Talk:Stray voltage

message: Did she die in 2004 or 2005? Both dates are mentioned in this entry. Pelle79 (talk) 13:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, 2004 - that's what references are for. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jodie S. Lane  

message: Cool. Put a light bulb and a buzzer on every single metal object that might get energized.  You can get a patent for the darndest things - and you don't even need to hire a draftsman! For the cost of putting these gadgets on, you could put in a big horking copper bonding strap and actually *prevent* the problem instead of just hanging a light on it. pat2pdf.org is *so* useful... --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patent 7,283,055

message: I finally found a good source which explains the problem.  This is a study for the Ontario Energy Board (marked, amusingly, "Private Information - Not to be Disclosed without the consent of the Ontario Energy Board", but it's on their web site.) The fundamental problem is that the neutral wire in 3-phase distribution systems is not only grounded at more than one point (see ground loop), the neutral on the high side of the transformer is tied to the neutral on the low side.  So some fraction of the neutral current will travel through the ground, there can be a potential difference between grounding points, and some of that potential makes it across the distribution transformer.  If the load on each phase is balanced, the neutral current disappears, but when the load is unbalanced, there will be neutral current and voltage differences.  Ways to measure and deal with the problem are discussed. --John Nagle (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finallly found a decent source with a good explanation. 

message: This article does raise some good points, particularly in the arena of agriculture facilities. However, consider the following comments: First, the notion that electricity follows the path of least resistance is mostly true.  Because the neutral (return path) in North America is bonded with the ground, return current will use the ground as a return path as well. A bonded neutral is required by the NEC to provide a safe, stable electrical network.
Second, voltage and amperage are not interchangeable terms (as noted in the article that stray voltage can be measured in milliamps). Stray voltage should be more correctly called leakage current. Current returns to the source, not voltage.
And lastly, stray voltage cannot be measured accurately with a voltmeter. A voltmeter measures the potential difference between two points. The most often test conducted measures voltage between a building structure and a reference rod. Where the reference rod is placed (i.e. what type of soil, proximity to a utility ground, proximity to a building, resistance of the rod) can result in widely varying figures. The only way to measure for leakage current is with an ammeter to measure the differential between what power is being consumed and what is returning to the source. 
This is an informative article on a subject that is poorly understood by many "experts". 
-- Danmessina4516 (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Remarks July 21

message: I edited this section to remove several incorrect statements.  To start, "induced" stray voltage most often does not refer to current induced per Faraday's Law, but rather to false positive readings given by capacitive test devices.  Induced current can be a shock hazard on long fences running underneath and parallel to transmission lines, but this not the understood context of this article.Jaffa, KC: "Magnetic Field Induction From Overhead Transmission and Distribtion Power Lines on Parallel Fences", "IEEE Trans. on Power App. and Sys., 100(4):1624-36, Patel, S, Lambert, FC:"Induced Stray Voltages from Transmission Lines", IEEE PES T&D Conf & Expo 2006, 21-24 May 2006, 254-9    I also briefly detailed techniques used by those in the stray voltage detection and mitigation business to distinguish "induced" voltage from voltage measured between a real source and ground.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by PrazanPS (talk • contribs) 16:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Induced Voltage 

message: Recently, I posted some new material and appreciate the feedback.  Some quick points:  the IEEE draft definitions are available on the working group website, already cited at the end of the article.  I'll add a reference.  I agree more information is needed on the pen detectors and e-field detectors.  I plan to add this in the future, as well as a separate article on contact voltage.  I have two suggestions to make this article better.  First, I think the terminology discussion should be right up front.  Stray voltage is that, like "smart grid" or other buzzwords, means very different things to different people and this article should  address that up front.  The IEEE defs are not the only ones; there are others by NEETRAC and by nearly every state commission that has tackled the issue.  Perhaps more of these definitions should also be cited.  Nevertheless, definition comes first in an encyclopedia in my opinion.  Second, I think the "stray voltage on power systems" section ought to be called "stray voltage phenomena" since it is essentially a list of very different phenomena that are frequently placed under the "stray voltage" tent.  In fact, elevated neutral voltage in the agricultural context is the real stray voltage and these other conditions are similar but different.  In a perfect world, they'd all have their own separate words but language is only as precise as its usage.  Feedback and discussion on either of these two issues is appreciated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by PrazanPS (talk • contribs) 14:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisions 8/2010 

message: My experience is limited, but my Fluke pen won't see 125 V DC or 250 V DC, in actual tests. At least one model of "volt pen" isn't going to detect DC. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: DC and "voltage detectors"

message: It has been proposed by someone that Phantom voltage and Stray voltage be merged.
* Oppose They are different phenomena.  "Phantom voltage" is observed when some conductor shows a voltage into a high-impedance load, like a voltmeter, but there's no significant current behind it.  This is usually an inductive problem. "Stray voltage" is typically caused by ground currents between multiple grounding points, and there may be significant current flows. --John Nagle (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'm convinced.  I now support merger into "Stray voltage". --John Nagle (talk) 18:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Phantom voltage]] merger proposal 

message: A suggestion has been made to portray the effect of current flow throught the soil from a malfunctioning HV item, E.G. case of a step down transformer used in a electrical distribution substation. If the diagram could explain visually, in simple terms, the logarithmic relationship between distance and current flow through soil. Like the electrical field strength given off by an R.F. antenna (aerial), the current falls at an inverse square ratio with distance, (as light does from a single point source). For the purposes of the diagram this works in our favo(u)r. A person close the source of stray voltage (the transformer case), the voltage gradient here is so steep as to be fatal. (>50 ma across the heart). So as to maintain technical credibility, we cannot use underground cable feed into this transformer. The presence of an equipotential cable sheath (to the soil) ) would prevent much stray voltage occuring. One suggestion put forward is to include a graph underneath the picture to visually relate distance and voltage pressure. This representaion will allow dotted lines to be connected to the ground areas above (in the drawing) and a simple visual relationship will then be observed by the reader. Use of overhead poles for the incoming (11,000v (u.k.)) and the outgoing (240v /110v), would allow the concrete block, and the transformer on it, to be isolated from the CPC (earth) of the power grid. If a cable connect(x)ion could be added to show that the protective fence around the transformer is equipotentially bonded to both incoming and outgoing (CPC) earths, then the visual image will appear technically correct. So, to recap, two poles, one ring fence (with open gate), one transformer, 4 people at varying points of the potential gradient, one bringing an external (a water hose has been suggested) into the area, which has the effect of bringing another point of low potential into the area bounded by the fence. help would be appreciated with the necessary line drawings needed. (pole carrying three wires in/out, transformer on base). Francis E Williams (talk) 11:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Informative diagram

message: I did my best to clean up and consolidate the rather confusing discussion of the definitions of "stray voltage".  But it appears that there is a fundamental difference between the 2005 IEEE draft proposal and common usage.  Does anybody have any updates since then, or useful insights? Reify-tech (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition confusion

message: any cases?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.62.160.246 (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  how about intentional stray voltage placed upon humans 

message: In the first image/figure/diagram of this article, its caption says "A fallen power conductor from a transmission line forces current through the earth [...]" While I understand that phrase as saying that current travels from the transmission lines to the earth, my question is: at which point does the current return to the electrical grid (power system)?
If it's not returning, then are you saying that AC current can flow in open circuits? --Alej27 (talk) 05:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Whenever I find myself answering a question like this with "Everybody knows that....", it's usually a sign we've left something out of the article. I changed the illustration caption, have a look at it now.  It reads clumsily to me, which is probalby why this was left out initially. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification. I think the caption is better now, but if you think otherwise you can of course revert your edit. Thanks again. --Alej27 (talk) 06:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where does the current return in the first image?