IEEE article

[romex jockey]

http://www.combinationafci.com/resources/doc_ieee_combination_afci.pdf


interesting and indepth IEEE workshop article here, especially the listing history

~rj~

 

[don_resqcapt19]

It really makes me wonder if there is any real series arc detection in the combination AFCI device, given that there is no seriers arc detection requirement or testing in the UL standard.

 

[Joethemechanic]

It really makes me wonder if there is any real series arc detection in the combination AFCI device, given that there is no seriers arc detection requirement or testing in the UL standard.

Without series arc detection, what good are they?

Most times when you take something apart, and it is fried inside, It is series arc/high resistance/loose connection.

I shouldn't say "Most times" I really should say 99% of the time when dealing with circuits of 600 volts or less.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Without series arc detection, what good are they?

...

I have not yet been convinced that they have any real value. They have lied about the functionality of these devices from day one. If there is no test by a listing agency to show that the device can detect and clear series arcs, I really wonder if they can actually do that. Combine that with the fact that many times what people call a series arc is a "glowing connection" and an AFCI cannot directly detect that type of heat producing fault. The only way the AFCI can detect that is wait until it becomes a ground fault or a parallel arc, however at least one brand of combination type AFCIs no longer has the GFP protection.

 

[Joethemechanic]

If these things are parallel arc detectors, in my opinion they are useless. Most parallel arcs either burn open quickly and are contained in the box, or else they trip the breaker on over-current. And again, I am talking about for your average 120/240 volt installation and that is exactly where they are trying to push these things.

 

[renosteinke]

At one time, Mike Holt had a gizmo that created a very nice, controlled series arc. He used it to prove that the original AFCI did not detect series arcs.

Then he visited Square D's lab, and became a supporter of AFCI's. We have not seen this gizmo since - and an awful lot has happened with AFCi's since then.

If the things (AFCI's) work, someone ought to be able to demonstrate it. Mikes test bed would be ideal. We ought to be able to field-test AFCI's, without relying upon the installed 'test' button. Heck, for all we know the breaker we're looking at is a counterfeit, and the test button is simply an 'off' switch. How can we tell?

 

[texie]

A very interesting article indeed. If the author and his research are in fact true and correct, this is a sad commentary on NEC, UL and NEMA. I hope this gains some traction so we can get to the bottom of this. Hopefully Mike Holt will have further comments on this.

 

[renosteinke]

If I'm reading the paper right ... the author asserts that the 'laws of physics' make it impossible for an arc to form between two bits of copper at the usual household voltages.

A law of physics.

If true, then there never can be a 'series arc' detector, since there cannot be an arc. If true, we've been conned.

Did I read this right?

 

[George Stolz]

That is indeed the author's assertion.

 

[Joethemechanic]

Not against the laws of physics, although it's highly unlikely to be able to sustain an arc under normal conditions.

Maybe in a vacuum

 

[renosteinke]

Well, I've dug pretty deeply into "Paschen's Law" and I am satisfied that Mr. Engle cites it correctly in his paper- though he posted the wrong graph.

So, we're left with what can best be described as a Unicorn hunt - looking for something (the sustained arc) that cannot exist. At least, not at household voltages, in ordinary air, between copper electrodes.

Tell me now .... this material is covered in EE courses .... did EVERYONE sleep through that lecture?

Our next step in 'peer review' of this paper is to look into his assertion that we can remotely detect 'glowing contacts.' How a gizmo can tell a toaster from a loose wirenut is another discussion ...

I consider this paper to be the oak stake that the AFCI 'vampire' needs driven though its' heart.

IMO, the 2014NEC needs to delete all references to the NEC. Period. It's snake oil.

 

[texie]

I sent Mr. Engle an email about a week ago alerting him that a link to his paper had posted been here. I was hoping that he would have some comments. He references Mike Holt in his paper, so I thought he may have an interest. Never heard back.

 

[romex jockey]

Our next step in 'peer review' of this paper is to look into his assertion that we can remotely detect 'glowing contacts.' How a gizmo can tell a toaster from a loose wirenut is another discussion ...
.

Reno,
i don't believe anything exists to remotely detect glowing contacts, i do know that the old tried/true thermaldynamics could be applied at the point of use

i would also add that the deabte surrounding glowing contacts would seem to go back further than i was recently aware of

seems there were sorts that i'm reading now that had forwarded info on this as much as a generation ago (and i do thank those of you who have enlightened me btw)

i would further note, that as a rural electrician who has served primarily a resi carear in K&Tville, all the 'glowing contact' fallout i've witnessed

i don't think i'm alone in stating that a series event trumps a parrallel event in terms of insudious damage

i would also like to think the powers that be are comming around to realize hot spots via resi voltages , are really the primary target to eradicate

all that remains is to eludicate those of us who do not know, or have not been exposed to this info

today, back in my e-mail , is a thank you from what is the informational coordinator for the Vt dept of public safety insisting Dr E's article be read by every VT electrical inspector & fire marshal

i would suggets to you (et all) , forward this paper to your superiors or legislative officials

~RJ~

 

[Sierrasparky]

It's amazing that Engle shows that Peer review of the tests were completly ignored due to timlieness.

 

[texie]

I see that Code Making Panel 2 has rejected Mr. Engel's proposal regarding AFCI that he discussed in his paper.

 

[Sierrasparky]

Does not surprise me, What companies represented the panel?
where lies the allegancce.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Does not surprise me, What companies represented the panel?
where lies the allegancce.

No group has more than one third of the panel members.

 

[iwire]

Does not surprise me, What companies represented the panel?
where lies the allegancce.

Look in the front of your code book it tells who and what group they represent.

 

[roger]

Without series arc detection, what good are they?

If these things are parallel arc detectors, in my opinion they are useless.

I have been stating both points since they were forced on us, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for those who forced them on us to admitt they were fooled or had some other vested interest in them.


Roger

 

[ELA]

We ought to be able to field-test AFCI's, without relying upon the installed 'test' button. Heck, for all we know the breaker we're looking at is a counterfeit, and the test button is simply an 'off' switch. How can we tell?

Many here stood up for AFCI's test button in the early days and fought the idea of a tester. Can you guess why now:huh:

http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=111163&highlight=afci