AFCI (yes again)

Status
Not open for further replies.

mbrooke

Batteries Included
Location
United States
Occupation
Technician
HOWEVER...being that everyone has opinions and I prefer to NOT get into a chest beating...My lab is better than your lab situation..lol.....Lets just agree to disagree and I eagerly await your PI's to remove AFCI protection from the NEC. Good Luck with that:slaphead:


Half of what I said is not even an opinion. You would know if you understood.


Your lab is just developing standards and testing an already made product. Essential yes, I respect that but they are not writing the actual logic or designing the actual technology to detect arcs. I have seen that part applied and know exactly what it takes to detect arcs reliably. Its so many sciences stacked on top of one another, but the ultimate conclusion is you need computing power. Equations are fact as well as the hardware.


Rather than skipping around my statements and putting names to them hit the target: explain to me how the current logic used in AFCIs to detect arcs is sufficient for the task at hand. Which I would imagine is the ability to detect arcs from wiring defects that may present hazardous conditions while not tripping on current wave ripple from switch mode power supplies, RF ect like we hear so much of?

I have a beef with the CMP because the technology is much to primitive. IT is also not an opinion that people are complaining left and right of nuisance tripping.


Perhaps if you could explain in detail using theoretical and scientific language this would not come across as "chest beating"
 

augie47

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Tennessee
Occupation
State Electrical Inspector (Retired)
Adding fodder:
The following is from a recent e-mail written by a Spartenburg Inspector and sent to a UL engineer:


Hi Jeff, Hope you had a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year? I thought you might find this of some interest. While doing an inspection last month I came across this ( see Photo ) . A home owner called me about an electrical job that he had hired out (no permit pulled). He was concerned about the installation because several of the breakers were tripping after a short time frame. I scheduled an onsite meeting with him and the contractor (after a permit was issued). After inspecting the job I found no problem with the installation (a panel change out). I began to check out the branch circuits that were tripping, one receptacle in the bedroom circuit was showing an open ground. I Had the contractor pull the receptacle out, it was wired correctly but, was wired with copper conductors and a rework box, while the rest of the house was in aluminum. This threw up a red flag! After we began to look further we found someone had tied into a bathroom outlet around the backside of the wall. As you can see from the photo copper to aluminum without a proper connection . I told the home owner that it was a good thing that we found this, for a fire was just about to start here. Had the electrician to check out remaining circuits. ARC-FAULTS DO WORK!!!
Arc Fault.jpg



(posted with permission of UL and the inspector)
 

donaldelectrician

Senior Member
Adding fodder:
The following is from a recent e-mail written by a Spartenburg Inspector and sent to a UL engineer:


Hi Jeff, Hope you had a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year? I thought you might find this of some interest. While doing an inspection last month I came across this ( see Photo ) . A home owner called me about an electrical job that he had hired out (no permit pulled). He was concerned about the installation because several of the breakers were tripping after a short time frame. I scheduled an onsite meeting with him and the contractor (after a permit was issued). After inspecting the job I found no problem with the installation (a panel change out). I began to check out the branch circuits that were tripping, one receptacle in the bedroom circuit was showing an open ground. I Had the contractor pull the receptacle out, it was wired correctly but, was wired with copper conductors and a rework box, while the rest of the house was in aluminum. This threw up a red flag! After we began to look further we found someone had tied into a bathroom outlet around the backside of the wall. As you can see from the photo copper to aluminum without a proper connection . I told the home owner that it was a good thing that we found this, for a fire was just about to start here. Had the electrician to check out remaining circuits. ARC-FAULTS DO WORK!!!
View attachment 11695



(posted with permission of UL and the inspector)


Augie ... Aluminum Wiring and an ARC FAULT saved the day .

I will have greater faith in the U.S.A. if we can stop the forced use of AFCI's on us . My Dog bites people that like AFCI's .



Don
 

MasterTheNEC

CEO and President of Electrical Code Academy, Inc.
Location
McKinney, Texas
Occupation
CEO
Half of what I said is not even an opinion. You would know if you understood.


Your lab is just developing standards and testing an already made product. Essential yes, I respect that but they are not writing the actual logic or designing the actual technology to detect arcs. I have seen that part applied and know exactly what it takes to detect arcs reliably. Its so many sciences stacked on top of one another, but the ultimate conclusion is you need computing power. Equations are fact as well as the hardware.


Rather than skipping around my statements and putting names to them hit the target: explain to me how the current logic used in AFCIs to detect arcs is sufficient for the task at hand. Which I would imagine is the ability to detect arcs from wiring defects that may present hazardous conditions while not tripping on current wave ripple from switch mode power supplies, RF ect like we hear so much of?

I have a beef with the CMP because the technology is much to primitive. IT is also not an opinion that people are complaining left and right of nuisance tripping.


Perhaps if you could explain in detail using theoretical and scientific language this would not come across as "chest beating"

Yeah...ok....your smarter than me....I know. You are an expert in AFCI Technology and decided to stop pioneering AFCI Technology in order to prove idiots like me wrong...lol....so be it.

Why should I even try....you need to read UL 1699 in its entirety and understand the devices meet the standards. If you believe the standard is wrong stop flapping your lips and change it....do not tell me their is no way for you to be involved....I know differently.

Those that whine the most...do nothing...but at this point what is the point really. And I hardly see your response as s scientific or theoretical at all.
 

MasterTheNEC

CEO and President of Electrical Code Academy, Inc.
Location
McKinney, Texas
Occupation
CEO
Look...visit www.afcisafety.org and bring your beef. I'm done trying to convince a closed mind. I can easily explain the methods of detection, how characteristics are determined and why safe arcs are not detected but whats the point. I have grown tired of leading a fight of one on a forum that is closed minded and labels manufacturers as to the only cause of NEC inclusion.

Take your fight to UL 1699....otherwise you are pounding sand with your opinions...yes opinions but again what do I know on the subject....ask the obvious forum expert;)
 

donaldelectrician

Senior Member
Look...visit www.afcisafety.org and bring your beef. I'm done trying to convince a closed mind. I can easily explain the methods of detection, how characteristics are determined and why safe arcs are not detected but whats the point. I have grown tired of leading a fight of one on a forum that is closed minded and labels manufacturers as to the only cause of NEC inclusion.

Take your fight to UL 1699....otherwise you are pounding sand with your opinions...yes opinions but again what do I know on the subject....ask the obvious forum expert;)


Can or Do we take this as a Surrender ? Has my DOG Bitten you ?

Everybody , Down with AFCI's .



Don
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
You can blame the manufacturer's for my closed mind on this issue. That is based on the lies in the original proposals to require AFCIs. The original proposals said that the device that they wanted to require would do what they now tell us that the combination AFCI device will do....the only problem is that those original proposals were some 11 or 12 years before the combination device even existed.

Because of that I have a great mistrust of any statement about the function or effectiveness of any electrical device, if that statement comes from a manufacturer or a manufacturer's organization.

Yes, I am painting all of the manufacturers with a very broad brush, but "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me".
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
Look...visit www.afcisafety.org and bring your beef. I'm done trying to convince a closed mind. I can easily explain the methods of detection, how characteristics are determined and why safe arcs are not detected but whats the point. I have grown tired of leading a fight of one on a forum that is closed minded and labels manufacturers as to the only cause of NEC inclusion.

Take your fight to UL 1699....otherwise you are pounding sand with your opinions...yes opinions but again what do I know on the subject....ask the obvious forum expert;)
How much input did the manufacturers have in developing UL 1699? I don't have a clue I am asking.
 

MasterTheNEC

CEO and President of Electrical Code Academy, Inc.
Location
McKinney, Texas
Occupation
CEO
Well after all he did put in 800 AFCI's with no customer complaints!
As stated....never a single one...call it what you wish.....if you imply that I am a liar.....you have the burden of proof to state otherwise. It is what it is...installed them, got paid and never had a complaint over them. In fact, in one situation I installed them on my own dime because I was asked to install some recess cans and when I cut them in I noticed that a staple had been driven through the nonmetallic sheathed cable due to a change in crown molding size ....so if it happened once it was bound to happen again so I installed AFCI's even when the customer did not say put them in....because I believe in them....you can believe in what ever you want as I don't mind.
 

MasterTheNEC

CEO and President of Electrical Code Academy, Inc.
Location
McKinney, Texas
Occupation
CEO
How much input did the manufacturers have in developing UL 1699? I don't have a clue I am asking.
Here is the Roster for UL 1699- Producers, General, Testing, Supply Chain.....note IEC and UL on the committee as well as industry experts.

TIMOTHY ARENDTT ARENDTGeneral
STEVE CAMPOLOLEVITON MFG CO INCProducer
ADAM FLEDERTEGAM INCGeneral
JOHN GOODSELLHUBBELL INCSupply Chain
J JORDANSTATE FARM INSURANCE COGeneral
SUDESH KAMBLEINTERTEK TESTING SERVICESTesting & Stds Org
ROBERT L. LAROCCAUnderwriters Laboratories Inc.Testing & Stds Org
ED LARSENSCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USAProducer
DOUGLAS LEEU S CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSIONNon voting member
HOWARD LEOPOLDH LEOPOLDGeneral
KEVIN LIPPERTEATONProducer
T MARKSVICTOR CO OF JAPAN LTD C/O JVC AMERICAS CORPSupply Chain
J MASARICKINDEPENDENT ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS INCSupply Chain
Russ MillerSmiths PowerSupply Chain
D NEMIRX-L SYNERGY L L CSupply Chain
HRATCH NERKIZIANJARDEN CONSUMER SOLUTIONSSupply Chain
GREGORY NEUMANNWHIRLPOOL CORPSupply Chain
M O'BOYLELIGHTOLIER, DIV OF GENLYTE GROUP INCCommercial-Ind. User
T PACKARDPASS & SEYMOUR/LEGRANDProducer
KENNETH REMPESIEMENS INDUSTRY INCProducer
J RUGGIERIGENERAL MACHINE CORPGeneral
PATRICK SALASGENERAL ELECTRIC COProducer
BRADLEY J. SCHMIDTUnderwriters Laboratories Inc.Chair
PATRICIA A. SENAUnderwriters Laboratories Inc.Project Manager
R SPEHALSKILUTRON ELECTRONICS CO INCGeneral
GEORGI STANKOVTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH CORPProducer
 

mbrooke

Batteries Included
Location
United States
Occupation
Technician
Yeah...ok....your smarter than me....I know. You are an expert in AFCI Technology and decided to stop pioneering AFCI Technology in order to prove idiots like me wrong...lol....so be it.

As I whole, that's impossible to prove. You could be smarter than me, I could be smarter than you but chances are we are both smart in different ways that makes up equal. :)

My point is, out if the infinite amount of knowledge in the universe and human perception (99.9999999999999999999999999% of which is out of my grasp) I have seen a sliver of human technology that revolved around detecting arcs within a practical frame work.

I don't believe we should stop pioneering it. When the wave form analysis projects were being done in the past there was a need to pioneer an exact concept: the ability to differentiate between normal and abnormal arcs as well as outside interference. Easy? Not even close. But the ultimate take away was the need to improve, analyze, test and do it again and again over and over.

It was this that lead to a product that achieved a final goal.

One blessing was that the NESC did not require it, and still does not. So in theory it had time to evolve without being forced into the market prematurely. Can you imagine distribution and transmission circuits tripping at random through in a utility or the country?



Why should I even try....you need to read UL 1699 in its entirety and understand the devices meet the standards. If you believe the standard is wrong stop flapping your lips and change it....do not tell me their is no way for you to be involved....I know differently.

I have read the UL standards. And in so far those are not the issue. The issue is that the same mechanisms that allow an AFCI to pass a UL test can not distinguish between the very appliances that other UL test approved. Aka UL listed power supplies tripping UL approved AFCIs.

Its not UL, its the manufacturers. Ok, the manufactures cant produce a reliable AFCI for $40. That's cool, all technology needs to evolve and in no way am I against that. But should code mandate it? Should code mandate something so premature its doing more harm then good?







Those that whine the most...do nothing...but at this point what is the point really. And I hardly see your response as s scientific or theoretical at all.


Google papers that involve sensitive earth fault logic, mathematical morphology, wavlet analysis, ect ect applied to utility power system. Look at the AFCIs for medium voltage feeders that even tell you how far down the line the fault is. Id be shocked if those were not based on science.


In fact, I will have to find the paper, but some of the original AFCI design ideas for residential panels involved something similar to a central processer.


Im not whining, more like an intelligent debate, but here is the thing. I whine because to sit silent on a real world issue is unethical. All of us are brilliant experts. Most more than myself. And I would think its better this issue be discussed here than say a cooking forum.
 

mbrooke

Batteries Included
Location
United States
Occupation
Technician
Look...visit www.afcisafety.org and bring your beef. I'm done trying to convince a closed mind. I can easily explain the methods of detection, how characteristics are determined and why safe arcs are not detected but whats the point. I have grown tired of leading a fight of one on a forum that is closed minded and labels manufacturers as to the only cause of NEC inclusion.

Take your fight to UL 1699....otherwise you are pounding sand with your opinions...yes opinions but again what do I know on the subject....ask the obvious forum expert;)


How will an issue with manufactures be solved through UL? Its not that AFCIs are failing UL tests or the tests are to loose or strict...
 

mbrooke

Batteries Included
Location
United States
Occupation
Technician

donaldelectrician

Senior Member
Well after all he did put in 800 AFCI's with no customer complaints!



No , by different Code Cycles in different areas , and largely Commercial work , I have to date never installed a AFCI . I do feel for all the Electricians that have the burden of charging the customer for this troubled product , more so having to explain Why there is a problem .

My cabin would run on fuses .




Don
 

readydave8

re member
Location
Clarkesville, Georgia
Occupation
electrician
As stated....never a single one...call it what you wish.....if you imply that I am a liar.....you have the burden of proof to state otherwise. It is what it is...installed them, got paid and never had a complaint over them. In fact, in one situation I installed them on my own dime because I was asked to install some recess cans and when I cut them in I noticed that a staple had been driven through the nonmetallic sheathed cable due to a change in crown molding size ....so if it happened once it was bound to happen again so I installed AFCI's even when the customer did not say put them in....because I believe in them....you can believe in what ever you want as I don't mind.

I did not mean to imply that you are a liar.

Most of the time, when someone says they have never had any complaints, there is more to the story. Usually that they are not listening to their customer. This may not apply to your situation.

In response to your anecdotal evidence of 800 AFCI's and no complaints, here's my anecdotal evidence:

I probably have installed well under 800 AFCI's, due to changing nature of my work, mainly less new construction.

I've had 3 complaints.

On 2 "nuisance" tripping bedroom breakers, I switched breakers with another AFCI in the same panel, to isolate if problem was breaker or wiring. Both of these evidently stopped tripping, in both cases I asked the customer (maybe a year later in both cases) if breaker tripped same bedroom or started tripping other bedroom, both said problem went away after I interchanged breaker.

The third "nuisance" trip I solved by telling customer to plug vacuum in hall receptacle rather than bedroom receptacle.

Brands were CH on one, Siemens on one, the other I don't remember but was either Siemens or HO.

None of this proves anything, but does it seem strange that you and I have had such widely differing results?
 

MasterTheNEC

CEO and President of Electrical Code Academy, Inc.
Location
McKinney, Texas
Occupation
CEO
I did not mean to imply that you are a liar.

Most of the time, when someone says they have never had any complaints, there is more to the story. Usually that they are not listening to their customer. This may not apply to your situation.

In response to your anecdotal evidence of 800 AFCI's and no complaints, here's my anecdotal evidence:

I probably have installed well under 800 AFCI's, due to changing nature of my work, mainly less new construction.

I've had 3 complaints.

On 2 "nuisance" tripping bedroom breakers, I switched breakers with another AFCI in the same panel, to isolate if problem was breaker or wiring. Both of these evidently stopped tripping, in both cases I asked the customer (maybe a year later in both cases) if breaker tripped same bedroom or started tripping other bedroom, both said problem went away after I interchanged breaker.

The third "nuisance" trip I solved by telling customer to plug vacuum in hall receptacle rather than bedroom receptacle.

Brands were CH on one, Siemens on one, the other I don't remember but was either Siemens or HO.

None of this proves anything, but does it seem strange that you and I have had such widely differing results?

Not really to be honest with you. Due to the vast number of AFCI's sold in the US I would expect some people to have issues even if their are use/installer based. Heck I have a 2002 Jeep Grand and it 's at 140,000 miles and based on the internet my transmission should have failed by now but as with that I also have (knock on wood) not had the same issues some people have had. I was just giving you my personal perspective of my installs is all. Opinions being what they are I never really expected everyone to agree on this topic but i did hope for one or two open minds on the subject.:angel:
 

MasterTheNEC

CEO and President of Electrical Code Academy, Inc.
Location
McKinney, Texas
Occupation
CEO
Here is the paper from one of the originals on resi AFCIs. Note the processor:

https://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/98397/afci1.pdf


http://www.zlan.com/collin_county.htm


And there is this statement which I believe is key:


"Its pseudo GFI function will save thousands of lives."


http://www.mikeholt.com/mojonewsarchive/AFCI-HTML/HTML/AFCI_Inventor_Responds~20020814.htm


I only mention this because its RCD type protection that detects most hazardous conditions.

I am very familiar with those documents and equally familiar with Mr. Holts opinion to which I generally take with a grain of salt. However, I do hold Mr. Spencer and the folks that originally aided in the design of the DE Circuit Breaker in great regard. Now, it is assumed that when someone questions NEMA that it is a blanket discredit to all manufacturers that are collectively apart of NEMA but clearly the intent of the message was to the manufacturers who produce AFCI devices. I also believe that Mr. Holt sent out a letter to all of his members regarding AFCI's only to end up retracting the statements when he finally was able to visit the facility at Eaton with Dr. Engle and witness the testing process.

Look I am not blind to some potential issues and I am not discrediting anyones experiences at all, I can only say that I have not experienced them. However, I was privileged to travel around the country and meet with hundreds of electricians and inspectors and did not get any sense of the feeling that AFCI's had a wide spread problem. Sure, isolated issues that could be resolved by replacement or trouble-shooting but that is to be expected with any technical product that incorporates microprocessor technology. Again, is it perfect...obviously not; is it the best we have and to does it prevent potential arcs within the scope of the testing as shown in the supporting documents you have posted..Yes.

In terms of the GFI (GFP), it is assumed that because it has a protective theory of it's intended use, to protect the volitive circuitry in the devices themselves that it does add to the overall fire protective safety of the device. Well i will buy into the fact and even remove the assumed portion; yet UL is a paid association now who is charged with evaluating products for their intended use and currently under UL 1699 the GFI component is not required because it plays no role in the intended function of the product. While some manufacturers did (and some still do possibly) rely on this feature to pass the complete testing procedure for UL 1699 compliance others have obviously developed a method that passes without the GFI (GFP) function. What you are presenting is that experts believe that the GFI (GFP) function is a critical component that must be included and that when manufacturers leave that out they are some how immoral or pandering to the cost of production so I need to address that.

Firstly I represent a manufacturer (not of AFCI's) and our products are produced in accordance with UL standards. We do not shoot to exceed the standards, we shoot to meet the standards. This would be no different that an Electrician wiring a building in accordance with the NEC, the minimalist safe building that is legally permitted to be built. The choice to exceed the NEC is a design choice made by the installer and the client in accordance with economic factors, desire and needs. The manufacturer who chooses to simply produce to the standard is not to be vilified, they are to be accepted no differently.

AFCI technology speaking...on the most basic level of ARC detection their are specific characteristics that are replicable, modeled and perfectly acceptable to be used as foundation points in arc detection. The research that takes place are indeed now days done on finished product. However, continued research is constantly being done by the manufacturers to enhance the AFCI Technology because the manufacturing business is also a game of who gets it to market first and who enhances it to over shadow the competition, trust me (or not, thats your choice) every day manufacturers are trying to enhance and one-up the competition if only to say our product beats your product and NEMA, the collective body, can't restrict that competition.

When looking at the merits of a "premature" product as you stated and apply it to other technology that quite possibly have less interest on this forum. Nearly every year (seems like every day) a new iphone or android phone is produced as the latest and greatest. Sure I hear " But thats not required like AFCI's are and buying a new phone is a choice not a mandate " yet we are constantly being solicited with the latest and greatest things and consumers just have to buy. So how does that equate to AFCI's? Basically it will be impossible to simulate every known and unknown situation where as AFCI's would be that perfect holy grail product but clearly they have advanced from single circuit, combination type to multiwire branch circuit and now dual function type devices, they are advancing at a controlled pace and they have been proven to raise the level of safety against arcs detected that fall within the test characteristics at the least. However, to hold off on the technology that was available at the time because we fell it could be better is no different that going to a fortune teller and asking to know the lotto numbers for next weeks drawing; to delay would have been counter-productive to the effort to promote safety in my opinion.

I believe the problem originally was that AFCI's were touted as the Holy Grail and when random issues came to light (even if installer error) it tainted that statement made by various manufacturers or invested advocates but it does not diminish the technology and advancements in terms of arc detection at least in my less than intelligent mind.

I personally believe that the largest hurdle for manufacturers to overcome is the broadband noise generated within series arcs by specific products that is impossible to regulate (FCC). Looking for the peaks and spikes along and sudden drops in the waveform below zero point is easier to detect as in parallel arcs but the series arc has to be in my mind more of the challenge these devices face.

Rather than regurgitate the information in an effort to sound way smarter than I am as I am no AFCI applications engineer (obviously) I will simply post a document that will explain the various methods of Arc Detection. Every manufacturer provides this methodology in a similar way but the reason I posted this one is because it is from Siemens who I feel are pioneering the way on AFCI technology these days....which again is only my opinion. It is also important to note that I have very little contact within Siemens to sway my opinion while I know many leading experts at Eaton and Schneider and I still choose Siemens when I say they are cutting edge on AFCI development in my for what it's worth) opinion.

http://w3.usa.siemens.com/powerdist...i/1-pole-tabs/Documents/sie-cs-cafci-2007.pdf

In closing, are they perfect..No, Do they have issues with glowing connections (which i my mind are not arcs in the scope of UL 1699 but need to be evaluated) Possibly but the question is do they work as they were intended and as outlined in the scope of UL 1699 I believe yes. I happen to believe that characteristics are replicable in a vast many situations but not all situations. I have AFCI Combination Devices in my home, call me crazy (I know some will, they can't resist) but if they come out with a "Super-Duper Combination" AFCI device that the industry experts say will again raise the bar....I will buy it and as an electrical contractor (used to be) I will promote it for replacement to my customers right beside my Whole House Surge Protector marketing....:roll:

Blast away.....just my thoughts on the subject.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top