putting your self inline with the neutral conductor

[anthonysolino]

I have been going back and forth with the thought of what happens to the body (if any thing) when you have two branch circuits- one neutral in a junction box.

-De-energize circuit A
-Circuit B still has voltage
- current checked on neutral at junction box: .58 amperes
-if you were to touch the neutral ( keeping your body isolated from ground potential),would the current then traverse its way though your body?

I have had this happen a long time ago but I can not recall if I was grounded or not,

 

[mopowr steve]

It will go through your body if you get between the load side of the neutral and the line side of neutral say if you removed a wire nut connecting the neutral together. Otherwise as long as your not connected to ground, you would not feel a thing to just touch the neutral as long as it’s a completed path.

 

[anthonysolino]

if you were to remove the wire nut and then touch the bare ends of the conductor no current would run through you? you would physically have to separate the wires then grab each end with two separate hands?

the situation would be where you had a home run j box where in the neutral was carrying on to another part of the building supplying other lights that were energized from the other phase,

 

[charlie b]

you would physically have to separate the wires then grab each end with two separate hands?

Correct. And that is why the situation you described is a code violation (in today's code, anyway). I gather you mean that circuits A and B are sharing a neutral. In that case, turning off circuit A would require that circuit B lose power at the same time. I don't remember which code cycle added the requirement that when you share neutrals you must use a two-pole breaker (or listed handle ties). But the intent of that change was to prevent the exact risk you described.

 

[anthonysolino]

Correct. And that is why the situation you described is a code violation (in today's code, anyway). I gather you mean that circuits A and B are sharing a neutral. In that case, turning off circuit A would require that circuit B lose power at the same time. I don't remember which code cycle added the requirement that when you share neutrals you must use a two-pole breaker (or listed handle ties). But the intent of that change was to prevent the exact risk you described.

I agree 150% sir this in side of a old middle school built in the late 70's I hate working on these circuits I always have to check the neutral in the box every single time. I hate it. if you simply remove the wire connector with the wires still connected and touch the neutral that had a load on it nothing will happen? I guess the correct way of saying this might be by putting your self in parallel with the neutral would not pose a hazard? if this holds true, putting your self in parallel with it then by touching a grounded object would then make you in series?

 

[ActionDave]

I agree 150% sir this in side of a old middle school built in the late 70's I hate working on these circuits I always have to check the neutral in the box every single time. I hate it.

It's called being an electrician. Knowing how to safely work on circuits is what puts us above gum chewing mouth breathing handymen.

if you simply remove the wire connector with the wires still connected and touch the neutral that had a load on it nothing will happen? I guess the correct way of saying this might be by putting your self in parallel with the neutral would not pose a hazard? if this holds true, putting your self in parallel with it then by touching a grounded object would then make you in series?

Touching a neutral wire is no different than touching the neutral buss or metal enclosure at the service disconnect, as long as everything is at ground potential touch it all you want.

 

[ActionDave]

Correct. And that is why the situation you described is a code violation (in today's code, anyway). I gather you mean that circuits A and B are sharing a neutral. In that case, turning off circuit A would require that circuit B lose power at the same time. I don't remember which code cycle added the requirement that when you share neutrals you must use a two-pole breaker (or listed handle ties). But the intent of that change was to prevent the exact risk you described.

2008 code, 210.4(B). One of the worst code changes ever. I hate it so much it is one of the few code references I have memorized.

 

[anthonysolino]

It's called being an electrician. Knowing how to safely work on circuits is what puts us above gum chewing mouth breathing handymen.

Touching a neutral wire is no different than touching the neutral buss or metal enclosure at the service disconnect, as long as everything is at ground potential touch it all you want.

I'm not part of the whole old school generation (nothing wrong with it) I was just taught differently sadly, I'm a"millennial" born in the early 90's. as Ive been coming through the trade, industry has been pushing the 70E document very hard, which honestly I agree with 100%, it puts me out of harms way.keeps workers safe, there is no reason to get hurt even by mistake, theres no job too sensitive to take a minute to lock stuff out and do it safe, I lock out about 80% of the circuits I work on. if I ever caught my own guys working stuff hot with no gloves, PPE or putting the helpers life in danger I would not even think twice about firing some one. I take pride knowing what the neutral feels like only ONCE. never again. EVER.