[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: NEON-SGFP and Code process
Hello Kenny,
>Not being one who gets in the middle of controversy (hah) it seems
>that this whole deal with SGFP points out a major flaw with the
>process of improving and enacting code.
Well said, well said!
> (Jeff, where are you these
>days?)
I must admit there are times during the process of the last 2 years when
some of what Jeff believes to be true has crossed my mind. It was long and
frustrating. I'll try to recount it here. Even though it won't seem brief,
trust me, it's a very short summary compared to the 2 years of actual events.
>Over the past 2 years I have slowly awakened to the NEC changes
>mostly from the alarm published over the apparently difficult
>modification and likely changes in installation methods.
>
>I am not clear, for example, as to whether or not I will be able to
>install a reliable midpoint grounded circuit with SGFP.
Right now, no. Next round of product development...probably. Midpoint
wiring techniques are definitely a safety advantage. But, as you know, if
during normal operation, the two sides of the trafo are not fully utilized,
there may be excess voltage directed to ground through the midpoint return.
With existing fault protection, this excess contributes to the total leakage
to ground that the sensor is designed to detect. When it hits the
limit...snap! Switch goes off and there's no more primary power.
Frustrating, we've come up with some alternate techniques (virtual ground)
which mimic the same thing.
> Every time
>it cuts out because the range is just too tight - will I have to go
>to the site and reset it?
I'll address both points in the question...first "range". Original units
were set to trip with fairly minimal leakage. Range as well as sensitivity
have been expanded a couple of times in the last 3 years. Speaking from
Allanson's perspective, we feel very comfortable that we've reached a happy
medium between safety and practicality. We've been at it 5 years.
Obviously it will be impossible to perform
>the simplest arc to ground test to see if a coil is burned out.
Not necessarily. With present Allanson design one can cut the sensor wire
and ground it temporarily to bypass the sensor. Then, the circuit can be
tested. Once source of problem is found, just crimp sense wire back on.
Interestingly, UL has been pushing to make Protected transformers
unserviceable. They don't want Protector to be accessible for service
because they fear the risk of permanent bypass. The Industry Advisory Group
(IAG) voted by majority to recommend having ability to service.
>Okay, so we'll adjust - but what will really happen is that in the
>real world, I can guarantee for at least the next few years while
>there are still non-complying ones that haven't yet sold, that 99% of the
>installations will not comply. Those of us who might want to try to
>comply will be penalized by the extra cost and time. Even just
>having to explain it to the client will add additional hassle.
This will definitely be a problem. We see no great rush to Fault Protection
nor do we recommend it. What we recommend is that everyone begin to get
some experience. Start small. Further, we anticipate that there will be a
leading edge of end-users and AHJ who will want to be in the forefront of
the conversion process.
>My complaint is that the process that enacted this provision clearly
>happened in a vacuum.
Imaginative choice of words given the subject matter. Sometime I wonder
whether a better vacuum was drawn during this operation that some of the
less-capable neon shops out there.
> I imagine it has been documented, but I'm
>curious about who put it on the table and why, and how the discussion and
>feedback went. You say that Allanson wasn't included in the panel
>discussions. I hope at least one major manufacturer was. Seems to
>me that all should have been.
>
Strangely, we feel the same way. The NEC rewrite started out well enough.
The objective was to make Article 600 easier to use. This happened back in
1993. Rewrite responsibility was charged to Code Panel 18 supposedly
advised by NESA. First-draft input went through Research and Standards
Committee. So far, so good. Among R&S attendees had been Everbrite,
Allanson, Transco, France, Channelume, Paul Davis, Al Sklar, and wide
variety of members both from the Product Manufacturer as well as Sign
Company ranks.
It got very convoluted from there. First, we can thank Dave Gothard
formerly of Neonix for fault protection. Remember? He was on a mission to
protect the industry from itself. Singlehandedly, he was going around to
IAEI Section meetings talking about how the industry was burning down.
Actually published an advertisement for Neonix transformers showing such.
So, various AHJ and inspector types got nervous. Fault protection was
locked in bigtime.
Next, insert high-volume factionalization. Plastics versus glass. Plastics
versus metal. Conduit...no conduit. 100ft long runs of gto, no gto. Et
cetera, et cetera. Now I understand why our Founding Fathers got so worried
about Constitutional Conventions opening up major cans of worms for our
society. Once opened, the text is prone to wounds from special interests
which never quite heal.
This went on for two years. With various factions citing personal
experience and preaching the gospel. Strangely, very little valid
scientific study was done to substantiate any changes.
You ask, where were the transformer guys? We (Allanson, Magnetek, France,
and Actown. Note no participation from Transco/Sanyo/Standard Hong Kong/
Webster) made lots of suggestions. Almost all of them were politely pushed
aside. France, Allanson, and Actown filed Objections as part of the due
process for the final draft of the 1996 Code which was to be voted upon
mid-1995. ALL, repeat, ALL of the claims of the transformer manufacturers
were denied. Not one made it into the final draft.
So, let's see...we had the best electrical engineers from three out of the
four ferromagnetic transformer manufacturers. They did their best to
technically critique the new code and were silenced by Code Panel 18. Not
one claim upheld.
Next point in the process...Dave Reisland from France and Tony Efantis of
Allanson went to the NEC summer meeting 1995 at which the final draft was to
be voted on for acceptance. Prior to the vote, as is standard procedure,
there are caucus opportunities for discussion. France and Allanson made
presentations backed up by not only experience but electrical engineering
references. Once again, all of the Objections were voted down. Code Panel
18 voted "unanimously, with one abstention" to submit the Final Draft "as is".
Tired yet? We sure were. And scared. Imagine being a Professional
Engineer watching years of prudent precedent go down the drain in favor of
unsubstantiated, unproven implementation of change. We all felt that the
final draft of 1996 NEC left us with a less safe industry.
Once last try...the acceptance process for all of NEC allows an appeal to
the Board of Standards of the National Fire Protection Association, the
overseeing body to NEC. Allanson and France made a final series of appeals
which we presented before the Board supported by Actown. After
presentations "for" and "against", the Board of Standards made a final
ruling. ALL, repeat, ALL of the Objections and Claims made by France and
Allanson were upheld. To add some perspective... we were told this NEVER
happens. People are lucky to have one claim upheld. Subsequent appeal by
Randall K. Wright of Code Panel 18 was heard by Board of Directors of NFPA
and denied. ALL claims of transformer manufacturers were upheld.
>Even Microsoft, Sun, Apple, and Netscape sit around a table (the WWW
>Consortium) to help figure out where they can cooperate so that the
>standards don't become an utter mess for everyone.
You're absolutely right. That's the way it's supposed to work. It
certainly does for other industries. It works for electrical components.
Interestingly, it works for the UL standards group that looks after Lighting
Ballasts. They ask the Ballast manufacturers as well as interested larger
users for input. They evaluate it versus sound scientific and engineering
principle. They look at precedent and field experience. A conclusion is
drawn. End of story. The majority agree, the majority are satisfied. End
of story. It's a true one by the way, it just finished up this past August.
>
>Does such a body exist for the transformer manufacturers? Why not?
Good questions. It doesn't exist, not for neon transformers. For larger
industries, we get closer. In a previous posting, I mentioned "technical
cooperation" between transformer manufacturers. Informally, it has been
taking place. Tony Efantis from Allanson talks with Dave Reisland from
France, Gerald Ballard from Magnetek, and Al Zimmerman of Actown. Muhammed
Khan from Everbrite has been included from time to time especially when
solid state issues are at hand.
The conversations have been open and polite. Each person's opinion is heard
and calmly debated. Consensus has been fairly easily reached.
Note again, no sight of Transco. They were asked. They promised input.
None was ever offered. No one ever participated. We thought perhaps they
weren't interested because Transco really doesn't manufacture transformers,
they just distribute them. They don't have any electrical engineers.
>
>On another point, I was contacted by UL just as the installation manual was
>finalized. I was hastily interviewed about solid state and SGFP and it
>wasn't as if I was really given specific questions to reply to -
>yet it wouldn't surprise me if my comments exist somewhere as a
>basis for something - where all I mostly did was listen and ask for
>more info. I know UL and NEC are very different - but
>somehow I wonder if they don't suffer from the same problem that many
>large corporations have. Namely, administrate from the top down
>rather than how it should be - from the ground up.
>
>It would not surprise me in the least if there were not some
>knowledgeable and committed inspectors and ahj's who were also
>omitted from the NEC process.
Yup. I even know a few.
>I have no desire to get into the company vs company vs NEC vs UL
>situation at all - though it does sound wierd - and I hope y'all can
>straighten it out so that we can go on selling neon.
>I think there should be greater cooperation at making this
>issue accessible and workable for the end user.
God, I hope so too.
We're tired.
Eric