just how dangerous is the neutral wire?

Oh my. I've been reading this thread, watching you guys beat the dead horse. I'm loving it. I'm glad to see some humor injected into this. I laughed out loud to the point my wife had to come ask what was so funny.

Reply to
Brian Dugas
Loading thread data ...

I'm reading responses to this post, but it's taking forever. But anyway, I would love if ya'll would draw up some pictures of your own hypothetical and "what ifs" and email them to me at snipped-for-privacy@cox.net. I'll put them on my website for all to see. Once I get a picture, I'll post a link. I think I could learn a lot if I had a visual of some of these "what if" situations. Brian

Reply to
Brian Dugas

But anyway, I

hypothetical and

link. I think I

if" situations.

you are making a big deal over nothing... the neutral is only dangerous if its undersized and or not well grounded. If its undersized it can cause a fire...if its not well grounded when you touch it you can become the ground...thats a problem.

Otherwise the neutral is safe.

Phil Scott

wiring

was

ground.

on

becomes

the

everything

ago).

normal

via

voltage

in

wire

require

shock

situations

The

circuit.

is

through

is

are

where

disconnects

-----------------

-----------------

>
Reply to
Phil Scott

| I'm reading responses to this post, but it's taking forever. But anyway, I | would love if ya'll would draw up some pictures of your own hypothetical and | "what ifs" and email them to me at snipped-for-privacy@cox.net. I'll put them on my | website for all to see. Once I get a picture, I'll post a link. I think I | could learn a lot if I had a visual of some of these "what if" situations.

Some are rather complicated; probably beyond the scope of ASCII art, which is about all I have at the moment. When I get my Windblows machine back up, I could perhaps make something in Visio.

I have now found where I can get all major electrical appliances in versions that do not use a neutral wire if they need 240 volts. So I feel I'll be safer from a ground-fault perspective by using as many things as possible on

240 volts, ignoring NEC 210.6(A)(2). Amazingly, lots of stuff will run on 240 volts, even at 60 Hz. I found out most clothes dryers have an alternate pulley for the motor to run on 50 or 60 Hz (speed accuracy is important to get the cloths to tumble just right), and many have dual-voltage motors, or an alternate voltage one available.

People thought I was crazy when I sprung for grounded outlets in the 1960's. Gotta keep up the act :-)

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

| you are making a big deal over nothing... the neutral is only | dangerous if its undersized and or not well grounded. If its | undersized it can cause a fire...if its not well grounded when | you touch it you can become the ground...thats a problem.

Well, you see, I believe it is NOT "well grounded" by being bonded to ground at exactly one point. It would have to be bonded to ground at every junction point to be "well grounded", and that cannot be done for other reasons.

So basically it comes down to this. I'm classifying wires as either current carrying conductors, or non-current carrying ground(s).

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

only

its

when

bonded to ground

at every junction

other reasons.

OK I wont disagree with you... I look at all things in a relative light. Yes the neutral of over loaded somewhere in a house wiring grid for instance can have issues...I consider them minor...but then I test for 220 vac with my finger, and at age 64 I still run a kick ass motorcycle in flat track competition. So what I see as a minor issue, like getting a little jolt with the odds of death in that circumstance REAL....but still less than one in 100,000 or a million whatever.... as compared to much higher odds touching a hot line...I say that this discussion of the 'dangerous' neutral is pressing a bit.

as either current

Thats stretching it then... when a neutral is grounded and they are.. then that current, being on a wire already will predominantly go to its ground... and only to a much lesser degree though the human beings high resistance body , 300 ohms according one respondant, to ground... thats trace levels of current through the person from touching a typical grounded neutral.

but YES YES of course there can be extended circumstances of all sorts but thats rare ...and in most cases if the neutral is grounded not a probelm...but YES ..........Y E S... as in positively...YES.... in one case in 500 billion... the grounded neutral could be truly dangerous. well maybe its one case in a trillion. whatever.

Or maybe you can give us an example where it is more commonly dangerous as compared to say LINE 1.

Phil Scott

-----------------

-----------------

Reply to
Phil Scott

| OK I wont disagree with you... I look at all things in a | relative light. Yes the neutral of over loaded somewhere in a | house wiring grid for instance can have issues...I consider | them minor...but then I test for 220 vac with my finger, and | at age 64 I still run a kick ass motorcycle in flat track | competition. So what I see as a minor issue, like getting a | little jolt with the odds of death in that circumstance | REAL....but still less than one in 100,000 or a million | whatever.... as compared to much higher odds touching a hot | line...I say that this discussion of the 'dangerous' neutral | is pressing a bit.

If I have a purpose for doing something I know is dangerous, such as tapping conductors with my finger to test voltage (which I have never done, BTW), so be it. My choice. But if I don't have a purpose, then I think I should do what I can to minimize the danger. So basically, I'll be making sure I have interruption on all current carrying conductors and even have GFCI and AFCI in places the code doesn't require, then you find me out back somewhere trying juice a Tesla coil up to 500kV. If I am going to die by electricity, I'd rather it be something where I had some fun with that electricity.

|> So basically it comes down to this. I'm classifying wires | as either current |> carrying conductors, or non-current carrying ground(s). | | Thats stretching it then... when a neutral is grounded and | they are.. then that current, being on a wire already will | predominantly go to its ground... and only to a much lesser | degree though the human beings high resistance body , 300 ohms | according one respondant, to ground... thats trace levels of | current through the person from touching a typical grounded | neutral.

I did see a couple days ago a diagram of a "spa panel" that consisted of a high current GFCI (a big CT in the back, test and reset buttons in front, and interruptable relay circuit) which drove a 3-pole contactor. It interrupted the neutral. This was for up to 80 amps.

GFCI receptacles are interrupting the neutral, too. So it seems there is interest in interrupting the neutral in a ground fault situation. The only case I see where this is NOT happening is breakers that go into distributed phasing bus panels (such as Square-D QO). While there will be dispute over how important it is, I do believe the breaker solutions offer less protection than the receptacle versions, or the rigged up versions.

| but YES YES of course there can be extended circumstances of | all sorts but thats rare ...and in most cases if the neutral | is grounded not a probelm...but YES ..........Y E S... as in | positively...YES.... in one case in 500 billion... the | grounded neutral could be truly dangerous. well maybe its one | case in a trillion. whatever.

I guess we'll be in disagreement over the numbers.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

I had 2 in line, 1 GFCI, 1 15A over the kitchen sink & to a refridgerator.

I may have to go back to that location for some follow up work in the LR I'll retest this acconticement and write about why it may have happened thus.

maybe I was too high on helping others to remember just exactly what happened, but i solemly remember the circuit interuptor not testing for the trip without it being on the box/ground.

oh & my receptacle/gfci tester indicated an open ground of course.

®oy

Roy... you are talking to a bunch of humorless white knuckled egotists that don't even have a vacuum tube adaptable for use at the rift... you do.

what do you expect people with no clue would know about FGCB's no. Of course not. Most of these guys didnt even know about back emf to the grid, using as they were only the single definition of emf= voltage .. amazin.

But we forgives em... they have not been there so know not of the rift or the insight mere contact with its initial acceleration fields in the white blue bands impart.

Phil Scott

Reply to
Phil Scott

system.They (ConEd)

sectors of the

the network

flooded with

and no one

fine on 116

|> -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------

|> -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------

voltage that you

day and even

goes negative

power

long, so

NOW you are starting to get smart. They give with one hand and take with the other and then charge you for what they gave... then took back they charge you again.. So I will put a rectifier in so I get to keep what I pay for. It comes in but it cant get out that way.

there is no escape. For a guy without a rift access tube you are starting to show signs of intelligence. Stay with Roy after a time you will be up to speed.

formatting link

Phil Scott

-----------------

-----------------

>
Reply to
Phil Scott

|> Yeah, I've noticed it does go up an down. Hell, it even | goes negative |> half the time. And it's quite frequent, too. I guess the | power |> company doesn't want me to keep their electricity for very | long, so |> they suck it back 60 times a second. | | | NOW you are starting to get smart. They give with one hand | and take with the other and then charge you for what they | gave... then took back they charge you again.. So I will put | a rectifier in so I get to keep what I pay for. It comes in | but it cant get out that way.

Actually, what you should do is put two rectifier on there so you can get twice as much. When they suck the power back, they give it a push on the other end. So steal those electrons, too.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

the

very

hand

put

in

so

they

too.

GOOD thinking. Very good.

Its funny once you see through the fraud all sorts of solutions pop up.

-----------------

-----------------

>
Reply to
Phil Scott

=A0 =A0 For a guy without a rift access tube you are starting to show signs of intelligence. Stay with Roy after a time you will be up to speed.

formatting link

Phil Scott

--

---------------------------------------------- Those neo-tech's have been after me to join for the longest, Phil don't tell me you're one of them };-) I found nothing "tech" about them..... I'm developing a Portal to bipass the Rift, but i almost got drawn in trying to use a motor as a generator too a duplicated the hazard =3D not enough Generation to Bipass the Enhanced Rift while testing the Portal :z) It would have been fatal if not for the aid of a strange Rift Patrol attachement that came through it in a nick of time to warn me.

I'm not quiting... With the portal we can go through any dimension abating the Rifts & acquiring a clean sweep of the premise.

Roy Q.T.

--

----------------------------------------------

Reply to
Roy Q.T.

For a guy without a rift access tube you are starting to show signs of intelligence. Stay with Roy after a time you will be up to speed.

formatting link

Phil Scott

--

---------------------------------------------- Those neo-tech's have been after me to join for the longest,

Those are the fake neo-techs... one of them a scientologist jerk.... those scientology culties are heavy into recruiting.

you can't 'join' the real original neo techs.. they just sell books and rave a lot. I sent in to Neo-tech.com for a mini book a few years ago...got it in the mail a few days later ...and have not heard from them since. They don't recruit or push their books.

the real neo tech credo is that collapse of the existing cluster f*ck is completel unavoidable ..."there is no escape for the slime bags"... and that no help is required in seeing to that... only advice can be useful in side stepping the falling brick so to speak.

I am not a neo-tech dood per se...I read most of their site about 5 years ago..a long read... and check in about once a year for an hour or so to see whats new.

Phil don't tell me you're one of them };-) I found nothing "tech" about them.....

I love the guy... to appreciate him you must learn to read between the lines big time. He is not for literalists.

You think he is nutz because you did *NOT have your rift tube plugged in when you were reading the entire web site.... it takes time for the mind meld to take place.

I'm developing a Portal to bipass the Rift, but i almost got drawn in trying to use a motor as a generator too a duplicated the hazard = not enough Generation to Bipass the Enhanced Rift while testing the Portal :z)

Thats all above my level of expertise, i will have to defer to your research on those issues,

It would have been fatal if not for the aid of a strange Rift Patrol attachement that came through it in a nick of time to warn me.

You could SELL this to the scientologists...their Galactic Patrol as we speak is in deep space fight off an invasion of the Marcab mother ships.

I'm not quiting... With the portal we can go through any dimension abating the Rifts & acquiring a clean sweep of the premise.

Yes Yes... clean sweep.... you are a neo-tech man after all. there is no escape.

Phil Scott

Roy Q.T.

--

----------------------------------------------

Reply to
Phil Scott

hahaha that had nothing to do with this post.... the neutral isn't dangerous but the white conductor from a circuit May Be quite dangerous just like the hot wire, by itself it's not dangerous at all.... =AEoy

OH! forget the rift manager tube, just have a parachute for the fall };-) if you believe you can't fly in the 6th dimension.

Reply to
Roy Q.T.

Seems not many understand what role the nuetral plays. First in single phase it should correctly be called the "grounded conductor", then it is a current carrying conductor (but at low after load voltage) and misunderstanding of how it functions is one of the largest causes of electrical problems. The neutral is a transformer balancing conductor and its function has little to do with it's single connection to earth ground. Poor "grounded conductor" connections or inadvertent connections to an earth ground (other than the main bonding jumper)cause voltage level problems that shorten the life of all components and extent the trip time of circuit breakers. If you think that in an electrical panel that the white wires can correctly share the same bus connections as the bare wires then you do not understand what is really happening to the electricity and the function of the grounded conductor.

Reply to
Ed

| Seems not many understand what role the nuetral plays. First in single phase it | should correctly be called the "grounded conductor", then it is a current | carrying conductor (but at low after load voltage) and misunderstanding of how | it functions is one of the largest causes of electrical problems. The neutral is | a transformer balancing conductor and its function has little to do with it's | single connection to earth ground. Poor "grounded conductor" connections or | inadvertent connections to an earth ground (other than the main bonding | jumper)cause voltage level problems that shorten the life of all components and | extent the trip time of circuit breakers. If you think that in an electrical | panel that the white wires can correctly share the same bus connections as the | bare wires then you do not understand what is really happening to the | electricity and the function of the grounded conductor.

You are correct that the concern really involves whatever conductor is the grounded conductor. In a 2-wire system, one conductor is grounded, but it's technically not the neutral because there isn't a neutral.

However, the original concern is the voltage available on this conductor due to its use as a current carrying conductor and it's distance from the one point where it is bonded to ground. The conductor does not have zero impedance, so it will have some voltage when load is applied. Part of figuring out that voltage involves the impedance of that conductor and its effective voltage drop under the effects of the load and other impedances in the system. This voltage would not be that high, maybe 1 or 2 volts in typical cases. My concern is it some cases it could get high. That and the fact that it is a grounded system (low voltage lighting with exposed conductors is, by comparison, an ungrounded system), could create some shock hazard at some points where ground contact is also available.

If it is perfectly safe, then we really don't need a separate grounding conductor. But we would rather have the frames of appliances connected to the grounding conductor rather than the grounded conductor. So which of those 2 is the mroe dangerous, and to what degree?

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

Under normal circumstances, neither one is dangerous. Introduce a defect or defects, and all bets are off.

The egc requires 2 defects (one to energize it and one to disconnect it from ground) to become dangerous, while the neutral can become dangerous with one defect.

Ed

Reply to
ehsjr

On Tue, 17 May 2005 00:30:12 GMT ehsjr wrote: | snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: |> On 13 May 2005 09:32:29 -0700 Ed wrote: |> |> | Seems not many understand what role the nuetral plays. First in single phase it |> | should correctly be called the "grounded conductor", then it is a current |> | carrying conductor (but at low after load voltage) and misunderstanding of how |> | it functions is one of the largest causes of electrical problems. The neutral is |> | a transformer balancing conductor and its function has little to do with it's |> | single connection to earth ground. Poor "grounded conductor" connections or |> | inadvertent connections to an earth ground (other than the main bonding |> | jumper)cause voltage level problems that shorten the life of all components and |> | extent the trip time of circuit breakers. If you think that in an electrical |> | panel that the white wires can correctly share the same bus connections as the |> | bare wires then you do not understand what is really happening to the |> | electricity and the function of the grounded conductor. |> |> You are correct that the concern really involves whatever conductor is |> the grounded conductor. In a 2-wire system, one conductor is grounded, |> but it's technically not the neutral because there isn't a neutral. |> |> However, the original concern is the voltage available on this |> conductor due to its use as a current carrying conductor and it's |> distance from the one point where it is bonded to ground. The |> conductor does not have zero impedance, so it will have some voltage |> when load is applied. Part of figuring out that voltage involves the |> impedance of that conductor and its effective voltage drop under the |> effects of the load and other impedances in the system. This voltage |> would not be that high, maybe 1 or 2 volts in typical cases. My |> concern is it some cases it could get high. That and the fact that it |> is a grounded system (low voltage lighting with exposed conductors is, |> by comparison, an ungrounded system), could create some shock hazard at |> some points where ground contact is also available. |> |> If it is perfectly safe, then we really don't need a separate grounding |> conductor. But we would rather have the frames of appliances connected |> to the grounding conductor rather than the grounded conductor. So |> which of those 2 is the mroe dangerous, and to what degree? |> | | Under normal circumstances, neither one is dangerous. | Introduce a defect or defects, and all bets are off. | | The egc requires 2 defects (one to energize it and one to | disconnect it from ground) to become dangerous, while the | neutral can become dangerous with one defect.

So why not connect the EGC to ground in multiple places to greatly reduce the chance of the 2nd defect? Doing so near the load (e.g. connect the EGC to earth or building frame) would greatly reduce the voltage difference at that location between equipment frame and other things people may be in contact with. Of course one problem with this is that the return path for faults won't be in parallel with the supply line.

My original issue is with the groundED conductor (which happens to be the neutral conductor in Edison style 3-wire circuits). I assert that it is also dangerous, though because it is grounded at a couple places, not to the degree the line conductors are dangerous. Still, I believe the level of danger justifies interruption of the groundED conductor in certain locations where people may readily form a lower impedance fault path to real ground (the places where GFCI protection of receptacles is required).

Most GFCI receptacles do interrupt both conductors, so they do meet the need as I see it. GFCI breakers, however, do not interrupt the grounded conductor; it merely passes straight through the current sensor. What I believe is needed is a GFCI breaker that does interrupt all conductors (except EGC). One workaround I have found is to place a contactor after the breaker. The normally-open contactor would be energized from the line coming from the breaker, closing 2 to 4 poles. When a ground fault happens the breaker would sense it and disconnect the line conductor(s). Then the contactor, no longer being energized, would open all the conductors, thus interrupting the grounded neutral at some point after the breaker opens the circuit. The contactor would still have to be applied to all conductors, not just the neutral, to be sure that when the line is energized, the line wires are not connected by themselves first.

Personally, I still dislike the idea of specifically depending on high fault currents to interrupt circuits. Much of the wiring requirements are as they are to ensure low impedance fault return paths. I believe that this approach is a legacy of the era of fuses. The first circuit breakers were designed principly to be replacement of fuses. But now we have newer technology in the form of ground fault and arc fault breakers. But we are only using them in limited circumstances. I believe if we use them in all circumstances, we will no longer need low impedance fault return paths in order to properly interrupt faulty circuits. These high current faults can and do result in high energy releasing arcs, often resulting in fires and serious burns. It is (still) my opinion that with most faults being line to ground, a high impedance grounded system can be made safer. Note that I am absolutely not referring to the typical industrial use of high impedance to avoid interruption of the circuit due to a single fault. Instead, what I am referring to is the use of a high impedance grounded system to reduce the fault energy, while at the same time detecting AND interrupting such faults immediately. There would still be overcurrent protection so that any line to line faults, as well as circuit overloads, would still also be immediately (or in due time as apprpriate for the overload) interrupted.

The problem with the above is that too people people have a fixed box of thinking about a "high impedance ground system" in terms of the way it is used in an industrial setting. There are certain dangers and risks with such a design in that setting, which have to be balanced with the dangers and risks of a non-orderly shutdown. As such, a single fault does not trigger an interruption. But the suggestion I am making is one that does not apply to the industrial setting, and would trigger an interruption as soon as any fault is detected.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

Pointless, unnecessary and costly. But if you have a concern, you could wire things up in metal conduit, which itself must be grounded, and include an egc inside the conduit. This would give you a dual egc path to ground, and would protect the egc, hot and neutral from physical damage.

Doing so near the load (e.g. connect the EGC

No, it wouldn't. The conductors are sized to allow no more than 5% voltage drop. That's ~6 volts, worst case. And it would be ~half that on the egc. So there is only ~3v, worst case - so you can't get a great reduction, nor do you need one. It is already safe.

Of course one problem with this is that the return path for

It (the neutral) is grounded at only one place - the panel. It can have a maximum of 6 volts with respect to ground at the farthest outlet.

Still, I believe the level

Do you believe 6 volts with respect to ground is dangerous? If so, why?

justifies interruption of the groundED conductor in certain

When a GFI breaker trips, interrupting the branch hot wire, the neutral wire for that branch is de-energized. Interrupting it at the panel would accomplish nothing, other than to disconnect the neutral from ground. Do you condsider that circumstance - an undgounded and deenergized neutral - better than a deenergized and grounded neutral?

Ed

Reply to
ehsjr

On Wed, 18 May 2005 05:28:37 GMT ehsjr wrote: | snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: |> |> |> | |> | Under normal circumstances, neither one is dangerous. |> | Introduce a defect or defects, and all bets are off. |> | |> | The egc requires 2 defects (one to energize it and one to |> | disconnect it from ground) to become dangerous, while the |> | neutral can become dangerous with one defect. |> |> So why not connect the EGC to ground in multiple places to greatly reduce |> the chance of the 2nd defect? | | Pointless, unnecessary and costly. But if you have a concern, | you could wire things up in metal conduit, which itself | must be grounded, and include an egc inside the conduit. | This would give you a dual egc path to ground, and would | protect the egc, hot and neutral from physical damage.

So making sure the voltage drop across humans is zero during a fault is pointless, unnecessary and costly? OK

| Doing so near the load (e.g. connect the EGC |> to earth or building frame) would greatly reduce the voltage difference at |> that location between equipment frame and other things people may be in |> contact with. | | No, it wouldn't. The conductors are sized to allow no | more than 5% voltage drop. That's ~6 volts, worst case. | And it would be ~half that on the egc. So there is only | ~3v, worst case - so you can't get a great reduction, nor | do you need one. It is already safe.

I think we disagree on what is a hazardous voltage level. Even these voltage levels can be a hazard in a few situations, like wet areas.

| It (the neutral) is grounded at only one place - the panel. It | can have a maximum of 6 volts with respect to ground at the | farthest outlet.

That is a concern to me.

| Do you believe 6 volts with respect to ground is | dangerous? If so, why?

Because it is enough, in the right conditions, to put through current levels that a lethal to a few people. The level of current that is lethal is just a statistical average. It varies from person to person. I know someone who could carry over 100 milliamps with no effect (I saw him do it). There have been cases of elderly people (probably on the cusp of a heart attack, anyway) that succumb to less than GFCI protection levels when that level is sustained.

| When a GFI breaker trips, interrupting the branch hot wire, | the neutral wire for that branch is de-energized. Interrupting | it at the panel would accomplish nothing, other than to disconnect | the neutral from ground. Do you condsider that circumstance - | an undgounded and deenergized neutral - better than a deenergized | and grounded neutral?

So why is it that they implement neutral interruption in GFCI receptacles? That's an added cost, so there must be some business or safety reason.

If branch neutral is still connected to the panel neutral, then you can still have whatever voltage is present on the panel neutral on that branch neutral. That can be above zero in two cases. One is where the panel is a subpanel which won't have a neutral to ground bond. The other case is neutral to earth (not EGC) voltage when there is stray ground current from MV distribution, with the most common case being the paralleling of distribution neutral and earth (it gets worse when the distribution neutral is broken for some reason and the distribution branch becomes a pure earth return, using service ground as part of that return).

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

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.