GFCI not recommended

[mbrooke]

Recent times had a rash of poorly manufactured residential appliances flood the market here Iwire>

Appliance fires pose a safety concern
Millions of dishwashers, fridges, ranges, and more are on recall lists

This made a satistical impact , noted by our NFPA>



The 'quick NEC fix' , as evidenced by many '14 rop's , was to simply mandate for resi what had been mandated prior for commercial kitchens

~RJ~

And this is why I say its not so much open EGCs as failing appliances. I wish service techs posted on this forum because they will all attest to burnt up circuit boards. Recalls for rinse aid leaking onto the wiring harness have been a big one as well.


For those who are younger old appliances were NOTHING like the ones today. Most had absolutely no electronics, were all metal and everything was controlled via a central electro-mechanical timer. Connections to the timer were via a robust terminal block rather then plastic clip-like connectors. Burn ups were rare.

Thats not to say manufactures can not design fail safe machines with electronics or plastic, but it seems they would much rather get the NEC to do it for them. :happysad:

 

[growler]

And this is why I say its not so much open EGCs as failing appliances. I wish service techs posted on this forum because they will all attest to burnt up circuit boards. Recalls for rinse aid leaking onto the wiring harness have been a big one as well.


For those who are younger old appliances were NOTHING like the ones today. Most had absolutely no electronics, were all metal and everything was controlled via a central electro-mechanical timer. Connections to the timer were via a robust terminal block rather then plastic clip-like connectors. Burn ups were rare.

Thats not to say manufactures can not design fail safe machines with electronics or plastic, but it seems they would much rather get the NEC to do it for them. :happysad:

I remember when a hamburger still had meat in it and a milk shake still contained milk but those days are gone.

Appliances are not what they were but the manufacturers were forced to meet the demands of the public. Modern appliances are much more energy efficient than older appliances.


So you buy one of the these cheap pieces of crap and it burns up. What can the NEC do, they don't control manufacturing but they still don't want the house to burn down. So they require GFCI protection and that's about all they can do.

 

[mbrooke]

I remember when a hamburger still had meat in it and a milk shake still contained milk but those days are gone.

True, but they wont burn your house down. Except the heart burn might :lol:

Appliances are not what they were but the manufacturers were forced to meet the demands of the public. Modern appliances are much more energy efficient than older appliances.

I agree. But there is a saying: 'a toaster doesn't have to toast. It just has to not kill you'

So you buy one of the these cheap pieces of crap and it burns up. What can the NEC do, they don't control manufacturing but they still don't want the house to burn down. So they require GFCI protection and that's about all they can do.

Out of good faith they might, but knowing manufacturing reps are on the CMPs working for the same companies that make these appliances; comes across to me as consumers ought to pay for defective appliances our company refuses to correct.

 

[growler]

knowing manufacturing reps are on the CMPs working for the same companies that make these appliances; comes across to me as consumers ought to pay for defective appliances our company refuses to correct.

I agree that appliances should be made better but how do we go about getting this done?

Who should be on the CMP? There is a conflict of interest with almost anyone involved with the electrical or building industry.

 

[mbrooke]

I agree that appliances should be made better but how do we go about getting this done?

Good question. Only good way is to change the NRTL.

Who should be on the CMP?

People like Iwire. He seems to have common sense. :thumbsup:

There is a conflict of interest with almost anyone involved with the electrical or building industry.

To some degree or another yes. However this pales next to manufacturing reps working for billion dollar corporations where every code mandate is a score for their company. I could not think of a worse scenario.

 

[romex jockey]

expletive deletive......

~RJ~

 

[Dennis Alwon]

You all make me laugh. You spend so much effort on here discussing the why things should be different when you can write proposals with substantiations to change the code. The problem is you probably have no substantiations other than what you think.

If there is even a remote chance of danger the NEC is going to try and avoid it. Obviously in many situation a gfci nor a afci would be necessary. We lived without them for a long time but we can say the same about seatbelts. Boy did people cry about those gadgets.

 

[mbrooke]

You all make me laugh. You spend so much effort on here discussing the why things should be different when you can write proposals with substantiations to change the code.

Before any proposal can be written the theory behind it must be debated. Granted is a lot of griping (venting) but I also see a lot of theoretical discussions advancing understanding forward .

The problem is you probably have no substantiations other than what you think.

The human mind can not make a statement without an inference.

If there is even a remote chance of danger the NEC is going to try and avoid it.
Obviously in many situation a gfci nor a afci would be necessary. We lived without them for a long time but we can say the same about seatbelts. Boy did people cry about those gadgets.

I think its good that the NEC is trying to eliminate danger, but when one looks at all possible scenarios, to have everything fool proof you would have nothing short of banning electricity. I do liken GFCIs with seatbelts, they save lives at a small upfront cost. However AFCIs on the other hand are the functional equivalent of requiring a bobble head on every dash board in order to stop car accidents.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

...
This made a satistical impact , noted by our NFPA>

Wiring and related equipment accounted for the largest share (63%) of 2007-2011 home structure fires involving electrical distribution or lighting equipment, followed by lamps, light fixtures, and light bulbs (20%), cords and plugs (11%), and transformers and power supplies (6%). Cords and plugs accounted for larger shares of civilian deaths (30%) and injuries (21%) than of fire incidents (11%) associated with home electrical distribution or lighting equipment fires.

~RJ~

The total number of dwelling unit fire that are caused by any type of electrical equipment or wiring is less than 15% of the dwelling unit fires. In fact the source you cited says:

Electrical distribution or lighting equipment accounted for 6% of 2007-2011 home structure fires, ranking fourth among major causes behind cooking equipment, heating equipment, and intentional.

 

[jumper]

You all make me laugh. You spend so much effort on here discussing the why things should be different when you can write proposals with substantiations to change the code. The problem is you probably have no substantiations other than what you think.

If there is even a remote chance of danger the NEC is going to try and avoid it. Obviously in many situation a gfci nor a afci would be necessary. We lived without them for a long time but we can say the same about seatbelts. Boy did people cry about those gadgets.

I feel that I was led to believe that previous proposals or comments were written, but my requests for details has been ignored. A bit rude IMO.

As you know I search the ROP's a lot and while I see the usual suspects: Don G, BPH, MH, Leaf, Hartwell, etc writing various proposals, pro and con, on AFCI and GFCI, I am unable to verify any NFPA action on others involved in these threads.

 

[romex jockey]

You all make me laugh. You spend so much effort on here discussing the why things should be different when you can write proposals with substantiations to change the code. The problem is you probably have no substantiations other than what you think.

I try and validate my stance . That said , i will admit to conjecture....

If there is even a remote chance of danger the NEC is going to try and avoid it. Obviously in many situation a gfci nor a afci would be necessary. We lived without them for a long time but we can say the same about seatbelts. Boy did people cry about those gadgets.

The NEC is only interested in who greases their ride. They are not now, nor going to be , some altruistic bastion of personal safety. In fact, if you've followed here, they interface badly with other protective elements, and make kneejerk decisions

This is YOUR tax $$$ too...

~RJ~

 

[romex jockey]

The total number of dwelling unit fire that are caused by any type of electrical equipment or wiring is less than 15% of the dwelling unit fires. In fact the source you cited says:

I stand corrected...

Methinks perhaps you are the most informed and unbiased fire statistic poster i have ever read on the internet Don

But....that doesn't mean the 'powers that be' will not parlay it all toward their own self serving goals

~RJ~

 

[peter d]

Before any proposal can be written the theory behind it must be debated. Granted is a lot of griping (venting) but I also see a lot of theoretical discussions advancing understanding forward .

Agreed. Without theory, I would not have understood why the AFCI is a worthless scam. :thumbsup:

I think its good that the NEC is trying to eliminate danger, but when one looks at all possible scenarios, to have everything fool proof you would have nothing short of banning electricity. I do liken GFCIs with seatbelts, they save lives at a small upfront cost. However AFCIs on the other hand are the functional equivalent of requiring a bobble head on every dash board in order to stop car accidents.

Again, I agree. The problem I am now seeing is the marriage between the two technologies in these combination breakers for kitchen circuits. I foresee lots of nuisance tripping and frustration with them.

 

[romex jockey]

Theory is the end all

Physics do not change, nor can be

Read the ROP's Pete

I find it an exercise in futility to forward one in the context of theory

~RJ~

 

[mbrooke]

Agreed. Without theory, I would not have understood why the AFCI is a worthless scam. :thumbsup:

Theory is absolutely everything.

Again, I agree. The problem I am now seeing is the marriage between the two technologies in these combination breakers for kitchen circuits. I foresee lots of nuisance tripping and frustration with them.

At the consumer's expense. Its the equivalent of being a guinea pig for a research project without consent.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

You all make me laugh. You spend so much effort on here discussing the why things should be different when you can write proposals with substantiations to change the code. The problem is you probably have no substantiations other than what you think.

If there is even a remote chance of danger the NEC is going to try and avoid it. Obviously in many situation a gfci nor a afci would be necessary. We lived without them for a long time but we can say the same about seatbelts. Boy did people cry about those gadgets.

With the new system, I am beginning to think it is almost worthless to submit a PI. The new system makes it much more difficult to comment on a rejected PI. In the past you see a proposal that was rejected at the proposal stage and then accepted in the comment stage. I bet we don't see any of that for this code cycle. Sure there will be changes made to the PIs that have been accepted, but I highly doubt that we will see a CMP reverse and accept a rejected PI at based on PCs.
It will be very interesting to see how many comments are made, by other than the original submitter, on rejected PIs.

The new system seems to have been designed to keep the little players out of the process.

 

[mbrooke]

I stand corrected...

Methinks perhaps you are the most informed and unbiased fire statistic poster i have ever read on the internet Don

But....that doesn't mean the 'powers that be' will not parlay it all toward their own self serving goals

~RJ~

And I also ask: Why isnt Don on the CMP? :lol: Most brilliant guy Ive spoken to :thumbsup:

 

[peter d]

And I also ask: Why isnt Don on the CMP? :lol: Most brilliant guy Ive spoken to :thumbsup:

Read this post by George Stolz for some insight into the code making process.

http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=170149&page=17&p=1663579#post1663579

It's very revealing about why the NEC is in its present condition.

 

[mbrooke]

Read this post by George Stolz for some insight into the code making process.

http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=170149&page=17&p=1663579#post1663579

It's very revealing about why the NEC is in its present condition.

Thank you! I am reading it now :happyyes:

 

[mbrooke]

Read this post by George Stolz for some insight into the code making process.

http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=170149&page=17&p=1663579#post1663579

It's very revealing about why the NEC is in its present condition.

Read it. Even though most might see it as a rant I do agree with key points. Common sense proposals are rejected. The wording of the NEC can be improved so many ways but its not. I think people see that writing proposals will not influence the CMPs.