Ioslation Transformer for Problematic Net Lights

[mrGrumpy]

So if lamp socket 1 gets wet and neutral goes to ground via water track along plant, and you stand in a puddle and adjust lamp 2 which is wet and line is tracking to the case of the lamp....you will light up

[mrGrumpy]

AFAIK the only way someone can get hurt off an isolation transformer is if they manage to touch both line outputs at the same time. I don't see how that's less safe than mains, where if you touch live and neutral, you get shocked. And if you touch live and ground, you get shocked (unless there's a GFCI).

Ground fault does not need a ground to kill. It just needs a ground path....so a wet wire, a wet plant or wet clothes, and etc. can be the ground paths. So when one line goes to ground via a wet path. it sits and waits for its victim to complete the path back to the other line via its wet path. This is why residential building code requires bonding of the neutral, and GFI on ALL outdoor outlets.

[DoNotBlockDriveways]

Before looking into your arguments, I'd like to know what you're trying to achieve here? I'm not sure if you what me to get rid of the isolation transformer and put things back the way they were, or if you want me to put each string of lights on their own GFCI.

So if lamp socket 1 gets wet and neutral goes to ground via water track along plant, and you stand in a puddle and adjust lamp 2 which is wet and line is tracking to the case of the lamp....you will light up

Now for that to happen, we would have to be touching that light for some reason, now the two most likely reasons are 1) we're removing the lights, except we never remove the lights while they're plugged in. So it has to be reason 2) we're repairing the lights, except we never try to repair the lights while they're on a bush, because trying is a huge PITA, and removing them only takes a couple minutes, and most failures only start showing near the end of the season anyway. Now in my last reply, i had meant to dig a little deeper about one of the wires being shorted to ground, but didn't due to time.

Your second comment seems to be more or less similar to your first, plus a few more things i'm already aware of.

Now something i'd like to add, your argument quoted above seems to revolve around if one lamp is leaking to ground, however, i don't think that has to be the case for a GFCI to trip, it seems more likely to me for multiple lamps on a single string, each leaking a few 10ths of a mA to ground to trigger a trip, versus a single lamp leaking a few mA to ground (ive been tingled by wet strings of lights i before, and despite them being on a GFCI, the GFCI did not trip).

I still think an isolation transformer is still safer than say, no GFCI at all.

There are a few more things i meant to touch on, but i spent way too much time on this.

[mrGrumpy]

I still think an isolation transformer is still safer than say, no GFCI at all.

Since a GFCI does not need a ground or a grounded circuit, why do you feel your isolation transformer circuit is safer than no GFIC. Both have no life protection.

It may be very unlikely you will ever experience an issue with your isolation transformer circuit, but the potential is still real....therefore it is not a good practice and shouldn’t be shared.