Re: Why deliberately shorting equipment to blow breakers might be a bad idea . . .

[spamTHISbrp@xxxxxxxxx]

dpb wrote:
> spamTHIS...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > Robert Green wrote:
> ...
> > > ...I read messages from people who short outlets or
> > > wiring with a screwdriver (instead of using a meter or a fox and hound toner
> > > set) to find the controlling circuit breaker for that branch.  The article
> > > below points out the possible downside of that approach:
> > >
> > > Missouri: Inquiry Ties Wiring to Fatal Group Home Fire
> > >
> > >  http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/20/us/20brfs-Fire.html
> > >
> > > By LIBBY SANDER
> > > Published: December 20, 2006
> > > Hours before a fire killed 10 people in a group home for the mentally ill
> > > and disabled on Nov. 27 in Anderson, a maintenance worker trying to repair a
> > > furnace short-circuited wiring in the attic, where fire investigators said
> > > they believed that the fire started. The worker told investigators that he
> > > did not know which circuit breaker operated the furnace and that he
> > > deliberately tripped the system, according to a report from the Missouri
> > > Fire Safety Division. The wiring may have become overloaded, ...
>
> > If everything is "to code", aside from the personal hazard to the one
> > doing the shorting, this practice should be completely safe.
> >
> > But the consequences of something being amiss (not to code, poorly done
> > wiring, etc) and causing a fire, with damage or worse, is too high a
> > consequence to pay for a little convenience.
> >
> > Its a classic "low risk of occurrence, high cost of occurrence"
> > scenario.
>
> Something seems left out here.  As you say, unless there's another
> fault, there really is no reason this should cause any problem
> whatsoever -- how does the breaker or rest of the circuit "know" it was
> a deliberate act as opposed to accidental or a faulty piece of
> equipment plugged into an outlet or a ground fault developed in the
> furnace blower motor?  All the breaker was supposed to do was trip to
> remove the fault condition.  Did it not do so?  If it did, how was
> there an "overload" in a dead circuit?  Was the breaker over-sized for
> the branch wiring?
>
> The fundamental fault appears more deeply embedded and the consequence
> could just as easily have occurred had there been another causative
> action so I think faulting the maintenance worker unless he left an
> undersized jumper in place or some other action other than simply
> causing the short seems short-sighted -- finding the underlying fault
> that then caused the result should be the focus of investigation, not
> simply a person to point blame at.  Then again, if he was smoking at
> the same time, too, and dropped the end of his cigarette in the attice
> w/ onto something flammable beside the location he got access to the
> wiring to make the short...
>
> In all, I think there's more to the story still untold...

Just wanted to note I wasn't trying to support this practice in any
way- it's never responsible to commit an act that might endanger others
unless every last thing is perfect.

Dave