|
Home > Archive > Electrical code Compliance > November 2006 > house wired without separate ground - problem?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
house wired without separate ground - problem?
|
|
| Nate Nagel 2006-10-19, 8:25 pm |
| All right, I'm feeling mildly dumb and a little sheepish not to mention
slightly sick here... just bought a house for the first time less than
a month ago, and knew that it had some minor wiring "issues" but now
that I'm assessing what I have it appears that there are bigger issues
than previously anticipated. Anyway, here's the deal. House is a two
story colonial with full basement, built late 1940's. Excellent
structural condition, lovely hardwood floors albeit in need of a
refinishing. Paid for a home inspection prior to placing a bid on
house. Inspector noted some electrical items that would be against code
now for new construction but nothing major (things like clothes washer
sharing a circuit with other receptacles, lack of GFCIs in the kitchen,
etc.) all receptacles in house are three prong type and tested OK with
cheap little $5 circuit tester. All visible wiring was old BX w/ cloth
covered conductors and inspector said that grounding through the armor
of the BX while not the way we do things now was perfectly OK. So I was
feeling pretty good about things electrically, and that gave me a good
feeling about the house, as I automatically anticipated issues with lack
of grounds etc. in a house of this age. Well some of the receps. were
a little loose and old looking so I bought a pack of new ones and
proceeded to replace them. Basement went fine. Got to the first floor
and identified some issues that will be easy to rectify. Then I got to
the three oldest circuits in the house, one of which started life as the
general first floor circuit and another the general second floor circuit
(the latter of which still serves the entire second floor.) The third
is a lighting only circuit which serves the lights at the stair
landings. It appears that throughout the house wherever the wiring was
hidden behind plaster it was run in NM not BX and there is no grounding,
period. I don't have a big problem with that on a lighting only circuit
but the receptacles installed on the first and second floor are
grounding type and it appears that the ground is provided by a jumper at
each receptacle between the ground terminal and the neutral. I realize
that *theoretically* this is functionally identical, but this isn't the
way we do things now, so it bothers me a little bit.
questions:
1) is this actually an acceptable method of retrofitting receptacles to
grounded type? I suspect not, but you never can tell.
2) if not, is this the kind of thing that would generally be covered by
a home warranty? We did spend the $$ for one, although AFAIK it
generally only covers things like appliances etc.
I don't blame the inspector for missing this one; he would have had to
pull a receptacle either on the south side of the first floor or
somewhere on the second floor to identify this issue; there's a lot of
wiring visible in the basement but it is all either BX or obviously
recently added Romex which does contain a ground, so there was no reason
to believe that this wasn't consistent throughout the house. However,
the transition from exposed BX to hidden NM seems to be original to the
house as far as I can tell; I wonder why that would be?
Any help, thoughts, advice, etc. greatly appreciated.
thanks,
nate
(it's a good thing the girlie was planning on repainting, I guess...)
--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
| |
| Jeff Wisnia 2006-10-19, 8:25 pm |
| Nate Nagel wrote:
> All right, I'm feeling mildly dumb and a little sheepish not to mention
> slightly sick here... just bought a house for the first time less than
> a month ago, and knew that it had some minor wiring "issues" but now
> that I'm assessing what I have it appears that there are bigger issues
> than previously anticipated. Anyway, here's the deal. House is a two
> story colonial with full basement, built late 1940's. Excellent
> structural condition, lovely hardwood floors albeit in need of a
> refinishing. Paid for a home inspection prior to placing a bid on
> house. Inspector noted some electrical items that would be against code
> now for new construction but nothing major (things like clothes washer
> sharing a circuit with other receptacles, lack of GFCIs in the kitchen,
> etc.) all receptacles in house are three prong type and tested OK with
> cheap little $5 circuit tester. All visible wiring was old BX w/ cloth
> covered conductors and inspector said that grounding through the armor
> of the BX while not the way we do things now was perfectly OK. So I was
> feeling pretty good about things electrically, and that gave me a good
> feeling about the house, as I automatically anticipated issues with lack
> of grounds etc. in a house of this age. Well some of the receps. were
> a little loose and old looking so I bought a pack of new ones and
> proceeded to replace them. Basement went fine. Got to the first floor
> and identified some issues that will be easy to rectify. Then I got to
> the three oldest circuits in the house, one of which started life as the
> general first floor circuit and another the general second floor circuit
> (the latter of which still serves the entire second floor.) The third
> is a lighting only circuit which serves the lights at the stair
> landings. It appears that throughout the house wherever the wiring was
> hidden behind plaster it was run in NM not BX and there is no grounding,
> period. I don't have a big problem with that on a lighting only circuit
> but the receptacles installed on the first and second floor are
> grounding type and it appears that the ground is provided by a jumper at
> each receptacle between the ground terminal and the neutral. I realize
> that *theoretically* this is functionally identical, but this isn't the
> way we do things now, so it bothers me a little bit.
>
> questions:
>
> 1) is this actually an acceptable method of retrofitting receptacles to
> grounded type? I suspect not, but you never can tell.
>
> 2) if not, is this the kind of thing that would generally be covered by
> a home warranty? We did spend the $$ for one, although AFAIK it
> generally only covers things like appliances etc.
>
> I don't blame the inspector for missing this one; he would have had to
> pull a receptacle either on the south side of the first floor or
> somewhere on the second floor to identify this issue; there's a lot of
> wiring visible in the basement but it is all either BX or obviously
> recently added Romex which does contain a ground, so there was no reason
> to believe that this wasn't consistent throughout the house. However,
> the transition from exposed BX to hidden NM seems to be original to the
> house as far as I can tell; I wonder why that would be?
>
> Any help, thoughts, advice, etc. greatly appreciated.
Definitely not kosher to connect the receptical ground terminal to the
neutral terminal.
Consider replacing those recepticles with GFCI types with "ground not
connected" labels applied to them.
If you can definitely confirm upstream and downstream recepticals you
could use GFCI recepticals in the upstream ones and continue using
recepticals without ground holes on the downstream ones, or use
grounding type recepticals with the same "ground not connected" stickers
on them.
As always, clear this stuff with your local electrical inspector he/she
may or may not go along with my ideas.
Jeff
--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
"Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength."
| |
|
| It is not correct to wire outlets in that fashion, and I wouldn't expect
your home warranty to cover it, because it's not "broken" or something that
broke down, just improperly wired outlets. For people protection you can
install GFCI outlets, but it doesn't help for equipment that needs to be
grounded, for that you'll need to run grounded cables to those locations
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel@flycast.net> wrote in message
news:eh91lg01l2h@news2.newsguy.com...
> All right, I'm feeling mildly dumb and a little sheepish not to mention
> slightly sick here... just bought a house for the first time less than a
> month ago, and knew that it had some minor wiring "issues" but now that
> I'm assessing what I have it appears that there are bigger issues than
> previously anticipated. Anyway, here's the deal. House is a two story
> colonial with full basement, built late 1940's. Excellent structural
> condition, lovely hardwood floors albeit in need of a refinishing. Paid
> for a home inspection prior to placing a bid on house. Inspector noted
> some electrical items that would be against code now for new construction
> but nothing major (things like clothes washer sharing a circuit with other
> receptacles, lack of GFCIs in the kitchen, etc.) all receptacles in house
> are three prong type and tested OK with cheap little $5 circuit tester.
> All visible wiring was old BX w/ cloth covered conductors and inspector
> said that grounding through the armor of the BX while not the way we do
> things now was perfectly OK. So I was feeling pretty good about things
> electrically, and that gave me a good feeling about the house, as I
> automatically anticipated issues with lack of grounds etc. in a house of
> this age. Well some of the receps. were a little loose and old looking
> so I bought a pack of new ones and proceeded to replace them. Basement
> went fine. Got to the first floor and identified some issues that will be
> easy to rectify. Then I got to the three oldest circuits in the house,
> one of which started life as the general first floor circuit and another
> the general second floor circuit (the latter of which still serves the
> entire second floor.) The third is a lighting only circuit which serves
> the lights at the stair landings. It appears that throughout the house
> wherever the wiring was hidden behind plaster it was run in NM not BX and
> there is no grounding, period. I don't have a big problem with that on a
> lighting only circuit but the receptacles installed on the first and
> second floor are grounding type and it appears that the ground is provided
> by a jumper at each receptacle between the ground terminal and the
> neutral. I realize that *theoretically* this is functionally identical,
> but this isn't the way we do things now, so it bothers me a little bit.
>
> questions:
>
> 1) is this actually an acceptable method of retrofitting receptacles to
> grounded type? I suspect not, but you never can tell.
>
> 2) if not, is this the kind of thing that would generally be covered by a
> home warranty? We did spend the $$ for one, although AFAIK it generally
> only covers things like appliances etc.
>
> I don't blame the inspector for missing this one; he would have had to
> pull a receptacle either on the south side of the first floor or somewhere
> on the second floor to identify this issue; there's a lot of wiring
> visible in the basement but it is all either BX or obviously recently
> added Romex which does contain a ground, so there was no reason to believe
> that this wasn't consistent throughout the house. However, the transition
> from exposed BX to hidden NM seems to be original to the house as far as I
> can tell; I wonder why that would be?
>
> Any help, thoughts, advice, etc. greatly appreciated.
>
> thanks,
>
> nate
>
> (it's a good thing the girlie was planning on repainting, I guess...)
>
> --
> replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
> http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
| |
|
|
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel@flycast.net> wrote in message
news:eh91lg01l2h@news2.newsguy.com...
> All right, I'm feeling mildly dumb and a little sheepish not to mention
> slightly sick here... just bought a house for the first time less than
> a month ago, and knew that it had some minor wiring "issues" but now
> that I'm assessing what I have it appears that there are bigger issues
> than previously anticipated. Anyway, here's the deal. House is a two
> story colonial with full basement, built late 1940's.
> It appears that throughout the house wherever the wiring was
> hidden behind plaster it was run in NM not BX and there is no grounding,
> period.
It's also possible that the wiring could be knob-and-tube in a house of
that age.
Bob
| |
| Nate Nagel 2006-10-19, 9:25 pm |
| Bob F wrote:
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel@flycast.net> wrote in message
> news:eh91lg01l2h@news2.newsguy.com...
>
>
>
> It's also possible that the wiring could be knob-and-tube in a house of
> that age.
>
> Bob
>
No, it's definitely some early type of NM, although it may not be
officially designated as such. There's two plastic-insulated conductors
(that must be a pretty early use of same; as far as automotive stuff
goes I believe the transition was made about 1955 - at least it was for
Studebaker; I have a '55 coupe which (fortunately) has plastic
insulation on the wiring) in what appears to be a tar-impregnated cloth
jacket. But no ground.
I really, REALLY don't want to have to rewire two complete circuits,
although at this point it kind of looks like I'm going to have to. I
might even have to involve a *gasp* electrician due to the magnitude of
what this project looks like it's shaping up to be, which makes my
Y-chromosome cower in shame. I suppose I could just install new
non-grounded receptacles ahd that would be technically correct, although
then I'm back where I started, as there's computer equipment on the
second floor, and a UPS theoretically should have a ground... also
would feel better if the stuff in the bathroom were grounded (although I
was thinking of rewiring the bathroom anyway to meet current code with a
dedicated circuit, GFCI, etc. which is somewhat doable as there's a
small chase going down to the basement behind the bathtub, and an access
panel, so it's "just" a matter of getting a cable from behind the
bathtub up into the attic and then back down to the light switch...)
I suppose it's not acceptable to cheat and ground stuff to the nearest
water pipe...
nate
--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
| |
| zxcvbob 2006-10-19, 9:25 pm |
| Nate Nagel wrote:
> Bob F wrote:
>
> No, it's definitely some early type of NM, although it may not be
> officially designated as such. There's two plastic-insulated conductors
> (that must be a pretty early use of same; as far as automotive stuff
> goes I believe the transition was made about 1955 - at least it was for
> Studebaker; I have a '55 coupe which (fortunately) has plastic
> insulation on the wiring) in what appears to be a tar-impregnated cloth
> jacket. But no ground.
>
> I really, REALLY don't want to have to rewire two complete circuits,
> although at this point it kind of looks like I'm going to have to. I
> might even have to involve a *gasp* electrician due to the magnitude of
> what this project looks like it's shaping up to be, which makes my
> Y-chromosome cower in shame. I suppose I could just install new
> non-grounded receptacles ahd that would be technically correct, although
> then I'm back where I started, as there's computer equipment on the
> second floor, and a UPS theoretically should have a ground... also
> would feel better if the stuff in the bathroom were grounded (although I
> was thinking of rewiring the bathroom anyway to meet current code with a
> dedicated circuit, GFCI, etc. which is somewhat doable as there's a
> small chase going down to the basement behind the bathtub, and an access
> panel, so it's "just" a matter of getting a cable from behind the
> bathtub up into the attic and then back down to the light switch...)
>
> I suppose it's not acceptable to cheat and ground stuff to the nearest
> water pipe...
>
> nate
>
>
You can still buy ungrounded receptacles and put things back like
original. Most circuits don't really need a ground, like the upstairs
bedroom convenience outlets.
Where you really need grounds (bathroom, kitchen counters near the sink,
your computer UPS, etc,) you can run a separate green wire back to the
service panel ground (or to the nearest grounding electrode conductor,
if that is easier.) The ground wire does not have to run with the
current-carrying wires if you are updating old work.
You can also install a GFCI breaker and then use 3-wire receptacles,
leaving the ground terminal disconnected. In this case, you technically
need to put a sticker that says "GFCI Protected. No Equipment Ground."
on each of the grounding outlets that has a floating ground.
You can also protect circuits by wiring them thru the LOAD terminals of
a GFCI receptacle.
The most practical solution will probably end up being a mixture of
these methods. HTH :-)
Bob
| |
| hallerb@aol.com 2006-10-20, 3:25 am |
| i would run a seperate ground wire to the effected outlets.
how many are a problem? 5 10 50?
most older homes have few outlets, might be time to upgrade.
do not connect grounds to neutrals in the right situation it can
kill........
| |
| Nate Nagel 2006-10-20, 3:25 am |
| zxcvbob wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
>
> You can still buy ungrounded receptacles and put things back like
> original. Most circuits don't really need a ground, like the upstairs
> bedroom convenience outlets.
>
> Where you really need grounds (bathroom, kitchen counters near the sink,
> your computer UPS, etc,) you can run a separate green wire back to the
> service panel ground (or to the nearest grounding electrode conductor,
> if that is easier.) The ground wire does not have to run with the
> current-carrying wires if you are updating old work.
>
> You can also install a GFCI breaker and then use 3-wire receptacles,
> leaving the ground terminal disconnected. In this case, you technically
> need to put a sticker that says "GFCI Protected. No Equipment Ground."
> on each of the grounding outlets that has a floating ground.
>
> You can also protect circuits by wiring them thru the LOAD terminals of
> a GFCI receptacle.
>
> The most practical solution will probably end up being a mixture of
> these methods. HTH :-)
>
> Bob
>
>
that may be doable at least upstairs; is it kosher to run, say, THHN
without conduit or greenfield or would I need some kind of plenum rated
wire? Please excuse the dumb questions; I know a lot about fire alarm
but just enough to be dangerous about plain old electrical stuff. Since
I really like this house (and paid enough for it!) I'd like to "do it
right" whenever possible, and certainly would like to be able to say
with a straight face to any prospective buyers in the future that
everything is up to snuff.
nate
--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
| |
| zxcvbob 2006-10-20, 3:25 am |
| Nate Nagel wrote:
> zxcvbob wrote:
>
> that may be doable at least upstairs; is it kosher to run, say, THHN
> without conduit or greenfield or would I need some kind of plenum rated
> wire? Please excuse the dumb questions; I know a lot about fire alarm
> but just enough to be dangerous about plain old electrical stuff. Since
> I really like this house (and paid enough for it!) I'd like to "do it
> right" whenever possible, and certainly would like to be able to say
> with a straight face to any prospective buyers in the future that
> everything is up to snuff.
>
> nate
From what I can tell, the electric code is silent about that. I just
run a #12 green THHN / THWN-2 wire inside the wall cavities, staple to
the ceiling joists, etc. I run them as neatly as possible and where
they are unlikely to be physically abused. I ground them at a big
split-bolt connector on the main grounding electrode conductor a couple
of feet from where it goes into the electric panel.
I have an older house, and I'm trying to get one properly grounded
duplex outlet in each room, and I don't worry about the ungrounded
convenience outlets. All the basement, bathroom, and utility room
outlets are grounded and GFCI'ed (except the outlet for the freezers.)
All the kitchen outlets are grounded except for one that I couldn't get
a ground wire to so I installed a GFCI receptacle. (the one that I
couldn't ground just happened to be the outlet close to the sink)
Bob
| |
| komobu 2006-10-20, 3:25 am |
| Electrical really isn't that difficult for a homeowner to do. You can
get a book on how to do it at the local library. I am a sheetmetal man
and I rewired my whole house without any problems and it passed the
city inspection with ease. It had four fuses for the whole house. I
ripped out the fuse panel and replaced it with circuit breakers. I had
a ranch type home and that made it easier.
If you are talking first floor, I would pull the receptacle, and then
go into the basement and drill a hole through the floor and sill plate
into the wall now run new wire through the hole and pull it out through
where the receptical was removed. They have new plastic boxes that can
go right back into the hole with no nailing required. As you tighten a
screw, a plastic flag flips out and secures the box to the drywall.
Then run that wire under the the floor to the box and hook it up.
If you are talking the second floor, it is pretty much the same, but I
would go up to the attic.
If you have any other questions, just ask
Pat
Nate Nagel wrote:
> All right, I'm feeling mildly dumb and a little sheepish not to mention
> slightly sick here... just bought a house for the first time less than
> a month ago, and knew that it had some minor wiring "issues" but now
> that I'm assessing what I have it appears that there are bigger issues
> than previously anticipated. Anyway, here's the deal. House is a two
> story colonial with full basement, built late 1940's. Excellent
> structural condition, lovely hardwood floors albeit in need of a
> refinishing. Paid for a home inspection prior to placing a bid on
> house. Inspector noted some electrical items that would be against code
> now for new construction but nothing major (things like clothes washer
> sharing a circuit with other receptacles, lack of GFCIs in the kitchen,
> etc.) all receptacles in house are three prong type and tested OK with
> cheap little $5 circuit tester. All visible wiring was old BX w/ cloth
> covered conductors and inspector said that grounding through the armor
> of the BX while not the way we do things now was perfectly OK. So I was
> feeling pretty good about things electrically, and that gave me a good
> feeling about the house, as I automatically anticipated issues with lack
> of grounds etc. in a house of this age. Well some of the receps. were
> a little loose and old looking so I bought a pack of new ones and
> proceeded to replace them. Basement went fine. Got to the first floor
> and identified some issues that will be easy to rectify. Then I got to
> the three oldest circuits in the house, one of which started life as the
> general first floor circuit and another the general second floor circuit
> (the latter of which still serves the entire second floor.) The third
> is a lighting only circuit which serves the lights at the stair
> landings. It appears that throughout the house wherever the wiring was
> hidden behind plaster it was run in NM not BX and there is no grounding,
> period. I don't have a big problem with that on a lighting only circuit
> but the receptacles installed on the first and second floor are
> grounding type and it appears that the ground is provided by a jumper at
> each receptacle between the ground terminal and the neutral. I realize
> that *theoretically* this is functionally identical, but this isn't the
> way we do things now, so it bothers me a little bit.
>
> questions:
>
> 1) is this actually an acceptable method of retrofitting receptacles to
> grounded type? I suspect not, but you never can tell.
>
> 2) if not, is this the kind of thing that would generally be covered by
> a home warranty? We did spend the $$ for one, although AFAIK it
> generally only covers things like appliances etc.
>
> I don't blame the inspector for missing this one; he would have had to
> pull a receptacle either on the south side of the first floor or
> somewhere on the second floor to identify this issue; there's a lot of
> wiring visible in the basement but it is all either BX or obviously
> recently added Romex which does contain a ground, so there was no reason
> to believe that this wasn't consistent throughout the house. However,
> the transition from exposed BX to hidden NM seems to be original to the
> house as far as I can tell; I wonder why that would be?
>
> Any help, thoughts, advice, etc. greatly appreciated.
>
> thanks,
>
> nate
>
> (it's a good thing the girlie was planning on repainting, I guess...)
>
> --
> replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
> http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
| |
| John Gilmer 2006-10-20, 3:25 am |
|
"RBM" <rbm2(remove this)@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:9CUZg.53$zi7.32@newsfe09.lga...
> It is not correct to wire outlets in that fashion, and I wouldn't expect
> your home warranty to cover it, because it's not "broken" or something
that
> broke down, just improperly wired outlets. For people protection you can
> install GFCI outlets, but it doesn't help for equipment that needs to be
> grounded, for that you'll need to run grounded cables to those locations
What equipment "needs" to be grounded?
You may find that today the answer is: not much!
Most audio/visual stuff (TVs, Stereos) doesn't have a ground.
I have a window A/C that has a GFCI built into the plug (which does have a
ground). But there isn't a ground wire to the case of the A/C.
| |
|
| Things like computers "need" to be grounded
"John Gilmer" <gilmer@crosslink.net> wrote in message
news:45385f7b$0$8341@dingus.crosslink.net...
>
> "RBM" <rbm2(remove this)@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:9CUZg.53$zi7.32@newsfe09.lga...
> that
>
> What equipment "needs" to be grounded?
>
> You may find that today the answer is: not much!
>
> Most audio/visual stuff (TVs, Stereos) doesn't have a ground.
>
> I have a window A/C that has a GFCI built into the plug (which does have a
> ground). But there isn't a ground wire to the case of the A/C.
>
>
| |
| Doug Miller 2006-10-20, 9:25 am |
| In article <eh91lg01l2h@news2.newsguy.com>, Nate Nagel <njnagel@flycast.net> wrote:
>but the receptacles installed on the first and second floor are
>grounding type and it appears that the ground is provided by a jumper at
>each receptacle between the ground terminal and the neutral. I realize
>that *theoretically* this is functionally identical,
No, it isn't, not even theoretically. This makes it possible for the chassis
of any piece of equipment plugged into the outlet to become electrically live,
and it's not at all safe.
>but this isn't the
>way we do things now, so it bothers me a little bit.
Should bother you _a_lot_.
>
>questions:
>
>1) is this actually an acceptable method of retrofitting receptacles to
>grounded type? I suspect not, but you never can tell.
No way.
>
>2) if not, is this the kind of thing that would generally be covered by
>a home warranty? We did spend the $$ for one, although AFAIK it
>generally only covers things like appliances etc.
No.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
| |
| John Gilmer 2006-10-20, 9:25 am |
|
"RBM" <rbm2(remove this)@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:Z22_g.76$0H7.19@newsfe10.lga...
> Things like computers "need" to be grounded
Not at all.
They work just fine, thank you, with a "floating" ground. Often, however,
where these is a ground provided there is a network which provides a small
leakage path between BOTH power conductors and the chassis (ground). The
effect of this network would be to cause the chassis get a voltage on the
order of 55 volts. There is no shock hazard and the leakage of even
several of these systems is not likely to trip a GFCI.
There is a lot of "tradition" here.
When IBM started making PCs they had a ground. When folks starting making
audio/visual stuff include stereos and TVs, there usually wasn't a ground.
But both classes of equipment have user exposure to the "chassis." In the
audio/visual stuff its from the "RCA" female connectors. In the PC world
it's the connector shell including the mouse, keyboard, USB stuff, printer
and serial interface.
| |
| Maurice Janssen 2006-10-20, 9:25 am |
| On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 08:04:56 -0400, John Gilmer wrote:
>
>"RBM" <rbm2(remove this)@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:Z22_g.76$0H7.19@newsfe10.lga...
>
>Not at all.
>
>They work just fine, thank you, with a "floating" ground. Often, however,
>where these is a ground provided there is a network which provides a small
>leakage path between BOTH power conductors and the chassis (ground). The
>effect of this network would be to cause the chassis get a voltage on the
>order of 55 volts. There is no shock hazard and the leakage of even
>several of these systems is not likely to trip a GFCI.
>
>There is a lot of "tradition" here.
>
>When IBM started making PCs they had a ground. When folks starting making
>audio/visual stuff include stereos and TVs, there usually wasn't a ground.
>But both classes of equipment have user exposure to the "chassis." In the
>audio/visual stuff its from the "RCA" female connectors. In the PC world
>it's the connector shell including the mouse, keyboard, USB stuff, printer
>and serial interface.
There's a big difference between A/V equipment and computers. Well, at
least in Europe, I don't know much about US regulations.
Most A/V stuff has reinforced or double insulation. That's why they
have a plug without ground. Computers (except some laptops) usually
have only 'normal' insulation. A single fault in the insulation can
create a connection between the live pole and the cabinet. Without a
grounded cabinet, that could be lethal. With grounded cabinet, you just
blow a fuse.
In case of fire or other damage, the insurance company can give you a
hard time, if they find out that you have class I equipment connected to
a socket without ground.
BTW: the 55 V you mentioned (115 V over here) is more than enough to
blow a serial or parallel port when connecting a grounded printer to a
non-grounded PC. For me, that's also a good reason to ground my PC.
--
Maurice
| |
| Jeff Wisnia 2006-10-20, 1:25 pm |
| Maurice Janssen wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 08:04:56 -0400, John Gilmer wrote:
>
>
>
> There's a big difference between A/V equipment and computers. Well, at
> least in Europe, I don't know much about US regulations.
> Most A/V stuff has reinforced or double insulation. That's why they
> have a plug without ground. Computers (except some laptops) usually
> have only 'normal' insulation. A single fault in the insulation can
> create a connection between the live pole and the cabinet. Without a
> grounded cabinet, that could be lethal. With grounded cabinet, you just
> blow a fuse.
>
> In case of fire or other damage, the insurance company can give you a
> hard time, if they find out that you have class I equipment connected to
> a socket without ground.
>
> BTW: the 55 V you mentioned (115 V over here) is more than enough to
> blow a serial or parallel port when connecting a grounded printer to a
> non-grounded PC. For me, that's also a good reason to ground my PC.
>
I found it interesting to discover that some two prong "wall wart"
transformers have a high value resistor (in the order of 500K ohms)
connected between the wide plug blade and the secondary of the
transformer to drain off static charges from the chassis of whatever it
is they are powering.
That large a resistance could only deliver about 250 microamps of "shock
current" if the receptical it was plugged into was crosswired hot to
neutral.
Jeff
--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
"Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength."
| |
| John Gilmer 2006-10-20, 1:25 pm |
|
>
> There's a big difference between A/V equipment and computers.
Not really. In both cases there is a transformer isolating the power from
the load. I grant that the "switching" power supply used in PCs has a good
amount of circuitry (the "switches") before the transformer -- "they convert
the incoming AC to DC and then convert it to a higher frequency. At higher
frequencies the transformer can be made a LOT smaller. In switching input
also lets the power supply accomodate a very large change in input voltages
without problem. There is no good reason why "they" could not make a PC
power supply that made the PC as safe as your TV without relying upon a
ground.
Again, I point out that LG (the Korean company, formerly known as Lucky
Goldstar) now ships it's Chinese made room air conditions with a GFCI built
into the plug but with NO ground wire going to the chassis.
I also like to point out that you are somewhat safer if metal objects in
your environment "float" rather than be grounded. If your left hand is
resting on a well grounded object and your right hand touches something
electrically HOT, you may get a fatal shock. If your left hand is resting
on a "floating" metal object you might get a little "tingle" when your right
hand hits the HOT wire.
Tradition counts for a lot is setting standards. BUT, had cheap and
reliable GFCI technology been available when electric power was "new" it's
quite likely that "grounding" may not have been as important.
> Well, at
> least in Europe, I don't know much about US regulations.
> Most A/V stuff has reinforced or double insulation. That's why they
> have a plug without ground. Computers (except some laptops) usually
> have only 'normal' insulation. A single fault in the insulation can
> create a connection between the live pole and the cabinet. Without a
> grounded cabinet, that could be lethal. With grounded cabinet, you just
> blow a fuse.
True. Nonetheless, it's possible to make a PC power supply that is as safe
as that in your television or DVD player. The next time I have both a dead
PC power supply and a dead VCR I will open both up and see whether the PC
supply is any more likely to generate a HOT to Ground cross that the VCR.
>
> In case of fire or other damage, the insurance company can give you a
> hard time, if they find out that you have class I equipment connected to
> a socket without ground.
Unless it was the cause of the fire, the insurance company will not say a
thing. Moreover, codes permit sockets with ground openings that are not
grounded so long as: 1) the circuit is protected by a GFCI; and 2) there
is a "not grounded" label applied. Read the installation instructions on
your GFCI (I may be making an incorrect assumption about GFCIs "over
there."). In the States, the insurance companies have better have a VERY
good reason to give your a "hard time." A company that drags its feet over
a payment risks paying fines to the regulators and risks being successfully
sued by the insured with truly massive "punitive" damages.
>
> BTW: the 55 V you mentioned (115 V over here) is more than enough to
> blow a serial or parallel port when connecting a grounded printer to a
> non-grounded PC. For me, that's also a good reason to ground my PC.
No. It would be current limited. Likewise, if you rub your feet on the
carpet in winter and build up a 20,000 volt charge (which happens) you
likely would not fry something it you touch a signal pin. It's all a
matter of how much energy you can dump into the interface.
Your grounded printer would "ground" your PC. No harm, no foul.
>
> --
> Maurice
| |
| Nate Nagel 2006-10-20, 8:25 pm |
| zxcvbob wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
>
>
> From what I can tell, the electric code is silent about that. I just
> run a #12 green THHN / THWN-2 wire inside the wall cavities, staple to
> the ceiling joists, etc. I run them as neatly as possible and where
> they are unlikely to be physically abused. I ground them at a big
> split-bolt connector on the main grounding electrode conductor a couple
> of feet from where it goes into the electric panel.
>
> I have an older house, and I'm trying to get one properly grounded
> duplex outlet in each room, and I don't worry about the ungrounded
> convenience outlets. All the basement, bathroom, and utility room
> outlets are grounded and GFCI'ed (except the outlet for the freezers.)
> All the kitchen outlets are grounded except for one that I couldn't get
> a ground wire to so I installed a GFCI receptacle. (the one that I
> couldn't ground just happened to be the outlet close to the sink)
>
> Bob
Thanks to you and to the others who replied. I have a coworker who is a
master electrician as well and he also suggested the separate ground
wire, so I think that that may be the plan of attack for the first
floor. Here's what I'm thinking:
-buy some new circuit breakers. I have four spare spaces in the breaker
panel, but I'm going to see if I can get some half-height breakers just
in case I want to add a 240V circuit in the future.
-split the washer and dryer onto their own circuits. (they are
currently sharing circuits; the washer with the hall lighting and the
dryer with the dishwasher.) Also run a dedicated circuit to the (gas)
stove (currently shared with the hall lighting and clothes washer.)
Should this be 20A or is 15A sufficient? I was thinking 15A would be OK
but if current code recommends 20A that's what I'll do.
-If feasible, provide a new 20A circuit for a single receptacle on the
kitchen counter that's currently shared with the 1st floor lighting ckt.
(the other is already on a 20A circuit, and I've installed a GFCI
receptacle)
-Again, if feasible, provide a new 15A circuit dedicated for the
bathroom. cut box out of wall and replace single gang box with light
switch with double gang box for light switch and GFCI receptacle. Leave
pull string up to attic for future installation of an exhaust fan.
-On the first floor, run a single green 14AWG THHN from breaker panel to
receptacles coming up from below and then dropping back down again,
working my way around the perimeter of the house. One homerun for each
circuit (there are two.) Light switches and light fixtures remain
ungrounded; there seems to be no way to deal with those short of
breaking up some very thick and sturdy-looking plaster.
-On the second floor, either follow the same plan as above, but dropping
down from within the attic, or else find the homerun and ground that
back to the breaker panel using the chase behind the bathtub and then
completely rewire the rest with 14/2 Romex from the attic (should be
possible, although I suspect this house was wired "old style" with
switch legs dropping down from the ceiling light fixtures so I may leave
the light switches ungrounded.)
comments?
I'm starting to think that maybe I can do this (assuming, of course,
that She Who Must Be Obeyed displays an aptitude as a fish tape
operator,) although I'm wondering if I'm approaching the point at which
I need to pull a permit. I certainly don't want to piss off the various
local agencies as I do need to deal with them at work.
nate
--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
| |
| Nate Nagel 2006-10-20, 8:25 pm |
| Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <eh91lg01l2h@news2.newsguy.com>, Nate Nagel <njnagel@flycast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> No, it isn't, not even theoretically. This makes it possible for the chassis
> of any piece of equipment plugged into the outlet to become electrically live,
> and it's not at all safe.
It is functionally identical, so long as the neutral isn't broken. They
connect to the same terminal strip at the breaker box, after all. If
the neutral is broken, of course, all bets are off, and this is why I
brought it up in the first place.
nate
--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
| |
| Doug Miller 2006-10-20, 8:25 pm |
| In article <ehbi4b11bb4@news2.newsguy.com>, Nate Nagel <njnagel@flycast.net> wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
> wrote:
> live,
>
>It is functionally identical, so long as the neutral isn't broken.
No, it is *not*, as I just pointed out. You seem to be unaware that the
neutral wire carries current. If the ground and neutral are interconnected at
the receptacle, anyone simultaneously touching the metal chassis of any
equipment plugged into that outlet, and anything else that's grounded (e.g. a
water pipe or faucet, or simply standing on a concrete floor) makes a parallel
path to ground for the current in the neutral conductor -- and enough current
can pass through that person's body to cause a significant danger.
>They
>connect to the same terminal strip at the breaker box, after all.
And that is the *only* place that they are permitted by Code to be connected.
The Code _explicitly_prohibits_ interconnections anywhere else. Do you suppose
there might actually be a reason for that, or do you think they just did that
at random?
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
| |
| Steve Barker LT 2006-10-20, 8:25 pm |
| No but you could pull a bare ground around to each box. How's the access?
--
Steve Barker
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel@flycast.net> wrote in message
news:eh98uh02ikt@news3.newsguy.com...
> Bob F wrote:
>
> No, it's definitely some early type of NM, although it may not be
> officially designated as such. There's two plastic-insulated conductors
> (that must be a pretty early use of same; as far as automotive stuff goes
> I believe the transition was made about 1955 - at least it was for
> Studebaker; I have a '55 coupe which (fortunately) has plastic insulation
> on the wiring) in what appears to be a tar-impregnated cloth jacket. But
> no ground.
>
> I really, REALLY don't want to have to rewire two complete circuits,
> although at this point it kind of looks like I'm going to have to. I
> might even have to involve a *gasp* electrician due to the magnitude of
> what this project looks like it's shaping up to be, which makes my
> Y-chromosome cower in shame. I suppose I could just install new
> non-grounded receptacles ahd that would be technically correct, although
> then I'm back where I started, as there's computer equipment on the second
> floor, and a UPS theoretically should have a ground... also would feel
> better if the stuff in the bathroom were grounded (although I was thinking
> of rewiring the bathroom anyway to meet current code with a dedicated
> circuit, GFCI, etc. which is somewhat doable as there's a small chase
> going down to the basement behind the bathtub, and an access panel, so
> it's "just" a matter of getting a cable from behind the bathtub up into
> the attic and then back down to the light switch...)
>
> I suppose it's not acceptable to cheat and ground stuff to the nearest
> water pipe...
>
> nate
>
>
> --
> replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
> http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
| |
| Tom Horne, Electrician 2006-10-21, 3:25 am |
| Nate Nagel wrote:
> All right, I'm feeling mildly dumb and a little sheepish not to mention
> slightly sick here... just bought a house for the first time less than
> a month ago, and knew that it had some minor wiring "issues" but now
> that I'm assessing what I have it appears that there are bigger issues
> than previously anticipated. Anyway, here's the deal. House is a two
> story colonial with full basement, built late 1940's. Excellent
> structural condition, lovely hardwood floors albeit in need of a
> refinishing. Paid for a home inspection prior to placing a bid on
> house. Inspector noted some electrical items that would be against code
> now for new construction but nothing major (things like clothes washer
> sharing a circuit with other receptacles, lack of GFCIs in the kitchen,
> etc.) all receptacles in house are three prong type and tested OK with
> cheap little $5 circuit tester. All visible wiring was old BX w/ cloth
> covered conductors and inspector said that grounding through the armor
> of the BX while not the way we do things now was perfectly OK. So I was
> feeling pretty good about things electrically, and that gave me a good
> feeling about the house, as I automatically anticipated issues with lack
> of grounds etc. in a house of this age. Well some of the receps. were
> a little loose and old looking so I bought a pack of new ones and
> proceeded to replace them. Basement went fine. Got to the first floor
> and identified some issues that will be easy to rectify. Then I got to
> the three oldest circuits in the house, one of which started life as the
> general first floor circuit and another the general second floor circuit
> (the latter of which still serves the entire second floor.) The third
> is a lighting only circuit which serves the lights at the stair
> landings. It appears that throughout the house wherever the wiring was
> hidden behind plaster it was run in NM not BX and there is no grounding,
> period. I don't have a big problem with that on a lighting only circuit
> but the receptacles installed on the first and second floor are
> grounding type and it appears that the ground is provided by a jumper at
> each receptacle between the ground terminal and the neutral. I realize
> that *theoretically* this is functionally identical, but this isn't the
> way we do things now, so it bothers me a little bit.
>
> questions:
>
> 1) is this actually an acceptable method of retrofitting receptacles to
> grounded type? I suspect not, but you never can tell.
>
> 2) if not, is this the kind of thing that would generally be covered by
> a home warranty? We did spend the $$ for one, although AFAIK it
> generally only covers things like appliances etc.
>
> I don't blame the inspector for missing this one; he would have had to
> pull a receptacle either on the south side of the first floor or
> somewhere on the second floor to identify this issue; there's a lot of
> wiring visible in the basement but it is all either BX or obviously
> recently added Romex which does contain a ground, so there was no reason
> to believe that this wasn't consistent throughout the house. However,
> the transition from exposed BX to hidden NM seems to be original to the
> house as far as I can tell; I wonder why that would be?
>
> Any help, thoughts, advice, etc. greatly appreciated.
>
> thanks,
>
> nate
>
> (it's a good thing the girlie was planning on repainting, I guess...)
>
Nate
Those boot leg ground connections are a real danger. If any part of the
neutral conductor fails the metal shell of any grounded appliance
downstream of the open conductor will be energized through the connected
loads to 120 volts. Removing the bootleg grounds and installing ground
fault circuit interuptor protection on the affected circuits should be
your first order of business. That will provide safety to humans but
not to solid state electronics until you can upgrade the wiring.
Have your home warranty contract reviewed by a competent attorney. If
it has coverage for concealed defect it may cover the steps I have
outlined.
--
Tom Horne
"This alternating current stuff is just a fad. It is much too dangerous
for general use." Thomas Alva Edison
| |
| hrhofmann@att.net 2006-10-23, 3:25 am |
|
Bob F wrote:
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel@flycast.net> wrote in message
> news:eh91lg01l2h@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> It's also possible that the wiring could be knob-and-tube in a house of
> that age.
>
> Bob
Knob and tube went out before the 1940's in almost all parts of the
United States which is where the OP is from, I think.
H. R. (Bob) Hofmann
| |
| hrhofmann@att.net 2006-10-23, 3:25 am |
|
Nate Nagel wrote:
> zxcvbob wrote:
>
> Thanks to you and to the others who replied. I have a coworker who is a
> master electrician as well and he also suggested the separate ground
> wire, so I think that that may be the plan of attack for the first
> floor. Here's what I'm thinking:
>
> -buy some new circuit breakers. I have four spare spaces in the breaker
> panel, but I'm going to see if I can get some half-height breakers just
> in case I want to add a 240V circuit in the future.
>
> -split the washer and dryer onto their own circuits. (they are
> currently sharing circuits; the washer with the hall lighting and the
> dryer with the dishwasher.) Also run a dedicated circuit to the (gas)
> stove (currently shared with the hall lighting and clothes washer.)
> Should this be 20A or is 15A sufficient? I was thinking 15A would be OK
> but if current code recommends 20A that's what I'll do.
>
> -If feasible, provide a new 20A circuit for a single receptacle on the
> kitchen counter that's currently shared with the 1st floor lighting ckt.
> (the other is already on a 20A circuit, and I've installed a GFCI
> receptacle)
>
> -Again, if feasible, provide a new 15A circuit dedicated for the
> bathroom. cut box out of wall and replace single gang box with light
> switch with double gang box for light switch and GFCI receptacle. Leave
> pull string up to attic for future installation of an exhaust fan.
>
> -On the first floor, run a single green 14AWG THHN from breaker panel to
> receptacles coming up from below and then dropping back down again,
> working my way around the perimeter of the house. One homerun for each
> circuit (there are two.) Light switches and light fixtures remain
> ungrounded; there seems to be no way to deal with those short of
> breaking up some very thick and sturdy-looking plaster.
>
> -On the second floor, either follow the same plan as above, but dropping
> down from within the attic, or else find the homerun and ground that
> back to the breaker panel using the chase behind the bathtub and then
> completely rewire the rest with 14/2 Romex from the attic (should be
> possible, although I suspect this house was wired "old style" with
> switch legs dropping down from the ceiling light fixtures so I may leave
> the light switches ungrounded.)
>
> comments?
>
> I'm starting to think that maybe I can do this (assuming, of course,
> that She Who Must Be Obeyed displays an aptitude as a fish tape
> operator,) although I'm wondering if I'm approaching the point at which
> I need to pull a permit. I certainly don't want to piss off the various
> local agencies as I do need to deal with them at work.
>
> nate
>
> --
> replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
> http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
You are on the right track to just add the ground wire where possible,
it is much easier. My wife has, over the years, become extremely adept
at grabbing fishtapes in wall cavities with bent coathangers. WIthout
her help, I would still be doing some projects that have been completed
years ago. I prefer metal boxes with ears that pull out when the
screws at the side of the box are tightened. The plastic boxes with
the tabs that rotate out don't have as much area pushing against the
back of the sheetrock/plaster as the flat tabs on the metal boxes.
Also, the plastic boxes do distort their shape a little while the metal
boxes are more rigid.
H. R. (Bob) Hofmann
| |
|
|
hrhofmann@att.net wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
> You are on the right track to just add the ground wire where possible,
> it is much easier. My wife has, over the years, become extremely adept
> at grabbing fishtapes in wall cavities with bent coathangers. WIthout
> her help, I would still be doing some projects that have been completed
> years ago. I prefer metal boxes with ears that pull out when the
> screws at the side of the box are tightened. The plastic boxes with
> the tabs that rotate out don't have as much area pushing against the
> back of the sheetrock/plaster as the flat tabs on the metal boxes.
> Also, the plastic boxes do distort their shape a little while the metal
> boxes are more rigid.
>
> H. R. (Bob) Hofmann
Where do you find metal old work boxes? My local "big box" hardware
stores do not have them, although I've seen some of the contractors I
work with using them, I believe they get them from supply houses where
they have accounts.
nate
| |
| Steve Barker LT 2006-10-23, 1:25 pm |
| Negative. K&T was used up until almost 1950 in rural areas and actually was
overlapped by the early romex. The house i grew up in was K&T and was built
in '45. The house I'm rebuilding right now was wired in the early '40's and
has cloth romex. Not a knob or tube in sight. Google 'knob and tube' for
more info than you want to know.
--
Steve Barker
<hrhofmann@att.net> wrote in message
news:1161574971.136957.150040@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Knob and tube went out before the 1940's in almost all parts of the
> United States which is where the OP is from, I think.
>
> H. R. (Bob) Hofmann
>
| |
| Steve Barker LT 2006-10-23, 1:25 pm |
| Lowes and Home depot both sell them. As do most all other hardware stores.
--
Steve Barker
"N8N" <njnagel@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1161616237.167419.216040@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Where do you find metal old work boxes? My local "big box" hardware
> stores do not have them, although I've seen some of the contractors I
> work with using them, I believe they get them from supply houses where
> they have accounts.
>
> nate
>
| |
|
| Don't have a Lowe's, but Home Despot doesn't have them, at least not
out and on the shelf. Unfortunately the quality of help at Home Despot
is... not so good, so they look at me blankly when I ask questions.
nate
Steve Barker LT wrote:[color=darkred]
> Lowes and Home depot both sell them. As do most all other hardware stores.
>
> --
> Steve Barker
>
>
> "N8N" <njnagel@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1161616237.167419.216040@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| |
| Tom Horne, Electrician 2006-10-23, 8:25 pm |
| N8N wrote:
> Don't have a Lowe's, but Home Despot doesn't have them, at least not
> out and on the shelf. Unfortunately the quality of help at Home Despot
> is... not so good, so they look at me blankly when I ask questions.
>
> nate
>
> Steve Barker LT wrote:
>
Nate
You are just looking for metal boxes with no permanently mounted
brackets. They must have the plaster ears at the top and bottom of the
box. You don't need the ones with built in plaster clamps. Just buy as
many pairs of Madison Straps as you have boxes to install. You can see
a picture of a pair of them at
<http://www.capeelectric.com/marion/.../raco/rac98.jpg>
--
Tom Horne
"This alternating current stuff is just a fad. It is much too dangerous
for general use." Thomas Alva Edison
| |
| hrhofmann@att.net 2006-10-23, 9:25 pm |
|
N8N wrote:
> hrhofmann@att.net wrote:
>
> Where do you find metal old work boxes? My local "big box" hardware
> stores do not have them, although I've seen some of the contractors I
> work with using them, I believe they get them from supply houses where
> they have accounts.
>
> nate
I haunt non-big-box hardware stores.
Bob Hofmann
| |
| hrhofmann@att.net 2006-10-23, 9:25 pm |
|
N8N wrote:
> hrhofmann@att.net wrote:
>
> Where do you find metal old work boxes? My local "big box" hardware
> stores do not have them, although I've seen some of the contractors I
> work with using them, I believe they get them from supply houses where
> they have accounts.
>
> nate
I haunt non-big-box hardware stores.
Bob Hofmann
| |
|
|
<hrhofmann@att.net> wrote in message
news:1161574971.136957.150040@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Bob F wrote:
mention[color=darkred]
than[color=darkred]
grounding,[color=darkred]
>
> Knob and tube went out before the 1940's in almost all parts of the
> United States which is where the OP is from, I think.
My first house, built in 1948, had knob and tube.
Bob
| |
| Tomi Holger Engdahl 2006-10-27, 9:25 am |
| spambait@milmac.com (Doug Miller) writes:
> In article <ehbi4b11bb4@news2.newsguy.com>, Nate Nagel <njnagel@flycast.net> wrote:
>
> No, it is *not*, as I just pointed out. You seem to be unaware that the
> neutral wire carries current.
That's true.
> If the ground and neutral are interconnected at
> the receptacle, anyone simultaneously touching the metal chassis of any
> equipment plugged into that outlet, and anything else that's grounded (e.g. a
> water pipe or faucet, or simply standing on a concrete floor) makes a parallel
> path to ground for the current in the neutral conductor -- and enough current
> can pass through that person's body to cause a significant danger.
In normal cases there are not enough current that can pass
through the person body to cause a significant danger.
Even though the is a lot of current going on the neutral
wire, the potential difference between the neutral wire and
the "real" ground is quite low. Typically in normal operation
(all wiring OK) up to few volts, transients to higher voltages.
When the voltage difference between ground and the neutral
is just few volts, not much current can flow between a person
that touches them both. The human body and skin has
considerable resistance, especially on low voltages.
The dangerous voltage differences exist and dangerous currents
can only flow when the neutral gets broken...
Wiring where grounded outlets gets only two wires
(live and combinet neutral+ground) used to be quite common
practice in several European countries (for example Finland)
for a quit long time. At some point the regulations changed
demanding separate neutral and ground wires to outlets in
most cases.
--
Tomi Engdahl (http://www.iki.fi/then/)
Take a look at my electronics web links and documents at
http://www.epanorama.net/
| |
|
| On 23 Oct 2006 19:10:32 -0700, "hrhofmann@att.net" <hrhofmann@att.net>
wrote:
[color=darkred]
>
>N8N wrote:
Go into any electrical supply house with cash or visa card and they
will be more than happy to sell you anything you want. License not
required.
|
|
|
|
|