I'm replacing the single 20A kitchen countertop duplex outlet with a
double box and two 20A GFCIs (both side by side in the double box) fed
by a single dedicated 20A circuit breaker.

Do I simply jumper Load to Load and Line to Line, or should I have the
Load on the first GFCI feed the Line on the second GFCI with nothing
attached to the Load on the second one? The circuit terminates at
that box.

I've read that the second outlet doesn't particularly need to be a
GFCI, but I want them both to be GFCI anyway. Humor me!

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 10:35:24 -0700 (PDT), Josh
wrote:

I'm replacing the single 20A kitchen countertop duplex outlet with a
double box and two 20A GFCIs (both side by side in the double box) fed
by a single dedicated 20A circuit breaker.

Do I simply jumper Load to Load and Line to Line, or should I have the
Load on the first GFCI feed the Line on the second GFCI with nothing
attached to the Load on the second one? The circuit terminates at
that box.

I've read that the second outlet doesn't particularly need to be a
GFCI, but I want them both to be GFCI anyway. Humor me!

You can wire it either way. If you do the in and out, you won't need
wirenuts in the box, but tripping the upstream outlet will kill the
other one.

On Sep 19, 3:35*pm, Josh wrote:
I'm replacing the single 20A kitchen countertop duplex outlet with a
double box and two 20A GFCIs (both side by side in the double box) fed
by a single dedicated 20A circuit breaker.

Do I simply jumper Load to Load and Line to Line, or should I have the
Load on the first GFCI feed the Line on the second GFCI with nothing
attached to the Load on the second one? *The circuit terminates at
that box.

I've read that the second outlet doesn't particularly need to be a
GFCI, but I want them both to be GFCI anyway. *Humor me!

Hard to understand what is trying to be achieved.????
1) If the two outlets are to work independently presumably one would
feed both (live and neutral) from the common supply, from the single
pole breaker. Into the line terminals. But have nothing wired to the
load side at all?.
1a) However if each is to protect other non GFCI outlets 'downstream'
those would be presumably be wired to the load terminals for each run,
from each GFCI?
2) What one would not do is to common the load terminals (i.e connect
a load to 'both' GFCI???? What would be the point???
3) If the intention is to feed two live leads form a double pole
breaker, with one live wire to each GFCI; it won't IMO work because
there will automatically be unbalance in the common neutral; the
moment something is plugged into the 'other' GFCI circuit.
But as said WHAT IS the objective????

"Josh" wrote in message
...
I'm replacing the single 20A kitchen countertop duplex outlet with a
double box and two 20A GFCIs (both side by side in the double box) fed
by a single dedicated 20A circuit breaker.

Do I simply jumper Load to Load and Line to Line, or should I have the
Load on the first GFCI feed the Line on the second GFCI with nothing
attached to the Load on the second one? The circuit terminates at
that box.

I've read that the second outlet doesn't particularly need to be a
GFCI, but I want them both to be GFCI anyway. Humor me!

I won't ask why or debate it with you..

If you want two GFI in the same box on the same circuit that are independent
of each other you feed the second one from the input side of the first one.
There are four holes there for wire. I did not say line or load because I
always have to look at the instructions as I don't do one of these but every
few years.

If you want it so that the first one also kills the second one when tripped
you will use both the load and line terminals on the first one and only the
input terminals on the second one.

Always test your gfi installs to make sure they are working properly when
finished.


--
Colbyt
Please come visit www.househomerepair.com

Josh wrote:
I'm replacing the single 20A kitchen countertop duplex outlet with a
double box and two 20A GFCIs (both side by side in the double box) fed
by a single dedicated 20A circuit breaker.

Do I simply jumper Load to Load and Line to Line, or should I have the
Load on the first GFCI feed the Line on the second GFCI with nothing
attached to the Load on the second one? The circuit terminates at
that box.

I've read that the second outlet doesn't particularly need to be a
GFCI, but I want them both to be GFCI anyway. Humor me!
Hmmm,
Really they should be fed by separate circuit independent of each other.
Our kitchen is wired that way.

On Sep 19, 1:35*pm, Josh wrote:
I'm replacing the single 20A kitchen countertop duplex outlet with a
double box and two 20A GFCIs (both side by side in the double box) fed
by a single dedicated 20A circuit breaker.

Do I simply jumper Load to Load and Line to Line, or should I have the
Load on the first GFCI feed the Line on the second GFCI with nothing
attached to the Load on the second one? *The circuit terminates at
that box.

I've read that the second outlet doesn't particularly need to be a
GFCI, but I want them both to be GFCI anyway. *Humor me!

Sounds to me like you want line to line and dont connect the load side
to anything. That is the way my outdoor outlets are connected NOW.
Before they were daisy chained through each other and it caused me a
bit of grief.

Jimmie

Jimmie

"Josh" wrote in message
...
I'm replacing the single 20A kitchen countertop duplex outlet with a
double box and two 20A GFCIs (both side by side in the double box) fed
by a single dedicated 20A circuit breaker.

Do I simply jumper Load to Load and Line to Line, or should I have the
Load on the first GFCI feed the Line on the second GFCI with nothing
attached to the Load on the second one? The circuit terminates at
that box.

I've read that the second outlet doesn't particularly need to be a
GFCI, but I want them both to be GFCI anyway. Humor me!

Makes perfect sense, they're side by side and you want them to look alike.
Use a deep box as they take a lot of space, and wire them as gfretwell
describes, although I prefer to pigtail the wiring under a wire nut rather
than having two conductors per clamp.

In article , Josh wrote:
I'm replacing the single 20A kitchen countertop duplex outlet with a
double box and two 20A GFCIs (both side by side in the double box) fed
by a single dedicated 20A circuit breaker.

Do I simply jumper Load to Load and Line to Line, or should I have the
Load on the first GFCI feed the Line on the second GFCI with nothing
attached to the Load on the second one? The circuit terminates at
that box.

I've read that the second outlet doesn't particularly need to be a
GFCI, but I want them both to be GFCI anyway. Humor me!

Humor you? Why? That's nuts.

Use a standard outlet for the second one. Wire it to the load side of the GFCI
outlet. Done. They're both GFCI-protected.

On Sep 19, 1:55*pm, stan wrote:

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

This is incorrect, isn't it? Comments?

"Sev" wrote in message
...
On Sep 19, 1:55 pm, stan wrote:

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

This is incorrect, isn't it? Comments?

He's feeding two gfci receptacles from one dedicated 20 amp circuit

On Sep 19, 8:11*pm, "RBM" wrote:
"Sev" wrote in message

...
On Sep 19, 1:55 pm, stan wrote:

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

This is incorrect, isn't it? Comments?

He's feeding two gfci receptacles from one dedicated 20 amp circuit

Understood. I was asking for comment on the hypothetical.

In article , Sev wrote:
On Sep 19, 1:55=A0pm, stan wrote:

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

This is incorrect, isn't it? Comments?

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

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

On Sep 19, 8:34*pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Sev wrote:

On Sep 19, 1:55=A0pm, stan wrote:

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

This is incorrect, isn't it? Comments?

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

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

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

"Sev" wrote in message
...
On Sep 19, 8:11 pm, "RBM" wrote:
"Sev" wrote in message

...
On Sep 19, 1:55 pm, stan wrote:

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

This is incorrect, isn't it? Comments?

He's feeding two gfci receptacles from one dedicated 20 amp circuit

Understood. I was asking for comment on the hypothetical.

If you are asking if he can feed two GFCI outlets with an Edison (multiwire
branch circuit) fed from a double pole breaker, the answer is yes

Makes perfect sense, they're side by side and you want them to look alike.
Use a deep box as they take a lot of space, and wire them as
gfretwell
describes, although I prefer to pigtail the wiring under a wire nut
rather
than having two conductors per clamp.


OK, RBM....you're right about what I'm trying to accomplish. I just
want the ability to occasionally plug more than two items in at that
location at the same time without having to use a power strip or other
outlet modifying/expanding contraption. And I *DO* want them to look
the same, hence the double 20A GFCIs.

But you guys have got me thinking.....those fancy rectangular outlets
which LOOK like GFCIs but don't have the breaker inside might be
acceptable for the second slot. I suppose they come in 20A versions
as well as 15A? They cost half what a GFCI costs. Maybe.......

Anyway, thanks for the advice. The consensus seems to be: wire the
power in to the LINE connector of both receptacles, and nothing to the
LOAD of either one.

"Josh" wrote in message
...
Makes perfect sense, they're side by side and you want them to look
alike.
Use a deep box as they take a lot of space, and wire them as
gfretwell
describes, although I prefer to pigtail the wiring under a wire nut
rather
than having two conductors per clamp.


OK, RBM....you're right about what I'm trying to accomplish. I just
want the ability to occasionally plug more than two items in at that
location at the same time without having to use a power strip or other
outlet modifying/expanding contraption. And I *DO* want them to look
the same, hence the double 20A GFCIs.

But you guys have got me thinking.....those fancy rectangular outlets
which LOOK like GFCIs but don't have the breaker inside might be
acceptable for the second slot. I suppose they come in 20A versions
as well as 15A? They cost half what a GFCI costs. Maybe.......

Anyway, thanks for the advice. The consensus seems to be: wire the
power in to the LINE connector of both receptacles, and nothing to the
LOAD of either one.

Or if you choose to use a non gfci "Decora" style receptacle, just feed it
off the load of the gfci

Or if you choose to use a non gfci "Decora" style receptacle, just feed it
off the load of the gfci

The Decora....right. I think that's what I'll do, assuming they come
in 20A versions. The GFCI and the Decora look close enough alike to
give the outlet a symetrical look. A regular duplex beside a GFCI
just wouldn't have looked right, IMHO.

"Josh" wrote in message
...
Or if you choose to use a non gfci "Decora" style receptacle, just feed
it
off the load of the gfci

The Decora....right. I think that's what I'll do, assuming they come
in 20A versions. The GFCI and the Decora look close enough alike to
give the outlet a symetrical look. A regular duplex beside a GFCI
just wouldn't have looked right, IMHO.

Neither the gfci or the standard "Decora" style outlet need to be 20 amp
even though the circuit is 20 amp. In any case, Decora outlets do come in 20
amp, if that's what you want to use

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 18:36:34 -0700 (PDT), Josh
wrote:

Or if you choose to use a non gfci "Decora" style receptacle, just feed it
off the load of the gfci

The Decora....right. I think that's what I'll do, assuming they come
in 20A versions. The GFCI and the Decora look close enough alike to
give the outlet a symetrical look. A regular duplex beside a GFCI
just wouldn't have looked right, IMHO.

If you are using more than one recpt, which you are, they can be 15A.
Or at least you could 10 years ago when I was doing electrical work.

Metspitzer wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 18:36:34 -0700 (PDT), Josh
wrote:

Or if you choose to use a non gfci "Decora" style receptacle, just feed it
off the load of the gfci

The Decora....right. I think that's what I'll do, assuming they come
in 20A versions. The GFCI and the Decora look close enough alike to
give the outlet a symetrical look. A regular duplex beside a GFCI
just wouldn't have looked right, IMHO.

If you are using more than one recpt, which you are, they can be 15A.
Or at least you could 10 years ago when I was doing electrical work.

actually if there's only one it can be a 15a. it's a duplex outlet.

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

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

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

This is incorrect, isn't it? Comments?

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

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

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

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

If you want GFCI protection on the outlets of a multiwire circuit, there are
only two ways to do it: with a double-pole GFCI breaker, or with a GFCI
receptacle at *every* location you wish protected, wired to the LINE side
only.

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

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

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

This is incorrect, isn't it? Comments?

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

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

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

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

If you want GFCI protection on the outlets of a multiwire circuit, there
are
only two ways to do it: with a double-pole GFCI breaker, or with a GFCI
receptacle at *every* location you wish protected, wired to the LINE side
only.

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

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

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

This is incorrect, isn't it? Comments?

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

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

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

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

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




If you want GFCI protection on the outlets of a multiwire circuit, there
are
only two ways to do it: with a double-pole GFCI breaker, or with a GFCI
receptacle at *every* location you wish protected, wired to the LINE side
only.

In article , "RBM" wrote:

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

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

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

This is incorrect, isn't it? Comments?

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

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

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

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

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

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




If you want GFCI protection on the outlets of a multiwire circuit, there are
only two ways to do it: with a double-pole GFCI breaker, or with a GFCI
receptacle at *every* location you wish protected, wired to the LINE side
only.

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

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

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

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

This is incorrect, isn't it? Comments?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


If you want GFCI protection on the outlets of a multiwire circuit, there
are
only two ways to do it: with a double-pole GFCI breaker, or with a GFCI
receptacle at *every* location you wish protected, wired to the LINE
side
only.

In article , "RBM" wrote:

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

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

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

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

This is incorrect, isn't it? Comments?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you're wiring two devices in a single box from the same feed
- and at least one uses wrap-around screw terminals
- and you have sufficient wire available (about 12 inches)
you can strip about an inch of insulation (leaving the copper intact)
halfway down the length of the wire and wrap the copper around the
terminal of the first device, then connect the second device
conventionally from the end of the wire. This scheme is commonly used
with wires in conduit and daisy-chained devices. The wire is run
through the box without being cut. just leave a sufficient loop to
connect to the device.

On Sep 20, 9:07*am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , "RBM" wrote:

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

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

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

This is incorrect, isn't it? Comments?

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

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

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

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

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

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



If you want GFCI protection on the outlets of a multiwire circuit, there are
only two ways to do it: with a double-pole GFCI breaker, or with a GFCI
receptacle at *every* location you wish protected, wired to the LINE side
only.

Doug
Since the purpose of using a multi wire branch circuit; which is
commonly called an Edison circuit; is to save materials and labor I
don't see how using one as the home run to the panel "destroys the
point."
--
Tom Horne