BX as a ground.

[iwire]

I really never gave it a thought until this thread.

My question is would a GFCI fault trip on a BX circuit before there was enough current flowing through the armor to present a problem?

For sure it should.

My issue is that GFCIs have or had high failure rates.

Beyond that many people totally ignore the requirements of 250.114 when using the GFCI replacement option.

 

[K8MHZ]

In fairness, there's more 'loopholes' than straight code these days mivey......~RJ~

It's been that way for a long time.

For decades the IBEW apprenticeship has included a very in depth course they call 'Codeology'. The purpose of the entire course is to teach students how to read the code book. Not what was covered, but how it was written, and how to hop scotch around from article to article without getting too dizzy. They section the code into 'phases'. Like Plan, Build and Use.

I think it's a pity that something as hazardous as electricity has a rule book so complicated it makes for an entire curriculum just to learn to read the damn thing.

If the object of the code is safety with a desire of compliance, the NFPA needs to realize that we are electricians, not lawyers. The code should be written more clearly, but all I see is it getting bigger and bigger and more complex as time goes by.

When I started this trade 'for real' (I had been in industrial maintenance without a license for a few years before I came into the trade) I could put the code book in my back pocket. Even then, it was considered such a labyrinth that Codelogy had already been born.

Thankfully, I have this site to come to and at least get information and reasons for at least two, sometimes more, interpretations of the code. That makes my decisions in the field easier. They may not always be right, but there is no doubt they are better informed.

 

[K8MHZ]

For sure it should.

My issue is that GFCIs have or had high failure rates.

The ones I have seen fail, have failed 'safe'. Have you seen otherwise, or is it just an inconvenience thing for you?

 

[peter d]

For sure it should.

My issue is that GFCIs have or had high failure rates.

Beyond that many people totally ignore the requirements of 250.114 when using the GFCI replacement option.

For sure those are issues, but the fact that we have to stuff panels full of AFCI and AFCI/GFCI breakers which are prone to failure, sort of nullifies that concern for me.

 

[JFletcher]

The ones I have seen fail, have failed 'safe'. Have you seen otherwise, or is it just an inconvenience thing for you?

Seen many older GFCI outlets not fail safe (which to me would be to not pass/provide power if it trips/cant be reset). Saw one last month trip, still sent power down to three more receptacles. Replaced it only to find it was initially wired backward (line to load and v/v), rewired it correctly, find the GFCI I pulled from truck was bad, rewired it again. I now take a sharpie and put a big X across any device I pull out so it goes in the trash and doesnt wind up in stock.

There was a post last month about a member getting bit by his homemade Santa, even tho it was plugged into a GFCI outlet.

 

[peter d]

In fairness, there's more 'loopholes' than straight code these days mivey......~RJ~

Which has nothing to do with the topic at hand, there are no loopholes allowing old BX to be used an EGC in 2016.

 

[iwire]

The ones I have seen fail, have failed 'safe'. Have you seen otherwise, or is it just an inconvenience thing for you?

That is a recent development due to the high failure rate. From an old mike holt article.

According to a study conducted by the American Society of Home Inspectors (published in IAEI News, November/December 1999), 21% of GFCI circuit breakers and 19% of GFCI receptacles tested did not provide GFCI protection. Yet, the circuit remained energized! In the examined cases, failures of the GFCI sensing circuits were mostly due to damage to the internal transient voltage surge protection (metal-oxide varistors) that protect the GFCI sensing circuit. This damage resulted from voltage surges from lightning and other transients. In areas of high-lightning activity, such as Southwest Florida, the failure rate for GFCI circuit breakers was more than 57%.

 

[romex jockey]

Which has nothing to do with the topic at hand, there are no loopholes allowing old BX to be used an EGC in 2016.

I've posted one twice now Pete....

~RJ~

 

[romex jockey]

It's been that way for a long time.

For decades the IBEW apprenticeship has included a very in depth course they call 'Codeology'. The purpose of the entire course is to teach students how to read the code book. Not what was covered, but how it was written, and how to hop scotch around from article to article without getting too dizzy. They section the code into 'phases'. Like Plan, Build and Use.

I think it's a pity that something as hazardous as electricity has a rule book so complicated it makes for an entire curriculum just to learn to read the damn thing.

If the object of the code is safety with a desire of compliance, the NFPA needs to realize that we are electricians, not lawyers. The code should be written more clearly, but all I see is it getting bigger and bigger and more complex as time goes by.

When I started this trade 'for real' (I had been in industrial maintenance without a license for a few years before I came into the trade) I could put the code book in my back pocket. Even then, it was considered such a labyrinth that Codelogy had already been born.

Thankfully, I have this site to come to and at least get information and reasons for at least two, sometimes more, interpretations of the code. That makes my decisions in the field easier. They may not always be right, but there is no doubt they are better informed.

I can imagine myself coming 'up to speed' much quicker with such a course Mark

alas, i am left to my wits foraging through my collection of old code books, or picking ascii brains

it would be nice if there was some sort of historic journalism involved with our trades evolution , someone of caliber knowledgeable enough to archive it all for those future sparks needing helper springs to cart the 'good book' to work...:lol:

~RJ~

 

[iwire]

I think it's a pity that something as hazardous as electricity has a rule book so complicated it makes for an entire curriculum just to learn to read the damn thing.

If the object of the code is safety with a desire of compliance, the NFPA needs to realize that we are electricians, not lawyers. The code should be written more clearly, but all I see is it getting bigger and bigger and more complex as time goes by.

People say this often and it always make me wonder how much experience they have with other codes, standards or laws.

Compared to those aforementioned items the NEC is written in plain language.

As far as it getting bigger a lot of that comes from new technologies or methods, PV, Electric cars, new types of cables we can choose to use etc.

 

[K8MHZ]

People say this often and it always make me wonder how much experience they have with other codes, standards or laws.

Compared to those aforementioned items the NEC is written in plain language.

As far as it getting bigger a lot of that comes from new technologies or methods, PV, Electric cars, new types of cables we can choose to use etc.

Point taken, but that's hardly justification.

For instance, FCC Part 97, CFR 47 (ham radio rules) is very straightforward. Like the NEC, Part 97 is a book, albeit small, that should be part of a practitioner's library. It, like the NEC, is meant to be referenced by people that are not lawyers.

By contrast, the new laws for weapons in the State of Michigan, which went into effect last summer, are a mess and even with several reads through, leaves a person wondering what they just read.

Also by contrast, the ambiguous laws concerning weapons, are part of the Michigan Penal Code, which is intended to be used by lawyers. How many weapon owners do you know that have a current copy of their state's laws on weapons?

I am pretty sure I am not alone in the desire to have the NEC written with more compassion for the intended users.

 

[K8MHZ]

I can imagine myself coming 'up to speed' much quicker with such a course Mark

alas, i am left to my wits foraging through my collection of old code books, or picking ascii brains

it would be nice if there was some sort of historic journalism involved with our trades evolution , someone of caliber knowledgeable enough to archive it all for those future sparks needing helper springs to cart the 'good book' to work...:lol:

~RJ~

Actually, I hated Codeology. I never followed their rules except to pass the tests. I 'did it my way' by using both the index and the table of contents. I must have done something right, I finished #1 in my class of 40 and got 101% (thanks to extra credit) on my final exam which was full of code questions.

The best training I got during my apprenticeship was from an inspector friend of mine that is like a walking code book. He collects old code books and I think he has memorized most of them. I have always been able to ask him questions and get very detailed answers which are backed up by code citations and history. He also will tell me his personal position, even if it does not agree with the code.

Now I am very fortunate to have this forum.

Several years ago I was on a job and the local inspector showed up and I had some questions for him. We got talking code and he asked me where I was getting my info. I asked him if he ever heard of this forum and he said yes, he read it a lot but didn't post. I then told him I was K8MHZ. He said something to the effect of 'that explains a lot', and in a friendly manner. He was much more relaxed once he knew I was serious enough about my job to participate in this forum.

 

[romex jockey]

The pro forums are about the only way for a reclusive spark such as myself to keep up Mark, however i find that reading them (mostly mornings w/coffee) has resulted in my reputation for something of a code geek among my piers. Other EC's ask me code related opinions , and my AHJ often gets a glazed look and looks at his watch a lot when we speak.....:lol:

~RJ~

 

[K8MHZ]

The pro forums are about the only way for a reclusive spark such as myself to keep up Mark, however i find that reading them (mostly mornings w/coffee) has resulted in my reputation for something of a code geek among my piers. Other EC's ask me code related opinions , and my AHJ often gets a glazed look and looks at his watch a lot when we speak.....:lol:

~RJ~

I consider the term 'code geek' to be complimentary.

Our local AHJ's really love their work and can spend hours talking about the code.

Or snowmobiles, Harleys, fishing, ham radio......

We have a good bunch of inspectors in this area, thankfully.

 

[GoldDigger]

GFP protection won't address joule effect, the chief incendiary culprit of electrical fires .....

~RJ~

But Joule heating in the armor of old BX will not be very great with only 6ma or less flowing!

 

[romex jockey]

True, assuming it low impedance GoldDigger

~RJ~

 

[K8MHZ]

True, assuming it low impedance GoldDigger

~RJ~

No matter the impedance, the most power one can get from 6mA is 0.72 watts.

That's not much heat.

 

[romex jockey]

You're right Mark, i'm thinking series events.....~RJ~

 

[jaylectricity]

That's crazy! That's absurd! That's found in 406.4(D)(4)!

Yep, that's the code that has been brought up. I think it can be interpreted differently. A circuit that was installed when it didn't require AFCI still doesn't need AFCI. So replacing a receptacle on that circuit doesn't mean it suddenly needs AFCI.

 

[iwire]

Yep, that's the code that has been brought up. I think it can be interpreted differently. A circuit that was installed when it didn't require AFCI still doesn't need AFCI. So replacing a receptacle on that circuit doesn't mean it suddenly needs AFCI.

Jay, how could this section possibly be interpreted that way?

406.4 General Installation Requirements.

(D) Replacements. Replacement of receptacles shall comply
with 406.4(D)(1) through (D)(6), as applicable. Arc fault
circuit-interrupter type and ground-fault circuit interrupter
type receptacles shall be installed in a readily
accessible location.

(4) Arc-Fault Circuit-Interrupter Protection. Where a
receptacle outlet is supplied by a branch circuit that requires
arc-fault circuit-interrupter protection as specified
elsewhere in this Code, a replacement receptacle at this
outlet shall be one of the following:

(1) A listed outlet branch-circuit type arc-fault circuit interrupter
receptacle

(2) A receptacle protected by a listed outlet branch-circuit
type arc-fault circuit-interrupter type receptacle

(3) A receptacle protected by a listed combination type
arc-fault circuit-interrupter type circuit breaker
This requirement becomes effective January 1, 2014.