12-2 NM cable as switch.

[electricmanscott]

. There are many more interesting things I would like to discuss. Such as:

Why do I have a cd of Mark Shapiro with him saying to effect, " the bedroom smoke detector is included, to be installed on/ with the bedroom
AFCI."

Does that make sense? How will interlocking be achieved with muliple AFCI circuits? etc.

What if battery backup fails? Is battery backup required?

Must all detectors be interlocked? If not How is all this safer".

Just something Im thinking about.

Gmack, start a new topic with these questions. You'll get plenty of responses I'm sure.

 

[peter d]

Gmack, start a new topic with these questions. You'll get plenty of responses I'm sure.

Scott, it's just a diversion tactic. :lol:

 

[charlie b]

OK Guys and Gals, it's time for me to intervene. I just read through this thread for the first time. I wasn't originally interested. The topic title seemed to be about using wire as a switch (as in "on/off" switch, or so I thought). Then I discovered it was about a switch leg. That is when I lost interest ? wiring methods are not within my area of expertise.

But then I noticed that there was an argument going on, and that it had gotten personal, and to a degree, abusive. So now I say again, it is time for me to intervene.

• I should warn the "older members" of this Forum (the ones who have been participating longest, regardless of their actual age) that I intend to defend Gmack, to an extent.

What I want to talk about is "listening." I intend that term to mean paying attention to what another person is trying to say, despite the words the person actually says. I also intend it to include listening to the written word, in addition to the spoken word.

I think we all need to understand that "Charlie's Rule" does not apply to conversations, to the act of one human trying to communicate directly with another. (Do a word search on this Forum, if you don't know what "Charlie's Rule" is about). We are just not that careful in our choice of words, or at least not as careful as the authors of code books need to be. We select words, and we say words, and we know what we are trying to say. But the other person is not going to be able to obtain our intended meaning by reading our minds. They are only going to have our spoken (or written) words to go by. Therein lies the cause of a great many arguments, a great many miscommunications.

I believe that much of the disagreements that I have read in this thread are arguments in the nature of,

• Person 1: "I contend that the grass is green."
• Person 2: "No, you are wrong. The sky is blue."

With regret, I have noted that the statements of disagreement in this thread have been more along the lines of,

• Person 2: "No, you are wrong, you blithering idiot. The sky is blue."

So as an aside, let me ask that we all refrain from name-calling in the future. It adds nothing to the exchange of information, and it clouds the mind of the listener, making it less likely that the listener will have any interest in listening to the information that you intended to convey.

Back to the subject of "listening." Here is one example, extracted from this thread:

• Person 1: "I contend that amps kill, not volts."
• Person 2: "No, you are wrong. Higher voltage is more dangerous."

Listen, my friends, listen. Listen to what the authors have intended to say, and try to get past the words they choose to use. It is a scientifically proven fact that it is current that causes the fatality. It is a related (and equally scientifically proven) fact that higher voltage will produce higher current in the same resistive load (i.e., human body). When "Person 2" (Gmack) says "you are wrong," he is not contradicting scientific fact.

When I "listened" to Gmack's statements, what I heard is that he believes the statement, "amps kill, not volts" can give an incomplete picture of the hazard, and that new students who do not yet understand the physical nature of electricity might walk away with the wrong impression. I agree; it does tell only a part of the story. "Amps kill, not volts" is a true, but incomplete statement. I don't think that is the right thing to tell an apprentice, or at least it is not the right thing to say first.

When I "listened" to Gmack's statement about higher voltage being more dangerous, I did not hear anything about lower voltages being safe. I actually believe it is true; higher voltages are more dangerous, no matter what experiences "Stan" might have had (Sorry, George). Why do I say this? OK, if you grab 120 volts, or 277 volts, or 480 volts, or 4160 volts, you will probably have an equally bad day. Dead is dead, no matter how you get dead. But it is not just the "consequences" of touching live voltage that is important. The "probability" of touching live voltage is also a factor.

Look at it this way: If you open a 4x4 box, and pull out 6 wires (without turning anything off), you have six opportunities to touch energized metal things, and each thing is only about a half inch long. Also, if you trip on some tool you left on the floor and fall towards the wall, there is a good chance that the thing that breaks your fall might be drywall material, and not metal, because there is a large wall and a small electrical box. But if you have your hands inside a switchgear, there is energized metal all around you. And it's big metal parts. And it's not just around your hands, so you might back into it or move your head into it or hit it with your knee. And if you fall towards it, there is a far higher chance that you will touch something you won't like.

So is it more dangerous to work on higher voltage components? Yes it is. Does that mean that working on live 120 is safe? No it does not. Do you need to take precautions for live 480 volt work that you would not need to take for live 120 volt work? Yes you do.

If you listen more carefully to the opposing side of an argument, you may see, as I have seen, that there really is no argument taking place.

Now, enough of defending you, Gmack. I have two short stories for you.

• Story Number One: When Father Ted Hesburgh first took over as the President of the University of Notre Dame (my alma mater), one of his first official acts was to fire the Athletic Director. The man objected, saying that he had over 20 years of experience. Fr. Hesburgh replied that that was not true, that the man had only 1 year of experience, and that he had repeated it over 20 times.

• Story Number Two: The late great football coach Vince Lombardy once said (actually, I suspect he said it many times), "Practice does not make perfect. Only perfect practice makes perfect."

My message to you is this: Don't tell us about your 41 years of experience. Don't tell us not to question you, because of your 41 years of experience. Don't tell us of your concern for safety, then try to prove that statement by citing the number of times you have been shocked and telling us you still work on live equipment. Don't discount a statement from a younger electrician for no better reason than that you have more experience, for a statement that is true is true regardless of the age or experience of the person making the statement. And above all, don't be disrespectful in tone to any members of this Forum. If you disagree with what they say, then please feel free to say that you disagree. But do it politely, or you will not be asked to leave ? you'll be kicked out.

 

[electricmanscott]

And that my friends is why Charlie is.... "Chief Moderator"!!!

 

[iwire]

When I "listened" to Gmack's statement about higher voltage being more dangerous, I did not hear anything about lower voltages being safe.

If you noticed I did not get into the high or low voltage aspect of this thread.

I actually agree with him to some extent, all the people I know that have received electrical burns have received these from 480/277 systems.

However that makes little difference to me.

All I hear is an electrician saying that is both part of our job and safe to work on hot equipment and we just have to be 'more careful' when working above 120 to ground.

For that alone IMO Gmack is wrong and leading the new guys down the wrong path.

I stand by my statement that his present attitude is dangerous.

If that is to personal so be it.

Bob

 

[jim dungar]

And I still stand by my statement, don't use half truths.

Amps kill, not voltage. All voltages are dangerous [and can kill].

 

[andrew]

I recently turned 60 and now I feel I can give advise out and people will listen to me. :roll: Anyway, meaning no disrespect to either Jim or Bob, I think people always want the last word. I have found that the last word means little and, if you stop trying to get the last word in the all the ill will created seems to go away. This is true with relationships, this thread, etc. Is it to much to ask that this be the last reply for this thread?

Thank You,
Andrew

 

[peter d]

Is it to much to ask that this be the last reply for this thread?

Why? By any measure, this is an informative thread that actually serves to "bust" a commonly held belief in the electrical industry.

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

Today i gave some thought to all of this.Given a set resistance under 1 set of conditions what we have is a fixed resistance ,what now changes how much current flows thru him is directly related to voltage.We must all agree that current goes up if voltage goes up.The man might survive 120 but 277 under same conditions likely kills him.We do need to focus on why we are working things hot.Killing power or scheduling shut down is costly in many situations like a wal-mart but it could be done at 4 am and i rather dought we are effecting more than 5 customers.Not doing this could result in a major KABAM shuting it down for days.Hospitals are another issue but same out come could happen.Are they offering 10 times the pay rate to risk my life ? Would even that be worth it ?Sooner or later something will go wrong and we loose a man.I only have 4 more years to go.I am NOT taking anymore stupid chances,that was not my opinion a few years ago before i joined this forum.Some will continue and maybe survive.If this forum saves even one then it was worth it.

 

[George Stolz]

George it would benefit you to take an OSHA class...

Agreed. I get curious about how deep the rabbit hole goes.

I meant it when I said that Walmart should stay open; it is definutely an indicator of how much I have to learn about safety.

Killing power or scheduling shut down is costly in many situations like a wal-mart but it could be done at 4 am and i rather dought we are effecting more than 5 customers.

And truth be known, I was considering that when I said, "To heck with it" and hit the "submit reply" button for that post.

Charlie, well written piece.

Listen, my friends, listen. Listen to what the authors have intended to say, and try to get past the words they choose to use.

I see one problem with your analysis, Charlie. One true hazard that higher voltage brings to the table that 120V lacks, that Gmack has (to his own deficit) neglected to mention, is the arc blast hazard that is innate to 277V and above. His utter silence on this topic speaks volumes: He either doesn't realize that injuries can occur from the arc, or believes that the massive burns on victims of higher voltage is truly due to current (or voltage ) passing through the affected tissue, and not from proximity to the fault.

As long as he neglected to address that issue, then his argument held no water. Despite the frequent diversions Gmack chose to pursue, (including electric chairs, remember) not once did he address arc blasts. Whether this is due to a lack of knowledge of the nature of these injuries, or simply a lack of skill in debate, there's no telling.

There was no mention of the equipment size difference. As I "listened" to his thoughts, he never seemed to stop visualizing the same small switchbox for either voltage. He even made mention of 480V in a small switchbox, if memory serves.

There's as much to be heard when the silences are examined as closely as the words written.

Hopefully the fence-sitting apprentices (I am still an apprentice in this discussion, just not quietly on the fence) will take note of the diversions employed, the attitude, and the behavior of some of the people in this discussion, and not be intimidated into believing half-truths.

And yes, I'd love to have the last word. :lol:

 

[ryan_618]

And yes, I'd love to have the last word. :lol:

Too late. You have been penguin slapped.

 

[peter d]

George, well written as always. As a friend, I have great respect for thirst for knowledge and your desire to further yourself in this trade.

I would add that arc blast danger is present anywhere we have the ability to release a large amount of CURRENT in a short amount of time (ie- a mishandled wrench or pair of pliers falling across the lugs in a transformer or panelboard). A high amperage 120/208 service is capable of delivering a significant amount of arc energy, and as you know the arc blast only gets worse as we move up the voltage and amperage scale.

 

[jim dungar]

Do not ever assume that the incident energy (IE) of an arc flash is always lower at lower voltages.

From the studies I have done it seems most common for 208 and 240V secondaries of transformers to have more IE than their 480V primaries. Lower levels of fault current cause protective devices to operate more slowly thereby increasing the IE.

 

[pierre]

the store manager even said to me "you will never work in this industry again".

That is when my professionalism would have slipped aside as I laughed in his face. :lol:

Who the heck does he think he is?

Bob,
I am a fairly passive guy...these days. I walk away from situations that some other people may take as a challenge to their manhood. I had an incident a number of years ago where I thought my manhood was being challenged. My 2 year old (at the time 2 years old) daughter was with me. The guy was a pyscho and my daughter's life was put in jeopardy by my ego. Since that day, I just turn and walk away... sometimes it is very satifying to hear the person screaming all kinds of good stuff at me as I keep walking.

The store manager did say some nasty things, when that didn't work, he threatened my job. I one time closed down a spring church fair. The mayor tried to convince me to allow it to stay open... he turned into a monster, I had to get the Sheriff to come, as the local police ignored me...do you wonder why?

BtW: the mayor told me when he got mad that, '"I will make sure you get fired"... I did respond with, " That will be hard to do, I own the company" That was fun... you should have seen the veins in his neck.

 

[iwire]

Do not ever assume that the incident energy (IE) of an arc flash is always lower at lower voltages.

Jim of course we should not assume anything and I certainly believe what you are telling us.

That said having seen more than a few incidents of branch circuit faults if I had to choose the less spectacular it would always be 120.

No one should take this as an endorsement to work 120 hot, it is dangerous.

I had a 277 volt occupancy sensor fail in a fully closed up switch box, the wall was black for about 12" around the switch box. I doubt highly that any 120 volt circuit would have done the same.

 

[dlhoule]

Do not ever assume that the incident energy (IE) of an arc flash is always lower at lower voltages.

From the studies I have done it seems most common for 208 and 240V secondaries of transformers to have more IE than their 480V primaries. Lower levels of fault current cause protective devices to operate more slowly thereby increasing the IE.

:?

I am not very knowledgable in this area, but if what you are saying about IE is true; why wouldn't we need higher levels of protective gear at lower levels of available fault current instead of vice versa? I do agree that lower voltages do not necessarily mean safer in terms of arc flash. 12 Volts @ 25,000 amps will give off a lot of energy.

 

[LarryFine]

I think people always want the last word.

Is it to much to ask that this be the last reply for this thread?

Well, that second sentence seems to prove the first one.

 

[charlie b]

Is it to much to ask that this be the last reply for this thread?

That is a Moderator's privilege. If we want, we can post something like this comment, and then close the thread. :lol: :lol:

But I'm not ready for that yet. 8) :wink:

 

[charlie b]

All I hear is an electrician saying that is both part of our job and safe to work on hot equipment and we just have to be 'more careful' when working above 120 to ground. For that alone IMO Gmack is wrong and leading the new guys down the wrong path.

I trust you noticed that I expressed a similar opinion:

Don't tell us of your concern for safety, then try to prove that statement by citing the number of times you have been shocked and telling us you still work on live equipment.

 

[charlie b]

And I still stand by my statement, don't use half truths.

And I still agree with that statement.

Amps kill, not voltage.

Please note, however, that that statement IS a half-truth.

All voltages are dangerous [and can kill].

That is the other half; that is what is needed to complete the truth.