mbrooke
Batteries Included
- Location
- United States
- Occupation
- Technician
thats not my claim.
My apologies if I misunderstood :ashamed1:
my argument was that a GFI (GFCI under NEC) can provide more hazard coverage if an EGC was present.
Of course. N-2 is better than N-3 contingency coverage.
imho, replacing a 1- with a 5-GFCI leaves room for hazard exposures, thus why i said it should really be a 1:1 swap, a 1-r being replaced by a 1-GFCI, but they dont make 1-GFCI, so i suggested a platic barbed ping to block out the EGC hole on the 5-GFCI, in essence making the swap a 1:1 and keeping it a 1-15R(GFCI).
So your saying that GFCI protection actually introduces a greater hazard than a missing EGC?
i forget where (NEC or NEMA or UL) stated that the 1- swap to a 5- (not sure if it said 5-GFCI) you can bond the EGC to a proper bond location to gain back the benefit of EGC.
i think what you posted in #58 all comes from OSHA
I refers to OSHA from my understanding.