[132922] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Want to move to all 208V for server racks
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Gary Buhrmaster)
Thu Dec 2 17:40:48 2010
In-Reply-To: <op.vm3w16nutfhldh@rbeam.xactional.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 22:40:36 +0000
From: Gary Buhrmaster <gary.buhrmaster@gmail.com>
To: Ricky Beam <jfbeam@gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 22:07, Ricky Beam <jfbeam@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> I think they are now a violation of the NEC. =A0And they were delisted by=
UL
> years ago. =A0They pose a hazard as they will not react fast enough to pr=
event
> a fatal shock. (and the only one's I've ever seen were outlawed as the
> breaker itself was a fire hazard.)
While I do not have a copy of NFPA 70-2011 (the latest latest, released
a few months ago), my reading of NFPA 70-2008 still allows GFCI
breakers (NFPA 70 is the official name for NEC). Personally, I
prefer to specify and use GFCI outlets (and I tend to not daisy
chain) so that the the fault is next to the use (and no collateral
outages occur). Of course, specific breakers may not meet the
newest requirements.
