On Sep 12, 12:10*am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article , "RBM"
wrote:



"Smitty Two" wrote in message

Yeah, the room is full of code junkies, who can cite chapter and verse
but can't substantiate many of the rules with logic or reason. They
worship the NEC for the same reason the Believers worship the bible:
Because it tells them to.

The damn unalterable truth is that electrocutions in the home are very,
very, very rare. I've posted statistics to substantiate that statement
more than once. Yet the junkies continue to insist by insinuation that
if you grind down a neutral blade, snap off a ground pin, or operate a
light switch with a wet hand, you'll almost certainly be dead in a
matter of milliseconds.

What you call "code junkies", in large part are people who work in the
field, and who's jobs require that their work is done according to the code.
Also, most folks on this newsgroup are asking how to do electrical work in
accordance with the Nec. Personally, I don't think a large number of people
get electrocuted from appliances. So what, I still want to know what the Nec
requirements are

I agree with you on those points. But all too often, the NEC cops are
overzealous in their rigorous adherence to the LAW, even when it flies
squarely in the face of common sense. Replacing a perfectly good washing
machine instead of ditching a ground fault gizmo (the topic into which
this part of the thread segued) is an example.

I am not opposed to safety, but I am vehemently opposed to squandering
meaningful quantities of time and money to make a perfectly safe
condition comply with the letter of the law. If people know the
foundation of a rule, they're capable of breaking it in an intelligent
fashion.

Smitty
My problem with your approach is that many people don't think
critically about anything and are just looking for an excuse not to do
the work necessary to correct a dangerous situation. If the trip
current setting is correct; which is easily determined with a twenty
cent resister; and an appliance trips that GFCI then there is a
circuit leak that exceeds consensus standards. That leak will not get
better but it may well get worse. Remove the GFCI and the next device
that may open the circuit and clear the fault is the twenty ampere
laundry circuit Over Current Protective Device (OCPD). The basic
principle of electrical safety is that it should take two failures to
endanger a life not just one. All we need once the GFCI is gone is
any significant impedance in the Equipment Grounding Conductor (EGC)
and the shell of the washer in question can go high at 120 volts
relative to conductive surfaces nearby that are either naturally or
deliberately grounded. That is then a possibly deadly situation.
Death doesn't have to be an inevitable result of the situation to make
it unacceptable. Discarding the entire washer is also not the only
remedy. The washer can be repaired. The motor can be replaced or
rewound...

I have a client who's entire kitchen was energized to 120 volts for
over a decade. The family kept attributing the minor shocks to static
discharge. The three wire feeder that supplied the kitchen panel had
been extended years before from a circuit that had formerly supplied a
kiln. In the process of extending the circuit it had been cross
connected so that the hot and the neutral were reversed. All of the
three wire appliances in that kitchen were energized on their case.
Nobody died and nobody got seriously shocked. I told the women who
was the kitchens primary user that if she could figure out how to
bottle whatever she was using for luck she could become fabulously
wealthy. If that circuit had been properly upgraded to four wire when
the the kitchen was remodeled that family would have never been
exposed to a possible tragedy. So in a sense you are correct that
varying from the code does not always cause injury or death but most
of us who make a living from installing electrical work find just the
possibility of injury and death unacceptable.

The biggest problem with suggesting non code compliant methods on
internet news groups is the variability of the readership. Many of
the readers who come here for advice lack the experienced judgment to
decide when it is acceptable to use any given method. To use your own
choice of language many readers here have no knowledge of the
"foundation of the rule." Rigid adherence to the code will keep such
people from hurting themselves or others. Please remember that good
judgment comes from experience and experience comes from bad
judgment. The smarter folks among us are willing to learn from the
experience arising out of other people's bad judgment rather than
insisting on making possibly deadly mistakes themselves.

--
Tom Horne

90.1 Purpose.
(A) Practical Safeguarding. The purpose of this Code is the practical
safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from the use
of electricity.
(B) Adequacy. This Code contains provisions that are considered
necessary for safety. Compliance therewith and proper maintenance will
result in an installation that is essentially free from hazard but not
necessarily efficient, convenient, or adequate for good service or
future expansion of electrical use.