NEVER trust the test/reset buttons on a GFCI

[mbrooke]

What load did you have on it?
Was it in your kitchen?

Yes my kitchen. The feed through was carrying a toaster and coffee maker.

Just curious: Why did you do that test?

3 prong plug in tester was giving me open neutral when I pushed the test button.

 

[mgookin]

I see (and so does Leviton) that you like to make toast and coffee at the same time!

It would be interesting to connect those two appliances at the same time, start both and see what the current draw is. I'd be curious how much amperage it takes to do that to a GFCI. Doing it once is not the issue. Doing it 365 times per year for 6 years sure is though.

 

[mbrooke]

I see (and so does Leviton) that you like to make toast and coffee at the same time!

Yup, thats how we role

It would be interesting to connect those two appliances at the same time, start both and see what the current draw is. I'd be curious how much amperage it takes to do that to a GFCI. Doing it once is not the issue. Doing it 365 times per year for 6 years sure is though.

Id have to look at the tags, but yahhh, I guess so now that I think about it.

 

[iwire]

Unless you have odd appliances the coffee maker and toaster combined are likely more than twenty amps. The circuit does not trip because of the short direction.

 

[wptski]

So what's a valid "quick" test for this condition, using a GFCI tester, it trips but the LED still glows?

 

[mbrooke]

Unless you have odd appliances the coffee maker and toaster combined are likely more than twenty amps. The circuit does not trip because of the short direction.

Most likely, but, if I may. How many other kitchens wind up with appliances on the same feed through/GFCI?

 

[mbrooke]

So what's a valid "quick" test for this condition, using a GFCI tester, it trips but the LED still glows?

In my case thats what happened. What was interesting (if I am remembering correctly) it did not occur on the feed through outlets, but did occur on the GFCI itself. When tripped it gave me an open neutral condition.

 

[GoldDigger]

In my case thats what happened. What was interesting (if I am remembering correctly) it did not occur on the feed through outlets, but did occur on the GFCI itself. When tripped it gave me an open neutral condition.

I suspect that was because the feed through opened both sides of the line but the receptacle connection opened only the hot? Not sure why they would want to build it that way.

 

[mbrooke]

I suspect that was because the feed through opened both sides of the line but the receptacle connection opened only the hot? Not sure why they would want to build it that way.

It looks like the GFCI actually has 4 poles, and my best guess is that it has something to do with the Levlock/reverse wire feature. That way if its reverse wired it won't reset because the back fed contacts can not energize the rest of the circuit when tripped. My understanding is that Leviton GFCI actually require the solenoid (GFCI function) to operate when being reset in order to reset.

 

[GoldDigger]

It looks like the GFCI actually has 4 poles, and my best guess is that it has something to do with the Levlock/reverse wire feature. That way if its reverse wired it won't reset because the back fed contacts can not energize the rest of the circuit when tripped. My understanding is that Leviton GFCI actually require the solenoid (GFCI function) to operate when being reset in order to reset.

That four pole explanation certainly makes more sense. :happyyes:

 

[mbrooke]

That four pole explanation certainly makes more sense. :happyyes:

Here is a better pic from the net:


http://www.electrical-forensics.com/Receptacles/F14-GFCI/IMG_5196B-0900.jpg


http://www.electrical-forensics.com/Receptacles/F14-GFCI/IMG_5177B-0900.jpg

From this:

http://www.electrical-forensics.com/Receptacles/ElectricalReceptacles.html

 

[FionaZuppa]

Is using the GFI button really a good test ??

Is using the GFI button really a good test ??

bringing this back to life, its a good subject.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twhzCgVst80

i really think 406.4(D)(2)(b) should not be allowed as-is. a EGC block-out pin should be supplied so that the 5- becomes a 1- GFCI.

 

[mbrooke]

bringing this back to life, its a good subject.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twhzCgVst80

i really think 406.4(D)(2)(b) should not be allowed as-is. a EGC block-out pin should be supplied so that the 5- becomes a 1- GFCI.

What do you mean by a 5 becoming a 1? Just confused here is all.


From what I have read on Mike Holt's is that its been argued that its not to code to plug in some 3 wire appliances into a none grounded GFCI.

 

[kwired]

What do you mean by a 5 becoming a 1? Just confused here is all.


From what I have read on Mike Holt's is that its been argued that its not to code to plug in some 3 wire appliances into a none grounded GFCI.

And your average consumer is well aware of that:angel:

 

[K8MHZ]

And your average consumer is well aware of that:angel:

And is armed with UL listed adapters to circumvent any pesky NEC requirements for a three prong anything.

 

[mbrooke]

And your average consumer is well aware of that:angel:

True, so then from a theoretical stand point one of those notions is wrong.

 

[ActionDave]

....i really think 406.4(D)(2)(b) should not be allowed as-is. a EGC block-out pin should be supplied so that the 5- becomes a 1- GFCI.

Except for the areas required to have GFCI protection there is little, if any, threat of a ground fault until you bring in an equipment grounding conductor into the circuit. Here in my living room I'm safer from a shock with a two wire circuit than I am with a three if I am using my table saw or hole hawg and I'm even safer with a two wire circuit protected by a GFCI. If you want to be really safe get rid of Equipment Grounds.

 

[user 100]

bringing this back to life, its a good subject.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twhzCgVst80

i really think 406.4(D)(2)(b) should not be allowed as-is. a EGC block-out pin should be supplied so that the 5- becomes a 1- GFCI.

But as said in the other thread, people will just find a way round that and actually end up creating a more dangerous situation- if they dont have a cheater, then they will remove the ground pin (yes you arent allowed to plug in most 5-15ps into non egc gfcis anyway per 250.114, but thats beside the point), and will have eliminated any protection afforded by an egc if the mutilated appliance is ever moved to a non gfci 5-15 receptacle.

What do you mean by a 5 becoming a 1? Just confused here is all.

What Fiona was getting at is that gfcis installed per the 406 exception be only of a 1-15 (AFAIK, no such receptacle exists) variety instead of the standard 5-15 gfci- imo, a terrible idea.

Except for the areas required to have GFCI protection there is little, if any, threat of a ground fault until you bring in an equipment grounding conductor into the circuit. Here in my living room I'm safer from a shock with a two wire circuit than I am with a three if I am using my table saw or hole hawg and I'm even safer with a two wire circuit protected by a GFCI. If you want to be really safe get rid of Equipment Grounds.

EGCs do present their own set of risks- you are surrounded by excellent paths back to the source w/ lots of surface/contact in your avg kitchen- Skin of Fridge,MW, range etc

 

[kwired]

Except for the areas required to have GFCI protection there is little, if any, threat of a ground fault until you bring in an equipment grounding conductor into the circuit. Here in my living room I'm safer from a shock with a two wire circuit than I am with a three if I am using my table saw or hole hawg and I'm even safer with a two wire circuit protected by a GFCI. If you want to be really safe get rid of Equipment Grounds.

Only works in places like your living room with non conductive, non grounded surfaces though. EGC or no EGC with the branch circuit and an outdoor receptacle, garage, unfinished basement - and you still have plenty of shock hazard - and one of the principal reasons NEC has required GFCI protection in such locations for ~ 30 years or so. I believe either 1984 or 1987 is where they added most of what I just mentioned to the GFCI protection requirements.

 

[ActionDave]

Only works in places like your living room with non conductive, non grounded surfaces though.

Correct. Get rid of the EGC and I am safe from almost any shock hazzard in my living room. And I would be safer still with a GFCI protected circuit, no?

EGC or no EGC with the branch circuit and an outdoor receptacle, garage, unfinished basement - and you still have plenty of shock hazard - and one of the principal reasons NEC has required GFCI protection in such locations for ~ 30 years or so. I believe either 1984 or 1987 is where they added most of what I just mentioned to the GFCI protection requirements.

I said that in not so many words.