Explain this to me.

Status
Not open for further replies.

hbiss

EC, Westchester, New York NEC: 2014
Location
Hawthorne, New York NEC: 2014
Occupation
EC
Just received the September issue of EC&M yesterday. There is a "Forensic Casebook" article written by a forensic engineer that has me a bit confused.

The author was called in by the Police to aid in their investigation of a woman found dead in her shower. Seems the husband (who was under suspicion) hung one of those cheap drop lights or hand lamps on the shower curtain bar to illuminate the shower because he had taken down the ceiling light. Long story short- overweight woman was found by husband on floor of shower blocking drain which caused water to fill the pan. Hand lamp was found in the water, plugged into a GFI receptacle, GFI receptacle was tripped.

In his investigation the author performed a hi-pot test on the hand lamp which revealed that there was a close spacing (but no actual contact) between the neutral and ground contacts of the receptacle in the handle. He asserts that this caused leakage between the two under high humidity conditions such as in that shower.

After performing a battery of UL tests, as well as dumping the whole thing in water and measuring the leakage :roll: he claims that this close spacing between the neutral and ground energized the whole lamp and probably caused the electrocution when she touched the hand lamp reflector. Further, he theorizes that this may have caused the GFI not to trip as designed in a timely manner.

His testimony was used to exonerate the husband.

-Hal
 

templdl

Senior Member
Location
Wisconsin
Re: Explain this to me.

Hal, I read that also. Regardless of the lamp's integrity the GFCI should have provided the required protection in my opinion. If the GFCI were functioning correctly it should compare the current being supplied to the lamp with the which should be returning. The sensitivity of the GFCI should have been 5ma or.005a, (+-1ma) and should trip within .025sec (25ms). At most she may have felt the sensation of an electric shock but would have been far from fatal. Current in the neighborhood of .1a-.2a (100-200ma)sould have caused death.
I trust that your post will open up a lively discussion.
Dave
 

jimwalker

Senior Member
Location
TAMPA FLORIDA
Re: Explain this to me.

ok how about this .First he plugs it into a exstention to a non gfci receptacle.Then after the death he plugs it into the gfci.Of course it now trips and looks like the gfci didn't work fast enough.
 

hbiss

EC, Westchester, New York NEC: 2014
Location
Hawthorne, New York NEC: 2014
Occupation
EC
Re: Explain this to me.

My point is that this "expert testimony" would sound credible to a jury or even the police investigators and could turn the case. In reality it is flawed and makes little technical sense.

I don't know if there was any foul play but we heard nothing about the results of the autopsy. The author failed to test the GFI receptacle itself or bothered to see if it was wired correctly. All he seemed concerned about was that the handlamp did not meet UL leakage requirements but failed to consider that any leakage would have been mitigated by a properly functioning GFI receptacle which appeared to have worked.

-Hal
 

jimwalker

Senior Member
Location
TAMPA FLORIDA
Re: Explain this to me.

I am sure many cases lack all the evidence needed to come to proper conclusion.I just assumed they at least checked the gfci,but from rereading i see they didn't.
One question that does come to my mind is even if the gfci was working is there any chance that even less than 5 mil.amps could kill someone that is wet and grounded ?
 

dereckbc

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Plano, TX
Re: Explain this to me.

Gentleman, FWIW, A GFCI does not limit current through a fault, only the time in which it is allowed to flow. So IMO a GFCI can and will deliver a fatal shock under the right conditions, only the time is limited.

Edited for clarity

[ October 10, 2004, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: dereckbc ]
 

apauling

Senior Member
Re: Explain this to me.

to jim"columbo"walker: nice one. but it is probably all technical hooey. Overweight woman dies in shower and pulls or knocks lamp down.

csi say need proof of electrocution, not heart attack or other cause for any theory to be relevent.

if the guy did it, was he a blonde electrician, thinking he could fake it. smart and dumb at the same time

electrical receptor
 

templdl

Senior Member
Location
Wisconsin
Re: Explain this to me.

I agree with the time limited but not current point of view which brings other variables to the table.
Based upon opening at 5ma in 25ms or less doesn't imply that the current will be limited to 5ma. The actual current would be limited to the rate of rise within the 25ms.
However, since the peak of a sign wave from zero-its peak is 1sec/120 cycles or .0083sec, (83ms) which means that the GFCI should clear in much less time than 83ms. Then resistance must be taken into consideration which would be from the energized part that is being touched through the body to ground which can very greatly. If one were to use an ohm meter to measure the resistance to compute the current that could flow in an attempt to duplicate the event I think you could get a pretty good idea if the GFCI would open such that the current doesn't have enough time to rise to a fatal level.
Yes, this may be a good one for CSI.
(I hope that my figures are accurate and make sense.)
 
A

a.wayne3@verizon.net

Guest
Re: Explain this to me.

Or maybe the GFCI did its job and the combo of Twinkies,Ho HO`s and Bon Bon`s did her in.As posted the GFCI was tripped. :D
 

cordial98

Member
Re: Explain this to me.

Gentlemen, FWIW the woman was pregnant and we would have to assume the fetus did not survive this, this man tried to save money and it ended up costing the ultimate price.
 

charlie tuna

Senior Member
Location
Florida
Re: Explain this to me.

considering that 60 per cent of ground faultreceptacles do not operate correctly --wouldn't you think that it would be tested first?

we had an electrician in south florida that electricuted his wife and got away with it until years later he was bragging about it. they dug her up and found the burn marks on her ankles. he went to jail!
 

petersonra

Senior Member
Location
Northern illinois
Occupation
engineer
Re: Explain this to me.

Originally posted by charlie tuna:
considering that 60 per cent of ground faultreceptacles do not operate correctly --wouldn't you think that it would be tested first?
Where do you get this figure from? is this due to faulty devices or improper installation?
 

tom baker

First Chief Moderator & NEC Expert
Staff member
Location
Bremerton, Washington
Occupation
Master Electrician
Re: Explain this to me.

I have heard 25% of GFCI rec do not work from an IAEI study. I would like to see the documentation of 60%.
 

petersonra

Senior Member
Location
Northern illinois
Occupation
engineer
Re: Explain this to me.

Originally posted by tom baker:
I have heard 25% of GFCI rec do not work from an IAEI study. I would like to see the documentation of 60%.
A quick google found this almost unbelievable article:

http://www.ecmweb.com/mag/electric_gfci_basics/

"According to a study conducted by the American Society of Home Inspectors (published in IAEI News, November/December 1999), 21% of GFCI circuit breakers and 19% of GFCI receptacles tested did not provide GFCI protection. Yet, the circuit remained energized! In the examined cases, failures of the GFCI sensing circuits were mostly due to damage to the internal transient voltage surge protection (metal-oxide varistors) that protect the GFCI sensing circuit. This damage resulted from voltage surges from lightning and other transients. In areas of high-lightning activity, such as Southwest Florida, the failure rate for GFCI circuit breakers was more than 57%."
 

wildman

Senior Member
Location
Georgia
Re: Explain this to me.

I have installed many gfci's! I am sure many of you have done the same. After installation, I tested it to be sure it worked, pressed the test button...plugged in that gfci tester...the manufacturer says to test it monthly....monthly!! How many times do you think the homeowner actually takes the time to press that little button? How many calls have you gotten to come and test my gfci's for me? Heard about some recalls about AFCI's (would not trip) Unaware of recalls on gfci's! Nothing is 100% safe!
 

pqtest

Member
Re: Explain this to me.

Some additional information on the IAEI GFCI study and the ECM article that may be if interest- Of the ten cities where this study was conducted, Seattle Eastside suburbs had the fourth largest failure rate of GFCI's, suggesting that some mechanism other than lightning may also be responsible for device failures. Seattle, which has very few lightning strikes per year, beat out storm prone areas such as Illinois, Long Island NY, and the SF Bay area in % of GFCI failures.

The author of the IAEI article also warns that in 20-25 years we may see similar failure rates for AFCIs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top