so up until 2008 these exceptions were conventional but as of 2008 the electrons started doing different things? I think you would concede that the original existence of those exceptions at least contemplates the cost benefit thinking I'm doing here and was aimmed relatively precisely at the kind of circumstances I'm encountering.
I don't know that the changes in 2008 are right or wrong, but I appreciate your pointing them out.
Some parts of the code to which I refer as logical exceptions were not textually exceptions. for instance kitchen outlets were required to have GFCI protection if they served counters . was this language changed as well?
LAundry rooms were required to have protection if the outlet was within 6 feet of a sink which by implication exempts outlets more than 6 feet from the sink.
and a glaring exception that I forgot to mention is for 240V appliances because the standard is applied to 125V outlets.
all of this suggests to me that there is a current (sorry) of thought that protecting grounded large appliances that aren't regularly moved around is marginally necessary or unnecessary or hews to a different standard the regularly accessed 125 V outlets in the subject areas,.
whether the vague nature of the exceptions for garages and basements made it reasonable to rethink them, I remain unconvinced the the code does, or if so that it does wisely, generally prescribe GFCI protection for major appliances.
Doesn't mean I think that is necessarily is a bad idea and I appreciate quick thoughts in post below on looking for stray water around electrical components and the motor is readily accessible from a rear panel on these washers so although i haven't observed any water leakage on the exterior of the appliance it is easy enough to leave the back panel off and run several loads and see if any leakage can be observed. I don't usually encounter leaks that are so minor as to not give some appearance on the floor or exterior surfaces but seems a reasonable enough course of inquiry
And as this very post points out experience transmitted to you from other professionals is that the trip time is 1/4 that allowed. As a practical matter that might be an industry habit to make sure that they stay under the time allowed, and you might have to pay more for a GFCI that went more precisely to that limit. Which leads me back to measuring the transients to see if that would be a practical solution of some nuisance trip circumstances. Back to the drawing board to figure out how to measure these transients with some kind of graphing ammeter in the ground line so I can see where we are relative to the standard.
Meantime I'm not 6 feet from a sink so until that occurs this remains an academic discussion. I still haven't had anyone respond to the question of why the standard should be the same for an installed grounded appliance as it is for circumstances where a person is much more likely path to be the only path to ground in the event of a fault? The code was one thing in 2005 another in 2008, maybe it is sensible for it to exhibit a third characteristic at some future date.
brian
