In article , Speedy Jim wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

It's not necessary to replace every receptacle in the house with a GFCI.
Replacing the first receptacle (the one closest to the service panel) on each
circuit will do -- GFCIs can be wired to protect all downstream outlets as
well. There won't be an equipment ground on those outlets, of course, but
they
will be GFCI protected.


Ummmmmm. Well, that _presumes_ that the existing recepts
are "daisy-chained".

That's the normal method of installation...

If in fact his recpepts are daisy-chained,
each one will have 4 wires connected, as one means of maybe telling
if it's so.

Even if it's not, it's probably pretty easy to *add* a receptacle, near the
service panel, and daisy chain the rest of the circuit off of that.

And if the OP has breakers instead of fuses, he can use GFCI *breakers*
instead of receptacles. Unless there are only very few receptacles in the
house, it's certainly cheaper to use one GFCI breaker per circuit, than to go
to the utterly absurd (and utterly unnecessary) expense and labor of replacing
every receptacle in the house with a GFCI.

I'm going to make a very, very wild guess that his 50's house
is wired K&T and recepts are almost *never* daisy chained then.
(That's just a guess because I haven't been there to inspect.)

It's probably a very bad guess, too. 1950s is much more likely to be BX or NM
(yes, they did have NM in the 1950s) than K&T.

I would never attempt to put just one GFCI on a circuit
unless I knew for an absolute certainty that *all* recepts
would actually be protected.

Why? Are you under the impression that all receptacles actually *need* to be
GFCI protected?


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.