The Electrical Contractor Network

ECN Electrical Forum
Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals

Books, Tools and Test Equipment for Electrical and Construction Trades

Register Now!

Register Now!

We want your input!

Featured:
   

2017 NEC and Related
2017 NEC
Now Available!

   
Recent Posts
230 or 345 kV transmission lines?
by Vlado
09/24/16 09:33 AM
breaker meltdown
by crselectric
09/24/16 12:42 AM
Electrical mast flashing product
by ThomasWinfrey
09/22/16 12:14 AM
What estimating software do you recommend?
by sparky
09/21/16 07:20 PM
"Dry Run" Inspection goes awry
by HotLine1
09/20/16 07:39 PM
New in the Gallery:
12.5A through 0.75mm≤ flex (just out of curiosity)
Shout Box

Top Posters (30 Days)
HotLine1 15
sparky 9
sparky66wv 8
gfretwell 8
Vlado 6
Who's Online
0 registered (), 97 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#205001 - 01/27/12 05:47 PM IEEE article
sparky Offline
Member

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 5542
http://www.combinationafci.com/resources/doc_ieee_combination_afci.pdf

an interesting IEEE artilce . from their latest workshop, via a Mr Joe Engle, phd

comments appreciated

~S~

Top
Arc Flash PPE Clothing, LOTO & Insulated Tools
#205077 - 01/30/12 05:31 AM Re: IEEE article [Re: sparky]
sparky Offline
Member

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 5542
XXIII. CONCLUSIONS
The primary goal of this paper was to describe what a
Combination AFCI circuit breaker can do, while also clarifying
what it canít do. The features of the Combination AFCI, and
the earlier Branch/feeder AFCI, are listed in Table 1. Neither
provides series arc protection, the Branch/feeder provides the
extra important feature of 30mA ground fault protection.
The paper goes on to explain, but not justify, how the
Combination AFCI came to be mandated, while the
Branch/feeder that provides more protection at less cost is
disallowed. The key drivers behind this were the AFCI
manufacturers, their NEMA organization, and UL. The author
hopes this paper will stir discussions amongst the principals
and correct any errors that were made concerning their
productsí performance. This would also include supporting
removing the Combination AFCI mandate from the NATIONAL
ELECTRICAL CODE (NFPA 70).
Finally, the author, having participating actively during the
AFCI development, would encourage the IEEE engineering
communities of these great institutions to become more
engaged to insure their codes and standards representatives
fully understand the technical issues. These are their
products; they have a responsibility to insure their products are
not inadvertently misrepresented.

Top
#205092 - 01/30/12 12:46 PM Re: IEEE article [Re: sparky]
renosteinke Offline
Cat Servant
Member

Registered: 01/22/05
Posts: 5299
Loc: Blue Collar Country
SO ... in a nutshell .... we have a former C-H person arguing that his product was better, yet the NEC mandates an inferior product?

We see a return to emphasis on the damaged appliance cord - and no mention of the legendary errant Romex staple?

We see another argument against AFCI devices?

We see an assertion that UL ignored their own study when they wrote the standard - and that the standard does not test for the primary feature claimed by the product? Sort of like not requiring a boat to float?

This paper might very well be the 'blue dress' of the AFCI debate.

Top
#205095 - 01/30/12 04:54 PM Re: IEEE article [Re: sparky]
HotLine1 Offline

Member

Registered: 04/03/02
Posts: 6785
Loc: Brick, NJ USA
I have to find the time to read this whole paper, and review again the videos that I have from Siemens, and others regarding the combo AFCI. I use these videos in my courses at the vo-tech, and now I wonder if the info is factual.

Thoughts, gentlemen??
_________________________
John

Top
#205105 - 01/30/12 10:08 PM Re: IEEE article [Re: sparky]
gfretwell Offline

Member

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 9012
Loc: Estero,Fl,usa
The most interesting thing to me is the "party line" votes in CMP-2 that just confirm what we have known all along. NFPA has become as corrupt as the government with the process being controlled by the corporations who will make money on the decisions.

It has never been a secret that these "combination" AFCIs were jammed into the code, long before they actually existed and the author contends they still don't.

I did not know they also dropped the requirement for the 30MA GF protection. I am guessing the CT interfered with the series arc detection. Evidently removing it still did not reach the desired result if you can believe the author.
_________________________
Greg Fretwell

Top
#205108 - 01/31/12 04:34 AM Re: IEEE article [Re: renosteinke]
sparky Offline
Member

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 5542
it's not the first blue dress Reno.....

http://www.mikeholt.com/mojonewsarchive/AFCI-HTML/HTML/AFCI_-_Why_I_Have_a_Problem_With_It~20020801.htm

http://www.mikeholt.com/mojonewsarchive/AFCI-HTML/HTML/AFCI_-_Important_Update_from_a_Certified_Fire_Investigator~20020812.htm

~S~

Top
#205109 - 01/31/12 05:00 AM Re: IEEE article [Re: sparky]
sparky Offline
Member

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 5542
Quote:
The most interesting thing to me is the "party line" votes in CMP-2 that just confirm what we have known all along. NFPA has become as corrupt as the government with the process being controlled by the corporations who will make money on the decisions.


Quote:
I have to find the time to read this whole paper, and review again the videos that I have from Siemens, and others regarding the combo AFCI. I use these videos in my courses at the vo-tech, and now I wonder if the info is factual.

Thoughts, gentlemen??


imho, a number of avenues exist fellas, one possibility is powers that be are legally confronted

another might simply be quiet nonconfrontational clerical changes predicated on a failure of bureacracy

yet another, occuring as we speak, is the focus on glowing contacts, i.e.-the entire afci market becomes moot

they may all occur simultaneously, i couldn't say....

in any case that has, or may occur , i would caution signing onto any manner of belief system

that belongs in church, not our trade, nor as a safety feature anywhere

just my electrical secularist opinion this a.m.
~S~


Edited by sparky (01/31/12 05:02 AM)

Top
#205111 - 01/31/12 07:29 AM Re: IEEE article [Re: sparky]
renosteinke Offline
Cat Servant
Member

Registered: 01/22/05
Posts: 5299
Loc: Blue Collar Country
I'll tell you where this is going .... right off my desk, and straight into City Hall. You bet the AHJ will have it brought to his attention - and I'll wager the AFCI requirements that were adopted when the adopted the 2011 NEC without modification get ammended out!

Look to similar rejections to become popular. All that talk about the 'expertise' behind the 'consensus based' NEC ... and it turns out they're no more upstanding than the Chicago City Council.

You have taken my code and made it into a den of thieves. Get out!


Edited by renosteinke (01/31/12 07:30 AM)

Top
#205115 - 01/31/12 11:49 AM Re: IEEE article [Re: sparky]
HotLine1 Offline

Member

Registered: 04/03/02
Posts: 6785
Loc: Brick, NJ USA
Now, I'm seriously contemplating revising some of my available video items that I use in my Vo-tech classes!
_________________________
John

Top
#205123 - 01/31/12 06:32 PM Re: IEEE article [Re: HotLine1]
sparky Offline
Member

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 5542
I'm glad you folks care about the trade enough to digest this & get it out.

you really wouldn't believe how many folks i've talked to in the last ten years about the afci, lotta stories, lotta time spent, too many to list

and i've always been in the minority doing so.

maybe not so anymore....

~S~

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >



ECN Electrical Forums - sponsored by Electrical Contractor Network - Electrical and Code Related Discussion for Electrical Contractors, Electricians, Inspectors, Instructors, Engineers and other related Professionals