IEC 60364 Table 48A

gkenyon:

ProMbrooke:

AJJewsbury:

AFDDs are soon to be mandatory?

Do you know something we don't?


I know there was a proposal for AFDDs in the DPC for AMD2 - but often such proposals don't make it though to the final version. AFAIK the decision process is still grinding on. If the comments on the BSI website for the DPC about AFDDs seemed hardly supportive.


   - Andy.

Unfortunately yes.


Those making them, as well as their seat in the IEC, have a rather big push.

Big assumption.


In the UK, international versions of the harmonized standards are also put out to public comment, as was the relevant part of HD 60364 for AFDDs. No comments were received, so it's no surprise the HD says what it does.


As a CENELEC member, BSI have a duty to incorporate the technical intent of HDs.


As I said in an earlier post, there are opportunities to get involved, rather than sitting on the sidelines sulking, or throwing rotten fruit.

Assumption? If you could only grasp what I knew about AFDDs and the stake the pig players have invested in them.


Considering no comments were made, yet folks have plenty of time to discuss AFDDS in the ASCII sphere, perhaps time on the side lines is granted.


BSI has zero obligation to incorporate or do anything CENELEC says in as much CENELEC has any obligation to listen to the IEC. Of course in reality it is as you say, and manufacturers know that as it was their goal all along. This is exactly how systems fail entire populations. To think on ones own is truly the rarest gift in today's world. 


And getting involved in the current system won't change anything. In the United states there are hundreds if not thousand of proposals and organizations working to get AFCIs out of NFPA-70 where each code cycle the proposals are turned down. 


With that said, you do know AFCIs were solely created to mimic the British wiring system?     

 

gkenyon:

ProMbrooke:

AJJewsbury:

AFDDs are soon to be mandatory?

Do you know something we don't?


I know there was a proposal for AFDDs in the DPC for AMD2 - but often such proposals don't make it though to the final version. AFAIK the decision process is still grinding on. If the comments on the BSI website for the DPC about AFDDs seemed hardly supportive.


   - Andy.

Unfortunately yes.


Those making them, as well as their seat in the IEC, have a rather big push.

Big assumption.


In the UK, international versions of the harmonized standards are also put out to public comment, as was the relevant part of HD 60364 for AFDDs. No comments were received, so it's no surprise the HD says what it does.


As a CENELEC member, BSI have a duty to incorporate the technical intent of HDs.


As I said in an earlier post, there are opportunities to get involved, rather than sitting on the sidelines sulking, or throwing rotten fruit.

Assumption? If you could only grasp what I knew about AFDDs and the stake the pig players have invested in them.


Considering no comments were made, yet folks have plenty of time to discuss AFDDS in the ASCII sphere, perhaps time on the side lines is granted.


BSI has zero obligation to incorporate or do anything CENELEC says in as much CENELEC has any obligation to listen to the IEC. Of course in reality it is as you say, and manufacturers know that as it was their goal all along. This is exactly how systems fail entire populations. To think on ones own is truly the rarest gift in today's world. 


And getting involved in the current system won't change anything. In the United states there are hundreds if not thousand of proposals and organizations working to get AFCIs out of NFPA-70 where each code cycle the proposals are turned down. 


With that said, you do know AFCIs were solely created to mimic the British wiring system?