In article , "RBM" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "RBM"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article
, Sev
wrote:
On Sep 19, 8:34=A0pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article
.=
com, Sev wrote:

On Sep 19, 1:55=3DA0pm, stan wrote:

3) If the intention is to feed two live leads form a double pole
breaker, with one live wire to each GFCI; it won't IMO work because
there will automatically be unbalance in the common neutral; the
moment something is plugged into the 'other' GFCI circuit.

This is incorrect, isn't it? Comments?

It's unclear *which* you believe is incorrect, the wiring method, or
the
description of why it won't work.

Answer: both. The wiring method is indeed incorrect. The description
of
why it
won't work is also incorrect, but needs only the addition of three
words
at
the end -- "and powered on" -- to make it correct.

Really? With opposite phases (implied by "double pole breaker") I
thought this was ok.

Yes, really, for exactly the reason stated: as soon as anything is
powered on,
on either leg of the circuit, current flows in the neutral wire. The
GFCI on
the *other* leg of the circuit sees that the current in the neutral wire
is
not the same as the current in *its* hot wire, and trips.

That's not correct. The *other* leg of the circuit does not see the
neutral
because it's attached to the line side of the other gfci. There is no
connection between the load neutrals of either gfci

Only if you split the multiwire circuit into two separate circuits at the
first GFCI, which rather destroys the point of having a multiwire circuit
in
the first place.

I thought that was the idea. Run a multiwire to two gang box with 2 gfci
outlets in it, then off the load of each, to a string of standard
receptacles

As long as the neutrals are separated at that point, I agree it will work
fine. But it's not really a multiwire circuit any more.