250V plug wiring question

[Charlie Siegrist]

Circa Tue, 05 Jun 2007 02:54:03 GMT recorded as

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.

Ah, very good. However, you miss the important point here (which you
concede in a separate post) that following the code in this example would
have prevented the improper wiring. Which, of course, is my point.

Happy now?

Yeah, pretty happy. I had a very nice weekend. You?

 

[Charlie Siegrist]

Circa Tue, 05 Jun 2007 02:51:43 GMT recorded as

Simple: the person who installed the receptacle assumed without checking that
it was a 120V circuit.

Because of the wire color. Possibly careless, but I don't think stupid. I
think the stupidity would lie in not following the code to make sure that
the proper wire and/or breaker was installed for the circuit in question.
I had hoped you would have been able to form this idea for yourself, but
I've given up waiting for that. So anyway, I don't accept your premise.

Obviously not.

Except that you concede that point in a separate post. So, not so obvious,
then?

 

[Charlie Siegrist]

Circa Tue, 05 Jun 2007 03:08:41 GMT recorded as

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

Yes, indeed it does. If the code is followed, things like that don't
happen.

Therefore, it never happened.

Your grip on reality is a bit weak, there.

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

Do you?

 

[Charlie Siegrist]

Circa Tue, 05 Jun 2007 02:52:45 GMT recorded as

Then perhaps you need to re-read the thread a little more carefully.

OK, I did. Didn't find any such contention. How about you point it out?

I have made no such argument.

In response to:

Seeing two black conductors, or one red and one black still says both are
hot. If one is white a person might unknowingly think it is a neutral.
That is what the code prevents.

You said:

"...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...."

You are making a contention against a poster's recommendation to follow
code. Thus, you have indeed made that argument.

 

[Charlie Siegrist]

Circa Tue, 05 Jun 2007 03:05:25 GMT recorded as

You did nothing of the kind.

I will accept that your failure to address my point is a concession.

 

[Don Bowey]

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.

So what??? It doesn't help the electrician who comes along sometime later
and gets the crap kicked out of him by getting a shock from the "cold"
colored wire.

Obviously you have not done any serious house wiring.

 

[Don Bowey]

Circa Tue, 05 Jun 2007 01:26:54 GMT recorded as


You did nothing of the kind.

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.

*******************
You are wrong again. Taping the white wire with red or black tape would
tell the next person in that it is a hot wire. It removes the shock hazard.
*******************

 

[Doug Miller]

Circa Tue, 05 Jun 2007 02:59:43 GMT recorded as


Incorrect. The NEC proscribes correct procedure, in the most part. If
followed, the code will help prevent accidents from occurring.

IF FOLLOWED. There you go! You finally got it.

 

[Doug Miller]

Circa Tue, 05 Jun 2007 02:54:03 GMT recorded as


Ah, very good. However, you miss the important point here (which you
concede in a separate post) that following the code in this example would
have prevented the improper wiring. Which, of course, is my point.

OF COURSE following Code prevents improper wiring. You continue to miss two
important points:

1) Code, in and of itself, does not prevent improper wiring. FOLLOWING Code
prevents improper wiring.

2) Correct color coding, in and of itself, does not remove the hazard.

 

[Doug Miller]

Circa Tue, 05 Jun 2007 02:51:43 GMT recorded as


Because of the wire color. Possibly careless, but I don't think stupid.

IMO, being careless with electrical wiring *is* stupid. YMMV.

I think the stupidity would lie in not following the code to make sure that
the proper wire and/or breaker was installed for the circuit in question.
Agreed.

I had hoped you would have been able to form this idea for yourself, but
I've given up waiting for that. So anyway, I don't accept your premise.

I have said absolutely nothing that would have caused a person with normal
ability to comprehend written English to suppose that I had not "formed that
idea for myself."

Except that you concede that point in a separate post.

Except that I did *not* concede that in a separate post.

So, not so obvious,
then?

Clearly not obvious to you, at any rate.

 

[Doug Miller]

Circa Tue, 05 Jun 2007 03:08:41 GMT recorded as


Yes, indeed it does. If the code is followed, things like that don't
happen.

You sure seem to be having a hard time grasping this concept.

Code *prohibits* people from doing things like that.

FOLLOWING Code *prevents* people from doing things like that.

Your grip on reality is a bit weak, there.

Not MY grip. I have a very firm understanding of the difference between
"prohibit" and "prevent", but you seem to think they are synonymous.

Do you?

It's quite obvious that I do, since I continue to insist on the distinction.
It is equally obvious that you do not.

 

[Doug Miller]

Circa Tue, 05 Jun 2007 02:52:45 GMT recorded as


OK, I did. Didn't find any such contention. How about you point it out?

Then you didn't read carefully enough.

Don Bowey's first post in the thread -- referring to the 120V receptacle
wired onto the 240V circuit -- says, in its entirey:

"If the white wire is to be used as a hot lead, US code requires that it be
taped with black tape to alert workers that it it hot. Certainly that makes
it less dangerous."

Manifestly, the danger remains, until the receptacle is removed, or the
breaker rewired or replaced.

In response to:


You said:

"...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...."

You are making a contention against a poster's recommendation to follow
code. Thus, you have indeed made that argument.

You certainly have some creative ways of interpreting plain, clear language
to suit your own preconceptions. That is in no way a contention against a
recommendation to follow the NEC. It is a clear statement of two clear facts
that you have yet to grasp:

1) The NEC does not prevent stupid or dangerous wiring practices. It
*prohibits* them. People who do not follow the NEC will do stupid things no
matter what the Code says.

2) A 120V receptacle wired to the two hot legs of a 240V circuit is inherently
dangerous, and color-coding the white wire of the circuit to indicate that it
is hot does NOTHING to remove that danger. As long as the receptacle remains
on that circuit, it is dangerous, regardless of the colors of the wires
supplying it.

 

[Doug Miller]

Circa Tue, 05 Jun 2007 03:05:25 GMT recorded as


I will accept that your failure to address my point is a concession.

I will accept YOUR failure to address my point as a concession. You claimed
that you "explicity addressed" the hazard posed by a 120V device wired onto a
240V circuit. I say you did not. By failing to refute that charge, you concede
it.

 

[Doug Miller]

So what??? It doesn't help the electrician who comes along sometime later
and gets the crap kicked out of him by getting a shock from the "cold"
colored wire.

True, but -- so what?? That's NOT the greatest danger here.

Obviously you have not done any serious house wiring.

To the contrary, I've done quite a lot. It's apparent to me that you've never
done any at all, since you completely fail to see what the REAL hazard is
here.

 

[Doug Miller]

You are wrong again. Taping the white wire with red or black tape would
tell the next person in that it is a hot wire. It removes the shock hazard.

You have completely missed the point.

A 120V receptacle wired across the two hot legs of a 240V circuit is an
immediate and serious fire hazard because it will put 240V through any 120V
device that is plugged into it.

This is a far greater danger than the hypothetical risk of a hypothetical
shock to a hypothetical electrician who may someday touch the (hot) white
wire.

 

[David Harmon]

On 04 Jun 2007 14:00:16 -0400 in sci.electronics.basics, DJ Delorie

My paranoia is based on seeing a 120v outlet (not mine) wired to
black/white/ground wire, with the other end wired to a 240v ganged
circuit breaker. Pvsst.

A friend of mine found one of those after buying a house. Former
residents apparently did it to run a window air conditioner in the
bedroom.

 

[Doug Miller]

On 04 Jun 2007 14:00:16 -0400 in sci.electronics.basics, DJ Delorie


A friend of mine found one of those after buying a house. Former
residents apparently did it to run a window air conditioner in the
bedroom.

I bet that A/C didn't last long...

I wonder, though, if the outlet might not have been what your friend thought
it was. Look at a NEMA plug and receptacle configuration chart, e.g.

http://frentzandsons.com/Hardware References/plugandreceptacleconfiguratio.
htm#20%20Amp.

and note the similarities between the 5-20 (120V 20A) and 6-20 (240V 20A)
configurations. People often mistake one for the other.

 

[David Harmon]

On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 19:34:34 GMT in sci.electronics.basics,
[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote,

I bet that A/C didn't last long...

That could be a wrong guess about the air conditioner; I dunno, whatever
was there was gone before I visited.

and note the similarities between the 5-20 (120V 20A) and 6-20 (240V 20A)
configurations. People often mistake one for the other.

I saw the wiring, though, and helped fix some of it. It was a typical
dual 15A household socket, NEMA 5-15R according to the chart, split with
the top socket wired 240 and the bottom wired 120V. That crosses the
line in my book. We found some scary stuff in the kitchen wiring too,
but I don't remember the details there.

 

[Doug Miller]

On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 19:34:34 GMT in sci.electronics.basics,
[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote,

That could be a wrong guess about the air conditioner; I dunno, whatever
was there was gone before I visited.


I saw the wiring, though, and helped fix some of it. It was a typical
dual 15A household socket, NEMA 5-15R according to the chart,

Ahh. I was picturing a single 6-20R or 5-20R in a faceplate with a round
cutout.

split with
the top socket wired 240 and the bottom wired 120V. That crosses the
line in my book.

Oh, yeah, absolutely. Crosses the line in pretty much anybody's book. Wow.
Amazing that anybody would be that stupid, but it happens.

I've always been mystified as to why people would monkey around with
electricity without taking even the most elementary steps to understand what
they're doing -- don't they realize it's dangerous?

We found some scary stuff in the kitchen wiring too,
but I don't remember the details there.

I've seen plenty of weird and scary stuff too, like a medicine cabinet with
built-in lights and receptacle -- lights controlled by the wall switch,
receptacle hot all the time -- and fed by a single 14-2 BX cable.

Yes, 14-2.

Used the black wire as constant hot, white as switched hot, and the cable
*armor* as the neutral.

 

[Charlie Siegrist]

Circa Tue, 05 Jun 2007 11:41:30 GMT recorded as

I will accept YOUR failure to address my point as a concession. You claimed
that you "explicity addressed" the hazard posed by a 120V device wired onto a
240V circuit. I say you did not. By failing to refute that charge, you concede
it.

I cannot rebut a point you do not state and defend. Nor does "you did
nothing of the kind" suffice to rebut a properly stated point of argument.