EV charging on GFCI...

[Fred Bloggs]

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 4:23:57 PM UTC-4, Ricky wrote:

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 2:39:38 PM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 12:37:51 PM UTC-4, Ricky wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 12:16:11 PM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:27:57 AM UTC-4, Ricky wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 10:55:57 AM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 10:34:55 AM UTC-4, Ricky wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 9:19:45 AM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 12:34:12 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
tirsdag den 8. august 2023 kl. 18.32.35 UTC+2 skrev Eddy Lee:
On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 9:27:15 AM UTC-7, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
tirsdag den 8. august 2023 kl. 18.23.31 UTC+2 skrev Don Y:
On 8/8/2023 9:15 AM, Eddy Lee wrote:
On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 9:06:41 AM UTC-7, Don Y wrote:
On 8/8/2023 8:25 AM, Eddy Lee wrote:
On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 1:10:48 AM UTC-7, Don Y wrote:
On 8/7/2023 6:35 AM, Eddy Lee wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 12:42:42 AM UTC-7, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 19:51:49 -0700 (PDT), Eddy Lee
eddy7...@gmail.com> wrote:

I am using the portable charger on friend\'s house, but it\'s tripping the GFCI circuit. How is that possible if the vehicle is isolated from the ground with four rubber tires?
Is the charger connected to a grounded mains socket ? Any current
leaking from the L to PE can cause CFCI problems. You do not need a
direct physical leakage to surrounding ground.

Yes, would it be better not to connect the ground wire?
Yeah, silly third wire no doubt put there just to allow
electricians to charge more for each fixture they install.
Likewise, those pesky *fuses*!

The GFCI is telling you something. Why not *listen*?

Q: WHAT’S THE PROBLEM with outlets on GFCI breakers – aside from cost?
A: About 60% of the time, we find that EV chargers WILL NOT WORK on a GFCI breaker (true of
both wall mount and “mobile connectors”). In those cases, when an EV charger is plugged in,
the breaker trips (and won’t reset with the unit plugged in). This is because all EVSE already
have GFCI technology built-in, and the two devices (GFCI breaker and GFCI charger) don’t play
well together. This is an extreme version of the problem known as “nuisance tripping.”

https://www.williamselectric.net/documents/FAQs-NEMA-1450-outlets-pkg-20210919.pdf
Duh. You aren\'t supposed to cascade GFCI\'s. (And, actually, AFCI\'s are
now the new norm)

The fact that the folks designing the chargers haven\'t realized that
ALL OUTDOOR/GARAGE OUTLETS ARE EXPECTED TO BE GFCI PROTECTED and
designed their chargers accordingly sure seems like a colossal fuckup!

Remove the GFCI from your garage. Then, wait to get electrocuted when
you plug in your vacuum cleaner to finish cleaning the car you just
washed. Ooops! (Maybe you should plug your charger into a BEDROOM outlet,
instead?)

[If you\'re like us, your GFCI protection is in the load center, NOT
the outlet]

Yes, this will come up again in another house. I am going to try to add a switch to by-pass the internal GFCI.
So, YOU have decided that the internal GFCI is not needed?

Why not contact the manufacturer and ask them why they
designed a product that in 99% of usage models WILL
be connected to a GFCI yet trips unexpectedly? Clearly,
someone didn\'t understand their application!
his \"charger\" is probably a pile of random electronic scrap held together with zipties and chewing gum
No, it\'s a commercial sealed unit. You think i would bother with GFCI if I put scraps together?
isn\'t it the GFCI in the house that trips?
The NEC in U.S. requires that all outdoor receptacles as well as receptacles in \"damp\" locations be GFCI protected.
The NEC is not actually a regulation. Each state decides on their own regulations, usually adopting the NEC, but on their own timetable. It\'s not unusual for a state to wait 20 years to adopt any particular section of NEC. They also modify the language when they choose.
States don\'t create their own electric codes. They do create their own building codes, and the localities put together their own building codes. All the codes are a collection of callouts to national standards codes by year of issue, including the NEC. They can do anything they want except cost the builders more money.
If you say so. The point is, having an NEC section, does not make it a regulation in any state. And states do have their own regulations which can be the same as NEC or can be different. There is no federal mandate to adopt anything in the NEC. NEC is a private organization, not a government body.
There\'s an insurance mandate, you\'re not going to get any without code compliance.
Which code, NEC or state? I\'m pretty sure the insurance companies are not going to refuse to insure every building in the state because there is no mandate to use the most current NEC. At this point you are just blowing smoke. Please stop.
And you can\'t get a mortgage either, lender requires an inspection for...wait for it...code compliance, that would be everything structural, electrical, plumbing, ordinance setbacks, you name it. Oh yeah, one minor little detail, locality will either pull or not issue certificate of occupancy for the dwelling. Meaning you\'ll get arrested if you try to live there.
Ok, we are off in fantasy land now. This is a simple matter. I gave you links that show what revisions, if any, of the NEC are used in various states. Yes, buildings must be in compliance with the regulations of the state they are in. That\'s it. NEC is only enforced if the state mandates it. You need to stop BSing now.
Absolutely none of this is pertinent to GFCI requirements.


https://na.bhs1.com/blog/post/state-by-state-guide-to-nec-adoption
https://www.nfpa.org/NEC/NEC-adoption-and-use/NEC-adoption-maps

Adoption map shows it is adopted everywhere, and which code by issue year is adopted. It doesn\'t show it\'s not adopted anywhere.
Wrong. There are four states that leave it up to the local jurisdictions. Also, each state has selected the revision of the NEC, with some being as old as 2008.
Notice some states don\'t mandate anything. The leave it to the local jurisdictions.
Pretty broad statement of misinformation there.
You only need to look at the map and other information provided! But that\'s too hard for you, isn\'t it?
It\'s a lot of trouble to write a code, so a smaller less resourced jurisdiction will just mandate everything conforms to the sate code.
Except there is no state code in four US states. Arizona, Illinois, Mississippi, and Missouri.
That\'s because of the way their state governments are organized, the state can\'t adopt a code for the localities. Idiot.

All the localities adopt the NEC. For some of these states it\'s a major administrative hurdle to adopt the latest code, it could take years.
The NEC is not mandatory in any way. The various jurisdictions adopt the NEC as they see fit, when they see fit. I have provided links, including links at NEC that tell you about this. You don\'t need to take my word for any of it. But... you are afraid to read, you might learn something.
Only 25 states have adopted the 2020 NEC.
No one is in any hurry to adopt the latest revisions, and that\'s usually because there\'s no emergency to do so. The administrative bureaucracy is involved and that means a long time. That\'s not a code issue.
Not sure what you mean, it\'s \"not a code issue\". Why would it be a \"code issue\"? The code for any jurisdiction is set by that jurisdiction.
If there\'s a problem with product defect then that\'s a separate issue and has nothing to do with the code.

Please stop lying about this.
You\'re a moron who thinks because there\'s no formal code adoption at the state level, the code must be disregarded or something. Like I said, you\'re a complete psycopathic idiot in denial about your suitability to walk around free in society.
You can\'t seem to understand anything I provide. There\'s no mandatory adoption of the NEC by any jurisdiction, states, or local. It is for each body to decide. You know this by now, unless you have refused to read any of the links I\'ve provided.

I guess some people are just hard headed. Whatever. We\'ve done this dance before where I provide you with evidence and you refuse to acknowledge that it exists. Hurrah for you!

This was you statement:

\"And states do have their own regulations which can be the same as NEC or can be different. \"

Really?

Then you took the in-process adoption map, which you don\'t even understand, to prove it.

Then you went even more moronic when you said :

\" I\'m pretty sure the insurance companies are not going to refuse to insure every building in the state because there is no mandate to use the most current NEC.\"

Pretty sure ,huh?

\"In 1895, a Committee on Automatic Sprinkler Protection was formed in Massachusetts by men affiliated with several fire insurance companies ...\"

NFPA was founded by the insurance industry to reduce economic losses due to \"fire, electrical, and related hazards.\" So yeah, they won\'t insure a house out of compliance with NEC, as determined by inspection.

--

Rick C.

+-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Ricky]

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 4:58:11 PM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 4:23:57 PM UTC-4, Ricky wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 2:39:38 PM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 12:37:51 PM UTC-4, Ricky wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 12:16:11 PM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:27:57 AM UTC-4, Ricky wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 10:55:57 AM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 10:34:55 AM UTC-4, Ricky wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 9:19:45 AM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 12:34:12 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
tirsdag den 8. august 2023 kl. 18.32.35 UTC+2 skrev Eddy Lee:
On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 9:27:15 AM UTC-7, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
tirsdag den 8. august 2023 kl. 18.23.31 UTC+2 skrev Don Y:
On 8/8/2023 9:15 AM, Eddy Lee wrote:
On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 9:06:41 AM UTC-7, Don Y wrote:
On 8/8/2023 8:25 AM, Eddy Lee wrote:
On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 1:10:48 AM UTC-7, Don Y wrote:
On 8/7/2023 6:35 AM, Eddy Lee wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 12:42:42 AM UTC-7, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 19:51:49 -0700 (PDT), Eddy Lee
eddy7...@gmail.com> wrote:

I am using the portable charger on friend\'s house, but it\'s tripping the GFCI circuit. How is that possible if the vehicle is isolated from the ground with four rubber tires?
Is the charger connected to a grounded mains socket ? Any current
leaking from the L to PE can cause CFCI problems. You do not need a
direct physical leakage to surrounding ground.

Yes, would it be better not to connect the ground wire?
Yeah, silly third wire no doubt put there just to allow
electricians to charge more for each fixture they install.
Likewise, those pesky *fuses*!

The GFCI is telling you something. Why not *listen*?

Q: WHAT’S THE PROBLEM with outlets on GFCI breakers – aside from cost?
A: About 60% of the time, we find that EV chargers WILL NOT WORK on a GFCI breaker (true of
both wall mount and “mobile connectors”). In those cases, when an EV charger is plugged in,
the breaker trips (and won’t reset with the unit plugged in). This is because all EVSE already
have GFCI technology built-in, and the two devices (GFCI breaker and GFCI charger) don’t play
well together. This is an extreme version of the problem known as “nuisance tripping.”

https://www.williamselectric.net/documents/FAQs-NEMA-1450-outlets-pkg-20210919.pdf
Duh. You aren\'t supposed to cascade GFCI\'s. (And, actually, AFCI\'s are
now the new norm)

The fact that the folks designing the chargers haven\'t realized that
ALL OUTDOOR/GARAGE OUTLETS ARE EXPECTED TO BE GFCI PROTECTED and
designed their chargers accordingly sure seems like a colossal fuckup!

Remove the GFCI from your garage. Then, wait to get electrocuted when
you plug in your vacuum cleaner to finish cleaning the car you just
washed. Ooops! (Maybe you should plug your charger into a BEDROOM outlet,
instead?)

[If you\'re like us, your GFCI protection is in the load center, NOT
the outlet]

Yes, this will come up again in another house. I am going to try to add a switch to by-pass the internal GFCI.
So, YOU have decided that the internal GFCI is not needed?

Why not contact the manufacturer and ask them why they
designed a product that in 99% of usage models WILL
be connected to a GFCI yet trips unexpectedly? Clearly,
someone didn\'t understand their application!
his \"charger\" is probably a pile of random electronic scrap held together with zipties and chewing gum
No, it\'s a commercial sealed unit. You think i would bother with GFCI if I put scraps together?
isn\'t it the GFCI in the house that trips?
The NEC in U.S. requires that all outdoor receptacles as well as receptacles in \"damp\" locations be GFCI protected.
The NEC is not actually a regulation. Each state decides on their own regulations, usually adopting the NEC, but on their own timetable. It\'s not unusual for a state to wait 20 years to adopt any particular section of NEC. They also modify the language when they choose.
States don\'t create their own electric codes. They do create their own building codes, and the localities put together their own building codes. All the codes are a collection of callouts to national standards codes by year of issue, including the NEC. They can do anything they want except cost the builders more money.
If you say so. The point is, having an NEC section, does not make it a regulation in any state. And states do have their own regulations which can be the same as NEC or can be different. There is no federal mandate to adopt anything in the NEC. NEC is a private organization, not a government body.
There\'s an insurance mandate, you\'re not going to get any without code compliance.
Which code, NEC or state? I\'m pretty sure the insurance companies are not going to refuse to insure every building in the state because there is no mandate to use the most current NEC. At this point you are just blowing smoke. Please stop.
And you can\'t get a mortgage either, lender requires an inspection for...wait for it...code compliance, that would be everything structural, electrical, plumbing, ordinance setbacks, you name it. Oh yeah, one minor little detail, locality will either pull or not issue certificate of occupancy for the dwelling. Meaning you\'ll get arrested if you try to live there.
Ok, we are off in fantasy land now. This is a simple matter. I gave you links that show what revisions, if any, of the NEC are used in various states. Yes, buildings must be in compliance with the regulations of the state they are in. That\'s it. NEC is only enforced if the state mandates it. You need to stop BSing now.
Absolutely none of this is pertinent to GFCI requirements.


https://na.bhs1.com/blog/post/state-by-state-guide-to-nec-adoption
https://www.nfpa.org/NEC/NEC-adoption-and-use/NEC-adoption-maps

Adoption map shows it is adopted everywhere, and which code by issue year is adopted. It doesn\'t show it\'s not adopted anywhere.
Wrong. There are four states that leave it up to the local jurisdictions. Also, each state has selected the revision of the NEC, with some being as old as 2008.
Notice some states don\'t mandate anything. The leave it to the local jurisdictions.
Pretty broad statement of misinformation there.
You only need to look at the map and other information provided! But that\'s too hard for you, isn\'t it?
It\'s a lot of trouble to write a code, so a smaller less resourced jurisdiction will just mandate everything conforms to the sate code.
Except there is no state code in four US states. Arizona, Illinois, Mississippi, and Missouri.
That\'s because of the way their state governments are organized, the state can\'t adopt a code for the localities. Idiot.

All the localities adopt the NEC. For some of these states it\'s a major administrative hurdle to adopt the latest code, it could take years.
The NEC is not mandatory in any way. The various jurisdictions adopt the NEC as they see fit, when they see fit. I have provided links, including links at NEC that tell you about this. You don\'t need to take my word for any of it. But... you are afraid to read, you might learn something.
Only 25 states have adopted the 2020 NEC.
No one is in any hurry to adopt the latest revisions, and that\'s usually because there\'s no emergency to do so. The administrative bureaucracy is involved and that means a long time. That\'s not a code issue.
Not sure what you mean, it\'s \"not a code issue\". Why would it be a \"code issue\"? The code for any jurisdiction is set by that jurisdiction.
If there\'s a problem with product defect then that\'s a separate issue and has nothing to do with the code.

Please stop lying about this.
You\'re a moron who thinks because there\'s no formal code adoption at the state level, the code must be disregarded or something. Like I said, you\'re a complete psycopathic idiot in denial about your suitability to walk around free in society.
You can\'t seem to understand anything I provide. There\'s no mandatory adoption of the NEC by any jurisdiction, states, or local. It is for each body to decide. You know this by now, unless you have refused to read any of the links I\'ve provided.

I guess some people are just hard headed. Whatever. We\'ve done this dance before where I provide you with evidence and you refuse to acknowledge that it exists. Hurrah for you!
This was you statement:
\"And states do have their own regulations which can be the same as NEC or can be different. \"
Really?

Then you took the in-process adoption map, which you don\'t even understand, to prove it.

If you read the information on the map and web page, you will see that states can modify the NEC language. But that would require that you actually read the page and make some attempt to understand that you might not be right!

Then you went even more moronic when you said :
\" I\'m pretty sure the insurance companies are not going to refuse to insure every building in the state because there is no mandate to use the most current NEC.\"
Pretty sure ,huh?

\"In 1895, a Committee on Automatic Sprinkler Protection was formed in Massachusetts by men affiliated with several fire insurance companies ...\"

NFPA was founded by the insurance industry to reduce economic losses due to \"fire, electrical, and related hazards.\" So yeah, they won\'t insure a house out of compliance with NEC, as determined by inspection.

And yet, the quoted material does not say that. You are inserting your meaning into the tiny bit of language you found.

You are being a BS artist. If a state does not require building to some provision of the NEC, the builders will not be building to that provision and the inspectors won\'t be inspecting to that provision. This means the insurance companies will have no way to determine if a building conforms to a provision of the NEC that is not required in that state.

You are full of hot air. You can\'t find anything to support your claims, so you twist things to claim they say what you are saying. Why are you like this?

Meanwhile, you are distracting from all the other parts of this discussion I have proven you wrong about.

--

Rick C.

--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:59:42 PM UTC-4, Ricky wrote:

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 4:58:11 PM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 4:23:57 PM UTC-4, Ricky wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 2:39:38 PM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 12:37:51 PM UTC-4, Ricky wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 12:16:11 PM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:27:57 AM UTC-4, Ricky wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 10:55:57 AM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 10:34:55 AM UTC-4, Ricky wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 9:19:45 AM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 12:34:12 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
tirsdag den 8. august 2023 kl. 18.32.35 UTC+2 skrev Eddy Lee:
On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 9:27:15 AM UTC-7, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
tirsdag den 8. august 2023 kl. 18.23.31 UTC+2 skrev Don Y:
On 8/8/2023 9:15 AM, Eddy Lee wrote:
On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 9:06:41 AM UTC-7, Don Y wrote:
On 8/8/2023 8:25 AM, Eddy Lee wrote:
On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 1:10:48 AM UTC-7, Don Y wrote:
On 8/7/2023 6:35 AM, Eddy Lee wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 12:42:42 AM UTC-7, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 19:51:49 -0700 (PDT), Eddy Lee
eddy7...@gmail.com> wrote:

I am using the portable charger on friend\'s house, but it\'s tripping the GFCI circuit. How is that possible if the vehicle is isolated from the ground with four rubber tires?
Is the charger connected to a grounded mains socket ? Any current
leaking from the L to PE can cause CFCI problems. You do not need a
direct physical leakage to surrounding ground.

Yes, would it be better not to connect the ground wire?
Yeah, silly third wire no doubt put there just to allow
electricians to charge more for each fixture they install.
Likewise, those pesky *fuses*!

The GFCI is telling you something. Why not *listen*?

Q: WHAT’S THE PROBLEM with outlets on GFCI breakers – aside from cost?
A: About 60% of the time, we find that EV chargers WILL NOT WORK on a GFCI breaker (true of
both wall mount and “mobile connectors”). In those cases, when an EV charger is plugged in,
the breaker trips (and won’t reset with the unit plugged in). This is because all EVSE already
have GFCI technology built-in, and the two devices (GFCI breaker and GFCI charger) don’t play
well together. This is an extreme version of the problem known as “nuisance tripping.”

https://www.williamselectric.net/documents/FAQs-NEMA-1450-outlets-pkg-20210919.pdf
Duh. You aren\'t supposed to cascade GFCI\'s. (And, actually, AFCI\'s are
now the new norm)

The fact that the folks designing the chargers haven\'t realized that
ALL OUTDOOR/GARAGE OUTLETS ARE EXPECTED TO BE GFCI PROTECTED and
designed their chargers accordingly sure seems like a colossal fuckup!

Remove the GFCI from your garage. Then, wait to get electrocuted when
you plug in your vacuum cleaner to finish cleaning the car you just
washed. Ooops! (Maybe you should plug your charger into a BEDROOM outlet,
instead?)

[If you\'re like us, your GFCI protection is in the load center, NOT
the outlet]

Yes, this will come up again in another house.. I am going to try to add a switch to by-pass the internal GFCI.
So, YOU have decided that the internal GFCI is not needed?

Why not contact the manufacturer and ask them why they
designed a product that in 99% of usage models WILL
be connected to a GFCI yet trips unexpectedly? Clearly,
someone didn\'t understand their application!
his \"charger\" is probably a pile of random electronic scrap held together with zipties and chewing gum
No, it\'s a commercial sealed unit. You think i would bother with GFCI if I put scraps together?
isn\'t it the GFCI in the house that trips?
The NEC in U.S. requires that all outdoor receptacles as well as receptacles in \"damp\" locations be GFCI protected.
The NEC is not actually a regulation. Each state decides on their own regulations, usually adopting the NEC, but on their own timetable. It\'s not unusual for a state to wait 20 years to adopt any particular section of NEC. They also modify the language when they choose.
States don\'t create their own electric codes. They do create their own building codes, and the localities put together their own building codes. All the codes are a collection of callouts to national standards codes by year of issue, including the NEC. They can do anything they want except cost the builders more money.
If you say so. The point is, having an NEC section, does not make it a regulation in any state. And states do have their own regulations which can be the same as NEC or can be different. There is no federal mandate to adopt anything in the NEC. NEC is a private organization, not a government body.
There\'s an insurance mandate, you\'re not going to get any without code compliance.
Which code, NEC or state? I\'m pretty sure the insurance companies are not going to refuse to insure every building in the state because there is no mandate to use the most current NEC. At this point you are just blowing smoke. Please stop.
And you can\'t get a mortgage either, lender requires an inspection for...wait for it...code compliance, that would be everything structural, electrical, plumbing, ordinance setbacks, you name it. Oh yeah, one minor little detail, locality will either pull or not issue certificate of occupancy for the dwelling. Meaning you\'ll get arrested if you try to live there.
Ok, we are off in fantasy land now. This is a simple matter. I gave you links that show what revisions, if any, of the NEC are used in various states. Yes, buildings must be in compliance with the regulations of the state they are in. That\'s it. NEC is only enforced if the state mandates it. You need to stop BSing now.
Absolutely none of this is pertinent to GFCI requirements.


https://na.bhs1.com/blog/post/state-by-state-guide-to-nec-adoption
https://www.nfpa.org/NEC/NEC-adoption-and-use/NEC-adoption-maps

Adoption map shows it is adopted everywhere, and which code by issue year is adopted. It doesn\'t show it\'s not adopted anywhere.
Wrong. There are four states that leave it up to the local jurisdictions. Also, each state has selected the revision of the NEC, with some being as old as 2008.
Notice some states don\'t mandate anything. The leave it to the local jurisdictions.
Pretty broad statement of misinformation there.
You only need to look at the map and other information provided! But that\'s too hard for you, isn\'t it?
It\'s a lot of trouble to write a code, so a smaller less resourced jurisdiction will just mandate everything conforms to the sate code.
Except there is no state code in four US states. Arizona, Illinois, Mississippi, and Missouri.
That\'s because of the way their state governments are organized, the state can\'t adopt a code for the localities. Idiot.

All the localities adopt the NEC. For some of these states it\'s a major administrative hurdle to adopt the latest code, it could take years.
The NEC is not mandatory in any way. The various jurisdictions adopt the NEC as they see fit, when they see fit. I have provided links, including links at NEC that tell you about this. You don\'t need to take my word for any of it. But... you are afraid to read, you might learn something.
Only 25 states have adopted the 2020 NEC.
No one is in any hurry to adopt the latest revisions, and that\'s usually because there\'s no emergency to do so. The administrative bureaucracy is involved and that means a long time. That\'s not a code issue.
Not sure what you mean, it\'s \"not a code issue\". Why would it be a \"code issue\"? The code for any jurisdiction is set by that jurisdiction.
If there\'s a problem with product defect then that\'s a separate issue and has nothing to do with the code.

Please stop lying about this.
You\'re a moron who thinks because there\'s no formal code adoption at the state level, the code must be disregarded or something. Like I said, you\'re a complete psycopathic idiot in denial about your suitability to walk around free in society.
You can\'t seem to understand anything I provide. There\'s no mandatory adoption of the NEC by any jurisdiction, states, or local. It is for each body to decide. You know this by now, unless you have refused to read any of the links I\'ve provided.

I guess some people are just hard headed. Whatever. We\'ve done this dance before where I provide you with evidence and you refuse to acknowledge that it exists. Hurrah for you!
This was you statement:
\"And states do have their own regulations which can be the same as NEC or can be different. \"
Really?

Then you took the in-process adoption map, which you don\'t even understand, to prove it.
If you read the information on the map and web page, you will see that states can modify the NEC language. But that would require that you actually read the page and make some attempt to understand that you might not be right!
Then you went even more moronic when you said :
\" I\'m pretty sure the insurance companies are not going to refuse to insure every building in the state because there is no mandate to use the most current NEC.\"
Pretty sure ,huh?

\"In 1895, a Committee on Automatic Sprinkler Protection was formed in Massachusetts by men affiliated with several fire insurance companies ...\"

NFPA was founded by the insurance industry to reduce economic losses due to \"fire, electrical, and related hazards.\" So yeah, they won\'t insure a house out of compliance with NEC, as determined by inspection.
And yet, the quoted material does not say that. You are inserting your meaning into the tiny bit of language you found.

Anybody who knows NFPA knows it was founded and sponsored by the insurance industry. You don\'t know the first thing about any of this.

You are being a BS artist. If a state does not require building to some provision of the NEC, the builders will not be building to that provision and the inspectors won\'t be inspecting to that provision. This means the insurance companies will have no way to determine if a building conforms to a provision of the NEC that is not required in that state.

There is no such thing as a state not requiring a provision. And they don\'t modify the language. They add amendments, and those amendments are more in line with state priorities and more stringent than the un-amended code.

\"The purpose of those amendments can vary, but typically, amended NEC codes give added weight to statewide priorities. For example, the California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 3 sets out clear guidance and requirements for new buildings while addressing sources of renewable energy.

Amendments may require surge protectors, set spacing for receptacles near water, mandate arc-fault circuit interrupters (AFCIs), or require tamper-resistant receptacles in certain types of homes. Some of these amendments could create an undue burden when applied at the national level, but are reasonable and appropriate for municipal-specific or statewide building codes.

The NFPA publishes special versions of the NEC for each state, which include detailed information on amendments. The Association also publishes municipality-specific guide documents for larger cities (the Chicago edition, for example, uses shaded text to clearly show readers where the Chicago code differs from the 2017 NEC).\"

You are full of hot air. You can\'t find anything to support your claims, so you twist things to claim they say what you are saying. Why are you like this?

Meanwhile, you are distracting from all the other parts of this discussion I have proven you wrong about.

You\'re an incapable, jackass, idiot, who, as usual, doesn\'t know the first thing about the subject matter.

--

Rick C.

--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Ricky]

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 7:40:55 PM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:59:42 PM UTC-4, Ricky wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 4:58:11 PM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 4:23:57 PM UTC-4, Ricky wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 2:39:38 PM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 12:37:51 PM UTC-4, Ricky wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 12:16:11 PM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:27:57 AM UTC-4, Ricky wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 10:55:57 AM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 10:34:55 AM UTC-4, Ricky wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 9:19:45 AM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 12:34:12 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
tirsdag den 8. august 2023 kl. 18.32.35 UTC+2 skrev Eddy Lee:
On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 9:27:15 AM UTC-7, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
tirsdag den 8. august 2023 kl. 18.23.31 UTC+2 skrev Don Y:
On 8/8/2023 9:15 AM, Eddy Lee wrote:
On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 9:06:41 AM UTC-7, Don Y wrote:
On 8/8/2023 8:25 AM, Eddy Lee wrote:
On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 1:10:48 AM UTC-7, Don Y wrote:
On 8/7/2023 6:35 AM, Eddy Lee wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 12:42:42 AM UTC-7, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 19:51:49 -0700 (PDT), Eddy Lee
eddy7...@gmail.com> wrote:

I am using the portable charger on friend\'s house, but it\'s tripping the GFCI circuit. How is that possible if the vehicle is isolated from the ground with four rubber tires?
Is the charger connected to a grounded mains socket ? Any current
leaking from the L to PE can cause CFCI problems. You do not need a
direct physical leakage to surrounding ground.

Yes, would it be better not to connect the ground wire?
Yeah, silly third wire no doubt put there just to allow
electricians to charge more for each fixture they install.
Likewise, those pesky *fuses*!

The GFCI is telling you something. Why not *listen*?

Q: WHAT’S THE PROBLEM with outlets on GFCI breakers – aside from cost?
A: About 60% of the time, we find that EV chargers WILL NOT WORK on a GFCI breaker (true of
both wall mount and “mobile connectors”). In those cases, when an EV charger is plugged in,
the breaker trips (and won’t reset with the unit plugged in). This is because all EVSE already
have GFCI technology built-in, and the two devices (GFCI breaker and GFCI charger) don’t play
well together. This is an extreme version of the problem known as “nuisance tripping.”

https://www.williamselectric.net/documents/FAQs-NEMA-1450-outlets-pkg-20210919.pdf
Duh. You aren\'t supposed to cascade GFCI\'s.. (And, actually, AFCI\'s are
now the new norm)

The fact that the folks designing the chargers haven\'t realized that
ALL OUTDOOR/GARAGE OUTLETS ARE EXPECTED TO BE GFCI PROTECTED and
designed their chargers accordingly sure seems like a colossal fuckup!

Remove the GFCI from your garage. Then, wait to get electrocuted when
you plug in your vacuum cleaner to finish cleaning the car you just
washed. Ooops! (Maybe you should plug your charger into a BEDROOM outlet,
instead?)

[If you\'re like us, your GFCI protection is in the load center, NOT
the outlet]

Yes, this will come up again in another house. I am going to try to add a switch to by-pass the internal GFCI.
So, YOU have decided that the internal GFCI is not needed?

Why not contact the manufacturer and ask them why they
designed a product that in 99% of usage models WILL
be connected to a GFCI yet trips unexpectedly? Clearly,
someone didn\'t understand their application!
his \"charger\" is probably a pile of random electronic scrap held together with zipties and chewing gum
No, it\'s a commercial sealed unit. You think i would bother with GFCI if I put scraps together?
isn\'t it the GFCI in the house that trips?
The NEC in U.S. requires that all outdoor receptacles as well as receptacles in \"damp\" locations be GFCI protected.
The NEC is not actually a regulation. Each state decides on their own regulations, usually adopting the NEC, but on their own timetable. It\'s not unusual for a state to wait 20 years to adopt any particular section of NEC. They also modify the language when they choose.
States don\'t create their own electric codes. They do create their own building codes, and the localities put together their own building codes. All the codes are a collection of callouts to national standards codes by year of issue, including the NEC. They can do anything they want except cost the builders more money.
If you say so. The point is, having an NEC section, does not make it a regulation in any state. And states do have their own regulations which can be the same as NEC or can be different. There is no federal mandate to adopt anything in the NEC. NEC is a private organization, not a government body.
There\'s an insurance mandate, you\'re not going to get any without code compliance.
Which code, NEC or state? I\'m pretty sure the insurance companies are not going to refuse to insure every building in the state because there is no mandate to use the most current NEC. At this point you are just blowing smoke. Please stop.
And you can\'t get a mortgage either, lender requires an inspection for...wait for it...code compliance, that would be everything structural, electrical, plumbing, ordinance setbacks, you name it. Oh yeah, one minor little detail, locality will either pull or not issue certificate of occupancy for the dwelling. Meaning you\'ll get arrested if you try to live there.
Ok, we are off in fantasy land now. This is a simple matter. I gave you links that show what revisions, if any, of the NEC are used in various states. Yes, buildings must be in compliance with the regulations of the state they are in. That\'s it. NEC is only enforced if the state mandates it. You need to stop BSing now.
Absolutely none of this is pertinent to GFCI requirements.


https://na.bhs1.com/blog/post/state-by-state-guide-to-nec-adoption
https://www.nfpa.org/NEC/NEC-adoption-and-use/NEC-adoption-maps

Adoption map shows it is adopted everywhere, and which code by issue year is adopted. It doesn\'t show it\'s not adopted anywhere.
Wrong. There are four states that leave it up to the local jurisdictions. Also, each state has selected the revision of the NEC, with some being as old as 2008.
Notice some states don\'t mandate anything. The leave it to the local jurisdictions.
Pretty broad statement of misinformation there.
You only need to look at the map and other information provided! But that\'s too hard for you, isn\'t it?
It\'s a lot of trouble to write a code, so a smaller less resourced jurisdiction will just mandate everything conforms to the sate code.
Except there is no state code in four US states. Arizona, Illinois, Mississippi, and Missouri.
That\'s because of the way their state governments are organized, the state can\'t adopt a code for the localities. Idiot.

All the localities adopt the NEC. For some of these states it\'s a major administrative hurdle to adopt the latest code, it could take years.
The NEC is not mandatory in any way. The various jurisdictions adopt the NEC as they see fit, when they see fit. I have provided links, including links at NEC that tell you about this. You don\'t need to take my word for any of it. But... you are afraid to read, you might learn something.
Only 25 states have adopted the 2020 NEC.
No one is in any hurry to adopt the latest revisions, and that\'s usually because there\'s no emergency to do so. The administrative bureaucracy is involved and that means a long time. That\'s not a code issue.
Not sure what you mean, it\'s \"not a code issue\". Why would it be a \"code issue\"? The code for any jurisdiction is set by that jurisdiction.
If there\'s a problem with product defect then that\'s a separate issue and has nothing to do with the code.

Please stop lying about this.
You\'re a moron who thinks because there\'s no formal code adoption at the state level, the code must be disregarded or something. Like I said, you\'re a complete psycopathic idiot in denial about your suitability to walk around free in society.
You can\'t seem to understand anything I provide. There\'s no mandatory adoption of the NEC by any jurisdiction, states, or local. It is for each body to decide. You know this by now, unless you have refused to read any of the links I\'ve provided.

I guess some people are just hard headed. Whatever. We\'ve done this dance before where I provide you with evidence and you refuse to acknowledge that it exists. Hurrah for you!
This was you statement:
\"And states do have their own regulations which can be the same as NEC or can be different. \"
Really?

Then you took the in-process adoption map, which you don\'t even understand, to prove it.
If you read the information on the map and web page, you will see that states can modify the NEC language. But that would require that you actually read the page and make some attempt to understand that you might not be right!
Then you went even more moronic when you said :
\" I\'m pretty sure the insurance companies are not going to refuse to insure every building in the state because there is no mandate to use the most current NEC.\"
Pretty sure ,huh?

\"In 1895, a Committee on Automatic Sprinkler Protection was formed in Massachusetts by men affiliated with several fire insurance companies ...\"

NFPA was founded by the insurance industry to reduce economic losses due to \"fire, electrical, and related hazards.\" So yeah, they won\'t insure a house out of compliance with NEC, as determined by inspection.
And yet, the quoted material does not say that. You are inserting your meaning into the tiny bit of language you found.
Anybody who knows NFPA knows it was founded and sponsored by the insurance industry. You don\'t know the first thing about any of this.

Which is entirely irrelevant to the issue of states adopting NEC. Insurance companies don\'t dictate to the government, no matter how much you would like that.

You are being a BS artist. If a state does not require building to some provision of the NEC, the builders will not be building to that provision and the inspectors won\'t be inspecting to that provision. This means the insurance companies will have no way to determine if a building conforms to a provision of the NEC that is not required in that state.
There is no such thing as a state not requiring a provision. And they don\'t modify the language. They add amendments, and those amendments are more in line with state priorities and more stringent than the un-amended code.

States take into consideration the economic issues of a given requirement. So they do not always adopt every part of the NEC or modify them.

\"The purpose of those amendments can vary, but typically, amended NEC codes give added weight to statewide priorities. For example, the California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 3 sets out clear guidance and requirements for new buildings while addressing sources of renewable energy.

Amendments may require surge protectors, set spacing for receptacles near water, mandate arc-fault circuit interrupters (AFCIs), or require tamper-resistant receptacles in certain types of homes. Some of these amendments could create an undue burden when applied at the national level, but are reasonable and appropriate for municipal-specific or statewide building codes.

The NFPA publishes special versions of the NEC for each state, which include detailed information on amendments. The Association also publishes municipality-specific guide documents for larger cities (the Chicago edition, for example, uses shaded text to clearly show readers where the Chicago code differs from the 2017 NEC).\"

You are full of hot air. You can\'t find anything to support your claims, so you twist things to claim they say what you are saying. Why are you like this?

Meanwhile, you are distracting from all the other parts of this discussion I have proven you wrong about.
You\'re an incapable, jackass, idiot, who, as usual, doesn\'t know the first thing about the subject matter.

Which goes to show you can\'t discuss a topic, without resorting to personal insults. I don\'t need to \"know\" the matter, when I can provide references at the NEC web site to prove you wrong.

--

Rick C.

--+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[ehsjr]

On 8/12/2023 12:37 AM, bud-- wrote:

On 8/8/2023 3:58 PM, ehsjr wrote:
On 8/8/2023 12:35 PM, Ricky wrote:

snip

My understanding is the GFCI is just a toroid with both power leads
wound through it so that is is sensitive to the difference in current
only.  This is sensed by an amplifier and used to control a relay.  I
can\'t see how cascading these would cause any problem.


That is the essence, but it\'s a bit more complex than that.
A GFCI detects a difference (of about 5ma or more) in current
between the line conductor and the neutral conductor as you
described. It also can detect a neutral to ground short on the
load side, if one exists. See page 6 of the datasheet:
https://media.digikey.com/pdf/Data%20Sheets/Texas%20Instruments%20PDFs/LM1851.pdf

I don\'t know if that applies to all GFCI\'s - I suspect it does.

For many years UL standards have require detection of a N-G
short/connection downstream.

Perhaps. But I don\'t know if all GFCI\'s have it - there may have
been UL listed GFCI\'s available years ago, prior to the requirement
of detecting a N-G short with no load current. GFCIs were first
required by the NEC in 1971 - UL 943 is dated 2006; there may
have been some earlier applicable UL standard, but I don\'t know.

And UL 943 allows GFI without the G-N no load short detection
as follows:
\"5.11.2 A portable ground-fault circuit-interrupter that is not
provided with an equipment ground shall not be provided with a
receptacle or cord connector of the grounding type, but shall be
provided with a polarized receptacle or cord connector\"

Such a portable GFCI might be involved in the EV charging situation
they are discussing - I don\'t know.

Detection does not require load current
flow (voltage drop). GFCIs have the 2 current transformers (page 6)
right together. The second CT tries to create a common-mode current
downstream in both H and N. If there is a N-G short that produces a
current that the other CT detects. If wired H-N reversed it still works.

Yes. And that may have been what one poster had in mind when he
talked about circuit bias. I don\'t know and I didn\'t want to speculate
about that disagreement. However, the detection with no load current
flow is a SHORT circuit of roughly 2(?) ohms (or less). It won\'t
detect leakage current G-N where the word leakage indicates a higher
resistance. For that detection - say for example 100 ohms - there
must be a load current.

Ed

GFCIs trip at 4-6 mA. AFCIs also have ground fault protection. Probably
required at 50 mA or less, and commonly provided at 30 mA.

These days most house circuits have to be AFCI or GFCI protected
(sometimes both).

And I don\'t know if is a factor in the EV charging problem
discussed in the thread.

Ed

 

[bud--]

On 8/11/2023 10:25 PM, Don Y wrote:

On 8/11/2023 9:37 PM, bud-- wrote:
GFCIs trip at 4-6 mA. AFCIs also have ground fault protection.
Probably required at 50 mA or less, and commonly provided at 30 mA.

No.  The AFCI requirement is independent of the GFCI.  One can purchase
devices
that include both or are *just* GFCI or *just* AFCI.

I wrote \"also have GROUND FAULT PROTECTION\", not \"GFCI.\" And 30-50 mA,
not 5 mA. AFCIs for many years have had ground fault protection.

Example of why - UL did tests of \"glowing connections\" on grounded
receptacles for a major manufacturer. You get a \"glowing connection\"
when there is a loose connection of H or N at the device and there is
significant current. The contact resistance produces heat and the
connection may get hot enough to \"glow\". This is not an arc, and an AFCI
will not detect it as an arc. UL found that in the heat damage to the
receptacle, for a significant percentage of cases a leakage path to
ground was created and an AFCI tripped on ground fault.

They address different problems.  The AFCI is (nominally) required in
bedrooms
(where ground-fault protection is rarely an issue -- bedrooms tend to be
dry places) to protect against arc-induced fires.  The GFCI intended to
protect against electrocution.

These days most house circuits have to be AFCI or GFCI protected
(sometimes both).

No, that depends on the local AHJ.  Many localities have *no* requirements
for AFCIs.

So we can talk about NEC requirements or can\'t talk about requirements
(\"\'no\' requirements\'). (Or we could talk about your opinions.)

And, there are still (sizeable!) loads that haven\'t (yet) been addressed
via GFCI *or* AFCI.

In a house, almost all 120V 15 & 20A receptacles have to be protected by
AFCIs or GFCIs or both. Has been the NEC for at least 10 years.

(And, of course, grandfather clauses mean existing equipment can be \"as
is\")

The NEC is almost entirely about new work - \"existing equipment can be
\'as is\'\". The few NEC requirements for existing equipment in the future
(with no new work) are substantially not enforceable.

\"Grandfathering\" is about not enforcing specific requirements on new
wiring. For example for many years a 240V drier circuit could also use
the neutral as a ground (with several requirements). The NEC now
requires a separate ground, but existing circuits are \"grandfathered\".
Else a new drier connection could not bond the N and G at the dryer.

 

[bud--]

On 8/12/2023 1:30 PM, ehsjr wrote:

On 8/12/2023 12:37 AM, bud-- wrote:
On 8/8/2023 3:58 PM, ehsjr wrote:
On 8/8/2023 12:35 PM, Ricky wrote:

snip

My understanding is the GFCI is just a toroid with both power leads
wound through it so that is is sensitive to the difference in
current only.  This is sensed by an amplifier and used to control a
relay.  I can\'t see how cascading these would cause any problem.


That is the essence, but it\'s a bit more complex than that.
A GFCI detects a difference (of about 5ma or more) in current
between the line conductor and the neutral conductor as you
described. It also can detect a neutral to ground short on the
load side, if one exists. See page 6 of the datasheet:
https://media.digikey.com/pdf/Data%20Sheets/Texas%20Instruments%20PDFs/LM1851.pdf


I don\'t know if that applies to all GFCI\'s - I suspect it does.

For many years UL standards have require detection of a N-G
short/connection downstream.

Perhaps. But I don\'t know if all GFCI\'s have it - there may have
been UL listed GFCI\'s available years ago, prior to the requirement
of detecting a N-G short with no load current. GFCIs were first
required by the NEC in 1971 - UL 943 is dated 2006; there may
have been some earlier applicable UL standard, but I don\'t know.

Don\'t know about earlier, but there have been multiple revisions of the
UL standard for GFCIs.

120V 15 & 20A GFCI receptacles for quite a few years have the feature.
Probably also GFCI breakers but I don\'t know for sure.

And UL 943 allows GFI without the G-N no load short detection
as follows:
\"5.11.2 A portable ground-fault circuit-interrupter that is not
provided with an equipment ground shall not be provided with a
receptacle or cord connector of the grounding type, but shall be
provided with a polarized receptacle or cord connector\"

Such a portable GFCI might be involved in the EV charging situation
they are discussing - I don\'t know.

Detection does not require load current flow (voltage drop). GFCIs
have the 2 current transformers (page 6) right together. The second CT
tries to create a common-mode current downstream in both H and N. If
there is a N-G short that produces a current that the other CT
detects. If wired H-N reversed it still works.

Yes. And that may have been what one poster had in mind when he
talked about circuit bias. I don\'t know and I didn\'t want to speculate
about that disagreement.  However, the detection with no load current
flow is a SHORT circuit of roughly 2(?) ohms (or less). It won\'t
detect leakage current G-N where the word leakage indicates a higher
resistance.  For that detection - say for example 100 ohms - there
must be a load current.

Ed


GFCIs trip at 4-6 mA. AFCIs also have ground fault protection.
Probably required at 50 mA or less, and commonly provided at 30 mA.

These days most house circuits have to be AFCI or GFCI protected
(sometimes both).

And I don\'t know if is a factor in the EV charging problem
discussed in the thread.

Ed

 

[bud--]

On 8/11/2023 10:16 PM, Don Y wrote:

On 8/11/2023 9:35 PM, bud-- wrote:
On 8/10/2023 12:06 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/10/2023 3:54 AM, Chris B wrote:
In our part of EU, ground fault detection has been mandatory for
decades.

The *earliest* requirement for GFCI protection, here, goes back about
50 years.  But, was of very narrow application (lighting in swimming
pools).

Typically, (all) requirements get tighter, over time as technologies and
techniques become commonplace.  And, evidence accumulates as to the
efficacy of newly established requirements.

The problem is that old and new are allowed to coexist.  So, you can
find
homes with K&T wiring... *and* GFCIs on their stoves/cooktops!

GFCIs work fine on K&T.

If you reread my comment, you won\'t find my claiming that they *don\'t*!
Rather, I made the point that \"old and new are allowed to coexist\";
K&T being an example of an *old* wiring practice while GFCI\'s (*on stoves*,
no less, not just bathroom/counters!) an example of a more modern one.

You said \"The problem is....\"

So there is no \"The problem is....\"

It is the exception, rather than the rule, that any structure will be
\"up to\" the current Code (as defined by local AHJ) -- unless the building
was very recently erected.

There is no mechanism in the NEC to require buildings be kept up to
current code. Such a requirement would be stupidly expensive. Other
codes could have limited requirements, for instance, require 2 kitchen
appliance circuits in rental units.

But not being up to current code is not a problem - there is no \"The
problem is....\"

They are explicitly allowed on circuits without a ground (a label is
applied to the grounded GFCI receptacle that says something like \"No
ground\").

\"GFCI Protected\".  This is also present on outlets powered from
GFCI breakers lest someone think they need to *add* GFCI protection
to such outlets.  And, to differentiate them from outlets that may
be similar (identical!) in appearance, nearby.

GFCI protected receptacles that have no ground connection must also to
be labeled \"No equipment ground\".

GFCIs can also protect downstream 2-wire circuits which I believe can
have grounded receptacles (with the label).

And, there\'s no easy way for someone to ascertain all of the things that
aren\'t up to *current* Code without an inspection and *detailed*
knowledge of the current Code.

People actually survived under previous codes. Safety is relative.
AFCIs were

And people were able to drive cars before seat belts, air bags, ABS, etc.

One can also drink water from a stream and not be *guaranteed* to take
ill!  :

There is no \"The problem is....\"

adopted without demonstration they improved safety. (Code change
proposals are

AFCIs address fires, not electrocution.

AFCIs address safety, including fire The NEC is about safety. It is
published by the NFPA - National Fire Protection Assn.

commonly rejected because the proposal lacks \"substantiation\".)


E.g., GFCIs often fail in a manner that allows the circuit to remain
powered but unprotected (!).  As this has become apparent, the (UL)
requirements for GFCIs have been tightened in an effort to make
such unsafe conditions visible to the user.

But, there are multiple ways that a conforming device can do this,
each with different degrees of \"inconvenience\" to the user (the most
inconvenient typically being the one that provides the greatest
protection!).

And, different implementations can be exempted from some of these
requirements.  E.g., if the trip solenoid is open-circuited, a GFCI
*receptacle* must handle this fault either by:
- denying power to the receptacle regardless of user\'s attempt to reset
- denying power but allowing the user to reset (until next test)
- a visual/audible indication
(So, you don\'t have a consistent manner of handling the fault from
one device to another!)

*BUT*, a GFCI *breaker* powering that circuit need not even *detect*
such a fault!  This because of the way GFCI breakers were designed
at the time the requirement was put into place.

The same requirement (and exception!) applies to a fault in the
semiconductor that controls the trip solenoid.

I don\'t remember seeing a GFCI that didn\'t protect (except if wired
line-load reversed - and that problems has been pretty well
eliminated. If reverse wired the GFCI now can\'t be reset, and the GFCI
comes tripped.)

I have found GFCIs that wouldn\'t reset - seems to be the failure mode.

\"Not seeing them\" isn\'t proof that they don\'t exist.  And, apparently
a high percentage!

http://www.neca-neis.org/ccl/newsletter/reportde06.html?articleID=814

This prompted UL to add test features to their requirements that
alert the user to this lack of protection (alternatively allowing
the manufacturer to deny power to the protected circuit).

The link is from 2000.

\"Underwriters Laboratories requires that GFCIs be tested monthly\". Has
been with every GFCI package I have seen.

Standards for GFCIs (and AFCIs, and lots of other stuff) are often
revised. This thread describes 3 revisions to the GFCI standard,

At the time, GFCI *breakers* were treated more leniently as their
designs made some of the requirements hard to meet.

 

[Don Y]

On 8/15/2023 7:33 AM, bud-- wrote:

Typically, (all) requirements get tighter, over time as technologies and
techniques become commonplace.  And, evidence accumulates as to the
efficacy of newly established requirements.

The problem is that old and new are allowed to coexist.  So, you can find
homes with K&T wiring... *and* GFCIs on their stoves/cooktops!

GFCIs work fine on K&T.

If you reread my comment, you won\'t find my claiming that they *don\'t*!
Rather, I made the point that \"old and new are allowed to coexist\";
K&T being an example of an *old* wiring practice while GFCI\'s (*on stoves*,
no less, not just bathroom/counters!) an example of a more modern one.

You said \"The problem is....\"

So there is no \"The problem is....\"

Of course there\'s a problem. \"Old\" doesn\'t provide the same protections that
\"new\" does. A house wired without an earth ground routed to all outlets is
definitely less safe than one that has such a ground. A house without GFCIs
(which is possible as there is no requirement to retrofit) is less safe
than a house WITH GFCIs. Ditto AFCIs. Smoke/CO detectors/etc.

It is the exception, rather than the rule, that any structure will be
\"up to\" the current Code (as defined by local AHJ) -- unless the building
was very recently erected.

There is no mechanism in the NEC to require buildings be kept up to current
code. Such a requirement would be stupidly expensive. Other codes could have
limited requirements, for instance, require 2 kitchen appliance circuits in
rental units.

But not being up to current code is not a problem - there is no \"The problem
is....\"

Clearly you have a bizarre idea of whether or not safety (lack of)
presents a problem.

They are explicitly allowed on circuits without a ground (a label is applied
to the grounded GFCI receptacle that says something like \"No ground\").

\"GFCI Protected\".  This is also present on outlets powered from
GFCI breakers lest someone think they need to *add* GFCI protection
to such outlets.  And, to differentiate them from outlets that may
be similar (identical!) in appearance, nearby.

GFCI protected receptacles that have no ground connection must also to be
labeled \"No equipment ground\".

Which is exactly what the first sentence, above, states. The *second* sentence
*adds* that this labeling is also present on GFCI *breaker* protected outlets
to differentiate them from (likely identical appearing) outlets that have no
such protection.

GFCIs can also protect downstream 2-wire circuits which I believe can have
grounded receptacles (with the label).

And, there\'s no easy way for someone to ascertain all of the things that
aren\'t up to *current* Code without an inspection and *detailed*
knowledge of the current Code.

People actually survived under previous codes. Safety is relative. AFCIs were

And people were able to drive cars before seat belts, air bags, ABS, etc.

One can also drink water from a stream and not be *guaranteed* to take ill!  :

There is no \"The problem is....\"

And there\'s no problem with cars not having seatbelts, or medications requiring
FDA approval.

adopted without demonstration they improved safety. (Code change proposals are

AFCIs address fires, not electrocution.

AFCIs address safety, including fire  The NEC is about safety. It is published
by the NFPA - National Fire Protection Assn.

AFCIs address fires, not electrocution. You seem to have a problem with
reading comprehension.

You\'ve already made it clear that safety isn\'t important to you...
(\"Not a problem\")

commonly rejected because the proposal lacks \"substantiation\".)

E.g., GFCIs often fail in a manner that allows the circuit to remain
powered but unprotected (!).  As this has become apparent, the (UL)
requirements for GFCIs have been tightened in an effort to make
such unsafe conditions visible to the user.

But, there are multiple ways that a conforming device can do this,
each with different degrees of \"inconvenience\" to the user (the most
inconvenient typically being the one that provides the greatest
protection!).

And, different implementations can be exempted from some of these
requirements.  E.g., if the trip solenoid is open-circuited, a GFCI
*receptacle* must handle this fault either by:
- denying power to the receptacle regardless of user\'s attempt to reset
- denying power but allowing the user to reset (until next test)
- a visual/audible indication
(So, you don\'t have a consistent manner of handling the fault from
one device to another!)

*BUT*, a GFCI *breaker* powering that circuit need not even *detect*
such a fault!  This because of the way GFCI breakers were designed
at the time the requirement was put into place.

The same requirement (and exception!) applies to a fault in the
semiconductor that controls the trip solenoid.

I don\'t remember seeing a GFCI that didn\'t protect (except if wired
line-load reversed - and that problems has been pretty well eliminated. If
reverse wired the GFCI now can\'t be reset, and the GFCI comes tripped.)

I have found GFCIs that wouldn\'t reset - seems to be the failure mode.

\"Not seeing them\" isn\'t proof that they don\'t exist.  And, apparently
a high percentage!

http://www.neca-neis.org/ccl/newsletter/reportde06.html?articleID=814

This prompted UL to add test features to their requirements that
alert the user to this lack of protection (alternatively allowing
the manufacturer to deny power to the protected circuit).

The link is from 2000.

And, as YOU have stated, there is no requirement to retrofit kit!
So, any home with such a device in it would INCREASINGLY fall into
that statistical summary.

\"Underwriters Laboratories requires that GFCIs be tested monthly\". Has been
with every GFCI package I have seen.

And EVERYONE tests them, right? <rolls eyes>

Cigarettes have had warnings on their packaging for... EVER!

Standards for GFCIs (and AFCIs, and lots of other stuff) are often revised.
This thread describes 3 revisions to the GFCI standard,

And none of the revisions (or original standard) need apply to ANY existing
building.

At the time, GFCI *breakers* were treated more leniently as their
designs made some of the requirements hard to meet.

 

[Don Y]

On 8/6/2023 7:51 PM, Eddy Lee wrote:

I am using the portable charger on friend\'s house, but it\'s tripping the GFCI circuit. How is that possible if the vehicle is isolated from the ground with four rubber tires?

The 15A power extension is fine. I have used this charger on another house before. Is the GFCI outlet too sensitive?

Anyway to deal with this? Temporary bypassing the GFCI outlet?

Possibly related -- definitely amusing!

<https://cleantechnica.com/2022/03/06/is-it-okay-to-charge-your-tesla-with-an-extension-cord/>

 

[Eddy Lee]

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 5:32:05 PM UTC-7, Don Y wrote:

On 8/6/2023 7:51 PM, Eddy Lee wrote:
I am using the portable charger on friend\'s house, but it\'s tripping the GFCI circuit. How is that possible if the vehicle is isolated from the ground with four rubber tires?

The 15A power extension is fine. I have used this charger on another house before. Is the GFCI outlet too sensitive?

Anyway to deal with this? Temporary bypassing the GFCI outlet?
Possibly related -- definitely amusing!

https://cleantechnica.com/2022/03/06/is-it-okay-to-charge-your-tesla-with-an-extension-cord/

When I have days to charge, I just bring my batteries in, no extension code needed.

 

[Ricky]

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 9:27:32 PM UTC-4, Eddy Lee wrote:

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 5:32:05 PM UTC-7, Don Y wrote:
On 8/6/2023 7:51 PM, Eddy Lee wrote:
I am using the portable charger on friend\'s house, but it\'s tripping the GFCI circuit. How is that possible if the vehicle is isolated from the ground with four rubber tires?

The 15A power extension is fine. I have used this charger on another house before. Is the GFCI outlet too sensitive?

Anyway to deal with this? Temporary bypassing the GFCI outlet?
Possibly related -- definitely amusing!

https://cleantechnica.com/2022/03/06/is-it-okay-to-charge-your-tesla-with-an-extension-cord/
When I have days to charge, I just bring my batteries in, no extension code needed.

I suppose when you had a gas car, you would take jerry cans to the gas station too?

--

Rick C.

+++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Eddy Lee]

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 9:17:17 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 9:27:32 PM UTC-4, Eddy Lee wrote:
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 5:32:05 PM UTC-7, Don Y wrote:
On 8/6/2023 7:51 PM, Eddy Lee wrote:
I am using the portable charger on friend\'s house, but it\'s tripping the GFCI circuit. How is that possible if the vehicle is isolated from the ground with four rubber tires?

The 15A power extension is fine. I have used this charger on another house before. Is the GFCI outlet too sensitive?

Anyway to deal with this? Temporary bypassing the GFCI outlet?
Possibly related -- definitely amusing!

https://cleantechnica.com/2022/03/06/is-it-okay-to-charge-your-tesla-with-an-extension-cord/
When I have days to charge, I just bring my batteries in, no extension code needed.
I suppose when you had a gas car, you would take jerry cans to the gas station too?

But they don\'t give out free gas at Primm. Until the up-coming Pilot EVSE is ready, I have to carry 3.5 ocean spray bottles of ventilator batteries (14 total) in a luggage. Ocean spray is the best (not necessary the juice) because it is more uniform at the top. Others are narrow at the top. Each bottle holds 4 batteries perfectly. The luggage hides the blinking lights (it\'s not functioning as a bomb, short of).

http://108.213.66.240/bat3.jpg

 

[Ricky]

On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 3:46:25 AM UTC-4, Eddy Lee wrote:

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 9:17:17 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 9:27:32 PM UTC-4, Eddy Lee wrote:
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 5:32:05 PM UTC-7, Don Y wrote:
On 8/6/2023 7:51 PM, Eddy Lee wrote:
I am using the portable charger on friend\'s house, but it\'s tripping the GFCI circuit. How is that possible if the vehicle is isolated from the ground with four rubber tires?

The 15A power extension is fine. I have used this charger on another house before. Is the GFCI outlet too sensitive?

Anyway to deal with this? Temporary bypassing the GFCI outlet?
Possibly related -- definitely amusing!

https://cleantechnica.com/2022/03/06/is-it-okay-to-charge-your-tesla-with-an-extension-cord/
When I have days to charge, I just bring my batteries in, no extension code needed.
I suppose when you had a gas car, you would take jerry cans to the gas station too?
But they don\'t give out free gas at Primm. Until the up-coming Pilot EVSE is ready, I have to carry 3.5 ocean spray bottles of ventilator batteries (14 total) in a luggage. Ocean spray is the best (not necessary the juice) because it is more uniform at the top. Others are narrow at the top. Each bottle holds 4 batteries perfectly. The luggage hides the blinking lights (it\'s not functioning as a bomb, short of).

http://108.213.66.240/bat3.jpg

You really need to get to a shrink. This might still be early enough to be treatable.

--

Rick C.

---- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
---- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Eddy Lee]

On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 1:03:30 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:

On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 3:46:25 AM UTC-4, Eddy Lee wrote:
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 9:17:17 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 9:27:32 PM UTC-4, Eddy Lee wrote:
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 5:32:05 PM UTC-7, Don Y wrote:
On 8/6/2023 7:51 PM, Eddy Lee wrote:
I am using the portable charger on friend\'s house, but it\'s tripping the GFCI circuit. How is that possible if the vehicle is isolated from the ground with four rubber tires?

The 15A power extension is fine. I have used this charger on another house before. Is the GFCI outlet too sensitive?

Anyway to deal with this? Temporary bypassing the GFCI outlet?
Possibly related -- definitely amusing!

https://cleantechnica.com/2022/03/06/is-it-okay-to-charge-your-tesla-with-an-extension-cord/
When I have days to charge, I just bring my batteries in, no extension code needed.
I suppose when you had a gas car, you would take jerry cans to the gas station too?
But they don\'t give out free gas at Primm. Until the up-coming Pilot EVSE is ready, I have to carry 3.5 ocean spray bottles of ventilator batteries (14 total) in a luggage. Ocean spray is the best (not necessary the juice) because it is more uniform at the top. Others are narrow at the top. Each bottle holds 4 batteries perfectly. The luggage hides the blinking lights (it\'s not functioning as a bomb, short of).

http://108.213.66.240/bat3.jpg
You really need to get to a shrink. This might still be early enough to be treatable.

Why? It\'s a practical solution to the difficult problem.
Just need to hold-on for another year or so. EA and EvGo are building at Primm.

 

[Eddy Lee]

On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 1:12:34 AM UTC-7, Eddy Lee wrote:

On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 1:03:30 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 3:46:25 AM UTC-4, Eddy Lee wrote:
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 9:17:17 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 9:27:32 PM UTC-4, Eddy Lee wrote:
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 5:32:05 PM UTC-7, Don Y wrote:
On 8/6/2023 7:51 PM, Eddy Lee wrote:
I am using the portable charger on friend\'s house, but it\'s tripping the GFCI circuit. How is that possible if the vehicle is isolated from the ground with four rubber tires?

The 15A power extension is fine. I have used this charger on another house before. Is the GFCI outlet too sensitive?

Anyway to deal with this? Temporary bypassing the GFCI outlet?
Possibly related -- definitely amusing!

https://cleantechnica.com/2022/03/06/is-it-okay-to-charge-your-tesla-with-an-extension-cord/
When I have days to charge, I just bring my batteries in, no extension code needed.
I suppose when you had a gas car, you would take jerry cans to the gas station too?
But they don\'t give out free gas at Primm. Until the up-coming Pilot EVSE is ready, I have to carry 3.5 ocean spray bottles of ventilator batteries (14 total) in a luggage. Ocean spray is the best (not necessary the juice) because it is more uniform at the top. Others are narrow at the top. Each bottle holds 4 batteries perfectly. The luggage hides the blinking lights (it\'s not functioning as a bomb, short of).

http://108.213.66.240/bat3.jpg
You really need to get to a shrink. This might still be early enough to be treatable.
Why? It\'s a practical solution to the difficult problem.
Just need to hold-on for another year or so. EA and EvGo are building at Primm.

The battery sticks are 3S3P of Panasonics 18650B (3.4Ah, 10Wh). Each stick is 90Wh. A crate (size/weight of 4 gallon bottles) of 8x4 is around 3KWhr or 9 miles. 3 to 4 crates should cover Primm to Vegas or Primm to Baker.

The sticks were made in 2020, but never used. They are randomly tested to be 90% to 105% rated capacity. However, my original source is out; so, I am thinking of building 4S2P 16V version. The onboard BMS balances cells with 5 bars LED indicators. I would also bring that out with a 6 pins header on one end and same 12 pins on another. I would use the tabbed version of cells. So, just need a new PCB.

 

[bud--]

On 8/15/2023 8:04 AM, Don Y wrote:

On 8/15/2023 7:33 AM, bud-- wrote:
Typically, (all) requirements get tighter, over time as
technologies and
techniques become commonplace.  And, evidence accumulates as to the
efficacy of newly established requirements.

The problem is that old and new are allowed to coexist.  So, you
can find
homes with K&T wiring... *and* GFCIs on their stoves/cooktops!

GFCIs work fine on K&T.

If you reread my comment, you won\'t find my claiming that they *don\'t*!
Rather, I made the point that \"old and new are allowed to coexist\";
K&T being an example of an *old* wiring practice while GFCI\'s (*on
stoves*,
no less, not just bathroom/counters!) an example of a more modern one.

You said \"The problem is....\"

So there is no \"The problem is....\"

Of course there\'s a problem.  \"Old\" doesn\'t provide the same protections
that
\"new\" does.  A house wired without an earth ground routed to all outlets is
definitely less safe than one that has such a ground.   A house without
GFCIs
(which is possible as there is no requirement to retrofit) is less safe
than a house WITH GFCIs.  Ditto AFCIs.  Smoke/CO detectors/etc.

It is the exception, rather than the rule, that any structure will be
\"up to\" the current Code (as defined by local AHJ) -- unless the
building
was very recently erected.

There is no mechanism in the NEC to require buildings be kept up to
current code. Such a requirement would be stupidly expensive. Other
codes could have limited requirements, for instance, require 2 kitchen
appliance circuits in rental units.

But not being up to current code is not a problem - there is no \"The
problem is....\"

Clearly you have a bizarre idea of whether or not safety (lack of)
presents a problem.

K&T, in your example, is easily protected with GFCIs, in your example.

I like circuits with grounds. But I survived living in a house and
duplex with K&T.

Present house was originally wired in rigid conduit and now has GFCIs
where new code requires. I would like to see actual stats on AFCIs
(stats didn\'t exist for the NEC). I believe a major manufacturer was
pushing AFCIs.

The NEC has some stupid provisions. The major relevant section of the
code allows a 20A (or 30A or 50A) \"single\" receptacle on a 15A circuit.
Same section doesn\'t allow some plug-in devices (amp rating) that UL
allows (an unenforceable provision).

They are explicitly allowed on circuits without a ground (a label is
applied to the grounded GFCI receptacle that says something like \"No
ground\").

\"GFCI Protected\".  This is also present on outlets powered from
GFCI breakers lest someone think they need to *add* GFCI protection
to such outlets.  And, to differentiate them from outlets that may
be similar (identical!) in appearance, nearby.

GFCI protected receptacles that have no ground connection must also to
be labeled \"No equipment ground\".

Which is exactly what the first sentence, above, states.  The *second*
sentence
*adds* that this labeling is also present on GFCI *breaker* protected
outlets
to differentiate them from (likely identical appearing) outlets that
have no
such protection.

First sentence: \"GFCI Protected\". That is not \"exactly\" the same as \"No
equipment ground\".

GFCIs can also protect downstream 2-wire circuits which I believe
can have grounded receptacles (with the label).

And, there\'s no easy way for someone to ascertain all of the things
that
aren\'t up to *current* Code without an inspection and *detailed*
knowledge of the current Code.

People actually survived under previous codes. Safety is relative.
AFCIs were

And people were able to drive cars before seat belts, air bags, ABS,
etc.

One can also drink water from a stream and not be *guaranteed* to
take ill!  :

There is no \"The problem is....\"

And there\'s no problem with cars not having seatbelts, or medications
requiring
FDA approval.

adopted without demonstration they improved safety. (Code change
proposals are

AFCIs address fires, not electrocution.

AFCIs address safety, including fire  The NEC is about safety. It is
published by the NFPA - National Fire Protection Assn.

AFCIs address fires, not electrocution.  You seem to have a problem with
reading comprehension.

You\'ve already made it clear that safety isn\'t important to you...
(\"Not a problem\")

commonly rejected because the proposal lacks \"substantiation\".)

E.g., GFCIs often fail in a manner that allows the circuit to remain
powered but unprotected (!).  As this has become apparent, the (UL)
requirements for GFCIs have been tightened in an effort to make
such unsafe conditions visible to the user.

But, there are multiple ways that a conforming device can do this,
each with different degrees of \"inconvenience\" to the user (the most
inconvenient typically being the one that provides the greatest
protection!).

And, different implementations can be exempted from some of these
requirements.  E.g., if the trip solenoid is open-circuited, a GFCI
*receptacle* must handle this fault either by:
- denying power to the receptacle regardless of user\'s attempt to
reset
- denying power but allowing the user to reset (until next test)
- a visual/audible indication
(So, you don\'t have a consistent manner of handling the fault from
one device to another!)

*BUT*, a GFCI *breaker* powering that circuit need not even *detect*
such a fault!  This because of the way GFCI breakers were designed
at the time the requirement was put into place.

The same requirement (and exception!) applies to a fault in the
semiconductor that controls the trip solenoid.

I don\'t remember seeing a GFCI that didn\'t protect (except if wired
line-load reversed - and that problems has been pretty well
eliminated. If reverse wired the GFCI now can\'t be reset, and the
GFCI comes tripped.)

I have found GFCIs that wouldn\'t reset - seems to be the failure mode.

\"Not seeing them\" isn\'t proof that they don\'t exist.  And, apparently
a high percentage!

http://www.neca-neis.org/ccl/newsletter/reportde06.html?articleID=814

This prompted UL to add test features to their requirements that
alert the user to this lack of protection (alternatively allowing
the manufacturer to deny power to the protected circuit).

The link is from 2000.

And, as YOU have stated, there is no requirement to retrofit kit!
So, any home with such a device in it would INCREASINGLY fall into
that statistical summary.

Where are the pictures of dead bodies. They are very effective in
getting code changes.

\"Underwriters Laboratories requires that GFCIs be tested monthly\". Has
been with every GFCI package I have seen.

And EVERYONE tests them, right?  <rolls eyes

Don\'t know about you.
I test them if there is a remote possibility of useful protection -
mostly working in the yard.

Cigarettes have had warnings on their packaging for... EVER!

Standards for GFCIs (and AFCIs, and lots of other stuff) are often
revised. This thread describes 3 revisions to the GFCI standard,

And none of the revisions (or original standard) need apply to ANY existing
building.

Where is the news of injuries from old GFCIs that would not have
happened with \'new\' GFCIs.

I don\'t see the major danger, for instance, of not immediately detecting
a downstream N-G short. It will be detected when there is load current -
voltage drop.

A major exception is that the originally mandated AFCIs were known to
be, in effect, beta versions, with MUCH better detection coming real
soon. But the NEC mandated them anyway.

You will be thrilled that a recent NEC revision requires that if a
receptacle in new wiring now requires AFCI or GFCI protection, a
replacement receptacle at that location requires that protection. It is
a requirement that is not enforceable (unless you call an inspector when
you replace a receptacle). But I am confident that everyone here will
provide protection, as appropriate.

 

[Eddy Lee]

On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 1:03:30 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:

On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 3:46:25 AM UTC-4, Eddy Lee wrote:
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 9:17:17 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 9:27:32 PM UTC-4, Eddy Lee wrote:
On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 5:32:05 PM UTC-7, Don Y wrote:
On 8/6/2023 7:51 PM, Eddy Lee wrote:
I am using the portable charger on friend\'s house, but it\'s tripping the GFCI circuit. How is that possible if the vehicle is isolated from the ground with four rubber tires?

The 15A power extension is fine. I have used this charger on another house before. Is the GFCI outlet too sensitive?

Anyway to deal with this? Temporary bypassing the GFCI outlet?
Possibly related -- definitely amusing!

https://cleantechnica.com/2022/03/06/is-it-okay-to-charge-your-tesla-with-an-extension-cord/
When I have days to charge, I just bring my batteries in, no extension code needed.
I suppose when you had a gas car, you would take jerry cans to the gas station too?
But they don\'t give out free gas at Primm. Until the up-coming Pilot EVSE is ready, I have to carry 3.5 ocean spray bottles of ventilator batteries (14 total) in a luggage. Ocean spray is the best (not necessary the juice) because it is more uniform at the top. Others are narrow at the top. Each bottle holds 4 batteries perfectly. The luggage hides the blinking lights (it\'s not functioning as a bomb, short of).

http://108.213.66.240/bat3.jpg

You really need to get to a shrink. This might still be early enough to be treatable.

Just heard about a shrink doctor checking himself in a mental hospital for a short time (he assumed). A few years later, he sued the hospital for with-holding drugs and made him worst. Would have been better if he prescribed drugs for himself.

Anyway, good deal for $99 generator. Waiting for one by Fed-Ex snail mail. Might get couple more later. I need 2 and 5/16 generators for 384V.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/195276204795

 

[Glen Mccgee]

Buy your driver\'s license,Passport, Visa, EITLS exams, Fake bank notes whatsapp: +1(541)782-8482

we supply perfectly reproduced counterfeit money with holograms and all security features available.
Indistinguishable to the eye and to touch.contact today
whatsapp : +1(541)782-8482
Email: Cliffbudman237@gmail.com
https://procounterfeitshop.company.com/

Why would you buy from us?
Our banknotes contain the following security features that make it to be genius and we have the best grade counterfeit in the world both Euro and Dollar and any bills of your choice you want. Security features of our bank notes are AAA grade with the following quality : Intaglio printing Watermarks Security thread See-through register Special foil/special foil elements Iridescent stripe / shifting colors. -Holograms and Holographic Strips -Micro-Lettering -Metallic Ink and Thread -Watermarks -IR Detection -Ultra-violet features -See through Features -Different serial numberwe offer both national and international deliveries. All of our deliveries are safe, fast and discreet.
All customer delivery information is eliminated after delivery to ensure a fair deal .
We supply only original high-quality BANKNOTES to all countries worldwide.
We print and sell perfect Grade A BANKNOTES of over 52 currencies. Our money is perfectly reproduced with all security features available and we assure you everything is safe and indistinguishable to the human eye and touch (REAL MONEY LOOK AND FEEL).
EUR - Euro
USD - US Dollar
GBP - British Pound
AUD - Australian Dollar
CAD - Canadian
and many more
Delivery usually takes 2-5 days
-Free shipping
-THE bills/notes bypass everything, counterfeit pens and machines.
-I have the best HOLOGRAMS AND DUPLICATING MACHINES
-UV: YES
-All security features available
contact today
whatsapp : whatsapp : +1(541)782-8482
Email: Cliffbudman237@gmail.com
https://procounterfeitshop.company.com/


WHERE CAN I USE THESE BANKNOTE?

MC DONALD\'S , SHOPS , RESTAURANTS , SUPERMARKETS , PETROL SHOPS , GAME HALL , ATM, BANKS,SHOPPING MALLS , GAME AND ATTRACTION PARKS , ELECTRONIC SHOPS , TAXI , METRO AND TRAIN STATION , USED TO PAY BUS AND ANY TRANSPORTATION

Tags:
counterfeit cash, counterfeiting
High Quality Undetectable Counterfeit Banknotes For Sale
HIGH QUALITY UNDETECTABLE COUNTERFEIT BANKNOTES FOR SALE
BUY SUPER HIGH QUALITY FAKE MONEY ONLINE GBP, DOLLAR, EUROS
BUY 100% UNDETECTABLE COUNTERFEIT MONEY £,$,€
BEST COUNTERFEIT MONEY ONLINE, DOLLARS, GBP, EURO NOTES AVAILABLE
BUY TOP GRADE COUNTERFEIT MONEY ONLINE, DOLLARS, GBP, EURO NOTES AVAILABLE.
TOP QUALITY COUNTERFEIT MONEY FOR SALE. DOLLAR, POUNDS, EUROS AND OTHER CURRENCIES AVAILABLE
Counterfeit money for sale
money, banknotes, fake money, prop money,
EUROS,DOLLARS AND POUNDS AND NOVELTY DOCUMENTS LIKE PASSPORTS,ID CARDS,GREEN CARDS AND DRIVERS LICENSE
counterfeit money for sale, buy fake money online, fake dollars, fake pounds, fake euro, buy money online, fake money for

sale. Buy Fake Dollars, Buy Fake British Pounds, Buy Fake Euro, Money, where can i buy counterfeit money?.


BUY QUALITY COUNTERFEIT MONEY WHATSAPP ME AT +1(541)782-8482 EUROS,DOLLARS AND POUNDS .AND S.S.D CHEMICALS.