GFCI for water fountain

[jap]

Given how infrequently GFCI receptacles are actually tested, do you really think anyone is going to take the shell off the drinking fountain to do it?

And how often do you really think anyone tests the ones that are in plain sight?

Jap>

 

[GoldDigger]

And how often do you really think anyone tests the ones that are in plain sight?

Jap>

That's what I said. But even less often behind a screw plate.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[jumper]

All the ones i have inspected just have an open hand whole without any cover, have not inspected any recently that are not high low fountains though.

They do have a removable cover that gives further access once it is removed.

This is what I am used to, single or high low.

 

[retirede]

That's what I said. But even less often behind a screw plate.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

What’s less often than “never”?

 

[LarryFine]

What’s less often than “never”?

Not never.

 

[jumper]

What’s less often than “never”?

Not never.

Ever? Not even once?

 

[jap]

This is what I am used to, single or high low.

And notice how good it looks without that ugly cord coming out of the side of it.


JAP>

 

[kwired]

Just wondering what the code making panels mind set is sometimes when requiring things to be readily accessible when there are times when they really shouldn't be just for convenience.

JAP>

Good question, regardless it is already written and we have to comply. If you want it changed submit a PI - good luck.
I questioned why drinking fountain needs GFCI in the first place when they first made that requirement. Possible missing EGC pin on the cord is my only justification but if you use that reason then everything should need GFCI, but don't worry they are slowly trying to get it to that anyway.

Aren't drinking fountain GFCI receptacles typically ready accessed through a hand hole under the drinking fountain?

If open bottom and otherwise unobstructed, I think they are readily accessible.

 

[jap]

I questioned why drinking fountain needs GFCI in the first place when they first made that requirement. Possible missing EGC pin on the cord is my only justification but if you use that reason then everything should need GFCI, but don't worry they are slowly trying to get it to that anyway.

Maybe it's because they have a motor, a water source, and, the portion you grab onto is mostly entirely conductive metal.

Also, you generally you grab hold of it with both hands at the same time above and beyond that.

If there happened to be a stray voltage on it, I can see the concern.

I think the GFI protection is a good thing.

Just question the reasoning for it having to be readily accessible.

JAP>

 

[LarryFine]

Maybe it's because they have a motor, a water source, and, the portion you grab onto is mostly entirely conductive metal.

Reminds me of 50-ish years ago at a movie theater in winter, with the usual static shock from shoes on carpet, I went to the water fountain and intentionally touched only the plastic knob. ZAP on my lips.

 

[jap]

Reminds me of 50-ish years ago at a movie theater in winter, with the usual static shock from shoes on carpet, I went to the water fountain and intentionally touched only the plastic knob. ZAP on my lips.

I'm a doer just like you and do stupid stuff like that all the time just to see what the outcome will be . :lol:


JAP>

 

[kwired]

Maybe it's because they have a motor, a water source, and, the portion you grab onto is mostly entirely conductive metal.

Also, you generally you grab hold of it with both hands at the same time above and beyond that.

If there happened to be a stray voltage on it, I can see the concern.

I think the GFI protection is a good thing.

Just question the reasoning for it having to be readily accessible.

JAP>

That don't happen if the EGC is intact. So unless there is a high rate of missing EGC's on these appliances and cases of electrocutions, what prompted the change?

Otherwise with that logic we should be applying GFCI to everything.

 

[jap]

That don't happen if the EGC is intact. So unless there is a high rate of missing EGC's on these appliances and cases of electrocutions, what prompted the change?

Otherwise with that logic we should be applying GFCI to everything.

So what is your logic for the need for any GFI's?

JAP>

 

[kwired]

So what is your logic for the need for any GFI's?

JAP>

Well it is pretty effective at reducing shock incidents, but where does one draw the line?

20 years ago it was mostly only required where statistical data showed more incidents, where appliances might be subjected to immersion, or at locations where one may typically be exposed to wet grounded surfaces and involving 15/20 amp 120 volt cord and plug connected equipment.

I don't feel the 4-6 mA is necessarily right for all situations either, 30mA would be great in some cases, if you want to avoid some of those "nuisance" trips.

If you want to be totally safe regardless of side effects - then use class A on everything.

 

[jap]

Well it is pretty effective at reducing shock incidents, but where does one draw the line?

20 years ago it was mostly only required where statistical data showed more incidents, where appliances might be subjected to immersion, or at locations where one may typically be exposed to wet grounded surfaces and involving 15/20 amp 120 volt cord and plug connected equipment.

I don't feel the 4-6 mA is necessarily right for all situations either, 30mA would be great in some cases, if you want to avoid some of those "nuisance" trips.

If you want to be totally safe regardless of side effects - then use class A on everything.

So evidently, I guess there still is a chance for a shock even though the EGC is connected , correct?

JAP>

 

[kwired]

So evidently, I guess there still is a chance for a shock even though the EGC is connected , correct?

JAP>

If there is a rise in voltage on the EGC, possibly, GFCI won't respond to that either, exactly what happens sometimes when someone is electrocuted around marinas, private docks, etc. even though GFCI protection was present.

Most of the time with the water fountain you are not at that much risk, you have to contact some other grounded surface to get shocked if the frame of the water fountain is energized.

 

[LarryFine]

So evidently, I guess there still is a chance for a shock even though the EGC is connected , correct?

A GFCI protects against electrocution, not a shock. In fact, a shock has to occur to trip one when a person is involved.

 

[jap]

A GFCI protects against electrocution, not a shock. In fact, a shock has to occur to trip one when a person is involved.

I agree, but was thinking more of the GFI responding to a ground leakage and tripping out before a person was to walk up and grab onto it.
A leakage that may not be enough for the breaker to trip even though it did have a sufficient EGC connected to it.

JAP>

 

[david]

I would imagine a plumber shirt and arms could get pretty wet working on a leak under a water fountain. What condition does it take to justify GFCI protection.

 

[kwired]

I would imagine a plumber shirt and arms could get pretty wet working on a leak under a water fountain. What condition does it take to justify GFCI protection.

Does not mean he is at an increased risk of being shocked.

This reasoning is still a step toward "why not GFCI protect everything".

Per OSHA guidelines, shouldn't that plumber unplug the water fountain?