It is currently Fri Nov 27, 2020 6:53 pm



Post new topic Reply to topic Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
ekstra   ara
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 9:03 am 
Arc Level

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:49 pm
Posts: 499
Location: New England
I couldn't find the 2008 study on the net, so if you have a link I'd appreciate it.

I am sure the insurance companies love arc fault breakers as it will reduce their claims. I'm sure the HUD and the lower middle class of this country look at it differently and say, I can't afford to own a home now, but am willing to take the chance on a QO molded case CB if I could.

As a society, we have to a balance between risk and accomodations. I do not believe that professional societies like NFPA ever take into account the 'accomodation' aspect. They just look at the risk and try to figure out how to overcome it.

When I was a kid, I rode my bike without kneepads or a helmet. I took some bumps and bruises but throughout my childhood I never heard of a loss of life by some kid who crashed his bike. Society now looks to the parents as being 'negligent' if they let their kids ride a bike without a helmet. We are reaching a point where we try to protect everyone from any form of harm through legislation. That can't go to it extreme conclusion.

I also believe that, and know I will take heat for it, that NFPA is profit motivated. They are like software compaines that have to tweek their product each year to be able to sell the next version. Its unfortunate that our government has no suitable alternative, or take it upon themselves to establish minimum standards. While I don't believe in big government, I think they would do a better job of finding that balance between safety and accomodation.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 10:21 am 
Sparks Level

Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 7:10 pm
Posts: 261
Location: NW USA
The discussion about effectiveness of code writers seems especially pertinent in the context of NFPA 70E. This code needs to be simplified and solidified if it is ever to be taken seriously.

While it remains unknown who amongst facility owners, employers or qualified workers, is responsible for what parts of NFPA70E, and there is great confusion about labels with HRC and caloric exposure, and there are huge differences of opinion about whether arc flash exposure exists while operating equipment in its intended duty; somehow the "absent minded professors" are wondering whether the calculations should be expanded to include bus orientation.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 7 hours


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
© 2019 Arcflash Forum / Brainfiller, Inc. | P.O. Box 12024 | Scottsdale, AZ 85267 USA | 800-874-8883