AFCI Everthing!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Then i'm obviously confused , as i have a recent message in my inbox

undoubtedly, this is operator error on my part

that said, is it acceptable to seek and obtain permission for posting Dr Joe's paper as i have pursued here?

~R~
 
,

,

don_resqcapt19 said:
That was over a year ago and it was not related to openly available information. You had posted a link to the UL AFCI standard. That is not openly available and links to that type of copyrighted material are not permitted on this forum.
Click to expand...

romex jockey said:
that said, is it acceptable to seek and obtain permission for posting Dr Joe's paper as i have pursued here?
Click to expand...
~R~, When I read your comments about copyright concerns with respect to Dr. Engel's white paper, and read the printed restrictions on the paper, itself, I realized that something else was probably in play, rather than the meaning in the copyright restrictions against selling the paper. Don's comment helps me understand.

To answer your direct question "is it acceptable to seek and obtain permission for posting Dr Joe's paper?", I submit you are welcome to ask either Dr. Engel or the IEEE, and there is no harm in that. It is my opinion that the permission is already given to view this particular file and to use it personally, because access to it is not blocked by pay-per-view access (unlike UL standards). The only further restriction upon you, using the file, personally, is that you are not going to try to make money from it by selling it in some manner. This caution helps to ensure that the file is "freely" available to be shared for the purposes of enlightened discourse . . .

Enlightened discourse . . . this Forum, and this thread.
 
Thank you again Al

Yes i have , as can be seen, formally asked to post it here ,irregardless of it's obtainability

No, i'm not making any $$$ from it....

more like bearing the brunt of many slings & arrows, howling in the ASCII wilderness via multiple forums

but, i feel it's important enough information to warrant a little grief

that said, i've also approached most of the trade rags with it as well, i'm sure you can guess what their response was

~R~
 
romex jockey said:
yes, i've been approached by a mod concerning copywrite rules here

I've also been asked for evidence as to my stance

I find Dr Joe to have written what i consider the best paper on afci's i've read to date, no technical or historic detail is left unaddressed

I await this forums better read posters response to this gem

~R~
Click to expand...
Most of us are not disagreeing on your opinion of the AFCI's, just your method of protesting them. I have not yet read Dr Joes article, but have skimmed over it a little. Looks like a lot of work was put into it and it is probably good material. That alone is still not going to change what is printed in the NEC, there is a good chance either that paper or at least some of the information presented there has been seen by the CMP responsible for 210.12. There is likely much more material presented by the manufacturers to the same panel convincing them why AFCI is necessary. That is the reality of why the NEC is what it is. If you want to repeal AFCI requirements in the code you have to compete with the manufacturers not the CMP. Even though they are business competetitors they have deep pockets and are all in this one together. For every one argument against AFCI they have deep enough pockets to present multiple arguments for AFCI.

Many of us don't like it any more than you, but still have to conduct business. Many of us don't like other rules or regulations, but still have to conduct business. If I decide I don't like to pay my taxes I can protest by not paying them. But I only hurt myself, because most governing bodies have the authority to seize whatever assets they find necessary to make up for it, and/or have me arrested if deemed necessary. Enforcement of building codes is maybe not quite as severe, but still has consequences.
 
kwired said:
Most of us are not disagreeing on your opinion of the AFCI's, just your method of protesting them. I have not yet read Dr Joes article, but have skimmed over it a little. Looks like a lot of work was put into it and it is probably good material. That alone is still not going to change what is printed in the NEC, there is a good chance either that paper or at least some of the information presented there has been seen by the CMP responsible for 210.12. There is likely much more material presented by the manufacturers to the same panel convincing them why AFCI is necessary. That is the reality of why the NEC is what it is. If you want to repeal AFCI requirements in the code you have to compete with the manufacturers not the CMP. Even though they are business competetitors they have deep pockets and are all in this one together. For every one argument against AFCI they have deep enough pockets to present multiple arguments for AFCI.

Many of us don't like it any more than you, but still have to conduct business. Many of us don't like other rules or regulations, but still have to conduct business. If I decide I don't like to pay my taxes I can protest by not paying them. But I only hurt myself, because most governing bodies have the authority to seize whatever assets they find necessary to make up for it, and/or have me arrested if deemed necessary. Enforcement of building codes is maybe not quite as severe, but still has consequences.
Click to expand...

I'd wager most of CMP-2, certainly past, if not present, has probably seen or heard of Dr Joe's paper by now Kwired, as it details their involvement and interaction with all the other 'powers that be'.

And yes, i do believe you are spot on in your assessment of the manufacturers influence, as well as my somewhat confrontational methods , but i come by them honestly

The fact is, there's a proverbial war over the afci technology vs. what i'd describe as point of use technology.

I've been enlightened to some rather unsavory corporate shenanigans that have led me to believe if they (the heavy manufacturing hitters) could obtain the correct patents , they'd roundfile anything on their shelves pertinent to arc technology for that which addresses the mitigation of point of use glowing connections


~R~
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
I don't know what happened with that. My PM mailbox shows that I sent you that message on 2/8/12.

Mike Holt sent out a newsletter with links to that article and other info about AFCIs.
Click to expand...

well.....it appears i certainly have lost the right to demean anyone on their reading comprehension here Don.....

i suppose being born before ritalin with caffine as a drug of choice would be a weak defense

mea cuppa....

~R~
 
I manage to get along with the AHJs in the areas where I do work. Some I have worked with for almost all of my 30+ years in business. I would not presume to think that after the second violation I would not be written up with a formal violation notice. Especially one that is repeated time and again. Continued violations would see me appearing before the SED facing questions about my performance with my continued EC license at stake.
 
Contrary to what you may think, I manage to get along quite well with all my ahj's Tom.

In fact, after enlightening a number ahj's to Dr Joe's paper, as well as forwarding it to my state licensing board's 'informational officer' for his discression, i have heard back from a few as well

Not long ago i had one inform me that all he was sure of that worked in an afci was the test button

That, and a number of other anecdotes i won't take the time to bore you with means the word is getting around

May i suggest you do the same , what have you to loose?

~R~
 
kwired said:
Most of us are not disagreeing on your opinion of the AFCI's,
Click to expand...

That is the odd thing, I don't think anyone at all has disagreed with his opinion of the AFCIs effectiveness or the dirty politics that got in place. The most I saw was someone saying that the concept was a good one.

So I am lost why he keeps posting to us like we need convincing that AFCIs are not all they claim them to be.:huh::?
 
I think that the GFP part of the AFCIs works and it is my opinion that that function does most of the work. Maybe that is all we need. Maybe we don't need the arc signature detection part. I have been told by engineers involved with the design of the AFCI that 90 to 95% of the trips are from the GFP part.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
I think that the GFP part of the AFCIs works and it is my opinion that that function does most of the work. Maybe that is all we need. Maybe we don't need the arc signature detection part. I have been told by engineers involved with the design of the AFCI that 90 to 95% of the trips are from the GFP part.
Click to expand...
If that is all that does anything in these devices then there is no new product, we have had devices for years that do the same thing. Was primarily only used on heat trace cable, de-icing cables and some other limited industrial uses. Some new AFCI's no longer have the GFP component. GE I believe is one of them.
 
kwired said:
If that is all that does anything in these devices then there is no new product, we have had devices for years that do the same thing. Was primarily only used on heat trace cable, de-icing cables and some other limited industrial uses. Some new AFCI's no longer have the GFP component. GE I believe is one of them.
Click to expand...
That is not all that they are intended to do, but very often there is a ground fault long before the arc signature would be recognized. The AFCI does not even look for a parallel arcing fault unless the current exceeds 75 amps and there is no evidence that series arcs can even exist at dwelling unit voltages.

It is my opinion that the GE device without the GFP has lost a lot of the functionality. There is nothing in the UL standard for AFCIs that requires GFP protection, but I think it is an important part of the device.
 
So we are essentially left with a 30ma GFPE, or what would be the Euro differential counterpart.

Iirc, they incorporate a tiered system, main is something like 300ma, sub-mains, and then the 30ma differentials

~R~
 
I have reason to believe their system is not predicated on false security Iwire

Thier system also stands as a validation of enhanced 'main breaker' protection

It is done, and on mass scale, despite the nay sayers, which will be found in any given issue

So to address the OP, asking for it's consideration on the American market isn't all that obscure when we look across the pond at our counterparts

~R~
 
mivey said:
I would rather we expose NEMA and UL for perpetrating the AFCI fraud and force a fix.
Click to expand...

I would imagine the CSPC would take the riens Mivey....

once they come to the realization the device falls short of rewriting the laws of electrical physics that is....

~R~
 
romex jockey said:
I would imagine the CSPC would take the riens Mivey....

once they come to the realization the device falls short of rewriting the laws of electrical physics that is....

~R~
Click to expand...
According to Dr. Joe the CSPC was a big player in what we now have as AFCI requirements, the manufacturers fooled CSPC before why can't they do it again?

I am still convinced this AFCI thing is all about $$$ for the manufacturers, they will continue to develop the product until someday someone eventually comes up with a unit that is truly about safety. It is much easier to get R&D funding by having a prototype that is mandated to be purchased by the consumers, so we show the CSPC a few examples of what the current product will do, give them as little information as possible about what it will not do, and invest a lot of campaign $$ to get the things mandated into codes so we can then continue to try developing them farther with the funds from the sales of items that are just about worthless.



I started reading the paper you presented to this thread by Dr Joe. He made a statement that before reading much of his work, I could have almost written myself, as it says mostly what I feel about AFCI's:
It is important that the reader not misinterpret the author’s
objectives. They are not to challenge the value of AFCI
technology, or its importance in reducing home fires and thus
loss of property and life. The values are recognized. He just
wants to put pressure on those organizations that control the
codes and standard process to encourage their staffs,
especially the technical team members, to make a sincere
effort to understand and accurately communicate on the
technical issues.
Click to expand...

I do feel there is value in what AFCI technology someday will possibly do, we just are not at that point yet, and the manufacturers found an opportunity and went with it.
 
One thing about AFCI I can't understand is this: How can an electronic circuit like what's used in AFCI breakers located in the main panel possibly be immune to multiple voltage spikes, either from the utility or from lighting (either direct hits or induced from nearby strikes)? Any electronic component you'd buy would come packaged in an anti-static bag to protect it during transport. MOVs and whole house surge protection are pretty hefty devices. What's magical about these breakers that makes them immune in spite of being located in the most vulnerable spot in the distribution system? Will they automatically shut off if the microprocessor gets damaged by overvoltage (like GFCIs are supposed to shut off when faulty)? Does anyone here have photos of an AFCI breaker teardown? I'd be curious to see the insides of one!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top