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.
