"Wayne Whitney" wrote in message

On 2009-09-11, Tony Hwang wrote:

You keep talking about winding insulation. We are talking about
surge(spike)

A balanced surge on the hot returning on the neutral will have no
effect on the GFCI. Only if it leaks to ground will it trip a GFCI.

Cheers, Wayne


I only mention this because too many people thing GFIs work on the
ground lead:

It's strictly an imbalance between Hot and Neutral: whether the current
goes to gound or anywhere else. GFCIs do not require the ground lead to
operate and don't care about it. It's an assumption that a voltge
difference will be to ground but it could be to any other place such as
another line or short between adjoining cables by a nail, etc. etc..

"Tony Hwang" wrote in message

Wayne Whitney wrote:
On 2009-09-11, Tony Hwang wrote:

You keep talking about winding insulation. We are talking about
surge(spike)

A balanced surge on the hot returning on the neutral will have no
effect on the GFCI. Only if it leaks to ground will it trip a GFCI.

More accurately, if the Hot and Neutral currents are not equal within a
tolerance range, a gfi will trip. It doesn't matter where the current
leaks to; it can be to other than ground. It's just that usually it will
be ground. So, it's "Only if it leaks current from one conductor more
than another, regardless of whether it's to ground or not.". Ground is
irrelevant to the operation of a GFCI.

HTH,

Twayne`




Cheers, Wayne
Hi,
You are talking theory, in real life out in the field, theory does not
stand always. After all I spent half a century working around this
kinda stuffs. After all nothing is PERFECT in this world.

In article ,
bud-- wrote:

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
Wayne Whitney wrote:

On 2009-09-10, Smitty Two wrote:

What are the chances that an older motor on a washing machine or fridge
could have another ten years of robust life on it, but still have a
trickle of leakage current? I'd not replace an appliance motor just to
satisfy some pesky device.
And what are the chances that over those ten years, the motor winding
insulation further degrades, and due to a problem with the EGC the
chassis becomes energized? The consensus opinion, as expressed by the
current NEC (which anyone can make a proposal to modify) is that the
safety risk is larger than the cost of retiring older machinery with
greater than 5 ma leakage current.

Cheers, Wayne

Safety risk? The "consensus opinion" is a large helping of b.s. Here,
try this little test. Google is famous for returning 475,000 alleged
"hits" on just about any search string. So please link me to a report of
someone who was electrocuted by a leaky motor on a home appliance,
through incidental contact with the chassis. Hell, I'll settle for
someone who was shocked seriously enough to be frightened into a doctor
visit.

The requirement for refrigerators and freezers in commercial kitchens to
be GFCI protected was because of shocks that occurred when they weren't
GFCI protected (presumably involving a refrigerator problem and faulty
grounding).


Virtually all the exceptions to requirements for GFCI protection (like
refrigerator in garage) were removed from the 2008 NEC. A couple
arguments we
"The permitted leakage current for typical cord and plug connected
equipment is 0.5 ma. The trip range for GFCI protective devices is 4-6
ma. For this utilization equipment to trip the GFCI device, it would
have 8 to 12 times the leakage current permitted by the product standard."
and
"The present generation of GFCI devices do not have the problems of
'nuisance tripping' that plagued the earlier devices."

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.

wrote in message

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 21:08:02 -0600, Tony Hwang
wrote:

Wayne Whitney wrote:
On 2009-09-10, stan wrote:

While this may be true it has frequently been mentioned here on
these pages that any 115 volt motor equipped domestic appliance,
fridge, freezer, washer etc. should NOT be plugged into a GFCI
equipped circuit.

Again, that is outdated information--current generation GFCIs and
current generation appliances should work together OK. In certain
situations, the 2008 NEC will require a GFCI, e.g. in a kitchen
outside of a dwelling unit, all 120V 20A and 15A receptacles require
GFCI protection, even refrigerators. While in a residential
kitchen, the refrigerator need not be on a GFCI.

Keyword here is OUTSIDE.

And they can't all have defective winding insualtion? Especially
those all-enclosed fridge compressor units?

An appliance will be built to a standard that allows some small
amount of leakage current (there is always a little). Perhaps older
appliances were built to looser standards. Plus in any motor, as
the insulation ages due to the heat generated by using the motor,
the leakage current will increase.

You keep talking about winding insulation. We are talking about
surge(spike)

Cheers, Wayne

I have a fridge outside that has always been on a GFCI and never
tripped it.
I guarantee you, if you put a 2-3 prong adapter on the plug of a
fridge that trips a GFCI (floating the ground) and then measure the
case to ground, you will see 120v.

By measuring from the case (intended to be but not grounded and metal)
to earth gnd is a measurement of two different references, one of which
is floating. In a non-fault system, the green gnd wire only has a
reference back to the service box and carries zero current.
You are extremely unlikely to see 120Vac on that wire. If you do see
a solid 120Vac, then there is another ground connection somewhere on the
unit meaning a FAULT exists that needs attention.
Depending on the length of that floating ground wire, one end open,
the other connected at the service box, you will see, usually between
15Vac and 90Vac.
You will specifically NOT see the identical voltage you see between
Hot and Neutral.
Depending on what other current carrying wires may be parallel to the
floating ground, crossing it (little effect), or any other fields that
may impact it, including the earth's magnetic field and some other
rudimentary sources, along with the measuring instrument's input
impedance, battery or line operated, and whether one lead is earth
grounded (capacitively, usually), and the distance from the box, you
will see differing "phantom" voltages appear on the measuring
instrument.
It's a very simple task to prove whether what you're seeing is a
phantom voltage or an actual improper connection of some sort. Just
lower the measureing instrument's input impedance with a bulb, resistor,
even a wet finger and you'll see the voltage drop to 0.0x V quickly.
You would have the same condition if you disconnected the wire at the
service box and connected it to the unit, but you'd have to go measure
at the Service Box to see it.

It may be spikes when it starts and
stops or it may be solid. Be careful not to get killed.

Phantom voltages are completely safe and have no potential behind them.
With one end of a wire open, current can NOT flow! Removing earth
ground creates an open ckt!
NO current can flow in an open ckt. With no source behind the
phantom voltage, as soon as it gets a path to anywhere, the voltage will
disappear. As soon as you remove your measuring equipment, the voltage
becomes unknown.
You will not measure any current unless you have something capable of
measureing micro-amps across a known resistor, or just using the meter's
input Z for that figure.
There is no need to fear a phantom voltage.
There IS a reason to fear a voltage though, in the event it's NOT a
phantom and is instead a fault situation where it is actually connected
somehow to something with a connection outside the intended ckt. That
has to be fixed and quickly! Else make sure the fire insurance is paid
to dateg.

They develop shorts inside the compressor and that is why you have
burnt smell when you open up the freon line of an old fridge.

What? If there ever WERE a burnt smell to it, you'd have a pretty
special nose to pick it out from the intentionally added "perfume" they
put into it. Freon is odorless and deadly; that bad smell is in all
freon perfume; they don't make freon without it.

HTH,

Twayne`

"RBM" wrote in message

"stan" wrote in message
...
On Sep 10, 2:43 pm, Wayne Whitney wrote:
On 2009-09-10, Steve Barker wrote:

Washers should not be on a gfci. Actually, nothing with a motor
should be.

This is out of date information. If a non-defective GFCI trips, it is
because there is over 5ma of current imbalance between the hot and
neutral conductors. Any appliance should have way less than 5ma of
leakage from hot to ground, even motors. If an appliance has over 5ma
of leakage current, it's defective. For example, the motor winding
insulation may be degraded, so that on start-up (when current is
highest), the leakage current exceeds 5ma.

Cheers, Wayne

While this may be true it has frequently been mentioned here on these
pages that any 115 volt motor equipped domestic appliance, fridge,
freezer, washer etc. should NOT be plugged into a GFCI equipped
circuit. Too much chance of a momentary unbalance! And they can't all
have defective winding insualtion? Especially those all-enclosed
fridge compressor units?

GFCI (So called Ground Fault ...... ) operate when there is a 'slight
imbalance' of a few milliamps (thousandths of amps) between the live
and neutral current flow.

During motor starting of any AC induction or other types of motors,
due to capacitance of motor windings to the grounded appliance
framework etc. there 'might' be a momentary slight current unbalance
which is quite normal and OK.

GFCI are designed to protect humans against a fault such as a wire
inside touching the metal frame of an appliance especially in damp/wet
conditions; such as an operating but faulty electric lawn mower, or
electric drill. (But they both have electric motors! So what gives?)
The human touching the defective appliance can provide a path to
ground and get a potentially lethal shock. The faulty path to ground
(through the human) unbalances the current and 'trips' the GFCI for
safety.


Just for preciseness because too many people think gnd is neccessary for
a GFI to work:
It's not the current to ground that is detected; it is the difference in
current between the Hot and Neutral wires that is detected. The ckt to
ground is where the current went, but what's detected is the Hot/Neutral
current difference 5 mA.


Can somebody make a reference to an electrical code that confirms the
above?

Section 210.8 of the new code spells it out. As Wayne Whitney points
out, many of the responses are out dated, the new code have very few
exceptions for the GFCI outlets in required areas. If you stick your
fridge, or washer in a garage or unfinished basement, for example,
they must be GFCI protected

That's good to know. I use GFCI's for those, even on my shop tools but
I didn't know it was a requirement. It seems that as long as I keep one
tool to one breaker, I don't have any problems nowadays. I did think
once I had one that was nuisance tripping, until I realized it was one
particular tool when I plugged it into my bench. Rewired the tool; all
OK. Never did figure out the "problem" but it's gone now. And I've had
one GFCI that just plain quit working; no test, no set, nothing; it's
straight thru like it's not there anymore. Guess NOW, I'm planning to
switch that one out this weekendg!

Cheers,

Twayne``

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article ,
Wayne Whitney wrote:

On 2009-09-10, Steve Barker wrote:

Washers should not be on a gfci. Actually, nothing with a motor
should be.

This is out of date information. If a non-defective GFCI trips, it
is because there is over 5ma of current imbalance between the hot and
neutral conductors. Any appliance should have way less than 5ma of
leakage from hot to ground, even motors. If an appliance has over
5ma of leakage current, it's defective. For example, the motor
winding insulation may be degraded, so that on startup (when current
is highest), the leakge current exceeds 5ma.

Cheers, Wayne

What are the chances that an older motor on a washing machine or
fridge could have another ten years of robust life on it, but still
have a trickle of leakage current? I'd not replace an appliance motor
just to satisfy some pesky device.

They aren't "pesky" devices. Their main purpose is to protect life &
limb. Their trip currents are set to be so that the time it imbalance
exists and the magnitude are below the danger point for humans "in
general". So if it's tripping a GFI there is a very likely chance that
you have a dangerous situation there. Is the washing machine near the
dryer or any water pipes that are at earth ground? That would be an
easy place to get, say, between the two cases, one live and one not,
still being grounded, or the washer and the metal pipes to it.
Or maybe the pipes are where it's getting its ground? Disconnect to
work on the plumbing and ... zzzaapp!!

If you're sure it's the motor, I'd change it. Still cheaper than
another washer. You really should look into that if it happens to you.

HTH,

Twayne`

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article ,
Wayne Whitney wrote:

On 2009-09-10, Smitty Two wrote:

What are the chances that an older motor on a washing machine or
fridge could have another ten years of robust life on it, but still
have a trickle of leakage current? I'd not replace an appliance
motor just to satisfy some pesky device.

And what are the chances that over those ten years, the motor winding
insulation further degrades, and due to a problem with the EGC the
chassis becomes energized? The consensus opinion, as expressed by
the current NEC (which anyone can make a proposal to modify) is that
the safety risk is larger than the cost of retiring older machinery
with greater than 5 ma leakage current.

Cheers, Wayne

Safety risk? The "consensus opinion" is a large helping of b.s. Here,
try this little test. Google is famous for returning 475,000 alleged
"hits" on just about any search string. So please link me to a report
of someone who was electrocuted by a leaky motor on a home appliance,
through incidental contact with the chassis. Hell, I'll settle for
someone who was shocked seriously enough to be frightened into a
doctor visit.

Another person who can't be bothered with doing his own research even
when it's this easy, huh?

http://www2.umdnj.edu/eohssweb/aiha/...electrical.htm

http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/cons...oundfault.html

There are enough of them you can go get your own if you need to read
more. And I used Google, employing a very simple but useful search term
that probably requires an education beyond that of a 5th grader.

I'm afraid the only bs here is your attitude and possibly your ability
to comprehend simply logic.

HTH,

Twayne`

On 2009-09-11, Twayne wrote:

Wayne Whitney wrote:

A balanced surge on the hot returning on the neutral will have no
effect on the GFCI. Only if it leaks to ground will it trip a GFCI.

More accurately, if the Hot and Neutral currents are not equal within a
tolerance range, a gfi will trip. It doesn't matter where the current
leaks to; it can be to other than ground. It's just that usually it will
be ground. So, it's "Only if it leaks current from one conductor more
than another, regardless of whether it's to ground or not.". Ground is
irrelevant to the operation of a GFCI.

You are quite right that the current can also leak to a conductor of
another circuit. And GFCIs will work on an ungrounded circuit and
increase safety. But I wouldn't go quite so far as to say the ground
is irrelevant; grounding still improves safety. For example, if an
ungrounded appliance on a GFCI circuit has a high resistance short
from hot to the case, the GFCI won't trip until you complete the
circuit from the case to ground or another circuit's conductor. While
if the appliance is grounded, the GFCI will trip as soon as current
through the short exceeds the 5ma threshhold.

Cheers, Wayne

On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:19:32 -0400, "Twayne"
wrote:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
rs.com
On 9/10/2009 6:38 PM spake thus:

BTW it is strange that you also don't need AFCIs or GFCIs on any
receptacles in the kitchen that don't serve the countertop.
I bet someone plugged that loophole in the 2011. I will have to look
at the ROP when I get a minute. The draft is out too.

As you know, it all ultimately depends on the inspector. A friend of
mine had to install GFCIs in his remodeled kitchen even in some remote
outlets not on the countertop; one was under an island (no sink
nearby), the other was a wall outlet.

It only depends on the inspector within the realm of the requirements.
He can not unilaterally allow or disallow anything that is specced in
either the NEC, NFPA or local code ordnances etc.. GFCI's are either
required in some locatiosn or they are not. Any inspector who sees it
otherwise should be reported so he can be removed from his job. The
inspector is NEVER the one who interprets the code: that's why there are
committees to decide/implement local requirements and even those must
still be done within the confines of the NEC etc. NEC, NFPA and so on
are MINIMUM requirements and often locall communities will clarify or
add to those requirements, but they cannot remove an NEC requirement
for, say, 3-prong receptacles or anything else. They can only ADD TO the
NEC per its permitted modifications statements.

HTH,

Twayne`


The inspector IS the one who interprets the code. He doesn't write it,
but it is his reading of the code that he enforces. Two inspectors in
the same city may differe significantly in what they allow or dissalow
in some particular instances.

My Dad was an electrician for many years, and he got to know what each
inspector in the area wanted to see. If he knew which inspector he was
going to be dealing with, he could be sure he was not going to get any
defects. What satisfied one would rub the other the wrong way, and
vise versa.

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 21:08:02 -0600, Tony Hwang
wrote:

Wayne Whitney wrote:
On 2009-09-10, stan wrote:

While this may be true it has frequently been mentioned here on these
pages that any 115 volt motor equipped domestic appliance, fridge,
freezer, washer etc. should NOT be plugged into a GFCI equipped
circuit.

Again, that is outdated information--current generation GFCIs and
current generation appliances should work together OK. In certain
situations, the 2008 NEC will require a GFCI, e.g. in a kitchen
outside of a dwelling unit, all 120V 20A and 15A receptacles require
GFCI protection, even refrigerators. While in a residential kitchen,
the refrigerator need not be on a GFCI.

Keyword here is OUTSIDE.

And they can't all have defective winding insualtion? Especially
those all-enclosed fridge compressor units?

An appliance will be built to a standard that allows some small amount
of leakage current (there is always a little). Perhaps older
appliances were built to looser standards. Plus in any motor, as the
insulation ages due to the heat generated by using the motor, the
leakage current will increase.

You keep talking about winding insulation. We are talking about surge(spike)

Cheers, Wayne
Capacitive /inductive vs resistive coupling to ground. You can have
insulation good for 50,000 volts on a 110 device and still get an
inbalance on startup if the inductive OR capacitive reactance is too
high.

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article ,
bud-- wrote:

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
Wayne Whitney wrote:

On 2009-09-10, Smitty Two wrote:

What are the chances that an older motor on a washing machine or
fridge
could have another ten years of robust life on it, but still have a
trickle of leakage current? I'd not replace an appliance motor just
to
satisfy some pesky device.
And what are the chances that over those ten years, the motor winding
insulation further degrades, and due to a problem with the EGC the
chassis becomes energized? The consensus opinion, as expressed by the
current NEC (which anyone can make a proposal to modify) is that the
safety risk is larger than the cost of retiring older machinery with
greater than 5 ma leakage current.

Cheers, Wayne

Safety risk? The "consensus opinion" is a large helping of b.s. Here,
try this little test. Google is famous for returning 475,000 alleged
"hits" on just about any search string. So please link me to a report
of
someone who was electrocuted by a leaky motor on a home appliance,
through incidental contact with the chassis. Hell, I'll settle for
someone who was shocked seriously enough to be frightened into a doctor
visit.

The requirement for refrigerators and freezers in commercial kitchens to
be GFCI protected was because of shocks that occurred when they weren't
GFCI protected (presumably involving a refrigerator problem and faulty
grounding).


Virtually all the exceptions to requirements for GFCI protection (like
refrigerator in garage) were removed from the 2008 NEC. A couple
arguments we
"The permitted leakage current for typical cord and plug connected
equipment is 0.5 ma. The trip range for GFCI protective devices is 4-6
ma. For this utilization equipment to trip the GFCI device, it would
have 8 to 12 times the leakage current permitted by the product
standard."
and
"The present generation of GFCI devices do not have the problems of
'nuisance tripping' that plagued the earlier devices."

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

On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 03:38:02 +0000 (UTC), Wayne Whitney
wrote:

On 2009-09-11, Tony Hwang wrote:
Wayne Whitney wrote:

A balanced surge on the hot returning on the neutral will have no
effect on the GFCI. Only if it leaks to ground will it trip a
GFCI.

You are talking theory, in real life out in the field, theory does
not stand always. After all I spent half a century working around
this kinda stuffs. After all nothing is PERFECT in this world.

Fine, nothing is PERFECT. The sensing coil in the particular GFCI
unit may be slightly out of balance, so that instead of just
responding to the differential current, it responds very slightly to
the total current. Or the appliance may have a small ground fault and
have excessive leakage current. Either way, if the GFCI trips on a
repated basis, something is defective and should be replaced.

Cheers, Wayne
Something is not RIGHT - but it may not have any ground fault - and
the GFCI may be to spec. Everything may be working according to it's
design - therefore NO FAULT. Just a design incompatability.

On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:19:29 +0000 (UTC), Wayne Whitney
wrote:

On 2009-09-11, Steve Barker wrote:

Wayne Whitney wrote:

The sensing coil in the particular GFCI unit may be slightly out
of balance, so that instead of just responding to the differential
current, it responds very slightly to the total current. Or the
appliance may have a small ground fault and have excessive leakage
current. Either way, if the GFCI trips on a repated basis,
something is defective and should be replaced.

Yes, replaced with a standard outlet if it is feeding a motored
appliance.

If the appliance is tripping a non-defective GFCI, then it is
measurably less safe than an appliance which does not trip a GFCI. So
if the receptacle location is not required to have a GFCI under the
NEC, and you don't mind the extra safety risk, go ahead and do that.

Cheers, Wayne


Less safe only in that it is not protected against ground faults. The
device itself may have absolutely no safety issues, and still trip the
GFCI.

On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:23:39 -0400, "Twayne"
wrote:

"Wayne Whitney" wrote in message

On 2009-09-11, Tony Hwang wrote:

You keep talking about winding insulation. We are talking about
surge(spike)

A balanced surge on the hot returning on the neutral will have no
effect on the GFCI. Only if it leaks to ground will it trip a GFCI.

Cheers, Wayne


I only mention this because too many people thing GFIs work on the
ground lead:

It's strictly an imbalance between Hot and Neutral: whether the current
goes to gound or anywhere else. GFCIs do not require the ground lead to
operate and don't care about it. It's an assumption that a voltge
difference will be to ground but it could be to any other place such as
another line or short between adjoining cables by a nail, etc. etc..


Or extreme cases of power factor - leading or lagging current??????

wrote:
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:19:32 -0400, "Twayne"
wrote:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com
On 9/10/2009 6:38 PM spake thus:

BTW it is strange that you also don't need AFCIs or GFCIs on any
receptacles in the kitchen that don't serve the countertop.
I bet someone plugged that loophole in the 2011. I will have to look
at the ROP when I get a minute. The draft is out too.
As you know, it all ultimately depends on the inspector. A friend of
mine had to install GFCIs in his remodeled kitchen even in some remote
outlets not on the countertop; one was under an island (no sink
nearby), the other was a wall outlet.
It only depends on the inspector within the realm of the requirements.
He can not unilaterally allow or disallow anything that is specced in
either the NEC, NFPA or local code ordnances etc.. GFCI's are either
required in some locatiosn or they are not. Any inspector who sees it
otherwise should be reported so he can be removed from his job. The
inspector is NEVER the one who interprets the code: that's why there are
committees to decide/implement local requirements and even those must
still be done within the confines of the NEC etc. NEC, NFPA and so on
are MINIMUM requirements and often locall communities will clarify or
add to those requirements, but they cannot remove an NEC requirement
for, say, 3-prong receptacles or anything else. They can only ADD TO the
NEC per its permitted modifications statements.

HTH,

Twayne`


The inspector IS the one who interprets the code. He doesn't write it,
but it is his reading of the code that he enforces. Two inspectors in
the same city may differe significantly in what they allow or dissalow
in some particular instances.

My Dad was an electrician for many years, and he got to know what each
inspector in the area wanted to see. If he knew which inspector he was
going to be dealing with, he could be sure he was not going to get any
defects. What satisfied one would rub the other the wrong way, and
vise versa.


that's when it's time to do some serious documentation, and go have a
sit down pow wow with the city manager. get them boys on the same page
or get rid of 'em.

s

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 Two" wrote in message
news
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.

Fair enough, information is power, and with the information provided by
people who know code, an individual can make better decisions like the one
discussed in this string

In article ,
"Twayne" babbled:


Another person who can't be bothered with doing his own research even
when it's this easy, huh?

I've done my own research, you knothead.


http://www2.umdnj.edu/eohssweb/aiha/...electrical.htm

NOTHING to do with electric accidents IN THE HOME!


http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/cons...s/fatexgroundf
ault.html

NOTHING to do with electric accidents IN THE HOME! This was a
professional doing an *installation* around live wires.

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.

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.

"Wayne Whitney" wrote in message

On 2009-09-11, Twayne wrote:

Wayne Whitney wrote:

A balanced surge on the hot returning on the neutral will have no
effect on the GFCI. Only if it leaks to ground will it trip a
GFCI.

More accurately, if the Hot and Neutral currents are not equal
within a tolerance range, a gfi will trip. It doesn't matter where
the current leaks to; it can be to other than ground. It's just that
usually it will be ground. So, it's "Only if it leaks current from
one conductor more than another, regardless of whether it's to
ground or not.". Ground is irrelevant to the operation of a GFCI.

You are quite right that the current can also leak to a conductor of
another circuit. And GFCIs will work on an ungrounded circuit and
increase safety. But I wouldn't go quite so far as to say the ground
is irrelevant; grounding still improves safety. For example, if an
ungrounded appliance on a GFCI circuit has a high resistance short
from hot to the case, the GFCI won't trip until you complete the
circuit from the case to ground or another circuit's conductor. While
if the appliance is grounded, the GFCI will trip as soon as current
through the short exceeds the 5ma threshhold.

Cheers, Wayne

I only meant it's irrelevant to tripping the gfi; not that that a safety
ground is irrelevant period. Could have been more precise I guess.

Twayne`

wrote in message

On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:19:32 -0400, "Twayne"
wrote:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com
On 9/10/2009 6:38 PM spake thus:

BTW it is strange that you also don't need AFCIs or GFCIs on any
receptacles in the kitchen that don't serve the countertop.
I bet someone plugged that loophole in the 2011. I will have to
look at the ROP when I get a minute. The draft is out too.

As you know, it all ultimately depends on the inspector. A friend of
mine had to install GFCIs in his remodeled kitchen even in some
remote outlets not on the countertop; one was under an island (no
sink nearby), the other was a wall outlet.

It only depends on the inspector within the realm of the
requirements. He can not unilaterally allow or disallow anything
that is specced in either the NEC, NFPA or local code ordnances
etc.. GFCI's are either required in some locatiosn or they are not.
Any inspector who sees it otherwise should be reported so he can be
removed from his job. The inspector is NEVER the one who interprets
the code: that's why there are committees to decide/implement local
requirements and even those must still be done within the confines
of the NEC etc. NEC, NFPA and so on are MINIMUM requirements and
often locall communities will clarify or add to those requirements,
but they cannot remove an NEC requirement for, say, 3-prong
receptacles or anything else. They can only ADD TO the NEC per its
permitted modifications statements.

HTH,

Twayne`


The inspector IS the one who interprets the code. He doesn't write it,
but it is his reading of the code that he enforces. Two inspectors in
the same city may differe significantly in what they allow or dissalow
in some particular instances.

They DO, but it's not their job to. They in theory all should
inspect/pass the same things every time. They can only interpret where
the local zoning/code office has failed to clarify. Anything else and
they are deficient in their duties. They are "inspectors", not
"interpretors". They are NOT free to interpret a case that is covered
in the local code enforcement's rulings unless it is specifically
spelled out to be dependent on certain things which way accept/deny
goes.
I know they still do it, but the first one I see doing it and I know
he's wrong is in for some rude surprises.


My Dad was an electrician for many years, and he got to know what each
inspector in the area wanted to see. If he knew which inspector he was
going to be dealing with, he could be sure he was not going to get any
defects. What satisfied one would rub the other the wrong way, and
vise versa.

That's "yesterday" and went on a lot. It still does to a degree but
it's a lot less than it used to be. And if it happens, the inspector
has to write up his findings and WHY his decision keeps the code. I had
a neighbor with an inspector that didn't like conduit changing to Romex
at one of the boxes; wasn't familiar with the new Romex connectors I
used and had never seen one. Since I did the wiring, I knew exactly how
it had been done. It only took one trip to the code enforcement office
to get it fixed. That's where I decided "never again under my watch".

wrote in message

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 21:08:02 -0600, Tony Hwang
wrote:

Wayne Whitney wrote:
On 2009-09-10, stan wrote:

While this may be true it has frequently been mentioned here on
these pages that any 115 volt motor equipped domestic appliance,
fridge, freezer, washer etc. should NOT be plugged into a GFCI
equipped circuit.

Again, that is outdated information--current generation GFCIs and
current generation appliances should work together OK. In certain
situations, the 2008 NEC will require a GFCI, e.g. in a kitchen
outside of a dwelling unit, all 120V 20A and 15A receptacles require
GFCI protection, even refrigerators. While in a residential
kitchen, the refrigerator need not be on a GFCI.

Keyword here is OUTSIDE.

And they can't all have defective winding insualtion? Especially
those all-enclosed fridge compressor units?

An appliance will be built to a standard that allows some small
amount of leakage current (there is always a little). Perhaps older
appliances were built to looser standards. Plus in any motor, as
the insulation ages due to the heat generated by using the motor,
the leakage current will increase.

You keep talking about winding insulation. We are talking about
surge(spike)

Cheers, Wayne
Capacitive /inductive vs resistive coupling to ground. You can have
insulation good for 50,000 volts on a 110 device and still get an
inbalance on startup if the inductive OR capacitive reactance is too
high.

For sure. It's an "iffy" area.

"RBM" wrote in message

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article ,
bud-- wrote:

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
Wayne Whitney wrote:

On 2009-09-10, Smitty Two wrote:

What are the chances that an older motor on a washing machine or
fridge
could have another ten years of robust life on it, but still
have a trickle of leakage current? I'd not replace an appliance
motor just to
satisfy some pesky device.
And what are the chances that over those ten years, the motor
winding insulation further degrades, and due to a problem with
the EGC the chassis becomes energized? The consensus opinion, as
expressed by the current NEC (which anyone can make a proposal to
modify) is that the safety risk is larger than the cost of
retiring older machinery with greater than 5 ma leakage current.

Cheers, Wayne

Safety risk? The "consensus opinion" is a large helping of b.s.
Here, try this little test. Google is famous for returning 475,000
alleged "hits" on just about any search string. So please link me
to a report of
someone who was electrocuted by a leaky motor on a home appliance,
through incidental contact with the chassis. Hell, I'll settle for
someone who was shocked seriously enough to be frightened into a
doctor visit.

The requirement for refrigerators and freezers in commercial
kitchens to be GFCI protected was because of shocks that occurred
when they weren't GFCI protected (presumably involving a
refrigerator problem and faulty grounding).


Virtually all the exceptions to requirements for GFCI protection
(like refrigerator in garage) were removed from the 2008 NEC. A
couple arguments we
"The permitted leakage current for typical cord and plug connected
equipment is 0.5 ma. The trip range for GFCI protective devices is
4-6 ma. For this utilization equipment to trip the GFCI device, it
would have 8 to 12 times the leakage current permitted by the
product standard."
and
"The present generation of GFCI devices do not have the problems of
'nuisance tripping' that plagued the earlier devices."

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.

I've never heard a single person ever say you'll be "dead ...
milliseconds". But one COULD be in the right circumstances, and that's
enough for me. After all, nearly every fixture cover has a screw that's
exposed metal. You seem to think allowing a certain number of
deaths/injuries from electrocution are acceptable. I can't wait for the
day you get shocked, jerk your arm away, cutting your jugular as you arm
spams and you react in trying to remove yourself, followed by your
muscles clamping harder than rigor, as you slowly sink to the floor,
finally breaking the electricalconnection and continuing to bleed to
death, alone in the laundry room. That' isn't bound to happen either;
but it could.
There ARE a lot of bruises, bumps and other injuries from shock.
Electrocution doesn't always mean death; it can only be a vegetative
state afterwards. Is that stil OK with you? It's not for me. Anything
that helps avoid a safety problem is worth the small amount of effort
that the codes require.

Twayne



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

"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.

wrote in message

On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:23:39 -0400, "Twayne"
wrote:

"Wayne Whitney" wrote in message

On 2009-09-11, Tony Hwang wrote:

You keep talking about winding insulation. We are talking about
surge(spike)

A balanced surge on the hot returning on the neutral will have no
effect on the GFCI. Only if it leaks to ground will it trip a GFCI.

Cheers, Wayne


I only mention this because too many people thing GFIs work on the
ground lead:

It's strictly an imbalance between Hot and Neutral: whether the
current goes to gound or anywhere else. GFCIs do not require the
ground lead to operate and don't care about it. It's an assumption
that a voltge difference will be to ground but it could be to any
other place such as another line or short between adjoining cables
by a nail, etc. etc..


Or extreme cases of power factor - leading or lagging current??????

Yup; that's the inductive/capacitive arguement for their tripping. But
if you think about it, even surges/spikes from a motor may be
latitudinal and not longitudinal. I know it's true that they don't
false-trip nearly as much these days so I think I might have to see if
there are any articles that explain how they do that. Maybe it's the
dv/dt they've started to look at.

Twayne`

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Twayne" babbled:


Another person who can't be bothered with doing his own research even
when it's this easy, huh?

I've done my own research, you knothead.


http://www2.umdnj.edu/eohssweb/aiha/...electrical.htm

NOTHING to do with electric accidents IN THE HOME!


http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/cons...s/fatexgroundf
ault.html

NOTHING to do with electric accidents IN THE HOME! This was a
professional doing an *installation* around live wires.

Like I said, you can't be bothered to do your own research, can you? As
you snipped out and I also said, that was something to get you started.
You don't have any verifiable data, do you?

Twayne`

"Twayne" wrote in message

As you know, it all ultimately depends on the inspector. A friend of
mine had to install GFCIs in his remodeled kitchen even in some
remote outlets not on the countertop; one was under an island (no
sink nearby), the other was a wall outlet.

It only depends on the inspector within the realm of the
requirements. He can not unilaterally allow or disallow anything
that is specced in either the NEC, NFPA or local code ordnances
etc.. Twayne`


The inspector IS the one who interprets the code. He doesn't write it,
but it is his reading of the code that he enforces. Two inspectors in
the same city may differe significantly in what they allow or dissalow
in some particular instances.

They DO, but it's not their job to. They in theory all should
inspect/pass the same things every time.

In most cases, it is far easier and cheaper to do what they want, no matter
what the code. I'd rather spend $30 to put the two GFCI in the counter than
to **** off everyone at town hall and have to spend many times that to prove
I'm right. If you **** of the electric inspector you will probably get a
tough time from the plumbing and building inspectors too. Choose your
battles carefully

On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 20:25:08 -0500, Steve Barker
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:19:32 -0400, "Twayne"
wrote:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com
On 9/10/2009 6:38 PM spake thus:

BTW it is strange that you also don't need AFCIs or GFCIs on any
receptacles in the kitchen that don't serve the countertop.
I bet someone plugged that loophole in the 2011. I will have to look
at the ROP when I get a minute. The draft is out too.
As you know, it all ultimately depends on the inspector. A friend of
mine had to install GFCIs in his remodeled kitchen even in some remote
outlets not on the countertop; one was under an island (no sink
nearby), the other was a wall outlet.
It only depends on the inspector within the realm of the requirements.
He can not unilaterally allow or disallow anything that is specced in
either the NEC, NFPA or local code ordnances etc.. GFCI's are either
required in some locatiosn or they are not. Any inspector who sees it
otherwise should be reported so he can be removed from his job. The
inspector is NEVER the one who interprets the code: that's why there are
committees to decide/implement local requirements and even those must
still be done within the confines of the NEC etc. NEC, NFPA and so on
are MINIMUM requirements and often locall communities will clarify or
add to those requirements, but they cannot remove an NEC requirement
for, say, 3-prong receptacles or anything else. They can only ADD TO the
NEC per its permitted modifications statements.

HTH,

Twayne`


The inspector IS the one who interprets the code. He doesn't write it,
but it is his reading of the code that he enforces. Two inspectors in
the same city may differe significantly in what they allow or dissalow
in some particular instances.

My Dad was an electrician for many years, and he got to know what each
inspector in the area wanted to see. If he knew which inspector he was
going to be dealing with, he could be sure he was not going to get any
defects. What satisfied one would rub the other the wrong way, and
vise versa.


that's when it's time to do some serious documentation, and go have a
sit down pow wow with the city manager. get them boys on the same page
or get rid of 'em.

s
Not city. Ontario Hydro.

Tom Horne wrote:

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.

There you are. A kitchen wired wrong for a dozen years.

Nobody died. Nobody injured. The house didn't burn down. Hundreds of dollars
saved during the initial remodel which grew to thousands in a decade.

Sometimes good enough is, well, better.

But sometimes not.

"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
...
desgnr wrote:
I just installed a GFI outlet for my Washer & Dryer.
Twice in the last week the outlet was tripped when i went to use the
Washer.
I pushed the Reset & it worked fine for the whole load.
I never had any problems with the Regular outlet i replaced with the GFI
outlet.
Can it be a defective GFI ?

Hi,
Take it out. GFI is not for that kind of application.
Motor creates surge current when starts. It'll trip like that
on and off driving you nuts. Also you don't plug in fridge into
GFI for the same reason.

Not quite.

"Motor surges" don't cause GFCI trips in either washers (including
dishwashers) or fridges.

But what does cause GFCI tripping is water getting on exposed current
carrying conductors.

In a fridge, this sometimes happens when the defrost heater causes water to
run over the heater leads. If your fridge is "ice logged" you can get
water onto the lamp circuit.

In a washer (dish or clothes) it's because of a small LEAK which let some
water go onto the wiring.

My clothes washer(s) (twice replaced) have never tripped the GFCI.

Because the bad consequences of a trip while you are gone for a time, it's
not a good idea to have the ice box on a GFCI but for the washers a tripping
GFCI is a warning that you have some water where it should not be. A word
to the wish should be sufficient.

In article ,
"Twayne" wrote:


You don't have any verifiable data, do you?

Twayne`

Yes, I do, and I've posted it on several previous occasions. Clearly,
you're the one who won't do the research. An insignificant number of
Americans are electrocuted in the home, and of those, the vast majority
are either *installing* an electric device or attempting to *repair* an
appliance.

The odds of killing yourself with 120 VAC in your home, while living
your day-to-day life, are so miniscule that it's absurd to classify
electricity in the home as a mortal danger. About ten times as many
people die from simply falling down on *level ground.*

You can chatter all god damn day about your pesky "safety" gadgets, but
it won't change the insanity of making them mandatory or even advisable.

In article ,
"Twayne" wrote:

I've never heard a single person ever say you'll be "dead ...
milliseconds". But one COULD be in the right circumstances, and that's
enough for me. After all, nearly every fixture cover has a screw that's
exposed metal. You seem to think allowing a certain number of
deaths/injuries from electrocution are acceptable. I can't wait for the
day you get shocked, jerk your arm away, cutting your jugular as you arm
spams and you react in trying to remove yourself, followed by your
muscles clamping harder than rigor, as you slowly sink to the floor,
finally breaking the electricalconnection and continuing to bleed to
death, alone in the laundry room. That' isn't bound to happen either;
but it could.
There ARE a lot of bruises, bumps and other injuries from shock.
Electrocution doesn't always mean death; it can only be a vegetative
state afterwards. Is that stil OK with you? It's not for me. Anything
that helps avoid a safety problem is worth the small amount of effort
that the codes require.

Twayne

Son, you are one paranoid and delusional dude. You do a hundred things
every week that are about 10,000 times more likely to kill you than
120VAC. But if you want to live your life in fear of ghosts, I'm not
going to stop you.

wrote:
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 21:08:02 -0600, Tony Hwang
wrote:

Wayne Whitney wrote:
On 2009-09-10, stan wrote:

While this may be true it has frequently been mentioned here on these
pages that any 115 volt motor equipped domestic appliance, fridge,
freezer, washer etc. should NOT be plugged into a GFCI equipped
circuit.
Again, that is outdated information--current generation GFCIs and
current generation appliances should work together OK. In certain
situations, the 2008 NEC will require a GFCI, e.g. in a kitchen
outside of a dwelling unit, all 120V 20A and 15A receptacles require
GFCI protection, even refrigerators. While in a residential kitchen,
the refrigerator need not be on a GFCI.
Keyword here is OUTSIDE.
And they can't all have defective winding insualtion? Especially
those all-enclosed fridge compressor units?
An appliance will be built to a standard that allows some small amount
of leakage current (there is always a little). Perhaps older
appliances were built to looser standards. Plus in any motor, as the
insulation ages due to the heat generated by using the motor, the
leakage current will increase.
You keep talking about winding insulation. We are talking about surge(spike)
Cheers, Wayne

Capacitive /inductive vs resistive coupling to ground. You can have
insulation good for 50,000 volts on a 110 device and still get an
inbalance on startup if the inductive OR capacitive reactance is too
high.

How many feet of 12/2 with ground romex does it take to get 5mA of
'leakage' current?

wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 00:49:52 -0500, bud--
wrote:

Capacitive /inductive vs resistive coupling to ground. You can have
insulation good for 50,000 volts on a 110 device and still get an
inbalance on startup if the inductive OR capacitive reactance is too
high.
How many feet of 12/2 with ground romex does it take to get 5mA of
'leakage' current?


Several hundred feet

Sounds reasonable.

And sounds kinda unlikely you would get a trip from capacitive reactance.

--
bud--

On 2009-09-14, wrote:

I have never had a problem and I have an extensive network of lights
and receptacles in my 2600 square foot screen cage and out to a
remote shed and boat lift. It is all wire in EMT or RNC and all on
GFCIs. All told there is close to a half mile of THHN/THWN out
there.

I'm curious--you said earlier that several hundred feet of NM cable
might be enough to allow 5 ma of leakage current. But then you
mention several thousand feet of THHN/THWN in conduit without any
trouble. Is the upshot that the leakage current in NM cable is much
greater (per unit length) because the outer sheath holds the hot and
ground in close proximity?

Cheers, Wayne

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Twayne" wrote:


You don't have any verifiable data, do you?

Twayne`

Yes, I do, and I've posted it on several previous occasions.

Don't look now, but that isn't verifiable data. You could have posted
lies on several occasions or the entire truth each time. But that has
no bearing on anything verifiable.

Clearly,
you're the one who won't do the research.

Hmm, clairvoyant are you? You have absolutely no idea what or how much
I research any particular subject, let alone this one. On top of
research I have a plethora of verifiable data behind me in many
different forms on this subject, too.
But rather than hand it to you on a platter, I'll only say that UL,
CSA, ETL, EU, EUC, JATE, ACA, hundreds of MOUs, etc. etc. and each have
their own set of safety criteria, each of which have accompanying
paperwork which opines the concensus reasoning behind each one, in
addition to info on who made the rules, where, when and who shall be
charged with implementing, assuring implementation, and applying the
consequences for not having implemented same should the case arise.
Every spec I mentioned calls out and includes how to access such
additional information. EACH ONE.
I have my doubts that you have any actual background, education or
experience on the subject at all outside your own narcissistic, almost
psychotic displays of ignorance and over-statement.

An insignificant number of
Americans are electrocuted in the home, and of those, the vast
majority are either *installing* an electric device or attempting to
*repair* an appliance.

I'm sure you're going to say you can "back that up", but it's just your
attempt to change the subject IMO so you can better argue what you feel
will be easier for you to do. By sheer luck, I just happened to have
come across such a statistic; it was referenced in a white paper I
pulled from archive for another purpose and happened to notice the
inclusion and reference.
BUT ... it's irrelevent here because it's not the numbers that count,
it is what is written in the legal codes and regulations that you must
adhere to. In the extreme you could find your Certificate of Occupany
rescinded and have to completely vacate the premises until the cert can
be issued, plus be responsible for periodic fines on a per month or
yearly basis, per infraction. I feel pretty sure you're one they would
categorize under "willfull infractions" so you won't be finding fighting
it a very simple task.

There are hundreds, probably thousands or more other, similar
regulations which don't make sense to YOU, but the codes aren't written
for YOU. They're written for everyone within each specific
jurisdiction. If you do sub-standard, not-to-code work then whether you
own or even have control of such property, yOU will be responsible. And
most likely sued by anyone/anything else such as any legal entities
involved.


The odds of killing yourself with 120 VAC in your home, while living
your day-to-day life, are so miniscule that it's absurd to classify
electricity in the home as a mortal danger.

Spoken like a true narcissist with a complete lack of respect for
authority, regulation or common laws. It's entirely plausibe to create
a situation that would be dangerous to anyojne living their day to day
life. It might be in the form of a practical joke or even well meaning
ignorance, but it's very easy to fathom such a thing. Use a Class I
method to wire your metallic doorbell housing to 120Vac and see how
quickly you get complaints, if you're lucky.

BUT, again, you're simply trying to redirect the conversation, such as
it is. Electrical is but one of many, many areas with such seemingly
unimportant rules, codes and regulations, but your opinion of them does
not make a whit of difference to what will happen to you, your
insurance, and any unfortunate subject who might end up shocked by your
ignorance. Perhaps you weren't aware that your house burning down due
to an improperly, not to code wiring situation, could/would/often does,
negate your insurances.

About ten times as many
people die from simply falling down on *level ground.*

Prove it. In fact, just try to give a legal definition of "level
ground". I maintain that no human being has ever been killed by falling
on "level ground". You're really starting to grab at straws just to
have a reason to use more words in your post, now.

You can chatter all god damn day about your pesky "safety" gadgets,
but it won't change the insanity of making them mandatory or even
advisable.

Well, I'll chatter anytime, anywhere, wherever I wish to about anything
I consider to be accurate information, especially when the background
for such statements comes from the ignorance you display here. I'll
also harp away at those who give what I know to be misinformation.

I'm glad as hell I don't live near you or even know who you are. I
don't/won't even check to see if you were silly enough to use your real
e-mail address here because my purpose isn't to "report" you, it's to
make you look like the silly fool you are to the newbies and such that
might by some small possibility think what you say can be used to
anyone's advantage. It cannot.

Twayne`

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Twayne" wrote:

I've never heard a single person ever say you'll be "dead ...
milliseconds". But one COULD be in the right circumstances, and
that's enough for me. After all, nearly every fixture cover has a
screw that's exposed metal. You seem to think allowing a certain
number of deaths/injuries from electrocution are acceptable. I
can't wait for the day you get shocked, jerk your arm away, cutting
your jugular as you arm spams and you react in trying to remove
yourself, followed by your muscles clamping harder than rigor, as
you slowly sink to the floor, finally breaking the
electricalconnection and continuing to bleed to death, alone in the
laundry room. That' isn't bound to happen either; but it could.
There ARE a lot of bruises, bumps and other injuries from shock.
Electrocution doesn't always mean death; it can only be a vegetative
state afterwards. Is that stil OK with you? It's not for me.
Anything that helps avoid a safety problem is worth the small amount
of effort that the codes require.

Twayne




Son,

"Son,"! Thank you!
you are one paranoid

A healthy amount of paranoia is a good thing. But if as appears to be
your case, it begins to control your life, it's way out of control.

and delusional dude.

lol, this is like psychology 101, the paragraphs about projection! If
there's any deslusion at work here, it's very obviously coming from your
impressions that you can ignore legal requirements because you know
better than the writers and those charged with enforcement. If you're
actually doing any of the silly stuff you're doing, one of these days
you'll have a rude awakening shortly. OTOH I have a feeling that you're
just a lonely dummy who likes to troll and see his writing in
print.You're like the publicist that says any PR is good, even if it's
negative PR.

You do a hundred things
every week that are about 10,000 times more likely to kill you than
120VAC.

I don't do anything "every week" that's more likely to kill me than
120Vac. The "ac" BTW, is not capitalized; it's lower case for
alternating current.

But if you want to live your life in fear of ghosts, I'm not
going to stop you.

No, even if I were to do that, you're right that you wouldn't stop me;
you can't. You can't stop me from doing anything I choose to do. You
feel your powerlessness can be overcome by making others feel small or
somehow wrong. You'll never gain any power that way and in particular
you'll never stop me from doing anything I decide to do.