Sorry, I wasn't aware of having made any deductive leaps. I thought I was just summarizing your own words. You introduced yourself into the discussion with criticism of the conversation as a whole, directed at both sides, and then gave an account of your own thought processes on the matter; how you would have handled your own curiosity if you had any. My only reason for restating (in my own words, admittedly) your outlook was to express puzzlement at why you reacted that critical way, which you didn't address. So I ask, why is it you have a problem with how this conversation was conducted prior to your arrival?I would not make assumptions about me or my thought processes (if there are any) or of things about which I am or am not critical.
Let's clear one thing up - I made the FIRST reply after the OP. There was no conversation prior to my arrival.So I ask, why is it you have a problem with how this conversation was conducted prior to your arrival?
I could make the assumption that you are in fact "picking on me" because you continue to state you expected my "kind of response," I assume you meant my SECOND response to this thread where I facetiously injected some humor and fainted exasperation as if I was having a conversation with a toddler. It's almost as if you feel you are too smart for the room and expect everyone to be dumber and bring their own dumb ideas. There I go, making more assumptions, (he says sarcastically).I'm not picking on you; if you look back to my first reply on this thread it might be obvious that I was already expecting this (your) kind of response because I've seen time and again how discussions like this typically play out (this discussion has been a rare exception in what I consider to be a good way) and I don't understand it.
How would you know what other people are thinking? Instead of assuming what people are thinking, maybe just take it all at face value without reading between the lines. Did I make another assumption?It's like some people can't tolerate others being curious about the why behind things generally considered canonical.
the issue is that you may lose the ground connection, if that happens then the case ground for all equipment on that circuit becomes the neutral return circuit of an active powered circuit and anyone touching the case of this equipment becomes part of the same circuit (ie electrocuted). as others have stated do not do this.So I’m not arguing but why it’s neutral and ground bonded in the box. What is the scenario that leads to electrocution?
I have 4 wire single phase nearby but the lathe came with a 3 wire whip on it. I need to get an outlet for it, I could change the plug style and whip but that costs a little more. I’m really looking for an actual example of why this is unsafe. What’s the failure mode for this scenario?
i agree with all you have said except you forgot that anything else attached to this ground wire would become energized (lathe) also. a 100 watt lamp is close to an amp and that at 120 volts would be deadly.OK, here are some hows.
If what was originally proposed by the OP, there would be current flowing through the grounding circuit. However, the resultant voltage drop would be n3gligible. Assuming a 100 watt bulb, the current would be less than an amp. 16AWG wire would have a resistance of 4 milliohms/ ft. If there was a 100 ft of wire running to the bonding point, the voltage drop (RMS) would be .4 volts. A stick welder has an OCV in the neighborhood of 25-30 volts by comparison. 30 volt a.c. is considered the threshold for a lethal voltage. In most situations, 40 to 50 volts is required to be lethal.
If one were to experience a fault where the hot side of the lamp circuit were to contact the grounded frame, the breaker would immediately be tripped upon power up. A fault consisting of a break in the ground circuit would in effect bring the frame of the lathe to line voltage with potentially serious consequences depending upon environment. This would be characterized by the lamp failing to light. A poor ground connection would result in a dim lamp, the extent of which would depend upon the resistance of the connection relative to the resistance of the lamp bulb.
RJ, I always appreciate the thought and the time that you put into your posts. They are very helpful. Thanks you for putting yourself out there. KeithOK, here are some hows.
THANKS for the link to the bulb!I would just find a 220v bulb for the lamp. I have seen some LED bulbs that will run on 110v/220v.
"I" would not hijack the ground and use it as a neutral. Being electrocuted is not fun!
The 220v to 110v transformer is also a good idea!
take care to mark the fixture as 220v so the next person does not get a surpriseTHANKS for the link to the bulb!