http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2015/HB0533.pdf

Any NH Sparkys out there care to opine on this?

~S~

Puts a whole new meaning to "Live Free or Die"

Lest we forget the very reason we parted from England:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. "

So said Ben Franklin. Something to think of in this day of mandated bicycle helmets, government-required purchases, and legally required speech.

Embellishments of Ben's original comment add that those who make the trade wind up with neither liberty nor safety. Something to think of every time we see a new rule requiring the use of certain products, expanding the reach of government, and (most notably) claiming authority to control firearms.

Something to consider, again, as each new NEC edition finds a need to regulate things that got on quite well for a century without the 'help' of these self-appointed regulators. Example: The required phone jack.

Interesting. No reason given within the proposed bill.

Looks like a lot of resi building will be put on hold pending the approval of the bill, and the date.

A rationale would be nice HotOne

I'm licensed in NH , but i don't cross the river over to there all that much .

What is interesting is, they recently demanded all licenses to be up on the '14 by the end of '14 , no explanation there either

~S~

Rationale? How about .... The laws of physics bluntly stating that not only do AFCI's not work, but that they never can - as the arcs they claim to detect simply cannot exist?

Sort of like anti-gravity paint.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paschen%27s_law

AFCI proponents have been snookered. It's that simple. Just like the folks who were persuaded that simply turning your headlights on in daylight would somehow, magically, eliminate car accidents.

Reno,
i've learned that most folks do not care to delve into technical details.

i find this especially saddening among my peers

that said, we do have legislative oversight , most of which will never be bothered to focus beyond their contingents desires

this is why i'd like a rationale , because i can copy/paste it directly to the folks who run the show in my state

capisce?

~S~

Part of the problem is how this was sold. Maybe if they called it a "sparking" fault detector it would be more technically accurate

~s~:
You say...."this is why i'd like a rationale , because i can copy/paste it directly to the folks who run the show in my state"

I would also like to 'forward' the reasoning along to the DCA crew, as something to think about.

UL determined almost 40 yrs ago glowing connections are the number one culprit of electrical fires

There is nothing that exists on the market to prevent this.

~S~

I provided a link to the Wiki entry regarding Paschen's Law.

What more "rationale" is needed? When physical laws say something can't exist ... it can't exist.

Clearly the problem is the non-existent "rationale" behind the NEC requirements. For the very first time, UL is listing a product that they simply can NOT test for the promised function.

That is, the units are NEVER asked to detect any sort of arc-let alone interrupt one. They might was well call them "Pixie dust detectors."

New Hampshire is correct. The NEC lobby is wrong on this one. New Hampshire has to answer to it's citizens. The NFPA answers to no one -not even its' members. Nor, for that matter, does UL.

It's time to reign in these self-appointed kings.

That takes education Reno.

And education takes time , and i'm glad you've remembered Paschen from Dr Engels dissertation i posted here a while back.

I'll be back with more to the story, when i'm told to post it, just for sorts like you

~S~

OK Guys,

At the risk of displaying my ignorance, I don't get it.

I skimmed over Reno's link and read that the minimum breakdown voltage in air is 327V. But I'm sure that we've all seen arcing on 120V circuits. So what am I missing?

Thanks... Bruce

Please note the 327 figure is a theoretical minimum voltage for a sustained arc between two copper electrodes.

In practice, a higher voltage would be needed.

A sustained arc is not the same as a simple spark. Think of a spark as an arc that dies at birth.

The value would differ if either of the electrodes are of materials besides copper. A broken wire, or a loose wire at a connection, would create two copper electrodes.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Here's the rub: UL tests fire extinguishers against "standard" fires. UL tests smoke detectors with real, "standard" smokes. Yet UL performs absolutely no test that asks any AFCI to detect or open any form of arc whatsoever. All the UL tech does is press the test button.

Development of AFCI testing equipment has been stymied by UL allowing the makers to assert "proprietary" arc forms, forms which are withheld from UL.

UL might as well test them using a forked stick.

We are confusing arcs with sparks. Anyone who has ever seen a cigarette lighter knows sparks can start a fire if the fuel is easy enough to light. You can also see pretty big sparks from low voltage supplies.
When Harvey Johnson from CH was explaining the AFCI to me in the 90s (before it was really known outside their labs) the example was a pinched lamp cord behind the bed, buried in cotton dust bunnies. That broken or shorted wire could easily create a spark big enough to light the cotton without tripping the O/C device.
Their mission was to design a circuit that would detect that situation and open the circuit.

Whether the ones they came up with actually work as advertised will be borne out by history. We are on something like Version 3.2 tho. I would certainly not have much confidence in the Ver. 1.0 device we were forced to use in 2002.

UL has a 'cotton test' for series arcs, the specifics of which are dubious.

But one can test for themselves>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLmC5quELrE

Yet this is inconsequential, as the majority of arcs exist as a bad connection, which heats up to a glowing connection....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2HyTRxzwXs

the incendiary effects of which have been well know to UL for almost 4 decades>

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build77/PDF/b77005.pdf

Nothing exists on the market to prevent what remains the number one electrical hazard , nor will our NEC ,CPSC , or trade periodicals address the issue

~S~

Greg, do us a favor the next BBQ you have with your neighboring manufacturing reps, and ask them specifically what changes in the detection algorithm(s) have had UL1699 amended

~S~

Alas Harvey has gone off to that construction trailer in the sky so I am not talking to those folks anymore. His son is still working at CH but he doesn't come around here.

I am not trying to sell AFCIs. I just understand the intent. Reno is right that they still have not actually proved that they work. Only time will tell. Trying to compare this with a GFCI is bogus. The GFCI has a very simple standard, the AFCI, not so much.

I think the proof AFCIs work and the proof they are garbage is the same. In my limited experience, they trip when a light bulb burns out, when a light switch sparks, when a clothes iron cycles, when a heater thermostat switches and when a vacuum is used. I saw an extension cord run into a bedroom to overcome the problems with the AFCI breaker.

The standard excuse for being late for work should be "My AFCI tripped and my alarm didn't go off."

So this begs the Q, how would one 'sell' afci's Greg?


Originally Zlan, in conjunction with Thompson Microelectronics forwarded what was no more than conjecture

1998 minutes

Unless i've missed a technical piece, the 'LCM" , or microprocessor , this integral sensing element remains somewhat a mystery to this day.

Further, the version upgrades do not address this issue any more than informing the market they've simply 'made it better'


One would think our trades level of electrical curiosity would be inquiring as to specifics, especially since our end users are going to pitch $1K on average for a panel full of them

~S~

In this case C/H elbowed this into the code, before they even had a working retail product and "sold" them at the point of a government gun.

Perhaps you realize the magnitude of what you've stated here Greg

I do, i know these folks>

http://www.aaim.tv/elecrical-french-connexion-real-truth-afcis-anglais/

~S~

Hello Sparky

I'm new here and I apologize for my English. I hope not annoy anyone.

This point is important:

At the time Thompson Microelectronics had its capital ... the French State. And IN France, some TECHNICAL things was already well known for a long time!



best regards,

FICC-

sparky
The link you posted is.......interesting to say the least

I am glad to see you're interested Hot One.

This is all so controversial , but it needs to be aired

And i guess the only way it's going to get around is this mode of communication

~S~