Gfci won't trip

[iwire]

So how do you satisfy yourself that you didn't inadvertently miss an outlet somehow if you can't test them all?

If you read the instructions included with the device you will find they tell you to plug something into the downstream protected outlets and make sure the power goes off when you press the test button on the remote device.

 

[iwire]

Solenoid type voltage testers and many low impedance volt meters draw enough current to trip a class A GFCI if you test from protected hot to any unprotected component of any differing potential (does not necessarily have to be ground).

No kidding, but it is not a test so I am missing your point.

 

[K8MHZ]

One warning about using plug in GFCI testers.

Let's say one is using a plug in tester to test standard receptacles for upstream GFCI protection. Tester is plugged in, button is pushed and out go the lights. Indeed, that standard receptacle was GFCI protected, and that GFCI has tripped.

And that GFCI is nowhere to be found. Now what does one do?

One gets to spend hours and hours looking for the hidden GFCI receptacle that tripped, that's what one does.

I am not alone in finding GFCI receptacles in very strange places. Sometimes overgrown with and obscured by vegetation.

 

[kwired]

No kidding, but it is not a test so I am missing your point.

If you present a condition that should trip the device it better trip, that is a test whether it is a test mentioned in instructions or not.

I have no issue with testing downstream outlets with a portable tester, you are not so much testing the GFCI function as much as you are verifying what is protected and can press the test button on the GFCI to actually test GFCI function in accordance with instructions.

If you have a non GFCI non-marked receptacle in a location that is required to have GFCI protection a GFCI tester will give you good indication of whether or not it is protected. If you press the test button and don't lose power you are going to have to investigate why, even if the answer is your tester didn't work as it should.

 

[iwire]

If you present a condition that should trip the device it better trip, that is a test whether it is a test mentioned in instructions or not.

No, not a test. Call it an indication if you want, but because the load you are putting on the circuit is unknown it is not a test.

To call it a test is only confusing this thread.

I have no issue with testing downstream outlets with a portable tester, you are not so much testing the GFCI function as much as you are verifying what is protected and can press the test button on the GFCI to actually test GFCI function in accordance with instructions.

Duly noted, kwired does not have an issue with it. I will let OSHA and our insurance company know this if /when they look at our job site GFCI testing log.

If you have a non GFCI non-marked receptacle in a location that is required to have GFCI protection a GFCI tester will give you good indication of whether or not it is protected.

Correct, an indication, not a test.

If you press the test button and don't lose power you are going to have to investigate why, even if the answer is your tester didn't work as it should.

Regardless of the method used if it does not open the circuit it seems pretty obvious there will be more work. :roll:



I just have a hard time understanding the benefit of using additional tools when there is a perfectly good test button on the device that the manufacturers and the NEC 110.3(B) and OSHA want you to use.

To each their own.

 

[kwired]

No, not a test. Call it an indication if you want, but because the load you are putting on the circuit is unknown it is not a test.

To call it a test is only confusing this thread.



Duly noted, kwired does not have an issue with it. I will let OSHA and our insurance company know this if /when they look at our job site GFCI testing log.



Correct, an indication, not a test.



Regardless of the method used if it does not open the circuit it seems pretty obvious there will be more work. :roll:



I just have a hard time understanding the benefit of using additional tools when there is a perfectly good test button on the device that the manufacturers and the NEC 110.3(B) and OSHA want you to use.

To each their own.

I can come to agreement with most of what you said except a part of the last one. If you press test button and trip the GFCI, don't you still need an additional tool to verify the downstream items have lost voltage? Even if it is a portable lamp or appliance, you are using it as a tool for testing presence of voltage on some level.

Add: What does OSHA think about using a portable lamp or appliance for verification of presence of voltage?

 

[ramsy]

I Jjust have a hard time understanding the benefit of using additional tools when there is a perfectly good test button on the device that the manufacturers and the NEC 110.3(B) and OSHA want you to use. To each their own.

New GFCI's usually need an initial reset before operating. By having the onsite occupant do it, they get more familiar with it.

One time I said, this is how it protects people, and pushed the test button while the disposer was running, it caused lots of sparks inside the device. Probably not a good thing, but we're entitled to be stupid once in a while.

While GFCI test buttons are probably not designed to disconnect under load, the external testers can, since Test buttons are bypassed

 

[Sierrasparky]

New GFCI's usually need an initial reset before operating. By having the onsite occupant do it, they get more familiar with it.

One time I said, this is how it protects people, and pushed the test button while the disposer was running, it caused lots of sparks inside the device. Probably not a good thing, but we're entitled to be stupid once in a while.

While GFCI test buttons are probably not designed to disconnect under load, the external testers can, since Test buttons are bypassed

Why was the GD on a GFCI. Not required yet in CA. If you added one without informing your customer you may have over charged them.

 

[kwired]

New GFCI's usually need an initial reset before operating. By having the onsite occupant do it, they get more familiar with it.

One time I said, this is how it protects people, and pushed the test button while the disposer was running, it caused lots of sparks inside the device. Probably not a good thing, but we're entitled to be stupid once in a while.

While GFCI test buttons are probably not designed to disconnect under load, the external testers can, since Test buttons are bypassed

The test button doesn't disconnect the load it just closes the circuit to a resistor that only draws a few millamps. It splits this current so that it passes one way but not the other through the CT that monitors for ground faults and gives the CT a real condition that would happen on a ground fault of same current level.

 

[ramsy]

Why was the GD on a GFCI. Not required yet in CA. If you added one without informing your customer you may have over charged them.

You live in the high Sierra's, typically too cold for us lowlanders, & latin communities using Mexicali wiring methods.

Tenants had broken grounding prongs of all cord appliances, including disposer & dishwasher, to fit old 2-prong plugs thru-out dwelling. Yes, slumlord authorized GFCI retrofits, but not required under sink, so why did I put one there?

Try to visualize disposer wiring compartment open with wires hanging out, and broken grounding prongs. Energized & exposed black conductor a few hairs away from touching disposer housing, bonded to sink & faucet, and 1-step away from electrocution.

After fixing this mess, decided to idiot proof the next Mexicali wiring job, so under-sink plug got a GFCI.

 

[Sierrasparky]

You live in the high Sierra's, typically too cold for us lowlanders, & latin communities using Mexicali wiring methods.

Tenants had broken grounding prongs of all cord appliances, including disposer & dishwasher, to fit old 2-prong plugs thru-out dwelling. Yes, slumlord authorized GFCI retrofits, but not required under sink, so why did I put one there?

Try to visualize disposer wiring compartment open with wires hanging out, and broken grounding prongs. Energized & exposed black conductor a few hairs away from touching disposer housing, bonded to sink & faucet, and 1-step away from electrocution.

After fixing this mess, decided to idiot proof the next Mexicali wiring job, so under-sink plug got a GFCI.

Not cold in the area I live.

Adding the GFCI all you do is make it for another service call as nobody but you will remember the GFCI under the sink. You cannot fix stupid.
Are you retrofitting AFCI receptacles for similar reasoning? I bet not. Nobody does. They just sit and collect dust.

 

[GoldDigger]

The test button doesn't disconnect the load it just closes the circuit to a resistor that only draws a few millamps. It splits this current so that it passes one way but not the other through the CT that monitors for ground faults and gives the CT a real condition that would happen on a ground fault of same current level.

I agree. The sparks come from the actual disconnecting contacts not being happy breaking a potentially inductive motor load. Whether those contacts are tripped by the internal test button or an external test current source should have zero effect on the result.
Is there an actual motor load breaking capacity specification for a receptacle GFCI, I wonder?

 

[iwire]

Is there an actual motor load breaking capacity specification for a receptacle GFCI, I wonder?

I do not know if there is that type of rating but I do know UL says GFCIs used for switching shall be labeled on and off as well as test and reset.

 

[user 100]

Are you retrofitting AFCI receptacles for similar reasoning? I bet not. Nobody does. They just sit and collect dust.

:thumbsup:. The way a lot of houses are wired you will find the first rec on a circuit tucked away behind a bunch of (usually heavy) crap- crap that will moved right back in the way too, once you're done tinkering and within 10 minutes of you leaving it will be forgotten where its at.

 

[Sierrasparky]

:thumbsup:. The way a lot of houses are wired you will find the first rec on a circuit tucked away behind a bunch of (usually heavy) crap- crap that will moved right back in the way too, once you're done tinkering and within 10 minutes of you leaving it will be forgotten where its at.

My thoughts exactly.
I think that is why the code has been updated to " readily accessible "
I just love the look on a customers face that calls because they have no power in the Garage or Bathroom. I ask them to look for the GFCI receptacle and press the reset. I explain what too look for in detail. They become lazy and don't even look. I come out push the button and they are just mesmerized. They go " so are you going to charge me for that" I tell them of course I just drove 45 min in traffic across town, almost got rear ended on the 5. Hell yes. :rant:

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Here is a link to one OSHA document on this issue.

 

[kwired]

Here is a link to one OSHA document on this issue.

And I was wrong for saying about the same thing that was suggested in there as a possible use for a portable GFCI tester...

 

[iwire]

And I was wrong for saying about the same thing that was suggested in there as a possible use for a portable GFCI tester...

Notice it says approved tester, and then look at what approved means.

 

[George Stolz]

One warning about using plug in GFCI testers.

Let's say one is using a plug in tester to test standard receptacles for upstream GFCI protection. Tester is plugged in, button is pushed and out go the lights. Indeed, that standard receptacle was GFCI protected, and that GFCI has tripped.

And that GFCI is nowhere to be found. Now what does one do?

One gets to spend hours and hours looking for the hidden GFCI receptacle that tripped, that's what one does.

I am not alone in finding GFCI receptacles in very strange places. Sometimes overgrown with and obscured by vegetation.

I get paid by the hour - or somebody does. I haven't had that big a problem finding GFCIs, and I have boldly tripped quite a few. Better to know the protection works and spend a little time showing a homeowner where to find it on their own the next time.

I will offer a counter-scenario that might sell a few plug testers; it happened a few months ago. Joe Homeowner decided to save a dollar and finish his basement without a permit. The city caught wind and asked him to have a master electrician sign off on the installation.

When I arrived, I found GFCI breakers instead of AFCI as required. He didn't realize there was a difference. As I walked around testing receptacles, I noted that the right lamp of my tester was ever so slightly dimmer than usual. It occurred to me that I could test the EGC to some extent by testing the GFCI breaker with my plug tester. It didn't trip.

None of the grounds were truly in wire connectors, they were just lightly wrapped. Granted, a visual inspection of the interior of the boxes would have found the problem too, but it happened to expose the problem in a hurry; the GFCI test button on the breaker would not have found it.

Anecdotal? Sure. But it's a $5 tester that can tell you a lot for the price.

 

[K8MHZ]

Notice it says approved tester, and then look at what approved means.

It looks like it means UL 1436.

So, what if all that is on the device, like an Ideal tester, is the UL mark and no reference to what UL standard is being used?