20 amp AFCI breaker trips on laundry circuit

[ELA]

I suggest that this is only a problem for the AFCI manufacturers...they need to make their product compliant with the real world. If they can't then they need to withdraw the product from the market.
In light of a recent UL study on damaged NM cable that shows it is almost impossible to create an arc with enough energy to start a fire, I am not sure that the AFCIs do anything more than make money for those involved.

As far as the CE marking, as it is a self marking system, no third party verification, I have no use for it. It means nothing to me as I don't trust manufacturers to self certify.

How nice that you have no use for CE marking. Not much of a world market view however.

We had ETL, a third party, test , verify and document EMC compliance on all equipment we sold overseas as well as to any Semiconductor manufacturing facility in the US.
That had the side benefit of greatly improving the quality of our products for anyone purchasing them whether they required compliance or not.

Manufacturers who want to continue selling overseas take compliance very seriously unless they want to be banded from any future sales.

 

[kwired]

If the AFCI is looking at a current signature rather than a voltage signature, then no filtering on the line side of the AFCI would help. It would have to be on the load side. And probably the closer to the load the better.

Agree, current is going to be same throughout the circuit, voltage is different at different points of a circuit.

 

[Ohms law]

Agree, current is going to be same throughout the circuit, voltage is different at different points of a circuit.

Sorry if I don't understand. You are saying a surge protector would not do any good but a EMI filter would work if installed on load side? Or is that a stupid question?

 

[Volta]

And don't forget that many AFCI breakers will also trip because of ground faults.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

How nice that you have no use for CE marking. Not much of a world market view however.
...

As far as I know that is not accepted anywhere that requires the use of a listed product. I don't have an issue with their standards, just the fact that a CE is a self evaluation and I want to see a third party mark.
In order to trust that mark, you have to believe what the manufacturers tell you...something I won't do, especially given what happened with the AFCIs.

 

[kwired]

Sorry if I don't understand. You are saying a surge protector would not do any good but a EMI filter would work if installed on load side? Or is that a stupid question?

I am saying in a basic circuit the current measures the same at every point in the circuit, it should not matter where you place the afci, it will still see the same current.

Voltage at different points within that same circuit can and will vary depending on impedances of different portions of the circuit. If an AFCI is responding to transient voltages somehow created in the circuit, keeping those transient voltages from appearing across the AFCI will mean it never sees them. Any sudden change in current will be a change that happens everywhere in the circuit, one particular point may have the reason for the change, but the current is different in all parts of the circuit than it was before the change.

 

[GoldDigger]

I am saying in a basic circuit the current measures the same at every point in the circuit, it should not matter where you place the afci, it will still see the same current.

Voltage at different points within that same circuit can and will vary depending on impedances of different portions of the circuit. If an AFCI is responding to transient voltages somehow created in the circuit, keeping those transient voltages from appearing across the AFCI will mean it never sees them. Any sudden change in current will be a change that happens ev erywhere in the circuit, one particular point may have the reason for the change, but the current is different in all parts of the circuit than it was before the change.

But, since parts of the surge protector or EMI filter are in parallel with the load, they can cause the load current and the current seen by the AFCIto be different.
That cannot happen when they are in the line side.

 

[Ohms law]

But, since parts of the surge protector or EMI filter are in parallel with the load, they can cause the load current and the current seen by the AFCIto be different.
That cannot happen when they are in the line side.

So neither would not do any good to help prevent nuisance trip.

 

[GoldDigger]

So neither would not do any good to help prevent nuisance trip.

An EMI filter and possibly a surge protector with parallel capacitance could certainly help on the load side of the AFCI, since they can prevent the AFCI from seeing the high frequency components of the false arc signature.
But on the load side absolutely nothing you can do would help, IMHO.

 

[Ohms law]

An EMI filter and possibly a surge protector with parallel capacitance could certainly help on the load side of the AFCI, since they can prevent the AFCI from seeing the high frequency components of the false arc signature.
But on the load side absolutely nothing you can do would help, IMHO.

Well then that's that. I was really searching for resolution. I know it was not the wire and people say different AFCI's have different firmware than others. I have never ran into this nor has anyone that I have worked with heard of it happening. Usually when I have issues with AFCI's it's as simple as changing the AFCI breaker or there is an issue with the circuit. Thank you all for the responses, I certainly appreciate them.

 

[kwired]

An EMI filter and possibly a surge protector with parallel capacitance could certainly help on the load side of the AFCI, since they can prevent the AFCI from seeing the high frequency components of the false arc signature.
But on the load side absolutely nothing you can do would help, IMHO.

Did you mean line?

We are getting away from the basic circuit I mentioned, and any high frequency components exchanged between the load and the EMI/surge protector would be more complex circuits and conditions, but yes, if you can find a way to keep the offending component from reaching the AFCI you help minimize the "nuisance" tripping.

This may someday become like when people buy radar detectors to help prevent speeding tickets, the AFCI manufacturers can now develop another product to sell to the disgruntled AFCI owners to prevent nuisance tripping

 

[shortcircuit2]

Cutler Hammer told me to use a Surge Trap. They even mailed one to one of my customers. I have seen a surge strip stop an AFCI from tripping with an old vacuum.

 

[ActionDave]

..... develop another product to sell to the disgruntled AFCI owners to prevent nuisance tripping

Million dollar idea right there. Thousand million dollar idea actually.

 

[GoldDigger]

Did you mean line?

Indeed I did. Thanks.

With enough evidence that the trip is really false, I can see putting a filter right at the offending device, at least as an interim measure. But putting one ritght at the load side of the AFCI breaker itself would probably reduce if not completely cancel the ability of the AFCI to detect real arcs.

 

[ptonsparky]

Indeed I did. Thanks.

With enough evidence that the trip is really false, I can see putting a filter right at the offending device, at least as an interim measure. But putting one ritght at the load side of the AFCI breaker itself would probably reduce if not completely cancel the ability of the AFCI to detect real arcs.

This is what bothers me about add on solutions. Did we fix the problem or create additional one?

 

[kwired]

This is what bothers me about add on solutions. Did we fix the problem or create additional one?

Then add additional contradictions that already come with the AFCI, and it appears as though all we did was throw unnecessary money at a problem there maybe isn't really a solution for.