I have an older home.

I would like to replace some of the two-hole receptacles with three-hole ones.

A friend told me to use GFCI, or better a GFCI receptacle.

(I also see a GFNT1 type. I have no idea what that is...)

What do you think?

Thanks!

Deguza

On Thursday, May 14, 2020 at 2:04:38 AM UTC-4, Deguza wrote:
I have an older home.

I would like to replace some of the two-hole receptacles with three-hole ones.

A friend told me to use GFCI, or better a GFCI receptacle.

(I also see a GFNT1 type. I have no idea what that is...)

What do you think?

Thanks!

Deguza

Depends what you're most worried about and where the receptacle is located.
A GFCI protects against ground faults, which is important since with a two
prong receptacle you have no ground. If there was a short from the hot
wire to the metal case of a toaster or similar, the metal case would become
energized and if you touched it while standing on a wet floor or touching
a grounded appliance or water pipe, you could get shocked. With a GFCI,
it will cut off the power when it detects a fault current of just a few
miliamps, way below a harmful level. A GFCI receptacle will also protect
downstream receptacles that are daisy chained to it, if wired in correcly.

AFCI is to detect and trip on arc faults, an example would be an appliance
cord under a rug that's worn or wires some rodent has chewed, etc.
An AFCI is most useful if it's in the panel, since it would then protect
the whole wiring run on that circuit. At a receptacle, it will only
protect what's plugged in.

For sure if it's a wet location, basement, possibly used for extension
cords run outside, kitchen, bath, etc, I would go with GFCI. I'd go
with that for any location, unless there is reason to believe AFCI would
be more important. For the worry warts, I guess there are ones that will
do both GFCI and AFCI.

The GFNT1 thing, I didn't know about those. Looks like that's the newest
GFCI that now includes automatic, periodic self-test, while the previous
ones had a test button. So, I'd go with those for GFCI, unless they cost
significantly more.

On Thu, 14 May 2020 06:09:40 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, May 14, 2020 at 2:04:38 AM UTC-4, Deguza wrote:
I have an older home.

I would like to replace some of the two-hole receptacles with three-hole ones.

A friend told me to use GFCI, or better a GFCI receptacle.

(I also see a GFNT1 type. I have no idea what that is...)

What do you think?

Thanks!

Deguza

Depends what you're most worried about and where the receptacle is located.
A GFCI protects against ground faults, which is important since with a two
prong receptacle you have no ground. If there was a short from the hot
wire to the metal case of a toaster or similar, the metal case would become
energized and if you touched it while standing on a wet floor or touching
a grounded appliance or water pipe, you could get shocked. With a GFCI,
it will cut off the power when it detects a fault current of just a few
miliamps, way below a harmful level. A GFCI receptacle will also protect
downstream receptacles that are daisy chained to it, if wired in correcly.

AFCI is to detect and trip on arc faults, an example would be an appliance
cord under a rug that's worn or wires some rodent has chewed, etc.
An AFCI is most useful if it's in the panel, since it would then protect
the whole wiring run on that circuit. At a receptacle, it will only
protect what's plugged in.

For sure if it's a wet location, basement, possibly used for extension
cords run outside, kitchen, bath, etc, I would go with GFCI. I'd go
with that for any location, unless there is reason to believe AFCI would
be more important. For the worry warts, I guess there are ones that will
do both GFCI and AFCI.

The GFNT1 thing, I didn't know about those. Looks like that's the newest
GFCI that now includes automatic, periodic self-test, while the previous
ones had a test button. So, I'd go with those for GFCI, unless they cost
significantly more.



AFCIs also incorporate ground fault protection but at the "equipment
protection" level of 30ma instead of the "Personnel" level 5ma like a
GFCI.
30ma is getting up into the danger level. You are getting into the
"freeze" range where you might not be able to let go.

On Thu, 14 May 2020 18:10:33 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 14 May 2020 06:09:40 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, May 14, 2020 at 2:04:38 AM UTC-4, Deguza wrote:
I have an older home.

I would like to replace some of the two-hole receptacles with three-hole ones.

A friend told me to use GFCI, or better a GFCI receptacle.

(I also see a GFNT1 type. I have no idea what that is...)

What do you think?

Thanks!

Deguza

Depends what you're most worried about and where the receptacle is located.
A GFCI protects against ground faults, which is important since with a two
prong receptacle you have no ground. If there was a short from the hot
wire to the metal case of a toaster or similar, the metal case would become
energized and if you touched it while standing on a wet floor or touching
a grounded appliance or water pipe, you could get shocked. With a GFCI,
it will cut off the power when it detects a fault current of just a few
miliamps, way below a harmful level. A GFCI receptacle will also protect
downstream receptacles that are daisy chained to it, if wired in correcly.

AFCI is to detect and trip on arc faults, an example would be an appliance
cord under a rug that's worn or wires some rodent has chewed, etc.
An AFCI is most useful if it's in the panel, since it would then protect
the whole wiring run on that circuit. At a receptacle, it will only
protect what's plugged in.

For sure if it's a wet location, basement, possibly used for extension
cords run outside, kitchen, bath, etc, I would go with GFCI. I'd go
with that for any location, unless there is reason to believe AFCI would
be more important. For the worry warts, I guess there are ones that will
do both GFCI and AFCI.

The GFNT1 thing, I didn't know about those. Looks like that's the newest
GFCI that now includes automatic, periodic self-test, while the previous
ones had a test button. So, I'd go with those for GFCI, unless they cost
significantly more.



AFCIs also incorporate ground fault protection but at the "equipment
protection" level of 30ma instead of the "Personnel" level 5ma like a
GFCI.
30ma is getting up into the danger level. You are getting into the
"freeze" range where you might not be able to let go.
Code allows a GFCI "outlet" labelled "no equipment ground". It does
NOT allow an GFCI breaker as far as I know - and definitely NOT an
AFCI - when running with no "third wire" ground. Also - from memory,
NO downstream protected outlets from that "no equipment ground" GFCI
outlet.

On Thu, 14 May 2020 20:23:05 -0400, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Thu, 14 May 2020 18:10:33 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 14 May 2020 06:09:40 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, May 14, 2020 at 2:04:38 AM UTC-4, Deguza wrote:
I have an older home.

I would like to replace some of the two-hole receptacles with three-hole ones.

A friend told me to use GFCI, or better a GFCI receptacle.

(I also see a GFNT1 type. I have no idea what that is...)

What do you think?

Thanks!

Deguza

Depends what you're most worried about and where the receptacle is located.
A GFCI protects against ground faults, which is important since with a two
prong receptacle you have no ground. If there was a short from the hot
wire to the metal case of a toaster or similar, the metal case would become
energized and if you touched it while standing on a wet floor or touching
a grounded appliance or water pipe, you could get shocked. With a GFCI,
it will cut off the power when it detects a fault current of just a few
miliamps, way below a harmful level. A GFCI receptacle will also protect
downstream receptacles that are daisy chained to it, if wired in correcly.

AFCI is to detect and trip on arc faults, an example would be an appliance
cord under a rug that's worn or wires some rodent has chewed, etc.
An AFCI is most useful if it's in the panel, since it would then protect
the whole wiring run on that circuit. At a receptacle, it will only
protect what's plugged in.

For sure if it's a wet location, basement, possibly used for extension
cords run outside, kitchen, bath, etc, I would go with GFCI. I'd go
with that for any location, unless there is reason to believe AFCI would
be more important. For the worry warts, I guess there are ones that will
do both GFCI and AFCI.

The GFNT1 thing, I didn't know about those. Looks like that's the newest
GFCI that now includes automatic, periodic self-test, while the previous
ones had a test button. So, I'd go with those for GFCI, unless they cost
significantly more.



AFCIs also incorporate ground fault protection but at the "equipment
protection" level of 30ma instead of the "Personnel" level 5ma like a
GFCI.
30ma is getting up into the danger level. You are getting into the
"freeze" range where you might not be able to let go.
Code allows a GFCI "outlet" labelled "no equipment ground". It does
NOT allow an GFCI breaker as far as I know - and definitely NOT an
AFCI - when running with no "third wire" ground. Also - from memory,
NO downstream protected outlets from that "no equipment ground" GFCI
outlet.

Maybe in Canada but not the US. As long as the circuit is GFCI
protected and you use the labels, you can replace all receptacles on
that circuit with grounding type receptacles.

406.4(D)(2)(c) A non€“grounding-type receptacle(s) shall be permitted
to be replaced with a grounding-type receptacle(s) where
supplied through a ground-fault circuit interrupter. Where
grounding-type receptacles are supplied through the ground fault
circuit interrupter, grounding-type receptacles or their
cover plates shall be marked €œGFCI Protected€� and €œNo Equipment
Ground,€� visible after installation. An equipment grounding
conductor shall not be connected between the grounding type
receptacles.

On Fri, 15 May 2020 01:28:17 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 14 May 2020 20:23:05 -0400, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Thu, 14 May 2020 18:10:33 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 14 May 2020 06:09:40 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, May 14, 2020 at 2:04:38 AM UTC-4, Deguza wrote:
I have an older home.

I would like to replace some of the two-hole receptacles with three-hole ones.

A friend told me to use GFCI, or better a GFCI receptacle.

(I also see a GFNT1 type. I have no idea what that is...)

What do you think?

Thanks!

Deguza

Depends what you're most worried about and where the receptacle is located.
A GFCI protects against ground faults, which is important since with a two
prong receptacle you have no ground. If there was a short from the hot
wire to the metal case of a toaster or similar, the metal case would become
energized and if you touched it while standing on a wet floor or touching
a grounded appliance or water pipe, you could get shocked. With a GFCI,
it will cut off the power when it detects a fault current of just a few
miliamps, way below a harmful level. A GFCI receptacle will also protect
downstream receptacles that are daisy chained to it, if wired in correcly.

AFCI is to detect and trip on arc faults, an example would be an appliance
cord under a rug that's worn or wires some rodent has chewed, etc.
An AFCI is most useful if it's in the panel, since it would then protect
the whole wiring run on that circuit. At a receptacle, it will only
protect what's plugged in.

For sure if it's a wet location, basement, possibly used for extension
cords run outside, kitchen, bath, etc, I would go with GFCI. I'd go
with that for any location, unless there is reason to believe AFCI would
be more important. For the worry warts, I guess there are ones that will
do both GFCI and AFCI.

The GFNT1 thing, I didn't know about those. Looks like that's the newest
GFCI that now includes automatic, periodic self-test, while the previous
ones had a test button. So, I'd go with those for GFCI, unless they cost
significantly more.



AFCIs also incorporate ground fault protection but at the "equipment
protection" level of 30ma instead of the "Personnel" level 5ma like a
GFCI.
30ma is getting up into the danger level. You are getting into the
"freeze" range where you might not be able to let go.
Code allows a GFCI "outlet" labelled "no equipment ground". It does
NOT allow an GFCI breaker as far as I know - and definitely NOT an
AFCI - when running with no "third wire" ground. Also - from memory,
NO downstream protected outlets from that "no equipment ground" GFCI
outlet.

Maybe in Canada but not the US. As long as the circuit is GFCI
protected and you use the labels, you can replace all receptacles on
that circuit with grounding type receptacles.

406.4(D)(2)(c) A non–grounding-type receptacle(s) shall be permitted
to be replaced with a grounding-type receptacle(s) where
supplied through a ground-fault circuit interrupter. Where
grounding-type receptacles are supplied through the ground fault
circuit interrupter, grounding-type receptacles or their
cover plates shall be marked “GFCI Protected” and “No Equipment
Ground,” visible after installation. An equipment grounding
conductor shall not be connected between the grounding type
receptacles.
OK. So you can use a gfci breaker on a 2 wire non groundedcircuit. I
stand corrected (and it MAY be a difference in code between Canada and
the USA. Can you find where you can use the GFCI device to protect
downstream devices as well? I MAY be wrong there too - I was going
from memory as I said.

AFCI still verbotten - right???

In Clare Snyder writes:
[snip]
Code allows a GFCI "outlet" labelled "no equipment ground". It does
NOT allow an GFCI breaker as far as I know - and definitely NOT an
AFCI - when running with no "third wire" ground. Also - from memory,
NO downstream protected outlets from that "no equipment ground" GFCI
outlet.

Maybe in Canada but not the US. As long as the circuit is GFCI
protected and you use the labels, you can replace all receptacles on
that circuit with grounding type receptacles.

406.4(D)(2)(c) A non–grounding-type receptacle(s) shall be permitted
to be replaced with a grounding-type receptacle(s) where
supplied through a ground-fault circuit interrupter. Where
grounding-type receptacles are supplied through the ground fault
circuit interrupter, grounding-type receptacles or their
cover plates shall be marked “GFCI Protected” and “No Equipment
Ground,” visible after installation. An equipment grounding
conductor shall not be connected between the grounding type
receptacles.
OK. So you can use a gfci breaker on a 2 wire non groundedcircuit. I
stand corrected (and it MAY be a difference in code between Canada and
the USA. Can you find where you can use the GFCI device to protect
downstream devices as well? I MAY be wrong there too - I was going
from memory as I said.

I can't point to US code, but we recently had a 1950's era
run of two wire outlets updated by a licensed, commercial
electrician.

They replaced the first unit with a GFCI, and replaced
the next three or so with three wire, standard outlets.

They put labels on each of them saying something
like "GFCI protected circuit", but did NOT run
a third wire, safety, ground.

So yeah, it seems to be ok to do so.


--
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key

[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

On Friday, May 15, 2020 at 2:35:46 AM UTC-4, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2020 01:28:17 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 14 May 2020 20:23:05 -0400, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Thu, 14 May 2020 18:10:33 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 14 May 2020 06:09:40 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, May 14, 2020 at 2:04:38 AM UTC-4, Deguza wrote:
I have an older home.

I would like to replace some of the two-hole receptacles with three-hole ones.

A friend told me to use GFCI, or better a GFCI receptacle.

(I also see a GFNT1 type. I have no idea what that is...)

What do you think?

Thanks!

Deguza

Depends what you're most worried about and where the receptacle is located.
A GFCI protects against ground faults, which is important since with a two
prong receptacle you have no ground. If there was a short from the hot
wire to the metal case of a toaster or similar, the metal case would become
energized and if you touched it while standing on a wet floor or touching
a grounded appliance or water pipe, you could get shocked. With a GFCI,
it will cut off the power when it detects a fault current of just a few
miliamps, way below a harmful level. A GFCI receptacle will also protect
downstream receptacles that are daisy chained to it, if wired in correcly.

AFCI is to detect and trip on arc faults, an example would be an appliance
cord under a rug that's worn or wires some rodent has chewed, etc.
An AFCI is most useful if it's in the panel, since it would then protect
the whole wiring run on that circuit. At a receptacle, it will only
protect what's plugged in.

For sure if it's a wet location, basement, possibly used for extension
cords run outside, kitchen, bath, etc, I would go with GFCI. I'd go
with that for any location, unless there is reason to believe AFCI would
be more important. For the worry warts, I guess there are ones that will
do both GFCI and AFCI.

The GFNT1 thing, I didn't know about those. Looks like that's the newest
GFCI that now includes automatic, periodic self-test, while the previous
ones had a test button. So, I'd go with those for GFCI, unless they cost
significantly more.



AFCIs also incorporate ground fault protection but at the "equipment
protection" level of 30ma instead of the "Personnel" level 5ma like a
GFCI.
30ma is getting up into the danger level. You are getting into the
"freeze" range where you might not be able to let go.
Code allows a GFCI "outlet" labelled "no equipment ground". It does
NOT allow an GFCI breaker as far as I know - and definitely NOT an
AFCI - when running with no "third wire" ground. Also - from memory,
NO downstream protected outlets from that "no equipment ground" GFCI
outlet.

Maybe in Canada but not the US. As long as the circuit is GFCI
protected and you use the labels, you can replace all receptacles on
that circuit with grounding type receptacles.

406.4(D)(2)(c) A non€“grounding-type receptacle(s) shall be permitted
to be replaced with a grounding-type receptacle(s) where
supplied through a ground-fault circuit interrupter. Where
grounding-type receptacles are supplied through the ground fault
circuit interrupter, grounding-type receptacles or their
cover plates shall be marked €œGFCI Protected€� and €œNo Equipment
Ground,€� visible after installation. An equipment grounding
conductor shall not be connected between the grounding type
receptacles.
OK. So you can use a gfci breaker on a 2 wire non groundedcircuit. I
stand corrected (and it MAY be a difference in code between Canada and
the USA. Can you find where you can use the GFCI device to protect
downstream devices as well? I MAY be wrong there too - I was going
from memory as I said.

He just did. The code says that a receptacle protected by a GFCI
interrupter can be marked as GFCI protected. It says nothing about that
it has to be a breaker that provides the GFCI function.




AFCI still verbotten - right???


IDK what verbotten means here. If you mean an AFCI receptacle won't provide
that function to the circuit downstream, I would expect that like a GFCI it
would. Seems logical, that you already have what's needed there so why not
use it to provide protection downstream, but IDK.

In article ,
says...

AFCI still verbotten - right???


IDK what verbotten means here. If you mean an AFCI receptacle won't provide
that function to the circuit downstream, I would expect that like a GFCI it
would. Seems logical, that you already have what's needed there so why not
use it to provide protection downstream, but IDK.




It is a German ( I think) word that means forbidden. Just one of the
words used on some older tv shows that gets into the American language.

In this context I would think it is used to mean not legal.

On Fri, 15 May 2020 10:07:05 -0400, Ralph Mowery
wrote:

In article ,
says...

AFCI still verbotten - right???


IDK what verbotten means here. If you mean an AFCI receptacle won't provide
that function to the circuit downstream, I would expect that like a GFCI it
would. Seems logical, that you already have what's needed there so why not
use it to provide protection downstream, but IDK.




It is a German ( I think) word that means forbidden. Just one of the
words used on some older tv shows that gets into the American language.

In this context I would think it is used to mean not legal.

Because an AFCI does not provide adequate ground fault protection
forsafety on an ungrounded sircuit

On Fri, 15 May 2020 02:35:43 -0400, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Fri, 15 May 2020 01:28:17 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 14 May 2020 20:23:05 -0400, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Thu, 14 May 2020 18:10:33 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 14 May 2020 06:09:40 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, May 14, 2020 at 2:04:38 AM UTC-4, Deguza wrote:
I have an older home.

I would like to replace some of the two-hole receptacles with three-hole ones.

A friend told me to use GFCI, or better a GFCI receptacle.

(I also see a GFNT1 type. I have no idea what that is...)

What do you think?

Thanks!

Deguza

Depends what you're most worried about and where the receptacle is located.
A GFCI protects against ground faults, which is important since with a two
prong receptacle you have no ground. If there was a short from the hot
wire to the metal case of a toaster or similar, the metal case would become
energized and if you touched it while standing on a wet floor or touching
a grounded appliance or water pipe, you could get shocked. With a GFCI,
it will cut off the power when it detects a fault current of just a few
miliamps, way below a harmful level. A GFCI receptacle will also protect
downstream receptacles that are daisy chained to it, if wired in correcly.

AFCI is to detect and trip on arc faults, an example would be an appliance
cord under a rug that's worn or wires some rodent has chewed, etc.
An AFCI is most useful if it's in the panel, since it would then protect
the whole wiring run on that circuit. At a receptacle, it will only
protect what's plugged in.

For sure if it's a wet location, basement, possibly used for extension
cords run outside, kitchen, bath, etc, I would go with GFCI. I'd go
with that for any location, unless there is reason to believe AFCI would
be more important. For the worry warts, I guess there are ones that will
do both GFCI and AFCI.

The GFNT1 thing, I didn't know about those. Looks like that's the newest
GFCI that now includes automatic, periodic self-test, while the previous
ones had a test button. So, I'd go with those for GFCI, unless they cost
significantly more.



AFCIs also incorporate ground fault protection but at the "equipment
protection" level of 30ma instead of the "Personnel" level 5ma like a
GFCI.
30ma is getting up into the danger level. You are getting into the
"freeze" range where you might not be able to let go.
Code allows a GFCI "outlet" labelled "no equipment ground". It does
NOT allow an GFCI breaker as far as I know - and definitely NOT an
AFCI - when running with no "third wire" ground. Also - from memory,
NO downstream protected outlets from that "no equipment ground" GFCI
outlet.

Maybe in Canada but not the US. As long as the circuit is GFCI
protected and you use the labels, you can replace all receptacles on
that circuit with grounding type receptacles.

406.4(D)(2)(c) A non€“grounding-type receptacle(s) shall be permitted
to be replaced with a grounding-type receptacle(s) where
supplied through a ground-fault circuit interrupter. Where
grounding-type receptacles are supplied through the ground fault
circuit interrupter, grounding-type receptacles or their
cover plates shall be marked €œGFCI Protected€� and €œNo Equipment
Ground,€� visible after installation. An equipment grounding
conductor shall not be connected between the grounding type
receptacles.
OK. So you can use a gfci breaker on a 2 wire non groundedcircuit. I
stand corrected (and it MAY be a difference in code between Canada and
the USA. Can you find where you can use the GFCI device to protect
downstream devices as well? I MAY be wrong there too - I was going
from memory as I said.

AFCI still verbotten - right???

"non€“grounding-type receptacle(s)" implying one or more.

(a) talks about the device type but it still says "non€“grounding-type
receptacle(s)". If you think about it, the intent is to provide GFCI
protection in lieu of a ground if the ground is not available. This
still will not provide complete surge protection when using those
devices and the GFCI might keep you from being connected to the fault
long enough st stop your heart but it doesn't keep you from falling
off the ladder.

AFCI is not GFCI unless the device can provide both functions. Cuttler
Hammer made the first true GFCI/AFCI but now the others are catching
up. I think the long term goal is to make that the default breaker
type for all but large commercial and special applications. Our
European and NZ/Australian neighbors have been using whole panel RCDs
for years (30ma protection) but the down side of this approach is one
fault takes down the whole house.

http://gfretwell.com/ftp/New%20Zeala...i/Breakers.jpg