davey<p>Proud and wiped out<br />After months of study, I’ve commented on proposed changes to <a href="https://mindly.social/tags/UL" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>UL</span></a> 101, <a href="https://mindly.social/tags/ApplianceLeakage" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>ApplianceLeakage</span></a>. I don’t serve on SC101, which is responsible for it, but SC943, GFCIs.<br />Because <a href="https://mindly.social/tags/GFCI" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>GFCI</span></a> design doesn’t account for efficient <a href="https://mindly.social/tags/motors" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>motors</span></a>’ <a href="https://mindly.social/tags/HighFrequency" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>HighFrequency</span></a> <a href="https://mindly.social/tags/waveforms" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>waveforms</span></a>, both UL 943 &amp; UL 101 need updates. It may be easier for manufacturers to have <a href="https://mindly.social/tags/appliance" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>appliance</span></a> <a href="https://mindly.social/tags/standards" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>standards</span></a> that avoid expensive redesign than to let GFCIs protect the most vulnerable–yet we’re all extrapolating from inadequate <a href="https://mindly.social/tags/research" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>research</span></a>.</p>