Originally Posted By: jgallant This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I did a follow-up inspection on a panabode house built in 1969. 3-pronged outlets were installed throughout the house. Most outlets in a finished room in the basement were ungrounded, or had a weak ground according to my outlet tester. I recommended that a qualified electrician evaluate and repair so that an adequate ground was established at outlets where necessary. Sparky instead replaced the outlets with 2-pronged outlets. My understanding is that when new electrical work is installed (e. g. finishing a room in the basement and installing outlets), the electric work must comply with current codes. So this leads me to the question, when did the NEC start requiring 3-pronged grounded outlets in residential structures rather than 2-pronged outlets?
Originally Posted By: jgallant This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Kevin, I should clarify. Based on the age of the house (1969) I suspect that the NEC required 3-pronged grounded outlets when it was constructed. Again, all the outlets in the house were 3-pronged ones during my original inspection. Just a few, in the finished basement room, weren’t grounded. The rest were grounded. I also suspect that when the basement room was finished, someone did the wiring incorrectly, resulting in the ungrounded 3-pronged outlets there. In my original report I didn’t recommend that the ungrounded 3-prong outlets be swapped out with 2-prong ones since the house was likely built after the NEC required 3-prong grounded outlets. But I’d like to know for sure what year 3-prong outlets were required.
Originally Posted By: jpeck This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
The 1968 NEC made the change from the previous ‘receptacles which provide a grounding means’ (my wording) to the new ‘shall be provided with a grounding means’ (my words) and that the grounding means shall be bonded to the grounding conductor (again, my words as the code is long winded in two sections for this - one section calls for it, the other calls for it to be grounded).
The main difference between 1965 and 1968 is that the option to provide grounding for receptacles was removed and it became a requirement.
I remember working with my dad in the early '60s (he was an electrical contractor) and he used nothing but grounding type receptacles. Guess he grabbed onto the new, safer, grounding practices sooner than the rest did.
Originally Posted By: jtedesco This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
That’s a good reply and Joe’s research is accurate, his library is now bigger than mine.
It was in 1965 that they also changed the size of the bare wire from 16 AWG and 14 AWG, to 14 AWG and 12 AWG for NM cables because UL found the the smaller sizes were easily broken.
I have the 1965 "Preprint" with that report, so it is a fact.
Originally Posted By: jtedesco This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Len:
Dan will be in touch about the key.
The UP and Down question is so old it can vote!
I said that the orientation of the cord cap should be used to dictate the way in which the Uground should be installed.
There are about 6 or more different configurations that I have seen, and it will, and always has been a problem and has lead grown men and women to tears, and no matter how hard we try the code panel people will not make a rule to say up or down. 
Originally Posted By: jpeck This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Ground down.
When the ground is up, it comes out first. The circuit could then still be energized and NOT HAVE A GROUND!.
Ground DOWN is LESS hazardous.
At least with ground down, the hazard is right there at the plug.
With ground up, the hazard is still at the plug (just reduced to the ground / hot side), BUT IS MOST DANGEROUS AT THE DEVICE BEING USED (because the ground could be pulled out far enough to not make contact).
Originally Posted By: jfarsetta This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Originally, it was ground up. Markings on the receptacle, itself, supported this. They actually used to have an “up” designation on the receptacle tab.
The idea was thast if the receptacle cover were to loosen, and fall across the hot and neutral, there would be a problem. Ground up had the metallic covers falling on the ground.
That was before plastic receptacle covers were the norm. Since then, the "ground up" requirement went away.
-- Joe Farsetta
Illigitimi Non Carborundum
"Dont let the bastards grind you down..."
Originally Posted By: jpeck This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Joe F.,
I've looked back to the first references of grounding-type receptacles in the codes, and even back to the 1937 NEC Handbook (my oldest) and could not find any reference as to proper orientation, or, for that matter, orientation at all.
It just is not covered. At least not that I could find.
Guess it has always come down to what the installing electrician feels is most important. A ground down receptacle is no less safe than a two-wire non-grounding type when it comes slightly out of the wall. That has never been considered to be a problem. However, with the introduction of the grounding pin, it (the grounding pin) was made longer to make sure that it goes in first and makes first contact, and that it comes out last, making last contact. With the ground up, that safety feature has been defeated. And electrical codes are all about safety.
Anyway, just my opinion as to 'the why' a receptacle should be installed ground down.
Originally Posted By: tallen This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
When I was working Industrial we always put the grounds up.
The only reason I can figure is we were always moving equipment and pulling new wire.So I suppose if you were using a fish tape and for some reason it got out of hand(it always does) and landed on a loose plug-in it would land on the ground and not across the H&N.
I really don't see a benefit either way.
-- I have put the past behind me,
where , however, it now sits, making rude remarks.
Originally Posted By: dbozek This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Being in a commercial environment quite often…I tend to install duplexes with the ground up. In such environments, if a cord should come out slightly and something metal were to fall on the pins of the cord, in a ground down situation, there could be a nice arc and hopefully a tripped breaker if not a FPE panel. However, in a residential atmosphere, there is really no need for such a concern, even though such an accident could happen. I recently rewired a house though where the owner insisted that the ground be up on vertical mounted outlets and that the neutral pin be up on horizontally mounted outlets. I know of no code section that states what the orientation should be so I have to agree with Jerry…whatever preference the sparky chooses.
Originally Posted By: jtedesco This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
If a right-angle cap is used, the configuration shall be oriented so that the grounding member is farthest from the cord.
This rule is required to be applied when inspecting Mobile Homes, it is the only place that I am aware of in the NEC that gives a specific orientation requirement.
As I said before, the argument is very old! I have records, and reports and even articles that I wrote for EC&M that discussed the many different proposals that asked for the end of the argument.
This will never happen! 
The picture above, of the receptacle showing arcing, was intended to make us aware of the condition that could be present when a metal plate falls off of the receptacle when the 6/32 is loose, or falls off and is missing when some school kid decides to have some fun with a teacher who has something plugged into the receptacle.
A two wire transformer, used for printers, PDA's, or other devices will always result in this arcing, so the best advise that can be given is to replace the metal plates with plastic plates.
I actually own this receptacle because one of my students sent it to me for show and tell.
I am also happy to see Dennis come aboard again, welcome back and you may be busy if you read some of the previous messages and replies where we discussed items that I am sure will be familiar to you.
I await your replies and resurfacing of the issues that were covered.
Naturally, I am always happy to hear meaningful and qualified replies from those who are "qualified persons"!
