I don't have one, don't really want to spend the $$ to put in my "toolbox" since I hope I'll never need it again.
I'm doing some experiments energizing saltwater with 110v to simulate electrical failures in tanks (broken heaters / powerheads / etc.). A couple of years ago I nuked a tank when a heater came apart. The question I've always had is was it copper, or was it the electricity?
So I'm trying to get some data together that looks at (1) electrical potential in tanks as a function of distance to an electrical fault, and (2) erosion / solution of Cu in tanks as a function of energized / non energized conductors.
My hypothesis in #2 is that energized copper will contaminate a tank orders of magnitude more quickly than non-energized copper, but I cannot quantify this without testing (and I'm trying to save the $20 for the kit for the swap
).
So if anybody has a Cu test kit that I can borrow for 4-5 tests, I would be eternally grateful. I plan to post findings to RC to help inform (or inflame) the continual debate on GFCI and grounding probes. Chuck
I'm doing some experiments energizing saltwater with 110v to simulate electrical failures in tanks (broken heaters / powerheads / etc.). A couple of years ago I nuked a tank when a heater came apart. The question I've always had is was it copper, or was it the electricity?
So I'm trying to get some data together that looks at (1) electrical potential in tanks as a function of distance to an electrical fault, and (2) erosion / solution of Cu in tanks as a function of energized / non energized conductors.
My hypothesis in #2 is that energized copper will contaminate a tank orders of magnitude more quickly than non-energized copper, but I cannot quantify this without testing (and I'm trying to save the $20 for the kit for the swap
).So if anybody has a Cu test kit that I can borrow for 4-5 tests, I would be eternally grateful. I plan to post findings to RC to help inform (or inflame
) the continual debate on GFCI and grounding probes. Chuck
