Around the first of May I asked if there was any
such thing as a permanently mounted GFCI wall tap
effectively making that receptacle into perhaps
6 outlets. Unfortunately there isn't but someone
suggested I use one of those power strips.

Tuesday I bought one at Walmart and mounted it on
the side of my vanity. Works perfectly! Until
one of y'all gets on the ball and invents one
that screws into the original outlet this power
strip will fill that gap. For whoever suggested
this work around a hearty THANKS!!

On 06/08/2017 01:58 PM, ItsJoanNotJoann wrote:
Around the first of May I asked if there was any
such thing as a permanently mounted GFCI wall tap
effectively making that receptacle into perhaps
6 outlets. Unfortunately there isn't but someone
suggested I use one of those power strips.

Tuesday I bought one at Walmart and mounted it on
the side of my vanity. Works perfectly! Until
one of y'all gets on the ball and invents one
that screws into the original outlet this power
strip will fill that gap. For whoever suggested
this work around a hearty THANKS!!


If you watched This Old House Hour you'd know how to take out the single
box and put in a triple-gang box. It's so simple even those DIY Network
clowns could do it.

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 1:57:15 PM UTC-5, Scott Carlon wrote:

If you watched This Old House Hour you'd know how to take out the single
box and put in a triple-gang box. It's so simple even those DIY Network
clowns could do it.


1. I watch 'This Old House' hour faithfully.

2. I don't do any electrical work except pay the electric bill.

3. Still would not have fulfilled my wants/needs.

4. Last year I did a complete bathroom remodel on the original
bathroom of this house. Three (3) GFCI receptacles were
installed. One for the new tub and one on either side of
large oval mirror over the medicine cabinet. I am happy
with those two. The power strip was for the second bathroom.

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 3:13:28 PM UTC-4, ItsJoanNotJoann wrote:
On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 1:57:15 PM UTC-5, Scott Carlon wrote:

If you watched This Old House Hour you'd know how to take out the single
box and put in a triple-gang box. It's so simple even those DIY Network
clowns could do it.


1. I watch 'This Old House' hour faithfully.

2. I don't do any electrical work except pay the electric bill.

3. Still would not have fulfilled my wants/needs.

4. Last year I did a complete bathroom remodel on the original
bathroom of this house. Three (3) GFCI receptacles were
installed. One for the new tub and one on either side of
large oval mirror over the medicine cabinet. I am happy
with those two. The power strip was for the second bathroom.

Were the ones on each side of mirror done just for a balanced look?

I can possibly see a separate circuit for the tub (spa?) but a separate
circuit for each side of the medicine cabinet seems like over-kill. If
it wasn't for looks, and it's the same circuit, why didn't they put a
standard receptacle downstream of the GFCI?

On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 18:55:44 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 3:13:28 PM UTC-4, ItsJoanNotJoann wrote:
On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 1:57:15 PM UTC-5, Scott Carlon wrote:

If you watched This Old House Hour you'd know how to take out the single
box and put in a triple-gang box. It's so simple even those DIY Network
clowns could do it.


1. I watch 'This Old House' hour faithfully.

2. I don't do any electrical work except pay the electric bill.

3. Still would not have fulfilled my wants/needs.

4. Last year I did a complete bathroom remodel on the original
bathroom of this house. Three (3) GFCI receptacles were
installed. One for the new tub and one on either side of
large oval mirror over the medicine cabinet. I am happy
with those two. The power strip was for the second bathroom.

Were the ones on each side of mirror done just for a balanced look?

I can possibly see a separate circuit for the tub (spa?) but a separate
circuit for each side of the medicine cabinet seems like over-kill. If
it wasn't for looks, and it's the same circuit, why didn't they put a
standard receptacle downstream of the GFCI?
Mabee to run 2 1500 watt hair driers at the same time?

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 8:55:48 PM UTC-5, DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 3:13:28 PM UTC-4, ItsJoanNotJoann wrote:

Last year I did a complete bathroom remodel on the original
bathroom of this house. Three (3) GFCI receptacles were
installed. One for the new tub and one on either side of
large oval mirror over the medicine cabinet. I am happy
with those two. The power strip was for the second bathroom.

Were the ones on each side of mirror done just for a balanced look?

Yes!

I can possibly see a separate circuit for the tub (spa?) but a separate
circuit for each side of the medicine cabinet seems like over-kill. If
it wasn't for looks, and it's the same circuit, why didn't they put a
standard receptacle downstream of the GFCI?


I guess I wasn't clear with that. All three receptacles are on one
circuit.

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 9:35:33 PM UTC-5, wrote:

On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 18:55:44 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

I can possibly see a separate circuit for the tub (spa?) but a separate
circuit for each side of the medicine cabinet seems like over-kill. If
it wasn't for looks, and it's the same circuit, why didn't they put a
standard receptacle downstream of the GFCI?

Mabee to run 2 1500 watt hair driers at the same time?


Naw, the cat doesn't care for hair dryers.

On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 1:55:04 AM UTC-4, ItsJoanNotJoann wrote:
On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 8:55:48 PM UTC-5, DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 3:13:28 PM UTC-4, ItsJoanNotJoann wrote:

Last year I did a complete bathroom remodel on the original
bathroom of this house. Three (3) GFCI receptacles were
installed. One for the new tub and one on either side of
large oval mirror over the medicine cabinet. I am happy
with those two. The power strip was for the second bathroom.

Were the ones on each side of mirror done just for a balanced look?

Yes!

I can possibly see a separate circuit for the tub (spa?) but a separate
circuit for each side of the medicine cabinet seems like over-kill. If
it wasn't for looks, and it's the same circuit, why didn't they put a
standard receptacle downstream of the GFCI?


I guess I wasn't clear with that. All three receptacles are on one
circuit.

3 GFCI's on one circuit in such a small area seems like over-kill. It seems to me that either the
pair of sink ones could have been been placed down-stream of the tub GFCI or the tub could
have been placed down-stream of the "matching pair" at the sink.

Do you know why they used so many GFCI's? Just curious.

On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 6:21:20 AM UTC-5, DerbyDad03 wrote:

3 GFCI's on one circuit in such a small area seems like over-kill. It seems to me that either the
pair of sink ones could have been placed down-stream of the tub GFCI or the tub could
have been placed down-stream of the "matching pair" at the sink.

Do you know why they used so many GFCI's? Just curious.


The GFCI for the tub is not visible, it's behind a panel that
surrounds a walk-in tub. Only one sink/vanity in this s-m-a-l-l
bathroom and I asked for two receptacles in this area. He said
fine and that they would be on the one circuit with the tub. It
was just my personal choice to have two plugs.

On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 22:55:01 -0700 (PDT), ItsJoanNotJoann
wrote:

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 8:55:48 PM UTC-5, DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 3:13:28 PM UTC-4, ItsJoanNotJoann wrote:

Last year I did a complete bathroom remodel on the original
bathroom of this house. Three (3) GFCI receptacles were
installed. One for the new tub and one on either side of
large oval mirror over the medicine cabinet. I am happy
with those two. The power strip was for the second bathroom.

Were the ones on each side of mirror done just for a balanced look?

Yes!

I can possibly see a separate circuit for the tub (spa?) but a separate
circuit for each side of the medicine cabinet seems like over-kill. If
it wasn't for looks, and it's the same circuit, why didn't they put a
standard receptacle downstream of the GFCI?


I guess I wasn't clear with that. All three receptacles are on one
circuit.
Then if they used 3 GFCI outlets they didn't know what they were
doing.

On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 5:44:05 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 22:55:01 -0700 (PDT), ItsJoanNotJoann
wrote:

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 8:55:48 PM UTC-5, DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 3:13:28 PM UTC-4, ItsJoanNotJoann wrote:

Last year I did a complete bathroom remodel on the original
bathroom of this house. Three (3) GFCI receptacles were
installed. One for the new tub and one on either side of
large oval mirror over the medicine cabinet. I am happy
with those two. The power strip was for the second bathroom.

Were the ones on each side of mirror done just for a balanced look?

Yes!

I can possibly see a separate circuit for the tub (spa?) but a separate
circuit for each side of the medicine cabinet seems like over-kill. If
it wasn't for looks, and it's the same circuit, why didn't they put a
standard receptacle downstream of the GFCI?


I guess I wasn't clear with that. All three receptacles are on one
circuit.
Then if they used 3 GFCI outlets they didn't know what they were
doing.

I disagree. Based on what IJNJ described I can see using 3 GFCI's.

If the tub GFCI is behind a panel *and* is upstream of the vanity then it
might be inconvenient to reset it if something at the vanity caused it to
trip.

So, you run the wires off of the line side of the tub GFCI to the vanity
and put a GFCI on the left side of the mirror. Then the client says "I
want to balance the look, so please put another receptacle on the right
side of the vanity."

Well, you can't "balance the look" with one GFCI and one non-GFCI, so you
put a GFCI on the right side also, wired off of the line side of the left
hand GFCI.

The result is convenient, non-daisy-chained GFCI's as well as the balanced
look that the client asked for.

On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 20:37:12 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 5:44:05 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 22:55:01 -0700 (PDT), ItsJoanNotJoann
wrote:

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 8:55:48 PM UTC-5, DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 3:13:28 PM UTC-4, ItsJoanNotJoann wrote:

Last year I did a complete bathroom remodel on the original
bathroom of this house. Three (3) GFCI receptacles were
installed. One for the new tub and one on either side of
large oval mirror over the medicine cabinet. I am happy
with those two. The power strip was for the second bathroom.

Were the ones on each side of mirror done just for a balanced look?

Yes!

I can possibly see a separate circuit for the tub (spa?) but a separate
circuit for each side of the medicine cabinet seems like over-kill. If
it wasn't for looks, and it's the same circuit, why didn't they put a
standard receptacle downstream of the GFCI?


I guess I wasn't clear with that. All three receptacles are on one
circuit.
Then if they used 3 GFCI outlets they didn't know what they were
doing.

I disagree. Based on what IJNJ described I can see using 3 GFCI's.

If the tub GFCI is behind a panel *and* is upstream of the vanity then it
might be inconvenient to reset it if something at the vanity caused it to
trip.

So, you run the wires off of the line side of the tub GFCI to the vanity
and put a GFCI on the left side of the mirror. Then the client says "I
want to balance the look, so please put another receptacle on the right
side of the vanity."

Well, you can't "balance the look" with one GFCI and one non-GFCI, so you
put a GFCI on the right side also, wired off of the line side of the left
hand GFCI.

The result is convenient, non-daisy-chained GFCI's as well as the balanced
look that the client asked for.
What's wrong with rewiring so the power goes to one sink-side outlet,
and from there to the other and the tub? That way if the tub trips it
is a simple matter to reset it. The ONLY rationale for using multiple
GFCI outlets on a single circuit is if there is something on that
circuit that MUST NOT be protected by a GFCI that cannot be moved to a
non-protected circuit. Particularly when the bathroom was completely
renovated and an extra outlet was installed, along with the "new tub"
Whoever installed it either didn't know what they were doing or was
lazy. There really is no other option. There was not even the excuse
of using existing wiring as I strongly doubt the new "spa" tub was
replacing an existing "spa" tub - . I could be wrong - but even then a
"complete renovation" doesn't leave ANY excuse for 3 GFCIs on a single
circuit.

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 12:08:44 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 20:37:12 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 5:44:05 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 22:55:01 -0700 (PDT), ItsJoanNotJoann
wrote:

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 8:55:48 PM UTC-5, DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 3:13:28 PM UTC-4, ItsJoanNotJoann wrote:

Last year I did a complete bathroom remodel on the original
bathroom of this house. Three (3) GFCI receptacles were
installed. One for the new tub and one on either side of
large oval mirror over the medicine cabinet. I am happy
with those two. The power strip was for the second bathroom.

Were the ones on each side of mirror done just for a balanced look?

Yes!

I can possibly see a separate circuit for the tub (spa?) but a separate
circuit for each side of the medicine cabinet seems like over-kill. If
it wasn't for looks, and it's the same circuit, why didn't they put a
standard receptacle downstream of the GFCI?


I guess I wasn't clear with that. All three receptacles are on one
circuit.
Then if they used 3 GFCI outlets they didn't know what they were
doing.

I disagree. Based on what IJNJ described I can see using 3 GFCI's.

If the tub GFCI is behind a panel *and* is upstream of the vanity then it
might be inconvenient to reset it if something at the vanity caused it to
trip.

So, you run the wires off of the line side of the tub GFCI to the vanity
and put a GFCI on the left side of the mirror. Then the client says "I
want to balance the look, so please put another receptacle on the right
side of the vanity."

Well, you can't "balance the look" with one GFCI and one non-GFCI, so you
put a GFCI on the right side also, wired off of the line side of the left
hand GFCI.

The result is convenient, non-daisy-chained GFCI's as well as the balanced
look that the client asked for.

What's wrong with rewiring so the power goes to one sink-side outlet,
and from there to the other and the tub? That way if the tub trips it
is a simple matter to reset it.

There's nothing *wrong* with that method, but "nothing wrong" doesn't
equate to the "only way".

The ONLY rationale for using multiple
GFCI outlets on a single circuit is if there is something on that
circuit that MUST NOT be protected by a GFCI that cannot be moved to a
non-protected circuit.

Something that *must not* be protected by a GFCI? Like another GFCI perhaps?

Let's take the tub out of this and address your specific "ONLY rationale"
assertion.

The client's desire for a balanced look is not enough of a reason for you?
If you were being paid to do the work and the client said "I want the
receptacles on both sides of the mirror to match", would you refuse to put 2 GFCI's on the same circuit based on some misguided thinking that there should
never be multiple GFCI's on a single circuit? Why wouldn't you employ the
simplest solution and use the line side of the upstream GFCI?

So in your mind, all of the various options at the following link are wrong?
You are the only one in the whole world that is right when you say there is
only one rationale for multiple GFCI on a single circuit? Really?

https://www.do-it-yourself-help.com/..._diagrams.html

Particularly when the bathroom was completely
renovated and an extra outlet was installed, along with the "new tub"
Whoever installed it either didn't know what they were doing or was
lazy. There really is no other option. There was not even the excuse
of using existing wiring as I strongly doubt the new "spa" tub was
replacing an existing "spa" tub - . I could be wrong - but even then a
"complete renovation" doesn't leave ANY excuse for 3 GFCIs on a single
circuit.

Do us a favor. Draw us a diagram of the bathroom's wiring and structure
as it existed prior to the work being done. We'll wait.

You have no clue how the previous wiring was done or the extent of the
work. I added fixtures and receptacles near my vanity by altering the
existing wiring in that area. I didn't have to rip out walls and run
new wires or anything like that. If you are going to make assumptions
about IJNJ's bathroom, so can I: The source wires come in at the tub and
allowed for the addition of a GFCI in that area. They then continued to
the vanity area, off of the line side, and were able to be modified to
allow for the new GFCI's near the mirror. No new wires had to be run to
or from the tub area. That gets us right to where we were when I said:

"The result is convenient, non-daisy-chained GFCI's as well as the balanced
look that the client asked for."

Am I right? I don't know. But neither do you. That is why I said there were
options. Unlike you, I never claimed that there is only one way to do it.
I also didn't insult the workers by calling them lazy or saying that they
didn't know what they were doing.

You really should learn to be more flexible.

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 8:35:02 AM UTC-5, DerbyDad03 wrote:

I added fixtures and receptacles near my vanity by altering the
existing wiring in that area. I didn't have to rip out walls and run
new wires or anything like that.

No walls were ripped out here, either.

If you are going to make assumptions
about IJNJ's bathroom, so can I: The source wires come in at the tub and
allowed for the addition of a GFCI in that area. They then continued to
the vanity area, off of the line side, and were able to be modified to
allow for the new GFCI's near the mirror. No new wires had to be run to
or from the tub area. That gets us right to where we were when I said:

Yep, that's the way it was done on my remodel.

"The result is convenient, non-daisy-chained GFCI's as well as the balanced
look that the client asked for."

Am I right? I don't know.

You are correct!

You really should learn to be more flexible.

Agree.

On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 06:34:58 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 12:08:44 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 20:37:12 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 5:44:05 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 22:55:01 -0700 (PDT), ItsJoanNotJoann
wrote:

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 8:55:48 PM UTC-5, DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 3:13:28 PM UTC-4, ItsJoanNotJoann wrote:

Last year I did a complete bathroom remodel on the original
bathroom of this house. Three (3) GFCI receptacles were
installed. One for the new tub and one on either side of
large oval mirror over the medicine cabinet. I am happy
with those two. The power strip was for the second bathroom.

Were the ones on each side of mirror done just for a balanced look?

Yes!

I can possibly see a separate circuit for the tub (spa?) but a separate
circuit for each side of the medicine cabinet seems like over-kill. If
it wasn't for looks, and it's the same circuit, why didn't they put a
standard receptacle downstream of the GFCI?


I guess I wasn't clear with that. All three receptacles are on one
circuit.
Then if they used 3 GFCI outlets they didn't know what they were
doing.

I disagree. Based on what IJNJ described I can see using 3 GFCI's.

If the tub GFCI is behind a panel *and* is upstream of the vanity then it
might be inconvenient to reset it if something at the vanity caused it to
trip.

So, you run the wires off of the line side of the tub GFCI to the vanity
and put a GFCI on the left side of the mirror. Then the client says "I
want to balance the look, so please put another receptacle on the right
side of the vanity."

Well, you can't "balance the look" with one GFCI and one non-GFCI, so you
put a GFCI on the right side also, wired off of the line side of the left
hand GFCI.

The result is convenient, non-daisy-chained GFCI's as well as the balanced
look that the client asked for.

What's wrong with rewiring so the power goes to one sink-side outlet,
and from there to the other and the tub? That way if the tub trips it
is a simple matter to reset it.

There's nothing *wrong* with that method, but "nothing wrong" doesn't
equate to the "only way".

The ONLY rationale for using multiple
GFCI outlets on a single circuit is if there is something on that
circuit that MUST NOT be protected by a GFCI that cannot be moved to a
non-protected circuit.

Something that *must not* be protected by a GFCI? Like another GFCI perhaps?

Let's take the tub out of this and address your specific "ONLY rationale"
assertion.

The client's desire for a balanced look is not enough of a reason for you?
If you were being paid to do the work and the client said "I want the
receptacles on both sides of the mirror to match", would you refuse to put 2 GFCI's on the same circuit based on some misguided thinking that there should
never be multiple GFCI's on a single circuit? Why wouldn't you employ the
simplest solution and use the line side of the upstream GFCI?

So in your mind, all of the various options at the following link are wrong?
You are the only one in the whole world that is right when you say there is
only one rationale for multiple GFCI on a single circuit? Really?

https://www.do-it-yourself-help.com/..._diagrams.html

Particularly when the bathroom was completely
renovated and an extra outlet was installed, along with the "new tub"
Whoever installed it either didn't know what they were doing or was
lazy. There really is no other option. There was not even the excuse
of using existing wiring as I strongly doubt the new "spa" tub was
replacing an existing "spa" tub - . I could be wrong - but even then a
"complete renovation" doesn't leave ANY excuse for 3 GFCIs on a single
circuit.

Do us a favor. Draw us a diagram of the bathroom's wiring and structure
as it existed prior to the work being done. We'll wait.

You have no clue how the previous wiring was done or the extent of the
work. I added fixtures and receptacles near my vanity by altering the
existing wiring in that area. I didn't have to rip out walls and run
new wires or anything like that. If you are going to make assumptions
about IJNJ's bathroom, so can I: The source wires come in at the tub and
allowed for the addition of a GFCI in that area. They then continued to
the vanity area, off of the line side, and were able to be modified to
allow for the new GFCI's near the mirror. No new wires had to be run to
or from the tub area. That gets us right to where we were when I said:

"The result is convenient, non-daisy-chained GFCI's as well as the balanced
look that the client asked for."

Am I right? I don't know. But neither do you. That is why I said there were
options. Unlike you, I never claimed that there is only one way to do it.
I also didn't insult the workers by calling them lazy or saying that they
didn't know what they were doing.

You really should learn to be more flexible.
You cannot take the tub out of the eqation because it is there. The
GFCI for the tub is hidden. Doesn't make sense..

There may be an excuse for doing what was done, but no rationale - no
"logical basis for the course of action" being the definition of
rationale. two? sure, there may be a rationale - 3 - with one hidden
for the tub? Nope. a GFCI breaker would make a lot more sense - or
even a "deadhead" gfci in the linen closet which would allow the use
of any type of receptacle the decorator wanted to use.

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 9:46:18 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 06:34:58 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 12:08:44 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 20:37:12 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 5:44:05 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 22:55:01 -0700 (PDT), ItsJoanNotJoann
wrote:

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 8:55:48 PM UTC-5, DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 3:13:28 PM UTC-4, ItsJoanNotJoann wrote:

Last year I did a complete bathroom remodel on the original
bathroom of this house. Three (3) GFCI receptacles were
installed. One for the new tub and one on either side of
large oval mirror over the medicine cabinet. I am happy
with those two. The power strip was for the second bathroom.

Were the ones on each side of mirror done just for a balanced look?

Yes!

I can possibly see a separate circuit for the tub (spa?) but a separate
circuit for each side of the medicine cabinet seems like over-kill. If
it wasn't for looks, and it's the same circuit, why didn't they put a
standard receptacle downstream of the GFCI?


I guess I wasn't clear with that. All three receptacles are on one
circuit.
Then if they used 3 GFCI outlets they didn't know what they were
doing.

I disagree. Based on what IJNJ described I can see using 3 GFCI's.

If the tub GFCI is behind a panel *and* is upstream of the vanity then it
might be inconvenient to reset it if something at the vanity caused it to
trip.

So, you run the wires off of the line side of the tub GFCI to the vanity
and put a GFCI on the left side of the mirror. Then the client says "I
want to balance the look, so please put another receptacle on the right
side of the vanity."

Well, you can't "balance the look" with one GFCI and one non-GFCI, so you
put a GFCI on the right side also, wired off of the line side of the left
hand GFCI.

The result is convenient, non-daisy-chained GFCI's as well as the balanced
look that the client asked for.

What's wrong with rewiring so the power goes to one sink-side outlet,
and from there to the other and the tub? That way if the tub trips it
is a simple matter to reset it.

There's nothing *wrong* with that method, but "nothing wrong" doesn't
equate to the "only way".

The ONLY rationale for using multiple
GFCI outlets on a single circuit is if there is something on that
circuit that MUST NOT be protected by a GFCI that cannot be moved to a
non-protected circuit.

Something that *must not* be protected by a GFCI? Like another GFCI perhaps?

Let's take the tub out of this and address your specific "ONLY rationale"
assertion.

The client's desire for a balanced look is not enough of a reason for you?
If you were being paid to do the work and the client said "I want the
receptacles on both sides of the mirror to match", would you refuse to put 2 GFCI's on the same circuit based on some misguided thinking that there should
never be multiple GFCI's on a single circuit? Why wouldn't you employ the
simplest solution and use the line side of the upstream GFCI?

So in your mind, all of the various options at the following link are wrong?
You are the only one in the whole world that is right when you say there is
only one rationale for multiple GFCI on a single circuit? Really?

https://www.do-it-yourself-help.com/..._diagrams.html

Particularly when the bathroom was completely
renovated and an extra outlet was installed, along with the "new tub"
Whoever installed it either didn't know what they were doing or was
lazy. There really is no other option. There was not even the excuse
of using existing wiring as I strongly doubt the new "spa" tub was
replacing an existing "spa" tub - . I could be wrong - but even then a
"complete renovation" doesn't leave ANY excuse for 3 GFCIs on a single
circuit.

Do us a favor. Draw us a diagram of the bathroom's wiring and structure
as it existed prior to the work being done. We'll wait.

You have no clue how the previous wiring was done or the extent of the
work. I added fixtures and receptacles near my vanity by altering the
existing wiring in that area. I didn't have to rip out walls and run
new wires or anything like that. If you are going to make assumptions
about IJNJ's bathroom, so can I: The source wires come in at the tub and
allowed for the addition of a GFCI in that area. They then continued to
the vanity area, off of the line side, and were able to be modified to
allow for the new GFCI's near the mirror. No new wires had to be run to
or from the tub area. That gets us right to where we were when I said:

"The result is convenient, non-daisy-chained GFCI's as well as the balanced
look that the client asked for."

Am I right? I don't know. But neither do you. That is why I said there were
options. Unlike you, I never claimed that there is only one way to do it.
I also didn't insult the workers by calling them lazy or saying that they
didn't know what they were doing.

You really should learn to be more flexible.
You cannot take the tub out of the eqation because it is there. The
GFCI for the tub is hidden. Doesn't make sense..

What doesn't make sense is how badly you missed my point. I'm not going
to waste any time trying to explain it to you since you've made up your
mind that only you are right and everyone else is wrong.

Do some research. Read some home inspection forums. There is nothing
wrong with multiple GFCI's on one circuit as long as they are wired
from the line side of of the upstream device.



There may be an excuse for doing what was done, but no rationale - no
"logical basis for the course of action" being the definition of
rationale. two? sure, there may be a rationale - 3 - with one hidden
for the tub? Nope. a GFCI breaker would make a lot more sense - or
even a "deadhead" gfci in the linen closet which would allow the use
of any type of receptacle the decorator wanted to use.

Good grief. Now you're adding inconvenience and expense to the equation.
Give it up. You're just digging yourself into a deeper hole.

On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 21:37:54 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 9:46:18 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 06:34:58 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 12:08:44 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 20:37:12 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 5:44:05 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 22:55:01 -0700 (PDT), ItsJoanNotJoann
wrote:

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 8:55:48 PM UTC-5, DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 3:13:28 PM UTC-4, ItsJoanNotJoann wrote:

Last year I did a complete bathroom remodel on the original
bathroom of this house. Three (3) GFCI receptacles were
installed. One for the new tub and one on either side of
large oval mirror over the medicine cabinet. I am happy
with those two. The power strip was for the second bathroom.

Were the ones on each side of mirror done just for a balanced look?

Yes!

I can possibly see a separate circuit for the tub (spa?) but a separate
circuit for each side of the medicine cabinet seems like over-kill. If
it wasn't for looks, and it's the same circuit, why didn't they put a
standard receptacle downstream of the GFCI?


I guess I wasn't clear with that. All three receptacles are on one
circuit.
Then if they used 3 GFCI outlets they didn't know what they were
doing.

I disagree. Based on what IJNJ described I can see using 3 GFCI's.

If the tub GFCI is behind a panel *and* is upstream of the vanity then it
might be inconvenient to reset it if something at the vanity caused it to
trip.

So, you run the wires off of the line side of the tub GFCI to the vanity
and put a GFCI on the left side of the mirror. Then the client says "I
want to balance the look, so please put another receptacle on the right
side of the vanity."

Well, you can't "balance the look" with one GFCI and one non-GFCI, so you
put a GFCI on the right side also, wired off of the line side of the left
hand GFCI.

The result is convenient, non-daisy-chained GFCI's as well as the balanced
look that the client asked for.

What's wrong with rewiring so the power goes to one sink-side outlet,
and from there to the other and the tub? That way if the tub trips it
is a simple matter to reset it.

There's nothing *wrong* with that method, but "nothing wrong" doesn't
equate to the "only way".

The ONLY rationale for using multiple
GFCI outlets on a single circuit is if there is something on that
circuit that MUST NOT be protected by a GFCI that cannot be moved to a
non-protected circuit.

Something that *must not* be protected by a GFCI? Like another GFCI perhaps?

Let's take the tub out of this and address your specific "ONLY rationale"
assertion.

The client's desire for a balanced look is not enough of a reason for you?
If you were being paid to do the work and the client said "I want the
receptacles on both sides of the mirror to match", would you refuse to put 2 GFCI's on the same circuit based on some misguided thinking that there should
never be multiple GFCI's on a single circuit? Why wouldn't you employ the
simplest solution and use the line side of the upstream GFCI?

So in your mind, all of the various options at the following link are wrong?
You are the only one in the whole world that is right when you say there is
only one rationale for multiple GFCI on a single circuit? Really?

https://www.do-it-yourself-help.com/..._diagrams.html

Particularly when the bathroom was completely
renovated and an extra outlet was installed, along with the "new tub"
Whoever installed it either didn't know what they were doing or was
lazy. There really is no other option. There was not even the excuse
of using existing wiring as I strongly doubt the new "spa" tub was
replacing an existing "spa" tub - . I could be wrong - but even then a
"complete renovation" doesn't leave ANY excuse for 3 GFCIs on a single
circuit.

Do us a favor. Draw us a diagram of the bathroom's wiring and structure
as it existed prior to the work being done. We'll wait.

You have no clue how the previous wiring was done or the extent of the
work. I added fixtures and receptacles near my vanity by altering the
existing wiring in that area. I didn't have to rip out walls and run
new wires or anything like that. If you are going to make assumptions
about IJNJ's bathroom, so can I: The source wires come in at the tub and
allowed for the addition of a GFCI in that area. They then continued to
the vanity area, off of the line side, and were able to be modified to
allow for the new GFCI's near the mirror. No new wires had to be run to
or from the tub area. That gets us right to where we were when I said:

"The result is convenient, non-daisy-chained GFCI's as well as the balanced
look that the client asked for."

Am I right? I don't know. But neither do you. That is why I said there were
options. Unlike you, I never claimed that there is only one way to do it.
I also didn't insult the workers by calling them lazy or saying that they
didn't know what they were doing.

You really should learn to be more flexible.
You cannot take the tub out of the eqation because it is there. The
GFCI for the tub is hidden. Doesn't make sense..

What doesn't make sense is how badly you missed my point. I'm not going
to waste any time trying to explain it to you since you've made up your
mind that only you are right and everyone else is wrong.

Do some research. Read some home inspection forums. There is nothing
wrong with multiple GFCI's on one circuit as long as they are wired
from the line side of of the upstream device.



There may be an excuse for doing what was done, but no rationale - no
"logical basis for the course of action" being the definition of
rationale. two? sure, there may be a rationale - 3 - with one hidden
for the tub? Nope. a GFCI breaker would make a lot more sense - or
even a "deadhead" gfci in the linen closet which would allow the use
of any type of receptacle the decorator wanted to use.

Good grief. Now you're adding inconvenience and expense to the equation.
Give it up. You're just digging yourself into a deeper hole.
Nothing WRONG perhaps, but certainly nothing right either. I'll take
the recommendations of licenced electricians over a "home inspector"
site any day of the year.
Following the recommendations of several electricians and an
electrical inspector, I have ONE circuit in my house retrofitted with
2 GFCI outlets. The circuit feeds a powder-room receptacle, a
refrigerator, and an outdoor weatherproof on the rear deck. The
refrigerator specifies "do not connect to a GFCI protected circuit"
and both the outdoor and rhe powder-room receptacles required GFCI
protection to pas the electical safety inspection (required to get new
insurance coverage- aluminum wiring retrofit/inspection) Other
circuits requiring GFCI protection have either GFCI breakers in the
new panel, or a single "feed through" GFCI breaker. The inspector
would VERY CLOSELY inspect the rest of the workmanship in a house
where he found multiple GFCI outlets on the same circuit, assuming
whoever did the job was "not up on" proper and accepted wiring
technique.

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 2:53:28 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 21:37:54 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 9:46:18 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 06:34:58 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 12:08:44 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 20:37:12 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 5:44:05 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 22:55:01 -0700 (PDT), ItsJoanNotJoann
wrote:

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 8:55:48 PM UTC-5, DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 3:13:28 PM UTC-4, ItsJoanNotJoann wrote:

Last year I did a complete bathroom remodel on the original
bathroom of this house. Three (3) GFCI receptacles were
installed. One for the new tub and one on either side of
large oval mirror over the medicine cabinet. I am happy
with those two. The power strip was for the second bathroom.

Were the ones on each side of mirror done just for a balanced look?

Yes!

I can possibly see a separate circuit for the tub (spa?) but a separate
circuit for each side of the medicine cabinet seems like over-kill. If
it wasn't for looks, and it's the same circuit, why didn't they put a
standard receptacle downstream of the GFCI?


I guess I wasn't clear with that. All three receptacles are on one
circuit.
Then if they used 3 GFCI outlets they didn't know what they were
doing.

I disagree. Based on what IJNJ described I can see using 3 GFCI's.

If the tub GFCI is behind a panel *and* is upstream of the vanity then it
might be inconvenient to reset it if something at the vanity caused it to
trip.

So, you run the wires off of the line side of the tub GFCI to the vanity
and put a GFCI on the left side of the mirror. Then the client says "I
want to balance the look, so please put another receptacle on the right
side of the vanity."

Well, you can't "balance the look" with one GFCI and one non-GFCI, so you
put a GFCI on the right side also, wired off of the line side of the left
hand GFCI.

The result is convenient, non-daisy-chained GFCI's as well as the balanced
look that the client asked for.

What's wrong with rewiring so the power goes to one sink-side outlet,
and from there to the other and the tub? That way if the tub trips it
is a simple matter to reset it.

There's nothing *wrong* with that method, but "nothing wrong" doesn't
equate to the "only way".

The ONLY rationale for using multiple
GFCI outlets on a single circuit is if there is something on that
circuit that MUST NOT be protected by a GFCI that cannot be moved to a
non-protected circuit.

Something that *must not* be protected by a GFCI? Like another GFCI perhaps?

Let's take the tub out of this and address your specific "ONLY rationale"
assertion.

The client's desire for a balanced look is not enough of a reason for you?
If you were being paid to do the work and the client said "I want the
receptacles on both sides of the mirror to match", would you refuse to put 2 GFCI's on the same circuit based on some misguided thinking that there should
never be multiple GFCI's on a single circuit? Why wouldn't you employ the
simplest solution and use the line side of the upstream GFCI?

So in your mind, all of the various options at the following link are wrong?
You are the only one in the whole world that is right when you say there is
only one rationale for multiple GFCI on a single circuit? Really?

https://www.do-it-yourself-help.com/..._diagrams.html

Particularly when the bathroom was completely
renovated and an extra outlet was installed, along with the "new tub"
Whoever installed it either didn't know what they were doing or was
lazy. There really is no other option. There was not even the excuse
of using existing wiring as I strongly doubt the new "spa" tub was
replacing an existing "spa" tub - . I could be wrong - but even then a
"complete renovation" doesn't leave ANY excuse for 3 GFCIs on a single
circuit.

Do us a favor. Draw us a diagram of the bathroom's wiring and structure
as it existed prior to the work being done. We'll wait.

You have no clue how the previous wiring was done or the extent of the
work. I added fixtures and receptacles near my vanity by altering the
existing wiring in that area. I didn't have to rip out walls and run
new wires or anything like that. If you are going to make assumptions
about IJNJ's bathroom, so can I: The source wires come in at the tub and
allowed for the addition of a GFCI in that area. They then continued to
the vanity area, off of the line side, and were able to be modified to
allow for the new GFCI's near the mirror. No new wires had to be run to
or from the tub area. That gets us right to where we were when I said:

"The result is convenient, non-daisy-chained GFCI's as well as the balanced
look that the client asked for."

Am I right? I don't know. But neither do you. That is why I said there were
options. Unlike you, I never claimed that there is only one way to do it.
I also didn't insult the workers by calling them lazy or saying that they
didn't know what they were doing.

You really should learn to be more flexible.
You cannot take the tub out of the eqation because it is there. The
GFCI for the tub is hidden. Doesn't make sense..

What doesn't make sense is how badly you missed my point. I'm not going
to waste any time trying to explain it to you since you've made up your
mind that only you are right and everyone else is wrong.

Do some research. Read some home inspection forums. There is nothing
wrong with multiple GFCI's on one circuit as long as they are wired
from the line side of of the upstream device.



There may be an excuse for doing what was done, but no rationale - no
"logical basis for the course of action" being the definition of
rationale. two? sure, there may be a rationale - 3 - with one hidden
for the tub? Nope. a GFCI breaker would make a lot more sense - or
even a "deadhead" gfci in the linen closet which would allow the use
of any type of receptacle the decorator wanted to use.

Good grief. Now you're adding inconvenience and expense to the equation.
Give it up. You're just digging yourself into a deeper hole.
Nothing WRONG perhaps, but certainly nothing right either. I'll take
the recommendations of licenced electricians over a "home inspector"
site any day of the year.
Following the recommendations of several electricians and an
electrical inspector, I have ONE circuit in my house retrofitted with
2 GFCI outlets. The circuit feeds a powder-room receptacle, a
refrigerator, and an outdoor weatherproof on the rear deck. The
refrigerator specifies "do not connect to a GFCI protected circuit"
and both the outdoor and rhe powder-room receptacles required GFCI
protection to pas the electical safety inspection (required to get new
insurance coverage- aluminum wiring retrofit/inspection) Other
circuits requiring GFCI protection have either GFCI breakers in the
new panel, or a single "feed through" GFCI breaker. The inspector
would VERY CLOSELY inspect the rest of the workmanship in a house
where he found multiple GFCI outlets on the same circuit, assuming
whoever did the job was "not up on" proper and accepted wiring
technique.

....and as soon as (s)he noticed that the downstream GFCI were connected
to the line side of the upstream GFCI, he'd understand that it was done
for convenience sake and move on.

Just like I'm moving on.

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 19:33:47 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 2:53:28 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 21:37:54 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 9:46:18 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 06:34:58 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 12:08:44 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 20:37:12 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 5:44:05 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 22:55:01 -0700 (PDT), ItsJoanNotJoann
wrote:

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 8:55:48 PM UTC-5, DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 3:13:28 PM UTC-4, ItsJoanNotJoann wrote:

Last year I did a complete bathroom remodel on the original
bathroom of this house. Three (3) GFCI receptacles were
installed. One for the new tub and one on either side of
large oval mirror over the medicine cabinet. I am happy
with those two. The power strip was for the second bathroom.

Were the ones on each side of mirror done just for a balanced look?

Yes!

I can possibly see a separate circuit for the tub (spa?) but a separate
circuit for each side of the medicine cabinet seems like over-kill. If
it wasn't for looks, and it's the same circuit, why didn't they put a
standard receptacle downstream of the GFCI?


I guess I wasn't clear with that. All three receptacles are on one
circuit.
Then if they used 3 GFCI outlets they didn't know what they were
doing.

I disagree. Based on what IJNJ described I can see using 3 GFCI's.

If the tub GFCI is behind a panel *and* is upstream of the vanity then it
might be inconvenient to reset it if something at the vanity caused it to
trip.

So, you run the wires off of the line side of the tub GFCI to the vanity
and put a GFCI on the left side of the mirror. Then the client says "I
want to balance the look, so please put another receptacle on the right
side of the vanity."

Well, you can't "balance the look" with one GFCI and one non-GFCI, so you
put a GFCI on the right side also, wired off of the line side of the left
hand GFCI.

The result is convenient, non-daisy-chained GFCI's as well as the balanced
look that the client asked for.

What's wrong with rewiring so the power goes to one sink-side outlet,
and from there to the other and the tub? That way if the tub trips it
is a simple matter to reset it.

There's nothing *wrong* with that method, but "nothing wrong" doesn't
equate to the "only way".

The ONLY rationale for using multiple
GFCI outlets on a single circuit is if there is something on that
circuit that MUST NOT be protected by a GFCI that cannot be moved to a
non-protected circuit.

Something that *must not* be protected by a GFCI? Like another GFCI perhaps?

Let's take the tub out of this and address your specific "ONLY rationale"
assertion.

The client's desire for a balanced look is not enough of a reason for you?
If you were being paid to do the work and the client said "I want the
receptacles on both sides of the mirror to match", would you refuse to put 2 GFCI's on the same circuit based on some misguided thinking that there should
never be multiple GFCI's on a single circuit? Why wouldn't you employ the
simplest solution and use the line side of the upstream GFCI?

So in your mind, all of the various options at the following link are wrong?
You are the only one in the whole world that is right when you say there is
only one rationale for multiple GFCI on a single circuit? Really?

https://www.do-it-yourself-help.com/..._diagrams.html

Particularly when the bathroom was completely
renovated and an extra outlet was installed, along with the "new tub"
Whoever installed it either didn't know what they were doing or was
lazy. There really is no other option. There was not even the excuse
of using existing wiring as I strongly doubt the new "spa" tub was
replacing an existing "spa" tub - . I could be wrong - but even then a
"complete renovation" doesn't leave ANY excuse for 3 GFCIs on a single
circuit.

Do us a favor. Draw us a diagram of the bathroom's wiring and structure
as it existed prior to the work being done. We'll wait.

You have no clue how the previous wiring was done or the extent of the
work. I added fixtures and receptacles near my vanity by altering the
existing wiring in that area. I didn't have to rip out walls and run
new wires or anything like that. If you are going to make assumptions
about IJNJ's bathroom, so can I: The source wires come in at the tub and
allowed for the addition of a GFCI in that area. They then continued to
the vanity area, off of the line side, and were able to be modified to
allow for the new GFCI's near the mirror. No new wires had to be run to
or from the tub area. That gets us right to where we were when I said:

"The result is convenient, non-daisy-chained GFCI's as well as the balanced
look that the client asked for."

Am I right? I don't know. But neither do you. That is why I said there were
options. Unlike you, I never claimed that there is only one way to do it.
I also didn't insult the workers by calling them lazy or saying that they
didn't know what they were doing.

You really should learn to be more flexible.
You cannot take the tub out of the eqation because it is there. The
GFCI for the tub is hidden. Doesn't make sense..

What doesn't make sense is how badly you missed my point. I'm not going
to waste any time trying to explain it to you since you've made up your
mind that only you are right and everyone else is wrong.

Do some research. Read some home inspection forums. There is nothing
wrong with multiple GFCI's on one circuit as long as they are wired
from the line side of of the upstream device.



There may be an excuse for doing what was done, but no rationale - no
"logical basis for the course of action" being the definition of
rationale. two? sure, there may be a rationale - 3 - with one hidden
for the tub? Nope. a GFCI breaker would make a lot more sense - or
even a "deadhead" gfci in the linen closet which would allow the use
of any type of receptacle the decorator wanted to use.

Good grief. Now you're adding inconvenience and expense to the equation.
Give it up. You're just digging yourself into a deeper hole.
Nothing WRONG perhaps, but certainly nothing right either. I'll take
the recommendations of licenced electricians over a "home inspector"
site any day of the year.
Following the recommendations of several electricians and an
electrical inspector, I have ONE circuit in my house retrofitted with
2 GFCI outlets. The circuit feeds a powder-room receptacle, a
refrigerator, and an outdoor weatherproof on the rear deck. The
refrigerator specifies "do not connect to a GFCI protected circuit"
and both the outdoor and rhe powder-room receptacles required GFCI
protection to pas the electical safety inspection (required to get new
insurance coverage- aluminum wiring retrofit/inspection) Other
circuits requiring GFCI protection have either GFCI breakers in the
new panel, or a single "feed through" GFCI breaker. The inspector
would VERY CLOSELY inspect the rest of the workmanship in a house
where he found multiple GFCI outlets on the same circuit, assuming
whoever did the job was "not up on" proper and accepted wiring
technique.

...and as soon as (s)he noticed that the downstream GFCI were connected
to the line side of the upstream GFCI, he'd understand that it was done
for convenience sake and move on.

Just like I'm moving on.
Do that.

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 10:57:17 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 19:33:47 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 2:53:28 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 21:37:54 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 9:46:18 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 06:34:58 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 12:08:44 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 20:37:12 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 5:44:05 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 22:55:01 -0700 (PDT), ItsJoanNotJoann
wrote:

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 8:55:48 PM UTC-5, DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 3:13:28 PM UTC-4, ItsJoanNotJoann wrote:

Last year I did a complete bathroom remodel on the original
bathroom of this house. Three (3) GFCI receptacles were
installed. One for the new tub and one on either side of
large oval mirror over the medicine cabinet. I am happy
with those two. The power strip was for the second bathroom.

Were the ones on each side of mirror done just for a balanced look?

Yes!

I can possibly see a separate circuit for the tub (spa?) but a separate
circuit for each side of the medicine cabinet seems like over-kill. If
it wasn't for looks, and it's the same circuit, why didn't they put a
standard receptacle downstream of the GFCI?


I guess I wasn't clear with that. All three receptacles are on one
circuit.
Then if they used 3 GFCI outlets they didn't know what they were
doing.

I disagree. Based on what IJNJ described I can see using 3 GFCI's.

If the tub GFCI is behind a panel *and* is upstream of the vanity then it
might be inconvenient to reset it if something at the vanity caused it to
trip.

So, you run the wires off of the line side of the tub GFCI to the vanity
and put a GFCI on the left side of the mirror. Then the client says "I
want to balance the look, so please put another receptacle on the right
side of the vanity."

Well, you can't "balance the look" with one GFCI and one non-GFCI, so you
put a GFCI on the right side also, wired off of the line side of the left
hand GFCI.

The result is convenient, non-daisy-chained GFCI's as well as the balanced
look that the client asked for.

What's wrong with rewiring so the power goes to one sink-side outlet,
and from there to the other and the tub? That way if the tub trips it
is a simple matter to reset it.

There's nothing *wrong* with that method, but "nothing wrong" doesn't
equate to the "only way".

The ONLY rationale for using multiple
GFCI outlets on a single circuit is if there is something on that
circuit that MUST NOT be protected by a GFCI that cannot be moved to a
non-protected circuit.

Something that *must not* be protected by a GFCI? Like another GFCI perhaps?

Let's take the tub out of this and address your specific "ONLY rationale"
assertion.

The client's desire for a balanced look is not enough of a reason for you?
If you were being paid to do the work and the client said "I want the
receptacles on both sides of the mirror to match", would you refuse to put 2 GFCI's on the same circuit based on some misguided thinking that there should
never be multiple GFCI's on a single circuit? Why wouldn't you employ the
simplest solution and use the line side of the upstream GFCI?

So in your mind, all of the various options at the following link are wrong?
You are the only one in the whole world that is right when you say there is
only one rationale for multiple GFCI on a single circuit? Really?

https://www.do-it-yourself-help.com/..._diagrams.html

Particularly when the bathroom was completely
renovated and an extra outlet was installed, along with the "new tub"
Whoever installed it either didn't know what they were doing or was
lazy. There really is no other option. There was not even the excuse
of using existing wiring as I strongly doubt the new "spa" tub was
replacing an existing "spa" tub - . I could be wrong - but even then a
"complete renovation" doesn't leave ANY excuse for 3 GFCIs on a single
circuit.

Do us a favor. Draw us a diagram of the bathroom's wiring and structure
as it existed prior to the work being done. We'll wait.

You have no clue how the previous wiring was done or the extent of the
work. I added fixtures and receptacles near my vanity by altering the
existing wiring in that area. I didn't have to rip out walls and run
new wires or anything like that. If you are going to make assumptions
about IJNJ's bathroom, so can I: The source wires come in at the tub and
allowed for the addition of a GFCI in that area. They then continued to
the vanity area, off of the line side, and were able to be modified to
allow for the new GFCI's near the mirror. No new wires had to be run to
or from the tub area. That gets us right to where we were when I said:

"The result is convenient, non-daisy-chained GFCI's as well as the balanced
look that the client asked for."

Am I right? I don't know. But neither do you. That is why I said there were
options. Unlike you, I never claimed that there is only one way to do it.
I also didn't insult the workers by calling them lazy or saying that they
didn't know what they were doing.

You really should learn to be more flexible.
You cannot take the tub out of the eqation because it is there. The
GFCI for the tub is hidden. Doesn't make sense..

What doesn't make sense is how badly you missed my point. I'm not going
to waste any time trying to explain it to you since you've made up your
mind that only you are right and everyone else is wrong.

Do some research. Read some home inspection forums. There is nothing
wrong with multiple GFCI's on one circuit as long as they are wired
from the line side of of the upstream device.



There may be an excuse for doing what was done, but no rationale - no
"logical basis for the course of action" being the definition of
rationale. two? sure, there may be a rationale - 3 - with one hidden
for the tub? Nope. a GFCI breaker would make a lot more sense - or
even a "deadhead" gfci in the linen closet which would allow the use
of any type of receptacle the decorator wanted to use.

Good grief. Now you're adding inconvenience and expense to the equation.
Give it up. You're just digging yourself into a deeper hole.
Nothing WRONG perhaps, but certainly nothing right either. I'll take
the recommendations of licenced electricians over a "home inspector"
site any day of the year.
Following the recommendations of several electricians and an
electrical inspector, I have ONE circuit in my house retrofitted with
2 GFCI outlets. The circuit feeds a powder-room receptacle, a
refrigerator, and an outdoor weatherproof on the rear deck. The
refrigerator specifies "do not connect to a GFCI protected circuit"
and both the outdoor and rhe powder-room receptacles required GFCI
protection to pas the electical safety inspection (required to get new
insurance coverage- aluminum wiring retrofit/inspection) Other
circuits requiring GFCI protection have either GFCI breakers in the
new panel, or a single "feed through" GFCI breaker. The inspector
would VERY CLOSELY inspect the rest of the workmanship in a house
where he found multiple GFCI outlets on the same circuit, assuming
whoever did the job was "not up on" proper and accepted wiring
technique.

...and as soon as (s)he noticed that the downstream GFCI were connected
to the line side of the upstream GFCI, he'd understand that it was done
for convenience sake and move on.

Just like I'm moving on.
Do that.

Last word?

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 11:22:45 PM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 10:57:17 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 19:33:47 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 2:53:28 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 21:37:54 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 9:46:18 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 06:34:58 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 12:08:44 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 20:37:12 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 5:44:05 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 22:55:01 -0700 (PDT), ItsJoanNotJoann
wrote:

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 8:55:48 PM UTC-5, DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 3:13:28 PM UTC-4, ItsJoanNotJoann wrote:

Last year I did a complete bathroom remodel on the original
bathroom of this house. Three (3) GFCI receptacles were
installed. One for the new tub and one on either side of
large oval mirror over the medicine cabinet. I am happy
with those two. The power strip was for the second bathroom.

Were the ones on each side of mirror done just for a balanced look?

Yes!

I can possibly see a separate circuit for the tub (spa?) but a separate
circuit for each side of the medicine cabinet seems like over-kill. If
it wasn't for looks, and it's the same circuit, why didn't they put a
standard receptacle downstream of the GFCI?


I guess I wasn't clear with that. All three receptacles are on one
circuit.
Then if they used 3 GFCI outlets they didn't know what they were
doing.

I disagree. Based on what IJNJ described I can see using 3 GFCI's.

If the tub GFCI is behind a panel *and* is upstream of the vanity then it
might be inconvenient to reset it if something at the vanity caused it to
trip.

So, you run the wires off of the line side of the tub GFCI to the vanity
and put a GFCI on the left side of the mirror. Then the client says "I
want to balance the look, so please put another receptacle on the right
side of the vanity."

Well, you can't "balance the look" with one GFCI and one non-GFCI, so you
put a GFCI on the right side also, wired off of the line side of the left
hand GFCI.

The result is convenient, non-daisy-chained GFCI's as well as the balanced
look that the client asked for.

What's wrong with rewiring so the power goes to one sink-side outlet,
and from there to the other and the tub? That way if the tub trips it
is a simple matter to reset it.

There's nothing *wrong* with that method, but "nothing wrong" doesn't
equate to the "only way".

The ONLY rationale for using multiple
GFCI outlets on a single circuit is if there is something on that
circuit that MUST NOT be protected by a GFCI that cannot be moved to a
non-protected circuit.

Something that *must not* be protected by a GFCI? Like another GFCI perhaps?

Let's take the tub out of this and address your specific "ONLY rationale"
assertion.

The client's desire for a balanced look is not enough of a reason for you?
If you were being paid to do the work and the client said "I want the
receptacles on both sides of the mirror to match", would you refuse to put 2 GFCI's on the same circuit based on some misguided thinking that there should
never be multiple GFCI's on a single circuit? Why wouldn't you employ the
simplest solution and use the line side of the upstream GFCI?

So in your mind, all of the various options at the following link are wrong?
You are the only one in the whole world that is right when you say there is
only one rationale for multiple GFCI on a single circuit? Really?

https://www.do-it-yourself-help.com/..._diagrams.html

Particularly when the bathroom was completely
renovated and an extra outlet was installed, along with the "new tub"
Whoever installed it either didn't know what they were doing or was
lazy. There really is no other option. There was not even the excuse
of using existing wiring as I strongly doubt the new "spa" tub was
replacing an existing "spa" tub - . I could be wrong - but even then a
"complete renovation" doesn't leave ANY excuse for 3 GFCIs on a single
circuit.

Do us a favor. Draw us a diagram of the bathroom's wiring and structure
as it existed prior to the work being done. We'll wait.

You have no clue how the previous wiring was done or the extent of the
work. I added fixtures and receptacles near my vanity by altering the
existing wiring in that area. I didn't have to rip out walls and run
new wires or anything like that. If you are going to make assumptions
about IJNJ's bathroom, so can I: The source wires come in at the tub and
allowed for the addition of a GFCI in that area. They then continued to
the vanity area, off of the line side, and were able to be modified to
allow for the new GFCI's near the mirror. No new wires had to be run to
or from the tub area. That gets us right to where we were when I said:

"The result is convenient, non-daisy-chained GFCI's as well as the balanced
look that the client asked for."

Am I right? I don't know. But neither do you. That is why I said there were
options. Unlike you, I never claimed that there is only one way to do it.
I also didn't insult the workers by calling them lazy or saying that they
didn't know what they were doing.

You really should learn to be more flexible.
You cannot take the tub out of the eqation because it is there. The
GFCI for the tub is hidden. Doesn't make sense..

What doesn't make sense is how badly you missed my point. I'm not going
to waste any time trying to explain it to you since you've made up your
mind that only you are right and everyone else is wrong.

Do some research. Read some home inspection forums. There is nothing
wrong with multiple GFCI's on one circuit as long as they are wired
from the line side of of the upstream device.



There may be an excuse for doing what was done, but no rationale - no
"logical basis for the course of action" being the definition of
rationale. two? sure, there may be a rationale - 3 - with one hidden
for the tub? Nope. a GFCI breaker would make a lot more sense - or
even a "deadhead" gfci in the linen closet which would allow the use
of any type of receptacle the decorator wanted to use.

Good grief. Now you're adding inconvenience and expense to the equation.
Give it up. You're just digging yourself into a deeper hole.
Nothing WRONG perhaps, but certainly nothing right either. I'll take
the recommendations of licenced electricians over a "home inspector"
site any day of the year.
Following the recommendations of several electricians and an
electrical inspector, I have ONE circuit in my house retrofitted with
2 GFCI outlets. The circuit feeds a powder-room receptacle, a
refrigerator, and an outdoor weatherproof on the rear deck. The
refrigerator specifies "do not connect to a GFCI protected circuit"
and both the outdoor and rhe powder-room receptacles required GFCI
protection to pas the electical safety inspection (required to get new
insurance coverage- aluminum wiring retrofit/inspection) Other
circuits requiring GFCI protection have either GFCI breakers in the
new panel, or a single "feed through" GFCI breaker. The inspector
would VERY CLOSELY inspect the rest of the workmanship in a house
where he found multiple GFCI outlets on the same circuit, assuming
whoever did the job was "not up on" proper and accepted wiring
technique.

...and as soon as (s)he noticed that the downstream GFCI were connected
to the line side of the upstream GFCI, he'd understand that it was done
for convenience sake and move on.

Just like I'm moving on.
Do that.

Last word?

when GFCI were new, they were expensive and it was common practice to wire several outlets daisy chained to one GFCI to save money.

Now the GFCI is not expensive so either way is fine.

Nothing to argue about here.

Seems like people on usenet love to argue

m

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 9:35:02 AM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 12:08:44 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 20:37:12 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 5:44:05 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 22:55:01 -0700 (PDT), ItsJoanNotJoann
wrote:

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 8:55:48 PM UTC-5, DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 3:13:28 PM UTC-4, ItsJoanNotJoann wrote:

Last year I did a complete bathroom remodel on the original
bathroom of this house. Three (3) GFCI receptacles were
installed. One for the new tub and one on either side of
large oval mirror over the medicine cabinet. I am happy
with those two. The power strip was for the second bathroom.

Were the ones on each side of mirror done just for a balanced look?

Yes!

I can possibly see a separate circuit for the tub (spa?) but a separate
circuit for each side of the medicine cabinet seems like over-kill. If
it wasn't for looks, and it's the same circuit, why didn't they put a
standard receptacle downstream of the GFCI?


I guess I wasn't clear with that. All three receptacles are on one
circuit.
Then if they used 3 GFCI outlets they didn't know what they were
doing.

I disagree. Based on what IJNJ described I can see using 3 GFCI's.

If the tub GFCI is behind a panel *and* is upstream of the vanity then it
might be inconvenient to reset it if something at the vanity caused it to
trip.

So, you run the wires off of the line side of the tub GFCI to the vanity
and put a GFCI on the left side of the mirror. Then the client says "I
want to balance the look, so please put another receptacle on the right
side of the vanity."

Well, you can't "balance the look" with one GFCI and one non-GFCI, so you
put a GFCI on the right side also, wired off of the line side of the left
hand GFCI.

The result is convenient, non-daisy-chained GFCI's as well as the balanced
look that the client asked for.

What's wrong with rewiring so the power goes to one sink-side outlet,
and from there to the other and the tub? That way if the tub trips it
is a simple matter to reset it.

There's nothing *wrong* with that method, but "nothing wrong" doesn't
equate to the "only way".

The ONLY rationale for using multiple
GFCI outlets on a single circuit is if there is something on that
circuit that MUST NOT be protected by a GFCI that cannot be moved to a
non-protected circuit.

Something that *must not* be protected by a GFCI? Like another GFCI perhaps?

Let's take the tub out of this and address your specific "ONLY rationale"
assertion.

The client's desire for a balanced look is not enough of a reason for you?
If you were being paid to do the work and the client said "I want the
receptacles on both sides of the mirror to match", would you refuse to put 2 GFCI's on the same circuit based on some misguided thinking that there should
never be multiple GFCI's on a single circuit? Why wouldn't you employ the
simplest solution and use the line side of the upstream GFCI?

So in your mind, all of the various options at the following link are wrong?
You are the only one in the whole world that is right when you say there is
only one rationale for multiple GFCI on a single circuit? Really?

https://www.do-it-yourself-help.com/..._diagrams.html

Particularly when the bathroom was completely
renovated and an extra outlet was installed, along with the "new tub"
Whoever installed it either didn't know what they were doing or was
lazy. There really is no other option. There was not even the excuse
of using existing wiring as I strongly doubt the new "spa" tub was
replacing an existing "spa" tub - . I could be wrong - but even then a
"complete renovation" doesn't leave ANY excuse for 3 GFCIs on a single
circuit.

Do us a favor. Draw us a diagram of the bathroom's wiring and structure
as it existed prior to the work being done. We'll wait.

You have no clue how the previous wiring was done or the extent of the
work. I added fixtures and receptacles near my vanity by altering the
existing wiring in that area. I didn't have to rip out walls and run
new wires or anything like that. If you are going to make assumptions
about IJNJ's bathroom, so can I: The source wires come in at the tub and
allowed for the addition of a GFCI in that area. They then continued to
the vanity area, off of the line side, and were able to be modified to
allow for the new GFCI's near the mirror. No new wires had to be run to
or from the tub area. That gets us right to where we were when I said:

"The result is convenient, non-daisy-chained GFCI's as well as the balanced
look that the client asked for."

Am I right? I don't know. But neither do you. That is why I said there were
options. Unlike you, I never claimed that there is only one way to do it.
I also didn't insult the workers by calling them lazy or saying that they
didn't know what they were doing.

You really should learn to be more flexible.

+1

It could have been done with two instead of three, putting the tub
on one of the GFCIs by the mirror, still giving the balanced look.
But we don't know the other considerations. One might be that if
the tub GFCI trips, it's an indication that something serious could
be wrong and you don't want someone just casually resetting it at
the mirror, not even realizing it's the tub that tripped it. I'd
have the tub on a separate, not as readily accessible GFCI for that reason.

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 9:46:18 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 06:34:58 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 12:08:44 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 20:37:12 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 5:44:05 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 22:55:01 -0700 (PDT), ItsJoanNotJoann
wrote:

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 8:55:48 PM UTC-5, DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 3:13:28 PM UTC-4, ItsJoanNotJoann wrote:

Last year I did a complete bathroom remodel on the original
bathroom of this house. Three (3) GFCI receptacles were
installed. One for the new tub and one on either side of
large oval mirror over the medicine cabinet. I am happy
with those two. The power strip was for the second bathroom.

Were the ones on each side of mirror done just for a balanced look?

Yes!

I can possibly see a separate circuit for the tub (spa?) but a separate
circuit for each side of the medicine cabinet seems like over-kill. If
it wasn't for looks, and it's the same circuit, why didn't they put a
standard receptacle downstream of the GFCI?


I guess I wasn't clear with that. All three receptacles are on one
circuit.
Then if they used 3 GFCI outlets they didn't know what they were
doing.

I disagree. Based on what IJNJ described I can see using 3 GFCI's.

If the tub GFCI is behind a panel *and* is upstream of the vanity then it
might be inconvenient to reset it if something at the vanity caused it to
trip.

So, you run the wires off of the line side of the tub GFCI to the vanity
and put a GFCI on the left side of the mirror. Then the client says "I
want to balance the look, so please put another receptacle on the right
side of the vanity."

Well, you can't "balance the look" with one GFCI and one non-GFCI, so you
put a GFCI on the right side also, wired off of the line side of the left
hand GFCI.

The result is convenient, non-daisy-chained GFCI's as well as the balanced
look that the client asked for.

What's wrong with rewiring so the power goes to one sink-side outlet,
and from there to the other and the tub? That way if the tub trips it
is a simple matter to reset it.

There's nothing *wrong* with that method, but "nothing wrong" doesn't
equate to the "only way".

The ONLY rationale for using multiple
GFCI outlets on a single circuit is if there is something on that
circuit that MUST NOT be protected by a GFCI that cannot be moved to a
non-protected circuit.

Something that *must not* be protected by a GFCI? Like another GFCI perhaps?

Let's take the tub out of this and address your specific "ONLY rationale"
assertion.

The client's desire for a balanced look is not enough of a reason for you?
If you were being paid to do the work and the client said "I want the
receptacles on both sides of the mirror to match", would you refuse to put 2 GFCI's on the same circuit based on some misguided thinking that there should
never be multiple GFCI's on a single circuit? Why wouldn't you employ the
simplest solution and use the line side of the upstream GFCI?

So in your mind, all of the various options at the following link are wrong?
You are the only one in the whole world that is right when you say there is
only one rationale for multiple GFCI on a single circuit? Really?

https://www.do-it-yourself-help.com/..._diagrams.html

Particularly when the bathroom was completely
renovated and an extra outlet was installed, along with the "new tub"
Whoever installed it either didn't know what they were doing or was
lazy. There really is no other option. There was not even the excuse
of using existing wiring as I strongly doubt the new "spa" tub was
replacing an existing "spa" tub - . I could be wrong - but even then a
"complete renovation" doesn't leave ANY excuse for 3 GFCIs on a single
circuit.

Do us a favor. Draw us a diagram of the bathroom's wiring and structure
as it existed prior to the work being done. We'll wait.

You have no clue how the previous wiring was done or the extent of the
work. I added fixtures and receptacles near my vanity by altering the
existing wiring in that area. I didn't have to rip out walls and run
new wires or anything like that. If you are going to make assumptions
about IJNJ's bathroom, so can I: The source wires come in at the tub and
allowed for the addition of a GFCI in that area. They then continued to
the vanity area, off of the line side, and were able to be modified to
allow for the new GFCI's near the mirror. No new wires had to be run to
or from the tub area. That gets us right to where we were when I said:

"The result is convenient, non-daisy-chained GFCI's as well as the balanced
look that the client asked for."

Am I right? I don't know. But neither do you. That is why I said there were
options. Unlike you, I never claimed that there is only one way to do it.
I also didn't insult the workers by calling them lazy or saying that they
didn't know what they were doing.

You really should learn to be more flexible.
You cannot take the tub out of the eqation because it is there. The
GFCI for the tub is hidden. Doesn't make sense..


It makes sense to me. By having it together with the tub, behind the
access panel where the pump is, if it trips, it can't be casually
reset by someone at the sink, with that person not even aware
that it was a tub fault that tripped it.


There may be an excuse for doing what was done, but no rationale - no
"logical basis for the course of action" being the definition of
rationale. two? sure, there may be a rationale - 3 - with one hidden
for the tub? Nope. a GFCI breaker would make a lot more sense - or
even a "deadhead" gfci in the linen closet which would allow the use
of any type of receptacle the decorator wanted to use.

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 12:37:59 AM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:



There may be an excuse for doing what was done, but no rationale - no
"logical basis for the course of action" being the definition of
rationale. two? sure, there may be a rationale - 3 - with one hidden
for the tub? Nope. a GFCI breaker would make a lot more sense - or
even a "deadhead" gfci in the linen closet which would allow the use
of any type of receptacle the decorator wanted to use.

Good grief. Now you're adding inconvenience and expense to the equation.
Give it up. You're just digging yourself into a deeper hole.

+1

No way a GFCI breaker, with bathroom outlets on it makes more sense.
I don't see any issue with how it was done, other than Clare doesn't
like it. I fully complies with code, it leaves a balanced look at
the sink mirror and the tub is on a separate GFCI that isn't as easily
reset. That's EXACTLY how I would have done it. The cost compared
to having everything on one GFCI is about the cost of two additional
GFCIs, which is nothing in the cost of a bathroom renovation or even
just the cost of having the electrical done.

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 2:53:28 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 21:37:54 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 9:46:18 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 06:34:58 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 12:08:44 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 20:37:12 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 5:44:05 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 22:55:01 -0700 (PDT), ItsJoanNotJoann
wrote:

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 8:55:48 PM UTC-5, DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 3:13:28 PM UTC-4, ItsJoanNotJoann wrote:

Last year I did a complete bathroom remodel on the original
bathroom of this house. Three (3) GFCI receptacles were
installed. One for the new tub and one on either side of
large oval mirror over the medicine cabinet. I am happy
with those two. The power strip was for the second bathroom.

Were the ones on each side of mirror done just for a balanced look?

Yes!

I can possibly see a separate circuit for the tub (spa?) but a separate
circuit for each side of the medicine cabinet seems like over-kill. If
it wasn't for looks, and it's the same circuit, why didn't they put a
standard receptacle downstream of the GFCI?


I guess I wasn't clear with that. All three receptacles are on one
circuit.
Then if they used 3 GFCI outlets they didn't know what they were
doing.

I disagree. Based on what IJNJ described I can see using 3 GFCI's.

If the tub GFCI is behind a panel *and* is upstream of the vanity then it
might be inconvenient to reset it if something at the vanity caused it to
trip.

So, you run the wires off of the line side of the tub GFCI to the vanity
and put a GFCI on the left side of the mirror. Then the client says "I
want to balance the look, so please put another receptacle on the right
side of the vanity."

Well, you can't "balance the look" with one GFCI and one non-GFCI, so you
put a GFCI on the right side also, wired off of the line side of the left
hand GFCI.

The result is convenient, non-daisy-chained GFCI's as well as the balanced
look that the client asked for.

What's wrong with rewiring so the power goes to one sink-side outlet,
and from there to the other and the tub? That way if the tub trips it
is a simple matter to reset it.

There's nothing *wrong* with that method, but "nothing wrong" doesn't
equate to the "only way".

The ONLY rationale for using multiple
GFCI outlets on a single circuit is if there is something on that
circuit that MUST NOT be protected by a GFCI that cannot be moved to a
non-protected circuit.

Something that *must not* be protected by a GFCI? Like another GFCI perhaps?

Let's take the tub out of this and address your specific "ONLY rationale"
assertion.

The client's desire for a balanced look is not enough of a reason for you?
If you were being paid to do the work and the client said "I want the
receptacles on both sides of the mirror to match", would you refuse to put 2 GFCI's on the same circuit based on some misguided thinking that there should
never be multiple GFCI's on a single circuit? Why wouldn't you employ the
simplest solution and use the line side of the upstream GFCI?

So in your mind, all of the various options at the following link are wrong?
You are the only one in the whole world that is right when you say there is
only one rationale for multiple GFCI on a single circuit? Really?

https://www.do-it-yourself-help.com/..._diagrams.html

Particularly when the bathroom was completely
renovated and an extra outlet was installed, along with the "new tub"
Whoever installed it either didn't know what they were doing or was
lazy. There really is no other option. There was not even the excuse
of using existing wiring as I strongly doubt the new "spa" tub was
replacing an existing "spa" tub - . I could be wrong - but even then a
"complete renovation" doesn't leave ANY excuse for 3 GFCIs on a single
circuit.

Do us a favor. Draw us a diagram of the bathroom's wiring and structure
as it existed prior to the work being done. We'll wait.

You have no clue how the previous wiring was done or the extent of the
work. I added fixtures and receptacles near my vanity by altering the
existing wiring in that area. I didn't have to rip out walls and run
new wires or anything like that. If you are going to make assumptions
about IJNJ's bathroom, so can I: The source wires come in at the tub and
allowed for the addition of a GFCI in that area. They then continued to
the vanity area, off of the line side, and were able to be modified to
allow for the new GFCI's near the mirror. No new wires had to be run to
or from the tub area. That gets us right to where we were when I said:

"The result is convenient, non-daisy-chained GFCI's as well as the balanced
look that the client asked for."

Am I right? I don't know. But neither do you. That is why I said there were
options. Unlike you, I never claimed that there is only one way to do it.
I also didn't insult the workers by calling them lazy or saying that they
didn't know what they were doing.

You really should learn to be more flexible.
You cannot take the tub out of the eqation because it is there. The
GFCI for the tub is hidden. Doesn't make sense..

What doesn't make sense is how badly you missed my point. I'm not going
to waste any time trying to explain it to you since you've made up your
mind that only you are right and everyone else is wrong.

Do some research. Read some home inspection forums. There is nothing
wrong with multiple GFCI's on one circuit as long as they are wired
from the line side of of the upstream device.



There may be an excuse for doing what was done, but no rationale - no
"logical basis for the course of action" being the definition of
rationale. two? sure, there may be a rationale - 3 - with one hidden
for the tub? Nope. a GFCI breaker would make a lot more sense - or
even a "deadhead" gfci in the linen closet which would allow the use
of any type of receptacle the decorator wanted to use.

Good grief. Now you're adding inconvenience and expense to the equation.
Give it up. You're just digging yourself into a deeper hole.
Nothing WRONG perhaps, but certainly nothing right either. I'll take
the recommendations of licenced electricians over a "home inspector"
site any day of the year.
Following the recommendations of several electricians and an
electrical inspector,

You're so smart, why did you need those guys, including an electrical
inspector to tell you what to do? And someone here, without even
seeing it, could chime in like you did and tell you they were
incompetent, because it all could have been done with one GFCI breaker.




I have ONE circuit in my house retrofitted with
2 GFCI outlets. The circuit feeds a powder-room receptacle, a
refrigerator, and an outdoor weatherproof on the rear deck. The
refrigerator specifies "do not connect to a GFCI protected circuit"
and both the outdoor and rhe powder-room receptacles required GFCI
protection to pas the electical safety inspection (required to get new
insurance coverage- aluminum wiring retrofit/inspection) Other
circuits requiring GFCI protection have either GFCI breakers in the
new panel, or a single "feed through" GFCI breaker. The inspector
would VERY CLOSELY inspect the rest of the workmanship in a house
where he found multiple GFCI outlets on the same circuit, assuming
whoever did the job was "not up on" proper and accepted wiring
technique.

And you know this how? You asked him or are you a mind reader?
You can put multiple GFCI on the same circuit for CONVENIENCE for
one thing. It also greatly helps isolate the problem of what caused
the trip. If it were my house, I'd prefer a separate GFCI receptacle
at the powder room sink and one that's associated with outside.
If one trips, now I know that it might be a hand dryer that someone
used vs looking outside for wet receptacles. Sure, you can do it
your way, but that doesn't make the alternative ways wrong or
something that a inspector is going to look at with a jaundiced eye.