Thank you.
"A grounding-type receptacle that is GFCI protected without an equipment grounding conductor is a safer installation than a grounding-type receptacle with an equipment grounding conductor (if GFCI protection is not provided). ".
WARNING: According to a study (based on data accumulated by the American Society of Home Inspectors) published in the November/December, 1999 issue of the IAEI News, out of 1,583 GFCI circuit breakers tested, 21% had failed. Out of 4,585 GFCI receptacles tested, 19% had failed. The failures were primarily attributed to damage from short circuits and voltage surges (lightning and other transients) to the metal oxide varistors (MOV) that are used for built-in surge suppression. In areas of high lighting activity such as Southwest Florida, the failure rate for GFCI circuit breakers was over 57%!
A grounding-type receptacle without a ground is a safe installation as long as the GFCI protection circuitry within the device has not failed from shorts and voltage transients. To insure proper GFCI protection, test the GFCI monthly in accordance with the manufactures instructions and if the GFCI test does not operate properly, replace the GFCI protection device.
Is that failure in their ability to react to a ground fault? Or do they simply not work at all? That would be a huge difference as far as safety.
While they will not permit a reset after a test if they are damaged, most do not kill the output when the electronics fail. Some have an indication of failure, but they still don't kill the output....
I think today many (maybe all if properly listed) have circuitry that does not allow operation of the receptacle if the GFCI protection is compromised.
The two are as different as cheese and chalk- and life is about compromises.
Half a loaf being better than none.
it's worth remind ourselves how the 'forest' looks from time to time.
A local city informed me that they do not recognize replacing a non grounded receptacle with GFCI protection. That got me thinking about safety.
While they will not permit a reset after a test if they are damaged, most do not kill the output when the electronics fail. Some have an indication of failure, but they still don't kill the output.
My understanding is with the newer GFCIs, the test button itself is a only a mechanical trip. The simulated ground fault and circuit testing takes place on reset. If those tests are successful the device resets and if not it doesn't.I question how one would sucessfully make it trip during testing if that is the case. My understanding is all the test button does is apply a 5-7ma load from hot to neutral with only one side of the test circuit passing through the monitoring CT to cause an unbalance and cause the device to trip.
My understanding is with the newer GFCIs, the test button itself is a only a mechanical trip. The simulated ground fault and circuit testing takes place on reset. If those tests are successful the device resets and if not it doesn't.
It blows me away how close this poll is!
It blows me away how close this poll is!
For those that think a three wire system is safer, does this mean you will not replace a two wire recep with a GFCI?
Yes it is amazing that 60% do not know the answer.
"A man with one watch can tell you the time. A man with two watches is never sure."Well I was unsure of the right answer when I made the poll, and I'm still unsure.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that.If GFCI protection is proven safer we wouldn't need any EGC's - that's a shift! :-?