GFCI not recommended

[peter d]

Read it. Even though most might see it as a rant I do agree with key points. Common sense proposals are rejected. The wording of the NEC can be improved so many ways but its not. I think people see that writing proposals will not influence the CMPs.

That's right. Proposals to remove the AFCI from the code have been rejected since day one. Rather, AFCI rules are now on the threshold of being total and complete. Sure, there have been some improvements in parts of the NEC but why would anyone expect the NEC to change for the better?

 

[mbrooke]

That's right. Proposals to remove the AFCI from the code have been rejected since day one. Rather, AFCI rules are now on the threshold of being total and complete. Sure, there have been some improvements in parts of the NEC but why would anyone expect the NEC to change for the better?

Its getting worse, 15 and 20amp 240 volt outlets in resi will need GFCI protect, special purpose ground fault protection for most other receptacles in commercial and industrial, torque screw drivers for most connections...


The gimmicky requirements is growing each code cycle without any solid proof.


The NEC isnt changing for the better, its become a marketing catalog.

 

[ramsy]

Moving question to new thread

Moving question to new thread

I will even suggest that a manufacturer's recommendation or instruction cannot require you to not use code required device. Those instructions can require things in addition to the code, but cannot delete something the code requires.

Moving my question for Don, to new NEC thread titled, "Customer Removed GFCI for shower steam"

 

[kwired]

You all make me laugh. You spend so much effort on here discussing the why things should be different when you can write proposals with substantiations to change the code. The problem is you probably have no substantiations other than what you think.

If there is even a remote chance of danger the NEC is going to try and avoid it. Obviously in many situation a gfci nor a afci would be necessary. We lived without them for a long time but we can say the same about seatbelts. Boy did people cry about those gadgets.

Difference with seatbelts is they have been installed in cars for 50-60 years but only have been laws that require using them for 10-20 years in many places, maybe a little longer in some places. AFCI was not going anywhere if it wasn't put into code from it's infancy, they even put dates in the 1999 NEC as to when to start requiring their use as they were not quite ready to release them but thought they would be ready before another three years went by and did not want to wait another three years to get them into code.

Thank you! I am reading it now :happyyes:

You read it about two months ago and replied to it in the next post

 

[iwire]

Its getting worse, 15 and 20amp 240 volt outlets in resi will need GFCI protect, special purpose ground fault protection for most other receptacles in commercial and industrial,

I am 100% behind that.

No reason in the world not to be.

GFCIs are mature proven technology.

 

[kwired]

I'm behind GFCI technology as well - but also don't feel it is needed for everything.

Most anything cord and plug connected - risk of shock increases if you can't prove the EGC is intact. Anything hard wired, the EGC is not connected/disconnected repeatedly because you are not plugging in/unplugging and though it is not necessarily monitored, there hasn't really been much evidence to prove the EGC fails very much for such applications.

Swimming pools or other areas with high conductivity to ground and people subject to high contact with such items - is a good idea - but also does not prevent all shock hazards - we still need equipotential bonding in those areas along with GFCI. GFCI will not detect voltage drop on the service neutral but this will still present shock hazards in/around pools, marinas, etc.

 

[mbrooke]

I am 100% behind that.

No reason in the world not to be.

GFCIs are mature proven technology.

Would you agree to GFCI protection for electric dwelling ranges and electric dryers?

 

[peter d]

Would you agree to GFCI protection for electric dwelling ranges and electric dryers?

I see no need for it.

 

[iwire]

Would you agree to GFCI protection for electric dwelling ranges and electric dryers?

Yes.

 

[kwired]

Would you agree to GFCI protection for electric dwelling ranges and electric dryers?

I'd rather see them all get converted to 4 wire circuits - there are a lot of once permitted 3 wire circuits still in use for ranges and dryers. I won't say GFCI won't work on those 3 wire systems, but they will be much more prone to nuisance tripping anytime there is enough continuity introduced between the frame of the appliance and anything else that is grounded.

Then you have many 4 wire branch circuits installed properly, but some appliance guy, handyman or even homeowner comes along and doesn't know any better to ensure the bonding jumper in the appliance gets removed - effectively still making it about the same thing as a 3 wire circuit, and if the circuit is not from the service panel - you have now also put a neutral to ground bond out in the system that don't belong there.

 

[mbrooke]

Yes.

Why so?

 

[DrSparks]

Lol we're still arguing about GFCIs in 2015? YouTube electrocution and watch some videos and then come back and tell me how you feel about them. A persons life is not worth all this stupid conjecture.

 

[mbrooke]

Lol we're still arguing about GFCIs in 2015? YouTube electrocution and watch some videos and then come back and tell me how you feel about them. A persons life is not worth all this stupid conjecture.

Most tragedies happen like this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpDL16PY9kI


While GFCI have their place where cords can be damaged or EGCs fail, using them to "fix" dangerous consumer goods is not the answer.

 

[DrSparks]

Most tragedies happen like this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpDL16PY9kI

While GFCI have their place where cords can be damaged or EGCs fail, using them to "fix" dangerous consumer goods is not the answer.

Not to "fix" them as you say, but to protect us from them. However they do not offer protection against backwoods rednecks...

 

[iwire]

Why so?

No reason not to.

Much eaiser code to write, understand and enforce if we don't make special conditions for every condition.