AFCI's being tripped by 25 watt radio 400 feet away. Video of it happening.

[mbrooke]

They hit the market a long time ago, and they are still not ready for real world use...at least for any functional use.

I agree. I think at this point since they are already required by code manufacturers are not to worried about ironing every single bug. :happyno:

 

[mbrooke]

Our state didn't adopt the part of the NEC that requires AFCIs for years. Then they caved in.

The only thing I have heard good about them comes from people that are making money selling them.

And those who get paid trouble shooting and/or taking them out.

I think that the ones that have GFP at least do more than the standard thermal magnetic breakers do, but have not been convinced that the arc fault detection part does anything worthwhile.

IMO the 30ma GFP is doing all the work. Its the 30ma that will accurately interrupt any arcing to ground, and its also caught a lot of sloppy electrical work in the process (over driven staples and hots/neutrals touching ground).

 

[jmellc]

AFCIs are a farce. As I said before you cant detect complex arc phenomenon reliably with the technology AFCI breakers use. These were not ready to hit the market let alone be code required. :happyno:

Mega dittoes on this. AFCI's have done nothing but run up the cost of work. I have replaced a lot of burned out switches and receptacles that didn't trip the AFCI's and they were supposedly made to prevent arcing. Nothing but junk that was shoved down our throats.

AFCI and backstabbing issues have caused me to lose a lot of respect for the NEC.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

... IMO the 30ma GFP is doing all the work. Its the 30ma that will accurately interrupt any arcing to ground, and its also caught a lot of sloppy electrical work in the process (over driven staples and hots/neutrals touching ground).

I agree that the GFP is doing most of the work, but at least one manufacturer has removed that function from their AFCIs. The AFCI standard does not require the GFP function.

 

[mbrooke]

Mega dittoes on this. AFCI's have done nothing but run up the cost of work. I have replaced a lot of burned out switches and receptacles that didn't trip the AFCI's and they were supposedly made to prevent arcing. Nothing but junk that was shoved down our throats.

AFCI and backstabbing issues have caused me to lose a lot of respect for the NEC.

I agree 100% on that. :happysad:

I agree that the GFP is doing most of the work, but at least one manufacturer has removed that function from their AFCIs. The AFCI standard does not require the GFP function.

GE has taken them out so MWBC can be used. However I heard the 2014 proposals were made to require 30ma in all AFCI breakers. Did this go through?

 

[chris kennedy]

Very cool video.:thumbsup:

 

[iwire]

AFCI and backstabbing issues have caused me to lose a lot of respect for the NEC.

As far as back stabbing the NEC is a safety code not a 'job quality standard' and as such should not be involved with things like that.

Quality issues should be between the customer and the contractor.

 

[kwired]

AFCI and backstabbing issues have caused me to lose a lot of respect for the NEC.

Backstabbing should be (and so far is) a listing issue and not a NEC issue. NEC does not prohibit backstabbing, if a device is designed and listed for such connection then it is allowed.

GE has taken them out so MWBC can be used. However I heard the 2014 proposals were made to require 30ma in all AFCI breakers. Did this go through?

I also believe that should be a listing issue and not a NEC issue. If the NEC's intent is to require 30ma GFCI protection then they should be requiring 30 mA GFCI protection instead of AFCI protection.

As far as allowing the device to work on MWBC's, I'm sure they are quite capable of designing a two or three pole unit whether it contains 30mA GFCI or not.

 

[mbrooke]

As far as back stabbing the NEC is a safety code not a 'job quality standard' and as such should not be involved with things like that.

Quality issues should be between the customer and the contractor.

Seems "safety" and "quality" are blurred in this case.

Backstabbing should be (and so far is) a listing issue and not a NEC issue. NEC does not prohibit backstabbing, if a device is designed and listed for such connection then it is allowed.

I also believe that should be a listing issue and not a NEC issue. If the NEC's intent is to require 30ma GFCI protection then they should be requiring 30 mA GFCI protection instead of AFCI protection.

As far as allowing the device to work on MWBC's, I'm sure they are quite capable of designing a two or three pole unit whether it contains 30mA GFCI or not.

They are capable but so far Im not seeing anythong promising. Ch had 2 pole AFCIs but the price makes 2 wires attractive. :happyno:

 

[jmellc]

As far as back stabbing the NEC is a safety code not a 'job quality standard' and as such should not be involved with things like that.

Quality issues should be between the customer and the contractor.

Think this through. NEC specifies such details as requiring a section of rigid conduit to have a coupling furnished. The code could easily regulate disallow this practice.

Don't try to tell me that a burning device is not a safety issue. Fortunately, very few I have seen turned into bigger fires but some do and I have yet to see an AFCI breaker stop it from happening.

As far as customer and contractor, most customers have no clue about backstabbing vs other methods. They have no ideas what to ask about and insist on. Even some electricians are not aware how unreliable backstabbing is if they do no do much service or warranty work.

The trash can is the only good place for AFCI's. Shame on the NEC and state authorities who went along with AFCI requirements.

 

[kwired]

Think this through. NEC specifies such details as requiring a section of rigid conduit to have a coupling furnished. The code could easily regulate disallow this practice.

Don't try to tell me that a burning device is not a safety issue. Fortunately, very few I have seen turned into bigger fires but some do and I have yet to see an AFCI breaker stop it from happening.

As far as customer and contractor, most customers have no clue about backstabbing vs other methods. They have no ideas what to ask about and insist on. Even some electricians are not aware how unreliable backstabbing is if they do no do much service or warranty work.

The trash can is the only good place for AFCI's. Shame on the NEC and state authorities who went along with AFCI requirements.

I agree that NEC oversteps its boundaries at times. I also don't like the AFCI's and some issues that go along with them.

A burning device is surely something that should be considered a safety issue, but the facts are that those connections are listed for the purpose. I have seen many screw terminals, wire nut type connections, and even set screw type lugs(large and small) that fail just as catastrophically, so should the NEC ban those as well? This is just one of those issues that is what it is, and if you don't like backstabbing you are certainly welcome to not use such connection types. Doesn't matter what the connection type is, if it develops some resistance for any reason, it is subject to fail due to heat in the connection.

 

[mbrooke]

Think this through. NEC specifies such details as requiring a section of rigid conduit to have a coupling furnished. The code could easily regulate disallow this practice.

Don't try to tell me that a burning device is not a safety issue. Fortunately, very few I have seen turned into bigger fires but some do and I have yet to see an AFCI breaker stop it from happening.

As far as customer and contractor, most customers have no clue about backstabbing vs other methods. They have no ideas what to ask about and insist on. Even some electricians are not aware how unreliable backstabbing is if they do no do much service or warranty work.

The trash can is the only good place for AFCI's. Shame on the NEC and state authorities who went along with AFCI requirements.

Amen to that! :thumbsup::happyyes:

 

[jmellc]

I agree that NEC oversteps its boundaries at times. I also don't like the AFCI's and some issues that go along with them.

A burning device is surely something that should be considered a safety issue, but the facts are that those connections are listed for the purpose. I have seen many screw terminals, wire nut type connections, and even set screw type lugs(large and small) that fail just as catastrophically, so should the NEC ban those as well? This is just one of those issues that is what it is, and if you don't like backstabbing you are certainly welcome to not use such connection types. Doesn't matter what the connection type is, if it develops some resistance for any reason, it is subject to fail due to heat in the connection.

Yes, I have seen screws & splices fail too but not nearly as often and usually not as badly as stabs. I have never seen properly tightened screws fail in the 1st year but that is not at all uncommon for stabs.

The fact that something is listed/labeled means zip, zilch & zero as to whether it holds up or not.

 

[K8MHZ]

Yes, I have seen screws & splices fail too but not nearly as often and usually not as badly as stabs. I have never seen properly tightened screws fail in the 1st year but that is not at all uncommon for stabs.

The fact that something is listed/labeled means zip, zilch & zero as to whether it holds up or not.

I have some Slater receptacles I saved to take pics of. They are not backstab, yet failed catastrophically. Luckily, the fire was contained in the box and only a wee bit of smoke damage was visible just above the cover. Good thing the box wasn't made by Slater, too.

 

[jmellc]

I have some Slater receptacles I saved to take pics of. They are not backstab, yet failed catastrophically. Luckily, the fire was contained in the box and only a wee bit of smoke damage was visible just above the cover. Good thing the box wasn't made by Slater, too.

I agree there. I never saw many Slater devices but the ones I saw were junky. As I recall, their boxes seemed OK. When I started in 1976, I don't recall seeing any other brands of plastic boxes in our area.

 

[kwired]

Yes, I have seen screws & splices fail too but not nearly as often and usually not as badly as stabs. I have never seen properly tightened screws fail in the 1st year but that is not at all uncommon for stabs.

The fact that something is listed/labeled means zip, zilch & zero as to whether it holds up or not.

You are absolutely right, and nothing says you have to use the stab connections, unless that is the only choice on your particular device.

I don't like stab connections for switches and receptacles myself - but have little issue with "Wago" or other similar splicing devices, at least so far. IMO they are a little different and are subject to different things that make them perform a little differently.

I have also seen 35 year old stabbed in receptacle connections that have not yet failed - good chance they never saw much significant load though.

 

[smmiller506]

Did anyone else notice that the same 3 breakers tripped every time? So where are those circuits in relation to the house and antenna? Nearest corner to antenna, farthest, highest level, or basement?

 

[jmellc]

You are absolutely right, and nothing says you have to use the stab connections, unless that is the only choice on your particular device.

I don't like stab connections for switches and receptacles myself - but have little issue with "Wago" or other similar splicing devices, at least so far. IMO they are a little different and are subject to different things that make them perform a little differently.

I have also seen 35 year old stabbed in receptacle connections that have not yet failed - good chance they never saw much significant load though.

Kwired, you bring up an excellent point. The stab splices in can lights and that you can buy in the jar are high quality. Ideal makes some of them. I asked an Ideal rep why they could make them right & why device mfrs could not. He said Ideal tested them many times over and would not put them on the general market until they were decent quality. They build their rep on putting wires together, whereas device mr's somehow don't have that concern. Strange but I don't doubt it.

Yes, I have seen some last for years too, but mostly on lightly loaded circuits and in buildings not subject to vibration.

 

[kwired]

Kwired, you bring up an excellent point. The stab splices in can lights and that you can buy in the jar are high quality. Ideal makes some of them. I asked an Ideal rep why they could make them right & why device mfrs could not. He said Ideal tested them many times over and would not put them on the general market until they were decent quality. They build their rep on putting wires together, whereas device mr's somehow don't have that concern. Strange but I don't doubt it.

Yes, I have seen some last for years too, but mostly on lightly loaded circuits and in buildings not subject to vibration.

My personal opinion on why those stab in splicers seem to have better results is partly because with them you make the connection and form the conductors into boxes putting little strain on the conductor/connection.

With back stabbed switches and receptacles, you make connections to the device and even if you form the conductors as best as you can you still end up pushing the device and attached conductor and put strain on the conductor/connection when doing so leaving that connection more vulnerable to failure then with the Wago's and similar splicing devices. Add to that the quality that you mentioned is probably not there, making things even even worse for the switches and receptacles. I have never seen back stab option on anything but low grade devices.