On Sep 17, 10:41 am, Tom Horne wrote:


There not talking about the current, if any, from the X10 device.
They are talking about the current from other loads on the circuit
that the neutral is bootlegged from. If, in replacing the X10 device
at some future point in time, the splice in the neutral of the circuit
from which the bootlegged neutral was taken were opened the load side
of that splice will go high to one hundred twenty volts.
Tom Horne

Andy comments:
Absolutely right .... That's why it isn't a good idea, since some
hypothetical future problem would open up the neutral path back
to the panel....
Incidentally, this problem also happens when the screw to the
little white wire
in the panel gets loose, or corroded.... which is why I reccommend
tightening up the screws in the neutral bar in the panel every
few years or so.... This can also cause an "apparent" voltage drop
to the appliances being used, and is normally one of the first
things to check when that happens....

Andy in Eureka, Texas

On 9/17/2011 8:10 PM, wrote:

IF the neutral connection is "adequate" - less than 1/2 ohm, let's
just say for arguement's sake, and your body resistance is lower than
normal (let's just pick 500 ohms out of thin air) and the load current
is 15 amps (anything more would trip the supply side breaker) what
current would flow through your body???? The voltage drop across the
.5 ohm ground connection would be 7.5 (15 ampsX.5 ohms)volts. The
current through your 500 ohm body would be less than 15 ma.

A .5 ohm ground connection would show up as an obvious problem with a
7.5 volt drop and 112 watts of heat dissipation at the ground
connection. A much more common (or let's say POSSIBLE situation is a
.05 ohm ground connection

Certainly not a realistic situation. 14AWG copper has a resistance of
approximately 3 milliohms per foot, so your hypothetical 50 milliohm
resistance represents just seventeen feet of 14AWG copper. I submit that
most points in most residential circuits are a *lot* farther than 17
feet from the panel.

- with a 0.75 volt drop, dissipating 11
watts of heat at the bad connection (still very noticeable as a bad
connection) where the current flow through a 500 ohm body resistance
would be less than 1.5 ma.

Now substitute a much more realistic body resistance (with wet skin)
of 10,000 ohms and you can see how rediculous your arguement is. 7.5
volts across a 10,000 ohm resistance is 0.75 ma of current.

Go to a DRY SKIN situation, with body resistance of 450,000 - 495,000
ohms,

Do you have references for any of these numbers, or did you just make
them all up like the 500 ohms you "picked out of thin air" a couple
paragraphs back?

The resistance figures given here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electri...ody_resistance
are FAR lower than yours. I think I can be pardoned for believing
documented numbers from NIOSH and the IEC just a bit more than I believe
your numbers "picked out of thin air".

and you see where we are headed??????? We are aproching 1.5 e-5
amps. that's something like 0.0015ma if my exponential math is
correct.

It's not.

It also assumes your resistance figures are correct -- which I very,
very much doubt.

Do your calculations again, with realistic resistance figures this time
(both for the human body, and for the neutral wire), and see where it
leads you.

And that is with the VERY BAD 0.5 ohm ground.

500 milliohms is the resistance of approximately 170 feet of 14AWG
copper; there is at least one 15A circuit in my house where the last
outlet is very nearly that far from the panel. What makes you think that
indicates a "VERY BAD" ground?

On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 21:31:38 -0400, Doug Miller
wrote:

On 9/17/2011 8:10 PM, wrote:

IF the neutral connection is "adequate" - less than 1/2 ohm, let's
just say for arguement's sake, and your body resistance is lower than
normal (let's just pick 500 ohms out of thin air) and the load current
is 15 amps (anything more would trip the supply side breaker) what
current would flow through your body???? The voltage drop across the
.5 ohm ground connection would be 7.5 (15 ampsX.5 ohms)volts. The
current through your 500 ohm body would be less than 15 ma.

A .5 ohm ground connection would show up as an obvious problem with a
7.5 volt drop and 112 watts of heat dissipation at the ground
connection. A much more common (or let's say POSSIBLE situation is a
.05 ohm ground connection

Certainly not a realistic situation. 14AWG copper has a resistance of
approximately 3 milliohms per foot, so your hypothetical 50 milliohm
resistance represents just seventeen feet of 14AWG copper. I submit that
most points in most residential circuits are a *lot* farther than 17
feet from the panel.


32 feet of 14 ga copper has 82.8 milli-ohms of resistance. At 15 amps,
that is a total voltage drop of 1.23 volts at 15 amps. That is OVER
AND ABOVE the resistance of the "connection" I was refering to.

So lets say the wire is 32 feet long - from the point where you are
working on the circuit - and we have my theoretical .05 ohm connection
resistance for a 2 volt drop. That's a 30 watt total dissipation. and
a current flow through the 500 ohm body of less than 4 milliamps.

- with a 0.75 volt drop, dissipating 11
watts of heat at the bad connection (still very noticeable as a bad
connection) where the current flow through a 500 ohm body resistance
would be less than 1.5 ma.

Now substitute a much more realistic body resistance (with wet skin)
of 10,000 ohms and you can see how rediculous your arguement is. 7.5
volts across a 10,000 ohm resistance is 0.75 ma of current.

Go to a DRY SKIN situation, with body resistance of 450,000 - 495,000
ohms,

Do you have references for any of these numbers, or did you just make
them all up like the 500 ohms you "picked out of thin air" a couple
paragraphs back?

My 500 ohms "picked out of thin air"s actually pretty darn close,
according to my sources noted below.

The resistance figures given here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electri...ody_resistance
are FAR lower than yours. I think I can be pardoned for believing
documented numbers from NIOSH and the IEC just a bit more than I believe
your numbers "picked out of thin air".

I had gotten the same numbers from several sites that I looked at -
which appear, according to your Wikipedia reference to be out by a
factor of 10 but I don't take Wiki information as gospel.
My primary source was www.ohmcheck.com/human-electrical_resistance.htm
Also look at http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_1/chpt_3/4.html
Also, http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Book/3.4.2.htm uses 500 ohms
resistance as "worst case" resistance.

Page 220 of
http://www.angelfire.com/mech/electr...kstandards.pdf
indicates 500-1000 ohms as the minimum resistance of the body
EXCLUDING SKIN RESISTANCE. The resistance of "intact dry skin"
according to the same sourse is "quite high".
These resistances are between any two limbs.
Resistance across the chest - say laying on the ground with a
defective tool on a bare sweaty chest could be as low as 100 ohms.

Another reliable source, in my eyes, is
http://www.hubbellpowersystems.com/l...07-0801-02.pdf
which indicates 2330 ohms hand to hand and 1130 hand to foot according
to measurements done by Charles Dalziel in the 1940s and 50s.

and you see where we are headed??????? We are aproching 1.5 e-5
amps. that's something like 0.0015ma if my exponential math is
correct.

It's not.

It also assumes your resistance figures are correct -- which I very,
very much doubt.

Do your calculations again, with realistic resistance figures this time
(both for the human body, and for the neutral wire), and see where it
leads you.

And that is with the VERY BAD 0.5 ohm ground.

500 milliohms is the resistance of approximately 170 feet of 14AWG
copper; there is at least one 15A circuit in my house where the last
outlet is very nearly that far from the panel. What makes you think that
indicates a "VERY BAD" ground?

Regardless, we are talking running that circuit at FULL LOAD - so even
with YOUR numbers, it is far from "dangerous"

On Sep 17, 8:58*pm, Andy wrote:
On Sep 17, 11:00 am, Doug Miller
wrote:





On 9/17/2011 9:33 AM, Andy wrote:

On Sep 16, 6:29 pm, Doug
wrote:
On 9/16/2011 6:43 PM, Andy wrote:

On Sep 16, 6:15 am, Doug
wrote:

Also, someone working on one circuit and not knowing that the neutral
carries current from a different circuit could receive a fatal shock
from that neutral -- how would he know to shut down both circuits?

Andy comments:
* * I am confused as to how you think someone could receive a shock
from the "neutral" wire...

Because it carries current. The same current that's in the hot.

It is normally not disconnected in any
configuration ---

It doesn't really matter whether it's disconnected or not. It's carrying
current.

Consider two simple circuits, A and B, each supplying no loads other
than a single 100W light bulb, each of which is turned on -- but,
unbeknowst to you, their neutrals are cross-connected. Well and good..
Now suppose you need to replace the fixture on circuit A. Knowing that
it's on circuit A, you shut off that breaker, and disconnect the hot
lead to the fixture. Now when you go to disconnect the neutral lead, you
get a shock, because -- and I think this is the point you are missing --
electricity doesn't "follow the path of least resistance" as many people
believe, it follows *all possible paths*, including the one that you've
just made with your body by touching that energized lead.

Andy comments:

* *You are incorrect. *I suggest you actually try it. * Both neutrals
are
connected together, HARDWIRED, at the sub panel...

Yes, I know that. You don't seem to understand the concept of parallel
circuits. If your body is grounded, and also in contact with the neutral
conductor, there are two parallel paths to ground: one through the
neutral conductor, and one through your body.

Most of the current will flow through the copper conductors. But it
takes only a few tens of milliamps to interfere with heart rhythms.

You are nomore likely to get a shock from one as from the other...

In the sense that you're equally able to get a shock from each, I'd agree.

* * But, I'm not here to argue with you... My input *is to Ivan.... He
is
smart enough to read all the inputs and decide for himself...

* * * * * * * * * * *Andy in Eureka, Texas, *Licensed Electrical
Engineer....

An EE that doesn't understand parallel circuits? Yeah, riiiiight.

Andy comments:

* * You forget that the neutral circuit is connected to ground in
the panel. *Nobody can get "shocked" by touching two separate white
wires, assuming they are connected together in the panel, where
they are also connected to the bare copper safety wiring, which
is also connected to the big metal rod which goes into the ground,
as well as the center conductor of the transformer on the pole
(or wherever), which also goes to a ground rod......etc....

* Draw yourself a schematic , and you will understand.....

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * Andy in Eureka, Texas- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Obviously the whole discussion is way beyond your
comprehension at this point. An analysis has been given
based on parallel circuits with some real resistances
that show you can in fact get shocked. And that is
because those neturals are not perfect conductors,
they do have resistance, and hence there can be voltage
potential between them at various points along their
runs and ground.

Will it kill you, shock you severly, or burn down your
house? Probably not, IF everything you assume and
everything in the other circuit
you tap into is working correctly. And IF someone in
the future doesn't come along and add on to the wall
switch wiring, putting in more outlets for example, then
you have do have something with lethal potential.
How lucky do you feel gambling with other people's
safety?

The other interesting thing is that you and CL
presume to know exactly the amount of current
that unknown, generic X10 switch will send down
this illegal tapped neutral. We don't even know
which specific one it is or what the actual current
it will send down the neutral is. CL is making
the assumption that it is almost non-existent.
Since we don't even know the specific switch
obviously neither of you can know that.

Suppose it's instead 30ma which is enough to
kill someone working on the other circuit which
they believe to be de-energized?
These X10 things are cheap crap made in China,
so how do you know it won't have some failure that
results in say 75ma going down the neutral
which is enough to kill someone? How about
someone replaces that X10 with something
else someday, say a combined switch and
outlet that sends 5 amps down the neutral?

Those are the real safety issues the folks
who write the NEC are aware of and why
the rule exists.

BTW, Doug and I are still waiting for an
answer from you guys who think tapping
another neutral is an OK idea. If you can
run a new neutral back to that X10 switch,
from another circuit, then
why can't you just run a hot back
there too, connecting the X10 switch to
the hot and neutral from the same circuit?
Last time I checked, Romex has two
current carrying conductors, so the
wire is free. You could almost always do it safely
and legally with the same amount of work,
same cost, so why are you advocating
doing this half-assed nonsense?

Even more bizarre, if his loads are just
incandescent lights, the whole problem
can be solved by just using an X10 swtich
that works without a neutral at all. They
are readily available.

On 9/17/2011 8:58 PM, Andy wrote:

You forget that the neutral circuit is connected to ground in
the panel. Nobody can get "shocked" by touching two separate white
wires, assuming they are connected together in the panel, where
they are also connected to the bare copper safety wiring, which
is also connected to the big metal rod which goes into the ground,
as well as the center conductor of the transformer on the pole
(or wherever), which also goes to a ground rod......etc....

That is, quite simply, utterly false. If you are grounded, and touch the
neutral wire of an energized circuit, you *can* get a shock because
you've created a parallel circuit, one leg of which is your body.

Draw yourself a schematic , and you will understand.....

Take your own advice.

On Sep 17, 11:30 pm, wrote:


Regardless, we are talking running that circuit at FULL LOAD - so even
with YOUR numbers, it is far from "dangerous"

Andy comments:

CL, I am reminded of a quotation from Mark Twain :

"Never try to teach a pig to sing....... It wastes
your time, and annoys the pig "

---- Mark Twain

I'm sure that both of us have better things to do .......

On 9/18/2011 9:56 AM, Andy wrote:
On Sep 17, 11:30 pm, wrote:


Regardless, we are talking running that circuit at FULL LOAD - so even
with YOUR numbers, it is far from "dangerous"

Andy comments:

CL, I am reminded of a quotation from Mark Twain :

"Never try to teach a pig to sing....... It wastes
your time, and annoys the pig "

---- Mark Twain

I'm sure that both of us have better things to do .......

That's pretty much the same conclusion I'd reached in regard to
attempting to explain the concept of parallel circuits to you.

On Sep 17, 8:36*pm, Doug Miller
wrote:
On 9/17/2011 7:45 PM, wrote:

* *But there will be no voltage difference between neutral and ground -

In an ideal world, perhaps. In the real world, where houses are not
wired with superconducting cable, copper wire has a very low but
definitely non-zero resistance. And splices in copper wire have a very
low but definitely non-zero resistance. And the potential difference
between the electrical system grounding electrode and the water pipe,
for example, that you're touching is not necessarily zero.

so the neutral is still SAFE.

NO IT'S NOT. The neutral carries current.

ALL neutrals are the same potential =
zero volts to ground - unless the neutral is "lifted".

That doesn't matter. If your body is also at ground potential, and you
contact the neutral, your body forms a parallel path for that current to
return to ground.

Granted, most of that current will be in the neutral conductor, and not
in your body -- but it doesn't take very much to kill you. Why do you
suppose the trip threshold on a GFCI is only 20mA?



If you shut off the circuit the X10 is used on, the "other circuit"
neutral is still zero volts. So it is not an issue.

Wrong again. If there is a load on the other circuit, there is current
flowing in the neutral wire. If you touch it while you are grounded, you
have formed a parallel path to ground for some of that current to return
through your body.

Worse, if you *open* a splice in that neutral, not knowing that it's
carrying current from some other circuit, you may have formed a parallel
path to ground for *all* of that current to return through your body.

* If you shut off the "other circuit" to work on IT, the neutral from
the x10 is not carrying any load

Nobody ever claimed that the tiny current drawn by the X10 device
constituted a hazard of any sort.



Doug, without proof, I'm not buying into that it's a tiny
current. We don't even know the specific X10 switch
he's contemplating using. We do know that it's one
that works any load, not just incandescents. All the
ones of that type I have seen have relays. You can
hear them click. A relay needs some reasonable
current to pull in and I would think that current is
flowing in the neutral, meaning it could be 30ma,
the lethal threshold.

I think it's totally irresponsible to be advocating using
a neutral from another circuit with a device that
no one here even has a spec sheet on. CL and
Andy are assuming the X10 switch has a "tiny"
current, but no one knows that.




So the chances that it would EVER be dangerous are extremely remote.
It is, however, still against code.

Right. It's against Code because ... wait for it ... it's DANGEROUS.



The reason it is against code is because, having the "off circuit"
neutral in the box with the live line, someone down the road COULD
connect a load to that neutral.

And that "someone down the road" could be as simple as someone turning
on an appliance in the kitchen while Ivan is installing his X10 gizmos.
I would not enjoy being part of the return path for the current drawn by
a toaster or microwave oven. YMMV.

Another easy to understand major safety hazard is someone
later replacing that X10 switch with a switch/outlet combo.
Now, you have the ability to:

A - exceed the current carrying capacity of the neutral
resulting in a fire

B - having the other circuit neutral with 120V when someone
working on it believes it's de-energized because they opened
the breaker.






As soon as a load is connected to that
neutral ALL of the situations everyone is worried about BECOME
possibilities.

Which is exactly what I've been saying all long -- that if there is a
load on the other circuit, the current in the neutral is a potential
hazard. Thank you for [finally] acknowledging that.

The neutral just for the X10 device is NOT, in itself, a safety issue.

Again - I would NOT recommend it. It IS contrary to code (so you could
say it is illegal) - but it is not, necessarily, dangerous.

Yes, it is. I hope that you don't ever learn the hard way that you're
mistaken.

On Sep 18, 9:20 am, "
wrote:


Doug, without proof, I'm not buying into that it's a tiny
current. We don't even know the specific X10 switch
he's contemplating using. We do know that it's one
that works any load, not just incandescents. All the
ones of that type I have seen have relays. You can
hear them click. A relay needs some reasonable
current to pull in and I would think that current is
flowing in the neutral, meaning it could be 30ma,
the lethal threshold.



Andy comments:

You are correct. X10 modules use internal relays....typically
they are "appliance modules" which have a specific current
rating, and are "reccommended" for passive, not inductive,
loads (for obvious reasons).....

I use them all over the place in my house , and have written
programs
and built interfaces to
run them from laptops, and , when I needed to have one do
"more" than their ratings, used a big ass contactor (technical
term for... well... big ass contactor ) to handle
the problem....

Andy in Eureka, P.E.

On Sep 18, 10:57*am, Andy wrote:
On Sep 18, 9:20 am, "
wrote:



Doug, without proof, I'm not buying into that it's a tiny
current. * We don't even know the specific X10 switch
he's contemplating using. *We do know that it's one
that works any load, not just incandescents. *All the
ones of that type I have seen have relays. *You can
hear them click. *A relay needs some reasonable
current to pull in and I would think that current is
flowing in the neutral, meaning it could be 30ma,
the lethal threshold.

Andy comments:

* You are correct. X10 modules use internal relays....typically
they are "appliance modules" which have a specific current
rating, and are "reccommended" for passive, not inductive,
loads (for obvious reasons).....

* *I use them all over the place in my house , and have written
programs
and built interfaces to
run them from laptops, and , when I needed to have one do
"more" than their ratings, used a big ass contactor * (technical
term for... well... big ass contactor *) * * *to handle
the problem....

* * * * * * * * Andy in Eureka, *P.E.

What does the above have to do with anything?
Can you state what current the X10 switch Ivan
is actualy planning on using sends down the neutral?
CL and you assume it's near zero and so it
just can be dismissed as harmless. I say without
a spec sheet and knowing an energized relay is
involved, you're full of BS.

On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 07:20:12 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

Doug, without proof, I'm not buying into that it's a tiny
current. We don't even know the specific X10 switch
he's contemplating using. We do know that it's one
that works any load, not just incandescents. All the
ones of that type I have seen have relays. You can
hear them click. A relay needs some reasonable
current to pull in and I would think that current is
flowing in the neutral, meaning it could be 30ma,
the lethal threshold.

I think it's totally irresponsible to be advocating using
a neutral from another circuit with a device that
no one here even has a spec sheet on. CL and
Andy are assuming the X10 switch has a "tiny"
current, but no one knows that.


The no neutral incandescent only switch would most likely be a WS467,
and the flourescent control (with neutral) would likely be an XPS3
(relay) switch.
If the relay is operating on 110 volts nominal voltage, it will, in
all likelihood, draw aprocemately 1ma - as MOST miniature relays have
85 to 110 mw coils. Lets go worst case at 110mw on 120 volts - that
is 0.91 ma. The AVERAGE person will not even detect current flow of
under 1 ma. My OLD GE plug-in remote control appears to draw just over
10ma of current at 117 volts, but it has a transformer in it where the
X10 wall switch most likely uses a miniature switcher to provide the
low voltage. Anyone have an XPS3 and a multi-tester to settle this
once and for all????
And again - I would NOT advocate running an "orphan" neutral into
the box.

On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 07:57:59 -0700 (PDT), Andy
wrote:

On Sep 18, 9:20 am, "
wrote:


Doug, without proof, I'm not buying into that it's a tiny
current. We don't even know the specific X10 switch
he's contemplating using. We do know that it's one
that works any load, not just incandescents. All the
ones of that type I have seen have relays. You can
hear them click. A relay needs some reasonable
current to pull in and I would think that current is
flowing in the neutral, meaning it could be 30ma,
the lethal threshold.



Andy comments:

You are correct. X10 modules use internal relays....typically
they are "appliance modules" which have a specific current
rating, and are "reccommended" for passive, not inductive,
loads (for obvious reasons).....

I use them all over the place in my house , and have written
programs
and built interfaces to
run them from laptops, and , when I needed to have one do
"more" than their ratings, used a big ass contactor (technical
term for... well... big ass contactor ) to handle
the problem....

Andy in Eureka, P.E.
Can you measure the activation current on one of your "appliance
modules" and put this turkey to bed???

On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 21:31:38 -0400, Doug Miller
wrote:

On 9/17/2011 8:10 PM, wrote:

IF the neutral connection is "adequate" - less than 1/2 ohm, let's
just say for arguement's sake, and your body resistance is lower than
normal (let's just pick 500 ohms out of thin air) and the load current
is 15 amps (anything more would trip the supply side breaker) what
current would flow through your body???? The voltage drop across the
.5 ohm ground connection would be 7.5 (15 ampsX.5 ohms)volts. The
current through your 500 ohm body would be less than 15 ma.

A .5 ohm ground connection would show up as an obvious problem with a
7.5 volt drop and 112 watts of heat dissipation at the ground
connection. A much more common (or let's say POSSIBLE situation is a
.05 ohm ground connection

Certainly not a realistic situation. 14AWG copper has a resistance of
approximately 3 milliohms per foot, so your hypothetical 50 milliohm
resistance represents just seventeen feet of 14AWG copper. I submit that
most points in most residential circuits are a *lot* farther than 17
feet from the panel.


32 feet of 14 ga copper has 82.8 milli-ohms of resistance. At 15 amps,
that is a total voltage drop of 1.23 volts at 15 amps. That is OVER
AND ABOVE the resistance of the "connection" I was refering to.

So lets say the wire is 32 feet long - from the point where you are
working on the circuit - and we have my theoretical .05 ohm connection
resistance for a 2 volt drop. That's a 30 watt total dissipation. and
a current flow through the 500 ohm body of less than 4 milliamps.

- with a 0.75 volt drop, dissipating 11
watts of heat at the bad connection (still very noticeable as a bad
connection) where the current flow through a 500 ohm body resistance
would be less than 1.5 ma.

Now substitute a much more realistic body resistance (with wet skin)
of 10,000 ohms and you can see how rediculous your arguement is. 7.5
volts across a 10,000 ohm resistance is 0.75 ma of current.

Go to a DRY SKIN situation, with body resistance of 450,000 - 495,000
ohms,

Do you have references for any of these numbers, or did you just make
them all up like the 500 ohms you "picked out of thin air" a couple
paragraphs back?

My 500 ohms "picked out of thin air"s actually pretty darn close,
according to my sources noted below.

The resistance figures given here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electri...ody_resistance
are FAR lower than yours. I think I can be pardoned for believing
documented numbers from NIOSH and the IEC just a bit more than I believe
your numbers "picked out of thin air".

I had gotten the same numbers from several sites that I looked at -
which appear, according to your Wikipedia reference to be out by a
factor of 10 but I don't take Wiki information as gospel.
My primary source was www.ohmcheck.com/human-electrical_resistance.htm
Also look at http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_1/chpt_3/4.html
Also, http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Book/3.4.2.htm uses 500 ohms
resistance as "worst case" resistance.

Page 220 of
http://www.angelfire.com/mech/electr...kstandards.pdf
indicates 500-1000 ohms as the minimum resistance of the body
EXCLUDING SKIN RESISTANCE. The resistance of "intact dry skin"
according to the same sourse is "quite high".
These resistances are between any two limbs.
Resistance across the chest - say laying on the ground with a
defective tool on a bare sweaty chest could be as low as 100 ohms.

Another reliable source, in my eyes, is
http://www.hubbellpowersystems.com/l...07-0801-02.pdf
which indicates 2330 ohms hand to hand and 1130 hand to foot according
to measurements done by Charles Dalziel in the 1940s and 50s.

and you see where we are headed??????? We are aproching 1.5 e-5
amps. that's something like 0.0015ma if my exponential math is
correct.

It's not.

It also assumes your resistance figures are correct -- which I very,
very much doubt.

Do your calculations again, with realistic resistance figures this time
(both for the human body, and for the neutral wire), and see where it
leads you.

And that is with the VERY BAD 0.5 ohm ground.

500 milliohms is the resistance of approximately 170 feet of 14AWG
copper; there is at least one 15A circuit in my house where the last
outlet is very nearly that far from the panel. What makes you think that
indicates a "VERY BAD" ground?

Regardless, we are talking running that circuit at FULL LOAD - so even
with YOUR numbers, it is far from "dangerous"

On Sep 18, 3:25*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 07:20:12 -0700 (PDT), "





wrote:
Doug, without proof, I'm not buying into that it's a tiny
current. * We don't even know the specific X10 switch
he's contemplating using. *We do know that it's one
that works any load, not just incandescents. *All the
ones of that type I have seen have relays. *You can
hear them click. *A relay needs some reasonable
current to pull in and I would think that current is
flowing in the neutral, meaning it could be 30ma,
the lethal threshold.

I think it's totally irresponsible to be advocating using
a neutral from another circuit with a device that
no one here even has a spec sheet on. *CL and
Andy are assuming the X10 switch has a "tiny"
current, but no one knows that.

The no neutral incandescent only switch would most likely be a WS467,
and the flourescent control (with neutral) would likely be an XPS3
(relay) switch.
If the relay is operating on 110 volts nominal voltage, it will, in
all likelihood, draw aprocemately 1ma - as MOST miniature relays have
85 to 110 mw coils. *Lets go worst case at 110mw on 120 volts - that
is 0.91 ma.

I say it's totally irresponsible to be encouraging someone
to tap into a neutral on another circuit based on guesses as
to the design and operating charecteristics of an X10
switch they would install when you don't even know which
one it is or how much current it sends down the neutral.

And I've asked about 5 times now. If he can go find
another circuit's neutral and run a wire from that to
the switch, then why the hell can't he just run a hot
back as well and make it code compliant and safe?



he AVERAGE person will not even detect current flow of
under 1 ma. My OLD GE plug-in remote control appears to draw just over
10ma of current at 117 volts, but it has a transformer in it where the
X10 wall switch most likely uses a miniature switcher to provide the
low voltage. Anyone have *an XPS3 and a multi-tester to settle this
once and for all????

That wouldn't settle it because we don't know which
switch actual he has. Or which switch he or someone else will
replace it with in 2 years when it fails. How about they
replace it with a switch/receptacle combo?


* And again - I would NOT advocate running an "orphan" neutral into
the box.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I sure looks like the two of you are giving it the green light
by claiming it's safe.

On Sep 18, 2:26 pm, wrote:

Can you measure the activation current on one of your "appliance
modules" and put this turkey to bed???


Andy adds:
On second thought, nothing is going to "put this turkey to
bed", regardless of the information presented. There are
different mindsets on this, and it's up to Ivan to figure out
what he wants to do . Beyond that, it's really nobody's
concern.... Good luck to Ivan.... !!!

Andy in Eureka, Texas

On Sep 19, 9:07*am, Andy wrote:
On Sep 18, 2:26 pm, wrote:

*Can you measure the activation current on one of your "appliance
modules" and put this turkey to bed???

Andy adds:
* On second thought, nothing is going to "put this turkey to
bed", regardless of the information presented. *There are
different mindsets on this, and it's up to Ivan to figure out
what he wants to do .

It's not up to Ivan to figure out. That's why we have the
NEC which specifies how wiring is done safely.


* *Beyond that, it's really nobody's
concern.... * * *Good luck to Ivan.... !!!

* * * * * * * * * * * Andy in *Eureka, Texas

I'd say it's everyone's concern. I would not want to
buy a house with half-assed wiring in direct violation
of NEC. When someone gets killed because of
stupidity like this, it's a safety issue for the general
public, because it may not be Ivan that winds up
dead.

On 9/19/2011 9:07 AM, Andy wrote:

On Sep 18, 2:26 pm, wrote:

Can you measure the activation current on one of your "appliance
modules" and put this turkey to bed???


Andy adds:
On second thought, nothing is going to "put this turkey to
bed", regardless of the information presented. There are
different mindsets on this, and it's up to Ivan to figure out
what he wants to do . Beyond that, it's really nobody's
concern.... Good luck to Ivan.... !!!

And this is exactly why NOBODY should be taking electrical advice from you.

It is NOT "up to Ivan to figure out what he wants to do." It is up to
Ivan to figure out how to install what he wants to install in compliance
with the electrical code. In many places, the NEC has the force of law.

And it IS the concern of, among others, anyone else who might ever work
on that circuit in the future.

If I was considering the purchase of a home in which an inspection
turned up something like this, I certainly would refuse to close until
the violation had been corrected. This is the sort of "material defect"
that can scuttle a real estate deal.

On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 05:42:31 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Sep 18, 3:25Â*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 07:20:12 -0700 (PDT), "





wrote:
Doug, without proof, I'm not buying into that it's a tiny
current. Â* We don't even know the specific X10 switch
he's contemplating using. Â*We do know that it's one
that works any load, not just incandescents. Â*All the
ones of that type I have seen have relays. Â*You can
hear them click. Â*A relay needs some reasonable
current to pull in and I would think that current is
flowing in the neutral, meaning it could be 30ma,
the lethal threshold.

I think it's totally irresponsible to be advocating using
a neutral from another circuit with a device that
no one here even has a spec sheet on. Â*CL and
Andy are assuming the X10 switch has a "tiny"
current, but no one knows that.

The no neutral incandescent only switch would most likely be a WS467,
and the flourescent control (with neutral) would likely be an XPS3
(relay) switch.
If the relay is operating on 110 volts nominal voltage, it will, in
all likelihood, draw aprocemately 1ma - as MOST miniature relays have
85 to 110 mw coils. Â*Lets go worst case at 110mw on 120 volts - that
is 0.91 ma.

I say it's totally irresponsible to be encouraging someone
to tap into a neutral on another circuit based on guesses as
to the design and operating charecteristics of an X10
switch they would install when you don't even know which
one it is or how much current it sends down the neutral.

And I've asked about 5 times now. If he can go find
another circuit's neutral and run a wire from that to
the switch, then why the hell can't he just run a hot
back as well and make it code compliant and safe?



he AVERAGE person will not even detect current flow of
under 1 ma. My OLD GE plug-in remote control appears to draw just over
10ma of current at 117 volts, but it has a transformer in it where the
X10 wall switch most likely uses a miniature switcher to provide the
low voltage. Anyone have Â*an XPS3 and a multi-tester to settle this
once and for all????

That wouldn't settle it because we don't know which
switch actual he has. Or which switch he or someone else will
replace it with in 2 years when it fails. How about they
replace it with a switch/receptacle combo?


Â* And again - I would NOT advocate running an "orphan" neutral into
the box.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I sure looks like the two of you are giving it the green light
by claiming it's safe.
No, I'M NOT giving the green light. I'm just trying to correct the
ASSumpions a lot of electrically semi-ignorant people have
electrical safety.

It is NOT a good idea because it is against code - and that is
basically because of what else COULD be done in the future.

The actual safety of the installation is NOT a serious issue.

And if the OP wants to cheat, there is a MUCH simpler way than
installing another orphan neutral. No extra wires required - just as
safe, and just as much against code - but no chance of a future
installation making it more unsafe.

I'm not going to tell anyone how to do it, because it is not proper -
but it WILL work, and it WILL be safe, and it IS dead simple.

How do you like THEM bananas??

On Sep 19, 4:27*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 05:42:31 -0700 (PDT), "





wrote:
On Sep 18, 3:25*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 07:20:12 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
Doug, without proof, I'm not buying into that it's a tiny
current. * We don't even know the specific X10 switch
he's contemplating using. *We do know that it's one
that works any load, not just incandescents. *All the
ones of that type I have seen have relays. *You can
hear them click. *A relay needs some reasonable
current to pull in and I would think that current is
flowing in the neutral, meaning it could be 30ma,
the lethal threshold.

I think it's totally irresponsible to be advocating using
a neutral from another circuit with a device that
no one here even has a spec sheet on. *CL and
Andy are assuming the X10 switch has a "tiny"
current, but no one knows that.

The no neutral incandescent only switch would most likely be a WS467,
and the flourescent control (with neutral) would likely be an XPS3
(relay) switch.
If the relay is operating on 110 volts nominal voltage, it will, in
all likelihood, draw aprocemately 1ma - as MOST miniature relays have
85 to 110 mw coils. *Lets go worst case at 110mw on 120 volts - that
is 0.91 ma.

I say it's totally irresponsible to be encouraging someone
to tap into a neutral on another circuit based on guesses as
to the design and operating charecteristics of an X10
switch they would install when you don't even know which
one it is or how much current it sends down the neutral.

And I've asked about 5 times now. *If he can go find
another circuit's neutral and run a wire from that to
the switch, then why the hell can't he just run a hot
back as well and make it code compliant and safe?

he AVERAGE person will not even detect current flow of
under 1 ma. My OLD GE plug-in remote control appears to draw just over
10ma of current at 117 volts, but it has a transformer in it where the
X10 wall switch most likely uses a miniature switcher to provide the
low voltage. Anyone have *an XPS3 and a multi-tester to settle this
once and for all????

That wouldn't settle it because we don't know which
switch actual he has. *Or which switch he or someone else will
replace it with in 2 years when it fails. *How about they
replace it with a switch/receptacle combo?

* And again - I would NOT advocate running an "orphan" neutral into
the box.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I sure looks like the two of you are giving it the green light
by claiming it's safe.

*No, I'M NOT giving the green light. I'm just trying to correct the
ASSumpions a lot of electrically semi-ignorant people have
electrical safety.

It is NOT a good idea because it is against code - and that is
basically because of what else COULD be done in the future.

The actual safety of the installation is NOT a serious issue.

And if the OP wants to cheat, there is a MUCH simpler way than
installing another orphan neutral. No extra wires required - just as
safe, and just as much against code - but no chance of a future
installation making it more unsafe.

I'm not going to tell anyone how to do it, because it is not proper -
but it WILL work, and it WILL be safe, and it IS dead simple.

How *do you like THEM bananas??- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I say because you don't even know what X10 switch he's
actually using, you are making assumptions about how much current that
switch could
send down the neutral. It takes as little as 30ma to kill
someone. I sure wouldn't be proclaiming it safe based
on guesses as to what the current coming out of the switch
which has a relay that gets energized might be.
Those X10 switches are made in China and I'll bet
they do not even spec the current, so it could be
anything and vary from one manufacturer to another.

On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 15:21:51 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Sep 19, 4:27Â*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 05:42:31 -0700 (PDT), "





wrote:
On Sep 18, 3:25Â*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 07:20:12 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
Doug, without proof, I'm not buying into that it's a tiny
current. Â* We don't even know the specific X10 switch
he's contemplating using. Â*We do know that it's one
that works any load, not just incandescents. Â*All the
ones of that type I have seen have relays. Â*You can
hear them click. Â*A relay needs some reasonable
current to pull in and I would think that current is
flowing in the neutral, meaning it could be 30ma,
the lethal threshold.

I think it's totally irresponsible to be advocating using
a neutral from another circuit with a device that
no one here even has a spec sheet on. Â*CL and
Andy are assuming the X10 switch has a "tiny"
current, but no one knows that.

The no neutral incandescent only switch would most likely be a WS467,
and the flourescent control (with neutral) would likely be an XPS3
(relay) switch.
If the relay is operating on 110 volts nominal voltage, it will, in
all likelihood, draw aprocemately 1ma - as MOST miniature relays have
85 to 110 mw coils. Â*Lets go worst case at 110mw on 120 volts - that
is 0.91 ma.

I say it's totally irresponsible to be encouraging someone
to tap into a neutral on another circuit based on guesses as
to the design and operating charecteristics of an X10
switch they would install when you don't even know which
one it is or how much current it sends down the neutral.

And I've asked about 5 times now. Â*If he can go find
another circuit's neutral and run a wire from that to
the switch, then why the hell can't he just run a hot
back as well and make it code compliant and safe?

he AVERAGE person will not even detect current flow of
under 1 ma. My OLD GE plug-in remote control appears to draw just over
10ma of current at 117 volts, but it has a transformer in it where the
X10 wall switch most likely uses a miniature switcher to provide the
low voltage. Anyone have Â*an XPS3 and a multi-tester to settle this
once and for all????

That wouldn't settle it because we don't know which
switch actual he has. Â*Or which switch he or someone else will
replace it with in 2 years when it fails. Â*How about they
replace it with a switch/receptacle combo?

Â* And again - I would NOT advocate running an "orphan" neutral into
the box.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I sure looks like the two of you are giving it the green light
by claiming it's safe.

Â*No, I'M NOT giving the green light. I'm just trying to correct the
ASSumpions a lot of electrically semi-ignorant people have
electrical safety.

It is NOT a good idea because it is against code - and that is
basically because of what else COULD be done in the future.

The actual safety of the installation is NOT a serious issue.

And if the OP wants to cheat, there is a MUCH simpler way than
installing another orphan neutral. No extra wires required - just as
safe, and just as much against code - but no chance of a future
installation making it more unsafe.

I'm not going to tell anyone how to do it, because it is not proper -
but it WILL work, and it WILL be safe, and it IS dead simple.

How Â*do you like THEM bananas??- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I say because you don't even know what X10 switch he's
actually using, you are making assumptions about how much current that
switch could
send down the neutral.

If it's current stuff I just gave you the two alternatives.

It takes as little as 30ma to kill
someone. I sure wouldn't be proclaiming it safe based
on guesses as to what the current coming out of the switch
which has a relay that gets energized might be.
Those X10 switches are made in China and I'll bet
they do not even spec the current, so it could be
anything and vary from one manufacturer to another.
If it's X-10 it's X-10. If it's GE or whatever, it's not X-10.

wrote in message news:9ff19029-ff79-40d4-bb65-

I've asked about 5 times now. If he can go find
another circuit's neutral and run a wire from that to
the switch, then why the hell can't he just run a hot
back as well and make it code compliant and safe?

We don't agree on much, but you're spot on here, Chet. If you're going to
pull one freaking wire, why not pull two?

I bought a house that had neutrals pulled from other circuits that I didn't
discover until I ripped out the suspended ceiling in the basement. Passed
some pretty invasive testing, too, because jack-assed wiring was a concern.
I'm still not sure how, in the course of what normal home sales allow, how I
*ever* would have caught the miswiring before purchase. Shocked the living
**** out of me. So I am a firm believer in "if it's not code, don't do it."

I suspect that the reason my house's former owners pulled only one wire is
that they were cheap SOB's. But, as you say, if you're going to pull one
wire, why in heck not pull two and do it right? Unless you're drilling
through 12" of 80 year old superhard concrete, there's no earthly reason not
to pull the whole damn wire with proper ground in proper sheathing.

It sounds like Ivan will make the same choice as I did in really
nasty-to-reach fixtures: use incandescents. I bought a hybrid GE
CFL/halogen bulb to see if it would allow enough current to pass for the
switch to operate in a circuit without a neutral. It turned on by remote
control, but would never turn off, except by the local control.

The reason the CFL bulbs don't work well on X-10 is that X-10's circuitry
derives power from being able to deliver a very small trickle current
through the cold tungsten bulb filament when no neutral is present. A CFL
bulb presents quite a different electric "landscape" than a tungsten
filament one. It usually consumes that trickle power in the form of
flashing.

I am surprised none of the X-10 gurus have ever developed a retrofit like a
disc (like the old coin shaped fixed dimmers) placed between the bulb and
socket that allowed a small trickle current to flow like a cold tungsten
filament does. I imagine the devil might be in the details and that CFL
bulbs probably present a host of different electrical signatures.

As for the "should I do it?" debate, I always get antsy when there is a very
clear right answer and people begin to talk esoteric technical stuff that
obscures it. Things like skin resistivity and parallel circuit theory HAS
to confuse the hell out of newcomers here in AHR. Some responses appear to
gloss over the NEC as somehow "niggling" or not really applying to this
situation. The NEC's "reason to be" has been not only "original" safety
(building the circuits), but follow-on safety as well (maintaining or
extending the circuits). The NEC is just as concerned about the next person
to own or work on the wiring as it is the original electrician running the
wires. It provides a standard way of doing things so that people will have
some confidence in the way the wiring was done.

To me, it makes little sense to even say "only pull a neutral." I think
it's merely a case of people/docs wrongly saying "you need a neutral"
instead of saying "you need a new (or piggyback) circuit with a neutral."
Told they need a neutral, that's just what they do when confronted with a
device like an X-10 module or an electronic timer that requires a neutral in
the box.

The debate about how dangerous it is to "break code" happens repeatedly in
AHR - people forget they weren't (usually) asked question about advanced
physics, nuclear engineering or quantum mechanics. So they descend lower
and lower into the weeds losing sight of the original question. It's an
easy thing to do, but it's really a disservice to the OP in most cases.

In this situation I have to agree with Chet and the others that the OP
*should* be hearing (as some did strongly advocate): "You at least need to
pull hot and neutral together, preferable with ground, too. The safest
solution, and one that would satisfy the NEC would be to run that wire back
to the panel. That way you would be sure to not to overload whatever
circuit you are looking to tap power from."

That's what I did when I wanted outdoor CFL's. Since those lights burn most
of the night that's a use where they really save money. I pulled a new
circuit to a new fixture and left incandescents on the old, motion-triggered
lights that are only on for 6 minutes per activation but need to come on
instantly, even in the cold. Tungsten bulbs are ideal for that use, they
don't cost much to operate 6 minutes at a time, they don't mind frequent
"short cycling" and their light contains enough IR to give me about 2
F/stops more light than the CFLs on my CCTV setup.

--
Bobby G.

* FERNANDEZ, DANIEL Rank and organization: Specialist Fourth Class, U.S.
Army, Company C, 1st Battalion, 5th Infantry (Mechanized) 25th Infantry
Division. Place and date: Cu Chi, Hau Nghia Province, Republic of Vietnam,
18 February 1966. Entered service at: Albuquerque, N. Mex. Born: 30 June
1944, Albuquerque, N. Mexico. Citation: Realizing there was no time for his
wounded sergeant or the other men to protect themselves from a grenade
blast, Sp4c. Fernandez vaulted over the wounded sergeant and threw himself
on the grenade as it exploded, saving the lives of his 4 comrades at the
sacrifice of his life.

On Sep 20, 9:02*am, Anthony wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 07:19:03 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
On Sep 19, 9:07 am, Andy wrote:
On Sep 18, 2:26 pm, wrote:

Can you measure the activation current on one of your "appliance
modules" and put this turkey to bed???

Andy adds:
On second thought, nothing is going to "put this turkey to
bed", regardless of the information presented. There are
different mindsets on this, and it's up to Ivan to figure out
what he wants to do .

It's not up to Ivan to figure out. *That's why we have the
NEC which specifies how wiring is done safely.

The NEC is not universally accepted by nearly every jurisdiction in
the U.S. It is modified based upon common sense and what has been
effective for 30-40 years. Try to get info as to number of fires
prevented by AFCI's and you meet a stone wall. How many code mods by
manufacturers vs. inspectors/contractors? About 99 to 1.
I was on code review committe in a major metro area for 5 years and
some of the proposals were laughable.



No one ever said the entire NEC is universally accepted by
every jurisdiction. The issue at hand however is stealing
a neutral from another circuit. That is a very basic part
of the NEC and has been prohibited for good reason
for a very long time. Was stealing a neutral allowed in
the jurisdiction where you were on the committee?
Can you show us one jurisdiction where that
rule has not been adopted? I'll bet you can't and even if
you can, the rule would still cover virtually everywhere
else in the USA and I also bet it covers Ivan.

If we start accepting the idea that even the most basic
parts of NEC are going to be jurisdiction dependent,
then no one can answer most basic electrical wiring
questions here at all. It amazes me how people
will debate such a basic code provision, muddying
the waters and try to give some credence to an
unsafe practice which a novice might then use as
a green light to go ahead and do.

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 08:43:32 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

wrote in message news:9ff19029-ff79-40d4-bb65-

I've asked about 5 times now. If he can go find
another circuit's neutral and run a wire from that to
the switch, then why the hell can't he just run a hot
back as well and make it code compliant and safe?

We don't agree on much, but you're spot on here, Chet. If you're going to
pull one freaking wire, why not pull two?

I bought a house that had neutrals pulled from other circuits that I didn't
discover until I ripped out the suspended ceiling in the basement. Passed
some pretty invasive testing, too, because jack-assed wiring was a concern.
I'm still not sure how, in the course of what normal home sales allow, how I
*ever* would have caught the miswiring before purchase. Shocked the living
**** out of me. So I am a firm believer in "if it's not code, don't do it."


The NEW building the insurance office I work for every morning moved
into a year ago has all kinds of "orphan" neutrals. - and it passed
inspection that way. Not saying it is right.

I suspect that the reason my house's former owners pulled only one wire is
that they were cheap SOB's. But, as you say, if you're going to pull one
wire, why in heck not pull two and do it right? Unless you're drilling
through 12" of 80 year old superhard concrete, there's no earthly reason not
to pull the whole damn wire with proper ground in proper sheathing.

It sounds like Ivan will make the same choice as I did in really
nasty-to-reach fixtures: use incandescents. I bought a hybrid GE
CFL/halogen bulb to see if it would allow enough current to pass for the
switch to operate in a circuit without a neutral. It turned on by remote
control, but would never turn off, except by the local control.

And all Ivan needs ie ONE incandescent on the circuit. A 7 watt bulb
is more than adequate - a standard incandescent night-light (not one
with a photo-cell) will do the job (or has for a friend of mine usinf
the "incandescent only" switch in his basement full of flourescent
bulbs.

The reason the CFL bulbs don't work well on X-10 is that X-10's circuitry
derives power from being able to deliver a very small trickle current
through the cold tungsten bulb filament when no neutral is present. A CFL
bulb presents quite a different electric "landscape" than a tungsten
filament one. It usually consumes that trickle power in the form of
flashing.

I am surprised none of the X-10 gurus have ever developed a retrofit like a
disc (like the old coin shaped fixed dimmers) placed between the bulb and
socket that allowed a small trickle current to flow like a cold tungsten
filament does. I imagine the devil might be in the details and that CFL
bulbs probably present a host of different electrical signatures.

As for the "should I do it?" debate, I always get antsy when there is a very
clear right answer and people begin to talk esoteric technical stuff that
obscures it. Things like skin resistivity and parallel circuit theory HAS
to confuse the hell out of newcomers here in AHR. Some responses appear to
gloss over the NEC as somehow "niggling" or not really applying to this
situation. The NEC's "reason to be" has been not only "original" safety
(building the circuits), but follow-on safety as well (maintaining or
extending the circuits). The NEC is just as concerned about the next person
to own or work on the wiring as it is the original electrician running the
wires. It provides a standard way of doing things so that people will have
some confidence in the way the wiring was done.

To me, it makes little sense to even say "only pull a neutral." I think
it's merely a case of people/docs wrongly saying "you need a neutral"
instead of saying "you need a new (or piggyback) circuit with a neutral."
Told they need a neutral, that's just what they do when confronted with a
device like an X-10 module or an electronic timer that requires a neutral in
the box.

The debate about how dangerous it is to "break code" happens repeatedly in
AHR - people forget they weren't (usually) asked question about advanced
physics, nuclear engineering or quantum mechanics. So they descend lower
and lower into the weeds losing sight of the original question. It's an
easy thing to do, but it's really a disservice to the OP in most cases.

In this situation I have to agree with Chet and the others that the OP
*should* be hearing (as some did strongly advocate): "You at least need to
pull hot and neutral together, preferable with ground, too. The safest
solution, and one that would satisfy the NEC would be to run that wire back
to the panel. That way you would be sure to not to overload whatever
circuit you are looking to tap power from."

That's what I did when I wanted outdoor CFL's. Since those lights burn most
of the night that's a use where they really save money. I pulled a new
circuit to a new fixture and left incandescents on the old, motion-triggered
lights that are only on for 6 minutes per activation but need to come on
instantly, even in the cold. Tungsten bulbs are ideal for that use, they
don't cost much to operate 6 minutes at a time, they don't mind frequent
"short cycling" and their light contains enough IR to give me about 2
F/stops more light than the CFLs on my CCTV setup.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 08:43:32 -0400, "Robert Green"

The NEW building the insurance office I work for every morning moved
into a year ago has all kinds of "orphan" neutrals.

Why? What would cause someone to do that?

and it passed inspection that way. Not saying it is right.

It wasn't. I'd still like to know how to easily check for crossed neutrals
in a house that I want to buy. Standard outlet tests (with those little LED
testers) revealed nothing wrong with the house that I bought that had
several crossed neutrals.

stuff snipped

It sounds like Ivan will make the same choice as I did in really
nasty-to-reach fixtures: use incandescents. I bought a hybrid GE
CFL/halogen bulb to see if it would allow enough current to pass for the
switch to operate in a circuit without a neutral. It turned on by remote
control, but would never turn off, except by the local control.

And all Ivan needs ie ONE incandescent on the circuit. A 7 watt bulb
is more than adequate - a standard incandescent night-light (not one
with a photo-cell) will do the job (or has for a friend of mine usinf
the "incandescent only" switch in his basement full of flourescent
bulbs.

How do you accomplish that in the typical wall switch/ceiling fixture
w/single ceramic socket arrangement? The only thing I can think of is a
Y-socket splitter with a CFL in one socket and the night light in another.
Not very good light distribution but it might work if the fixture is large
enough. Hmmm. I might try that tonight. Some overhead fixtures are two
and three bulb units. I wonder if a nightlight in one of the extra sockets
would do the trick? I might even try that experiment tonight if I have the
time.

--
Bobby G.
*HARTSOCK, ROBERT W. Rank and organization: Staff Sergeant, U.S. Army, 44th
Infantry Platoon, 3d Brigade, 25th Infantry Division. Place and date: Hau
Nghia, Province, Republic of Vietnam, 23 February 1969. Entered service at:
Fairmont, W. Va. Born: 24 January 1945, Cumberland, Md. As a wounded enemy
soldier fell, he managed to detonate a satchel charge he was carrying.
S/Sgt. Hartsock, with complete disregard for his life, threw himself on the
charge and was gravely wounded. In spite of his wounds, S/Sgt. Hartsock
crawled about 5 meters to a ditch and provided heavy suppressive fire,
completely pinning down the enemy and allowing his commander to seek
shelter. S/Sgt. Hartsock continued his deadly stream of fire until he
succumbed to his wounds.

On 9/20/2011 9:25 PM, Robert Green wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 08:43:32 -0400, "Robert Green"

The NEW building the insurance office I work for every morning moved
into a year ago has all kinds of "orphan" neutrals.

Why? What would cause someone to do that?

Laziness, stupidity, and ignorance come to mind as the most obvious
explanations.

and it passed inspection that way. Not saying it is right.

It wasn't. I'd still like to know how to easily check for crossed neutrals
in a house that I want to buy. Standard outlet tests (with those little LED
testers) revealed nothing wrong with the house that I bought that had
several crossed neutrals.

And it won't, either. There is no easy way to check.

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 21:25:39 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 08:43:32 -0400, "Robert Green"

The NEW building the insurance office I work for every morning moved
into a year ago has all kinds of "orphan" neutrals.

Why? What would cause someone to do that?

No idea, but the live and neutral wires didn't all get into the right
conduits when the wires were originally pulled in.

and it passed inspection that way. Not saying it is right.

It wasn't. I'd still like to know how to easily check for crossed neutrals
in a house that I want to buy. Standard outlet tests (with those little LED
testers) revealed nothing wrong with the house that I bought that had
several crossed neutrals.


The electrician we called in to do some modifications was also asked
to "map" the circuits on the 4 panels in the building - and in so
doing determined there were crossed up neutrals. He said it was up to
us - we could spend the money to get it ALL figured out and make it
right, or he'd just pretend he didn't see it, because he wasn't about
to tangle with the inspectors and convince them they made a mistake in
the inspection....

He said it's no big thing, as long as the neutrals stay connected -
just about every outlet or switched string of lights is on it's own
breaker - split between 4 LARGE panels throughout the building.
stuff snipped

It sounds like Ivan will make the same choice as I did in really
nasty-to-reach fixtures: use incandescents. I bought a hybrid GE
CFL/halogen bulb to see if it would allow enough current to pass for the
switch to operate in a circuit without a neutral. It turned on by remote
control, but would never turn off, except by the local control.

And all Ivan needs ie ONE incandescent on the circuit. A 7 watt bulb
is more than adequate - a standard incandescent night-light (not one
with a photo-cell) will do the job (or has for a friend of mine usinf
the "incandescent only" switch in his basement full of flourescent
bulbs.

How do you accomplish that in the typical wall switch/ceiling fixture
w/single ceramic socket arrangement? The only thing I can think of is a
Y-socket splitter with a CFL in one socket and the night light in another.
Not very good light distribution but it might work if the fixture is large
enough. Hmmm. I might try that tonight. Some overhead fixtures are two
and three bulb units. I wonder if a nightlight in one of the extra sockets
would do the trick? I might even try that experiment tonight if I have the
time.

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 22:17:13 -0400, Doug Miller
wrote:

On 9/20/2011 9:25 PM, Robert Green wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 08:43:32 -0400, "Robert Green"

The NEW building the insurance office I work for every morning moved
into a year ago has all kinds of "orphan" neutrals.

Why? What would cause someone to do that?

Laziness, stupidity, and ignorance come to mind as the most obvious
explanations.

and it passed inspection that way. Not saying it is right.

It wasn't. I'd still like to know how to easily check for crossed neutrals
in a house that I want to buy. Standard outlet tests (with those little LED
testers) revealed nothing wrong with the house that I bought that had
several crossed neutrals.

And it won't, either. There is no easy way to check.
Because ELECTRICALLY, there is no difference as long as nothing goes
wrong. You need to physically disconnect and separate all the neutrals
and then check for interconnection between circuits - one at a time,
in every possible combination, to find it. Or load each circuit, and
energizing each circuit sparately, check each neutral to see if the
neutral corresponding to the line - and ONLY the neutral corresponding
to the line, is "live" - while all neutrals are physically
disconnected.

Only other way is to physically trace back all the wires - an even
BIGGER job.

On Sep 20, 10:55*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 22:17:13 -0400, Doug Miller





wrote:
On 9/20/2011 9:25 PM, Robert Green wrote:
*wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 08:43:32 -0400, "Robert Green"

The NEW building the insurance office I work for every morning moved
into a year ago has all kinds of "orphan" neutrals.

Why? *What would cause someone to do that?

Laziness, stupidity, and ignorance come to mind as the most obvious
explanations.

and it passed inspection that way. Not saying it is right.

It wasn't. *I'd still like to know how to easily check for crossed neutrals
in a house that I want to buy. *Standard outlet tests (with those little LED
testers) revealed nothing wrong with the house that I bought that had
several crossed neutrals.

And it won't, either. There is no easy way to check.

*Because ELECTRICALLY, there is no difference as long as nothing goes
wrong. You need to physically disconnect and separate all the neutrals
and then check for interconnection between circuits - one at a time,
in every possible combination, to find it. *Or load each circuit, and
energizing each circuit sparately, check each neutral to see if the
neutral corresponding to the line - and ONLY the neutral corresponding
to the line, is "live" - while all neutrals are physically
disconnected.

Only other way is to physically trace back all the wires - an even
BIGGER job.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I would think a relatively easy test would be to put in a GFCI
breaker, temporarily at least, in each breaker slot. GFCI's
include a circuit which places a small test voltage on the
hot and neutral simultaneously to detect if there is a short
between the neutral and ground anywhere in the circuit.
That GFCI would also trip in the case where the neutral
is either not for that circuit, or crosswired with another
neutral because it would look to the GFCI just like a
short between neutral and ground.

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 22:55:42 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 22:17:13 -0400, Doug Miller
wrote:

On 9/20/2011 9:25 PM, Robert Green wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 08:43:32 -0400, "Robert Green"

The NEW building the insurance office I work for every morning moved
into a year ago has all kinds of "orphan" neutrals.

Why? What would cause someone to do that?

Laziness, stupidity, and ignorance come to mind as the most obvious
explanations.

and it passed inspection that way. Not saying it is right.

It wasn't. I'd still like to know how to easily check for crossed neutrals
in a house that I want to buy. Standard outlet tests (with those little LED
testers) revealed nothing wrong with the house that I bought that had
several crossed neutrals.

And it won't, either. There is no easy way to check.
Because ELECTRICALLY, there is no difference as long as nothing goes

Electrically there is a difference. It shows up on systems that have
metal raceways. When you run power conductors with the neutral, the
magnetic fields cancel. If you run the neutral through a different
metal raceway you get inductive heating.

wrong. You need to physically disconnect and separate all the neutrals
and then check for interconnection between circuits - one at a time,
in every possible combination, to find it. Or load each circuit, and
energizing each circuit sparately, check each neutral to see if the
neutral corresponding to the line - and ONLY the neutral corresponding
to the line, is "live" - while all neutrals are physically
disconnected.

Only other way is to physically trace back all the wires - an even
BIGGER job.

On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 10:20:15 -0400, Metspitzer wrote:

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 22:55:42 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 22:17:13 -0400, Doug Miller
wrote:

On 9/20/2011 9:25 PM, Robert Green wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 08:43:32 -0400, "Robert Green"

The NEW building the insurance office I work for every morning moved
into a year ago has all kinds of "orphan" neutrals.

Why? What would cause someone to do that?

Laziness, stupidity, and ignorance come to mind as the most obvious
explanations.

and it passed inspection that way. Not saying it is right.

It wasn't. I'd still like to know how to easily check for crossed neutrals
in a house that I want to buy. Standard outlet tests (with those little LED
testers) revealed nothing wrong with the house that I bought that had
several crossed neutrals.

And it won't, either. There is no easy way to check.
Because ELECTRICALLY, there is no difference as long as nothing goes

Electrically there is a difference. It shows up on systems that have
metal raceways. When you run power conductors with the neutral, the
magnetic fields cancel. If you run the neutral through a different
metal raceway you get inductive heating.

I'm sure you could see that difference with a TDR, also.

...

wrote in message

stuff snipped

It wasn't. I'd still like to know how to easily check for crossed
neutrals
in a house that I want to buy. Standard outlet tests (with those
little LED
testers) revealed nothing wrong with the house that I bought that had
several crossed neutrals.

And it won't, either. There is no easy way to check.
Because ELECTRICALLY, there is no difference as long as nothing goes
wrong. You need to physically disconnect and separate all the neutrals
and then check for interconnection between circuits - one at a time,
in every possible combination, to find it. Or load each circuit, and
energizing each circuit sparately, check each neutral to see if the
neutral corresponding to the line - and ONLY the neutral corresponding
to the line, is "live" - while all neutrals are physically
disconnected.

Well, that's something most homeowners or real estate agents aren't going to
allow. I got bad enough looks from homeowners running around their houses
unplugging things from outlets so I could plug in an outlet tester. One
homeowner only agreed to that when I said I would have my wife film all the
testing and give him a DVD to show others and perhaps save him a plug
in/plug out session. I actually feel better knowing that short of massive
work at the panel, I wouldn't have been able to catch the few "crosspulled"
neutrals that I had.

Only other way is to physically trace back all the wires - an even
BIGGER job.

That won't be happening any time soon in any house I'm buying. (-:

--
Bobby G.

"Usafretcol" wrote in message
wrote
wrote:
wrote


stuff snipped

Sometimes you find strange things. I inspected an office suite for
changes requested by a new tenant and I found that the 277V.
fluorescents were fed with one wire and connected to the to the steel
structure for the neutral.

Reading that actually made me squirm in my chair. Non-electricians seem to
have a very odd understanding of the true relationship between neutral and
ground. From that error all manner of kludges flow.

Needless to say, I contacted the city and
the entire building was declared unsuitable for tenancy. While the EC
that was hired for repairs was working, the building actually caught
fire in another suite.

Nothing like a little fire to confirm your diagnosis that something's not
quite right with that building.
Some folks will cheat at anything if they think they can make a buck
and to hell with safety.

One of the most outrageous examples I ever came across was a federal
contractor who was installing a fire sprinkler system WITHOUT PLUMBING!
They just attached the heads to the ceiling panels hoping they might never
be inspected or tested. Never underestimate what a person or company will
due when they're facing bankruptcy. I'm waiting for some serious disasters
to occur because safety is often an area quite prone to panic-style cost
cutting.

--
Bobby G.
*HIBBS, ROBERT JOHN Rank and organization: Second Lieutenant, U.S. Army,
Company B, 2d Battalion, 28th Infantry, 1st Infantry Division. Place and
date: Don Dien Lo Ke, Republic of Vietnam, 5 March 1966. Entered service at:
Des Moines, Iowa. Born: 21 April 1943, Omaha, Nebr. G.O. No.: 8, 24 February
1967. He prepared his men for an oncoming Viet Cong onslaught by placing 2
mines in their path and, when the insurgents were within 20 feet of the
patrol's position, he detonated them, wounding or killing half of the enemy
company. Learning that a wounded patrol member was wandering in the area
between the 2 opposing forces and although moments from safety and wounded
in the leg himself, he and a sergeant went back to the battlefield to
recover the stricken man. After they maneuvered through the withering fire
of 2 Viet Cong machine guns, the sergeant grabbed the dazed soldier and
dragged him back toward the friendly lines while 2d Lt. Hibbs remained
behind to provide covering fire. Armed with only an M-16 rifle and a pistol,
but determined to destroy the enemy positions, he then charged the 2 machine
gun emplacements and was struck down. Before succumbing to his mortal
wounds, he destroyed the starlight telescopic sight attached to his rifle to
prevent its capture and use by the Viet Cong.

(Sorry for the length, some of these citations just can't be edited down to
a paragraph.)

On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 05:27:21 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Sep 20, 10:55Â*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 22:17:13 -0400, Doug Miller





wrote:
On 9/20/2011 9:25 PM, Robert Green wrote:
Â*wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 08:43:32 -0400, "Robert Green"

The NEW building the insurance office I work for every morning moved
into a year ago has all kinds of "orphan" neutrals.

Why? Â*What would cause someone to do that?

Laziness, stupidity, and ignorance come to mind as the most obvious
explanations.

and it passed inspection that way. Not saying it is right.

It wasn't. Â*I'd still like to know how to easily check for crossed neutrals
in a house that I want to buy. Â*Standard outlet tests (with those little LED
testers) revealed nothing wrong with the house that I bought that had
several crossed neutrals.

And it won't, either. There is no easy way to check.

Â*Because ELECTRICALLY, there is no difference as long as nothing goes
wrong. You need to physically disconnect and separate all the neutrals
and then check for interconnection between circuits - one at a time,
in every possible combination, to find it. Â*Or load each circuit, and
energizing each circuit sparately, check each neutral to see if the
neutral corresponding to the line - and ONLY the neutral corresponding
to the line, is "live" - while all neutrals are physically
disconnected.

Only other way is to physically trace back all the wires - an even
BIGGER job.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I would think a relatively easy test would be to put in a GFCI
breaker, temporarily at least, in each breaker slot. GFCI's
include a circuit which places a small test voltage on the
hot and neutral simultaneously to detect if there is a short
between the neutral and ground anywhere in the circuit.
That GFCI would also trip in the case where the neutral
is either not for that circuit, or crosswired with another
neutral because it would look to the GFCI just like a
short between neutral and ground.
No, it would not - as ALL neutrals are connected. The only way the
GFCI would trip is if there is a problem in one of the neutrals -if
even then.

Try it some time. Wire up a couple of circuits on a test board and
plug it into an outlet. Have 2 "circuits" on the test board, and cross
the neutrals. Put a GFCI on one or both circuits ant test to your
heart's content.

On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 10:20:15 -0400, Metspitzer
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 22:55:42 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 22:17:13 -0400, Doug Miller
wrote:

On 9/20/2011 9:25 PM, Robert Green wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 08:43:32 -0400, "Robert Green"

The NEW building the insurance office I work for every morning moved
into a year ago has all kinds of "orphan" neutrals.

Why? What would cause someone to do that?

Laziness, stupidity, and ignorance come to mind as the most obvious
explanations.

and it passed inspection that way. Not saying it is right.

It wasn't. I'd still like to know how to easily check for crossed neutrals
in a house that I want to buy. Standard outlet tests (with those little LED
testers) revealed nothing wrong with the house that I bought that had
several crossed neutrals.

And it won't, either. There is no easy way to check.
Because ELECTRICALLY, there is no difference as long as nothing goes

Electrically there is a difference. It shows up on systems that have
metal raceways. When you run power conductors with the neutral, the
magnetic fields cancel. If you run the neutral through a different
metal raceway you get inductive heating.

PARDON?????? How is it goiung to know the neutral is crossed if both
neutrals are running in the same raceway with both powers? When you
have 20 circuits running in one raceway or conduit is when the
neutrals DO get crossed.
I'd really like to see you determine which circuits have "crossed
neutrals" bu sensing and measuring either the magnetic field or the
inductive heating - even if the two circuits are NOT in the same
raceway or conduit.

wrong. You need to physically disconnect and separate all the neutrals
and then check for interconnection between circuits - one at a time,
in every possible combination, to find it. Or load each circuit, and
energizing each circuit sparately, check each neutral to see if the
neutral corresponding to the line - and ONLY the neutral corresponding
to the line, is "live" - while all neutrals are physically
disconnected.

Only other way is to physically trace back all the wires - an even
BIGGER job.

On 9/21/2011 5:49 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 10:20:15 -0400,
wrote:

Electrically there is a difference. It shows up on systems that have
metal raceways. When you run power conductors with the neutral, the
magnetic fields cancel. If you run the neutral through a different
metal raceway you get inductive heating.

PARDON?????? How is it goiung to know the neutral is crossed if both
neutrals are running in the same raceway with both powers?

If the loads on both circuits are identical, it won't. But consider two
circuits, A and B. One conduit contains A's hot and B's neutral; a
second conduit contains B's hot and A's neutral. Now load A at 30A and B
at 10A. There's a net 20A current in each conduit.

When you
have 20 circuits running in one raceway or conduit is when the
neutrals DO get crossed.
I'd really like to see you determine which circuits have "crossed
neutrals" bu sensing and measuring either the magnetic field or the
inductive heating - even if the two circuits are NOT in the same
raceway or conduit.

If they're all in one conduit, you can't. If they're in different
conduits, it's simple: don't load them the same.

On Sep 21, 5:44*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 05:27:21 -0700 (PDT), "





wrote:
On Sep 20, 10:55*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 22:17:13 -0400, Doug Miller

wrote:
On 9/20/2011 9:25 PM, Robert Green wrote:
*wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 08:43:32 -0400, "Robert Green"

The NEW building the insurance office I work for every morning moved
into a year ago has all kinds of "orphan" neutrals.

Why? *What would cause someone to do that?

Laziness, stupidity, and ignorance come to mind as the most obvious
explanations.

and it passed inspection that way. Not saying it is right.

It wasn't. *I'd still like to know how to easily check for crossed neutrals
in a house that I want to buy. *Standard outlet tests (with those little LED
testers) revealed nothing wrong with the house that I bought that had
several crossed neutrals.

And it won't, either. There is no easy way to check.

*Because ELECTRICALLY, there is no difference as long as nothing goes
wrong. You need to physically disconnect and separate all the neutrals
and then check for interconnection between circuits - one at a time,
in every possible combination, to find it. *Or load each circuit, and
energizing each circuit sparately, check each neutral to see if the
neutral corresponding to the line - and ONLY the neutral corresponding
to the line, is "live" - while all neutrals are physically
disconnected.

Only other way is to physically trace back all the wires - an even
BIGGER job.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I would think a relatively easy test would be to put in a GFCI
breaker, temporarily at least, in each breaker slot. *GFCI's
include a circuit which places a small test voltage on the
hot and neutral simultaneously to detect if there is a short
between the neutral and ground anywhere in the circuit.
That GFCI would also trip in the case where the neutral
is either not for that circuit, or crosswired with another
neutral because it would look to the GFCI just like a
short between neutral and ground.

*No, it would not - as ALL neutrals are connected. The only way the
GFCI would trip is if there is a problem in one of the neutrals -if
even then.

Wrong. Go take a look at how a GFCI is actually designed.
As I stated, besides comparing the current flowing
in the hot and neutral through any loads,
they also generate a small 120hz
test voltage on both the hot and neutral. Any path back to
that GFCI other than the hot and neutral connected to it
will result in it tripping. That path could be the neutral
of that circuit connected to ground OR that neutral
connected to another neutral. In either case, the
GFCI will trip as soon as power is turned on, without
any load.

So, if you want to find out if you have any shared or
crossed neutrals, all you have to do is replace breakers
one at a time with a GFCI and turn the power on. If
there are any crossed or shared, the GFCI will trip.
It's all about parallel circuits.




Try it some time. Wire up a couple of circuits on a test board and
plug it into an outlet. Have 2 "circuits" on the test board, and cross
the neutrals. Put a GFCI on one or both circuits ant test to your
heart's content.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


You really should stop giving advice on subjects
beyond your pay grade.

On 9/21/2011 10:12 PM, wrote:
On Sep 21, 5:44 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 05:27:21 -0700 (PDT), "





wrote:
On Sep 20, 10:55 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 22:17:13 -0400, Doug Miller

wrote:
On 9/20/2011 9:25 PM, Robert Green wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 08:43:32 -0400, "Robert Green"

The NEW building the insurance office I work for every morning moved
into a year ago has all kinds of "orphan" neutrals.

Why? What would cause someone to do that?

Laziness, stupidity, and ignorance come to mind as the most obvious
explanations.

and it passed inspection that way. Not saying it is right.

It wasn't. I'd still like to know how to easily check for crossed neutrals
in a house that I want to buy. Standard outlet tests (with those little LED
testers) revealed nothing wrong with the house that I bought that had
several crossed neutrals.

And it won't, either. There is no easy way to check.

Because ELECTRICALLY, there is no difference as long as nothing goes
wrong. You need to physically disconnect and separate all the neutrals
and then check for interconnection between circuits - one at a time,
in every possible combination, to find it. Or load each circuit, and
energizing each circuit sparately, check each neutral to see if the
neutral corresponding to the line - and ONLY the neutral corresponding
to the line, is "live" - while all neutrals are physically
disconnected.

Requires a load at each outlet.


Only other way is to physically trace back all the wires - an even
BIGGER job.

I would think a relatively easy test would be to put in a GFCI
breaker, temporarily at least, in each breaker slot. GFCI's
include a circuit which places a small test voltage on the
hot and neutral simultaneously to detect if there is a short
between the neutral and ground anywhere in the circuit.
That GFCI would also trip in the case where the neutral
is either not for that circuit, or crosswired with another
neutral because it would look to the GFCI just like a
short between neutral and ground.

No, it would not - as ALL neutrals are connected. The only way the
GFCI would trip is if there is a problem in one of the neutrals -if
even then.

If neutrals from different circuits are interconnected, the GFCI feature
trader describes would cause an immediate trip. The feature is intended
to detect downstream N-G connections and a N-otherN connection looks the
same.

If the circuit is connected to a different neutral, when a load is
connected the neutral and hot current at the GFCI breaker will be
different and the GFCI will trip.


Wrong. Go take a look at how a GFCI is actually designed.
As I stated, besides comparing the current flowing
in the hot and neutral through any loads,
they also generate a small 120hz
test voltage on both the hot and neutral. Any path back to
that GFCI other than the hot and neutral connected to it
will result in it tripping. That path could be the neutral
of that circuit connected to ground OR that neutral
connected to another neutral. In either case, the
GFCI will trip as soon as power is turned on, without
any load.

For a different neutral the trip will be when there is a load connected,
not immediate.

The injected current on the hot wire doesn't accomplish anything since
there is voltage on the hot wire anyway. If the GFCI is reverse H-N
wired the feature that detects a N-G (or N-otherN) connection downstream
will still work.

I can't think of an easier test than GFCI breakers. You need to stick a
load on each outlet.

You could also loop a clamp on ammeter around both H and N for the
circuit. It would also require a connected load, one outlet at a time.

There isn't a real easy test for N-N connection and interchanged neutrals.


So, if you want to find out if you have any shared or
crossed neutrals, all you have to do is replace breakers
one at a time with a GFCI and turn the power on. If
there are any crossed or shared, the GFCI will trip.
It's all about parallel circuits.




Try it some time. Wire up a couple of circuits on a test board and
plug it into an outlet. Have 2 "circuits" on the test board, and cross
the neutrals. Put a GFCI on one or both circuits ant test to your
heart's content.

You really should stop giving advice on subjects
beyond your pay grade.

Sure seems that way some days.

------------------------------------
I agree that capturing a neutral from a different circuit is a dumb idea
(particularly from an EE).

I don't think it came up - the problem of no neutral at a switch is why
the 2011 NEC requires a neutral (with major exceptions).

--
bud--

"bud--" wrote in message

stuff snipped

I agree that capturing a neutral from a different circuit is a dumb idea
(particularly from an EE).

I understand the curiosity motive from EE's - how dangerous is it to pull a
"foreign" neutral? But I think it does a disservice to the man in the
street who wants to simply know whether he should "pull a neutral" from
elsewhere. Sure, it probably won't hurt HIM, but it could kill the next
person. If the OP has a bad memory, that next person could easily be him.

I don't think it came up - the problem of no neutral at a switch is why
the 2011 NEC requires a neutral (with major exceptions).

After years and years of seeing people pull neutrals from other circuits and
the proliferation of switches and devices that need a neutral, it was long
overdue.

I just wonder how much money builders saved by wiring wall switches without
neutrals?

--
Bobby G.
*JOHNSTON, DONALD R. Rank and organization: Specialist Fourth Class, U.S.
Army, Company D, 1st Battalion, 8th Cavalry, 1st Cavalry Division. Place and
date: Tay Ninh Province, Republic of Vietnam, 21 March 1969. Entered service
at: Columbus, Ga. Born: 19 November 1947, Columbus, Ga. An enemy soldier
threw 3 explosive charges into their position. Sensing the danger to his
comrades, Sp4c. Johnston, with complete disregard for his safety, hurled
himself onto the explosive charges, smothering the detonations with his body
and shielding his fellow soldiers from the blast. His heroic action saved
the lives of 6 of his comrades.

On 9/22/2011 8:00 AM, Robert Green wrote:
wrote in message

I don't think it came up - the problem of no neutral at a switch is why
the 2011 NEC requires a neutral (with major exceptions).

After years and years of seeing people pull neutrals from other circuits and
the proliferation of switches and devices that need a neutral, it was long
overdue.

I just wonder how much money builders saved by wiring wall switches without
neutrals?

There wasn't any need for a neutral in the past. It is the various
electronic switch devices that created the need.

--
bud--

On Sep 16, 1:55*am, Ivan Vegvary wrote:
Want to install several X10 relay switches in the house to turn on lights remotely. *This would obviate my walking across the room in the dark to get to the light switch.

Problem: *The X10 switch/relay requires full power at the wall switch location. *Several of my switches have only a hot leg coming into the box with no neutral. *X10 docs. recommend simply running a neutral wire into the box. *
Question: *Most of my wiring is within the attic and some of the switches are on the exterior walls. *These locations are inaccessible from the attic since this is where the roof meets the ceiling ergo providing mere inches of crawl space. *It would be much easier to run the neutral wire from below (I have a generous 42" high crawl space). *
Question: *Does this neutral have to come from the same circuit? *Can I simply come from any circuit (even a separate new circuit) and run a white neutral wire to each switch box? *Does it have to be from the same phase? *X10 docs. do mention that if not from the same phase, then the phases can be joined at the box.

All comments, advice and suggestions appreciated.

Ivan Vegvary

HUH, Unless X10 switch modules have been redesigned lately they DO NOT
require a neutral. Most of my switches are on the ends of switch loops
and I have replaced several switches with X10 modules. No Neutral
available or required at these points..

Jimmie