"Trevor Wilson"

"Sillier than Anyone Else Alive "

Leaving the neutral failure issue aside, what would happen if I disabled
the Earth leakage detectors and drew power across the two phases.

**Depends on the equipment you connected. The damage might range from mild
to catastrophic.


** TW has misread the Q.

It is only about how domestic watt hour meters respond.


Would the two utility meters correctly reflect the energy I consumed?

**Briefly, yes.

** Indefinitely, actually.



..... Phil

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 22:12:24 +1100, Phil Allison wrote:


Would the two utility meters correctly reflect the energy I consumed?

**Briefly, yes.

** Indefinitely, actually.

Yep, that is how 415VAC is obtained.

terryc wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 22:12:24 +1100, Phil Allison wrote:


Would the two utility meters correctly reflect the energy I consumed?
**Briefly, yes.
** Indefinitely, actually.

Yep, that is how 415VAC is obtained.

But is it how it's metered?

I haven't gone through the math, and I'd overlooked the fact that each
meter sees a power factor of less than one, so I can't say now whether I
think the meters would read correctly. But if there's a way of looking
at the problem that makes the answer obvious, I've yet to see it.

Sylvia.

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:46:51 -0500, Van Chocstraw
wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote:
I have to phases of power supply to my house - so three power lines, two
phases plus neutral.

I've on occasion wondered what would happen if we lost the neutral line.
It seems to me that we'd then have the voltage between the two phases
across two sets of appliances, one set attached to one phase, and the
other set attached to the other phase, with the two sets in series as a
result of their common connection to the neutral wire. Since the two
sets are unlikely to represent equal loads, the net result would be a
large overvoltage on one set of appliances.

My electrician says it's not an issue, but I can't see why.

Any thoughts?

Sylvia.

With the exception of some pump motors, nothing in the house runs on
220. Even the stove splits 110 to the burners and 110 to the oven. No
neutral and no 110's to anything.

Ummmm ... The O/P is in AUSTRALIA, where the supply is nominal 230V
single phase, NOT in Merka like you presumably are.

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:33:40 +1100, Sylvia Else
wrote:

terryc wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 22:12:24 +1100, Phil Allison wrote:


Would the two utility meters correctly reflect the energy I consumed?
**Briefly, yes.
** Indefinitely, actually.

Yep, that is how 415VAC is obtained.

But is it how it's metered?

I haven't gone through the math, and I'd overlooked the fact that each
meter sees a power factor of less than one, so I can't say now whether I
think the meters would read correctly. But if there's a way of looking
at the problem that makes the answer obvious, I've yet to see it.

Sylvia.


Do it the old fashioned way: make a test! Can't be that difficult, can
it?

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:46:51 -0500, Van Chocstraw
wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote:
I have to phases of power supply to my house - so three power lines, two
phases plus neutral.

I've on occasion wondered what would happen if we lost the neutral line.
It seems to me that we'd then have the voltage between the two phases
across two sets of appliances, one set attached to one phase, and the
other set attached to the other phase, with the two sets in series as a
result of their common connection to the neutral wire. Since the two
sets are unlikely to represent equal loads, the net result would be a
large overvoltage on one set of appliances.

My electrician says it's not an issue, but I can't see why.

Any thoughts?

Sylvia.

With the exception of some pump motors, nothing in the house runs on
220. Even the stove splits 110 to the burners and 110 to the oven. No
neutral and no 110's to anything.

WHere are you located that this is true? Surely not in the US/North
America.

PeterD wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:33:40 +1100, Sylvia Else
wrote:

terryc wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 22:12:24 +1100, Phil Allison wrote:


Would the two utility meters correctly reflect the energy I consumed?
**Briefly, yes.
** Indefinitely, actually.
Yep, that is how 415VAC is obtained.
But is it how it's metered?

I haven't gone through the math, and I'd overlooked the fact that each
meter sees a power factor of less than one, so I can't say now whether I
think the meters would read correctly. But if there's a way of looking
at the problem that makes the answer obvious, I've yet to see it.

Sylvia.


Do it the old fashioned way: make a test! Can't be that difficult, can
it?

Of course not. I'll just get out the 415VAC resistive load I happen to
have lying around, and see what registers.

Sylvia.

On Nov 27, 7:46 am, Van Chocstraw
wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
I have to phases of power supply to my house - so three power lines, two
phases plus neutral.

I've on occasion wondered what would happen if we lost the neutral line.
It seems to me that we'd then have the voltage between the two phases
across two sets of appliances, one set attached to one phase, and the
other set attached to the other phase, with the two sets in series as a
result of their common connection to the neutral wire. Since the two
sets are unlikely to represent equal loads, the net result would be a
large overvoltage on one set of appliances.

My electrician says it's not an issue, but I can't see why.

Any thoughts?

Sylvia.

With the exception of some pump motors, nothing in the house runs on
220. Even the stove splits 110 to the burners and 110 to the oven. No
neutral and no 110's to anything.


Different system, there is no 110 here, only 240v and 415v


As for Sylvia, yes you would be charged for the consumption.
this situation would work similarly to a 3 phase delta type load

The load, even unbalanced as it is, would be a certain VA at 415v -
across the 2 phases

How the meter responds to power factor of the load in question would
be the only thing that may or may not register less KWH than actually
used, but this should be to the same degree as the same load in a
single phase install.


IF this wasn't the case, we would have big problems regarding billing
on installs having both single and 3 phase loads on the same meters in
3 phase premises.

Sylvia Else wrote:
PeterD wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:33:40 +1100, Sylvia Else
wrote:

terryc wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 22:12:24 +1100, Phil Allison wrote:


Would the two utility meters correctly reflect the energy I
consumed?
**Briefly, yes.
** Indefinitely, actually.
Yep, that is how 415VAC is obtained.
But is it how it's metered?

I haven't gone through the math, and I'd overlooked the fact that
each meter sees a power factor of less than one, so I can't say now
whether I think the meters would read correctly. But if there's a way
of looking at the problem that makes the answer obvious, I've yet to
see it.

Sylvia.


Do it the old fashioned way: make a test! Can't be that difficult, can
it?

Of course not. I'll just get out the 415VAC resistive load I happen to
have lying around, and see what registers.

Sylvia.
Two large lamps in series.

F Murtz wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
PeterD wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:33:40 +1100, Sylvia Else
wrote:

terryc wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 22:12:24 +1100, Phil Allison wrote:


Would the two utility meters correctly reflect the energy I
consumed?
**Briefly, yes.
** Indefinitely, actually.
Yep, that is how 415VAC is obtained.
But is it how it's metered?

I haven't gone through the math, and I'd overlooked the fact that
each meter sees a power factor of less than one, so I can't say now
whether I think the meters would read correctly. But if there's a way
of looking at the problem that makes the answer obvious, I've yet to
see it.

Sylvia.


Do it the old fashioned way: make a test! Can't be that difficult, can
it?

Of course not. I'll just get out the 415VAC resistive load I happen to
have lying around, and see what registers.

Sylvia.
Two large lamps in series.


I don't have any. I'd have to buy them.

Anyway, all a test would do is show that the answer is probably correct.
It wouldn't make it any more obvious.

Sylvia.

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:21:08 +1100, Sylvia Else
wrote:

PeterD wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:33:40 +1100, Sylvia Else
wrote:

terryc wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 22:12:24 +1100, Phil Allison wrote:


Would the two utility meters correctly reflect the energy I consumed?
**Briefly, yes.
** Indefinitely, actually.
Yep, that is how 415VAC is obtained.
But is it how it's metered?

I haven't gone through the math, and I'd overlooked the fact that each
meter sees a power factor of less than one, so I can't say now whether I
think the meters would read correctly. But if there's a way of looking
at the problem that makes the answer obvious, I've yet to see it.

Sylvia.


Do it the old fashioned way: make a test! Can't be that difficult, can
it?

Of course not. I'll just get out the 415VAC resistive load I happen to
have lying around, and see what registers.

Sylvia.

If you can't find it, you can borrow mine... Oh, wait, too far away!
bg Couple of (identical) resistance electric heaters, in series?

Sylvia Else Inscribed thus:

terryc wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 22:12:24 +1100, Phil Allison wrote:


Would the two utility meters correctly reflect the energy I
consumed?
**Briefly, yes.
** Indefinitely, actually.

Yep, that is how 415VAC is obtained.

But is it how it's metered?

I haven't gone through the math, and I'd overlooked the fact that each
meter sees a power factor of less than one, so I can't say now whether
I think the meters would read correctly. But if there's a way of
looking at the problem that makes the answer obvious, I've yet to see
it.

Sylvia.

I have three meters, one for each phase.

--
Best Regards:
Baron.

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:38:47 -0700, D Yuniskis
wrote:


This is how GFCI breakers work -- they watch for current "leaking"
off to ground someplace other than in the "return" conductor.

No they don't. They look for imbalanced current flow between the two
conductors.

Sylvia Else wrote:

Anyway, all a test would do is show that the answer is probably correct.
It wouldn't make it any more obvious.

Sylvia.

Sylvia,

Draw yourself a vector diagram. Then with some simple trigonometry it
*should* be more obvious.

Assume a resistive load between two of the three phases, with a load of
1 unit current and 1 unit voltage. The load will thus be 1 unit power.

Each single phase meter will see the in phase voltage as 1 / sqrt(3)
(240/415).

Each single phase meter will see an in phase current of 1 x cos(30).
Remember that cos(30) = 1/2 sqrt(3).

This gives the power measured by each meter as
V*I = 1/sqrt(3) * 1/2 sqrt(3)

The two square roots of three cancel, which, unsurprisingly leaves 1/2.
Thus each meter records 1/2 the power in the load, and you will thus get
billed correctly.

David

David wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:

Anyway, all a test would do is show that the answer is probably
correct. It wouldn't make it any more obvious.

Sylvia.

Sylvia,

Draw yourself a vector diagram. Then with some simple trigonometry it
*should* be more obvious.

sigh

The test wouldn't make it more obvious.

I said I hadn't done the math. The math would give the result, not make
it obvious.

Sylvia.

PeterD wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:38:47 -0700, D Yuniskis
wrote:


This is how GFCI breakers work -- they watch for current "leaking"
off to ground someplace other than in the "return" conductor.

No they don't. They look for imbalanced current flow between the two
conductors.

Gee, isn't that what I *said*? How do you get an imbalance if
current isn't *leaking* off to ground someplace other than
in the "return" conductor?

PeterD wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:38:47 -0700, D Yuniskis
wrote:



This is how GFCI breakers work -- they watch for current "leaking"
off to ground someplace other than in the "return" conductor.


No they don't. They look for imbalanced current flow between the two
conductors.
And how do you think imbalance is going to take place?

Think, Think, before hitting the send button.

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 17:40:49 -0700, D Yuniskis
wrote:

PeterD wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:38:47 -0700, D Yuniskis
wrote:


This is how GFCI breakers work -- they watch for current "leaking"
off to ground someplace other than in the "return" conductor.

No they don't. They look for imbalanced current flow between the two
conductors.

Gee, isn't that what I *said*?

No, you didn't.

How do you get an imbalance if
current isn't *leaking* off to ground someplace other than
in the "return" conductor?

Re-read your post.

PeterD wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:38:47 -0700, D Yuniskis
wrote:

This is how GFCI breakers work -- they watch for current "leaking"
off to ground someplace other than in the "return" conductor.

No they don't. They look for imbalanced current flow between the two
conductors.


How are you going to get the imbalance without some current finding
another path to the neutral conductor, which is bonded to the grounding
system at the main panel? You two are describing the same thing, from
different directions.


--
The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
PeterD wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:38:47 -0700, D Yuniskis
wrote:


This is how GFCI breakers work -- they watch for current "leaking"
off to ground someplace other than in the "return" conductor.

No they don't. They look for imbalanced current flow between the two
conductors.



How are you going to get the imbalance without some current finding
another path to the neutral conductor, which is bonded to the grounding
system at the main panel? You two are describing the same thing, from
different directions.



I know that you can be bond headed at times, but really, this is simple
101 Electronics..


D Yuniskis has it all over you. It's obvious that he knows more about
the subject than you.

Btw.
CLUE:
The neutral also passes through the fault device.

Think before depressing the SEND Button!

PeterD wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 17:40:49 -0700, D Yuniskis
wrote:

PeterD wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:38:47 -0700, D Yuniskis
wrote:


This is how GFCI breakers work -- they watch for current "leaking"
off to ground someplace other than in the "return" conductor.
No they don't. They look for imbalanced current flow between the two
conductors.
Gee, isn't that what I *said*?

No, you didn't.

How do you get an imbalance if
current isn't *leaking* off to ground someplace other than
in the "return" conductor?

Re-read your post.

I don't have to re-read it -- I *wrote* it!

A GFCI is nothing more than a tiny transformer with
"sense electronics" as its "load". The primary to the
transformer is the circuit being monitored. *BOTH*
conductors pass through the transformer.

Since an alternating current generates a magnetic field,
that field couples *through* the transformer to the
*secondary* of the transformer -- which is the "sense
electronics". The field generated by the primary is
a function of the *net* current flowing through the
primary "winding" (winding can often be confusing in this
context as it is usually just a "single turn" -- as such,
it doesn't even go completely *around* the transformer's
core!).

All of the current flowing *to* the INTENDED load (remember,
the GFCI can also see an *unintended* load!) goes through the
supply/hot lead, through the transformer's primary. All
of the current *returning* from the load passes through the
neutral/return conductor *also* through the transformer's
primary.

If any of the supply current has "leaked" away via some
other path (to "ground") -- like through a person's body -- then
the current to and current from will not be equal. As
such, the magnetic fields generated by each conductor won't
*perfectly* cancel out. As a result, some energy will be
coupled across the transformer's core to its secondary.

You can have a *lot* of gain across the transformer since
the secondary doesn't need much power to function. As such,
you can look for very small "leaks" even in circuits carrying
very *large* currents! I.e., aside from the physical size of
the transformer and the primary conductors passing through
it, a GFCI for a 1000A circuit is essentially the same as one
for a 20A "household" circuit.

(N.B. this would not be the case if you tried to *directly*
measure the individual currents -- e.g., resistively -- and
form the difference -- i.e., comparison -- algebraically)

If you've ever examined a GFCI circuit breaker, you will note
that it isnt the simple "two terminal" device of a regular
(non GFCI) breaker. This is because the GFCI breaker has to
have an additional "ground" connection (which a regular
breaker doesn't need) usually implemented with a short pigtail
(that you mechanically fasten to the panel's ground).

GFCI *outlets* are dogs. They work the same way but are
usually built of lesser quality components. Also, they
are subject to more abuse (each time an appliance is
plugged/unplugged). And, are often exposed to more
environmental extremes than a GFCI breaker in a panel box.

Also, note that there is no way a (typical) GFCI can "test
itself" to determine that it is (likely) operational. So, a
failure in the sense electronics can cripple the protection
feature in a way that is not obvious to the user (i.e., the
circuit still supplies "unprotected power").

Note that a GFCI offers no protection against an unintended
load directly across the hot + neutral. I.e., if you wear
rubber soled shoes (which is advisable when working with
electricity) and accidentally touch hot *and* neutral,
the circuit will gladly deliver its full rated capacity
*through* your body -- as if you were a light bulb! :
OTOH, if you did NOT have rubber soled shoes on (or had
some *other* path to "earth"), the GFCI *would* protect.
(i.e., don't fall victim to the false sense of security
that a GFCI protected circuit is somehow *safer* than
a regular circuit!)

Anything else you need to know? Wanna check my spelling?
Or, my grammar??

D Yuniskis wrote:

PeterD wrote:

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 17:40:49 -0700, D Yuniskis
wrote:

PeterD wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:38:47 -0700, D Yuniskis
wrote:


This is how GFCI breakers work -- they watch for current "leaking"
off to ground someplace other than in the "return" conductor.

No they don't. They look for imbalanced current flow between the two
conductors.

Gee, isn't that what I *said*?


No, you didn't.

How do you get an imbalance if
current isn't *leaking* off to ground someplace other than
in the "return" conductor?


Re-read your post.


I don't have to re-read it -- I *wrote* it!

A GFCI is nothing more than a tiny transformer with
"sense electronics" as its "load". The primary to the
transformer is the circuit being monitored. *BOTH*
conductors pass through the transformer.

Since an alternating current generates a magnetic field,
that field couples *through* the transformer to the
*secondary* of the transformer -- which is the "sense
electronics". The field generated by the primary is
a function of the *net* current flowing through the
primary "winding" (winding can often be confusing in this
context as it is usually just a "single turn" -- as such,
it doesn't even go completely *around* the transformer's
core!).

All of the current flowing *to* the INTENDED load (remember,
the GFCI can also see an *unintended* load!) goes through the
supply/hot lead, through the transformer's primary. All
of the current *returning* from the load passes through the
neutral/return conductor *also* through the transformer's
primary.

If any of the supply current has "leaked" away via some
other path (to "ground") -- like through a person's body -- then
the current to and current from will not be equal. As
such, the magnetic fields generated by each conductor won't
*perfectly* cancel out. As a result, some energy will be
coupled across the transformer's core to its secondary.

You can have a *lot* of gain across the transformer since
the secondary doesn't need much power to function. As such,
you can look for very small "leaks" even in circuits carrying
very *large* currents! I.e., aside from the physical size of
the transformer and the primary conductors passing through
it, a GFCI for a 1000A circuit is essentially the same as one
for a 20A "household" circuit.

(N.B. this would not be the case if you tried to *directly*
measure the individual currents -- e.g., resistively -- and
form the difference -- i.e., comparison -- algebraically)

If you've ever examined a GFCI circuit breaker, you will note
that it isnt the simple "two terminal" device of a regular
(non GFCI) breaker. This is because the GFCI breaker has to
have an additional "ground" connection (which a regular
breaker doesn't need) usually implemented with a short pigtail
(that you mechanically fasten to the panel's ground).

GFCI *outlets* are dogs. They work the same way but are
usually built of lesser quality components. Also, they
are subject to more abuse (each time an appliance is
plugged/unplugged). And, are often exposed to more
environmental extremes than a GFCI breaker in a panel box.

Also, note that there is no way a (typical) GFCI can "test
itself" to determine that it is (likely) operational. So, a
failure in the sense electronics can cripple the protection
feature in a way that is not obvious to the user (i.e., the
circuit still supplies "unprotected power").

Note that a GFCI offers no protection against an unintended
load directly across the hot + neutral. I.e., if you wear
rubber soled shoes (which is advisable when working with
electricity) and accidentally touch hot *and* neutral,
the circuit will gladly deliver its full rated capacity
*through* your body -- as if you were a light bulb! :
OTOH, if you did NOT have rubber soled shoes on (or had
some *other* path to "earth"), the GFCI *would* protect.
(i.e., don't fall victim to the false sense of security
that a GFCI protected circuit is somehow *safer* than
a regular circuit!)

Anything else you need to know? Wanna check my spelling?
Or, my grammar??
That's a very good run down

Btw.
there are Self testing GFCI's..
http://www.hubbell-wiring.com/Press/PDFS/H5185.pdf

We use these extensively. Coast more, but what the hell.

And those that get a little confused with the AGFCI units
which are mostly in the modern GCFI receptacle, just not
stated. Most don't know the difference.

Those that don't have U-ground corded devices get confused when they
still see their GFCI trip just from sliding in the
plug. This only happens with the newer GFCI's that include the arc fault
detection along with the ground fault current sense.

I just love it when high powered R.F. disturbances trip those lovely
AGFCI and AFB units

I also like it when the installer removes what looks like excess
neutral wire that's in a coil. by by RF choke. I haven't looked in a
code book lately how ever, Since it's not designed to teach those about
electricity, but just follow some guide lines for safety, I don't think
there is an assert about the coil being present. This is done via the
manufacturer for noise amuity. Not all may suggest to do this how ever,
if you see it packaged in a coil, bets are, you should keep it that way
or as much as possible. We have some Square-D line that will false
trigger if you remove that coil form, in the plant.

Jamie wrote:
D Yuniskis wrote:

Also, note that there is no way a (typical) GFCI can "test
itself" to determine that it is (likely) operational. So, a
failure in the sense electronics can cripple the protection
feature in a way that is not obvious to the user (i.e., the
circuit still supplies "unprotected power").

Btw. there are Self testing GFCI's..

Really? I stand corrected (I will have to chase down the link
to see how they work). Presumably, they test the sense
electronics *while* disabling the "trip" function? (I
can't see how else they could operate as you surely wouldn't
want the circuit to open each time it tested itself : )
In which case, I guess they hope that the circuitry that
inhibits the trip never fails! :

http://www.hubbell-wiring.com/Press/PDFS/H5185.pdf

We use these extensively. Coast more, but what the hell.

What sort of cost premium? Are they required for use in
certain applications (medical, etc.)? Or, is it just
"a nice feature to have"?

And those that get a little confused with the AGFCI units
which are mostly in the modern GCFI receptacle, just not
stated. Most don't know the difference.

Those that don't have U-ground corded devices get confused when they
still see their GFCI trip just from sliding in the
plug. This only happens with the newer GFCI's that include the arc fault
detection along with the ground fault current sense.

Ah, OK. So, I assume most modern electronic loads (i.e.,
things with line switchers in them like PC's) trip these
often?

I just love it when high powered R.F. disturbances trip those lovely
AGFCI and AFB units

RF as in *radiated* (not *conducted*)? Like someone keying
a transceiver nearby? How close do they have to be (i.e. does
this cause grief in actual *practice*)?

I also like it when the installer removes what looks like excess
neutral wire that's in a coil. by by RF choke. I haven't looked in a
code book lately how ever, Since it's not designed to teach those about
electricity, but just follow some guide lines for safety, I don't think
there is an assert about the coil being present. This is done via the
manufacturer for noise amuity. Not all may suggest to do this how ever,
if you see it packaged in a coil, bets are, you should keep it that way
or as much as possible. We have some Square-D line that will false
trigger if you remove that coil form, in the plant.

Is it an air core or ferrite? In either case, it is fairly obvious (?)
that this is something that is *meant* to be part of the assembly?
(contrast that with a pigtail that just "happens" to be coiled
up nicely for packaging)

Jamie wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
PeterD wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:38:47 -0700, D Yuniskis
wrote:


This is how GFCI breakers work -- they watch for current "leaking"
off to ground someplace other than in the "return" conductor.

No they don't. They look for imbalanced current flow between the two
conductors.



How are you going to get the imbalance without some current finding
another path to the neutral conductor, which is bonded to the grounding
system at the main panel? You two are describing the same thing, from
different directions.



I know that you can be bond headed at times, but really, this is simple
101 Electronics..

D Yuniskis has it all over you. It's obvious that he knows more about
the subject than you.

Btw.
CLUE:
The neutral also passes through the fault device.

Think before depressing the SEND Button!


Take your own advice, Jamie. You've been told on multiple newsgroups
how GFCI interrupters work, yet still claim they can't be used on two
wire outlets. I posted a link to a Leviton GFCI datasheet, and gave you
the NEC code numbers stating that they are allowed on two wire circuits.
Your reading comprehension is barely third grade level, and dropping.
Your are a typical 'lid' ham radio operator.

You are just a knuckle dragging moron who likes to troll. Go back to
writing your crappy software and leave electronics to people who know
what they are doing. There is no hope for you to ever make a post that
makes sense.


--
The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Jamie wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

PeterD wrote:


On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:38:47 -0700, D Yuniskis
wrote:



This is how GFCI breakers work -- they watch for current "leaking"
off to ground someplace other than in the "return" conductor.

No they don't. They look for imbalanced current flow between the two
conductors.



How are you going to get the imbalance without some current finding
another path to the neutral conductor, which is bonded to the grounding
system at the main panel? You two are describing the same thing, from
different directions.



I know that you can be bond headed at times, but really, this is simple
101 Electronics..

D Yuniskis has it all over you. It's obvious that he knows more about
the subject than you.

Btw.
CLUE:
The neutral also passes through the fault device.

Think before depressing the SEND Button!



Take your own advice, Jamie. You've been told on multiple newsgroups
how GFCI interrupters work, yet still claim they can't be used on two
wire outlets. I posted a link to a Leviton GFCI datasheet, and gave you
the NEC code numbers stating that they are allowed on two wire circuits.
Your reading comprehension is barely third grade level, and dropping.
Your are a typical 'lid' ham radio operator.

You are just a knuckle dragging moron who likes to troll. Go back to
writing your crappy software and leave electronics to people who know
what they are doing. There is no hope for you to ever make a post that
makes sense.


What a putz, you couldn't win a valid argument even if you were correct,
and that isn't vary often.

You're so far out of your element, the closes you can get is when
you go buy one, from Honda.

D Yuniskis wrote:
Jamie wrote:

D Yuniskis wrote:

Also, note that there is no way a (typical) GFCI can "test
itself" to determine that it is (likely) operational. So, a
failure in the sense electronics can cripple the protection
feature in a way that is not obvious to the user (i.e., the
circuit still supplies "unprotected power").


Btw. there are Self testing GFCI's..


Really? I stand corrected (I will have to chase down the link
to see how they work). Presumably, they test the sense
electronics *while* disabling the "trip" function? (I
can't see how else they could operate as you surely wouldn't
want the circuit to open each time it tested itself : )
In which case, I guess they hope that the circuitry that
inhibits the trip never fails! :

http://www.hubbell-wiring.com/Press/PDFS/H5185.pdf

We use these extensively. Coast more, but what the hell.


What sort of cost premium? Are they required for use in
certain applications (medical, etc.)? Or, is it just
"a nice feature to have"?

Just a nice feature, its not code to have one like this and
also, code makes previsions for life saving equipment where is,
you don't install one of these devices and the receptacle is
suppose to be a coded color, if every one follows these rules ?
I don't know. As far as cost ? I'm not the one that buys them
how ever, been told they are not cheap compared to run of the mill
versions.
You must remember that anything from HUBBELL is going to have a
premium on it. For example, the guys at work tell me it's cheaper
to buy a cheap extension cord because just one HUBBELL device cost
more than the whole cord!. So I guess if you factor in the other end
, and wire, you have yourself an expensive extension cord.

And those that get a little confused with the AGFCI units
which are mostly in the modern GCFI receptacle, just not
stated. Most don't know the difference.

Those that don't have U-ground corded devices get confused when they
still see their GFCI trip just from sliding in the
plug. This only happens with the newer GFCI's that include the arc fault
detection along with the ground fault current sense.


Ah, OK. So, I assume most modern electronic loads (i.e.,
things with line switchers in them like PC's) trip these
often?

Most devices that involve switchers, which of course generates
noise, have their own common mode chokes that blocks out sufficient
noise to prevent this. Some very older switch mode supplies may cause
the AGFCI to fault how ever, at one time, and maybe you still can, you
used to be able to purchase inline filters, which were nothing but
common mode chokes.

I just love it when high powered R.F. disturbances trip those lovely
AGFCI and AFB units


RF as in *radiated* (not *conducted*)? Like someone keying
a transceiver nearby? How close do they have to be (i.e. does
this cause grief in actual *practice*)?
Oh they have to be like driving by your home and it depends on the
installation in the home it self. Service vehicles like police and
fire that do not have a clean tail drop on their transmission can cause
wide band interference and cause these arc breakers to trip.

I also like it when the installer removes what looks like excess
neutral wire that's in a coil. by by RF choke. I haven't looked in a
code book lately how ever, Since it's not designed to teach those about
electricity, but just follow some guide lines for safety, I don't think
there is an assert about the coil being present. This is done via the
manufacturer for noise amuity. Not all may suggest to do this how ever,
if you see it packaged in a coil, bets are, you should keep it that
way or as much as possible. We have some Square-D line that will false
trigger if you remove that coil form, in the plant.


Is it an air core or ferrite? In either case, it is fairly obvious (?)
that this is something that is *meant* to be part of the assembly?
(contrast that with a pigtail that just "happens" to be coiled
up nicely for packaging)
The original Arc fault breaker never had a neutral wire supplied, you
had to bond the N with the bar yourself. This didn't last long because
installers were taking short cuts and not bonding them at all. Then,
a neutral wire was supplied with each device but was just folded or
big hand coiled for boxing. It was not to long afterwards they found out
that RF was tripping these so, for quick fix, they started to ship them
with the neutral wire coiled in a tight manner so that it could be
install with most of the coil still in it's form. They had a small slip
of paper in there suggesting the installation. The last time we saw a
new box, they no longer ship any revision notes like that. SO, I guess
it's assumed that most should know to keep the wire coiled and only undo
what you need to reach the bar.
To resolve issues where these coils have been cut out and you think
there is an RFI issue. Electricians have installed large gauge chokes
inline with the neutral that belongs to the AFB device.

The last time I talked to my friend that is on the NEC code board,
that gets together annually, he stated that these devices are still
being battled out among the committee and electrical Engineers etc.. no
2 sides can come to an agreement. go figure.

I know that we had big issues using them at work on HI-POT devices
that are mounted near a water source. The very nature of the device
itself is design to hit ground when a fault occurs, which takes out the
GFCI circuit. We had to install isolation transformer service for each
one of these devices to prevent a ground current loop to develop between
the neutral and ground.

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Jamie wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

PeterD wrote:


On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:38:47 -0700, D Yuniskis
wrote:



This is how GFCI breakers work -- they watch for current "leaking"
off to ground someplace other than in the "return" conductor.

No they don't. They look for imbalanced current flow between the two
conductors.



How are you going to get the imbalance without some current finding
another path to the neutral conductor, which is bonded to the grounding
system at the main panel? You two are describing the same thing, from
different directions.



I know that you can be bond headed at times, but really, this is simple
101 Electronics..

D Yuniskis has it all over you. It's obvious that he knows more about
the subject than you.

Btw.
CLUE:
The neutral also passes through the fault device.

Think before depressing the SEND Button!



Take your own advice, Jamie. You've been told on multiple newsgroups
how GFCI interrupters work, yet still claim they can't be used on two
wire outlets. I posted a link to a Leviton GFCI datasheet, and gave you
the NEC code numbers stating that they are allowed on two wire circuits.
Your reading comprehension is barely third grade level, and dropping.
Your are a typical 'lid' ham radio operator.

You are just a knuckle dragging moron who likes to troll. Go back to
writing your crappy software and leave electronics to people who know
what they are doing. There is no hope for you to ever make a post that
makes sense.


What a putz, you couldn't win a valid argument even if you were correct,
and that isn't vary often.

You're so far out of your element, the closes you can get is when
you go buy one, from Honda.

Jamie wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Jamie wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

PeterD wrote:


On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:38:47 -0700, D Yuniskis
wrote:



This is how GFCI breakers work -- they watch for current "leaking"
off to ground someplace other than in the "return" conductor.

No they don't. They look for imbalanced current flow between the two
conductors.



How are you going to get the imbalance without some current finding
another path to the neutral conductor, which is bonded to the grounding
system at the main panel? You two are describing the same thing, from
different directions.



I know that you can be bond headed at times, but really, this is simple
101 Electronics..

D Yuniskis has it all over you. It's obvious that he knows more about
the subject than you.

Btw.
CLUE:
The neutral also passes through the fault device.

Think before depressing the SEND Button!



Take your own advice, Jamie. You've been told on multiple newsgroups
how GFCI interrupters work, yet still claim they can't be used on two
wire outlets. I posted a link to a Leviton GFCI datasheet, and gave you
the NEC code numbers stating that they are allowed on two wire circuits.
Your reading comprehension is barely third grade level, and dropping.
Your are a typical 'lid' ham radio operator.

You are just a knuckle dragging moron who likes to troll. Go back to
writing your crappy software and leave electronics to people who know
what they are doing. There is no hope for you to ever make a post that
makes sense.


What a putz, you couldn't win a valid argument even if you were correct,
and that isn't vary often.

You're so far out of your element, the closes you can get is when
you go buy one, from Honda.


Yawn...


--
The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!

Meat Plow wrote:

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:24:02 -0500, Jamie
wrote:


Michael A. Terrell wrote:


Jamie wrote:


Michael A. Terrell wrote:


PeterD wrote:



On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:38:47 -0700, D Yuniskis
wrote:




This is how GFCI breakers work -- they watch for current "leaking"
off to ground someplace other than in the "return" conductor.

No they don't. They look for imbalanced current flow between the two
conductors.



How are you going to get the imbalance without some current finding
another path to the neutral conductor, which is bonded to the grounding
system at the main panel? You two are describing the same thing, from
different directions.



I know that you can be bond headed at times, but really, this is simple
101 Electronics..

D Yuniskis has it all over you. It's obvious that he knows more about
the subject than you.

Btw.
CLUE:
The neutral also passes through the fault device.

Think before depressing the SEND Button!



Take your own advice, Jamie. You've been told on multiple newsgroups
how GFCI interrupters work, yet still claim they can't be used on two
wire outlets. I posted a link to a Leviton GFCI datasheet, and gave you
the NEC code numbers stating that they are allowed on two wire circuits.
Your reading comprehension is barely third grade level, and dropping.
Your are a typical 'lid' ham radio operator.

You are just a knuckle dragging moron who likes to troll. Go back to
writing your crappy software and leave electronics to people who know
what they are doing. There is no hope for you to ever make a post that
makes sense.



What a putz, you couldn't win a valid argument even if you were correct,
and that isn't vary often.

You're so far out of your element, the closes you can get is when
you go buy one, from Honda.


You know your silly ****ing match could be more valid if the content
leaned slightly towards being correct in the grammar department.

Ok:
Push button B:

Results : Explosion;
Review : Why didn't we select Button A:?

Answer From Upper management:

Because we didn't like the grammar
for the description of operation per button A:, even though, we
clearly understood it and knew it was the correct choice.

Final results of report:
Its clearly the fault of BUTTON A:, because the author didn't
use grammar acceptable for our taste and there for, we concluded
the data not credible.

So as usual. Upper management seems to find a way to **** on those
that actually have the real answers.

The old saying goes, when looking up, all you see is assholes.

This concludes that for the moment, it must also apply here.

And let us not forget:

BUTTON A:
will be acceptable after upper management has edited it to their
version, resulting in the same answer and thus taking full credit
for it later on.

Yes, I've seen and worked with many like this... The world is full of
them.
What will these idiots, yes, mentally deficient, do when the so
called, illiterate, that actually knows something go away and leave the
upper management choking in their own vile of vomit.

Meat Plow wrote:

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:24:02 -0500, Jamie
wrote:


Michael A. Terrell wrote:


Jamie wrote:


Michael A. Terrell wrote:


PeterD wrote:



On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:38:47 -0700, D Yuniskis
wrote:




This is how GFCI breakers work -- they watch for current "leaking"
off to ground someplace other than in the "return" conductor.

No they don't. They look for imbalanced current flow between the two
conductors.



How are you going to get the imbalance without some current finding
another path to the neutral conductor, which is bonded to the grounding
system at the main panel? You two are describing the same thing, from
different directions.



I know that you can be bond headed at times, but really, this is simple
101 Electronics..

D Yuniskis has it all over you. It's obvious that he knows more about
the subject than you.

Btw.
CLUE:
The neutral also passes through the fault device.

Think before depressing the SEND Button!



Take your own advice, Jamie. You've been told on multiple newsgroups
how GFCI interrupters work, yet still claim they can't be used on two
wire outlets. I posted a link to a Leviton GFCI datasheet, and gave you
the NEC code numbers stating that they are allowed on two wire circuits.
Your reading comprehension is barely third grade level, and dropping.
Your are a typical 'lid' ham radio operator.

You are just a knuckle dragging moron who likes to troll. Go back to
writing your crappy software and leave electronics to people who know
what they are doing. There is no hope for you to ever make a post that
makes sense.



What a putz, you couldn't win a valid argument even if you were correct,
and that isn't vary often.

You're so far out of your element, the closes you can get is when
you go buy one, from Honda.


You know your silly ****ing match could be more valid if the content
leaned slightly towards being correct in the grammar department.

Ok:
Push button B:

Results : Explosion;
Review : Why didn't we select Button A:?

Answer From Upper management:

Because we didn't like the grammar
for the description of operation per button A:, even though, we
clearly understood it and knew it was the correct choice.

Final results of report:
Its clearly the fault of BUTTON A:, because the author didn't
use grammar acceptable for our taste and there for, we concluded
the data not credible.

So as usual. Upper management seems to find a way to **** on those
that actually have the real answers.

The old saying goes, when looking up, all you see is assholes.

This concludes that for the moment, it must also apply here.

And let us not forget:

BUTTON A:
will be acceptable after upper management has edited it to their
version, resulting in the same answer and thus taking full credit
for it later on.

Yes, I've seen and worked with many like this... The world is full of
them.
What will these idiots, yes, mentally deficient, do when the so
called, illiterate, that actually knows something go away and leave the
upper management choking in their own vile of vomit.

D Yuniskis wrote:
I just love it when high powered R.F. disturbances trip those lovely
AGFCI and AFB units

RF as in *radiated* (not *conducted*)? Like someone keying
a transceiver nearby? How close do they have to be (i.e. does
this cause grief in actual *practice*)?

I had one that would trip on SSB voice peaks. The antenna was a
full-wave 28 MHz loop on the balcony. Power output was about 25 watts PEP.

It was mostly my fault. I had no station ground (2nd floor apartment),
and I was feeding the loop directly with coax, which is not a recipe for
a well matched or well balanced antenna setup. I probably had RF
conducting back on the shield and getting into everything, including the
power wiring.

D Yuniskis wrote:
I just love it when high powered R.F. disturbances trip those lovely
AGFCI and AFB units

RF as in *radiated* (not *conducted*)? Like someone keying
a transceiver nearby? How close do they have to be (i.e. does
this cause grief in actual *practice*)?

I had one that would trip on SSB voice peaks. The antenna was a
full-wave 28 MHz loop on the balcony. Power output was about 25 watts PEP.

It was mostly my fault. I had no station ground (2nd floor apartment),
and I was feeding the loop directly with coax, which is not a recipe for
a well matched or well balanced antenna setup. I probably had RF
conducting back on the shield and getting into everything, including the
power wiring.

Jamie wrote:

What a putz, you couldn't win a valid argument even if you were correct,
and that isn't vary often.

You're so far out of your element, the closes you can get is when
you go buy one, from Honda.


yawn.


--
The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!

Jamie wrote:

What will these idiots, yes, mentally deficient, do when the so
called, illiterate, that actually knows something go away and leave the
upper management choking in their own vile of vomit.


They wouldn't be vomiting if you would bathe more than once a year.


--
The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!

"Jamie" t wrote in message
...

I know that you can be bond headed at times, but really, this is simple
101 Electronics..


D Yuniskis has it all over you. It's obvious that he knows more about the
subject than you.

Btw.
CLUE:
The neutral also passes through the fault device.

Think before depressing the SEND Button!



So this is a contest to see who knows more than who...sorry Jamie, you lose.

Mike may be an ass sometimes but he does know a bit more than 101.

Leonard

Leonard Caillouet wrote:

"Jamie" t wrote in
message ...

I know that you can be bond headed at times, but really, this is simple
101 Electronics..


D Yuniskis has it all over you. It's obvious that he knows more about
the subject than you.

Btw.
CLUE:
The neutral also passes through the fault device.

Think before depressing the SEND Button!




So this is a contest to see who knows more than who...sorry Jamie, you
lose.

Mike may be an ass sometimes but he does know a bit more than 101.

Leonard

If you say so, herder.

Leonard Caillouet wrote:

"Jamie" t wrote in message
...

I know that you can be bond headed at times, but really, this is simple
101 Electronics..


D Yuniskis has it all over you. It's obvious that he knows more about the
subject than you.

Btw.
CLUE:
The neutral also passes through the fault device.

Think before depressing the SEND Button!

So this is a contest to see who knows more than who...sorry Jamie, you lose.

Mike may be an ass sometimes but he does know a bit more than 101.


Leonard, don't waste your time. 'jamie', who's real name is Maynard
Philbrook. he is nothing more than a troll. He likes to post bad
information, and the stupidest of questions. A recent thread on anther
electronics group he insists that a GFCI can not be used without a
ground wire, even after dozens of people posted links to data sheets and
the NEC. In another he was calling electret microphones, 'crystal
mics'. He brags that the place he works was grandfathered to use banned
industrial chemicals, and intentionally miswiring outlets with the wrong
voltage where he 'works'.

He also claimed that every semiconductor ECG & NTE ever sold was
defective.


--
Offworld checks no longer accepted!