would.
Rubbish.

It would inform anyone with a proper understanding of
electrical wiring that the wires she or he was working with were not meant
to be used with a 120VAC receptacle. In the situation as described, the
receptacle was properly wired, according to the color code of the wires at
the receptacle end.
You've missed the point completely.

The immediate hazard is that a receptacle that accepts 120V devices was wired
onto a 240V circuit.

Re-identifying the white wire as a hot conductor does NOTHING to remove that
hazard.
 
C

Charlie Siegrist

Jan 1, 1970
0
Circa Tue, 05 Jun 2007 01:21:42 GMT recorded as
Rubbish. You assume without any foundation whatsoever that a person stupid
enough to have wired a 120V receptacle to the two hot legs of a 240V circuit
would have been deterred from doing so by proper color-coding of the wires.

No. Rather, it is you who is making assumptions without any foundation
whatsoever. Please read the sentence above that you yourself have typed.
In it, you state that whoever wired the 120V receptacle to the 240V circuit
was stupid. How can you support that statement, given the fact that the
wiring color indicated that it was a 120V circuit?

Since your foundationless assumption cannot be supported (but by all means,
go ahead and try), then the logical conclusion is that the person that
wired the receptacle would have been deterred from doing so by proper
color-coding of the wires.
 
C

Charlie Siegrist

Jan 1, 1970
0
Circa Tue, 05 Jun 2007 01:21:42 GMT recorded as
I'm arguing against the utterly absurd contention that color-coding is
_in_and_of_itself_ sufficient to ensure safety. It's not.

I don't believe anyone has made such a contention. Therefore, your
strident argument against following NEC doesn't make much sense, now does
it?
 
C

Charlie Siegrist

Jan 1, 1970
0
Circa Tue, 05 Jun 2007 01:21:42 GMT recorded as
To the contrary. That the receptacle exists at all is prima facie evidence
that neither the Code nor anything else *prevented* its installation in that
manner.

That the receptacle exists at all is prima facie evidence that someone
manufactured it, and nothing more.
 
C

Charlie Siegrist

Jan 1, 1970
0
Circa Tue, 05 Jun 2007 01:21:42 GMT recorded as
Nonsense. It does nothing of the kind. You are confusing "prevent" with
"prohibit".

Not nonsense at all. If NEC is followed, accidents are prevented, as in
the example under discussion. Please, give me an example of an NEC
prohibition against electrical accident.
 
C

Charlie Siegrist

Jan 1, 1970
0
Circa Tue, 05 Jun 2007 01:26:54 GMT recorded as
You've missed the point completely.

The immediate hazard is that a receptacle that accepts 120V devices was wired
onto a 240V circuit.

Precisely. Although, I fail to see why you think I missed the point, since
I explicitly addressed it.
Re-identifying the white wire as a hot conductor does NOTHING to remove that
hazard.

Certainly it does. It informs anyone with a proper understanding of
electrical wiring that the wires she or he was working with were not meant
to be used with a 120VAC receptacle. In the situation as described, the
receptacle *was* properly wired, *according to the color code of the wires
at the receptacle end*.

Actually read that this time, and make an attempt at understanding. I
added some emphasis this time, which I hope helps a bit.
 
D

DJ Delorie

Jan 1, 1970
0
Charlie Siegrist said:
Had the wires been marked according to code,

The wires were marked according to code. The breakers were wrong; it
was supposed to be a 120v circuit, and the whole thing was installed
by one (incompetent) electrician. As I said before, the incident only
made me paranoid in general, it wasn't a specific example for this
thread.
 
C

Charlie Siegrist

Jan 1, 1970
0
Circa 04 Jun 2007 22:01:41 -0400 recorded as <[email protected]>
looks like DJ Delorie said:
The wires were marked according to code. The breakers were wrong; it
was supposed to be a 120v circuit, and the whole thing was installed
by one (incompetent) electrician. As I said before, the incident only
made me paranoid in general, it wasn't a specific example for this
thread.

All right, knowing that the installation was done all by one person adds to
the discussion. You say the breakers were wrong, so that moves the problem
to the panel end. The Electrician installed a 240 breaker and connected a
120 circuit to it. Well, it ain't code! :) Incompetents is too kind a
word.
 
D

Doug Miller

Jan 1, 1970
0
Circa Tue, 05 Jun 2007 01:21:42 GMT recorded as


No. Rather, it is you who is making assumptions without any foundation
whatsoever. Please read the sentence above that you yourself have typed.
In it, you state that whoever wired the 120V receptacle to the 240V circuit
was stupid. How can you support that statement, given the fact that the
wiring color indicated that it was a 120V circuit?

Simple: the person who installed the receptacle assumed without checking that
it was a 120V circuit.
Since your foundationless assumption cannot be supported (but by all means,
go ahead and try), then the logical conclusion is that the person that
wired the receptacle would have been deterred from doing so by proper
color-coding of the wires.

Obviously not.
 
D

Doug Miller

Jan 1, 1970
0
Circa Tue, 05 Jun 2007 01:21:42 GMT recorded as


I don't believe anyone has made such a contention.

Then perhaps you need to re-read the thread a little more carefully.
Therefore, your
strident argument against following NEC doesn't make much sense, now does
it?

I have made no such argument.
 
D

Doug Miller

Jan 1, 1970
0
Circa Tue, 05 Jun 2007 01:21:42 GMT recorded as


That the receptacle exists at all is prima facie evidence that someone
manufactured it, and nothing more.
Pedant.

That the receptacle exists, _wired_as_it_is_, is prima facie evidence that
neither the Code nor anything else *prevented* its installation in that
manner.

Happy now?
 
D

Doug Miller

Jan 1, 1970
0
Circa Tue, 05 Jun 2007 01:21:42 GMT recorded as


Not nonsense at all. If NEC is followed, accidents are prevented, as in
the example under discussion.

It absolutely is nonsense. Codes, rules, regulations and laws don't prevent
misbehavior at all. They *prohibit* it. Prohibition is not prevention; if it
were, society would be crime-free, and violations of the NEC would not exist.

*Following* codes, rules, regulations, and laws prevents misbehavior. And
people decide whether to follow or ignore them, as they will.
Please, give me an example of an NEC
prohibition against electrical accident.

Straw man. And not even a very good one.
 
D

Doug Miller

Jan 1, 1970
0
Circa Tue, 05 Jun 2007 01:26:54 GMT recorded as


Precisely. Although, I fail to see why you think I missed the point, since
I explicitly addressed it.

You did nothing of the kind.
Certainly it does.

Certainly it does NOT -- the re-identified wire remains invisible behind the
receptacle, and the receptacle remains mis-wired and therefore still
hazardous. The hazard is removed ONLY when the receptacle is either rewired
correctly, or removed. Re-identifying the wire does not accomplish either
task.
It informs anyone with a proper understanding of
electrical wiring that the wires she or he was working with were not meant
to be used with a 120VAC receptacle.

Anyone with a proper understanding of electrical wiring would not have
installed the receptacle in that manner in the first place.
In the situation as described, the
receptacle *was* properly wired, *according to the color code of the wires
at the receptacle end*.

Fine. Mark the white wire red. Now you have black and red wires, the two hot
legs of a 240V circuit, connected to the hot and neutral tabs of a 120V
receptacle.

Explain in detail how correcting the color code has removed the hazard.
Actually read that this time, and make an attempt at understanding. I
added some emphasis this time, which I hope helps a bit.

Actually read what I wrote this time, and make an attempt at understanding.
 
D

Doug Miller

Jan 1, 1970
0
All right, knowing that the installation was done all by one person adds to
the discussion. You say the breakers were wrong, so that moves the problem
to the panel end. The Electrician installed a 240 breaker and connected a
120 circuit to it. Well, it ain't code! :) Incompetents is too kind a
word.

But according to you, the Code *prevents* people from doing things like that.

Therefore, it never happened.

Do you understand the difference between "prohibit" and "prevent" now?
 
C

Charlie Siegrist

Jan 1, 1970
0
Circa Tue, 05 Jun 2007 02:59:43 GMT recorded as
It absolutely is nonsense. Codes, rules, regulations and laws don't prevent
misbehavior at all. They *prohibit* it. Prohibition is not prevention; if it
were, society would be crime-free, and violations of the NEC would not exist.

Incorrect. The NEC proscribes correct procedure, in the most part. If
followed, the code will help prevent accidents from occurring.
*Following* codes, rules, regulations, and laws prevents misbehavior. And
people decide whether to follow or ignore them, as they will.

There you go! You finally got it. Took some time, though. You're a bit
bull-headed, and I suspect you knew this all along, but simply like to
argue and talk a lot, perhaps in the hope that folks won't notice when you
finally submit a point. But good on ya for doing it!
Straw man. And not even a very good one.

Please explain how. A straw man is a false argument, is it not? You said
that I was confusing words when I said that the intent of NEC is to prevent
accidents (stupid things). Your argument then, is that the code actually
prohibits accidents. To make it clear, allow me to insert the word you
want to use into the sentence I used:

"Code does indeed prohibit people from doing stupid things with
electricity."

So, please, give me an example of an NEC prohibition against electrical
accident (doing stupid things with electricity).
 
Top