20 amp AFCI tripping on load

Status
Not open for further replies.
Manuals for treadmills state they are not compatible with GFCI outlets.

Here is one I randomly picked.

http://fitness.manualsonline.com/manuals/mfg/proform/proform_1150i_pftl13540.html?idRes=1619982

This is from the ProForm support page

[h=1]GFCI/AFCI Outlets[/h] GFCI (Ground Fault Circuit Interrupter) or AFCI (Arc Fault Circuit Interrupter) outlets in your home and your exercise equipment don?t and probably won?t ever get along with each other. GFCI and AFCI outlets are designed to protect you and your home.

Due to the design, amperage requirements, and the way that electric motors work, if you find that your treadmill is tripping the switch on either of these types of circuits or outlets you will need to move your treadmill to a standard outlet or circuit.

GFCI ? Ground Fault
As part of the design of your treadmill or incline trainer the ground is used to disperse a lot of extra static energy. This use of the ground will cause your GFCI outlet to trip the button every time you use your exercise equipment, and you will have to press reset.

AFCI ? Arc Fault
Your treadmill runs on an electric motor. These motors as part of normal use may arc within the motor. This may cause the Arc Fault breaker to trip.
Tags: afci, breaker, circuit, gfci, outlet, trip
Click to expand...

This search shows that treadmills are notorious for tripping AFCI's.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=treadmill+trips+afci&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz35
 
K8MHZ said:
Manuals for treadmills state they are not compatible with GFCI outlets.

Here is one I randomly picked.

http://fitness.manualsonline.com/manuals/mfg/proform/proform_1150i_pftl13540.html?idRes=1619982

This is from the ProForm support page



This search shows that treadmills are notorious for tripping AFCI's.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=treadmill+trips+afci&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz35
Click to expand...

"As part of the design of your treadmill or incline trainer the ground is used to disperse a lot of extra static energy"

:lol::lol: That a good one. I think it has something to do with the AC being rectified and the negative then grounded? I have no clue.
 
The only relevant background information that I can think of is that both the friction of the belt over its rollers and the friction of footwear against the belt may continuously generate substantial amounts of static electricity.
What if anything that has to do with either GFCI or AFCI operation eludes me though.


Tapatalk!
 
GoldDigger said:
The only relevant background information that I can think of is that both the friction of the belt over its rollers and the friction of footwear against the belt may continuously generate substantial amounts of static electricity.
What if anything that has to do with either GFCI or AFCI operation eludes me though.


Tapatalk!
Click to expand...

It was explained to me that the static was from friction of the belt to the surface beneath it. Electrons are physically being moved from the belt to the metal of the frame from that friction.

The resulting change in potential may be high enough to transfer reactively to one of the current carrying conductors, possibly causing the protective device to trip.

I also found this on a search. It's over three years old. Dennis predicts the future:

If the treadmill states that it must not be plugged into a GFCI then it needs to be installed where there are no GFCI's required. I would also bet an AFCI could cause similar issues.
Click to expand...

http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=121383
 
So we install the mandated AFCI's on bascially every 120v circuit in a new home, then suffer the call backs because the customer plugs in a device that trips the AFCI.

Since there is no solution to the customers problems with the AFCI's installed, we have them sign paperwork accepting responsibility for removing the AFCI's, and we jerk the suckers out! :rant:
 
K8MHZ said:
It was explained to me that the static was from friction of the belt to the surface beneath it. Electrons are physically being moved from the belt to the metal of the frame from that friction.

The resulting change in potential may be high enough to transfer reactively to one of the current carrying conductors, possibly causing the protective device to trip.

I also found this on a search. It's over three years old. Dennis predicts the future:



http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=121383
Click to expand...

DC, which static is, will not transfer reactively to anything unless you are using superconductors.
The discharge of static will be a voltage and current pulse which may transfer.
I could see the current being high enough to trip a GFCI since it is sensitive to less than half a cycle, but not the arc signature part of an AFCI.

Tapatalk!
 
Would seem to me the most obvious solution is the treadmill's could use some redesign to eliminate static buildup if that is the problem. Even without GFCI or AFCI involvement, should someone plug into a non grounding receptacle you kind of have your own Van de Graaff generator going there.
 
electricguy61 said:
So we install the mandated AFCI's on bascially every 120v circuit in a new home, then suffer the call backs because the customer plugs in a device that trips the AFCI.

Since there is no solution to the customers problems with the AFCI's installed, we have them sign paperwork accepting responsibility for removing the AFCI's, and we jerk the suckers out! :rant:
Click to expand...

Your stomach is going to turn over, supposedly fridges need to be AFCI protected:sick::jawdrop:
 
I have a few motors that all run around 1750 RPM on 120V. Maybe they should just start putting those on the treadmills with an off/on switch. Who needs incline or variable speed? :slaphead:
 
Here is what I am anxiously waiting for: A dwelling fire where there were afci breakers installed and it clearly gets traced to an arcing fault that starts the fire. Kabam! I wanna be that lucky attorney that gets that case. And when it is over and I see the CEO of Cuttler Hammer standing on the corner of Hotel Street panhandling, so he can scrape together enough dough to buy a hamburger since he is now starving, justice will be mine...
 
macmikeman said:
Here is what I am anxiously waiting for: A dwelling fire where there were afci breakers installed and it clearly gets traced to an arcing fault that starts the fire. Kabam! I wanna be that lucky attorney that gets that case. And when it is over and I see the CEO of Cuttler Hammer standing on the corner of Hotel Street panhandling, so he can scrape together enough dough to buy a hamburger since he is now starving, justice will be mine...
Click to expand...


In a perfect world perhaps, but once a fire starts differentiating an exact cause is difficult. I can see the AFCI requirement back firing on fridges though, possibly some front load washers with variable speed motor inverters.


We will just have to wait and see.
 
macmikeman said:
Here is what I am anxiously waiting for: A dwelling fire where there were afci breakers installed and it clearly gets traced to an arcing fault that starts the fire. Kabam! I wanna be that lucky attorney that gets that case. And when it is over and I see the CEO of Cuttler Hammer standing on the corner of Hotel Street panhandling, so he can scrape together enough dough to buy a hamburger since he is now starving, justice will be mine...
Click to expand...

Except... not one manufacturer that I've been able to identify claims that they will prevent a fire. They all play it safe by saying that the devices are "an additional layer of protection" or something similar. Not one manufacturer has a system in place to update the arc fault definitions in the devices (you are supposed to upgrade them as they age). I haven't even seen a recommendation to install TVSS in the panel with them to protect the electronics. You'd think that they'd at least want that if they were truly designed to save lives and property...

If someone dies in a fire that wasn't prevented by AFCI technology, the CEO will just "Keep calm and carry on."
 
jaylectricity said:
Not really. Isn't the AFCI mostly to protect the internal wiring in the walls?
Click to expand...
Well it does monitor premises wiring, but they also claim to protect from pinched cords and other similar problems with non premises wiring. I think most problems outside of the "glowing" connection that are of concern are usually existing in whatever is plugged in. The pinched cables, staples in cables, and other similar issues can be fairly well protected by GFCI technology as has been mentioned many times not only in this thread but many others as well.

PetrosA said:
I have a few motors that all run around 1750 RPM on 120V. Maybe they should just start putting those on the treadmills with an off/on switch. Who needs incline or variable speed? :slaphead:
Click to expand...
won't change the fact that the belt maybe generates static electricity as it moves.

Recently had a fire at the house of a friend of mine. Appears to have started at a receptacle. There was practically nothing left of this receptacle to determine why it started there, at least when I was there. There was no remnants to be found of an outlet box, I only found one "bus" of the duplex was still attached to a conductor but did not find any other part of the receptacle. Firemen may have disturbed it and that is why I didn't find it, but luckily the damage was somewhat limited in this case - the occupants were home and it was put out before it got far out of control. But all indications of how things burned point to the general area where that receptacle was located as the starting point. My guess is glowing connection, but can not actually confirm that either. Who knows if AFCI would have made any difference.
 
PetrosA said:
The treadmill won't have to run for very long and I doubt much static electricity will develop. I call it the "Ten Second Workout."
Click to expand...
Well maybe you should market these, the title alone is probably going to sell many units:cool:


BTW many motors already in use likely run closer to 1800 rpm (at full speed) or even higher than that, but there is gear, pulley, etc. reduction before driving the belt.:p
 
jaylectricity said:
Not really. Isn't the AFCI mostly to protect the internal wiring in the walls?
Click to expand...
The original proposals for AFCIs said that about 40% of the dwelling unit fires that are said to be of electrical origin were caused by the fixed wiring of the dwelling unit...a number that I think is high.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
The original proposals for AFCIs said that about 40% of the dwelling unit fires that are said to be of electrical origin were caused by the fixed wiring of the dwelling unit...a number that I think is high.
Click to expand...
Me too. Outside of the "glowing connection" that the AFCI will not detect, I really don't think the fixed wiring causes much trouble very often. Misuse of heat producing lighting or appliances is closest thing to that issue, and AFCI really doesn't help much there either.

It has always also amused me even before AFCI came along that for decades it has been deemed NM cable is not safe for commercial use buildings, especially places of assembly, where you have many people and chances are someone will be alert enough to notify others of a fire condition if that should happen, yet it is just fine to install it in our dwellings where we sleep at night:roll:
 
Last edited:
kwired said:
Me too. Outside of the "glowing connection" that the AFCI will not detect, I really don't think the fixed wiring causes much trouble very often. Misuse of heat producing lighting or appliances is closest thing to that issue, and AFCI really doesn't help much there either.
...
Click to expand...
Especially since a UL study on damaged NM showed that hammer damage and over driven staples do not cause fires.
The following is from a UL report dated 11/16/2012 and named "Investigation of Damage and Degradation on Breakdown Voltage of NM Cables".
... To evaluate the probability of arcing when NM cables have lowered breakdown voltages, hammer-damaged and aged NM cable samples were tested per UL1449 (Standard for Surge Protective Devices). This test showed despite a breakdown voltage lower than the surge voltage (using 6kV surges on samples with breakdown voltages below 5kV), 9% of the hammer-damaged and 2% of the hammer-damaged and then aged samples exhibited arcing after the surge occurred. All of these observed arcs were approximately 1.7ms in duration, meaning that the arcing was longer than the surge event (i.e., supplied by 120VAC), but self-extinguished within a single AC half-cycle. These events did not have enough energy to ignite NM cable insulation and were not sustained for more than one half-cycle, a duration that is not expected to trip an AFCI and is shorter than the UL1699 eight half-cycle criterion. To evaluate whether subsequent damage would increase arcing duration or sustainability, samples were tested using 300 voltage surges to understand how likely the repeated voltage surge and arcing may result in sustainable arcing and ignite the NM cable insulation. But these tests did not show any sustained arcing. ...
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top