Dangerous Pool, your opinion please. - Page 2 - Electrician Talk - Professional Electrical Contractors Forum
CLICK HERE AND JOIN OUR COMMUNITY TODAY, IT'S FREE!
Go Back   Electrician Talk - Professional Electrical Contractors Forum > Tools, Equipment & Safety > Code Violation Discussion


Like Tree31Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-04-2016, 05:36 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Wilmington, NC
Posts: 10,835
Rewards Points: 12,120
Default

I would not wire nor have a pool that did not have all of the electrical consumption equipment protected by GFCI's. (Bonding grid needs to be there too, )
MechanicalDVR and lighterup like this.
__________________
Giving up on unbiased truth.
hardworkingstiff is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to hardworkingstiff For This Useful Post:
donaldelectrician (06-07-2016), MechanicalDVR (06-04-2016)
Join Contractor Talk

Join the #1 Electrician Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

ElectricianTalk.com - Are you a Professional Electrical Contractor? If so we invite you to join our community and see what it has to offer. Our site is specifically designed for you and it's the leading place for electricians to meet online. No homeowners asking DIY questions. Just fellow tradesmen who enjoy talking about their business, their trade, and anything else that comes up. No matter what your specialty is you'll find that ElectricianTalk.com is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally free!

Join ElectricianTalk.com - Click Here JOIN FOR FREE


Warning: The topics covered on this site include activities in which there exists the potential for serious injury or death. ElectricianTalk.com DOES NOT guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information contained on this site. Always use proper safety precaution and reference reliable outside sources before attempting any construction or remodeling task!

Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 06-05-2016, 07:33 PM   #22
Fish On!
 
lighterup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 378
Rewards Points: 695
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by InPhase277 View Post
He said in the OP that the grid connected to the heater and pump motor, as it should be.
The way we install the bonding grid ( for equipotential plane) bonds everything
about the pool together and back to the "grounding bar" , not the neutral bus ,
at the sub panel we would install in the pool house.
I'm not debating that the pool pumps are part of this , I'm questioning how it
is seperated from the neutral bar when the sub panel is not only fed with the
wrong feeder , but has no fourth (non current carrying conductor) for grounding / bonding. Savy?
lighterup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2016, 08:22 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Alabama
Posts: 6,876
Rewards Points: 708
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lighterup View Post
The way we install the bonding grid ( for equipotential plane) bonds everything
about the pool together and back to the "grounding bar" , not the neutral bus ,
at the sub panel we would install in the pool house.
I'm not debating that the pool pumps are part of this , I'm questioning how it
is seperated from the neutral bar when the sub panel is not only fed with the
wrong feeder , but has no fourth (non current carrying conductor) for grounding / bonding. Savy?
It isn't electrically separated because the pumps presumably have an EGC that goes back to the neutral-bonded subpanel. But the equipotential grid doesn't work because it is grounded. It works because it equalize voltage gradients across its area. So yes, the grid is electrically connected to the neutral through the pump EGC, but it isn't required to be. And I think it may introduce more hazard running it to the bar rather than the pump itself. Putting it on the pump keeps it as close as possible to the most likely point of energization.
MTW likes this.
RePhase277 is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to RePhase277 For This Useful Post:
lighterup (06-05-2016)
Old 06-05-2016, 11:15 PM   #24
MTW
Megistered Rember
 
MTW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Northeast USA
Posts: 7,914
Rewards Points: 6,287
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Alwon View Post
Then why not gfci every circuit in a home? I understand being ahead of the code but I assume there is a reason the heater doesn't have to be gfci protected. That may change as the pool pump didn't require gfci either when it was direct wired.
I don't know the NEC reasoning. What I do know is there have been many high profile pool electrocutions and shocks and that's reason enough to go overboard with GFCI protection.
MTW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2016, 11:30 PM   #25
Senile Member
 
macmikeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Honolulu
Posts: 19,930
Rewards Points: 2,196
Default

GFI protection will not protect when stray currents occur off property and are returning to the origin along a path that takes them in, under, thru the pool area. I don't know stats on how many deaths you can attribute to that, but from reading Mike Holts posts it has to be at least a ''few''.

I still think that requiring a two part armature which has a carbon / fiber rod instead of a metal one between it and the impeller would help reduce a whole lot of injury and death from electric shocks in pools.
Vintage Sounds and AcidTrip like this.
__________________
“That all changes—starting right here and right now.” Jan. 20 “will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again.” Donald Trump
macmikeman is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to macmikeman For This Useful Post:
donaldelectrician (06-07-2016)
Old 06-06-2016, 01:25 AM   #26
Senior Member
 
A Little Short's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: US
Posts: 3,684
Rewards Points: 60
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lighterup View Post
The way we install the bonding grid ( for equipotential plane) bonds everything
about the pool together and back to the "grounding bar" , not the neutral bus ,
at the sub panel we would install in the pool house.
I'm not debating that the pool pumps are part of this , I'm questioning how it
is seperated from the neutral bar when the sub panel is not only fed with the
wrong feeder , but has no fourth (non current carrying conductor) for grounding / bonding. Savy?
The equipotential bond & grid do not need to go back to the panel. The EGC and equipotential bonding are two different things.
As was mentioned, it will tie into the system grounding through the EGC from the pump motor.
__________________

A Little Short is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2016, 08:08 AM   #27
motherplucker
 
chicken steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: the Green Mountain state
Posts: 33,339
Rewards Points: 2,034
Default

The theory is local ground contact enhances gfi capabilities , thus the last code cycle's focus on the EQ plane around a pool.

This is usually made back to the motor terminal or wet niche in #8 solid , assuming them the chief culprit as well as proximal.

Yet as others have stated, possibilities exist where pool accessories , pool heaters ,or other electrical hazards could be every bit as lethal , including what may be a parallel neutral path

That said, a '17 change is rumored to allow a EQ pool plane to serve as a GEC

Yes that is correct, i sad GEC

Stick that in yer theory pipe & smoke it! ~CS~
chicken steve is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to chicken steve For This Useful Post:
donaldelectrician (06-08-2016)
Old 06-07-2016, 11:59 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Ca.
Posts: 833
Rewards Points: 1,539
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by macmikeman View Post
GFI protection will not protect when stray currents occur off property and are returning to the origin along a path that takes them in, under, thru the pool area. I don't know stats on how many deaths you can attribute to that, but from reading Mike Holts posts it has to be at least a ''few''.

I still think that requiring a two part armature which has a carbon / fiber rod instead of a metal one between it and the impeller would help reduce a whole lot of injury and death from electric shocks in pools.


Agreed Macmikeman .... It seems the most effective and simple ways to prevent
a number of electrical problems with pools are not implemented ...

WHY ?



Don
donaldelectrician is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2016, 08:28 AM   #29
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Ca.
Posts: 833
Rewards Points: 1,539
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTW View Post
I don't know the NEC reasoning. What I do know is there have been many high profile pool electrocutions and shocks and that's reason enough to go overboard with GFCI protection.


They go Nuts on Pool Electrocution ...

I think Macmikeman should Patent his Idea... or someone else will...

GFCI will fail over time , non conductive shaft will not ...

Do you hear me Mike ? Great fail safe idea .

Think retirement with a check ... But move on it quick .

A Public forum don't ya know ...



Don

Last edited by donaldelectrician; 06-08-2016 at 08:52 AM.
donaldelectrician is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2016, 12:15 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
A Little Short's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: US
Posts: 3,684
Rewards Points: 60
Default

Proper equipotential bonding will help as much as anything.
__________________

A Little Short is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2016, 03:45 PM   #31
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, PA.
Posts: 727
Rewards Points: 1,450
Default

I found that the original Electrician installed ground rods at the pool house as a source of ground Two local electrical inspectors say it's wrong and that it should have been 4 wire cable.
What's your opinion?
__________________
Greg
3DDesign is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2016, 03:47 PM   #32
Fish On!
 
lighterup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 378
Rewards Points: 695
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3DDesign View Post
I found that the original Electrician installed ground rods at the pool house as a source of ground Two local electrical inspectors say it's wrong and that it should have been 4 wire cable.
What's your opinion?
If you read my previous posts , I've been saying that the feeder is all
wrong. Didn't they notice that SEU was used?
lighterup is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pool electrocution cabletie General Electrical Discussion 46 06-04-2016 02:26 PM
Pool bonding grid Nolasaints NEC Code Forum 1 05-20-2016 05:58 PM
Pool Receptacle mjjg92 General Electrical Discussion 4 05-16-2016 11:31 PM
Pool Electrocutions donaldelectrician General Electrical Discussion 60 04-10-2016 11:24 AM
Homeowner being a pain the @#$ sub panel/in ground pool DannyC327 General Electrical Discussion 25 04-02-2016 11:57 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Our Pro Sites Network
ContractorTalk.com | DrywallTalk.com | HVACSite.com | PaintTalk.com | PlumbingZone.com | RoofingTalk.com