Derailed another thread with AFDDs, so I am starting this one. I will simply say that UK RCDs and MCBs provide arc fault protection as is. UL not only knows that, but extensively researched UK power systems in an effort to emulate the very same concept 40 years. One the simply fact (growing concern) that the US National Electrical Code does not prohibit a maximum earth fault loop impedance.
Discuss AFDDs are a massive fraud in the UK Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net
T
The Ghost
The above statements are a mystery as to what you are talking about they make no sense and in no way clarify your actual point, which is??????? Forget what bullies have done??? I was nowhere near thinking anything like that I was just trying to get my head around what you are banging on about. You are saying we don't need AFDD, and you and myriad others find them a problem as they keep tripping So? Where is this going? You are saying just use an RCD without any conclusive evidence that it is fine and safe and what will I do in court say you told me so and here are a couple of studies. I need a lot more than that my friend. And believe me if I was convinced of your propositions I would actually take effective action.
Ultimately you are spot on. The facts, if they are facts, are in no way diminished by method of delivery.
Trying to put someone on the spot to revel details about themselves is unnecessary, in my humblest of opinions.
I'm hoping some of the technical heavyweights turn up to add a little meat to this thread.
" well milud, them went and changed the electrickery din't they, RCDs were perfectly safe in 2017 but 2018's electrickery is different you see so nows we needs they AFDDs so we is all safe from the new electrickery, i thinks"
I'll double that if of any help?
Note to our American friends.
The above is an example of irony.
I know he's not really going to double the offer. Because he knows I'm not really trying to sell a diesel. We all know that we were conned (well some of us) by the government to switch to diesel engines. Which came about because idiots in government were conned by dubious science and corrupt manufactures. I don't really not believe your statements, but say I do to make myself look stupid which, hopefully, people don't believe. Its called irony, it's very subtle and something that Brits spot intuitively.
As for your campaign, good luck with that. We, on the hand, tend to shrug our shoulders, move on, and think ourselves lucky that we live in a country that allows us to say what I have.
I will not tell you again.
That to me sounds like a series arc fault, or more likely joule heating.
Franklin and UL allued to L-N and L-G.
Sounds like a failed MCB. Or a loose connection at the MCB (series deal).
Fused neutrals? We had those those too 100 years ago and electricians still find them on rare occasions in century old homes. Half the time its a 2 wire 120 volt only service.
Failures, joule heating and old designs are not parellel arcing.
T
The Ghost
So there you shifted from the statement
to "openly prevent parallel arcing" consistency man consistency!
My point is I'm not a conspiracy theorist nor is my knowledge of AFDDs conjecture.
In the US (and I assume else where) "truthers" have given conspiracy theorists a bad reputation.
Case in point: mass shooting happens somewhere in the US. Nut bags claiming to know the "truth" come out of the wood work proclaiming no on died and its all crisis actors. Media somehow paid off by the government. They will call the family members of the victims and harass them to no end... I despise these people to end.
But sadly they've done the damage. In the states anyone thought to believe in conspiracies is now viewed as one of these bullies, or dumb enough to have taken their word.
The code should not mandate AFDDs. You don't need them.
Your breakers and RCDs detect parallel arcing already.
Series events can be mitigated through several other technologies. Code should not mandate technology. Otherwise its not impartial and in of itself shows bias.
If you mean that in my original post I was referring only to parallel arcing (L-N; L-G) then I guess you could say that.
But- my statement still stands. Your system is already beginning to take care of series arcs:
Thermarestor® - (Thermal Monitoring) - https://thermarestor.co.uk/
As in will not keep an arc going longer then a few cycles.
Skepticism results in me using simple words, simple concepts and blanket statements so people can "get it"
John Ward tested and wrote off AFDDs in a video on YouTube quite some time ago after testing them.
T
The Ghost
So really you think BEAMA is wrong in its contention that they do work and that RCD and MCB are not able to do what an AFDD does
www.beama.org.uk
.
BEAMA Guide to Arc Fault Detection Devices (AFDDs)
www.beama.org.uk
D
Deleted member 26818
My understanding, is that his test method was not up to par.
Apparently he should have used a larger load or something.
And not to muddy the waters but I feel the need to mention this now before someone asks latter:
UL has a very broad range (blanket) of what they call arcing. Traditionally arcing has revolved around Paschen's Law. However, because continuous arcing is impossible to sustain at 120 volt unless heavy carbonization is present UL had to come up with their own definition of 'a luminous discharge between electrodes...' meaning that even a sputtering short circuit fits their definition of arcing.
They needed to do this because arcing is not a concern at 120 volts the way it is at 230 volts.
However- short circuit or an actual arc- UL testing has shown that MCBs and RCDs can mitigate all parallel events.
................................................
In other words they knew actual arcing is possible at 230 volts nominal.
They and the CMPs for years knew arcing is possible at higher voltages hence why for decades prior 277/480 volt services of 1000amps or greater required and still require a GFP main breaker.
UL knew arcing at 120 volts is typically not possible.
So UL changed the definition (twisted the definition) to say arcing can take place at 120 volts.
And came up with the over driven carbonized path staple theory as a backup should the definition be called out.
UL proves the European system detects arcing at all voltages. UL then says this system needs to be implemented in the US. UL then puts on a show telling the CMP this system needs to be replicated in the US.
But because we are to dumb to be educated on loop impedance and UL pontificates perspective fault current is far lower at the service then it typically is- we must us an electronic breaker instead.
That is an over simplified version of it.
All the while UL, CPSC and CMPs are following the beat of Eaton and other manufacturers.
D
Deleted member 26818
BEAMA.So really you think BEAMA is wrong in its contention that they do work and that RCD and MCB are not able to do what an AFDD does
.BEAMA Guide to Arc Fault Detection Devices (AFDDs)
British Electrotechnical and Allied Manufacturers Association
Reply to AFDDs are a massive fraud in the UK Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net
OFFICIAL SPONSORS
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc
YOUR Unread Posts
-
Not DIY advice. How often do pros work live?Thanks, I was reasonably confident but nice to confirm. That was the original install getting...
- Latest: aesmith
-
Consumer unitThe only problem I can see is someone has taken the front cover off 😁 I wouldn’t even say this...- Latest: littlespark
-
Providing Lighting from Motor SupplyAdding a led strip isn't going to make much difference to the 3 phase balance. No real...- Latest: mainline
This website was designed, optimised and is hosted by untold.media Operating under the name Untold Media since 2001.