Shocked!

Page 4 of 11  
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.
--
Wes Groleau

There are some ideas so wrong that only a
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, October 28, 2013 11:24:09 PM UTC-4, Wes Groleau wrote:

.
Let's review this one more time:
"If you want to do something before help arrives, I might*look* (but not touch) for any clamps with wires that are attached to your water supply lines. Incoming phone terminals, CATV lines, the circuit box area and the furnace areas are places you might find a ground wire connection (no longer code)."
Let's just look at one simple, easy piece of that. The OP goes looking at his circuit box area and finds a wire running from the panel to his cold water pipe, either the incoming water service or the metal water pipes of the house if the water service is plastic. That is not only allowed in current code, it's *required* in current code. And it's also perfectly normal in older homes. It's just flat out wrong to say it's "no longer code".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/28/2013 9:24 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:

"Not required by code" is "wrong".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10-29-2013, 09:30, bud-- wrote:

You're probably write. So refute what he meant, not what he didn't.
--
Wes Groleau

After the christening of his baby brother in church, Jason sobbed
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/29/2013 11:58 AM, Wes Groleau wrote:

Find me the original quote. Doesn't appear to be in-line back.
Someone said 'not required by code' or something similar. That is what they meant. They are wrong.
Wasn't there a recent thread almost identical to this branch between trader and NN - same erroneous statements being made and corrected?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10-29-2013, 16:05, bud-- wrote:

He posted (without the quote marks) "(not code)" which is very ambiguous. Since then, even though he has more clearly explained what he meant (which you say is wrong), numerous posts have killed the horse about him allegedly saying prohibited.
In other words, we're proudly maintaining Usenet tradition.
--
Wes Groleau

Measure with a micrometer, mark with chalk, and cut with an axe.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 3:22:25 PM UTC-4, Wes Groleau wrote:

In my universe, when someone says "XYZ is no longer code" it can only mean that the code has been updated so that XYZ is no longer allowed per code for new work. That is how it's been used here in AHR in every case that I can recall. At least by anyone who knows what they are talking about. I guess it would be better if it was actually stated as "XYZ is no longer code for new work".
But however you morph it, the statement that ground wires, for example, from the panel to metal water service pipes, house metal piping system is "no longer code" is just wrong. Even if you want to try to claim he meant *required*, it's still wrong.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10-29-2013, 15:38, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

In the Usenet universe, it is indeed traditional to argue your favorite meaning of a word or phrase regardless of the speaker's later clarification.

Fine. Argue that, instead of accusing him of saying something he didn't say and claiming that he meant something he specifically denied.

I'm not the one anxious to "claim" things, but I READ what he said he meant.
In my universe, we try to understand people before we correct them.
--
Wes Groleau

A UNIX signature isn't a return address, it's the ASCII equivalent
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 5:32:27 PM UTC-4, Wes Groleau wrote:

Good grief. Did you follow the thread? The excerpts I provided in the last few posts of what he said after? He didnt'd deny that he meant it was no longer code. He agressively affirmed that is what he meant.
Here it is yet again:
Robert:
"At least Philo knew I was specifically talking about ground wire connections made to water pipes at random places in the house. That's very clear to anyone but a raging flamer like you. Is that still code in NJ? I doubt it. They stopped approving such grounding methods *precisely* because of what's happened in Fred's case. "
(note with regard to the above, that he specifically listed the panel in his list of places to look for grounds to water pipes that are "no longer code", then he tried to change it to random places)
"It's clear why grounding to water pipes isn't the great idea it used to be even though in many old houses (like mine) you'll still find plenty of clamps attached to supply lines. The mains could be PVC, repairs in the house, even if it has copper plumbing could be plastic, etc. "
For the record, it's not only permissible to ground the panel to the incoming water service, ie it's one of the listed grounding electrodes, it's such a great idea, it's required. And the metal water pipe system of the house has to be bonded/grounded to the panel as well. You tried to claim he meant it's just *not required*, so you obviously don't know what you're talking about either, because that is still equally as wrong. There will be ground wires running from the panel to metal water pipes in new construction, following current code, today.

Apparently you are, because he you are defending his incorrect statements. He clearly said he meant two things:
1 - It is in fact no longer code to use water pipes as a ground for the panel, etc.
2 - That he meant the OP should just go look for where the cable, phone, panel, etc are grounded.
I don't have a problem with the later. #1 is still wrong.

Yes, let's accept untrue BS and just all get along, right?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10-29-2013, 18:02, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Since you are more interested in argument than communication, I'm going elsewhere.
--
Wes Groleau

After the christening of his baby brother in church, Jason sobbed
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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.
There's a tendency with the many folks here (raises hand) who like to solve problems to get lost in the weeds. 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. 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.
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.



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, November 12, 2013 6:08:44 AM UTC-5, Robert Green wrote:

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.

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

Wow, you figure that out?
Unless the guy

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.

Interesting how easily the ignorant are amused.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<stuff snipped>

meant.

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?
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.
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. 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."
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. 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.



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, November 12, 2013 11:33:53 AM UTC-5, Robert Green wrote:

What he said and what he meant are both incorrect.

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"

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.

No shit 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

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.

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,

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 3:07:01 PM UTC-4, bud-- wrote:

Here it is:
" If you want to do something before help arrives, I might *look* (but not touch) for any clamps with wires that are attached to your water supply lines. Incoming phone terminals, CATV lines, the circuit box area and the furnace areas are places you might find a ground wire connection (no longer code).
-- Bobby G. "

"no longer code" was the term used. Wes is trying to morph that into no longer required by code, which clearly doesn't make any sense in the context it was orginally used. And even if you morph it into that, it's still wrong. New installation of the "circuit box" for example, with current code would *requre* ground/bond wires running from it to an incoming metal water service, metal water pipes in the house, etc.
And again, Robert later stated that he meant that the OP should just go look for any ground attachments so he can point them out to the electrician. Had he said that, I would have had no problem with it, even though it seems unlikely the OP would know what a ground connection looks like. But the "no longer code part is just incorrect and also to just say go look for all these grounds, no longer code, I think leaves a newbie with the impression that just their presence could be the reason for his shock problem.

Yes, it's in this thread. The main issue there was the claim being made that a metal water service can no longer be used as a ground for new work. It can be one of the grounding electrodes, but it can't be the only grounding electrode. I think that one was settled.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10-29-2013, 15:29, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

I'm not trying to morph anything. He POSTED that is what he meant.
AND, though I certainly wouldn't say it that way, I find it easy to recognize that as a possible meaning.
I recognize that promoting discussion instead of dispute on Usenet is futile, but I just can't help myself.
--
Don Quijote

Pat's Polemics
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 5:35:15 PM UTC-4, Wes Groleau wrote:

Of course you're morphing. Even you tried to claimn that what he posted was unclear. Now it's suddenly what he meant. You tried to tell Bud and me that what he meant was *no longer required by code". What he posted is clear and it;s clearly wrong.
And your attempt to morph what he posted into *required* shows that you don't know what you're talking about either, because to have the incoming water service and the house metal pipe system grounded/bonded is *required*.

What exactly is a "possible meaning" If it;s the *no longer required* morphing nonsense, that is wrong too as Bud and I have told you now ten times.

Yes some come up with BS about code and we're just supposed to discuss it, as if Robert who isn't an EE or electrician, opinion is as qualifed as Bud, me, RBM, etc. If you want to continue this, try citing the NEC.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10-29-2013, 18:11, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote: > Of course you're morphing. Even you tried to claimn that

It was. "not code" is VERY vague.

He SAID that's what he meant.

He SAID that's what he meant. I NEVER claimed he was correct.
--
Wes Groleau

If you put garbage in a computer nothing comes out but garbage.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 7:30:01 PM UTC-4, Wes Groleau wrote:

BS. Can you read? I've provided the exact initial quote several times now, and the words were "no longer code". That is not vague.

Now, again you're wrong. It was "no longer code" in the original post. AFAIK, he never said "no longer required by code" If he did, just provide the cite. Again I provided what he did post:
"If you want to do something before help arrives, I might *look* (but not touch) for any clamps with wires that are attached to your water supply lines. Incoming phone terminals, CATV lines, the circuit box area and the furnace areas are places you might find a ground wire connection (no longer code). -- Bobby G. "
And then he affirmed that was what he meant by this:
Robert: ""At least Philo knew I was specifically talking about ground wire connections made to water pipes at random places in the house. That's very clear to anyone but a raging flamer like you. Is that still code in NJ? I doubt it. They stopped approving such grounding methods *precisely* because of what's happened in Fred's case. "
(note with regard to the above, that he specifically listed the panel in his list of places to look for grounds to water pipes that are "no longer code", then he tried to change it to random places)
Robert: "It's clear why grounding to water pipes isn't the great idea it used to be even though in many old houses (like mine) you'll still find plenty of clamps attached to supply lines. The mains could be PVC, repairs in the house, even if it has copper plumbing could be plastic, etc. "
Under current code, having ground/bond wires from the panel to the metal water service and to the metal water pipes of the house itself if the service is plastic is *required* . If it isn't the great idea it used to be, why does current NEC require it?
It would be helpful if you addressed the facts here of the whole statements in context instead of talking about one alleged word here and there.

1 - Show us where he said that "not required by code is what he meant. Where he used the word, required. Maybe I missed it, but I don't believe so. And even if he did, as Bud and I have stated, it's still wrong.
2 - If you're not claiming he is correct, what the hell are you claiming? That he was wrong twice?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/29/2013 1:29 PM, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Geez, the source. That helps.
If we are not talking about connecting the water pipe as an earthing electrode....
You used to be able to connect entry protectors and other grounds (like adding a ground to a receptacle in an ungrounded circuit) anywhere on the water pipe. That is no longer code, but you can make the same connections withing 5 ft of the entry of the pipe to the house. (Connection can also be made a number of other spots.)
========================>>

I remember about the same thing concerning using a water pipe as an earthing electrode maybe a couple months ago.

"Can" is wrong. It *must* be one of the earthing electrodes. It is one of the required electrodes, if present (10 ft...). Another required electrode is a "concrete encased electrode" (usually called a Ufer ground) if there is a concrete footing or foundation.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.