Jim,
It’s not necessarily the element but the connections and the thermostat that can create a spark.
Texas v. Ohio
March 3, 2008
As Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton race around Ohio and Texas for tomorrow’s primaries, they are telling a tale of economic woe. Yet the real story isn’t how similar the two states are economically but how different. Texas has been prospering while Ohio lags, and the reasons are instructive about what works and what doesn’t in economic policy.
There’s no doubt times are tough in Ohio. The state has lost 200,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000, home foreclosures are soaring, and real family income is lower now than in 2000. Meanwhile, the Texas economy has boomed since 2004, with nearly twice the rate of new job creation as the rest of the nation. The nearby table compares the states over a decade or so.
Let’s start with the fact that Texas’s growth puts the lie to the myth that free trade costs American jobs. Anti-Nafta rhetoric doesn’t play well in El Paso, San Antonio and Houston, which have become gateway cities for commerce with Latin America and have flourished since the North American Free Trade Agreement passed Congress in 1993. Mr. Obama’s claim of one million lost jobs due to trade deals is laughable in Texas, the state most affected by Nafta. Texas has gained 36,000 manufacturing jobs since 2004 and has ranked as the nation’s top exporting state for six years in a row. Its $168 billion of exports in 2007 translate into tens of thousands of jobs.
Ohio, Indiana and Michigan are losing auto jobs, but many of these “runaway plants” are not fleeing to China, Mexico or India. They’ve moved to more business-friendly U.S. states, including Texas. GM recently announced plans for a new plant to build hybrid cars. Guess where? Near Dallas. In 2006 the Lone Star State exported $5.5 billion of cars and trucks to Mexico and $2.4 billion worth to Canada.
Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, a Democrat who supports Mrs. Clinton, blames his state’s problems on President Bush. But Ohio’s economy has been struggling for years, and most of its wounds are self-inflicted. Ohio now ranks 47th out of 50 in economic competitiveness, according to the American Legislative Exchange Council. Ohio politicians deplore plant closings even as they impose the third highest corporate income tax in the country (10.5%) and the sixth highest personal income tax (8.87%). A common joke is that Ohio lays out the red carpet for companies – when they leave the state. By contrast, Texas has no income tax, a huge competitive advantage.
Ohio’s most crippling handicap may be that its politicians – and thus its employers – are still in the grip of such industrial unions as the United Auto Workers. Ohio is a “closed shop” state, which means workers can be forced to join a union whether they wish to or not. Many companies – especially foreign-owned – say they will not even consider such locations for new sites. States with “right to work” laws that make union organizing more difficult had twice the job growth of Ohio and other forced union states from 1995-2005, according to the National Institute for Labor Relations.
On the other hand, Texas is a right to work state and has been adding jobs by the tens of thousands. Nearly 1,000 new plants have been built in Texas since 2005, from the likes of Microsoft, Samsung and Fujitsu. Foreign-owned companies supplied the state with 345,000 jobs. No wonder Texans don’t fear global competition the way some Presidential candidates do.
So tomorrow the eyes of America will be on these two states moving in different directions. Ohio has an economy burdened by high taxes and work rules that impose heavy costs on employers. Texas embraces free trade, keeps taxes low, doesn’t impose unions on business and has tooled itself for 21st century global competition. Ohioans may not like to hear this, but for any company considering where to locate a new plant or move an existing one, the choice between Ohio and Texas isn’t even a close call.
The challenge for our national economy in a world of competition is to become more like Texas and less like Ohio.
Secure connections do not arc and the elements exposed portions are not hot enough to ignite fuel air mixtures.
Someone please explain the text I highlighted at bottom.
What don’t you understand, Bob? Or was that a retorical question?
First you must learn how to read.
I am guessing your sister does your typing.
Quit being an a s s! For once, try explaining yourself so someone can actually understand what the hell you are trying to say. :roll:
rhetorical question - definition and examples of rhetorical questions](http://grammar.about.com/od/rs/g/rhetquesterm.htm) linkscanner://safe.gif](http://www.nachi.org/forum/#)A question asked merely for effect with no answer expected.
A picture that you dug up from an unknown source is hardly an authoritative citation. The fact that it makes no reference to electric water heaters at all certainly is not an exclusion. I do like where it says codes vary though.
You’ve been presented with three sources that address the issue within the IRC, plus the official definition of an ignition source along with two state references. These are authoritative citations.
Agree, but how about the water heater thermostat (s)?
Much like a light switch, a spark will be present at the thermostat (s) when contact is made or terminated…
Cheers,
The fact that it specifies gas water heater is “one” clue.
Just sayin.
The smart a-s comments from out of work HI’s is why I may not renew.
As Chuck stated so well above…
As far as the “smart-***” comments… look in the mirror. I asked a simple, honest question regarding your normal “confusing” and “incomprehensible” comments/questions.
Good riddence! :twisted:
BTW… you really should not assume, that which you know nothing of!
If you do not believe that the thermostat on an electric water heater that controls a contactor that provides power to the heating element can produce a spark or arc that can be considered an ignition source then stop reading here.
If, on the other hand, you do think it can produce a spark then consider what the 2006 IRC says:
Like I said earlier there is some ambiguity there but many of us elect to interpret it as including electric water heaters. Feel free to draw your own conclusion and report as you see fit.
Why should I need to baby sit you .
Just read the illustration.
I need to repeat the words already in print for a sarcastic blowhard?
If a gas or propane fired water heater is installed in a garage, it is recommended, and many codes require, that it be elevated at least 18 inches (0.46 m) above the floor to reduce the potential for fire or explosion due to spillage or leakage of combustible liquids in the garage. Furthermore, some local codes mandate that tank-type heaters in new and retrofit installations be braced to an adjacent wall with a strap to prevent them from tipping over and breaking the water and gas pipes in the event of an earthquake. **(from wikipedia)
**
But what about electric water heaters? This is one of those many gray areas a home inspector has to deal with. Different municipalities have different requirements. Some require electric water heaters to be 18 inches off the floor. Most do not. And some require the lower element to be 18 inches off the floor, so an electric water heater may have to be raised 10 to 12 inches off the floor.http://www.prescottdailycourier.com/main.asp?SectionID=74&SubSectionID=107&ArticleID=78122&TM=78935.76
10.2 Located in Garages
Gasoline leakage or spillage in a garage is a possible danger. Gasoline fumes will evaporate
from liquid puddles at the floor level. Any potential ignition source should be elevated to keep
open-flame or spark-producing elements above the gasoline fume level.
A hot water tank with an open source of ignition should be elevated not less than 18 inches
(457 mm) above the floor of a garage. There is an exception for appliances that are listed as
flammable vapor ignition resistant (FVIR). (source is NACHI Hot Water Heater course PDF).
*Most likely it is a good idea in my opinion , but I can see why some might not see it as needed.
I would judge based on circumstances.*
I will.
Your contention that an electrical thermostat is an “ignition source” is, in my opinion, faulty…in that within the normal operation of an electric water heater, nothing “ignites”.
Yes they arc but that was not the issue that was stated incorrectly.
I am of the opinion that arcing and sparking parts should be above the 18" level where flammable vapors may be present but Jim is right about outlets not being required to be above 18" so it’s a bit of a paradox that is not clear in the codes.
As always it’s best to refer to the manufactures installation instructions and your local AHJ.
A spark is an ignition source period for any flammable vapors present at sufficient levels to ignite.
The way I see it, too, but, as usual, everyone will report what they think is the way to report it.
The t’stat a.c. contactor will most certainly pose a spark or arcing risk depending upon several things, the design & quality of the contacts, the speed of operation of the contacts and where in the voltage sine wave those contacts decide to close. If good, clean contacts close very quickly (we’re talking milliseconds here) and that just so happens when the a.c. voltage is at an ebb and crossing zero then no arc will occur. On the other hand, older pitted contacts or ones slow to operate (again we’re talking milliseconds here) and if the voltage happens to be at a peak of 110 vac when it closes then, yes, there very likely could and will be a spark generated. That’s the ignition source. You simply cannot make/break an electrical circuit that has a load on it (like the heating element) without the risk of a small spark.
Now, the only ambiguity left for me is that most electric water heater t’stat assemblies are already built into the chassis 18" above the bottom of the heater. Does that suffice or should the entire water heater still be elevated?
Even Rheem says the following on their electric water heaters:
Are sparks ever generated through the use of an electrical recepticle?