On 1/14/2013 3:55 PM, Mike Easter wrote:
wrote:
"

Did you read the part where he says the "neutral"
is not connected to anything? Sounds like a support
wire to me.

I did *NOT* say that.....
Learn to read for comprehension!!!

Your original characterization of the so-called '4th' wire was
ambiguous. Not even ambiguous, more like (unintenionally) misleading.

Effective communication is a responsibility primarily of/on the sender,
only secondarily the receiver.

The sender is supposed to recognize the limitations of the media and
know that the receiver cannot see inside the head of the sender to know
what he was thinking about when he said what he said.


Sure, and it it is the receivers fault if they simply don't ask "what
did you mean?" instead of turning it into a 100 response thread about
how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.


You said at the opening:

A large store downtown has a heavy FOUR wire triplex feeding the
building. 3 wires are black insulated, the other is the bare neutral.

3 like wires and then 'the other' would cause a normal reader to call
the other the 4th, different, wire.

Then you said:

The thing that caught my attention to it, is that the 4th wire is not
connected to anything.

I believe that it would be normal for the receiver to interpret that the
bare, neutral, different, 4th wire is not connected.

Your original does not 'select' one of the 3 otherwise identical black
insulated wires to be the '4th' wire (not connected).

The criticism of the communication breakdown should not be assigned to
the receivers comprehension or lack or mind-reading skills here.

It wasn't until later that you began to try to clarify what you were
thinking and seeing at the wires.

On Jan 15, 9:28*am, George wrote:
On 1/14/2013 11:35 AM, wrote:





On Jan 14, 10:40 am, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Jan 14, 10:17 am, "
wrote:

On Jan 14, 9:44 am, DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Jan 13, 7:20 pm, "
wrote:

On Jan 13, 7:14 pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 06:52:52 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Jan 13, 6:57 am, wrote:
A large store downtown has a heavy FOUR wire triplex feeding the
building. *3 wires are black insulated, the other is the bare neutral.

The thing that caught my attention to it, is that the 4th wire is not
connected to anything.

If it's not connected to anything, why are you identifying it
as the neutral? *You have 3 wires that are apparently
current carrying conductors and one that is bare, not
connected. *Assuming this is overhead, ie going from the
pole to the building, sounds like the bare wire is for
support only and you have a 240V service, with two
hots, one neutral.

Yep, the bare wire is the support, but it's also the neutral. *There are
3 insulated wires wrapped around the bare one, not the usual two. *And
yea, as another person said, it's not really TRIPLEX, because that would
be 3 wires. *I'm not sure what they call the 4 conductor stuff, but it's
the same type of cable. *The way it's connected, it's a 240V feed. *So
my guess is that either they had 3 phase feeding that store in the past,
or else they just used the cable they had on hand when they installed
it. *It's been there awhile, the building is probably close to 100 years
old. *I noticed it because there is a deck on the building next door,
and I was on the deck last week. *The entrance head is probably only 12
feet up from that deck, it's easy to see the unused wire. *I tend to
notice stuff like that, after doing construction most of my life.

Your original post is unclear. When you say the 4th wire is not connected
to anything, are you referring to the bare wire?

If so, then I gotta repeat the question trader4 asked:

How can it be a neutral if it's not connected to anything? Furthermore, a
neutral carries current and therefore must be insulated. How can you call a
bare wire not connected to anything a neutral?

If it's not connected it's neither a hot, a neutral or a ground. It's just
a wire. If it's bare, then it wouldn't be a neutral even if it was
connected to something.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

He just clarified that 4th unconnected wire is
one of the insulated conductors. *So, like he says,
if that is what;s there, then it's apparently a 240V
service that might have been 3 phase before.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I guess I'm missing where he specifically "clarified that 4th
unconnected wire is one of the insulated conductors".

Did I miss a post?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

He made two posts. *In the second he said:

"Yep, the bare wire is the support, but it's also the neutral.
There are *3 insulated wires wrapped around the bare one,
* not the usual two. "

If it's the neutral, then it has to be connected. *The only
remaining possibility is that one of the three insulated
conductors is the unconnected 4th wire.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Right, I saw that second post.

We're still taking his word for it that it's the neutral. Even you
said: *"If it's the neutral, then it has to be connected."

He also said that the way it's connected, ie with one of
the 4 wires unconnected, it looks like a 240V service.
With a 240V service, you have two hots and a neutral,
all of which are connected.
Yes, he didn't come right out and say that it's one of
the insulated conductors that is unconnected, but it's
the only interpretation that makes sense.

What really confused everything is even though it the the description
was ambiguous you ran with the "unconnected neutral" and started
defending your position. Then later it became the OPs fault that you did
that. I suppose thats what personal responsibility means.





As long as we're still starting our sentences with "If" there's still
room for confusion.

I rented a house in the Outer Banks this summer and saw where there
were 2 insulated wires and a bare wire coming from the pole. At first
it appeared to me that the bare wire was only the support and that
there as no ground (which made me curious), but closer investigation
showed it to be the ground also. That was the first time I had seen a
set up like that.

That is the classic case. *It's how alll the overhead services
I've seen are done. *They use the base wire as both
support and neutral.

Where's the picture (or a more detailed description) from the OP that
will clarify all this?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

About 80% of this thread would have been eliminated
if the description would have been clearer. * How hard
is it to just say "One of the 3 insulated conductors is
not connected."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I suppose you're an asshole too. Everyone here agrees
that the post was unclear not only from the start, but
even after the second post. I happened to have one interpretation and
for that I'm supposed to take
"personal responsibility"? Are you for real?

The poster finally clarified it, but even that isn't enough
to make you happy.

On Jan 15, 9:36*am, George wrote:
On 1/14/2013 3:55 PM, Mike Easter wrote:





wrote:
"

Did you read the part where he says the "neutral"
is not connected to anything? *Sounds like a support
wire to me.

I did *NOT* say that.....
Learn to read for comprehension!!!

Your original characterization of the so-called '4th' wire was
ambiguous. *Not even ambiguous, more like (unintenionally) misleading..

Effective communication is a responsibility primarily of/on the sender,
only secondarily the receiver.

The sender is supposed to recognize the limitations of the media and
know that the receiver cannot see inside the head of the sender to know
what he was thinking about when he said what he said.

Sure, and it it is the receivers fault if they simply don't ask "what
did you mean?" instead of turning it into a 100 response thread about
how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.





You said at the opening:

A large store downtown has a heavy FOUR wire triplex feeding the
building. *3 wires are black insulated, the other is the bare neutral.

3 like wires and then 'the other' would cause a normal reader to call
the other the 4th, different, wire.

Then you said:

The thing that caught my attention to it, is that the 4th wire is not
connected to anything.

I believe that it would be normal for the receiver to interpret that the
bare, neutral, different, 4th wire is not connected.

Your original does not 'select' one of the 3 otherwise identical black
insulated wires to be the '4th' wire (not connected).

The criticism of the communication breakdown should not be assigned to
the receivers comprehension or lack or mind-reading skills here.

It wasn't until later that you began to try to clarify what you were
thinking and seeing at the wires.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Apparently, like everyone else here, Mike agrees that
the post was unclear. After 3 posts, the poster finally
clarified what he meant. It was all settled yesterday to
everybody's satisfaction, except of course, you.
So, here you are, bitching because the thread took
so many posts. As if this is the first time an unclear
question resulted in that. And it's YOU who just made
3 new posts on the thread, not about the result, but about
the process. Go figure....

On Jan 15, 9:36*am, George wrote:
On 1/14/2013 3:55 PM, Mike Easter wrote:





wrote:
"

Did you read the part where he says the "neutral"
is not connected to anything? *Sounds like a support
wire to me.

I did *NOT* say that.....
Learn to read for comprehension!!!

Your original characterization of the so-called '4th' wire was
ambiguous. *Not even ambiguous, more like (unintenionally) misleading..

Effective communication is a responsibility primarily of/on the sender,
only secondarily the receiver.

The sender is supposed to recognize the limitations of the media and
know that the receiver cannot see inside the head of the sender to know
what he was thinking about when he said what he said.

Sure, and it it is the receivers fault if they simply don't ask "what
did you mean?" instead of turning it into a 100 response thread about
how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.


How well did that work out for you?

Early on you asked for clarification and there was no response to your
query:

"Likely you mean it has a drop using quadplex aerial cable?"

The very wording of all of the responses, including yours, indicated a
lack of clarity in the original post. Don't you think that it is the
responsibilty of the OP to read through the responses, realize that he
was misunderstood (no fault being placed here) and take steps to
clarify?

If my wife says to me "That's a hot dress!" and I respond by asking
"Is it made of wool?" isn't it her responsibility to clarify that she
was talking about the look, not the material? I didn't do anything
wrong and niether did she, but there was a misunderstanding anyway.
Since I (the receiver) can't read her mind, it's her (the sender)
responsibilty to clear things up.

That was something that the OP did not do until his third post. Now,
it's very possibly that the OP doesn't access/respond to a.h.r as
often as some of us, so there might be a lot of posts based on the
misunderstanding while we wait for the clarification. However, in this
case the OP responded (his 2nd post) but didn't clear anything up. At
that point, it would be quite proper to place some of the blame on
him.


You said at the opening:

A large store downtown has a heavy FOUR wire triplex feeding the
building. *3 wires are black insulated, the other is the bare neutral.

3 like wires and then 'the other' would cause a normal reader to call
the other the 4th, different, wire.

Then you said:

The thing that caught my attention to it, is that the 4th wire is not
connected to anything.

I believe that it would be normal for the receiver to interpret that the
bare, neutral, different, 4th wire is not connected.

Your original does not 'select' one of the 3 otherwise identical black
insulated wires to be the '4th' wire (not connected).

The criticism of the communication breakdown should not be assigned to
the receivers comprehension or lack or mind-reading skills here.

It wasn't until later that you began to try to clarify what you were
thinking and seeing at the wires.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -