Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #451353 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-03-11 11:53 -0800 |
| Last post | 2017-03-11 20:14 -0600 |
| Articles | 14 on this page of 94 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design
Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-03-11 11:53 -0800
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-03-11 13:03 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-03-11 12:31 -0800
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-03-11 18:36 -0800
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-03-12 07:10 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-11 13:09 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-03-11 12:34 -0800
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-11 14:13 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-03-11 16:00 -0800
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-11 17:22 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-11 21:40 -0500
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-03-12 07:07 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-12 07:59 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-03-12 08:16 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-12 12:16 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-03-13 11:19 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-15 12:52 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-03-16 08:01 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-03-16 10:19 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-03-16 10:37 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-03-16 16:12 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-03-16 16:33 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-03-16 20:15 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-12 20:43 -0400
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-03-13 02:05 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-13 21:33 -0400
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-03-14 06:38 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-14 12:47 -0400
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-03-14 12:00 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-14 20:44 -0400
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-03-15 05:53 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-15 12:53 -0400
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility kevin93 <kevin@whitedigs.com> - 2017-03-15 15:11 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-03-15 16:34 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-15 20:38 -0400
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-03-16 08:03 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-16 20:36 -0400
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-03-17 16:54 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-17 22:35 -0400
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-03-18 07:42 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-18 10:47 -0400
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-03-14 05:12 +0000
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-14 12:48 -0400
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-03-13 11:20 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-12 20:39 -0400
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 16:53 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-13 17:13 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-03-14 08:06 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-12 20:36 -0400
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-03-13 11:54 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-03-11 13:27 -0800
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-03-11 16:02 -0800
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-03-11 16:33 -0800
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-03-12 07:14 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-03-12 11:38 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-03-13 15:49 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-03-14 06:40 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-03-14 07:59 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-14 12:51 -0400
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-03-14 11:57 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-03-14 14:01 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-03-14 14:21 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-03-14 16:59 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility Chris Jones <lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> - 2017-03-16 00:50 +1100
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-03-15 07:26 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-03-15 11:17 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-03-15 16:31 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-03-15 16:59 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-03-15 19:06 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility Chris Jones <lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> - 2017-03-16 23:26 +1100
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-03-16 10:12 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-14 20:47 -0400
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-14 20:47 -0400
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-03-16 08:06 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2017-03-17 16:29 -0400
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-17 22:39 -0400
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-03-18 01:52 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-18 09:45 -0400
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-03-18 07:37 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-18 10:48 -0400
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-03-18 09:18 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-18 14:13 -0400
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-03-18 13:20 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-18 20:00 -0400
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-03-18 18:40 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-18 22:17 -0400
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2017-03-19 12:14 -0400
) Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2017-03-12 01:12 -0500
Re: ) tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-03-12 03:51 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2017-03-11 14:27 -0600
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-03-11 12:38 -0800
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility Chris Jones <lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> - 2017-03-12 23:57 +1100
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-03-12 07:17 -0700
Re: Very slightly OT: Circuit breaker compatibility Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2017-03-11 20:14 -0600
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
| From | tabbypurr@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-18 09:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e2201708-8caf-491e-96e5-15adbf17665e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452428 |
On Saturday, 18 March 2017 14:48:41 UTC, k...@notreal.com wrote: > On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 07:37:30 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote: > >On Saturday, 18 March 2017 13:45:07 UTC, k...@notreal.com wrote: > >> On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 01:52:57 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote: > >> >On Saturday, 18 March 2017 02:39:52 UTC, k...@notreal.com wrote: > >> >> On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 16:29:41 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" > >> >> <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote: > >> >> >krw@notreal.com wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Wire nuts are perfectly safe if the installer has half a brain. Of > >> >> >> the billions in service, how many have failed? > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > Wire nuts are legal on commercial fire alarms, so the insurance > >> >> >companies trust them. > >> >> > >> >> So do the fire underwriters (NEC) and they're pretty anal. > >> > > >> >Unless you're talking about a different type to the one I know as wirenuts, they don't produce a gas-tight join, and are thus a reliability & safety risk. > >> > >> Absurd. A few billion in the field say otherwise. > >> > >> >US mains plugs were tested in the UK years ago and given a rating of 50v 2.5A max. US mains electrics is illegal here on a list of safety grounds. Why Americans think their country is the best at everything no-one knows. > >> > >> More pompous Brit absurdity. A few billion say otherwise. > > > >I think you'll find US rates of domestic electrical fires are worse than ours. > > Proving nothing, even if so. > > >Failure of connections to be gas tight has long been known to result in greater fire risk. > > Nonsense. oh dear
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-18 14:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <j5uqccluaks0i484p3rlv6v9fp0sdal1hg@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #452440 |
On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 09:18:55 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote: >On Saturday, 18 March 2017 14:48:41 UTC, k...@notreal.com wrote: >> On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 07:37:30 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote: >> >On Saturday, 18 March 2017 13:45:07 UTC, k...@notreal.com wrote: >> >> On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 01:52:57 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote: >> >> >On Saturday, 18 March 2017 02:39:52 UTC, k...@notreal.com wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 16:29:41 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" >> >> >> <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote: >> >> >> >krw@notreal.com wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Wire nuts are perfectly safe if the installer has half a brain. Of >> >> >> >> the billions in service, how many have failed? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Wire nuts are legal on commercial fire alarms, so the insurance >> >> >> >companies trust them. >> >> >> >> >> >> So do the fire underwriters (NEC) and they're pretty anal. >> >> > >> >> >Unless you're talking about a different type to the one I know as wirenuts, they don't produce a gas-tight join, and are thus a reliability & safety risk. >> >> >> >> Absurd. A few billion in the field say otherwise. >> >> >> >> >US mains plugs were tested in the UK years ago and given a rating of 50v 2.5A max. US mains electrics is illegal here on a list of safety grounds. Why Americans think their country is the best at everything no-one knows. >> >> >> >> More pompous Brit absurdity. A few billion say otherwise. >> > >> >I think you'll find US rates of domestic electrical fires are worse than ours. >> >> Proving nothing, even if so. >> >> >Failure of connections to be gas tight has long been known to result in greater fire risk. >> >> Nonsense. > >oh dear A few billion in action proves you're full of shit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tabbypurr@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-18 13:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <826d8e5b-e9a4-4fbe-8faf-e13cc687f60f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452464 |
On Saturday, 18 March 2017 18:13:43 UTC, k...@notreal.com wrote: > On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 09:18:55 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote: > >On Saturday, 18 March 2017 14:48:41 UTC, k...@notreal.com wrote: > >> On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 07:37:30 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote: > >> >On Saturday, 18 March 2017 13:45:07 UTC, k...@notreal.com wrote: > >> >> On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 01:52:57 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote: > >> >> >On Saturday, 18 March 2017 02:39:52 UTC, k...@notreal.com wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 16:29:41 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" > >> >> >> <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote: > >> >> >> >krw@notreal.com wrote: > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Wire nuts are perfectly safe if the installer has half a brain. Of > >> >> >> >> the billions in service, how many have failed? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Wire nuts are legal on commercial fire alarms, so the insurance > >> >> >> >companies trust them. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> So do the fire underwriters (NEC) and they're pretty anal. > >> >> > > >> >> >Unless you're talking about a different type to the one I know as wirenuts, they don't produce a gas-tight join, and are thus a reliability & safety risk. > >> >> > >> >> Absurd. A few billion in the field say otherwise. > >> >> > >> >> >US mains plugs were tested in the UK years ago and given a rating of 50v 2.5A max. US mains electrics is illegal here on a list of safety grounds. Why Americans think their country is the best at everything no-one knows. > >> >> > >> >> More pompous Brit absurdity. A few billion say otherwise. > >> > > >> >I think you'll find US rates of domestic electrical fires are worse than ours. > >> > >> Proving nothing, even if so. > >> > >> >Failure of connections to be gas tight has long been known to result in greater fire risk. > >> > >> Nonsense. > > > >oh dear > > A few billion in action proves you're full of shit. lol. Engineers need to understand the basics of statistics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-18 20:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <tdircch3ecas7vl5evnsqkvfhg93dtog8b@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #452480 |
On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 13:20:03 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote: >On Saturday, 18 March 2017 18:13:43 UTC, k...@notreal.com wrote: >> On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 09:18:55 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote: >> >On Saturday, 18 March 2017 14:48:41 UTC, k...@notreal.com wrote: >> >> On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 07:37:30 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote: >> >> >On Saturday, 18 March 2017 13:45:07 UTC, k...@notreal.com wrote: >> >> >> On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 01:52:57 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote: >> >> >> >On Saturday, 18 March 2017 02:39:52 UTC, k...@notreal.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 16:29:41 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" >> >> >> >> <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> >krw@notreal.com wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Wire nuts are perfectly safe if the installer has half a brain. Of >> >> >> >> >> the billions in service, how many have failed? >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Wire nuts are legal on commercial fire alarms, so the insurance >> >> >> >> >companies trust them. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> So do the fire underwriters (NEC) and they're pretty anal. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Unless you're talking about a different type to the one I know as wirenuts, they don't produce a gas-tight join, and are thus a reliability & safety risk. >> >> >> >> >> >> Absurd. A few billion in the field say otherwise. >> >> >> >> >> >> >US mains plugs were tested in the UK years ago and given a rating of 50v 2.5A max. US mains electrics is illegal here on a list of safety grounds. Why Americans think their country is the best at everything no-one knows. >> >> >> >> >> >> More pompous Brit absurdity. A few billion say otherwise. >> >> > >> >> >I think you'll find US rates of domestic electrical fires are worse than ours. >> >> >> >> Proving nothing, even if so. >> >> >> >> >Failure of connections to be gas tight has long been known to result in greater fire risk. >> >> >> >> Nonsense. >> > >> >oh dear >> >> A few billion in action proves you're full of shit. > >lol. Engineers need to understand the basics of statistics. You're right. Try a college a little better than Cracker Jax next time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tabbypurr@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-18 18:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0341f805-6b2a-43d7-b746-d4e75f4813d9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452500 |
On Sunday, 19 March 2017 00:00:26 UTC, k...@notreal.com wrote: > On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 13:20:03 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote: > >On Saturday, 18 March 2017 18:13:43 UTC, k...@notreal.com wrote: > >> On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 09:18:55 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote: > >> >On Saturday, 18 March 2017 14:48:41 UTC, k...@notreal.com wrote: > >> >> On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 07:37:30 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote: > >> >> >On Saturday, 18 March 2017 13:45:07 UTC, k...@notreal.com wrote: > >> >> >> On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 01:52:57 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote: > >> >> >> >On Saturday, 18 March 2017 02:39:52 UTC, k...@notreal.com wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 16:29:41 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" > >> >> >> >> <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >krw@notreal.com wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> Wire nuts are perfectly safe if the installer has half a brain. Of > >> >> >> >> >> the billions in service, how many have failed? > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > Wire nuts are legal on commercial fire alarms, so the insurance > >> >> >> >> >companies trust them. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> So do the fire underwriters (NEC) and they're pretty anal. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >Unless you're talking about a different type to the one I know as wirenuts, they don't produce a gas-tight join, and are thus a reliability & safety risk. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Absurd. A few billion in the field say otherwise. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >US mains plugs were tested in the UK years ago and given a rating of 50v 2.5A max. US mains electrics is illegal here on a list of safety grounds. Why Americans think their country is the best at everything no-one knows. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> More pompous Brit absurdity. A few billion say otherwise. > >> >> > > >> >> >I think you'll find US rates of domestic electrical fires are worse than ours. > >> >> > >> >> Proving nothing, even if so. > >> >> > >> >> >Failure of connections to be gas tight has long been known to result in greater fire risk. > >> >> > >> >> Nonsense. > >> > > >> >oh dear > >> > >> A few billion in action proves you're full of shit. > > > >lol. Engineers need to understand the basics of statistics. > > You're right. Try a college a little better than Cracker Jax next > time. Engineers also need to address the facts instead of being childish and ad hominem - otherwise they don't learn stuff. It's one of the basics of being a good engineer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-18 22:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1iqrccpa924dcc2lj7f8nta6gvbvvgsa1h@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #452526 |
On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 18:40:34 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote: >On Sunday, 19 March 2017 00:00:26 UTC, k...@notreal.com wrote: >> On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 13:20:03 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote: >> >On Saturday, 18 March 2017 18:13:43 UTC, k...@notreal.com wrote: >> >> On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 09:18:55 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote: >> >> >On Saturday, 18 March 2017 14:48:41 UTC, k...@notreal.com wrote: >> >> >> On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 07:37:30 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote: >> >> >> >On Saturday, 18 March 2017 13:45:07 UTC, k...@notreal.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 01:52:57 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote: >> >> >> >> >On Saturday, 18 March 2017 02:39:52 UTC, k...@notreal.com wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 16:29:41 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" >> >> >> >> >> <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >krw@notreal.com wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Wire nuts are perfectly safe if the installer has half a brain. Of >> >> >> >> >> >> the billions in service, how many have failed? >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > Wire nuts are legal on commercial fire alarms, so the insurance >> >> >> >> >> >companies trust them. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> So do the fire underwriters (NEC) and they're pretty anal. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >Unless you're talking about a different type to the one I know as wirenuts, they don't produce a gas-tight join, and are thus a reliability & safety risk. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Absurd. A few billion in the field say otherwise. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >US mains plugs were tested in the UK years ago and given a rating of 50v 2.5A max. US mains electrics is illegal here on a list of safety grounds. Why Americans think their country is the best at everything no-one knows. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> More pompous Brit absurdity. A few billion say otherwise. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >I think you'll find US rates of domestic electrical fires are worse than ours. >> >> >> >> >> >> Proving nothing, even if so. >> >> >> >> >> >> >Failure of connections to be gas tight has long been known to result in greater fire risk. >> >> >> >> >> >> Nonsense. >> >> > >> >> >oh dear >> >> >> >> A few billion in action proves you're full of shit. >> > >> >lol. Engineers need to understand the basics of statistics. >> >> You're right. Try a college a little better than Cracker Jax next >> time. > >Engineers also need to address the facts instead of being childish and ad hominem - otherwise they don't learn stuff. It's one of the basics of being a good engineer. Look in a mirror much, asshole?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-19 12:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <x-adnXoCGa7OM1PFnZ2dnUU7-cGdnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #452372 |
krw@notreal.com wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 16:29:41 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
> <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Wire nuts are perfectly safe if the installer has half a brain. Of
>>> the billions in service, how many have failed?
>>
>>
>> Wire nuts are legal on commercial fire alarms, so the insurance
>> companies trust them.
>
> So do the fire underwriters (NEC) and they're pretty anal.
The NEC is backed by the insurance companies. IE: 'Underwriters'.
--
Never piss off an Engineer!
They don't get mad.
They don't get even.
They go for over unity! ;-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-12 01:12 -0500 |
| Subject | ) |
| Message-ID | <pip9cc9rb1gqiefomlkm67gq4mo7e4ain0@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #451355 |
On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 13:09:59 -0700, the renowned Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote: > >When you find a replacement, buy a few spares. > >If you have any GFCI breakers, take that advice *doubly* so! "Banking" a $50 >breaker now can save you lots of pain, later! Second this. It took weeks for me to find a replacement 'Challenger' GFCI breaker - and it was *very* expensive. But not compared to replacing the entire panel (!). They're not very repairable either. --sp -- Best regards, Spehro Pefhany
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tabbypurr@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-12 03:51 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: ) |
| Message-ID | <3f2e6ea0-6443-40c5-a5f9-3afbf4392bde@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #451441 |
On Sunday, 12 March 2017 06:12:27 UTC, Spehro Pefhany wrote: > On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 13:09:59 -0700, the renowned Don Y > <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote: > > > > >When you find a replacement, buy a few spares. > > > >If you have any GFCI breakers, take that advice *doubly* so! "Banking" a $50 > >breaker now can save you lots of pain, later! > > Second this. It took weeks for me to find a replacement 'Challenger' > GFCI breaker - and it was *very* expensive. But not compared to > replacing the entire panel (!). > > They're not very repairable either. 60-70 buys the whole unit filled with breakers & RCD here. NT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-11 14:27 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <UKadnd2uxNU8wFnFnZ2dnUU7-dGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #451353 |
On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 11:53:07 -0800, Joerg wrote: > Ok, not electronics but electrons flow here: > > I just disassembled a panel that was so throughly botched by a > "licensed" electrician that major corrections are in order. Among many > mistakes he didn't properly protect it from the elements, a breaker has > rusted and the tap-off is loose. Needless to say, the usual ancient > stuff. Question: > > Can I replace EQ-P breakers from ITE with these from Siemens? > > http://www.homedepot.com/p/Siemens-25-Amp-Double-Pole-Type-QP-Circuit- Breaker-Q225/100183751 > > One of the customer questions asks that and a guy answered yes but I am > skeptical because there are a lot of incompatibilities in American > breaker systems. For example, while the Cruise Hinds breakers I have (I > think that's now Murray) look identical they do not fit. Almost but not > quite, going only 90% of the way in and they are 1/20" too fat. > > Roughing in a whole new panel would be MAJOR structural rework. You could always try it and return it if it didn't obviously fit. And yes, the whole "each brand is incompatible" thing is a royal pain in the ass. -- www.wescottdesign.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-11 12:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <eij5h0F14e9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #451357 |
On 2017-03-11 12:27, Tim Wescott wrote: > On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 11:53:07 -0800, Joerg wrote: > >> Ok, not electronics but electrons flow here: >> >> I just disassembled a panel that was so throughly botched by a >> "licensed" electrician that major corrections are in order. Among many >> mistakes he didn't properly protect it from the elements, a breaker has >> rusted and the tap-off is loose. Needless to say, the usual ancient >> stuff. Question: >> >> Can I replace EQ-P breakers from ITE with these from Siemens? >> >> http://www.homedepot.com/p/Siemens-25-Amp-Double-Pole-Type-QP-Circuit- > Breaker-Q225/100183751 >> >> One of the customer questions asks that and a guy answered yes but I am >> skeptical because there are a lot of incompatibilities in American >> breaker systems. For example, while the Cruise Hinds breakers I have (I >> think that's now Murray) look identical they do not fit. Almost but not >> quite, going only 90% of the way in and they are 1/20" too fat. >> >> Roughing in a whole new panel would be MAJOR structural rework. > > You could always try it and return it if it didn't obviously fit. > Yeah, might combine that with a bike ride. Probably lots of bike rides to lots of places until something fits. At least that causes me to lose weight. > And yes, the whole "each brand is incompatible" thing is a royal pain in > the ass. > Even amongst their own products there is incompatibility with many manufacturers. Same with faucets. I learned that (at least in the US) it does not pay to invest in high-Dollar name-brand fixtures because 20 years down the road it's anyone's guess whether you can still find spares. Better to use a good hardware store model and replace the whole thing when it wears out. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Jones <lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-12 23:57 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <gBbxA.164060$3a3.86687@fx43.am4> |
| In reply to | #451362 |
On 12/03/2017 07:38, Joerg wrote: > On 2017-03-11 12:27, Tim Wescott wrote: >> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 11:53:07 -0800, Joerg wrote: >> >>> Ok, not electronics but electrons flow here: >>> >>> I just disassembled a panel that was so throughly botched by a >>> "licensed" electrician that major corrections are in order. Among many >>> mistakes he didn't properly protect it from the elements, a breaker has >>> rusted and the tap-off is loose. Needless to say, the usual ancient >>> stuff. Question: >>> >>> Can I replace EQ-P breakers from ITE with these from Siemens? >>> >>> http://www.homedepot.com/p/Siemens-25-Amp-Double-Pole-Type-QP-Circuit- >> Breaker-Q225/100183751 >>> >>> One of the customer questions asks that and a guy answered yes but I am >>> skeptical because there are a lot of incompatibilities in American >>> breaker systems. For example, while the Cruise Hinds breakers I have (I >>> think that's now Murray) look identical they do not fit. Almost but not >>> quite, going only 90% of the way in and they are 1/20" too fat. >>> >>> Roughing in a whole new panel would be MAJOR structural rework. >> >> You could always try it and return it if it didn't obviously fit. >> > > Yeah, might combine that with a bike ride. Probably lots of bike rides > to lots of places until something fits. At least that causes me to lose > weight. > > >> And yes, the whole "each brand is incompatible" thing is a royal pain in >> the ass. >> > > Even amongst their own products there is incompatibility with many > manufacturers. Do you not have standard DIN rail mounted breakers over there?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-12 07:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eil3k9Fcf0iU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #451456 |
On 2017-03-12 05:57, Chris Jones wrote: > On 12/03/2017 07:38, Joerg wrote: >> On 2017-03-11 12:27, Tim Wescott wrote: >>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 11:53:07 -0800, Joerg wrote: >>> >>>> Ok, not electronics but electrons flow here: >>>> >>>> I just disassembled a panel that was so throughly botched by a >>>> "licensed" electrician that major corrections are in order. Among many >>>> mistakes he didn't properly protect it from the elements, a breaker has >>>> rusted and the tap-off is loose. Needless to say, the usual ancient >>>> stuff. Question: >>>> >>>> Can I replace EQ-P breakers from ITE with these from Siemens? >>>> >>>> http://www.homedepot.com/p/Siemens-25-Amp-Double-Pole-Type-QP-Circuit- >>> Breaker-Q225/100183751 >>>> >>>> One of the customer questions asks that and a guy answered yes but I am >>>> skeptical because there are a lot of incompatibilities in American >>>> breaker systems. For example, while the Cruise Hinds breakers I have (I >>>> think that's now Murray) look identical they do not fit. Almost but not >>>> quite, going only 90% of the way in and they are 1/20" too fat. >>>> >>>> Roughing in a whole new panel would be MAJOR structural rework. >>> >>> You could always try it and return it if it didn't obviously fit. >>> >> >> Yeah, might combine that with a bike ride. Probably lots of bike rides >> to lots of places until something fits. At least that causes me to lose >> weight. >> >> >>> And yes, the whole "each brand is incompatible" thing is a royal pain in >>> the ass. >>> >> >> Even amongst their own products there is incompatibility with many >> manufacturers. > Do you not have standard DIN rail mounted breakers over there? > No :-( Oh how I miss those. In Germany I could walk into a hardware store, get pretty much any 16A or 25A breaker du jour, click it in, connect the wire, close the panel and call it a day. However, some panels in Germany were sealed and regular folks weren't supposed to open them. If the meter reader saw that seal missing his eyebrows would narrow. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-11 20:14 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <GrCdnaZV5MVpM1nFnZ2dnUU7-aOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #451353 |
Joerg wrote: > Ok, not electronics but electrons flow here: > > I just disassembled a panel that was so throughly botched by a > "licensed" electrician that major corrections are in order. Among many > mistakes he didn't properly protect it from the elements, a breaker has > rusted and the tap-off is loose. Needless to say, the usual ancient > stuff. Question: > > Can I replace EQ-P breakers from ITE with these from Siemens? Is there a Habitat for Humanity Re-Store near you? They have all sorts of salvaged materials, including panels and breakers at ours. If they don't happen to have the right kind, somebody there might know an old hardware store that has a lot of old stock. Jon
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design
csiph-web