Regarding whether the static grounding method is the direct cause of spontaneous combustion
Thread Content
A few days ago, an explosion and fire occurred in the ink tank located beneath the white plate-making roller of Printing Unit 3 in the color printing workshop. It was found that Unit 3 did not have its own grounding wire; instead, it was connected to the metal frame of Unit 2 via a flat bar, with the grounding wire of Unit 2 being used to conduct electricity into the ground. As a result, static electricity could not be effectively discharged； May I ask, doesn’t this grounding method eliminate the risk of spontaneous combustion caused by static electricity? Is it necessary for Unit 3 to have its own separate grounding?
It shouldn’t be the case in all situations; if static electricity isn’t fully discharged, this kind of problem should occur frequently, rather than occasionally. This is just my personal opinion – it’s necessary to investigate on-site to determine if there are any other causes :)
When an abnormal event occurs, there must be more than one cause. Of course, the immediate cause must be identified first, but it is necessary to investigate the entire sequence of events that led to it, and draw a conclusion after careful analysis. There is a risk of fire and explosion at the site, so anti-static grounding is an essential measure. As for whether to ground it separately, it needs to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis; first check the design, and then refer to the specifications. If it is concluded from this incident that \"lack of separate grounding\" is one of the problems, then separate grounding must also be ensured in the future”