Reversed Polarity in France

[Robinhood]

T8LEY - 2011-06-24 1:15 AM

 

If you have a UK van, get a changeover lead and you will.

 

The risks I noted are hardly marginal. The protective/operational devices are provided specifically to deal with these issues. Common sense, on the other hand, is expected.

 

I am clear, that a van connected with reversed polarity is more at risk if the devices are not connected to the appropriate pole. This probably applies specifically to British made vans, it does to mine, as, one would hope, continental vans are designed to cope with variable polarity.

 

I agree, home made connectors present a significant risk. I;m not sure the IET would condone the idea.

 

BS 7671 suggests the use of an RCD, for caravans/motorhomes, in lieu of adequate protection from mcbs where the earth fault loop impedance of the supply does not allow operation of the device in the required time. Accepted, a 30mA device which operates within 30ms may also protect against electric shock from an earth fault , but it will not cater for overload or short circuit.

 

 

The RCD won't protect against overload or short circuit, but any associated dual pole MCB(s) will (regardless of polarity).

 

I certainly wouldn't disagree that under certain circumstances, attaching a wholly UK specified 'van to reversed polarity could increase the potential risk; I think it would appear we differ on the nature of that risk, based on probability and impact, and the potential for similar issues to arise in other ways, but that people are happy to accept (for instance, how many people who use a reversed polarity lead also follow your advice for a regular check to BS7671 standards?).

 

Key to my argument, however, is the initial statement I made, highlighting the fact that most people appear to believe that "reverse polartity" is an issue with the site supply - which it isn't.

 

A van configured to cope with a continental supply should be "safe" with either "polarity", and no check on such should therefore be necessary.

 

You highlight potential issues with the circuitry in the motorhome, but in many (most?) cases the installation has the combined effect of nullifying these.

 

So, all my recent 'vans have had (except for one notable exception already highlighted elsewhere) an RCD, dual pole MCBs, and switchless socket outlets - Effectively no difference in safety provision whichever "polarity" exists.

 

Most UK spec 'vans that I have checked over the (reasonably recent) years have had an RCD, have moved to switchless socket outlets, and as far as I can tell have similar two-pole MCBs to those in my current 'van (in a reasonable number of cases they seem to be exactly the same MCBs).

 

So, we simply come back to the original issue, deciding whether "reverse polarity" is an issue depends on knowledge of the isses arising, followed by your assessment of the risk (if necessary, in the context of how electrical provision is allowed for in your 'van).

 

I believe I have at least the fundamentals of the former, and have made an assessment, hence I don't worry about reversed polarity - Other people's opinions differ, and if these are based on either not understanding the issue, or wishing to take a belt and braces approach, that's fine by me.

 

What I don't like is people (not an accusation of yourself) setting out the requirement for a "reversed polarity" lead as lore, without understanding the background. Indeed, if an unadvised someone tries to make up a "reversed polarity" lead for a properly equipped continental spec 'van, the theoretical risk has proabalby increased (due to the potential for faulty wiring) rather than reduced :-)

 

BTW, on my understanding of, say, French wiring regulations, I'm not convinced that simply using a "reversed polarity" lead would ensure that a site connection conformed to BS7671 (though it's polarity requirement might), but that would be another "argument". ;-)

[laimeduck]

 

"I believe I have at least the fundamentals of the former, and have made an assessment, hence I don't worry about reversed polarity - Other people's opinions differ, and if these are based on either not understanding the issue, or wishing to take a belt and braces approach, that's fine by me. "

 

This has been a really usefull thread & I have attempted to follow this subject & I think I've partly managed to do that.

 

However, I am quite happy to say that I fall under the "ignorance" category - I have no detailed knowledge of electrical theory & deal with it simply by common sense.

 

I therefore do use a polarity tester ( also checks for presence of earth) & do have a connector to change the polarity if required - and I always use them. This gives me peace of mind (maybe redundant, but for £9.99 I really don't care!) & also means that the connection to my van is always consistent.

 

Incidently, as Robinhood surmised, I have the Benimar, and I don't believe that an RCD is fitted - there is certainly no test button anywhere, although there are 2 circuit breakers for the mains supply.

 

 

 

 

 

[Robinhood]

Having missed the edit deadline, I'll commit the cardinal sin of replying to my own post.

 

As from my investigations it would appear that recent UK motorhomes are using double pole MCBs and RCDs, I looked to see if it was a UK requirement in the wiring regs.

 

I can't find the text of the actual regulations, but I can find many references that say it is now, and has been for some years, a requirement for caravans and motorcaravans, under Regulation 721.43.1 (though the numbering seems to change by version - it remains in the spec).

[T8LEY]

I agree, we appear to mainly differ on the level of risk, and that's up to the individual to decide how they deal with the issue.

 

One would hope that UK manufacturers are moving towards harmonisation with European standards. It took the EEC too many years to agree something as simple as cable core colours, so I'm not optimistic.

 

FYI:- Regulation 721.43.1 calls for each final circuit to be protected by an overcurrent protective device which disconnects all live ( line and neutral) conductors. ie a double pole mcb or a single pole and neutral device. The latter, of course, relies on correct polarity.

[Brian Kirby]

lennyhb - 2011-06-19 6:13 PM

 

Wilf - 2011-06-19 5:47 PM

 

Are Continental made vans wired up differently from British made vans?

 

Continental vans normally have double pole MCB's but do not always have an RCD, & un-switched socket outlets. My Hymer did not have an RCD & a previous Hobby caravan I brought in Germany did not have a RCD but I know Brian's Hobby Motorhome did come with an RCD.

If a Continental van is imported by a distributor they will fit an RCD if needed, it's only van brought direct from the Continent that may not have an RCD.

 

British vans always have an RCD but usually have single pole MCB's and often single pole switched socket outlets.

 

If that Brian is me Brian, a small correction is in order. :-) I have discovered that what our van actually has is an RCBO, which is a combined double pole (from memory, 13A) circuit breaker and RCD (with test button). So, if there is a leakage current it opens, and if there is an excess load it opens. Sort of two for the price of one job!

[thebishbus]

Hi. I see this thread is dragging on a bit. Tell me, anybody know the statistics for people being electrocuted in motorhomes.? :'(

Brian B.

[BGD]

thebishbus - 2011-06-25 4:53 PM

 

Hi. I see this thread is dragging on a bit. Tell me, anybody know the statistics for people being electrocuted in motorhomes.? :'(

Brian B.

 

 

 

 

Exactly Brian.

 

None.

 

Case closed.

 

 

[Derek Uzzell]

BGD - 2011-06-25 7:04 PM

 

thebishbus - 2011-06-25 4:53 PM

 

Hi. I see this thread is dragging on a bit. Tell me, anybody know the statistics for people being electrocuted in motorhomes.? :'(

Brian B.

 

 

 

 

Exactly Brian.

 

None.

 

Case closed.

 

 

If you take all the motorhomes ever built, and all the non-road-related accidents that such vehicles have ben involved in, then there's a high likelihood (I'd be tempted to say a certainty) that some of those accidents will have related to the vehicles' 230V system. I've no idea (and neither has BGD) whether anyone has actually been "electrocuted" in a motorhome, but it's a fair bet that people have been injured in 230V-related incidents.

 

However, that's academic in this case - the statistic that's relevant is whether any accident has ever been recorded that can be indisputably linked to the polarity of the 230V supply being 'reversed'.

[bolero boy]

This issue is all about managing 'perceived risk' and opinion here is certainly 'polarised'.

Some will regard the detection of revered polarity as a serious situation to be resolved immediately while others will either not worry about its presence or not even check.

If you think the presence of reversed polarity needs testing for and resolving and you have the necessary kit to eliminate this 'perceived risk' then carry on with the 'correction' process.

I have a tester in the van and I also use my 'reverser' when the situation arises.

I am just managing 'perceived risk' as I am not a qualified electrician and do not understand the technical replies on this thread sufficiently well to feel comfortable about ignoring it.

Part of my profession, before retirement, was to manage risk and impact in IT systems. In real life, if you walked along a roadside kerb the risk of you falling off (unless drunk) is very small. In any case, the impact of this fall is virtually nil as you are only inches from the road. Carry out the same process at a thousand feet up and (apart from the nerves) the risk of falling is the same. However the impact (great word) is significantly worse.................

With mains electricity, as I know so little, I like to eliminate as many risks as I 'perceive'.

One thing I do know, however, is that getting it wrong with dodgy mains can result in the 'highest' impact - no more trips in the van!

[BGD]

"With mains electricity, as I know so little, I like to eliminate as many risks as I 'perceive'.

One thing I do know, however, is that getting it wrong with dodgy mains can result in the 'highest' impact - no more trips in the van!"

-----

Chris

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Guys, guys, please.

 

This is simply going round and round and round now.

 

The central point is, was, and always will be, that what people in the UK call mainland Europe "reversed polarity" is NOT a "fault", and IS NOT a death-risk.

 

I'll type that again: reversed polarity is NOT a fault condition, and does NOT pose ANY greater "risk" to you in your motorhome when on EHU than non-reversed polarity.

 

 

 

 

There are plenty of safety risks to worry about, if that's your bag, when using a motorhome. By FAR the biggest is the act of driving the damn thing in the first place.

But reversed polarity is not worth checking for or even being aware of...it poses no greater risk in practice than non-reversed-polarity.

 

NO-ONE will ever have died from electric shock whilst on hook-up, due to "reversed polarity".

There may be utter idiots who've died because they've started taking fixed-in-place electrical kit to bits in their MH without disconnecting their EHU cable first.........that's simply Darwinism at work.

But that shock would have occurred regardless of the mains polarity.

 

 

If people are really, truly, so utterly risk averse, don't use EHU, full stop.The risk is THE SAME whichever way round the polarity is wired.

But then you can mitigate the risks to yourself FAR more, by simply not driving your MH at all....'cos your about a billion times more likely to die or be maimed in a road accident whilst driving it, than be electrocuted whilst you watch TV in it.

Please people, spend your time worrying about the big risks if you really must have worry rife in your life; not the practically non-existent ones.

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

Derek Uzzell - 2011-06-26 9:23 AM

 

However, that's academic in this case - the statistic that's relevant is whether any accident has ever been recorded that can be indisputably linked to the polarity of the 230V supply being 'reversed'.

 

Has there ever been an accident? :-S

[Robinhood]

T8LEY - 2011-06-25 1:00 AM

 

I agree, we appear to mainly differ on the level of risk, and that's up to the individual to decide how they deal with the issue.

 

One would hope that UK manufacturers are moving towards harmonisation with European standards. It took the EEC too many years to agree something as simple as cable core colours, so I'm not optimistic.

 

FYI:- Regulation 721.43.1 calls for each final circuit to be protected by an overcurrent protective device which disconnects all live ( line and neutral) conductors. ie a double pole mcb or a single pole and neutral device. The latter, of course, relies on correct polarity.

 

Motorhome forums just wouldn't be the same without a long "reverse polarity" thread, would they?

 

Been away for the weekend, but despite a few people thinking this is getting boring (get a life elsewhere ;-) ), just a short further response.

 

 

.... I don't think we're necessarily differing on the nature of the risk, just on whether it is acceptable to each of us as individuals or not. (and in any case, I don't believe that the configuration on my particular 'van has any greater risk with either polarity).

 

As I said, I don't have the exact wording of the regulation quoted, nor any guidance on it's interpretation, I simply searched the web to see if anything applied.

 

I would agree that, if the wording AND interpretation is as you set out, then an SPNS device would meet the letter of the regulation (and, as you say, would not provide overcurrent protection in a reversed polarity situation).

 

The question really is whether it would meet the intent (since the regulation is addressed only to caravans and motorcaravans, it is widely thought to have been put in place in order to cope with their "peculiar" problem of potentially being exposed to "reversed polarity"). It would be interesting to see how the NCC assesses the requirement.

 

I can certainly find reference to testing regimes insisting on (specifically) double pole switches and MCBs in this situation. This from people who are in the business of testing caravans/motorhomes. (though, of course, it may well only be a matter of interpretation, and thus, as you say, a SPNS device might well be to standard - but not entirely appropriate).

 

 

[Robinhood]

Brian Kirby - 2011-06-25 2:10 PM

 

If that Brian is me Brian, a small correction is in order. :-) I have discovered that what our van actually has is an RCBO, which is a combined double pole (from memory, 13A) circuit breaker and RCD (with test button). So, if there is a leakage current it opens, and if there is an excess load it opens. Sort of two for the price of one job!

 

.....so you went and looked then! 8-)

 

Actually mine (unsurprisingly) also has a similar RCBO, but its easy to use too many acronyms when pursuing an argument (a bit like metaphors really (lol) ), so I stuck to those for the constituent parts.

 

....whatever! - you and I at least should be "reverse polarity" proof.

[Robinhood]

BGD - 2011-06-26 10:39 AM

 

Guys, guys, please.

 

This is simply going round and round and round now.

 

The central point is, was, and always will be, that what people in the UK call mainland Europe "reversed polarity" is NOT a "fault", and IS NOT a death-risk.

 

I'll type that again: reversed polarity is NOT a fault condition, and does NOT pose ANY greater "risk" to you in your motorhome when on EHU than non-reversed polarity.

 

 

....actually Bruce, whilst being possibly the main protagonist in the argument that, (in most circumstances) I see the risk arising from "reversed polarity" as being acceptable to me, and would certainly make no additional provisions for it, I can't agree with the above statement.

 

"Reversed Polarity" at a bollard on the continent certainly is not a fault (it may naturally arise as part of standard continental wiring practice).

 

A van wired to take account of European wiring practice will recognise this, and present the same risk whilst connected to site with either polarity.

 

The majority of Continental manufactured 'vans will fall into this space. Some UK manufactured 'vans may also (I'll avoid continuing the "standards" debate from other posts). Other UK manufactured 'vans will not.

 

If a UK manufactured 'van does not take account of European wiring practice (i.e. it follows the UK domestic practice of using single pole switches etc.), then incontravertably there is a greater risk arising from "reversed polarity" than from "UK polarity". (potential lack of overcurrent protection is a prime example). If you wanted to be really picky, you could say that such a 'van connected in such a way was "faulty".

 

My view, however, is that the probability of an incident arising from this higher risk is extremely low, and it is also possible to mitigate it - I therefore choose to accept the risk and the need to mitigate, and don't worry further about the "reversed polarity".

 

Some people understand the issues, and choose not to accept the risk, and some people don't understand the issues, but do perceive that there is an additional risk, and thus choose not to accept the unknown.

 

All of these are fine by me!

 

As I've said already, I simply object to the fact that "Reversed Polarity" is regulalry flagged as being highly dangerous, in all situations. This is patently not true.

 

For me (to use one of Brian's metaphors B-) ) it's a bit like crossing the road. Whilst a pedestrian crossing or a footbridge might be inherently safer, I'll still regularly choose to cross the road without using them, as I believe I can mitigate the risk, and that the risk then remaining is acceptable. i.e. it's not the safest option, but one that is acceptable and appropriate to me.

[Robinhood]

T8LEY - 2011-06-25 1:00 AM

 

FYI:- Regulation 721.43.1 calls for each final circuit to be protected by an overcurrent protective device which disconnects all live ( line and neutral) conductors. ie a double pole mcb or a single pole and neutral device. The latter, of course, relies on correct polarity.

 

I got to thinking about the only rationale for the specific regulation being to cope with "reversed polarity", and the quote on the requirement for correct polarity above. The two don't live well together, so forgive me, but further to my previous on the matter of the use of a SPNS (Single Pole and Neutral Switch), I've had a rethink, and wouldn't this in fact be just as effective in the case of "reversed polarity"?.

 

Surely, the overcurrent sensing (whether magnetic, thermo-magnetic or whatever) would still work in the (now) neutral side of a "reversed polarity" set-up. (after all, it's the same (over)current flowing). This would trip the neutral side, which is very unacceptable in the case of a single pole MCB as this would leave the live feed energised. In this case, however, the linked trip (which is designed to also take out Neutral in normal circumstances, would interrupt live (i.e. it would be functionally like a double-pole MCB, regardless of polarity.

 

If this is, as I supect, so, then the regs would then make sense in being implemented to deal with "reversed polarity".

[Brian Kirby]

After all the expert debate, I think the simplest answer to the OP, without in any way wishing to sound unkind or smug, is: if you need to ask, just get a simple earth/polarity tester (W4 or similar), use it whenever you connect to a new (even to the point of testing different pillars at familiar sites) supply, and use the polarity connecting lead to correct polarity if the tester shows it reversed. It takes less than a minute, and eliminates any conceivable risk that your particular van may present if connected with polarity reversed. The testers are cheap, and simple to use, and no technical knowledge is required to interpret the results beyond looking at a very simple pattern of lights.

 

If the tester says there is no earth, just try a different socket, or a different pillar, or if none have an earth, don't connect and ask for a refund of the supply charge, saying why. Absence of an earth is potentially far more dangerous than any of the risks that may arise from reversed polarity.

 

If I may say, the rather dogmatic arguments advanced by some above, seem to ignore the fact that they have no actual knowledge of the actual installation, or its age or condition, in anyone's van other than their own. This is especially true for second hand vans, where items may have been added by previous owners, and possibly removed prior to sale without fully reinstating the original installation.

 

It is all well and good saying a 30mA/30ms RCD will protect from shock, or that RCDs will eliminate the fire risk from overload, if these are fitted, and if they are tested and working properly. If you know exactly what you have on board, and fully understand how it should function, then make you own mind up about the risks.

 

If you don't know/understand, however, just eliminate the risks as above. IMO, only a fool knowingly takes risks they don't understand.

[Guest pelmetman]

I've lost the will to live after reading that lot (lol) ..........................please plug me into reverse polarity and finish me off (lol) (lol)

 

So has anyone died?......................has anyone reported that they nearly died 8-) ...............has anyone pitched near someone that heard of someone that might of died (?) :D

 

I await your near death responses (lol) (lol) (lol)

[Robinhood]

Brian Kirby - 2011-06-26 10:02 PM

 

If you don't know/understand, however, just eliminate the risks as above. IMO, only a fool knowingly takes risks they don't understand.

 

 

....which I think (though I can't resist the deeper debate) is in the gist of what I have posted. :-S (though I doubt you were referring to my contribution anyway, since you used the term "expert".) ;-)

 

Frankly, the uncertainty, and the obvious fact that many UK specified Motorhomes are used abroad, where "reversed polarity" may be experienced, was one of the reasons why I wished to understand the current caravan/motorhome wiring regulations, and their target (and as a subset, what the effect of using a SPNS MCB, rather than dual pole, would be).

 

Ultimately it would be nice to be able to say that "all Continental vehicles manufactured after nnnn will handle "reverse polarity" as safely as unreversed", and a similar criterion for UK manufactured ones. That may be a vain hope, though really the NCC should probably get a grip.

 

Until then, if you are risk-averse and/or don't follow (or wish to follow *-) ) the debate here, then take precautions as Brian has suggested.

[Robinhood]

pelmetman - 2011-06-26 10:26 PM

 

I've lost the will to live after reading that lot (lol) ..........................please plug me into reverse polarity and finish me off (lol) (lol)

 

 

 

.....certainly Sir, that would be the Dignitas special single pole MCB, no RCD, and a bowl of water then :D

[Robinhood]

pelmetman - 2011-06-26 10:26 PM

 

I've lost the will to live after reading that lot (lol) ..........................please plug me into reverse polarity and finish me off (lol) (lol)

 

 

 

.....and it would appear that yours is a double!

 

Bl***dy server.

[T8LEY]

Robinhood - 2011-06-26 7:35 PM

 

T8LEY - 2011-06-25 1:00 AM

 

FYI:- Regulation 721.43.1 calls for each final circuit to be protected by an overcurrent protective device which disconnects all live ( line and neutral) conductors. ie a double pole mcb or a single pole and neutral device. The latter, of course, relies on correct polarity.

 

I got to thinking about the only rationale for the specific regulation being to cope with "reversed polarity", and the quote on the requirement for correct polarity above. The two don't live well together, so forgive me, but further to my previous on the matter of the use of a SPNS (Single Pole and Neutral Switch), I've had a rethink, and wouldn't this in fact be just as effective in the case of "reversed polarity"?.

 

Surely, the overcurrent sensing (whether magnetic, thermo-magnetic or whatever) would still work in the (now) neutral side of a "reversed polarity" set-up. (after all, it's the same (over)current flowing). This would trip the neutral side, which is very unacceptable in the case of a single pole MCB as this would leave the live feed energised. In this case, however, the linked trip (which is designed to also take out Neutral in normal circumstances, would interrupt live (i.e. it would be functionally like a double-pole MCB, regardless of polarity.

 

If this is, as I supect, so, then the regs would then make sense in being implemented to deal with "reversed polarity".

 

The regulation is not intended to deal with reversed polarity. The requirement is for each final sub-circuit to have dedicated protection; I would have expected it to demand DP devices for polarity issues. A single pole and switched neutral mcb would not provide protection if the polarity of the supply was reversed.

 

A DP mcb has tripping devices in both poles. An SPSN only has them in the line. A DP mcb will operate on a fault in either pole and both poles can be manually switched. An SPSN mcb will only operate on a fault in the line but can be used to manually switch both poles.

 

If the standards allow SPSN devices, which evidently they do, the UK doesn't appear to be fully 'harmonised' just yet.

 

Stop yawning at the back.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

T8LEY - 2011-06-26 11:03 PM

 

Robinhood - 2011-06-26 7:35 PM

 

T8LEY - 2011-06-25 1:00 AM

 

Stop yawning at the back.

 

I think the point I was trying to make was.....................HAS ANYONE DIED.................HAS ANYONE NEARLY DIED................it dont help the hoi polloi if you just discuss potential risk *-) ................based on that!,.... none of us would leave home *-) .....................has it happened EVER????????..................then we the average Mr Joe bloggs can make a decision if the risk is worth it ;-)

[Robinhood]

T8LEY - 2011-06-26 11:03 PM

 

 

The regulation is not intended to deal with reversed polarity. The requirement is for each final sub-circuit to have dedicated protection; I would have expected it to demand DP devices for polarity issues. A single pole and switched neutral mcb would not provide protection if the polarity of the supply was reversed.

 

A DP mcb has tripping devices in both poles. An SPSN only has them in the line. A DP mcb will operate on a fault in either pole and both poles can be manually switched. An SPSN mcb will only operate on a fault in the line but can be used to manually switch both poles.

 

If the standards allow SPSN devices, which evidently they do, the UK doesn't appear to be fully 'harmonised' just yet.

 

Stop yawning at the back.

 

 

....I think you rather neatly sidestepped some of the questions there! ;-)

 

I agree that the wording (and it would appear the intepretation) of the motorhome and caravan regulations requires each final sub-circuit to have dedicated protection; the moot pont is whether the additional requirement (i.e. to use your words - "overcurrent protective device which disconnects all live ( line and neutral) conductors. ie a double pole mcb or a single pole and neutral device") is designed to deal with reversed polarity (since normal domestic practice would simply be to use a single pole MCB to break the line).

 

I still can't see that an MCB nominally placed in the line, but finding itself (via "reversed polarity") in the neutral instead, would not operate as normal under an overcurrent situation.

 

If this were a single-pole MCB, this most certainly would not be an inherently "safe" method, as, though the current would be interrupted, the line would remain live.

 

If the device were, however, A single-pole and neutral switch, then both live feeds would get switched when it operated, ensuring the line was disconnected regardless of which particular feed (live or neutral) the "tripping" side of the MCB found itself in.

[Derek Uzzell]

pelmetman

 

It seems reasonable to assume that "the average Mr Joe bloggs" planning to take a motorhome to Continental Europe for the first time will have sufficient initiative to have obtained the appropriate Caravan Club's "Caravan Europe" handbook before setting off.

 

This book contains a section on use of mains electricity abroad, including (good) advice on adapters that may be required and on testing the mains supply to confirm its safety. In the latter case, the advice given is that, if reversed polarity is detected, the supply should not be used until that situation has been 'normalised'.

 

If you want hoi polloi-level decision-making, then there's no need to base this on statistical analysis - Reginald MoleMotorcaravanner can avoid potential risks merely by following the CC's advice. Even if there has never been an accident of any sort due to reversed polarity, best advice must be to correct a reversed-polarity mains supply before using it. Knowing that a supply's polarity is reversed and not correcting this introduces an unknown: correcting the polarity to the UK-norm removes that unknown.

 

The fact that, having identified that a 230V power-outlet has reversed polarity, I (or other forum members) may choose not to bother correcting this does not make this best policy. If you insist on a 'Thicko's Charter' regarding electrical hook-ups then the CC's (and Brian Kirby's) advice provides a simple blueprint.

[crinklystarfish]

As electrons have the irritating habit of flowing 'backwards' anyway we are really talking about reversed reverse polarity. And dare I mention inverters with a floating earth hardwired into ac distribution systems.

Bloomin' glad I took the decision to build my latest creation without any ac clutter at all. Reading the above I would almost certainly have been electrocuted at some point: or more likely not.