just proving my point exactly :)
--
"RB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Young_carpenter wrote:
> > Leave it to the government and its partners to make things hard on us.
> > There is a certain sense in referring to both wires as "ground..." which
> > really is only a reference to the fact that as electricity enters it
needs a
> > place to exit. In general terms a ground is a means for which
electricity
> > exits or "grounds out"
> > yeah confusing. Try teaching a bunch 3,4,5th graders that - isn't
> > actually - but a excess of - that should have been labeled + years ago,
and
> > that current doesn't flow "forward" but in reverse.
> >
>
> If you want to be correct current doesn't flow. Charge flows and
> current exists, it is the flow of charge.
>
> RB
>
I used the word Partner because state, local, etc. Governments adopt the
code as law therefore affiliating them with government. It was supposed to
be a joke.
as for the 3,4,5th graders. I have taught electricity to that age group
before in a 4-H course. I actually didn't go that far with them. If I had
taught more advanced electricity (which I never had the opportunity to do) I
would have had to get more into that. But they still gave me funny looks
when I told them that - wasn't really a lack of electrons but an excess of
them making it -.
--
"Scott Lurndal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Young_carpenter" <[email protected]> writes:
> >Leave it to the government and its partners to make things hard on us.
> >There is a certain sense in referring to both wires as "ground..." which
>
> The NEC is not designed for the layman, but rather the professional. One
> that cannot distinguish (and understand the difference) between
> a grounded conductor and a grounding conductor shouldn't be messing with
> electricity.
>
> BTW - the government has nothing to do with the NEC (National
notwithstanding).
> It is prepared and distributed by the NFPA (National Fire Prevention
Association)
> which is a private organization.
>
> >really is only a reference to the fact that as electricity enters it
needs a
> >place to exit. In general terms a ground is a means for which
electricity
> >exits or "grounds out"
> >yeah confusing. Try teaching a bunch 3,4,5th graders that - isn't
> >actually - but a excess of - that should have been labeled + years ago,
and
> >that current doesn't flow "forward" but in reverse.
>
> Why do 3,4,5th graders need to know this?
>
> scott
By ground I meant neutral. The saw would remain grounded by the exposed copper
while one hot leg and the neutral would feed the 110v outlet. HOWEVER, I think
I'll just run a additional 110V outlet to the ceiling over the saw/router.
Simpler and safer. Thanks for all of the feedback.
LRod wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 21:03:28 -0500, "Young_carpenter"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >By ground does he mean ground or does he mean ground.
> >if he is referring to the ground as in that piece of copper that you expose
> >to pick of improper current, then you don't want to carry current.
> >If he means ground as in Neutral, as in leg three, he could do it but it is
> >not a good idea.
> >just thought we should get things clarified. Electricity is only hard
> >because no one uses proper terms.
>
> Worse than that; in the NEC one is called the groundING conductor and
> the other is called the groundED conductor.
>
> For an organization that writes the safety standard, you would think
> they could invent better labels to completely eliminate the ambiguity.
>
> We would never permit that in air traffic control. Well, we did for a
> long time, but we got over some of it. Tenerife comes immediately to
> mind. Never use the words "take off" in a transmission that isn't a
> clearance to take off.
>
> LRod
>
> Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
>
> Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
>
> http://www.woodbutcher.net
Young_carpenter wrote:
> Leave it to the government and its partners to make things hard on us.
> There is a certain sense in referring to both wires as "ground..." which
> really is only a reference to the fact that as electricity enters it needs a
> place to exit. In general terms a ground is a means for which electricity
> exits or "grounds out"
> yeah confusing. Try teaching a bunch 3,4,5th graders that - isn't
> actually - but a excess of - that should have been labeled + years ago, and
> that current doesn't flow "forward" but in reverse.
>
If you want to be correct current doesn't flow. Charge flows and
current exists, it is the flow of charge.
RB
Leave it to the government and its partners to make things hard on us.
There is a certain sense in referring to both wires as "ground..." which
really is only a reference to the fact that as electricity enters it needs a
place to exit. In general terms a ground is a means for which electricity
exits or "grounds out"
yeah confusing. Try teaching a bunch 3,4,5th graders that - isn't
actually - but a excess of - that should have been labeled + years ago, and
that current doesn't flow "forward" but in reverse.
--
"LRod" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 21:03:28 -0500, "Young_carpenter"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >By ground does he mean ground or does he mean ground.
> >if he is referring to the ground as in that piece of copper that you
expose
> >to pick of improper current, then you don't want to carry current.
> >If he means ground as in Neutral, as in leg three, he could do it but it
is
> >not a good idea.
> >just thought we should get things clarified. Electricity is only hard
> >because no one uses proper terms.
>
> Worse than that; in the NEC one is called the groundING conductor and
> the other is called the groundED conductor.
>
> For an organization that writes the safety standard, you would think
> they could invent better labels to completely eliminate the ambiguity.
>
> We would never permit that in air traffic control. Well, we did for a
> long time, but we got over some of it. Tenerife comes immediately to
> mind. Never use the words "take off" in a transmission that isn't a
> clearance to take off.
>
> LRod
>
> Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
>
> Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
>
> http://www.woodbutcher.net
Roy Smith <[email protected]> writes:
>[email protected] (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>> The NEC is not designed for the layman, but rather the professional. One
>> that cannot distinguish (and understand the difference) between
>> a grounded conductor and a grounding conductor shouldn't be messing with
>> electricity.
>
>Feh. I've got a degree in electrical engineering. I completely
>understand the difference between ground and neutral. A daresay better
>than a lot of yoyos with an electrician's license.
>
>The terms are obtuse, misleading, and confusing.
Much less confusing than the term neutral, that's for sure. A
neutral is anything but (what, you mean I can get a shock from
the neutral? but I thought it was neutral?).
There is a reason that the other people with degrees in electrical
engineering have chosen to use grounded conductor in place of
neutral as the term of art, your 'feh' notwithstanding.
scott
"Young_carpenter" <[email protected]> writes:
>Leave it to the government and its partners to make things hard on us.
>There is a certain sense in referring to both wires as "ground..." which
The NEC is not designed for the layman, but rather the professional. One
that cannot distinguish (and understand the difference) between
a grounded conductor and a grounding conductor shouldn't be messing with
electricity.
BTW - the government has nothing to do with the NEC (National notwithstanding).
It is prepared and distributed by the NFPA (National Fire Prevention Association)
which is a private organization.
>really is only a reference to the fact that as electricity enters it needs a
>place to exit. In general terms a ground is a means for which electricity
>exits or "grounds out"
>yeah confusing. Try teaching a bunch 3,4,5th graders that - isn't
>actually - but a excess of - that should have been labeled + years ago, and
>that current doesn't flow "forward" but in reverse.
Why do 3,4,5th graders need to know this?
scott
LRod <[email protected]> writes:
>On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 23:27:00 GMT, [email protected] (Scott Lurndal)
>wrote:
>
>>There is a reason that the other people with degrees in electrical
>>engineering have chosen to use grounded conductor in place of
>>neutral as the term of art, your 'feh' notwithstanding.
>
>And what would that reason be?
Look up corner-grounded delta systems for an example where a
grounded conductor is _not_ a neutral.
>Although you assert in a previous post that I didn't reference) that
>"[t]he NEC is not designed for the layman, but rather the
>professional," the fact remains that the professionals using it every
>day are journeyman electricians, and while that doesn't mean they
A journeyman electrician is a professional in the sense I was
using the term.
>In any event, the International Civil Aviation Organaztion and the FAA
>have taken great pains to take blatant ambiguities out of aviation
If you think the NFPA hasn't gone to great lengths to remove ambiguity
from the NEC, well, I disagree.
>communications and I would venture to say that pilots and controllers
>are at least as intelligent and well educated as electricians, so why
>not take the same pains?
>
>I don't care what you think, the labels groundED and groundING for two
>elements of a potentially deadly electrical circuit with wholly
>different functions is blatantly ambiguous. And I have >40 years
>experience with electricity (and >30 with aviation).
I respectfully disagree that -ED and -ING is ambiguous to a
professional electrician.
scott
It would be easier on breaker/you/firedept if you just run new wire.
--
"gary scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I have recently mounted a router table extension on my Grizzly cabinet
> saw and would like to eliminate the router's cord running across the
> floor to a 110volt outlet. Can I safely install a 110volt outlet using
> a hot leg and ground from the 220volt service to my saw?
>
By ground does he mean ground or does he mean ground.
if he is referring to the ground as in that piece of copper that you expose
to pick of improper current, then you don't want to carry current.
If he means ground as in Neutral, as in leg three, he could do it but it is
not a good idea.
just thought we should get things clarified. Electricity is only hard
because no one uses proper terms.
--
"Roy Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> gary scott <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I have recently mounted a router table extension on my Grizzly cabinet
> > saw and would like to eliminate the router's cord running across the
> > floor to a 110volt outlet. Can I safely install a 110volt outlet using
> > a hot leg and ground from the 220volt service to my saw?
> >
>
> No. It is illegal and unsafe to use the ground to carry current. You
> need a real neutral.
gary scott wrote:
> I have recently mounted a router table extension on my Grizzly cabinet
> saw and would like to eliminate the router's cord running across the
> floor to a 110volt outlet. Can I safely install a 110volt outlet using
> a hot leg and ground from the 220volt service to my saw?
Dude, rewire your TS to include a neutral...
--
gabriel
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 23:27:00 GMT, [email protected] (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
>There is a reason that the other people with degrees in electrical
>engineering have chosen to use grounded conductor in place of
>neutral as the term of art, your 'feh' notwithstanding.
And what would that reason be?
Although you assert in a previous post that I didn't reference) that
"[t]he NEC is not designed for the layman, but rather the
professional," the fact remains that the professionals using it every
day are journeyman electricians, and while that doesn't mean they
aren't bright individuals, it's not a profession one associates with
advanced college degrees. Why tempt fate with nuances?
In any event, the International Civil Aviation Organaztion and the FAA
have taken great pains to take blatant ambiguities out of aviation
communications and I would venture to say that pilots and controllers
are at least as intelligent and well educated as electricians, so why
not take the same pains?
I don't care what you think, the labels groundED and groundING for two
elements of a potentially deadly electrical circuit with wholly
different functions is blatantly ambiguous. And I have >40 years
experience with electricity (and >30 with aviation).
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
"gary scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I have recently mounted a router table extension on my Grizzly cabinet
> saw and would like to eliminate the router's cord running across the
> floor to a 110volt outlet. Can I safely install a 110volt outlet using
> a hot leg and ground from the 220volt service to my saw?
>
No, it is illegal and unsafe to use a ground as a neutral. If the ground
somehow broke, the whole saw would be hot. (It would be hot even if the
ground didn't break, but since the ground is a much better conductor than
anything else, the current would normally be tiny.)
Someone suggested running a neutral to the TS, but unless there is a neutral
in your 240v line (which is very unlikely) that will be impossible. Even
then, you would have to replace the cord on the TS to accomodate it.
On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 21:03:28 -0500, "Young_carpenter"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>By ground does he mean ground or does he mean ground.
>if he is referring to the ground as in that piece of copper that you expose
>to pick of improper current, then you don't want to carry current.
>If he means ground as in Neutral, as in leg three, he could do it but it is
>not a good idea.
>just thought we should get things clarified. Electricity is only hard
>because no one uses proper terms.
Worse than that; in the NEC one is called the groundING conductor and
the other is called the groundED conductor.
For an organization that writes the safety standard, you would think
they could invent better labels to completely eliminate the ambiguity.
We would never permit that in air traffic control. Well, we did for a
long time, but we got over some of it. Tenerife comes immediately to
mind. Never use the words "take off" in a transmission that isn't a
clearance to take off.
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
In article <[email protected]>, gary scott <[email protected]> wrote:
>I have recently mounted a router table extension on my Grizzly cabinet
>saw and would like to eliminate the router's cord running across the
>floor to a 110volt outlet. Can I safely install a 110volt outlet using
>a hot leg and ground from the 220volt service to my saw?
>
No.
--
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?
[email protected] (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
> The NEC is not designed for the layman, but rather the professional. One
> that cannot distinguish (and understand the difference) between
> a grounded conductor and a grounding conductor shouldn't be messing with
> electricity.
Feh. I've got a degree in electrical engineering. I completely
understand the difference between ground and neutral. A daresay better
than a lot of yoyos with an electrician's license.
The terms are obtuse, misleading, and confusing.
In article <[email protected]>,
gary scott <[email protected]> wrote:
> I have recently mounted a router table extension on my Grizzly cabinet
> saw and would like to eliminate the router's cord running across the
> floor to a 110volt outlet. Can I safely install a 110volt outlet using
> a hot leg and ground from the 220volt service to my saw?
>
No. It is illegal and unsafe to use the ground to carry current. You
need a real neutral.
In article <[email protected]>, gary scott <[email protected]> wrote:
>By ground I meant neutral.
Then *say* neutral. They are *very* different.
>The saw would remain grounded by the exposed copper
>while one hot leg and the neutral would feed the 110v outlet. HOWEVER, I think
>I'll just run a additional 110V outlet to the ceiling over the saw/router.
>Simpler and safer.
Right on both counts.
- Simpler, as your 220V outlet for the table saw probably doesn't even *have*
a neutral.
- Safer, as it leaves you with a perfectly standard configuration. Best not to
do anything "weird" in your electrical wiring: it's almost dead certain that
some day, someone will find a way to have a problem with it.
>
>LRod wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 21:03:28 -0500, "Young_carpenter"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >By ground does he mean ground or does he mean ground.
>> >if he is referring to the ground as in that piece of copper that you expose
>> >to pick of improper current, then you don't want to carry current.
>> >If he means ground as in Neutral, as in leg three, he could do it but it is
>> >not a good idea.
>> >just thought we should get things clarified. Electricity is only hard
>> >because no one uses proper terms.
>>
>> Worse than that; in the NEC one is called the groundING conductor and
>> the other is called the groundED conductor.
>>
>> For an organization that writes the safety standard, you would think
>> they could invent better labels to completely eliminate the ambiguity.
>>
>> We would never permit that in air traffic control. Well, we did for a
>> long time, but we got over some of it. Tenerife comes immediately to
>> mind. Never use the words "take off" in a transmission that isn't a
>> clearance to take off.
>>
>> LRod
>>
>> Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
>>
>> Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
>>
>> http://www.woodbutcher.net
>
--
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?