How did this devolve into an attack on AFCI's? IMO, that's another topic, one we have visited several times before.
It is the AFCI discussion that is responsible, in part, for my BS detector ringing at the very mention of "physics." This is because "physics" was raised in the AFCI debate, and I'm not at all happy with the discussions that followed.
It's the other way 'round Reno
The AFCI manufacturers have pursued and hounded Mr Charles for his GCI technology to levels of corporate espionage i dare not elaborate on in a pro forum.
They know their product is flawed, and they do not wish to be revealed for it.
They have shut down ever mode of communication ,save for venues like these, even shut down the original nema-afci task force guru when he came forward to do so.
Some made mention of "Paschen's Law" and assert that the law makes it impossible for an AFCI to operate at household voltages. Alas, apart from simple, brief entries that all trace back to the same source, I have not been able to find any general discussion of this purported 'law.' I would love to find this 'law' discussed in some standard physics or engineering text.
We've plenty available .....
It is difficult to find a general fault feature that performs well for all loads. Moreover, the residential electrical standard for single-phase alternating current (AC) is 120 V (60 Hz) in the United States, whereas it is 220–240 V (50–60 Hz) in other countries including China, Germany, Switzerland and Korea. Higher voltages more readily produce electrical fires caused by arc faults [49,50,51,52]. For example, the probability of fire ignition due to arc faults increases from 3.5% for 120 V to 83% for 240 V, and their nominal current levels are both 15 A [49]. Compared to 120 V, the higher voltages from 220 to 240 V are more likely to break down gaps and lead to more arcs [50,51]. Arc currents are usually continuous in higher voltage systems, but they are sometimes intermittent in 120 V systems [49,50]. Thus, higher voltage systems generate larger arc energy and thus provide better conditions for the ignition of electrical fires [50,51].
Conversely, I am troubled by the lack of rebuttal of this 'law' by industry, as well as the willingness of the code panel to continue to require something that can't exist.
What you're witness to are personnel who have held multiple positions of one caliber or another re: CSPC,NEMA,UL & CMP-2
As for testing at UL, I am greatly disturbed by the fact that UL does NOT test these devices for any sort of arc. A simple 'off' button in the device would allow it to pass the UL "test."
The original nema-afci task force admitted defeat , so nema simply hired new members.
We can get into 1699 if you'd like ,plenty of manufacturer paid dissertations via high paid EE's willing to bend physics out there.....
In addition, the AFCI industry has stridently opposed any manner of AFCI tester being developed. In effect, each AFCI maker is asking you to buy a product to protect you against a secret problem that only they can define.
As wonderful as the proposed 'glowing connection technology' may be, I remember the way the AFCI was brought into the code, with what can only be called 'bait and switch' tactics.
True it's hard to pull one's self up by pulling another down in this industry Reno.
But take it on faith ,they fired the first shot.
And rightly so, if i ran a billion $$ industry, i'd bury anything confronting it quicker than a cat in a litter box
Ergo, i'm siding with the underdog ,you (et all) are invited..... bad odds, lousy pay , long hours beating a keyboard to death, and possible early retirement ...
~S~
![[Linked Image from i104.photobucket.com]](https://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m176/ChickenSteve_2006/BOINT_zpsgd0zckwd.jpg)