GFCI not recommended

Status
Not open for further replies.
bphgravity said:
Suggesting someone should break the law by removing a safety device mandated by the code is shameful and not something a true electrical professional would recommend or condone. Not liking a law or rule is no excuse to not comply with it. If you guys hate the electrical industry so much, perhaps you should go sell used cars where this type of behavior is tolerated.

Unbelievable...
Click to expand...

Do you really believe we dislike select rules or question the code for arbitrary reasons?
 
bphgravity said:
Suggesting someone should break the law by removing a safety device mandated by the code is shameful and not something a true electrical professional would recommend or condone. Not liking a law or rule is no excuse to not comply with it. ...
Click to expand...
Yes, even where we don't like the code rules, they are still the rules and we have to comply with them.

I will even suggest that a manufacturer's recommendation or instruction cannot require you to not use code required device. Those instructions can require things in addition to the code, but cannot delete something the code requires.
 
peter d said:
Oh, aren't you all high and mighty. :roll: Consider the scam that you continue to defend, you're the last person who should be talking.
Click to expand...

Oh boy, grabbing the popcorn
popc1.gif
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
Yes, even where we don't like the code rules, they are still the rules and we have to comply with them.

I will even suggest that a manufacturer's recommendation or instruction cannot require you to not use code required device. Those instructions can require things in addition to the code, but cannot delete something the code requires.
Click to expand...

Well said.:happyyes:
 
A few questions for you Bryan. Are those areas still operating under pre-14 requirements unsafe now? Some areas won't come into '14 compliance for years into the future, meaning many more stoves will be installed near sinks without GFCI protection. What about the countless millions of stoves installed within 6 feet of a sink that aren't GFCI protected? Point being there is a long track record of stoves not being GFCI protected and I have no issue whatsoever with them remaining that way. Something that was safe yesterday is not suddenly unsafe today because some code making panel made some arbitrary rule deciding it's now unsafe. The same argument applies to dishwashers and garbage disposals as well.
 
peter d said:
A few questions for you Bryan. Are those areas still operating under pre-14 requirements unsafe now? Some areas won't come into '14 compliance for years into the future, meaning many more stoves will be installed near sinks without GFCI protection. What about the countless millions of stoves installed within 6 feet of a sink that aren't GFCI protected? Point being there is a long track record of stoves not being GFCI protected and I have no issue whatsoever with them remaining that way. Something that was safe yesterday is not suddenly unsafe today because some code making panel made some arbitrary rule deciding it's now unsafe. The same argument applies to dishwashers and garbage disposals as well.
Click to expand...

I agree. As long as the appliance has a fully functioning EGC there is no added safety from a GFCI.
 
peter d said:
Oh, aren't you all high and mighty. :roll: Consider the scam that you continue to defend, you're the last person who should be talking.
Click to expand...

Peter, the discussion has nothing to do with AFCI's so let's stay with 210.8(B)(2). We all have used GFCI's on construction sites for years and power tools overall don't have problems, so there's no reason for commercial kitchen equipment to have problems except bad design.

Roger
 
mbrooke said:
As long as the appliance has a fully functioning EGC there is no added safety from a GFCI.
Click to expand...

As an absolute statement I would disagree. An appliance that is GFCI protected provides a measure of additional safety for a person coming in contact with it. Regardless of whether the additional safety is needed or not, it exists.

An EGC does not replace a GFCI and a GFCI does not replace an EGC.
 
roger said:
Peter, the discussion has nothing to do with AFCI's so let's stay with 210.8(B)(2). We all have used GFCI's on construction sites for years and power tools overall don't have problems, so there's no reason for commercial kitchen equipment to have problems except bad design.

Roger
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

I stand by what I said. I see no hazard in a stove not being GFCI protected in a residential setting.
 
Last edited:
sparkyrick said:
Throw a toaster in the sink and see if the breaker trips, I'm betting not.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:. An egc will not protect you at all in certain scenarios and speaking of toasters, an egc being present (bonded case of toaster)could actually increase the hazard to the consumer.
 
ptonsparky said:
Personally I haven't seen an EGC on a toaster. My toaster is pretty old though.
Click to expand...

I don't believe I have either and due to the risk of someone not unplugging the thing and trying to retrieve that broken poptart corner( I don't know why but poptarts seem to be the worst about this) with a fork or butter knife that bonded case wouldn't be such a good idea. Many would argue to let darwins theory do its thing, but it makes no sense to make something potentially more dangerous when we already have an excellent preventative in gfci.
 
jumper said:
As an absolute statement I would disagree. An appliance that is GFCI protected provides a measure of additional safety for a person coming in contact with it. Regardless of whether the additional safety is needed or not, it exists.

An EGC does not replace a GFCI and a GFCI does not replace an EGC.
Click to expand...

For large non portable appliances like refrigerators and gas ranges, how does a GFCI protect the user?


sparkyrick said:
Throw a toaster in the sink and see if the breaker trips, I'm betting not.
Click to expand...

Im betting the GFCI doesn't trip either if the plumbing is plastic.
 
mbrooke said:
For large non portable appliances like refrigerators and gas ranges, how does a GFCI protect the user?
Click to expand...

Ground pin broken / missing from plug, internal hot to case fault.

User standing on wet floor touches appliance, completes the circuit, receives full voltage shock, GFCI senses the current imbalance, opens the circuit, the user stops getting a shock and lives to talk about it.

Your continual posts questioning the usefulness or need for GFCIs really changes my perspective of your mindset.
 
mbrooke said:
For large non portable appliances like refrigerators and gas ranges, how does a GFCI protect the user?

If the equipment grounding conductor gets loose or disconnect in the receptacle or cord cap then the gfci will take over if there is a short to the casing of the unit.


Im betting the GFCI doesn't trip either if the plumbing is plastic.
Click to expand...
That would be true with a two wire connection but it would trip the gfci with a toaster that has an equipment grounding conductor. You must think of all scenarios not just one case where it may not trip.
Click to expand...
 
Dennis Alwon said:
If the equipment grounding conductor gets loose or disconnect in the receptacle or cord cap then the gfci will take over if there is a short to the casing of the unit.
Click to expand...

That is true and very likely in small portable appliances both from plugging & un-plugging along with the cord becoming damaged, but such is not common for large appliances.

That would be true with a two wire connection but it would trip the gfci with a toaster that has an equipment grounding conductor. You must think of all scenarios not just one case where it may not trip.
Click to expand...


I agree, however in the US most toasters are two prong so if the plumbing is plastic the GFCI would in theory hold.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top