any electrical code prevent GFI outlet wired to GFI breaker

[Charlie Crouthamel]

Is there an electrical code that prevents a GFI outlet wired to a GFI breaker in the main panel.
Thanks.

[Jim Port]

No rule against this, but it is unnecessary as the breaker is already supplying the gfi protection.

- - - Updated - - -

No rule against this, but it is unnecessary as the breaker is already supplying the gfi protection.

[Lon Henderson]

No rule against this, but it is unnecessary as the breaker is already supplying the gfi protection.

Yes, there is a rule against it although I dunno why, but redundant GFCIs on the same circuit is not allowed.

[Jerry Peck]

Yes, there is a rule against it although I dunno why, but redundant GFCIs on the same circuit is not allowed.

Would you mind pointing that rule out?

There is no rule prohibiting it, not that I know of, other than common sense and nuisance tripping of a GFCI which is not where you would be looking to reset it. But code does not cover common sense anyway.

[Scott Patterson]

Would you mind pointing that rule out?

There is no rule prohibiting it, not that I know of, other than common sense and nuisance tripping of a GFCI which is not where you would be looking to reset it. But code does not cover common sense anyway.


I agree with Jerry, noting wrong with other than what he noted and I'll add it is a waste of money.

[Jim Port]

Yes, there is a rule against it although I dunno why, but redundant GFCIs on the same circuit is not allowed.

Not according to the NEC. Please quote your source.

[Lon Henderson]

I agree with Jerry, noting wrong with other than what he noted and I'll add it is a waste of money.
I sit corrected. Some years ago I saw an episode of Holmes on homes where he said you could not do this. Later an electrician confirmed that you couldn't have redundant GFCI's. And I just never looked into it any further.

[Eric Barker]

It's a condition that I do not report on.

[Mike Twitty]

I sit corrected. Some years ago I saw an episode of Holmes on homes where he said you could not do this. Later an electrician confirmed that you couldn't have redundant GFCI's. And I just never looked into it any further.

Holmes is in Canada. I liked watching the show, but they made some stupid recommendations on electrical installations.

[Raymond Wand]

The other day I was watching Holmes on Homes and Mike was grabbing at a bunch of K&T wiring in a basement, and said, "all this knob and tube has to go its aluminum"! :help:

[Lon Henderson]

The other day I was watching Holmes on Homes and Mike was grabbing at a bunch of K&T wiring in a basement, and said, "all this knob and tube has to go its aluminum"! :help:
In the years since, I've learned a lot more about our man Holmes. I still like the guy, but he isn't the last word.

I'm going to start teaching Home Inspection at a local school here and this has reminded me that I should do some research into some of the things that I've been thinking and saying for years that I learned from "old timers".

[Bruce Ramsey]

I'm going to start teaching Home Inspection at a local school here and this has reminded me that I should do some research into some of the things that I've been thinking and saying for years that I learned from "old timers".

Get yourself a copy of Code Check Complete. Everytime you think one of these truisms, review code check. It helps.

- - - Updated - - -



I'm going to start teaching Home Inspection at a local school here and this has reminded me that I should do some research into some of the things that I've been thinking and saying for years that I learned from "old timers".

Get yourself a copy of Code Check Complete. Everytime you think one of these truisms, review code check. It helps.

[Lon Henderson]

Get yourself a copy of Code Check Complete. Everytime you think one of these truisms, review code check. It helps.

I've got copies of Code Check, Code, Electrical books, and books on soil analysis, plumbing, construction and more out my arse. I don't have the time to go through everything I've been told. That one about GFCIs wasn't crazy enough to warrant investigation.

[Michael Bronner]

I always report redundant GFCIs. If you don't, you will probably get that phone call sometime down the road asking why a GFCI tripped but it won't reset. Best to explain it to your client at the time of the inspection then later when you have forgotten. Besides, redundant protection is almost always a sign that someone with insufficient experience has been doing some wiring in the home. Makes me look just a little bit closer at the rest of the home's wiring.

[Jerry Peck]

I always report redundant GFCIs.

Define "report".


Besides, redundant protection is almost always a sign that someone with insufficient experience has been doing some wiring in the home.

I disagree.

I have found many in new construction, having been done by electricians.

I would agree if you had stated that it is an indication of someone who did not know, did not care, or was not paying attention ... to what they were doing (all three or which can apply to new construction at various times).

[chris brown]

From what i recall, GFCI panel breakers trip at a much higher amperage than GFI receptacle breakers, which to me, makes the GFI receptacle much safer. 50 milliamps vs 6 milliamps I think. I shocked myself with a gfi once, so i can imagine that 8 times the milliamps would hurt much more.

[bob smit]

From what i recall, GFCI panel breakers trip at a much higher amperage than GFI receptacle breakers, which to me, makes the GFI receptacle much safer. 50 milliamps vs 6 milliamps I think. I shocked myself with a gfi once, so i can imagine that 8 times the milliamps would hurt much more.

Correct me if wrong, but I suspect you are confusing GFI with GFP ?

[Robin Wells]

Holmes is in Canada. I liked watching the show, but they made some stupid recommendations on electrical installations.

He sometimes does work in US.. but vast majority in Toronto. But there is no code preventing it in Canada.

[Robin Wells]

From what i recall, GFCI panel breakers trip at a much higher amperage than GFI receptacle breakers, which to me, makes the GFI receptacle much safer. 50 milliamps vs 6 milliamps I think. I shocked myself with a gfi once, so i can imagine that 8 times the milliamps would hurt much more.

Think you may be thinking of AFCI when quoting 50 ma. Breaker GFCI trip p at 5 to 6 ma.

[Jerry Peck]

From what i recall, GFCI panel breakers trip at a much higher amperage than GFI receptacle breakers, which to me, makes the GFI receptacle much safer. 50 milliamps vs 6 milliamps I think. I shocked myself with a gfi once, so i can imagine that 8 times the milliamps would hurt much more.


Correct me if wrong, but I suspect you are confusing GFI with GFP ?

I suspect the same thing.

The 50 ma ground-fault protection was for the equipment. The 5 ma ground-fault circuit interrupter protection is for personnel.

Completely different breakers and different uses.

[Jim Port]

There are two classes of gfi protection, Class A 5 MA and Class B 30 MA.

[Robin Wells]

I suspect the same thing.

The 50 ma ground-fault protection was for the equipment. The 5 ma ground-fault circuit interrupter protection is for personnel.

Completely different breakers and different uses.

Well 10 ma can kill you.

here is good article.. http://www.nema.org/Products/Documents/NEMA-GFCI-2012-Field-Representative-Presentation.pdf

[Jerry Peck]

Well 10 ma will kill you.

Not if the GFCI trips at 5 ma +/- 1 ma first ... :) ...

(Whether GFCI breaker or GFCI receptacle.)

[John Kogel]

I always report redundant GFCIs.

Reporting is one thing, calling it a fault is something else again. :D

I notice when I test the receptacle GFCI with a tester, often as not the GFCI breaker in the panel will trip first. So I don't think you can say one is better than the other.

[Marshall Brown]

From a practical standpoint one of the darn thing will always trip before the other and Murphy will guarantee the one that trips is not the one you tested. One of the corollaries to this is that the one that did trip is concealed somewhere and serves the game filled freezer. DAMHIKT!

- - - Updated - - -

From a practical standpoint one of the darn thing will always trip before the other and Murphy will guarantee the one that trips is not the one you tested. One of the corollaries to this is that the one that did trip is concealed somewhere and serves the game filled freezer. DAMHIKT!

[Rick Cantrell]

Using the test button on the GFCI outlet will NOT trip any other GFCI on that circuit.
Using the built in test button is THE approved method for testing a GFCI.
Using a plugin tester on a GFCI outlet is pointless.

[Raymond Wand]

A plug in tester will tell you whether the outlet is grounded or not.

[Rick Cantrell]

A plug in tester will tell you whether the outlet is grounded or not.
True
I should have said, (and was thinking), using the test button of a plugin tester on a GFCI outlet is pointless.

[Robin Wells]

There are two classes of gfi protection, Class A 5 MA and Class B 30 MA.

Isn't a class b set to trip at 20 ma.

[Jerry Peck]

I should have said, (and was thinking), using the test button of a plugin tester on a GFCI outlet is pointless.

I disagree.

Using the GFCI test button on a GFCI tester in a remote receptacle outlet will tell you if that remote receptacle outlet is GFCI protected. (As will testing the remote receptacle, going back to the GFCI receptacle, pressing the test button, going back to the remote receptacle to see if it is now off, then going back yet again to the GFCI receptacle to press the reset button - seems to me that the GFCI tester test button is pretty useful.)

Using the GFCI tester test button when plugged into the GFCI receptacle, well, that is not "pointless", more like "redundant" ... not needed, but it works, however, the GFCI receptacle (or GFCI breaker) test button IS the approved test method.

[Rick Cantrell]

I disagree.

Surprise



Using the GFCI test button on a GFCI tester in a remote receptacle outlet will tell you if that remote receptacle outlet is GFCI protected. (As will testing the remote receptacle, going back to the GFCI receptacle, pressing the test button, going back to the remote receptacle to see if it is now off, then going back yet again to the GFCI receptacle to press the reset button - seems to me that the GFCI tester test button is pretty useful.)

I am talking about GFCI outlets, only.
I think you know that.



Using the GFCI tester test button when plugged into the GFCI receptacle, well, that is not "pointless", more like "redundant" ... not needed, but it works, however, the GFCI receptacle (or GFCI breaker) test button IS the approved test method.

You say "redundant" --"not or no longer needed or useful; superfluous."
I say "pointless" --- "having little or no sense, use, or purpose."

Lets see
So if using the test button of a plugin tester is redundant (not needed, not useful, or superfluous). How is it not pointless (having no use or purpose)?

If you use the plugin tester and it trips the GFCI do you, or do you not use the test button on the GFCI? Of course you use the built in test button of the GFCI outlet. That makes using the plugin in tester "pointless".

If you use the test button of a plugin tester and it does not trip, do you report the GFCI as defective? No. You use the builtin test button. Thus making the use of the plugin,,, POINTLESS.
Either way, the built in test button must be used to determine it the GFCI outlet is functioning or not. Therefore using a plugin tester to test the GFCI outlet is not redundant, it's pointless.

[Robin Wells]

If you use the test button of a plugin tester and it does not trip, do you report the GFCI as defective? No. You use the builtin test button. Thus making the use of the plugin,,, POINTLESS.
Either way, the built in test button must be used to determine it the GFCI outlet is functioning or not. Therefore using a plugin tester to test the GFCI outlet is not redundant, it's pointless.

The plug in tester will or should work in all cases except where there is no ground present. The plug in tester will show quickly other problems such as reversal.. depending on tester you use perhaps other info as well. Having said that, some of the info is interesting but really beyond SOP. (and if not understood can be dangerous to know .. too much information! )

Personally I like the plug in tester.. I can see if the receptacle not only trips when testing, but also that everything is wired properly. If you use only the test button, the ground could be absent, and if it is a newer home, I really do want to know that.

While it will test and trip by the test button when the plug in tester fails, if the plug in tester works and trips properly then it really does go one step further. So while not necessarily 100% something you require, I do not feel it is pointless as it does give you additional information and takes no longer really.

But maybe that is because my background is electrical..

[Rick Cantrell]

The plug in tester will or should work in all cases except where there is no ground present. The plug in tester will show quickly other problems such as reversal.. depending on tester you use perhaps other info as well. Having said that, some of the info is interesting but really beyond SOP. (and if not understood can be dangerous to know .. too much information! )

Personally I like the plug in tester.. I can see if the receptacle not only trips when testing, but also that everything is wired properly. If you use only the test button, the ground could be absent, and if it is a newer home, I really do want to know that.

While it will test and trip by the test button when the plug in tester fails, if the plug in tester works and trips properly then it really does go one step further. So while not necessarily 100% something you require, I do not feel it is pointless as it does give you additional information and takes no longer really.

But maybe that is because my background is electrical..

Again, I said; using the TEST BUTTON on the plugin tester is pointless on a GFCI outlet.
I did not say anything about the no ground, or reversed wiring.
For those, the plugin tester does give useful information.

[Jerry Peck]

Surprise

I am talking about GFCI outlets, only.
I think you know that.

You say "redundant" --"not or no longer needed or useful; superfluous."
I say "pointless" --- "having little or no sense, use, or purpose."

Lets see
So if using the test button of a plugin tester is redundant (not needed, not useful, or superfluous). How is it not pointless (having no use or purpose)?

If you use the plugin tester and it trips the GFCI do you, or do you not use the test button on the GFCI? Of course you use the built in test button of the GFCI outlet. That makes using the plugin in tester "pointless".

If you use the test button of a plugin tester and it does not trip, do you report the GFCI as defective? No. You use the builtin test button. Thus making the use of the plugin,,, POINTLESS.
Either way, the built in test button must be used to determine it the GFCI outlet is functioning or not. Therefore using a plugin tester to test the GFCI outlet is not redundant, it's pointless.

(bold is mine)
redundant
adjective re·dun·dant \ri-ˈdən-dənt\
: repeating something else and therefore unnecessary
—used to describe part of a machine, system, etc., that has the same function as another part and that exists so that the entire machine, system, etc., will not fail if the main part fails
: dismissed from a job because you are no longer needed


Full Definition of REDUNDANT


1 a : exceeding what is necessary or normal : superfluous
b : characterized by or containing an excess; specifically : using more words than necessary
c : characterized by similarity or repetition <a group of particularly redundant brick buildings>
d chiefly British : no longer needed for a job and hence laid off
2 : profuse, lavish
3 : serving as a duplicate for preventing failure of an entire system (as a spacecraft) upon failure of a single component

The GFCI tester test button is a redundant test to the GFCI device test button - EITHER will work, one is preferred and normal (the built-in test button)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

pointless
adjective point·less \ˈpȯint-ləs\
: having no meaning, purpose, or effect


Full Definition of POINTLESS


1 : devoid of meaning : senseless <a pointless remark>
2 : devoid of effectiveness : flat <pointless attempts to be funny>

The GFCI tester's test button DOES serve a purpose and is therefore not "pointless", it is, in fact, "redundant".

[John Kogel]

True
I should have said, (and was thinking), using the test button of a plugin tester on a GFCI outlet is pointless.

Sorry, Rick. The test button on the plug-in tester gives us info the receptacle test button does not provide.

It tells us if the GFCI will trip if a faulty appliance is plugged into it. The built-in button don't do dat.
It tells us if a receptacle is protected by a GFCI somewhere else. The built-in button don't do dat.
It tells us if the outlet is still energized after tripping. The built-in button don't do dat.


:D You should always do both tests.

[Rick Cantrell]

Sorry, Rick. The test button on the plug-in tester gives us info the receptacle test button does not provide.





It tells us if the GFCI will trip if a faulty appliance is plugged into it. The built-in button don't do dat.

Yes it does.That is exactly what the GFCI is for.


It tells us if a receptacle is protected by a GFCI somewhere else. The built-in button don't do dat.

Only if the downstream GFCI trips first, and is wired in series.



It tells us if the outlet is still energized after tripping. The built-in button don't do dat.

I think GFCI's do indicate power. I know mine do.




:D You should always do both tests.

I'm not saying don't use the plugin tester. They have their uses. I'm saying, don't rely on the plugin test button to replace the builtin test button on a GFCI outlet.

There are new inspectors reading this thread that may think it's acceptable to use the plugin test button instead of using the builtin test button on the GFCI outlet.
All this talk just confuses the proper method.

The proper and approved method to test a GFCI is with the built in test feature.

[John Kogel]

Yes it does.That is exactly what the GFCI is for.

Only if the downstream GFCI trips first, and is wired in series.


I think GFCI's do indicate power. I know mine do.
Yes there are units that have a little light, but I find fairly often they are faulty or wired wrong, so the receptacle stays hot after tripping, while downstream receptacles are maybe protected.




I'm not saying don't use the plugin tester. They have their uses. I'm saying, don't rely on the plugin test button to replace the builtin test button on a GFCI outlet.You said it was pointless, but you meant something else? :D


There are new inspectors reading this thread that may think it's acceptable to use the plugin test button instead of using the builtin test button on the GFCI outlet.
All this talk just confuses the proper method.

The proper and approved method to test a GFCI is with the built in test feature.The manufacturer says use the button but they don't encounter and maybe don't care about the bad wiring. Works fine but it is installed wrong.
Just retract your confusing statement and it all comes clear. :D

[Rick Cantrell]

You said it was pointless, but you meant something else? :D


I did not say don't use a plugin tester at all for anything ever.
I said, using the TEST button of a plugin tester on a GFCI outlet is pointless.
For testing the GFCI feature of a GFCI outlet, using the test button of a plugin tester is pointless.

[Lon Henderson]

Is a GFCI receptacle ever defective if it trips with the tester test button?

[Vern Heiler]

Is a GFCI receptacle ever defective if it trips with the tester test button?
Trick question right! Answer: Only if it doesn't reset. (and the smoke doesn't get out):).

[Jerry Peck]

For testing the GFCI feature of a GFCI outlet, using the test button of a plugin tester is pointless.

Redundant, yes.

Pointless, no.

You can try to skew it any way you want ... but using the GFCI tester test button is "redundant" ... a "back up" test ...that basically the definition of "reduredundant".

[Rick Cantrell]

Redundant, yes.

Pointless, no.

You can try to skew it any way you want ... but using the GFCI tester test button is "redundant" ... a "back up" test ...that basically the definition of "reduredundant".
Having a discussion with you is pointless because you are so redundant. :)

Just kidding, but I couldn't resist the pun.

[cliff kornegay]

Redundant, yes.

Pointless, no.

You can try to skew it any way you want ... but using the GFCI tester test button is "redundant" ... a "back up" test ...that basically the definition of "reduredundant".


Warning! Thread Drift

What about the upcoming requirements for "Self Testing" GFCI protection? I understand why they will be required, but I don't understand the mechanics of how they self test.

Would two self testing GFCI outlets affect each other somehow?

- - - Updated - - -


Redundant, yes.

Pointless, no.

You can try to skew it any way you want ... but using the GFCI tester test button is "redundant" ... a "back up" test ...that basically the definition of "reduredundant".


Warning! Thread Drift

What about the upcoming requirements for "Self Testing" GFCI protection? I understand why they will be required, but I don't understand the mechanics of how they self test.

Would two self testing GFCI outlets affect each other somehow?

[cliff kornegay]

I got an email about this UL change this morning, that's why I was curious.

NEMA and UL Announce Revisions to UL 943 GFCI Standard | News content from Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine (http://ecmweb.com/news/nema-and-ul-announce-revisions-ul-943-gfci-standard)

[Rick Cantrell]

Is a GFCI receptacle ever defective if it trips with the tester test button?

Let me rephrase what I think your question is.

Could a GFCI be defective even if it tripped when tested using a plugin tester?
Not likely, but yes it could.

Conversely
Could a GFCI be functioning properly if it did not trip when tested with a plugin tested.
Again, not likely, but yes.

That is why I say not to use the test button of a plugin tester on a GFCI outlet.

Who really knows what is going on inside a plugin tester, or even a GFCI?
Was the plugin tester calibrated to the same standards.
Is the plugin tester still within the allowed standards?
We just do not know. We don't know if the GFCI is within the allowed standards either, but we do know that using the built in test button is always approved.

[Vern Heiler]

Let me rephrase what I think your question is.

Could a GFCI be defective even if it tripped when tested using a plugin tester?
Not likely, but yes it could.

Conversely
Could a GFCI be functioning properly if it did not trip when tested with a plugin tested.
Again, not likely, but yes.

That is why I say not to use the test button of a plugin tester on a GFCI outlet.

Who really knows what is going on inside a plugin tester, or even a GFCI?
Was the plugin tester calibrated to the same standards.
Is the plugin tester still within the allowed standards?
We just do not know. We don't know if the GFCI is within the allowed standards either, but we do know that using the built in test button is always approved.
Pushing the built in test button does not find: 1) worn out contacts; 2) loose connections; 3) multiple GFCI devices. Doesn't seem pointless to me.
If we only listen to the fox the hen house might not be so safe!

[Lon Henderson]

Let me rephrase what I think your question is.

Could a GFCI be defective even if it tripped when tested using a plugin tester?
Not likely, but yes it could.
I think extremely unlikely, and even more unlikely that any test that we can do would find whatever defect it has.

Conversely
Could a GFCI be functioning properly if it did not trip when tested with a plugin tested.
Again, not likely, but yes.
Agree assuming that the tester indicates a grounded plug, but even if it then trips when pressing the GFCI test button, I still write it up as not reacting to the tester's button. If the tester's button doesn't trigger the GFCI, then will a real ground fault through a person trip it?

That is why I say not to use the test button of a plugin tester on a GFCI outlet.

Who really knows what is going on inside a plugin tester, or even a GFCI?
Was the plugin tester calibrated to the same standards.
Is the plugin tester still within the allowed standards?
We just do not know. We don't know if the GFCI is within the allowed standards either, but we do know that using the built in test button is always approved.
Agree, but I don't agree that the tester is pointless when using it on a GFCI. It doesn't offer a definitive result, but then HIs don't do the type of testing that is definitive.

In general, the three blade tester is one of our most useful tools. A HI with 200 inspections under his/her belt, has or should have, used it on over 6000 receptacles. You often see tiny variances in the glows that indicate something is wrong like weak grounds, crossover current bleeding, and poor blade retention. Since the tester isn't designed to show these defects, I don't write up a diagnosis based on a flickering light, but rather call for an electrician to evaluate and correct.

[John Kogel]

Rick, stop pushing our buttons! :D

PS, 3-light testers don't need calibration. They simply short to ground. That is why they won't trip the GFCI if the grounding is poor or missing.
I had a standard outlet in a bathroom yesterday. Of course I needed to use my tester's test button, although I could have used a wire jumper or a paper clip. :D

[Rick Cantrell]

Rick, stop pushing our buttons! :D

Good one John


PS, 3-light testers don't need calibration. They simply short to ground.
Not exactly. They have a resistor in them. If it was "They simple short to ground", what do you think would happen if you pressed the test button on an unprotected outlet.
The term "calibration", may not be the best word to use, but they are in some way calibrated for resistance to ground. BTW resistors do go bad.


I had a standard outlet in a bathroom yesterday. Of course I needed to use my tester's test button, although I could have used a wire jumper or a paper clip. :D
If you use the paper clip I hope there is a working GFCI ahead of the outlet

[Jerry Peck]

Rick, stop pushing our buttons! :D

PS, 3-light testers don't need calibration. They simply short to ground. That is why they won't trip the GFCI if the grounding is poor or missing.
I had a standard outlet in a bathroom yesterday. Of course I needed to use my tester's test button, although I could have used a wire jumper or a paper clip. :D

John,

Are you testing for GFCI protection tripping off, or for breakers tripping? :(

[Robin Wells]

Could a GFCI be defective even if it tripped when tested using a plugin tester?
Not likely, but yes it could.

Agreed. Although this would not point out a poorly wired or missing ground or false ground.



Conversely
Could a GFCI be functioning properly if it did not trip when tested with a plugin tested.
Again, not likely, but yes.

Agreed again. Although this should lead you to being and wonder what is the reason, and very likely something worth making a note of. If it does not trip with a plug in tester but does trip with a test button.. worth noting I would suggest.

Say what you want, but I like to test as closely to real life scenario as possible, and simply pressing a test button does not meet that in my books.

- - - Updated - - -


Not exactly. They have a resistor in them. If it was "They simple short to ground", what do you think would happen if you pressed the test button on an unprotected outlet.

Agreed.. is a resister that lets 5 ma of current pass to ground. I did have one torn apart in shop. Think was a 20K (or somewhere thereabouts) 1/2 watt resistor.

[Rick Cantrell]

Agreed.. is a resister that lets 5 ma of current pass to ground. I did have one torn apart in shop. Think was a 20K (or somewhere thereabouts) 1/2 watt resistor.

I calculated 22k for 5ma at 120v

[John Kogel]

John,

Are you testing for GFCI protection tripping off, or for breakers tripping? :(Just a bit of sarcasm. When nothing tripped, I went upstairs and tripped the GFCI then back down to test for power. Then wrote it up.

[chris brown]

Trick question right! Answer: Only if it doesn't reset. (and the smoke doesn't get out):).

Something many people don't know is that a GFI receptacle may not immediately reset. If you wait 1/2 hour it may then reset.

I have had two cases where a homeowner/agent was upset that an outlet was disabled after the test. (threatened to charge me for the electrician who came to repair). Of course, we are required to test and it isn't our "fault".

- - - Updated - - -


Trick question right! Answer: Only if it doesn't reset. (and the smoke doesn't get out):).

Something many people don't know is that a GFI receptacle may not immediately reset. If you wait 1/2 hour it may then reset.

I have had two cases where a homeowner/agent was upset that an outlet was disabled after the test. (threatened to charge me for the electrician who came to repair). Of course, we are required to test and it isn't our "fault".

[chris brown]

Trick question right! Answer: Only if it doesn't reset. (and the smoke doesn't get out):).


Something many people don't know is that a GFI receptacle may not immediately reset. If you wait 1/2 hour it may then reset.

I have had two cases where a homeowner/agent was upset that an outlet was disabled after the test. (threatened to charge me for the electrician who came to repair). Of course, we are required to test and it isn't our "fault".

[Vern Heiler]

Something many people don't know is that a GFI receptacle may not immediately reset. If you wait 1/2 hour it may then reset.

I have had two cases where a homeowner/agent was upset that an outlet was disabled after the test. (threatened to charge me for the electrician who came to repair). Of course, we are required to test and it isn't our "fault".

- - - Updated - - -



Something many people don't know is that a GFI receptacle may not immediately reset. If you wait 1/2 hour it may then reset.

I have had two cases where a homeowner/agent was upset that an outlet was disabled after the test. (threatened to charge me for the electrician who came to repair). Of course, we are required to test and it isn't our "fault".
If I have to wait more than 5 seconds, I'm writing it up as faulty!

[Jerry Peck]

Something many people don't know is that a GFI receptacle may not immediately reset. If you wait 1/2 hour it may then reset.

I have had two cases where a homeowner/agent was upset that an outlet was disabled after the test. (threatened to charge me for the electrician who came to repair). Of course, we are required to test and it isn't our "fault".

If the GFCI trips and isn't able to be immediately reset ...

... THERE MAY BE A PROBLEM WITH THE CIRCUIT ... or the GFCI. Quite possibly not the GFCI.

[Vern Heiler]

If the GFCI trips and isn't able to be immediately reset ...

... THERE MAY BE A PROBLEM WITH THE CIRCUIT ... or the GFCI. Quite possibly not the GFCI.
If it didn't fail until I tested it, I'm going 9:1 GFCI. Either way it "requires further investigation by licensed electrician" ;).

[Jerry Peck]

If it didn't fail until I tested it, I'm going 9:1 GFCI. Either way it "requires further investigation by licensed electrician" ;).

Ummm ... haven't you read the thread about "self testing GFCIs"?

I could very well be a ground-fault which was "trying to trip" the "stuck" (for lack of a better term) GFCI, but once tripped by the test button, the tripping action is now free to trip as it should ... didn't you read that thread about "self-testing" GFCIs?

That is why I say it could either be the GFCI ... OR ... the circuit, and not wanting "the circuit" to be bad and presume that the GFCI is the problem - *I* would check both.

It very well might be the GFCI is bad in and of itself, but ... what if both the GFCI AND the circuit were found to be bad (that is another possibility).

Electrician does not need to "evaluate" the circuit OR the GFCI ... :p ... the electricians just need to "test" the circuit with his/her equipment, and replace the GFCI (the best and easiest way to "test" a GFCI device is to replace it - if the replacement does the same thing, sure, there *could* be two bad GFCIs, but at that point I'd do more testing on the circuit).

[Lon Henderson]

Electrician does not need to "evaluate" the circuit OR the GFCI ... :p ... the electricians just need to "test" the circuit with his/her equipment, and replace the GFCI (the best and easiest way to "test" a GFCI device is to replace it - if the replacement does the same thing, sure, there *could* be two bad GFCIs, but at that point I'd do more testing on the circuit).
Are you kidding me!

An electrician is evaluating the circuit or the GFCI when he/she tests with his/her equipment.

Your comment was like deja vu watching Bill Clinton parse "is".

But it was funny...

[Vern Heiler]

Ummm ... haven't you read the thread about "self testing GFCIs"?

I could very well be a ground-fault which was "trying to trip" the "stuck" (for lack of a better term) GFCI, but once tripped by the test button, the tripping action is now free to trip as it should ... didn't you read that thread about "self-testing" GFCIs? Didn't you notice? I was one of the malcontents!

That is why I say it could either be the GFCI ... OR ... the circuit, and not wanting "the circuit" to be bad and presume that the GFCI is the problem - *I* would check both. I did not know you were a licenced electrician:confused:.

It very well might be the GFCI is bad in and of itself, but ... what if both the GFCI AND the circuit were found to be bad (that is another possibility). ​I wonder what the definition of "evaluate" is?

Electrician does not need to "evaluate" the circuit OR the GFCI ... :p ... the electricians just need to "test" the circuit with his/her equipment, and replace the GFCI (the best and easiest way to "test" a GFCI device is to replace it - if the replacement does the same thing, sure, there *could* be two bad GFCIs, but at that point I'd do more testing on the circuit). Does your license give you the power to dictate how other licensed professionals perform their business?

[Jerry Peck]

An electrician is evaluating the circuit or the GFCI when he/she tests with his/her equipment.


You (as in the HI) DID the "evaluation", NOW the electrician has to do his testing to DETERMINE what the problem is.


Your comment was like deja vu watching Bill Clinton parse "is".

But it was funny...

And your comment was like listening to Republicans say that they want SMALLER govmit ... the deciding that NEW LAWS must be made to make sure that everyone ELSE conforms to their thinking ... News flash! SMALLER govmit is LESS intrusion, not more intrusion. Those Republicans make Bill Clinton look like an angel.

I wonder how those Republicans define "is" ... when they cannot even agree on what to agree or disagree on.:sorry: just could miss replying to your remark, yeah, it's like :deadhorse: ... :peep: sorry 'bout that.

[Vern Heiler]

You (as in the HI) DID the "evaluation", NOW the electrician has to do his testing to DETERMINE what the problem is.



And your comment was like listening to Republicans say that they want SMALLER govmit ... the deciding that NEW LAWS must be made to make sure that everyone ELSE conforms to their thinking ... News flash! SMALLER govmit is LESS intrusion, not more intrusion. Those Republicans make Bill Clinton look like an angel.

I wonder how those Republicans define "is" ... when they cannot even agree on what to agree or disagree on.:sorry: just could miss replying to your remark, yeah, it's like :deadhorse: ... :peep: sorry 'bout that.
No Jerry, I (as a HI) DETERMINED there was a problem (IT DON'T WORK RIGHT). It is the electricians job to EVALUATE the problem (FIGURE OUT WHAT'S WRONG)!

[Jerry Peck]

No Jerry, I (as a HI) DETERMINED there was a problem (IT DON'T WORK RIGHT).

Correct ... YOU "evaluated it" sufficiently enough to DETERMINE that there was a problem.


It is the electricians job to EVALUATE the problem (FIGURE OUT WHAT'S WRONG)!

Now the electrician needs to TEST IT in order to determine WHERE the problem is ... the problem which you found during your "evaluation" of it.

:D

YOU did as you were being paid to do - evaluate and report. :cool:

Or are you admitting that you are not doing the job you are being paid to do? :p

[Vern Heiler]

Correct ... YOU "evaluated it" sufficiently enough to DETERMINE that there was a problem.



Now the electrician needs to TEST IT in order to determine WHERE the problem is ... the problem which you found during your "evaluation" of it.

:D

YOU did as you were being paid to do - evaluate and report. :cool:

Or are you admitting that you are not doing the job you are being paid to do? :p
Where exactly is "Evaluate" in DDID?

[Jerry Peck]

Where exactly is "Evaluate" in DDID?

Type out what DDID stands for and you will see it. THINK, man, THINK. :)

[Vern Heiler]

Type out what DDID stands for and you will see it. THINK, man, THINK. :)
I'm thinking....you are struggling! Go on.....tap out:D

[Jerry Peck]

I'm thinking....you are struggling! Go on.....tap out:D

Nah, you can't be thinking ... and I'm here just relaxing, seeing if you will start thinking, and the only tapping out I'm doing is tapping out these replies. :D

[Vern Heiler]

Nah, you can't be thinking ... and I'm here just relaxing, seeing if you will start thinking, and the only tapping out I'm doing is tapping out these replies. :D
I have been in your position before, on my back studying the rafters of the gym ceiling. When you can feel the breath of the referee in your ear, its time to tap:D.

[Lon Henderson]

You (as in the HI) DID the "evaluation", NOW the electrician has to do his testing to DETERMINE what the problem is.
.

There are two things that we are unlikely to ever agree on.
1) Calling for "further evaluation" in our reports.
and
2) Politics:p

[Jerry Peck]

There are two things that we are unlikely to ever agree on.
1) Calling for "further evaluation" in our reports.
and
2) Politics:p

One would think that, with the 50-50 odds, YOU would have gotten one of the two right ... but you didn't get either right ... :)

[John Kogel]

I had one today in a 7 year old bathroom. I tripped it from the other bathroom with my tester. Went in there, dang thing wouldn't reset. There is no GFCI breaker in the panel. Checked the 3rd bathroom but it had a powered up GFCI, which then tested good. Went back and gave the button a good push with a screwdriver and it reset. After that it was fine, smooth as silk. You are supposed to test them or they do go bad.

[Len Inkster]

On topic, but unlikely to be seen here in N. America, so just for education purposes, and to highlight my findings when I'm inspecting:


Where I was trained having multiple circuit fault protection devices on the same circuit was not only allowed, but required!

Unlike N. America, which I believe only ever uses a Radial circuit for electrical power distribution in residential circuits, in the U.K., Singapore, the Arab Emirates, India, Sri-Lanka and a couple of other places that the British used to run as colonies.

In these implementations, the circuit starts at the panel, runs around the building and returns to the panel. Putting a single RCD into the circuit does not protect the circuit (unless it's at the panel). So if you want protection at the receptacle (we call them sockets) you have to install an RCD where you need it.

Either that or you have to find the first receptacle in the circuit either side of the panel and put an RCD in each.

There are also a number of different types of RCD, these all have their own designation, which identifies their capabilities or function (other than cutting the circuit on an unbalance load between live (hot) and neutral)

RCD - Residual Current Detector.
RCCB - Residual Current Operated Circuit-Breaker without Integral over-current protection
RCBO - Residual Current Operated Circuit-Breaker with Integral over-current protection
SRCD - Socket outlet incorporating an RCD (What we call a GFCI receptacle)
FCURCD - Fused connection unit incorporating an RCD. (essential an RCD protecting a fixed spur)
PRCD - Portable RCD (Yep! A plugin GFCI)
CBR - Circuit breaker incorporating and RCD (This one goes in the panel)
RCM - Resdual Current Monitor (Only ever came across these when working at Eastern Electricity and Hanson Power, why anyone would want to monitor an unbalanced current but no trip it in a residential implementation I never did get to the bottom of)
MRCD - Modular RCD. Again mainly used by utilities, it's a sort of smart trip, it sends a signal on an unbalance load to a remote switch which trips the circuit.

In addition to that we have the term ELCB (Earth Leakage Circuit Breaker). Many people (including some over on Mike Holt's site) will say these are the same but that is not entirely true.

Again, just because the U.K. likes to make things difficult, there are two types of ELCB. There's the Voltage ELCB and the Current ELCB. (That's current as in AMPs not Current as available now)

The Current ELCB is in fact very similar to the modern GFCI or RCD. The Voltage ELCB was different in the fact that it monitored voltage running to ground through the earth connection (running to ground via the ground wire) and tripping when this was detected.

This last one was a PITB because it generally tripped whenever their was a lighting storm nearby, as it didn't care if the voltage was coming from the circuit down to ground, or from the ground into the circuit. (Plus it didn't work if there was no ground)

Anyway, this brings me to my observations:

Every time I've seen multiple GFCI's on the same circuit it's been for one of three reasons:

1. It was installed by a Homeowner who had lots of money and thought it was a safety device that should be fitted to every outlet.
2. It was installed by an Electrician who was trained in one of the U.K. colonies, and didn't really understand that there is a significant difference between radial and ring circuits or how to protect each differently.
3. It was installed by an Electrician who convinced a Homeowner that had lots of money that it was a safety device that should be fitted to every outlet.

In case 1 one wonders how they survive.
In case 2 one wonders how they get a license.
In case 3 one wonders how they stay in business.

I hope this amused and educated at the same time.