250V plug wiring question

Circa Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:57:38 GMT recorded as looks like snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) sounds like:

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.

Nonsense. It does nothing of the kind. You are confusing "prevent" with "prohibit".

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.

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.

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.

--
Regards,
        Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It\'s time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

And I just got that you resort to personal abuse when you find yourself unable to rebut.

--
Regards,
        Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It\'s time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Rubbish.

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.

--
Regards,
        Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It\'s time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Circa Tue, 05 Jun 2007 01:21:42 GMT recorded as looks like snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) sounds like:

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.

Circa Tue, 05 Jun 2007 01:21:42 GMT recorded as looks like snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) sounds like:

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?

Circa Tue, 05 Jun 2007 01:21:42 GMT recorded as looks like snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) sounds like:

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

Circa Tue, 05 Jun 2007 01:21:42 GMT recorded as looks like snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) sounds like:

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.

Circa Tue, 05 Jun 2007 01:26:54 GMT recorded as looks like snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) sounds like:

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

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.

Nothing here to rebut

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.

Circa 04 Jun 2007 22:01:41 -0400 recorded as looks like DJ Delorie sounds like:

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.

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

Obviously not.

--
Regards,
        Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It\'s time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

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

I have made no such argument.

--
Regards,
        Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It\'s time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

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?

--
Regards,
        Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It\'s time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

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.

Straw man. And not even a very good one.

--
Regards,
        Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It\'s time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

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.

Anyone with a proper understanding of electrical wiring would not have installed the receptacle in that manner in the first place.

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

--
Regards,
        Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It\'s time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

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?

--
Regards,
        Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It\'s time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Circa Tue, 05 Jun 2007 02:59:43 GMT recorded as looks like snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) sounds like:

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

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!

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).