Earth leakage circuit breaker?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Guessing that is what a lot of the world uses for protection of equipment at 30mA, whereas the US commonly uses a device for protection of people at 6mA.

I'm guessing you'd be fine with typical American GFCI protection, ASSUMING it's not TOO protective of what that equipment might consider acceptable leakage.

More experienced folk than me will be along shortly.
 
The rules for personnel protection in other counties are different than here. They require ELCBs generally where we require GFCIs, which is what that reference is about. It’s their CYA statement.

But here, anything that is hard wired does NOT require GFCI unless it is on a specific short list, like pools and spas, etc. and as of the 2014 code, tankless water heaters were NOT on that short list and therefore do not need a GFCI. I do not know about the 2017 code yet if your state is using that.
 
Jraef said:
...But here, anything that is hard wired does NOT require GFCI unless it is on a specific short list, like pools and spas, etc. and as of the 2014 code, tankless water heaters were NOT on that short list and therefore do not need a GFCI...
Click to expand...

But does the Code require the manufacturer's installation instructions to be followed in such a requirement?
 
MAC702 said:
But does the Code require the manufacturer's installation instructions to be followed in such a requirement?
Click to expand...
Yes, but I'm going to bet that those same instructions also say 230V 50Hz... so you are already going to be violating that.

When responsible companies make equipment for North America and get it properly listed for use here, one of those listing requirements is to make sure the installation instructions are appropriate for the place it is to be installed. By virtue of the way that is worded, this was not one of those responsible mfrs...
 
Jraef said:
The rules for personnel protection in other counties are different than here. They require ELCBs generally where we require GFCIs, which is what that reference is about. It’s their CYA statement.

But here, anything that is hard wired does NOT require GFCI unless it is on a specific short list, like pools and spas, etc. and as of the 2014 code, tankless water heaters were NOT on that short list and therefore do not need a GFCI. I do not know about the 2017 code yet if your state is using that.
Click to expand...

I'm on the 2014 and I like what you are saying. When I quoted a price for this thing I was assuming no GFCI was required. Now I'm concerned I'm going to lose money on the install because this GFCI-like device is called out. I could install it without but then I may be opening myself up to liability when this Chinese made crap electrocutes my client. I doubt it's been passed by any listing agency here.
 
Usually the dead giveaway is that it is CE “Listed”. The problem with CE is that manufacturers can third party test like the rest of the world or self certify that they use materials “similar” to actual third party listings. So if the mark is only CE don’t use it because it is not Listed as recognized in North America.

The only other “banned” Listing is MSHA. Generally anyone except these two is OK...UL, CSA, FM, ITU, TuV to name a few.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
paulengr said:
Usually the dead giveaway is that it is CE “Listed”. The problem with CE is that manufacturers can third party test like the rest of the world or self certify that they use materials “similar” to actual third party listings. So if the mark is only CE don’t use it because it is not Listed as recognized in North America.

The only other “banned” Listing is MSHA. Generally anyone except these two is OK...UL, CSA, FM, ITU, TuV to name a few.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


CE can mean on of two things:


ce-chinese-export-logo.png
 
Coppersmith said:
I'm on the 2014 and I like what you are saying. When I quoted a price for this thing I was assuming no GFCI was required. Now I'm concerned I'm going to lose money on the install because this GFCI-like device is called out. I could install it without but then I may be opening myself up to liability when this Chinese made crap electrocutes my client. I doubt it's been passed by any listing agency here.
Click to expand...

I'd assume nothing stops you from using a regular North American GFCI or GFP breaker.
 
paulengr said:
Usually the dead giveaway is that it is CE “Listed”. The problem with CE is that manufacturers can third party test like the rest of the world or self certify that they use materials “similar” to actual third party listings. So if the mark is only CE don’t use it because it is not Listed as recognized in North America.

The only other “banned” Listing is MSHA. Generally anyone except these two is OK...UL, CSA, FM, ITU, TuV to name a few.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

"CE" is not a listing. A "listing" requires a third party evaluation. CE is a manufacturer's self evaluation.
 
oldsparky52 said:
I would love to know more about this "banned" thing. This is the 1st I've heard about it.
Click to expand...
https://www.tuv.com/content-media-f...-and-canada/tuv_rheinland_05_ce_in_the_us.pdf

https://www.ul.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/novdec2007.pdf

OSHA does not recognize MSHA either which is their own 3td party testing lab for mining. I don't know the reason but the obvious one is because that lab is testing equipment for the mining jurisdiction that is exempt from NEC and vice versa because it's a totally different regulation and Code just like electric utilities follow NESC and ANSI standards instead (no Listing requirement).

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top