Thread: FPE Panels News Story

Originally Posted by Billy Stephens

Your Typical Revolver 6 Holds Rounds.

If it only has 1 Live Round in the Cylinder the would this be an acceptability Risk to point it at your head and Pull the Trigger?

It is to some people, but not to me ... heck, even some people here seem to think that if there are only 5 out of 6 with a live round in the cylinder that is an acceptable risk - just ask Jim Abram ... from his posts he probably even thinks that 6 out of 6 holding live rounds is an acceptable risk - and I tend to agree with him that 6 out of 6 is an acceptable risk for him.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Garry,

That is the accurately stated result.

Those results are a result of lack of $$$$$$$$$ ....

Your view is that lack of $$$$ would prove a problem with FPE.
You could make the reverse argument that lack of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ would yield in-favor of PFE.

Decades and the issue is still at question.
Here is a Electrical forum that does not have an unanimous position of FPE.
One of the electricians did their own testing and posted his results.

FPE Stab-Lok Work Just Fine! - Electrician Talk - Professional Electrical Contractors Forum
".....given how uniform these results are, and the fact that they were all within a standard trip curve, I really think it tends to suggest that FPE might not be the problem we thought they were."

Another inquiring mind that that yields to opinion and CYA.
FPE Stab-Lok breakers - Electrician Talk - Professional Electrical Contractors Forum
".....Home inspector’s red flag them almost automatically, even though form everything that I have read, the unbiased statistics do not seem to warrant it.

As a result of the hysteria though, real or not, I am also compelled to recommend replacement when I see them on a job I am estimating. CYA. "

Originally Posted by Jim Abram

Gary - I agree . It is becoming easier because they are aging out.

- - - Updated - - -

So age makes something automatically unsafe??

Originally Posted by Jim Port

So age makes something automatically unsafe??

That's what my wife said when asked about safe sex.

Originally Posted by Vern Heiler

That's what my wife said when asked about safe sex.

Send me a few $ and I'll write you a "Doctor's Excuse ."

Originally Posted by Billy Stephens

Locale TV Consumer Reporter had this WMC The Investigators: Breaker, Breaker - Action News 5 - Memphis, Tennessee

Billy,

Look at what you started! Aren't you ashamed?

Wine and Scotch get better with age. Don't panels?

So most electricians I know think that FPE and Zinsco are garbage. That is not what I hear or seen on Bulldog.

Also I think Doug Hansen and Jim Katen are pretty reputable guys and they come down in the camp to have these replaced.

Our state requires us to report the presence of these panels so it easy for us.

I personally see much more Zinsco than FPE panels and have physical proof of the Zinsco issues. I got a little collection starting.

Another point was the CSPC was still stinging from a very costly court battle and was trepid about taking on another one. Most manufacturers comply and voluntarily perform recalls but when one digs its heels in becomes a different story such as Reliance was going to do. So using the CSPC did not do anything is a bit disingenuous.

- - - Updated - - -

So most electricians I know think that FPE and Zinsco are garbage. That is not what I hear or seen on Bulldog.

Also I think Doug Hansen and Jim Katen are pretty reputable guys and they come down in the camp to have these replaced.

Our state requires us to report the presence of these panels so it easy for us.

I personally see much more Zinsco than FPE panels and have physical proof of the Zinsco issues. I got a little collection starting.

Another point was the CSPC was still stinging from a very costly court battle and was trepid about taking on another one. Most manufacturers comply and voluntarily perform recalls but when one digs its heels in becomes a different story such as Reliance was going to do. So using the CSPC did not do anything is a bit disingenuous.

Originally Posted by Gunnar Alquist

Billy,

Look at what you started! Aren't you ashamed?

.....

guys why are you all answering Jims arrogance--let him do his own thing an d put his clients in danger--it is time to remove this conversation and waste of time to the blind. go with what you think and know is safe for your client, and let it go.what did forrest gump say about dumb cvf

Originally Posted by CHARLIE VAN FLEET

guys why are you all answering Jims arrogance--let him do his own thing an d put his clients in danger--it is time to remove this conversation and waste of time to the blind. go with what you think and know is safe for your client, and let it go.what did forrest gump say about dumb cvf

Charlie,

You are correct, of course, but the thing happened with Watson ... we simply must not allow his incorrect information to stand as though it was correct - someone searching this board could find themselves with incorrect information and not realize it is not correct.

Unfortunately, Brian allows the incorrect information to keep being posted, which means that the rest of us need to keep showing and stating that it is incorrect.

With Jim, like with Watson, the endless dribble and drivel from Jim ties up a lot of the board and a lot of Brian's server space ... but, it is Brian's and is his decision on when to stop or keep allowing such drivel.

Jerry agree on both--Brain help us here--end this thing--and everyone do what you know is right for your client--cvf

Originally Posted by Jim Abram

Jerry - What information is incorrect ? I would be happy to remove any information that is incorrect.

Jim,

You will?

Thanks.

Delete all your posts.

Okay, one or two of your posts may have had some information in them which was not incorrect, but by and large the information you post in almost all of your posts is incorrect. I don't have the time nor the inclination to try to select the few correct bits of information you have posted out of all the rest of the incorrect information.

Delete all your posts then go back and start over, first reading what you are responding to, then thinking about your response, then re-reading what you are about ready to post - when you get it right, click the submit button.

Originally Posted by Jim Abram

Jerry - Somehow I knew when push came to shove you would not be able to produce.
Put up or shut up.

Jim,

No problemo ... I was giving you credit for having made at least a few correct bits of information in all the non-correct information, but, if you so wish, then delete it all as I am safe in stating that it is all wrong (rounding off the percentages to the nearest 5% should still put me at 100% correct on you being 100% incorrect).

Delete them all and start over, that should help you here ... unless you post the same drivel, naturally.

Troll, you can go back down under your bridge at any time ...

Originally Posted by Jim Abram

Jerry - You did not expect me to believe anything that you say .

Jim,

I expect you to carry this on for as long as someone is willing to play your game with you ... and my time has run out ...

Posting the test criteria without posting the results of the tests is worthless. It does not mean that the breaker performance was within spec and operated as it should. The performance spec also does not address the poor design of the mounting to the bus bar. I can read a recipe that sounds good, but it doesn't mean I will like it.

Originally Posted by Jim Abram

That is really amusing. That is a 35 year old story, and they still got it wrong.

I fail to understand the tripping issue demonstrated with the electrical panels . The 30 amp in the new box tripped but, the two pole Federal Pacific 60 amp did not trip when loaded to 43 amps. This is clear proof that a 60 amp FP circuit breaker is defective ?

Originally Posted by Jim Abram

Billy - Look at the video . It is a 60 amp FP

Originally Posted by Billy Stephens

Jim,

There are several breakers in the panel, an Electrician is standing there running this Test, the attached articular states this is a 30 amp breaker but you can determine at a glance from several States away it's all wrong.

Good Job Buddy!

Originally Posted by Jim Abram

Jim - My thoughts were the opposite . Posting the test results without posting the criteria was absurd.
The article claimed that it should have tripped while the test criteria indicates that it did not.

This is the biggest issue with the FP situation. Most people do not know what the technical requirements are and do not understand the amount of overload necessary to start a fire.

Wow !!

Great Stuff Thanks Sooo Much !!

1. Maybe we should start a new thread on this (AFCI's)-
   
   This is from the 2014 NEC, Washington State has been in a code freeze and only required bedroom protection up till this July when we are adopting the 2014 NEC-
   
   2014 NEC
   
   210.12 Arc-Fault Circuit-Interrupter Protection
   
   4. A listed outlet branch-circuit type arc-fault circuit interrupter installed at the first outlet on the branch circuit in combination with a listed branch-circuit overcurrent protective device where all of the following conditions are met:
   
   
   1. The branch-circuit wiring shall be continuous from the branch-circuit overcurrent device to the outlet branch-circuit arc-fault circuit interrupter.
   2. The maximum length of the branch-circuit wiring from the branch-circuit overcurrent device to the first outlet shall not exceed 15.2 m (50 ft) for a 14 AWG conductor or 21.3 m (70 ft) for a 12 AWG conductor.
   3. The first outlet box in the branch circuit shall be marked to indicate that it is the first outlet of the circuit.
   4. The combination of the branch-circuit overcurrent device and outlet branch-circuit AFCI shall be identified as meeting the requirements for a system combination–type AFCI and shall be listed as such.

A question for the more informed.
In the testing that most opinions are based on it was done with 122 double pole breakers. Which equates to 244 single pole breakers. Yet in the published result chart the results do not show the total of 122 or 244 number tested in the (# failed/# tested).

So the question is where did they go? Is the assumption that the difference is in the number failed and removed from testing? Or is the testing creating a result desires by the tester? What am I missing?



- - - Updated - - -

A question for the more informed.
In the testing that most opinions are based on it was done with 122 double pole breakers. Which equates to 244 single pole breakers. Yet in the published result chart the results do not show the total of 122 or 244 number tested in the (# failed/# tested).

So the question is where did they go? Is the assumption that the difference is in the number failed and removed from testing? Or is the testing creating a result desires by the tester? What am I missing?

http://www.homeinspectormark.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/six_federal_pacific_circuit_breaker_information.pd f


Test results FPE 122 double pole breakers copy.jpg

A question for the more informed.
In the testing that most opinions are based on it was done with 122 double pole breakers. Which equates to 244 single pole breakers. Yet in the published result chart the results do not show the total of 122 or 244 number tested in the (# failed/# tested).

So the question is where did they go? Is the assumption that the difference is in the number failed and removed from testing? Or is the testing creating a result desires by the tester? What am I missing?

http://www.homeinspectormark.com/sit...nformation.pdf


Test results FPE 122 double pole breakers copy.jpg