archibald tuttle
Member
Having a devil of a time keeping washers running on GFCIs without tripping. Of course in the 'good' ole days there were no GFCIs and it varies whether these washers are near sinks or theoretically required to have GFCI, but I'm wondering whether the industry has considered single purpose GFCIs with higher fault current settings.
I understand that whole house protections have noticeably higher settings to ease false [actually meant nuisance] tripping. So it seems that in some circumstances the industry makes rational accommodation. Of course that doesn't consider that a relatively small current can kill, but one wonders if nusiance tripping - and thus the more widespread employement of the safety technology might not suggest washing machine outlets that have a single outlet for the washer alone and trip at a slightly higher current given that the washer itself has a grounded frame and that current seeks all paths to ground relative to resistance, it isn't necessary to simply assess the load relative to the resistance of the body hand to hand but also to compare that resistance to other paths kept open to protect against likely fault incidents at the low end of the scale.
Unfortunately, these happenings with our machines are transient and I can't reproduce them on cue to diagnose, so half the time the machine doesn't stop mid cycle, but the other half it does.
You can't live your life like this. better to have a switch for denergizing the washer before going near it than to have a washer that doesn't complete it's cycle half the time.
Suppose it might be relevant to relative danger whether there is a metal laundry sink or piping nearby that the user could also contact enhancing the possibility of becoming part of a circuit, but could that be mitigated by some local bonding to the washing machine. Of course that puts the same voltage on the sink that is on the machine body, but that prevents the sink from becoming the other hand ground for the body.
Of course this goes against the general principle of only bonding at the service and might introduce other spurious dangers I'm not thinking of although given the fact that the most of us survived so many years with no GFCI protection at all just employing a modest respect for electricity, I'm not convinced how far we should chase our tail in these danges. and ultimately, nuisance trips only lead to bypassing or giving up on any protection altogether, esp. if that which is nuisance tripping is a 500 dollar appliance and the trips are transient and difficult to track down.
just thinking this stuff through and now that I've run out of brain power, submitting it to the groupthink.
brian
I understand that whole house protections have noticeably higher settings to ease false [actually meant nuisance] tripping. So it seems that in some circumstances the industry makes rational accommodation. Of course that doesn't consider that a relatively small current can kill, but one wonders if nusiance tripping - and thus the more widespread employement of the safety technology might not suggest washing machine outlets that have a single outlet for the washer alone and trip at a slightly higher current given that the washer itself has a grounded frame and that current seeks all paths to ground relative to resistance, it isn't necessary to simply assess the load relative to the resistance of the body hand to hand but also to compare that resistance to other paths kept open to protect against likely fault incidents at the low end of the scale.
Unfortunately, these happenings with our machines are transient and I can't reproduce them on cue to diagnose, so half the time the machine doesn't stop mid cycle, but the other half it does.
You can't live your life like this. better to have a switch for denergizing the washer before going near it than to have a washer that doesn't complete it's cycle half the time.
Suppose it might be relevant to relative danger whether there is a metal laundry sink or piping nearby that the user could also contact enhancing the possibility of becoming part of a circuit, but could that be mitigated by some local bonding to the washing machine. Of course that puts the same voltage on the sink that is on the machine body, but that prevents the sink from becoming the other hand ground for the body.
Of course this goes against the general principle of only bonding at the service and might introduce other spurious dangers I'm not thinking of although given the fact that the most of us survived so many years with no GFCI protection at all just employing a modest respect for electricity, I'm not convinced how far we should chase our tail in these danges. and ultimately, nuisance trips only lead to bypassing or giving up on any protection altogether, esp. if that which is nuisance tripping is a 500 dollar appliance and the trips are transient and difficult to track down.
just thinking this stuff through and now that I've run out of brain power, submitting it to the groupthink.
brian