Just to save everyone some typing, I know a GFCI works and I've installed
dozens of them over time, both as standalone devices and as protection
for downstream receptacles. Line vs. load, Pre-2006 devices, Post-2006
devices, etc.

Anybody ever heard of a case where the GFCI acts like this:

Press the test button and the GFCI "trips" - the button pops out and the
downstream receptacles go dead. However, the GFCI itself is still live.

A tester shows that the GFCI is wired correctly, at least as far as hot,
neutral and ground are concerned. I can only assume that something
is wrong internal to the GFCI but if that's the case, that's a really dangerous
failure mode.

The homeowner doesn't know when the device was installed and isn't a
family member or close enough friend for me to start messing with wiring
in a 1940's era house. I shut off the breaker and told her to call an
electrician.

I've seen GFCI's fail, but not like that.

On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 19:02:58 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
<teamarrows@eznet.net> wrote:

>Just to save everyone some typing, I know a GFCI works and I've installed
>dozens of them over time, both as standalone devices and as protection
>for downstream receptacles. Line vs. load, Pre-2006 devices, Post-2006
>devices, etc.
>
>Anybody ever heard of a case where the GFCI acts like this:
>
>Press the test button and the GFCI "trips" - the button pops out and the
>downstream receptacles go dead. However, the GFCI itself is still live.
>
>A tester shows that the GFCI is wired correctly, at least as far as hot,
>neutral and ground are concerned. I can only assume that something
>is wrong internal to the GFCI but if that's the case, that's a really dangerous
>failure mode.
>
>The homeowner doesn't know when the device was installed and isn't a
>family member or close enough friend for me to start messing with wiring
>in a 1940's era house. I shut off the breaker and told her to call an
>electrician.
>
>I've seen GFCI's fail, but not like that.
Line and load switched???? Power to the downstreem and downstreem
cvircuit to the "line" side??? That's what it sounds like to me.

DerbyDad03 <teamarrows@eznet.net> wrote in
news:3a560277-b7df-4a49-86de-da8efbb702e7n@googlegroups.com:

> Just to save everyone some typing, I know a GFCI works and I've
> installed dozens of them over time, both as standalone devices and as
> protection for downstream receptacles. Line vs. load, Pre-2006
> devices, Post-2006 devices, etc.
>
> Anybody ever heard of a case where the GFCI acts like this:
>
> Press the test button and the GFCI "trips" - the button pops out and
> the downstream receptacles go dead. However, the GFCI itself is still
> live.
>
> A tester shows that the GFCI is wired correctly, at least as far as
> hot, neutral and ground are concerned. I can only assume that
> something is wrong internal to the GFCI but if that's the case, that's
> a really dangerous failure mode.
>
> The homeowner doesn't know when the device was installed and isn't a
> family member or close enough friend for me to start messing with
> wiring in a 1940's era house. I shut off the breaker and told her to
> call an electrician.
>
> I've seen GFCI's fail, but not like that.

I saw someone mention that on a home improvement TV show. They said when
the line and load were swapped, the GFCI would still shut off the
downstream outlets but would leave the GFCI outlet hot.

Hopefully they've redesigned them now.

Puckdropper

On 6/19/2023 9:02 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> Just to save everyone some typing, I know a GFCI works and I've installed
> dozens of them over time, both as standalone devices and as protection
> for downstream receptacles. Line vs. load, Pre-2006 devices, Post-2006
> devices, etc.
>
> Anybody ever heard of a case where the GFCI acts like this:
>
> Press the test button and the GFCI "trips" - the button pops out and the
> downstream receptacles go dead. However, the GFCI itself is still live.
>
> A tester shows that the GFCI is wired correctly, at least as far as hot,
> neutral and ground are concerned. I can only assume that something
> is wrong internal to the GFCI but if that's the case, that's a really dangerous
> failure mode.
>
> The homeowner doesn't know when the device was installed and isn't a
> family member or close enough friend for me to start messing with wiring
> in a 1940's era house. I shut off the breaker and told her to call an
> electrician.
>
> I've seen GFCI's fail, but not like that.

I suspect an internal short.

On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 11:37:31 PM UTC-4, Clare Snyder wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 19:02:58 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
> <teama...@eznet.net> wrote:
>
> >Just to save everyone some typing, I know a GFCI works and I've installed
> >dozens of them over time, both as standalone devices and as protection
> >for downstream receptacles. Line vs. load, Pre-2006 devices, Post-2006
> >devices, etc.
> >
> >Anybody ever heard of a case where the GFCI acts like this:
> >
> >Press the test button and the GFCI "trips" - the button pops out and the
> >downstream receptacles go dead. However, the GFCI itself is still live.
> >
> >A tester shows that the GFCI is wired correctly, at least as far as hot,
> >neutral and ground are concerned. I can only assume that something
> >is wrong internal to the GFCI but if that's the case, that's a really dangerous
> >failure mode.
> >
> >The homeowner doesn't know when the device was installed and isn't a
> >family member or close enough friend for me to start messing with wiring
> >in a 1940's era house. I shut off the breaker and told her to call an
> >electrician.
> >
> >I've seen GFCI's fail, but not like that.
> Line and load switched???? Power to the downstreem and downstreem
> cvircuit to the "line" side??? That's what it sounds like to me.

I bench tested that set-up last night. With power coming into the load side, my
GFCI won't even supply power to it's own receptacles. Won't set, etc. No power
downstream either.

It's possible that the GFCI in question is pre-2006 and may work differently. The
one I tested is definitely post-2006.

I removed the switch plate at the neighbor's house and the box is jammed packed
with the GFCI, a dimmer switch and a bunch of 12g wires. I couldn't get the GFCI
out more than 1/4" and I wasn't about to start removing the dimmer, yanking on
wires, etc.

On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 9:49:44 AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
> On 6/19/2023 9:02 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> > Just to save everyone some typing, I know a GFCI works and I've installed
> > dozens of them over time, both as standalone devices and as protection
> > for downstream receptacles. Line vs. load, Pre-2006 devices, Post-2006
> > devices, etc.
> >
> > Anybody ever heard of a case where the GFCI acts like this:
> >
> > Press the test button and the GFCI "trips" - the button pops out and the
> > downstream receptacles go dead. However, the GFCI itself is still live.
> >
> > A tester shows that the GFCI is wired correctly, at least as far as hot,
> > neutral and ground are concerned. I can only assume that something
> > is wrong internal to the GFCI but if that's the case, that's a really dangerous
> > failure mode.
> >
> > The homeowner doesn't know when the device was installed and isn't a
> > family member or close enough friend for me to start messing with wiring
> > in a 1940's era house. I shut off the breaker and told her to call an
> > electrician.
> >
> > I've seen GFCI's fail, but not like that.
> I suspect an internal short.

Internal Short = Dangerous Failure Mode :-O

On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 07:57:42 GMT, Puckdropper <puckdropper@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>DerbyDad03 <teamarrows@eznet.net> wrote in
>news:3a560277-b7df-4a49-86de-da8efbb702e7n@googlegroups.com:
>
>> Just to save everyone some typing, I know a GFCI works and I've
>> installed dozens of them over time, both as standalone devices and as
>> protection for downstream receptacles. Line vs. load, Pre-2006
>> devices, Post-2006 devices, etc.
>>
>> Anybody ever heard of a case where the GFCI acts like this:
>>
>> Press the test button and the GFCI "trips" - the button pops out and
>> the downstream receptacles go dead. However, the GFCI itself is still
>> live.
>>
>> A tester shows that the GFCI is wired correctly, at least as far as
>> hot, neutral and ground are concerned. I can only assume that
>> something is wrong internal to the GFCI but if that's the case, that's
>> a really dangerous failure mode.
>>
>> The homeowner doesn't know when the device was installed and isn't a
>> family member or close enough friend for me to start messing with
>> wiring in a 1940's era house. I shut off the breaker and told her to
>> call an electrician.
>>
>> I've seen GFCI's fail, but not like that.
>
>I saw someone mention that on a home improvement TV show. They said when
>the line and load were swapped, the GFCI would still shut off the
>downstream outlets but would leave the GFCI outlet hot.
>
>Hopefully they've redesigned them now.
>
>Puckdropper
Can't redesign them to do what they are not supposed to do. They MUST
be properly installed to work properly

On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 8:41:25 PM UTC-4, Clare Snyder wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 07:57:42 GMT, Puckdropper <puckd...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >DerbyDad03 <teama...@eznet.net> wrote in
> >news:3a560277-b7df-4a49...@googlegroups.com:
> >
> >> Just to save everyone some typing, I know a GFCI works and I've
> >> installed dozens of them over time, both as standalone devices and as
> >> protection for downstream receptacles. Line vs. load, Pre-2006
> >> devices, Post-2006 devices, etc.
> >>
> >> Anybody ever heard of a case where the GFCI acts like this:
> >>
> >> Press the test button and the GFCI "trips" - the button pops out and
> >> the downstream receptacles go dead. However, the GFCI itself is still
> >> live.
> >>
> >> A tester shows that the GFCI is wired correctly, at least as far as
> >> hot, neutral and ground are concerned. I can only assume that
> >> something is wrong internal to the GFCI but if that's the case, that's
> >> a really dangerous failure mode.
> >>
> >> The homeowner doesn't know when the device was installed and isn't a
> >> family member or close enough friend for me to start messing with
> >> wiring in a 1940's era house. I shut off the breaker and told her to
> >> call an electrician.
> >>
> >> I've seen GFCI's fail, but not like that.
> >
> >I saw someone mention that on a home improvement TV show. They said when
> >the line and load were swapped, the GFCI would still shut off the
> >downstream outlets but would leave the GFCI outlet hot.
> >
> >Hopefully they've redesigned them now.
> >
> >Puckdropper
> Can't redesign them to do what they are not supposed to do. They MUST
> be properly installed to work properly

They were redesigned in mid-2006 to be made safer by failing in the "off" condition.

Yes, they must be wired correctly, but I've proven via benching testing that swapping
line and load will not cause a post-2006 GFCI to act like the one I'm talking about.
If the incoming power is placed on the load side, the device won't ever go live,
therefore it can't "trip" when tested. You can't trip what can't be set.

I don't have a pre-2006 GFCI to test, so I don't know if mis-wiring an older GFCI would
cause this specific symptom.

On 6/20/2023 9:54 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 8:41:25 PM UTC-4, Clare Snyder wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 07:57:42 GMT, Puckdropper <puckd...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>> DerbyDad03 <teama...@eznet.net> wrote in
>>> news:3a560277-b7df-4a49...@googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>> Just to save everyone some typing, I know a GFCI works and I've
>>>> installed dozens of them over time, both as standalone devices and as
>>>> protection for downstream receptacles. Line vs. load, Pre-2006
>>>> devices, Post-2006 devices, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Anybody ever heard of a case where the GFCI acts like this:
>>>>
>>>> Press the test button and the GFCI "trips" - the button pops out and
>>>> the downstream receptacles go dead. However, the GFCI itself is still
>>>> live.
>>>>
>>>> A tester shows that the GFCI is wired correctly, at least as far as
>>>> hot, neutral and ground are concerned. I can only assume that
>>>> something is wrong internal to the GFCI but if that's the case, that's
>>>> a really dangerous failure mode.
>>>>
>>>> The homeowner doesn't know when the device was installed and isn't a
>>>> family member or close enough friend for me to start messing with
>>>> wiring in a 1940's era house. I shut off the breaker and told her to
>>>> call an electrician.
>>>>
>>>> I've seen GFCI's fail, but not like that.
>>>
>>> I saw someone mention that on a home improvement TV show. They said when
>>> the line and load were swapped, the GFCI would still shut off the
>>> downstream outlets but would leave the GFCI outlet hot.
>>>
>>> Hopefully they've redesigned them now.
>>>
>>> Puckdropper
>> Can't redesign them to do what they are not supposed to do. They MUST
>> be properly installed to work properly
>
> They were redesigned in mid-2006 to be made safer by failing in the "off" condition.
>
> Yes, they must be wired correctly, but I've proven via benching testing that swapping
> line and load will not cause a post-2006 GFCI to act like the one I'm talking about.
> If the incoming power is placed on the load side, the device won't ever go live,
> therefore it can't "trip" when tested. You can't trip what can't be set.
>
> I don't have a pre-2006 GFCI to test, so I don't know if mis-wiring an older GFCI would
> cause this specific symptom.

While this sounds unlikely, and yes I know now that you don't want to
pull that mess out of the box, but is there a chance that the receptacle
has two screws to hold two hot wires from different circuits? And yes it
would not make sense for that to be relevant if the GFCI is working
properly, I would think.

Where am I going with this? Some receptacles have a break off jumper
that connects both bottom and top portions in the receptacle. So the
top portion and bottom portion of the unit can be fed by separate
circuits. And this would possibly only meet any code if the GFCI itself
was out of range of a water hazard, basically it would be protecting
other outlets but one of its positions would still be live from another
circuit.

I'm probably speculating a lot here and if that is not the case the GFCI
is likely toast for safety reasons.

On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 08:34:41 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
<teamarrows@eznet.net> wrote:

>On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 11:37:31?PM UTC-4, Clare Snyder wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 19:02:58 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
>> <teama...@eznet.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Just to save everyone some typing, I know a GFCI works and I've installed
>> >dozens of them over time, both as standalone devices and as protection
>> >for downstream receptacles. Line vs. load, Pre-2006 devices, Post-2006
>> >devices, etc.
>> >
>> >Anybody ever heard of a case where the GFCI acts like this:
>> >
>> >Press the test button and the GFCI "trips" - the button pops out and the
>> >downstream receptacles go dead. However, the GFCI itself is still live.
>> >
>> >A tester shows that the GFCI is wired correctly, at least as far as hot,
>> >neutral and ground are concerned. I can only assume that something
>> >is wrong internal to the GFCI but if that's the case, that's a really dangerous
>> >failure mode.
>> >
>> >The homeowner doesn't know when the device was installed and isn't a
>> >family member or close enough friend for me to start messing with wiring
>> >in a 1940's era house. I shut off the breaker and told her to call an
>> >electrician.
>> >
>> >I've seen GFCI's fail, but not like that.
>> Line and load switched???? Power to the downstreem and downstreem
>> cvircuit to the "line" side??? That's what it sounds like to me.
>
>I bench tested that set-up last night. With power coming into the load side, my
>GFCI won't even supply power to it's own receptacles. Won't set, etc. No power
>downstream either.
>
>It's possible that the GFCI in question is pre-2006 and may work differently. The
>one I tested is definitely post-2006.
>
>I removed the switch plate at the neighbor's house and the box is jammed packed
>with the GFCI, a dimmer switch and a bunch of 12g wires. I couldn't get the GFCI
>out more than 1/4" and I wasn't about to start removing the dimmer, yanking on
>wires, etc.

Just being packed that tight likely violates the electrical code as
well.

Joe Gwinn

On Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 10:14:57 AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
> On 6/20/2023 9:54 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 8:41:25 PM UTC-4, Clare Snyder wrote:
> >> On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 07:57:42 GMT, Puckdropper <puckd...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>> DerbyDad03 <teama...@eznet.net> wrote in
> >>> news:3a560277-b7df-4a49...@googlegroups.com:
> >>>
> >>>> Just to save everyone some typing, I know a GFCI works and I've
> >>>> installed dozens of them over time, both as standalone devices and as
> >>>> protection for downstream receptacles. Line vs. load, Pre-2006
> >>>> devices, Post-2006 devices, etc.
> >>>>
> >>>> Anybody ever heard of a case where the GFCI acts like this:
> >>>>
> >>>> Press the test button and the GFCI "trips" - the button pops out and
> >>>> the downstream receptacles go dead. However, the GFCI itself is still
> >>>> live.
> >>>>
> >>>> A tester shows that the GFCI is wired correctly, at least as far as
> >>>> hot, neutral and ground are concerned. I can only assume that
> >>>> something is wrong internal to the GFCI but if that's the case, that's
> >>>> a really dangerous failure mode.
> >>>>
> >>>> The homeowner doesn't know when the device was installed and isn't a
> >>>> family member or close enough friend for me to start messing with
> >>>> wiring in a 1940's era house. I shut off the breaker and told her to
> >>>> call an electrician.
> >>>>
> >>>> I've seen GFCI's fail, but not like that.
> >>>
> >>> I saw someone mention that on a home improvement TV show. They said when
> >>> the line and load were swapped, the GFCI would still shut off the
> >>> downstream outlets but would leave the GFCI outlet hot.
> >>>
> >>> Hopefully they've redesigned them now.
> >>>
> >>> Puckdropper
> >> Can't redesign them to do what they are not supposed to do. They MUST
> >> be properly installed to work properly
> >
> > They were redesigned in mid-2006 to be made safer by failing in the "off" condition.
> >
> > Yes, they must be wired correctly, but I've proven via benching testing that swapping
> > line and load will not cause a post-2006 GFCI to act like the one I'm talking about.
> > If the incoming power is placed on the load side, the device won't ever go live,
> > therefore it can't "trip" when tested. You can't trip what can't be set..
> >
> > I don't have a pre-2006 GFCI to test, so I don't know if mis-wiring an older GFCI would
> > cause this specific symptom.
> While this sounds unlikely, and yes I know now that you don't want to
> pull that mess out of the box, but is there a chance that the receptacle
> has two screws to hold two hot wires from different circuits? And yes it
> would not make sense for that to be relevant if the GFCI is working
> properly, I would think.
>
> Where am I going with this? Some receptacles have a break off jumper
> that connects both bottom and top portions in the receptacle. So the
> top portion and bottom portion of the unit can be fed by separate
> circuits. And this would possibly only meet any code if the GFCI itself
> was out of range of a water hazard, basically it would be protecting
> other outlets but one of its positions would still be live from another
> circuit.
>
>
> I'm probably speculating a lot here and if that is not the case the GFCI
> is likely toast for safety reasons.

GFCI's do not have the bridge. There's no way to split a GFCI. Well, other
than with a hacksaw.

BTW another common reason to remove the bridge is when a switch is
involved. You can switch the lower receptacle and leave the top one live,
even on the same circuit.

Pop Quiz: Why do I say "switch the lower"?

On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 21:03:31 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
<teamarrows@eznet.net> wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 10:14:57?AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
>> On 6/20/2023 9:54 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 8:41:25?PM UTC-4, Clare Snyder wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 07:57:42 GMT, Puckdropper <puckd...@yahoo.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> DerbyDad03 <teama...@eznet.net> wrote in
>> >>> news:3a560277-b7df-4a49...@googlegroups.com:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Just to save everyone some typing, I know a GFCI works and I've
>> >>>> installed dozens of them over time, both as standalone devices and as
>> >>>> protection for downstream receptacles. Line vs. load, Pre-2006
>> >>>> devices, Post-2006 devices, etc.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Anybody ever heard of a case where the GFCI acts like this:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Press the test button and the GFCI "trips" - the button pops out and
>> >>>> the downstream receptacles go dead. However, the GFCI itself is still
>> >>>> live.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> A tester shows that the GFCI is wired correctly, at least as far as
>> >>>> hot, neutral and ground are concerned. I can only assume that
>> >>>> something is wrong internal to the GFCI but if that's the case, that's
>> >>>> a really dangerous failure mode.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The homeowner doesn't know when the device was installed and isn't a
>> >>>> family member or close enough friend for me to start messing with
>> >>>> wiring in a 1940's era house. I shut off the breaker and told her to
>> >>>> call an electrician.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I've seen GFCI's fail, but not like that.
>> >>>
>> >>> I saw someone mention that on a home improvement TV show. They said when
>> >>> the line and load were swapped, the GFCI would still shut off the
>> >>> downstream outlets but would leave the GFCI outlet hot.
>> >>>
>> >>> Hopefully they've redesigned them now.
>> >>>
>> >>> Puckdropper
>> >> Can't redesign them to do what they are not supposed to do. They MUST
>> >> be properly installed to work properly
>> >
>> > They were redesigned in mid-2006 to be made safer by failing in the "off" condition.
>> >
>> > Yes, they must be wired correctly, but I've proven via benching testing that swapping
>> > line and load will not cause a post-2006 GFCI to act like the one I'm talking about.
>> > If the incoming power is placed on the load side, the device won't ever go live,
>> > therefore it can't "trip" when tested. You can't trip what can't be set.
>> >
>> > I don't have a pre-2006 GFCI to test, so I don't know if mis-wiring an older GFCI would
>> > cause this specific symptom.
>> While this sounds unlikely, and yes I know now that you don't want to
>> pull that mess out of the box, but is there a chance that the receptacle
>> has two screws to hold two hot wires from different circuits? And yes it
>> would not make sense for that to be relevant if the GFCI is working
>> properly, I would think.
>>
>> Where am I going with this? Some receptacles have a break off jumper
>> that connects both bottom and top portions in the receptacle. So the
>> top portion and bottom portion of the unit can be fed by separate
>> circuits. And this would possibly only meet any code if the GFCI itself
>> was out of range of a water hazard, basically it would be protecting
>> other outlets but one of its positions would still be live from another
>> circuit.
>>
>>
>> I'm probably speculating a lot here and if that is not the case the GFCI
>> is likely toast for safety reasons.
>
>GFCI's do not have the bridge. There's no way to split a GFCI. Well, other
>than with a hacksaw.
>
>BTW another common reason to remove the bridge is when a switch is
>involved. You can switch the lower receptacle and leave the top one live,
>even on the same circuit.
>
>Pop Quiz: Why do I say "switch the lower"?
Because that is the standard - lower "lamp" side switched - upper
"live" unswitched.

On Thursday, June 22, 2023 at 10:07:51 AM UTC-4, Clare Snyder wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 21:03:31 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
> <teama...@eznet.net> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 10:14:57?AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
> >> On 6/20/2023 9:54 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> >> > On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 8:41:25?PM UTC-4, Clare Snyder wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 07:57:42 GMT, Puckdropper <puckd...@yahoo.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>> DerbyDad03 <teama...@eznet.net> wrote in
> >> >>> news:3a560277-b7df-4a49...@googlegroups.com:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> Just to save everyone some typing, I know a GFCI works and I've
> >> >>>> installed dozens of them over time, both as standalone devices and as
> >> >>>> protection for downstream receptacles. Line vs. load, Pre-2006
> >> >>>> devices, Post-2006 devices, etc.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Anybody ever heard of a case where the GFCI acts like this:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Press the test button and the GFCI "trips" - the button pops out and
> >> >>>> the downstream receptacles go dead. However, the GFCI itself is still
> >> >>>> live.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> A tester shows that the GFCI is wired correctly, at least as far as
> >> >>>> hot, neutral and ground are concerned. I can only assume that
> >> >>>> something is wrong internal to the GFCI but if that's the case, that's
> >> >>>> a really dangerous failure mode.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> The homeowner doesn't know when the device was installed and isn't a
> >> >>>> family member or close enough friend for me to start messing with
> >> >>>> wiring in a 1940's era house. I shut off the breaker and told her to
> >> >>>> call an electrician.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I've seen GFCI's fail, but not like that.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I saw someone mention that on a home improvement TV show. They said when
> >> >>> the line and load were swapped, the GFCI would still shut off the
> >> >>> downstream outlets but would leave the GFCI outlet hot.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Hopefully they've redesigned them now.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Puckdropper
> >> >> Can't redesign them to do what they are not supposed to do. They MUST
> >> >> be properly installed to work properly
> >> >
> >> > They were redesigned in mid-2006 to be made safer by failing in the "off" condition.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, they must be wired correctly, but I've proven via benching testing that swapping
> >> > line and load will not cause a post-2006 GFCI to act like the one I'm talking about.
> >> > If the incoming power is placed on the load side, the device won't ever go live,
> >> > therefore it can't "trip" when tested. You can't trip what can't be set.
> >> >
> >> > I don't have a pre-2006 GFCI to test, so I don't know if mis-wiring an older GFCI would
> >> > cause this specific symptom.
> >> While this sounds unlikely, and yes I know now that you don't want to
> >> pull that mess out of the box, but is there a chance that the receptacle
> >> has two screws to hold two hot wires from different circuits? And yes it
> >> would not make sense for that to be relevant if the GFCI is working
> >> properly, I would think.
> >>
> >> Where am I going with this? Some receptacles have a break off jumper
> >> that connects both bottom and top portions in the receptacle. So the
> >> top portion and bottom portion of the unit can be fed by separate
> >> circuits. And this would possibly only meet any code if the GFCI itself
> >> was out of range of a water hazard, basically it would be protecting
> >> other outlets but one of its positions would still be live from another
> >> circuit.
> >>
> >>
> >> I'm probably speculating a lot here and if that is not the case the GFCI
> >> is likely toast for safety reasons.
> >
> >GFCI's do not have the bridge. There's no way to split a GFCI. Well, other
> >than with a hacksaw.
> >
> >BTW another common reason to remove the bridge is when a switch is
> >involved. You can switch the lower receptacle and leave the top one live,
> >even on the same circuit.
> >
> >Pop Quiz: Why do I say "switch the lower"?
> Because that is the standard - lower "lamp" side switched - upper
> "live" unswitched.

Assuming there is an actual "standard" involved here, there is usually a
reason that a standard is written/accepted.

What is that reason?

On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 16:50:17 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
<teamarrows@eznet.net> wrote:

>On Thursday, June 22, 2023 at 10:07:51?AM UTC-4, Clare Snyder wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 21:03:31 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
>> <teama...@eznet.net> wrote:
>> >On Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 10:14:57?AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
>> >> On 6/20/2023 9:54 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>> >> > On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 8:41:25?PM UTC-4, Clare Snyder wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 07:57:42 GMT, Puckdropper <puckd...@yahoo.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>> DerbyDad03 <teama...@eznet.net> wrote in
>> >> >>> news:3a560277-b7df-4a49...@googlegroups.com:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>> Just to save everyone some typing, I know a GFCI works and I've
>> >> >>>> installed dozens of them over time, both as standalone devices and as
>> >> >>>> protection for downstream receptacles. Line vs. load, Pre-2006
>> >> >>>> devices, Post-2006 devices, etc.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Anybody ever heard of a case where the GFCI acts like this:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Press the test button and the GFCI "trips" - the button pops out and
>> >> >>>> the downstream receptacles go dead. However, the GFCI itself is still
>> >> >>>> live.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> A tester shows that the GFCI is wired correctly, at least as far as
>> >> >>>> hot, neutral and ground are concerned. I can only assume that
>> >> >>>> something is wrong internal to the GFCI but if that's the case, that's
>> >> >>>> a really dangerous failure mode.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> The homeowner doesn't know when the device was installed and isn't a
>> >> >>>> family member or close enough friend for me to start messing with
>> >> >>>> wiring in a 1940's era house. I shut off the breaker and told her to
>> >> >>>> call an electrician.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> I've seen GFCI's fail, but not like that.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I saw someone mention that on a home improvement TV show. They said when
>> >> >>> the line and load were swapped, the GFCI would still shut off the
>> >> >>> downstream outlets but would leave the GFCI outlet hot.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Hopefully they've redesigned them now.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Puckdropper
>> >> >> Can't redesign them to do what they are not supposed to do. They MUST
>> >> >> be properly installed to work properly
>> >> >
>> >> > They were redesigned in mid-2006 to be made safer by failing in the "off" condition.
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes, they must be wired correctly, but I've proven via benching testing that swapping
>> >> > line and load will not cause a post-2006 GFCI to act like the one I'm talking about.
>> >> > If the incoming power is placed on the load side, the device won't ever go live,
>> >> > therefore it can't "trip" when tested. You can't trip what can't be set.
>> >> >
>> >> > I don't have a pre-2006 GFCI to test, so I don't know if mis-wiring an older GFCI would
>> >> > cause this specific symptom.
>> >> While this sounds unlikely, and yes I know now that you don't want to
>> >> pull that mess out of the box, but is there a chance that the receptacle
>> >> has two screws to hold two hot wires from different circuits? And yes it
>> >> would not make sense for that to be relevant if the GFCI is working
>> >> properly, I would think.
>> >>
>> >> Where am I going with this? Some receptacles have a break off jumper
>> >> that connects both bottom and top portions in the receptacle. So the
>> >> top portion and bottom portion of the unit can be fed by separate
>> >> circuits. And this would possibly only meet any code if the GFCI itself
>> >> was out of range of a water hazard, basically it would be protecting
>> >> other outlets but one of its positions would still be live from another
>> >> circuit.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I'm probably speculating a lot here and if that is not the case the GFCI
>> >> is likely toast for safety reasons.
>> >
>> >GFCI's do not have the bridge. There's no way to split a GFCI. Well, other
>> >than with a hacksaw.
>> >
>> >BTW another common reason to remove the bridge is when a switch is
>> >involved. You can switch the lower receptacle and leave the top one live,
>> >even on the same circuit.
>> >
>> >Pop Quiz: Why do I say "switch the lower"?
>> Because that is the standard - lower "lamp" side switched - upper
>> "live" unswitched.
>
>Assuming there is an actual "standard" involved here, there is usually a
>reason that a standard is written/accepted.
>
>What is that reason?

The National Electrical Code is the place to start.

Joe Gwinn

On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 10:14:40 AM UTC-4, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 16:50:17 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
> <teama...@eznet.net> wrote:
> >On Thursday, June 22, 2023 at 10:07:51?AM UTC-4, Clare Snyder wrote:
> >> On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 21:03:31 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
> >> <teama...@eznet.net> wrote:
> >> >On Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 10:14:57?AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
> >> >> On 6/20/2023 9:54 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> >> >> > On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 8:41:25?PM UTC-4, Clare Snyder wrote:
> >> >> >> On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 07:57:42 GMT, Puckdropper <puckd...@yahoo.com>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>> DerbyDad03 <teama...@eznet.net> wrote in
> >> >> >>> news:3a560277-b7df-4a49...@googlegroups.com:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>> Just to save everyone some typing, I know a GFCI works and I've
> >> >> >>>> installed dozens of them over time, both as standalone devices and as
> >> >> >>>> protection for downstream receptacles. Line vs. load, Pre-2006
> >> >> >>>> devices, Post-2006 devices, etc.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> Anybody ever heard of a case where the GFCI acts like this:
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> Press the test button and the GFCI "trips" - the button pops out and
> >> >> >>>> the downstream receptacles go dead. However, the GFCI itself is still
> >> >> >>>> live.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> A tester shows that the GFCI is wired correctly, at least as far as
> >> >> >>>> hot, neutral and ground are concerned. I can only assume that
> >> >> >>>> something is wrong internal to the GFCI but if that's the case, that's
> >> >> >>>> a really dangerous failure mode.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> The homeowner doesn't know when the device was installed and isn't a
> >> >> >>>> family member or close enough friend for me to start messing with
> >> >> >>>> wiring in a 1940's era house. I shut off the breaker and told her to
> >> >> >>>> call an electrician.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> I've seen GFCI's fail, but not like that.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> I saw someone mention that on a home improvement TV show. They said when
> >> >> >>> the line and load were swapped, the GFCI would still shut off the
> >> >> >>> downstream outlets but would leave the GFCI outlet hot.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Hopefully they've redesigned them now.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Puckdropper
> >> >> >> Can't redesign them to do what they are not supposed to do. They MUST
> >> >> >> be properly installed to work properly
> >> >> >
> >> >> > They were redesigned in mid-2006 to be made safer by failing in the "off" condition.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Yes, they must be wired correctly, but I've proven via benching testing that swapping
> >> >> > line and load will not cause a post-2006 GFCI to act like the one I'm talking about.
> >> >> > If the incoming power is placed on the load side, the device won't ever go live,
> >> >> > therefore it can't "trip" when tested. You can't trip what can't be set.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I don't have a pre-2006 GFCI to test, so I don't know if mis-wiring an older GFCI would
> >> >> > cause this specific symptom.
> >> >> While this sounds unlikely, and yes I know now that you don't want to
> >> >> pull that mess out of the box, but is there a chance that the receptacle
> >> >> has two screws to hold two hot wires from different circuits? And yes it
> >> >> would not make sense for that to be relevant if the GFCI is working
> >> >> properly, I would think.
> >> >>
> >> >> Where am I going with this? Some receptacles have a break off jumper
> >> >> that connects both bottom and top portions in the receptacle. So the
> >> >> top portion and bottom portion of the unit can be fed by separate
> >> >> circuits. And this would possibly only meet any code if the GFCI itself
> >> >> was out of range of a water hazard, basically it would be protecting
> >> >> other outlets but one of its positions would still be live from another
> >> >> circuit.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm probably speculating a lot here and if that is not the case the GFCI
> >> >> is likely toast for safety reasons.
> >> >
> >> >GFCI's do not have the bridge. There's no way to split a GFCI. Well, other
> >> >than with a hacksaw.
> >> >
> >> >BTW another common reason to remove the bridge is when a switch is
> >> >involved. You can switch the lower receptacle and leave the top one live,
> >> >even on the same circuit.
> >> >
> >> >Pop Quiz: Why do I say "switch the lower"?
> >> Because that is the standard - lower "lamp" side switched - upper
> >> "live" unswitched.
> >
> >Assuming there is an actual "standard" involved here, there is usually a
> >reason that a standard is written/accepted.
> >
> >What is that reason?
> The National Electrical Code is the place to start.
>
> Joe Gwinn

Help me out. What NEC article describes which half (top or bottom)
of a split receptacle should be switched?

On Fri, 23 Jun 2023 21:59:00 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
<teamarrows@eznet.net> wrote:

>On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 10:14:40?AM UTC-4, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 16:50:17 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
>> <teama...@eznet.net> wrote:
>> >On Thursday, June 22, 2023 at 10:07:51?AM UTC-4, Clare Snyder wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 21:03:31 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
>> >> <teama...@eznet.net> wrote:
>> >> >On Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 10:14:57?AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
>> >> >> On 6/20/2023 9:54 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>> >> >> > On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 8:41:25?PM UTC-4, Clare Snyder wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 07:57:42 GMT, Puckdropper <puckd...@yahoo.com>
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >>> DerbyDad03 <teama...@eznet.net> wrote in
>> >> >> >>> news:3a560277-b7df-4a49...@googlegroups.com:
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>> Just to save everyone some typing, I know a GFCI works and I've
>> >> >> >>>> installed dozens of them over time, both as standalone devices and as
>> >> >> >>>> protection for downstream receptacles. Line vs. load, Pre-2006
>> >> >> >>>> devices, Post-2006 devices, etc.
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> Anybody ever heard of a case where the GFCI acts like this:
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> Press the test button and the GFCI "trips" - the button pops out and
>> >> >> >>>> the downstream receptacles go dead. However, the GFCI itself is still
>> >> >> >>>> live.
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> A tester shows that the GFCI is wired correctly, at least as far as
>> >> >> >>>> hot, neutral and ground are concerned. I can only assume that
>> >> >> >>>> something is wrong internal to the GFCI but if that's the case, that's
>> >> >> >>>> a really dangerous failure mode.
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> The homeowner doesn't know when the device was installed and isn't a
>> >> >> >>>> family member or close enough friend for me to start messing with
>> >> >> >>>> wiring in a 1940's era house. I shut off the breaker and told her to
>> >> >> >>>> call an electrician.
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> I've seen GFCI's fail, but not like that.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> I saw someone mention that on a home improvement TV show. They said when
>> >> >> >>> the line and load were swapped, the GFCI would still shut off the
>> >> >> >>> downstream outlets but would leave the GFCI outlet hot.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> Hopefully they've redesigned them now.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> Puckdropper
>> >> >> >> Can't redesign them to do what they are not supposed to do. They MUST
>> >> >> >> be properly installed to work properly
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > They were redesigned in mid-2006 to be made safer by failing in the "off" condition.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Yes, they must be wired correctly, but I've proven via benching testing that swapping
>> >> >> > line and load will not cause a post-2006 GFCI to act like the one I'm talking about.
>> >> >> > If the incoming power is placed on the load side, the device won't ever go live,
>> >> >> > therefore it can't "trip" when tested. You can't trip what can't be set.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I don't have a pre-2006 GFCI to test, so I don't know if mis-wiring an older GFCI would
>> >> >> > cause this specific symptom.
>> >> >> While this sounds unlikely, and yes I know now that you don't want to
>> >> >> pull that mess out of the box, but is there a chance that the receptacle
>> >> >> has two screws to hold two hot wires from different circuits? And yes it
>> >> >> would not make sense for that to be relevant if the GFCI is working
>> >> >> properly, I would think.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Where am I going with this? Some receptacles have a break off jumper
>> >> >> that connects both bottom and top portions in the receptacle. So the
>> >> >> top portion and bottom portion of the unit can be fed by separate
>> >> >> circuits. And this would possibly only meet any code if the GFCI itself
>> >> >> was out of range of a water hazard, basically it would be protecting
>> >> >> other outlets but one of its positions would still be live from another
>> >> >> circuit.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'm probably speculating a lot here and if that is not the case the GFCI
>> >> >> is likely toast for safety reasons.
>> >> >
>> >> >GFCI's do not have the bridge. There's no way to split a GFCI. Well, other
>> >> >than with a hacksaw.
>> >> >
>> >> >BTW another common reason to remove the bridge is when a switch is
>> >> >involved. You can switch the lower receptacle and leave the top one live,
>> >> >even on the same circuit.
>> >> >
>> >> >Pop Quiz: Why do I say "switch the lower"?
>> >> Because that is the standard - lower "lamp" side switched - upper
>> >> "live" unswitched.
>> >
>> >Assuming there is an actual "standard" involved here, there is usually a
>> >reason that a standard is written/accepted.
>> >
>> >What is that reason?
>> The National Electrical Code is the place to start.
>>
>> Joe Gwinn
>
>Help me out. What NEC article describes which half (top or bottom)
>of a split receptacle should be switched?

I don't offhand know, so some research is in order. Older versions of
NEC are available gratis online. As are training courses.
Electricians are supposed to know these things, so one can ask them as
well.

The other possibility is NEMA's standards on plugs and outlets,
although I don't recall seeing that.

Joe Gwinn

On Sat, 24 Jun 2023 11:32:42 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Jun 2023 21:59:00 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
><teamarrows@eznet.net> wrote:
>
>>On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 10:14:40?AM UTC-4, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>>> On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 16:50:17 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
>>> <teama...@eznet.net> wrote:
>>> >On Thursday, June 22, 2023 at 10:07:51?AM UTC-4, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>> >> On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 21:03:31 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
>>> >> <teama...@eznet.net> wrote:
>>> >> >On Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 10:14:57?AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
>>> >> >> On 6/20/2023 9:54 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>>> >> >> > On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 8:41:25?PM UTC-4, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>> >> >> >> On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 07:57:42 GMT, Puckdropper <puckd...@yahoo.com>
>>> >> >> >> wrote:
>>> >> >> >>> DerbyDad03 <teama...@eznet.net> wrote in
>>> >> >> >>> news:3a560277-b7df-4a49...@googlegroups.com:
>>> >> >> >>>
>>> >> >> >>>> Just to save everyone some typing, I know a GFCI works and I've
>>> >> >> >>>> installed dozens of them over time, both as standalone devices and as
>>> >> >> >>>> protection for downstream receptacles. Line vs. load, Pre-2006
>>> >> >> >>>> devices, Post-2006 devices, etc.
>>> >> >> >>>>
>>> >> >> >>>> Anybody ever heard of a case where the GFCI acts like this:
>>> >> >> >>>>
>>> >> >> >>>> Press the test button and the GFCI "trips" - the button pops out and
>>> >> >> >>>> the downstream receptacles go dead. However, the GFCI itself is still
>>> >> >> >>>> live.
>>> >> >> >>>>
>>> >> >> >>>> A tester shows that the GFCI is wired correctly, at least as far as
>>> >> >> >>>> hot, neutral and ground are concerned. I can only assume that
>>> >> >> >>>> something is wrong internal to the GFCI but if that's the case, that's
>>> >> >> >>>> a really dangerous failure mode.
>>> >> >> >>>>
>>> >> >> >>>> The homeowner doesn't know when the device was installed and isn't a
>>> >> >> >>>> family member or close enough friend for me to start messing with
>>> >> >> >>>> wiring in a 1940's era house. I shut off the breaker and told her to
>>> >> >> >>>> call an electrician.
>>> >> >> >>>>
>>> >> >> >>>> I've seen GFCI's fail, but not like that.
>>> >> >> >>>
>>> >> >> >>> I saw someone mention that on a home improvement TV show. They said when
>>> >> >> >>> the line and load were swapped, the GFCI would still shut off the
>>> >> >> >>> downstream outlets but would leave the GFCI outlet hot.
>>> >> >> >>>
>>> >> >> >>> Hopefully they've redesigned them now.
>>> >> >> >>>
>>> >> >> >>> Puckdropper
>>> >> >> >> Can't redesign them to do what they are not supposed to do. They MUST
>>> >> >> >> be properly installed to work properly
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > They were redesigned in mid-2006 to be made safer by failing in the "off" condition.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > Yes, they must be wired correctly, but I've proven via benching testing that swapping
>>> >> >> > line and load will not cause a post-2006 GFCI to act like the one I'm talking about.
>>> >> >> > If the incoming power is placed on the load side, the device won't ever go live,
>>> >> >> > therefore it can't "trip" when tested. You can't trip what can't be set.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > I don't have a pre-2006 GFCI to test, so I don't know if mis-wiring an older GFCI would
>>> >> >> > cause this specific symptom.
>>> >> >> While this sounds unlikely, and yes I know now that you don't want to
>>> >> >> pull that mess out of the box, but is there a chance that the receptacle
>>> >> >> has two screws to hold two hot wires from different circuits? And yes it
>>> >> >> would not make sense for that to be relevant if the GFCI is working
>>> >> >> properly, I would think.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Where am I going with this? Some receptacles have a break off jumper
>>> >> >> that connects both bottom and top portions in the receptacle. So the
>>> >> >> top portion and bottom portion of the unit can be fed by separate
>>> >> >> circuits. And this would possibly only meet any code if the GFCI itself
>>> >> >> was out of range of a water hazard, basically it would be protecting
>>> >> >> other outlets but one of its positions would still be live from another
>>> >> >> circuit.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> I'm probably speculating a lot here and if that is not the case the GFCI
>>> >> >> is likely toast for safety reasons.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >GFCI's do not have the bridge. There's no way to split a GFCI. Well, other
>>> >> >than with a hacksaw.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >BTW another common reason to remove the bridge is when a switch is
>>> >> >involved. You can switch the lower receptacle and leave the top one live,
>>> >> >even on the same circuit.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Pop Quiz: Why do I say "switch the lower"?
>>> >> Because that is the standard - lower "lamp" side switched - upper
>>> >> "live" unswitched.
>>> >
>>> >Assuming there is an actual "standard" involved here, there is usually a
>>> >reason that a standard is written/accepted.
>>> >
>>> >What is that reason?
>>> The National Electrical Code is the place to start.
>>>
>>> Joe Gwinn
>>
>>Help me out. What NEC article describes which half (top or bottom)
>>of a split receptacle should be switched?
>
>I don't offhand know, so some research is in order. Older versions of
>NEC are available gratis online. As are training courses.
>Electricians are supposed to know these things, so one can ask them as
>well.
>
>The other possibility is NEMA's standards on plugs and outlets,
>although I don't recall seeing that.
>
>Joe Gwinn

if your going to plug in a table lamp, put the switched at the bottom.
That way the constant hot is easier to access to plug in other
devices.
Many electricians also install half-switched (and even full switched)
outlets upside-down so they are easily identified as switched outlets.

On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 4:21:20 PM UTC-4, Clare Snyder wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jun 2023 11:32:42 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joeg...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> >On Fri, 23 Jun 2023 21:59:00 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
> ><teama...@eznet.net> wrote:
> >
> >>On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 10:14:40?AM UTC-4, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 16:50:17 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
> >>> <teama...@eznet.net> wrote:
> >>> >On Thursday, June 22, 2023 at 10:07:51?AM UTC-4, Clare Snyder wrote:
> >>> >> On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 21:03:31 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
> >>> >> <teama...@eznet.net> wrote:
> >>> >> >On Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 10:14:57?AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
> >>> >> >> On 6/20/2023 9:54 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> >>> >> >> > On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 8:41:25?PM UTC-4, Clare Snyder wrote:
> >>> >> >> >> On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 07:57:42 GMT, Puckdropper <puckd...@yahoo.com>
> >>> >> >> >> wrote:
> >>> >> >> >>> DerbyDad03 <teama...@eznet.net> wrote in
> >>> >> >> >>> news:3a560277-b7df-4a49...@googlegroups.com:
> >>> >> >> >>>
> >>> >> >> >>>> Just to save everyone some typing, I know a GFCI works and I've
> >>> >> >> >>>> installed dozens of them over time, both as standalone devices and as
> >>> >> >> >>>> protection for downstream receptacles. Line vs. load, Pre-2006
> >>> >> >> >>>> devices, Post-2006 devices, etc.
> >>> >> >> >>>>
> >>> >> >> >>>> Anybody ever heard of a case where the GFCI acts like this:
> >>> >> >> >>>>
> >>> >> >> >>>> Press the test button and the GFCI "trips" - the button pops out and
> >>> >> >> >>>> the downstream receptacles go dead. However, the GFCI itself is still
> >>> >> >> >>>> live.
> >>> >> >> >>>>
> >>> >> >> >>>> A tester shows that the GFCI is wired correctly, at least as far as
> >>> >> >> >>>> hot, neutral and ground are concerned. I can only assume that
> >>> >> >> >>>> something is wrong internal to the GFCI but if that's the case, that's
> >>> >> >> >>>> a really dangerous failure mode.
> >>> >> >> >>>>
> >>> >> >> >>>> The homeowner doesn't know when the device was installed and isn't a
> >>> >> >> >>>> family member or close enough friend for me to start messing with
> >>> >> >> >>>> wiring in a 1940's era house. I shut off the breaker and told her to
> >>> >> >> >>>> call an electrician.
> >>> >> >> >>>>
> >>> >> >> >>>> I've seen GFCI's fail, but not like that.
> >>> >> >> >>>
> >>> >> >> >>> I saw someone mention that on a home improvement TV show. They said when
> >>> >> >> >>> the line and load were swapped, the GFCI would still shut off the
> >>> >> >> >>> downstream outlets but would leave the GFCI outlet hot.
> >>> >> >> >>>
> >>> >> >> >>> Hopefully they've redesigned them now.
> >>> >> >> >>>
> >>> >> >> >>> Puckdropper
> >>> >> >> >> Can't redesign them to do what they are not supposed to do. They MUST
> >>> >> >> >> be properly installed to work properly
> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >> >> > They were redesigned in mid-2006 to be made safer by failing in the "off" condition.
> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >> >> > Yes, they must be wired correctly, but I've proven via benching testing that swapping
> >>> >> >> > line and load will not cause a post-2006 GFCI to act like the one I'm talking about.
> >>> >> >> > If the incoming power is placed on the load side, the device won't ever go live,
> >>> >> >> > therefore it can't "trip" when tested. You can't trip what can't be set.
> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >> >> > I don't have a pre-2006 GFCI to test, so I don't know if mis-wiring an older GFCI would
> >>> >> >> > cause this specific symptom.
> >>> >> >> While this sounds unlikely, and yes I know now that you don't want to
> >>> >> >> pull that mess out of the box, but is there a chance that the receptacle
> >>> >> >> has two screws to hold two hot wires from different circuits? And yes it
> >>> >> >> would not make sense for that to be relevant if the GFCI is working
> >>> >> >> properly, I would think.
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> Where am I going with this? Some receptacles have a break off jumper
> >>> >> >> that connects both bottom and top portions in the receptacle. So the
> >>> >> >> top portion and bottom portion of the unit can be fed by separate
> >>> >> >> circuits. And this would possibly only meet any code if the GFCI itself
> >>> >> >> was out of range of a water hazard, basically it would be protecting
> >>> >> >> other outlets but one of its positions would still be live from another
> >>> >> >> circuit.
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> I'm probably speculating a lot here and if that is not the case the GFCI
> >>> >> >> is likely toast for safety reasons.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >GFCI's do not have the bridge. There's no way to split a GFCI. Well, other
> >>> >> >than with a hacksaw.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >BTW another common reason to remove the bridge is when a switch is
> >>> >> >involved. You can switch the lower receptacle and leave the top one live,
> >>> >> >even on the same circuit.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >Pop Quiz: Why do I say "switch the lower"?
> >>> >> Because that is the standard - lower "lamp" side switched - upper
> >>> >> "live" unswitched.
> >>> >
> >>> >Assuming there is an actual "standard" involved here, there is usually a
> >>> >reason that a standard is written/accepted.
> >>> >
> >>> >What is that reason?
> >>> The National Electrical Code is the place to start.
> >>>
> >>> Joe Gwinn
> >>
> >>Help me out. What NEC article describes which half (top or bottom)
> >>of a split receptacle should be switched?
> >
> >I don't offhand know, so some research is in order. Older versions of
> >NEC are available gratis online. As are training courses.
> >Electricians are supposed to know these things, so one can ask them as
> >well.
> >
> >The other possibility is NEMA's standards on plugs and outlets,
> >although I don't recall seeing that.
> >
> >Joe Gwinn
> if your going to plug in a table lamp, put the switched at the bottom.
> That way the constant hot is easier to access to plug in other
> devices.

Ding Ding Ding - Give the man a cigar!

> Many electricians also install half-switched (and even full switched)
> outlets upside-down so they are easily identified as switched outlets.

On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 11:32:55 AM UTC-4, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2023 21:59:00 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
> <teama...@eznet.net> wrote:
> >On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 10:14:40?AM UTC-4, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> >> On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 16:50:17 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
> >> <teama...@eznet.net> wrote:
> >> >On Thursday, June 22, 2023 at 10:07:51?AM UTC-4, Clare Snyder wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 21:03:31 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
> >> >> <teama...@eznet.net> wrote:
> >> >> >On Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 10:14:57?AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
> >> >> >> On 6/20/2023 9:54 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> >> >> >> > On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 8:41:25?PM UTC-4, Clare Snyder wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 07:57:42 GMT, Puckdropper <puckd...@yahoo..com>
> >> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>> DerbyDad03 <teama...@eznet.net> wrote in
> >> >> >> >>> news:3a560277-b7df-4a49...@googlegroups.com:
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>> Just to save everyone some typing, I know a GFCI works and I've
> >> >> >> >>>> installed dozens of them over time, both as standalone devices and as
> >> >> >> >>>> protection for downstream receptacles. Line vs. load, Pre-2006
> >> >> >> >>>> devices, Post-2006 devices, etc.
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>> Anybody ever heard of a case where the GFCI acts like this:
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>> Press the test button and the GFCI "trips" - the button pops out and
> >> >> >> >>>> the downstream receptacles go dead. However, the GFCI itself is still
> >> >> >> >>>> live.
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>> A tester shows that the GFCI is wired correctly, at least as far as
> >> >> >> >>>> hot, neutral and ground are concerned. I can only assume that
> >> >> >> >>>> something is wrong internal to the GFCI but if that's the case, that's
> >> >> >> >>>> a really dangerous failure mode.
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>> The homeowner doesn't know when the device was installed and isn't a
> >> >> >> >>>> family member or close enough friend for me to start messing with
> >> >> >> >>>> wiring in a 1940's era house. I shut off the breaker and told her to
> >> >> >> >>>> call an electrician.
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>> I've seen GFCI's fail, but not like that.
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>> I saw someone mention that on a home improvement TV show. They said when
> >> >> >> >>> the line and load were swapped, the GFCI would still shut off the
> >> >> >> >>> downstream outlets but would leave the GFCI outlet hot.
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>> Hopefully they've redesigned them now.
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>> Puckdropper
> >> >> >> >> Can't redesign them to do what they are not supposed to do. They MUST
> >> >> >> >> be properly installed to work properly
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > They were redesigned in mid-2006 to be made safer by failing in the "off" condition.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Yes, they must be wired correctly, but I've proven via benching testing that swapping
> >> >> >> > line and load will not cause a post-2006 GFCI to act like the one I'm talking about.
> >> >> >> > If the incoming power is placed on the load side, the device won't ever go live,
> >> >> >> > therefore it can't "trip" when tested. You can't trip what can't be set.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I don't have a pre-2006 GFCI to test, so I don't know if mis-wiring an older GFCI would
> >> >> >> > cause this specific symptom.
> >> >> >> While this sounds unlikely, and yes I know now that you don't want to
> >> >> >> pull that mess out of the box, but is there a chance that the receptacle
> >> >> >> has two screws to hold two hot wires from different circuits? And yes it
> >> >> >> would not make sense for that to be relevant if the GFCI is working
> >> >> >> properly, I would think.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Where am I going with this? Some receptacles have a break off jumper
> >> >> >> that connects both bottom and top portions in the receptacle. So the
> >> >> >> top portion and bottom portion of the unit can be fed by separate
> >> >> >> circuits. And this would possibly only meet any code if the GFCI itself
> >> >> >> was out of range of a water hazard, basically it would be protecting
> >> >> >> other outlets but one of its positions would still be live from another
> >> >> >> circuit.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I'm probably speculating a lot here and if that is not the case the GFCI
> >> >> >> is likely toast for safety reasons.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >GFCI's do not have the bridge. There's no way to split a GFCI. Well, other
> >> >> >than with a hacksaw.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >BTW another common reason to remove the bridge is when a switch is
> >> >> >involved. You can switch the lower receptacle and leave the top one live,
> >> >> >even on the same circuit.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Pop Quiz: Why do I say "switch the lower"?
> >> >> Because that is the standard - lower "lamp" side switched - upper
> >> >> "live" unswitched.
> >> >
> >> >Assuming there is an actual "standard" involved here, there is usually a
> >> >reason that a standard is written/accepted.
> >> >
> >> >What is that reason?
> >> The National Electrical Code is the place to start.
> >>
> >> Joe Gwinn
> >
> >Help me out. What NEC article describes which half (top or bottom)
> >of a split receptacle should be switched?
> I don't offhand know, so some research is in order.

I've done the research and that's why I asked for the help.

> Older versions of
> NEC are available gratis online. As are training courses.
> Electricians are supposed to know these things, so one can ask them as
> well.
>
> The other possibility is NEMA's standards on plugs and outlets,
> although I don't recall seeing that.
>
> Joe Gwinn

I don't recall seeing the "bottom switched, top always hot" mentioned any
where in the wiring methods section of the NEC. Nor do I recall seeing "left
or right" when it comes to horizontal switched receptacles.

I'd be very surprised to learn that the NEC cares which receptacle of
a duplex is switched. Why would they?

On Sat, 24 Jun 2023 23:35:32 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
<teamarrows@eznet.net> wrote:

>On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 11:32:55?AM UTC-4, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Jun 2023 21:59:00 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
>> <teama...@eznet.net> wrote:
>> >On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 10:14:40?AM UTC-4, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 16:50:17 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
>> >> <teama...@eznet.net> wrote:
>> >> >On Thursday, June 22, 2023 at 10:07:51?AM UTC-4, Clare Snyder wrote:
>> >> >> On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 21:03:31 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
>> >> >> <teama...@eznet.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >On Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 10:14:57?AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
>> >> >> >> On 6/20/2023 9:54 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>> >> >> >> > On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 8:41:25?PM UTC-4, Clare Snyder wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 07:57:42 GMT, Puckdropper <puckd...@yahoo.com>
>> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>> DerbyDad03 <teama...@eznet.net> wrote in
>> >> >> >> >>> news:3a560277-b7df-4a49...@googlegroups.com:
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>>> Just to save everyone some typing, I know a GFCI works and I've
>> >> >> >> >>>> installed dozens of them over time, both as standalone devices and as
>> >> >> >> >>>> protection for downstream receptacles. Line vs. load, Pre-2006
>> >> >> >> >>>> devices, Post-2006 devices, etc.
>> >> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>> Anybody ever heard of a case where the GFCI acts like this:
>> >> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>> Press the test button and the GFCI "trips" - the button pops out and
>> >> >> >> >>>> the downstream receptacles go dead. However, the GFCI itself is still
>> >> >> >> >>>> live.
>> >> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>> A tester shows that the GFCI is wired correctly, at least as far as
>> >> >> >> >>>> hot, neutral and ground are concerned. I can only assume that
>> >> >> >> >>>> something is wrong internal to the GFCI but if that's the case, that's
>> >> >> >> >>>> a really dangerous failure mode.
>> >> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>> The homeowner doesn't know when the device was installed and isn't a
>> >> >> >> >>>> family member or close enough friend for me to start messing with
>> >> >> >> >>>> wiring in a 1940's era house. I shut off the breaker and told her to
>> >> >> >> >>>> call an electrician.
>> >> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>> I've seen GFCI's fail, but not like that.
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>> I saw someone mention that on a home improvement TV show. They said when
>> >> >> >> >>> the line and load were swapped, the GFCI would still shut off the
>> >> >> >> >>> downstream outlets but would leave the GFCI outlet hot.
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>> Hopefully they've redesigned them now.
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>> Puckdropper
>> >> >> >> >> Can't redesign them to do what they are not supposed to do. They MUST
>> >> >> >> >> be properly installed to work properly
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > They were redesigned in mid-2006 to be made safer by failing in the "off" condition.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Yes, they must be wired correctly, but I've proven via benching testing that swapping
>> >> >> >> > line and load will not cause a post-2006 GFCI to act like the one I'm talking about.
>> >> >> >> > If the incoming power is placed on the load side, the device won't ever go live,
>> >> >> >> > therefore it can't "trip" when tested. You can't trip what can't be set.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > I don't have a pre-2006 GFCI to test, so I don't know if mis-wiring an older GFCI would
>> >> >> >> > cause this specific symptom.
>> >> >> >> While this sounds unlikely, and yes I know now that you don't want to
>> >> >> >> pull that mess out of the box, but is there a chance that the receptacle
>> >> >> >> has two screws to hold two hot wires from different circuits? And yes it
>> >> >> >> would not make sense for that to be relevant if the GFCI is working
>> >> >> >> properly, I would think.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Where am I going with this? Some receptacles have a break off jumper
>> >> >> >> that connects both bottom and top portions in the receptacle. So the
>> >> >> >> top portion and bottom portion of the unit can be fed by separate
>> >> >> >> circuits. And this would possibly only meet any code if the GFCI itself
>> >> >> >> was out of range of a water hazard, basically it would be protecting
>> >> >> >> other outlets but one of its positions would still be live from another
>> >> >> >> circuit.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I'm probably speculating a lot here and if that is not the case the GFCI
>> >> >> >> is likely toast for safety reasons.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >GFCI's do not have the bridge. There's no way to split a GFCI. Well, other
>> >> >> >than with a hacksaw.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >BTW another common reason to remove the bridge is when a switch is
>> >> >> >involved. You can switch the lower receptacle and leave the top one live,
>> >> >> >even on the same circuit.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Pop Quiz: Why do I say "switch the lower"?
>> >> >> Because that is the standard - lower "lamp" side switched - upper
>> >> >> "live" unswitched.
>> >> >
>> >> >Assuming there is an actual "standard" involved here, there is usually a
>> >> >reason that a standard is written/accepted.
>> >> >
>> >> >What is that reason?
>> >> The National Electrical Code is the place to start.
>> >>
>> >> Joe Gwinn
>> >
>> >Help me out. What NEC article describes which half (top or bottom)
>> >of a split receptacle should be switched?
>> I don't offhand know, so some research is in order.
>
>I've done the research and that's why I asked for the help.
>
>> Older versions of
>> NEC are available gratis online. As are training courses.
>> Electricians are supposed to know these things, so one can ask them as
>> well.
>>
>> The other possibility is NEMA's standards on plugs and outlets,
>> although I don't recall seeing that.
>>
>> Joe Gwinn
>
>I don't recall seeing the "bottom switched, top always hot" mentioned any
>where in the wiring methods section of the NEC. Nor do I recall seeing "left
>or right" when it comes to horizontal switched receptacles.
>
>I'd be very surprised to learn that the NEC cares which receptacle of
>a duplex is switched. Why would they?

Ahh. I was not saying that I knew it to be in the NEC, only that that
would be the place for it to be were it mandated.

Joe Gwinn

On 6/23/2023 11:59 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 10:14:40 AM UTC-4, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 16:50:17 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
>> <teama...@eznet.net> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, June 22, 2023 at 10:07:51?AM UTC-4, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 21:03:31 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
>>>> <teama...@eznet.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 10:14:57?AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/20/2023 9:54 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 8:41:25?PM UTC-4, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 07:57:42 GMT, Puckdropper <puckd...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> DerbyDad03 <teama...@eznet.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:3a560277-b7df-4a49...@googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Just to save everyone some typing, I know a GFCI works and I've
>>>>>>>>>> installed dozens of them over time, both as standalone devices and as
>>>>>>>>>> protection for downstream receptacles. Line vs. load, Pre-2006
>>>>>>>>>> devices, Post-2006 devices, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Anybody ever heard of a case where the GFCI acts like this:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Press the test button and the GFCI "trips" - the button pops out and
>>>>>>>>>> the downstream receptacles go dead. However, the GFCI itself is still
>>>>>>>>>> live.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A tester shows that the GFCI is wired correctly, at least as far as
>>>>>>>>>> hot, neutral and ground are concerned. I can only assume that
>>>>>>>>>> something is wrong internal to the GFCI but if that's the case, that's
>>>>>>>>>> a really dangerous failure mode.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The homeowner doesn't know when the device was installed and isn't a
>>>>>>>>>> family member or close enough friend for me to start messing with
>>>>>>>>>> wiring in a 1940's era house. I shut off the breaker and told her to
>>>>>>>>>> call an electrician.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've seen GFCI's fail, but not like that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I saw someone mention that on a home improvement TV show. They said when
>>>>>>>>> the line and load were swapped, the GFCI would still shut off the
>>>>>>>>> downstream outlets but would leave the GFCI outlet hot.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hopefully they've redesigned them now.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Puckdropper
>>>>>>>> Can't redesign them to do what they are not supposed to do. They MUST
>>>>>>>> be properly installed to work properly
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They were redesigned in mid-2006 to be made safer by failing in the "off" condition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, they must be wired correctly, but I've proven via benching testing that swapping
>>>>>>> line and load will not cause a post-2006 GFCI to act like the one I'm talking about.
>>>>>>> If the incoming power is placed on the load side, the device won't ever go live,
>>>>>>> therefore it can't "trip" when tested. You can't trip what can't be set.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't have a pre-2006 GFCI to test, so I don't know if mis-wiring an older GFCI would
>>>>>>> cause this specific symptom.
>>>>>> While this sounds unlikely, and yes I know now that you don't want to
>>>>>> pull that mess out of the box, but is there a chance that the receptacle
>>>>>> has two screws to hold two hot wires from different circuits? And yes it
>>>>>> would not make sense for that to be relevant if the GFCI is working
>>>>>> properly, I would think.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where am I going with this? Some receptacles have a break off jumper
>>>>>> that connects both bottom and top portions in the receptacle. So the
>>>>>> top portion and bottom portion of the unit can be fed by separate
>>>>>> circuits. And this would possibly only meet any code if the GFCI itself
>>>>>> was out of range of a water hazard, basically it would be protecting
>>>>>> other outlets but one of its positions would still be live from another
>>>>>> circuit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm probably speculating a lot here and if that is not the case the GFCI
>>>>>> is likely toast for safety reasons.
>>>>>
>>>>> GFCI's do not have the bridge. There's no way to split a GFCI. Well, other
>>>>> than with a hacksaw.
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW another common reason to remove the bridge is when a switch is
>>>>> involved. You can switch the lower receptacle and leave the top one live,
>>>>> even on the same circuit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pop Quiz: Why do I say "switch the lower"?
>>>> Because that is the standard - lower "lamp" side switched - upper
>>>> "live" unswitched.
>>>
>>> Assuming there is an actual "standard" involved here, there is usually a
>>> reason that a standard is written/accepted.
>>>
>>> What is that reason?
>> The National Electrical Code is the place to start.
>>
>> Joe Gwinn
>
> Help me out. What NEC article describes which half (top or bottom)
> of a split receptacle should be switched?

Probably not the rule but If I am going to leave a receptacle filled it
will be the bottom one so that the top will be visible and unobstructed.

On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 6:35:09 PM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
> On 6/23/2023 11:59 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> > On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 10:14:40 AM UTC-4, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> >> On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 16:50:17 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
> >> <teama...@eznet.net> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, June 22, 2023 at 10:07:51?AM UTC-4, Clare Snyder wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 21:03:31 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
> >>>> <teama...@eznet.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 10:14:57?AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
> >>>>>> On 6/20/2023 9:54 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 8:41:25?PM UTC-4, Clare Snyder wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 07:57:42 GMT, Puckdropper <puckd...@yahoo.com>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> DerbyDad03 <teama...@eznet.net> wrote in
> >>>>>>>>> news:3a560277-b7df-4a49...@googlegroups.com:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Just to save everyone some typing, I know a GFCI works and I've
> >>>>>>>>>> installed dozens of them over time, both as standalone devices and as
> >>>>>>>>>> protection for downstream receptacles. Line vs. load, Pre-2006
> >>>>>>>>>> devices, Post-2006 devices, etc.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Anybody ever heard of a case where the GFCI acts like this:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Press the test button and the GFCI "trips" - the button pops out and
> >>>>>>>>>> the downstream receptacles go dead. However, the GFCI itself is still
> >>>>>>>>>> live.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> A tester shows that the GFCI is wired correctly, at least as far as
> >>>>>>>>>> hot, neutral and ground are concerned. I can only assume that
> >>>>>>>>>> something is wrong internal to the GFCI but if that's the case, that's
> >>>>>>>>>> a really dangerous failure mode.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The homeowner doesn't know when the device was installed and isn't a
> >>>>>>>>>> family member or close enough friend for me to start messing with
> >>>>>>>>>> wiring in a 1940's era house. I shut off the breaker and told her to
> >>>>>>>>>> call an electrician.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I've seen GFCI's fail, but not like that.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I saw someone mention that on a home improvement TV show. They said when
> >>>>>>>>> the line and load were swapped, the GFCI would still shut off the
> >>>>>>>>> downstream outlets but would leave the GFCI outlet hot.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Hopefully they've redesigned them now.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Puckdropper
> >>>>>>>> Can't redesign them to do what they are not supposed to do. They MUST
> >>>>>>>> be properly installed to work properly
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> They were redesigned in mid-2006 to be made safer by failing in the "off" condition.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Yes, they must be wired correctly, but I've proven via benching testing that swapping
> >>>>>>> line and load will not cause a post-2006 GFCI to act like the one I'm talking about.
> >>>>>>> If the incoming power is placed on the load side, the device won't ever go live,
> >>>>>>> therefore it can't "trip" when tested. You can't trip what can't be set.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I don't have a pre-2006 GFCI to test, so I don't know if mis-wiring an older GFCI would
> >>>>>>> cause this specific symptom.
> >>>>>> While this sounds unlikely, and yes I know now that you don't want to
> >>>>>> pull that mess out of the box, but is there a chance that the receptacle
> >>>>>> has two screws to hold two hot wires from different circuits? And yes it
> >>>>>> would not make sense for that to be relevant if the GFCI is working
> >>>>>> properly, I would think.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Where am I going with this? Some receptacles have a break off jumper
> >>>>>> that connects both bottom and top portions in the receptacle. So the
> >>>>>> top portion and bottom portion of the unit can be fed by separate
> >>>>>> circuits. And this would possibly only meet any code if the GFCI itself
> >>>>>> was out of range of a water hazard, basically it would be protecting
> >>>>>> other outlets but one of its positions would still be live from another
> >>>>>> circuit.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm probably speculating a lot here and if that is not the case the GFCI
> >>>>>> is likely toast for safety reasons.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> GFCI's do not have the bridge. There's no way to split a GFCI. Well, other
> >>>>> than with a hacksaw.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> BTW another common reason to remove the bridge is when a switch is
> >>>>> involved. You can switch the lower receptacle and leave the top one live,
> >>>>> even on the same circuit.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Pop Quiz: Why do I say "switch the lower"?
> >>>> Because that is the standard - lower "lamp" side switched - upper
> >>>> "live" unswitched.
> >>>
> >>> Assuming there is an actual "standard" involved here, there is usually a
> >>> reason that a standard is written/accepted.
> >>>
> >>> What is that reason?
> >> The National Electrical Code is the place to start.
> >>
> >> Joe Gwinn
> >
> > Help me out. What NEC article describes which half (top or bottom)
> > of a split receptacle should be switched?
> Probably not the rule but If I am going to leave a receptacle filled it
> will be the bottom one so that the top will be visible and unobstructed.

Yep...that is typically how I roll, switched or unswitched.