Charlie Self writes:
On Jan 9, 10:50=A0am, dpb wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , dpb =
wrote:

Trying to imagine what would be so flagrantly wrong that could justify
such a recall but not be obvious enough it simply wouldn't have worked
in reality, anyway.

Here's an example of that, from my first house, discovered when I remod=
eled
the bathroom. Entire house was wired with BX. Medicine cabinet in bathr=
oom had
fluorescent lights and an outlet for plugging in an electric razor. Lig=
hts
controlled by wall switch, outlet hot all the time. Only one 14-2 BX ca=
ble
entering the medicine cabinet -- it had been wired using the cable armo=
r as
the neutral. Worked, but obviously hazardous.

What was the neutral of the cable used for?

But did the subject book show/recommend such an installation is the
question?

--

IIRC, BX cable used to not have a neutral. Two wires. Some may have,
but I never saw it. A friend once told me that knob and tube wiring
was the safest ever, even though it never ran a neutral. I dunno, but
I worked with it once and it's an eerie experience in some ways.

methinks you're confusing a neutral (grounded conductor) with a ground
(grounding conductor).

In Miller's setup, both conductors in the BX were used to supply the
hot side of the circuit to the light and the outlet, with the armor
providing the return path (grounded conductor). This violates
pretty much every version of the NEC I've ever seen.

Using the armor as a grounding conductor used to be ok per code, but now
only EMT or solid metallic conduit can be used as a grounding conductor,
however neither AL flex conduit nor BX may be used as the grounding conductor.

scott