Which one doesn’t add any level of protection to a circuit? The EGC or the GFCI?
As I said in another, similar, thread. That is a red herring fallacy. Mike illustrated the red herring fallacy in his camping story (Where’s my dollar). Put yet another way, we used to use a saying “What does that have to do with the price of tea in China”?
Premise: A steel bumper on a car is safer than a cardboard bumper.
Premise: A woman is safer wearing flat heel shoes than wearing high heel shoes.
Conclusion: The spare tire in the trunk is safer if the car has a steel bumper and the passenger is wearing flat heel shoes.
The conclusion is erroneous.
Herein lies the error of your thinking. If the GFCI has failed the receptacle is unsafe period. Having an EGC in no way makes it safer.
Then if it is a two wire cable and there is no EGC present just how do you propose that one somehow appear.
This line of thinking is flawed
If there is no EGC present and there is no GFCI device protecting that device then it is required to be a two wire device.
Here you are trying to compare apples to lemons. With a GFCI device the only role the EGC plays is so that when someone uses one of those pieces of junk plugin testers they see the lights light up. It serves no other purpose.
and it is not the required method of testing a GFCI.
THE ONLY TEST FOR A GFCI IS THE TEST BUTTON ON THE DEVICE!!!
Trying a play on words?
With a GFCI device the EGC is worthless
EDITED TO ADD;
How do you report a two wire home? If all the receptacles are two wire how do you use that piece of junk tester to make your report?
Do you report the lack of an EGC and then make the comment that the home would be safer if it had EGCs at all receptacles? Do you realize the cost of rewiring a home that has two wire cables?
Do you check every light fixture to ensure there is an EGC present? Are lights safer without an EGC? How do you report these and what test do you do for them?
I have used math to prove that a high impedance fault of as little as 8 ohms will not clear a breaker or fuse. This equipment grounding conductor is carrying this 15 amps of current constantly and I suppose you would say that the receptacle is safer simply because it has an EGC.
No, no, not at all. But when the GFCI fails to open the circuit on a three conductor outlet, is the EGC then still worthless?
Are you saying that a GFCI performs all the same functions an EGC does? Aren’t there scenarios where a receptacle with a failed GFCI would still protect person or property by means of an EGC?
Kevin is talking about the tester Jeff Pope mentioned earlier.
I am saying that if the GFCI has failed it is unsafe period and the presence of an EGC does not make it safe.
I am saying that a GFCI in a two wire circuit that has failed is unsafe period. I am saying that a GFCI is 1000 times safer than an EGC
NO! If the GFCI has failed it is not somehow safer just because it has an EGC. If the GFCI has failed it is dangerous period and the presence of an EGC in no way makes it safe or safer.
Just how do you propose adding this EGC to a two wire system? Please explain this and we will talk more
And it is not approved for testing the fault levels of a GFCI. There is only one approved method for testing these devices and that is with the test button on the device.
Has worked fine for many years! Tripped the button and when I reset I hit the internal it trips as well. Several that I have tested internally did not and did not, these are defective whether the tester works or not.
It seems the more advances man makes the worse things get.
Reminds me of a scripture
Jeremiah 10:23 It does not belong to man to direct his steps.
the tester did not test anything it only located the device for you.
If one does not understand the advances it will always get worse
Especially if he has his eyes closed
You are so far from wrong Mr.Witt! LOL
Sorry** I agree with Mike** all the way of course some might say I could be biased Being a retired electrician … Roy Cooke
Plese explain how. Just what part is wrong? How can I make it right?
Please don’t just say I am wrong without givin a reason or I might think that you are the one wrong. If you disagree then explain where and how I am wrong or other wise I will think you are just blowing uneducated smoke.
We both know that a lot of folks like blowing uneducated smoke are you one of those or is there a basis for your comment?
Wait a minute
I just read that comment again, “you are so FAR from wrong” which means that I am so far from being wrong that I am right
How many have failed so far? Do anybody have the numbers how many do not work with the old tester? Do any of you have the number.
Why did they change things?
Why is it that now you can’t test them with 2 wire?
I want numbers not that comment BS that my “eyes are closed.”
I did not say you are wrong your assessment of me is wrong!
How many Model “T”s have failed.
when being tested with one of those pieces of junk, zero, but zero is no a number is it? Zero is neutral
For the same reason they don’t make Model “T”s anymore
You can. Try pushing the test button on the device
This is why you can’t see the numbers
Then what did you mean when you said in post #49, “does the installation of the EGC make a system safer than one without the answer is yes.”
Can you understand my confusion? Those statements are opposites.
Mr. Whitt that tells me you don’t have the research of how many have failed even for this year and your condescending comment about the button makes you a xxxx.
These statements are not opposite unless one is looking with a closed mind.
In a circuit that is not GFCI protected the EGC is there in case of a direct fault in order to open the overcurrent device.
The EGC does not prevent someone from being electrocuted or even getting a slight shock.
Unless there is a direct short the EGC will carry any high impedance current and expose any person coming in contact with that current to suffer a shock.
The EGC is a non-current carrying conductor and only carries current in the event of a fault. It is not a live safety conductor it is an equipment safety conductor.
A GFCI device does not need an EGC in order to work. The GFCI works off an imbalance of current between the current carrying conductors. When this imbalance equals 5 milliamps the GFCI will open. It works without any interaction of the EGC.
A GFCI is a life safety device. It is designed to protect people not equipment. It protects a person from electrocution.
In my electrical career I have found cables that had nails and screws through them to the point of almost causing a fire and a few that did cause a fire. The equipment grounding conductor was carrying current but not enough to open the breaker. If these circuits had been protected by either GFCI or AFCI then the burning would never have happened.
All these post of an EGC is needed if the GFCI fails and the numerous finding of failed devices by a couple of the members here are by and in themselves unsafe and having a failed GFCI device with an EGC does not make that failed device somehow safe. It does not make the failed GFCI safer as it is unsafe period.
Where your confusion is coming in is you are trying to add water to your gas tank in order to get better mileage. The gauge says the tank if fuller so I can drive farther. You are trying to add black paint to white paint in order to get red paint. You are trying to breed a bull to a sheep in order to get goats.
The simple matter is the GFCI device is mandated to be installed on a two wire system if three wire devices are used. Why did that make this madate instead of mandating that an EGC be installed? Must be some reason.
Are you saying that you do have the numbes? Please post all this glorious information that we all might share.
For the most part the only people I ever hear reporting them are HIs that use a faulty tester to test them with. Those HIs that have the proper knowledge to test them are not finding so many. Thank God for the real HIs instead of the wannabes out there.
I can tell you how many false reports of failed GFCI devices I have investageted so far this year where someonewas trying to use a plugin tester and did not have the knowledge or wouldn’t do as suggested and test the correctly.