[novaleaf]

> The inverter's own breaker (say, 30/40A) is there to protect the inverter, not the cord.

I have a similar "all in one" inverter for camping, and since you seem to know what you are saying: In my setup I wired a 20A GFCI outlet to my output, and use that as my main output protection. What do you think about that?

PS: op took down their page. archive link is here: https://web.archive.org/web/20251005022124/https://sunboxlab...

[rsync]

Your receptacle (20A in your case, but regardless) is not a current limiter.

The 20A is not being "enforced" in any way and your outlet can receive, and pass on, any arbitrary current ... until something melts, that is.

You could achieve your goal by wiring in a fuse, or circuit breaker in that circuit and could probably nicely (and safely) package it up in a plastic junction box, etc.

[jagrsw]

Then again, I'm not certified for solar installations - but standard <1kV home installations and measurements. (As an anecdote, there's a specialty called 'electrical installations for hydrolysis of water' - I shall get certified in that one day just for fun.)

Buy a customer-oriented device instead, if you can. I vaguely remember there are plenty of them on the market with built-in batteries. They should have RCD/GFCI and overcurrent protection (and thermal, and BMS included) per outlet (or per bus).

If you want to stick with your current inverter, here are some thoughts from first principles:

- ground it while using, but this might be hard at a remote camping site (maybe use a grounding rod?). If it's a similar model to the one in the article, it must be grounded.

- a GFCI/RCD rated for 30mA or less with 15-20A circuit breaker (I'd suggest type-A if in EU) that matches your wiring and outlets.

There should be ready-to-go boxes that provide RCD+OC, and maybe you're already using one.

[scotty79]

> ground it while using, but this might be hard at a remote camping site (maybe use a grounding rod?).

What's the point of grounding it? So you can get shocked by touching one wire instead of two?

[jagrsw]

Short answer - treat it as Class I (it has a PE terminal)

Longer: A Class I inverter/appliance relies on PE. A single insulation fault (live -> chassis) will put the chassis at line potential if PE isn’t connected.

If you run other Class-I loads (eg. fridges) downstream of a GFCI but don’t carry PE, a hot-to-chassis fault on the load won’t reliably trip anything until there’s a return path (often a person).

[scotty79]

> A single insulation fault (live -> chassis) will put the chassis at line potential if PE isn’t connected.

As long as the other wire is not connected to ground, chassis being connected to one doesn't pose much risk.

Grounding either wire makes whole thing worse. If you ground the chassis and it's not connected to either wire it makes no difference. Once insulation on any of the wires fails and the wire connects with the chassis it becomes the neutral and ground at the same time and the other wire will shock you through ground even if you don't touch the chassis at that time.

I'm curious if GFCI would trip if you didn't have the whole thing grounded and just touched one of the wires...

I know that in normal setup GFCI detects if too little electricity goes back through neutral relative to how much goes through hot wire. Assuming nothing is grounded, would short, small leakage current when you touch one of the wires be enough to trip GFCI?

Does GFCI work both ways? If there was more current "comming back in" on the neutral than goes out on the hot would GFCI trip as well? Are the usual solutions worthless when you have just two free floating wires with potential difference between them but with no reference to ground?

Is there a code for high voltage mobile installations? It seems that EV and mobile home makers go mostly with their own solutions derived from first principles...

[a_mechanic]

Not the person you are replying to, but a GFCI does not protect against overcurrent.

[IAmBroom]

Well, not line-to-neutral overcurrent - which is what the person asking assumed it did.

It specifically protects against ground-path overcurrent (not ground line overcurrent - it is guarding against an undesigned path to ground, which is probably a person).

[novaleaf]

thanks, I'll put a breaker in-line.