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
  • No. What I am saying is that the manufacturers are selling a device that meets a specific standard which defines what arcing must be detectable. The manufacturer is not claiming that the device will protect against 100% of arc situations. As far as I can see the manufacturer can only be held liable if they are claiming something for their product that it doesn't do (e.g. detect all arc faults) or if they fail to meet the standard that it is supposed to meet.

    You asked a specific question (who would be liable?) and I have provided my opinion based on my experience that it would not be the manufacturer. I don't think it is particularly helpful to have a requirement to fit an AFDD which is not going to be of much help in most arcing situations, but is it better to have something that may help in some situations rather than nothing?
Reply
  • No. What I am saying is that the manufacturers are selling a device that meets a specific standard which defines what arcing must be detectable. The manufacturer is not claiming that the device will protect against 100% of arc situations. As far as I can see the manufacturer can only be held liable if they are claiming something for their product that it doesn't do (e.g. detect all arc faults) or if they fail to meet the standard that it is supposed to meet.

    You asked a specific question (who would be liable?) and I have provided my opinion based on my experience that it would not be the manufacturer. I don't think it is particularly helpful to have a requirement to fit an AFDD which is not going to be of much help in most arcing situations, but is it better to have something that may help in some situations rather than nothing?
Children
No Data