- Occupation
- Licensed Electrician
Cynicism, yes. Unfounded, hardly.
2017 NEC webinar today
- Thread starter petersonra
- Start date
- Status
peter d
Senior Member
- Location
- New England
Nay, I think it's sad that the industry is being ruined by big business and those that represent and defend it.
peter d
Senior Member
- Location
- New England
:thumbsup:
The evidence of this corruption is as plain as day for those with an unbiased mind and eyes to see. People that represent the industry cannot possibly claim to be unbiased because they would be biting the hand that feeds them, and they would be quickly out of a job.
- Location
- Massachusetts
This is your page at NEMA right?
https://www.nema.org/Technical/FieldReps/Pages/Southern-Field-Office.aspx
Your job is to represent NEMA right?
That is what you are paid to do.
Now why on Earth should anyone here think for a moment you are unbiased?
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
No. I mean that the NFPA did not want to deal with all of the public inputs and comments and designed the new system with the specific intention of limiting those inputs and comments.
As far as being jaded, I place 100% of that blame on the intentional misinformation that was in the original AFCI proposals...before that I had much more trust in the system and information from the manufactures....now I have little trust in the system and NO trust in information that comes from the manufacturers.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
So when someone disagrees with you, you see it as decreasing the value of this forum....I see it as just the opposite.
peter d
Senior Member
- Location
- New England
Spot on. Big business gets caught cheating all the time, whether it's the VW scandal you mentioned, Samsung copying the Iphone, Japanese OEM parts manufacturers getting caught price fixing a few years ago - never mind the banking industry - what on earth makes me think I should trust large electrical manufacturers any more than the rest of the big corporations? I trust them as far as I can throw them.
- Location
- Massachusetts
So this fact you brought to light in another thread is just a coincidence and not a result?
bphgravity
Senior Member
- Location
- Florida
No, of course not. A spirited debate with opposing views is the only way we can learn and move forward. As a codes and standards professional, I need to know the dissenting view to allow us know what we need to work on to make the codes and standards better. If every one agreed all of the time, the industry would stagnate and wither.
So its not someone disagreeing with my or NEMA's position on a matter that I have a problem with. I welcome that. What I have a problem with is that a few active users of this Forum go right to the corruption and conspiracy claims the second they read or learn something they don't like. With all due respect, its a cop-out.
It's one thing to point out all the flaws of the TerraView system and then have a debate on what is working and what is not. But the very minute you cross that line and turn the discussion into a conspiracy, the whole discussion crashes in on itself. It's a waste of time and makes the Forum look radical and unpredictable.
What's worse is that you are a moderator. This means a good majority of the users of this Forum look to you for leadership and dependability. It is simply irresponsible to make claims of conspiracy and corruption with no evidence and no proof.
Take for example the AFCI debate. The technical arguments have plenty of merit and are extremely interesting. As soon as someone pulls the corruption card, the debate is over. It soon becomes a pile-on thread of silliness and outright craziness.
You moderators are much like a CMP. Imagine if every time one of you moderators were to post an answer or comment, someone jumps on and says all moderators are corrupt and are working together to limit free speech on the Forum, instead of sticking to the discussion at hand. Something tells me you wouldn't like it so much, especially if the claims are unfounded.
bphgravity
Senior Member
- Location
- Florida
No, I definitely think the new system contributed to the low number of PIs and PCs. It is certainly not the only or dominate reasons the numbers are low.
What I have a problem with is the claim the new system is intended to limit participation. That is a ridiculous statement. The new Forum motto should be, "I don't like something - it must be corruption and conspiracy." That's all I see now. Someone asks a question about a code section or electrical product, a few answers are given, and then someone jumps on and blasts away at the industry with no substantiation or findings of fact.
All new technology has learning curves and flaws. Transitioning to new software has brought some of the most organized companies to grinding halt.
I am afraid a few, not all, of you moderators are no longer capable of your leadership position due to your jaded views and inability to moderate the discussions.
peter d
Senior Member
- Location
- New England
So basically, if they don't tow your party line, they are unqualified to moderate. :roll::roll:
peter d
Senior Member
- Location
- New England
I have a simple question for you. Have manufacturers of electrical products ever made a mistake?
big john
Senior Member
- Location
- Portland, ME
Pretty much where I was going with it.
I would really like to hear whether someone intimately involved in the qdoption of AFCIs would ever be willing to admit the technology or rollout has serious flaws?
Because the short aswer is that the guys in the field are seeing something drastically different than the manufacturers/CMP: Despite more than a decade of implementation resulting in many user headaches, and some very serious questions about the ability of the technology, instead of slowing their adoption we are expanding it as fast as possible.
Do I think it's a conspiracy? No. But I'm reminded of the quote by Upton Sinclair:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
Last edited:
- Location
- Massachusetts
Cool.
Would you care to elaborate on the other factors you feel account for the numbers?
If it is a true statement or not remains to be seen. However if it is not rectified by next code cycle that will pretty much prove the statement is true.
It is not a 'ridiculous statement' given the world we live in today. Daily the news shows us many example of business and organizations doing shady things. You know that to be a fact. To think this cannot happen in 'our' industry is naive. It does not prove that this is the case with this subject but it certianly makes me wonder.
As I said, the proof will be next code cycle, I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt until then. But you would be wise to open your mind to possibilities that you do not want to believe.
If that is all you see you have truly closed your mind off.
It is a FACT that the manufactures mislead the CMPs back in what 1999? This lead to the need for the combination AFCI It is a fact that to this day Siemens is using scare tactics to push AFCIs.
The following quote is from a 2012 Siemens publication called Troubleshooting Guide White Paper. You can find it here www.siemens.com/download?BTLV_40705
Siemens said:
First off notice how cherry picked that is, only two years and limited to 'non-contained fires'
But when I look up NFPA fire data for homes far and away the leading cause of fires is cooking equipment and smoking. You can find this here https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...y494iDcFw&sig2=-0sO4cCROM8AsYLf_EOzmw&cad=rja
For sure that is true, I would not begin to dispute that. Again the proof one way or another will be the next code cycle.
Now that is a ridiculous statement.
peter d
Senior Member
- Location
- New England
I think you'll be waiting a long time for that. :lol: But you do remember that Joe Engel who helped developed the AFCI for CH/Eaton (or whatever it was named at the time) did say that the most effective portion of the AFCI is the GFPE and he advocated heavily for having the UL require GFPE as part of the AFCI standard. He more or less admitted the device was all but worthless without the GFPE.
That's what irks me the most is there is no apparent willingness to stop and get these problems worked out. The manufacturers seem quite content to let the end user be the guinea pig for these problems while they get their "software issues" worked out. :roll: In reality, their flaws and dubious beginnings are enough to get them pulled from the shelves.
I don't think it's a conspiracy as far as the big four manufacturers getting together. However, I do see them conspiring to make more money by pushing along the expansion of their products by influencing model codes in favor of their profitable products.
Awesome, I will have to remember that one. :thumbsup:
petersonra
Senior Member
- Location
- Northern illinois
- Occupation
- engineer
apparently by "moderate" you mean to eliminate dissenting viewpoints.
I don't think that the new software package was solely intended to reduce public input. It certainly has turned out to be the result though. It seems unlikely that was completely unintentional unless the people that selected it are incompetent, and I have not seen any news from NFPA that their IT department has been fired.
When unproven technology is being forced on the public that significantly benefits manufacturers, that suggests to me that public safety is not the driving force in at least some of these decisions, especially when the entity making those decisions is making it harder for the public to have any input at all into the decision making process.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
I have never even implied that there has been corruption and or conspiracy....I have just said that the new input/comment system appears to
have been intentionally designed to limit participation. If it wasn't then the NFPA needs new IT people as it should have been very obvious that would be the result of the new system.
There is no reason for moderators to limit the discussions in most cases. Just because the discussion don't say what you want them to say is not a reason to limit them. It is not the moderators job to steer the content of discussions...our only job is to attempt to keep the discussions civil.
There is no such thing as an incorrect opinion as opinions are just that the view of the writer.
- Location
- Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
- Occupation
- Hospital Master Electrician
I would echo the sentiments of those who have denied harboring such suspicions. I would liken the action and the result to an EC increasing his hourly rate to discourage tire-kicking. There is nothing diabolical about the act, but I can imagine the tire-kicker feels a bit disenfranchised at the same time. I would imagine that the industry at large feels a bit disenfranchised by the onerous system the NFPA has put in place, and I wouldn't be surprised to hear the NFPA has breathed a little easier with less input to process. Their income has not been diminished one wit, but their workload has decreased substantially. Score one for them.
If they did not take the system for a test run as a user before mandating the nation used it, then they are fools. I have had scant similar experience, but what scant experience I have had in the matter I thoroughly exercised systems as a user to try to discover and correct anything that would negatively impact the experience. I have spent several hours both on my own websites and on this forum attempting to improve the user experience for free; if NFPA paid an IT professional a handsome sum and did not demand a better system, then again, they are fools.
They likely got exactly what they wanted; good for them.
I will accept criticism from many corners, and hear it; yet I will always turn a deaf ear to some.
peter d
Senior Member
- Location
- New England
That was me who said that...while you're willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, I don't think the change is as benevolent as the industry people are making it out to be. That being said, I will also wait until the next code cycle to see if anything changes. If it doesn't, it will only solidify my standing doubt.
peter d
Senior Member
- Location
- New England
I can't believe you even have the audacity to make such a statement when it's well known the manufacturers lied about the performance of the AFCI from the very beginning. Yes, they lied and lying about the performance of a product is corruption. The debate doesn't end with that reality, it begins with it. They have never once issued any type of mea culpa for that, and that's why I do not believe a single word from manufacturers and people like you that represent them.
- Status