NEVER trust the test/reset buttons on a GFCI

Status
Not open for further replies.
kwired said:
If there is voltage drop on neutral (which there is if current is flowing) then there will be neutral to ground voltage and current will flow during a neutral to ground fault. If you are in that current path you want the GFCI to open the neutral to stop that current.

Majority of incidents neutral to ground voltage is minimal and unnoticed. Get around a swimming pool, hot tub, etc. and suddenly everything around you is conductive enough to be dangerous with even that minimal current.
Click to expand...

Yup! And broken skin can make it even worse.
 
***Update***

***Update***

Leviton has contacted me and I will be shipping the GFCI over to them for testing/examination. They have also given me credit for a new GFCI which I highly appreciate. I will keep you all posted on their findings.
 
mbrooke said:
Leviton has contacted me and I will be shipping the GFCI over to them for testing/examination. They have also given me credit for a new GFCI which I highly appreciate. I will keep you all posted on their findings.
Click to expand...


+1
 
This thread has me very concerned with the apparent shortcut that the manufactures have been allowed to take in their design.

I would have expected a GFCI to be considered a life safety device? If so it needs to be designed as one with redundant series contacts and be cross checked. It would be more expensive but should be required.
 
ELA said:
This thread has me very concerned with the apparent shortcut that the manufactures have been allowed to take in their design.

I would have expected a GFCI to be considered a life safety device? If so it needs to be designed as one with redundant series contacts and be cross checked. It would be more expensive but should be required.
Click to expand...
There are many possible ways they can fail and still leave a risk of shock to those they are supposed to protect from shock.

Loss of just one of the supply conductors leaves the protection circuitry non powered but output contacts can remain closed. This is true for most GFCI with exception of listed cordset type units which must have both supply conductors and nominal voltage or else it will trip and must have power again before it will reset.
 
ELA said:
This thread has me very concerned with the apparent shortcut that the manufactures have been allowed to take in their design.

I would have expected a GFCI to be considered a life safety device? If so it needs to be designed as one with redundant series contacts and be cross checked. It would be more expensive but should be required.
Click to expand...

In my eyes it is a life safety device, but if something is not a requirement in either listing or the code it doesn't get incorporated. However I am not all to surprised regarding the failure, if one were to take apart any GFCI the contacts are just simple leafs that are pushed down onto the line/neutral terminals. Nothing is in place to forcefully break them apart or to verify both have parted. The rest of the mechanism is still able to slide back and forth as with any test/reset.
 
ELA said:
This thread has me very concerned with the apparent shortcut that the manufactures have been allowed to take in their design.

I would have expected a GFCI to be considered a life safety device? If so it needs to be designed as one with redundant series contacts and be cross checked. It would be more expensive but should be required.
Click to expand...

A GFCI is not a life safety device anymore than a breaker or fuse is. In other words it is not one.
 
ActionDave said:
I agree with you in one sense but on the other hand, why do we have GFCI and GFPE?
Click to expand...

Why do we have fuses and seat belts?

The answer to that does not make them life safety devices

Life safety devices come from the life safety code and have to do with fire alarm systems and the like.
 
iwire said:
Why do we have fuses and seat belts?

The answer to that does not make them life safety devices

Life safety devices come from the life safety code and have to do with fire alarm systems and the like.
Click to expand...

Not entirely a fair example imo, if a fuse fails you at least have a chance to get out of your home if a fire ensues. A GFCI on the other hand either cuts out when over 5ma is passing through your body or does not.
 
mbrooke said:
Not entirely a fair example imo, if a fuse fails you at least have a chance to get out of your home if a fire ensues. A GFCI on the other hand either cuts out when over 5ma is passing through your body or does not.
Click to expand...
But the risk factors are completely different. It is has a pretty good chance of saving lives at a pretty reasonable price. If we wanted it to be as failproof as possible, it may become somewhat unaffordable and likely wouldn't fit into the compact receptacle housing or miniature circuit breaker housing they currently are applied to.

The AFCI can also be looked at as a life safety device, but look at how much controversy there is about how effective it is at that just at this forum alone. Please don't go down the AFCI road in this thread, just consider the life safety device perspective in a similar way
 
kwired said:
But the risk factors are completely different. It is has a pretty good chance of saving lives at a pretty reasonable price. If we wanted it to be as failproof as possible, it may become somewhat unaffordable and likely wouldn't fit into the compact receptacle housing or miniature circuit breaker housing they currently are applied to.

The AFCI can also be looked at as a life safety device, but look at how much controversy there is about how effective it is at that just at this forum alone. Please don't go down the AFCI road in this thread, just consider the life safety device perspective in a similar way
Click to expand...



Well, you kind of just proved my point! :D Most MCBs are such that when you open them manually they will either force the contacts apart or give some type of indication (handle will not move to off) should the contacts weld together.
 
mbrooke said:
Well, you kind of just proved my point! :D Most MCBs are such that when you open them manually they will either force the contacts apart or give some type of indication (handle will not move to off) should the contacts weld together.
Click to expand...
To be honest I can't recall ever seeing a circuit breaker failing closed (I didn't say fail to trip) but suppose it can happen. I have seen several GFCI's, circuit breaker type as well as receptacle types that allow power to pass thru yet no longer provide GFCI protection.
 
kwired said:
To be honest I can't recall ever seeing a circuit breaker failing closed (I didn't say fail to trip) but suppose it can happen. I have seen several GFCI's, circuit breaker type as well as receptacle types that allow power to pass thru yet no longer provide GFCI protection.
Click to expand...



Well, ID say this: those circuit breakers that passed power but no GFI protection it was because a lost hot or neutral did it? And those GFCIs that had power they could not test or reset, correct?
 
The GFCI may not meet a technical definition of "life safety device", however it is safety device. Most have been conditioned into thinking that these devices protect our lives.

If it can experience a "single point of failure" that so greatly diminishes its ability to provide that such a critical function I would expect a "risk assessment" to warrant redundant series relays with cross checking.

I have taken apart several Leviton GFCIs and taken a closer look at the circuit involved. I have not up until now given so much thought to the true safety aspect with regard to the need for true safety contacts in this device.

I have worked in the design of Robotic Automation safety circuits. Risk assessments performed by safety engineers determine the requirement for redundant series contacts to break the power input to servo drives to protect lives.

We have become accustomed to the GFCI outlet being relatively cheap. It would be more expensive to improve its safety level. Not prohibitively so I would estimate.

What makes this worth closer examination I feel is that even when a person tests, with a load, they are lured into believing power has been removed because the neutral did open. The hot lead at least should have redundant contacts that are sensed for single point of failure.
Shouldn't test instructions include a requirement to test using an outlet tester that indicates hot to gnd status? ( I only reviewed one so if others do good). Yes many people including myself do not test our home GFCIs on a regular basis. That does not mean the instructions should not be thorough enough for more professional testing should a person be detail oriented.
 
kwired said:
To be honest I can't recall ever seeing a circuit breaker failing closed (I didn't say fail to trip) but suppose it can happen. I have seen several GFCI's, circuit breaker type as well as receptacle types that allow power to pass thru yet no longer provide GFCI protection.
Click to expand...

mbrooke said:
Well, ID say this: those circuit breakers that passed power but no GFI protection it was because a lost hot or neutral did it? And those GFCIs that had power they could not test or reset, correct?
Click to expand...

FPE breakers have been known to jam shut and stay closed- whether this is due to it being reset after a trip, or jamming anyway after being first turned on and not responding to a trip in the first place, IDK. Very hairy on old split bus or main lug only panels w/ no main (the fpe main had its problems too, but at least there would have been the one extra layer of protection, albeit at a higher trip rating).

I believe that the GFCI lockout is a newer conception-many older gfcis with failed electronics continued to provide power when the test button was pressed.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top