On Monday, November 11, 2013 8:37:36 PM UTC-5, Robert Green wrote:
"Wes Groleau" wrote in message



On 10-28-2013, 23:01, bud-- wrote:



"No longer code" is "wrong".



Other posts made it clear he meant not required by code.

Don't crucify him for failure to edit extensively.

That would violate Usenet tradition.



Thanks for pointing that out.

What for agreeing with you in something you said that is
WRONG? Two wrongs don't make a right, the NEC says so.




I didn't expect to find the Spanish

Inquisition nor was I writing for a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

No, you just sent a novice on a search for any ground connections
of any kind to his water pipes and told him it was no longer code.
The NEC says you're wrong.




I was

specifically thinking of what the Verizon installer did when I got my last

copper POTS line installed on the second floor on the side of the house not

near the service entrance (they really balked at doing that, BTW, saying

they don't like to "box" installations like that - my other phone lines

enter at the same side that the power lines do).



Then the Verizon installer was an idiot, because bringing
phone, cable, etc by the main electrical system ground to
an inter-system ground is what is typically done today. If you
just a fraction of what you claim, you would know that.
But here you are pontificating on grounding.




He said he had to run a ground wire from the network interface box all the

way back to the circuit panel and had to test to make sure he was hooking

into a valid ground. Clamping a ground wire to a nearby water pipe was no

longer considered code for new work, at least according to him. I have to

assume he knows what's up to code and what's not when installing a new phone

line since it does it several times a day.



If he knew what was code, he wouldn't have told you he doesn't
want to bring the line into the service area location, as that is
the PREFERRED location.



The considerable noise and harping surrounding my comments are just NDBF

because the OP apparently wouldn't know or care about the finer points of

the NEC.

Why don't you read it and then get back to us?


It's pretty clear this is a case of someone acting like the Wicked

Witch of the West and thinking "I'll get that Bobby Green and his little dog

Toto if it's the last thing I ever do!" (-: It makes it clear to me who's

interesting in solving the OP's problem and who's interesting in scoring

points in some game of canis mas macho.

You mean you? You sent the OP on a wild goose chase. Someone
who wouldn't even know what a ground connection looks like, what
purpose it serves, etc. YOU told him to go look for anything that
has a ground clamp and is connected to his water pipes and that it's
"no longer code". Complete BS. Check the NEC.





Yes, it's important to be

absolutely correct but at some point, it's counterproductive to helping the

OP with his problems which in this case was not to be electrocuted.



Yes, by guys like you who don't know what you're talking about.
Go find any ground connection to a water pipe! It's no longer code!
Good grief.





The most important reason for suggesting that the OP look for grounding

clamps on the pipe was because it was non-destructive, non-lethal, required

no special skills or tools and could be done with the power shut off.

And you also told him "It's no longer code....", which of course is BS.



If

there was a device that had failed and was energizing the line, being able

to quickly show the electrician the location of possible suspect connections

might have saved some time. Considering some of the other advice given, it

seems especially suspect to become obsessed over what apparently was quite

clear to you.



If the pipes are not providing a continuous ground path, a grounding clamp

on a section of isolated pipe could indeed be the source of the current if

the equipment it's connected to has failed. Of course, since this was

apparently a cowardly troll post to begin with, we'll never know any real

details. Too bad.



--

Bobby G.

Too bad you don't know WTF you're talking about.

On Tuesday, November 12, 2013 6:08:44 AM UTC-5, Robert Green wrote:
"Wes Groleau" wrote in message

...

On 10-29-2013, 18:02, wrote:

Good grief. Did you follow the thread? The excerpts



Since you are more interested in argument than communication, I'm going

elsewhere.



--

Wes Groleau



Thanks for reminding me to take the high road. (-: I have been sorely

tempted to reply to Charlie Brown g but you and others have made it clear

I don't need to and shouldn't. It would generate lots of heat but very

little light. This place is already as troll-infested as Somalia it

pirate-infested and for much the same reason.



On the positive side, there's still plenty of valuable discussion left in

this thread. The subject of tingling pipes, even though the original post

was probably a troll, is a good "safety drill" sort of discussion. I've

certainly developed a new perspective - shut off the power, call the

electric company and don't screw around - especially if there are other

people in the house. One of the worst outcomes I can imagine is to think

the problem was inside the house and that you solved it when in fact it was

external and intermittent, making it seem solved, and when it next occurs,

you get zapped.



If the wiring in the house is done to code, grounded correctly, etc,
it's virtually impossible for the cause of his energized water pipes
to be caused by something external.





There's a tendency with the many folks here (raises hand) who like to solve

problems to get lost in the weeds.

That would be you. "go look for any ground connection to water pipes!
That's no longer code!"

Check the NEC for how it is not only code, but required in many cases.



They focus in on one aspect of the

problem and then think details and forget the big picture. In this case

there's significant lethality at risk with energized pipes.


Wow, you figure that out?


Unless the guy

making the post clearly indicates he's a pretty good DIY electrician (by

what he says and not just what he thinks of himself) I think the only right

answer is "shut her down" and get the pros.



Then if the guy doesn't know anything, why did you send him looking
for ground connections to water pipes that are "no longer code"?
Good grief.




Working through the details of this hypothetical incident makes people

better prepared for real emergencies and that's a good thing. I'll bet

more than one reader learned about how the changing nature of plumbing

materials effects the home's wiring. I still have to figure out when to

trust the new pen meter that Nate turned me onto. It detects voltage from

12VDC UPS batteries on the highest setting. (-:



Finally, there's also a great deal of satisfaction in taking a dumb "cry

wolf" troll post and turning it into a learning discussion. I am sure that

was never "Fred's" intention.



--

Bobby G.


Interesting how easily the ignorant are amused.

On Tuesday, November 12, 2013 11:33:53 AM UTC-5, Robert Green wrote:
"Wes Groleau" wrote in message



stuff snipped



I'm not the one anxious to "claim" things, but I READ what he said he

meant.



What he said and what he meant are both incorrect.





In my universe, we try to understand people before we correct them.



You're a man of integrity in both universes, Mr. Spock - er, I mean Mr.

Groleau. (-:



What I find most interesting is how this tiny side issue is so far removed

from the critical question: What should someone do if they are getting

shocked from plumbing fixtures?



It's not a tiny issue when you tell someone to go looking
for ground connections to water pipes and that if they find
them, "It;s no longer code"





Instead, three words that I added as a parenthetical aside have become a

target for Chet's relentless, withering criticism. Why? Because I didn't

somehow manage to enumerated all the changes, exceptions and nuances to

device grounding in the NEC in those three vague words. It's really just

remarkable.



It's not nuances, numb nuts. If you have a metal water service pipe,
then it *must* be one of the grounding electrodes. The electrical
panel must be bonded to the metal water pipes in a house. So, per
YOUR advice, the guy goes looking, sees that, and according to you,
"It's no longer code". That isn't an exception, a nuance. It's that
you simply don;t know WTF you're talking about.

You knowledge base comes from watching a Verizon imbecile who
told you that he doesn't want to bring the phone service in
where the electrical service is. Instead, he chose to bring it
in elsewhere and run a long ground wire back to the system ground.
That is not the prefered and recommended way of doing it. And
more remarkable, from that, you concluded that it's "no longer code
to have ground connections to water pipes". Try reading the NEC.



If that's all he's got, I feel vindicated. Chet readily admits that the OP

didn't have the smarts to even understand the rather simple process of

mapping all wire connections to the water pipes.

No **** Sherlock. Yet YOU sent him out to do that. To figure out what
a ground connection to water pipe is, without even knowing what it looks
like, what it does, what code is, etc. And you told him
that if he finds any, "They are no longer code", which is BS.



Yet in the next post he

goes down into the ground *beneath* the weeds talking about exceptions and

grandfathered sections of the code in a desperate attempt to prove me wrong

about *something.* What's that credit card ad say? "It's priceless."


What on earth are you talking about? It's perfectly permissible
to use water pipes as part of the ground system today in new work. In fact,
in many cases, it's required. It's also required to bond the panel
to the metal water pipes. So, he sees a clamp, a wire running
from his water pipes to the panel, and per your admonition, "It's
no longer code." The NEC says you're wrong.






I suppose ignoring the original problem to fight over some minor tangent is

a grand old Usenet tradition as well. )-:



Despite his contumacious tendencies, I would still value Chet's advice on

the first go-round of a "murder board" trying to analyze a problem and

uncover the essential facts. Sadly I would almost always have to exclude

him from the detailed problem solving phase because of his tendency to flog

a dead horse into pony pate.

You ignore it at the point that it's clear that I'm right
and you don't know what you're talking about.




Once he gets a missile lock, true or false,

that's all that he sees from that point forward and the conversation rapidly

devolves to just being argumentative quagmire. It's really a shame to let

one's ire cancel out one's insight. It is comforting, though, to read that

other people understood what I was trying to say. .



--

Bobby G.


It's not argumentive quagmire when you have the NEC on your side.
It only appears that way to you, because you're wrong and don't know
WTF you're talking about.

On Friday, November 15, 2013 1:56:45 AM UTC-5, Robert Green wrote:
"Wes Groleau" wrote in message

...

On 11-13-2013, 09:05, Robert Green wrote:

I admire your faith in the goodness of your fellow man, Wes, but in this

instance I think it may be misplaced. If I am ever on trial for a

crime, I

want*you* on the jury. (-:



Ha! I have very little faith in the "goodness" (nor the intelligence)

of humanity in general. But I do have a lot more respect than most for

the principle of "beyond all reasonable doubt."



As Tom R noted, this is not a trial, just an analysis. With folks flat-out

admitting to trolling for their own amusement, I have to call them the way I

see them and this sure sounds like a Halloween prank to me. Some other

current threads seem just as prankish. I suppose they're at least on-topic.

(-: I suspect the troller gave us the "all clear, all OK" signal because he

knows that leaving us hanging also left him open to being discovered. All

someone had to do was approach his ISP with a request for more information

so that if he was lying dying in a pool of his own whiz someone could

dispatch the local EMS.



Some good came out of this - I got a nifty new Sperry VD 6505 non-contact

voltage meter (thanks again, Nate for the referral). I can say with

certainty if a newbie's life depends on reading this sucker correctly the

first time out, he's going to die. Depending on where the dial is set you

can get voltage from a stone. After a while I am getting the hang of it but

it's pretty tricky and is wildly effected by RF emanations. Dimmers, TV's,

CFLs and other devices really have an effect on the readings.



Still, glad to have it and after I play with it a while I would actually

trust it to indicate that my water pipes were carrying current.



What I want to do, and what's making my wife nervous, it to cobble together

an isolated pipe setup to test various energization scenarios, particular a

pipe-clamp grounded device gone bad on a segment of copper pipe no longer

well-connected to the ground. Then I could also use a digital voltmeter to

try to figure out what levels of current are leaking, etc.



Might do it with a Variac just to keep the V levels to less than lethal.

That should still give me some idea of what the readings would look like if

I encountered a similar situation in the wild.



--

Bobby G.

Why don't you do it with 240V and use your pecker as a probe?

"Ralph Mowery" wrote in message
m...

"Robert Green" wrote in message
...
Not necessarily. A bit of leakage is almost considered normal on some
electrical equipment - and it may not even BE real leakage - it could
be inductive or capacitive inductance

What types of equipment would do that?

Some equipment will have some low value capacitors going from the AC
wiring
to the chassie. This creats a low value of leakage curent. If the
equipment has the proper 3 wire plug , there is no problem. Without the
ground wire, you could feel a tingle if you got between the device and
ground.

Thanks. I have noticed some stereo/radio equipment will have neon pilot
lights that take a few seconds to extinguish after the power cord is
unplugged so I assume that's some sort of capacitor discharge occurring. I
would imagine that to receive a UL listing the equipment can't present any
sort of real shock hazard in that state - just a tingle as the residual
charge dissipates.

--
Bobby G.

"philo " wrote in message
...

stuff snipped

Additionally if you live in a dry , sandy area such as Texas it is very
common for ground rods to have no grounding capability. They often need
to be longer than the typical 3 or 6 foot rod...or else have water
poured on them periodically.

That's something I was unaware of - soil so dry it's not an effective
ground. Doesn't sound like pouring water on them is a viable solution
unless you have some sort of drip irrigator doing it automatically. How
much longer than 6' do ground rods need to be to make good earthing contact?

--
Bobby G.

"Dean Hoffman" " wrote in message

On 11/11/13 4:57 PM, Robert Green wrote:

Agreed. Even less voltage than that can be fatal!


http://www.mikeholt.com/mojonewsarch...s~20020521.htm
that says that "Death from an electric shock (ventricular fibrillation*)
can
occur when the touch voltage is above 30V RMS resulting in as little as
30
milliamperes of current flowing though the body. This can occur when
improper neutral-to-case connections are made and the neutral is
opened."

--
Bobby G.


I like that Mike Holt site. I needed information a couple times
for my work. It explained things plainly.

Yes, agree. It's not just Mike writing, either, but a whole team of
electricians with knowledge it a lot of different areas. They always
provide plenty of background information and NEC citations to explain what
they're talking about. I invariably end up reading a lot more than what I
came to the site to look for because it's so well-written and interesting.

--
Bobby G.

On 11/16/13 6:42 PM, Robert Green wrote:
"philo " wrote in message
...

stuff snipped

Additionally if you live in a dry , sandy area such as Texas it is very
common for ground rods to have no grounding capability. They often need
to be longer than the typical 3 or 6 foot rod...or else have water
poured on them periodically.

That's something I was unaware of - soil so dry it's not an effective
ground. Doesn't sound like pouring water on them is a viable solution
unless you have some sort of drip irrigator doing it automatically. How
much longer than 6' do ground rods need to be to make good earthing contact?

--
Bobby G.



Look up chemical ground rod. Ufer grounds came into being during
WWII. The U.S. needed to protect bomb shelters in the deserts of the
Southwest U.S.

On Saturday, November 16, 2013 7:42:36 PM UTC-5, Robert Green wrote:
"philo " wrote in message

...



stuff snipped



Additionally if you live in a dry , sandy area such as Texas it is very

common for ground rods to have no grounding capability. They often need

to be longer than the typical 3 or 6 foot rod...or else have water

poured on them periodically.



That's something I was unaware of - soil so dry it's not an effective

ground.

Doesn't sound like pouring water on them is a viable solution

unless you have some sort of drip irrigator doing it automatically.


And yet here you are pontificating on grounding systems, proper ground
connections, sending a poster to look for any ground connections to a water pipe and telling them it's "no longer code".
Go figure.

"Dean Hoffman" " wrote in message
...
On 11/16/13 6:42 PM, Robert Green wrote:
"philo " wrote in message
...

stuff snipped

Additionally if you live in a dry , sandy area such as Texas it is very
common for ground rods to have no grounding capability. They often need
to be longer than the typical 3 or 6 foot rod...or else have water
poured on them periodically.

That's something I was unaware of - soil so dry it's not an effective
ground. Doesn't sound like pouring water on them is a viable solution
unless you have some sort of drip irrigator doing it automatically. How
much longer than 6' do ground rods need to be to make good earthing
contact?

--
Bobby G.



Look up chemical ground rod. Ufer grounds came into being during
WWII. The U.S. needed to protect bomb shelters in the deserts of the
Southwest U.S.

Probably needed to protect munitions from static charges, too.

Here's one site I found: (-:

http://www.psychologicalharassment.o...-society/1563-
radar-assault-weapons-a-faraday-cages-ground-and-grounding-rods

Human right defenders and citizens who are targeted by the mob in Canada
need a faraday cage, the mob is using energy assault weapons, powerful
radar, to inflict different deadly cancers. Thick metal plates, thick copper
wires or cables, and a good ground source like a city-household's copper
pluming are what is needed for a good faraday cage and protection against
radar assaults from neighboring homes or any other source. Note: another
problem technology used by organized crime, focused ultra sound, the
weakness is water containers . . .

They recommend:

Chemical Ground Electrode System

http://www.erico.com/products/ChemRod.asp
"ERITECH Chemical Ground Electrodes provide a low-impedance ground in
locations of high soil resistivity. Together with GEM as backfill, the
system dissipates lightning energy and other dangerous electrical fault
currents, even in sandy or rocky soil conditions. Features -- 2-1/8 (54mm)
OD Type K copper pipe contains natural electrolytic salts that permeate into
the surrounding soil, lowering resistivity"

Apparently these are ground "tubes" filled with chemicals and some appear to
be able to wick moisture from the air. Fascinatimg.

--
Bobby G.