Mike Holt News Letter, Baptismal Electrocution

[iwire]

Re: Mike Holt News Letter, Baptismal Electrocution

Originally posted by paul32:
Bob, you said it is incorrect advice. What is the correct advice? Seems to me either the article is correct advice or 406.D(3) is a bad idea and should be removed from the code.

If you follow the rules in 406.(D)(3) and use GFCIs so you can use 3 wire receptacles you still can not plug any of the items listed in 250.114 into the outlets.

That is why 406.(D)(3) requires 'No Equipment Ground' labels.

How does a homeowner no what they are allowed and not allowed to plug in those outlets?

I have no idea. :roll:

IMO GFCIs with two wire outlets would be a better system where a grounding means does not exist.

 

[paul32]

Re: Mike Holt News Letter, Baptismal Electrocution

Do you have an example of equipment with a ground prong that doesn't need to because of 250.114?

My reasoning that didn't come through above was if it has a ground prong it is because it is required to have one, thus can't be plugged into the no equipment ground GFCI, so that no point in changing it from a 2 wire receptacle.

And what is the dangerous part of their advice?

 

[iwire]

Re: Mike Holt News Letter, Baptismal Electrocution

Originally posted by paul32:
Do you have an example of equipment with a ground prong that doesn't need to because of 250.114?

Nope...I doubt there is such an item.

Originally posted by paul32:
My reasoning that didn't come through above was if it has a ground prong it is because it is required to have one, thus can't be plugged into the no equipment ground GFCI, so that no point in changing it from a 2 wire receptacle.

I got what your where saying and I agree with you.

Originally posted by paul32:
And what is the dangerous part of their advice?

1) It is a NEC violation.

2) You can't (as you pointed out) count on a GFCI to work and even when it works the person gets a shock.

I would not call it a 'mild' shock as it will still be at full line voltage and current.

The only thing the GFCI does is limit the time the victim is exposed to the shock.

You can still die or be injured from GFCI protected circuit, it could be from the shock or a fall from the reaction to the shock.

My real problem is the article is about safety yet it is recommending an NEC violation.

 

[paul32]

Re: Mike Holt News Letter, Baptismal Electrocution

I get your point too. I think we agree 250.114 and 406.D(3) contradict each other. Either 406.D(3) was supposed to override 250.114 (meaning the advice is not a NEC violation), or the NEC itself is a NEC violation. The article is stating what you can do by 406.D(3) so I wouldn't call it recommending a violation.

Thanks.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Mike Holt News Letter, Baptismal Electrocution

Well, now we're letting it all hang out, aren't we?

How does a homeowner no what they are allowed and not allowed to plug in those outlets?

They couldn't, which tells me the labels are not for h/o's, they're for us.

 

[iwire]

Re: Mike Holt News Letter, Baptismal Electrocution

Originally posted by georgestolz:
Isn't is reasonable to believe that since 250.114 requires a cord-and-plug-connected appliance "to be grounded", that it is simply calling for a three-prong cord cap for all the appliances listed?

No, IMO that is not reasonable in fact it is a misinterpretation of 250.114 entirely.

250.114 Equipment Connected by Cord and Plug.

Under any of the conditions described in (1) through (4), exposed non?current-carrying metal parts of cord-and-plug-connected equipment likely to become energized shall be grounded.

It does not say they shall be equipped with a means to ground them.

It says they shall be grounded.

90.5 Mandatory Rules, Permissive Rules, and Explanatory Material.
(A) Mandatory Rules. Mandatory rules of this Code are those that identify actions that are specifically required or prohibited and are characterized by the use of the terms shall or shall not.

Originally posted by georgestolz:
We take it as a given (generally) that the premises wiring system ends at the outlets. By definition, this section is laying requirements for equipment beyond those outlets.

I don't take anything for a 'given' I would like to be able to say the NEC stops at the outlet but I can not. There are quite a few sections that require things past the outlets.

Originally posted by georgestolz:
It seems to me as though 406 is governing the installation of the premises wiring, and that 250.114 is laying requirements for appliances that are to use that wiring. They are two separate sections dealing with different components.

Yes they are even in different chapters [/b][/quote]Yes it is, however not all speculation is inaccurate.

If I say overcurrent devices are installed to prevent fires that would also be speculative as you will not find that in the NEC.

IMO requiring two wire replacements with GFCI protection where no grounding means exists would be safer still.

Personally I think the NEC is between a rock and a hard place.

Obviously requiring a grounding means would be ideal but then you run into the problem of the code becoming retroactive.

No easy answers to this problem.

[ January 06, 2006, 07:03 AM: Message edited by: iwire ]