As I said before call power company the problem is not inside your house it is before your watt meter now you will pay for electrician and possible may need to get power company anywhere. Possible power reversal neutral became hot and hot became neutral, which I had on several places on industrial equipment but not on house.
How can you possibly tell that the problem is before the meter? It seems almost a certainty that something is very wrong in the house, because the water system should be bonded/grounded to the electrical system at the panel.
With the neutral properly grounded at the panel, what do you think would happen if you reversed hot and neutral outside the house?
Interesting idea. I wonder if that would work if the voltage being detected is low. I did this Google search:
Ah, then those are functioning similar to the ones mentioned below. All the ones I've ever had required a potential across two leads
These are the ones I referred to. But the ones I've seen have to be adjusted for sensitivity. Do it wrong and there's voltage everywhere or nowhere.
One that requires no adjustment to give a reliable reading without a ground would be great. (But still no substitute for someone who actually understands electricity.)
No, but your heirs can do it for you.
I used the round HF voltage detector last week. Diagnosing a furnace that was not running. Turns out I was detecting 24 VAC control circuit wires. Surprised me, I was able to beep them out.
"not code" means whatever he was thinking when he wrote it. He doesn't speak our dialect. Get over it.
You're probably write. So refute what he meant, not what he didn't.
Is that like arguing about what the meaning of "is", "is"? First, he didn't say "not code". He said it's "no longer code". The only reasonable in context interpretation of that is that it means you can't have a ground wire going to a water pipe because the code has been updated to disallow it. If you follow the thread, he even made that clear
"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.Why don't you get over the fact that he's wrong and stop making excuses for him And it's not an issue of speaking the dialect. "No longer code" is clear... Even if it wasn't clear, you think someone who can't speak the dialect is qualified to give advice to someone on what is or isn't a proper ground, current code, etc? Good grief.
I went through this a while ago when my non-contact voltage detector fried, and I did post about it. The one that I had was an Amprobe and I'd used it (only on 120/208 but still) for a year or so and was happy with it. When I replaced the batteries with NiMH it ate itself; don't know if it was related or coincidence. I bought a Fluke one because that was the other brand that my local supply house sold - I hated it, not sensitive enough. Mail ordered a Sperry VD6505 ($15 and free shipping!) and love it. Adjustable sensitivity means that I can discriminate *which* wire is hot if I want to, or dial it up and make sure *everything* in a box is dead before I start disconnecting wires.
nate
Let me correct the above to say "code had been updated to disallow it for new work. I think that's the most reasonable and generous interpretation of what he said. It's what every other person I can ever recall saying something is no longer code meant.
If you follow the thread, he even made
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
Since you are more interested in argument than communication, I'm going elsewhere.
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.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.