do we really need AFCIs

[templdl]

Well the people that are making us install them don't seem to be.

What is it that makes you believe in the technology? Is it just because the people you know that worked on the design were good guys and you liked them?

If you feel as strongly as you do get busy and address those "people" who are making you use them. It't easy to be critical but those who are more often or not take very little action but are very quick to complain.
I worked for a major manufacturer and saw many R&D reports on AFCIs, did you?
As I said I am a firm believer and impressed with the technology. However, just because the technology is there doesn't mean that it proves to be of practical use in the field.

I'll leave it like that as if It were left to "people like you" there would be no technical advancement and we still would be using Edison base fuses for circuit protection in homes.

If you believe as strongly as you do, start doing something about it or quit complaining. Get involved with the appropriate code council with documentation that back you opinion.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

...If you believe as strongly as you do, start doing something about it or quit complaining. Get involved with the appropriate code council with documentation that back you opinion.

Without the backing of hundreds of thousands of dollars for research, the CMP will never accept proposals to limit the use of AFCIs. They are here to stay. The best I could hope for is that the UL standard for AFCIs be revised to require a GFP function in all AFCIs as it appears to me that the GFP function it the most common trip.

After reading the UL report that I posted in the first post of this thread, I am very confused as to how UL tests AFCIs with "arcing faults". The more I read about this, the less I believe that an arcing fault with enough energy to start a fire is even possible at dwelling unit voltages.

 

[templdl]

Without the backing of hundreds of thousands of dollars for research, the CMP will never accept proposals to limit the use of AFCIs. They are here to stay. The best I could hope for is that the UL standard for AFCIs be revised to require a GFP function in all AFCIs as it appears to me that the GFP function it the most common trip.

After reading the UL report that I posted in the first post of this thread, I am very confused as to how UL tests AFCIs with "arcing faults". The more I read about this, the less I believe that an arcing fault with enough energy to start a fire is even possible at dwelling unit voltages.

I am not in disagreement with you Don. On one hand I am confident in the technology. On the other I question if the technology is practical. If the technology isn't a practical application it is not very useful. As I believe that I stated previously I am a believer in the technology by am extremely disappointed that it appears to be of no practical use. I was expecting a significant impact on the industry but have not been aware of any positive feedback. But it is now part of the code. We have to either have to abide by it or it must be rescinded. At this point I believe the code should recognizing AFCIs as I believe that the originally did before they made it as a part of the requirements. I don't think that they have passed muster especially when it adds a significant cost to installations.
Some time Bach I believe that I saw a published standard for AFCIs. I'm not sure if I kept a copy for my file.
Dave

 

[PetrosA]

Another shortcoming of AFCIs is that there is no guarantee of forward compatibility with them. If a product doesn't exist when the AFCI is programmed with that manufacturer's arc signatures, there is no way to flash newer arc signatures to existing breakers. On a per breaker level, it's not such a huge deal to make an upgrade. On a whole house panel level, it's another story. AFCIs can cost upwards of $1000 for some houses - similar to the price of a higher end laptop - while offering none of the upgrade capability of most other electronic devices.

 

[kwired]

Another shortcoming of AFCIs is that there is no guarantee of forward compatibility with them. If a product doesn't exist when the AFCI is programmed with that manufacturer's arc signatures, there is no way to flash newer arc signatures to existing breakers. On a per breaker level, it's not such a huge deal to make an upgrade. On a whole house panel level, it's another story. AFCIs can cost upwards of $1000 for some houses - similar to the price of a higher end laptop - while offering none of the upgrade capability of most other electronic devices.

It is almost certain that manufacturers will ride that train as long as possible before someone kicks them off.

 

[hurk27]

I have to disagree with Dave a little on the technology part because of the original claim of being able to detect a series arc, the problem with this as back when they were first introduced is how do you differentiate between a good arc (switch closing or opening) and a bad arc, they claim there is a difference but I can not see how other then a good arc will only last a few cycles, this is why I offered to UL to use a gated input that would shut off detection for a few cycles so a good arc will not trip the electronics, they said thank's but that was about as far as it went.

Of course equipment that an arc is a normal part of its operation such as a welder and electronic igniter's and such would have to be dealt with separately, the electronic igniter's are of such a low current that the AFCI could be designed to ignore them, but a welder would be a problem.

I have had some dealings with UL on the matter and a few here remember the e-mails I posted that went nowhere with them as they just brushed off my concerns even after they acted like there was a problem, but these problems were on long circuit runs when AFCI's required a 75 amp arc signatures to trip, well it must have had some effect because it wasn't long after that they lowered it to 35 amps or something around that.

But still since I was involved with our state building commission I worked hard to get them removed just because they could not prove to us they worked as advertised, and the short time from the 1999 requirement of having to use them at the start of 2002 till we adopted the 2002 (which we removed 210.12) they proved to be very costly to the problems they caused because of too many false positives and or the fact they had so many recalls along with there were no options for multi-wired circuits which caused even more cost to be burden by the home owners, for the very little to none in safety they added.

We must remember cost imposed upon the public is a big factor when adopting laws, like some said on here in the past "show me the body count" as to get a red light at an intersection their must be a reason and a design or product that is proved to reduce the deaths before you can add the cost of this design or product for the citizens of a state to bare the cost, it's called the "Need for a fix" the "options for the fix" and the "results of the fix" that a law makers must consider before being able for a change to be adopted into law, this breaks down to the body count or injuries, the redesign or product that will work to fix it, and the cost to the public if it out weighs the expense and need to the public, of course this is not always followed unless some watch dog group catches it.

 

[ActionDave]

If you feel as strongly as you do get busy and address those "people" who are making you use them. It't easy to be critical but those who are more often or not take very little action but are very quick to complain.
I worked for a major manufacturer and saw many R&D reports on AFCIs, did you?
As I said I am a firm believer and impressed with the technology. However, just because the technology is there doesn't mean that it proves to be of practical use in the field.

I don't think I was complaining. You agree that their is no evidence AFCI technology is effective. From what I have read on this forum by some members smarter than me there is no reason to believe that it ever could be. You are the one guy that said it could. I was, and remain, curious why?

I'll leave it like that as if It were left to "people like you" there would be no technical advancement and we still would be using Edison base fuses for circuit protection in homes.

There are plenty fuse panels in service that protect the wiring just fine.

I did not start out in the anti arc-fault camp. It wasn't till I ran into a problem where the problem was the breaker, and there was zero possibility that it could be anything else, that I decided that what others were saying about them had merit.

If you believe as strongly as you do, start doing something about it or quit complaining. Get involved with the appropriate code council with documentation that back you opinion.

I'm a fatalistic guy, not a crusader. The forces that brought AFCI's into the NEC are far beyond anything I have the desire to engage with.

 

[weressl]

Having worked for one of the leading developer and manufacturer I knew some of the design engineers personally. It is with all confidence that I believe in these products. However, the real proof is in the pudding, by pudding I do mean the insurance companies.
I have been extremely disappointed that the insurance companies haven't found that the AfCIs haven't been determined to reduce fire losses. If it is determined that AFCIs save lives and fire losses I wouldn't thine that insurance companies would provide premium credits or other incentives to promote the use of AFCIs in old construction.
As such I'm not seeing any results. Is the need for this product been overstated?

Why would they give you a break in premium when they can FORCE you to install it by legistlative lobbying. That is what they call good business sense: reduce the payout, not the premiums. Big business - contrary to claim - is about win-loose. They win, you loose.

 

[iwire]

Hoax? Definitely not.
Hoax:
1. An act intended to deceive or trick.
2. Something that has been established or accepted by fraudulent means.

Yes, hoax.

Manufacturers outright lied to get the first AFCI rules into the code.

When the fruad was exposed they had to change the design to combination AFCI.

 

[weressl]

Yes, hoax.

Manufacturers outright lied to get the first AFCI rules into the code.

When the fruad was exposed they had to change the design to combination AFCI.

Care to offer any proof of your claim?

 

[iwire]

Care to offer any proof of your claim?

No



Actually Don can provide it more clearly than I can.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Care to offer any proof of your claim?

Laszlo,
If you go back and look at the original proposals to require the use of AFCIs, you will find that the proposals said that the device they had at that time would do what they now tell us the combination type AFCI will do. The problem is the fact that the combination type AFCI did not exist at that time.

The following is from proposal 2-128 for the 1999 code cycle. This proposal would have been submitted prior to the first Friday of November 1996.

... EIA believes that adding this protection to branch or feeder circuit breakers will have a dramatic effect in reducing the incidence of fires started by arcing faults in branch raring and components, fixture wires, extension cords, appliance cords, and even in appliances ...

At the time of the proposal the UL standard for AFCIs had not been issued. The proposal talks about devices that have the functions of the combination type AFCI.

The 2005 code was changed to require the use of "combination type" AFCIs in place of the previously permitted branch circuit and feeder type AFCI, with an effective date of 1/1/2008. The first combination type AFCIs hit the market in late 2007, some 11 years after the original proposals.

It is interesting that some of the comments in the code making process suggest the use of RCD device to provide the protection the the AFCI is intended to provide. It appears to me that, in new construction where we have EGCs, that an RCD device would prevent most of the fires that they tell us an AFCI would prevent.

 

[templdl]

I have had some dealings with UL on the matter and a few here remember the e-mails I posted that went nowhere with them as they just brushed off my concerns even after they acted like there was a problem, but these problems were on long circuit runs when AFCI's required a 75 amp arc signatures to trip, well it must have had some effect because it wasn't long after that they lowered it to 35 amps or something around that. 2002 (which we removed 210.12) they proved to be very costly to the problems they caused because of too many false positives and or the fact they had so many recalls along with there were no options for multi-wired circuits which caused even more cost to be burden by the home owners, for the very little to none in safety they added.

We must remember cost imposed upon the public is a big factor when adopting laws, like some said on here in the past "show me the body count" as to get a red light at an intersection their must be a reason and a design or product that is proved to reduce the deaths before you can add the cost of this design or product for the citizens of a state to bare the cost, it's called the "Need for a fix" the "options for the fix" and the "results of the fix" that a law makers must consider before being able for a change to be adopted into law, this breaks down to the body count or injuries, the redesign or product that will work to fix it, and the cost to the public if it out weighs the expense and need to the public, of course this is not always followed unless some watch dog group catches it.

Wayne, I appreciate your response as well as involvement regarding this issue. What you have said is extremely relevant. I was and still am excited about this technology and sometime considered it black magic regarding the manufacture's claims from my practical point of view. When one considers what the manufactures have stuffed into a breaker that small along with thermal and magnetic elements is amazing to me. But the fact remains is it actually doing what is intended to do. I have been very disappointed and there are many others that are of the opinion the it is a hoax and fraud of which I disagree. I certainly appears as though things have gotten out of control based upon what the law makers want so much to believe. It would be great if the AFCI made a significant impact on the incidences of fires caused by electrical failures but they haven't as far as I can tell. Instead they have added significantly to construction cost with little to show for it. You would think that 13 years would be long enough to realize their benefits. But what do they want to do? Expand their use with basically no documentation of real life benefits other than factory tests.
Thanks again for your input and trying to be proactive in keeping the use of this product in check.
Dave

 

[kwired]

Wayne, I appreciate your response as well as involvement regarding this issue. What you have said is extremely relevant. I was and still am excited about this technology and sometime considered it black magic regarding the manufacture's claims from my practical point of view. When one considers what the manufactures have stuffed into a breaker that small along with thermal and magnetic elements is amazing to me. But the fact remains is it actually doing what is intended to do. I have been very disappointed and there are many others that are of the opinion the it is a hoax and fraud of which I disagree. I certainly appears as though things have gotten out of control based upon what the law makers want so much to believe. It would be great if the AFCI made a significant impact on the incidences of fires caused by electrical failures but they haven't as far as I can tell. Instead they have added significantly to construction cost with little to show for it. You would think that 13 years would be long enough to realize their benefits. But what do they want to do? Expand their use with basically no documentation of real life benefits other than factory tests.
Thanks again for your input and trying to be proactive in keeping the use of this product in check.
Dave

Are the AFCI's a deliberate hoax, maybe not entirely. What manufacturers did wrong is push hard to get them into code, and then they did not offer a product that doesn't do what they claim it will do. There may have been good intentions, but they saw they were not going to recover R&D if code did not require people to purchase these devices. They possibly put more effort into making sure it gets into code than into making sure it will do what it is supposed to do.

What was wrong was making sure these were put into code before they are ready to do their intended function, and it is still questionable if they do what they are supposed to do, but you will not find the manufacturers backing any effort to move away from what they have done so far, even if for a temporary period, and you can't really expect them to do so on their own.

 

[templdl]

Are the AFCI's a deliberate hoax, maybe not entirely. What manufacturers did wrong is push hard to get them into code, and then they did not offer a product that doesn't do what they claim it will do. There may have been good intentions, but they saw they were not going to recover R&D if code did not require people to purchase these devices. They possibly put more effort into making sure it gets into code than into making sure it will do what it is supposed to do.

What was wrong was making sure these were put into code before they are ready to do their intended function, and it is still questionable if they do what they are supposed to do, but you will not find the manufacturers backing any effort to move away from what they have done so far, even if for a temporary period, and you can't really expect them to do so on their own.

I believe that that it's wrong to conclude that they do not work as intended. I believe that they do work but I'm not so sure that they are needed as there seems to be a lack of evidence of their effectiveness over the past 13 years. There is no real life documentation to support the manufactures claims. Instead of berating a product as being a hoax or fraud as some are saying the facts as they appear is that the product is of little or no consequence no matter how fantastic the technology may be. If AFCIs have little or no real life benefits as it appears as they have they are useless except to add to costs and a false sense of security.
I believe that we should respect the technology but say "big deal" what does it actually do for me. That's what it is all about. You can accept them as a great product but also conclude that they have no practical use resulting in very little if any confidence in the product. That's the way I would approach their use. Factory testing is great, real live applications if a different issue.

 

[donaldelectrician]

So you are with the " we do not need AFCI camp" ?






Don

 

[templdl]

Even though I a believer in their technology I am very disappointed in what they have actually contributed other than cost. As such I am of the opinion at this point that it makes no difference if they are installed or not. Until there is definite evidence of their real value other than from the manufacture they shouldn't be required. AFCIs should be listed by UL as they originally had been but shouldn't be required as part of the NEC requirements

 

[electricguy61]

I find it interesting that AFCI's seem to be "out of stock" on a regular basis. Could it be they keep having warranty issues and must continually "re-invent the wheel"? This has been a problem for about two years now.

 

[templdl]

I find it interesting that AFCI's seem to be "out of stock" on a regular basis. Could it be they keep having warranty issues and must continually "re-invent the wheel"? This has been a problem for about two years now.

It could be that the manufactures are not able to keep up with the demand, they mat be having difficulty maintaining quality due to the complexity of the product or their UL listing may have been pulled which stopped production. Having your UL listing pulled is a very serious event which is not uncommon.
The manufacturer can't redesign the product without having to resubmit it to UL for review.
The manufacturer does have the free reign as many think that they do. I'm familiar with UL inspectors who frequently visited a transformer manufacturing plant where I once worked. If you don't think that they instilled the fear of God in the manufacturer you be revisit that thought. You don't mess with UL.

 

[iwire]

I believe that that it's wrong to conclude that they do not work as intended.

Based on what evidence?

Nothing I have read indicates that to be the case.

I believe that they do work but I'm not so sure that they are needed as there seems to be a lack of evidence of their effectiveness over the past 13 years. There is no real life documentation to support the manufactures claims. Instead of berating a product as being a hoax or fraud as some are saying the facts as they appear is that the product is of little or no consequence no matter how fantastic the technology may be. If AFCIs have little or no real life benefits as it appears as they have they are useless except to add to costs and a false sense of security.

I am having a hard time figuring out what you are trying to say in the above quote.:blink:



Let me say I do not think that the engineers designing them were trying to perpetrate a fraud, I think most engineers want what they design to do the job they were intended for.

On the other hand I have no problem at all believing the business and sales people would intentionally overstate the effectiveness of the units to get them into the code and selling.