The saga of my trying to get a few receptacles grounded continues....

Talked to another electrician, who wants to just run a new Romex cable
(this is 1960 house with the old Romex with no ground in it) from the
specific receptacle back to the panel (he hasn't come out yet to look
at the place, but thinks he can run it the same place as original--
well, not the entire original--just up wall to attic and then to
panel).

This sounds a lot cleaner than drilling holes in floor just for a
ground wire etc. However, you guys have gotten me up to speed on the
grounding issue, but I am clueless for something like this.

Is this considered legitimate? I assume you would have to connect the
old wires together somehow in the receptacle so the other receptacles
on the circuit are not cut off?

The other thing that I just thought of was when it gets back to the
breaker, you will still have the old wiring connected to that breaker.
So how would he end up with both connected to that breaker? Is there a
code correct way to do this?

For the record, I almost gave up today after talking to 4 electricians
who said some off the wall things (I'll tell you that later---you
won''t believe it and I don't want this thread to go on a tangent.
Suffice to say, this guy *sounded* like he had a clue, but then again
I got duped before and you guys came to the rescue!
--
John

After reading this thread I am glad to not be an electrician.

In article .com, John Ross wrote:
The saga of my trying to get a few receptacles grounded continues....

Talked to another electrician, who wants to just run a new Romex cable
(this is 1960 house with the old Romex with no ground in it) from the
specific receptacle back to the panel (he hasn't come out yet to look
at the place, but thinks he can run it the same place as original--
well, not the entire original--just up wall to attic and then to
panel).

Probably, he's intending to run the cable to the *first* receptacle on the
circuit.

This sounds a lot cleaner than drilling holes in floor just for a
ground wire etc. However, you guys have gotten me up to speed on the
grounding issue, but I am clueless for something like this.

Is this considered legitimate?

Sure. Why wouldn't it be?

I assume you would have to connect the
old wires together somehow in the receptacle so the other receptacles
on the circuit are not cut off?

Same way they're connected now.

The other thing that I just thought of was when it gets back to the
breaker, you will still have the old wiring connected to that breaker.

No, that would be disconnected and replaced by the new cable.

So how would he end up with both connected to that breaker?

He wouldn't.

Is there a
code correct way to do this?

Yes -- and it sounds to me like this guy knows how to do it.

For the record, I almost gave up today after talking to 4 electricians
who said some off the wall things (I'll tell you that later---you
won''t believe it and I don't want this thread to go on a tangent.
Suffice to say, this guy *sounded* like he had a clue, but then again
I got duped before and you guys came to the rescue!

When he comes out to look at it, you can ask him exactly what he's planning to
do -- if it doesn't sound right, tell him you'll get back to him in a day or
two, and check it out here.

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

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

Doug Miller wrote:
In article .com, John Ross wrote:
The saga of my trying to get a few receptacles grounded continues....

Talked to another electrician, who wants to just run a new Romex cable
(this is 1960 house with the old Romex with no ground in it) from the
specific receptacle back to the panel (he hasn't come out yet to look
at the place, but thinks he can run it the same place as original--
well, not the entire original--just up wall to attic and then to
panel).

Probably, he's intending to run the cable to the *first* receptacle on the
circuit.
No, he said just at the receptacle to be grounded. He's NOT rewiring
the whole circuit.


This sounds a lot cleaner than drilling holes in floor just for a
ground wire etc. However, you guys have gotten me up to speed on the
grounding issue, but I am clueless for something like this.

Is this considered legitimate?

Sure. Why wouldn't it be?

I assume you would have to connect the
old wires together somehow in the receptacle so the other receptacles
on the circuit are not cut off?

Same way they're connected now.

The other thing that I just thought of was when it gets back to the
breaker, you will still have the old wiring connected to that breaker.

No, that would be disconnected and replaced by the new cable.

The new cable is just for ONE outlet. The old cable will still be
there for the other outlets, so it has to stay connected to the
breaker, right?

So how would he end up with both connected to that breaker?

He wouldn't.

Again, I assume the old wire has to still be connected to the breaker
in some way.

Is there a
code correct way to do this?

Yes -- and it sounds to me like this guy knows how to do it.

For the record, I almost gave up today after talking to 4 electricians
who said some off the wall things (I'll tell you that later---you
won''t believe it and I don't want this thread to go on a tangent.
Suffice to say, this guy *sounded* like he had a clue, but then again
I got duped before and you guys came to the rescue!

When he comes out to look at it, you can ask him exactly what he's planning to
do -- if it doesn't sound right, tell him you'll get back to him in a day or
two, and check it out here.

You know I will--be ready!

In article . com, John Ross wrote:


Doug Miller wrote:
In article .com, John Ross
wrote:
The saga of my trying to get a few receptacles grounded continues....

Talked to another electrician, who wants to just run a new Romex cable
(this is 1960 house with the old Romex with no ground in it) from the
specific receptacle back to the panel (he hasn't come out yet to look
at the place, but thinks he can run it the same place as original--
well, not the entire original--just up wall to attic and then to
panel).

Probably, he's intending to run the cable to the *first* receptacle on the
circuit.

No, he said just at the receptacle to be grounded. He's NOT rewiring
the whole circuit.

He doesn't have to rewire the whole circuit. The receptacle he runs the cable
to will *become* the first receptacle on the circuit. Make sure he installs a
GFCI receptacle there, and wires the downstream outlets to the LOAD side of
the GFCI.


This sounds a lot cleaner than drilling holes in floor just for a
ground wire etc. However, you guys have gotten me up to speed on the
grounding issue, but I am clueless for something like this.

Is this considered legitimate?

Sure. Why wouldn't it be?

I assume you would have to connect the
old wires together somehow in the receptacle so the other receptacles
on the circuit are not cut off?

Same way they're connected now.

The other thing that I just thought of was when it gets back to the
breaker, you will still have the old wiring connected to that breaker.

No, that would be disconnected and replaced by the new cable.

The new cable is just for ONE outlet. The old cable will still be
there for the other outlets, so it has to stay connected to the
breaker, right?

No. There's a cable going to the outlet in question now. That cable (or
cables) can be used to supply power to the rest of the circuit. And the old
cable from the breaker box to that circuit becomes redundant, and will be
removed.

So how would he end up with both connected to that breaker?

He wouldn't.

Again, I assume the old wire has to still be connected to the breaker
in some way.

Why?

Consider: (view in a fixed-space font)

[Breaker Box]--------[outlet 1]------[outlet 2]-------[outlet 3]

Run the new cable to outlet 3:

[Breaker Box]--------[outlet 1]------[outlet 2]-------[outlet 3]
| |
+----------------------------------------------------+

The old cable between the breaker box and outlet 1 is completely unnecessary,
and can (and should) be removed.

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

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

beecrofter wrote:
After reading this thread I am glad to not be an electrician.

I dunno. With folks like this, seems an electrician could make bags of
money.

In article , wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:27:33 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

He doesn't have to rewire the whole circuit. The receptacle he runs the cable
to will *become* the first receptacle on the circuit. Make sure he installs a
GFCI receptacle there, and wires the downstream outlets to the LOAD side of
the GFCI.

Why GFCI the grounded one.

To provide ground-fault protection at that receptacle as well as the
downstream ones.

Put the GFCI in the next one if you need 3
prong plugs.

Put it in the first one, and you have GFCI protection at all receptacles on
the circuit, including the first.

Put it in the second, and you have GFCI protection at all receptacles on the
circuit, *except* the first. What's the point in that?

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

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

Doug Miller wrote:
In article . com, John Ross wrote:


Doug Miller wrote:
In article .com, John Ross
wrote:
The saga of my trying to get a few receptacles grounded continues....

Talked to another electrician, who wants to just run a new Romex cable
(this is 1960 house with the old Romex with no ground in it) from the
specific receptacle back to the panel (he hasn't come out yet to look
at the place, but thinks he can run it the same place as original--
well, not the entire original--just up wall to attic and then to
panel).

Probably, he's intending to run the cable to the *first* receptacle on the
circuit.

No, he said just at the receptacle to be grounded. He's NOT rewiring
the whole circuit.

He doesn't have to rewire the whole circuit. The receptacle he runs the cable
to will *become* the first receptacle on the circuit. Make sure he installs a
GFCI receptacle there, and wires the downstream outlets to the LOAD side of
the GFCI.


This sounds a lot cleaner than drilling holes in floor just for a
ground wire etc. However, you guys have gotten me up to speed on the
grounding issue, but I am clueless for something like this.

Is this considered legitimate?

Sure. Why wouldn't it be?

I assume you would have to connect the
old wires together somehow in the receptacle so the other receptacles
on the circuit are not cut off?

Same way they're connected now.

The other thing that I just thought of was when it gets back to the
breaker, you will still have the old wiring connected to that breaker.

No, that would be disconnected and replaced by the new cable.

The new cable is just for ONE outlet. The old cable will still be
there for the other outlets, so it has to stay connected to the
breaker, right?

No. There's a cable going to the outlet in question now. That cable (or
cables) can be used to supply power to the rest of the circuit. And the old
cable from the breaker box to that circuit becomes redundant, and will be
removed.

So how would he end up with both connected to that breaker?

He wouldn't.

Again, I assume the old wire has to still be connected to the breaker
in some way.

Why?

Consider: (view in a fixed-space font)

[Breaker Box]--------[outlet 1]------[outlet 2]-------[outlet 3]

Run the new cable to outlet 3:

[Breaker Box]--------[outlet 1]------[outlet 2]-------[outlet 3]
| |
+----------------------------------------------------+

The old cable between the breaker box and outlet 1 is completely unnecessary,
and can (and should) be removed.

To make things easier for me to understand, let's forget about the
GFCI (the whole point of this is I don't want it--I want a ground for
a refrigerator and PC).

I guess I don't understand what the definition of "the first
receptacle on the circuit" means. I assumed there had to be some
linear connection whereby you start, for example, at the left side of
a wall and run in a line to the end.

Are you saying it is arbitrary? For example, your example of outlet
1---2---3
you showed changing the connection from 1 to 3 (which still shows a
linear beginning and end). What about if the receptacle in question is
number 2? If the new cable from the breaker connects "in the middle"
at outlet 2, is that considered acceptable?

thanks
--
John

In article . com, John Ross wrote:

To make things easier for me to understand, let's forget about the
GFCI (the whole point of this is I don't want it--I want a ground for
a refrigerator and PC).

Well, you sure don't want to plug the refrigerator into a GFCI, but it would
still be a good idea for the rest of the circuit.

I guess I don't understand what the definition of "the first
receptacle on the circuit" means.

The one that's directly connected to the breaker box.

I assumed there had to be some
linear connection whereby you start, for example, at the left side of
a wall and run in a line to the end.

That's the way it's usually done, but it doesn't have to be that way.

Are you saying it is arbitrary?

Not exactly arbitrary, although it may seem so. Circuits are usually wired in
the manner that is fastest and easiest, which may not be the manner that uses
the least wire. Even at today's copper prices, the electrician's time is still
more valuable than the cable.

For example, your example of outlet
1---2---3
you showed changing the connection from 1 to 3 (which still shows a
linear beginning and end). What about if the receptacle in question is
number 2? If the new cable from the breaker connects "in the middle"
at outlet 2, is that considered acceptable?

Certainly, provided that the box it's in is large enough to accomodate a third
cable. (The electrical code limits the number of conductors that can be in a
box, dependent on the size of the box, the size of the conductors, and
whatever else is in the box.) Undersize boxes can usually be replaced by
larger ones; any competent electrician will have no problem doing this, or
finding an alternative solution in those rare cases when it's not possible.

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

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

Doug Miller wrote:
In article . com, John Ross wrote:

To make things easier for me to understand, let's forget about the
GFCI (the whole point of this is I don't want it--I want a ground for
a refrigerator and PC).

Well, you sure don't want to plug the refrigerator into a GFCI, but it would
still be a good idea for the rest of the circuit.

I guess I don't understand what the definition of "the first
receptacle on the circuit" means.

The one that's directly connected to the breaker box.

I assumed there had to be some
linear connection whereby you start, for example, at the left side of
a wall and run in a line to the end.

That's the way it's usually done, but it doesn't have to be that way.

Are you saying it is arbitrary?

Not exactly arbitrary, although it may seem so. Circuits are usually wired in
the manner that is fastest and easiest, which may not be the manner that uses
the least wire. Even at today's copper prices, the electrician's time is still
more valuable than the cable.

For example, your example of outlet
1---2---3
you showed changing the connection from 1 to 3 (which still shows a
linear beginning and end). What about if the receptacle in question is
number 2? If the new cable from the breaker connects "in the middle"
at outlet 2, is that considered acceptable?

Certainly, provided that the box it's in is large enough to accomodate a third
cable. (The electrical code limits the number of conductors that can be in a
box, dependent on the size of the box, the size of the conductors, and
whatever else is in the box.) Undersize boxes can usually be replaced by
larger ones; any competent electrician will have no problem doing this, or
finding an alternative solution in those rare cases when it's not possible.


OK, I think I understand now. The only clarification I would ask is
you previously used the term "downstream." In this new set up, does
downstream mean *both* directions from the new "first" receptacle on
the circuit (which is in the number 2 position above)?

Also, am I correct in realizing the weakness of this scheme is that it
can only ground one outlet on a circuit (i.e. if you wanted two
grounded, and they happened to be on the same circuit, you would have
to pick only one)?

thanks
--
John

In article om, John Ross wrote:


Doug Miller wrote:
In article . com, John Ross
wrote:

To make things easier for me to understand, let's forget about the
GFCI (the whole point of this is I don't want it--I want a ground for
a refrigerator and PC).

Well, you sure don't want to plug the refrigerator into a GFCI, but it would
still be a good idea for the rest of the circuit.

I guess I don't understand what the definition of "the first
receptacle on the circuit" means.

The one that's directly connected to the breaker box.

I assumed there had to be some
linear connection whereby you start, for example, at the left side of
a wall and run in a line to the end.

That's the way it's usually done, but it doesn't have to be that way.

Are you saying it is arbitrary?

Not exactly arbitrary, although it may seem so. Circuits are usually wired in
the manner that is fastest and easiest, which may not be the manner that uses
the least wire. Even at today's copper prices, the electrician's time is
still
more valuable than the cable.

For example, your example of outlet
1---2---3
you showed changing the connection from 1 to 3 (which still shows a
linear beginning and end). What about if the receptacle in question is
number 2? If the new cable from the breaker connects "in the middle"
at outlet 2, is that considered acceptable?

Certainly, provided that the box it's in is large enough to accomodate a
third
cable. (The electrical code limits the number of conductors that can be in a
box, dependent on the size of the box, the size of the conductors, and
whatever else is in the box.) Undersize boxes can usually be replaced by
larger ones; any competent electrician will have no problem doing this, or
finding an alternative solution in those rare cases when it's not possible.


OK, I think I understand now. The only clarification I would ask is
you previously used the term "downstream."

Downstream = away from the breaker box.
Upstream = toward the breaker box.

In this new set up, does
downstream mean *both* directions from the new "first" receptacle on
the circuit (which is in the number 2 position above)?

Yes.

Also, am I correct in realizing the weakness of this scheme is that it
can only ground one outlet on a circuit (i.e. if you wanted two
grounded, and they happened to be on the same circuit, you would have
to pick only one)?

If you're running a grounding conductor to only one outlet on a circuit, you
can ground only that one outlet anyway, no matter what the topology of the
circuit is, or which outlet you run the grounding conductor to. If you want
two outlets grounded, you need to run grounding conductors to both of them.

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

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