I built a lake home for some clients and later installed an
underground drop to a pedestal with a 240 volt disconnect
(exactly like an AC disconnect). From there, the people who
built the dock tied into the disconnect to run wire out to the
dock.

Then the rains came. The lake rose almost 35 feet in a matter
of weeks. More rain. The lake rose to flood stage and
submerged the pedestal. Yet power remained to the dock. The
pedestal was under about 15' of water, yet did not trip the
breaker at the main service. The owner called me and asked if
this was dangerous and I said yes, turn off the breaker at the
breaker box, which he did.

My question is: why did the breaker not trip when the
disconnect was submerged? It is not waterproof by any means.

--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
Georgetown, TX

Robert Allison wrote:

OOPS! meant to post this to alt.home.repair!

If any of you have the answer, though, let me know.


--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
Georgetown, TX

On Aug 16, 10:46 am, Robert Allison wrote:
Robert Allison wrote:

OOPS! meant to post this to alt.home.repair!

If any of you have the answer, though, let me know.

--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
Georgetown, TX

Water doesn't conduct well. In fact, one method of measuring water's
purity, is by measuring how badly it conducts electrical impulses.
One of the reasons the human body conducts reasonably well, is the
saline content in our bodily fluids, Mandrake. (Obscure reference
intended)

r

"Robert Allison" wrote in message
news:joZwi.10203$Ns6.10019@trnddc01...
I built a lake home for some clients and later installed an underground
drop to a pedestal with a 240 volt disconnect (exactly like an AC
disconnect). From there, the people who built the dock tied into the
disconnect to run wire out to the dock.

Then the rains came. The lake rose almost 35 feet in a matter of weeks.
More rain. The lake rose to flood stage and submerged the pedestal. Yet
power remained to the dock. The pedestal was under about 15' of water,
yet did not trip the breaker at the main service. The owner called me and
asked if this was dangerous and I said yes, turn off the breaker at the
breaker box, which he did.

My question is: why did the breaker not trip when the disconnect was
submerged? It is not waterproof by any means.

Mythbusters did a segment on tossing a toaster in the bathtub and see if you
could be electrocuted.
They found some current between the toaster and the drain, when the drain
was metal and grounded; otherwise nothing.
I am surprised there was even that; the toaster neutral is a rather better
ground than anything else; why would current go through a person instead?

Oh, to answer your question; without dissolved salt; water does not conduct
electricity. All the rain was distilled water.

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:43:27 GMT, Robert Allison
wrote:

I built a lake home for some clients and later installed an
underground drop to a pedestal with a 240 volt disconnect
(exactly like an AC disconnect). From there, the people who
built the dock tied into the disconnect to run wire out to the
dock.

Then the rains came. The lake rose almost 35 feet in a matter
of weeks. More rain. The lake rose to flood stage and
submerged the pedestal. Yet power remained to the dock. The
pedestal was under about 15' of water, yet did not trip the
breaker at the main service. The owner called me and asked if
this was dangerous and I said yes, turn off the breaker at the
breaker box, which he did.

My question is: why did the breaker not trip when the
disconnect was submerged? It is not waterproof by any means.

You have a nice pure lake there. "Reference Data for Radio Engineers"
classifies distilled water as an insulator, although as insulators go,
it's a very poor one. 10^6 ohm-cm

Ionized ("impure") water is more highly conductive, but how much so is
difficult to predict. Rest assured that some conduction was going on,
it was just less than the trip point of the breaker. At least the
load was water-cooled. :-)

"Robert Allison" wrote in message

I built a lake home for some clients and later installed an underground
drop to a pedestal with a 240 volt disconnect (exactly like an AC
disconnect). From there, the people who built the dock tied into the
disconnect to run wire out to the dock.

Then the rains came. The lake rose almost 35 feet in a matter of weeks.
More rain. The lake rose to flood stage and submerged the pedestal. Yet
power remained to the dock. The pedestal was under about 15' of water,
yet did not trip the breaker at the main service. The owner called me and
asked if this was dangerous and I said yes, turn off the breaker at the
breaker box, which he did.

My question is: why did the breaker not trip when the disconnect was
submerged? It is not waterproof by any means.


Not unusual ... when my own house flooded in 2001, and before I could turn
the service off, all receptacles under water were still hot and the only
ones that tripped were the GFCI in the garage ... which brings up the point
that your circuit above ideally should be GFCI breaker protected, for the
outdoor purpose stated.

As the builder you might want to consider springing for one after the fact,
while you still can.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 6/1/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Swingman wrote:
"Robert Allison" wrote in message


I built a lake home for some clients and later installed an underground
drop to a pedestal with a 240 volt disconnect (exactly like an AC
disconnect). From there, the people who built the dock tied into the
disconnect to run wire out to the dock.

Then the rains came. The lake rose almost 35 feet in a matter of weeks.
More rain. The lake rose to flood stage and submerged the pedestal. Yet
power remained to the dock. The pedestal was under about 15' of water,
yet did not trip the breaker at the main service. The owner called me and
asked if this was dangerous and I said yes, turn off the breaker at the
breaker box, which he did.

My question is: why did the breaker not trip when the disconnect was
submerged? It is not waterproof by any means.



Not unusual ... when my own house flooded in 2001, and before I could turn
the service off, all receptacles under water were still hot and the only
ones that tripped were the GFCI in the garage ... which brings up the point
that your circuit above ideally should be GFCI breaker protected, for the
outdoor purpose stated.

As the builder you might want to consider springing for one after the fact,
while you still can.


We originally installed a GFCI. The owners got real tired of
walking the 600 feet to reset the breaker. It tripped about
every 10 minutes. Replaced it with a different GFCI. Tripped
about every 15 minutes. Replaced with standard. Won't even
trip when underwater.

My electrician checked the drop and found no problems. He
said that on that long of a run, a GFCI is not a good solution
due to constant tripping of the breaker. I have found that to
be true with several other applications, also.

The way it is set up, there is a 50 amp breaker protecting the
line to the pedestal, then to the dock. On the dock is a
subpanel with breakers protecting everything else.

--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
Georgetown, TX

In article , "Toller" wrote:

Oh, to answer your question; without dissolved salt; water does not conduct
electricity.

That's not true. *Pure* water is a very poor conductor of electricity -- but
having *anything* dissolved in it (not just salt) makes it conductive.

All the rain was distilled water.

What, you think all the water in the lake got there directly as rainfall? None
of it was runoff? And nothing ever dissolved in it afterward?

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

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

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "Toller" wrote:


Oh, to answer your question; without dissolved salt; water does not conduct
electricity.


That's not true. *Pure* water is a very poor conductor of electricity -- but
having *anything* dissolved in it (not just salt) makes it conductive.


All the rain was distilled water.


What, you think all the water in the lake got there directly as rainfall? None
of it was runoff? And nothing ever dissolved in it afterward?


Way back when, long before now, hopefully long enough ago for
the statutes of limitations to expire, we used to do what we
called "telephoning fish". We did this using the generator
from the old crank telephones. Drop a weighted wire to the
bottom and another wire that we just stuck in the top of the
pond, stream, creek, etc. Crank on the handle, and fish would
float up. This was fresh water. It seemed to conduct the
current well enough to stun the fish.

--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
Georgetown, TX

In article Sl0xi.68065$SV4.62923@trnddc08, wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "Toller"
wrote:


Oh, to answer your question; without dissolved salt; water does not conduct
electricity.


That's not true. *Pure* water is a very poor conductor of electricity -- but
having *anything* dissolved in it (not just salt) makes it conductive.


All the rain was distilled water.


What, you think all the water in the lake got there directly as rainfall? None
of it was runoff? And nothing ever dissolved in it afterward?


Way back when, long before now, hopefully long enough ago for
the statutes of limitations to expire, we used to do what we
called "telephoning fish". We did this using the generator
from the old crank telephones. Drop a weighted wire to the
bottom and another wire that we just stuck in the top of the
pond, stream, creek, etc. Crank on the handle, and fish would
float up. This was fresh water. It seemed to conduct the
current well enough to stun the fish.

Cool! I've heard of that before, but never saw it done. How big a fish can you
stun this way? And how far away from the apparatus?

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

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

Doug Miller wrote:
In article Sl0xi.68065$SV4.62923@trnddc08, wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , "Toller"

wrote:


Oh, to answer your question; without dissolved salt; water does not conduct
electricity.


That's not true. *Pure* water is a very poor conductor of electricity -- but
having *anything* dissolved in it (not just salt) makes it conductive.



All the rain was distilled water.


What, you think all the water in the lake got there directly as rainfall? None
of it was runoff? And nothing ever dissolved in it afterward?


Way back when, long before now, hopefully long enough ago for
the statutes of limitations to expire, we used to do what we
called "telephoning fish". We did this using the generator

from the old crank telephones. Drop a weighted wire to the

bottom and another wire that we just stuck in the top of the
pond, stream, creek, etc. Crank on the handle, and fish would
float up. This was fresh water. It seemed to conduct the
current well enough to stun the fish.


Cool! I've heard of that before, but never saw it done. How big a fish can you
stun this way? And how far away from the apparatus?


It stuns every fish around no matter what size as far as I can
tell. We were getting catfish about 10-20 pounds. The others
we just left in the water and eventually they would swim off.

It just gets the ones close by, I guess within maybe a 4-5
foot radius of the area between the wires. It is really hard
to know for sure about that, because this was not clear water.
It was pretty murky.

I have done the same thing using a car battery and an old coil
from a chevy truck. If you have ever touched the spark plug
wire and gotten zapped, then you know what they can put out.

You know that this is illegal, right?

--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
Georgetown, TX

In article 531xi.4672$jU4.1497@trnddc02, wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
Cool! I've heard of that before, but never saw it done. How big a fish can you
stun this way? And how far away from the apparatus?

It stuns every fish around no matter what size as far as I can
tell. We were getting catfish about 10-20 pounds.

Damn!!

The others
we just left in the water and eventually they would swim off.

It just gets the ones close by, I guess within maybe a 4-5
foot radius of the area between the wires. It is really hard
to know for sure about that, because this was not clear water.
It was pretty murky.

It'd be fun to experiment in a clear lake. I've fished in a few inland lakes
in Michigan's Upper Peninsula where the bottom was clearly visible at twenty
feet. *Very* easy to tell where the fish are.

I have done the same thing using a car battery and an old coil
from a chevy truck. If you have ever touched the spark plug
wire and gotten zapped, then you know what they can put out.

You know that this is illegal, right?

Oh, yes. And I would never ever try anything like this. Except maybe for
experimental purposes.

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

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

Doug Miller wrote:

In article 531xi.4672$jU4.1497@trnddc02, wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:

Cool! I've heard of that before, but never saw it done. How big a fish can you
stun this way? And how far away from the apparatus?


It stuns every fish around no matter what size as far as I can
tell. We were getting catfish about 10-20 pounds.


Damn!!


The others
we just left in the water and eventually they would swim off.

It just gets the ones close by, I guess within maybe a 4-5
foot radius of the area between the wires. It is really hard
to know for sure about that, because this was not clear water.
It was pretty murky.


It'd be fun to experiment in a clear lake. I've fished in a few inland lakes
in Michigan's Upper Peninsula where the bottom was clearly visible at twenty
feet. *Very* easy to tell where the fish are.


I have done the same thing using a car battery and an old coil

from a chevy truck. If you have ever touched the spark plug

wire and gotten zapped, then you know what they can put out.

You know that this is illegal, right?


Oh, yes. And I would never ever try anything like this. Except maybe for
experimental purposes.


Make sure that you carry the test far enough to decide if the
method changes the taste of the fish.

And I don't know about this for sure, cause I have never
tested it, but everyone used to say this: Don't try this in
an aluminum boat.

--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
Georgetown, TX

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 19:15:38 GMT, Robert Allison
wrote:

[snip]

And I don't know about this for sure, cause I have never
tested it, but everyone used to say this: Don't try this in
an aluminum boat.

Do they also say to get out of your car during a lightning storm?

Somebody wrote:

Way back when, long before now, hopefully long enough ago for
the statutes of limitations to expire, we used to do what we
called "telephoning fish". We did this using the generator
from the old crank telephones. Drop a weighted wire to the
bottom and another wire that we just stuck in the top of the
pond, stream, creek, etc. Crank on the handle, and fish would
float up. This was fresh water. It seemed to conduct the
current well enough to stun the fish.

A quart Mason jar with screw on lid, a rock inside to sink the jar,
some carbide (once used by coal miners for their lamps), and a little
water.

Place rock in jar, add carbide and water, screw on lid, throw in water
and watch it sink.

Pretty soon, Mason jar will explode and fish will rise to surface,
belly up.

Time to start dinner.

Lew

Doug Miller wrote:

All the rain was distilled water.

What, you think all the water in the lake got there directly as
rainfall? None
of it was runoff? And nothing ever dissolved in it afterward?

Very little is dissolved in rainwater run-off. There may be a huge amount of
dirt and stuff in suspension, but dirt in suspension is no different from a
log floating by.

The only thing that COULD dissolve in the run-off was stuff put down since
the last rain.

In article un1xi.4683$jU4.196@trnddc02, wrote:


Make sure that you carry the test far enough to decide if the
method changes the taste of the fish.

And I don't know about this for sure, cause I have never
tested it, but everyone used to say this: Don't try this in
an aluminum boat.

Makes sense to me. Guess that ancient fiberglass canoe is still good for
something...

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

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

In article , "HeyBub" wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

All the rain was distilled water.

What, you think all the water in the lake got there directly as
rainfall? None
of it was runoff? And nothing ever dissolved in it afterward?

Very little is dissolved in rainwater run-off. There may be a huge amount of
dirt and stuff in suspension, but dirt in suspension is no different from a
log floating by.

The only thing that COULD dissolve in the run-off was stuff put down since
the last rain.

Hmmmm.... So you think that there isn't much dissolved in lake water, eh? Try
an experiment: dip a quart jar full from your nearest lake, then measure the
electrical resistance.

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

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

HeyBub wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
All the rain was distilled water.
What, you think all the water in the lake got there directly as
rainfall? None
of it was runoff? And nothing ever dissolved in it afterward?

Very little is dissolved in rainwater run-off. There may be a huge amount of
dirt and stuff in suspension, ...

So none of the Ca/Mg/Mn/K/etc. salts in some of that dirt and stuff
manages to dissolve at all, huh? Interesting hypothesis...

--

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 15:21:23 GMT, "Toller" wrote:


"Robert Allison" wrote in message
news:joZwi.10203$Ns6.10019@trnddc01...
I built a lake home for some clients and later installed an underground
drop to a pedestal with a 240 volt disconnect (exactly like an AC
disconnect). From there, the people who built the dock tied into the
disconnect to run wire out to the dock.

Then the rains came. The lake rose almost 35 feet in a matter of weeks.
More rain. The lake rose to flood stage and submerged the pedestal. Yet
power remained to the dock. The pedestal was under about 15' of water,
yet did not trip the breaker at the main service. The owner called me and
asked if this was dangerous and I said yes, turn off the breaker at the
breaker box, which he did.

My question is: why did the breaker not trip when the disconnect was
submerged? It is not waterproof by any means.

Mythbusters did a segment on tossing a toaster in the bathtub and see if you
could be electrocuted.
They found some current between the toaster and the drain, when the drain
was metal and grounded; otherwise nothing.
I am surprised there was even that; the toaster neutral is a rather better
ground than anything else; why would current go through a person instead?

Oh, to answer your question; without dissolved salt; water does not conduct
electricity. All the rain was distilled water.

Water apparently conducts enough to allow for electrolisys (sp?) to
occur in rivers and lakes. That is why outboard motors and I/O
outdrives (as well as the boats themselves on inboards) have anodes
attached. These are made from a metal more subject to being eaten up
than the metal on the boat or motor. I believe that for fresh water
the anodes are made from magnisium. These anodes are eaten away from
fairly natural electric charges in water, but get eaten much faster
near commercail docks with electric service. That is usually due to
some doofus having his boat connected to the electric service with
some type of power leak somewhere on the boat that allows a little
charge to find its way to the water. That reminds me, I need to check
the ones on my boat which are probably due to be replaced soon ;-).

Dave Hall

In article joZwi.10203$Ns6.10019@trnddc01, says...

My question is: why did the breaker not trip when the
disconnect was submerged? It is not waterproof by any means.


I expect a certain amount of hydrogen and oxygen would have been bubbling up
from that outlet. They may notice when they get the power bill.

Like others have said, if the water is very pure, the current would not have
been enough to trip the breaker.

-P.

--
=========================================
firstname dot lastname at gmail fullstop com

"Robert Allison" wrote in message
news:7rZwi.10205$Ns6.3760@trnddc01...
Robert Allison wrote:

OOPS! meant to post this to alt.home.repair!

If any of you have the answer, though, let me know.


--
Robert Allison Rimshot, Inc.
Georgetown, TX

My bet is it was shorting through the water, but not enough to trip the
breaker. It would have been interesting to check the amp draw on the
circuit.
I few years ago I was helping a friend do some construction. We had a couple
extension cords run and it rained. The one cord ended up with the end laying
in a water puddle. When I noticed it in the water, the water was bubbling at
the cord end, but it did not trip the 20 amp breaker on the circuit. So it
was definitely drawing some power.
Greg

On Aug 16, 7:06 pm, Peter Huebner wrote:


I expect a certain amount of hydrogen and oxygen would have been bubbling up
from that outlet.


Electrolysis from an AC source?

I'll have to give that some thought. Every bubble from either
conductor would alternate between hydrogen and oxygen.
Good one, Peter, now I'll be thinking about that... you know.. a bitf
like a song that won't go away...a whistled tune...like Andy
Griffith's Mayberry RFD

"Robatoy" wrote:

Electrolysis from an AC source?

Absolutely.

Just check any boat at the yacht club that has a shore power system
grounded to the water instead of back to the service entrance.

Those installations EAT anodes.

Ever hear of "ground loops"?

Lew

Lew

dpb wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
All the rain was distilled water.
What, you think all the water in the lake got there directly as
rainfall? None
of it was runoff? And nothing ever dissolved in it afterward?

Very little is dissolved in rainwater run-off. There may be a huge
amount of dirt and stuff in suspension, ...

So none of the Ca/Mg/Mn/K/etc. salts in some of that dirt and stuff
manages to dissolve at all, huh? Interesting hypothesis...

Right. It all dissolved in last week's rain. Freshly applied fertilizer,
however, is a different matter.

On Aug 16, 9:23 pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote:

Electrolysis from an AC source?

Absolutely.

Just check any boat at the yacht club that has a shore power system
grounded to the water instead of back to the service entrance.

Those installations EAT anodes.

Ever hear of "ground loops"?

Yes of course. But how does the rectfication occur so that you're left
with an anode/oxygen only bubbles?
Are you talking about cathodic protection of propellor/shafts and even
a steel hull? The good ol' galvanic sacrifice?

Just trying to learn something here.....

"Robatoy" wrote:

Yes of course. But how does the rectfication occur so that you're
left
with an anode/oxygen only bubbles?
Are you talking about cathodic protection of propellor/shafts and
even
a steel hull? The good ol' galvanic sacrifice?

Rectification?

That is exactly what I'm talking about.

It is the basic reason you NEVER want to go swimming in a marina.

Most marinas that provide shore power will have stray currents in the
water and they can kill you.


Lew

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...
Somebody wrote:

Way back when, long before now, hopefully long enough ago for
the statutes of limitations to expire, we used to do what we
called "telephoning fish". We did this using the generator
from the old crank telephones. Drop a weighted wire to the
bottom and another wire that we just stuck in the top of the
pond, stream, creek, etc. Crank on the handle, and fish would
float up. This was fresh water. It seemed to conduct the
current well enough to stun the fish.

A quart Mason jar with screw on lid, a rock inside to sink the jar,
some carbide (once used by coal miners for their lamps), and a little
water.

Place rock in jar, add carbide and water, screw on lid, throw in water
and watch it sink.

Pretty soon, Mason jar will explode and fish will rise to surface,
belly up.

Time to start dinner.

Lew

Hmmm... an early version of the DuPont lure?

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 18:14:00 -0700, Robatoy
wrote:


Electrolysis from an AC source?

...


Don't immediately see any reason why not.

During the specific half cycle between each zero crossing, the
voltage/current is time varying DC.

If there is no time delay between the current beginning to flow and
electrolysis beginning, or if such a threshold does exist and it's
less than 1/120 sec, then H2O molecules should be split into hydrogen
and oxygen during each half cycle.

If there is no mechanism to recombine the hydrogen generated during
one half cycle with the oxygen generated during the previous and/or
next half cycle, the bubbles from each electrode should contain a mix
of hydrogen and oxygen. Possibly separate bubbles, possibly a gas
mixture in each bubble, but in either case, not a worthwhile
separation technique without calling on Maxwell's Demon to direct
traffic.



Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA

"Brian" wrote:

Hmmm... an early version of the DuPont lure?

As in "Better Living Thru Chemistry"?G

If you have evr been an old time welding shop, you would find a metal
pony barrel with a tight fitting lid containing carbide.

Some carbide, some water and you get acetelene gas formed.

Pretty basic stuff.

Lew

"Robert Allison" wrote in message
news:joZwi.10203$Ns6.10019@trnddc01...
I built a lake home for some clients and later installed an underground
drop to a pedestal with a 240 volt disconnect (exactly like an AC
disconnect). From there, the people who built the dock tied into the
disconnect to run wire out to the dock.

Then the rains came. The lake rose almost 35 feet in a matter of weeks.
More rain. The lake rose to flood stage and submerged the pedestal. Yet
power remained to the dock. The pedestal was under about 15' of water,
yet did not trip the breaker at the main service. The owner called me and
asked if this was dangerous and I said yes, turn off the breaker at the
breaker box, which he did.

My question is: why did the breaker not trip when the disconnect was
submerged? It is not waterproof by any means.

--
Robert Allison Rimshot, Inc.
Georgetown, TX

There is not enough surface area of the contacts and the water is not
conductive enough to trip the breaker. Depending on how long it was under
water with the power applied, i'd bet there is pretty heavy corrosion of the
contacts.
John

On Aug 16, 11:51 pm, Tom Veatch wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 18:14:00 -0700, Robatoy
wrote:



Electrolysis from an AC source?

...

Don't immediately see any reason why not.

During the specific half cycle between each zero crossing, the
voltage/current is time varying DC.

If there is no time delay between the current beginning to flow and
electrolysis beginning, or if such a threshold does exist and it's
less than 1/120 sec, then H2O molecules should be split into hydrogen
and oxygen during each half cycle.

If there is no mechanism to recombine the hydrogen generated during
one half cycle with the oxygen generated during the previous and/or
next half cycle, the bubbles from each electrode should contain a mix
of hydrogen and oxygen. Possibly separate bubbles, possibly a gas
mixture in each bubble, but in either case, not a worthwhile
separation technique without calling on Maxwell's Demon to direct
traffic.


Yup, I'll buy that. *in my best Maxwell Smart voice* "the ol' cathode/
anode switch at 60 Hz"

Robatoy wrote:

| Yup, I'll buy that. *in my best Maxwell Smart voice* "the ol'
| cathode/ anode switch at 60 Hz"

Agent 99 would probably suggest that it's really the more recent
"cathode/anode switch at 120 Hz" :-)

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On Aug 17, 12:08 pm, "Morris Dovey" wrote:
Robatoy wrote:

| Yup, I'll buy that. *in my best Maxwell Smart voice* "the ol'
| cathode/ anode switch at 60 Hz"

Agent 99 would probably suggest that it's really the more recent
"cathode/anode switch at 120 Hz" :-)

And she'd be right. That Smart was such a dufus.
A little 'correction' from Agent 99 never felt too too bad, I bet.

On Aug 17, 12:22 pm, Robatoy wrote:
On Aug 17, 12:08 pm, "Morris Dovey" wrote: Robatoy wrote:

| Yup, I'll buy that. *in my best Maxwell Smart voice* "the ol'
| cathode/ anode switch at 60 Hz"

Agent 99 would probably suggest that it's really the more recent
"cathode/anode switch at 120 Hz" :-)

And she'd be right. That Smart was such a dufus.
A little 'correction' from Agent 99 never felt too too bad, I bet.

But now, Smart & 99 are having a difference of opinion. For half the
cycle, the voltage is positive, the other have it is negative....
switching only once per cycle. (Taking my shoe off and calling the
Chief.)

Robatoy wrote:

| (Taking my shoe off and calling the Chief.)

ROFL so hard it Hz!

Give it up, Max - one switch from positive to negative plus one switch
from negative to positive is two switches per cycle.

Check with Emma Peel - she'll set you straight.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On Aug 17, 12:43 pm, "Morris Dovey" wrote:
Robatoy wrote:

| (Taking my shoe off and calling the Chief.)

ROFL so hard it Hz!

Give it up, Max - one switch from positive to negative plus one switch
from negative to positive is two switches per cycle.

Check with Emma Peel - she'll set you straight.


The cycle starts of at 0 degrees and rotates to a max positive at 90
degrees then positive diminishes to 0 at 180 degrees. Then at 270
degrees max negative diminishing to 0 at 360 degrees.
Or, as the Chief says; "One positive lump. followd by a negative hump,
polarity changes once."

I want to write more, but Emma is trying to strap me to the bedposts.

Poor me....

Robatoy wrote:

On Aug 17, 12:43 pm, "Morris Dovey" wrote:
Robatoy wrote:

(Taking my shoe off and calling the Chief.)

ROFL so hard it Hz!

Give it up, Max - one switch from positive to negative plus one
switch from negative to positive is two switches per cycle.

Check with Emma Peel - she'll set you straight.


The cycle starts of at 0 degrees and rotates to a max positive at 90
degrees then positive diminishes to 0 at 180 degrees. Then at 270
degrees max negative diminishing to 0 at 360 degrees.
Or, as the Chief says; "One positive lump. followd by a negative hump,
polarity changes once."

I want to write more, but Emma is trying to strap me to the bedposts.

Poor me....


Is that leather strap , thigh boots and spiky heels

--

Mississippi River water can conduct electricity. Go to about the 2:30
minute mark in this video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ChwJ...elated&search=

Kevin

Oh, to answer your question; without dissolved salt; water does not
conduct
electricity.


That's not true. *Pure* water is a very poor conductor of electricity --
but having *anything* dissolved in it (not just salt) makes it
conductive.


All the rain was distilled water.


What, you think all the water in the lake got there directly as rainfall?
None of it was runoff? And nothing ever dissolved in it afterward?


Way back when, long before now, hopefully long enough ago for the statutes
of limitations to expire, we used to do what we called "telephoning fish".
We did this using the generator from the old crank telephones. Drop a
weighted wire to the bottom and another wire that we just stuck in the top
of the pond, stream, creek, etc. Crank on the handle, and fish would
float up. This was fresh water. It seemed to conduct the current well
enough to stun the fish.

The same type of system is used by fisheries to stun fish so they can count
them.