This article was posted 07/12/2006 and is most likely outdated.

EQUIPOTENTIAL PLANES, A FIGMENT OF THE IMAGINATION
 

 
Topic - Stray Voltage
Subject - EQUIPOTENTIAL PLANES, A FIGMENT OF THE IMAGINATION

July 12, 2006  

| Ask a Question |  Code Graphic Code Quiz - All New! |  Free Stuff Instructors | Feedback
Online Training Products | Seminars | SubscribeUnsubscribe |
Change Email Address |
[ image1 Please Reply With Your Comments | View Comments | Notify Me When Comments Are Added ] Web Page Version [Printer-Friendly]    

Prelude to the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers’ (IEEE) paper

 

Mr. Donald W. Zipse offered a very controversial technical paper on equipotential planes stating that the National Electrical Code sections 547 on Agriculture Buildings and 680 Swimming Pools were INCORRECT when they state that equipotential planes “ . . . prevent a difference in voltage from developing within the plane.”  In addition, Mr. Zipse also states in his paper that four agriculture professors were incorrect in their three papers published in the early 1980s.  They did not understand the difference between IEEE Standard 80 Substation Grounding and Step-Touch potentials based on high levels of fault current for extremely short time and steady state continuous flowing stray current of very low magnitude.

 

The IEEE’s Industrial and Commercial Power Systems Committee at first rejected Mr. Zipse’s paper offering.  However, cooler heads prevailed stating that the IEEE was the place for new ideas and discussion.  The I&CPS Committee went out to 23 persons who were opponents in court cases or were utility employees or agriculture professors requesting that they rebut Mr. Zipse’s paper.

 

Three papers were submitted in rebuttal.  The first was authored by one of the original professors, Robert J. Gustafson and co-author LaVerne E. Stetson.  The other time slot had two papers by employees of Alabama Power, Keith Wallace and Don Parker.  The Alabama papers were no more than regurgitation of the Agriculture Red book, Document 696 and should be totally disregarded.

 

Dr. Gustafson completely disregards the multigrounded neutral electrical distribution system circuit that connects the primary neutral with solid copper conductors to the equipotential plane.  It is this circuit that supplies approximately 50 percent of the stray current flowing in swimming pools and dairy farms.  Note that EPRI, the Electrical Power Research Institute, the utilities brain trust, state that 40 to 60 percent of the return neutral current on multigrounded neutral electrical distribution system circuits returns over the earth.

 

Between the draft of Zipse’s paper and the presentation Mr. Zipse suggested to Mr. Neubauer, Master Electrician who makes all the electrical measurements, to switched to iron rebar wire which was used for the test conductors and iron plates for contact with the floor, thus eliminating any suggestion of galvanic cell generating the direct current.  The section on direct current was inserted to show that three actions were taking place simultaneously, galvanic cell action and rectification of the ac by rebar in concrete as noted in IEEE Standard 80 and the flow of harmful alternating current in the equipotential plane.  

What Dr. Gustafson completely ignores is the alternating current measurements that were recorded that harm dairy cows causing decreased milk production and injury and death to the cows.   What is not in the paper is last week we disconnected the phase and neutral and the telephone grounds to a dairy, and still had current flowing over earth and into the equipotential plane and into the cow proving stray current flows over and through the earth in sufficient magnitude to harm a cow or human.

Click here to view the IEEE paper

Copyright Material IEEE Paper No. ICPS-06
Donald W. Zipse, P.E. Life Fellow, IEEE Electrical Forensics, LLC
don.zip@ieee.org

 

 

 

 

 

[ View More Newsletters ] [ Please Reply With Your Comments | View Comments | Notify Me When Comments Are Added ]

F o r w a r d   t h i s   N e w s l e t t e r   t o   a   F r i e n d !
Do you have a friend, relative, or colleague who you think would be interested in receiving this free newsletter? If so, we encourage you to forward this message along to them. If you received this email from someone else, and wish to receive your own free issues of our newsletter, sign up today!

C o n t a c t    I n f o r m a t i o n
 

Copyright © 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 Mike Holt Enterprises, Inc. All rights reserved.
This article is protected by United States copyright and other intellectual property laws and may not be
displayed or published on the internet without the prior written permission of Mike Holt Enterprises, Inc.

http://www.MikeHolt.com     1-888-NEC-CODE (1-888-632-2633)

Comments
  • It would make the argument easier to understand if you separate 60 cycle current from everything else. Do I understand the the point being made? I am not sure, but it seems there is a claim that a very large percentage of return current flows though soil back to it's source. Ok, the source is different if we are discussing a home powered by a pole mounted transformer, or a distributions substation powered by a generator miles away. Also, you must keep in mind that soil resistivity is not homogenous, in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Soil resistance is different both at depths as well as distances at the same depth. It all depends on the contact resistance of many particles, all working together like a matrix of resistors. Get across this matrix of resistors at two given point, and you will measure a voltage. The voltage will be the produ ct of whatever current is flowing and the resistance of the circuit created by the two contact points. If anyone is interested, I have a simple device one can use similar to a metal detector, but it is designed to measure ac voltage as low as 1 volt in soil or in concrete, street, roads, etc. The device is immune to surrounding voltages, and only measures voltage in one direction. If anyone is interested in this device, contact me at the address above.

    Brian Blanchette

Reply to this comment
* Your Name:
   Your name will appear under your comments.

* Your Email:
   Your email address is not displayed.
* Comments:

This newsletter is closed to new comments.

Email Notification Options:
Notify me when a reply is posted to this comment
Notify me whenever a comment is posted to this newsletter