Whole house surge suppressors

[daestrom]

"Steve Alexanderson"
<Idon'tlikegreeneggsandspamIdon'tlikethemsamIamsalexanderson@cencoast.com>
wrote in message news:40f80155$1_4@newsfeed.slurp.net...

The presence of the ground lug indicates that some type of arrester is
involved, even if it's just a gap. See
http://www.taunton.com/finehomebuilding/pdf/Lightning.pdf

He is right that his department and the NEC doesn't apply to utilities.
The
code in question is the NESC, and among its requirements is one stating
that
arresters that require grounding be grounded, and another stating that
accessible communication equipment subject to overvoltage be protected
against overvoltage.

snip

The NID (network interface device) does not have gas discharge
devices, it is strictly a disconnecting means. The telephone company
is required, if you request, an accessible Network Interface Device.
The ground wire typically only protects the enclosure or the wire
sheathing, which in this case is plastic for the NID, and
non-existent in the drop.

Seems quite clear to me that the ground lug is only there to provide a
grounding for wire sheathing. The NID is meant to be used for wire that has
a metallic shield -or- a non-metallic cover. When a metal shielded cable or
support wire is used, it is connected to the ground lug of the NID and the
NID lug must be grounded. But if the phone drop does *not* use a support
wire or shielded cable, there is nothing connected to the ground lug inside
the NID. If you want to ground it, you are essentially running a ground
wire to a terminal that is connected to *nothing*.

Some may argue that having a grounded lug within an inch or so of the phone
wires provides *some* kind of protection by allowing direct lighning surges
to jump the small gap. But a voltage level needed to jump such a gap would
destroy all the phones in your house. And it would be much higher than the
protection devices at the pole would allow. So such a 'gap' argument is
silly as it is no protection at all.

Grounding the NID lug is only significant *if* the incoming phone drop uses
shielded wire or support wire that needs to be grounded. They don't have
internal surge-suppression/lightning protection. The use of the ground lug
varies from one phone company to the next. It even varies within the same
service area. The NID is designed for use with either type of phone drop
(one with a metallic shield or without). But like many devices, this
'feature' (the ground lug) isn't always used. It is only there for
grounding the shield or non-circuit metallic components. If you have
unshielded, tempered phone drop, there is no non-circuit metallic components
to ground.

daestrom

 

[Dbowey]

daestrom posted{
<< "Steve Alexanderson"
<Idon'tlikegreeneggsandspamIdon'tlikethemsamIamsalexanderson@cencoast.com>
wrote in message news:40f80155$1_4@newsfeed.slurp.net...

The presence of the ground lug indicates that some type of arrester is
involved, even if it's just a gap. See
http://www.taunton.com/finehomebuilding/pdf/Lightning.pdf

He is right that his department and the NEC doesn't apply to utilities.
The
code in question is the NESC, and among its requirements is one stating
that
arresters that require grounding be grounded, and another stating that
accessible communication equipment subject to overvoltage be protected
against overvoltage.

snip

The NID (network interface device) does not have gas discharge
devices, it is strictly a disconnecting means. The telephone company
is required, if you request, an accessible Network Interface Device.
The ground wire typically only protects the enclosure or the wire
sheathing, which in this case is plastic for the NID, and
non-existent in the drop.

Seems quite clear to me that the ground lug is only there to provide a
grounding for wire sheathing. The NID is meant to be used for wire that has
a metallic shield -or- a non-metallic cover. When a metal shielded cable or
support wire is used, it is connected to the ground lug of the NID and the
NID lug must be grounded. But if the phone drop does *not* use a support
wire or shielded cable, there is nothing connected to the ground lug inside
the NID. If you want to ground it, you are essentially running a ground
wire to a terminal that is connected to *nothing*.

Some may argue that having a grounded lug within an inch or so of the phone
wires provides *some* kind of protection by allowing direct lighning surges
to jump the small gap. But a voltage level needed to jump such a gap would
destroy all the phones in your house. And it would be much higher than the
protection devices at the pole would allow. So such a 'gap' argument is
silly as it is no protection at all.

Grounding the NID lug is only significant *if* the incoming phone drop uses
shielded wire or support wire that needs to be grounded. They don't have
internal surge-suppression/lightning protection. The use of the ground lug
varies from one phone company to the next. It even varies within the same
service area. The NID is designed for use with either type of phone drop
(one with a metallic shield or without). But like many devices, this
'feature' (the ground lug) isn't always used. It is only there for
grounding the shield or non-circuit metallic components. If you have
unshielded, tempered phone drop, there is no non-circuit metallic components
to ground.

Seems quite clear to me that you don't know what you are talking about. All
your assumptions are invalid.

The protectors within the NID are on each wire, to ground, and are there for
protection from HV. They have nothing to do with whether there is or is not a
metallic covering on the wires.

Don

 

[polishpickle]

Yes but it was a typical case of blind a justice

"ImhoTech" <bobo@yoodelers.net> wrote in message
news:10fgbtg3eettma4@corp.supernews.com...

Maybe I should have included the "27 8x10 color glossy photographs, with
circles and arrows, and a paragraph on the back of each one, explaining
what each one was to be used as evidence..." (it's kind of scary that I
can quote old Arlo Guthrie material from memory)

Best regards,
Bob

Nah...that part was one of the most interesting things posted here in a
long
time. The fact that its from one of my 13 year old's favorite songs (for
about 3 years) is a bit scary..or not..heh.

 

[w_tom]

This protector as defined in the 1997 Demarcation Point
Order was discussed in FCC Docket in 2000 in the paragraph
entitled "Safety Concerns Regarding the Placement of the
Demarcation Point Away from the Building". Petitioners were
AT&T, GTE, Southwestern Bell (SBC), and TIA. Concerned was
that, "locating the demarcation point a substantial distance
from the building in which telephone wire is located could
raise safety concerns."

Petitioners further noted "that the National Electrical Code
(NEC) requires the placement of surge protection at or near
the building, these petitioners concluded that if a network
protector is placed by the carrier at a demarcation point near
the property line, and that demarcation point is a significant
distance from the building, a second network protector should
be installed where the wire enters the building."

So what are they discussing if the protector does not exist
or is not required? The protector is required by code as
noted earlier AND the code even states how short a wire from
protector must be connected to earth ground. Even the FCC
states how close the protector must be to where wire enters
building.

daestrom wrote:

Seems quite clear to me that the ground lug is only there to provide a
grounding for wire sheathing. The NID is meant to be used for wire that has
a metallic shield -or- a non-metallic cover. When a metal shielded cable or
support wire is used, it is connected to the ground lug of the NID and the
NID lug must be grounded. But if the phone drop does *not* use a support
wire or shielded cable, there is nothing connected to the ground lug inside
the NID. If you want to ground it, you are essentially running a ground
wire to a terminal that is connected to *nothing*.

Some may argue that having a grounded lug within an inch or so of the phone
wires provides *some* kind of protection by allowing direct lighning surges
to jump the small gap. But a voltage level needed to jump such a gap would
destroy all the phones in your house. And it would be much higher than the
protection devices at the pole would allow. So such a 'gap' argument is
silly as it is no protection at all.

Grounding the NID lug is only significant *if* the incoming phone drop uses
shielded wire or support wire that needs to be grounded. They don't have
internal surge-suppression/lightning protection. The use of the ground lug
varies from one phone company to the next. It even varies within the same
service area. The NID is designed for use with either type of phone drop
(one with a metallic shield or without). But like many devices, this
'feature' (the ground lug) isn't always used. It is only there for
grounding the shield or non-circuit metallic components. If you have
unshielded, tempered phone drop, there is no non-circuit metallic components
to ground.

daestrom

 

[zxcvbob]

w_tom wrote:

This protector as defined in the 1997 Demarcation Point
Order was discussed in FCC Docket in 2000 in the paragraph
entitled "Safety Concerns Regarding the Placement of the
Demarcation Point Away from the Building". Petitioners were
AT&T, GTE, Southwestern Bell (SBC), and TIA. Concerned was
that, "locating the demarcation point a substantial distance
from the building in which telephone wire is located could
raise safety concerns."

Petitioners further noted "that the National Electrical Code
(NEC) requires the placement of surge protection at or near
the building, these petitioners concluded that if a network
protector is placed by the carrier at a demarcation point near
the property line, and that demarcation point is a significant
distance from the building, a second network protector should
be installed where the wire enters the building."

So what are they discussing if the protector does not exist
or is not required? The protector is required by code as
noted earlier AND the code even states how short a wire from
protector must be connected to earth ground. Even the FCC
states how close the protector must be to where wire enters
building.

daestrom wrote:

Seems quite clear to me that the ground lug is only there to provide a
grounding for wire sheathing. The NID is meant to be used for wire that has
a metallic shield -or- a non-metallic cover. When a metal shielded cable or
support wire is used, it is connected to the ground lug of the NID and the
NID lug must be grounded. But if the phone drop does *not* use a support
wire or shielded cable, there is nothing connected to the ground lug inside
the NID. If you want to ground it, you are essentially running a ground
wire to a terminal that is connected to *nothing*.

Some may argue that having a grounded lug within an inch or so of the phone
wires provides *some* kind of protection by allowing direct lighning surges
to jump the small gap. But a voltage level needed to jump such a gap would
destroy all the phones in your house. And it would be much higher than the
protection devices at the pole would allow. So such a 'gap' argument is
silly as it is no protection at all.

Grounding the NID lug is only significant *if* the incoming phone drop uses
shielded wire or support wire that needs to be grounded. They don't have
internal surge-suppression/lightning protection. The use of the ground lug
varies from one phone company to the next. It even varies within the same
service area. The NID is designed for use with either type of phone drop
(one with a metallic shield or without). But like many devices, this
'feature' (the ground lug) isn't always used. It is only there for
grounding the shield or non-circuit metallic components. If you have
unshielded, tempered phone drop, there is no non-circuit metallic components
to ground.

daestrom

Since the local building inspector agreed with the telephone company
(even though I quoted section 800 of the NEC in my letter), should I
just drop the issue? That's really not my style. Would I contact the
state building inspector or the public utilities commission or the FCC?

I suspect that none of them will want to get involved.

Thanks again,
Bob

 

[Floyd L. Davidson]

zxcvbob <zxcvbob@charter.net> wrote:

Since the local building inspector agreed with the telephone
company (even though I quoted section 800 of the NEC in my
letter), should I just drop the issue? That's really not my
style. Would I contact the state building inspector or the
public utilities commission or the FCC?

I suspect that none of them will want to get involved.

Thanks again,
Bob

Your suspicions are probably correct.

The FCC has nothing to do with it, so the state building
inspector and the public utilities commission are your only
choices.

I'm not sure I see much point in doing that.

I don't recall now just what the original interaction with the
telco was, but the *first* thing one wants to do is thoroughly
exhaust all avenues with the telco. I seem to recall it was one
outside plant installer with an imagination who conjured up a
story that was total bullshit, but to him sounded pretty good,
that was the last contact?

You need to discuss this with supervisors and engineers, and
make repeated efforts at it, until you have nobody else you can
pester. Keep logs of *exactly* who you talk to (the date, the
time, and who they are and a short description of what they
say). And make it obvious that you are keeping track too (they
are also logging it, so don't worry about upsetting anyone).

As long as you get unsatisfactory answers, demand to speak to
someone who has more knowledge or authority. Be courteous,
professional, and do not bluff anyone with anything.

If you get to the point where you've talked to everyone who is
anyone, *then* take the entire log to the PUC. What happens at
that point depends very much on where you are. Some regulatory
agencies are virtual rubber stamps, and will do *nothing*.
Others will demand a _certified_ response from the telco
guaranteeing that no rule or regulation is going to continue to
be broken. (If you are the first, nothing else happens; but if
they just certified the same thing six months ago, all Hell will
break loose.)

At no point do you want to hold your breath waiting for
justice...

--
FloydL. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@barrow.com

 

[HorneTD]

zxcvbob wrote:

w_tom wrote:

This protector as defined in the 1997 Demarcation Point
Order was discussed in FCC Docket in 2000 in the paragraph
entitled "Safety Concerns Regarding the Placement of the
Demarcation Point Away from the Building". Petitioners were
AT&T, GTE, Southwestern Bell (SBC), and TIA. Concerned was
that, "locating the demarcation point a substantial distance
from the building in which telephone wire is located could
raise safety concerns."

Petitioners further noted "that the National Electrical Code
(NEC) requires the placement of surge protection at or near
the building, these petitioners concluded that if a network
protector is placed by the carrier at a demarcation point near
the property line, and that demarcation point is a significant
distance from the building, a second network protector should
be installed where the wire enters the building."

So what are they discussing if the protector does not exist
or is not required? The protector is required by code as
noted earlier AND the code even states how short a wire from
protector must be connected to earth ground. Even the FCC
states how close the protector must be to where wire enters
building.

daestrom wrote:

Seems quite clear to me that the ground lug is only there to provide a
grounding for wire sheathing. The NID is meant to be used for wire
that has
a metallic shield -or- a non-metallic cover. When a metal shielded
cable or
support wire is used, it is connected to the ground lug of the NID
and the
NID lug must be grounded. But if the phone drop does *not* use a
support
wire or shielded cable, there is nothing connected to the ground lug
inside
the NID. If you want to ground it, you are essentially running a ground
wire to a terminal that is connected to *nothing*.

Some may argue that having a grounded lug within an inch or so of the
phone
wires provides *some* kind of protection by allowing direct lighning
surges
to jump the small gap. But a voltage level needed to jump such a gap
would
destroy all the phones in your house. And it would be much higher
than the
protection devices at the pole would allow. So such a 'gap' argument is
silly as it is no protection at all.

Grounding the NID lug is only significant *if* the incoming phone
drop uses
shielded wire or support wire that needs to be grounded. They don't
have
internal surge-suppression/lightning protection. The use of the
ground lug
varies from one phone company to the next. It even varies within the
same
service area. The NID is designed for use with either type of phone
drop
(one with a metallic shield or without). But like many devices, this
'feature' (the ground lug) isn't always used. It is only there for
grounding the shield or non-circuit metallic components. If you have
unshielded, tempered phone drop, there is no non-circuit metallic
components
to ground.

daestrom



Since the local building inspector agreed with the telephone company
(even though I quoted section 800 of the NEC in my letter), should I
just drop the issue? That's really not my style. Would I contact the
state building inspector or the public utilities commission or the FCC?

I suspect that none of them will want to get involved.

Thanks again,
Bob
The State Public Utilities Commission has control over the safety

practices of public utilities within your state. Contact them and see
what they say.
--
Tom H

 

[MC]

Had an unterminated arial phone line running parallel below power lines for
about 300 feet. Did not know was not connected, went to investigate open end
dangling on power pole and got knocked off my feet!

I never ran across this on short runs and most are terminated on one end or
the other so did not think to check things out first.

Anyway did not have a meter with at the time to see what the potential was ?
I wonder how much current could be sinked from that source ?
If I ever get a chance to find another situation like that, think I will do
some testing to see.



"Chris Lewis" <clewis@nortelnetworks.com> wrote in message
news:2l84rkF9b0tcU1@uni-berlin.de...

According to w_tom <w_tom1@hotmail.com>:
We knock down that field generated voltage with an NE-2 neon
glow lamp because the current associated with a long wire
antenna (ie telephone line) is quite small. I ask this
question repeatedly and never receive appropriate numbers.
Where is the massive current from a long wire antenna that is
not and cannot be earthed by telco's 'whole house'
protector? If the long telephone wire creates a massive
surge, then what are the numbers that overwhelm a protector?

You don't seem to understand RF frequencies very well. At the slew rates
and frequencies present in lightning strikes, you can very easily
have the ends of a few feet of wire at potential differences
of thousands of volts.

Heck, we routinely see people in this newsgroup using high impedance
DVMs reading dozens of volts on disconnected wires simply thru
inductive/capacitive effects from adjacent line power. Even the 62V
someone reported yesterday would be enough to destroy some semi-conductor
circuitry. Imagine what those voltages would be like during a nearby
strike.

A house is equivalent to a coil, with many separate windings.
Some effectively grounded at both ends, some at one end, and some
not at all. A nearby lightning strike can induce thousands of volts
onto some of those "windings", grounded or otherwise.

Indeed, the field generated voltage that a NE-2 glowlamp shorts out
(60-90V) _is_ high enough to destroy some electronics.

Even if your house is protected with a whole-house filter, an induced
voltage on the house wiring can destroy "nearby" electronics _before_
the overvoltage even gets to the whole-house filter. Read up on
slew rates and cable impedance.

I can appreciate the theory of electromagnetically generated
transients. Now lets see numbers applied to that theory.
Experience repeatedly says the direct strike is so
destructive. If nearby strikes were so destructive, then car
radios would often be damaged due to nearby strikes. Radios
designed to concentrate electromagnetic fields onto sensitive,
low voltage RF transistors are still not damaged by
lightning's electromagnetic fields.

Radios use low impedance devices (ie: bipolar transistors) on their
front ends with lots of effective grounding for high voltage yet
low amperage transients (ie: shunt coils, caps etc). If they were
FET semiconductors with no upstream circuitry/shunts, it'd be a
whole different ballgame. They go poof if a dry cat brushes by
the antenna. Computer input circuitry is more like that than
radio input circuitry.
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

 

[Travis Jordan]

MC wrote:

Had an unterminated arial phone line running parallel below power
lines for about 300 feet. Did not know was not connected, went to
investigate open end dangling on power pole and got knocked off my
feet!
/snip/

Might have been ring voltage.

 

[Beachcomber]

On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 21:05:34 -0400, "MC" <mwclarke1@yahoo.com> wrote:

Had an unterminated arial phone line running parallel below power lines for
about 300 feet. Did not know was not connected, went to investigate open end
dangling on power pole and got knocked off my feet!

I never ran across this on short runs and most are terminated on one end or
the other so did not think to check things out first.

Anyway did not have a meter with at the time to see what the potential was ?
I wonder how much current could be sinked from that source ?
If I ever get a chance to find another situation like that, think I will do
some testing to see.


In some very remote parts of the world, parallel conductors are run

for moderate distances along the right-of-way of high voltage
transmission lines. The small amount of power from this linear,
inductive tap is used to feed the power needs of small villages.

Apparently, this is a cost-effective alternative to a substation.

Beachcomber

 

[Chris Lewis]

According to MC <mwclarke1@yahoo.com>:

Had an unterminated arial phone line running parallel below power lines for
about 300 feet. Did not know was not connected, went to investigate open end
dangling on power pole and got knocked off my feet!

I never ran across this on short runs and most are terminated on one end or
the other so did not think to check things out first.

Anyway did not have a meter with at the time to see what the potential was ?
I wonder how much current could be sinked from that source ?
If I ever get a chance to find another situation like that, think I will do
some testing to see.

The above is probably not related to my previous comments about induced
voltages.

An open (on hook) telco circuit often has, if I recall correctly, about 48VDC
on it. Not a lot of amps (it's only 26ga or so after all...).

When the phone rings, you're getting AC at 90V or even more. Which is why
the old telephone set bell units work so nicely on 120V. It's close-enough
voltage matched to ring without frying anything. Similarly, not much in the
way of amperage.

All the above means is that you can get a pretty compelling zap when you touch
one depending on how well you're grounded. Ie: an extra line drop that's
connected but not currently being used.

As I demonstrated to myself a few months ago after trying to splice an accidentally
severed phone wire while sitting on bare concrete... Not lethal this time,
but strong enough to make it impossible to ignore. The SO could hear me cursing
150' away thru two exterior walls ;-)

But, remember, under certain (albeit rare) circumstances, even 48V can be lethal.

That said, it is entirely possible that a phone line can become energized
to much higher potentials.

There's a story that went thru this group years ago about having phone
service to an area in the US failing, and phone service people finding
two smoking dead bodies underneath a severed phone trunk line.

There was a moderately high resistance power fault from a nearby HV
feeder into the trunk grounding sheath that was grounded well enough at
the other end of the trunk to not present phone problems, and the fault
wasn't big enough to trip the HV feeder's interrupter either.

Two thieves tried to steal the phone trunk cable (for copper scrap).
When they severed the cable and touched the trunk grounding sheath,
_they_ became the grounding path. They weren't as robust as the
grounding at the other end of the severed trunk line...

So, it pays to be very cautious about wires hanging down from power
poles, no matter what they look like.
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

 

[Michael]

Chris Lewis wrote:

The above is probably not related to my previous comments about induced
voltages.

An open (on hook) telco circuit often has, if I recall correctly, about 48VDC
on it. Not a lot of amps (it's only 26ga or so after all...).

When the phone rings, you're getting AC at 90V or even more.

Yeah I got zapped when I was a kid. I'd rip electronics open and tinker
with the circuitry. One day playing with a phone, a call must have come
in and hit me with 90 volts. It was more of unexpected shock than any
real pain. Had to be 90 V AC ring voltage cause I could feel the
alternations versus 48 V DC. Funny thing is the phones didn't ring, I
must have somehow sinked enough juice.

On unterminated long wire antennas (and Beverages?) you can accumulate
enough "static" charge to zap someone. Distant lightning storms or
whatever cause this.

michael

 

[Travis Jordan]

Beachcomber wrote:
/snip/

In some very remote parts of the world, parallel conductors are run
for moderate distances along the right-of-way of high voltage
transmission lines. The small amount of power from this linear,
inductive tap is used to feed the power needs of small villages.

Apparently, this is a cost-effective alternative to a substation.

Urban legend. The amount of power produced by running wires parallel to

each other (even if one is very high voltage and they are very close
together) is extremely low. Power lines don't have much field loss.

 

[Tom MacIntyre]

On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 17:45:44 GMT, Michael <none@none.com> wrote:

Chris Lewis wrote:

The above is probably not related to my previous comments about induced
voltages.

An open (on hook) telco circuit often has, if I recall correctly, about 48VDC
on it. Not a lot of amps (it's only 26ga or so after all...).

When the phone rings, you're getting AC at 90V or even more.

Yeah I got zapped when I was a kid. I'd rip electronics open and tinker
with the circuitry. One day playing with a phone, a call must have come
in and hit me with 90 volts. It was more of unexpected shock than any
real pain. Had to be 90 V AC ring voltage cause I could feel the
alternations versus 48 V DC. Funny thing is the phones didn't ring, I
must have somehow sinked enough juice.

On unterminated long wire antennas (and Beverages?) you can accumulate
enough "static" charge to zap someone. Distant lightning storms or
whatever cause this.

michael

A friend brought an old crank generator/magneto in to school one day.
A bunch of us less sane ones (all male, of course) tooks turns giving
and receiving zaps. Remember Bob and Doug MacKenzie in "Strange Brew",
fighting over who would receive the electric shock therapy while in
the mental institution? Like that.

Tom

 

[Alan Stiver, PE]

And telephone ring voltage frequency is usually 20Hz, which is almost
low enough to count the cycles. Hurts, especially if you accidentally
get your ear close enough to a connecting block. A guy I work with was
stripping a piece of phone wire WITH HIS TEETH!! a couple of years ago
when someone rang that line. He'll never live that one down!

Chris Lewis wrote:

When the phone rings, you're getting AC at 90V or even more.

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

 

[Pop Rivet]

Please set followups to your favorite group!
It's silly to cross post to so many groups, especially in
light of the misinformation presented here. Please refrain
from doing so in the future and become a good netizen.

You can look up any of the following at about any telco:
they're all onine.
Nor North America, Canada, Japan and a few other countries:
-- Ring Voltages: 70Vrms to 90Vrms, NOT 90V "or more".
The actual voltage will depend on the REN loading AND
distance from the telco where the ring generator is located,
plus any amplifiers in the line along the way to the
subscriber. If it cannot leave the telco at >90Vrms, be FCC
spec, it will never exceed that voltage anywhere along the
line.
-- Ring Voltage Current: Up to 100 mA by spec, on a short
line, up to 120mA emergency power. It IS LETHAL!
-- Ring Voltage Frequency: 20, 25, 30, 33, or 50 Hz,
+/-5Hz. Most of the US uses 20 Hz +/- 5 Hz and most
electronic telephone equipment is rated Class B, meaing it
will detect ANY ringing frequency that is to spec. Cheapie
crap only responds to about 12 to 28 Hz in my experience.
-- Ring Voltage Pattern: Normally 2 S on, 4 S off,
repeated. Other patterns widely used for special services.

Pop
---
Those who have nothing to say often say so.



"Alan Stiver, PE" <a.stiver@nospam.ieee.org> wrote in
message news:41140c49$1_3@corp.newsgroups.com...

And telephone ring voltage frequency is usually 20Hz,
which is almost
low enough to count the cycles. Hurts, especially if you
accidentally
get your ear close enough to a connecting block. A guy I
work with was
stripping a piece of phone wire WITH HIS TEETH!! a couple
of years ago
when someone rang that line. He'll never live that one
down!

Chris Lewis wrote:


When the phone rings, you're getting AC at 90V or even
more.



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News
=-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the
World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers!
=-----

 

[Michael]

Pop Rivet wrote:

Please set followups to your favorite group!
It's silly to cross post to so many groups, especially in
light of the misinformation presented here. Please refrain
from doing so in the future and become a good netizen.

Please refrain from irony in the future. Correcting people then
requesting a restriction on rebuttals is not being a "good netizen."

You can look up any of the following at about any telco:
they're all onine.
Nor North America, Canada, Japan and a few other countries:
-- Ring Voltages: 70Vrms to 90Vrms, NOT 90V "or more".

Incorrect use of parens. He said "90 V or even more," destressing the
more part. Secondly he never said RMS, it was your miscomprehension and
not his misinformation. Thirdly it's superimposed on -48 V. Fourthly a
detailed diatribe about POTS and FCC standards (with zero references)
does not change the crux of the poster's message. That said, I did
enjoy reading it.

-- Ring Voltage Pattern: Normally 2 S on, 4 S off,
repeated. Other patterns widely used for special services.

If you want to wax poetic about POTS, use common terminology like cadence.

Pop
---
Those who have nothing to say often say so.

RFC compliance is good.

kindest regards,

michael

 

[Tom MacIntyre]

On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 18:51:50 -0400, "Alan Stiver, PE"
<a.stiver@nospam.ieee.org> wrote:

And telephone ring voltage frequency is usually 20Hz, which is almost
low enough to count the cycles. Hurts, especially if you accidentally
get your ear close enough to a connecting block. A guy I work with was
stripping a piece of phone wire WITH HIS TEETH!! a couple of years ago
when someone rang that line. He'll never live that one down!

Ah...reminds me of one of my less-brilliant moments. Having a few
suds, no meter available, cellular phone seemed to be not charging. I
tongue-tested the adapter...only 10.6 volts, but with an 850 mA
capacity. I don't know how many ohms it is on a small area of a human
tongue, so I don't know how much current I was subjected to, but it
felt like the top of my head was coming off.

Tom

Chris Lewis wrote:


When the phone rings, you're getting AC at 90V or even more.



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

 

[Nostradamus]

"Alan Stiver, PE" <a.stiver@nospam.ieee.org> wrote in message
news:41140c49$1_3@corp.newsgroups.com...

And telephone ring voltage frequency is usually 20Hz, which is almost
low enough to count the cycles. Hurts, especially if you accidentally
get your ear close enough to a connecting block. A guy I work with was
stripping a piece of phone wire WITH HIS TEETH!! a couple of years ago
when someone rang that line. He'll never live that one down!

Sounds like the makings of new winner for the Darwin's award, especially if

he starts stripping 120 v wires.

 

[chuck yerkes]

Tom MacIntyre wrote:

On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 18:51:50 -0400, "Alan Stiver, PE"
a.stiver@nospam.ieee.org> wrote:
....
Ah...reminds me of one of my less-brilliant moments. Having a few
suds, no meter available, cellular phone seemed to be not charging. I
tongue-tested the adapter...only 10.6 volts, but with an 850 mA
capacity. I don't know how many ohms it is on a small area of a human
tongue, so I don't know how much current I was subjected to, but it
felt like the top of my head was coming off.

It's how you test 9V batteries. And my guitarist was a wuss.
I never ENJOYED it, but I learned to do it quick and have the
battery of the tongue before I realized taht I've got it.
Better than the "jam in on your tongue and hold" technique.


I never did the on-set grip's "trick" of pick up a 100A light outlet
(which is simply 2 HUGE copper paddles with a box about the size
of your fist). He said "you just touch it with the BACK of your hand
and when the power hits you, the muscle contraction pulls it away."
THanks, I'll just grab a meter.

But you'll watch experienced electricians putting one hand in their
back pocket or belt while working a breaker panels. Keeps away the
temptation to grab a good ground pretty much guaranteing death if the
other hand hits live. with the hand ungrounded, death isn't guaranteed.

Pay for your friends to take CPR classes, a worthwhile investment.