How can you say that after the TS confirmed this to me?See post #89: the circuits were exchanged, and that now the situation is reversed. "Half" was not adequately descriptive.
It is now evident that it is only one phase.
Yes most of the lights dimmed both before and after the phases were switched.
I'm wondering if there's a case of semantics: Instead of talking about half the lights, we need to know if a specific light dims. Doesn't matter which light you choose, just stick with it. Suppose the kitchen light dimmed before the swap but now after the swap it doesn't dim, it's a different light dimming.
If you have 10 lights and "Half" of them dim, then you swap the feeds and now "Half" the lights dim; are we talking about the same 5 lights or different lights? I'm making this as an example. I don't know about anybody else but I'm not sure you're saying the same exact lights dim regardless of the feed swap or if we're talking about some lights dim, then the swap, then OTHER lights dim and those that WERE dimming no longer dim.
Ecbessa do you have solar panels or a wind turbine? Not that it should make any difference, but there might be a connection issue there that is causing some problems. No stone unturned.
Being a rural setting I am assuming it is an overhead service entrance. Do the wires happen to pass through a pine / coniferous tree? There is something about tree sap that will eat away wiring, but still provide enough conductivity to make everything work. It's not a common thing, but I have heard of it happening.
Not the way that I read post #89.How can you say that after the TS confirmed this to me?
I wouldn't put much effort into it as the times I have heard about it the neutral was worn away which it doesn't sound like is the case here. From what I understand the sap won't eat the insulation... only the bare aluminum of the neutral.Not through, but yes under some pines.
Then read post #103. He clarified further. It cannot be one phase when 12 of 14 dimmed one way and 10 of 14 dimmed the other way.Not the way that I read post #89.