ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat Box
Recent Posts
Lock-down Thread
by Bill Addiss - 02/27/21 01:16 PM
Northern Tool Recalls Powerhorse Generators
by Admin - 02/25/21 09:49 PM
You will never guess
by gfretwell - 02/25/21 07:48 PM
New tool
by SMOKEYBOB - 02/15/21 04:59 PM
New in the Gallery:
Facebook follies, bad wiring
FPE in Germany pt.2
Who's Online Now
1 registered members (Scott35), 18 guests, and 17 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
IEEE article #205001 01/27/12 08:47 PM
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,389
S
sparky Offline OP
Member
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~

Arc Flash PPE Clothing, LOTO & Insulated Tools
Re: IEEE article [Re: sparky] #205077 01/30/12 08:31 AM
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,389
S
sparky Offline OP
Member
XXIII. CONCLUSIONS
The primary goal of this paper was to describe what a
Combination AFCI circuit breaker can do, while also clarifying
what it can’t 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
products’ 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.

Re: IEEE article [Re: sparky] #205092 01/30/12 03:46 PM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,316
renosteinke Offline
Cat Servant
Member
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.

Re: IEEE article [Re: sparky] #205095 01/30/12 07:54 PM
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,233
HotLine1 Offline
Member
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
Re: IEEE article [Re: sparky] #205105 01/31/12 01:08 AM
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,569
G
gfretwell Offline
Member
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
Re: IEEE article [Re: renosteinke] #205108 01/31/12 07:34 AM
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,389
S
sparky Offline OP
Member
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~

Re: IEEE article [Re: sparky] #205109 01/31/12 08:00 AM
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,389
S
sparky Offline OP
Member
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~

Last edited by sparky; 01/31/12 08:02 AM.
Re: IEEE article [Re: sparky] #205111 01/31/12 10:29 AM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,316
renosteinke Offline
Cat Servant
Member
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!

Last edited by renosteinke; 01/31/12 10:30 AM.
Re: IEEE article [Re: sparky] #205115 01/31/12 02:49 PM
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,233
HotLine1 Offline
Member
Now, I'm seriously contemplating revising some of my available video items that I use in my Vo-tech classes!



John
Re: IEEE article [Re: HotLine1] #205123 01/31/12 09:32 PM
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,389
S
sparky Offline OP
Member
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~


Page 1 of 2 1 2

Featured:

2020 National Electrical Code
2020 National Electrical
Code (NEC)

* * * * * * *

2020 Master Electrician Exam Preparation Combos
2020 NEC Electrician
Exam Prep Combos:
Master / Journeyman

 

Member Spotlight
CharlieE
CharlieE
Indianapolis
Posts: 201
Joined: April 2004
Show All Member Profiles 
Top Posters(30 Days)
MCosta 3
Popular Topics(Views)
275,437 Are you busy
209,330 Re: Forum
196,614 Need opinion
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3