"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article
,
Tom Horne wrote:

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.



Thanks for your well-reasoned response.

WRT paragraph one, the incident cited further substantiates my
contention that 120VAC is nowhere close to being as dangerous as some
like to believe. Ten years of fully energized appliance chassis and no
one got so much as hurt.

WRT paragraph two, the overwhelming majority of people are both stupid
and ignorant (and often boastful about their ignorance, as though it
were a desirable attribute,) and I really don't care how the choices
they make in their own lives affect them. It is not my responsibility
as a usenet participant to protect them from their own idiocy.

Let those who want to follow the letter of the code follow it. I'll
continue to live a long and healthy life, sticking a knife in the
toaster as needed, breaking off ground plugs so cords will fit in my
ungrounded outlets, but rabidly avoiding cigarettes, junk food, and
tailgating, which are REAL dangers rather than imaginary ones.

Your ability to ignore logic and reality are interesting if nothing
else. Correcton; and nothing else. That you would want to advertise it
to the world is also interesting. Not smart, but ... interesting.