GFCI 2-wire Experiment

[FionaZuppa]

That is not a request you get to make

i can, but i have no ability to prevent it (it, as in commenting) :thumbsup:
me making a point in other words, yes?

 

[user 100]

stop commenting, pls. body R in experiment doesnt matter, add in any R value as you see fit, then use experimental data and your wizzy-wig calculator (you dont even need scientific mode) to make inferences. you missed the whole point of the experiment, which was to shown that amps can pass across the water and through the body (whatever amps that might be, call them unicorn amps for all i care) w/o ever touching the wires inside the appliance. but then you'll say, "yeah, we already knew that", then i say, "well, then lets make GFCI (whatever that means) at least cover that hazard" --> re-read post #1.


:lol::lol::lol:, literally making me laugh,,,,, the real "lol" type,,,,,, stop it :lol::lol::lol:

And, Um, there is already a solution for your "problem" -courteousy of 422.41

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

I think you fail to understand that a GFCI has nothing to do with immersion of an appliance, or at least that is not the intent. Where immersion is a concern we have this:


http://www.ecmag.com/section/codes-standards/differences-between-gfci-idci-and-gfpe

no, lets think like "NEC", we dont know exactly what end users do, this NEC code attempts to cover the hazards the best it can.


try again w/ 2-wire light socket, but next time put both hands in and move them around some :thumbsup:, whatever the results are please document it, if solo then a video cam would be good, if not solo then perhaps just a scribe. there is no hazard, right ?

Please don't argue that a shock is possible w/ out a path back to the source. With no path, there is no circuit to be completed, so no shock.

 

[iwire]

i can, but i have no ability to prevent it (it, as in commenting) :thumbsup:
me making a point in other words, yes?

But I can