Douglas Hansen

For exactly reasons like Rob is describing, a very high percentage of ionization type alarms are disconnected, leaving the occupants unprotected. As if that weren't enough, these very same nuisance-producing gadgets fail to detect smoke within the time that is necessary to protect your life. Ionization alarms will detect a fast-flame fire 30 - 90 seconds faster than a photoelectric alarm. The photoelectric alarm will detect a smoldering fire 30 -90 minutes before an ionization alarm. I would recommend to your clients that they replace all their smoke alarms with photoelectric types. We did that in our house. Douglas Hansen

There must be some significant regional variation on Pushmatics. They were popular here (SF Bay Area) in the early 1950s, and after that the other usual suspects became the equipment of choice. I might not feel bad about them if I had ever inspected one of those panels that wasn't a mess, but alas that is not the case. The original equipment is no longer made, and last I looked Siemens held the rights for the only UL listed replacement breakers, and charged a fortune for them. The effect of them having been out of our market for over a half century is that almost every panel I have seen with them has been a maze of double taps or direct taps to the bus bars, along with all the usual things you find in equipment that has become inadequate to handle the additional loads that folks will apply in the decades since the panel was installed. Adding to their woes, few Bulldog breakers meet the modern standard for a 10k AIC rating, and with our power grids being increasingly networked, and with rising available fault currents, any pre-1970s breaker is at risk of explosion in a dead short. While I've only personally witnessed that with FPE, there is no reason to think that Bulldog will somehow be able to handle high fault currents for which they were never designed just because they made a better bus connection. It could be very different in other parts of the country. For instance, in Kurt's territory, conduit and EMT are the norm, and they create a separate grounding path. A bulldog subpanel with a bonded neutral might be repairable in the windy city, and it might not be as old as Kurt. Out here (in NM land), it is likely to require replacing an SEU cable that feeds the panel. The cost of replacing that feeder will usually make the cost of replacing the subpanel seem like small change. We are in a very different era than that of the Bulldog panel. Today we have many more circuits, equipment grounding conductors, and AFCIs. As folks add more loads, any older panel is going to run up against the limit of its obsolesence, even if it was good equipment for its time. If I had a relative buying a house with a Bulldog panel, I would tell them to either replace it or use no electrical appliances manufactured since 1960. As to FPE breakers falling out, I have only found that when the "E" type (wafer) breakers have been forced into the "F" slot that is intended to reject them. It does happen fairly often, and you generally can see if that is likely before you take off the cover. Even without that problem, it is still difficult to get the covers off due to the ridiculously poor engineering, where the cover can't pull straight off and must be jockeyed around the breaker handles on one side and then the other. Along with the spring-loaded bus mount, it becomes far more likely that you will inadvertently trip a breaker when taking off an FPE deadfront as compared to the deadfront of a civilized panel. Douglas Hansen

Your point about the losses in the wiring is important. As an example, if you had a 120-volt 1500 watt heater with a 5% voltage drop due to conductor and connection resistance, your heater would actually produce 1357 watts of heat. If instead you purchased a 240-volt heater and breaker and used the same wires that had produced that 5% voltage drop at 120V, you would get 1,471 watts of heat, an 8% improvement over the 120-volt version. Voltage drop is the gift that keeps on giving - to the utility company. Douglas Hansen

I don't 100% agree Marc. Here is how I see it: While harmonics do indeed result from non-linear loads, not all non-linear loads produce harmonics. It depends upon the power source. I don't think you can get harmonics on a system originating in a single-phase transformer, even though you connect non-linear loads to it. When you connect those same loads to two (or three) phase conductors and a neutral of a 3-phase system, then you have additive harmonics on the neutral. Non-linear loads draw current at frequencies other than 60Hz. It doesn't matter what those frequencies are when the two phases are 180 degrees from each other; the loads on a shared neutral can never be additive. Put those phases 120 degrees from each other, which you have in a 3-phase system, and the non-linear frequencies do line up and result in a harmonic current. I've seen some spectacular meltdowns of neutrals in 3-phase systems, including one where the utility replaced a single-phase transformer with a 3-phase and hooked up just 2 legs to the customer's original service. I've never thought it possible to have the problem on a single-phase system. Am I missing something? Thanks Douglas Hansen

I've sat through a couple of presentations for harmonics filters, and remain unconvinced of their value. Thankfully, we don't have harmonics on 120/240-volt systems. The only residential harmonics problem I ever encountered was a condo with 3-phase 120/208 power and lots of electronic dimmers and personal computers. Even then, it wasn't enough to cause the problems you see in commercial and industrial systems. Douglas Hansen

For electrical boxes, it makes a difference whether or not the wall surface material is considered combustible, and for that application gypsum board is considered noncombustible in the NEC. If the wall surface is wood or other combustible material, the box must be flush with or proud of the surface. If the wall surface is gypsum board, the maximum setback is 1/4 inch. (314.20) For electrical panels, the surface material is not the determining factor; what matters is the combustibility of the wall structure. Panels in wood-framed walls must be flush with or proud of the surface. Panels in steel-stud walls with a gypsum board surface are allowed a maximum setback of 1/4 inch. (312.3) Douglas Hansen

Agreed - 312.3 says it must be flush to or proud of the finished surface when the wall is constructed of combustible material, e.g., wood studs. Did they set it back like this so they can shut that door over the face of the panel to hide it? Douglas Hansen

We had a different experience with it Tom. We've beem very happy with GoToMeeting, and use it for collaborative work. In a conference call, we can all look at the same computer screen, and shift between different participants' screens. Very handy for group projects. We do have the "pay" version - cost $348 annually. Douglas Hansen

Douglas - Is the material that Jess Aronstein presented available for sharing among our HI world? http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/meetin ... re3_18.pdf Douglas Hansen

It would be leaving a blood trail for the sharks, and they know it. The conservative nature of bureaucracy is such that they learn to avoid that kind of controversy. Why FPE and not also Zinsco? Why stop there? The CPSC is not a laboratory for testing and evaluating products. They do not have their own objective test data, and they don't attempt to do UL's job of testing breakers to a verifiable standard (which unfortunately wasn't done by UL either for the fraudulently manufactured FPEs). For the most part, all they can do is respond to data that is brought to them. There are some exceptions, such as the CPSC creation of an impact standard for safety glass back in the 1970s, a standard that gained wider acceptance than ANSI Z97.1. That one has done a lot of good. And there are notable failures, such as CPSC's absurd endorsement of the "Copalum" system, where they may have ultimately done as much harm as good. The latter does have a direct relation to this current action. Douglas Hansen

CPSC recalls are voluntary (in almost all cases) on the part of the manufacturer. CPSC helps spread the word for the manufacturer as one of the steps that can be taken to help the manufacturer reduce their liability. I'm not sure exactly where the numbers are now, but the last time I spoke to a CPSC rep about involuntary recalls I was told there had only been four in the history of the CPSC. CPSC doesn't really have a manufacturer to work with on this issue, unless you count Square D for their ownership of the tooling that cranks out Federal Pioneer in Canada, or unless you count the descendents of the banking entities involved in the FPE bankruptcy. Neither is a viable source of consumer relief. As I understand the class action suit in New Jersey, their Supreme Court limited relief to only those persons who were the original owners of houses with FPE panels. Last year, Jess Aronstein presented new (very convincing) material to CPSC in an attempt to get them to revise their original report on the issue, and thanks to Bill we get to see their cautiously worded revision. The CPSC shouldn't be expected to play the role of acting as final arbiter on these issues. Their scope is narrow. Asking them to recall FPEs is like asking them to recall Studebakers for not having seat belts. Douglas Hansen

There is more going on here. The panel is at most 20 - 25 years old. The feeders to it are much older. Why was it changed out, and what else did they do when it was changed out? Was there a fuse panel here and someone needed to add circuits, or "upgrade" to breakers to satisfy an insurance company requirement? Does it look like other equipment or circuits were added at the time this panel was installed? Mark and James are of course correct, and we should ask why someone would wrap white tape around a bare conductor. The splice of the two very different conductors under a wire nut isn't just a case of choosing the wrong connector - it suggests that the person who did it lacked a truck full of parts from which to choose the correct conductor and splice block. In other words, it probably wasn't done by a trained or qualified electrician. What else did you see that has this person's signature level of workmanship? Douglas Hansen

Legal schmegal. ASHRAE 62.2 Ventilation and Acceptable Indoor Air Quality in Low-Rise Residential Buildings states that clothes dryers shall be exhausted directly to the outdoors, with the exception being condensing dryers. ASHRAE defines the standard of acceptable air quality as that toward which a substantial majority of occupants express no dissatisfaction with respect to odor and sensory irritation and in which there are not likely to be contaminants at concentrations known to pose a health risk. ASHRAE is the basis for the mechanical code chapters on ventilation, and this particular standard is adopted (without amendment) into some of the state energy codes. It doesn't matter if your state is one of them. I would say to the client that the main organization that has researched this topic finds most folks are uncomfortable with the dryer venting into the house. That little bucket arrangement only makes things worse. It is supposed to be filled with water to act as a lint trap. Let's see - take some humid air, pass it over some water to warm that up and cook the lint, and breathe deep. Yuck! A friend of ours recently showed off her condensing dryer to us. She is very happy with it. It doesn't bake clothes quite so brutally as a dryer that requires an exhaust - fewer wrinkles and not so scratchy. Douglas Hansen

Echoing Marc's comments, we have lots of different meanings for the term "electrical engineer." When I lived in Silicon Valley, the term typically was used by folks who were involved in semiconductor or software design or fabrication. None of the folks whose job description had that title were licensed Professional Engineers. The few licensed PEs with electrical specialties at a facility like Intel are involved in facility maintenance and design, not in the design of the products made by Intel. In the years when I traveled the country teaching electrical code, I often had licensed PEs in my classes. I would ask them how many courses they took on the National Electrical Code as part of their curriculum or prior to becoming licensed, and the answer was always zero. Interaction with our world is, as Marc said, something that happens after you have the letters after your name. Douglas Hansen

As pointed out in the link from Michael Thomas, the code proposal for the 2002 cycle for individual terminals for neutrals cited a "long standing" provision in UL 67. I don't know exactly how far back it goes, though it was at least 1964, and possibly much before that year. As for torque screwdrivers and torque wrenches, there are indeed several jurisdictions here that require the terminals to be torqued in the presence of the inspector. Loose terminals and connections are a major contributor to electrical fires, and you cannot get the proper torque by feel alone. At last year's NFPA conference, there was an excellent demonstration titled "Do you think you have a calibrated elbow?" Doing it by feel alone, most electricians will get the torque outside of the acceptable variance on almost 50% of their connectons. When I took the "test" my connections were over-torqued (just as bad in some cases as being under). Douglas Hansen

It's been a few months since I've researched this topic. Last I looked, Eaton / Cutler-Hammer was still peddling their branch-feeder style AFCIs that were rated for multiwire circuits. They haven't been allowed by code since 1/1/2008, but that hasn't stopped them from selling them. They do not meet the requirement that AFCIs comply to the UL "combination" standard. Those first generation Cutler Hammer AFCIs were designed for multiwire circuits and include a neutral. Because AFCIs also have ground-fault detection, you can't take 2 separate ordinary AFCIs and apply them to a multiwire circuit. In fact, most of the reported incidences of "nuisance tripping" in multiwire circuits are a result of neutrals getting connected somewhere down the line. Siemens makes a legitimate 2-pole AFCI that works for multiwire circuits and meets current code. Square D does not make one. General Electric makes a 2-pole AFCI that will work on multiwire circuits, but only because they disabled the ground-fault detection and cut off the pigtailed neutral. Cutler-Hammer just keeps trying to clear their shelves of the old non-code-complying product. Douglas Hansen

Shouldn't that foam be behind a "thermal" (fire) barrier, such as gypsum board? Whether icynene or UFFI, I thought it was supposed to be covered in completed construction, and that you should never see it exposed like this. Douglas Hansen

Give me a call Chad. It's a 30A E style, definitely manufactured during the period when the UL listings were obtained by fraudulent means. It has a couple cracks in the plastic, and the prongs are bent and loose, but I'm sure it will carry current long enough to at least fry some clothes. I suppose this is designed to straddle the "E" stabs from two separate bus sockets. Maybe that's how part of the plastic was broken off this thing. I was hoping to crack this one open for further analysis, but I'm sure I can find others. Click to Enlarge 34.49 KB Douglas Hansen

Please read the attached green building plans, which are especially appropriate at this time of year. I think you'll agree this is worthwhile and compliance will be a piece of cake. No more getting red in the face over green! Douglas Hansen Download Attachment: Happy Holiday Plans.pdf 373.32 KB

California has a green building code that becomes mandatory on January 1. One of the difficulties for local building jurisidictions is that the inspections and verifications do not coincide with the other field inspections. Some (not all) of our jurisdictions are taking the same approach that you seem to have - requiring the permit applicant to hire 3rd party special inspectors. We have a fairly large pool of such folks, most of whom went through a certification program with "Build It Green" - also known as BIG. Their system is based on the number of "points" that a project achieves. That might sound similar to a LEED system except that the primary application is residential not commercial. Our code is not a point-based system, and I doubt yours is either. Therefore, these points-based systems, ratings, and certifications do not directly translate to the green codes. Folks who have certifications from an organization such as BIG have the inside track to becoming 3rd party special inspectors for CALGreen. I suggest you look at the existing energy raters and other green building programs in Georgia and see how their members plan to handle the transition to a mandatory code. It gets political pretty quick (not that it didn't start out that way). When does your code go into effect? I thought ICC's model wasn't really ready for prime time yet. Thanks Douglas Hansen

To add to the reasons for scrapping this particular knob & tube installation, that junction box has a few problems. The individual conductors are not allowed to go through separate holes. All of the conductors of each circuit have to go through one common hole, otherwise there is a problem of inductive reactance and heating at the hole in the metal box. An alternative is to cut a slot between the holes for each circuit's conductors. It's not likely to cause a big problem at the levels of current drawn by house circuits; nonetheless - it indicates substandard workmanship. I guess the electrician thinks that compliance with NEC 300.20 is just an irrelevant "aesthetic" issue. And to pile on a bit more, the splicing technique inside the box is pretty bad. They have also used the wrong ceramic bushings, and the loom (the rag tubes) should fit into the bushings. Another problem with knob and tube (at least around here) is that it almost always contains multiwire circuits with undersized neutrals. They will run 12 for the red and the black, and 14 for the white wire. It should be fused at 15 amps in such cases. Douglas Hansen

Jody - I urge you to please save the damaged CSST. I am very sorry to learn that you had these problems in your house, and hope you realize how lucky you were that your house wasn't destroyed. I appeal to you for help in preventing someone else from becoming a fire statistic. At this time, the organization that creates our gas codes (specifically, the NFPA 54 Code Making Panel and the NFPA Standards Council) are looking at proposals and counter-proposals regarding the status of CSST in the nation's fuel gas codes. The makers of "counterstrike" presented them with arguments that their product should be exempt from bonding because they claimed it was much safer than other CSST and because it had an ICC Evaluation Service report that they claimed found the conductive material in the Counterstrike to be the equivalent of bonding with a #6 wire. I would be happy to arrange to have your damaged CSST sent to a member of the NFPA 54 Code-Making-Panel. Could you please respond to me directly at Douglas@Codecheck.com? Thank you Douglas Hansen

The attached picture is an example of what the new 60 inch horizontal rule is about. It addresses the question of a window located in the wall facing an unenclosed tub. At a certain distance, it becomes silly to require safety glazing based upon the presence of the tub in the room. In the previous code, the distance wasn't specified, and the 2009 code exception does specify it at 5 feet. What is unfortunate is the implication that people draw from the fact that the code language is an exception. They see an exception that does not require safety glass at >5 feet, and assume therefore that all glass closer than 5 feet is required to be safety glass. That clearly isn't the case when there is an intervening enclosure or when the glazing is not in a wall facing the tub/shower. It's an example of why we should avoid "exceptions" language in writing codes. In the example in this picture, it is less than 5 feet and therefore did require safety glass. Douglas Hansen Click to Enlarge 46.19 KB Click to Enlarge 46.19 KB

Tom - don't you think the CSST manufacturers have only themselves to blame for doing what you describe in your first sentence? They offered a junk science alternative (#6 bond wire) without scientific evidence, hoping it would be sufficient to defray their liability if they could only get the codes to sign onto it. I agree 100% that lightning protection systems would be more appropriate as a means of protection, but I don't think the CSST manufacturers wish to be in a position to advocate something that expensive any time their product is installed. It will be interesting to see how the folks on the code-making panel for NFPA 54 respond to the various proposals for changes to the next edition. Douglas Hansen

Please don't do that Mike. There are enough situations where current is running through the GEC, albeit at less than line voltage, where you could end up creating a shocking experience for yourself. I think if you are that curious about what might be going on a few inches below the top of the soil, you can scrape away some of the dirt. The general safety principle here is that grounding connections of all sorts are first-to-make, last-to-break, and that on the off chance something could become energized by breaking it, you certainly don't do it barehanded. and back to the first topic - the NEC has required this second ground rod since the 1918 edition. The wording then was actually clearer than it is today: Where, because of dry or other high re- sistance soils it is impracticable to obtain artificial ground resistance as low as 25 ohms, two such grounds 6 feet apart if practicable must be installed, and no requirement will be made as to resistance. There was no scientific basis for the 25 ohm rule back then, and the only rationale for keeping the rule seems to be "well - it's been working OK to have this in the code." For contrary evidence, see the thread on CSST bonding. Douglas Hansen