some models of ideal suretest require...

[BARRY ADAIR]

upgrade (http://www.idealindustries.com/media/pdfs/products/notices/suretest_upgrade_program.pdf)

http://www.idealindustries.com/media/pdfs/products/notices/suretest_upgrade_program.pdf

disregard if this is a duplicate post that search didn't retrieve

[Eric Barker]

Nice info Barry. But you still need to consider (and I'll guess that you already know) that AFCI and GFCI manufacturer's do not recognize any test other than the one provided by their own devices. A few weeks ago a GFCI receptacle tripped when its test button was used but did not trip with my Ideal tester - I did not report on it because the Ideal test was technically invalid. Because of this I really don't see much need for such after-market testers.

[Vern Heiler]

Nice info Barry. But you still need to consider (and I'll guess that you already know) that AFCI and GFCI manufacturer's do not recognize any test other than the one provided by their own devices. A few weeks ago a GFCI receptacle tripped when its test button was used but did not trip with my Ideal tester - I did not report on it because the Ideal test was technically invalid. Because of this I really don't see much need for such after-market testers.

Without such testers, how would you verify GFCI protection of downstream receptacles? I guess you could trip the inbuilt and go back and chech each receptacle, but thats a lot of extra running up and down stairs and around the exterior.

[Jerry Peck]

Nice info Barry. But you still need to consider (and I'll guess that you already know) that AFCI and GFCI manufacturer's do not recognize any test other than the one provided by their own devices. A few weeks ago a GFCI receptacle tripped when its test button was used but did not trip with my Ideal tester - I did not report on it because the Ideal test was technically invalid. Because of this I really don't see much need for such after-market testers.

Eric,

Sounds to me like you either had: a) no ground at the receptacle you were testing; or b) the GFCI was not protecting that receptacle.

Did you did *that* receptacle to see if it had power with the GFCI 'on' and then did not have power with the GFCI 'tripped'? If not, the receptacle probably simply was not protected, and if it was 'supposed to be GFCI protected', then you *missed* reporting a receptacle which was not GFCI protected. On the other hand, if that receptacle was GFCI protected and you verified that it did not have power with the GFCI tripped by the GFCIs test button, then probably what your SureTest was telling you was that the receptacle you were testing 'did not have a proper ground', in which case you *missed* reporting a receptacle with a bad or no ground.

It is a mistake to immediately jump as ignoring equipment which is telling you that *something is not right*, you need to take the time to figure out what your equipment is telling you.

It is *not* uncommon to find a receptacle which is supposed to be GFCI protected by which does not trip the GFCI *you think* is protecting it - the GFCI simply 'may not be protecting the receptacle' and there is nothing wrong with your test equipment.

If one does not understand their equipment, such as operating an infrared camera, we all say they should not be using it - and that applies to all test equipment that one uses.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Insufficient, "floating", or no equipment ground would display same symptoms Eric described, when using a tester (such as replaced using fiber wasters previously self-grounding to metal box) on GF "test" using other than integral test button for the device affording protection.