Is there any way to plug a clothes dryer on the 220V oven plug?

Hi, I was wondering if someone could help me. I have only one 220V plug (for the oven) in my appartment and I would like to use an oven and a clothes dryer. Would it be safe to plug the dryer on the oven plug? Is there any adaptor I could use? Thanks.

Reply to
mtl343
Loading thread data ...

The problem is your dryer needs 30a overcurrent protection and the oven circuit is probably 40 or 50a.

Reply to
gfretwell

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:06:04 -0500 snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote: | On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 00:32:57 -0800 (PST), mtl343 | wrote: | |>Hi, |>I was wondering if someone could help me. I have only one 220V plug |>(for the oven) in my appartment and I would like to use an oven and a |>clothes dryer. Would it be safe to plug the dryer on the oven plug? |>Is there any adaptor I could use? |>Thanks. | The problem is your dryer needs 30a overcurrent protection and the | oven circuit is probably 40 or 50a.

I wish they would lower that requirement. Sure, it would annoy people that want to overheat their clothes. But over 3840 watts to dry clothes? These things are electricity hogs. Too bad there is too much politics going on between two different fundamentally corrupt political parties in the USA for anyone to be able to get a requirement into the energy bill in Congress to lower the standard clothes dryer power needs. Try today to even find one that can run on a 20 amp circuit.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

It is simply physics. You have to evaporate "X" amount of water. If you dropped the power used per hour you would have to use it longer.

Reply to
gfretwell

They are not really such energy hogs, relatively speaking, when you consider that the average home dryer is in use, perhaps just one, or two (if that much) hours per day. In addition, most modern dryers have a heating element duty cycle much less than that (tied to a moisture sensor). Much of the moisture removal process take place just by air blowing through the clothes. The heating element makes this more efficient by insuring that most of that is dry air.

No, it's not as cheap or as efficient as a clothesline, but an electric dryer sure is convenient when you have a basket full of wet clothing.

Beachcomber

Reply to
Beachcomber

Or when you live someplace where a clotheline is not very useful, like most of North America above the 29th parallel right now.

Reply to
gfretwell

...wasting even more power (the motor will run longer).

Reply to
krw

I've got one that runs on thermonuclear radiation. Quite economical.

Reply to
Paul Hovnanian P.E.

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:19:38 -0500 snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote: | On 14 Dec 2007 14:12:11 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: | |>I wish they would lower that requirement. Sure, it would annoy people |>that want to overheat their clothes. But over 3840 watts to dry clothes? |>These things are electricity hogs. Too bad there is too much politics |>going on between two different fundamentally corrupt political parties in |>the USA for anyone to be able to get a requirement into the energy bill |>in Congress to lower the standard clothes dryer power needs. Try today |>to even find one that can run on a 20 amp circuit. | | | It is simply physics. You have to evaporate "X" amount of water. If | you dropped the power used per hour you would have to use it longer.

That's not quite true. You can only tumble the clothes just so fast. More heat doesn't work as effectively in removing the water if there is more heat than the air flow rate allows evaporation of. Sure, there is a higher evaporation rate. But it is not linear with respect to the power used. If you pump twice the wattage in, you do not get twice the water out, in since given time frame.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:59:40 -0500 krw wrote: | In article , | snipped-for-privacy@aol.com says... |> On 14 Dec 2007 14:12:11 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: |> |> >I wish they would lower that requirement. Sure, it would annoy people |> >that want to overheat their clothes. But over 3840 watts to dry clothes? |> >These things are electricity hogs. Too bad there is too much politics |> >going on between two different fundamentally corrupt political parties in |> >the USA for anyone to be able to get a requirement into the energy bill |> >in Congress to lower the standard clothes dryer power needs. Try today |> >to even find one that can run on a 20 amp circuit. |> |> |> It is simply physics. You have to evaporate "X" amount of water. If |> you dropped the power used per hour you would have to use it longer. | | ...wasting even more power (the motor will run longer).

There is an optimal rate. The motor can only run at a fixed speed to allows the clothes to tumble properly. Too fast and they don't fall in time to avoid just following the drum around in a circle. At this rate of tumbling, there is only so much effective air flow that can be used optimally. That dictates the heat rate. Yes, you can push it to dry faster at a higher temperature. But it is less optimal when you do that.

Modern dryers are more efficient than dryers of decades ago when the 30 amp "standard" came about. Back then, the dryers lost heat in a number of ways, and were not operating at maximum air flow efficiency. You could feel the outside of the dryer being hot; that's wasted heat. They run cooler on the outside today, so less power is needed for that optimal temperate and evaporation rate.

And the motor is actually a small fraction of the power involved, especally when on the high setting. By simply eliminating the high setting, you can have a dryer that can still have 2 or 3 heat levels, or use the automatic evaporation sensing mode, and never need more than 16 amps at 240 volts (with the motor figured it wired to 240 volts instead of 120 volts).

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

the motor speed is irrelevant. Lower power implies longer drying, which means the motor will run longer. The heater will take the same energy but the motor more.

Ok, but that's irrelevant to your point. You whined that they should be using lower power now. Power isn't the issue, rather energy. They are.

Good grief!

Reply to
krw

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 19:00:15 -0500 krw wrote: | In article , snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net | says... |> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:59:40 -0500 krw wrote: |> | In article , |> | snipped-for-privacy@aol.com says... |> |> On 14 Dec 2007 14:12:11 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: |> |> |> |> >I wish they would lower that requirement. Sure, it would annoy people |> |> >that want to overheat their clothes. But over 3840 watts to dry clothes? |> |> >These things are electricity hogs. Too bad there is too much politics |> |> >going on between two different fundamentally corrupt political parties in |> |> >the USA for anyone to be able to get a requirement into the energy bill |> |> >in Congress to lower the standard clothes dryer power needs. Try today |> |> >to even find one that can run on a 20 amp circuit. |> |> |> |> |> |> It is simply physics. You have to evaporate "X" amount of water. If |> |> you dropped the power used per hour you would have to use it longer. |> | |> | ...wasting even more power (the motor will run longer). |> |> There is an optimal rate. The motor can only run at a fixed speed to |> allows the clothes to tumble properly. Too fast and they don't fall |> in time to avoid just following the drum around in a circle. At this |> rate of tumbling, there is only so much effective air flow that can be |> used optimally. That dictates the heat rate. Yes, you can push it to |> dry faster at a higher temperature. But it is less optimal when you do |> that. | | the motor speed is irrelevant. Lower power implies longer drying, | which means the motor will run longer. The heater will take the same | energy but the motor more.

The motor speed is very relevant. If you could make the clothes tumble around in the air faster, then blowing the air through faster and running more heat would make the clothes dry faster in the same proportion. But you need to have all of these elements going at the advanced rate to make things work equally well in that lesser period of time. The problem is the motor speed for the drum CANNOT be increased because the clothes will not tumble through the air at other than a small range of speed. Ever wonder why dryers do NOT come with adjustable tumble speed (other than the ones with a dual belt position to adjust for 50 Hz vs. 60 Hz power to keep the tumbler at the same speed in all countries)?

|> Modern dryers are more efficient than dryers of decades ago when the 30 |> amp "standard" came about. Back then, the dryers lost heat in a number |> of ways, and were not operating at maximum air flow efficiency. You |> could feel the outside of the dryer being hot; that's wasted heat. They |> run cooler on the outside today, so less power is needed for that optimal |> temperate and evaporation rate. | | Ok, but that's irrelevant to your point. You whined that they should | be using lower power now. Power isn't the issue, rather energy. They | are.

The ability to turn the heat up beyond the optimal level for total energy efficiency should be discouraged. I don't want to prohibit it, just make it necessary for someone to go an extra step to get the higher heat if they really want it.

|> And the motor is actually a small fraction of the power involved, especally |> when on the high setting. By simply eliminating the high setting, you can |> have a dryer that can still have 2 or 3 heat levels, or use the automatic |> evaporation sensing mode, and never need more than 16 amps at 240 volts (with |> the motor figured it wired to 240 volts instead of 120 volts). | | Good grief!

I think you will find that the greatest efficiency of a dryer is actually the lowest or 2nd to lowest heat setting (depending on actual values of those settings). What I want is for dryers to be made available on the market that people can choose which are made for just this lower heat level that is most efficient. Such a dryer would do with smaller elements and smaller electrical wiring and switches. The plug would be smaller, too, using NEMA 6-20P or NEMA 6-15P instead of NEMA 14-30P. The circuit wiring for new work would also be less costly. People would save money on the product. Some people would save money on the circuit wiring. People would save money on their electrical bill. Everyone would be better off. But if you really want to toast your clothes and your electric bill, then go ahead and buy one that has a double heating element and uses a big NEMA 14-60P plug, ceramic tumbler, and microwave thermal source!

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

Not to this discussion it's not.

Irrelevant the the discussion at hand. If you'll remember, you were claiming that modern dryers used way too much power. You can reduce the power, but the time will increase. The motor will run longer, wasting power.

They already do. It's called "normal" mode (vs. "permanent press"). You're barking up the wrong tree.

Good grief!

Reply to
krw

Phil is as dense as DimBulb. :(

Reply to
Michael A. Terrell

The Op wants to know if he can use smaller current appliance on an existing circuit..

Of course you do that all the time with 110volt devices. Who ever heard of having a breaker rated to protect your clock radio. And it is the norm in 240volt 50 hz countries to plug in anything as long as it is not tooo big.

Unless this is not allowed by some obscure NEC provision in 240 volt USA installations Of course it is OK.

The breakers protect the wiring not the device. __ John G.

Reply to
John G

It is the manufactirer's instructions that say coonnect to a 30a circuit, which makes it a NEC 110.3(B)

Reply to
gfretwell

I really like my clothesline but I live in Montreal and winter is quite long. That's why I'm looking for a clothes drying solution.

Jacinthe

Reply to
mtl343

Does that mean you must blindly comply with some arbitrary figure dreamed up by the manufacturer or does it mean that is the minimum supply required?

-- John G.

Reply to
John G

Correct. In the UK a ring main circuit (using 2.5mmsq cable) will normally have a 30A fuse or MCB in the consumer unit but appliances connected via a 13A fused plug (usual for all appliances except a cooker*) will have a fuse in the plug rated to the appliance and it's flex.

Stuart

*Cookers will normally be hard-wired via an isolating switch to a separate 30A supply and use 6mmsq cable
Reply to
Stuart

That's likely to be country-specific. (It's true in the UK for breakers which are part of the installation, but I wouldn't make assumptions about elsewhere.)

Reply to
Andrew Gabriel

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.