ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
Top Posters(30 Days)
dsk 3
Recent Posts
weatherproof fan box
by sparkync. 06/28/17 02:18 PM
High Leg Delta, phase angles
by gfretwell. 06/27/17 12:17 PM
Mains supply in GDR
by Texas_Ranger. 06/27/17 07:44 AM
Feed to spa panel
by HotLine1. 06/25/17 05:28 PM
Weatherhead, POA, height?
by HotLine1. 06/24/17 02:37 PM
New in the Gallery:
SE cable question
Popular Topics(Views)
238,293 Are you busy
173,504 Re: Forum
166,307 Need opinion
Who's Online Now
1 registered members (jraef), 59 guests, and 9 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#217187 - 05/28/16 12:48 AM A publication manufacturers don't want you to read  
Meadow  Offline
Member
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 66
USA
A rather eye opening interview on the real cause of electrical fires and the possible truth behind AFCIs:


http://www.santepublique-editions.f...-Charles-by-Annie-Lobe-April-21-2016.pdf


Work Gear for Electricians and the Trades

#217188 - 05/28/16 08:20 AM Re: A publication manufacturers don't want you to read [Re: Meadow]  
sparky  Offline
Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,308
I would encourage all in our trade to take note of this story , as well as the folks involved on both sides of the pond.

Our industries manufacturing icons have been trying to change the physics of electricity ,for the sake of profits

In the case presented , they know the simplicity of point of use thermal dynamics trump anything they market now.

This has resulted in a huge international patent war ,where Mr Charles ,the proverbial David is up against a Goliath industry and refuses to give into them.

Unfortunately ,there is a 'dark side' to this , with evidence i will be forwarding here as the thread progresses

Please know that you'll not read this in any trade rag, or periodical (we've tried with past pieces) , resulting with the sole avenue of the internet to get the word out

thank you for your interest & cooperation

~S~


#217189 - 05/28/16 08:51 AM Re: A publication manufacturers don't want you to read [Re: Meadow]  
ghost307  Offline
Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 902
Chicago Illinois USA
Amazing.

All it takes is this guy inventing an electrical term "the Joule effect" and he expects us to blindly believe it.

When some long paper makes up their own terminology...and then quotes 'experts' who they will not name in order to support it I immediately smell snake oil.

BTW - There is a well-known phenomenon named the Joule Effect; but it is entirely unrelated to electricity.


Ghost307

#217190 - 05/28/16 09:01 AM Re: A publication manufacturers don't want you to read [Re: ghost307]  
sparky  Offline
Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,308
Originally Posted by ghost307
Amazing.

All it takes is this guy inventing an electrical term "the Joule effect" and he expects us to blindly believe it.

When some long paper makes up their own terminology...and then quotes 'experts' who they will not name in order to support it I immediately smell snake oil.

BTW - There is a well-known phenomenon named the Joule Effect; but it is entirely unrelated to electricity.


While joule effect is well know ,it's incorporation into point of use is not

Were the 'big boys' to circumvent patent laws , they'd be pushing this on the cmp's hard, with afci technology taking a back seat to it

~S~


#217192 - 05/28/16 01:48 PM Re: A publication manufacturers don't want you to read [Re: ghost307]  
Meadow  Offline
Member
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 66
USA
Originally Posted by ghost307
Amazing.

All it takes is this guy inventing an electrical term "the Joule effect" and he expects us to blindly believe it.

When some long paper makes up their own terminology...and then quotes 'experts' who they will not name in order to support it I immediately smell snake oil.

BTW - There is a well-known phenomenon named the Joule Effect; but it is entirely unrelated to electricity.


His invention his choice of terms. But I promise you AFCIs have 10,000 times more made up and misused terms to justify them. Remember what "short circuit arcing" became? Somehow we all blindly believe this.


http://paceforensic.com/pdfs/Circuit_Breakers_The_Myth_of_Safety.pdf





Last edited by Meadow; 05/28/16 02:00 PM.

#217193 - 05/29/16 01:01 AM Re: A publication manufacturers don't want you to read [Re: Meadow]  
Potseal  Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 225
Saskatchewan
I read the article (http://www.santepublique-editions.fr/obj...ril-21-2016.pdf) and can safely say that I do not have the expertise to comment on the validity of the claims made one way or the other. That said I find the format that it was presented in strangely similar to internet articles where the author is ultimately trying to get you to make an investment in something that is on the cusp of being the next big thing. The bolded text and constant repetition of certain phrases seems unprofessional for a subject that is meant to be taken serious.

Lastly, has anybody viewed the video on the website promoting this technology (http://c-joule-effect-inc.com/electrical_fires.html)? It shows a loose connection in a screw on wire connector gradually heating and eventually producing a flame. I have seen beginnings of this at loose connections on devices and at terminals but never at a screw on connector. Not saying it doesn't happen but I'm wondering how often have any of the other forum members seen a screw on connector in some stage of burning up as shown in the video?


A malfunction at the junction

#217194 - 05/29/16 04:49 AM Re: A publication manufacturers don't want you to read [Re: Potseal]  
sparky  Offline
Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,308
Ul determined glowing connections were the chief incendiary culprit 40 years ago PotSeal

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

~S~



#217195 - 05/29/16 05:11 AM Re: A publication manufacturers don't want you to read [Re: Meadow]  
gfretwell  Offline


Member
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,087
Estero,Fl,usa
Isn't that why we require boxes at every connection?
I am a little curious how they created that bad a connection in a wirenut. That seemed to be the perfect storm of enough contact to create a circuit with enough resistance to burn up. I bet they had to try that quite a few times to get it right and a suspicious person would wonder if there was another substance involved.


Greg Fretwell

#217196 - 05/29/16 09:45 AM Re: A publication manufacturers don't want you to read [Re: Meadow]  
renosteinke  Offline
Cat Servant
Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,316
Blue Collar Country
Looks like we're off hunting dragons- again.

Yes, that first link consists of little more than marketing hyperbole and technical-sounding babble.

The second link .... well, UL had nothing to do with it.

Instead, let's look at some facts, before we go off into fantasy land.

To begin with, I point to that UL / NFPA / DOE study of a few years back, where they looked at the electrical systems of several 50-year old homes. Where damage was found, they also found major, basic wiring errors. For example, the use of improper splices.

What struck me in that examination of 'old' wiring was that every failing would have been prevented had the rules and practices of that period been followed- nothing since added to the NEC would have prevented them.

As for the use of boxes .... well, I'm simply amazed to see that Australia manages to do without boxes at their devices- yet doesn't seem to have an increased fire loss as a result.

The AFCI drama is worth noting, simply because those devices were presented to s in a manner very similar to the technique used in the first link. That is: lots of emotional appeal; blanket assertions of a 'major problem' and invented claims of losses; and pretty artwork.

Glowing connections? I've seen some awesome art regarding the use of wire nuts in coupling aluminum and copper wires. Alas, the pretty art never explained why such connections seem to be a problem only in the USA, and not in Canada.

I'm especially wary of European-based commentary regarding wire nuts. I don't think wire nuts were ever very popular in Europe; they seem to have gone direct from "Choc Block" connectors (sort of a terminal strip) to Wagos (pressure connectors).

Fires exist - but very few have any connection to the electrical system within the house. Once you look closer, and eliminate gross abuse of appliances (like setting a heater too close to flammables) and incompetent tampering (such as open splicing of thermostat wire to house wire, in order to add a ceiling fan), the number of 'electrical' fires dwindles to insignificance.


#217197 - 05/29/16 11:04 AM Re: A publication manufacturers don't want you to read [Re: renosteinke]  
sparky  Offline
Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,308
Thank you for reading Reno.

Unfortunately , glowing connection technology flies in the face of afci technology.

The fundamental theory of electrical physics being the crux of the issue.

The 'powers that be' have ,in concert with multiple oversight entities , made quite the effort to change canon and/or ignore this reality.

If you'll please indulge me ,i'll post evidence to this end>

Quote
Concern — NEC CMP-2 accepted adoption of this new
requirement based on inaccurate and misleading documentation
submitted by the manufacturers of these devices.


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<snip>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Quote
Concern — At a recent meeting of NEC CMP-2, UL
made a presentation that demonstrated that the AFCI
devices would not detect all arcing faults. The UL
representative described the basic technical problems
with the device. It will not be able to detect all arcs
that may produce a fire. Asked if the device will
detect all arcs between the breaker and the first outlet,
the answer was no. The answer was the same for
detecting arcs in an outlet, in the cord from the outlet
to the appliance, and the appliance itself. Asked what
the percentage of arcs may be detected, the answer
was they do not know



<<<<<<<<snip>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Quote
Concern — Unfortunately, the devices can pass only
four of the tests, not the full 14 tests needed for this
product to protect residential occupancies as outlined
in a UL study for the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC).


Source

>>>>
Quote

2-76 Log #687 NEC-P02 Final Action: Reject
(210.12)
__________________________________________________ ______________
Submitter: Robert Huddleston, Jr., RLH Engineering Consulting
Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:
210.12(A): All 120-volt, single phase, 15- and 20-ampere branch circuits
supplying outlets…shall be protected by a listed arc-fault circuit interrupter,
combination-type, installed to provide parallel arc fault protection of the branch
circuit.
210.12(B): Branch Circuit Extensions or Modifications – Dwelling Units. (1)
A listed combination-type AFCI located at the origin of the branch circuit.
Substantiation: A CD shall be provided to each Code-panel Principal Voting
Member showing actual real-world testing of combination-type AFCIs.


https://youtu.be/iLmC5quELrE


Quote
This testing clearly demonstrates and proves that these devices do not trip when sensing a real-world series arc-fault, as they are advertised. Regardless of the type of series arc fault (loose connection, broken wire, damaged cord, junction box splice failure), combination-type AFCI devices do not trip and provide protection even though they claim to provide such. Please view the Powerpoint presentation on the CD and click on the imbedded video for testing results. It is completely inappropriate for the National Electrical Code to specify and require equipment that does not work properly. It is sincerely hoped that the Panel will correct this issue.
Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.

Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: Replication of the experiments shown in the video shows
that there is minimal actual arcing occurring. When arcing does occur, causing the sparking seen in the video, its duration is very short and the energy is three orders of magnitude below what is required to ignite the NM cable or surrounding materials.

The waveform looks the same as when a wall switch is switched on and off.
If the AFCI responded to this waveform it would increase the incidence of
unwanted tripping while not contributing significantly to mitigating fire hazards.
Number Eligible to Vote: 11
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Abstain: 1


So CMP-2 was basically informed by afci manufacturers that they've no idea just what arc(s) an afci can detect, yet they turn around and substaintiate rejection of Mr Huddleston with their intricate knowledge of them AND their waveforms

~S~


Page 1 of 2 1 2

Member Spotlight
cookcc
cookcc
California ,Long Beach
Posts: 28
Joined: May 2007
Show All Member Profiles 
Featured:

2017 NEC and Related
2017 NEC
Now Available!

Shout Box
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0
Page Time: 0.018s Queries: 16 (0.003s) Memory: 0.8278 MB (Peak: 1.0091 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2017-06-29 02:10:04 UTC