Is a shock worse from the neutral

[mivey]

Just checking my translation:
A "neutral shock" is worse because the connection is a low contact resistance because one has firmly grabbed it.

A line to ground shock is not as bad because the contact resistance is high because the contact is incidental brushing.

Would this be correct?

For the most part.

The "neutral shock" I had in mind was getting in series with the neutral with deliberate action but unexpected/unintended consequence. The L-G shock I had in mind is not deliberate and has a consequence that would be expected and a consequence that one would be trying to avoid.

It should be expected that deliberate contact might result in much better contact. Also the L-load-N-person-N path would have less impedance than the L-person-G-N path for many cases (contact and path difference).

Note that the deliberate N-person-N contact would be the same as the deliberate L-person-L contact. But many people are more cautious around the ungrounded conductor than the grounded conductor. Just the way it is.

Consider the two series cases: A L-person-L-N path could very well have a parallel condition with a L-person-G-N path (both neutral and ground contact) and it could be worse than a L-load-N-person-N path with a parallel condition given by a L-load-N(elevated)-person-G-N(source) path. In both cases the series impact is similar. In the L-G case the fault is much higher than the N-G case.

The conclusion is that, due to caution, the L-person-L-load-N series case is less likely and leaves the accidental L-person-G-N case as what we consider for this belief comparison with the L-load-N-person-N case (plus maybe combined with the L-load-N(elevated)-person-G-N(source) case).

Should not be anything shocking about those conclusions. Diagram would be better but I don't have a practical sketch or scan tool at the moment and you hopefully will follow the text notation.

 

[mivey]

Fairy 'nuff.
But suggesting that shock from a neutral is worse is just plain wrong.
The potential on it, even if broken and you still call the broken part neutral regardless of disputed validity, still comes from a live.
To claim that a shock can be worse is just absolute nonsense.
IMHO.

The wording may not be perfect but the fact remains that I had worse shocks from handling grounded conductors than I ever got from touching ungrounded conductors. YMMV.

 

[mivey]

With this line of reasoning the shock I received from an EG would be even worse than the Neutral. We were chasing a known fault when I managed to series myself in the path. I vote for it. Only one worse was the 277.

I can see where that would sneak up on someone. I would agree that with a bolted fault you don't even have the load impedance in series with you so it could be worse. The catch is that the ground return impedance would have to be small and the contact good. I've been bit by a ground also but it was not as bad (the Telco guys got me).

 

[mivey]

Something worth consideration there. But that is different from contacting an ungrounded conductor vs. the open netural conductor and other same point of contact. Example contacting a 120 volt ungrounded conductor and the EGC compared to open energized neutral and same EGC. Both instances you will experience about same shock - maybe some difference with a really high impedance load in series with the neutral.

True enough. The catch is that people might think harder about putting a firm grip on the black wire.

 

[kwired]

So what is comes down to when asking whether a shock from a neutral is worse then from an ungrounded conductor - the best answer is it depends on the conditions of the incident.

 

[Besoeker]

The wording may not be perfect but the fact remains that I had worse shocks from handling grounded conductors than I ever got from touching ungrounded conductors. YMMV.

Then I shall not gainsay your personal experiences and perceptions.

 

[mivey]

So what is comes down to when asking whether a shock from a neutral is worse then from an ungrounded conductor - the best answer is it depends on the conditions of the incident.

Absolutely.

But if asking for the basis for the belief that a neutral shock is worse than hot conductor shock, the pragmatic answer might be a better fit.

 

[iceworm]

... The "neutral shock" I had in mind was getting in series with the neutral with deliberate action but unexpected/unintended consequence. The L-G shock I had in mind is not deliberate and has a consequence that would be expected and a consequence that one would be trying to avoid.

... The conclusion is that, due to caution, the L-person-L-load-N series case is less likely and leaves the accidental L-person-G-N case as what we consider for this belief comparison with the L-load-N-person-N case (plus maybe combined with the L-load-N(elevated)-person-G-N(source) case). ...

... The catch is that people might think harder about putting a firm grip on the black wire.

... Bootleg neutral from another panel caused me to get bit.
... The worst shock I ever got was from a neutral. It was because I was in series with the load.
... We were chasing a known fault when I managed to series myself in the path. I vote for it. Only one worse was the 277
... the fact remains that I had worse shocks from handling grounded conductors than I ever got from touching ungrounded conductors

I would never dispute anyone's personal observations. And if the consensus for those that have received L-N shocks and liveN-G shocks, is that LiveN-G shocks are worse, then I'm good with that. For them it is true.

As others have said, I'll agree one might think the neutral shock is worse just because there was no expectation. Hurk's post 20 talks about the mind playing tricks which looks reasonable to me.

However, I don't see the level of expectation changing the current flow. I also would not use your observation as any basis in physics.

ice

 

[mivey]

I would never dispute anyone's personal observations. And if the consensus for those that have received L-N shocks and liveN-G shocks, is that LiveN-G shocks are worse, then I'm good with that. For them it is true.

Has anyone said that? For me, the L-G shocks were not as bad as the series neutral shock. You could have a series shock with an open neutral connecting to an ECG through you and that would be as bad. Again, the key is the human factor of being less cautious with the white wire than the black wire.

As others have said, I'll agree one might think the neutral shock is worse just because there was no expectation.

How about figuring on the factor that someone might be prone to make better contact with a white wire than a black wire?

Hurk's post 20 talks about the mind playing tricks which looks reasonable to me.

Nothing tricky about it when you factor in what I have said.

However, I don't see the level of expectation changing the current flow. I also would not use your observation as any basis in physics.

You are comparing case A of equal contact with a black wire and white wire. I'm comparing case B of the human factor making the probability of equal contact less than one.

Naturally the physics for case A won't align with the physics from case B.

I would say anywhere from 0.1 to 0.5 is a reasonable range of probability for equal contact. Pick any probability you want but it is a reasonable thing to say that people are more cautious with a black wire than a white wire. It's not rocket science.

 

[iceworm]

Has anyone said that? For me, the L-G shocks were not as bad as the series neutral shock. You could have a series shock with an open neutral connecting to an ECG through you and that would be as bad. ....

I did not diferentiate between an L-G and an L-N shock. If that is a big deal, I'm fine with that.

...I would say anywhere from 0.1 to 0.5 is a reasonable range of probability for equal contact. Pick any probability you want but it is a reasonable thing to say that people are more cautious with a black wire than a white wire. ....

I don't agree. These days, except for the occasional troubleshooting, I don't do much with tools, except my DIY. So I will defer to the ones that do. However, I'm thinking that once I check the circuit (all the wires in the box) are dead, then I am equally unconcerned about all. And if I haven't checked - or know they are live, then I'm equally twitchy about all - even separating the EGCs - unless I know there are no egc-using-controllers or pilot lights.

Still, like I said - I'll defer to the ones that use the tools for a living

... Again, the key is the human factor of being less cautious with the white wire than the black wire.

How about figuring on the factor that someone might be prone to make better contact with a white wire than a black wire?

Nothing tricky about it when you factor in what I have said.

You are comparing case A of equal contact with a black wire and white wire. I'm comparing case B of the human factor making the probability of equal contact less than one.

Naturally the physics for case A won't align with the physics from case B. ...

No news here. I think we all got this the first time. Well, as soon as you quit assuming I knew the contact resistance was different - we got it.

.... It's not rocket science.

That's true

ice

 

[ptonsparky]

With this line of reasoning the shock I received from an EG would be even worse than the Neutral. We were chasing a known fault when I managed to series myself in the path. I vote for it. Only one worse was the 277.

Please note I was being sarcastic. See post #2.

 

[Fulthrotl]

I had a first aid class recently where the instructor mentioned "shock from the neutral". alluding to its worse than a shock from the hot conductor.
I have heard this before, what basis would there be for this belief?

folklore.

we have a difference of potential, causing a current to flow
thru a resistance. if anything, getting across an open neutral
would put you in series with the load, effectively dropping
the difference of potential on your personal portion of the circuit.

when i was seven, the kid up the street had a hand crank
set his dad used for getting fishing worms.... there were
five kids, and we all held hands, and he cranked it, and you
could feel this slight throbbing feeling... then he said, "here,
you try it by yourself."

that didn't go well.

so i have first hand, or both hand, knowledge of this.

edit: i screamed, tears came to my eyes, and i hit him
as hard as i could in the face.

this is how you can get a secondary shock without touching
a conductor.

 

[iceworm]

Originally Posted by ptonsparky
With this line of reasoning the shock I received from an EG would be even worse than the Neutral. We were chasing a known fault when I managed to series myself in the path. I vote for it. Only one worse was the 277.

Please note I was being sarcastic. See post #2.

Yeah - figured that. I mostly wanted to make the point that I would never dispute someone's personal observation. And I am not a connoisseur of grades of electric shock.

The absolutely worst I remember is sticking my finger in a light socket when I was about 5. How bad could that have been - 120V, dry skin, limited to one finger. I'll bet it was the worst I remember cause it was the first I remember - nothing to do with severity.

And I liked your line of reasoning. One part I left out - but I'll tell you, cause you inspired it.
"Continuing to follow this line of reasoning. A 13.8 KV shock should be very low. Contact impedance is near infinite. And a 9V battery to one's tongue well, just imagine the damage ...."

ice

 

[ronaldrc]

The second worse shock I ever received in my 40 years in the trade was from a neutral.

I was in a junction box that fed around 10 4 tube 277 volt lay in florescent lights.

I was getting ready to tie another roll of lights into this same neutral, not thinking about
this roll of lights being turned on I took the wire nut off and when I separated the neutrals
I became the neutral for that roll of lights. Have you ever heard that old saying you can
taste copper after receiving a bad shock, well its true.

I think the shock would have been this sever no matter neutral or hot because it was 277 volts.

But my the job foreman said most likely it was that bad because of the inductive kickback
of the ballast. I have to admit that, that made pretty good sense to me and still does.

 

[kwired]

The second worse shock I ever received in my 40 years in the trade was from a neutral.

I was in a junction box that fed around 10 4 tube 277 volt lay in florescent lights.

I was getting ready to tie another roll of lights into this same neutral, not thinking about
this roll of lights being turned on I took the wire nut off and when I separated the neutrals
I became the neutral for that roll of lights. Have you ever heard that old saying you can
taste copper after receiving a bad shock, well its true.

I think the shock would have been this sever no matter neutral or hot because it was 277 volts.

But my the job foreman said most likely it was that bad because of the inductive kickback
of the ballast. I have to admit that, that made pretty good sense to me and still does.

I agree that it was severe because it was 277 volts, had you contacted the hot instead, I bet you wouldn't have felt much different.

Inductive kickback? That only occurs at the instant of opening the circuit, you would have to be holding on to the "load end" while you opened the connection to be subjected to the kickback, there is no way you are fast enough to open the circuit then grab the conductor fast enough to experience the kickback, as it is over with in milliseconds.

 

[charlie b]

It reminds me of the old stupid question about which is heavier, a ton of bricks or a ton of feathers.

Not to be confused with the far more subtle question about which is heavier, a pound of gold or a pound of feathers. I won't keep you in suspense; the answer is feathers. (I kid you not! :happyno

 

[pfalcon]

Not to be confused with the far more subtle question about which is heavier, a pound of gold or a pound of feathers. I won't keep you in suspense; the answer is feathers. (I kid you not! :happyno

Twice over the feathers win?

The troy pound is 5,760 grains (? 373.24 g, 12 oz t), while an avoirdupois pound is ?21.53% heavier at 7,000 grains (? 453.59 g).

But since the UK abolished the troy pound a "pound of gold" is now a fiction and weighs nothing at all because it doesn't exist?

 

[pfalcon]

A neutral bite is worse than a line bite for only one reason. It's the same reason why the JOAB (Jump-Out-And-Boo) is worse at the end of that perv video than at the Halloween haunted house. You expect to get bit by the line. Surprise makes the the same pain seem worse.

Arguably the neutral does more psychological damage.

IMHO

 

[kwired]

What is worse a bite from an open neutral, or completely unexpected contact with an ungrounded conductor?

Ever been working in a panel, junction box, etc and had a skinned conductor get you?

I can't recall ever being more or less surprised by either - just suddenly hits you.

 

[ptonsparky]

Twice over the feathers win?

The troy pound is 5,760 grains (? 373.24 g, 12 oz t), while an avoirdupois pound is ?21.53% heavier at 7,000 grains (? 453.59 g).

But since the UK abolished the troy pound a "pound of gold" is now a fiction and weighs nothing at all because it doesn't exist?

I am confused. Does this mean that if I have a "pound of gold" in one pocket and a pound of nothing in another than I still weigh the same?:blink: