On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 09:43:13 -0800 (PST), " firstname.lastname@example.org"
We are well over the "thousand words" a picture would have avoided.
I have seen and worked with hundreds of service drops and I have never
seen one where the bare wire was not the grounded conductor.
Rarely they may use an insulated neutral conductor in an (underground)
service lateral but the majority of them use a bare wire too,
Now you're adding to the obfuscation, implying that I
argued the point that "it" was the neutral. What "it" are you
refering to? The OP wrote:
"3 wires are black insulated, the other is the bare neutral. "
So there is an "it" and it's the OP saying it's the neutral,
Then he says:
"the 4th wire is not connected to anything. "
So we have 3+1. Now maybe YOU are a mind reader,'
but it's not clear what the 4th unconnected wire he's referring to
is. I took it to mean the bare wire. gfretw
thinks it's 3 phase and all are actually connected.
You, well, it's not clear what you think because all
you seem more interested in is trying to pick apart my
interpretation, which I believe is a perfectly reasonable
one, because the OP was unclear on what the 4th
wire is that he's referring to.
Your original characterization of the so-called '4th' wire was
ambiguous. Not even ambiguous, more like (unintenionally) misleading.
Effective communication is a responsibility primarily of/on the sender,
only secondarily the receiver.
The sender is supposed to recognize the limitations of the media and
know that the receiver cannot see inside the head of the sender to know
what he was thinking about when he said what he said.
You said at the opening:
3 like wires and then 'the other' would cause a normal reader to call
the other the 4th, different, wire.
Then you said:
I believe that it would be normal for the receiver to interpret that the
bare, neutral, different, 4th wire is not connected.
Your original does not 'select' one of the 3 otherwise identical black
insulated wires to be the '4th' wire (not connected).
The criticism of the communication breakdown should not be assigned to
the receivers comprehension or lack or mind-reading skills here.
It wasn't until later that you began to try to clarify what you were
thinking and seeing at the wires.
Apparently, like everyone else here, Mike agrees that
the post was unclear. After 3 posts, the poster finally
clarified what he meant. It was all settled yesterday to
everybody's satisfaction, except of course, you.
So, here you are, bitching because the thread took
so many posts. As if this is the first time an unclear
question resulted in that. And it's YOU who just made
3 new posts on the thread, not about the result, but about
the process. Go figure....
How well did that work out for you?
Early on you asked for clarification and there was no response to your
"Likely you mean it has a drop using quadplex aerial cable?"
The very wording of all of the responses, including yours, indicated a
lack of clarity in the original post. Don't you think that it is the
responsibilty of the OP to read through the responses, realize that he
was misunderstood (no fault being placed here) and take steps to
If my wife says to me "That's a hot dress!" and I respond by asking
"Is it made of wool?" isn't it her responsibility to clarify that she
was talking about the look, not the material? I didn't do anything
wrong and niether did she, but there was a misunderstanding anyway.
Since I (the receiver) can't read her mind, it's her (the sender)
responsibilty to clear things up.
That was something that the OP did not do until his third post. Now,
it's very possibly that the OP doesn't access/respond to a.h.r as
often as some of us, so there might be a lot of posts based on the
misunderstanding while we wait for the clarification. However, in this
case the OP responded (his 2nd post) but didn't clear anything up. At
that point, it would be quite proper to place some of the blame on
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.