Thread: Pretty funny pic..

At least the fire alarm will still work while its burning to the ground.

Similar Threads:

• Just thought this was funny...as we all struggle in a down-turned market
• Pretty painted ladies sought for award contest - Chicago Sun-Times
• A pretty crappy day
• I'm pretty sure this is wrong....
• Funny Pics

A Zinsco panel........... Did you write it up as potentially hazardous? It's in the same category as the FP Stab-Lok panel.

That is evidence that not all contaminants in a panel are equal. That is an extreme contaminant!
Immediately call for further evaluation and remedial action by a qualified licensed contaminate removal electrician.

And they breed and vote.

At the risk of speculating, it is amazing that someone decided that the cure for a constantly tripping breaker was to lock it it down. It also shows why Zinsco panels are not safe, because it worked.

Locking an automatic circuit breaker in the on position doesn't prevent it from tripping. This modification will only prevent someone from physically turning the breaker off.

Originally Posted by john f miller

And they breed and vote.

Ditto...

Originally Posted by Roland Miller

Locking an automatic circuit breaker in the on position doesn't prevent it from tripping. This modification will only prevent someone from physically turning the breaker off.

Correct. I suspect a landlord installed that clamp.

Problem - if the breaker is tripped, there is no indication. Hopefully there are lights on the same circuit. Even so, we see non-functioning lights all the time. They will just drag extension cords in. It is all stupid. Thanks, Marc.

Originally Posted by John Kogel

Correct. I suspect a landlord installed that clamp.

Problem - if the breaker is tripped, there is no indication. Hopefully there are lights on the same circuit. Even so, we see non-functioning lights all the time. They will just drag extension cords in. It is all stupid. Thanks, Marc.

I think this place was a adult day care facility.

I think maybe this was said for my viewing pleasure

Originally Posted by John Kogel

Correct. I suspect a landlord installed that clamp.

I think it is very unlikely that a landlord would install a fire alarm system.

Originally Posted by Marc M

I think this place was a adult day care facility.

In general (depending on your local requirements) all day cares (adult or child) are required to have a fire alarm system. A fire alarm system is not a regular home (or business) burglar alarm with smoke detectors connected to it, they are very different.
All fire alarms are connected to a dedicated circuit breaker (the fire Marshall has authority to make exceptions on this).
All fire alarms have a battery backup capable of lasting 24 hours (in standby mode)
All fire alarms have an audible and visual indicator when AC power is lost
All fire alarms must be monitored by a UL listed central station, including loss of AC power and low battery.
Fire alarms are registered with, inspected by and approved by the fire Marshall.
(Again, may depend on your local requirements)
I do not remember there being a requirement to have a lock on the fire alarm circuit breaker.

Originally Posted by Roland Miller

Locking an automatic circuit breaker in the on position doesn't prevent it from tripping. This modification will only prevent someone from physically turning the breaker off.

Thanks for pointing that out. I'm not sure many people realize that locking the handle will not stop the internal mechanism from performing its intended function.

Anybody wondering how long the screw actually protrudes beyond the dead front?

Probably not long enough to short to the conductor or bus bar at this time but the possibility of someone pushing on that cover and causing such seems plausible.

Why didn't the genius who installed such just lock the cover?

Ahhh...what was I thinking?

Locking the cover would have required a modicum of logic.

Mr. Cantrell posted some good information as well.

Not to demean any fire fighting personnel but you'd be surprised how little education some of these people receive as it pertains to electrical.

More likely than not, a fire marshall never even looked at the panel.

Nor would they require anyone to remove the cover and allow for proof that the branch circuit to a fire alarm panel is dedicated.

Then again, maybe it isn't actually a fire alarm but a smoke detector(s).

People confuse the terms all the time.

Tenants learn to shut those circuits off when the smoke detector sounds.

Code does not specify connection to a lighting circuit as was posted but as Mr. Peck once posted, we recommend that contractors do so.

Of course, in New York, smoke detectors are required to have battery back up.

But we all know that smoke detector baterries are designated for the kid's toys after the ones installed at Christmas run down.

Originally Posted by Roland Miller

Locking an automatic circuit breaker in the on position doesn't prevent it from tripping. This modification will only prevent someone from physically turning the breaker off.

Or resetting it, which is my point that if this "fix" cured a constantly tripping breaker, then something is wrong with the breaker.

Of course, as pointed out elsewhere, maybe someone was trying to prevent unauthorized fingers from flipping the breaker off, which is a different can of worms.

Correct. I suspect a landlord installed that clamp.

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell

I think maybe this was said for my viewing pleasure.

Not at all, Rick. I was thinking someone does not want the tenants disabling the alarm system. An occupant wouldn't install a clamp to prevent himself from operating a breaker. That was the extent of my thinking there.
Not condemning it either. A desperate move to prevent people from harming themselves and their accommodations.

Originally Posted by Lon Henderson

Or resetting it, which is my point that if this "fix" cured a constantly tripping breaker, then something is wrong with the breaker.

This would not fix a tripping breaker.

Of course, as pointed out elsewhere, maybe someone was trying to prevent unauthorized fingers from flipping the breaker off, which is a different can of worms.

The most reasonable answer.

Originally Posted by John Kogel

I was thinking someone does not want the tenants disabling the alarm system. An occupant wouldn't install a clamp to prevent himself from operating a breaker.

If this is a day care, then it is a business.
The Tenant is (most likely) the business owner.
A day care likely has several employees, the're are also the clients.
I'm thinking the business owner (the tenant) installed (or had someone install ) the lockout to keep employees and clients from turning off the breaker to the fire alarm. It could have even been the company that installed the fire alarm also installed the lockout.

I have yet to have the property owner install a fire alarm in a rental building.
I have had day care business owners (the tenant) have a fire alarm installed in the building they rent.

That pic brings back fond memories of my boss trying to 'fix' the darn overloaded circuit from tripping, and 1/2 the office lights going off. I found him trying to wedge/poke/jam all sorts of things to 'get it to stay on,' as he said. I tried to explain the purpose/safety issues involved, but he just kept on trying to 'fix' it. Glad I got out of there. Oh, and his former profession? Undertaker. Guess business was dying (sorry), so he changed careers, and didn't realize he could be responsible for an increase of clientele to that former profession. Curt Downs

Originally Posted by Lon Henderson

At the risk of speculating, it is amazing that someone decided that the cure for a constantly tripping breaker was to lock it it down. It also shows why Zinsco panels are not safe, because it worked.

It kind of scares me that you actually think this is true.

Originally Posted by Speedy Petey

It kind of scares me that you actually think this is true.

It is easy to see how so many of these threads devolve into swapping insults. The temptation to respond in kind is intense, but since apparently you are not alone in misunderstanding the inference of my earlier comment, I'll spend some virtual ink and real time, trying to make my earlier comment clearer. (Jim Port and Roland Miller, also, apparently misunderstood the inference in my comment, but responded without adding insults)

If locking down a breaker toggle actually prevents the breaker from tripping then that breaker is defective. That is the inference that you misunderstood in my comment. (The inference is contained in the last sentence where I said "It also shows why Zinsco panels are not safe, because it worked.")
Therefore, if locking down the toggle on the breaker in the photo is preventing it from tripping internally (for this discussion, it doesn't matter what would be causing it to trip) then that may point to yet another defect with Zinsco panels and/or breakers; and why Zinsco panels are considered unsafe. I stated at the start of that sentence "at the risk of speculation" because none of us actually know why someone locked the toggle down. As others have commented, it may have nothing to do with the breaker constantly tripping. But, it might. Further investigation, might lead to discovery of why someone locked down the toggle, but that's beyond the normal scope of the duties of a HI.

I easily understood the inference in Marc M's original tongue-in-cheek comment. I never doubted that he knows that locking down the toggle wouldn't prevent a properly functioning breaker from tripping and that his comment was sarcastic. I've seen a lot of misunderstandings in many threads, so shame on me, for being mildly surprised that my comment would be misunderstood and that some guys couldn't see the implied inference.

Hopefully, this has cleared up your misunderstanding of my comment, restored confidence that I know how a breaker works, and you no longer are fearful.

It also kind of scares me that you took that as an insult.

Obviously I was not alone in my interpretation of what you wrote, so there was really no reason for you to consider what I wrote an insult. I guess it is my frank nature that some folks simply cannot handle or maybe misunderstand.

Originally Posted by Speedy Petey

It also kind of scares me that you took that as an insult.

Obviously I was not alone in my interpretation of what you wrote, so there was really no reason for you to consider what I wrote an insult. I guess it is my frank nature that some folks simply cannot handle or maybe misunderstand.

Living in fear sucks......good luck with that. I know frank and you are no frank.

Originally Posted by Lon Henderson

I easily understood the inference in Marc M's original tongue-in-cheek comment. I never doubted that he knows that locking down the toggle wouldn't prevent a properly functioning breaker from tripping and that his comment was sarcastic.

you bet, slightly sarcastic.... My CA sense of humor.
Just posting what i saw as someones attempt at fixing a tripping breaker. In an adult day care.

Originally Posted by Lon Henderson

I know frank and you are no frank.

You may know frank but you DO NOT know me. I feel kind of sorry for you.
You need to let more stuff slide.