• We will be performing upgrades on the forums and server over the weekend. The forums may be unavailable multiple times for up to an hour each. Thank you for your patience and understanding as we work to make the forums even better.

Explain this to me.

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dancassidy

Member
Re: Explain this to me.

I emailed the editor of EC&M, asking some of the same questions, and recieved a reply from the author of the article. His response included the following points:
1. The lamp was UL listed
2. The GFCI was tested by building management, but "this is moot since values below 6ma could have caused fibrilation" due to wet pregnant woman, etc.
3. He refers to problems with earlier gfci's and UL 943, 3rd edition
4.His last point, and one that is most noteworthy - is that gfci's don't guarantee no risk of electrocution, they just reduce the risk.

I still don't know why leakage from neutral to ground would prevent the gfci from working, but I do agree with his last point...
 
D

d6183

Member
Re: Explain this to me.

I think there is alot of gray area to the exact testing of a gfci to the average electrician.
it seems everyone would refuse to accept any liability as to wether or not it is really within specs, i seam to follow alot of home inspectors around changing gfci receptacles for the sellers of homes because they say in their expert oppinion which is a ten hour corse that they are not within specs.
 
roger

roger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Fl
Occupation
Retired Electrician
Re: Explain this to me.

Originally posted by d6183:
i seam to follow allot of home inspectors around changing gfci receptacles for the sellers of homes because they say in their expert opinion which is a ten hour corse that they are not within specs.
Click to expand...
A 10 hour course and an expert is made, and to think I wasted 30 years. :( :( :( :D

In reality there are very good HI's and all HI reports I have responded to have accepted my recommendation or code reference to override the report.

Roger

[ October 24, 2004, 09:04 PM: Message edited by: roger ]
 
hbiss

hbiss

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

1. The lamp was UL listed
2. The GFCI was tested by building management, but "this is moot since values below 6ma could have caused fibrilation" due to wet pregnant woman, etc.
3. He refers to problems with earlier gfci's and UL 943, 3rd edition
4.His last point, and one that is most noteworthy - is that gfci's don't guarantee no risk of electrocution, they just reduce the risk.

I agree with the last point also, but why did the author make big deal of the UL listing, the lamps noncompliance and those tests he ran? Other than that the lamp was plugged into a GFI receptacle and it was found tripped, no other mention of the GFI receptacle was made. It was tested by management? Wasn't that his job?

I'm still confused as to why the author believes that leakage from neutral to ground would energize the reflector and electrocute the women or influence the operation of the GFI. There should normally be little potential between the two.

Sounds to me, if the hand lamp really did play a part in the women's death, that it fell in the water and the current was enough to cause fibrilation. Easy enough to confirm with the original hand lamp, the GFI and water. Forget about the UL stuff because any hand lamp of that type, UL compliant or not, will do the same thing if you dump it in water.

Unfortunately this is the stuff that goes on in a courtroom and that is really what this is all about. This isn't good electrical detective work, it's "come up with a story to convince the jury that your guy is either guilty or innocent". That's what he was hired to do. If I was on the jury and heard what this guy had to say I would see that it was a bunch of baloney but the average juror would think that it makes sense especially when he says his tests prove that the lamp was UL non-complient.

-Hal
 
J

jimwalker

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

" 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"
Anyone else pick up on this ?
in later reply we are told MANAGEMENT checked this gfci.

If this was a rental unit why was the husband taking down the light?

And management checked it !!! what does that mean ? a maintenance man checked it?

Not sure about the rest of you but i would need a lab to check this for correct operation.

Any one see a lawsuit after husband gets off.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top