Yes, some of this is nonsense. Having the GFCI at the receptical is more
convenience to reset and easier to see what happened if it trips.

Breaker panel GFCIs have been brutally expensive in years past compared to
receptical types. They are getting cheaper. Many bubble tubs are wired with
a receptical type GFCI at the panel, labelled and then a circuit taken to
the tub due to price differences.

Tripping faster is nonsense. The GFCI senses differential current. OTOW it
compares the hot leg current with the neutral current to see if they are the
same. If there is a difference then there is current leaking to ground and a
fault in the equipment. It does not protect the equipment from stalled
currents or internal shorts unless it goes to the case. Mostly it protects
the human by tripping out fast so the time the fault travels through your
body is limited. Contrary to what some say they do not limit the actual
current level amount. This does not matter where it is done.

I am not in the UK despite what the OCD boy thinks.


"Bill" wrote in message
...
1. If having GFCI at the outlet and at the C'Breaker is redundant, then how
come they now required GFCI at the outlet in bathrooms? Someone, I think a
maintenance person, explained to me that having it at the outlet is more
effective because it is closer to the source--and trips significantly
faster/easier. Is this nonsense?

Bill




--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---