Which section of the NEC says Low voltage is safer than high voltage.

You can quote the verbage here, " "

Mostly stuff about gfci requirements would suit.

I wonder why sidewalk lighting is low voltage?

240vac 2 phase (black, blue and red) number 10 wire lighting?

I never asked if it was low or high.

Your responses are very strange.

I'll ask again.

Which section of the NEC says Low voltage is safer than high voltage.

Put that sentence here ---" "


Maybe this will solve the misunderstanding.

Assume the load is the same for both, which will cause more current to
flow, a higher voltage or lower voltage?

If you get the answer correct, my work is done.



Mikek

amdx fired this volley in news:lqrs5b$593$1@dont-
email.me:

Assume the load is the same for both, which will cause more current to
flow, a higher voltage or lower voltage?

If you get the answer correct, my work is done.

Better re-state that. He'll use 'horsepower' instead of resistance.

Lloyd

Em quinta-feira, 24 de julho de 2014 17h00min25s UTC-4, amdx escreveu:
Which section of the NEC says Low voltage is safer than high voltage.



You can quote the verbage here, " "



Mostly stuff about gfci requirements would suit.



I wonder why sidewalk lighting is low voltage?



240vac 2 phase (black, blue and red) number 10 wire lighting?



I never asked if it was low or high.



Your responses are very strange.



I'll ask again.



Which section of the NEC says Low voltage is safer than high voltage.



Put that sentence here ---" "

Look, read the NEC (like section 210.8, OK ??)

Maybe this will solve the misunderstanding.



Assume the load is the same for both, which will cause more current to

flow, a higher voltage or lower voltage?

The lower.

If you get the answer correct, my work is done.

Final Answer for everything else: READ THE NEC (like section 210.8)

"amdx" wrote in message
...

Which section of the NEC says Low voltage is safer than high
voltage.

You can quote the verbage here, " "

Mostly stuff about gfci requirements would suit.

I wonder why sidewalk lighting is low voltage?

240vac 2 phase (black, blue and red) number 10 wire lighting?

I never asked if it was low or high.

Your responses are very strange.

I'll ask again.

Which section of the NEC says Low voltage is safer than high
voltage.

Put that sentence here ---" "

Maybe this will solve the misunderstanding.

Assume the load is the same for both, which will cause more current
to flow, a higher voltage or lower voltage?

If you get the answer correct, my work is done.

Mikek


http://www.electrician2.com/weltrain05/lpage103.html
"The NEC does not consistently define low voltages."

I had to paint the interior of NEMA-spec control boxes orange if over
40V was present within them, but I don't remember whose requirement
that was, perhaps one of the many General Motors internal standards.

The US NEC isn't the only electrical code.
http://ecmweb.com/content/differenti...style-products

-jsw

fired this volley in news:eb792d41-65fc-4af8-947f-
:

Final Answer for everything else: READ THE NEC (like section 210.8)

Can't cite, can you?
L

On 7/24/2014 4:19 PM, wrote:
Em quinta-feira, 24 de julho de 2014 17h00min25s UTC-4, amdx escreveu:
Which section of the NEC says Low voltage is safer than high voltage.



You can quote the verbage here, " "



Mostly stuff about gfci requirements would suit.



I wonder why sidewalk lighting is low voltage?



240vac 2 phase (black, blue and red) number 10 wire lighting?



I never asked if it was low or high.



Your responses are very strange.



I'll ask again.



Which section of the NEC says Low voltage is safer than high voltage.



Put that sentence here ---" "

Look, read the NEC (like section 210.8, OK ??)

Maybe this will solve the misunderstanding.



Assume the load is the same for both, which will cause more current to

flow, a higher voltage or lower voltage?

The lower.

If you get the answer correct, my work is done.

Final Answer for everything else: READ THE NEC (like section 210.8)


Oh my! I have much work left to do, however at this point I'll just
say, your answer is wrong. The higher voltage will call more current to
flow. You don't understand, but I'll leave it up to you to decide if you
want to have the knowledge. If you do, there are plenty of pages that
describe Ohms Law.
It's been interesting, although I have a sinking feeling I've been
taken for a ride as a joke on me.
Mikek

On 7/24/2014 4:35 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"amdx" wrote in message
...

Which section of the NEC says Low voltage is safer than high
voltage.

You can quote the verbage here, " "

Mostly stuff about gfci requirements would suit.

I wonder why sidewalk lighting is low voltage?

240vac 2 phase (black, blue and red) number 10 wire lighting?

I never asked if it was low or high.

Your responses are very strange.

I'll ask again.

Which section of the NEC says Low voltage is safer than high
voltage.

Put that sentence here ---" "

Maybe this will solve the misunderstanding.

Assume the load is the same for both, which will cause more current
to flow, a higher voltage or lower voltage?

If you get the answer correct, my work is done.

Mikek


http://www.electrician2.com/weltrain05/lpage103.html
"The NEC does not consistently define low voltages."

I had to paint the interior of NEMA-spec control boxes orange if over
40V was present within them, but I don't remember whose requirement
that was, perhaps one of the many General Motors internal standards.

The US NEC isn't the only electrical code.
http://ecmweb.com/content/differenti...style-products

-jsw


I inferred from his comment that he thought 277 volts was safer than
120 volts. The part I inferred was 120 volts.
Mikek

"amdx" wrote in message
...
On 7/24/2014 4:35 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"amdx" wrote in message
...

Which section of the NEC says Low voltage is safer than high
voltage.

You can quote the verbage here, " "

Mostly stuff about gfci requirements would suit.

I wonder why sidewalk lighting is low voltage?

240vac 2 phase (black, blue and red) number 10 wire lighting?

I never asked if it was low or high.

Your responses are very strange.

I'll ask again.

Which section of the NEC says Low voltage is safer than high
voltage.

Put that sentence here ---" "

Maybe this will solve the misunderstanding.

Assume the load is the same for both, which will cause more
current
to flow, a higher voltage or lower voltage?

If you get the answer correct, my work is done.

Mikek


http://www.electrician2.com/weltrain05/lpage103.html
"The NEC does not consistently define low voltages."

I had to paint the interior of NEMA-spec control boxes orange if
over
40V was present within them, but I don't remember whose requirement
that was, perhaps one of the many General Motors internal
standards.

The US NEC isn't the only electrical code.
http://ecmweb.com/content/differenti...style-products

-jsw


I inferred from his comment that he thought 277 volts was safer
than 120 volts. The part I inferred was 120 volts.
Mikek

I've been bitten by 120VAC, 480VAC, 700VDC and 40,000VDC and didn't
like any of them. 700VDC from a 10uF cap hurt the worst, like my arm
was on fire.

The 480 line (in from the street) burned a tiny hole and felt like a
splinter rather than a shock. The foreman was better grounded than I
when he had touched it and it knocked him into the rack of hardware
bins, which all avalanched down on him.

The 40,000V was on a piece of disconnected coax, so not a bad shock.
On a dry winter day I can indicate 20,000V on an electrostatic
voltmeter and have to be very careful handling electronics. This
computer desk has a static mat on it.
-jsw

On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 18:24:05 -0500, amdx wrote:

On 7/24/2014 4:19 PM, wrote:
Em quinta-feira, 24 de julho de 2014 17h00min25s UTC-4, amdx escreveu:
Which section of the NEC says Low voltage is safer than high voltage.



You can quote the verbage here, " "



Mostly stuff about gfci requirements would suit.



I wonder why sidewalk lighting is low voltage?



240vac 2 phase (black, blue and red) number 10 wire lighting?



I never asked if it was low or high.



Your responses are very strange.



I'll ask again.



Which section of the NEC says Low voltage is safer than high voltage.



Put that sentence here ---" "

Look, read the NEC (like section 210.8, OK ??)

Maybe this will solve the misunderstanding.



Assume the load is the same for both, which will cause more current to

flow, a higher voltage or lower voltage?

The lower.

If you get the answer correct, my work is done.

Final Answer for everything else: READ THE NEC (like section 210.8)


Oh my! I have much work left to do, however at this point I'll just
say, your answer is wrong. The higher voltage will call more current to
flow. You don't understand, but I'll leave it up to you to decide if you
want to have the knowledge. If you do, there are plenty of pages that
describe Ohms Law.
It's been interesting, although I have a sinking feeling I've been
taken for a ride as a joke on me.
Mikek

Hmmmm.... I read that current flow is dependent on voltage and
resistance and that the resistance of the human body is about 2K ohms
from hand to hand

So, current flow at 110 VAC will be 110/2000 = 0.055 amps, at 220 VAC
= 0.11 amps and at 440 VAC = 0.44 amps.

Further reading shows that AC currents as low as 30 mA can induce
ventricular fibrillation and cause death.

30 mA = 0.03 amps so it looks as though 110 VAC will kill you and 220
VAC will kill you and 440 VAC will kill you.

Are you somehow postulating that 110 VAC will kill you less dead that
440 VAC? Or to put it another way, that 440 VAC will kill you deader
than 110 VAC?

Or you just posturing?

--
Cheers,

John B.

John B. Slocomb fired this volley in
:

Are you somehow postulating that 110 VAC will kill you less dead that
440 VAC? Or to put it another way, that 440 VAC will kill you deader
than 110 VAC?

Or you just posturing?


Are you perhaps forgetting that the higher the voltage, the more
resistance it can have in the load path with the same current flow? Are
you also forgetting that insulation of a given thickness is more easily
breached by a higher voltage than a lower one?

So, say you're all decked out in slightly sweaty equipment, and your
total resistance including the gloves is 5Kohms. Now 110VAC only can
make 22ma flow through you. 240 can cause 48ma.

So, we better double our insulation to 10K including us. Now 240 can
only cause 24ma to flow. 440 can cause 44ma.

See the relationships?
(besides, unless you're out on the end of a really long rural run with
all sorts of subscribers along it, there's not much 110VAC around
anymore. 120-125 is the 'new' 110.

LLoyd

On 7/23/2014 11:59 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 22:15:26 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

On 7/23/2014 5:36 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
No knum nuts -

One puts the hand in pocket when the other is in the hot zone.
One can hold onto a ladder with one arm and in a pocket if you don't
have belts to do it for you.

Just don't get one hand on ground and the other on a hot. That is the point.


It sounds very plausible until you actually get to the top of the 20
foot ladder and discover that you have to stand on the top rung to
reach.

Of course, you could go down to Home Pro and buy a new 25 ft. ladder
but you've only got this single connection to make and you're done
with this stinking job....

Martin
Right! One hand in the pocket.... when you are on the top of a 20 ft.
ladder.

And making up wire nuts......

--
"Living in the United States now is like being a Tampon.
We're in a great place, just at a bad time."

--
Cheers,

John B.

If you stand on the top rung your insurance is canceled. Your life is
in danger. You might as well wiggle and grab with both hands on the
power mains and land safely DOA.

Martin

On 7/24/2014 9:38 PM, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
John B. Slocomb fired this volley in
:

Are you somehow postulating that 110 VAC will kill you less dead that
440 VAC? Or to put it another way, that 440 VAC will kill you deader
than 110 VAC?

Or you just posturing?


Are you perhaps forgetting that the higher the voltage, the more
resistance it can have in the load path with the same current flow? Are
you also forgetting that insulation of a given thickness is more easily
breached by a higher voltage than a lower one?

So, say you're all decked out in slightly sweaty equipment, and your
total resistance including the gloves is 5Kohms. Now 110VAC only can
make 22ma flow through you. 240 can cause 48ma.

So, we better double our insulation to 10K including us. Now 240 can
only cause 24ma to flow. 440 can cause 44ma.

See the relationships?
(besides, unless you're out on the end of a really long rural run with
all sorts of subscribers along it, there's not much 110VAC around
anymore. 120-125 is the 'new' 110.

LLoyd

The problem here is you consider a constant power. Power transformers
can be considered 'infinite'. When the human body is concerned. You
don't need a monster Semi-Trailer size transformer at any voltage.

A transformer with a core of a softball is 100 watts or more. That is
when it starts to heat up. It can deliver more and more but the wire
insulation melts. Then the copper melts...

Around here it is 125 to 135. They try to keep it lower but line loss
and transformer loss grabs the 'extra' when the load goes up for
breakfast and the air conditioning switches on.

I've been in small areas and they use 'swinging transformers'. The are
like swinging chokes in that the current through the secondary drives
the slug in the transformer and it switches a tap to increase or
decrease the output voltage preventing a brown out or over voltage.

The transformers are normally make before break so each winding shorts
out when the switch moves and a shot of unwanted power is sent on the line.

Martin

On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 21:38:59 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

John B. Slocomb fired this volley in
:

Are you somehow postulating that 110 VAC will kill you less dead that
440 VAC? Or to put it another way, that 440 VAC will kill you deader
than 110 VAC?

Or you just posturing?


Are you perhaps forgetting that the higher the voltage, the more
resistance it can have in the load path with the same current flow? Are
you also forgetting that insulation of a given thickness is more easily
breached by a higher voltage than a lower one?

So, say you're all decked out in slightly sweaty equipment, and your
total resistance including the gloves is 5Kohms. Now 110VAC only can
make 22ma flow through you. 240 can cause 48ma.

So, we better double our insulation to 10K including us. Now 240 can
only cause 24ma to flow. 440 can cause 44ma.

See the relationships?
(besides, unless you're out on the end of a really long rural run with
all sorts of subscribers along it, there's not much 110VAC around
anymore. 120-125 is the 'new' 110.

LLoyd

Lloyd, you are throwing **** in the game. Nobody said that they were
going about in sweaty clothes or that the insulation was leaking. I
believe that they were insisting that higher voltages were safer.

I don't know about your 5K gloves as I only did one hot high voltage
job and that was a 4160 hook up to an ILS system on the airfield and
it was either work it hot or close the airdrome. We used gloves
certified to 7,500 VAC and air pressure tested them before we used
them. (I was scared ****less the whole time we worked )

If you want to get into all the reasons that electricity can hurt you,
I know a guy who said that his mate was killed by electricity from a
cable that had never been connected to a source of electricity.
Knocked him off the tower and he died.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 22:25:26 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

On 7/23/2014 11:59 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 22:15:26 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

On 7/23/2014 5:36 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
No knum nuts -

One puts the hand in pocket when the other is in the hot zone.
One can hold onto a ladder with one arm and in a pocket if you don't
have belts to do it for you.

Just don't get one hand on ground and the other on a hot. That is the point.


It sounds very plausible until you actually get to the top of the 20
foot ladder and discover that you have to stand on the top rung to
reach.

Of course, you could go down to Home Pro and buy a new 25 ft. ladder
but you've only got this single connection to make and you're done
with this stinking job....

Martin
Right! One hand in the pocket.... when you are on the top of a 20 ft.
ladder.

And making up wire nuts......

--
"Living in the United States now is like being a Tampon.
We're in a great place, just at a bad time."

--
Cheers,

John B.

If you stand on the top rung your insurance is canceled. Your life is
in danger. You might as well wiggle and grab with both hands on the
power mains and land safely DOA.

Martin

Sure, I know all that but I got to be j-u-s-t-a-l-i-t-t-l-e higher to
get that last screw in the cover and it is a 2 hour drive to Home Pro
and back...
--
Cheers,

John B.

John B. Slocomb fired this volley in
:

Lloyd, you are throwing **** in the game. Nobody said that they were
going about in sweaty clothes or that the insulation was leaking. I
believe that they were insisting that higher voltages were safer.

You must not have read that very carefully. I wasn't 'throwing ****', I
was making the point that higher voltages are NOT safer, but more
dangerous.

And I wasn't talking about a trained, well-equipped electrician or
lineman. I was talking about these same idiots who think higher voltage
is safe, decked out in their regular work clothes and leather gloves,
thinking that would protect them.

Anyone who thinks that higher voltage coming from what amounts to an
infinite current source is less dangerous than low voltage coming from a
"greater infinite" source is just nuts. And... they don't understand the
first thing about electricity.

LLoyd

Martin Eastburn fired this volley in
:

If you stand on the top rung your insurance is canceled.

Right... assuming your underwriter is holding the ladder.

Duh.
If you stand on the top run, AND you fall and get injured, AND they can
prove conclusively that you were on the top rung -- then maybe your
insurance is cancelled. But in today's market, any claim, no matter how
legitimate is reason for your insurer to cancel.

Lloyd

"John B. Slocomb" wrote in message
...

Sure, I know all that but I got to be j-u-s-t-a-l-i-t-t-l-e higher
to
get that last screw in the cover and it is a 2 hour drive to Home
Pro
and back...
--
Cheers,

John B.

No folding chairs to lift the ladder?

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote in message
. 3.70...

Anyone who thinks that higher voltage coming from what amounts to an
infinite current source is less dangerous than low voltage coming
from a
"greater infinite" source is just nuts. And... they don't
understand the
first thing about electricity.

LLoyd

Unfortunately that includes a lot of electricians who know plenty of
How but little Why.

On the other side the engineers may not have learned the practical
aspects like breaker interrupting rating or fuse I-squared-R
characteristics. I was the tech in the middle trying to reconcile both
sides.
-jsw

On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 05:42:34 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

John B. Slocomb fired this volley in
:

Lloyd, you are throwing **** in the game. Nobody said that they were
going about in sweaty clothes or that the insulation was leaking. I
believe that they were insisting that higher voltages were safer.

You must not have read that very carefully. I wasn't 'throwing ****', I
was making the point that higher voltages are NOT safer, but more
dangerous.


Perhaps I didn't read carefully enough as I thought you were arguing
that low voltage wasn't dangerous. If I'm wrong I apologize.

And I wasn't talking about a trained, well-equipped electrician or
lineman. I was talking about these same idiots who think higher voltage
is safe, decked out in their regular work clothes and leather gloves,
thinking that would protect them.


Somebody once said that there are three kinds of people. those who
learn through study; those who learn through experience; and those who
just have to pee on the electric fence.

Anyone who thinks that higher voltage coming from what amounts to an
infinite current source is less dangerous than low voltage coming from a
"greater infinite" source is just nuts. And... they don't understand the
first thing about electricity.

LLoyd

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 07:12:36 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"John B. Slocomb" wrote in message
.. .

Sure, I know all that but I got to be j-u-s-t-a-l-i-t-t-l-e higher
to
get that last screw in the cover and it is a 2 hour drive to Home
Pro
and back...
--
Cheers,

John B.

No folding chairs to lift the ladder?

Naw. Common, that's dangerous :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

John B. Slocomb fired this volley in
:

Somebody once said that there are three kinds of people. those who
learn through study; those who learn through experience; and those who
just have to pee on the electric fence.

There are some of us who've learnt all three ways! G

When I was a late teen, (de WA4ZEG) I once got a little finger in_between
(not touching either) a 'final' plate connection and a mounting bracket
on a 250W 30MHz SSB transmitter, while it was keyed. (yes, sometimes you
do have to work on them 'hot', and I was aware it was) I was probing
with a 30KV 'scope probe at the time, but foolishly had my pinky
dangling.

I was very awarely NOT grounded to _anything_, and I did not get shocked.
What I did get was a very tiny, neat hole drilled (burned) all the way
through the finger, and out the other side. Had to have it cut open, and
a drain installed. (not the transmitter, the finger). That was - what -
less than a kilovolt, or so?

The plate connections didn't like to be hooded because that seemed to
cause their slow dust collection and corona discharge to worsen, so I
subsequently somewhat 'deformed' the bracket (pliers brake) and installed
a styrene shield plate on the bracket side. (this time, powered off G)

LLoyd

On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 07:23:17 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

John B. Slocomb fired this volley in
:

Somebody once said that there are three kinds of people. those who
learn through study; those who learn through experience; and those who
just have to pee on the electric fence.

There are some of us who've learnt all three ways! G

When I was a late teen, (de WA4ZEG) I once got a little finger in_between
(not touching either) a 'final' plate connection and a mounting bracket
on a 250W 30MHz SSB transmitter, while it was keyed. (yes, sometimes you
do have to work on them 'hot', and I was aware it was) I was probing
with a 30KV 'scope probe at the time, but foolishly had my pinky
dangling.

I was very awarely NOT grounded to _anything_, and I did not get shocked.
What I did get was a very tiny, neat hole drilled (burned) all the way
through the finger, and out the other side. Had to have it cut open, and
a drain installed. (not the transmitter, the finger). That was - what -
less than a kilovolt, or so?

I accidentally got my right pinky zapped on an 800v lead and ground
when troubleshooting a monitor during electronics training at Coleman
College. Those pinkies are much safer dangling during High Tea, eh?
Instead of a hole, I got a line of internal scar tissue which bothered
me for the better part of a decade.

The plate connections didn't like to be hooded because that seemed to
cause their slow dust collection and corona discharge to worsen, so I
subsequently somewhat 'deformed' the bracket (pliers brake) and installed
a styrene shield plate on the bracket side. (this time, powered off G)

That's tellin' it!

--
Aim for success, not perfection. Never give up your right
to be wrong, because then you will lose the ability to
learn new things and move forward with your life.
-- Dr. David M. Burns

On Friday, July 25, 2014 6:42:34 AM UTC-4, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
John B. Slocomb fired this volley in

:



Lloyd, you are throwing **** in the game. Nobody said that they were

going about in sweaty clothes or that the insulation was leaking. I

believe that they were insisting that higher voltages were safer.



You must not have read that very carefully. I wasn't 'throwing ****', I

was making the point that higher voltages are NOT safer, but more

dangerous.

Senile idiot that YOU are - you have to be told to read the NEC.
(if you even know what it is)

You don't even know why they have current-interrupter devices instead of high voltage interrupter devices.

On Thursday, July 24, 2014 7:24:05 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 7/24/2014 4:19 PM, wrote:

Em quinta-feira, 24 de julho de 2014 17h00min25s UTC-4, amdx escreveu:

Which section of the NEC says Low voltage is safer than high voltage.







You can quote the verbage here, " "







Mostly stuff about gfci requirements would suit.







I wonder why sidewalk lighting is low voltage?







240vac 2 phase (black, blue and red) number 10 wire lighting?







I never asked if it was low or high.







Your responses are very strange.







I'll ask again.







Which section of the NEC says Low voltage is safer than high voltage.







Put that sentence here ---" "



Look, read the NEC (like section 210.8, OK ??)



Maybe this will solve the misunderstanding.







Assume the load is the same for both, which will cause more current to



flow, a higher voltage or lower voltage?



The lower.



If you get the answer correct, my work is done.



Final Answer for everything else: READ THE NEC (like section 210.8)






Oh my! I have much work left to do, however at this point I'll just

say, your answer is wrong.

Thats impossible, because its from the NEC. So its not my answer.

On 7/24/2014 9:10 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 18:24:05 -0500, amdx wrote:

On 7/24/2014 4:19 PM, wrote:
Em quinta-feira, 24 de julho de 2014 17h00min25s UTC-4, amdx escreveu:
Which section of the NEC says Low voltage is safer than high voltage.



You can quote the verbage here, " "



Mostly stuff about gfci requirements would suit.



I wonder why sidewalk lighting is low voltage?



240vac 2 phase (black, blue and red) number 10 wire lighting?



I never asked if it was low or high.



Your responses are very strange.



I'll ask again.



Which section of the NEC says Low voltage is safer than high voltage.



Put that sentence here ---" "

Look, read the NEC (like section 210.8, OK ??)

Maybe this will solve the misunderstanding.



Assume the load is the same for both, which will cause more current to

flow, a higher voltage or lower voltage?

The lower.

If you get the answer correct, my work is done.

Final Answer for everything else: READ THE NEC (like section 210.8)


Oh my! I have much work left to do, however at this point I'll just
say, your answer is wrong. The higher voltage will call more current to
flow. You don't understand, but I'll leave it up to you to decide if you
want to have the knowledge. If you do, there are plenty of pages that
describe Ohms Law.
It's been interesting, although I have a sinking feeling I've been
taken for a ride as a joke on me.
Mikek

Hmmmm.... I read that current flow is dependent on voltage and
resistance and that the resistance of the human body is about 2K ohms
from hand to hand

So, current flow at 110 VAC will be 110/2000 = 0.055 amps, at 220 VAC
= 0.11 amps and at 440 VAC = 0.44 amps.

Further reading shows that AC currents as low as 30 mA can induce
ventricular fibrillation and cause death.

30 mA = 0.03 amps so it looks as though 110 VAC will kill you and 220
VAC will kill you and 440 VAC will kill you.

Are you somehow postulating that 110 VAC will kill you less dead that
440 VAC? Or to put it another way, that 440 VAC will kill you deader
than 110 VAC?

Or you just posturing?

--
Cheers,

John B.

The original thing I tried to correct was his statement that,
"277 is safer than a lower voltage" (To paraphrase).
That 2k human body skin resistance is highly variable, Grabbing the
leads of your DVM with your finger tips and you could measure over 1
million ohms. I think in my example I used 15,000 per body connection.
I have had dozens of 120 Vac shocks, I think I'm glad it wasn't 240
Vac. But I agree 120Vac can kill you, but it is my thinking that you
might have a better chance of survival at the lower voltage.
But with either voltage if it kills you, your dead.
Mikek



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

"amdx" wrote in message
...
...
But with either voltage if it kills you, your dead.
Mikek


Not if you quickly receive another big shock through the heart,
properly applied:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defibrillation

-jsw

On Friday, July 25, 2014 12:27:01 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 7/24/2014 9:10 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 18:24:05 -0500, amdx wrote:

On 7/24/2014 4:19 PM, wrote:

Em quinta-feira, 24 de julho de 2014 17h00min25s UTC-4, amdx escreveu:

Which section of the NEC says Low voltage is safer than high voltage.







You can quote the verbage here, " "







Mostly stuff about gfci requirements would suit.







I wonder why sidewalk lighting is low voltage?







240vac 2 phase (black, blue and red) number 10 wire lighting?







I never asked if it was low or high.







Your responses are very strange.







I'll ask again.







Which section of the NEC says Low voltage is safer than high voltage.







Put that sentence here ---" "



Look, read the NEC (like section 210.8, OK ??)



Maybe this will solve the misunderstanding.







Assume the load is the same for both, which will cause more current to



flow, a higher voltage or lower voltage?



The lower.



If you get the answer correct, my work is done.



Final Answer for everything else: READ THE NEC (like section 210.8)





Oh my! I have much work left to do, however at this point I'll just

say, your answer is wrong. The higher voltage will call more current to

flow. You don't understand, but I'll leave it up to you to decide if you

want to have the knowledge. If you do, there are plenty of pages that

describe Ohms Law.

It's been interesting, although I have a sinking feeling I've been

taken for a ride as a joke on me.

Mikek



Hmmmm.... I read that current flow is dependent on voltage and

resistance and that the resistance of the human body is about 2K ohms

from hand to hand



So, current flow at 110 VAC will be 110/2000 = 0.055 amps, at 220 VAC

= 0.11 amps and at 440 VAC = 0.44 amps.



Further reading shows that AC currents as low as 30 mA can induce

ventricular fibrillation and cause death.



30 mA = 0.03 amps so it looks as though 110 VAC will kill you and 220

VAC will kill you and 440 VAC will kill you.



Are you somehow postulating that 110 VAC will kill you less dead that

440 VAC? Or to put it another way, that 440 VAC will kill you deader

than 110 VAC?



Or you just posturing?



--

Cheers,



John B.



The original thing I tried to correct was his statement that,

"277 is safer than a lower voltage" (To paraphrase).

Wouldn't it just be easier to ask if I'm a master electrician ??

The answer would have been no.

Would it be easier to ask if I'm a licensed electrician ??

The answer would have been no. All I do is check or pull wire and turn an occasional screw driver or strip wire in that area. Nothing really else.

On Sunday, July 20, 2014 5:16:33 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:
On Sunday, July 20, 2014 1:51:30 PM UTC-7, wrote:

And yes, everything should be grounded. That reduces a person
own potential to be hit with electrocution of 5 millivolts or


more. The less use of non-metallic non-conductor, the better.

Right, I'm not an electrician and I don't claim to be.

I'm not a licensed electrician, either, but I've had 3 years of electrical school and 2 years of voice/data/video tech school and 2 years of plumbing school and 2 years of HVAC school.

At one point I owned a lot of rental property.

I've mostly only actually done the renting.

I never experienced rodents chewing through metal electrical boxes.
Not saying it can't happen but my guess is it's very rare.

In large urban areas, it happens. Depends upon if there is a particularly bad rat infestation at that time or not. You come to the job site the next day and sometimes see the damage. Metal is always your best bet on new work. I'd choose it for remodeling, too.

On 7/25/2014 3:30 PM, wrote:
On Friday, July 25, 2014 12:27:01 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 7/24/2014 9:10 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 18:24:05 -0500, amdx wrote:

On 7/24/2014 4:19 PM, wrote:

Em quinta-feira, 24 de julho de 2014 17h00min25s UTC-4, amdx escreveu:

Which section of the NEC says Low voltage is safer than high voltage.







You can quote the verbage here, " "







Mostly stuff about gfci requirements would suit.







I wonder why sidewalk lighting is low voltage?







240vac 2 phase (black, blue and red) number 10 wire lighting?







I never asked if it was low or high.







Your responses are very strange.







I'll ask again.







Which section of the NEC says Low voltage is safer than high voltage.







Put that sentence here ---" "



Look, read the NEC (like section 210.8, OK ??)



Maybe this will solve the misunderstanding.







Assume the load is the same for both, which will cause more current to



flow, a higher voltage or lower voltage?



The lower.



If you get the answer correct, my work is done.



Final Answer for everything else: READ THE NEC (like section 210.8)





Oh my! I have much work left to do, however at this point I'll just

say, your answer is wrong. The higher voltage will call more current to

flow. You don't understand, but I'll leave it up to you to decide if you

want to have the knowledge. If you do, there are plenty of pages that

describe Ohms Law.

It's been interesting, although I have a sinking feeling I've been

taken for a ride as a joke on me.

Mikek



Hmmmm.... I read that current flow is dependent on voltage and

resistance and that the resistance of the human body is about 2K ohms

from hand to hand



So, current flow at 110 VAC will be 110/2000 = 0.055 amps, at 220 VAC

= 0.11 amps and at 440 VAC = 0.44 amps.



Further reading shows that AC currents as low as 30 mA can induce

ventricular fibrillation and cause death.



30 mA = 0.03 amps so it looks as though 110 VAC will kill you and 220

VAC will kill you and 440 VAC will kill you.



Are you somehow postulating that 110 VAC will kill you less dead that

440 VAC? Or to put it another way, that 440 VAC will kill you deader

than 110 VAC?



Or you just posturing?



--

Cheers,



John B.



The original thing I tried to correct was his statement that,

"277 is safer than a lower voltage" (To paraphrase).

Wouldn't it just be easier to ask if I'm a master electrician ??

The answer would have been no.

Would it be easier to ask if I'm a licensed electrician ??

The answer would have been no. All I do is check or pull wire and turn an occasional screw driver or strip wire in that area. Nothing really else.

Why would I care about your qualifications?
I just wanted to correct your thinking.

Mikek

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On 7/25/2014 10:57 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, July 24, 2014 7:24:05 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 7/24/2014 4:19 PM, wrote:

Em quinta-feira, 24 de julho de 2014 17h00min25s UTC-4, amdx escreveu:

Which section of the NEC says Low voltage is safer than high voltage.







You can quote the verbage here, " "







Mostly stuff about gfci requirements would suit.







I wonder why sidewalk lighting is low voltage?







240vac 2 phase (black, blue and red) number 10 wire lighting?







I never asked if it was low or high.







Your responses are very strange.







I'll ask again.







Which section of the NEC says Low voltage is safer than high voltage.







Put that sentence here ---" "



Look, read the NEC (like section 210.8, OK ??)



Maybe this will solve the misunderstanding.







Assume the load is the same for both, which will cause more current to



flow, a higher voltage or lower voltage?



The lower.



If you get the answer correct, my work is done.



Final Answer for everything else: READ THE NEC (like section 210.8)






Oh my! I have much work left to do, however at this point I'll just

say, your answer is wrong.

Thats impossible, because its from the NEC. So its not my answer.

LOL.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

wrote:

Right! One hand in the pocket.... when you are on the top of a 20 ft.
ladder.


You are not supposed to stand on the top.


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

Larry Jaques wrote:

I accidentally got my right pinky zapped on an 800v lead and ground
when troubleshooting a monitor during electronics training at Coleman
College. Those pinkies are much safer dangling during High Tea, eh?
Instead of a hole, I got a line of internal scar tissue which bothered
me for the better part of a decade.


OK, so you were 'Hot & Bothered' ONCE in your life! ;-)


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

amdx wrote:

Why would I care about your qualifications?
I just wanted to correct your thinking.


You can't correct what doesn't exist.


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

On Sunday, July 27, 2014 3:51:36 PM UTC-7, Michael Terrell wrote:
amdx wrote:



Why would I care about your qualifications?

I just wanted to correct your thinking.





You can't correct what doesn't exist.





--

Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to

have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.



Brilliant man, Michael Terrell is. Just brilliant. Everyday I'm in awe and like he says:

"You can't correct what doesn't exist."

Terrell's new plan is to pretend he doesn't have badly leaking roofs on the several stand alone buildings that exist on his property. Terrell has said he doesn't have the money to fix them. Since they no longer exist in his warped mind, Terrell no longer has a leaking roof problem.

On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 18:30:44 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


wrote:

Right! One hand in the pocket.... when you are on the top of a 20 ft.
ladder.


You are not supposed to stand on the top.

Yes, I mentioned that but it is only one more screw...
--
Cheers,

Miguel

On 7/27/2014 6:06 PM, jon_banquer wrote:
On Sunday, July 27, 2014 3:51:36 PM UTC-7, Michael Terrell wrote:
amdx wrote:

Why would I care about your qualifications?

I just wanted to correct your thinking.

You can't correct what doesn't exist.

Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to

have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

Brilliant man, Michael Terrell is. Just brilliant. Everyday I'm in awe and like he says:

"You can't correct what doesn't exist."

Terrell's new plan is to pretend he doesn't have badly leaking roofs on the several stand alone buildings that exist on his property. Terrell has said he doesn't have the money to fix them. Since they no longer exist in his warped mind, Terrell no longer has a leaking roof problem.


jon, I've just met you here, and want to know why you have this
overbearing need to make personal attacks on so many people.
Have you ever thought about it?
Mikek



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Sunday, July 27, 2014 7:04:56 PM UTC-7, amdx wrote:
On 7/27/2014 6:06 PM, jon_banquer wrote:

On Sunday, July 27, 2014 3:51:36 PM UTC-7, Michael Terrell wrote:

amdx wrote:



Why would I care about your qualifications?



I just wanted to correct your thinking.



You can't correct what doesn't exist.



Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to



have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.



Brilliant man, Michael Terrell is. Just brilliant. Everyday I'm in awe and like he says:



"You can't correct what doesn't exist."



Terrell's new plan is to pretend he doesn't have badly leaking roofs on the several stand alone buildings that exist on his property. Terrell has said he doesn't have the money to fix them. Since they no longer exist in his warped mind, Terrell no longer has a leaking roof problem.





jon, I've just met you here, and want to know why you have this

overbearing need to make personal attacks on so many people.

Have you ever thought about it?

Mikek







---

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

http://www.avast.com

Good point. I'm concerned I'm getting old and getting soft. I just don't have the kind of anger I use to have because many of the things I wanted to change I have gotten changed.

wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

You are not supposed to stand on the top.

Yes, I mentioned that but it is only one more screw...


He died, for just one screw...


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

amdx wrote:

On 7/27/2014 6:06 PM, jon_banquer wrote:
On Sunday, July 27, 2014 3:51:36 PM UTC-7, Michael Terrell wrote:
amdx wrote:

Why would I care about your qualifications?

I just wanted to correct your thinking.

You can't correct what doesn't exist.

Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to

have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

Brilliant man, Michael Terrell is. Just brilliant. Everyday I'm in awe and like he says:

"You can't correct what doesn't exist."

Terrell's new plan is to pretend he doesn't have badly leaking roofs on the several stand alone buildings that exist on his property. Terrell has said he doesn't have the money to fix them. Since they no longer exist in his warped mind, Terrell no longer has a leaking roof problem.


jon, I've just met you here, and want to know why you have this
overbearing need to make personal attacks on so many people.
Have you ever thought about it?



It's simple. He hates himself, and he wants to make everyone else
feel his hate. I think he's funny, in a sick sort of way. He's shot
himself in both feet all the way up to his waist, while trying to drag
everyone else into his gutter of self pity. No one gives a crap about
him.

--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

On Monday, July 28, 2014 3:00:26 AM UTC-7, Michael Terrell wrote:

It's simple. He hates himself, and he wants to make everyone else

feel his hate. I think he's funny, in a sick sort of way. He's shot

himself in both feet all the way up to his waist, while trying to drag

everyone else into his gutter of self pity. No one gives a crap about

him.

Must have rained where Terrell lives last night.