Power Outage.

[autosurgeon]

We are going to do the same with the air compressor and electric heat in the paint booth as soon as we get the modules for them.

[linux203]

Hey Pat turned out that AC unit is an amps hog on start so we hooked it up to the load dump control on the transfer switch.

There are capacitors that can help with the startup load from the AC.

[CitizensHaveRights]

It's my understanding that an AC will always pull LRA = locked rotor amps when starting, but a hard start kit will reduce the time that it draws heavily at startup.

http://www.five-two-one.com/compressor-saver-benefits.html

If your system isn't capable of producing LRA, even for a small fraction of a second, but can provide running amps, you might be able to make it work with a soft start kit. I linked the 'good' variety of hard start kit above, I have no idea of the relative merits of any particular brand of soft start kit, I've never used one. 

[autosurgeon]

Thanks I will look into it!

[CitizensHaveRights]

If you can follow the wiring chart that comes with the start kit, the 5-2-1 can be had for $30-50 on the net from places like Amazon. It comes in multiple sizes, I think the U1 I have fits up to 3 ton compressors.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B003FNMADE

I've never run my heat pump without the 5-2-1 kit, I bought the factory Goodman kit as an optional upgrade when it was installed. Turns out that Goodman/Amana sells 5-2-1 brand kits. Some other manufactures make up their own 5-2-1 style kits with the capacitor and potential relay specifically sized to their compressors. Some of the better HVAC contractors stock a variety of start capacitors and potential relays on the truck and make up custom start kits as needed.
With the 5-2-1, spin-up is seemingly instant, like side-stepping the clutch on your car with the wheels off the ground.

Since mine is only 1.5 ton, power requirements are mild, LRA=47A, running amps = 7.
I ran my heat pump on a temporary feed before the proper 240v line was run to it. Should have at least 12ga wire and a 20A HACR rated (slow-blow) breaker. For a few days, it had a long run of 14ga wire fed by a fast acting 15A breaker. With the 5-2-1 kit, it never blew the fast 15A breaker despite having a 47 Amp LRA rating. When the 10ga/20A HACR line was run to the heat pump, it didn't sound any different than it did running off the 14ga line.

I can't tell you how my heat pump runs on a generator, I use the furnace for heat during power failures and I've never needed A/C bad enough to want to power it with $4/gallon gasoline. I pay $20-30 a day for home generated electric without running the A/C.

[jgillmanjr]

Here:
http://ebookee.org/National-Electrical-Code-NFPA-70-2011-Edition_1130552.html

Two links don't work, and the other one wants me to download an executable (lulz no - plus I'm using Linux anyways).

Ultimately, the issue isn't ultimately with the NFPA-70 - I'll take your word for what it says.

The issues that I brought up in response to your article about the lineman still linger unanswered, as well as my subsequent recommendation about disconnecting buildings on the circuit.

To start, you claim that the homeowner was negligent, regardless of whether the backfeed (and subsequent death of the lineman) was due to the homeowner not opening the main breaker or there was a material defect with the breaker after the homeowner believed he had opened it, because NFPA-70 wasn't followed.

This assertion could not be farther from the truth.

In this case, we can safely assume that four out of the five elements of a negligence case were met:

Duty - Reasonable man standard would indicate that a generator back feeding into the grid could pose a threat to the lineman. This I will not dispute.
Cause in fact - I also won't dispute the fact that the backfeeding generator was the cause of the linemans death.
Proximate cause - Again, something I wouldn't dispute. Assuming the breaker wasn't opened, I would argue that the defendant would have foreseen the potential damages from backfeeding the generator.
Damages - Obviously the lineman is dead.

However, there is one element that still needs to be determined - Breach of duty.

This is where it needs to be known whether the homeowner actually tried opening the breaker and it failed due to material defect, or whether the homeowner didn't try opening the breaker.

If the homeowner didn't try opening the breaker, discounting my other argument that linemen should disconnect service to buildings before conducting work, then sure, I can see there being a breach of duty, subsequently meeting all five elements of a negligence case.

However, if he tried opening the breaker, but it failed due to material defect, I argue that there was no breach of duty. Reasonable man standard would indicate that when you open a breaker, there should be a disconnection of the circuit. If it were not the case that an open breaker would disconnect a circuit, then short of physically disconnecting service to the building, how would one perform electrical work within a building?

NFPA-70 might come in to play if the guy was an electrician, but even then, there are probably arguments could be made by the electrician(and/or his attorney) why said document doesn't apply.

[part deux]

However, there is one element that still needs to be determined - Breach of duty.

Spend the money to do it properly.  I installed this, it was super duper easy
http://www.homedepot.com/p/Reliance-Controls-30-Amp-10-Circuit-Manual-Transfer-Switch-Kit-31410CRK/202214969

Actual usage can't be any easier.. and safe.

[SteveS]

In this case, we can safely assume that four out of the five elements of a negligence case were met:

Duty - Reasonable man standard would indicate that a generator back feeding into the grid could pose a threat to the lineman. This I will not dispute.
Cause in fact - I also won't dispute the fact that the backfeeding generator was the cause of the linemans death.
Proximate cause - Again, something I wouldn't dispute. Assuming the breaker wasn't opened, I would argue that the defendant would have foreseen the potential damages from backfeeding the generator.
Damages - Obviously the lineman is dead.

However, there is one element that still needs to be determined - Breach of duty.

This is where it needs to be known whether the homeowner actually tried opening the breaker and it failed due to material defect, or whether the homeowner didn't try opening the breaker.

If the homeowner didn't try opening the breaker, discounting my other argument that linemen should disconnect service to buildings before conducting work, then sure, I can see there being a breach of duty, subsequently meeting all five elements of a negligence case.

However, if he tried opening the breaker, but it failed due to material defect, I argue that there was no breach of duty. Reasonable man standard would indicate that when you open a breaker, there should be a disconnection of the circuit. If it were not the case that an open breaker would disconnect a circuit, then short of physically disconnecting service to the building, how would one perform electrical work within a building?

NFPA-70 might come in to play if the guy was an electrician, but even then, there are probably arguments could be made by the electrician(and/or his attorney) why said document doesn't apply.

I think this is a pretty good analysis. Another thing to consider is whether the accident was foreseeable.

[tedalton]

Hey Pat turned out that AC unit is an amps hog on start so we hooked it up to the load dump control on the transfer switch.

This is the situation where I don't like Generac's load shedding.  There is no way to "lock out" a load.  What happens is:
If an overload is detected it disconnects all shedable loads for five minutes, then it starts load one, after 30 seconds it connects load two.  same for three, and four.  If at any point it detects an overload it starts again except it stops before the previous "higher" load.  eg. if three causes an overload it stops at two on the next try.  Here's where the problem comes in (imo) it tries again after 30 min.  So what will happen is, it will try to start the A/C every half hour, which is all well and good, but if you know it will not start the A/C there is no point in trying.
The easiest solution I've found is to use a simple "ice cube" relay with a 240v coil wired to the N1 and N2 with the normally open contacts wired in series with the A/C control wire.  If utility drops out it opens the A/C control circuit and the A/C cannot try to start.

[CV67PAT]

Two links don't work, and the other one wants me to download an executable (lulz no - plus I'm using Linux anyways).

Ultimately, the issue isn't ultimately with the NFPA-70 - I'll take your word for what it says.

The issues that I brought up in response to your article about the lineman still linger unanswered, as well as my subsequent recommendation about disconnecting buildings on the circuit.

To start, you claim that the homeowner was negligent, regardless of whether the backfeed (and subsequent death of the lineman) was due to the homeowner not opening the main breaker or there was a material defect with the breaker after the homeowner believed he had opened it, because NFPA-70 wasn't followed.

This assertion could not be farther from the truth.

In this case, we can safely assume that four out of the five elements of a negligence case were met:

Duty - Reasonable man standard would indicate that a generator back feeding into the grid could pose a threat to the lineman. This I will not dispute.
Cause in fact - I also won't dispute the fact that the backfeeding generator was the cause of the linemans death.
Proximate cause - Again, something I wouldn't dispute. Assuming the breaker wasn't opened, I would argue that the defendant would have foreseen the potential damages from backfeeding the generator.
Damages - Obviously the lineman is dead.

However, there is one element that still needs to be determined - Breach of duty.

This is where it needs to be known whether the homeowner actually tried opening the breaker and it failed due to material defect, or whether the homeowner didn't try opening the breaker.

If the homeowner didn't try opening the breaker, discounting my other argument that linemen should disconnect service to buildings before conducting work, then sure, I can see there being a breach of duty, subsequently meeting all five elements of a negligence case.

However, if he tried opening the breaker, but it failed due to material defect, I argue that there was no breach of duty. Reasonable man standard would indicate that when you open a breaker, there should be a disconnection of the circuit. If it were not the case that an open breaker would disconnect a circuit, then short of physically disconnecting service to the building, how would one perform electrical work within a building?

NFPA-70 might come in to play if the guy was an electrician, but even then, there are probably arguments could be made by the electrician(and/or his attorney) why said document doesn't apply.

There weren't any lingering questions in the minds of the jury that convicted the killers. So I guess they thought the so called "accident" was foreseeable.

[jgillmanjr]

There weren't any lingering questions in the minds of the jury that convicted the killers. So I guess they thought the so called "accident" was foreseeable.

That means you have a link to a follow article then, correct? Because I've been having a hell of a time finding a follow up article, and it looks like link to the original is dead.

[CV67PAT]

That means you have a link to a follow article then, correct? Because I've been having a hell of a time finding a follow up article, and it looks like link to the original is dead.

The link worked fine for me when I copied and pasted the information from it and referenced the source. And I'm not a computer genius. I'm just a stupid electrician that knows how to properly wire standby generators to prevent death or serious injury to lineman.

ETA: I'm done playing.

[jgillmanjr]

The link worked fine for me when I copied and pasted the information from it and referenced the source. And I'm not a computer genius. I'm just a stupid electrician that knows how to properly wire standby generators to prevent death or serious injury to lineman.

ETA: I'm done playing.

I read the original. The mention about the original link was commentary. However, the fact you say he was convicted would mean that there must have been a follow up article mentioning that.

So, source?