Code enforcement

Status
Not open for further replies.
growler said:
I think that electricity will take the path of least resistance. If that path is through me and to ground then I'm in trouble (unless I have GFCI protection). If I expect that current will flow from the hot conductor out and then through my body and then back through the return conductor (neutral) that's going to be a bit hard to figure. If I put a finger of the right hand on the hot and a finger of the left hand on the return that's a problem but that's not easy to do.

Most appliances used in bathrooms and kitchens where GFCI protection is required don't even have a ground to the appliance. They have a 2 wire plug so how would a ground at the receptacle make any difference.

A ground is required for a refrigerator but a frig has a grounded frame with a three wire receptacle.
Click to expand...

why is it hard to figure. drop a 3-prong hairdryer (that is connected to a GFI protected EGC capable recept that has a "no EGC" sticker on it) into a "insulated" tub full of very clean water, with you in the tub. some amps go from hot to N, some amps take one of infinite routes through the water, cross through you, and back to N via one of infinite routes through the water. to the GFI all amps are accounted for, you are now dead. if the EGC was there. some amps will bypass GFI sensor and trip out in that 4-6mA range.

all hairdryers seems to have 3-prong and optional built-on GFI unit. my blender, toaster, fridge, washer, dishwasher, mixer all have EGC, my one coffee maker is non-EGC. so i think your statement is backwards, i think some appliances are non-EGC while most others are.

so, in order to use these items the recept needs to be 3-prong, but if the GFI protected wiring is two wire only then the recept should be non-EGC type, not EGC capable w/ "no egc" sticker. if you use sticker on 2-prong recept you are asking for trouble as the user will, as mentioned, break off the EGC pin or use the no-EGC adapter. if the recept is EGC capable and has the "no EGC" sticker, user has no idea what the sticker means, thus has no sense of the hazard they could be exposed to because there is no EGC, what they may get is false sense of full hazard protection because what they see is a 3-prong cap cord going into a 3-prong recept.
 
Last edited:
Frank DuVal said:
I'm old. Back in the 70s, the initials used were GFI, Ground Fault Interrupter.
Click to expand...

Back in the 70's the device manufacturers part numbers contained GFI. This was the marketing departments and had nothing to do with codes and standards.

Even back then, GFCI was a specific term used by UL, NEMA, and the NEC, all of which understood its uniqueness from a generic function.
 
Last edited:
FionaZuppa said:
why is it hard to figure. drop a 3-prong hairdryer (that is connected to a GFI protected EGC capable recept that has a "no EGC" sticker on it) into a "insulated" tub full of very clean water, with you in the tub. some amps go from hot to N, some amps take one of infinite routes through the water, cross through you, and back to N via one of infinite routes through the water. to the GFI all amps are accounted for, you are now dead.....
Click to expand...

I don't see the death thing happening. There wouldn't be that much current in the water and what there was would flow around you not through you.
 
ActionDave said:
I don't see the death thing happening. There wouldn't be that much current in the water and what there was would flow around you not through you.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that the human body is more conductive than fresh water, and is why there are so many fresh water electrocutions around docks.
 
dkidd said:
I'm pretty sure that the human body is more conductive than fresh water, and is why there are so many fresh water electrocutions around docks.
Click to expand...

I believe that the issue is when the swimmer makes contact with a grounded item such as a metal ladder that electrocution takes place. In a tub or shower, unless you're touching the drain or inlet or valves it shouldn't be a problem.
 
gadfly56 said:
I believe that the issue is when the swimmer makes contact with a grounded item such as a metal ladder that electrocution takes place. In a tub or shower, unless you're touching the drain or inlet or valves it shouldn't be a problem.
Click to expand...

See :https://www.mikeholt.com/newsletters.php?action=display&letterID=1665

Mike states that "This created a lethal electric field around the object (a person in this electric field can be paralyzed leading to drowning, or direct electrocution). " Other sources also state that there is an electrical field in the fresh water that does not require the swimmer to come into contact with anything to produce lethal currents in the body.
 
ActionDave said:
I don't see the death thing happening. There wouldn't be that much current in the water and what there was would flow around you not through you.
Click to expand...

hmm, "not that much current". so, how much is "not that much". are you speaking in terms of class-A GFCI ?? and by "not much" you mean way below 4mA threshold? i suspect that is not a good assumption.

dkidd brings up another good point, as water tends towards insulator it acts more like a piece of plastic where you can have spots of varying charge, and if the body bridges two spots you get amps. but i dont think we need to go there for this discussion.

my point in summary is this. since GFI recept will be 5-15/5-20 i think NEC should mandate that the actual GFI recept have a functioning EGC (and if downstream is 2-wire only then 1- recepts must be used). to add GFI to 2-wire-from-panel then do that via OCPD, or, NEC and others should demand that manufactures just build some 1-15 GFI recepts (all they need to do is remove EGC hole from faceplate mold, etc). OR, allow installer to insert a plastic pin into the EGC hole that once inserted it cannot be removed (very ez to make a barbed plastic pin to do this) <-- this way the user will be restricted from inserting 5- cap cord into a non-EGC'd 5- GFI recept (in essence, converting a 5- into a polarized 1-) and thus not be exposed to some hazards, AND, you get the 1- coverage needed for both GFI recept AND 2-wire downstream, etc.
 
Last edited:
K8MHZ said:
Well, we are over 100 posts into this thing. What is the average number of posts in a thread staying on track? :D
Click to expand...

hmm, good math problem, since AVG in your Q is time variant, pls feel free to create the AVG matrix on a per hr basis. we all know you have the skills ;)
 
back to OP Q.
one of the problems you have is, NEMA embraces use of "GFCI Testers" (but does not state what type of "testers"), while UL does not. so although OP's AHJ has evidence to show that using a tester is a valid test, there is no concrete verbiage from NEMA or UL stating some caveats about things to be aware of when using such testers. from a testing perspective, UL says to use the GFI button because they know that the only way to test is to bypass small amps around the GFI coil sensor. you cannot do this with a 5-P unless the EGC is present. perhaps another solution is for AHJ to use 5- to 1- adapter on 1- recepts and then bridge the EGC from adapter to a nearby EGC, then hit the test button on tester.

you OP have ran into one of those snafu areas in electrical.
 
K8MHZ said:
42
Click to expand...

i was counting on you to get it right, but sorry, you did not make the cut ;)
you would be close if you had a matrix (or graph) of AVG crap posts per hr, but you didnt even get that far....... :p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top