AFCI and GFCI Kitchens

[mbrooke]

Given that they are a Chinese venture, and the devices shown are specified at 220 - 240 Volt, 50 Hz, 16 - 32 Amp, I would submit that a language and regulatory hurdle must be surmounted to extract meaningful content Stateside.

I do note, with interest, that they offer an "AFCI Net Controller" that, to me, intimates a form of linking of AFCI protective devices to other devices through something akin to the Internet of Things (IoT). Each AFCI device may include WiFi capability to send and receive information. The "AFCI Net Controller" can interact will up to 99 different AFCI protective devices.

Pretty cool. Love to see that take hold here.

The original idea of the AFCI involved a central controller that could be updated via computer. If today's AFCI breakers came with a USB port electricians could down load upgraded programs via laptop or hand held tools prevent nuisance tripping. Further, you could also use the port of fault diagnostic purposes to take the guess work out.

As for that testing device, I am very curious about what algorithm is used to trip them. However I would not be to surprised if its only 50ma leakage current through the EGC.

 

[kwired]

The original idea of the AFCI involved a central controller that could be updated via computer. If today's AFCI breakers came with a USB port electricians could down load upgraded programs via laptop or hand held tools prevent nuisance tripping. Further, you could also use the port of fault diagnostic purposes to take the guess work out.

As for that testing device, I am very curious about what algorithm is used to trip them. However I would not be to surprised if its only 50ma leakage current through the EGC.

I kind of always had a similar thought - why can't they at least make them so firmware can be updated in the field. Seems from some of what I have read about there are items that produce a signature that is not recognized and they cause tripping, later they improve firmware to recognize that particular signature as acceptable. This sounds like a never ending battle to make these devices and utilization equipment out there completely and assuredly compatible, and even more so if you are forced to purchase a new AFCI every time there is an upgrade, guess who the only winner is with that situation? Not the HO, contractor - maybe, may be not, manufacturer - every time.

 

[mbrooke]

I kind of always had a similar thought - why can't they at least make them so firmware can be updated in the field. Seems from some of what I have read about there are items that produce a signature that is not recognized and they cause tripping, later they improve firmware to recognize that particular signature as acceptable. This sounds like a never ending battle to make these devices and utilization equipment out there completely and assuredly compatible, and even more so if you are forced to purchase a new AFCI every time there is an upgrade, guess who the only winner is with that situation? Not the HO, contractor - maybe, may be not, manufacturer - every time.

I think the original developers of the AFCI knew that. The first proposed pro-types had the option.

But, for some reason R&D will still continue as new appliances with ever newer waveforms come on to the market. In fact Ive heard that AFCIs manufactures are calling or device makers asking them to resolve the current signatures. Im not sure how that is any good.

 

[al hildenbrand]

In fact Ive heard that AFCIs manufactures are calling or device makers asking them to resolve the current signatures. Im not sure how that is any good.

Look to the model presented by the Nest thermostat. A stand alone device, powered by the furnace transformer, connected by its own internal Wi-Fi to your wireless router, that the manufacturer can "push" operating system and data updates to, totally in the background of the End Users' experience of the heat in their home.

Internet of Things (IoT).

USB is so Twentieth Century.

 

[kenman215]

Given that they are a Chinese venture, and the devices shown are specified at 220 - 240 Volt, 50 Hz, 16 - 32 Amp, I would submit that a language and regulatory hurdle must be surmounted to extract meaningful content Stateside.

I do note, with interest, that they offer an "AFCI Net Controller" that, to me, intimates a form of linking of AFCI protective devices to other devices through something akin to the Internet of Things (IoT). Each AFCI device may include WiFi capability to send and receive information. The "AFCI Net Controller" can interact will up to 99 different AFCI protective devices.

Pretty cool. Love to see that take hold here.

Yep, pretty soon we're going to need a separate two compartment AFCI panel to accommodate the network hookups...

 

[romex jockey]

This is where you lose me.

A CT's output is designed to match the electrical characteristics of the electronics that are to receive the output. . . an output that contains the same wave form as the waveform of the load current passing through the primary of the CT and is proportional in magnitude to the amount of current in the primary. The waveform is the information. . .

Combine the current waveform information with the voltage waveform information and manipulate the data therein to get results. That's the heart of this Arc Fault Detection and Discrimination Methods paper from 2007 published by and downloaded from Siemens. The paper was delivered at the IEEE Holm Conference.

You see, to me, AFCI is (or is supposed to be) a signal processor that acts upon the information contained within the signals passing by the processor. The paper by Mr. Restrepo offers a snapshot of the concepts that Siemens allowed to be released in 2007.

Nice find Al.....i've read up to this so far>

An alternating current (AC)
environment has proven to depart significantly from
Paschen’s empirical analysis. Other aspects, like temperature,
humidity and the condition of the electrodes, have also
shown to be significant in affecting the generation of an arc
fault [6]. Nevertheless, the conditions for sustainability of an
arc can be established with less than an Ampere’s worth of current

If what Mr. Restrepo claims here is true , why does UL need to introduce 15KV simulators ?


What you have here, yet again, are manufacturers mouthpieces trying to alter century old electrical theory.

This is repetitive btw, cspc, ul, nema, manufacturers all have similar papers .....

Of course we could invite Mr. Restrepo on in here to defend himself ......>

carlos.restrepo@siemens.com

~RJ~

 

[romex jockey]

Yep, pretty soon we're going to need a separate two compartment AFCI panel to accommodate the network hookups...

AFCI's state right on the info provided with them that they should be removed before any meggering.

Said viability would be akin to 30-40 separate computers the size of a pea across the line with all it's swells/sags along with mother nature's interference.

This is why i'm fairly confident the test button on the ones i installed nearly 2 decades ago validate no more than the test button....

~RJ~

 

[Stevenfyeager]

ARCI GFCI

ARCI GFCI

My inspector told me recently, besides the kitchen being both ARCI and GFCI, that the washing machine also needed both of these protections. Is that your experience too? Also, I have an ARCI related question. I am new to this ARCI, as the state of IN where I do most of my work does not require it. In a sub panel, with the neutral bar being isolated, how do you have enough neutral pigtails length for a whole house of ARCI breakers to reach all on one side of the panel? What do you do for the other side opposite of the neutral bar? Thank you.

 

[romex jockey]

helllloooooo 110.3(b)

helllloooooo 110.3(b)

Is anyone in this conversation insulted by manufacturers info like this ....?

~RJ~

 

[romex jockey]

My inspector told me recently, besides the kitchen being both ARCI and GFCI, that the washing machine also needed both of these protections. Is that your experience too?

Yes , via 210.12 laundry areas are afci as well as gfci required in 210.8 (10) , so the choices are a dual function breaker , or placing the gfci receptacle outlet compliant to this '14 change>>>

422.5 Ground Fault .Circuit Interupter (GFCI)· Protection
The device providing GpCI protection required in
this· article shall be readily accessible.

Also, I have an ARCI related question. I am new to this ARCI, as the state of IN where I do most of my work does not require it. In a sub panel, with the neutral bar being isolated, how do you have enough neutral pigtails length for a whole house of ARCI breakers to reach all on one side of the panel? What do you do for the other side opposite of the neutral bar? Thank you.

We nut 'em onto #12 solid & run 'em over to the other side

And yes, It's usually a mess....

~RJ~

 

[mbrooke]

Is anyone in this conversation insulted by manufacturers info like this ....?

~RJ~

Im not even phased. :lol: From the start AFCIs have been NOTHING more then glorified GFCIs. 30/50ma GFP is the only active ingredient in AFCIs, the rest is pure wishful-thinking filler.

 

[peter d]

The GE AFCI is truly worthless. No GFP makes it an expensive thermal magnetic breaker with a neutral pigtail and test button.

 

[mbrooke]

Nice find Al.....i've read up to this so far>



If what Mr. Restrepo claims here is true , why does UL need to introduce 15KV simulators ?


What you have here, yet again, are manufacturers mouthpieces trying to alter century old electrical theory.

This is repetitive btw, cspc, ul, nema, manufacturers all have similar papers .....

Of course we could invite Mr. Restrepo on in here to defend himself ......>

carlos.restrepo@siemens.com

~RJ~

NRTLs had to actually come up with an alibi about why arcing could take place at 120 volts. Their explanation is that repeated high voltage surges in the order of Kv would "carbonize" the space between the two conductors over the years to the point where self sustained arcing could then take place by itself at 120 volts.

Whether or not this is true remains to be proven in detail (unlikely, these would make for some serious power quality issue, and its obvious it was a cherry picked theory to fit what manufactures had been looking for in self sustained arcing), but even if it was true I can not see AFCIs still remaining operative after years of such abuse.

 

[mbrooke]

The GE AFCI is truly worthless. No GFP makes it an expensive thermal magnetic breaker with a neutral pigtail and test button.

What the manufactures were aiming for 20 year ago :thumbsup::lol::rant::happyno: :



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLmC5quELrE

 

[kwired]

My inspector told me recently, besides the kitchen being both ARCI and GFCI, that the washing machine also needed both of these protections. Is that your experience too? Also, I have an ARCI related question. I am new to this ARCI, as the state of IN where I do most of my work does not require it. In a sub panel, with the neutral bar being isolated, how do you have enough neutral pigtails length for a whole house of ARCI breakers to reach all on one side of the panel? What do you do for the other side opposite of the neutral bar? Thank you.

splice the pigtail if it doesn't reach - there is nothing wrong about that.

Better yet is to use Square D's plug on neutral bus panels then there is no pigtails to worry about, and there is a neutral bus on both sides even if using pigtailed breakers.

 

[al hildenbrand]

The GE AFCI is truly worthless. No GFP makes it an expensive thermal magnetic breaker with a neutral pigtail and test button.

This may be true. Time and messy real-life catastrophe and subsequent litigation will probably follow.

I am exhausted by fifteen years of tilting at all the manufacturer's stone walls around the proprietary AFCI technology.

I have come to understand that the NON-ground fault sensing AFCI is, by UL and the Manufacturer, defined as 100% AFCI protected when the TEST button operates the device. Now, if there is no efficacy in that electronica, then my customer is not bothered. If there is some efficacy, or maybe even the claimed efficacy, my customer is helped. Without any GFP, ground fault sensing (protection), that group of legitimate and/or nuisance tripping is absent and my customer is not bothered.

As I see it, a NON-GFP AFCI protective device is a win-win. My client gets the least potential electrical interference with their life at home, -AND- I have the UL and manufacturer defined AFCI protection accomplished by their definitions, and the NEC, and I CANNOT challenge that definition by any method that they will acknowledge.

Personally, I still believe, now, as over a decade ago, that it is only a matter of time until a product liability legal action occurs that will show us what is behind the curtain of secrecy. With the proliferation of small video technology, it is only a matter of time until an end-user's home video recording of an electrical arc fire is captured, in the wild, that CLEARLY should have been de-energized by an AFCI, and the lawyers will be off and running.

 

[mbrooke]

This may be true. Time and messy real-life catastrophe and subsequent litigation will probably follow.

I am exhausted by fifteen years of tilting at all the manufacturer's stone walls around the proprietary AFCI technology.

I have come to understand that the NON-ground fault sensing AFCI is, by UL and the Manufacturer, defined as 100% AFCI protected when the TEST button operates the device. Now, if there is no efficacy in that electronica, then my customer is not bothered. If there is some efficacy, or maybe even the claimed efficacy, my customer is helped. Without any GFP, ground fault sensing (protection), that group of legitimate and/or nuisance tripping is absent and my customer is not bothered.

As I see it, a NON-GFP AFCI protective device is a win-win. My client gets the least potential electrical interference with their life at home, -AND- I have the UL and manufacturer defined AFCI protection accomplished by their definitions, and the NEC, and I CANNOT challenge that definition by any method that they will acknowledge.

I disagree because most real nuisance tripping comes from signature analysis. While yes, none GFP AFCIs have had the most time to mature, and there is no GFP to trip on ground leakage, and I understand this provides the least tripping concern for customers while fulfilling the NEC, it does not change the fact what these AFCIs are looking for is mostly bogus arcing, and, even if legit, we have no proof if the arc signature analysis catch detect it.

Any current leaking to the EGC via on over-driven staple or nail will be detected by GFP with 100% accuracy. Same scenario via arc analysis requires the situation to produce an arcing rich signature where the electronics must accurately detect it, classify it as dangerous all while still being able to discern it from thousands of other non dangerous waveforms. We see AFCIs trip on none dangerous waveforms, and we see AFCIs miss dangerous arcing waveforms... whose to say that next will be with 100% accuracy? Good chance in a non GFP AFCI the thermal-magnetic portion will be the mechanism to clear most "arcing" faults.

It is this which to me is the ultimate giveaway that AFCIs are a marketing shill. When the rest of the world using 230 volts to ground (where arcing concerns might be legit since a nominal voltage of 230 volts can actually be anywhere from 205 to 270 volts) wanted to add increased fire protection they did not choose the most complex, underdeveloped and impractical technology at hand. They choose 500 or 100ma GFP and then latter went to 30ma GFP. We could have done the same by installing these where we require AFCIs now:


http://www.ebay.com/itm/QE115-NEW-I...499723?hash=item3ab824734b:g:8tEAAOSwcu5UNUh7

Personally, I still believe, now, as over a decade ago, that it is only a matter of time until a product liability legal action occurs that will show us what is behind the curtain of secrecy. With the proliferation of small video technology, it is only a matter of time until an end-user's home video recording of an electrical arc fire is captured, in the wild, that CLEARLY should have been de-energized by an AFCI, and the lawyers will be off and running.

At this point there is already enough to have CMPs members melt like a stick of butter in a microwave oven when present with legal litigation. They still have nothing to this day to back up their claims. No judge will take anyone's word, no matter how professional without evidence. And no, to my understanding courts do not allow you to prove a negative.

 

[al hildenbrand]

I disagree because most real nuisance tripping comes from signature analysis. While yes, none GFP AFCIs have had the most time to mature, and there is no GFP to trip on ground leakage, and I understand this provides the least tripping concern for customers while fulfilling the NEC, it does not change the fact what these AFCIs are looking for is mostly bogus arcing, and, even if legit, we have no proof if the arc signature analysis catch detect it.

I find that I must take the psychology of the Victim. Short of complying with the NEC, I have no control over AFCI protection. . . UL and the manufacturer's have established my lack of control by their defining the successful operation of the "TEST" button as the proof that the protection was present at that instant, and by their defining that there is nothing else to do, or, not do.

At this point there is already enough to have CMPs members melt like a stick of butter in a microwave oven when present with legal litigation. They still have nothing to this day to back up their claims. No judge will take anyone's word, no matter how professional without evidence. And no, to my understanding courts do not allow you to prove a negative.

I am frankly amazed that no liability action has yet occurred. As the shear number of AFCIs increases, AFCIs in service in dwellings, the liability exposure increases. Why hasn't litigation already been initiated? (a rhetorical question.) I think this is an important observation. Maybe, just maybe, the steady hidden-behind-stonewalls improvements of the "electronica" (to quote RJ) is moving in the direction that includes actual functionality? I don't know. Functionality is something I'm incapable of proving at this point in time by being forced into my role by the NEC, UL and the manufacturers.

But it is a possibility. AFCIs might just be working.

 

[kwired]

No litigation has really happened yet because nobody has been injured or killed as a result of using these devices.

Have consumers been ripped off on some level? Maybe. Is trying to fight them going to cost an individual or even a contractor more then they spend just following the codes that have been set, with not much chance of winning? Yes. It will have to be a class action type of thing if it ever happens. ETA: and if it does, as usual the real winners will be the attorneys

 

[ActionDave]

. Maybe, just maybe, the steady hidden-behind-stonewalls improvements of the "electronica" (to quote RJ) is moving in the direction that includes actual functionality?.......

Maybe. Or maybe they just keep on adding to the list of things AFCIs ignore till there is nothing left that they will sense other than a short or an overload.