This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

When is a spark an arc? OR - When is an arc a spark?

Just watched some chap on the E5 youtube channel visiting Eaton in Austria. Eaton AFDDs have been something of a subject of ridicule in youtubeland, with various respected electrical content providers demonstrating through various real-world means that they don't function. So, off this chap goes to Eaton's HQ in Vienna where they provide him with a aluminium case full of test kit, complete with the Eaton logo and fitted out with various Eaton devices inside.

One of the devices is the Eaton AFFDD which has famously failed to operate on numerous youtube video presentations.

Of course, it trips when tested with their own test kit. After all, no point in trying to sell something which isn't really needed unless you can demonstrate that it actually works, so Eaton helpfully provides the 'right' arc signature so that the device can trip on command in front of all those cynical doubters.


Apparently, all those heath robinson youtubers have been getting it wrong because they have unhelpfully been simulating real world arcing events which these devices won't actually pick up. You see, according to the 'experts' you need an arc instead of a spark to trip the device! What the hell is the difference?


Oh how I laughed! Is this how far they'll go to flog you some old tat you don't really need?

Just how many different arcs and sparks are there out there? Has anyone told David Attenborough of all these new species to explore?


Feel free to jump in!
Parents

  • whjohnson:

    Would a caveat from the manufacturer stating that "it was the wrong type of arc M'Lud" stand up in court?




    That caveat would not be needed; merely stating the device met all the relevant standards but these standards do not yet replicate all real world scenarios would suffice. Similarly the standard requiring their installation is valid in that it is better to trip on those faults that can be recognised rather than none. The person who picks up the bill is the poor consumer (or hopefully the insurers). Unfortunately, like the AFFDDs, we live in the real world.

    Alasdair

Reply

  • whjohnson:

    Would a caveat from the manufacturer stating that "it was the wrong type of arc M'Lud" stand up in court?




    That caveat would not be needed; merely stating the device met all the relevant standards but these standards do not yet replicate all real world scenarios would suffice. Similarly the standard requiring their installation is valid in that it is better to trip on those faults that can be recognised rather than none. The person who picks up the bill is the poor consumer (or hopefully the insurers). Unfortunately, like the AFFDDs, we live in the real world.

    Alasdair

Children
No Data