I don't know the details of the inards of GFI breakers. Maybe you do.
Lets say the COLD turn on surge is 20 Amps for a short time and that alone is not enough to trip a 20 A breaker.
Lets say there is also 3 mA of leakage and the trip point for the GFI break er is 5 mA so 3 mA alone is not enough to trip the breaker.
But what about both together? Maybe both together will trip.
I don't know if each trip point is totally seperate inside the breaker or if they somehow are added. Do you? (I'm not trying to be snooty)
I do know that a truely COLD bulb turn on draws a bigger surge then one whe re the bulbs have been pre warmed. It doesn't seem logical I agree, but I have seen it. You have to wait a good number of seconds for the filament to totally cool to get the full surge current.
It doesn't seem like this small diffence should be the OPs problem but at this point, who knows?
I agree with the suggestion to change to a non GFI breaker as a test to el iminate the leakage part of the question.
aker is 5 mA so 3 mA alone is not enough to trip the breaker.
r if they somehow are added. Do you? (I'm not trying to be snooty)
Yes, they are separate. The fault current is measured by comparing the balance between the current in the hot and neutral and it trips independently of the overall current. Adding wouldn't get you anywhere because the fault current trip is three orders of magnitude smaller than the load current trip.
here the bulbs have been pre warmed. It doesn't seem logical I agree, but I have seen it. You have to wait a good number of seconds for the filamen t to totally cool to get the full surge current.
I agree that cold bulbs will draw a lot more current initially.
at this point, who knows?
eliminate the leakage part of the question.
I thought he said he had done that and it worked without tripping?
We know it isn't -- because I moved the extension cord to a non-GFCI circuit and the circuit had no problem holding the load.
(We also know that in years past, a 15A-18A load had no problem on the same GFCI circuit!)
I don't know. Clearly (?) there is something "GFCI-related" with the current situation -- as a second GFCI breaker swapped in to replace the original GFCI breaker is behaving exactly the same way.
I don't. As I pointed out upthread, there's no guarantee that a non-GFCI's current holding characteristics, response time, etc. are the same as that of a GFCI breaker WITH THE GFCI PORTION DISABLED.
Again, note the (apparently thermal) characteristics reported:
- breaker IMMEDIATELY trips when switched on with a "cold" load (we'll leave the definition of "cold" vague, for now)
- seconds later, throwing the breaker holds, indefinitely
- "cold" lamps "plugged into" a live circuit immediately trip it
- lamps that have been on for hours can be unplugged and replugged within 1 (or 10!) seconds and the circuit will hold
- lamps that have been allowed to "rest" for 2 minutes will immediately trip the breaker
It sure *seems* like allowing things to "cool off" -- or, starting with something "cold" -- is the differentiating aspect of the problem.
Note that all this would do is isolate the "in wall wiring" as a potential cause of an hypothesized GFCI issue. We've already tried a non-GFCI branch circuit with the extension cord and lamps.
I'll try plugging the extension cord into a kitchen outlet (unloaded circuit) as that would test a different GFCI with the existing extension cord BUT DIFFERENT WIRING (as we've already tried a different GFCI with the existing extension cord and THE SAME WIRING).
[This is easy to do whereas tying the existing wiring to a nonGFCI breaker is a significant effort]
Wait, what is "it" in each of your statements? The actual leakage current? Or, the *setpoint* -- the point DEFINED BY THE BREAKER -- at which the GFCI will open the circuit?
What causes it (whatever "it" may be) to rise?
Ha! That last nominated for Understatement of the Year! ;-)
reaker is 5 mA so 3 mA alone is not enough to trip the breaker.
or if they somehow are added. Do you? (I'm not trying to be snooty)
Of course the currents are not added directly. That is not what i meant.
5 mA is nothing compared to 20A.
I mean the trip forces in the mechanism might add.
If 19 Amps puts say 1 pound of force on the trip mechanism and 3 mA also p uts one pound of force, then each alone might not trip it, but together the y put 2 pounds of force which could be enough to trip it.
These are mechanical devices afterall.
Mark
where the bulbs have been pre warmed. It doesn't seem logical I agree, b ut I have seen it. You have to wait a good number of seconds for the filam ent to totally cool to get the full surge current.
The GFCI isn't putting gradual force on the breaker to open it. It's detecting when a fault current exceeds the ~6ma level and driving a solenoid that opens the breaker. It's an all or nothing, instantaneous, thing, not gradual.
Different extension cord makes no change in symptoms.
(sigh) Sorry, but *I* can make a giant list of all possible combinations and permutations or circuit breakers, circuit breaker TYPES, extension cords, number of strings, WHICH strings, internal wiring, ambient temperature, time between applications of loads, etc. ...
then, try ALL of those variations to find the one(s) that work and don't.
That's not troubleshooting. That's what (inept) mechanics/plumbers/PC technicians/doctors/etc. do day to day:
"Well, let's try replacing the battery to see if that's the reason your old battery died..."
(weeks later) "Hmmm... I guess it wasn't the battery as that NEW one has also died! Let's try replacing the alternator!"
(weeks later) "Hmmm... what are the chances that the new/rebuilt alternator was defective? Maybe the cable harness is bad..."
I'm looking for a *reasoned* approach to a particular cause and effect: if *this* is the underlying problem, then this experiment will serve to isolate and identify that as the cause.
Do you understand the difference between "a standard breaker" and a GFCI?
A standard breaker has two connections: the power from the distribution bus bar (usually a "snap on") and the *wire* that feed the branch circuit ("load"). The branch circuit picks up it's neutral and ground connections from a common connection point shared among all branch circuits (as well as the "AC line input")
A GFCI breaker has *four* connections: bus bar, load, NEUTRAL and NEUTRAL PIGTAIL. I.e., the neutral wire feeding the branch circuit connects to the breaker, NOT the neutral connection point.
Assuming you remove the GFCI and LEAVE IT DANGLING by it's neutral pigtail, you still have to route the neutral for that branch circuit up to the connection point for ALL the neutral's in the panel. It's not "right next to" the breaker, alongside the "hot" connection to the breaker!
Would you like me to also replace all of the RED lights in the strings with BLUE ones? Maybe BOTH extensions are defective? After all, both have been out in the same environment... maybe they've both developed the same fault? A fault that HEALS ITSELF when the lights have had a chance to warm up??
Maybe both GFCI breakers have failed in the same way -- despite the fact that the other three located within inches haven't?
Sorry, I don't mean to sound pissy but "try this" is not what I'm looking for. I want to approach the problem logically not willy-nilly. I'd hoped someone might have *definitive* information of problems like this instead of a litany of hit-or-miss attempts. I.e., an explanation that reconciles ALL of the observations I've posted.
sorry but that is a part of troubleshooting Swapping around parts that you already have can be a very efficeint troubleshooting technique.
If we told you to go out and buy all new lights and new extension cords and new breakers and replace them all, that would not be troubleshooting, that would be shot-gunning.
If you prefer a more analytical approach, then go out and buy a dual trace oscilloscope, clamp on current probe and other assorted test equipment and we get then gather enough data to decide exactly what the problem is without swapping parts.
Sounds like we have nothing more to offer you in the way of help.
Be sure to come back and let us know what the answer turns out to be.
One quick one is the possibility of the extension cord having a fault (particularly as noted, if it's one of the pretty-common type with the indicator light in the plug). It's a common element in all the combinations done to date and is simple as compared to many of the other things you've tried already or proposing to eliminate.
"Willy-nilly" is pretty much what you've done to date; the above is, as noted, one common element in all. It may _not_ have any bearing but then again, if it just turned out to be so, then all the other pontificating is of little value.
(PS) And, no, on the GFCI circuit breaker I'm not specifically aware -- don't have any and plan to live out my life that way. :) If it's not feasible, then ok, so be it.
No, that's the lazy approach. That's the way auto mechanics start swapping things (charging you for each "new replacement" -- even if it didn't FIX the problem) out until they stumble on the "solution". Do they ever work their way backwards, undoing all of the other (faulty) changes they introduced along the way to definitively identify/verify that the "final change" was, in fact, the real reason? Do they swap the "bad" part back in to verify that the problem manifests, again?
This is just a lack of deductive reasoning capability. I see it in how folks troubleshoot electronic designs, software, etc. all the time. "Let's try this..." Then, if the device/program *appears* to work, they content themselves with having "fixed it" -- with no basis for belief that it is, in fact, (permanently/actually) "fixed".
"Well, it's working NOW..."
I guess in grade school we were taught "The Scientific Method"; form an hypothesis, construct an experiment to test that hypothesis, then apply it and verify the results.
And, you can run that process forwards or backwards, with predictable outcomes in each case.
E.g., note that when I unplugged the lamps this morning and re-plugged them, they didn't trip the breaker. Yet, plugging them "cold" caused an instant trip. So, modify the experiment -- wait *10* seconds before re-plugging. Then, 2 minutes.
Ah, now I have new information to assist in formulating a theory (what, in the circuit, can "account for time"?)
You'll note I lamented the loss of my HiPot tester, up-thread??
Agreed. I'll return to my original plan of diagnosis.
I'll look into it this weekend. The lights won't be needed, again, for several days so I can spend my time on other things that are more pressing.
But, it has to be a "leak" -- as the problem doesn't manifest when plugged into a non-GFCI circuit.
And, that "leak" has to somehow be healing itself, then reappearing (based on whether or not the lights have been on or off and for how long!)
I've been "willy nilly" in an attempt to be polite to folks offering suggestions here. It's not how *I* would have tackled the problem. But, having asked, it would be rude to dismiss suggestions when (in MOST cases -- change breaker, change load, plug into different outlet, swap extension cord, etc.) I can just do the test to humor the respondent.
But, the "try this" can go on indefinitely. And, you can always rationalize a semi-legitimate justification for each such attempt! (e.g., ALL of the lamps have been out in the elements; perhaps they've *all* been affected in some way! So, it doesn't matter which strings you try, the problem will persist -- cuz it's in ALL of them!)
[I worked on a piece of test equipment many years ago. There was a short between two of the power supplies -- on a "circuit board" that was 2 ft wide, 6 feet long and contained *thousands* of components! I.e., the short could be in any of those components. Or, in the board, itself. Troubleshooting all those potential connections -- considering that the short was an UNINTENDED connection -- would be a daunting task. Better to replace the board and start over... after several months of delay!
I hypothesized that a capacitor could be the "short" -- they were all over the (brand new!) board. Of course, *which* capacitor was the problem!
So, I simply picked one AT RANDOM, removed it from the circuit and tested it.
Shorted!
My colleagues looked at me like I had just walked on water: not only had I come up with the "problem" but also managed to find the defective capacitor, on my first attempt!
Boss, quickly turned that optimism into an accusation: "There's no way you could have known that THAT capacitor was the failed device! You *put* that there!!"
Sort of unfair -- given that I'd just saved his *ss!
I came back later to be greeted by news that *all* of the capacitors were shorted! (WTF??) Turned out, the board manufacturer had installed capacitors with the wrong voltage rating and, as soon as we had applied power, they all went "pffft!"
So, there was no "luck" involved in my finding THE shorted capacitor. OTOH, there was *genius* in my REASONING that it could be *a* shorted capacitor -- and not a wire that was misplaced (of the tens of thousands on the board)!]
My problem *has* to be related to the GFCI characteristics of the "circuit". And, not the GFCI detection itself (faulty breaker) but, rather, some aspect of what it is testing that the current configuration happens to "tickle" -- and, only in those cases where it *does* tickle (also accounting for those cases where it *doesn't*!)
_IF_ you did still have high quality test gear, I'd tend to agree with your attempt at more esoteric trouble-shooting. Lacking that, the likelihood of placing a measurement at the right spot with the facility to catch the event is approaching zero...
So you might as well eliminate the one common component from the problem before continuing down all those various ratholes you've previously enumerated...
On my QO panel it's easy - neutral buss on both sides. Putting in the GFCI I had to extend the neutral because the sparky that replaced the panel didn't run the neutrals for the breakers on the one side to the same side as the breaker - he put all the neutrals on the "short" side. VERY neet job - but made it difficult to install GFCI breakers in the panel.
Bolt on or snap on? I've seen a lot of issues lately on the old CH panels - (I'm talking from the '70s) - failing breakers and no direct replacements - so guys put in the new ones and butcher the panel cover to make them fit.
No, the logical approach is to imagine some agency (weather, infestation, phase of the moon) that has asserted itself on the "system". Then, think of what sorts of "changes" it could have made THAT WERE NOT PRESENT, PREVIOUSLY.
E.g., leaf cutter wasps laying eggs *inside* receptacles -- given that I know these exist, here; water infiltrating a fixture (nope, no water sources); something chewing on insulation (unlikely); etc.
I.e., look for a simple explanation that ties all the observations together, consistently. Yeah, it could be all my bulbs have a problem; it could be all my extension cords; all my GFCI's; etc. But, it's not LIKELY that all that stuff happened AT THE SAME TIME. I'd buy it if I had a problem with one string of lights last year, another the year before, etc.
OTOH, something affecting *one* of the receptacles would make sense -- *if* a reason for the other observations ALSO made sense!
Leakge from deteriorated insulation to the leaves is all it takes to trip a GFCI - and the fact they "stick" on the second or third attempt means they could be just drying themselves out enough to reduce the leak enough to not trip the third time.
a 5ma leak is low enough you generally will not even feel it if you are holding the wire and causing the "leak"
If it's the "Old CH" I'm thinking of, I'd be replacing it. It wouldn't stand a chance of passing code up here as a new install. NO conductors from the "switched" side are allowed into the "main" side of the panel. None. Period.
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.