And now MIT adds their two cents to the AFCI debacle

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mr Siegel proposes IoT as an intutive waveform detection

Or perhaps internet scada

yet it comes down to what 'device' illicits on the user end is, >>>>

Between the current clamp and the microcomputer, the team connected a USB sound card, commodity hardware similar to what is found in conventional computers, which they used to read the incoming current data
Click to expand...

again, a toroidal

more lipstick on a pig

~RJ~
 
I wonder if the "smarter" AFCIs would learn to accept an overdriven staple over time. Worse, would it pass this new info on to others, so a device which is known to have questionable reliability, would become even worse.
 
ohm said:
I wonder if the "smarter" AFCIs would learn to accept an overdriven staple over time. Worse, would it pass this new info on to others, so a device which is known to have questionable reliability, would become even worse.
Click to expand...



GFP exists for that. :thumbsup:
 
Article: “By making IoT capable of learning, you’re able to constantly update the system"

IoT devices lack security, and are vulnerable to hacking. So "Internet of Things" (IoT) power outlets would be a lucrative target for ransomware attacks.
 
Nobody got my point about them saying that "their system achieved 99.95 percent accuracy — slightly higher than existing AFCIs." Existing AFCIs have an accuracy of better than 99 percent? Maybe on the UL test bench.

-Hal
 
hbiss said:
Nobody got my point about them saying that "their system achieved 99.95 percent accuracy — slightly higher than existing AFCIs." Existing AFCIs have an accuracy of better than 99 percent? Maybe on the UL test bench.

-Hal
Click to expand...

Perhaps it so obvious we are all in unanimous agreement :D


Yes- if going by UL's neon transformer keister stashing and manufacturers solely concerned about passing that rig- then yes current AFCIs have a 99% success rate.


Now if we were to factoring in AFCIs and ones that actually have the ability to learn and ignore the waveform of correctly functioning appliances I think the disparity between failure vs success would be a mile wide.
 
In the National Groundwater Association, we have the Contractor Division, and the Scientists Division. A couple of years ago at our annual convention, one of the scientists receiving an award made a statement to the effect of; “Oftentimes in academia, we come up with solutions to problems that don’t exist in the real world. And in the real world there are problems, that we don’t even know about, that are in need of solutions.”
 
romex jockey said:
Mr Siegel proposes IoT as an intutive waveform detection

Or perhaps internet scada

yet it comes down to what 'device' illicits on the user end is, >>>>



again, a toroidal

more lipstick on a pig

~RJ~
Click to expand...

Toroid, as in this?


schaltschrank2.jpg


linetraxx.png


0



https://www.bender-uk.com/products/residual-current-monitoring/linetraxx_rcms150



schema_rcms460_490.jpg




einbindungmessgeratenetzwerk.png





They seem to be getting popular as of late over sea, connected to a central controller, often hooked up to the internet- with wave-forums at one finger tips. Hospitals, Office buildings and factories opting to get them installed.




https://youtu.be/KQ3NnS-JhgU?t=53s
 
Dzboyce said:
In the National Groundwater Association, we have the Contractor Division, and the Scientists Division. A couple of years ago at our annual convention, one of the scientists receiving an award made a statement to the effect of; “Oftentimes in academia, we come up with solutions to problems that don’t exist in the real world. And in the real world there are problems, that we don’t even know about, that are in need of solutions.”
Click to expand...


:happyyes::happyyes:Well said. I give this a "like" :thumbsup:


And sometimes solutions for said problems already existed a century earlier. ;)





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f97xoD1oGoo
 
ohm said:
I wonder if the "smarter" AFCIs would learn to accept an overdriven staple over time. Worse, would it pass this new info on to others, so a device which is known to have questionable reliability, would become even worse.
Click to expand...
Ran into a product over here in Britain yesterday for installation in certain circumstances called a firefly that has me wondering from my own experience in the USA wether it might be usable to stop some of the problems, but I may not be thinking straight. We use staples to hold the wire to the studs so it does not flop around inside the wall cavity and also to help reduce possible strain on the wire, if I recall what I was taught in shop class in 1979.
So, these firefly clamps, while designed for inside the surface mount systems to keep the wire from pulling off the wall in a fire, would also be able to hold the wire to studs, as the wire would simply slide under the clip, if I am thinking right.
because you would apply the clips before the wire, there should be no damage to the Romex, thus no more overstapling.
But, it would not be code right now, so no good, unless I am missing something??
however, I think the inspector in Jamaica would use my logic, for the few places we would use it in Jamaica since most buildings are not built with studs...lol
 
Adamjamma said:
Ran into a product over here in Britain yesterday for installation in certain circumstances called a firefly...
Click to expand...

Damaged romex can be solved through a number of simple solutions, from requiring insulated staples that have a plastic liner to the outright ban of romex. Wire residential with MC and steel boxes, cheaper than a panel full if GFCIs.

-Hal
 
Don't confuse 'Is it in theory possible to reliably detect faults by examining the current waveform?' with 'In reality is hardware available which correctly does this?'

I like the _theory_ of AFCIs.

Not so sure about the _practice_.

-Jon
 
winnie said:
Don't confuse 'Is it in theory possible to reliably detect faults by examining the current waveform?' with 'In reality is hardware available which correctly does this?'

I like the _theory_ of AFCIs.

Not so sure about the _practice_.

-Jon
Click to expand...

There is the hardware and software which correctly does it, with 100% accuracy. In addition to copious evidence showing interruption of dangerous faults and none tripping on benign signatures.


https://cdn.selinc.com/assets/Liter...lyers/Arc-Sense_PF00160.pdf?v=20161031-073656
 
hbiss said:
Damaged romex can be solved through a number of simple solutions, from requiring insulated staples that have a plastic liner to the outright ban of romex. Wire residential with MC and steel boxes, cheaper than a panel full if GFCIs.

-Hal
Click to expand...

a gfci is more for human protection than a hi z conductor fault
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top