AFCI and GFCI Kitchens

Status
Not open for further replies.
kwired said:
No litigation has really happened yet because nobody has been injured or killed as a result of using these devices.
Click to expand...

I want to think that is true.

There is not way, even with this, to substantiate it.
 
al hildenbrand said:
I find that I must take the psychology of the Victim. Short of complying with the NEC, I have no control over AFCI protection. . . UL and the manufacturer's have established my lack of control by their defining the successful operation of the "TEST" button as the proof that the protection was present at that instant, and by their defining that there is nothing else to do, or, not do.



I am frankly amazed that no liability action has yet occurred. As the shear number of AFCIs increases, AFCIs in service in dwellings, the liability exposure increases. Why hasn't litigation already been initiated? (a rhetorical question.) I think this is an important observation. Maybe, just maybe, the steady hidden-behind-stonewalls improvements of the "electronica" (to quote RJ) is moving in the direction that includes actual functionality? I don't know. Functionality is something I'm incapable of proving at this point in time by being forced into my role by the NEC, UL and the manufacturers.

But it is a possibility. AFCIs might just be working.
Click to expand...

Even if the electronics are 100% effective, how many fires per year actually stem from arc faults? ESFI says 30,000. How in in the name of :rant: did they reach the number? :blink: Because I still cant find anything public.
 
mbrooke said:
Even if the electronics are 100% effective, how many fires per year actually stem from arc faults? ESFI says 30,000. How in in the name of :rant: did they reach the number? :blink: Because I still cant find anything public.
Click to expand...

Stonewalls.

Early on, Don Resqcapt19 did some great economic statistical analysis, even got it entered into CMP record several time. . . I don't have any copies readily available, . . .
 
romex jockey said:
Nice find Al.....
Click to expand...

I found it to be a dense read, and quite thought provoking.

The signal information manipulation, in multiple parallel paths, turning the signal in each path into a positive or negative number, that then amasses (or diminishes) in a summing hopper, which, at a pre-established threshold number, trips the interrupter mechanism, was the first real indication of a possible method by which an infinite number of variable arc signatures could be discriminated. At least in my mind.

I am sad that nothing of equal or higher caliber has been released since then, at least that I have found, thus far. This White Paper whetted my appetite.
 
al hildenbrand said:
I found it to be a dense read, and quite thought provoking.

The signal information manipulation, in multiple parallel paths, turning the signal in each path into a positive or negative number, that then amasses (or diminishes) in a summing hopper, which, at a pre-established threshold number, trips the interrupter mechanism, was the first real indication of a possible method by which an infinite number of variable arc signatures could be discriminated. At least in my mind.

I am sad that nothing of equal or higher caliber has been released since then, at least that I have found, thus far. This White Paper whetted my appetite.
Click to expand...

Spot on! :):cool: Not just in your mind, it is that way. There is NOTHING fixed, easy or set in stone when dealing with arc fault detection technology. You need FAR more computing power then seen in any resi grade AFCI to analyze a near infinite current waveform continuum. Even with the correct data processing power, the programmers still need to tell the computer what to look for in that data. This another project altogether as people must first gather raw arc signatures from countless consumer electronics and lab simulated arcing sitting down and looking for patterns to tell each one apart while no to contradict each other. It is indeed nothing short of infinite, dangerous arcs alone produced in the laboratory each have a unique fingerprint. Factor in some mind numbing number of other possible wave-forums coming from running electronics on the circuit and you end up with an AFCI that could see anything at any given time.


But, their has been a miracle breakthrough, a holy grail to the above challenge. Researchers have discovered a single variable, a single method of discrimination which puts billions of unique wave-forms instantaneously in two categories with with 100% accuracy. Some said it would never happen, it just could not be done, 'you just cant quantify infinite variables into one number' Well folks they have been proven wrong. Lab testing has shown one thing to be present 100% of the time in arcing NM: current leaking to the EGC. In none arcing NM, no matter what the wave pattern of the load, 100% of the time current did not leak to ground. So dangerous arcing=leak, safe arcing=no leak. Brilliant! :D Whats more, its even easier to build a computer smart enough to sense leaking with 100% accuracy. A single deferential processor looking for imbalance between hot and neutral via toroid coil can detect leakage no matter the current signature produced by the load or bad arc. This concept even has a name, zero sequence current detection or deferential current. In fact, a highly matured, evolved device already exists that does the same: a ground fault circuit interpreter. Usually set a 5ma, but 30 or 50ma deferential trip point can be configured with ease where normal leakage current may approach 5ma. Problem solved, we now have this fool proof, 100% reliable, cost effective arc fault detention device we were looking for! :D:D:cool::happyyes:

Well, its sarcasm, but this is what has me flabbergasted. There is no reason to re-invent something that goes backwards in human progress.
 
mbrooke said:
Spot on! :):cool: Not just in your mind, it is that way. There is NOTHING fixed, easy or set in stone when dealing with arc fault detection technology. You need FAR more computing power then seen in any resi grade AFCI to analyze a near infinite current waveform continuum. Even with the correct data processing power, the programmers still need to tell the computer what to look for in that data. This another project altogether as people must first gather raw arc signatures from countless consumer electronics and lab simulated arcing sitting down and looking for patterns to tell each one apart while no to contradict each other. It is indeed nothing short of infinite, dangerous arcs alone produced in the laboratory each have a unique fingerprint. Factor in some mind numbing number of other possible wave-forums coming from running electronics on the circuit and you end up with an AFCI that could see anything at any given time.


.
Click to expand...

How big are SCADA systems Mr MBrooke.?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...a_Animation.ogv/Scada_Animation.ogv.480p.webm

This is in annex G of our book, i don't know why....

~RJ~
 
If you browse the ROPs you will find a person who keeps submitting a system where the OCPD and the appliances will communicate with each other so that the OCPD will know what each appliances is expected to use.

Wait till we start installing those .... :p
 
iwire said:
If you browse the ROPs you will find a person who keeps submitting a system where the OCPD and the appliances will communicate with each other so that the OCPD will know what each appliances is expected to use.

Wait till we start installing those .... :p
Click to expand...

:happyno::happyno:

Im sure that person is somehow in someway affiliated with a major manufacture, even if doesn't show. Soon we will start seeing studies about how fires result from "missing current syndrome" where current goes into alternate dimensions resulting black hole heating which in turns ignites building material. But that only doesn't make sense because your not a CMP or manufacture in order to get it. :p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top