A Publication AFCI manufacturers and CMPs don't want you to read

Status
Not open for further replies.
mbrooke

mbrooke

Batteries Included
Location
United States
Occupation
Technician
I came across this in another forum regarding a technology that can mitigate glowing connections (often called series arcing by manufactures) without the use of AFCIs:




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


A similar technology is already in production within the UK:

http://thermarestor.co.uk/pdf/T2102.pdf


http://thermarestor.co.uk/about.html

With that said the UK has found a way to mitigate both series and parallel arc faults without the use of a single transistor or micro chip. Arcing is debated at 120 volts, and other causes of fire ignored, yet of CMPs mandate a technology that seems the least practical even in cases where the concern is legit.
 
mbrooke said:
I came across this in another forum regarding a technology that can mitigate glowing connections (often called series arcing by manufactures) without the use of AFCIs:




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


A similar technology is already in production within the UK:

http://thermarestor.co.uk/pdf/T2102.pdf


http://thermarestor.co.uk/about.html

With that said the UK has found a way to mitigate both series and parallel arc faults without the use of a single transistor or micro chip. Arcing is debated at 120 volts, and other causes of fire ignored, yet of CMPs mandate a technology that seems the least practical even in cases where the concern is legit.
Click to expand...

Damn, I thought this subject finally went away. This could the beginning of another marathon of posts. The Brits have other ideas. :)
 
templdl said:
Damn, I thought this subject finally went away. This could the beginning of another marathon of posts. The Brits have other ideas. :)
Click to expand...


Now that you mention it Id say you are probably correct :eek::lol: But the brits certainly found a way out of all the nuisance tripping we have.
 
So we're going to revisit this nonsense again? :roll::roll: How about instead of suggesting more gimmick and solutions in search of a problem, we just agree that there was nothing wrong with our wiring systems in the first place?
 
peter d said:
I'm aware of that. However, the answer is not more gimmicks.
Click to expand...

I agree, but in the least, if the CMPs wanted to a fix something real or imagined, they should not have mandated the least matured most complex technology. In Engineering we have something call "KISS" or to be exact "keep it simple, stupid"
 
mbrooke said:
I agree, but in the least, if the CMPs wanted to a fix something real or imagined, they should not have mandated the least matured most complex technology. In Engineering we have something call "KISS" or to be exact "keep it simple, stupid"
Click to expand...

I think a "KISS" product would not be as profitable for them, so we were given the needlessly complicated and worthless AFCI instead.
 
The CMP's had nothing to do with it. It was the CPSC (Consumer Product Safety Commission) that asked the industry to come up with a product that would mitigate fires caused by arch faults, not just because of wiring issues, but extension, lamp and appliance cords.
 
peter d said:
I think a "KISS" product would not be as profitable for them, so we were given the needlessly complicated and worthless AFCI instead.
Click to expand...



Bingo. But few see it, and few can come close to comprehending it. Many FF still believe AFCIs will reduce fires along with inspectors and industry professionals. AFCIs are soon to become a global market with adverting claiming them to be a success in the US.
 
cowboyjwc said:
The CMP's had nothing to do with it. It was the CPSC (Consumer Product Safety Commission) that asked the industry to come up with a product that would mitigate fires caused by arch faults, not just because of wiring issues, but extension, lamp and appliance cords.
Click to expand...

The CMPs voted AFCIs in. They easily could have rejected the concept.

As for lamp and appliance cords, yes, a theory was developed where a short circuited cord might not trip the breaker fast enough (cough, magnetically, cough) and result in fire. That however remains to be proven, and even if it was true a simple fuse in the cord cap would have done the same.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emxfsOUTkUg
 
By the 80s it had already been determined that North American circuit breakers were somehow inadequate. Yet I still have to see the documentation that was used to reach or support those claims.
 
mbrooke said:
The CMPs voted AFCIs in. They easily could have rejected the concept.

As for lamp and appliance cords, yes, a theory was developed where a short circuited cord might not trip the breaker fast enough (cough, magnetically, cough) and result in fire. That however remains to be proven, and even if it was true a simple fuse in the cord cap would have done the same.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emxfsOUTkUg
Click to expand...
They could have, they could have voted down handle ties on multi wire branch circuits, two ground rods, GFCI's everywhere, and numerous other code sections but they didn't, because it's their job to provide as much safety as possible to the public.

And will remain unproven, since you will never know, because there is no reporting mechanism in place to report a fire that didn't happen. I ask this question time and time again when this argument comes up, but do you know how many lives are saved by GFCI's? I'll answer it for you, no you don't, because no one writes a report about how they dropped the toaster in the sink and the GFCI worked like it was supposed to. I can look at reports though and tell you how many people died because there wasn't a GFCI installed.
 
cowboyjwc said:
They could have, they could have voted down handle ties on multi wire branch circuits, two ground rods, GFCI's everywhere, and numerous other code sections but they didn't, because it's their job to provide as much safety as possible to the public.
Click to expand...

Of course its their job, at least on the outside. However, some of it is rather debatable. Consider handle ties. Yes they are to protect untrained personnel, but is it worth it to idiot proof everything? Will DIYs adding circuits read the code to consider handle ties?


And will remain unproven, since you will never know, because there is no reporting mechanism in place to report a fire that didn't happen. I ask this question time and time again when this argument comes up, but do you know how many lives are saved by GFCI's? I'll answer it for you, no you don't, because no one writes a report about how they dropped the toaster in the sink and the GFCI worked like it was supposed to. I can look at reports though and tell you how many people died because there wasn't a GFCI installed.
Click to expand...

Which would hold water if AFCI actually did their job like GFCIs. Home fires have been steadily dropping, before the inclusion of AFCIs.

However, the publication makes note of something worth considering: "Simply because glowing connections are the cause ofapproximately 80% of electrical fires." If that is true, AFCIs are perhaps the worst possible method in stopping them as not all glowing connections arc, and those that do are hit or miss. AFCIs can not tell safe arcing from dangerous arcing, what guarantee is that they can differentiate dangerous arcing from safe arcing? Also add to the fact AFCIs don't look for series arcs until the 4 or 5 amp range...
 
cowboyjwc said:
The CMP's had nothing to do with it. It was the CPSC (Consumer Product Safety Commission) that asked the industry to come up with a product that would mitigate fires caused by arch faults, not just because of wiring issues, but extension, lamp and appliance cords.
Click to expand...

Correct the CSPC took part in what was a NEMA sponsored contest. Dr Joe Engel's 2012 dissertation to the IEEE spelled that all out.

As one of the original Nema's afci task force , he and his fellow members admitted failure. Nema simply hired new task force people that bent the rules afterwards

In fact, one can cross correlate CSPC,CMP-2 (or alt's) ,NEMA & even UL seats/employees throughout the last 2 decades.

There's more if you'd like to read it in Mr Charles' publication. It, along with the likes of Dr Engel & Bob Huddleston will never grace a trade periodical

If you (et all) are interested in the viability of our trades integrity, i invite to to read,ask & make your own mind up.

If not , please leave it to those that will do so

~RJ~
 
The prototype Mr. MBrooke

There are few unbiased nrtl's , so field testing was established through a number of American electricians

It was all detailed in the rop, so it's public knowledge as far as i'm concerned.

The concept is simple point of use thermal dynamics, which would address glowing connections .

So if anyone wants to play the 'how many lives it can save' card , start with glowing connections, not with arcs .

This was proven in 1977 via UL btw.

The manufacturers of afci technology know this too. If they could get Mr Charles to sell out, or if they weasel around the international patent laws , i'm sure afci's would take a back seat to it all.

This is why his publication is important , they don't want Mr Charles to speak

We're simply hoping there are those that will listen

~RJ~
 
romex jockey said:
The prototype Mr. MBrooke

There are few unbiased nrtl's , so field testing was established through a number of American electricians

It was all detailed in the rop, so it's public knowledge as far as i'm concerned.
Click to expand...

Do youn have a link to the ROP?

The concept is simple point of use thermal dynamics, which would address glowing connections .

So if anyone wants to play the 'how many lives it can save' card , start with glowing connections, not with arcs .
Click to expand...

That would be the best way to stop glowing connections, but how does such device work? If its like the UK version its a heck of a lot better than Cutler Hammer's microprocessor wiring devises.


This was proven in 1977 via UL btw.

The manufacturers of afci technology know this too. If they could get Mr Charles to sell out, or if they weasel around the international patent laws , i'm sure afci's would take a back seat to it all.
Click to expand...

I think they would just burry the technology in favor of their own which is far more profitable. But I do know this: manufactures have spend decades relabeling every single electrical phenomenon including the classic short circuit as an arcing fault to justify AFCIs.





This is why his publication is important , they don't want Mr Charles to speak

We're simply hoping there are those that will listen

~RJ~
Click to expand...



They don't want anyone talking who puts holes in the AFCI deception. When all the facts are seen along with the history of their evolution, AFCIs become reprehensible lie. They don't want people waking up from that lie.
 
The bigger problem is that the code is implementing more and more code to deal with poor manufacturing or reduced minimum quality standards.

Look at Dish washer. implementation of AFCI and GFCI

Look at the crappy sheathing we now have. The old romex was difficult to damage , The stuff we have today is too delicate and easy to damage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top