That's correct, but don't forget V is not the same in both equations. V is P-P for 3P and is L-N for 1P. So you have another 1.73 factor between 3P and 1P. That makes it a factor of 3 between 1P and 3P.

Haze, I'm a pretty cynical guy, and used to think along the same lines, but it is just too easy to become involved yourself to just sit back. I just became a member of the IEEE 1584 group in order to become involved in the process and to learn all that I can (Don't ask about the initiation...) The IEEE has a policy where so many of the authors and group members must be users, and not manufacturers. My supervisor is getting involved in the NFPA 70E board. We are not manufacturers or even consultants. We are just users of the guides and standards, and see how these affect our operations every day. We are trying to come up with solutions to the problems presented with implimentation of the standards.

This is also why I support your line of inquiry in this thread. I would like to see this resolved and discussed, and a workable solution reached. Maybe, with enough good debate, this can be pushed up the line. And we've got the people here, on this board, to do just that.

In the meantime, it may be better that the wording is vague, so that each individual can come up with an agreeable solution for his location.

Haze,
In case you missed it, Terry Becker has replied on some of the other threads, and presents some good information from the NFPA 70E conference going on now.
see here: http://www.arcflashforum.com/showthread.php?t=724&page=3

Also, as he mentioned, there were some papers presented at the Electrical Safety Workshop last week the go over using risk analysis in your electrical safety program to decide when arc flash PPE is required.
We're making progress.

I am cynical, maybe because I'm old. I'm glad to hear that NFPA is looking for more users than manufacturers, but that wasn't always the case.

I won't be convinced until we see a 'final' version of Arc Flash. By this I mean we reach a point where the code doesn't change. I was quite satisfied with the 2004 edition and felt it would have been sufficient on a national level to significant reduce accidents. I am curious into how many injuries occurred while in Level 0 where the clothing didn't minimize the injury and why we needed to eliminate it. 2004 didn't even have time to be implemented national wide to see its results. When will we reach the point that we don't need anything more? I can see this continuing for years to come, with constant updates and revisions. We will eventually be in Kevlar, I know its coming. At some point, when there are no longer any injuries, other than those by gross negligence, I feel we will still be developing the code. At which point- to who's benefit.

NFPA is not a bad organization, and they have really helped in many areas, but they are for profit and it seems that Arc Flash has become the latest money maker. I personally think we reach a point of diminishing returns, and we should just then pause, until some revolutionary development necessitates change. Like with the NEC, we are seeing State governments crying foul, because following the NEC increases the cost of the house by $1500. Is it really the Fire Departments and States pushing this, or is it the insurance companies. It sure isn't Barney Frank or HUD.

I put more faith in IEEE, although they seem to be in it for the money as well. As a member, did they really need to charge me $640 for the 1584 report, and then have the nerve to charge me $20 for the corrections page. I had to pay for the corrections to discover their typing mistakes.

While we debate the nuances and the intent, I can't help but think there is more behind the scenes than the mere protection of the employee. I don't like saying it, and I hope it isn't true. But there are millions of dollars going into this effort.