Self-Testing GFCI receptacles

[mgookin]

What experience is everyone having with the self-testing GFCI receptacles?
Are they reliable?
Any nuisances that would not occur with non-self-testing GFCI receptacles?

I ask because a customer of ours is installing them in a very hard to get to location (on the roof of the vehicle assembly bldg @ NASA Kennedy Space Center).
It needs to operate for a very long time with zero human intervention.

I'm confident there's the world's best lightning protection system up there.
I don't think they fuel the rockets in that bldg but just the money in that bldg and considering who owns it, I'm sure it's well protected.
I'm not worried about lightning or power quality.

Thanks.

 

[mopowr steve]

I don't know of any problems yet,

But I would hate to be the guy that spent a hour climbing the tower to find out that it is defective and have to come back down to get a replacement or long extension cord to do the job I needed to use that gfci for.

 

[ArcLazerbeam]

They have really just become a thing up here, even though the UL requirement has been live for other a year. Can't say I've heard of any problems. I haven't really even looked into their functionality yet. IMO the more complex a device the more likely you are to have a failure, and need to replace it.

 

[big john]

I would wager you'd see a higher incidence of non-functional receptacles if only because GFCIs used to fail on, whereas now that's not an option.

 

[jaylectricity]

You'd think NASA would have the resources to test this sort of thing.

 

[mgookin]

I don't know of any problems yet,
But I would hate to be the guy that spent a hour climbing the tower to find out that it is defective and have to come back down to get a replacement or long extension cord to do the job I needed to use that gfci for.

No climbing involved. Elevator. It just takes a ton of bureaucracy to get that elevator door to open.

They have really just become a thing up here, even though the UL requirement has been live for other a year. Can't say I've heard of any problems. I haven't really even looked into their functionality yet. IMO the more complex a device the more likely you are to have a failure, and need to replace it.

I agree on failure as a function of complexity. My first car was a '66 Bug with one vacuum hose (for the vacuum advance on the high-tech distributor). I loved that car from a mechanical standpoint. All it ever took to make it go was spark and fuel at the correct time.

You'd think NASA would have the resources to test this sort of thing.

Already been tested until the cows come home. But we all know the real world and the laboratory are two different things.

Thanks everyone.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I would wager you'd see a higher incidence of non-functional receptacles if only because GFCIs used to fail on, whereas now that's not an option.

The self-testing GFCIs are not required to kill the power when they fail a self-test.

 

[big john]

The self-testing GFCIs are not required to kill the power when they fail a self-test.

I'd have to read the UL standard, but I was under the impression that was specifically required if the self-test failed.

 

[packersparky]

I'd have to read the UL standard, but I was under the impression that was specifically required if the self-test failed.

It is my understanding that a self test failure could either denergize the receptacle or illuminate an indicator light according to the UL standard.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

It is my understanding that a self test failure could either denergize the receptacle or illuminate an indicator light according to the UL standard.

Yes, the standard permits the use of an audible and/or visible indication of failure in addition to de-energization..