AFCI and GFCI Kitchens

[al hildenbrand]

Right, which is why stripping away the GF protection is desirable. It leaves the AF technology standing on its own to be judged.

Which, if you take a pair of side cutters to you will see the difference. :thumbsup:

A curious, if not inscrutable, allusion. . . :?

The arguments for increased safety (the Holy Grail of better Code) aside, the workings of individual solutions to the AFCI Grand Concept remain behind firewalls to protect "proprietary" knowledge. No field usable general use third party tech has been created to test any AFCI device, or created to troubleshoot suspect wiring and apparatus for arc-fault signal signatures. I believe this absence of "test-ability" to be the heart of the transparency needed for the Pro and Con AFCI camps to begin reconciliation.

A really good, messy, public product liability lawsuit would do wonders to move things forward off this impasse, a lawsuit that would enter into public record just how a particular AFCI discriminates between benign and malevolent arc signatures.

The manufacturers have stone walled us for fifteen years. This has to end.

As more and more Electrical Contractors are awakened to how they are trapped into bank-rolling the equipment and AFCI manufacturers troubleshooting, the more heightened the contradiction becomes.

And the general public will be joining in eventually, as they face the bills that come in for the troubleshooting, and endure the lost time, money and convenience for product service, return and/or replacement.

And here, I return to the non-GFP AFCI. The very firewall that hides the "test-ability" of AFCI is the mechanism that declares the non-GFP AFCI to be fully 100% as safe as an AFCI with GFP. This, in my estimation, is the petard that the manufacturers will be hoisted upon. . .

 

[peter d]

A non-GFP AFCI also eliminates a fair amount of manufacturing cost as well, but of course that's not reflected in the final price.

 

[romex jockey]

A curious, if not inscrutable, allusion. . . :?

The arguments for increased safety (the Holy Grail of better Code) aside, the workings of individual solutions to the AFCI Grand Concept remain behind firewalls to protect "proprietary" knowledge. No field usable general use third party tech has been created to test any AFCI device, or created to troubleshoot suspect wiring and apparatus for arc-fault signal signatures. I believe this absence of "test-ability" to be the heart of the transparency needed for the Pro and Con AFCI camps to begin reconciliation.

A really good, messy, public product liability lawsuit would do wonders to move things forward off this impasse, a lawsuit that would enter into public record just how a particular AFCI discriminates between benign and malevolent arc signatures.

The manufacturers have stone walled us for fifteen years. This has to end.

As more and more Electrical Contractors are awakened to how they are trapped into bank-rolling the equipment and AFCI manufacturers troubleshooting, the more heightened the contradiction becomes.

And the general public will be joining in eventually, as they face the bills that come in for the troubleshooting, and endure the lost time, money and convenience for product service, return and/or replacement.

And here, I return to the non-GFP AFCI. The very firewall that hides the "test-ability" of AFCI is the mechanism that declares the non-GFP AFCI to be fully 100% as safe as an AFCI with GFP. This, in my estimation, is the petard that the manufacturers will be hoisted upon. . .

So your stance is litigant validation Al?

I agree it's time.

But you'll also need agree that the NFPA, CSPC, UL,and every CMP-2 activity in the last few decades will be confronted publicly

If it ends badly for them, they'll never recover to gain the public trust again

~RJ~

 

[romex jockey]

A non-GFP AFCI also eliminates a fair amount of manufacturing cost as well, but of course that's not reflected in the final price.

Point of confusion is that ALL afci's are GFP

that is all toroidal functionality can achieve

they are simply not LISTED for GFP

if you check past rop's past NEMA-afci task force members were lobbying for GFE recognition


~RJ~

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Point of confusion is that ALL afci's are GFP

that is all toroidal functionality can achieve

they are simply not LISTED for GFP

if you check past rop's past NEMA-afci task force members were lobbying for GFE recognition


~RJ~

While that was true for all of the branch circuit/feeder type AFCIs, it is not true of all of the combination type AFCIs. GE no longer has any GFP function in their AFCIs and one of the Eaton lines no longer have any GFP function.

 

[romex jockey]

I may be confused then Don

are we talking Dual Purpose AFCI's when we say combination?

~RJ~

 

[al hildenbrand]

I may be confused then Don

are we talking Dual Purpose AFCI's when we say combination?

~RJ~

The Combination AFCI is the second generation AFCI that replaced the Branch Feeder AFCI.

The "Dual Purpose" is the modern "DF" or Dual Function Combination AFCI that also includes a Class "A" GFCI rated to trip at six milliamps for protection of personnel.

 

[al hildenbrand]

RJ,

The GE single pole Combination AFCI is an interesting animal as there is truly no ground fault sensing that is used to trigger the breaker.

The LOAD neutral does not have to pass through the breaker. It can, but it doesn't HAVE to.

One can put a single pole 15 A and a single pole 20 A on a multiwire branch circuit, tie the handles with a GE handle tie, run the multiwire neutral through one AFCI (doesn't matter which) and leave the other AFCI load neutral terminal empty and EVERTHING works hunky dory.

Like I said earlier in this thread, this one is versatile.

The GE solution to the Grand Concept of AFCI that we've been forced to accept as ECs is purely AFP with no GFP. If I get a call back, I don't look for arc faults AND ground faults, only arc faults.

 

[al hildenbrand]

one of the Eaton lines no longer have any GFP function.

Do you recall which line that is, Don?

 

[GoldDigger]

...
...
If I get a call back, I don't look for arc faults AND ground faults, only arc faults.

Because there may actually be ground faults, even dangerous ones, but you do not need to look for them if you are being paid only to fix the trip.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Because there may actually be ground faults, even dangerous ones, but you do not need to look for them if you are being paid only to fix the trip.

There "may" be just about any thing wrong. If my troubleshoot call is that the GE CAFCI is tripping, I don't go expecting a ground fault. Maybe you do, but I don't.

 

[mbrooke]

Point of confusion is that ALL afci's are GFP

that is all toroidal functionality can achieve

they are simply not LISTED for GFP

if you check past rop's past NEMA-afci task force members were lobbying for GFE recognition


~RJ~

Not all of them. GE AFCIs do not have GFP as well as one other brand. Which makes the only viable function of AFCIs worthless.

 

[GoldDigger]

There "may" be just about any thing wrong. If my troubleshoot call is that the GE CAFCI is tripping, I don't go expecting a ground fault. Maybe you do, but I don't.

I expect the new problem to be other than a ground fault. I am just stressing that there may have been an existing neutral wiring error or ground leakage that may still be there after you have fixed the arc problem.

 

[mbrooke]

I expect the new problem to be other than a ground fault. I am just stressing that there may have been an existing neutral wiring error or ground leakage that may still be there after you have fixed the arc problem.

And, of note, not all dangerous current leaking to ground (back to the source) produces an arc signature. In fact Joseph Engel, the lead developer in AFCIs submitted proposals to the NFPA to mandate GFP in all of them.

 

[romex jockey]

Methinks there is a lot of confusion here fellas, none of which is really our fault.....

The history isn't clear , at least from the manufacturers , the only document i can possibly hang hat on is an original NEMA-afci task force members IEEE dissertation (2012)

We were installing afci's for almost a decade here until we heard 'combination' around '08.

The term was meant to address 'series' and 'parallel' arcs , note there was zero acknowledging or recall by the CSPS of the millions installed prior under this assumption.

Bottom line, we are foolish trusting any involved NEMA,CSPC,UL folk, other than their whistleblower Joe E....

Again, this is a toroidal coil , or coil(s)

Any electronic lipstick applied this pig makes it no more than a pig....

~RJ~

 

[al hildenbrand]

I am just stressing that there may have been an existing neutral wiring error or ground leakage that may still be there after you have fixed the arc problem.

Yes, ANYTHING may be existing, at ANY time, regardless of how I am called to an occupancy for a troubleshoot.
Monkeys at typewriters MAY write a Shakespeare sonnet. . .
Is Schrödinger's Cat alive, or dead?

 

[al hildenbrand]

W

W

GE AFCIs do not have GFP as well as one other brand. Which makes the only viable function of AFCIs worthless.

The cry of alarm is worthless, also. The juggernaut of expanded AFCI enforceable ordinance that has occurred over the last fifteen years has demonstrated repeatedly that rational and dispassionate, or emotional and passionate pleas for change are value-less.

The installing electrician, and the local electrical inspector, have been FORCED to accept the AFCI "TEST" button as the ONLY proof that statute required protection IS, IN FACT, in place.

Period.

AFCI manufacturers and Utilization Equipment manufacturers FORCE their dissatisfied customers into a communications triangle that will frustrate, exhaust and defeat most customers before any support is actually given.

This can't be sustained, if the devices don't, in fact, provide real safety improvements. . . actionable events, out here where we work and live will occur, and the subsequent litigation will be directed at the manufacturer's.

The non-GFP combination AFCI is DEFINED by UL and the manufacturer as providing 100% of the UL safety when I install it and press the TEST button. The more of these non-GFP combination AFCIs are installed, the quicker we will get to the actionable event(s) that, after litigation, will result in redress.

Either the non-GFP combination AFCI is actually working, OR, the fuse is burning towards the hoisting of the manufacturer on its own petard.

Either way is likely a win for the ECs and the customers. (Except for those involved in the actionable event.)

 

[Dennis Alwon]

RJ,

The GE solution to the Grand Concept of AFCI that we've been forced to accept as ECs is purely AFP with no GFP. If I get a call back, I don't look for arc faults AND ground faults, only arc faults.

I rarely get call backs on GE afci but recently we did a huge home with lots of led's and I had to change a few out to a different generation unit.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Again, this is a toroidal coil , or coil(s)

What does that even mean? (With respect, specifically, to the non-GFP combination AFCI.)

 

[al hildenbrand]

I rarely get call backs on GE afci but recently we did a huge home with lots of led's and I had to change a few out to a different generation unit.

My experience with them is similar. . . I rarely get call backs on GEs.

But, I have to ask about "different generation". What identified the generation of the replacements in your fix? Was it the "MOD 3" or a newer designation?