# Is this a common GFCI malfunction?



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

Had a hard time figuring out a GFCI issue in a house recently. There were no GFCI outlets in any of the 3 bathrooms, or the kitchen. When testing with a GFCI tripper in the 3 bathrooms, they all tripped. Same for an outlet outside. None tripped in the kitchen. There was a GFCI outlet in the garage, but it didn't work. The GFCI tester would not trip it, nor would the TEST button on it. Therefore I assumed this could not be the GFCI outlet the others were using.

Turns out I was wrong. All 3 bathrooms and the outside outlet (but not the kitchen outlets) were connected to the LOAD of this GFCI outlet. How can it be that a GFCI outlet won't work for "itself", but still works for the downstream receptacles? Does this happen commonly?

What a weird way to wire a house, I thought.


----------



## jbfan (Jul 1, 2004)

jeffnc said:


> Had a hard time figuring out a GFCI issue in a house recently. There were no GFCI outlets in any of the 3 bathrooms, or the kitchen. When testing with a GFCI tripper in the 3 bathrooms, they all tripped. Same for an outlet outside. None tripped in the kitchen. There was a GFCI outlet in the garage, but it didn't work. The GFCI tester would not trip it, nor would the TEST button on it. Therefore I assumed this could not be the GFCI outlet the others were using.
> 
> Turns out I was wrong. All 3 bathrooms and the outside outlet (but not the kitchen outlets) were connected to the LOAD of this GFCI outlet. How can it be that a GFCI outlet won't work for "itself", but still works for the downstream receptacles? Does this happen commonly?
> 
> What a weird way to wire a house, I thought.


Very old gfci!


----------



## dmxtothemax (Oct 26, 2010)

Does the GFCI have a good sound earth ?
Sime will not work with out a good earth.


----------



## jproffer (Mar 12, 2005)

?? :huh:

GFIs monitor the current from hot to neutral and if they are off by more than 6mA, they trip.

They will operate with a bad ground, or NO ground.




Unless "earth" isn't ground. 

Elec terms vary around the world, I've found.


----------



## ddawg16 (Aug 15, 2011)

Those 'testers' depend on the ground being connected on the GFCI. 

So when you push the Test button, it does not trip because there is no path to ground.

The reason they work on the down stream outlets is because you most likely have those grounded...so when the test button is pushed...it has a ground to go to.

There is a way to test it at the GFCI....

On your tester, take a piece of wire and wrap it around the ground lug....run it over to a known ground....say a piece of plumbing? Then plug it into the GFCI and push the test button.


----------



## jproffer (Mar 12, 2005)

Or push the test button on the receptacle. Isn't that the method recommended by most of the manufacturers.


----------



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

Yes of course jproffer, but that is the point. The TEST button didn't work, as I said.

GFCI receptacle had ground wire attached, and when I replaced it with a new one all worked fine. Never heard of a malfunction where it worked for the LOAD terminals but not itself.


----------



## jproffer (Mar 12, 2005)

jeffnc said:


> Yes of course jproffer, but that is the point. The TEST button didn't work, as I said.
> 
> GFCI receptacle had ground wire attached, and when I replaced it with a new one all worked fine. Never heard of a malfunction where it worked for the LOAD terminals but not itself.


:thumbsup: I guess I missed that part. Sorry


----------



## Oso954 (Jun 23, 2012)

If the test button on the GFCI will not trip it, the GFCI is considered defective. Replace it.


----------



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

Uh, yeah, already got that Oso. Was looking for feedback on the original question....


----------



## dmxtothemax (Oct 26, 2010)

But will the test feature work with out an earth ?
Some will not ?
Although the gfci would still function.

Does it have a good workimg earth.
And yes the gfci could be faulty


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

dmxtothemax said:


> But will the test feature work with out an earth ? Some will not ? Although the gfci would still function. Does it have a good workimg earth. And yes the gfci could be faulty



GFCI's do not require a ground(earth) to function, and the only recognized test method is using the test/reset on the device itself.


----------



## AllanJ (Nov 24, 2007)

Reviewing the bidding:
1. The ground fault circuit interrupter does not need a ground to provide its near perfect electrocution protection to persons.
2. The test button will not work if there is no ground connection.
3. If the circuit is live but the test button does not work then it is customary, normal, and proper for an inspector to jump to conclusions that the GFCI unit is defective and write his report accordingly.

Which begs the question:
4. It is proper to install a GFCI on a non-grounded circuit including a knob and tube wired circuit.
5. While a ground fault test on one of the protected downstream receptacles (by necessity using a makeshift tester that includes a long wire to a known ground) will pass, testing the GFCI receptacle using the test button rather than said makeshift tester will, on the surface, fail.

Meanwhile it is not correct to install additional GFCI units downstream fed by the load terminals on a GFCI unit. Installing such additional GFCI units fed by the original feed connected to the line terminals of each GFCI is correct and no more than one GFCI unit should trip during any test or ground fault.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

Let's review one more time.......  you do not need a earth or ground for a gfci to function, and the test button will still function, it will not work with an external tester though, this is why ONLY the test button on the device itself is the only way to test a gfci. 




How the Test Button Works on a GFCI Receptacle Q. Mike, I spoken to a rep from ______, and he has told me that the TEST button on most GFCI receptacles does not actually test the protective circuit. Rather, it merely exercises the mechanical trip mechanism. If this is the case, then pushing the test button does not assure adequate GFCI protection. I was told that one good way to test the GFCI protective circuit is with one of those plug-in testers with the GFCI tester built into them. Apparently, they actually cause an imbalance between the grounded and ungrounded conductors, thus verifying true GFCI protection. I though you might like to pass this along to your readers. Great job on the emails and the website. Many thanks! Michael Hofkin, President IAEI, Eastern Pennsylvania Chapter Stan, Mike, 



A. From Leviton Mfg. Co., Inc. Mike, I hope the following explanation helps clear things up: On all traditional GFCI receptacles, when you press the test button you are creating an actual imbalance within the current transformers in the GFCI, exactly the same as if there was a ground fault present. This is done by connecting the load side hot terminal to the line side neutral terminal through a resistor calibrated to conduct a small amount of current at 120V (approx. 8-10 ma). When you press the test button you complete the circuit through the resistor; the GFCI detects the imbalance and trips. An external tester cannot do what is described above because both the hot and neutral blades of a plug-in tester make contact with the load side contacts of a GFCI. The imbalance is created by dumping the small amount of current from hot to ground. This is why an external tester will not work on an ungrounded circuit but the GFCI's internal test button will still work. The only exception to the above is Leviton's SmartLock GFCI. In this case, the test button mechanically trips the GFCI by simply pushing the latch which holds the contacts closed. We satisfy the UL requirements for testing the electronics when you press the reset button. When you press the reset button the test circuit described above is invoked and creates the current imbalance. If the GFCI is operating properly, it will sense this and fire the solenoid used to trip the GFCI. We use the firing of the solenoid to move shutters blocking the latching mechanism for the contacts. The result is, if the GFCI does not sense the ground fault and fire the solenoid correctly, you will not be able to reset the GFCI - no power without protection. An added benefit is that the SmartLock GFCI will also block the reset button if the GFCI is wired incorrectly. Let me know if you need any additional info. 

Regards, Bill Grande Product Manager, Safety Products Leviton Mfg. Co., Inc. 59-25 Little Neck Pkwy Little Neck, NY 11362 ph: (718)281-6605 fax: (718)281-6136


----------



## jproffer (Mar 12, 2005)

Saving and printing for the next time the "city inspector" plugs in his cute little $8 tester and declares that "this GFI is bad and has to be replaced"

:thumbsup:


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

jproffer said:


> Saving and printing for the next time the "city inspector" plugs in his cute little $8 tester and declares that "this GFI is bad and has to be replaced" :thumbsup:



Knowledge is half the battle.


----------



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

Very informative stickboy, thanks. It took me awhile to process all that, but I think it makes good sense now. I suppose his response was part ad in a sense, but the SmartLock function sounds good.

As an aside, I really appreciate resources like this forum. I don't claim to know as much about electrical as an educated, experienced electrician. But I've got a few electricians beat. I remember several years ago having a discussion with a licensed electrician who claimed to be a "master electrician" (whatever that means) with many years of experience. He told me a GFCI circuit could not be installed without a ground. I was confused and pretty sure he was wrong, but I didn't have enough "ammunition" at the time to argue much. It just motivated me to learn more.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

jeffnc said:


> Very informative stickboy, thanks. It took me awhile to process all that, but I think it makes good sense now. I suppose his response was part ad in a sense, but the SmartLock function sounds good. As an aside, I really appreciate resources like this forum. I don't claim to know as much about electrical as an educated, experienced electrician. But I've got a few electricians beat. I remember several years ago having a discussion with a licensed electrician who claimed to be a "master electrician" (whatever that means) with many years of experience. He told me a GFCI circuit could not be installed without a ground. I was confused and pretty sure he was wrong, but I didn't have enough "ammunition" at the time to argue much. It just motivated me to learn more.



Yeah, that term master electrician baffles me as well, and it's all about self education, most guys end that and just carry around what they have been taught and even that is mostly wrong.


----------



## ddawg16 (Aug 15, 2011)

They didn't say it specifically, but I'm assuming the resistor is connected from the load side to the line side. In this way, the load imbalance is created. 

If it was just put across the load side, the current would be the same. 

Sticky....good post btw.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

ddawg16 said:


> They didn't say it specifically, but I'm assuming the resistor is connected from the load side to the line side. In this way, the load imbalance is created. If it was just put across the load side, the current would be the same. Sticky....good post btw.



They did say the resistor was from the load side hot to the line side neutral in my post.


----------



## jproffer (Mar 12, 2005)

.... sorry....remove if you like. Stick beat me to it...it was his to point out


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

jproffer said:


> .... sorry....remove if you like. Stick beat me to it...it was his to explain


You should have left the quotation, I'm on my iPad and hate copy paste.


----------



## jproffer (Mar 12, 2005)

stickboy1375 said:


> You should have left the quotation, I'm on my iPad and hate copy paste.





stickboy1375 said:


> This is done by connecting the load side hot terminal to the line side neutral terminal through a resistor calibrated to conduct a small amount of current at 120V (approx. 8-10 ma). When you press the test button you complete the circuit through the resistor; the GFCI detects the imbalance and trips.


There ya go :thumbsup:


----------



## ddawg16 (Aug 15, 2011)

stickboy1375 said:


> They did say the resistor was from the load side hot to the line side neutral in my post.


You're right...it did....my bad...and my small display on the smart phone


----------



## Run and find ou (Jul 5, 2014)

jeffnc said:


> I remember several years ago having a discussion with a licensed electrician who claimed to be a "master electrician" (whatever that means) with many years of experience. He told me a GFCI circuit could not be installed without a ground.


I wonder if he read the same manufacturer's instructions that I read long ago. A tech writer had maybe copied and pasted something from another device's boilerplate language, or maybe made an assumption, and erroneously put in a statement that the GFCI required a ground connection.


----------



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

Well, a grounded GFCI needs a ground connection obviously, but the stickers that that come with the product that say "Ungrounded Outlet" must make you think about those instructions


----------



## jproffer (Mar 12, 2005)

It is legal to replace a 2 prong receptacle with a GFCI, which would have no grounding conductor. That's what the stickers are for.

Jeff, it sounds like you have a pretty good handle on it...just adding info, for future surfers.


----------



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

Actually, that's the situation I was in a few years ago when the electrician told me it couldn't be done. A friend of mine had a house with no grounding, and asked if a GFCI outlet could be added to his bathroom. I told him I thought so and it was a good idea, but I'd look more into it. Of course grounding and GFCI do 2 separate things, but it's certainly safer to add GFCI to a bathroom with no grounding, than not to have it.


----------



## jproffer (Mar 12, 2005)

This "master electrician" told you that you couldn't put a GFI in place of a 2 prong receptacle?


----------



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

Well as I said earlier, he said you couldn't install GFCI without ground - it needs it to work.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

I'm going to throw my two cents in at this point, gfci protection will never trump a equipment grounding conductor, it is simply secondary protection required in situations where the grounding conductor can be compromised. You have to accept this rule to understand where and why gfcis are required to begin with.


----------



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

Not sure what you mean stickboy. Grounding and GFCI solve 2 different problems. GFCI can keep you from being electrocuted in one example where grounding won't, and grounding can keep you from getting electrocuted in another example where GFCI won't.


----------



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

A) Hold a metal power tool in your left hand. There is a wiring malfunction in the tool and the metal case becomes energized. Take a metal knife in your right hand and stick it in the neutral receptacle slot. Proper grounding of tool and system will protect you. GFCI won't.*

B) Take a metal knife in your hand and stand barefoot in a puddle outside. Stick the knife in the hot slot of an outdoor receptacle. GFCI will protect you. Grounding won't. 

C) Take a metal knife in your left hand and a metal knife in your right hand. Stick one in the hot slot and the other in the neutral slot of a receptacle. No system I'm aware of can protect you.

I guess conceivably it could, technically.


----------



## Desertdrifter (Dec 10, 2009)

So, does a GFCI behave differently based upon whether its grounded or not?

Are the stickers for no ground just to keep the next guy from assuming?


----------



## jproffer (Mar 12, 2005)

Performance is no different. The stickers are for techys that like to have their high dollar electronics grounded.


----------



## dmxtothemax (Oct 26, 2010)

jeffnc said:


> Well as I said earlier, he said you couldn't install GFCI without ground - it needs it to work.


This statement could originate from the very early days,
The very first versions of the now known GCFI, They worked
on a different principle, they actually monitored the current 
flowing in the earth line, if it exceeded a preset limit of 30ma
they it would trip out, theses where known as "earth leakage breakers"

Now days they work on a different "core balance relay" principle
These actually compare currents in hot line to currrents in neutral line.

So they are different but produce the same result.

And the first system still needs an earth to operate,
Where's as the second doesn't.

And I must admit that I too believed that they needed earth lines.
But It seems that might not be the case.

Well you live and you learn !
:thumbsup:


----------



## jproffer (Mar 12, 2005)

dmxtothemax said:


> This statement could originate from the very early days,
> The very first versions of the now known GCFI, They worked
> on a different principle, they actually monitored the current
> flowing in the earth line, if it exceeded a preset limit of *30ma*
> ...


Isn't it 6 now in the new ones? And 30 on AFCI, right?


----------



## dmxtothemax (Oct 26, 2010)

I, am not sure about USA units ?
But in Australia, the trip out of common household units of
What you call "GFCI" we still call them "Earth leakage breakers"
Or at least the uneducated public call them that.
even thou they are now a "core balance relay".

They trip out at 30ma.

You can get more sensitive ones that trip out at 10ma
But these are only used in hospitals and schools
Where a higher level of protection is desired.


----------



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

clw1963 said:


> So, does a GFCI behave differently based upon whether its grounded or not?


No, other than mentioned in the details about testing mentioned previously, etc.



clw1963 said:


> Are the stickers for no ground just to keep the next guy from assuming?


It's basically because you've got a 3 prong outlet, but the ground doesn't work. Anyone using the outlet should know. I don't know what the code is regarding regular (non-GFCI) 3 prong outlets that aren't grounded - maybe they need stickers too, or maybe they shouldn't ever be installed.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

jeffnc said:


> Not sure what you mean stickboy. Grounding and GFCI solve 2 different problems. GFCI can keep you from being electrocuted in one example where grounding won't, and grounding can keep you from getting electrocuted in another example where GFCI won't.


If every device were properly grounded and this could never be compromised, GFCI's would not be needed, but since we live in a world where ground pins break off of extension cords and appliances, GFCI's are a secondary protection in these higher risk areas.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

jeffnc said:


> I don't know what the code is regarding regular (non-GFCI) 3 prong outlets that aren't grounded - maybe they need stickers too, or maybe they shouldn't ever be installed.


Sec. 210-7(d)(3) permits any of the following installations when replacing a 2-wire ungrounded receptacle:

(a) Replace it with another 2-wire receptacle;

(b) Replace it with a GFCI-type receptacle and mark the receptacle with the words “No Equipment Ground;” or

(c) Replace it with a grounding-type receptacle protected by a GFCI device (circuit breaker or receptacle). Since the grounding terminals for the receptacles are not grounded, you must mark the receptacles with the words “GFCI Protected” and “No Equipment Ground”


----------



## Jim Port (Sep 21, 2007)

jproffer said:


> Performance is no different.


. 

Correct



> The stickers are for techys that like to have their high dollar electronics grounded.


The GFI does not provide a ground. The sticker is to let someone know it is not grounded even though it looks like it is.


----------



## jproffer (Mar 12, 2005)

Jim Port said:


> .
> 
> Correct
> 
> ...


That's basically what I meant, only said in my usual sarcastic way lol. I guess I could have followed it with: "....like to have their high dollar electronics grounded, because there is no ground present"

Thanks Jim :thumbsup:


----------



## AllanJ (Nov 24, 2007)

Grounding helps protect equipment and to some extent protects people.

Ground fault circuit interrupters protect people only and to a better degree than just grounding.

There are a variety of devices similar to GFCIs but which have a trip current theshhold too great to protect people. 

True earth leakage breakers do not offer much protection to people since many electrocution cases result from current returning via other means removed from the equipment grounding conductor monitored by the breaker electronics.

Any ungrounded receptacle, with or without GFCI protection, may be retrofitted with an equipment grounding conductor, not necessarily strung along the exact path of the circuit conductors, back to the panel or to a grounding electrode conductor.



stickboy1375 said:


> If every device were properly grounded and this could never be compromised, GFCI's would not be needed, but since we live in a world where ground pins break off of extension cords and appliances, GFCI's are a secondary protection in these higher risk areas.


I would consider GFCI protection primary. GFCIs will protect persons from electrocution caused by such things as flashover to a person's hand where water got into a plastic bodied hair dryer and the person was standing on a wet floor or surface that provided a somewhat conductive path to ground. Equipment grounding would not offer electrocution protection here.


.


----------



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

stickboy1375 said:


> If every device were properly grounded and this could never be compromised, GFCI's would not be needed, but since we live in a world where ground pins break off of extension cords and appliances, GFCI's are a secondary protection in these higher risk areas.


I don't think that is true. I think I showed an example of that - example B above.


----------



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

stickboy1375 said:


> Sec. 210-7(d)(3) permits any of the following installations when replacing a 2-wire ungrounded receptacle:
> 
> (a) Replace it with another 2-wire receptacle;
> 
> ...


Hmm, interesting that you can't replace it with a grounding receptacle that is not GFCI protected, and mark it "No Equipment Ground". I guess that makes sense, since seeing the 2-wire receptacle seems more obvious and more explicit.


----------



## Run and find ou (Jul 5, 2014)

AllanJ said:


> Any ungrounded receptacle, with or without GFCI protection, may be retrofitted with an equipment grounding conductor, not necessarily strung along the exact path of the circuit conductors, back to the panel or to a grounding electrode conductor.
> 
> 
> 
> .


Allan, I've seen a claim to the contrary, that any new grounding conductor had to be part of the same cable as the current-carrying conductors for the sake of understandable and therefore safe maintenance. That claim came without a code citation, as did the claim that you can't just drive another ground rod.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

jeffnc said:


> Hmm, interesting that you can't replace it with a grounding receptacle that is not GFCI protected, and mark it "No Equipment Ground". I guess that makes sense, since seeing the 2-wire receptacle seems more obvious and more explicit.


 It would be a safety hazard to have a 3 wire receptacle that is non grounded, gfci protection gives it that secondary protection that makes it allowable.


----------



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

Well, I guess we are disagreeing about what "secondary protection" means, since GFCI protects against a completely different scenario than grounding does.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

jeffnc said:


> Well, I guess we are disagreeing about what "secondary protection" means, since GFCI protects against a completely different scenario than grounding does.


Not really, and I get how you are looking into it, but you are over analyzing it.


Look at it this way, with proper grounding in place any fault is cleared instantly, with out proper grounding the fault stays in place and the GFCI acts as secondary protection to succeed what the missing grounding failed to do, and that is to clear the fault, the only difference is that the GFCI waits until a person is involved to actually trip...

Equipment grounds will always trump GFCI protection, and for obvious reasons.

If you read the NEC, most GFCI requirements are in place where the grounding can be compromised, i.e. basements, commercial kitchens, residential kitchens, exteriors, etc... if everything was hardwired, GFCI protection would never be required.


----------



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

But that's simply not true. Consider again the previous example. Ground Fault Circuit Interruption means _external_ ground fault, not a fault on the circuit. If you hold your left hand on a hot wire of a circuit, and your right hand on a grounding rod, GFCI will save you. Circuit grounding doesn't have anything to do with this, no matter how correctly wired it is. This is why GFCI is used in wet areas - because they can lead to ground outside the circuit.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

jeffnc said:


> But that's simply not true. Consider again the previous example. Ground Fault Circuit Interruption means _external_ ground fault, not a fault on the circuit. If you hold your left hand on a hot wire of a circuit, and your right hand on a grounding rod, GFCI will save you. Circuit grounding doesn't have anything to do with this, no matter how correctly wired it is. This is why GFCI is used in wet areas - because they can lead to ground outside the circuit.



I think you are completely missing the point of why the equipment ground exist... How can someone get shocked if the equipment ground clears the fault and the source of the power is turned OFF? Why would you need GFCI protection when there is no power???? 

as I've already said, GFCI protection is secondary protection.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

jeffnc said:


> If you hold your left hand on a hot wire of a circuit, and your right hand on a grounding rod, GFCI will save you.


Who would do this???


----------



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

No, you are missing the point stickboy. GFCI saves from _external_ ground faults as well. Grounding only helps _within_ the circuit.

I gave that example because it was easy to explain. I was hoping your imagination could figure out real world examples. Here are 2. In this house, all aspects of grounding are correctly installed and functioning.

1) A woman is washing dishes. Water is supplied to the house through an underground copper pipe, and all supply plumbing is copper. She turns on the water with her right hand, turning the metal faucet handle. At the same time she reaches to turn on the under cabinet lighting. Unfortunately when the lighting was installed, the power cable was slightly exposed, and the hot wire was nicked. She missed the switch on the light by a couple inches, touched the exposed wire , and was electrocuted because the circuit had no GFCI protection.

2) Meanwhile her husband is outside trimming the bushes with an electric trimmer. It has recently rained and he is barefoot in an area where water has slightly puddled. His extension cord is frayed from overuse, exposing a hot wire. He grabs the cord to pull it farther along, touching the wire. Fortunately for him, it was plugged into an exterior GFCI plug, and it tripped, saving him. He misses his wife though.

In neither case could grounding be of any help, and therefore it can't "trump" GFCI. The 2 systems solve 2 separate problems, even if there is sometimes some overlap. This is why GFCI is installed in wet areas. The water can provide a path to ground _external_ to the circuit.


----------



## jproffer (Mar 12, 2005)

Holy.....  I leave for 1 day lol.....

Ok, here's the facts of the matter. The GEC "saves" people (not really though, see below) by tripping the breaker. A GFI saves people by stopping the flow of electricity. (same thing)

The difference is, the GFI trips at 5 or 6 mA...you feel a tingle, and then nothing, power's off. The breaker trips at 15 or 20 A...by then, you're already dead or in bad shape. It takes 2 A to cause cardiac arrest.


----------



## jproffer (Mar 12, 2005)

And I figure someone will ask sooner or later, so here's my reference:

LINK HERE


----------



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

Grounding and circuit breakers are 2 different things. Grounding can save you without breakers tripping, and breakers can trip without grounding being involved. Breakers, grounding, GFCI, tamper resistant outlets, AFCI, etc were all invented to solve different problems and different scenarios.

An example of grounding saving you is a loose hot wire inside a ower tool. If the hot wire touches the metal body of the tool, grounding can save you when you touch the tool. That has nothing to do with circuit breakers.


----------



## jproffer (Mar 12, 2005)

The grounding conductor, and the ground rod exist to trip the breaker in a fault. To intentionally cause an overload as quickly as possible and turn off the breaker.


----------



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

Considering the fact that the neutral bus is connected to the GEC, it's obviously not true that it exists to trip breakers. Besides, breakers trip just fine in ungrounded systems.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

jproffer said:


> The grounding conductor, and the ground rod exist to trip the breaker in a fault. To intentionally cause an overload as quickly as possible and turn off the breaker.


Ground rods serve no purpose in facilitating the opening of an over current device, the main bonding jumper does though.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

jeffnc said:


> No, you are missing the point stickboy. GFCI saves from external ground faults as well. Grounding only helps within the circuit. I gave that example because it was easy to explain. I was hoping your imagination could figure out real world examples. Here are 2. In this house, all aspects of grounding are correctly installed and functioning. 1) A woman is washing dishes. Water is supplied to the house through an underground copper pipe, and all supply plumbing is copper. She turns on the water with her right hand, turning the metal faucet handle. At the same time she reaches to turn on the under cabinet lighting. Unfortunately when the lighting was installed, the power cable was slightly exposed, and the hot wire was nicked. She missed the switch on the light by a couple inches, touched the exposed wire , and was electrocuted because the circuit had no GFCI protection. 2) Meanwhile her husband is outside trimming the bushes with an electric trimmer. It has recently rained and he is barefoot in an area where water has slightly puddled. His extension cord is frayed from overuse, exposing a hot wire. He grabs the cord to pull it farther along, touching the wire. Fortunately for him, it was plugged into an exterior GFCI plug, and it tripped, saving him. He misses his wife though. In neither case could grounding be of any help, and therefore it can't "trump" GFCI. The 2 systems solve 2 separate problems, even if there is sometimes some overlap. This is why GFCI is installed in wet areas. The water can provide a path to ground external to the circuit.


Your examples are pretty far stretched, If your scenarios we're more true to life, gfcis would be required everywhere. IMO and this is a more likely, the NEC requires GFCI protection where it is impossible to maintain a continuous grounding path, which generally is at the receptacle where the grounding pin can be broken off. 

This is the point you are missing, you can come up with as many odd ball scenarios as you want, but proper bonding/ grounding will always trump a gfci, it is how the NEC sees it. otherwise the NEC would require GFCi protection on every circuit, you know, in case a frayed wire were to exist..


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

http://www.robstubbinselectrical.com/news/tag/nfpa/


This is a fantastic article about gfci's, and in every requirement it is because of a chance of a failed grounding conductor, give it a read.....


----------



## AllanJ (Nov 24, 2007)

Need for ground fault circuit interrupter protection has to do with the likelihood of some other part of a person's body making a not so poor conductive path to ground, such as being in contact with a not so dry bathroom floor or unfinished basement floor or the earth outside while at the same time the person touches something energized.

There is no argument requiring the need for equipment grounding conductors because circuits need them to be up to date anyway.

A failed EGC connection enters the electrocution picture only where the fault due to a damaged or exposed live component is to a metal tool body or other object or material that is supposed to be grounded and is intended to be held in hand or otherwise touched.


----------



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

stickboy1375 said:


> Your examples are pretty far stretched, If your scenarios we're more true to life, gfcis would be required everywhere. IMO and this is a more likely, the NEC requires GFCI protection where it is impossible to maintain a continuous grounding path, which generally is at the receptacle where the grounding pin can be broken off.
> 
> This is the point you are missing, you can come up with as many odd ball scenarios as you want, but proper bonding/ grounding will always trump a gfci, it is how the NEC sees it. otherwise the NEC would require GFCi protection on every circuit, you know, in case a frayed wire were to exist..


Sorry, that is nonsense. These are not oddball scenarios at all. These are scenarios where there can be a ground fault to a ground external to the circuit, and wet areas specifically are where this has a much higher chance of occurring. Obviously the NEC doesn't require GFCI on every circuit because not all circuits are near wet areas. They only require it in circuits near wet areas. That is, areas where potential for faults to external ground exists. There is no reason to think that grounding pins can be broken off more likely in a bathroom or kitchen than any other area.

Your article summarizes the history of GFCI, and that history is related to electricity near water, not grounding pins breaking off. It starts with underwater lighting, and goes from there.

From the same website:
"The _NEC_ and Canadian Electrical Code (CEC) require GFCI protection in a large number of applications. The fundamental GFCI requirements are found in Section 210.8 of the NEC, although many other sections require them as well. Suffice it to say wherever electricity may be supplied in a potentially wet location, such as kitchen countertops, near sinks or outdoors, there is a good chance that GFCI protection is required there."

Nothing to do with grounding pins breaking off.

http://www.robstubbinselectrical.com/news/tag/gfci-protection/


----------



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

A more concise view. Notice anything about the areas? Hint: has to do with water, not where grounding pins might break off.

http://www.mikeholt.com/documents/nec/pdf/GFCI_requirement_page2.pdf


----------



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

AllanJ said:


> Need for ground fault circuit interrupter protection has to do with the likelihood of some other part of a person's body making a not so poor conductive path to ground, such as being in contact with a not so dry bathroom floor or unfinished basement floor or the earth outside while at the same time the person touches something energized.


A "not so poor conductive path to ground" is actually the more accurate way of stating it, since water just happens to be the best example of it in most dwelling type settings.

Personally I don't even like the name GFCI because it's confusing. Current leakage device or something would be more meaningful. Anyway, it's no coincidence that the first leakage detectors were invented for mining operations, another area where both electricity and "not so poor conductive path to ground" exists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-fault_circuit_interrupter#History_and_nomenclature


----------



## curiousB (Jan 16, 2012)

Why so much concern about ground or no ground, wet or dry. Any imbalance to hot and neutral current is a fault and the GFCI is a brilliant low cost device to detect this.

Gfcis have saved many lives. 

I can't understand why the debate rages on for a 30+ year old device.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

curiousB said:


> Why so much concern about ground or no ground, wet or dry. Any imbalance to hot and neutral current is a fault and the GFCI is a brilliant low cost device to detect this.
> 
> Gfcis have saved many lives.
> 
> I can't understand why the debate rages on for a 30+ year old device.


The debate isn't about the device, only that people understand why they exist. The NEC views them entirely different than JeffNC, and his opinion is his to have, but it is not the NECs view on it.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

Im really confused on how JeffNC does not see why GFCI's are required only because the grounding conductor can be compromised. :whistling2::whistling2::whistling2:


What Is GFCI?

The definition of Ground-Fault Circuit Interrupter appeared in Article 680 (in the 1968 edition) as “a device whose function is to interrupt the electric circuit to the load when a fault current to ground exceeds some predetermined value that is less than that required to operate the overcurrent protective device of the supply circuit.” GFCI was still only one of the protection methods permitted for underwater fixtures. An interesting requirement was that conductors on the load side of the GFCI device were to be kept entirely independent of all other wiring and electrical equipment.



It was not until 1971 that GFCI protection became a “required” protection method. Even though underwater lighting fixtures were the first allowed this protection they were not the first required to have it.* A failed grounding connection presents an electrical hazard*, particularly with the number of handheld power tools and extension cords used around a construction site. So the first GFCI requirement (first simply because it occurred in Section 210-7) was for all single phase, 15- and 20-ampere receptacles used at a construction site. A few sections further, GFCI protection was required for all outdoor 120-volt, 15- and 20-ampere receptacles in residential occupancies, *essentially for the same reason as for construction sites.* This section also specifically permitted GFCI protection for “other circuits, occupancies and locations” if added protection was desired. In Article 680, protection included all electrical equipment used with storable pools and all receptacles within 15 feet of an indoor pool . The expansion of GFCI protection had begun.

Ground-fault circuit-interrupter protection requirements took time to expand. Concerns about the new technology, false tripping, financial burden, and the lack of data were cited as reasons. Still, 210-8(a) of the 1978 NEC added GFCI requirements to garages of dwelling units, partially due to concern with the amount of grounded (concrete) surface,* and the fact that many hand-held tools did not have an equipment grounding conductor *(for the younger crowd who have only used double-insulated ABS tools, metal used to be the hand-held power tool housing material of choice). Data regarding a grounding system that was verified as being intact supported the addition of an exception to the 210-8(b) construction site requirements. This exception introduced the assured grounding program as an alternative to GFCI protection. GFCI protection also became a requirement for marina receptacles (Article 555).

More Exceptions

Exceptions for garage receptacles that were not accessible — or were used for appliances in a dedicated space — first appeared in 1981. Thirty years ago, many appliances had high leakage currents, and ones with motors often were capable of tripping a GFCI device; therefore, fixed appliance locations were exempted. Non-accessible receptacles — such as on the ceiling for a garage door opener — were likewise exempted,* with the expectation that the receptacle would not be used with extension cords or hand-powered tools.*

The GFCI requirements expanded in 1987 to additional dwelling unit receptacles. The Code required the installation of at least one receptacle in a basement.* With the concrete and portable tool use in this area, GFCI protection became a requirement for that one receptacle*. The intent of the wording “above the countertop and within 6 feet of a kitchen sink” was clarified to exempt appliances (disposal, refrigerator, etc.) from the GFCI requirement. Additionally, dwelling boathouses *(due to the nature of the location and the use of portable tools)* became another protected location. The receptacles in commercial garages (Article 511) were included for the same reasons as those in a dwelling unit garage.

*Many pool pumps at private clubs and apartment complexes are hard-wired, and these pools are often maintained by personnel not familiar with bonding and grounding requirements*. The concern for protection of the public using these facilities warranted adding the GFCI requirement in the 1999 Code to 125- or 240-volt, 15- and 20-ampere pool pump motors, whether they were direct connected or cord-connected. This edition also brought another change to temporary installations (which were at that time in Article 305) when it expanded GFCI requirements to cover 125-volt, 30-ampere receptacles as well as any other receptacle used temporarily.

I can keep going, but i am done with this conversation.... proper grounding and bonding trump GFCI's, END OF STORY. Take commercial kitchens for one last example, every receptacle must be GFCI protected, this is not because of sinks, it is there because cleaning crews are relentless when moving appliances around and jerk the cord and break the grounding pin off of cords, the GFCI is required in case the equipment has a fault and provides secondary protection if that fault stays energized.


----------



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

Because it says all over the place it's because of _wet areas_ and _external_ ground faults. If you read the first link you posted, and then the history of NEC code updates, and you can't figure out the requirement is for external ground faults due to wet areas, then nothing I say can convince you. You will note that bathrooms and kitchens are not particularly important places for power tools to be used, yet are top priority for GFCI. I'm starting to think you don't even know what GFCI does.

NEC requires GFCI where wet, damp, or "earthy" areas can provide an external path to ground. You simply have a fundamental understanding of why this was invented.

And if you are actually an electrician, and you can't comprehend that people die in the example scenarios I described previously, you really shouldn't be practicing.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

jeffnc said:


> Because it says all over the place it's because of _wet areas_ and _external_ ground faults. If you read the first link you posted, and then the history of NEC code updates, and you can't figure out the requirement is for external ground faults due to wet areas, then nothing I say can convince you. You will note that bathrooms and kitchens are not particularly important places for power tools to be used, yet are top priority for GFCI. I'm starting to think you don't even know what GFCI does.
> 
> NEC requires GFCI where wet, damp, or "earthy" areas can provide an external path to ground. You simply have a fundamental understanding of why this was invented.
> 
> ...


You are entitled to your opinion, but your ignorance on the NEC destroys your lack of judgement. Being a damp/wet location is only part of the issue, as I already pointed out in Commercial kitchens.... If you want, post your comment on Mike Holts forum as see how you make out. This is a DIY site, so this debate is not worth my time trying to educate someone that isn't ready to be educated. You just lack the basic knowledge of electrical. And of course we always have the issue of someone admitting they are wrong.  Have a good night!


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

jeffnc said:


> Because it says all over the place it's because of _wet areas_ and _external_ ground faults.


Lets analyze this scenario for a second, all pools supplied by 15 & 20 amp branch circuits require gfci protection, but we all know they make gfci's up to 50 amps, but the NEC does not require gfci protection if you say, use a 25 amp breaker or larger, same goes for 3 phase pool equipment, non gfci required, but we are looking at the same pool scenario as with 15 & 20 amp circuits. Both wet locations, correct? 

Here is MY guess as to WHY gfci is not required in those scenarios, and it is simply because qualified personal will be servicing this equipment, not a homeowner, when unqualified people are involved, the NEC has to step up the protection by adding secondary protection to protect the less educated. And I mean this by making sure the proper grounding and bonding is in place.


----------



## AllanJ (Nov 24, 2007)

stickboy1375 said:


> What Is GFCI?
> 
> The definition of Ground-Fault Circuit Interrupter appeared in Article 680 (in the 1968 edition) as “a device whose function is to interrupt the electric circuit to the load when a fault current to ground exceeds some predetermined value that is less than that required to operate the overcurrent protective device of the supply circuit.” GFCI was still only one of the protection methods permitted for underwater fixtures. *An interesting requirement was that conductors on the load side of the GFCI device were to be kept entirely independent of all other wiring and electrical equipment.*.


If the subcircuit connected to the load terminals of a GFCI had an interconnection with any other circuit or subcircuit then an imbalance between/among currents on the current carrying conductors monitored by the GFCI unit *will* happen.


> Lets analyze this scenario for a second, all pools supplied by 15 & 20 amp branch circuits require gfci protection, but we all know they make gfci's up to 50 amps, but the NEC does not require gfci protection if you say, use a 25 amp breaker or larger, same goes for 3 phase pool equipment, non gfci required, but we are looking at the same pool scenario as with 15 & 20 amp circuits. Both wet locations, correct?


Here is my wild guess.

Higher amperage circuits are more likely to serve motorized equipment where there is a greater likelihood that there would be power factor issues and/or phantom (induced) currents that are greater than the threshold required by a GFCI unit to prevent electrocution. The lack of the GFCI requirement for higher amperage circuits is a tradeoff between the ability to install and use such motorized equipment at all, versus provide maximum safety for persons. Alternative methods of reducing electrocution hazards, such as equipotential grounding grids, are called for at swimming pools.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

AllanJ said:


> If the subcircuit connected to the load terminals of a GFCI had an interconnection with any other circuit or subcircuit then an imbalance between/among currents on the current carrying conductors monitored by the GFCI unit *will* happen.


I agree, not sure where they were going with that comment, other than they were only dealing with underwater luminaries, so who knows what they did in the past....


----------



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

stickboy1375 said:


> You are entitled to your opinion, but your ignorance on the NEC destroys your lack of judgement. Being a damp/wet location is only part of the issue, as I already pointed out in Commercial kitchens.... If you want, post your comment on Mike Holts forum as see how you make out. This is a DIY site, so this debate is not worth my time trying to educate someone that isn't ready to be educated. You just lack the basic knowledge of electrical. And of course we always have the issue of someone admitting they are wrong.


Right. Why don't you explain to us how the NEC has determined that grounding prongs are going to be breaking off power tools in bathrooms, kitchens, and wet bars, but not in bedrooms, living rooms, or attics?


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

jeffnc said:


> Right. Why don't you explain to us how the NEC has determined that grounding prongs are going to be breaking off power tools in bathrooms, kitchens, and wet bars, but not in bedrooms, living rooms, or attics?


Did you even read the article I posted???? 

Ground-fault circuit-interrupter protection requirements took time to expand. Concerns about the new technology, false tripping, financial burden, and the lack of data were cited as reasons. Still, 210-8(a) of the 1978 NEC added GFCI requirements to garages of dwelling units, _partially due to concern with the amount of grounded (concrete) surface_, *and the fact that many hand-held tools did not have an equipment grounding conductor *(for the younger crowd who have only used double-insulated ABS tools, metal used to be the hand-held power tool housing material of choice). *Data regarding a grounding system that was verified as being intact supported the addition of an exception to the 210-8(b) construction site requirements. This exception introduced the assured grounding program as an alternative to GFCI protection.* GFCI protection also became a requirement for marina receptacles (Article 555).

More Exceptions

Exceptions for garage receptacles that were not accessible — or were used for appliances in a dedicated space — first appeared in 1981. Thirty years ago, many appliances had high leakage currents, and ones with motors often were capable of tripping a GFCI device; therefore, fixed appliance locations were exempted. *Non-accessible receptacles — such as on the ceiling for a garage door opener — were likewise exempted, with the expectation that the receptacle would not be used with extension cords or hand-powered tools.
*

The GFCI requirements expanded in 1987 to additional dwelling unit receptacles. The Code required the installation of at least one receptacle in a basement. *With the concrete and portable tool use in this area, GFCI protection became a requirement for that one receptacle.* The intent of the wording “above the countertop and within 6 feet of a kitchen sink” was clarified to exempt appliances (disposal, refrigerator, etc.) from the GFCI requirement. Additionally, dwelling boathouses *(due to the nature of the location and the use of portable tools) became another protected location.* The receptacles in commercial garages (Article 511) were included for the same reasons as those in a dwelling unit garage.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

Here is another example of how equipment grounds trump GFCI's.....

*Assured Grounding Program*
Instead of using GFCIs, a roofing contractor can develop and implement an assured grounding program for equipment used on a project. The objective is to prevent electrocution by ensuring grounding wire is electrically continuous from the power tool to the power source.

The assured grounding program consists of a written program, daily visual inspections and a method to detect a faulty grounding wire in an extension cord or hand tool. A sample program is included at the end of this chapter. In addition to hand tools and extension cords, receptacles also must be tested.


----------



## AllanJ (Nov 24, 2007)

Wouldn't using GFCIs be easier to implement and manage compared with an assured grounding program?


----------



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

Your first post doesn't answer the question.

Your second post is something you scoured the internet for to provide an out of context support for your ill founded argument, and I notice you didn't post a source. It's from OSHA, not NEC, and in fact has nothing to do with NEC electrical codes.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the reasons for GFCIs existence. Furthermore, given your response to the electrocution scenarios I posted, you have a disregard for the kind of safety required around wet areas unrelated to system grounding. You really need some further education.


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

AllanJ said:


> Wouldn't using GFCIs be easier to implement and manage compared with an assured grounding program?


IMO, both used together are what give the best safety. An EGC is best at clearing faults, but if someone dropped a tool or cord in a puddle of water the EGC wont clear that. A voltage gradient can form that can harm or even kill anyone in contact with the puddle. A GFCI would sense and take care of that. Also keep in mind that a GFCI isn't shock protection. Even at 4ma a shock can be painful. It might not kill a healthly adult but it can startle them on a ladder or up high. An EGC mitigates that shock keeping the tool always "cold" while the GFCI removes the ground fault. Best of both worlds. 


FWIW Most countries under the IEC rules require a 30ma RCD plus a separate equipment ground for branch circuits. The same theory holds true in any application.


----------



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

Jump-start said:


> An EGC is best at clearing faults, but if someone dropped a tool or cord in a puddle of water the EGC wont clear that.


Right - another way to put that is grounding can clear _in circuit_ faults, and GFCI is for _external_ ground faults. Your puddle represents a potential ground fault, but it's not within the electrical system and that's why it's a hazard - there's a path for current to leak from the system. It might be better if GFCI were named differently. They are 2 separate systems to address 2 different problems, and there isn't any overlap between internal and external ground faults. That's why GFCI is required where water is most likely to be.


----------



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

There is a lot of bad explanations of GFCI on the internet, and that's one reason people are confused, and so quoting random web sites is problematic. GFCI is not well named to begin with, and that's another reason people don't get it. It wasn't invented for system ground faults.

For example, this article.
"If a person’s body starts to receive a shock, the GFCI senses this and cuts off the power"

http://www.safeelectricity.org/info...y/317-ground-fault-circuit-interrupters-gfcis

This is false. GFCI does not sense people getting shocked. If a toddler takes a house key in his left hand and a house key in his right hand and places one of each in the hot and neutral slots of an electrical outlet, he will receive a shock and GFCI will do nothing to help him. Nor will grounding, or circuit breakers, or anything like that. That sort of scenario is why tamper resistant outlets were added to the code, but once connected, the electrical system has no way of knowing if the current is flowing through a person or a light bulb.


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

jeffnc said:


> Right - another way to put that is grounding can clear _in circuit_ faults, and GFCI is for _external_ ground faults. Your puddle represents a potential ground fault, but it's not within the electrical system and that's why it's a hazard - there's a path for current to leak from the system. It might be better if GFCI were named differently. They are 2 separate systems to address 2 different problems, and there isn't any overlap between internal and external ground faults. That's why GFCI is required where water is most likely to be.


Well said


----------



## Stubbie (Jan 7, 2007)

JEFFNC

Just my observation ...  but someone who claims everything posted by Stickboy and others on this thread is fundamentally wrong and that water being nearby is the reason behind gfci ... needs to give some credentials in their profile otherwise they are a bit disingenuous .... :whistling2: 

Sorry I'm not going to search your previous posts ... to see if you ever mention ... But you are implying all over the place that you are an expert with gfci ... :yes:


----------



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

I'm not an expert on GFCI - I'm not even a licensed electrician. But I know the basics of how GFCI works and what sorts of shocks it was designed to prevent.

Saying that I have claimed everything posted by stickboy and others in this thread is fundamentally wrong is absolute nonsense, and disingenuous. That's not even remotely close.


----------



## Stubbie (Jan 7, 2007)

jeffnc said:


> I'm not an expert on GFCI - I'm not even a licensed electrician. But I know the basics of how GFCI works and what sorts of shocks it was designed to prevent.
> 
> Saying that I have claimed everything posted by stickboy and others in this thread is fundamentally wrong is absolute nonsense, and disingenuous. That's not even remotely close.


 I would post all the things you said, including the insults to a respected members intelligence but everyone following can read your remarks and make their own opinion.

I will choose to disregard anything you have said in this thread. Only because it is an opinion from a unqualified individual or an individual that is basing his belief on what he read on the internet...even though you complained about that in an earlier thread when someone else cited an internet source..
For you to state what you say is the correct interpretation for gfci and that if the rest of us cannot see that (sound familiar) we "shouldn't be practicing" tends to show an individual that is under the influence of his ego.


----------



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

Here is an example of how stickboy is off course. He has read the same things we have, but he drew the wrong conclusions. For example, he sees phrases such as "the assured grounding program as an alternative to GFCI protection", and he concludes that "system grounding trumps GFCI", or that GFCI is a "backup plan" to system grounding. But he's incorrect about that. It can be a backup plan, but that's not the unique reason for GFCI's existence, and that's where he probably got confused.

He sees language that talks about the dangers of ungrounded or failed ground on power tools, or missing ground plugs, especially in outdoor environments, in the same pages as GFCI content, and he concludes that the reason for GFCI's invention is to cover these cases. Again, that's an incorrect conclusion. Just because GFCI is used in those instances doesn't mean that's the reason for GFCI's existence in the first place.

He also says that standing outdoors in a puddle and touching a frayed extension cord is a "farfetched", "oddball" situation. I suppose he says this because this scenario doesn't fit with his understanding of GFCI. This is very dangerous thinking, and he couldn't be more wrong about this.

He thinks that because there is _some_ overlap between GFCI and system grounding, that GFCI is redundant. Again, this is incorrect, not because it isn't sometimes redundant, but because GFCI does something outside of these overlapping functions - scenarios where system grounding is irrelevant and can't help you.

Example: go to a GFCI receptacle, and close the circuit between the hot slot and the system ground (obviously this assumes we're talking about a receptacle that is grounded). The GFCI will trip. Now do the same thing with a non-GFCI receptacle. The closed circuit should trip the circuit breaker (the shutoff parameters are different of course - it will take a lot more current and probably more time). From this he concludes that GFCI only exists to be a different implementation of catching short circuits in the system.

The fact is, the raison d'etre of GFCI is current leakage from inside the system to outside. This doesn't mean GFCI can't catch current leakage within the system. External current leakage is the unique scenario that GFCI catches and system grounding cannot. In fact, it's completely unrelated to system grounding in this context. This is the reason the NEC requires GFCI in wet areas of the home, but not in dry areas. Wet areas represent high potential for external leakage. If there was something else really common in the home that represented the same high potential, then the NEC would require GFCI there too.


----------



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

Stubbie said:


> I will choose to disregard anything you have said in this thread.


Except you're not.



Stubbie said:


> For you to state... that if the rest of us cannot see that ... we "shouldn't be practicing"


Except I didn't say that.


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

jeffnc said:


> Here is an example of how stickboy is off course. He has read the same things we have, but he drew the wrong conclusions. For example, he sees phrases such as "the assured grounding program as an alternative to GFCI protection", and he concludes that "system grounding trumps GFCI", or that GFCI is a "backup plan" to system grounding. But he's incorrect about that. It can be a backup plan, but that's not the unique reason for GFCI's existence, and that's where he probably got confused.
> 
> He sees language that talks about the dangers of ungrounded or failed ground on power tools, or missing ground plugs, especially in outdoor environments, in the same pages as GFCI content, and he concludes that the reason for GFCI's invention is to cover these cases. Again, that's an incorrect conclusion. Just because GFCI is used in those instances doesn't mean that's the reason for GFCI's existence in the first place.
> 
> ...


Sounds right except this. If you short between hot and ground use a resistor as an example such as a 10 watt light bulb. This will trip a GFCI, not a regular outlet. However, if you short a GFCI hot to ground with no resistance, the breaker will probably trip since a GFCI is designed only to interrupt ground faults. IT might trip since it is a current imbalance, but it can also destroy the contacts inside the GFCI since they aren't designed to interrupt full fault current. I doubt its even close to 10kaic on a standard GFI. 

I get your example just a tad off :wink:


You are correct though, a EGC in wet areas isn't a substitute for a GFCI. 


If curious the ground fault logic in GFCIs not only save lives but can also catch wiring errors and can even prevent fires. Its actually one reason why AFCIs use 30ma ground fault logic. Its not 5ma, but 30ma in AFCIs, but still can stop a fire. Since a piece of romex pierced by a nail involving neutral and ground or hot and ground will get caught with ground fault logic immediately, where as the time current curves in a standard breaker might not stop it fast enough (fire starts) Also an EGC requires huge fault currents to trip a breaker, where as a GFI shuts down at a much lower level. Of course this will make little difference if a hot instantaneously touches a ground, but if your hot is faulting through an impedance like motor windings a GFI will catch it but not a regular breaker, until of course the fault becomes a total short circuit. 

Thought you would be interested.


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

Stubbie said:


> I would post all the things you said, including the insults to a respected members intelligence but everyone following can read your remarks and make their own opinion.
> 
> I will choose to disregard anything you have said in this thread. Only because it is an opinion from a unqualified individual or an individual that is basing his belief on what he read on the internet...even though you complained about that in an earlier thread when someone else cited an internet source..
> For you to state what you say is the correct interpretation for gfci and that if the rest of us cannot see that (sound familiar) we "shouldn't be practicing" tends to show an individual that is under the influence of his ego.


Yes, but so far most of what he has said is true. Look at the actual statements and point out those that he has made that are untrue. Much easier that way for everyone.


----------



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

Jump-start said:


> Sounds right except this. If you short between hot and ground use a resistor as an example such as a 10 watt light bulb. This will trip a GFCI, not a regular outlet.


That makes sense, of course.



Jump-start said:


> However, if you short a GFCI hot to ground with no resistance, the breaker will probably trip since a GFCI is designed only to interrupt ground faults. IT might trip since it is a current imbalance, but it can also destroy the contacts inside the GFCI since they aren't designed to interrupt full fault current.


I have actually done that before, and it did trip the GFCI without tripping the circuit breaker. I just assumed this was because the current threshold was so low for GFCI. The outlet is still working to this day, but I didn't really consider it could damage the contacts 



Jump-start said:


> Also an EGC requires huge fault currents to trip a breaker, where as a GFI shuts down at a much lower level. Of course this will make little difference if a hot instantaneously touches a ground, but if your hot is faulting through an impedance like motor windings a GFI will catch it but not a regular breaker, until of course the fault becomes a total short circuit.
> 
> Thought you would be interested.


Yeah, I mean it sounds like full house GFCI wouldn't be a bad idea, unless there are still devices that would make false trips.

Speaking of which, that actually happens in my bathroom. I have a hair clipper, and sometimes (not always) when I turn it _off_ (not on), the GFCI trips. I'm curious why that happens. The cord is ungrounded.


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

jproffer said:


> Isn't it 6 now in the new ones? And 30 on AFCI, right?


5ma on GFCI for people protection

30ma for equipment ground fault protection (not people)

30ma on AFCIs that have it. Remember that not all AFCIs have ground fault logic. GE for example has a model out that omitted Ground fault protection so the breakers can be used on Shared neutral circuits (MWBC).


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

jeffnc said:


> That makes sense, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




How old is that GFCI?


Here is an example of a GFI type 'main':


----------



## ddawg16 (Aug 15, 2011)

As an FYI it has been proven several times that you can short a hot wire to physical earth (actual dirt/ground, not ground conductor) and it will not trip the load center breaker.


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

ddawg16 said:


> As an FYI it has been proven several times that you can short a hot wire to physical earth (actual dirt/ground, not ground conductor) and it will not trip the load center breaker.


Do people read selectively? Re read the whole of what I wrote. I know that, and its the exact reason why in TT earthing (ground rods only) you need a GFI to clear a fault. A regular breaker wont do that, and I mentioned that.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

jeffnc said:


> Your first post doesn't answer the question.
> 
> Your second post is something you scoured the internet for to provide an out of context support for your ill founded argument, and I notice you didn't post a source. It's from OSHA, not NEC, and in fact has nothing to do with NEC electrical codes.
> 
> You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the reasons for GFCIs existence. Furthermore, given your response to the electrocution scenarios I posted, you have a disregard for the kind of safety required around wet areas unrelated to system grounding. You really need some further education.



Lol, this is a DIY forum... good luck with your comments...  You just don't understand it, no biggie...


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

AllanJ said:


> Wouldn't using GFCIs be easier to implement and manage compared with an assured grounding program?


Absolutely...


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

jeffnc said:


> You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the reasons for GFCIs existence. Furthermore, given your response to the electrocution scenarios I posted, you have a disregard for the kind of safety required around wet areas unrelated to system grounding. You really need some further education.


You keep making up your own opinions on why GFCI's exist... :whistling2:


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

jeffnc said:


> That's why GFCI is required where water is most likely to be.


No its not, it is only part of the issue, re-read my link...


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

jeffnc said:


> I'm not an expert on GFCI - I'm not even a licensed electrician. But I know the basics of how GFCI works and what sorts of shocks it was designed to prevent.
> 
> Saying that I have claimed everything posted by stickboy and others in this thread is fundamentally wrong is absolute nonsense, and disingenuous. That's not even remotely close.


You are ignorant, so get over it. I can't believe I was trolled on this thread....


----------



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

Jump-start said:


> How old is that GFCI?


At least 4 years. Has some spray paint overspray on it inside, which means it was probably the original one installed when the house was built, which was most likely 1994.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

As a side note, I know how a GFCI functions, but I also know why they exist, some people can't accept it, not a big deal in DIY forums, only where they are required is as much knowledge you need on a DIY site....


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

jeffnc said:


> At least 4 years. Has some spray paint overspray on it inside, which means it was probably the original one installed when the house was built, which was most likely 1994.


Try replacing it. Older GFCIs were more sensitive to transients and the like.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

Jeff, answer me this.... since you are so against broken ground pins, and the like.... 


Residential unfinished basements require GFCI protection, yet any commercial concrete floor does not require GFCI protection, want to explain the difference? Also, commercial kitchens require GFCI receptacles, but half the equipment is far from sinks, but they are all cord and plug connected... wonder why they require GFCI???????


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

stickboy1375 said:


> Not really, and I get how you are looking into it, but you are over analyzing it.
> 
> 
> Look at it this way, with proper grounding in place any fault is cleared instantly, with out proper grounding the fault stays in place and the GFCI acts as secondary protection to succeed what the missing grounding failed to do, and that is to clear the fault, the only difference is that the GFCI waits until a person is involved to actually trip...
> ...


 Do you have a link? Those aren't places where a ground is more likely to get compromised (I have never seen more open egcs in these places than others), its an area where water is present. It has little to do with the equipment ground, rather the water.


----------



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

stickboy1375 said:


> only where they are required is as much knowledge you need on a DIY site....


No, on a DIY forum you also need to know things such as: proper grounding will not save you while standing in a puddle with a frayed extension cord, and it's not _at all_ a farfetched example. You really ought to be embarrassed about that one, but either way it's not going to go unchallenged on a public DIY forum.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

jeffnc said:


> No, on a DIY forum you also need to know things such as: proper grounding will not save you while standing in a puddle with a frayed extension cord, and it's not _at all_ a farfetched example. You really ought to be embarrassed about that one, but either way it's not going to go unchallenged on a public DIY forum.


Yes, because that is what the NEC's intent was....:whistling2: why dont you try reading more internet knowledge to figure it out...


----------



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

stickboy1375 said:


> since you are so against broken ground pins, and the like....


What do you mean I'm "against broken ground pins, and the like"?


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

jeffnc said:


> No, on a DIY forum you also need to know things such as: proper grounding will not save you while standing in a puddle with a frayed extension cord, and it's not _at all_ a farfetched example. You really ought to be embarrassed about that one, but either way it's not going to go unchallenged on a public DIY forum.


You are correct on that statement. A frayed cord in water will cause a voltage gradient that an EGC will not remove. The resistance of water is to high to trip a standard breaker yet low enough to pass lethal currents.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

Jump-start said:


> Do you have a link? Those aren't places where a ground is more likely to get compromised (I have never seen more open egcs in these places than others), its an area where water is present. It has little to do with the equipment ground, rather the water.


DUDE, did you read the link I posted in this thread????


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

stickboy1375 said:


> Yes, because that is what the NEC's intent was....:whistling2: why dont you try reading more internet knowledge to figure it out...


Show me the GFCI proposals to the CMP and the reasoning behind them.


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

stickboy1375 said:


> DUDE, did you read the link I posted in this thread????


No, but I want to see it. Hold on...


----------



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

stickboy1375 said:


> Residential unfinished basements require GFCI protection, yet any commercial concrete floor does not require GFCI protection, want to explain the difference? Also, commercial kitchens require GFCI receptacles, but half the equipment is far from sinks, but they are all cord and plug connected... wonder why they require GFCI???????


A basement and a concrete floor are not the same thing. Basements are underground. GFCI are not required in residential living rooms that are on slab, for example. Commercial kitchens are inherently wet places. The NEC is certainly not going to get into the business of determining how likely a piece of equipment is going to be near a sink. Most kitchens get mopped every night and have drains in the middle of the floor.


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

Ok, from all the posts the notion Im getting from Stickboy1375 is that the reason why GFCIs are required is not because someone may drop a hair dryer in a sink but rather an EGC could open up... and its more likely to around places with water?


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

Jump-start said:


> Ok, from all the posts the notion Im getting from Stickboy1375 is that the reason why GFCIs are required is not because someone may drop a hair dryer in a sink but rather an EGC could open up... and its more likely to around places with water?


They go hand in hand, the point Jeff doesn't grasp yet, yes the locations are wet, but are also areas where people are likely to use extension cords or tools with broken ground pins, these codes were not written yesterday, back in the day, corded tools were not double insulated, they were made of metal, and we all know the dangers if the EGC was interrupted with a metal cased drill and a direct short to that metal case.


----------



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

Jump-start said:


> Ok, from all the posts the notion Im getting from Stickboy1375 is that the reason why GFCIs are required is not because someone may drop a hair dryer in a sink but rather an EGC could open up... and its more likely to around places with water?


Yes, I've already told him there's no reason that power tools will malfunction or ground pins will be missing more often in bathrooms or kitchens than bedrooms or living rooms, but in response he just keeps quoting large sections of NEC code history related to power tool usage. He implies that the answer is obvious within, but he hasn't explained it in his own words, so we're left to guess....

Presumably he would consider dropping a hair dryer in a sink a "far fetched" and "oddball" scenario that I dreamt up, akin to standing in a puddle and grabbing a frayed power cord.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

I copied and pasted this off of Mike Holts forum...




> Statistics.
> 
> 
> More people are injured by cord and plug connected equipment than by hardwired equipment.
> ...





> It is not a "Grey" area. Your friend was plain told wrong. A well pump does NOT need GFCI protection. Well pumps are connected to an equipment ground. Proper grounding and bonding trumps GFCI protection every time. We install GFCI protection most often on RECEPTACLES because we cannot be assured that users will maintain the grounding connection.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

jeffnc said:


> Yes, I've already told him there's no reason that power tools will malfunction or ground pins will be missing more often in bathrooms or kitchens than bedrooms or living rooms, but in response he just keeps quoting large sections of NEC code history related to power tool usage. He implies that the answer is obvious within, but he hasn't explained it in his own words, so we're left to guess....
> 
> Presumably he would consider dropping a hair dryer in a sink a "far fetched" and "oddball" scenario that I dreamt up, akin to standing in a puddle and grabbing a frayed power cord.


and who cares if you drop a hair dryer into a sink full of water, it won't trip a GFCI, unless there is a alternative path for the current to flow, lets not forget, GFCI's do not protect against LINE to NEUTRAL faults...

now go google some more and educate yourself...


----------



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

Jump-start said:


> Show me the GFCI proposals to the CMP and the reasoning behind them.


Here is some up to date reasoning for new proposals (concerns mostly wet areas and current leakage, of course....)

http://nfpapub1.gvpi.net/Features/Pages/NewGFCIRulesCouldWidentheCircleofProtection.aspx?sso=0


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

stickboy1375 said:


> DUDE, did you read the link I posted in this thread????


Well I read it, and yes I did find this: 

"Still, 210-8(a) of the 1978 NEC added GFCI requirements to garages of dwelling units, partially due to concern with the amount of grounded (concrete) surface, and the fact that many hand-held tools did not have an equipment grounding conductor (for the younger crowd who have only used double-insulated ABS tools, metal used to be the hand-held power tool housing material of choice). Data regarding a grounding system that was verified as being intact supported the addition of an exception to the 210-8(b) construction site requirements. This exception introduced the assured grounding program as an alternative to GFCI protection. GFCI protection also became a requirement for marina receptacles (Article 555)."

That was a helping factor for GFCIs just in this case for power tools. IT however does not answer to the primary reason. Which the article mentions:

"GFCI receptacles interrupt power to a circuit when it senses an imbalance of current between the neutral and ground (I think they mean hot and neutral and if they do this article is wrong). Its purpose is to protect against hazardous shock, especially from water coming in contact with electricity. This device is now required in essentially any place where water could come into contact with Electricity and cause a shock." 

Water coming in contact with electricity is correct and the primary driver for GFCIs in the NEC. Open EGCs may have played a small role but not the major one. If your statement was true than pool lights with an EGC wouldn't develop a voltage gradient under a fault. But they do. I can toss a toaster oven in a pool with an intact equipment ground and a voltage gradient would still form, no breaker would trip. Saying open EGCs are behind GFCIs is dangerous. By that logic that means I can take something metal that has a intact ground and use it in a bath tub or pool. No way.

If your going by that article, 3 sentences in they don't even use the correct terms to describe how a GFCI senses current. For me that makes me say what else is wrong.


----------



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

stickboy1375 said:


> and who cares if you drop a hair dryer into a sink full of water, it won't trip a GFCI, unless there is a alternative path for the current to flow


OMG, please tell me you're just joking now.

Mods, this is getting dangerous.

I would like to think this is obvious to everyone else but you, but in case not.... the most obvious alternative path is a metallic plumbing system, via the water. There are other paths in other scenarios.


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

stickboy1375 said:


> and who cares if you drop a hair dryer into a sink full of water, it won't trip a GFCI, unless there is a alternative path for the current to flow, lets not forget, GFCI's do not protect against LINE to NEUTRAL faults...
> 
> now go google some more and educate yourself...


Your article mentions neutral to ground :whistling2:


And neither will a totally insulated pool. But the theory is that if the person is well grounded and they reach in then it stops. Same if they are standing outside and touch a wet device that shocks them. GFCIs are to protect a person from death in wet locations, an EGC doesn't do that. And, again, if your leaf blower has an EGC, and it gets wet to the point electricity is conducted outward, the person will still get lit up. EGC makes no difference, the GFCI does.


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

jeffnc said:


> OMG, please tell me you're just joking now.
> 
> Mods, this is getting dangerous.
> 
> I would like to think this is obvious to everyone else but you, but in case not.... the most obvious alternative path is a metallic plumbing system, via the water. There are other paths in other scenarios.


 
Im going to be honest, it looks like someone hijacked his account.:huh: I have never seen him make claims like that before. Nor call a person ignorant for trying to learn something. :blink:


----------



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

He linked some great information earlier in this thread, which I thanked him for. Maybe you're right..... maybe it's not the same person. He is no longer talking like an electrician....


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

jeffnc said:


> He linked some great information earlier in this thread, which I thanked him for. Maybe you're right..... maybe it's not the same person. He is no longer talking like an electrician....


Hate to say it but hes not... I don't get it. Especially calling you ignorant which is wrong in any case. The first link is correct, a GFCI does not need an EGC to detect an imbalance. And yes in old houses you can put them on a 2 wire circuit provided the label. The Rob Stubbins link he posted is wrong 3 sentences in (it mentions neutral and ground, should be hot and neutral). I will look at the article more in depth.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

jeffnc said:


> OMG, please tell me you're just joking now.
> 
> Mods, this is getting dangerous.
> 
> I would like to think this is obvious to everyone else but you, but in case not.... the most obvious alternative path is a metallic plumbing system, via the water. There are other paths in other scenarios.


Unless you are using PVC plumbing... :whistling2:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liTecu-quHo


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

stickboy1375 said:


> Unless you are using PVC plumbing... :whistling2:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liTecu-quHo


And if the person is well grounded, reaches in, the GFCI trips.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

Jump-start said:


> And if the person is well grounded, reaches in, the GFCI trips.



Of course, and if he's not, nothing bad happens either...

It's called voltage potential... same as in a pool scenario, with proper bonding and grounding, nothing happens, even with or without gfci protection, my exact example to grounding and bonding trumps GFCI protection.


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

stickboy1375 said:


> Of course, and if he's not, nothing bad happens either...
> 
> It's called voltage potential... same as in a pool scenario, with proper bonding and grounding, nothing happens, even with or without gfci protection, my exact example to grounding and bonding trumps GFCI protection.



So your saying an EGC removes a voltage gradient from water?


----------



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

stickboy1375 said:


> Unless you are using PVC plumbing...


Well that goes without saying, which makes me wonder why you bothered saying it. Are you trying to say that since some people have metal plumbing and some people have plastic, that we don't need GFCI codes for sink and tub areas?

I guess the reason you don't understand these GFCI issues is that you truly don't understand that water and electricity represent a legitimate safety hazard. You really don't think it does, do you? You really think these scenarios are farfetched and not worth the NECs consideration. All I can say is that for the sake of our families' safety, I'm really really glad you're not making code decisions.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

jeffnc said:


> Well that goes without saying, which makes me wonder why you bothered saying it. Are you trying to say that since some people have metal plumbing and some people have plastic, that we don't need GFCI codes for sink and tub areas?
> 
> I guess the reason you don't understand these GFCI issues is that you truly don't understand that water and electricity represent a legitimate safety hazard. You really don't think it does, do you? You really think these scenarios are farfetched and not worth the NECs consideration. All I can say is that for the sake of our families' safety, I'm really really glad you're not making code decisions.


water is non conductive, lets face that fact, I'm a licensed electrician, I take yearly code classes and I go beyond learning and understanding the NEC with real NEC forums... what are your credentials?


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

Why do you think the NEC goes along with this????? The only difference I can come to is that when you hard wire a pump, the EGC is secure, when you use a plug a cord, the EGC can be compromised... let me know your opinion on this....



> Panel Statement: The intent of the panel is to require GFCI protection on
> cord-and-plug-connected motors and not require GFCI protection on “hardwired”
> motors.
> The 1999 NEC did not require all motors to be GFCI protected. In “other
> ...


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

Jump-start said:


> So your saying an EGC removes a voltage gradient from water?


No, but proper bonding does, the EGC actually induces this voltage gradient in most cases, the bonding just equalizes this voltage potential...


----------



## AllanJ (Nov 24, 2007)

stickboy1375 said:


> water is non conductive, lets face that fact, I'm a licensed electrician, I take yearly code classes and I go beyond learning and understanding the NEC with real NEC forums... what are your credentials?


Pure water is a very poor conductor. Slightly impure water, which could be contaminated by sweat from persons swimming in said pool, might conduct sufficient milliamperes from a defective pool lighting fixture to the body of someone in the pool, through his heart, and up his arm to a railing that happened to have a not so poor "bonding"* with the earth, and electrocute that person.

A GFCI unit in the right place (in the circuit) would trip and kill power to the offending light fixture.

* If A is bonded to B and B is bonded to C then A is bonded to C. In the above example B might be a layer of water on a concrete pool deck.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

AllanJ said:


> Pure water is a very poor conductor. Slightly impure water, which could be contaminated by sweat from persons swimming in said pool, can conduct sufficient milliamperes from a pool lighting fixture to the body of someone in the pool, through his heart, and up his arm to a railing that happened to have a not so poor "bonding"* with the earth, and electrocute that person.
> 
> A GFCI unit in the right place (in the circuit) would trip and kill power to the offending light fixture.
> 
> * If A is bonded to B and B is bonded to C then A is bonded to C. In the above example B might be a layer of water on a concrete pool deck.


Only if the bonding was not installed correctly, which brings us right back to proper bonding/grounding trumps GFCI protection... Everyone on the same page yet????

Who really cares if the pool is 4 volts or 120 volts, as long as the voltage potential is zero, everyone is safe, the voltage drop of the neutral conductor from the power company could in fact be 4 volts, this is not out of the ordinary, and why bonding exists to begin with....


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

stickboy1375 said:


> water is non conductive, lets face that fact, I'm a licensed electrician, I take yearly code classes and I go beyond learning and understanding the NEC with real NEC forums... what are your credentials?


What you say, isn't much on par for a licensed electrician. Saying water isn't conductive is asinine because you should know any water with mineral in it will become conductive. And fresh water tends to have an even larger voltage gradient since more resistance equals more voltage drop across a circuit. You may know the code blurbs, but some of the things you have mentioned thus far make me wonder. I also have no idea why you keep fighting the comments everyone is making. 





My honest opinion is I don't think you want to admit you goofed on a comment. Either that your intimidated that a DIY is asking good intended questions.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

Jump-start said:


> What you say, isn't much on par for a licensed electrician. Saying water isn't conductive is asinine because you should know any water with mineral in it will become conductive. And fresh water tends to have an even larger voltage gradient since more resistance equals more voltage drop across a circuit. You may know the code blurbs, but some of the things you have mentioned thus far make me wonder. I also have no idea why you keep fighting the comments everyone is making.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Which comment? Did you simply read the link I posted? it describes in detail the lack of portable tools and EGC's and the requirements of GFCI's... what else do you need to hear? It's easy to accept something that you don't understand... we could be talking about heart surgery right now and have the same discussion... I am simply going by the NEC and it's requirements, Jeff is simply adding a partial explanation to GFCI's, without any documentation I might add, just his opinion, you guys refuse to read what I post and understand because it is simply over your head.


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

stickboy1375 said:


> Only if the bonding was not installed correctly, which brings us right back to proper bonding/grounding trumps GFCI protection... Everyone on the same page yet????
> 
> Who really cares if the pool is 4 volts or 120 volts, as long as the voltage potential is zero, everyone is safe, the voltage drop of the neutral conductor from the power company could in fact be 4 volts, this is not out of the ordinary, and why bonding exists to begin with....


It may be zero between the railing and the liner... but that lived up light fixture will have a gradient around it. And the bonding will help clear a GFCI since a plastic insulted pool will not. But its the GFCI that stops the issue. People have been killed even in pools bonded correctly where a voltage gradient occurs. 

And yes CMP has used EGC integrity in the desition making process in some cases, but in the vast majority the intention is to protect a person from having power go through them. An EGC wont help with that in pools or power equipment, neither will an equal bond. 

And pool boning is for many reasons one even being the poco's MGN but that's a different theory.


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

stickboy1375 said:


> Which comment? Did you simply read the link I posted? it describes in detail the lack of portable tools and EGC's and the requirements of GFCI's... what else do you need to hear? It's easy to accept something that you don't understand... we could be talking about heart surgery right now and have the same discussion...


Yes, I read the link that doesn't even get the monitoring of the GFCIs right. See the third sentence.

Yes, requirement for GFCIs in garages, not everywhere.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

Jump-start said:


> It may be zero between the railing and the liner... but that lived up light fixture will have a gradient around it. And the bonding will help clear a GFCI since a plastic insulted pool will not. But its the GFCI that stops the issue. People have been killed even in pools bonded correctly where a voltage gradient occurs.
> 
> And yes CMP has used EGC integrity in the desition making process in some cases, but in the vast majority the intention is to protect a person from having power go through them. An EGC wont help with that in pools or power equipment, neither will an equal bond.
> 
> And pool boning is for many reasons one even being the poco's MGN but that's a different theory.


Everything is at whatever the bonding is at, it could be zero, it could be 4 volts, it could be 120 volts, the gfci will not trip, everything is bonded together.... this is just another example that you don't understand bonding either... it simply brings everything to the same potential, no matter what that may be.... take this scenario, the pool pump EGC is tied directly to the neutral conductor from the utility, imagine if the utility had an open neutral and what voltages what be imposed in the pool area via the pool pump EGC, with proper bonding, everything will be raised to this voltage... therefore, no one will be harmed.


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

stickboy1375 said:


> Everything is at whatever the bonding is at, it could be zero, it could be 4 volts, it could be 120 volts, the gfci will not trip, everything is bonded together.... this is just another example that you don't understand bonding either...


But not the energized light, it would have a potential. The GFCI will trip since the bonding system is also in contact with the soil which will pass some current (at least 5ma)... 

And to go as far as saying so many people don't understand? Interesting. So if this was posted on ET on Mike holt everyone would agree?


----------



## AllanJ (Nov 24, 2007)

stickboy1375 said:


> Only if the bonding was not installed correctly, which brings us right back to proper bonding/grounding trumps GFCI protection... Everyone on the same page yet????...


If the pool railing the swimmer was holding onto was properly bonded including to an equipotential bonding grid under the pool deck, that would not improve the lot of that hapless swimmer compared with a railing not so properly bonded, all other things being equal.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

Jump-start said:


> But not the energized light, it would have a potential. The GFCI will trip since the bonding system is also in contact with the soil which will pass some current (at least 5ma)...


You think that current would pass through the earth? The earth is very highly resistive....


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

stickboy1375 said:


> Everything is at whatever the bonding is at, it could be zero, it could be 4 volts, it could be 120 volts, the gfci will not trip, everything is bonded together.... this is just another example that you don't understand bonding either... it simply brings everything to the same potential, no matter what that may be.... take this scenario, the pool pump EGC is tied directly to the neutral conductor from the utility, imagine if the utility had an open neutral and what voltages what be imposed in the pool area via the pool pump EGC, with proper bonding, everything will be raised to this voltage... therefore, no one will be harmed.


Everyone within the pole would be safe, the pool could be 1000 volts to ground, but railing to liner, handles to decking, ect would be close to zero volts. I know what an equal potential plane is. Its used on farms to mitigate stray voltage its required in substations to keep appropriate step touch potentials between equipment/flooring, linemen use it whne working on lines... I get that.

But it is not a full substitute for a GFCI.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

Jump-start said:


> And to go as far as saying so many people don't understand? Interesting. So if this was posted on ET on Mike holt everyone would agree?


Most people agree that a EGC trumps a GFCI on MH's.... i've posted opinions on here already from the sites...


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

Jump-start said:


> Everyone within the pole would be safe, the pool could be 1000 volts to ground, but railing to liner, handles to decking, ect would be close to zero volts. I know what an equal potential plane is. Its used on farms to mitigate stray voltage its required in substations to keep appropriate step touch potentials linemen use it to work on lines... I get that.
> 
> *But it is not a full substitute for a GFCI.*


If it wasn't, then the NEC would require GFCI's in every application, not just 15 and 20 amp circuits... :thumbup:


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

stickboy1375 said:


> You think that current would pass through the earth? The earth is very highly resistive....


Yes, some will. Maybe not 20amps, but milliamps you bet! An amp in heavy rain best case soil conditions. Well above the level that harms someone. By your logic I could stand bare foot and work on live wires.


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

stickboy1375 said:


> If it wasn't, then the NEC would require GFCI's in every application, not just 15 and 20 amp circuits... :thumbup:


Because not all applications have water or flooring that's conductive.


----------



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

stickboy1375 said:


> water is non conductive, lets face that fact, I'm a licensed electrician


Well, you're now officially in the same camp as my "master electrician" friend who thinks that GFCI can only be installed in grounded circuits. You give credentials a bad name.

Water as it exists in the real world is conductive. The kind of water that comes in our plumbing pipes, and the kind that exists in puddles. I hope there aren't lurkers here who are actually trying to learn things from your posts. You should really be ashamed of the content you've posted in this thread. It's dangerous, and disgraceful. And all to win an argument and defend your image. I hope no one gets electrocuted based on some of the things you've said.


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

stickboy1375 said:


> Most people agree that a EGC trumps a GFCI on MH's.... i've posted opinions on here already from the sites...


Depending on the situation... By the way post the whole MH thread, not hand picked quotes.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

Jump-start said:


> Because not all applications have water or flooring that's conductive.


I'm talking about pools...  sorry if I didn't specify...

Why is it that I can install a 2 HP pool pump and if I install a 20 amp circuit breaker it must be GFCI, but I can legally install a 25 amp breaker and exclude the GFCI protection?


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

jeffnc said:


> Well, you're now officially in the same camp as my "master electrician" friend who thinks that GFCI can only be installed in grounded circuits. You give credentials a bad name.
> 
> Water as it exists in the real world is conductive. The kind of water that comes in our plumbing pipes, and the kind that exists in puddles. I hope there aren't lurkers here who are actually trying to learn things from your posts. You should really be ashamed of the content you've posted in this thread. It's dangerous, and disgraceful. And all to win an argument and defend your image. I hope no one gets electrocuted based on some of the things you've said.


At this point the things he is saying are dangerous. I don't get why he is taking bits of info and spinning them. Clearly he is, the insults give it away.


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

stickboy1375 said:


> I'm talking about pools...  sorry if I didn't specify...
> 
> Why is it that I can install a 1 HP pool pump and if I install a 20 amp circuit breaker it must be GFCI, but I can legally install a 25 amp breaker and exclude the GFCI protection?


In that case an EGC does play a role. Out of the 60 GFI scenarios you found a few where an EGC played a role in the CMP.

Motor design might play a role to, as well as how a cord and cap has more chances or DIY error.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

you guys can live happy with your opinions, its a moot point at this time frame, you have already chosen to believe what you want, It's not my job to convince you otherwise...


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

Jump-start said:


> In that case an EGC does play a role. Out of the 60 GFI scenarios you found a few where an EGC played a role in the CMP.
> 
> Motor design might play a role to, as well as how a cord and cap has more chances or DIY error.


REALLY????? nice answer.... :whistling2: It makes NO SENSE though...


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

stickboy1375 said:


> REALLY????? nice answer.... :whistling2: It makes NO SENSE though...


Yes, the one you wanted, does work out well for a few applications. So in theory, you did successfully extract the answer you were looking for.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

Jump-start said:


> Yes, the one you wanted, does work out well for a few applications. So in theory, you did successfully extract the answer you were looking for.


You do realize that for years if you hardwired a pool pump, no GFCI protection was required... why do you think that was allowed?

How can you say a few applications? What scenario changes that makes one environment safe, but not another?


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

stickboy1375 said:


> You do realize that for years if you hardwired a pool pump, no GFCI protection was required... why do you think that was allowed?
> 
> How can you say a few applications? What scenario changes that makes one environment safe, but not another?


Ok, fine. Im willing to learn... explain why. Safe to not have a GFCI?


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

Jump-start said:


> Ok, fine. Im willing to learn... explain why.


It was simple, because the EGC was hardwired, it was considered as safe as the branch circuit wiring, when you add a plug and cord, you know damn well that ground pin could be compromised... it really was that simple.


with that said, I do understand jeffs relation to wet area locations, and I never disagreed with him, but he also should have taken into consideration the real issues of wet locations and tools that could have been energized via non grounded equipment and a fault.


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

stickboy1375 said:


> It was simple, because the EGC was hardwired, it was considered as safe as the branch circuit wiring, when you add a plug and cord, you know damn well that ground pin could be compromised... it really was that simple.


In that case. But when it comes to people safety such as a tools in the rain an EGC does nothing.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

Jump-start said:


> In that case. But when it comes to people safety such as a tools in the rain an EGC does nothing.



Its not the NEC's job to protect the dumb dumbs.... BUT if that tool has a short, the EGC should clear it, if the EGC is compromised, then the GFCI will save a soul..... 

This WAS my point, but it got so tangled into what people wanted to hear...


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

.........


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

stickboy1375 said:


> Its not the NEC's job to protect the dumb dumbs.... BUT if that tool has a short, the EGC should clear it, if the EGC is compromised, then the GFCI will save a soul.....
> 
> This WAS my point, but it got so tangled into what people wanted to hear...


 Keep in mind water can dribble into the tool and conduct power out, even across a metal egc case. A frayed cable being grabbed by someone is an even better example. EGC will not help. If someone grabbed a frayed cable on carpet chances are they would live and walk away, hence not requiring GFCI protection. Now, same person bare foot on soil or concrete... Hand freezes on the hot and cant let go. GFCI would save the person and this would be a reason why GFCIs are required in these areas. EGC makes no difference here.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

Jump-start said:


> Keep in mind water can dribble into the tool and conduct power out, even across a metal egc case. A frayed cable being grabbed by someone is an even better example. EGC will not help. If someone grabbed a frayed cable on carpet chances are they would live and walk away, hence not requiring GFCI protection. Now, same person bare foot on soil or concrete... Hand freezes on the hot and cant let go. GFCI would save the person and this would be a reason why GFCIs are required in these areas. EGC makes no difference here.


That's a great scenario, but illogical to the NEC, you should have checked the cord before using the appliance, but a missing ground pin is very logical because, hey, how many people even know what that pin does anyway?


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

stickboy1375 said:


> That's a great scenario, but illogical to the NEC, you should have checked the cord before using the appliance, but a missing ground pin is very logical because, hey, how many people even know what that pin does anyway?


How many know exactly what a frayed cord looks like? Copper maybe shinny but it can tarnish and look like the rest of the cord.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

Take commercial kitchens, the cleaners are absolutely brutal with moving anything plugged in with care, they yank on the cords to the coolers breaking ground pins off constantly, a lot of people have died because of this after a unit had a internal short and left the piece of equipment energized.....


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

Jump-start said:


> How many know exactly what a frayed cord looks like? Copper maybe shinny but it can tarnish and look like the rest of the cord.


What do you think the odds are of a broken ground pin vs frayed cord?  ever been on a construction site? Ever see a carpenters extension cord?


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

I'm not against GFCI's saying lives, I just believe they are required for many other reasons then the ones given by others here on this DIY forum.


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

stickboy1375 said:


> Take commercial kitchens, the cleaners are absolutely brutal with moving anything plugged in with care, they yank on the cords to the coolers breaking ground pins off constantly, a lot of people have died because of this after a unit had a internal short and left the piece of equipment energized.....


And... I have seen washing machines with broken ground pins but so far (2014 wants AFCIs still need to check the GFI requirement) no requirement for GFCIs. None of the resi fridges either, hall ways where floor buffers get plugged in that 9 out of 10 are missing ground pins still don't require GFCIs... the list goes on.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

Jump-start said:


> And... I have seen washing machines with broken ground pins but so far (2014 wants AFCIs still need to check the GFI requirement) no requirement for GFCIs. None of the resi fridges either, hall ways where floor buffers get plugged in that 9 out of 10 are missing ground pins still don't require GFCIs... the list goes on.


I'm sure you have, but the NEC doesn't feel that permanently installed appliances need GFCI protection because they won't be plugged in and out repeatedly...

Here is the difference between us, I understand the NEC, you are just going by what you feel is right...

The NEC used to allow permanently installed fridges in garages in basements without GFCI protection as well.... wonder why? )


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

stickboy1375 said:


> I'm not against GFCI's saying lives, I just believe they are required for many other reasons then the ones given by others here on this DIY forum.


I have no doubt in my mind GFCI work as a back up to open EGCs. In fact in countries where ground rods do the fault clearing GFIs are put to use. In utilities where no EGC is run along the poles zero sequence logic (GFI) is used in the breakers to clear a downed line or faulted equipment. 


However, when it comes to things like hair dryers, frayed cords, soaked equipment, ect that you say is rare or not an issue indeed are a danger and an EGC makes no difference. 

Saying GFIs exist only because of EGCs is true for some cases but not all.


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

stickboy1375 said:


> I'm sure you have, but the NEC doesn't feel that permanently installed appliances need GFCI protection because they won't be plugged in and out repeatedly...
> 
> Here is the difference between us, I understand the NEC, you are just going by what you feel is right...



Im saying real world experience because you wanted it, and I could say the same about yourself since you were giving real world examples. I know what the NEC says. Trust me I get this.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

Jump-start said:


> Saying GFIs exist only because of EGCs is true for some cases but not all.



But in the NEC's eyes, thats why they do exist...  Sorry, but it's how it's written...


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

stickboy1375 said:


> But in the NEC's eyes, thats why they do exist...  Sorry, but it's how it's written...


Ive read the proposals, a lot of them even make no mention. BTW, show me more proof.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

Its been a really good debate, I think everyone gets where the other is coming from, and I'm cool with this, I hope the other parties accept my view as well....


----------



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

stickboy1375 said:


> Its not the NEC's job to protect the dumb dumbs...


Like for example, people who work in kitchens who are so brutal they rip grounding pins off cords?


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

Jump-start said:


> Ive read the proposals, a lot of them even make no mention. BTW, show me more proof.



Where should we begin? Residential ; *basements*: concrete floor and or likely area for someone to use a ungrounded tool or broken pin off an extension cord.... 
Exterior : same as above, Commercial roof tops : same as above, Commercial Kitchens: same as above, Temporary Installations; same as above... and the list goes on....


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

jeffnc said:


> Like for example, people who work in kitchens who are so brutal they rip grounding pins off cords?


Ever see a cleaning crew in action? They are required to move the equipment to clean every square inch, everything is on wheels, they really don't care, its a entry level paying job. 

I'm doing a commercial kitchen now if you want me to take pictures of all the appliances missing grounding pins? It's a very dry location by definition.


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

stickboy1375 said:


> Where should we begin? Residential ; *basements*: concrete floor and or likely area for someone to use a ungrounded tool or broken pin off an extension cord....
> Exterior : same as above, Commercial roof tops : same as above, Commercial Kitchens: same as above, Temporary Installations; same as above... and the list goes on....


Outdoors, resi kitchens... If you have a link for the proposals I will look through them and see on my own.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

Jump-start said:


> Outdoors, resi kitchens... If you have a link for the proposals I will look through them and see on my own.


Just search Mike Holts forum, a lot of this comes up very frequently...


http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=126823&highlight=broken+ground+pins
http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=99570&highlight=gfci+trumps

Check out post # 5...


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

stickboy1375 said:


> Just search Mike Holts forum, a lot of this comes up very frequently...


Thanks. Any particular ones? Im interested in any good threads you know of.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

Jump-start said:


> Thanks. Any particular ones? Im interested in any good threads you know of.


I edited my post and added a few links, I'm trying to find the better threads that took place a long time ago....


----------



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

stickboy1375 said:


> Ever see a cleaning crew in action? They are required to move the equipment to clean every square inch, everything is on wheels, they really don't care, its a entry level paying job.
> 
> I'm doing a commercial kitchen now if you want me to take pictures of all the appliances missing grounding pins? It's a very dry location by definition.


You really don't get it? You said NEC 's job isn't to protect the dummies. Except when it comes time to defend your argument. Then the guys who rip off their grounding plugs aren't dummies - they're NECs top priority, and people who work in their yard on wet grass are the idiots.

And no - kitchens are not dry locations by definition.


----------



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

Well, I came here to learn. After 183 posts, let's summarize what I've learned from the licensed electrician.

1) GFCI was not invented to detect current leaks to external ground, it was invented as a backup plan for system grounding, in case system grounding fails.

2) Scenarios involving water and shock hazards, such as standing on wet ground and touching a frayed cord, are "far fetched", and the NEC won't concern themselves with such outlandish scenarios. If this problem were more common, then GFCI would actually be required "everywhere".

3) After posting the following link, I learned that the reason the NEC is concerned about these "wet" areas is not because water is a safety hazard per se. It's because in wet areas such as bathrooms and kitchens, construction workers and maintenance personnel are more likely to break off grounding pins. Construction workers and maintenance personnel are either less likely to be working in bedrooms and living rooms, or they are less likely to brutalize their equipment in these drier areas.
http://www.mikeholt.com/documents/nec/pdf/GFCI_requirement_page2.pdf

4) Commercial kitchens are considered dry areas by definition. This isn't consistent with the fact that workers are breaking off grounding pins more often in wet areas (which includes kitchens), but _commercial_ kitchens are apparently a special case - dry, but brutalized by workers nonetheless.

5) Dropping a hairdryer into a sink or tub of water isn't anything to worry about, because electricity needs a path to flow on. Since some sink drains are made of plastic, the NEC doesn't need to worry about it anymore.

6) Even if a drain is made of metal, 5) still doesn't matter because water is non-conductive. (This wasn't mentioned when discussing #2 the other day - this property of water was apparently only discovered late yesterday evening.)


----------



## Stubbie (Jan 7, 2007)

Jeez guy reel in your ego .... 

Have you ever in the last several pages of posts realized your original question was never answered... :laughing: 

BTW you had a OMG reaction to the hair dryer comment by stickboy. Hair dryers usually are double insulated .. at least I haven't seen one that isn't for quite sometime.. the power cord has no connection to the egc at the receptacle. This poses a problem for gfci protected circuits when the plugged in appliance is dropped into water egc or not. Want to give more of your speculations ... as to why this section of code was added recently? It is addressing the requirement for IDCI in the power cord. Though intentional the egc is effectively compromised in a double insulated appliance. Operation of the gfci is iffy at best when an appliance is dropped into tap water metal drain or not. I suspect your going to miss my point but if you cant understand then you shouldn't be practicing your opinions ....



* NEC 2011 per 422.41 Cord-and-Plug-Connected Appliances Subject to Immersion.​* Cord-and-plug-connected portable, freestanding hydro-massage units and hand-held hair dryers shall be constructed to provide protection for personnel against electrocution when immersed while in the “on” or “off” position.
​


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

Jeff will not make it into work today because of a late night debate on why GFCI's are required... :jester:

And if we used Jeff's logic on why GFCI's are required we would learn that nearly every accidental electrical death was from a bizarre worn cord epidemic.... Never once was a tool accidentally energized and remained energized by a compromised grounding pin.... My final thoughts.


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

Stubbie said:


> Jeez guy reel in your ego ....
> 
> Have you ever in the last several pages of posts realized your original question was never answered... :laughing:
> 
> ...



IDCI will trip sensing actual current leakage without an EGC. Heck AC window makers are now putting them (current leakage interrupter) on their cords to detect damaged one.


But, am I correct to assume that piping is irrelevant in a sink, because if someone did drop a hair dryer in the sink that is not an NEC concern in itself until someone sticks their hand in it? Stickboy is correct a plastic drain would keep the dryer running, but the whole point of the GFCI is to protect the person in the event they are well grounded and stick a hand in. At that point the GFCI would trip over 5ma. So in theory a GFCI is to protect the person from exposure to over 5ma?

Just thinking aloud.


----------



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

stickboy1375 said:


> And if we used Jeff's logic on why GFCI's are required we would learn that nearly every accidental electrical death was from a bizarre worn cord epidemic.... Never once was a tool accidentally energized and remained energized by a compromised grounding pin.... My final thoughts.


And where in this thread or anywhere did I say or imply that that missing grounding pins were not a hazard? Where did I ever say or imply that tools or appliances can't become energized and if so it's not dangerous? Where did I ever say or imply that system grounding isn't important? Of course those are dangers and people die from them. That isn't the point, at all. The point is the dangerous nonsense you've been spewing in this thread.


----------



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

Stubbie said:


> Have you ever in the last several pages of posts realized your original question was never answered... :laughing:


Yes, I realized that a long time ago. What's your point? Go ahead and answer it, rather than sniping.



Stubbie said:


> BTW you had a OMG reaction to the hair dryer comment by stickboy. Hair dryers usually are double insulated


And so are power tools, yet this doesn't stop stickboy from continuing on about grounding failures in power tools. Just because power tools are insulated doesn't mean the NEC can now ignore grounding failures.

Hair dryer, radio, sink, tub - it doesn't matter - the point is hazards exist and accidents can and do happen. Telling the widow of an electrocution victim that the accident was "far fetched" is not likely to invoke much sympathy.

We are talking about ways in which electrical hazards can occur, not in how they can't. The electrical codes are there to cover when problems occur. If problems never occurred, we would still have knob and tube wiring and no grounding.

We have a licensed electrician in a DIY forum literally telling people that water doesn't represent a shock hazard near electricity. His worst posts should have been deleted by a mod, before someone dies.


----------



## Stubbie (Jan 7, 2007)

Jump-start said:


> IDCI will trip sensing actual current leakage without an EGC. Heck AC window makers are now putting them (current leakage interrupter) on their cords to detect damaged one.
> 
> 
> But, am I correct to assume that piping is irrelevant in a sink, because if someone did drop a hair dryer in the sink that is not an NEC concern in itself until someone sticks their hand in it? Stickboy is correct a plastic drain would keep the dryer running, but the whole point of the GFCI is to protect the person in the event they are well grounded and stick a hand in. At that point the GFCI would trip over 5ma. So in theory a GFCI is to protect the person from exposure to over 5ma?
> ...


Class A gfci (human safety gfci) has a trip threshold in the range of 4 or 5 milliamps of leakage current. Water facilitates the potential to allow more current to flow on a human body because he/she is wet vs dry skin. Metal piping in a sink may provide a path to ground in the hair dryer scenario but it has been shown many times that a gfci might not trip and continue to run ... so much so that 422.41 came into existence. You have to go back a long way .. 1960's .. to understand the thinking behind implementing the first gfci's. The benefits of providing human safety with gfci around wet areas ( the original 1st code requirement was underwater luminaires in swimming pools) is well documented. A few years later as gfci became more apparent for human safety the NFPA/NEC applied it to construction sites ... yep you guessed it .... No.1 cause of death compromised egc in extension cords used to power faulty tools. The drumming up of scenarios that might kill you as has been done in this thread by the OP is not an acceptable argument/why there is gfci. You need to stick to the facts and know the facts to the implementation of gfci before you decide it just has to be how you personally are thinking. Might be a good idea to check with the guys who made the decisions on the code panels. The number one cause of death after the branch circuit is compromised egc when operating a faulty tool or appliance where the frame can be energized. MY point being do you really think the NEC/NFPA should spend their time worrying about the stupid things that occur in a million different scenarios. I don't see any of those examples listed on the NFPA or other government sites documenting areas of concern 
due to frequency of electrocution. There are external benefits to gfci that go hand in hand with its technology but all those frayed cord, water puddle, exposed wire on a lighting circuit examples have no merit unless you can show through documentation that those examples you dream up are a statistical concern that would influence the reasoning behind gfci. Compromised egc beyond the branch circuit or no egc in the branch circuit remains the #1 cause of death from ground faults in the residential and construction environment. You cannot protect people from acts of stupidity nor should you impose billions of dollars in costs on acts of ignorance, interestingly gfci by benefit of the technology will protect even the stupid... 
Being able to do the impossible and assure egc integrity throughout the branch circuit and beyond IMO is just a nice imagination .. it's not reality. The NEC addressed this with the gfci and IMO was the major focus of the cmp and product developers. 

Now I will disagree with Stickboy that if I could actually do the impossible that gfci would go away buts that's another debate ....:wink:


----------



## Stubbie (Jan 7, 2007)

jeffnc said:


> Yes, I realized that a long time ago. What's your point? Go ahead and answer it, rather than sniping.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Look ... I'm done with your over reactions no one is going to die from stickboys comments ...jeez 

If you need attention and are having difficulty excepting the fact your not completely unequivocally correct in your thinking ... go over to mike holt and argue with the guys that played a part in in the subject.
Your going to get a surprise...
MY last post ... get over your obsession with this .... ask your original question again on another thread and we can look into it.


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

stickboy1375 said:


> Just search Mike Holts forum, a lot of this comes up very frequently...
> 
> 
> http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=126823&highlight=broken+ground+pins
> ...


_"A well pump does NOT need GFCI protection. Well pumps are connected to an equipment ground. Proper grounding and bonding trumps GFCI protection every time_." 

In the case of a well pump where the user doesn't contact it, I could understand that argument. 

_"We install GFCI protection most often on RECEPTACLES because we cannot be assured that users will maintain the grounding connection."_ 

He has nothing to back that up. And that's one user expressing an opinion where he has nothing to support it be it a theoretical explanation or a CMP reference. 

If you look at the CMP explanations over they years behind expanding GFCI requirements, most bring up water rather than compromised EGCs. Yes, water will indeed make an open EGC situation worse since it lowers skin conductivity, but so many scenarios (that even CMP has brought up) make no difference even for a functioning EGC. As I said, a frayed cord, an appliance immersed in water... All realistic scenarios driving GFCIs independent of an equipment ground. An immersed appliance will no matter what produce a voltage gradient in water, even with the best grounding and bonding. 

Any way, the reason behind hard wired pool pump s now needing GFCI:


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

Stubbie said:


> Class A gfci (human safety gfci) has a trip threshold in the range of 4 or 5 milliamps of leakage current. Water facilitates the potential to allow more current to flow on a human body because he/she is wet vs dry skin. Metal piping in a sink may provide a path to ground in the hair dryer scenario but it has been shown many times that a gfci might not trip and continue to run ... so much so that 422.41 came into existence. You have to go back a long way .. 1960's .. to understand the thinking behind implementing the first gfci's. The benefits of providing human safety with gfci around wet areas ( the original 1st code requirement was underwater luminaires in swimming pools) is well documented. A few years later as gfci became more apparent for human safety the NFPA/NEC applied it to construction sites ... yep you guessed it .... No.1 cause of death compromised egc in extension cords used to power faulty tools. The drumming up of scenarios that might kill you as has been done in this thread by the OP is not an acceptable argument/why there is gfci. You need to stick to the facts and know the facts to the implementation of gfci before you decide it just has to be how you personally are thinking. Might be a good idea to check with the guys who made the decisions on the code panels. The number one cause of death after the branch circuit is compromised egc when operating a faulty tool or appliance where the frame can be energized. MY point being do you really think the NEC/NFPA should spend their time worrying about the stupid things that occur in a million different scenarios. I don't see any of those examples listed on the NFPA or other government sites documenting areas of concern
> due to frequency of electrocution. There are external benefits to gfci that go hand in hand with its technology *but all those frayed cord, water puddle, exposed wire on a lighting circuit examples have no merit unless you can show through documentation that those examples you dream up are a statistical concern that would influence the reasoning behind gfci.* Compromised egc beyond the branch circuit or no egc in the branch circuit remains the #1 cause of death from ground faults in the residential and construction environment. You cannot protect people from acts of stupidity nor should you impose billions of dollars in costs on acts of ignorance, interestingly gfci by benefit of the technology will protect even the stupid...
> Being able to do the impossible and assure egc integrity throughout the branch circuit and beyond IMO is just a nice imagination .. it's not reality. The NEC addressed this with the gfci and IMO was the major focus of the cmp and product developers.
> 
> Now I will disagree with Stickboy that if I could actually do the impossible that gfci would go away buts that's another debate ....:wink:


I agree with what you, well said  :thumbup:


Highlighted part...Funny, because I can dig up so many lawsuit PDFs where people have been killed because of those exact same scenarios and electrical forensic experts concluded the absence of a GFCI was the blame and had one existed, they would have de-energized those contingencies. Yes cases exist where an open EGC and water was the blame, that is well documented, but so have cases where water was involved yet grounding and bonding were concluded to be irrelevant. Those Im not making up, they exist black on white. 


But here is the thing, we don't need to spend billions for the scenarios you claim I hype, because the CMP already has an answer: GFCIs. As I said, they will stop both the issues you claim (which are indeed valid and real) as well as the ones I supposedly hype (which are documented as well). 

The #1 reason for a 5ma GFCI is to prevent over 5ma from going through a person for an unacceptable period of time. There are many, many scenarios that can cause this outside of open EGCs and aren't even worth mentioning further. Stickboy1375 makes it sound like the only hazard a GFCI stops is an open EGC. Its not, its one reason but not all reasons. Plus, in kitchens and bathrooms where double insulted appliances exist especially bathrooms, GFCIs have been required for years. There is no open EGC to worry about then, so why require it? Even before LCDIs it was the same. Simple, because a frayed cord, or dropping a shaver into a full sink, presents a hazard. This is indeed a case where GFCIs were mandated not on the presence of a failed ground, but for the fact a user could easily see over 5ma because of water. This isn't a hyped scenario. I have read many papers of people dropping appliances into full sinks, bathtubs, ect. CMP would not have the mentality to go ahead and acknowledge open grounds in tools, yet 'say well if your so dumb to drop your shaver in a sink its not worth our concern' 



Plus, his statement water isn't conductive is well... concerning to say the least.


----------



## Stubbie (Jan 7, 2007)

Jump-start said:


> I agree with what you, well said  :thumbup:
> 
> 
> Highlighted part...Funny, because I can dig up so many lawsuit PDFs where people have been killed because of those exact same scenarios and electrical forensic experts concluded the absence of a GFCI was the blame and had one existed, they would have de-energized those contingencies. Yes cases exist where an open EGC and water was the blame, that is well documented, but so have cases where water was involved yet grounding and bonding were concluded to be irrelevant. Those Im not making up, they exist black on white.
> ...


 Jump Start

Wasn't talking about you hyping examples but the OP ..sorry if I wasn't clear. 

I suppose there are lawsuits for all kinds of electrical incidents I would need the details as to why mention of gfci comes into play.

I personally don't think stickboy is saying that ,you all are missing his point.

Anyway I don't see the productivity in this thread at this point I would like to think everyone has had there 2 cents. I've had mine ...


----------



## Stubbie (Jan 7, 2007)

Oops ...wanted to post another reply to you ... you left out the substantiation to deny the proposal in the first round back in 2002 it was then accepted later by the panel. Personally I disagree other than the cost factor the decision was made on a single incident documented by the cpsc (consumer protection guys). There is more to the story .. the incident in question and used as basis for approval to gfci protect hardwired pumps on pools had several issues going on, including a tripping circuit breaker. The homeowner paid the price because he was messing with it when he didn't know what he was doing. The proposal as written ignores hardwired 208 single phase pumps and 3 phase pumps in other than residences. So here again the NEC is protecting the unqualified homeowner. It's not a bad thing the cost will just be passed on to the client. I think where it is headed is that protective devices will be required on all residential branch circuits in residential settings for the simple reason homeowners don't know what they don't know...


----------



## curiousB (Jan 16, 2012)

jeffnc said:


> I'm not an expert on GFCI - I'm not even a licensed electrician. But I know the basics of how GFCI works and what sorts of shocks it was designed to prevent.
> 
> Saying that I have claimed everything posted by stickboy and others in this thread is fundamentally wrong is absolute nonsense, and disingenuous. That's not even remotely close.


Any protection scheme has layers of protection with overlap. This isn't over design it is redundancy and protection if one sub system fails to do the job. 

Cars have brakes, then they separated hydraulics to two separate loops on alternate diagonals of the vehicle, then disc brakes came about, now ABS is standard. Each is a further refinement and enhancement of the prior state of art. Modern airplanes have triple redundant systems for similar reasons.

GFCIs don't detect a shock. They detect a current imbalance (of >5-6mA) in the hot and neutral lines. Period. The design is fairly simple and hence robust. There is an assumption that if the currents are not matched there is a stray current that could be dangerous condition to a human. No certainty, just that a it isn't normal operations so lets shut off power just in case.

EGC is also a good idea as it keeps all equipment at an equal potential. In the normal case never needed. But that is the nature of protection. Its not for the normal case, rather the abnormal and potentially dangerous case. 

Hey I don't need ABS if the pavement is dry and I have good tires. But what if it isn't dry and I have treadbare tires.....


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

Stubbie said:


> Oops ...wanted to post another reply to you ... you left out the substantiation to deny the proposal in the first round back in 2002 it was then accepted later by the panel. Personally I disagree other than the cost factor the decision was made on a single incident documented by the cpsc (consumer protection guys). There is more to the story .. the incident in question and used as basis for approval to gfci protect hardwired pumps on pools had several issues going on, including a tripping circuit breaker. The homeowner paid the price because he was messing with it when he didn't know what he was doing. The proposal as written ignores hardwired 208 single phase pumps and 3 phase pumps in other than residences. So here again the NEC is protecting the unqualified homeowner. It's not a bad thing the cost will just be passed on to the client. I think where it is headed is that protective devices will be required on all residential branch circuits in residential settings for the simple reason homeowners don't know what they don't know...


I did. Sorry :blush: (embarrassed icon) Just wanted to make it easier. 


I do have to agree that home owners who violate code and a growing issue of Handy men influencing code. Like the ties for MWBC:furious:... they only exist because of unqualified professionals. Resi ok, but does a commercial building really need handle ties? Sadly they do...maintance And truth is if people weren't so careless with appliances be it ground cords or using electrical devices in the rain we might not even have the expansive GFCIs list.


Just to add I think incompetent builders might also play a role... I only say because when AFCIs were introduced, they caught a lot of wiring defects that were never code to start with, ie over driven staples, neutral to ground faults, loose connections, ect.


----------



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

Stubbie said:


> MY last post ...


If I had a dollar for every time someone said that in this forum, I'd never work another day in my life.


----------



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

Stubbie said:


> The drumming up of scenarios that might kill you as has been done in this thread by the OP is not an acceptable argument/why there is gfci. You need to stick to the facts and know the facts to the implementation of gfci before you decide it just has to be how you personally are thinking. Might be a good idea to check with the guys who made the decisions on the code panels. ... MY point being do you really think the NEC/NFPA should spend their time worrying about the stupid things that occur in a million different scenarios. I don't see any of those examples listed on the NFPA or other government sites documenting areas of concern due to frequency of electrocution. There are external benefits to gfci that go hand in hand with its technology but all those frayed cord, water puddle, exposed wire on a lighting circuit examples have no merit unless you can show through documentation that those examples you dream up are a statistical concern that would influence the reasoning behind gfci.


Here are 4 very straightforward questions for you to educate us.

Since the NEC panel isn't here, then why don't you explain to us the reason the NEC created the codes requiring GFCI in the following areas specifically? What is special about these areas that requires GFCI, when areas such as bedrooms, living rooms, bonus rooms, media rooms, dens, offices, hallways, foyers, etc etc don't need them?

http://www.mikeholt.com/documents/nec/pdf/GFCI_requirement_page2.pdf

According to stickboy, the reason we need GFCI in those areas is that grounding pins are more likely to be breaking off in those areas. Do you agree with him or do you have a different explanation?

I also posted another link to more recent reasoning from the CMP. Do you want to state your reasons for them being wrong?

http://nfpapub1.gvpi.net/Features/Pages/NewGFCIRulesCouldWidentheCircleofProtection.aspx?sso=0

Stickboy also says water isn't conductive. You want to go on record agreeing with him?


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

jeffnc said:


> Here are 4 very straightforward questions for you to educate us.
> 
> Since the NEC panel isn't here, then why don't you explain to us the reason the NEC created the codes requiring GFCI in the following areas specifically? What is special about these areas that requires GFCI, when areas such as bedrooms, living rooms, bonus rooms, media rooms, dens, offices, hallways, foyers, etc etc don't need them?
> 
> ...


Bwahh, i'm waiting for your head to explode... :laughing:


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

jeffnc said:


> Here are 4 very straightforward questions for you to educate us.
> 
> Since the NEC panel isn't here, then why don't you explain to us the reason the NEC created the codes requiring GFCI in the following areas specifically? What is special about these areas that requires GFCI, when areas such as bedrooms, living rooms, bonus rooms, media rooms, dens, offices, hallways, foyers, etc etc don't need them?



Try reading it this time...:whistling2:

Ground-fault circuit-interrupter protection requirements took time to expand. Concerns about the new technology, false tripping, financial burden, and the lack of data were cited as reasons. Still, 210-8(a) of the 1978 NEC added GFCI requirements to garages of dwelling units, partially due to concern with the amount of grounded (concrete) surface, and the fact that many hand-held tools did not have an equipment grounding conductor (for the younger crowd who have only used double-insulated ABS tools, metal used to be the hand-held power tool housing material of choice). Data regarding a grounding system that was verified as being intact supported the addition of an exception to the 210-8(b) construction site requirements. This exception introduced the assured grounding program as an alternative to GFCI protection. GFCI protection also became a requirement for marina receptacles (Article 555).

More Exceptions

Exceptions for garage receptacles that were not accessible — or were used for appliances in a dedicated space — first appeared in 1981. Thirty years ago, many appliances had high leakage currents, and ones with motors often were capable of tripping a GFCI device; therefore, fixed appliance locations were exempted. Non-accessible receptacles — such as on the ceiling for a garage door opener — were likewise exempted, with the expectation that the receptacle would not be used with extension cords or hand-powered tools.


The GFCI requirements expanded in 1987 to additional dwelling unit receptacles. The Code required the installation of at least one receptacle in a basement. With the concrete and portable tool use in this area, GFCI protection became a requirement for that one receptacle. The intent of the wording “above the countertop and within 6 feet of a kitchen sink” was clarified to exempt appliances (disposal, refrigerator, etc.) from the GFCI requirement. Additionally, dwelling boathouses (due to the nature of the location and the use of portable tools) became another protected location. The receptacles in commercial garages (Article 511) were included for the same reasons as those in a dwelling unit garage.


----------



## AllanJ (Nov 24, 2007)

Reviewing the bidding again ...

The current code requires equipment grounding conductors in the building wiring. So the greatest likelihood of not have equipment grounding for a particular tool or appliance is a problem inside it or its power cord, hence the mention of a damaged ground pin in its power plug.

The current code requires ground fault circuit interrupters in selected locations in homes and commercial buildings. The emphasis is on floors that could conduct current to ground such as ground level concrete floors which have some porosity and are often damp, and bathroom/kitchen floors and boat docks that are often wet. While requirements and exceptions have changed over the years, an assured ground monitoring program is allowed as an alternative to GFCI in some commercial locations. An assured ground program of course includes inspection of power cords, plugs, and receptacles. This is where the idea that EGC trumps GFCI probably came from. Someone in charge of electrical utilization equipment (lights, tools, appliances, etc.), given a system that has EGC but not GFCI, will quite naturally ...


stickboy1375 said:


> (snip) ... false tripping, financial burden ... (snip)


... look for a loophole where he does not have to provide GFCI.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

Lets try another approach on this subject, since all receptacles in wet locations need to be GFCI protected, why not luminaries? Don't you find it strange that you can easily be washing your hands at the kitchen sink and yet still turn on a under cabinet light with a local switch that isn't GFCI protected? How about a light fixture in a bathroom, still a wet location, oh yeah, they all contain an equipment ground that can't be compromised in such a way as a cord and plug appliance...


----------



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

stickboy1375 said:


> Lets try another approach on this subject, since all receptacles in wet locations need to be GFCI protected


Tell us why this is so, in your own words, and we'll go from there. We don't need more copy and pasted exceptions that you don't understand and don't answer the question. We need to hear why you think wet locations need GFCI protection.


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

stickboy1375 said:


> Lets try another approach on this subject, since all receptacles in wet locations need to be GFCI protected, why not luminaries? Don't you find it strange that you can easily be washing your hands at the kitchen sink and yet still turn on a under cabinet light with a local switch that isn't GFCI protected? How about a light fixture in a bathroom, still a wet location, oh yeah, they all contain an equipment ground that can't be compromised in such a way as a cord and plug appliance...


They cant be immersed in water.


----------



## Speedy Petey (Feb 1, 2004)

jeffnc said:


> Stickboy also says water isn't conductive. You want to go on record agreeing with him?


I will!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpBUBzk2ZIU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0OopOdbDCk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyWVRGzwXxA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wz7A_003mJg


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

Jump-start said:


> They cant be immersed in water.


And? We are required to supply GFCI protection in basements, do you think every basement is under water?


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

jeffnc said:


> Tell us why this is so, in your own words, and we'll go from there. We don't need more copy and pasted exceptions that you don't understand and don't answer the question. * We need to hear why you think wet locations need GFCI protection*.


Its not "We" it's "You" :whistling2: 


I understand why GFCI's are required in wet locations, you can only understand part of the equation... i'm sorry you have tunnel vision on this concept. Stop thinking WET is the only relationship with GFCI's...


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

The real problem is that if you don't understand the history of GFCI's and and where they started from and how they grew into the NEC, you are simply just not going to understand the nature of their requirement....


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

stickboy1375 said:


> And? We are required to supply GFCI protection in basements, do you think every basement is under water?


No, but there is moisture, dehumidifiers, ect. I get your saying GFCI were introduced because of open EGCs, but that's only part of it.


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

Out of curiosity, this might be a stretch, but does anyone have the original proposals and code acceptance of GFCIs over the years. Like what the CMP said about bathrooms, kitchens ect?


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

Speedy Petey said:


> I will!
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpBUBzk2ZIU
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0OopOdbDCk
> ...


Id still call it conductive, since he was able to read voltage when he stuck the lead in. Certainly not as good as copper, but still conductive enough to be measured and felt like we see in the video.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

Jump-start said:


> Out of curiosity, this might be a stretch, but does anyone have the original proposals and code acceptance of GFCIs over the years. Like what the CMP said about bathrooms, kitchens ect?


We are talking many decades here... The GFCI was invented in 1961....

Speaking of 1961, lets do a little time travel and think of how things were built and constructed back then, everything was metal and very conductive, so it's no wonder when you add a grounded concrete floor to the mix, GFCI's are an easy requirement to the NEC.... In todays world though, I see lobbyist playing a huge part in the NEC, think about it, what better way to sell a product than make it a code requirement....


----------



## AllanJ (Nov 24, 2007)

Another wild guess.

If you reach for a switch without GFCI protection and the conditions are just right (e.g. floor wet between you and something grounded) for you to be electrocuted, chances are your finger will slip off the switch, breaking the current path, and you are saved. Thus lighting subcircuits don't need GFCI protection.

If you are holding the drill or hair dryer plugged into a receptacle and the conditions are just right for you to be electrocuted, your grip might tighten up, prolonging the flow of current if a GFCI did not cut it off.


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

stickboy1375 said:


> We are talking many decades here... The GFCI was invented in 1961....
> 
> Speaking of 1961, lets do a little time travel and think of how things were built and constructed back then, everything was metal and very conductive, so it's no wonder when you add a grounded concrete floor to the mix, GFCI's are an easy requirement to the NEC.... *In todays world though, I see lobbyist playing a huge part in the NEC*, think about it, what better way to sell a product than make it a code requirement....


:laughing: Id say your correct, unfortunately


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

AllanJ said:


> Another wild guess.
> 
> If you reach for a switch without GFCI protection and the conditions are just right (e.g. floor wet between you and something grounded) for you to be electrocuted, chances are your finger will slip off the switch, breaking the current path, and you are saved. Thus lighting subcircuits don't need GFCI protection.




I just read the ROP on this subject, the NEC was never concerned with being electrocuted by a wall switch, but they do care about water from a shower head hitting the actual switch, this is why they have to be located directly outside the tub/shower enclosure....


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

Jump-start said:


> :laughing: Id say your correct, unfortunately


To me I don't really care, I have no problems selling more mandated products... :thumbup:


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

stickboy1375 said:


> To me I don't really care, I have no problems selling more mandated products... :thumbup:


I know, but still, I don't want to see the day the NEC becomes a design manual.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

Jump-start said:


> I know, but still, I don't want to see the day the NEC becomes a design manual.


Funny as they claim not to be one, yet..........................


----------



## curiousB (Jan 16, 2012)

Moderator. Time to shut this thread down.....


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

curiousB said:


> Moderator. Time to shut this thread down.....


Why? its just discussion, its not wild or out of control, not offensive, or users attacking other users....


----------



## Speedy Petey (Feb 1, 2004)

curiousB said:


> Moderator. Time to shut this thread down.....


It's nice to see you were promoted to forum conscience.


----------



## TheEplumber (Jul 20, 2010)

stickboy1375 said:


> Why? its just discussion, its not wild or out of control, not offensive, or users attacking other users....


I gotta say- I'm getting an education. I know next to nothing about elect. code or theory. I have electricians in my family to call upon. 

BTW- Members have the option to unsubscribe from a thread if they so choose


----------



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

stickboy1375 said:


> I understand why GFCI's are required in wet locations


No you don't. You can tell because you only copy and paste irrelevant exceptions, and answer questions with other questions. I've asked you 3 times why the NEC requires GFCI in wet residential rooms, and you don't know.


----------



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

Speedy Petey said:


> I will!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wz7A_003mJg


Not following you. You post a video showing that water is conductive, and from that you conclude water isn't conductive? What are you getting at exactly?

Maybe you thought I asked a different question. Anyone can look up the conductivity of water. Most of us have. stickboy hasn't, or forgot, or is just lying to stir up an argument, who knows.


----------



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

jeffnc said:


> Not following you. You post a video showing that water is conductive, and from that you conclude water isn't conductive? What are you getting at exactly?


Oh never mind, I get it. This is like a gang fight. He's an electrician, you're an electrician, I'm not, this is an argument, so you're going to pick a side and stick with it no matter what. OK, I used to do that in 6th grade. Whatever. You guys have fun.


----------



## Desertdrifter (Dec 10, 2009)

Don't forget your ball.

As an observer, I'd like to thank those who have shared their knowledge in the debate here. Knowledge paid for in education and experience that you're willing to share here, for free.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

jeffnc said:


> No you don't. You can tell because you only copy and paste irrelevant exceptions, and answer questions with other questions. I've asked you 3 times why the NEC requires GFCI in wet residential rooms, and you don't know.



You are so tunnel vision on the word 'WET', go back and do your own research on how gfcis have entered the NEC, they were invented in 1961, so start at that era and work your way forward, because no matter what I tell you, you aren't going to listen anyway.... and instead of reading what you want to hear, try reading what it actually says...


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

curiousB said:


> Moderator. Time to shut this thread down.....


There is a lot of knowledge being discussed on here. At most Id add "Do Not Try This At Home. Dangerous!" above the U tube videos. Other than that so far great input from everyone:thumbup: 




TheEplumber said:


> I gotta say- I'm getting an education. I know next to nothing about elect. code or theory. I have electricians in my family to call upon.
> 
> BTW- Members have the option to unsubscribe from a thread if they so choose


 
Im learning as well  Great knowledge, both code and theory! :thumbup:


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

jeffnc said:


> Oh never mind, I get it. This is like a gang fight. He's an electrician, you're an electrician, I'm not, this is an argument, so you're going to pick a side and stick with it no matter what. OK, I used to do that in 6th grade. Whatever. You guys have fun.


Your asking the right questions though. 

What I think Stickboy1375 is trying to say is that GFCI where first put in the code over concerns that an open equipment ground can seriously harm someone. Wet locations and those with concrete more concern because water lowers the conductivity of skin, making a live appliance exponentially more dangerous. A concrete floor is more conductive over carpet in a wood framed house so an appliance with a energized casing is far more dangerous on concrete. @Stickboy1375: Am I correct to assume this? 

Although I don't necessarily agree with his way of presenting the facts. 


I will however say as time went on, an open EGC was only one of several that drove the GFCI requirements. I think this is where me and stickboy1375 disagree. For example, all of the bath appliances I have seen are double insulated. The bathroom GFCI requirement was shortly added after the exterior. In fact up until the 80s it was common for electricians to take a single GFCI breaker or outlet in one bath and have that feed all bath and exterior outlets. Bath appliances did not have an EGC or need one, yet it was still determined to be a shock hazard. That hazard came if the appliance became very wet or submerged. Point is, in this scenario I cant see an EGC making any difference even if one was added to those appliances. Its safe to say in this case water alone played a role in GFCIs?


----------



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

Jump-start said:


> In fact up until the 80s it was common for electricians to take a single GFCI breaker or outlet in one bath and have that feed all bath and exterior outlets.


Or the scenario which started this whole thread - a GFCI in the garage feeding 5 outlets in 3 bathrooms, and at least 1 exterior outlet, that I know of.

The problem with this thread is not that we're not learning anything. The problem is that we have licensed electricians making false and disingenuous statements/videos just to win an argument, rather than helping people figure out the truth. That's the real disservice to the listeners on a DIY forum. So far we've had 2 electricians foolishly publicly stating that water doesn't conduct electricity. Those 2 should really be ashamed of themselves.

This is the proper way to do the bathroom electrocution experiment, including such variables as what is present in the water solution, where in the tub the device falls, and what type of device it is.

http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/appliances-in-the-bath-minimyth.htm

Note that plugging those devices into a GFCI outlet in every case would have stopped the current flow (with the possible exception of their lowest reading of 4.5mA).

You can get shocked around water and electricity if you're not careful folks, and GFCI can help you. Don't let these electricians fool you just because they're trying to prove me wrong.


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

jeffnc said:


> Or the scenario which started this whole thread - a GFCI in the garage feeding 5 outlets in 3 bathrooms, and at least 1 exterior outlet, that I know of.
> 
> The problem with this thread is not that we're not learning anything. The problem is that we have licensed electricians making false and disingenuous statements/videos just to win an argument, rather than helping people figure out the truth. That's the real disservice to the listeners on a DIY forum. So far we've had 2 electricians foolishly publicly stating that water doesn't conduct electricity. Those 2 should really be ashamed of themselves.
> 
> ...


I agree, water ''doesn't conduct electricity'' is an incorrect term. Id call a porcelain insulator that has a resistance of at least many gigaohms (a profoundly poor conductor) not conducting electricity, but water certainly does from a danger and measurement standpoint, which is what we are talking about here. Even in fresh water that's a poorer conductor over salt water people have been killed.


----------



## Speedy Petey (Feb 1, 2004)

jeffnc said:


> Oh never mind, I get it. This is like a gang fight. He's an electrician, you're an electrician, I'm not, this is an argument, so you're going to pick a side and stick with it no matter what. OK, I used to do that in 6th grade. Whatever. You guys have fun.


Yeah, that's what it is. :icon_rolleyes: 

Are you serious? Because you are the one acting like 6th grade.


----------



## stickboy1375 (Apr 28, 2012)

What i'm sharing is how the NEC looks at codes, i don't care that people automatically think a 'WET' location indicates GFCI protection, that is NOT how the NEC derived its decision on a code requirement, Anyone can assume this though, especially if you are just a google whore, because that is all that will come up in its search engine, WET, WET, WET, GFCI, GFCI, GFCI.... blah, blah, blah............


----------



## Jump-start (Sep 26, 2012)

stickboy1375 said:


> What i'm sharing is how the NEC looks at codes, i don't care that people automatically think a 'WET' location indicates GFCI protection, that is NOT how the NEC derived its decision on a code requirement, Anyone can assume this though, especially if you are just a google whore, because that is all that will come up in its search engine, WET, WET, WET, GFCI, GFCI, GFCI.... blah, blah, blah............


I know, but water does indeed lower skin resistance. So an open EGC will be a thousand times worse.


----------

