# voltage sensors



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

Are you going to mass produce it? 

And what happened to your arms? :blink:


----------



## piperunner (Aug 22, 2009)

MTW said:


> Are you going to mass produce it?
> NO I just made it for fun that's my hobbie.
> And what happened to your arms? :blink:


 Well the switch didn't close all the way so it went bang .


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

piperunner said:


> Well the switch didn't close all the way so it went bang .


Did you get burned?


----------



## Toronto Sparky (Apr 12, 2009)

Never been a fan of proximity voltage testers..


----------



## piperunner (Aug 22, 2009)

Toronto Sparky said:


> Never been a fan of proximity voltage testers..


 Well iam not I still use a tester because its NFPA rule.
But my tester works outside the cover and also it will work on the outside of EMT or GRC heavy wall conduit including any junction box not to many can claim that .


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

are you going to publish the schematic so we can all play with our lives ?


----------



## piperunner (Aug 22, 2009)

wildleg said:


> are you going to publish the schematic so we can all play with our lives ?



Well no because its about the simplest circuit in the world if your asking this question any kid in electronics could build it . 
And you need 5 dollars these companys that sell the junk sensors should watch my video !
Whats funny is this has been around for 50 years they used it when they had the old tubes in your TV sets when it went to the shop for repairs so its not new or high tech stuff its a simple RF amplifier . Its just like a standing wave ratio meter in a way . So you can build one 100 different ways the trick is to tune it for 120 cycles so it doesn't stay on all the time . It will pick up your WIFI your iPhone any freq from zero to mega hertz and it will pick up DC if adusted. Like I said TV repair men way back used these everyday in there shops becasuse a old TV had 25,000 volts on the flyback and it was easyer and safer to use a sensor so sensors are not new they been around since dirt everyone thinks this is new tech stuff but its not .


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

piperunner said:


> Well no because its about the simplest circuit in the world if your asking this question any kid in electronics could build it .
> And you need 5 dollars these companys that sell the junk sensors should watch my video !
> Whats funny is this has been around for 50 years they used it when they had the old tubes in your TV sets when it went to the shop for repairs so its not new or high tech stuff its a simple RF amplifier . Its just like a standing wave ratio meter in a way . So you can build one 100 different ways the trick is to tune it for 120 cycles so it doesn't stay on all the time . It will pick up your WIFI your iPhone any freq from zero to mega hertz and it will pick up DC if adusted. Like I said TV repair men way back used these everyday in there shops becasuse a old TV had 25,000 volts on the flyback and it was easyer and safer to use a sensor so sensors are not new they been around since dirt everyone thinks this is new tech stuff but its not .


I didn't say I couldn't build one. I want you to publish _*yours*_ so we can all play with the same thing. Why not ? nobody is going to sue you.

If you aren't going to publish your exact schematic, at least prove that it works when there is no current flowing. Anyone can connect a reed switch to an led.


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

Somebody already beat you to it:

I'm not a huge fan of Extech, because you get what you pay for, but as far as I know they are the only ones who manufacture this type of tester. It does voltage and current (which means it will read through metal cabinets, pipe, and shielding, as long as there's current flow), and it's adjustable sensitivity so you can pick how close you have to be before either start to sound, i.e., you don't have to jam it inside the breaker.


----------



## piperunner (Aug 22, 2009)

wildleg said:


> I didn't say I couldn't build one. I want you to publish _*yours*_ so we can all play with the same thing. Why not ? nobody is going to sue you.
> 
> If you aren't going to publish your exact schematic, at least prove that it works when there is no current flowing. Anyone can connect a reed switch to an led.


Well first iam not manufacturing it or selling it why would I put up a schematic of a amplifier its a simple amp if you cant build that you should read up on basic electronics. Its just a hobbie i build stuff for laughs.

ill make another video just for you lets see ill video the circuit up close just show all components and mount it to a wooden stick so theres no tricks .
Reed switch or what ever you think were using reed sw wont work trust me .lol



Like I said its a simple amplifier that anyone can make there's many different ones I use op amps . You can use transistors if you like if that makes you happy .

And Big John I already purchase the Extech when it first came out they made a current probe and a voltage probe in one . The one in your post is a good one but its the only one I ever have seen or used that can measure outside of rigid conduit or a panel cover yes I own one .

The safety department will not let us use the Extech because they say its unsafe fact is its adjustable that's not good .

Secondly its one side voltage and one side current that's not safe if you really get picky with someone getting zapped at work .


But for wild leg mine which iam not selling or getting a patent on and really don't need to prove it because its the oldest circuit out .

Its from the 1960 s Wildleg back then it was new tech stuff .

Mine works both voltage and current at the same time it also is non adjustable you never adjust that's a big deal .

Its called safety if you adjust it the wrong way your dead .






There ya go Wildleg current or no current and in a residential job it works three feet away from switches plus it will pick up romex tur drywall or blocks walls . You can trace it in the wall current or voltage .


----------



## Rochsolid (Aug 9, 2012)

Just out of curiosity, why would you need this? Why would you need to know through the panel cover, when you can clearly read the breaker, or pop of the cover and put your meter across the lugs?

Sent from my SGH-I337M using electriciantalk.com mobile app


----------



## piperunner (Aug 22, 2009)

d


Rochsolid said:


> Just out of curiosity, why would you need this? Why would you need to know through the panel cover, when you can clearly read the breaker, or pop of the cover and put your meter across the lugs?
> 
> Sent from my SGH-I337M using electriciantalk.com mobile app


Well a good question Rochsolid 
Working as a electrician in this trade safety has over come the trade we can not open a panel cover and just test . NFPA rules tell us to lock out the breaker that feeds that panel we must then put on gloves suit up and test with a meter . That's what we do at work this is extreme but we cant turn anything off once on and open it up even if we know the breaker is off .

We suit up and test with a meter after testing the meter first on a hot good know circuit .

So I thought I could make a tool or a sensor that worked outside the cover so my crew would not have to ware the suit each time . Does that answer your question . If we could be safe with out the suit that was the plan.


----------



## Rochsolid (Aug 9, 2012)

piperunner said:


> d
> Well a good question Rochsolid
> Working as a electrician in this trade safety has over come the trade we can not open a panel cover and just test . NFPA rules tell us to lock out the breaker that feeds that panel we must then put on gloves suit up and test with a meter . That's what we do at work this is extreme but we cant turn anything off once on and open it up even if we know the breaker is off .
> 
> ...


That makes sense, I could just imagine the hassel of suiting up like that, why are your safety standards so extreme?

Sent from my SGH-I337M using electriciantalk.com mobile app


----------



## piperunner (Aug 22, 2009)

Rochsolid said:


> That makes sense, I could just imagine the hassel of suiting up like that, why are your safety standards so extreme?
> 
> Sent from my SGH-I337M using electriciantalk.com mobile app


 Well normally that's the standard way to lockout tag out a panel on a job .

We only do new construction work from the ground up fairly large projects normally we have 150 electricians on site per job which includes hundreds of panels switch gear and when you have everyone in that format .

We must control who turns on what and what rules need to be enforced total control or someone will die .

Rooms are locked no one goes in any electrical room but us no one turns on a panel but one man assigned to that job. No one turns on a breaker unless three folks sign off .

If you let it get out of control your looking at a major accident which could cost your company millions of dollars . 

That's why we do what the NFPA calls out plus we have one of the safest lockout practices to date . 

I personally have seen three electrical workers in this trade die and that was because we didn't have what we have today training and a plan on each project .

Its better today then it was years ago .


----------



## Rochsolid (Aug 9, 2012)

piperunner said:


> Well normally that's the standard way to lockout tag out a panel on a job .
> 
> We only do new construction work from the ground up fairly large projects normally we have 150 electricians on site per job which includes hundreds of panels switch gear and when you have everyone in that format .
> 
> ...


Ya I can just imagine what could go wrong with 150 electricians on site, on a project of that magnitude, that makes a lot more sense. 

No one wants to die on the job, everyone's gotta make it home

Sent from my SGH-I337M using electriciantalk.com mobile app


----------



## piperunner (Aug 22, 2009)

Rochsolid said:


> Ya I can just imagine what could go wrong with 150 electricians on site, on a project of that magnitude, that makes a lot more sense.
> 
> No one wants to die on the job, everyone's gotta make it home
> 
> Sent from my SGH-I337M using electriciantalk.com mobile app


 Well if it can go wrong trust me it will but I don't use my tester at work its not aloud by company rules no tools from home but I do make lots of electrical trade tools and get to test them out at work its just a past time .

And I get to play with them out in the real world on projects my guys give me the thumb up or down on anything I make and then I can improve it or trash it .:laughing:


----------



## sparky970 (Mar 19, 2008)

Wow that is &#55356;&#56722;


----------



## eric7379 (Jan 5, 2010)

piperunner said:


> *Well if it can go wrong trust me it will but I don't use my tester at work its not aloud by company rules no tools from home but I do make lots of electrical trade tools and get to test them out at work its just a past time .*
> 
> And I get to play with them out in the real world on projects my guys give me the thumb up or down on anything I make and then I can improve it or trash it .:laughing:



I'm glad you pointed this out. While I appreciate your efforts and by all accounts it does appear to be a good tool to have, it would never be allowed to be used by any reputable company just because of the fact that it is homemade and has not been subjected to independent testing/ certification and isn't a listed/ approved tester. 

Don't take this the wrong way, but I could just see a lawyer having a field day with this in court in the unfortunate event that an accident happened while someone was using the tool that you made. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with what you made, I'm just saying as we all know, accidents can and do happen.


----------



## piperunner (Aug 22, 2009)

eric7379 said:


> I'm glad you pointed this out. While I appreciate your efforts and by all accounts it does appear to be a good tool to have, it would never be allowed to be used by any reputable company just because of the fact that it is homemade and has not been subjected to independent testing/ certification and isn't a listed/ approved tester.
> 
> Don't take this the wrong way, but I could just see a lawyer having a field day with this in court in the unfortunate event that an accident happened while someone was using the tool that you made. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with what you made, I'm just saying as we all know, accidents can and do happen.


 Well I never take anything on this forum the wrong way Eric .LOL 
I build things for the pure fun of it . What iam working on now is one that can detect a conduit in 24 inches of conduit concrete like a deck or a solid wall .
The one in the video can only detect in 6 inches of solid concrete or block work and that's not good enough .
Issues like another contractor on the job adds rebar so they drill or core drill or install anchors core drilling you can see it most of the time the electrical contractor gets hit its hard to prove who did it after months of work .

I want to detect that spot and be able to prove it for the electrical contractor .

So we have a metal fish tape as a FM antenna which has been done many times in the old days we hook up your standard cable tracer to the fish tape and it works great . But its not accurate down to the inches that's the problem. X-ray or these new Dewalt radar scanner detectors suck our company has one and you cant see on the screen clearly whats the difference between rebar and conduit and for $40,000 dollars you think it would work . There junk waste of money time and effort.

But its hard to detect hot wires in a solid concrete deck that are finished already pulled and working we had others drill into and to repair it is a major PIA.

So if we could scan the floor with a hand held 5 dollar detector that's in your tool bag I think that would be a useful handy little tool everyone would use.

I can show you a screen of a high dollar Dwalt scanner if you want to see how to waste 40 grand ill post it later its a joke .


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

piperunner said:


> d
> ...
> We suit up and test with a meter after testing the meter first on a hot good know circuit .
> 
> So I thought I could make a tool or a sensor that worked outside the cover so my crew would not have to ware the suit each time . Does that answer your question . If we could be safe with out the suit that was the plan.


There is a permanent mount voltage sensor on the market that was intended for the same purpose, but there is a letter ruling from OSHA saying it can't be used to prove the power is off...you still have to suit up and use a meter.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

Rochsolid said:


> That makes sense, I could just imagine the hassel of suiting up like that, why are your safety standards so extreme?
> 
> Sent from my SGH-I337M using electriciantalk.com mobile app


Those are not extreme safety rules, they are what the OSHA rules require anyone working on electrical equipment to do.


----------



## piperunner (Aug 22, 2009)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> There is a permanent mount voltage sensor on the market that was intended for the same purpose, but there is a letter ruling from OSHA saying it can't be used to prove the power is off...you still have to suit up and use a meter.


 
Well thanks don we already know that Extech .

When we tried to bring this up at work our safety department said no we could not use a sensor and its not OSHA its the NFPA that's there rule .

NFPA says you will use a voltage tester and check voltage on each phase and to each phase to ground before you can work .


Well a sensor cant check voltage it can only check a magnetic field which is
the result of a voltage applied to a conductor .

Its all in the words its a fact that if voltage is there a field is there .

But the Extech sensor which does what mine does can only sense through 
metal if there is current flow . No current flow it doesn't work passed metal cover .

Voltage alone on a conductor is harder to detect outside of a metal cover due to the weak field.

So no one is trying to get over the rule don we know the rules we just made a sensor to have fun with and play with a new toy .

But I guess if I made a sensor that could read voltage on each phase the actual voltage on each phase to match a voltage meter  what about that  NFPA boys do you think that would stump there rules ?


Or does it have to be a tester with test leads do they say that don what does the rule actually state what is the actual written rule on testing a panel for lockout don .


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

piperunner said:


> Well thanks don we already know that Extech .


That is not a permanently installed device, that is a hand held device. 



> When we tried to bring this up at work our safety department said no we could not use a sensor and its not OSHA its the NFPA that's there rule .
> 
> NFPA says you will use a voltage tester and check voltage on each phase and to each phase to ground before you can work .


That is my understanding of OSHA's position on this subject.




> Well a sensor cant check voltage it can only check a magnetic field which is the result of a voltage applied to a conductor .
> 
> Its all in the words its a fact that if voltage is there a field is there .
> 
> ...


Ok, I thought you were suggesting that a sensor like yours could be used to avoid using arc flash PPE and a meter to verify the circuit or equipment is de-energized.



> But I guess if I made a sensor that could read voltage on each phase the actual voltage on each phase to match a voltage meter what about that NFPA boys do you think that would stump there rules ?
> Or does it have to be a tester with test leads do they say that don what does the rule actually state what is the actual written rule on testing a panel for lockout don .


I thing the existing OSHA rules would have to be changed before you would be permitted to used any type of a sensor in place of a meter for this purpose.

 This device is the one I was thinking about. It is a hard wired set of LEDs that indicate voltage external to the panel, but even the manufacturer of the device says you still have to comply with the rules in 70E to verify the power is actually off...that is suit up and use a meter. 
If you can't use a hardwired set of multiple LEDs per phase to verify, I don't see how they will ever permit the use of any type of non-contact voltage sensor.


----------



## piperunner (Aug 22, 2009)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> That is not a permanently installed device, that is a hand held device.
> 
> 
> That is my understanding of OSHA's position on this subject.
> ...


Well Don what were doing to comply with the rule at work we asked Square-D
to install on the side or bottom a test plug that's actually connected to each phase and ground . Yes we asked and there looking into it for our next job 
this would save us hours of time and labor the cost would offset the time.
We spend high dollars each year so they listen when we ask can this be done the panel would be listed by them for this purpose.

You can test a plug off a panel if you have a 3 phase neutral and ground .
So what we asked for was a direct test plug just for testing with a meter if they go for it meaning SQ-D I think we could eliminate the hot suit .
so if SQ-D approves this I think were going to see some changes .
They would need to install it since its there product .


Most electricians don't have hundreds of panels on there projects normally we have so its a cost impact that's why my interest are for making things better and safe its not just I don't like it trust me its all about money here . I don't agree with there rules because it cost major dollars on my jobs . And I know no one does it but large contractors the little guys just shut down and do there work .


----------



## Bad Electrician (May 20, 2014)

It is a gauss meter with no analog or digital meter.


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> ...This device is the one I was thinking about. It is a hard wired set of LEDs that indicate voltage external to the panel, but even the manufacturer of the device says you still have to comply with the rules in 70E to verify the power is actually off....


 Exactly why I think those are dumb. They really seem like an indicator for the untrained, and my first question would be _"Why are untrained personnel in that equipment?"_


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

piperunner said:


> ..
> So what we asked for was a direct test plug just for testing with a meter if they go for it meaning SQ-D I think we could eliminate the hot suit . ...


The only way to eliminate the arc flash hazard would be to have overcurrent protection between the test plug and the source. I would not accept that as being a safe point to test for voltage before working on the equipment.


----------



## piperunner (Aug 22, 2009)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> The only way to eliminate the arc flash hazard would be to have overcurrent protection between the test plug and the source. I would not accept that as being a safe point to test for voltage before working on the equipment.



Well don you better get ready because were going to get SQ-D on board with just that . You say you would not accept that a internal connection by the factory to a test plug now were not talking a plug you can use for power this is a test point its purpose would be to plug your test leads into it to test voltage . Do you understand that its a test point by Square -D not installed by me .

I know its ok there's no difference between that and removing the cover to test the lugs or terminals plus its a lot safer than the old way your way is costly just because of a rule that idiots write who don't work in the field everyday . 

Whats the difference to test with a sensor then a tester if all phases are dead .

Why would testing from ground be important why would testing to neutral be needed explain that . 

My tester picks voltage out even if the breakers off and the buss is hot my sensor detects that so give me input on this Don ? 

I think the sensors today suck but I really think my tester is better than 99% of whats out there excluding Extech there the best I have one and use it all the time .

We are just turning off power to work inside a panel we don't need to read voltage .


----------



## piperunner (Aug 22, 2009)

wildleg said:


> I didn't say I couldn't build one. I want you to publish _*yours*_ so we can all play with the same thing. Why not ? nobody is going to sue you.
> 
> If you aren't going to publish your exact schematic, at least prove that it works when there is no current flowing. Anyone can connect a reed switch to an led.




Well I didn't have to make another video just for you wildleg go back to the first video . I guess you didn't notice that the lower breaker on the right section was locked out which clearly its off that shows it picks current or voltage out with no adjustment so is that good enough or do you need more proof.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

piperunner said:


> Well don you better get ready because were going to get SQ-D on board with just that . You say you would not accept that a internal connection by the factory to a test plug now were not talking a plug you can use for power this is a test point its purpose would be to plug your test leads into it to test voltage . Do you understand that its a test point by Square -D not installed by me .


I don't care who installs the test point, but without an overcurrent protective device between the power source and the test point, there would be little reduction in the arc flash hazard. If the arc flash hazard remains the same as when you have the cover removed, then the PPE requirement will be the same and you will still have to suit up.



> I know its ok there's no difference between that and removing the cover to test the lugs or terminals plus its a lot safer than the old way your way is costly just because of a rule that idiots write who don't work in the field everyday .


Yes, I agree that the test point would be safer, but I still don't see it as removing the requirement to use PPE rated for the incident energy.



> Whats the difference to test with a sensor then a tester if all phases are dead .


I really don't know...you would have to ask the people who wrote the rules that require the use of a tester and prohibit the use of a sensor.



> Why would testing from ground be important why would testing to neutral be needed explain that .


You always test all possible combinations. There can be failures that give you unexpected voltages.



> My tester picks voltage out even if the breakers off and the buss is hot my sensor detects that so give me input on this Don ?


Until the rules are changed to permit the use of the sensor to verify that the power is off it doesn't make any difference.



> I think the sensors today suck but I really think my tester is better than 99% of whats out there excluding Extech there the best I have one and use it all the time .


It does sound like you have a great sensor, but the current rules don't permit it to be used to verify that the power is off.



> We are just turning off power to work inside a panel we don't need to read voltage .


Because the rules say that reading the voltage is the only acceptable method of proving that the power is off.

Your fight is no with me, it has to be with the people who make the rules and I am not one of those people.


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

piperunner said:


> Well I didn't have to make another video just for you wildleg go back to the first video . I guess you didn't notice that the lower breaker on the right section was locked out which clearly its off that shows it picks current or voltage out with no adjustment so is that good enough or do you need more proof.


dude i'm not trying to bust your balls. I like what you're doing or I wouldn't ask you to post the schematic/parts list. there's only a few thousand op amps to choose from . . . if you don't want to post it, nobody's gonna put a tester to your head . .


----------



## piperunner (Aug 22, 2009)

wildleg said:


> dude i'm not trying to bust your balls. I like what you're doing or I wouldn't ask you to post the schematic/parts list. there's only a few thousand op amps to choose from . . . if you don't want to post it, nobody's gonna put a tester to your head . .



Well all op amps are the same just different manufactures my friend and there all designed and function the same way they are just op amps .
Any op amp will do it and brand made they maybe old or new in date and the ones I use are a Mosfet transistor low current type it can use a 3 volt or a 32 V power supply single rail type + - dc . 

My circuit schematic is a Fairchild op amp amplifier circuit with some of my own resistors and capacitors used to make it work . Not rocket science there's no tricks . Plus I don't think the forum would like it were not a electronics forum DA.

You can go to any chip manufacture and they give you the basic schematic for what ever you need or want to make its been like that since dirt .


So go to Fairchild look up LM324N quad op amp there data sheets go thru it and they give you your schematic with components values just like every chip manufacture does I wont post it on a forum . Then go to Mouser electronics and get your discrete parts have fun . 

One thing if it doesn't work you didn't solder it or missed something on the schematic but any amplifier circuit made will work its as simple as that .

All I did was make a RF amplifier basic circuit nothing hard .
The first stage picks the radio freq input the second stage sensitivity of signal 
the rest amplify and output to LED which is a voltage indicator it increases as the current on the conductor increases .

Any voltage on any conductor has a field around it even if the breakers off or on doesn't matter that's a fact .If voltage is on LED is on


----------



## piperunner (Aug 22, 2009)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> I don't care who installs the test point, but without an overcurrent protective device between the power source and the test point, there would be little reduction in the arc flash hazard. If the arc flash hazard remains the same as when you have the cover removed, then the PPE requirement will be the same and you will still have to suit up.
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree that the test point would be safer, but I still don't see it as removing the requirement to use PPE rated for the incident energy.
> ...


 
Well no ones fighting you seem to think if I don't agree with your thoughts on a subject were fighting no its like this I don't agree with you period . But your telling me a test point on a panel installed by the manufacturer for that purpose is a arch fault hazard I don't agree you could mount a 3 phase receptacle on or near the panel and put it on a breaker and test .

Iam sure there going to protect the wiring to the test point if that's what your getting at arch fault protection for the test plug ? For what 

But how could this be a issue its connected to the buss its only function is to test power is off with the cover on . How would that be a arch fault issue ?

How could a test plug mounted to a panel be a arch fault danger explain that ?

I think who ever made the rules is a old time engineer or a design person who has no clue to what it takes to do the work and they think like you have to use a volt meter to check ,where not checking voltage were checking to see if its hot or not . I would like to ask them how many times in there life time they shut off a breaker and it stayed hot and if it did a sensor would not work yes/no .

So why do we use them everyone on site must have one in there tool pouch today . We all use sensors on everything today no one works with a fluke on a construction site . 
And why would they , the rule on our projects is you cant test anything hot with a meter you have to ware gloves or a suit .Because your exposed to live parts so a meter is unsafe its safer to test with a non contact tester .

I think the safety folks are way over board on this and iam not picking on you don but if you continue to agree with the rule boys i will ban you from the forum . LOL


----------



## Bad Electrician (May 20, 2014)

piperunner said:


> Well no ones fighting you seem to think if I don't agree with your thoughts on a subject were fighting no its like this I don't agree with you period . But your telling me a test point on a panel installed by the manufacturer for that purpose is a *arch* fault hazard I don't agree you could mount a 3 phase receptacle on or near the panel and put it on a breaker and test .
> 
> Iam sure there going to protect the wiring to the test point if that's what your getting at *arch* fault protection for the test plug ? For what
> . LOL


The ARCH we developed by Ancient Romans as a way to support large spans, were as an ARC was developed long before man walked the Earth in the form of lightning, it was several million years before man get involved with ARC FAULTs.:thumbsup:


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

let's analyze the issue:

1) can a manufacturer provide a set of indicators that reliably indicate whether or not equipment is energized or not ?

2) can a manufacturer provide a set of test points that a qualified individual can use to test for power and at the same time without opening the cabinet (crossing restricted or prohibited approach boundaries)

I'm no expert in this area, but it seems to me that these are the issues.

as for 2: I don't see how this can be accomplished. It seems to me that the test points will just extend the boundary to that point, or worse, provide an unreliable test point that has to be verified anyway. If a circuit is provided to reduce the energy available at that point, then the whole circuit becomes suspect as well, and needs to be verified before opening the cabinet without protection anyway ?

as for 1: I call BS on this. this CAN be accomplished reliably. Indicators can be provided that are reliable, and if a bulb/led is burnt or the connection to the indicator has failed, a reliable FAIL indicator can be made to indicate that the indicator mechanism has failed. I think there is a failure here to provide a workable solution, and I don't know why. I honestly believe that the reason is just that everyone just wants to insulate themselves from any liability whatsoever.


just my .o2


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

piperunner said:


> Well no ones fighting you seem to think if I don't agree with your thoughts on a subject were fighting no its like this I don't agree with you period . But your telling me a test point on a panel installed by the manufacturer for that purpose is a arch fault hazard I don't agree you could mount a 3 phase receptacle on or near the panel and put it on a breaker and test .
> 
> Iam sure there going to protect the wiring to the test point if that's what your getting at arch fault protection for the test plug ? For what
> 
> ...


All I am saying is that if you put any type of protective device between the bus and the test point, you no longer have a reliable test point. You are testing on the load side of the protective device and not at the bus itself. The same thing applies if you are testing at a receptacle outlet..you are not testing at the bus and have not proved that the bus is not energized.
I am also saying that with a test point installed in the panel, without a protective device between the bus and the test point, that the arc flash hazard at that test point will be almost the same as the arc flash hazard at the bus. You will have to use the same arc flash PPE to make a voltage test at the test point as you would at the bus. They very fact that you are connecting something to the test point creates the possibility of an arc flash incident.

As far as using a non-contact tester, yes I agree that they are used every day, but the rules do not permit their use to prove a circuit is dead for lock out purposes. In most cases they do the job and no one gets hurt, but all users of non-contact testers must understand that for most if not all of them that are currently on the market, there are conditions that will give you a false negative. As long as the user knows and understands those conditions, they can be safely used to prove that the circuit is dead. Many users have no idea that it is even possible for the non-contact tester to give a false negative, let alone what conditions many cause the tester to give a false negative. 

However I do agree that the use of a test point would be safer and that the use of a non-contact tester is safer than the use of a meter. That being said, the rules still require the use of a meter.


----------



## EB Electric (Feb 8, 2013)

Big John said:


> Exactly why I think those are dumb. They really seem like an indicator for the untrained, and my first question would be _"Why are untrained personnel in that equipment?"_


Thank you, my thoughts exactly! In the first video the guy in the video is waving the tester over a square d power circuit breaker with a digital trip unit. The trip unit has a digital display it will tell you phase voltage, current etc. A trained competent individual who works on power circuit breakers should not need this wavy wand to determine if there is voltage. There is no need for that tester. I am not saying trust the metering on the display with your life, you still have to lockout tagout and test properly, but waving your homemade non contact tester doesn't do anything but waste your energy. I sure as heck wouldn't want to be seen waiving that thing around a breaker, not exactly very professional. But to each there own and good on you for creating something interesting.


----------



## Bad Electrician (May 20, 2014)

wildleg said:


> *I'm no expert *in this area, but it seems to me that these are the issues.
> 
> just my .o2


Wait, didn't you stay at a Holiday Inn last night?


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

Bad Electrician said:


> Wait, didn't you stay at a Holiday Inn last night?


close, but no cigar.


----------



## Rochsolid (Aug 9, 2012)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> Those are not extreme safety rules, they are what the OSHA rules require anyone working on electrical equipment to do.


You have to suit up to see if a panel is energized? imo that is extreme, we are professionals, if you cannot safely read the voltage our current or whatever on a panel without a hot suit, that to me is a bigger problem.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using electriciantalk.com mobile app


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

Rochsolid said:


> You have to suit up to see if a panel is energized? imo that is extreme, we are professionals, if you cannot safely read the voltage our current or whatever on a panel without a hot suit, that to me is a bigger problem.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-I337M using electriciantalk.com mobile app


You are required to use PPE for the hazard and that includes both the arc flash hazard and the shock hazard. The arc flash hazard does not always require a "suit" but does require FR clothing and a face shield with a rating that exceeds the incident energy. As the incident energy goes higher, you need more protection and that will require a suit and hood. 

Many of the serious arc flash incidents were not because the worker that got hurt was doing something in an unsafe manner, but rather because the previous worker created a potential hazard. Internal metal parts not properly installed or tools left inside the equipment made the arc flash more likely, but there was nothing on the outside of the equipment that could tell the worker that this panel held additional danger. The simple, normally safe act of removing the panel cover causes the loose part or tool to fall across the bus. Of course there are other reasons that arc flash incidents happen, including operator error, defective equipment and more. 

In many industrial plants, failure to comply with electrical safety rules, will get you and your contractor kicked out of the plant.


----------



## piperunner (Aug 22, 2009)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> All I am saying is that if you put any type of protective device between the bus and the test point, you no longer have a reliable test point. You are testing on the load side of the protective device and not at the bus itself. The same thing applies if you are testing at a receptacle outlet..you are not testing at the bus and have not proved that the bus is not energized.
> I am also saying that with a test point installed in the panel, without a protective device between the bus and the test point, that the arc flash hazard at that test point will be almost the same as the arc flash hazard at the bus. You will have to use the same arc flash PPE to make a voltage test at the test point as you would at the bus. They very fact that you are connecting something to the test point creates the possibility of an arc flash incident.
> 
> As far as using a non-contact tester, yes I agree that they are used every day, but the rules do not permit their use to prove a circuit is dead for lock out purposes. In most cases they do the job and no one gets hurt, but all users of non-contact testers must understand that for most if not all of them that are currently on the market, there are conditions that will give you a false negative. As long as the user knows and understands those conditions, they can be safely used to prove that the circuit is dead. Many users have no idea that it is even possible for the non-contact tester to give a false negative, let alone what conditions many cause the tester to give a false negative.
> ...


Well what if your battery goes dead in your meter at the time of the test after your already tested a know hot circuit .

What if you don't make good contact on the panel lugs and or your leads on your tester are bad or loose. 

What if your meter internally goes and fails at that point of that one test .


Don what if they run a bus inside the panel full size to the test point would that be acceptable ? 


Theres so many whys to look at it and I think its over kill what arch flash was ever recorded from a worker testing power on a panel .
Id like them to prove that . And at 600 volts or less show me a person electrocuted by testing a panel .

For the guy saying I was waving the tester I was sowing how it goes on and off plus I was showing how a manufactured sensor is junk :laughing:.

We don't have t wave it to make it work and the point is what were not professional is that your point I think were in the stone age still ?


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

piperunner said:


> Well what if your battery goes dead in your meter at the time of the test after your already tested a know hot circuit .
> 
> What if you don't make good contact on the panel lugs and or your leads on your tester are bad or loose.
> 
> ...


very simple answer to these that I'm sure you already know.

live-dead-live


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

piperunner said:


> Well what if your battery goes dead in your meter at the time of the test after your already tested a know hot circuit .


That is why the standard requires a live-dead-live test. Nothing is ever 100% but that gets us close.



> What if you don't make good contact on the panel lugs and or your leads on your tester are bad or loose.


Some things cannot be controlled and there will always be an element of risk. Poor contact between the probes and the bus is one of those things. Bad leads should be caught by live-dead-live.



> What if your meter internally goes and fails at that point of that one test .


Again live-dead-live


> Don what if they run a bus inside the panel full size to the test point would that be acceptable ?


Again, that would still require PPE for the available incident energy. Any test point installed at the panel will have almost the same incident energy as the bus itself and will require the same arc flash PPE.



> Theres so many whys to look at it and I think its over kill what arch flash was ever recorded from a worker testing power on a panel .
> Id like them to prove that . And at 600 volts or less show me a person electrocuted by testing a panel .


By far most electrical injuries and deaths occur when working on 600 volt or less systems. In fact the most are from 120 volt systems, but they are mostly shock issues. The most arc flash injuries are from 480 volt systems. Remember that the highest incident energy is almost always on the bus of the switchgear that is fed from a medium voltage transformer. In many cases, the available incident energy far exceeds 40 cal/cm² requiring the equipment to be marked "dangerous, do not work on live".



> For the guy saying I was waving the tester I was sowing how it goes on and off plus I was showing how a manufactured sensor is junk :laughing:.
> 
> We don't have t wave it to make it work and the point is what were not professional is that your point I think were in the stone age still ?


Like I said before, I like the idea of using sensor for voltage verification, but the current rules do not permit it. For the reasons you have stated, the use of a sensor is less risky than putting the meter probes in contact with the live bus. 
Maybe someday the safety rules will permit the use of sensors, but for now they don't.

The last thing I have to say is that I get paid by the hour and compliance with all of the safety rules takes more time


----------



## piperunner (Aug 22, 2009)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> That is why the standard requires a live-dead-live test. Nothing is ever 100% but that gets us close.
> 
> 
> Some things cannot be controlled and there will always be an element of risk. Poor contact between the probes and the bus is one of those things. Bad leads should be caught by live-dead-live.
> ...


 Well that's a true statement so do I but I wish the estimate on the projects would include these rules . Safety is becoming a issue we take a ladder course we take a scaffolding class a signal class a rigging class a harness class a lockout tag out class a track hoe class a lull or fork lift class a first aid class a 10 hour Osha class a 30 hour Osha class . And when we hit the job site we go to the construction managers on site rules regulation for there rules which can exceed what Osha sets before us . 

It has become to the point just sit in your truck don't get out your going to get hurt . :thumbup:
I can say this I have noticed in the last 10 years theres more electricians getting hurt were as 20 years ago I have seen less hurt . So much for the new safety rules . 
And 25 years ago we had no safety classes no rules how did we stay alive .


----------



## triden (Jun 13, 2012)

So let me guess - it's a mosfet with a bandpass filter going to the gate pin?


----------



## piperunner (Aug 22, 2009)

triden said:


> So let me guess - it's a mosfet with a bandpass filter going to the gate pin?


 
Well no its not I don't use any bandpass filtering circuit why would I use a filter . You can use transistors NPN in circuit or you could use a Mosfet pnpn in circuit you can use anything you like or you can design using a IC chip or you can program a micro chip . Its a simple amp circuit nothing impressive .

But you don't filter out any set frequency you could if you wanted but it would not change the sensor at the distance your detecting at and it would weaken the circuit some what .


----------

