Thread: Odd Device - GFCI ? ?

Found this in a 1977 built home. Device does not attach to the bus and slid right out of the panel once the dead front was removed. Is this some sort of GFCI or an early surge suppressor. Anybody know?

Similar Threads:

• Anti Tip Device
• Sewage ejection pump-GFCI?
• Water Detection Device
• Testing GFCI Outlets
• Kitchen area GFCI

Its damaged, tampered with and doesn't belong so why does it matter? It shouldn't be in the panel in that state.fill in knock out or get a breaker from Eaton to use as space holder..

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

...so why does it matter? ..

Well I'm not asking what to do with it or how to report it. Out of curiosity I am asking if anyone knows what this device is.

I've never seen one like that!

You'll need to forgive him Don. Ever since the "Joanie Loves Cha-Chi" reruns were taken off the air, he hasn't been the same.

It looks like some type of early GFI breaker to me.

I agree, early GFI Breaker. Looks like it has separated and needs to be replaced. New ones are single breaker size.

Originally Posted by Jim Port

I agree, early GFI Breaker. Looks like it has separated and needs to be replaced. New ones are single breaker size.

Early GFCI circuit breakers did use 2 pole spaces for a single pole unit, perhaps I should get a photo of a Zinsco/Sylvania bolt on of the same era as the OP's, which as Jim has stated, needs to be replaced.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

Its damaged, tampered with and doesn't belong so why does it matter? It shouldn't be in the panel in that state.fill in knock out or get a breaker from Eaton to use as space holder..

Still have to reply even if you do not know the answer. It must suck to get real old.

Looks like it is being used to fill the space, Don said it was not attached, I know there are a number of inexpensive alternatives but is it a code violation?

Originally Posted by Chris McIntyre

Looks like it is being used to fill the space, Don said it was not attached, I know there are a number of inexpensive alternatives but is it a code violation?

I did not look at all the photos until now, someone tampered with the GFCI breaker & cut the rivits holding the circuit breaker & the GFCI portion together, still say it needs replacement due to the tampering & as it may no longer function, there should be a jumper from the load side of the circuit breaker to the GFCI section which I did not notice......

Originally Posted by Paul Kondzich

Still have to reply even if you do not know the answer. It must suck to get real old.

Funny

I know what it is and what it is NOT.


IT IS NOT a "device". It is NOT "equipment", it is NOT a circuit breaker, it
It is NOT a "type" of anything other than residual garbage.

IS a DEFICENCY/DEFECT, it requires correction, it IS dangerous and hazardous.

IT was (broken parts) from what ONCE WAS (half of -- space-wise not function-wise) a single pole circuit breaker which provided limited ground fault protection. What remains cannot be mounted and may not be "installed".

What remains is akin to one cutting or ripping in half (by volume not function) a device and ripping the "guts" out.

Such as, if I took a saw to a laptop, cut it through the display top hinge, threw away the display half, popped open the base, scooped out the guts (motherboard, device/sockets board, video driver, power cord socket, etc. nd whatever), pushed the keyboard top case back onto the back base and asked "is this a computer"?

It wouldn't be a "computer" anymore - it can "compute" nothing, its would be nothing more than scrap.

GET IT?

Its an amputated (portion) of what once was a whole "thing" that has been further tampered with! That "portion" remaining is neither functional nor installable and cannot or could not contain or service any/either the function or condition of what once was the "whole".

Yes its a code violation to have it in the panel. More importantly its a dangerous and hazardous SAFETY violation - its presence is a HAZARD, its especially hazardous in this meter main/combination service equipment, as pictured. Yes it must be removed, and simply removing the JUNK is not sufficient to correct the dangerous and hazardous condition, and NO leaving it in place (or returniing it to its prior location and walking away) is NOT SAFE either!

NO one responded during "business hours" during the same day the OP first posted, but me, at the time I posted, despite scores having viewed. I answered the what is it question with what it was (JUNK) as photographed, during business hours, in a timely enough fashion to afford reporting if that was of issue.

Attached is a notated example of a vintage full-size single pole GFCI of similar vintage, I've marked it up to give the OP and those that don't know, an idea of "what's missing" (the "other half" and the neutral lead, the means to install, etc.).

When the OP responded reporting was not of issue, and about to respond yet again, the crapola and jabs started, and frankly, I got pi$$ed.

I let others post ambigously and now I'm going to make a POINT here that cursory views from two electricians skipped.

#8 is labeled to be:
"outside...(something)
bath room
pool p..(something)"

I am greatly CONCERNED that an electrician hasn't been there to remediate the situation immediately.
1. the possiblitity (can't see the label) that what is currently installed at #8 is the "other half of the junk that "fell out" at #9, if true would be a very dangerous situation.

2. if not the case (and #8 was replaced with "plane jane circuit breaker), do the occupants realize that the areas supplied via #8 are not GFCI protected load side FROM the panel ("pool" something especially).

Kind of important since at least two of those areas were required to be GFCI protected at the time the home was built.

3. That the neutral splice seen to the right (wire nut adjacent) may not be correct, i.e. someone may have repurposed the clipped off GFCI lead.

Finally, it is perfectly acceptable to install a listed acceptable breaker in a knocked out postion, keep it "off" and mark it "spare", as long as the stab ratings, wiring diagram, etc. have been complied with.

Which is why (the not-GFCI protected "Pool p"(somethng)/"Outside"(something)/"Bath Room" circuit breaker could easily be replaced with a modern GFCI and if a true "plain jane" single pole breaker is present in #8 it could be moved to #9.

AFAIK there aren't classified KO blank/closure kits for this vintage (mid 70s)equipment.

HG, given the questioned asked by the OP,

Found this in a 1977 built home. Device does not attach to the bus and slid right out of the panel once the dead front was removed. Is this some sort of GFCI or an early surge suppressor. Anybody know?

I would say your answer was both less than helpful and does nothing to further the knowledge of the poster. It also does not directly answer the question. If this were a test question I would mark your answer as Incorrect.

Yes, the part that you failed to identify in post #2 is not in its original condition and should have been removed and a means to blank off the opening installed. GFI protection may or may not be needed to be reinstalled depending on conditions not mentioned by the OP or if circuit modifications have taken placed or the protection is provided in another location in the circuit.

Also, the current breaker fillers will fit the opening in the panel. CH breakers have been the same size for many years. The one change has been the design of the mounting foot.

Originally Posted by Jim Port

HG, given the questioned asked by the OP,



I would say your answer was both less than helpful and does nothing to further the knowledge of the poster. It also does not directly answer the question. If this were a test question I would mark your answer as Incorrect.

Yes, the part that you failed to identify in post #2 is not in its original condition and should have been removed and a means to blank off the opening installed. GFI protection may or may not be needed to be reinstalled depending on conditions not mentioned by the OP or if circuit modifications have taken placed or the protection is provided in another location in the circuit.

Also, the current breaker fillers will fit the opening in the panel. CH breakers have been the same size for many years. The one change has been the design of the mounting foot.

Jim,

I did not fail to identify the item. It is not "part". It is a piece of something, it is not a GFCI, it is not a GFCI circuit breaker, it is not a surge protector, it is a broken off "piece". The "piece" has been additionally tampered with.

IIRC this breaker style has three generations of changes other than the foot. This specifically along side the "off" side of the breaker, opposite side of its terminals - big notch, little notch, or later no-notch...I've got a picture somewhere of 'the three notch' types all on their side, i'll look for it.

The 75-77 vintage would be just before one of many sales/changes in ownership/and production location, and I was fixating on the odd notches and when, etc. And for whatever reason I was thinking the no-notch or notch would effect the size of the KO opening, but now tht I think about it, it wouldn't, just the orientation of the breaker (and if it could fit or not fit in) and where the KO opening was in the DF, not the KO itself, as they are the same size and offset at the top. I "over-thunk" it, happens sometimes when I'm reaching into the rusty old files stored in the noggin'.

Thank you HG and everyone else who has responded.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

What remains is akin to one cutting or ripping in half (by volume not function) a device and ripping the "guts" out..

I can see that now but at the time it looked like a complete device that had been disconnected.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

#8 is labeled to be:
"outside...(something)
bath room
pool p..(something)"

I am greatly CONCERNED that an electrician hasn't been there to remediate the situation immediately.

Yes #8 breaker is labeled outside plugs, bathrooms. -- No installed GFCI protection anywhere in the house. Pool light is protected by a separate GFCI breaker but no protection for the other pool area receptacles.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

1. the possiblitity (can't see the label) that what is currently installed at #8 is the "other half of the junk that "fell out" at #9, if true would be a very dangerous situation.

#8 looks original. I did not see anything that looked like a bridge connector to the loose piece #9

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

3. That the neutral splice seen to the right (wire nut adjacent) may not be correct, i.e. someone may have repurposed the clipped off GFCI lead.

I am certain of it.

I see the word "Pool" written on the panel cover. GFCI protection around pools started in the early 70's so I would have to guess that maybe there was a GFCI breaker used and maybe now something has been changed to use GFCI outlets in place of the ageing breaker.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

Jim,

I did not fail to identify the item. It is not "part". It is a piece of something, it is not a GFCI, it is not a GFCI circuit breaker, it is not a surge protector, it is a broken off "piece". The "piece" has been additionally tampered with.

.

Regardless of your semantics, it is part of what was once a GFI breaker. BTW, most would consider part and piece to both be a portion of a larger assembly, AKA a synonym.

Queue the circus music.

In reply to the questions: Found this in a 1977 built home. Device does not attach to the bus and slid right out of the panel once the dead front was removed. Is this some sort of GFCI or an early surge suppressor. Anybody know?
It is part of an early style Cutler Hammer(Eaton) CH-Series single pole GFCI Circuit breaker.
It would have been attached to a single pole circuit breaker as an assembly, now it looks as though the single pole breaker has been removed and another installed in its place(above it)

I would not have even removed it, just noted it. Call me chicken I guess, but a safe chicken. I like to ignore the gremlins in my ear.

The only circuit breaker I have ever seen with the type of labeling "Load", "neutral" , and "White Wire to panel neutral is an ARC FAULT breaker. The white wire thats supposed to be comming from the breaker ( comming out of the body - not a screw terminal) looks to be cut off. It is that white wire that would go to the neutral bar. The white wire from the branch circuit would go to the screw terminal on the breaker marked "neutral". All the breaker does is look for the same voltage on the load and neutral wires of the branch circuit when a load is present. If the voltage on the white wire of the branch circuit drops below the load voltage, the breaker will trip. The breaker assumes there is voltage arcing or bleading off to a ground potential. It looks to me they stuck it in there simply to fill the empty knock out since your pictures didn't show any wiring going to the breaker.

Mike, a GFI breaker also has a neutral pigtail and a connection for the branch circuit neutral along with the hot terminal. A GFI looks for a difference in current, not voltage.

An AFCI is looking for an arcing waveform.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

Yes its a code violation to have it in the panel. More importantly its a dangerous and hazardous SAFETY violation - its presence is a HAZARD, its especially hazardous in this meter main/combination service equipment, as pictured. Yes it must be removed, and simply removing the JUNK is not sufficient to correct the dangerous and hazardous condition, and NO leaving it in place (or returniing it to its prior location and walking away) is NOT SAFE either!

I am greatly CONCERNED that an electrician hasn't been there to remediate the situation immediately.

I'm surprised the house wasn't full of dead people!!!!

Originally Posted by Benjamin Thompson

I'm surprised the house wasn't full of dead people!!!!

Your facetious baiting sarcasm is beyond tiring Fritz. Going for three-for-three?

Originally Posted by Benjamin Thompson

I'm surprised the house wasn't full of dead people!!!!

How do you spell DEATH ? "Removing the JUNK is not sufficient" How about an exorcism ?