Code enforcement

[keith gigabyte]

Once again......... having a proper ground terminated on the GFCI does nothing to affect the functionalilty of a GFCI-protected circuit.

Nothing.

If you believe this is the case, then I suggest you submit a change to the 2020 NEC. I'm sure they'll all be interested in your documentation attesting to your claim. And a few members here would love to peruse it as well.



I'll let you take the issue up with UL. I'm not the one to discuss this with.



Again.......... if a ground is required for a GFCI to work, let me know how you ground GFCI breakers. Do you ground your GFCI breakers to 'make them safer'?

Well said

 

[480sparky]

ok, well, lets walk through fault scenarios

1) voltage fault to you to your bathroom sink drain, GFI trips because you bridged ~5mA

Which has..... zip... to do with any grounding conductor attached to the GFCI. Grounding the GFCI will not change the fault current through you........ one........ single............... nanoamp.

2) a voltage fault from hot to you and back to the EGC (the egc connected to the hairdryer, etc). with an EGC the GFI trips, w/o EGC you become bonded to hot and GFI does not trip. The non-EGC GFI setup just missed this "fault" (being bonded to hot w/o amps is still a fault in my book). if the EGC was there then GFI would have tripped and fault cleared. w/ or w/o EGC the GFI will trip out based on fault amps, but w/o EGC the GFI will not be able to trip when the fault is back to the EGC on faceplate side, etc.

What EGC? You are using an example without an EGC, yet you magically infer a fault to this missing EGC. How can there be a L-EGC fault when there's no EGC. All you've done is raise the voltage potential of the ECG in the hairdryer cord, but you still have not created a fault.

I don't think you really have a clear understanding how a GFCI works.

The NEC should write in some verbiage for 2-wire GFI.

They already have. Take a gander at 408.4(D)(2). Then again, this sentence makes ZERO sense, as according to you, an ungrounded GFCI is somehow 'unsafe'. Kind of like ungrounded GFCI breakers (which, oddly enough, you have yet to address).

if the wiring does not have EGC then 2-prong receptacles (gfi or otherwise) should be used. it was argued a zillion times here on MHF that the NEC cant rely on the user, so to me, placing a "no EGC" sticker on a 3-prong GFI or 3-prong downstream outlets is just stupid. if the wiring cannot accommodate an EGC then the outlets should not support it.

Again, if you honestly think this 'logic' is best, then by all means, submit it to the NFPA and CMP 9. As the 2017 is now published, they're taking proposals for the 2020.

We'd also like to see your documentation provided here.

 

[FionaZuppa]

@480

ya think its "safe" to be energized at 120Vac. we typically want to be at EGC potential or close to it, aka earth.

i already mentioned the GFI is a amps device and agree that it will trip if amps-in != amps-out, but a non-EGC GFI has potential to allow hazard(s) that would otherwise cause it to trip. hairdryer with EGC connected to non-EGC GFI falls into the all plastic tub & plumbing, 4 amps leaves hot, through you, and back to N, GFI is perfectly happy. if the GFI had EGC then the fault would be cleared immediately.

you see it now?

 

[GoldDigger]

@480

ya think its "safe" to be energized at 120Vac. we typically want to be at EGC potential or close to it, aka earth.

i already mentioned the GFI is a amps device and agree that it will trip if amps-in != amps-out, but a non-EGC GFI has potential to allow hazard(s) that would otherwise cause it to trip. hairdryer with EGC connected to non-EGC GFI falls into the all plastic tub & plumbing, 4 amps leaves hot, through you, and back to N, GFI is perfectly happy. if the GFI had EGC then the fault would be cleared immediately.

you see it now?

Unless you are sticking your hand into the screened end of the hair dryer, you are not going to be in a position to conduct from hot to neutral.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[FionaZuppa]

Unless you are sticking your hand into the screened end of the hair dryer, you are not going to be in a position to conduct from hot to neutral.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

so you know exactly how electricity will flow when a item lands in a pool of water with you in the water? i believe the NEC attempts to not describe such and only looks at the hazard. an item attached to 120/240vac falling into water (tub, other) is a hazard, hence why the use of EGC is important. if it were a 2-prong EGC with 2-prong downstream recepts, then so be it, but any 3-prong GFI should have a EGC, and if the downstream recepts are 2-wire then those should be 2-prong only. i find it silly that for this specific item we can use tiny stickers and hope the end user reads and understands what it means.

 

[iwire]

so you know exactly how electricity will flow when a item lands in a pool of water with you in the water? i believe the NEC attempts to not describe such and only looks at the hazard. an item attached to 120/240vac falling into water (tub, other) is a hazard, hence why the use of EGC is important. if it were a 2-prong EGC with 2-prong downstream recepts, then so be it, but any 3-prong GFI should have a EGC, and if the downstream recepts are 2-wire then those should be 2-prong only. i find it silly that for this specific item we can use tiny stickers and hope the end user reads and understands what it means.

Take a deep breath and start again this thread is about is not about hair dryers or pools.

It is very simple, an inspector incorrect believes a GFCI needs a EGC to operate.

It does not. Stop questioning that, it is a fact.

The thread is about replacing two wire receptacles in older existing installations that do not have an EGC at the box.

The NEC provides options for that.

1) Replace the two wire receptacle with a new two wire receptacle.

(Seems like a fine idea, now go try to find a new, tamper resistant two wire receptacle for sale)

2) Replace the two wire receptacle with a three wire receptacle and provide GFCI protection for it.

Those are also facts, those are allowed, NEC compliant options.


This thread is not about what any of us thinks is 'better' I think we all can agree it would be better to have an EGC at every outlet box but the fact is there are millions of existing installations that do not have an EGC and the NEC can't and should not require a circuit rewire to fix a worn out receptacle.

 

[dkidd]

Take a deep breath and start again this thread is about is not about hair dryers or pools.

It is very simple, an inspector incorrect believes a GFCI needs a EGC to operate.

It does not. Stop questioning that, it is a fact.

The thread is about replacing two wire receptacles in older existing installations that do not have an EGC at the box.

The NEC provides options for that.

1) Replace the two wire receptacle with a new two wire receptacle.

(Seems like a fine idea, now go try to find a new, tamper resistant two wire receptacle for sale)

2) Replace the two wire receptacle with a three wire receptacle and provide GFCI protection for it.

Those are also facts, those are allowed, NEC compliant options.


This thread is not about what any of us thinks is 'better' I think we all can agree it would be better to have an EGC at every outlet box but the fact is there are millions of existing installations that do not have an EGC and the NEC can't and should not require a circuit rewire to fix a worn out receptacle.

Well said.

 

[Little Bill]

so you know exactly how electricity will flow when a item lands in a pool of water with you in the water? i believe the NEC attempts to not describe such and only looks at the hazard. an item attached to 120/240vac falling into water (tub, other) is a hazard, hence why the use of EGC is important. if it were a 2-prong EGC with 2-prong downstream recepts, then so be it, but any 3-prong GFI should have a EGC, and if the downstream recepts are 2-wire then those should be 2-prong only. i find it silly that for this specific item we can use tiny stickers and hope the end user reads and understands what it means.

How can you have a 2-prong EGC? If you meant GFCI, well they don't make those.
As was said, the whole reason for allowing a GFCI to replace a non grounding receptacle is to make it safer.

 

[norcal]

The December issue of the "Costco Connection" has a column that is stating that GFCI's will "shut down the circuit if there is overcurrent".

http://www.costcoconnection.com/connection/201612?pg=18#pg18

 

[480sparky]

@480

ya think its "safe" to be energized at 120Vac. we typically want to be at EGC potential or close to it, aka earth.

i already mentioned the GFI is a amps device and agree that it will trip if amps-in != amps-out, but a non-EGC GFI has potential to allow hazard(s) that would otherwise cause it to trip. hairdryer with EGC connected to non-EGC GFI falls into the all plastic tub & plumbing, 4 amps leaves hot, through you, and back to N, GFI is perfectly happy. if the GFI had EGC then the fault would be cleared immediately.

you see it now?

No, I do not see 'it' now.

I seriously don't think you have any comprehension on how a GFCI works. You simply seem unable to accept the fact that the EGC has nothing...... nil......... nada........ zip....... goose egg.......... zero............ to do with the function of a GFCI. If it does, then how do you explain GFCI breakers not being grounded, as well as the fact that the NEC allows GFCIs on ungrounded circuits? Could it possibly be due to the fact that an EGC has nothing...... nil......... nada........ zip....... goose egg.......... zero............ to do with the function of a GFCI?

Given that you're unable to understand this, I guess I'm done here. No sense wasting any more of the forum's bandwidth.

 

[dkidd]

No, I do not see 'it' now.

Given that you're unable to understand this, I guess I'm done here. No sense wasting any more of the forum's bandwidth.

You know what they say about trying to teach a pig to sing.

 

[FionaZuppa]

Given that you're unable to understand this, I guess I'm done here. No sense wasting any more of the forum's bandwidth.

nobody is questioning that the gfi sums the vectors of two CCC's, and if the diff is more than what the GFI is spec'd for it will trip off. not sure why you keep going there. i think what you dont understand is what hazards a GFI can protect against, and which hazards could and could not be mitigated if the EGC was or was not present, and i already gave those examples, and if required i can draw out some silly cartoon like diagrams showing you how current can flow through the body and kill you w/o GFI tripping when no EGC is present.

How can you have a 2-prong EGC? If you meant GFCI, well they don't make those.
As was said, the whole reason for allowing a GFCI to replace a non grounding receptacle is to make it safer.

yeah, it was "GFI" and not "EGC", my type goof.
yes, understood that replacing non-egc std recept with a non-egc'd GFI does make it safer, but there is no point of having the silly "no egc" label on the GFI faceplate, whats the point in doing so, will that somehow make folks not plug in cap cord that had EGC pin? would end user even know the diff? certainly w/o EGC the gfi will not mitigate some hazards.

 

[dkidd]

Its GFCI.

 

[roger]

nobody is questioning that the gfi sums the vectors of two CCC's, and if the diff is more than what the GFI is spec'd for it will trip off. not sure why you keep going there. i think what you dont understand is what hazards a GFI can protect against, and which hazards could and could not be mitigated if the EGC was or was not present, and i already gave those examples, and if required i can draw out some silly cartoon like diagrams showing you how current can flow through the body and kill you w/o GFI tripping when no EGC is present.

480Sparky fully understands how a GFCI works and how it protects or doesn't protect people.

yes, understood that replacing non-egc std recept with a non-egc'd GFI does make it safer,

Good, we're getting somewhere now.

but there is no point of having the silly "no egc" label on the GFI faceplate, whats the point in doing so,

See 250.114

will that somehow make folks not plug in cap cord that had EGC pin?

Maybe, maybe not

would end user even know the diff?

Maybe, maybe not.

certainly w/o EGC the gfi will not mitigate some hazards.

and with an EGC the same is true.

Roger

 

[ActionDave]

.... current can flow through the body and kill you w/o GFI tripping when no EGC is present.

And it can do the same WITH an egc present in a gfci protected circuit.

 

[FionaZuppa]

And it can do the same WITH an egc present in a gfci protected circuit.

in some hazards yes, in others no. maybe the coffee is too strong there. w/ an EGC gives you more coverage across the various hazards the GFI can mitigate. does it make more sense read that way?

and with an EGC the same is true.

Roger

you get more mitigating coverage w/ EGC present, is my point.

having a GFI w/o EGC w/ a sticker is certainly better than no GFI at all, yes, understood.

and btw, "GFI" "GFCI", same thing folks. if you wish to waste time adding the "C" in there every time you type out GFI, then feel free to do so.

 

[jim dungar]

I think some of the problem involves the use of the word Ground in the naming of the device.

These are truths I have experienced.
Ground has nothing to do with the operation of a zero sequence sensor. This type of GF device will trip if there is enough current imbalance, it makes no difference which complete paths the current is actually following.
GFCI's do not prevent shock, they simple limit the duration of a shock involving >6mA of current.
The use of 2-wire ungrounded or 3-wire grounded circuits is an independent discussion.

 

[iwire]

having a GFI w/o EGC w/ a sticker is certainly better than no GFI at all, yes, understood.

So there is nothing left to say. :thumbsup:

and btw, "GFI" "GFCI", same thing folks.

No it is not the same thing.

 

[dkidd]

and btw, "GFI" "GFCI", same thing folks. if you wish to waste time adding the "C" in there every time you type out GFI, then feel free to do so.

And there we have it. Proof positive of fuzzy thinking.

 

[FionaZuppa]

Ground has nothing to do with the operation of a zero sequence sensor.

.... or the sum of amp vectors passing through the sensor. its really -XmA >= sum <= +XmA (non-trip)
although the little green screw is not in that equation, the little green screw is related to the fault paths that would allow the GFI give move coverage. agree?