ECN Forum Forums Code Related Discussion NEC & other Code issues An 'Acceptable Risk'?

Bill: You are in an area that I have taken a lot of verbal abuse. My views regarding the documented lack of reliability, necessity, and marketing tactics to sell these devices to the American public, have caused all the renowned code experts to insult my intelligence, and ethics.
I protested these devices, as being mandatory, from day one.
I am now hearing rumors, not confirmed, but from a fairly reliable source, that there is a planned class action law suit based on the lack of performance, reliability, length of life, and the marketing by mandated law only, not on their own merit or need.
I have heard it is by the same lawyers in the tobacco lawsuits. Again, this has been only a rumor, I have no proof of its validity. If this is true, it could be a factor in not seeing any expansion of mandatory GFCI requirements.

Bennie,

If that is even partially true it might explain a few things hmm ....

Besides that, Why can a switch, fixture or receptacle be located right next to a Bathtub but not a Spa or pool?

Bill

[This message has been edited by Bill Addiss (edited 03-21-2001).]

Ben;
I once attended a sales seminar, they made us understand that the root of all sales is sex and death. sounds funny huh.... their point was that the public will spend on anything that promotes the first, prevents the second.

GFI's, AFCI's and a zillion other widgets in our trade follow suit. the manufacturers use safety as the premise to lobby the NEC.

i have been made to understand that there is a majority of manufacturers that sit on CMP's submitting ROP's. The fact that the cause could probably be addressed instead of supplying a new widgets effect is not conducive to an entire chain of business.

to further this, half our codes, laws, etc are could be easily argued in this light.

any abuse you have taken is due to your unbiased clarity of these issues.

I appreciate your remarks, Sparky. Along with your statements, review the submitters for making it mandatory to install AFCI's. This is a consensus? They would barely make a good poker game.

Thanks that cleared up now we have them here i think but call them ELCB's or RCD
Earth Leakage Circuit Breakers, or Residual Current Device they must comply with the following The must be tested every 3 months this can be the test button, preferably with a electronic tester to ensure that they operate within 30ms at 300mA they are very very popular.
We install then as a switched outlet or as a MCB and downstream all the outlets on that circuit (making sure they have OL protection as well).
A tutor at night school told me they are complusory in South Africa for wall outlets
i am replacing all my 16 A MCB's over time as we have young children.
Sorry to ramble on

appy;
so basically, you install what we would call a GFI for all receptacles?

while we look for the "body count" in schoolyards to justify it here??

Sparky,
I don't see how a 300 ma trip provides much in the way of safety for humans.
The more serious electrocution and shock hazards occur above the let go limits. 99% of the female population have an let go limit above 6 milliamps, with an average of 10.5 milliamps. 99% of the male population have an let go limit above 9 milliamps, with an average of 15.5 milliamps. Prolonged exposure to 60 Hz. currents greater than 18 milliamps, across the chest causes the diaphragm to contract which prevents breathing and causes the victim to suffocate. No data is available for females or children but suffocation is presumed to occur at a lower current level.
How does a 300 ma trip help?

I was going to question this level of trip also. It was over 20 years ago, when I visited New Zealand. I am sure there is many advances in technology since then. I know that I missed many features of their technical applications. I miss a lot of ours.
It would be interesting to know the purpose and research results that determined the trip level as stated.
I do know there was a problem in designing a sensing and trip function, with solid state components and the 230 volts. This may have been resolved.

I noted the reference to 16 amp trip circuits, on Appy's response. The ampacity of metric sized conductors, will present some problems when the US adopts the metric system.
The NM cable I used was 16 amp sized. I used it as both 15 or 20 amp. The ambient temperatures of most locations in the Antarctic would easily compensate for any increase in current. I could see no problem.
The 16 amps at 230 volts can supply 3680 watt load. 16 amps at 120 volts is 1920 watts.

Could it be that the breakers Appy is referring to is not for personnel protection, but to eliminat ground faults that would not normally trip a breaker? Seems like with the system voltage over there a ground fault could transfer a good amount of power without tripping the breaker(double the amount over here).
Gerald