Re: leviton vizia RF switches (Z-wave)

Physics and the US and Canadian electrical codes dictate that one
shouldn't move loads around willy-nilly in the AC power distribution
panel, but in my case, I could make significant improvements taking care
to keep the loads balanced and compliant with the NEC.

While I agree that it is a good idea to balance loads across both phases, I couldn't find anything in the NEC regarding that
issue...

NEC 70 mentions the subject in relation to neutral conductor size requirements. The concern is that an unbalanced load can create
higher current on the neutral and (in the event of a break) on the grounding conductor.

I may have missed
it. Except for some slight variation in voltage due to line drop in the neutral, the only component in the distribution network
that might be effected by load balancing is the utility step-down transformer.

If the neutral opens any unbalanced load goes directly to the ground which might not be of sufficient gauge to handle it. This
could lead to overheating and possibly fire.

All three feeds to our main distribution panel are the same size, so the neutral is properly sized to handle the maximum current
from either phase. That is not always the case, particularly in older buildings.

I don't know the physics well enough to be certain but presumably that's enough.

Our major loads are the 240V A/C compressors necessary for this climate with peak summer temperatures well up in the teens.
Lighting and convenience circuits are almost all on one phase, and the other phase supplies most electronics, fixed appliances,
and other non-X10 circuits. The XTB-II is just driving the X10 phase. This configuration works very well.

We installed a 440/208 WYE transformer in my church some years ago. The chief electrician did careful load calcs to make certain
the neutrals and grounding conductors wouldn't be overloaded. Some time later the system got rewired to accommodate 40 or 50 new
1KW circuits. It took a lot of time getting it straight again. To date the place hasn't burned down so I guess we did it right.
:^)

--

Regards,
Robert L Bass

=============================>
Bass Home Electronics
941-925-8650
4883 Fallcrest Circle
Sarasota · Florida · 34233
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
=============================>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: a problem with electric meters?
    ... Sometimes significant load shedding is called for. ... Odds are that most shared neutral circuits found in the kitchen typically only have one significant load running at any particular time. ... (The light and "electronics" run on 120 volts.) ... IMHO multiwire neutrals are a bigger problem than ...
    (alt.home.repair)
  • Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v12
    ... for the load balancing interval to synchronize with their intervals ... on the load balancing interval here.. ... However, top, gkrellm and X seem to be always on the CPU with the single spinner. ... If I renice the spinners to -10 the problem goes away and the spinner to CPU allocation is 2/2 and top reports them all getting approx. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v12
    ... for the load balancing interval to synchronize with their intervals ... on the load balancing interval here.. ... If I renice the spinners to -10 the problem goes away and the spinner to CPU allocation is 2/2 and top reports them all getting approx. ... This may point the finger at the tick based load balance mechanism being too conservative in when it decides whether tasks need to be moved. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: [PATCH] sched: modify move_tasks() to improve load balancing outcomes
    ... The move_tasksfunction is designed to move UP TO the amount of load it is asked to move and in doing this it skips over tasks looking for ones whose load weights are less than or equal to the remaining load to be moved. ... one high priority and one low priority task, ... That task will be a high priority task stuck behind a higher priority task on its current queue that will be the highest priority on its new queue causing a preempt and access to the CPU. ... I said in the patch description that there are active/expired array issues that make load balancing less than perfect with and without smpnice. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: [PATCH] sched: fix evaluation of skip_for_load in move_tasks()
    ... The intention of this code is to make sure at least one busiest_best_prio task doesn't get moved as a result of the "skip for reasons of load weight" mechanism being overridden by the "idx < this_best_prio" exception. ... I considered this (as part of the original code to allow override of the skip for cases where moving a task will make it the best priority on the CPU -- NB no extra caveats about finding the best priority task which meets the criteria) and decided that it wasn't worth worrying about as the complexity of the code required to handle it would be considerable. ... Also, because we are actually moving a bigger load than is required to balance the total weighted loads on the two queues, there's an argument that we should move the smallest one that meets the requirement. ... Load balancing is probabilistic at best and extra effort trying to be perfect will be wasted. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)