I assumed the poster spoke correctly and there was a neutral, yes I know
stuff that only uses 240 often is fed with two hots and a ground. My bigger
worry would be if the 240 breaker was larger than 20A which is not allowed
for standard wall plugs.


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
et...
In article ,
"Jeff" wrote:
Should be fine, note on setups like this with long wire runs from the
box,
the motor startup surge can introduce significant spikes which might
damage
poorly designed electronics. Lights fine.

Wrong. See posts earlier in this thread by gfretwell and myself for
explanations of why.

Please don't offer electrical advice without understanding it.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , "Jeff" wrote:
I assumed the poster spoke correctly and there was a neutral, yes I know
stuff that only uses 240 often is fed with two hots and a ground.

But he never actually said that he has a neutral. He's *assuming* that there
is one. This is a common assumption among people who don't understand how
North American 240V service works, but it's usually a mistaken assumption.

Most 240V *appliance* circuits *do* have a neutral (because they also have
120V control circuits).

Most 240V *motor* circuits do *not* have one.

My bigger
worry would be if the 240 breaker was larger than 20A which is not allowed
for standard wall plugs.

It'd be one heck of a big pool pump, to need a 30A 240V circuit...

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

According to Tater :
On Nov 20, 5:29 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article
,
Tater wrote:

I believe that is how they do it on 220V electric ranges.

.. especially when you don't know the answers.

now that i think further about it, if he has a three wire 240v line
going in, he shouldn't do it.

Yes. Stoves and dryers are the only special case where you could
do this. It's been against US code for a couple of years now,
so you can't do new installations that way anymore.

[It's been against Canadian code for at least 30 years.]

I wouldn't dream of doing it with a pool pump outdoors. You're
compromising the ground. That plus water that you immerse yourself in
doesn't mix.

If you lost a ground connection (many ground connections really aren't
that good - I've seen too many people just wrap them without wire nuts -
or worse, assume that simply lying against the electrical box sides was
sufficient), the pump frame, the fixture, and everything else bonded
to them in the area could go hot. And you're just asking for corrosion
- which'll kill the ground eventually if it's carrying any current.

Bad. Really really bad.

This is one of those "it'd probably work for a while" _will_ eventually
bite you.

now if he has a four wire (red, black, white, bare) line, then he can.

Either he has four wire, or he converts the pump to 120V. Either
way is reasonable. Might not be able to convert the pump to 120V,
or the circuit may not be beefy enough for it. Strictly speaking,
probably both approaches are still against code (code doesn't like
sharing motors (except very small ones) with anything else on a circuit).
But an inspector would probably let you get away with it for a light
bulb or two on a "change" (rather than new install).

A 240V bulb is by far the simplest/cheapest solution.
--
Chris Lewis,

Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

In article , Tater wrote:
On Nov 20, 5:29 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article
, Tater
wrote:

On Nov 19, 10:58 pm, Tool wrote:
I have a 220 volt line that powers my pool pump. I want to run 110
volt lights near the pool pump and would like to convert 220 to 110.
Is this as simple as taking the 220 wires, and connecting only one hot
wire side with the common wire and ground wire to a standard 110 volt
outlet?

I am not an electrician, but....

Then perhaps you should consider not answering electrical questions...

I believe that is how they do it on 220V electric ranges.

.. especially when you don't know the answers.

To the OP: ignore Tater.

now that i think further about it, if he has a three wire 240v line
going in, he shouldn't do it.

now if he has a four wire (red, black, white, bare) line, then he can.

... which is exactly what I said a day and a half ago.

Is there an echo in here?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , Steve Kraus wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:

I see *nothing* in the original post that indicates the presence of a
neutral.

Perhaps you should reread it:

"Is this as simple as taking the 220 wires, and connecting only one
hot wire side with the common wire and ground wire to a standard
110 volt outlet?"

One hot wire...common wire...ground wire. What do you suppose he means by
"common wire" other than neutral?


I suppose that by that, he means the neutral wire which he *imagines* to be
present in the existing 240V motor circuit -- but is almost certainly absent.


He's certainly NOT referring to the
ground wire since he says "common wire AND ground wire"...clearly two
different wires. And of course he doesn't mean the other hot since he
expressly stated "connecting only one hot wire" let alone that it would not
make any electrical sense.


I agree that it's clear he knows the difference between the two. What's not at
all clear is whether he -- or you -- realizes that 240V circuits typically do
*not* contain a neutral conductor.

We won't know unless and until he clarifies but presence of a neutral is
VERY STRONGLY suggested in the OP.


Sorry, but that's just not correct. The description of the circuit as powering
an existing 240V motor "VERY STRONGLY" suggests the ABSENCE of a neutral
conductor.


There is really nothing else "common
wire" can mean. There is no need for this blather about using ground as
neutral. He never said anything of the sort.


Neither did I. But there is no evidence whatsoever, absent an actual count of
the uninsulated conductors present in the cable or conduit, that the OP does
in fact have a neutral available.

Better still, count the insulated ones. There's probably only one
that's uninsulated.

Many people do not understand that 240V
devices do not have or use a neutral conductor. The OP may be one of them. You
appear to be another.



--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , wrote:

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 06:52:09 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote Re 220 volt to 110 volt:


Yes, it is -- and you've made the same mistake that Steve did.

What mistake is that? Believing what the OP said? You may know
electricity, but Steve's "English language interpretation" of the
original post is correct. I'd say it's up to the OP to come back and
say, oops, I don't have a neutral, rather than you making that
assumption. No matter how reasonable and logical you think that
assumption is, it's one that absolutely contradicts the statements made
by the OP.

Well said and completely correct.


Well said, yes, but completely INcorrect. In no way does it contradict any
statements made by the OP. The OP *assumes* that he has a neutral; he never
said that he verified that. Since he has a 240V motor circuit, it is
overwhelmingly unlikely that his assumption is correct.

Doug, since you like to always have the last word, please fill in
below why you have better knowledge of what the OP is looking at than
he does. Don't be shy, the credibility of you language skills is at
stake.


This has nothing to do with my having the "last word" since I'm sure that it
won't be, and everything to do with correcting a persistent misunderstanding.

I'll try to put this as simply and plainly as I can.

In North America, at least, 240V motors do not have a neutral. Circuits
supplying such motors are normally installed without a neutral conductor. The
OP has a 240V motor circuit. The probability is very high that there is not a
neutral conductor present in that circuit.

The fact that the OP asked the question he did suggests very strongly that he
does *not*, in fact, know what he's looking at -- indeed, there isn't anything
in the original post to indicate that he has actually looked at it at all yet.

It's also possible that whoever installed it considered that one day
there might be a use for a 120V circuit near the pool, and ran the
neutral. That actually seems to me to be the professional thing to do.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

Doug Miller wrote:
But he never actually said that he has a neutral. He's *assuming* that
there is one. This is a common assumption among people who don't
understand how North American 240V service works, but it's usually a
mistaken assumption.

He expressly referred to two hot wires, a ground wire, and a wire he
referred to as a "common." 4 wires in all. What are you suggesting he
means by "common" other than neutral? No one is suggesting he or anyone
else wire anything without verifying for certain that that is the case.
But we have only what he stated to go on.

Since you're the one who is coming to the conclusion that the wire he
refers to is NOT a neutral may I ask what you think it is? Everyone else
here believes he is referring to a neutral...yes yes it should be
verified...but that's what he said and I'm puzzled why you draw some other
conclusion.

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 23:43:02 -0000, Steve Kraus
wrote Re 220 volt to 110 volt:

Doug Miller wrote:
But he never actually said that he has a neutral. He's *assuming* that
there is one. This is a common assumption among people who don't
understand how North American 240V service works, but it's usually a
mistaken assumption.

He expressly referred to two hot wires, a ground wire, and a wire he
referred to as a "common." 4 wires in all. What are you suggesting he
means by "common" other than neutral? No one is suggesting he or anyone
else wire anything without verifying for certain that that is the case.
But we have only what he stated to go on.

Since you're the one who is coming to the conclusion that the wire he
refers to is NOT a neutral may I ask what you think it is? Everyone else
here believes he is referring to a neutral...yes yes it should be
verified...but that's what he said and I'm puzzled why you draw some other
conclusion.

Indeed, I second the request. With all 4 wires accounted for, just
what do you (Doug) think the OP is referring to by "common" and
"ground" ?

Guess what: Some professional electricians will run a neutral in a
240v circuit even if the application doesn't require the neutral. They
do it because it's a good practice that can save a lot of aggravation
down the line.

Admit it Doug. You read it wrong. It's as simple as that.

Question: when you screw up some wiring, are you just as obstinate in
admitting the mistake?

In article , CJT wrote:

Better still, count the insulated ones. There's probably only one
that's uninsulated.

g OOPS! Pardon me while I wipe the egg off my face. Thanks for catching
that.





--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , Steve Kraus wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
But he never actually said that he has a neutral. He's *assuming* that
there is one. This is a common assumption among people who don't
understand how North American 240V service works, but it's usually a
mistaken assumption.

He expressly referred to two hot wires, a ground wire, and a wire he
referred to as a "common."

Go back and re-read the original post.

4 wires in all. What are you suggesting he
means by "common" other than neutral? No one is suggesting he or anyone
else wire anything without verifying for certain that that is the case.
But we have only what he stated to go on.

And he never explicitly stated that he actually had all four.

Since you're the one who is coming to the conclusion that the wire he
refers to is NOT a neutral may I ask what you think it is?

Geez, I thought I'd already made that clear -- I think he's referring to a
neutral that he *assumes* is present because he misunderstands how 240V
circuits are wired, and thinks that all circuits have neutrals. Look at it
this way: if he *did* understand how 240V circuits are wired, he'd know what
to look for and he'd know what to do with it, and would not have asked the
question in the first place.

In a 240V motor circuit, it's *very* unlikely that there is a neutral
conductor present. The OP never said that he actually checked. He's assuming
that there is a neutral. That assumption is probably incorrect.

Everyone else
here believes he is referring to a neutral...yes yes it should be
verified...but that's what he said and I'm puzzled why you draw some other
conclusion.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 23:43:02 -0000, Steve Kraus
wrote Re 220 volt to 110 volt:

Doug Miller wrote:
But he never actually said that he has a neutral. He's *assuming* that
there is one. This is a common assumption among people who don't
understand how North American 240V service works, but it's usually a
mistaken assumption.

He expressly referred to two hot wires, a ground wire, and a wire he
referred to as a "common." 4 wires in all. What are you suggesting he
means by "common" other than neutral? No one is suggesting he or anyone
else wire anything without verifying for certain that that is the case.
But we have only what he stated to go on.

Since you're the one who is coming to the conclusion that the wire he
refers to is NOT a neutral may I ask what you think it is? Everyone else
here believes he is referring to a neutral...yes yes it should be
verified...but that's what he said and I'm puzzled why you draw some other
conclusion.

Indeed, I second the request. With all 4 wires accounted for, just
what do you (Doug) think the OP is referring to by "common" and
"ground" ?

See my response to Steve. Perhaps the third time you read the same thing,
you'll finally figure it out.

Guess what: Some professional electricians will run a neutral in a
240v circuit even if the application doesn't require the neutral. They
do it because it's a good practice that can save a lot of aggravation
down the line.

Yes, some do. Most don't.

Admit it Doug. You read it wrong. It's as simple as that.

No, I didn't. *You* read it wrong. Maybe if you take a deep breath, re-read
the original post -- where the OP never said that he actually looked to see
what's there -- and finally think about it even just a little bit, you might
possibly begin to realize that you don't have a clue.

But probably not.

Question: when you screw up some wiring, are you just as obstinate in
admitting the mistake?

I've made no mistake here.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article , wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 06:52:09 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote Re 220 volt to 110 volt:

Yes, it is -- and you've made the same mistake that Steve did.

What mistake is that? Believing what the OP said? You may know
electricity, but Steve's "English language interpretation" of the
original post is correct. I'd say it's up to the OP to come back and
say, oops, I don't have a neutral, rather than you making that
assumption. No matter how reasonable and logical you think that
assumption is, it's one that absolutely contradicts the statements made
by the OP.

Well said and completely correct.

Well said, yes, but completely INcorrect. In no way does it contradict any
statements made by the OP.

Ahem. The OP said he had a common. You say he doesn't. Therefore, you
are contradicting him. That, sir, is about as simple as logic gets.

As far as his ability to wire a light to that common, it matters whether
it really exists. But as far as you contradicting him, it doesn't matter
one ****ing bit whether he *saw* the common in real life, or only in his
dreams.

Since you always tell non-electricians to shut up on electrical issues,
I'll offer you this: If you don't understand logic, keep your mouth shut
on matters of logic.

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 18:26:03 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article , wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 06:52:09 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote Re 220 volt to 110 volt:

Yes, it is -- and you've made the same mistake that Steve did.

What mistake is that? Believing what the OP said? You may know
electricity, but Steve's "English language interpretation" of the
original post is correct. I'd say it's up to the OP to come back and
say, oops, I don't have a neutral, rather than you making that
assumption. No matter how reasonable and logical you think that
assumption is, it's one that absolutely contradicts the statements made
by the OP.

Well said and completely correct.

Well said, yes, but completely INcorrect. In no way does it contradict any
statements made by the OP.

Ahem. The OP said he had a common. You say he doesn't. Therefore, you
are contradicting him. That, sir, is about as simple as logic gets.

As far as his ability to wire a light to that common, it matters whether
it really exists. But as far as you contradicting him, it doesn't matter
one ****ing bit whether he *saw* the common in real life, or only in his
dreams.

Since you always tell non-electricians to shut up on electrical issues,
I'll offer you this: If you don't understand logic, keep your mouth shut
on matters of logic.

I would be very surprised if the OP truly has a neutral at the pump.

Of course the only way we will ever be sure is if he is courteous
enough to let us know.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Jeff Wisnia wrote:

[dumb joke snipped]

It's likely not to code,


No, it's not -- and when the OP is clearly not an expert in electrical
matters, this sort of joke isn't a good idea at all.



I couldn't resist...It's getting close to Xmas and I thought of those
series strings of many low voltage incandescent bulbs plugged into 120
volt sockets.

Jeff

--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
The speed of light is 1.98*10^14 fathoms per fortnight.

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 21:41:27 -0500, Terry
wrote:

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 18:26:03 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article , wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 06:52:09 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote Re 220 volt to 110 volt:

Yes, it is -- and you've made the same mistake that Steve did.

What mistake is that? Believing what the OP said? You may know
electricity, but Steve's "English language interpretation" of the
original post is correct. I'd say it's up to the OP to come back and
say, oops, I don't have a neutral, rather than you making that
assumption. No matter how reasonable and logical you think that
assumption is, it's one that absolutely contradicts the statements made
by the OP.

Well said and completely correct.

Well said, yes, but completely INcorrect. In no way does it contradict any
statements made by the OP.

Ahem. The OP said he had a common. You say he doesn't. Therefore, you
are contradicting him. That, sir, is about as simple as logic gets.

As far as his ability to wire a light to that common, it matters whether
it really exists. But as far as you contradicting him, it doesn't matter
one ****ing bit whether he *saw* the common in real life, or only in his
dreams.

Since you always tell non-electricians to shut up on electrical issues,
I'll offer you this: If you don't understand logic, keep your mouth shut
on matters of logic.

I would be very surprised if the OP truly has a neutral at the pump.

Of course the only way we will ever be sure is if he is courteous
enough to let us know.


BTW I would think the easiest way for the OP to find out would be to
take the panel cover off and find the pump breaker. Trace the wires
to the, hopefully, conduit and count them.

If he does have conduit, it would be cake to make it almost anything
he wants.

He has not said if he's looked but he hasn't said that he hasn't either.
You are making an assumption based on the utterly ridiculous contention
that if he did look and saw four wires he wouldn't be bothering to ask.
Why is that utterly ridiculous? Because a non professional might still ask
to make sure that it's OK in terms of safety and code since as we all know
there are many things that might physically work that are not. Is it ok to
put a 120V receptacle on one side of a 240V line? Will it work...of
course. Is it safe and to code? That's the real question here and you
went off on a tangent.

Since the man asked if it's ok to hook up based on the presence of a
neutral the logical response would be to treat it as though there is one.
Naturally if there isn't then he cannot do it that way. Everyone else is
treating the case based on the facts presented by the OP, whether those
facts are verified truth or just assumed. If you want to add a little
kicker along the lines of "hey there's a good likelyhood there is no
neutral present and in that case here's what to do" then fine. But you're
insisting that the poster's question is wrong on the face of it. Everyone
else is answering the question as given.

Is this a game you play? If a someone asks a question--any question--then
obviously they must not be capable of doing the task they ask about.
Trying to turn this place into alt.hvac?

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 02:56:12 -0000, Steve Kraus
wrote:


Since the man asked if it's ok to hook up based on the presence of a
neutral the logical response would be to treat it as though there is one.
Naturally if there isn't then he cannot do it that way. Everyone else is
treating the case based on the facts presented by the OP, whether those
facts are verified truth or just assumed. If you want to add a little

Actually if you read the original post, the OP could have a neutral
with only two current carrying conductors if he converts the circuit
to 110V, which is what he is asking.

To answer that question with any certainty you would need to know the
HP of the motor, and maybe the distance from the pump to the panel.

Terry wrote:

Actually if you read the original post, the OP could have a neutral
with only two current carrying conductors if he converts the circuit
to 110V, which is what he is asking.

No, I don't think that's what he's asking although I agree there is at
least a touch of ambiguity. While he does use the word "convert" in the
first sentence when he says what he is proposing in the second sentence he
refers only to things at the outlet end, nothing about at all about
converting entirely to a 120V circuit.

If he's proposing anything at the breaker end it's not contained in what he
stated. Until he says otherwise I will presume he means to put a 120
outlet across one leg of the "220" (240) and neutral with a ground.
Whether the neutral is there or not remains to be seen but that's the
proposal that I get out of the posting.

Someone wrote:
Many people do not understand that 240V ........ no neutral

That's true.
Some of us even occasionally call the two legs of a 240 volt circuit,
"Phases"!
Which in North American residential service is most unlikely to be
true.
But let's not introduce that (phase) complication into a very unclear
original question; still lacking information.
I give up! Who's on first ...... etc.
:-) :-) :-)
BTW. The reason for the constant reference to 'North American' (which
seems to be a good working system capable as it is of supplying both
120 and 240 volts) is because in Europe and elsewhere a 240 volt
supply could very well be one 'hot' wire at 240 volts (50 hertz) and
one 'neutral' at around zero volts. But could also be (in some
systems) two leads, neither at a zero potential, neither really
considered to be a neutral but at 240 volts (50 hertz) with respect to
each other. However the two leads 'could' in certain systems be
'phases'. :-( :-(

THREE days now and no response from the OP. We should be able to plainly
see this was a troll.


s


"terry" wrote in message
...
Someone wrote:
Many people do not understand that 240V ........ no neutral

That's true.
Some of us even occasionally call the two legs of a 240 volt circuit,
"Phases"!
Which in North American residential service is most unlikely to be
true.
But let's not introduce that (phase) complication into a very unclear
original question; still lacking information.
I give up! Who's on first ...... etc.
:-) :-) :-)
BTW. The reason for the constant reference to 'North American' (which
seems to be a good working system capable as it is of supplying both
120 and 240 volts) is because in Europe and elsewhere a 240 volt
supply could very well be one 'hot' wire at 240 volts (50 hertz) and
one 'neutral' at around zero volts. But could also be (in some
systems) two leads, neither at a zero potential, neither really
considered to be a neutral but at 240 volts (50 hertz) with respect to
each other. However the two leads 'could' in certain systems be
'phases'. :-( :-(

In article ,
"Steve Barker" wrote:

THREE days now and no response from the OP. We should be able to plainly
see this was a troll.


Not necessarily. He posted from google, probably stumbled across this
group and can't find his way back to look for responses. Anyway, it
seems typical that we hijack threads for our own amusement around here.

Steve Barker wrote:

THREE days now and no response from the OP. We should be able to
plainly see this was a troll.

Oh come on. If he's a troll then he's a genius troll. Who could possibly
foresee that a simple question like that, reasonably clear but for his use
of "common" instead of "neutral," would lead to so much needless argument?

anyone who follows this group....



"Steve Kraus" wrote in message
...
Who could possibly
foresee that a simple question like that, reasonably clear but for his use
of "common" instead of "neutral," would lead to so much needless argument?

Steve Barker wrote:

anyone who follows this group....

Sir, I defer to your greater knowledge of trolling. LOL

/elvis voice on

thankya, thankya very much..

s


"Steve Kraus" wrote in message
...
Steve Barker wrote:

anyone who follows this group....

Sir, I defer to your greater knowledge of trolling. LOL

In article , Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article , wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 06:52:09 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote Re 220 volt to 110 volt:

Yes, it is -- and you've made the same mistake that Steve did.

What mistake is that? Believing what the OP said? You may know
electricity, but Steve's "English language interpretation" of the
original post is correct. I'd say it's up to the OP to come back and
say, oops, I don't have a neutral, rather than you making that
assumption. No matter how reasonable and logical you think that
assumption is, it's one that absolutely contradicts the statements made
by the OP.

Well said and completely correct.

Well said, yes, but completely INcorrect. In no way does it contradict any
statements made by the OP.

Ahem. The OP said he had a common. You say he doesn't. Therefore, you
are contradicting him. That, sir, is about as simple as logic gets.

No, I didn't contradict him -- but I'm contradicting *you*. The OP did *not*
specifically say that he does have a common. He asked about connecting it to
"the common" but never explicitly stated that he verified that there is
actually such a conductor present.

As far as his ability to wire a light to that common, it matters whether
it really exists. But as far as you contradicting him, it doesn't matter
one ****ing bit whether he *saw* the common in real life, or only in his
dreams.

Of course it does -- to anyone with normal ability to comprehend written
English. He didn't say he actually had one. He's assuming he has one.

Since you always tell non-electricians to shut up on electrical issues,
I'll offer you this: If you don't understand logic, keep your mouth shut
on matters of logic.

Perhaps you should take the same advice. You're obviously unable to understand
what's going on.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , Smitty Two wrote:

In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:


In article , wrote:

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 06:52:09 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote Re 220 volt to 110 volt:


Yes, it is -- and you've made the same mistake that Steve did.

What mistake is that? Believing what the OP said? You may know
electricity, but Steve's "English language interpretation" of the
original post is correct. I'd say it's up to the OP to come back and
say, oops, I don't have a neutral, rather than you making that
assumption. No matter how reasonable and logical you think that
assumption is, it's one that absolutely contradicts the statements made
by the OP.

Well said and completely correct.

Well said, yes, but completely INcorrect. In no way does it contradict any
statements made by the OP.

Ahem. The OP said he had a common. You say he doesn't. Therefore, you
are contradicting him. That, sir, is about as simple as logic gets.


No, I didn't contradict him -- but I'm contradicting *you*. The OP did *not*
specifically say that he does have a common. He asked about connecting it to
"the common" but never explicitly stated that he verified that there is
actually such a conductor present.

He said "the common" and not "some common" or "a common" and certainly
not "the common that isn't there."


As far as his ability to wire a light to that common, it matters whether
it really exists. But as far as you contradicting him, it doesn't matter
one ****ing bit whether he *saw* the common in real life, or only in his
dreams.


Of course it does -- to anyone with normal ability to comprehend written
English. He didn't say he actually had one. He's assuming he has one.

You are assuming he made that assumption. He didn't say either way.


Since you always tell non-electricians to shut up on electrical issues,
I'll offer you this: If you don't understand logic, keep your mouth shut
on matters of logic.


Perhaps you should take the same advice. You're obviously unable to understand
what's going on.


:-) :-)

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

In article , CJT wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

In article ,
Smitty Two wrote:

In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:


In article , wrote:

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 06:52:09 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote Re 220 volt to 110 volt:


Yes, it is -- and you've made the same mistake that Steve did.

What mistake is that? Believing what the OP said? You may know
electricity, but Steve's "English language interpretation" of the
original post is correct. I'd say it's up to the OP to come back and
say, oops, I don't have a neutral, rather than you making that
assumption. No matter how reasonable and logical you think that
assumption is, it's one that absolutely contradicts the statements made
by the OP.

Well said and completely correct.

Well said, yes, but completely INcorrect. In no way does it contradict any
statements made by the OP.

Ahem. The OP said he had a common. You say he doesn't. Therefore, you
are contradicting him. That, sir, is about as simple as logic gets.


No, I didn't contradict him -- but I'm contradicting *you*. The OP did *not*
specifically say that he does have a common. He asked about connecting it to
"the common" but never explicitly stated that he verified that there is
actually such a conductor present.

He said "the common" and not "some common" or "a common" and certainly
not "the common that isn't there."

The point is, 240V motor circuits normally do not have one, and many people
(obviously including some participants in this thread) don't know it. In the
absence of specific statements otherwise, it's far more likely that the OP is
assuming its existence without having verified it: if he understood how 240V
circuits are wired, he would have known what to look for and what to do with
what he found -- and not needed to ask the question.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Doug Miller wrote:
if he understood how 240V circuits are wired, he would
have known what to look for and what to do with what he found -- and
not needed to ask the question.

Again, this is a tautology which could be used to dismiss almost any
question raised in this NG or any how-to forum.

In article , Steve Kraus wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
if he understood how 240V circuits are wired, he would
have known what to look for and what to do with what he found -- and
not needed to ask the question.

Again, this is a tautology which could be used to dismiss almost any
question raised in this NG or any how-to forum.

Who's dismissing the question? It's apparently escaped your notice that I gave
the OP a complete answer to his question shortly after he posted it.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

For all that have responded to my question, thank you. 74 reply's and
all offering excellent, intelligent, and clearly safety concise
advice.

As pointed out, the 240 volt - 3 wire (no common, just ground) is what
I have. Common I would assume, is the alternating current line of one
of the hots when not sending current, thus switching back and forth.
This I do remember from my basic EE courses.

My dilemma, the 240 volt pump circuit is approximately 200 feet from
the electrical panel buried beneath a cement slab, thus pulling a new
120 volt line was not an option.

Therefore, the suggestion of either using 240 volt lights, a 240 volt
to 120 volt transformer, or which no one suggested, SOLAR lighting may
be my only options. If I choose one of the first two, I will take
everyone's suggestion and hire a licensed electrician!

I must say, usenet groups are very helpful in understanding options
and again I thank you all for first, qualifying that safety is the
most important criteria, and cost the second.

Regards

In article , Tool wrote:
For all that have responded to my question, thank you. 74 reply's and
all

Most. :-)

offering excellent, intelligent, and clearly safety concise
advice.

As pointed out, the 240 volt - 3 wire (no common, just ground) is what
I have.

Caesar Romano, I'll be waiting for your apology any time you're ready. It's
just as I said: I didn't misread anything. You did.

Common I would assume, is the alternating current line of one
of the hots when not sending current, thus switching back and forth.

That is not correct. The two wires have a potential of 240V between them, and
EACH has a potential of 120V to ground. Neither one is "common".

This I do remember from my basic EE courses.

*Electronics* engineering, I presume, not electrical -- or else you don't
remember as much as you think you do. :-)

My dilemma, the 240 volt pump circuit is approximately 200 feet from
the electrical panel buried beneath a cement slab, thus pulling a new
120 volt line was not an option.

Therefore, the suggestion of either using 240 volt lights, a 240 volt
to 120 volt transformer, or which no one suggested, SOLAR lighting may
be my only options. If I choose one of the first two, I will take
everyone's suggestion and hire a licensed electrician!

Did you notice gfretwell's suggestion that it may be possible to rewire the
motor as 120V? If that's possible, that would solve your problem easily.

I must say, usenet groups are very helpful in understanding options
and again I thank you all for first, qualifying that safety is the
most important criteria, and cost the second.

Glad I could help...

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.