Home Page link

GFCI operation question

Home Repair - - If it ain't broken, don't fix it. Otherwise look here. 

Page 11 of 11       << first < 1 2 3 Bookmark this page:  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
GFCI operation question Methos 08-24-2006
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Posted by Member, Takoma Park Volunteer on October 1, 2006, 1:14 pm
phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> | PPS wrote:
> |>>I have been told, but have never sacrificed a device to verify, or set up
> |>>the appropriate test, that GFCI receptacles open BOTH the hot wire AND the
> |>>neutral wire when they trip. If so, why is that? Is it to offer at least
> |>>some protection even when the device is miswired? Or is there even some
> |>>risk with voltages on the neutral wire?
> |>
> |>
> |> Just opens the ungrounded conductor, not the ground (mistakenly called a
> |> neutral).
> |
> |
> | The grounding conductor is irrelevant to GFCI operation.
> | Both the neutral and the hot are interrupted when
> | a GFCI receptacle trips.
>
> So why is the neutral opened? That's an "academic question" (I can come up
> with what I think are good reasons to do so). Now, considering answers to
> this question, what protections might be lost if AFCI breakers that include
> GFCI protection at the 5ma level result in GFCI receptacles not being used?
> Is GFCI protection in a breaker considered adequate for the requirements in
> NEC 210.8 even though it does not open the neutral connection? Would YOU
> persoanlly feel less safe if all the receptacles in a kitchen were protected
> for ground fault leakage only by circuit breakers at the panel (assume that
> the panel is close by).
>
> There must be _some_ reason _they_ chose to include opening the neutral in
> GFCI receptacles (maybe more than one). But wouldn't such reasons also be
> applicable to circuit breaker based protection?
>
> What if you have _both_ GFCI protection at the breaker _and_ GFCI protection
> at the receptacle, say in a bathroom. Now suppose there is a slight leakage
> fault, but only the breaker opens on it. Maybe the receptacle was going to
> interrupt the fault, but was just sufficiently slow, perhaps due to a slow
> rise in the leakage current, that the breaker did it first, which prevents
> the receptacle from doing so. Now you have a condition where the neutral
> continues to be fully connected all the way from the main panel, through
> the GFCI receptacle that no longer has power on it's hot wire, and into the
> plugged in appliance that someone grabbed with a dripping wet hand while
> also grabbing a towel out of the basin water in the sink.
>
> Well, usually, a neutral doesn't have much voltage relative to ground. But
> if there was some kind of open neutral condition also present (now we are at
> the level of _two_ existant problems) and a rather unbalanced load between
> the two single phase poles (somewhat common), we could be dealing quite many
> volts still available through the GFCI receptacle that didn't trip because
> it lost power due to the ground fault that was detected by the breaker first.
>
> So my thinking here is, if there is protection to be gained by opening the
> neutral at GFCI receptacles, we should _not_ be requiring that AFCI breakers
> be of the type that combine GFCI protection. And perhaps such breakers
> should be prohibited for these circuits.
>
> Of course there is also the issue of the inconvenience of going all the way
> to the breaker panel to reset a ground fault. This could be particularly
> so for bathrooms (imagine being dripping wet, wearing only a towel, going
> out to the garage or down to the basement, standing on a concrete floor,
> to reset a breaker).
>

What makes you so certain that a GFCI circuit breaker does not open the
neutral? Have you checked with several manufacturers.

One reason why it might be OK for a breaker to leave the neutral alone
is that it is far less likely and in fact rather difficult for a breaker
to be revere wired. When a breaker type GFCI operates it will nearly
always open the ungrounded conductor. There are a lot more ways a
receptacle type of GFCI can be supplied with the ungrounded conductor
controlled by the grounded conductor leg of the GFCI mechanism.
--
Tom Horne

"This alternating current stuff is just a fad. It is much too dangerous
for general use." Thomas Alva Edison

Posted by on October 2, 2006, 4:22 am
In alt.engineering.electrical Member, Takoma Park Volunteer Fire Department

| What makes you so certain that a GFCI circuit breaker does not open the
| neutral? Have you checked with several manufacturers.

I've looked at the engineering diagrams, cut-aways, and schematics.
There are no contacts for interrupting the neutral wire.


| One reason why it might be OK for a breaker to leave the neutral alone
| is that it is far less likely and in fact rather difficult for a breaker
| to be revere wired. When a breaker type GFCI operates it will nearly
| always open the ungrounded conductor. There are a lot more ways a
| receptacle type of GFCI can be supplied with the ungrounded conductor
| controlled by the grounded conductor leg of the GFCI mechanism.

So basically, there is no goal or interest in specifically opening the
neutral. It's just a case of opening both in situations where either
might be the neutral.

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2006-10-02-0306@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

Posted by mm on August 25, 2006, 10:24 pm
wrote:

>On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 21:59:15 -0400, "Methos"
>
>>
>>the way a GFCI functions, would it trip
>>if a bad connection were made to it ?
>>
>>(if say, a terminal with the hot or
>> neutral wasn't screwed down tight &
>> a plugged in load drew current causing
>> the terminal to warm up - would the
>> GFCI trip ?)
>
>I don't think so. Why would the resistance of a bad connection be any
>different from the resistance of a light bulb.

Let me say what I said another way. GFCI outlets and circuit breakers
measure if there is a difference between the amount of current going
throught the hot wire and though the neutral wire. If they are the
same, the gfci sees no problem. Having a loose connection does not
mean that will happen. Using an appliance that shorts to your body
and from there to some other path than the neutral wire *would* cause
it to trip.

OTOH, if you took two all-metal screwdrivers, one in each hand, and
stuck one into each of the slots in an outlett, even a GFCI outlet,
you could burn your heart to a fine grey ash, and the breaker would
not trip. Because the same amount of current was going through the
two conductors.
>
>I wouldn't assume there will be arcing just because a connection isn't
>tight enough. So I wouldn't assume that even an arc fault circuit
>breaker would be tripped by a loose connection. Am I right or wrong?


Posted by ehsjr on August 25, 2006, 12:12 am
Methos wrote:
> the way a GFCI functions, would it trip
> if a bad connection were made to it ?
>
> (if say, a terminal with the hot or
> neutral wasn't screwed down tight &
> a plugged in load drew current causing
> the terminal to warm up - would the
> GFCI trip ?)
>
>

There's all kinds of "bad connections".
If the bad connection resulted in a difference
of 5 mA or more between the current in the neutral
versus the current in the hot wire, the GFCI
would trip. The example you gave would not cause
the GFCI to trip.

Ed

Posted by Zootal on August 25, 2006, 1:39 am
As others have mentioned, a GFCI would probably not trip. They sense current
differences, and usually have current overload sensing in them also. But a
bad connection causing the terminal to warm up would not trip it unless it
got very hot, and even then the results are indeterminate.


>
> the way a GFCI functions, would it trip
> if a bad connection were made to it ?
>
> (if say, a terminal with the hot or
> neutral wasn't screwed down tight &
> a plugged in load drew current causing
> the terminal to warm up - would the
> GFCI trip ?)
>
>



Page 11 of 11       << first < 1 2 3
Similar ThreadsPosted
Question about Operation of Trane XR-11 A/C Unit July 25, 2006, 5:58 pm
GFCI Question "take two" July 30, 2005, 3:19 pm
GFCI Question August 7, 2005, 8:43 pm
GFCI Question? December 1, 2005, 9:40 am
gfci question July 1, 2005, 6:31 pm
GFCI question March 29, 2007, 10:39 pm
Another GFCI Question June 23, 2006, 10:13 am
Another GFCI question; sorry! May 15, 2008, 2:23 am
GFCI question August 22, 2008, 8:04 pm
Re: GFCI question August 23, 2008, 2:03 pm

Contact Us | Privacy Policy

XML SitemapXML Sitemap