ECN Forum Forums General Topics of the Trade General Discussion Area PFCI ? OFCI ?

Sounds like the thermal protection they've been using in extension cord reels here for 20+ years built into a regular receptacle. Basically a thermocouple.

Did I read correctly that this is a disposable, one-time device? Sounds like a way for someone to get rich replacing them, without actually solving the underlying problem(s).

I have also noted the sale of "Safety" extension cords. As I understand it, these cords have an inner foil wrapping that is intended to let the cord 'detect' damaged conductors.

I have to applaud the manufacturers for at least trying. Still, technology is no substitute for either care or competence.

The cynic in me fears another motive -profit by manpulating the legal/political worlds - but that's another topic, for another day. Maybe some of these guys really do care about safety.

As for the device being a 'one time only,' just think of it as another "Fixed User Safety Element," or FUSE for short. Or shorts. Whatever.

Just what is safety, after all? Would not the safest house be one with no power at all? Yet, our codes require the introduction of this hazard.

OK, that's a bit extreme .... but think for a moment ... just how many of our new code requirements address risks introduced by previous requirements? Perhaps the best example is the AFCI, which was advertised to address the pinched cord from the receptacle that was behind the bed's headboard .... and that outlet's placement was directly caused by using the '6 ft. rule' as a design principle. We started the code saying 'this is not a design manual,' then a few pages later deliver a design rule on a silver platter.

Heat at the point where the plug enters the receptacle, or an apliance using too much power. Would these concerns not be more easily, and accurately, addressed by simply putting a fuse in the plug?

well Reno, the point you raise could be viewed as the NEC being self correcting, which really is about as much so as any other faction of the market



i would think addressing point of use would be more efficent than relying on a devive that could be any given length away , especially if the problem IS at the user end

even something as simple as the method of termination , which seems to be, by grace of our foriegn corespondends something less apreciable a design

wag the dog eh?

still, i'm interested in these aforementioned devices, do they exist? has a manufacturer actually produced and marketed them? what does UL say?, etc

~S~

I think I can guess UL's position. It would go something like this:

"UL tests to nationally recognized standards, and does not endorse any particular brand or technology. UL is not prepared to offer any opinion on this particuler product. Indeed, UL simply will not cerify any 'proprietary' product as being 'safer' than its' competetors. For example, UL refrained from developing a standard for AFCI's until after the owners of the patent donated it to the public domain. The only monopoly we would ever endorse would be our own."

well one can draw thier own conclusions Reno...>





http://www.ul.com/global/documents/secured/councils/Council_guidelines.doc


myself, i'd like a little more of the exact parameters of these devices, and the methodology that led them to do so

i don't really think that's a lot to ask, is it?

~S~

Please, be very, very careful about trying to 'read between the lines' when it comes to UL. When they say they have no opinion, that's just what it means: no opinion. Do not infer that they approve, disapprove, or anything else.

A similar issue comes up when folks try to infer quality from the presence of a UL lable. Some completely useless kludge has passed the appropriate UL safety standards, without being able to perform the intended function at all. (A certain 'surge suppressor' that you slipped over the prongs of a plug comes to mind).

We've seen a number of instances where private parties attempted to corrupt the code-writing process for their own private gain. At least two such cases have made it to the US Supreme court. With that in mind, perhaps we can understand UL's refusal to endorse any proprietary technology.

Likewise, how you 'test' something is always a concern. Let me arrange the test, and you can be sure my product will shine. Absent a 'standard test,' just what do test results really mean? That is why I pointed out that the UL lable only inferred that the product was evaluated to standard tests, and not any sort of validation as to the 'special' features of the devices.

For all I know, it's a marvelous invention. I remember the furious debates over new technology in the past .... GFCI's, power factor correction, even over the "Ufer." (Heck, my co-workers continue to debate the effectiveness of the Ufer!) I also remember some 'great advances' that fizzled ('Streamer Emission' lightning receptors, anyone?)

Not overtly, seems inviting in just about anyone remotely connected for their $.02 amounts to a formulated opinion they may act on though....




One can open the first few pages of the NEC to view the movers and shakers Reno, seems to me it works much like the continual stream of ex-Congresscritters turned lobbyists. And hey, we've the best Congress $$$ can buy!



Well first off, it's always convienet to create a standard where there was none. One can obviously move the goal posts as required, Second here is the ever famous flying pig perception created when the actual parameters of tests are given a spin by the manufacturer's marketing , which given mere subtley of inexact vernacular can assume grandious misunderstandings....


We were privy to specifics of performance on those items . Less than this isn't something i see a trade of class A personalities with an OC penchant for inquiring to the ninth degree tolerating for very long

~S~