There seem to be many unintended consequences generated by the Amd 2 DPC. I wonder why it is US who sees them and not JPEL/64? Is it the lack of experience of JPEL/64 or is it something else?
Does a committee decide that there should be a device which detects arc faults and then leave it up to the manufacturers to respond; or does a manufacturer invent such a device and then seek to have it included in the regs so as to give it a viable market.
I would like to think that there is a third way. Committee thinks that an AFDD would be a good idea and asks whether one is feasible. It encourages the development of such a device by indicating that once they are available, they will at first be recommended, or used in limited situations, and later mandated. Collaboration can be virtuous.
Does a committee decide that there should be a device which detects arc faults and then leave it up to the manufacturers to respond; or does a manufacturer invent such a device and then seek to have it included in the regs so as to give it a viable market.
I would like to think that there is a third way. Committee thinks that an AFDD would be a good idea and asks whether one is feasible. It encourages the development of such a device by indicating that once they are available, they will at first be recommended, or used in limited situations, and later mandated. Collaboration can be virtuous.
