Re: Capacitor to bypass GFI outlet?

["Dennis Brothers" <mysurname@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"w_tom" <w_tom1@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:43B9D9D5.FD34402B@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>  Put the capacitors across, perform the tests, then remove
> those capacitors.  Robert Green's warnings carry much merit.
>
>  BTW, those capacitors are well below what should trip any
> GFCI.  Two high voltage, 0.001 uf caps should be sufficient to
> test.  There may be something unique to that particular GFCI.
> This complication only made relevant when in combination with
> something else that is also eating X-10 signals.  Notice the
> trend.  There is no "this eats X-10 signals" and "that does
> not eat X-10 signals".  There are combinations that conspire
> to eat X-10 signals.  Appreciate that concept when trying to
> locate what 'are' causing the problem.
>
> Chris Shearer Cooper wrote:
>> If there's a reasonably-priced X-10 friendly GFI outlet, that
>> sounds like a better plan ... but I have no idea how to find out
>> which ones are friendly and which ones ain't ...

Regarding appropriate capacitors, the reactances are linear in both
frequency and capacitance; i.e., any given capacitance will have 60/120K
lower reactance at X10 frequencies than at line frequency, so the 0.1 uF
caps that have 25K ohms reactance at 60Hz will have (60/120K)*25K or 12.5
ohms reactance at 120 KHz (doing this in my head - don't beat me up if I
slipped a decimal place). That seems negligible.  Moving to .001 uF (a
factor of 100 lower than the originally proposed 0.1 uF) moves the 60 Hz
current-stealing into the too small to bother with domain, but raises the
X10 reactance to 1,250 ohms (times two, given the same cap in both legs),
which might be significant, depending on the impedance of the X10 receiver.

Just being anally analytical -
    - Dennis Brothers