"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 21:31:28 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:
"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:46:33 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:
"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:06:44 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:
"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 19:48:44 +0100, Jim Thomas
wrote:
"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 00:18:44 +0100, Jim Thomas
wrote:
"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 22:50:33 +0100, Tim Watts
wrote:
On 12/09/15 21:46, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 21:43:09 +0100, Fredxxx
wrote:
On 12/09/2015 20:21, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
snip
The trouble with RCDs is they aren't intelligent. And they
stop
you
taking nice shortcuts like using an earth as a neutral. Or
grabbing
a
neutral that happens to be nearby on another circuit when
you're
in
a
cramped space in the attic and can't be bothered finding the
right
one.
If you don't understand why a circuit protective conductor
should
not
be
used as a line conductor you're not very bright.
Earth and neutral are the same thing, they're both zero volts.
At some point in the distribution. Not anywhere else.
In my meter box. There won't be much more than a volt along the
cable
to
the rest of the house.
In fact
we could do without it and just connect the chassis of metal
equipment
to neutral.
And when your neutral breaks?
What's the chances of that? And if it did, everything would go
off,
and
I'd know there was a problem.
Not necessarily until after you had got fried.
What's the chances of me happening to touch the right things to
get
a
shock just at the point the neutral breaks?
Doesn't have to be just after, any time after the neutral fails
can kill you with the neutral connected to the body and you
have to go out of your way to never touch the body in case
it might have had a neutral failure
Ah, I thought we were talking about neutral failure in the whole
house.
That is much less likely to happen than neutral failure
with a single device.
Well I guess with this case, it would be better just not to have the
chassis connected to anything.
Yes, that's why the entire world moved to double insulated.
Which means you don't have earthed metal stuff all over the house
anyway
to connect you to ground. Think of a shock received in the kitchen
when
you touch live with your hand and have your knee on the earthed
washing
machine. If the washing machine wasn't earthed, you'd get no shock.
So your original proposal of connecting the neutral
to the body was stupid and the regs got it right.
No, it means you'd have one less conductor to bother wiring all over
your
house.
But don't have the safety feature of an earthed body that
protects against an active coming loose and connecting
to the body, or the device failing in way that connects
the active to the body.
The neutral would protect this just as well.
Not if it comes off at the same time the active
does, which is very likely when the end of the
cord in the device comes free.
In which case an earth would do the same.
That is connected differently, for just that reason.
It isn't economic to double
insulate everything, it makes more sense to have
an earth for the stuff that isn't double insulated.
And things that need RF shielding still get it. And if the live comes
detached inside the machine and touches the chassis, it blows the
fuse.
Not when you have backed off from your original stupid
approach of connecting the neutral to the body.
I hereby un-back off. Metal chassis which aren't well insulated form
live
should be joined to nuetral.
Which will kill you with an active neutral swap in the
power point or extension lead or a badly fitted plug.
That is the reason the regs don't allow that.
Why protect the very very very few that stupidly wire things backwards?
So that even those as stupid as you are less
likely to kill or significantly injure yourselves.
There's a reason the wires are colour coded.
But not everyone understands that stuff.
And you can't rely on the fuse to blow in a fault condition
that will still provide enough current to kill you.
********. If it won't blow the fuse, it isn't enough to even hurt you
badly.
That is just plain wrong. A lot more current is
required to blow the fuse than will kill you.
If it can't blow the fuse, there is some resistance somewhere, which means
you will be in series with that resistance, and not get the full voltage.
But the current is what matters and you can be killed
by a lot less current than it takes to blow the fuse.
The only problem that you're pointing out is you might get connected
in
series with the load, which is nothing like touching the live straight
up.
But can still be enough to kill you or see you fall off
the ladder and break something important etc.
You're such a pessimist. These things are very unlikely.
Same with anything that can kill you.
So stop worrying.
I don't worry. I do however have enough of a clue to check
if a car is coming before crossing the road and do things
safely when that is just as easy as doing things dangerously.
and with quite a bit of
stuff like power tools and small appliances, you actually
grip the body so that you won't be able to let go if the
neutral has failed.
AC allows you to let go of things.
Not when you grip something like that it doesn't.
Yes it does.
No it does not.
Did with me.
Killed others.
Survival of the fittest.
In your case it was survival of the most stupid.
That's one of the reasons why we have AC,
The reason for that is because that allows transformers
which reduce current losses in the distribution system.
That is another reason.
That was the reason for the change.
and why DC on trains is more dangerous.
I have done so. I just got a rather warm hand for a second.
And others have died that way.
Survival of the fittest.
You're actually the least fit, completely unemployable.
I am self employed.
Must be why you whine about having to
comply with the requirements to get benefits.
I do not have an alarm clock.
No point in one when completely unemployable.