I have an older home.
I would like to replace some of the two-hole receptacles with three-hole ones.
A friend told me to use GFCI, or better a GFCI receptacle.
(I also see a GFNT1 type. I have no idea what that is...)
What do you think?
Thanks!
Deguza
Depends what you're most worried about and where the receptacle is located. A GFCI protects against ground faults, which is important since with a two prong receptacle you have no ground. If there was a short from the hot wire to the metal case of a toaster or similar, the metal case would become energized and if you touched it while standing on a wet floor or touching a grounded appliance or water pipe, you could get shocked. With a GFCI, it will cut off the power when it detects a fault current of just a few miliamps, way below a harmful level. A GFCI receptacle will also protect downstream receptacles that are daisy chained to it, if wired in correcly.
AFCI is to detect and trip on arc faults, an example would be an appliance cord under a rug that's worn or wires some rodent has chewed, etc. An AFCI is most useful if it's in the panel, since it would then protect the whole wiring run on that circuit. At a receptacle, it will only protect what's plugged in.
For sure if it's a wet location, basement, possibly used for extension cords run outside, kitchen, bath, etc, I would go with GFCI. I'd go with that for any location, unless there is reason to believe AFCI would be more important. For the worry warts, I guess there are ones that will do both GFCI and AFCI.
The GFNT1 thing, I didn't know about those. Looks like that's the newest GFCI that now includes automatic, periodic self-test, while the previous ones had a test button. So, I'd go with those for GFCI, unless they cost significantly more.
AFCIs also incorporate ground fault protection but at the "equipment protection" level of 30ma instead of the "Personnel" level 5ma like a GFCI.
30ma is getting up into the danger level. You are getting into the "freeze" range where you might not be able to let go.
Code allows a GFCI "outlet" labelled "no equipment ground". It does NOT allow an GFCI breaker as far as I know - and definitely NOT an AFCI - when running with no "third wire" ground. Also - from memory, NO downstream protected outlets from that "no equipment ground" GFCI outlet.
Maybe in Canada but not the US. As long as the circuit is GFCI protected and you use the labels, you can replace all receptacles on that circuit with grounding type receptacles.
406.4(D)(2)(c) A non–grounding-type receptacle(s) shall be permitted to be replaced with a grounding-type receptacle(s) where supplied through a ground-fault circuit interrupter. Where grounding-type receptacles are supplied through the ground fault circuit interrupter, grounding-type receptacles or their cover plates shall be marked “GFCI Protected” and “No Equipment Ground,” visible after installation. An equipment grounding conductor shall not be connected between the grounding type receptacles.
OK. So you can use a gfci breaker on a 2 wire non groundedcircuit. I stand corrected (and it MAY be a difference in code between Canada and the USA. Can you find where you can use the GFCI device to protect downstream devices as well? I MAY be wrong there too - I was going from memory as I said.
AFCI still verbotten - right???
He just did. The code says that a receptacle protected by a GFCI interrupter can be marked as GFCI protected. It says nothing about that it has to be a breaker that provides the GFCI function.
IDK what verbotten means here. If you mean an AFCI receptacle won't provide that function to the circuit downstream, I would expect that like a GFCI it would. Seems logical, that you already have what's needed there so why not use it to provide protection downstream, but IDK.
It is a German ( I think) word that means forbidden. Just one of the words used on some older tv shows that gets into the American language.
In this context I would think it is used to mean not legal.
Because an AFCI does not provide adequate ground fault protection forsafety on an ungrounded sircuit
"non–grounding-type receptacle(s)" implying one or more.
(a) talks about the device type but it still says "non–grounding-type receptacle(s)". If you think about it, the intent is to provide GFCI protection in lieu of a ground if the ground is not available. This still will not provide complete surge protection when using those devices and the GFCI might keep you from being connected to the fault long enough st stop your heart but it doesn't keep you from falling off the ladder.
AFCI is not GFCI unless the device can provide both functions. Cuttler Hammer made the first true GFCI/AFCI but now the others are catching up. I think the long term goal is to make that the default breaker type for all but large commercial and special applications. Our European and NZ/Australian neighbors have been using whole panel RCDs for years (30ma protection) but the down side of this approach is one fault takes down the whole house.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.