A Publication AFCI manufacturers and CMPs don't want you to read

[mbrooke]

See you are just naive, the manufacturers, CMP members, the CPSC, the public and private educators, libraries and even the internet have all gotten together in conclusion to prevent our education so that AFCIs would be blindly excepted.

Isn't that obvious? :lol:

Never said this. Its as easy as manufactures, CPSC, ESFI and other key players withholding information. When that happens everyone is left in the dark...

 

[mbrooke]

Really? And just who withheld my schooling in regards to electrical Theory?

The same system(s) (what ever that may be) which taught electricians for decades that the purpose of a ground rod was to trip a breaker. I am not making inundations, but just a conjecture atm.


If that myth still continued to this day, it would not be hard for manufactures to take advantage of this and sell elaborate and expensive grounding schemes, especially when each rod on average comes around 25 ohms. Same can be done with a negative, where no information exists at all and a perceived authority figure claims to fill it.

We can debate the effectiveness of AFCI all day long, but to insinuate that NFPA selects ignorant people to forward an specific agenda is absurd.

Chris

Then how did a device get mandated that did not even exist as the time and some CMP members are still skeptical? Why is the NEC headed in the direction that its in?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

How ever it works. So if they are complete crap, how is that the vote is 10 for, 0 against and 1 abstaining? Nobody should be able to shove something down the throats of the whole committee. Is anyone in this forum on a code making panel?

With the information they were fed, I can see why many would vote in favor. There was a huge PR campaign with lots of misinformation. The original proposal was, in my opinion, fraud. The information provided to the CMP said they had a device that could do what they now tell us the combination AFCI will do...the only issue is that the combination AFCI did not hit the market until some 13 years later. After the fact they have also backed way off on saying that an AFCI can detect and clear a high resistance connection....the AFCI cannot do that.

There are no real studies that get down to the real details of the actual cause of the electrical fire...was it some type of an arc or some type of joule heating?

In my opinion there are a lot more fires caused by joule heating than by a self sustaining arc at 120 volts....I am not even convinced that self sustaining arcs even exist at 120 volts. The rules in 210.13, 215.10 and 230.95 strongly imply that they don't exist at the lower voltages.

 

[mbrooke]

I agree, but here is what bothers me. A person or agency making a proposal can construct the most elaborate fraud possible, however it is the job of CMP to see that and turn it down.

 

[ICC]

With the information they were fed, I can see why many would vote in favor. There was a huge PR campaign with lots of misinformation. The original proposal was, in my opinion, fraud. The information provided to the CMP said they had a device that could do what they now tell us the combination AFCI will do...the only issue is that the combination AFCI did not hit the market until some 13 years later. After the fact they have also backed way off on saying that an AFCI can detect and clear a high resistance connection....the AFCI cannot do that.

Hello don_resqcapt19, you are right. No protection in a panel can detect a hot spot in a circuit. It's just impossible. And we are numerous to think that it's the first part of real problem of electrical fires.

There are no real studies that get down to the real details of the actual cause of the electrical fire...was it some type of an arc or some type of joule heating?

In fact, there are lot of studies. By manufacturers, insurances companies (I saw with my eyes and I was not alone) and even "antique" studies (1977). Everybody knows that glowing connections are the main cause of electrical fire...

But in countries that use patterns like those used in North America, it is more difficult to realize...But manufacturers, engineers, people in charge of the standardization necessarily know that glowing connections are THE problem. it. just look at what is happening elsewhere ... And for some it is their job, the market and technologies are globalized.

It is common knowledge, in countries that use (for decades) differential devices at the top of circuits, circuit breakers very sensitive (with coil) no neutral bus and a separate ground wire (EGP) of neutral, it sees itself as "the nose on the face". And electricians know perfectly it too.

Simply look at how will appear THE favorable elements to ignite a fire. It's not complicated...

In my opinion there are a lot more fires caused by joule heating than by a self sustaining arc at 120 volts....I am not even convinced that self sustaining arcs even exist at 120 volts. The rules in 210.13, 215.10 and 230.95 strongly imply that they don't exist at the lower voltages.

You are right again.

Best regards,

ICC-

 

[ICC]

Thats my point, AFCIs breakers are glorified GFCIs, and some still are. Going even deeper they are entirely based around knocking off the IECs system of arc mitigation (GFP and low mag trip breaker). All that was needed were doctored studies to say that same problems that occur on a 230 volt system can also occur on 120 volts in order to justify their validity.

But again, even if this could happen at 120 volts, the video itself reinforces the fact GFCI/GFP would do the job:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPlELdH0KeM


Is this what you were thinking?


Apologies ahead of time, and thank you

No problem, I'm busy too...

I think a lack of isolation can generate either a short circuit or an earth leakage. (And it will also produce a hot spot).

In both cases the defect can be detected precociously (before the arcs and everything else) with the differential devices (must be used in France in all the houses since the 60s) or by sensitive circuit breakers used in France since the 80s or micro-fuses in the devices.

In 90% of cases, no fire and not need expensive AFCI for it!

Hot spots by Joule Effect (like Glowing connections) do not create detectable defects and allow time to favorable element to the ignition of the fire to form.

And IMO this is the real problem of electrical fires...

Sorry for my English,

Best regards,

ICC-

 

[romex jockey]

So the more objective consumer based view would be, why has there not been a class action suit to confront this product?

We now have a publication detailing a long list of collusion involving multiple agencies

We have a number of perennial names who have circulated through them over the years

We have NFPA EE's questioning functionality

We have a doctorate level nema-afci task force member doing the same

We've seen an abundance of rop activity pursuant to this in recent times

We're lousy with 'manufacturers studies' changing the fundamentals of electrical physics

We've statistical analysis portraying it's ineffective future

~RJ~

 

[mbrooke]

No problem, I'm busy too...

I think a lack of isolation can generate either a short circuit or an earth leakage. (And it will also produce a hot spot).

At 230 volts it can be a real concern (parallel arcing), and that is where GFP and mag tripping come in. The folks who started the AFCI ball rolling saw that and re-wrote physics to justify those techniques needing to be stretched to 120 volt systems.

In both cases the defect can be detected precociously (before the arcs and everything else) with the differential devices (must be used in France in all the houses since the 60s) or by sensitive circuit breakers used in France since the 80s or micro-fuses in the devices.

In 90% of cases, no fire and not need expensive AFCI for it!

And all the folks working on AFCI development knew that. The magnetic trip levels of North American circuit breakers where obsessed about for decades and many folks came about preaching with a voice of authority that those high levels were responsible for the bulk of electrical fires. When the electronic version of magnetic tripping became a failure, manufactures had to resort to GFP in order to get AFCIs to do anything.


The logic here for any sane person would be why not just scrap low mag trip coils and arc signature analysis for GFP? In truth they could, but if they did thats an entire product line (price point) chucked out the window as GFCIs would just expand instead of GFCIs and AFCIs like we see today. Sure experts in the industry will argue short circuits (arcing) in cords without an EGC, and the easy solution to that is an inline fuse contained within the cord cap.

Hot spots by Joule Effect (like Glowing connections) do not create detectable defects and allow time to favorable element to the ignition of the fire to form.

And IMO this is the real problem of electrical fires...

IMO, the bulk of actual electrical fires come from joule heating. But again, the lies continue with glowing connections being called "glowing arcs" or simply being labelled as "series arc faults" all together. This is basically what we saw in the beginning when branch feeder AFCIs where said to do what combination AFCIs now do. Today we see manufactures claiming that combination AFCIs do what they can not: trip on glowing connections.


The paper posted in this article makes mention of that.

Sorry for my English,

Best regards,

ICC-

No, good English, very eloquently said

 

[mbrooke]

So the more objective consumer based view would be, why has there not been a class action suit to confront this product?

We now have a publication detailing a long list of collusion involving multiple agencies

We have a number of perennial names who have circulated through them over the years

We have NFPA EE's questioning functionality

We have a doctorate level nema-afci task force member doing the same

We've seen an abundance of rop activity pursuant to this in recent times

We're lousy with 'manufacturers studies' changing the fundamentals of electrical physics

We've statistical analysis portraying it's ineffective future

~RJ~

And lets not forget some major contradictions, at least for those who know the history of AFCIs:

2-77 Log #2097 NEC-P02 Final Action: Reject

(210.12)
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Joseph C. Engel, Monroeville, PA
Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:
210.12 Are-Fault Circuit-Interrupter Protection.
Exception No. 1 (delete entire exception)
Exception No. 2 (delete entire exception)
Exception No. 3:
(B) Branch Circuit Extension or Modification – Dwelling Units. In any of
the areas specified in 210.12(A), where branch-circuit wiring is modified,
replaced, or extended, the branch circuit shall be protected by one of the
following:
(1) A a listed combination-type AFCI located at the origin of the branch
circuit
(2) A listed combination-type AFCI located at the first receptacle outlet of the
existing branch circuit

Substantiation: The Problem:
The text to be deleted is required to insure that a home’s receptacles are safely
protected, including “the first receptacle outlet of the existing branch circuit”. It
is assumed that the performance of an AFCI packaged as a receptacle is
equivalent to one packaged as a circuit breaker. This is not true. There at least
two major safety related differences:
Short Circuit Current Tests:

● An AFCI circuit breaker must pass all UL circuit breaker tests (UL489)
which includes two short circuit current tests at 10,000A (minimum) and 50%
lagging.
● In contrast an AFCI receptacle is tested with only a single 2,000A and 90%
lagging (resistive) current. This is less than the anticipated current value.
Case:
● The case of a circuit breaker must not melt or burn should a glowing contact
terminal condition develop. From UL489, “The case shall be of such material
that it will withstand the most severe conditions likely to be met in service.” I
believe this requires the use of thermal set plastics.
● In contrast the AFCI standard allows receptacle designs to utilize thermal
plastic materials that melt and burn when subjected to a glowing contact. From
the UL AFCI standard (UL1699), “An outlet circuit AFCI shall comply with
the materials requirements in 8.1 – 8.5 of the Standard for Attachment Plugs
and Receptacles, UL 498.”

Substantiation:
Short Circuit Current Tests:
I have not been able to purchase and test an outlet circuit AFCI (they are not
available) but I did perform a test on a ground fault receptacle GFR. I believe
the AFCI will use the same circuit interrupting mechanism. To duplicate a
home condition where the outlet AFCI was located near the load center, a
standard GFR was connect, via a 4’ length of 12AWG wire, to a circuit breaker
with a 10KAIsc rating. The available current at the circuit breakers input
terminals was set at 10,000A. When various GFRs were tested with a
short at the receptacle’s load terminals, most of the outlet circuit AFCIs failed.
The actual fault current was measured at 5000A, 2.5 times the UL1699 outlet
circuit AFCI requirement.

Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.

Panel Meeting Action: Reject

Panel Statement: The submitter’s substantiation does not support his
recommendation.

 

[romex jockey]

Dr Engel's rops reveal both the lower afci mag trip ,as well as it's 30ma limit(s) as it's only true function Mr.MBrooke

Both round filed.....

It becomes a concern that CMP-2 ,in it's replies just doesn't get it or has assumed some denial stance due to it's alternates influence(s)

One would think it a conflict of interest to simultaneously seat a CMP (in any capacity) , Promote any given product as a NRTL rep , and serve in some capacity to the CSPC

~RJ~

 

[mbrooke]

Dr Engel's rops reveal both the lower afci mag trip ,as well as it's 30ma limit(s) as it's only true function Mr.MBrooke

Both round filed.....

It becomes a concern that CMP-2 ,in it's replies just doesn't get it or has assumed some denial stance due to it's alternates influence(s)

One would think it a conflict of interest to simultaneously seat a CMP (in any capacity) , Promote any given product as a NRTL rep , and serve in some capacity to the CSPC

~RJ~

They are either genuinely in over there heads, or they know they screwed up and are scarred to admit it.

 

[romex jockey]

Now your turn.

Answer the question, who is holding all of us down by withholding our education?

Only yourselves Mr Iwire.

The fact that i've posted a theory query pertinent to the OP ,AND spoon fed major hints w/o any takers here who flaunt their credentials screams self imposed ignorance

Sad, in what is supposedly an educational venue....

~RJ~

 

[romex jockey]

They are either genuinely in over there heads, or they know they screwed up and are scarred to admit it.

Or the manufacturers have them all 'screwed down' with their influence ,to the point they are beyond reproach by any given public entity

Obviously ROP's are low public profile , Testing labs may as well be nema , ESFI as well....

What we need is a 'Restore NEC', after the 'Restore CSA' model

~RJ~

 

[mbrooke]

Or the manufacturers have them all 'screwed down' with their influence ,to the point they are beyond reproach by any given public entity

Obviously ROP's are low public profile , Testing labs may as well be nema , ESFI as well....

What we need is a 'Restore NEC', after the 'Restore CSA' model

~RJ~

Oh Yes, and Canada is waking up. We need a grass roots movement. And it won't be hard to find people. They are out there, just oppressed.

 

[ICC]

At 230 volts it can be a real concern (parallel arcing), and that is where GFP and mag tripping come in. The folks who started the AFCI ball rolling saw that and re-wrote physics to justify those techniques needing to be stretched to 120 volt systems.



And all the folks working on AFCI development knew that. The magnetic trip levels of North American circuit breakers where obsessed about for decades and many folks came about preaching with a voice of authority that those high levels were responsible for the bulk of electrical fires. When the electronic version of magnetic tripping became a failure, manufactures had to resort to GFP in order to get AFCIs to do anything.


The logic here for any sane person would be why not just scrap low mag trip coils and arc signature analysis for GFP? In truth they could, but if they did thats an entire product line (price point) chucked out the window as GFCIs would just expand instead of GFCIs and AFCIs like we see today. Sure experts in the industry will argue short circuits (arcing) in cords without an EGC, and the easy solution to that is an inline fuse contained within the cord cap.








IMO, the bulk of actual electrical fires come from joule heating. But again, the lies continue with glowing connections being called "glowing arcs" or simply being labelled as "series arc faults" all together. This is basically what we saw in the beginning when branch feeder AFCIs where said to do what combination AFCIs now do. Today we see manufactures claiming that combination AFCIs do what they can not: trip on glowing connections.


The paper posted in this article makes mention of that.




No, good English, very eloquently said

Thank you.

Ok with you.

A hot spot by Joule Effect (as a glowing connection) has nothing to do with ARCS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule_effect

Otherwise there would arcs in irons, hot water tanks, etc ... :blink:

ICC-

 

[romex jockey]

They admit they know nothing....

They admit they know nothing....

Concern — NEC CMP-2 accepted adoption of this new
requirement based on inaccurate and misleading documentation
submitted by the manufacturers of these devices.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Concern — At a recent meeting of NEC CMP-2, UL
made a presentation that demonstrated that the AFCI
devices would not detect all arcing faults. The UL
representative described the basic technical problems
with the device. It will not be able to detect all arcs
that may produce a fire. Asked if the device will
detect all arcs between the breaker and the first outlet,
the answer was no. The answer was the same for
detecting arcs in an outlet, in the cord from the outlet
to the appliance, and the appliance itself. Asked what
the percentage of arcs may be detected, the answer
was they do not know

<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Concern — Unfortunately, the devices can pass only
four of the tests, not the full 14 tests needed for this
product to protect residential occupancies as outlined
in a UL study for the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC).

Source

~RJ~

 

[mbrooke]

Thank you.

Ok with you.

A hot spot by Joule Effect (as a glowing connection) has nothing to do with ARCS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule_effect

Otherwise there would arcs in irons, hot water tanks, etc ... :blink:

ICC-

:lol: Good one!

 

[romex jockey]

Subtly changing canon....

Subtly changing canon....

Two
of the most important factors Paschen investigated in relation
to the breakdown voltage needed to generate an arc were gas
pressure and the gap distance between the electrodes. Some
have found this empirical evaluation to be reflective of a
very controlled environment.

An alternating current (AC)
environment has proven to depart significantly from
Paschen’s empirical analysis.

<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>

As arcing occurs, carbon deposits from the insulation
can reside in the conductor and facilitate arcing to be
more sustainable.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

A loose connection will tend to become looser as the thermal
cycling expands and contracts the connection. A cut in a
wire could start breaking down the insulation and potentially
create carbon buildup around the conductors

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

A sustained arc
fault will continue to overheat and generate a combustion
that will consume all of the byproducts until arcing is interrupted
or the flames have depleted all combustible resources.

Source


~RJ~

 

[ICC]

Ok, thank you very much for the precision IWIRE.
Can you tell me what is the difference between a differential device, a GFP and a GFCI, please?
Thank you in advance,
Sincerely,
ICC-

Hello IWIRE

You write in you post #30 "Those are not GFCIs. Here those would be GFP at best. GFCIs must have a trip level between 4 to 6 MA".

I asked for clarification on the position # 36, I will be very interested in your answer, maybe you have not seen my post?

I ask you again if you wish.

Indeed, here, when we taking the first screwdriver in hand, we bathed in the differential devices placed at the head of the circuits... It's everywhere and in all forms (instant, delayed, adjustable, etc ...)...
(but we have not electronic differential devices, and not differential 5 or 6 m.Amp).

Can you tell me what is the difference between a differential device, a GFP and a GFCI, please?

I am very curious and I'd like you to teach me something by answering my question I will be very happy.

I thank you in advance,

Best regards,

ICC -

 

[mbrooke]

If I may:

Furthermore, some commercial AFCIs often fail to trip when necessary or trip when they should not; the accuracy of arc fault detection was only approximately 50% in a previously published research report [39]. Consequently, it remains difficult to accurately detect all arc faults in circuits, and certain detection methods continue to require refinement, especially for 220–240 V operation.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4851014/



And it does not hold back:

It is difficult to find a general fault feature that performs well for all loads. Moreover, the residential electrical standard for single-phase alternating current (AC) is 120 V (60 Hz) in the United States, whereas it is 220–240 V (50–60 Hz) in other countries including China, Germany, Switzerland and Korea. Higher voltages more readily produce electrical fires caused by arc faults [49,50,51,52]. For example, the probability of fire ignition due to arc faults increases from 3.5% for 120 V to 83% for 240 V, and their nominal current levels are both 15 A [49]. Compared to 120 V, the higher voltages from 220 to 240 V are more likely to break down gaps and lead to more arcs [50,51]. Arc currents are usually continuous in higher voltage systems, but they are sometimes intermittent in 120 V systems [49,50]. Thus, higher voltage systems generate larger arc energy and thus provide better conditions for the ignition of electrical fires [50,51].