Bootleg grounds
- Thread starter concord
- Start date
- Status
big john
Senior Member
- Location
- Portland, ME
Re: Bootleg grounds
If you simply replace an old non-grounded receptacle with a new one of the same type, and do not GFCI protect the circuit, you are encouraging one of two things:
</font>
If given the choice, I would GFCI protect the BX and install a grounding receptacle. At least this way if there is a fault the danger to the homeowner will be minimized.
Side Note: I am personally of the opinion that cheaters should be made illegal. They are never used properly, and even if they were how blue does the moon have to be before you'd find a properly grounded device box with an non-grounding receptacle in it??
-John
EDIT: My reason for installing a grounding-type, GFCI protected receptacle instead of simply GFCI protecting a non-grounding receptacle would be to remove the necessity for the cheater. I don't like 'em!
[ November 01, 2003, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: big john ]
If you simply replace an old non-grounded receptacle with a new one of the same type, and do not GFCI protect the circuit, you are encouraging one of two things:
</font>
- <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The homeowner will improperly replace the receptacle with a grounding-type themselves and you will then have no EGC and no GFCI protection.</font>
- <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The homeowner will use a cheater on the plug any time they need to plug in a cord with a ground prong. Even if the cheater is properly mounted to the cover-plate (yeah, right :roll: ) there is still no EGC and no GFCI protection.</font>
If given the choice, I would GFCI protect the BX and install a grounding receptacle. At least this way if there is a fault the danger to the homeowner will be minimized.
Side Note: I am personally of the opinion that cheaters should be made illegal. They are never used properly, and even if they were how blue does the moon have to be before you'd find a properly grounded device box with an non-grounding receptacle in it??
-John
EDIT: My reason for installing a grounding-type, GFCI protected receptacle instead of simply GFCI protecting a non-grounding receptacle would be to remove the necessity for the cheater. I don't like 'em!
[ November 01, 2003, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: big john ]
- Location
- Massachusetts
Re: Bootleg grounds
Tony I will have to get back to you later, but if you have access to a UL white book you may want to check out Information technology equipment.
It is surprising broad and by no means limited to article 645 type equipment.
Tony I will have to get back to you later, but if you have access to a UL white book you may want to check out Information technology equipment.
It is surprising broad and by no means limited to article 645 type equipment.
tonyi
Senior Member
Re: Bootleg grounds
The situation becomes genuinely dangerous. A faulting device probably won't trip the breaker (unless its a GF or AF with 50ma GF protection) and that BX armor is now hot electrically and temperature wise.
The GF protects people as well as the cabling system on this older BX.
I've seen this enough times to know its not some idle "paranoid fringe" type concern.
The situation becomes genuinely dangerous. A faulting device probably won't trip the breaker (unless its a GF or AF with 50ma GF protection) and that BX armor is now hot electrically and temperature wise.
The GF protects people as well as the cabling system on this older BX.
tonyi
Senior Member
Re: Bootleg grounds
UL doesn't care much about your internal design either. They care if its safe, will it blow up, melt down, start a fire, cause cancer in lab rats, etc. BX armor will do none of these even though its not suitable as an official NEC equip gnd.
Face it, a defacto connection exists even though it must be ignored for EG. An EG is for clearing faults. The NEC doesn't explicitly say an electronics designer can use the gnd prong as a reference gnd for their internal electronics, but many do.
What I want from you is a clear explanation why a GFCI protected BX system (w/good armor integrity) would cause a computer (that's not already defective) to malfunction or suddenly become dangerous if plugged into a 3-prong fitted to that BX system.
They don't normally put any current on a EG because they'd not work on any GFCI even one with a real EG.
Bottom line is that in reality its all going to work perfectly fine and the dude's computer isn't going to explode or fail to work.
If the computer faults and tries to send current down the 3-rd prong, the GFCI trips. The armor is a direct connection back to the panel, the box is a direct connection to the armor, and the backstrap is a direct connection to the box and the gnd prong (unless its an IG receptacle of course). You can't avoid this metallic connection path in the BX cabling system.
Do not confuse NEC equip gnd with some other random use someone might put that metallic path to. NEC doesn't care about electronics and how they interpret the voltage levels on the gnd prong of a 3-prong receptacle - that's a design issue, not a code issue.
And irrelevant. NEC has nothing to say about how someone designs their cord/plug electronics internally. The NEC is not an electronics design manual for consumer gadgets.Originally posted by iwire:
Tony I will have to get back to you later, but if you have access to a UL white book you may want to check out Information technology equipment.
It is surprising broad and by no means limited to article 645 type equipment.
UL doesn't care much about your internal design either. They care if its safe, will it blow up, melt down, start a fire, cause cancer in lab rats, etc. BX armor will do none of these even though its not suitable as an official NEC equip gnd.
Face it, a defacto connection exists even though it must be ignored for EG. An EG is for clearing faults. The NEC doesn't explicitly say an electronics designer can use the gnd prong as a reference gnd for their internal electronics, but many do.
What I want from you is a clear explanation why a GFCI protected BX system (w/good armor integrity) would cause a computer (that's not already defective) to malfunction or suddenly become dangerous if plugged into a 3-prong fitted to that BX system.
They don't normally put any current on a EG because they'd not work on any GFCI even one with a real EG.
Bottom line is that in reality its all going to work perfectly fine and the dude's computer isn't going to explode or fail to work.
If the computer faults and tries to send current down the 3-rd prong, the GFCI trips. The armor is a direct connection back to the panel, the box is a direct connection to the armor, and the backstrap is a direct connection to the box and the gnd prong (unless its an IG receptacle of course). You can't avoid this metallic connection path in the BX cabling system.
Do not confuse NEC equip gnd with some other random use someone might put that metallic path to. NEC doesn't care about electronics and how they interpret the voltage levels on the gnd prong of a 3-prong receptacle - that's a design issue, not a code issue.
- Location
- Massachusetts
Re: Bootleg grounds
From 2003 UL White Book
It is irrelevant, it is not an approved grounding means.
But I guess we should ignore that code as you do not agree with it..
As you said to me "Get Real eh"
by Me
But IMO is not a good way to go and I am very surprised that with your hard line stance you think it would be a good idea.
So in a nutshell you feel an FPN is more important to follow than 250.118
Call me confused.
[ November 01, 2003, 08:38 PM: Message edited by: iwire ]
Well unfortunately UL does not have the same opinion you do.
From 2003 UL White Book
Tony I am well aware of the grounding path back to the panel by way of the BX armor.
It is irrelevant, it is not an approved grounding means.
But I guess we should ignore that code as you do not agree with it..
No a reference ground has nothing to do with safety in this case, but installing a 3 wire outlet on BX certainly may be.
Did you ever see me say to ignore them on new circuits, but ripping up existing walls to "fix" working circuits is a little over the top considering that the NEC does not mandate voltage drop levels and UL requires equipment to work properly at higher levels of voltage drop than even the NECs recommendations are.
The NEC is just what you say the minimums and is not intended as a design manual, if you use it as one your customers will be disappointed.
Posted by Me
Painted Over Equipment
What part of that prevents a homeowner from painting the face of a receptacle and if you say yes, am I to take it you would not allow a panel cover to be painted also.
As you said to me "Get Real eh"
by Me
I clearly told Concorde that installing a 3 wire outlet where no EGC exists is code compliant.
But IMO is not a good way to go and I am very surprised that with your hard line stance you think it would be a good idea.
So in a nutshell you feel an FPN is more important to follow than 250.118
Call me confused.
[ November 01, 2003, 08:38 PM: Message edited by: iwire ]
- Location
- Massachusetts
Re: Bootleg grounds
You are wrong Tony.
250.114 requires Information Technology Equipment to be grounded.
UL has determined along with international standards what Information Technology Equipment is.
End of story, the NEC does not recognize "a defacto connection"
I can not, nor do I have to explain why this "defacto connection" would not be adequate.
The NEC has determined it is not satisfactory, that is all you or I need to know.
[ November 01, 2003, 08:09 PM: Message edited by: iwire ]
I wanted to edit your post down to something smaller but you have questions and statements spread throughout.
You are wrong Tony.
250.114 requires Information Technology Equipment to be grounded.
UL has determined along with international standards what Information Technology Equipment is.
End of story, the NEC does not recognize "a defacto connection"
I can not, nor do I have to explain why this "defacto connection" would not be adequate.
The NEC has determined it is not satisfactory, that is all you or I need to know.
[ November 01, 2003, 08:09 PM: Message edited by: iwire ]
tonyi
Senior Member
Re: Bootleg grounds
Explain this supposed contradiction. Please be specific.
Not at all. When I advocate GFCI for protecting old BX, I recognize that the armor IS in fact a metallic connection that is good enough to pass enough current to trip a GFCI even though we can't use it for EG.Originally posted by roger:
Hey Bob, I'm curious to see how Tony contradicts himself here.
I mean his position on BX in this thread and others seem to contradict. :roll:
Roger
Explain this supposed contradiction. Please be specific.
- Location
- Massachusetts
Re: Bootleg grounds
My position as I posted earlier was this.
Posted by me
Can you define "defacto" and please be specific?
What you have been advocating is using the BX armor as a ground for "reference" or a "defacto connection" which is a violation of 250.118.
My position as I posted earlier was this.
Posted by me
As you can see I think the GFCI is a good idea I am just not comfortable leaving the homeowner with the impression of a grounding conductor.
Can you define "defacto" and please be specific?
tonyi
Senior Member
Re: Bootleg grounds
The number of grounded power bricks I ever recall seeing can be counted on one hand. The 2-prongers could fill a football stadium.
I dare you to walk through any CompUSA/Office Depot/OfficeMax, look around, then come back and say this again with a straight face and try to get anyone to belive that your definition is what is what's in use in the real world.
The number of grounded power bricks I ever recall seeing can be counted on one hand. The 2-prongers could fill a football stadium.
- Location
- Massachusetts
Re: Bootleg grounds
I certainly do not look at my phone answering machine as "Information Technology Equipment"
but UL does.
There you go again picking and choosing the codes you wish to follow.
I have just spent the last few Weekends installing outlets guess where?
Comp USA, and you know what all them had grounds as that is the norm now so calling the equipment Information Technology Equipment at those places makes little difference.
If you doubt I was just working at Comp USA I can provide some links to forums where I talked about it.
Tony you or I do not get to pick what we call the equipment we wire.
Give it up, you are not allowed to use the armor on BX as any kind of ground.
Is it done? Sure
Is there any such thing as a "defacto" ground connection in the NEC? No.
Tony it is not my definition it is UL and International Standards.
I certainly do not look at my phone answering machine as "Information Technology Equipment"
but UL does.
There you go again picking and choosing the codes you wish to follow.
I have just spent the last few Weekends installing outlets guess where?
Comp USA,
and you know what all them had grounds as that is the norm now so calling the equipment Information Technology Equipment at those places makes little difference.If you doubt I was just working at Comp USA I can provide some links to forums where I talked about it.
Tony you or I do not get to pick what we call the equipment we wire.
Give it up, you are not allowed to use the armor on BX as any kind of ground.
Is it done? Sure
Is there any such thing as a "defacto" ground connection in the NEC? No.
Re: Bootleg grounds
I think Bob has pointed out all the real and pertinant facts here.
Of course a computer programer may not agree.
Tony, good dance in your argument, but no substance.
Roger
[ November 01, 2003, 09:23 PM: Message edited by: roger ]
I think Bob has pointed out all the real and pertinant facts here.
Of course a computer programer may not agree.
Tony, good dance in your argument, but no substance.
Roger
[ November 01, 2003, 09:23 PM: Message edited by: roger ]
tonyi
Senior Member
Re: Bootleg grounds
Defacto? Get out your VOM, connect it to the neutral and box. If it reads something other than infinity, you've got a connection in my book. What would you propose to do about it?
I suggest accepting that it exists rather than being in denial. I suppose you could use those cheapo plastic backstrap recepticals and bend the grounding clip back so it doesn't contact the screw/box. That would eliminate the DEFACTO connection back to the panel (and defeat the GFCI's ability to trip if some fault current were to try and wander down that DEFACTO connection)
Reality check: if you leave 2-prongs there, the dude WILL go buy a 3-prong adapter and plug his stuff in anyway and completely ignore the sticker, and if its a BX system he'll be lucky and his stuff will in fact work fine, because that old armor WILL do all that the electronics are going to need.
If its 2-wire NM or K&T and the guy whips in the 3-prong adapter, then he's SOL and his stuff may not work right.
I have ZERO CONTROL over what people plug into their house wiring. None. I just want to make it safe. Something not working right isn't unsafe. Joe Sixpack doesn't give a hoot about the NEC or UL, and if you told him he can't plug his computer in, he'll likely laugh his a$$ off while he's booting you out the door, then go plug in his 3-prong adapter (not hook it to the faceplate screw either) and party on.
You put the GFCI in, put the 3-prongs in, put the stickers on. We don't have enforcement powers over what people plug in.
That's why the "no EG stickers" exist.
Defacto? Get out your VOM, connect it to the neutral and box. If it reads something other than infinity, you've got a connection in my book. What would you propose to do about it?
I suggest accepting that it exists rather than being in denial. I suppose you could use those cheapo plastic backstrap recepticals and bend the grounding clip back so it doesn't contact the screw/box. That would eliminate the DEFACTO connection back to the panel (and defeat the GFCI's ability to trip if some fault current were to try and wander down that DEFACTO connection)
Reality check: if you leave 2-prongs there, the dude WILL go buy a 3-prong adapter and plug his stuff in anyway and completely ignore the sticker, and if its a BX system he'll be lucky and his stuff will in fact work fine, because that old armor WILL do all that the electronics are going to need.
If its 2-wire NM or K&T and the guy whips in the 3-prong adapter, then he's SOL and his stuff may not work right.
I have ZERO CONTROL over what people plug into their house wiring. None. I just want to make it safe. Something not working right isn't unsafe. Joe Sixpack doesn't give a hoot about the NEC or UL, and if you told him he can't plug his computer in, he'll likely laugh his a$$ off while he's booting you out the door, then go plug in his 3-prong adapter (not hook it to the faceplate screw either) and party on.
You put the GFCI in, put the 3-prongs in, put the stickers on. We don't have enforcement powers over what people plug in.
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Bootleg grounds
tonyi
Senior Member
Re: Bootleg grounds
You can remain in denial, or accept this reality and provide for an installation that is safe under any circumstances, and in some circumstances (like BX) may in fact work better than the user might expect it to. I fail to see the problem with something working better than expected when the hapless user ignores all warnings/manuals/etc - i.e. behaves like users are prone to do 99.999% of the time.
I suggest you and UL form a new plug Gestapo police to raid houses and remove all the offending installations running off 3-prong adapters out there. Good luck.
The real and pertinant fact here is that people are going to plug stuff in even if Roger, the NEC, or UL doesn't like it.Originally posted by roger:
I think Bob has pointed out all the real and pertinant facts here.
Of course a computer programer may not agree.
Tony, good dance in your argument, but no substance.
Roger
You can remain in denial, or accept this reality and provide for an installation that is safe under any circumstances, and in some circumstances (like BX) may in fact work better than the user might expect it to. I fail to see the problem with something working better than expected when the hapless user ignores all warnings/manuals/etc - i.e. behaves like users are prone to do 99.999% of the time.
I suggest you and UL form a new plug Gestapo police to raid houses and remove all the offending installations running off 3-prong adapters out there. Good luck.
- Location
- Massachusetts
Re: Bootleg grounds
The stickers will do more than leaving a two wire outlet with GFCI protection.
posted by Me
Contradiction 1
The stickers will do more than leaving a two wire outlet with GFCI protection.
Like I said leave a two wire outlet there and you will not have appliances tying to use the armor for a grounding means
Right and I think I addressed this when I said this.
posted by Me
At least in this way the homeowner needs to make a purposeful effort to use grounding plugs in this ungrounded outlet instead of just ignoring a sticker.
Re: Bootleg grounds
Tony,
Tony, let me enlighten you with your fantasies, you can try your best to make things idiot proof and the idiots will rise to the occassion and beat you every time. Hope this helps in your future trials and tribulations.
Roger
Tony,
HUH?
Tony, let me enlighten you with your fantasies, you can try your best to make things idiot proof and the idiots will rise to the occassion and beat you every time. Hope this helps in your future trials and tribulations.
Roger
- Status