kwired
Electron manager
- Location
- NE Nebraska
Just because it's the maximum doesn't mean you can just use the FLA to size the device. I think it's code standard that should be followed. I'll be honest with you, it may not trip even with using a smaller rated device, but it doesn't mean you designed it to code. It does not mean you can use any size you want.
Plus, for you as an EC you probably would want to installed the GFCI due to the price, but as the Engineer I'm left this the headache of the thing tripping after you leave, and explaining to the client AND judge why I didn't follow the NEC code. I disagree that it's lawyer issue, I'm required by the state to follow codes and standards, and if I don't I am liable.
The GFCI are not the same and treating the devices like they are, I feel is violation, especially when the NEC and UL make a distinction between the two devices on how they should be used. Just like treating CBs and Fuses like they are the same.
I don't agree with you, sorry.
I understand what you are saying, and with the information in the last couple posts or so I still say it is not an NEC violation as much as it is a design issue. NEC's first priority is protection of life and health of users of electrical energy. That is accomplished with But is loss of power an electrical hazard? Loss of power could be an issue with some other code. IMO if it is really critical that power to this cable not be interrupted then some kind of monitoring device is needed to ensure that it is operating.
The higher allowed leakage by the class B GFCI does not mean the device will never trip - it just trips at a higher leakage level, and same damage will still be done if it does trip. That is also part of your job as a designer is to determine if some kind of monitor is necessary, the decision not to use one has the same risk when it comes to consequences of losing power as deciding to use class A GFCI.