tom williams
Member
Re: GFCI Testing
NFPA 99 4.3.2.2.9.3 (B)(4) has requirements for Health Care Facilities.
NFPA 99 4.3.2.2.9.3 (B)(4) has requirements for Health Care Facilities.
GFCI Testing
- Thread starter jshaw2
- Start date
- Status
- Location
- Lockport, IL
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Engineer
Re: GFCI Testing
But in this country, anyone can sue anyone else for anything. For example, I could sue you because I did not like the fact that you used the CAPS LOCK key on your post. It made me feel like you were yelling at me.
Look at 80.1. The scope of the NEC does not include operation of the household lighting system by the homeowner.
Arrested? No. Sued? Yes.
But in this country, anyone can sue anyone else for anything. For example, I could sue you because I did not like the fact that you used the CAPS LOCK key on your post. It made me feel like you were yelling at me.
Look at 80.1. The scope of the NEC does not include operation of the household lighting system by the homeowner.
Re: GFCI Testing
charlie b,
You had better rethink your answer. A person may very well be arrested and tried for violating certain codes. It all depends on the circumstances.
Where I live a person was charged and convicted for manslaugter because of an illegal bedroom in a basement. The bedroom did not have the proper second means of egress. A fire happened and someone sleeping in the bedroom died.
Again, it all depends on the circumstances and in cases like this on the district attorney and the grand jury that hears the case, but someone who knowingly violates certain codes which allow or cause someone to be maimed or killed may very well face criminal charges.
charlie b,
You had better rethink your answer. A person may very well be arrested and tried for violating certain codes. It all depends on the circumstances.
Where I live a person was charged and convicted for manslaugter because of an illegal bedroom in a basement. The bedroom did not have the proper second means of egress. A fire happened and someone sleeping in the bedroom died.
Again, it all depends on the circumstances and in cases like this on the district attorney and the grand jury that hears the case, but someone who knowingly violates certain codes which allow or cause someone to be maimed or killed may very well face criminal charges.
Re: GFCI Testing
I've been on lots of service calls where there is no power in the kitchen, and I get there and it is a tripped GFCI. Or when GFCIs first came out they were so expencive that they put one in a bathroom, and down ranged all exterior outlets from that bathroom one. I had friends complane about no receptiacls worked in there house and was blaming the original electrician. I just went around the house and reset all the GFCIs and all rec. that didn't work now work just fine.
Tripped GFCIs and blown light bulbs are the best service call. It's nice to get paid to reset GFCIs and change bulbs.
I've been on lots of service calls where there is no power in the kitchen, and I get there and it is a tripped GFCI. Or when GFCIs first came out they were so expencive that they put one in a bathroom, and down ranged all exterior outlets from that bathroom one. I had friends complane about no receptiacls worked in there house and was blaming the original electrician. I just went around the house and reset all the GFCIs and all rec. that didn't work now work just fine.
Tripped GFCIs and blown light bulbs are the best service call. It's nice to get paid to reset GFCIs and change bulbs.
- Location
- Lockport, IL
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Engineer
Re: GFCI Testing
I recognize that ?code,? by definition, constitutes ?law.? I understand that violating code is tantamount to violating law. But back to NEC Article 80.1: If a homeowner puts a 100 watt bulb in a lamp designated by its manufacturer for no more than 60 watt bulbs, that person is not violating the NEC.
By contrast, if the engineer?s plans showed a 100 watt bulb in a 60 watt fixture, or if the electrician installed a 100 watt bulb in a 60 watt fixture during the construction of the home, these would constitute NEC violations. But the engineer and the electrician take their copies of the NEC with them, when they hand the keys to the homeowner. The homeowner is not required to follow the NEC in the operation of the equipment in his or her home. If the homeowner did some DIY remodeling, then the NEC would come back into play. But the homeowner can change light bulbs without picking up the NEC.
OK, I?ve rethought it, and I reaffirm my position.
I recognize that ?code,? by definition, constitutes ?law.? I understand that violating code is tantamount to violating law. But back to NEC Article 80.1: If a homeowner puts a 100 watt bulb in a lamp designated by its manufacturer for no more than 60 watt bulbs, that person is not violating the NEC.
By contrast, if the engineer?s plans showed a 100 watt bulb in a 60 watt fixture, or if the electrician installed a 100 watt bulb in a 60 watt fixture during the construction of the home, these would constitute NEC violations. But the engineer and the electrician take their copies of the NEC with them, when they hand the keys to the homeowner. The homeowner is not required to follow the NEC in the operation of the equipment in his or her home. If the homeowner did some DIY remodeling, then the NEC would come back into play. But the homeowner can change light bulbs without picking up the NEC.
Re: GFCI Testing
Charlie,
I think you are being very naive. The original post said "A person knowingly puts..." The key words there are "person" and "knowingly".
A person could be anyone. The homeowner, the general contractor, or the electrician.
Knowingly means that the person was aware, at the least, that the fixture is only rated for a smaller bulb.
Now I do agree that a homeowner not knowing that the fixture is only rated for smaller wattage bulbs is not likely to be charged, but the original post makes it clear that the information is known.
Finally, a general contractor or an electrician in a situation would definitely be charged, as they should be.
Charlie,
I think you are being very naive. The original post said "A person knowingly puts..." The key words there are "person" and "knowingly".
A person could be anyone. The homeowner, the general contractor, or the electrician.
Knowingly means that the person was aware, at the least, that the fixture is only rated for a smaller bulb.
Now I do agree that a homeowner not knowing that the fixture is only rated for smaller wattage bulbs is not likely to be charged, but the original post makes it clear that the information is known.
Finally, a general contractor or an electrician in a situation would definitely be charged, as they should be.
- Status