'Proof' that AFCI devices really locate arcs.

[mivey]

got 3 hours?.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rr_f2IzquB0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awXgoPlNyN4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DL5aon0nRI

~RJ~

Not buying it. Talk about over-dramatizing a failure to launch. Conspiracy theorists unite!

Essentially he came up with a thermal switch that creates a ground fault through a current limiting resistor. The logistics of changing wiring methods to make this work is not exactly the slam-dunk they indicate. If it were that simple it would have been snapped up. I can think of quite a few reasons it would be hard to sell and it needs a lot more development and thought.

 

[user 100]

It seemed to me that it was a thermal switch that created a ground fault through a current limiting resistor.

Seemed long on conspiracy and short on practical application. Every wirenut, device, terminal...yes every connection would need one of these. Can't begin to imagine what a pain that would be not to mention other things like box fill, added time, and who knows what else.

Watched this and thought the same thing. Would it work? Sure. Is it practical? Not in the least. We would have apply these things to several hundred billion connections nationwide. We already have a wide array of inexpensive wire connectors that function fine when used appropriately. We cannot prevent every fire, nor is it our responsibility to do so- imo its simply accepting about perfectly reasonable risk.

 

[peter d]

We cannot prevent every fire, nor is it our responsibility to do so- imo its simply accepting about perfectly reasonable risk.

Exactly. :thumbsup: That is the crux of the entire matter. An AFCI is a solution to a problem that does not exist. No product invented can ever counterbalance human error.

 

[growler]

Watched this and thought the same thing. Would it work? Sure. Is it practical? Not in the least. We would have apply these things to several hundred billion connections nationwide. We already have a wide array of inexpensive wire connectors that function fine when used appropriately. We cannot prevent every fire, nor is it our responsibility to do so- imo its simply accepting about perfectly reasonable risk.

In the UK they are afraid to use a wire nut but I don't see it.

Sure it's possible to have a poor connection and a melted wire nut, I don't know how many I have found over the years.

What I would like for them to do is demonstrate how a fire starts with all splices made in a junction box with the correct cover.

The basics of fire prevention say you need three things for a fire. Ignition source, fuel and oxygen.

This is the type of thing I have seen in the field. Perfectly safe new home. Carpenters do a bonus room finish and tap into an existing circuit for power. Flying splice in the attic. By the time I get there the taped splice was alread melting and exposed in the attic.

I'm sure that if there had been a fire it would have been documented as an electrical fire in a new home caused by poor wiring practices. The real problem was no permit on the bonus room finish so the contractor didn't bother to hire an electrician.

I'm thinking that at least half the bonus rooms and basement finishes in this area are done without permits and are not to code. I'm thinking this would be a pretty good place to start the search for the cause of electrical fires in new homes.

 

[iwire]

We cannot prevent every fire, nor is it our responsibility to do so-

:huh:

Preventing electrical fires is exactly the job of the NEC and the writers of it so I am a bit confused why you are saying that.

 

[mbrooke]

It seemed to me that it was a thermal switch that created a ground fault through a current limiting resistor.

Seemed long on conspiracy and short on practical application. Every wirenut, device, terminal...yes every connection would need one of these. Can't begin to imagine what a pain that would be not to mention other things like box fill, added time, and who knows what else.

I disagree, we already have these and no they aren't eating up box fill:

https://www.google.com/search?q=wag...Cw#imgrc=_&usg=__nn0Hk_TLJFkatTLpqJYToGqt6S4=


And thermal fuse technology isn't all that big:

https://www.google.com/search?q=the...cCRkrffxgIVgw6SCh38Dwdd#imgrc=YDTAW3A_STiYaM:

https://www.google.com/search?q=the...cCRkrffxgIVgw6SCh38Dwdd#imgrc=ZcIXgtpn7F1FeM:



Wouldn't be hard to put a thermal fuse in them.

 

[mbrooke]

Exactly. :thumbsup: That is the crux of the entire matter. An AFCI is a solution to a problem that does not exist. No product invented can ever counterbalance human error.

Or DIY/Handman hackery :lol::happyno:

 

[mbrooke]

Not buying it. Talk about over-dramatizing a failure to launch. Conspiracy theorists unite!

Im viewing it with an open mind, considering the power manufactures have to lobby the CMPs anything else is possible. The fact 1/3 of CMP members are manufacturing reps isnt a conspiracy.

Essentially he came up with a thermal switch that creates a ground fault through a current limiting resistor. The logistics of changing wiring methods to make this work is not exactly the slam-dunk they indicate. If it were that simple it would have been snapped up. I can think of quite a few reasons it would be hard to sell and it needs a lot more development and thought.

Can you give me your reasons?

IMO it hasn't snapped up because it threatens profits. A self fusing wire nut is like a standard circuit breaker. Why market something cheap and simply when you can sell expensive gadgets that never do anything.

No wiring method would need to be changed, it would simply be wago that automatically trips when a connection becomes dangerously hot.

Considering that the bulk of electrical fires are from loose connections and Eaton is working on an expensive, impractical solution to them this should be a legitimate alternative.

 

[romex jockey]

:huh:

Preventing electrical fires is exactly the job of the NEC and the writers of it so I am a bit confused why you are saying that.

One would assume so, since the NEC hails from the NFPA library

But the devil is in the details , especially in the markets response to electrical fires.

This is where all the canned studies mislead us, hanging hat on fire stats which are shaky at best , or worse trying to insinuate electrical fundamentals of their own based on them.

One can read the cognitive dissonance ,as well as the plausible deniability inherent in them, typical of any junk science.

That said , i think we can..... as field sparks..... probably agree on what we ALL see as the numero uno incendiary electrical event in our trade

~RJ~

 

[romex jockey]

The basics of fire prevention say you need three things for a fire. Ignition source, fuel and oxygen.

.

referred to as the fire tetrahedron Growler.....

~RJ~

 

[templdl]

After we beat the heck out of AFCIs as being insomuch as ineffective adding needless expense to electrical instalation is it of the general opinion that this device that detects glowing connections is impractical and not a viable alternative to them?
If so does this sort of put this subject to bed or should we beat on it some more?

 

[mbrooke]

After we beat the heck out of AFCIs as being insomuch as ineffective adding needless expense to electrical instalation is it of the general opinion that this device that detects glowing connections is impractical and not a viable alternative to them?
If so does this sort of put this subject to bed or should we beat on it some more?

Ok, not sure if others will agree but this is my take. If the NEC really wanted to address electrical fires and mandate something they should have gone with tackling glowing connections. Why?

1. It is believed the majority of electrical fires are caused by loose connections, so why not start here.

2. Self fusing wire splices are cheap to make, we already have to buy wire nuts/connectors so half the cost is already covered.

3. GCI technology does not nuisance trip.

4. There are no electronics that can fail like an AFCI breaker

5. No extra labor and no trouble shooting.

6. loose connection are detected locally and nipped in the bud: the circuit simply opens.

You cant get any simpler than that. People will probably grumble at first, but once people see no noticeable difference or side effects they will move on. Anyone with a space heater and lab bench can see it for themselves. As the technology begins to prove itself worthwhile years down the road people will see them as another step in safety much like GFCIs in damp locations.

Look at it this way:

$100 per home to stop 90 to 95% of all electrical fires

OR

$1,200 per home to stop only 0.5% of electrical fires

 

[growler]

1. It is believed the majority of electrical fires are caused by loose connections, so why not start here.

2. Self fusing wire splices are cheap to make, we already have to buy wire nuts/connectors so half the cost is already covered.

Does this splice depend on current flow or heat. If they are sensitive to an over load because of current flow it might not work out so well. That was the whole idea of a breaker so that it could be reset.

I can see such a device for a light fixture but for receptacles I think the splice would have to be incorporated into the receptacle design. If it's not part of the receptacle it wouldn't cover all the places it's possible to have a loose connection.

These are just thoughts.

 

[mbrooke]

Does this splice depend on current flow or heat. If they are sensitive to an over load because of current flow it might not work out so well. That was the whole idea of a breaker so that it could be reset.

Heat, joule heating can occur at just about any current magnitude.

I can see such a device for a light fixture but for receptacles I think the splice would have to be incorporated into the receptacle design. If it's not part of the receptacle it wouldn't cover all the places it's possible to have a loose connection.

These are just thoughts.

I agree, its doable and in theory better. A feed through design would save on extra connectors.

 

[iwire]

2. Self fusing wire splices are cheap to make, we already have to buy wire nuts/connectors so half the cost is already covered.

I do not understand, first off I do not know what a self fusing splice is but we have a ton of quite good splicing methods available to us now. When they do fail it will most likely due to installer error.

Why would we think there would not be installer errors with this self fusing splice?

 

[mbrooke]

I do not understand, first off I do not know what a self fusing splice is but we have a ton of quite good splicing methods available to us now. When they do fail it will most likely due to installer error.

Why would we think there would not be installer errors with this self fusing splice?

There could be, but it would be a lot more difficult to screw up a self fusing splice because any loose connection would cause heating and trip it.


Also, I partly disagree on installer error. Back stabbed outlets are legal, but we all know they fail more. Even screw terminals while best, can loosen up over time through vibration.

 

[iwire]

There could be, but it would be a lot more difficult to screw up a self fusing splice because any loose connection would cause heating and trip it.

Can you show me one of these widgets?

Also, I partly disagree on installer error. Back stabbed outlets are legal, but we all know they fail more.

You said it was a splice not a termination.

Even screw terminals while best, can loosen up over time through vibration.

IMO you are really overarching here. Certainly with numbers of screw connections there will be some that will fail but are the numbers significant enough to worry about?

I am very interested what a device like a duplex receptacle would look like with fusing termination.

 

[mbrooke]

Can you show me one of these widgets?

Starting at 10:38, widget appears at 11:31. Yes its a bit bulky but keep in mind its a prototype:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DL5aon0nRI

You said it was a splice not a termination.

Both are equally at risk.

IMO you are really overarching here. Certainly with numbers of screw connections there will be some that will fail but are the numbers significant enough to worry about?

I am very interested what a device like a duplex receptacle would look like with fusing termination.

Im sure they will look the same as regular outlets, everything will be built into them at the time of manufacture.

 

[winnie]

Nice conspiracy theory style video.

The device shown looks like it somehow triggers the breaker to trip. Perhaps as simple as creating an intentional (current limited???) ground fault if it overheats.

-Jon

 

[user 100]

:huh:

Preventing electrical fires is exactly the job of the NEC and the writers of it so I am a bit confused why you are saying that.

Um, never said it wasn't and not sure why the confusion, iwire. I stated that we cannot prevent all electrical fires because well, we can't. We can try to mitigate known reasonable hazards and we do so sucessfully everyday. There is nothing reasonable about individual fusing for billions of terminations and joints when most of those connections will never cause any issues nor is there anything logical about the NEC mandating a small microprocessor to "fix" a potential problem that the industry has long had more viable cost effective solutions for. Why go through the trouble of assuming responsibility for a problem then come up with answers that are impractical, expensive, and ineffective?

When we go out to customers home and find a panel that is nearing the end of its life expectancy, we can't force them to have it replaced. Nor should we. We can only educate them about the established known hazards that we have determined to exist. We cannot babysit them, and we can't guarantee that they won't hire the unqualified. We cannot gripe about that one cheap customer, or worry to the n about hypotheticals about every conceivable hazard that may or may not have existed. It is ultimately up the customer to decide what they want, it is up to us to give it to them (code compliantly) and we (not always) will meet in the middle. We shouldn't be responsible for a customers conscious decision to misuse their own accessories and it reaches a point where normal concern for an installation becomes irrational. I still believe in the NECs mission as it is undeniable that the confluence of knowledge that gives us our "bible" has only made installations safer. But the NEC needs to return to common sense and practicality, not continue to push gimmicks.