Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Gary Tait wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 22:03:14 GMT, "Jeff" <levy_jeff@hotmail.com
wrote:
It would be incpnvenient to wait for the Poco to reset it. The best
thing would be a whole house GFCI, as is oftern used in most of the
rest of the world.
Whole house GFI? Where is this "rest of the world"? GFI'ing a whole house
would be stupid.
In actuality, they are often set up to protect only recptacle
circuits.
What does the word "they" refer to - a "whole house GFCI" ??
Yes.
Have you seen a European DIN panel setup?In actuality, there is no such thing that could be set up
to protect only receptacle circuits. You can protect 1 branch
circuit at a time with a GFI breaker or a GFCI receptacle.
With a GFCI receptacle, you can also protect only a part of
the circuit. A GFCI receptacle can be installed such that it
protects all outlets wired downstream of it, or only itself.
There's no such thing as a "whole house GFCI" in any event.
What would be the reason for NOT protecting all ALL circuits?Have you seen a European DIN panel setup?
With the way they can be configured you can have
certain groups of circuits protected, others not.
Safety, in that some circuits, that ordinarily would not pose an"Gary Tait" wrote ...
Have you seen a European DIN panel setup?
With the way they can be configured you can have
certain groups of circuits protected, others not.
What would be the reason for NOT protecting all ALL circuits?
(Individually, I mean. A single GFCI on the main seems silly.)
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 11:56:54 -0500, Chuck Harris <cfharris@erols.com
wrote:
The european codes have to be much stiffer than the US, it makes up for
their stupid decision of bringing 240V into every socket in the house.
240V, IMO, is a good thing, needs less copper per watt delivered. That
way, you can have more than 1500W appliances, without a special outlet
installed.
Cost."Gary Tait" wrote ...
Have you seen a European DIN panel setup?
With the way they can be configured you can have
certain groups of circuits protected, others not.
What would be the reason for NOT protecting all ALL circuits?
(Individually, I mean. A single GFCI on the main seems silly.)
No.On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 07:27:25 GMT, ehsjr@bellatlantic.net wrote:
Gary Tait wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 22:03:14 GMT, "Jeff" <levy_jeff@hotmail.com
wrote:
It would be incpnvenient to wait for the Poco to reset it. The best
thing would be a whole house GFCI, as is oftern used in most of the
rest of the world.
Whole house GFI? Where is this "rest of the world"? GFI'ing a whole house
would be stupid.
In actuality, they are often set up to protect only recptacle
circuits.
What does the word "they" refer to - a "whole house GFCI" ??
Yes.
In actuality, there is no such thing that could be set up
to protect only receptacle circuits. You can protect 1 branch
circuit at a time with a GFI breaker or a GFCI receptacle.
With a GFCI receptacle, you can also protect only a part of
the circuit. A GFCI receptacle can be installed such that it
protects all outlets wired downstream of it, or only itself.
There's no such thing as a "whole house GFCI" in any event.
Have you seen a European DIN panel setup?
Ok, so if I understand it, "whole house" really isn'tWith the way they can be configured you can have certain groups of
circuits protected, others not.
This would be a great example for considering all the effects of aWhy is the refrigerator,
specifically demanded by code, not on a GFCI? Because GFCIs
are good in some places and not desirable in others - as has
been proven by experience. A blown GFCI on a refrigerator can
create food poisoning - something learned by field
experiments.
Have you seen a new refrigerator or freezer without a grounded cordThis would be a great example for considering all the effects of a
'safety' improvement. Has there ever been a paper, or a summary of
the field trials, published on this result? Something that said, for
example, that each year, in the USA, X people get electrocuted by
refrigerators. This could be virtually eliminated by requring GFCIs,
but then Y people would die of food poisoning, and Y>X.
Or is it considered 'obvious' that this is the case? For example,
refrigerators are usually grounded, so maybe X is near 0, and it would
certainly be an inconvenience to have a GCFI breaker trip and spoil
your food.
Basically, does anyone know of any formal study or review on this
topic? I could not find any on-line, but such a study would probably
predate the internet.
Thanks,
Lou Scheffer
The National Electrical Code requires the metal case ofw_tom <w_tom1@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3FB9168E.A6195AF7@hotmail.com>...
Good idea if only using theoretical knowledge. [...]
Why is the refrigerator,
specifically demanded by code, not on a GFCI? Because GFCIs
are good in some places and not desirable in others - as has
been proven by experience. A blown GFCI on a refrigerator can
create food poisoning - something learned by field
experiments.
This would be a great example for considering all the effects of a
'safety' improvement. Has there ever been a paper, or a summary of
the field trials, published on this result? Something that said, for
example, that each year, in the USA, X people get electrocuted by
refrigerators. This could be virtually eliminated by requring GFCIs,
but then Y people would die of food poisoning, and Y>X.
Or is it considered 'obvious' that this is the case? For example,
refrigerators are usually grounded, so maybe X is near 0, and it would
certainly be an inconvenience to have a GCFI breaker trip and spoil
your food.
Basically, does anyone know of any formal study or review on this
topic? I could not find any on-line, but such a study would probably
predate the internet.
Thanks,
Lou Scheffer