GFI Receptacle - Hospital Corridors

[dbuckley]

So, in your opinion the "minimum" means borderline dangerous?|

Nope, not at all. It means minimum, the point below which you cannot sink.

The NEC is supposedly only there to ensure that every installation is safe, and as (as the saying goes) theres a dead body behind every clause; every time a safety problem is found, then the rules are improved to remove a source of danger.

Now given the NEC has been around a while, and been through a few revisions, you'd have to think that an installation that complies with the NEC is "safe", by any reasonable definition of the word.

However, the NEC is not a design manual, its a safety manual, so a "minimum" installation by NEC rules is just that - a bare minimum installation, the absolute least you can possibly do.

What we're discussing in this thread is that an engineer decided (for unspecified reasons) to put GFCI outlets in a hospital corridor. GFCIs are devices that we know save lives. Would more lives be saved if every outlet was GFCI protected? You would have to think so. Thus for a designer to think that there is a possible hazard from a outlet in a corridor and that he has decided to mitigate that risk doesn't seem a stretch to me.

So if someone wanted to buy a Crown Vic you would tell them they need a Lincoln simply because it cost more?

Now thats a really good question.

A bit of googling tells me that a Suzuki SX4 is the cheapest car available in America, and it perfectly fulfills the function of getting a family of four from point A to point B in comfort, safety, and economy. I'm going to call this our "minimum" car.

So how did the F150 get to be the best selling "car" in the USA? Surely the Ford salesman should have said to the customer "Are you insane? Get thee down the road to the Suzuki dealership and get the minimum car, its all you need"

 

[roger]

Nope, not at all. It means minimum, the point below which you cannot sink.

The NEC is supposedly only there to ensure that every installation is safe, and as (as the saying goes) theres a dead body behind every clause; every time a safety problem is found, then the rules are improved to remove a source of danger.

Now given the NEC has been around a while, and been through a few revisions, you'd have to think that an installation that complies with the NEC is "safe", by any reasonable definition of the word.

Why do you think I would want to "sink" that point, it is the one I am making

However, the NEC is not a design manual, its a safety manual, so a "minimum" installation by NEC rules is just that - a bare minimum installation, the absolute least you can possibly do.

And I agree, I have never said any different.

What we're discussing in this thread is that an engineer decided (for unspecified reasons) to put GFCI outlets in a hospital corridor. GFCIs are devices that we know save lives. Would more lives be saved if every outlet was GFCI protected? You would have to think so. Thus for a designer to think that there is a possible hazard from a outlet in a corridor and that he has decided to mitigate that risk doesn't seem a stretch to me.

Here is the problem, if the engineer had a reason, even a lame reason, what would he gain by keeping it to himself? Is he scared that he may show that he doesn't really have a substantial reason to give to the owner / customer who is footing the bill? Or is he of such high intelligence that he shouldn't be questioned?

Now thats a really good question.

A bit of googling tells me that a Suzuki SX4 is the cheapest car available in America, and it perfectly fulfills the function of getting a family of four from point A to point B in comfort, safety, and economy. I'm going to call this our "minimum" car.

So how did the F150 get to be the best selling "car" in the USA? Surely the Ford salesman should have said to the customer

Well I don't really want to but, I think I should point out that the F150 is a pick-up truck, so you are talking two different animals, kinda like the difference between a kid wanting a puppy and getting a calf.

"Are you insane? Get thee down the road to the Suzuki dealership and get the minimum car, its all you need"

Well you are missing the point or least inverting it, if the customer wants a Cadillac that's what they want and get, if the customer wants the Suzuki that's what they should get and not be given hidden extras that will cost them money, (see this is where the salesman or engineer should have a reason for adding cost to the customer)

Sometimes engineers can design above and beyond code minimums without citing a reason why.

This is what we are really discussing, and the only reason I can imagine a designer not being able to cite a reason is that they don't really know what they are doing.


Roger

 

[dbuckley]

This is what we are really discussing, and the only reason I can imagine a designer not being able to cite a reason is that they don't really know what they are doing.

Its possible, I guess.

Or maybe the engineer thinks its just the right thing to do. Thats what his gut says.

The problem I see there is that that is a loosable argument, simply by someone (in this forum, perhaps) saying "thats not required". Placed in front of a customer, you could see why the customer would take the "thats not required" argument. A GFCI isn't much $$, but multiplied by the number of outlets in the corridors of a hospital its at least $$$$. It's absolutely insignificant in terms of the lifetime cost of the facility, but a wad never-the-less.

Let me be a little argumentative. The USA now has TR receptacles. Given I did most of my growing up where all recpetacles were TR receptacles, and prior to that I fritzed myself (at the age of 3 I believe) at 240V on a non-TR receptacle, I am of the opinion that all receptacles should be TR, no exceptions. In my opinion, given that TR is available, I think it is wrong to install non-TR receptacles.

That puts me well outside code, and in direct opposition to pretty much everyone on this forum, which includes a whole load of folks I have respect for. Yet I still think that fitting TR every time is the right thing to do. I have no stats and no science to back it up, and couldn't prove it is cost effective, but have merely a hope that someone, somewhere will benefit from it. Its a gut feeling.

Now if I was that engineer, and based on my opinion of the right thing to do, I specified "all TR receptacles", I would get roasted in here as "someone who doesn't really know what they're doing".

 

[roger]

Its possible, I guess.

Now if I was that engineer, and based on my opinion of the right thing to do, I specified "all TR receptacles", I would get roasted in here as "someone who doesn't really know what they're doing".

No you wouldn't, but you would be expected to divulge why. Someone who has a smug air about them that they know better than the rest of us is where the problem lies.

Roger

 

[dbuckley]

No you wouldn't, but you would be expected to divulge why. Someone who has a smug air about them that they know better than the rest of us is where the problem lies.

Would you accept "because I think its the right thing to do" as a valid reason?

(serious question, not taking the mick, even though thats the way it reads - sometimes the written word is so sterile)

 

[roger]

Would you accept "because I think its the right thing to do" as a valid reason?

Yes I would, but I would would question you further as to why.

(serious question, not taking the mick, even though thats the way it reads - sometimes the written word is so sterile)

I appreciate that and agree, it's hard to project the dynamics with black and white text that can be included in a voice.

Roger