In alt.home.repair, on Fri, 03 Mar 2017 17:12:46 -0500,
wrote:

On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 11:55:00 -0800, "Tony944"
wrote:



wrote in message ...

On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 08:37:23 -0800 (PST), TimR
wrote:

On Friday, March 3, 2017 at 11:27:20 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 05:16:03 -0800 (PST), John G
wrote:

The current on that ground will be on every ground wire in your house.

Not exactly true. It will just be on the grounding conductor going
back to the main bonding jumper, that one circuit. (unless you have
bonded that EGC to other circuits down stream of the MBJ)
In normal installation these are star wired.
It still can present a hazard and it is still a 250.6 violation.

I agree it's a violation but the hazard part would require a couple of
other faults, wouldn't it?

Just one. An open EGC.

If a ground carries current but is at ground potential, seems like you
shouldn't get a shock. If the ground conductor was broken anywhere on the
path back to the main panel, all the connected grounds would be hot. But
then your light wouldn't work, you'd know you had a missing ground.

The hazard would still be there with the light turned off.

***Ground at no time should carry any current if it dose it means that some
how you ground and neutral; is ****ed up!!!

In this case, only the ground from the switch to the panel would
carry current - and a very low current. The ground and neutral are
"bonded" at the panel so the "ground current" would become "neutral
current" at the panel.
Not legal, but certainly a very low potential for danger "for someone
who knows what they are doing" - particularly as a short term
situation.

See, even you agree with me, "very low current", "very low potential for
danger", and "particularly as a short term situation." and your only
path out of agreeing with me is claiming I don't know what I'm doing,
which a) isn't true**, b) wouldn't make ANY difference in what was done.
What would someone who knew EVERYthing about electricity do differently
when he connected light timer to the ground instead of the neutral?
Nothing at all.

**You've been claiming that I don't know what I'm doing more than once
in the past, built you've never had a good example. I didn't argue with
you every time because it was likely pointless. The only thing you have
in this thread is your claim it's dangerous to let the wire from a
light bulb go into your hand and out somewhere else in that hand or the
same arm. Who is right about that is still debatable. One would get a
tingle, but nothing more even from a 150 watt bulb. But I'm in the
middle of packing for a long trip and I don't have time to do it right
now.

When I get back in June, maybe I'll remember or you can remind me. I
probably won't be reading this group after Tuesday and until then, and I
certainly won't have the parts to do the test until I get back.

That said, running "an extra wire" is not to code either unless we are

I wondered about that at the time, but it was 33 years ago and I was
young and "adventurous".

talking individual conductors in a conduit, and runs a MUCH higher
risk than using the ground for a neutral - particularly for "someone

No, not more dangerous at all, because its role was as another neutral,
and only when the alarm was sounding, which was practically never.

It was the light current not just the timer current, but the wire was
insulated, unlike the ground wire.

who really does NOT know what he is doing"
MUCH better to "ballast" the switch with an incandescent (purely
resistive) load or install a switch (timer) that does NOT require a
neutral connection..

I already agreed that that is a good idea, but let me remind you it
wasn't in your first reply. That was:
It definitely won't meet code, but it will work, it won't kill
anyone, and it won't burn your house down.
Do I recommend it? No.
Have I done it? Yes.
-- end quote --

And yet you're dumping on me again for doing what you've already done.
Think about that. This isn't a complaint, just an observation of fact.