Brian G Posted December 7, 2007 Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 Originally posted by hausdok I heard from Douglas about this the other night. He's going to update his FPE paper to included the court developments and research that have been done since he first wrote it. Outstanding. Can someone send it to the KY board members, just so they can't say "We never saw this"? Brian G. Address It To "Your Ignorance" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hausdok Posted December 7, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 Sure, When he gets around to updating it. He didn't say when that would be. However, I shouldn't think it will be too long. Once Douglas gets a bit in his teeth he's not stopping till he gets there. OT - OF!!! M. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erby Posted December 7, 2007 Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 Does anybody have a copy of 2007 FPE Stab-Lok TECHNICAL REPORT, p.1, Dr. Jess Aronstein [next linked-article below]. 2007 FPE Stab-Lok TECHNICAL REPORT - an updated test report of independent testing (a large 1.2MB PDF file) using a larger pool of FPE Stab-Lok circuit breakers than the older CPSC and Wright Malta tests found significantly higher failure rates of FPE Stab-Lok circuit breakers, including a look at critical safety failures (breaker failed to trip at 200% of rated current or jammed) which found up to 80% failure rate for FPE Stab-Lok GFCI circuit breakers (n=4), 12% failure rate for double pole FPE Stab-Lok circuit breakers (n=120), and a 1% failure rate for FPE Stab-Lok single pole circuit breakers (n=345). Linked on Dan Friedman's website. I can't get it to download for me. I'd love to have a copy of it if you got one. My e-mail address is erby@b4uclose.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonOfSwamp Posted December 7, 2007 Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 Originally posted by Brian G Originally posted by hausdok I heard from Douglas about this the other night. He's going to update his FPE paper to included the court developments and research that have been done since he first wrote it. Outstanding. Can someone send it to the KY board members, just so they can't say "We never saw this"? As soon as the report is delivered to the KY board of pinheads, they should all resign. WJid="blue"> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottpat Posted December 7, 2007 Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 Originally posted by SonOfSwamp Originally posted by Brian G Originally posted by hausdok I heard from Douglas about this the other night. He's going to update his FPE paper to included the court developments and research that have been done since he first wrote it. Outstanding. Can someone send it to the KY board members, just so they can't say "We never saw this"? As soon as the report is delivered to the KY board of pinheads, they should all resign. WJid="blue"> Along with the Electrical board that started this whole mess! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n/a30 Posted December 7, 2007 Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 Some one in Kentucky might have gotten some road kill laced with mad cow disease. That notice is dangerous and does not represent the best interests of the public. Erby please set them right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Chew Posted December 8, 2007 Report Share Posted December 8, 2007 Erby - you have mail. Originally posted by Erby Does anybody have a copy of 2007 FPE Stab-Lok TECHNICAL REPORT, p.1, Dr. Jess Aronstein [next linked-article below]. 2007 FPE Stab-Lok TECHNICAL REPORT - an updated test report of independent testing (a large 1.2MB PDF file) using a larger pool of FPE Stab-Lok circuit breakers than the older CPSC and Wright Malta tests found significantly higher failure rates of FPE Stab-Lok circuit breakers, including a look at critical safety failures (breaker failed to trip at 200% of rated current or jammed) which found up to 80% failure rate for FPE Stab-Lok GFCI circuit breakers (n=4), 12% failure rate for double pole FPE Stab-Lok circuit breakers (n=120), and a 1% failure rate for FPE Stab-Lok single pole circuit breakers (n=345). Linked on Dan Friedman's website. I can't get it to download for me. I'd love to have a copy of it if you got one. My e-mail address is erby@b4uclose.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackson Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 Originally posted by Brandon Chew Erby - you have mail. Originally posted by Erby Does anybody have a copy of 2007 FPE Stab-Lok TECHNICAL REPORT, p.1, Dr. Jess Aronstein [next linked-article below]. 2007 FPE Stab-Lok TECHNICAL REPORT - an updated test report of independent testing (a large 1.2MB PDF file) using a larger pool of FPE Stab-Lok circuit breakers than the older CPSC and Wright Malta tests found significantly higher failure rates of FPE Stab-Lok circuit breakers, including a look at critical safety failures (breaker failed to trip at 200% of rated current or jammed) which found up to 80% failure rate for FPE Stab-Lok GFCI circuit breakers (n=4), 12% failure rate for double pole FPE Stab-Lok circuit breakers (n=120), and a 1% failure rate for FPE Stab-Lok single pole circuit breakers (n=345). Linked on Dan Friedman's website. I can't get it to download for me. I'd love to have a copy of it if you got one. My e-mail address is erby@b4uclose.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackson Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 I'd appreciate it if you'd share that with me as well. See what we have to deal with here! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Manor Posted January 11, 2008 Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 Here we go again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Posted January 11, 2008 Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 Joseph, What do you have up your sleeve now? Or, is this just another opportunity for you to snipe? Unfortunately, I agree with the government comment, but can't for the life of me connect ASHI to this issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozofprev Posted January 11, 2008 Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 Joseph, You really should know better. Stupid is as stupid does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Chew Posted January 11, 2008 Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 Originally posted by Jackson I'd appreciate it if you'd share that with me as well. See what we have to deal with here! Jackson - Try this. Go here Dan Freidman's site The second paragraph on that page has a link to the PDF of the updated 2007 report: The latest version of this report (May 25, 2007) is available in PDF format (1.2 MB). The new .PDF version at the link shown here includes results of additional, more extensive testing performed by Dr. Aronstein and is the document which you should print and use in distribution to people who need to know the testing and technical details which support the identification of Federal Pacific Stab-Lok electrical panels and circuit breakers as a latent safety hazard. If you left-click on that "PDF format" link and attempt to open that PDF on your screen, the download freezes and the document does not open (it does this for me, and I suspect it is doing the same thing for other people too). Instead of left-clicking on the "PDF format" link, right-click and pick "Save Target As" from the menu. Save the document to your hard drive and then open it. Also, while at that web page with the link to the report, check out the menu on the left side of the page. You'll find lots more stuff about FPE there. Brandon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hausdok Posted January 11, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 Originally posted by jhagarty And Licensing was supposed to benefit the Consumer? Business operates in the Best Interest of the Consumer if the Government plays no Role. ASHI will suggest otherwise due to their self serving interests. Hmmm, Ever heard of Enron? They're right, you should know better by now; ASHI has absolutely nothing to do with the FPE issue. OT - OF!!! M. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozofprev Posted January 11, 2008 Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 Brandon, Same thing happened to me wrt left-click/right-click. Right-click + save as works fine. I like the specificity of the article; figures showing the three types of sockets, the aluminum v. copper models, and the conducting path shown in Fig. 4. Section 10 is most applicable to the HI who wants credible backing. The problems associated with the panels are not visible to an inspector. It is still our duty (IMO) to share the current knowledge base with our clients. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Chew Posted January 11, 2008 Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 Business operates in the Best Interest of the Consumer if the Government plays no Role. Business operates in the best interest of "The Bottom Line", otherwise it ceases to be a business. Sometimes what is good for the bottom line is good for the consumer, and sometimes it is not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Posted January 11, 2008 Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 Can we say "RJ Reyonlds"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozofprev Posted January 11, 2008 Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 Originally posted by jhagarty If ASHI is not involved in the promotion of Licensing, what is their intention in the Ranking of States that are currently Licensed? While claiming to not be a part of the Solutiuon, ASHI is a part of the problem. Neither statement has anything to do with this thread. Insight, good. Incite, bad. You appear to have the meanings reversed.id="blue"> Also originally posted by jhagarty Licensing is about the establishament of Minimum standards of qualification. When a Licensing Board morphs into a Body that establishes What Conditions are Reportable and How they are Reported (without regard to the Contracted Client) under penalty of reprisal, I believe the Board has crossed the Line as to their Legislated & Intended Duties. How has the HI Review Board in Kentucky protected the Consumer? For whose Benefit (and why) was the Directive made? Why don't you ask them? Also, you may want to have the shift key on your computer checked - it appears to Capitalize certain Words for no Good reason. See - that's incite. It does no good and was included for illustrative purposes only.id="blue"> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozofprev Posted January 11, 2008 Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 Oh, it's a style.[] Hope the post's real meaning wasn't lost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozofprev Posted January 11, 2008 Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 Originally posted by jhagartyYou are easily ignored... [] I have kids, so I already know that. But thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisprickett Posted January 11, 2008 Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 Business operates in the Best Interest of the Consumer if the Government plays no Role. Not always, just ask the people of Bhopal, India. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackson Posted January 14, 2008 Report Share Posted January 14, 2008 Originally posted by Brandon Chew Originally posted by Jackson I'd appreciate it if you'd share that with me as well. See what we have to deal with here! Jackson - Try this. Go here Dan Freidman's site The second paragraph on that page has a link to the PDF of the updated 2007 report: The latest version of this report (May 25, 2007) is available in PDF format (1.2 MB). The new .PDF version at the link shown here includes results of additional, more extensive testing performed by Dr. Aronstein and is the document which you should print and use in distribution to people who need to know the testing and technical details which support the identification of Federal Pacific Stab-Lok electrical panels and circuit breakers as a latent safety hazard. If you left-click on that "PDF format" link and attempt to open that PDF on your screen, the download freezes and the document does not open (it does this for me, and I suspect it is doing the same thing for other people too). Instead of left-clicking on the "PDF format" link, right-click and pick "Save Target As" from the menu. Save the document to your hard drive and then open it. Also, while at that web page with the link to the report, check out the menu on the left side of the page. You'll find lots more stuff about FPE there. Brandon Thanks Brandon! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Friedman Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 The KBIH statement that there is no documentation describing the latent safety hazards of Federal Pacific Electric (FPE) Stab-Lok panels could not be more wrong nor more dangerous. The hazards of Federal Pacific Electric FPE Stab-Lok panels have been studied and documented thoroughly, have been the subject of national home inspection seminars and conferences, published in newsletters, and published in the Journal of Light Construction. Home inspectors and owners should see: The FPE Hazards Website http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpepanel.htm The latest FPE Stab-Lok Panel technical report in .pdf format http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/FPECircui ... 070525.PDF If the .PDF form is too slow to download, an older copy of this report is at http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpestlouis.htm Home inspectors anywhere are invited to print the technical report and/or pages from the website to give to clients in homes where an FPE Stab-Lok electrical panel is found. Certainly home inspectors in Kentucky need to provide these documents to their state licensing board and to their clients to protect against misinformation about these panels. Because an FPE Stab-Lok circuit breaker has a very unusually high rate of failure to trip (and because there are other bus and panel design defects and failures) these electrical panels should be replaced. Period. * More than 20 years of independent research and field reports as well as US Government documents(from the SEC) and a recent court finding in New Jersey confirm that the the company acted fraudulently and that the FPE Stab-Lok hazard is a real one - breakers fail to trip in response to an overcurrent, up to 60% of the time. * No visual inspection and in fact not even electrical testing in the field can reliably identify the hazards at a specific panel. Worse, testing these panels in the field is dangerous and can actually INCREASE the risk of a future breaker's failure to trip. * The observation by some owners that "up to now we've never had a problem" is unreliable. Most circuit breakers are never called-on to trip due to an overcurrent. It's like riding in a car with a seatbelt connected just by a thread. Up to now everything seems just fine, but then, you've not been in a crash which would call on the seatbelt for protection. * The typical cost to cure - a new electrical panel - is a miniscule portion of the value of a home and in no circumstances should be considered a "show stopper" in a real estate transaction. Further, home inspectors should have no position about who should pay for such a repair (such is unethical). The panel should be replaced, no matter who pays for it. Replacement options (at the website listed above) include methods that for some cases can cut the typical replacement cost in half. I am an independent building failures researcher who has studied this topic for many years and like active home inspectors, I'm required to be without conflict of interest in reporting (I have no financial relationship with the product nor with its replacement). The ONLY source of claims that there is "no hazard" with this product have in my experience originated with folks with a serious conflict of interest: an attorney charged with protecting FPE's remains (the company is long out of business) and EXXON against a product liability suit, and secondarily, some real estate agents and some real estate sellers, wishing to avoid a possible safety issue being raised regarding a home have made the (unsupportable)claim that the product is not defective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Fabry Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 Welcome to the board, Daniel. I look forward to your contributions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 Chad, don't encourage him - we may actually LEARN something! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.