AFCI breakers do they really protect as advertised!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sierrasparky

Sierrasparky

Senior Member
Location
USA
Occupation
Electrician ,contractor
In recent threads and posts there has been banter regarding the effectiveness and performance of AFCI breakers. There is also claims that the manufactures claim of certain protection features my be false. I am starting this thread to promote conversation as well as substantiation of the issue. If anyone has documentation on the subject please comment.
If anyone has a copy of the UL 1999 please post what you can.

Here is a link to the IEEE document that was refrenced in another thread:
http://www.combinationafci.com/resou...ation_afci.pdf
 
I didn't read the article yet, but I will make this observation, and I don't remember where I heard or read it, but once the arc has taken place the conditions may be right that it has started a fire even if the AFCI breaker was to do it's job and stop a sustained arch.
 
Ive always questioned there effectiveness. One of my big questions is will the electronic circuitry still be functional in 40 years when it is really needed? Ive seen many old GFCI breakers fail to work correctly.
 
Thank you George.

Hey by the way can you provide a link to those Rop's you spoke of in the PM? Thanks
 
Sierrasparky said:
In recent threads and posts there has been banter regarding the effectiveness and performance of AFCI breakers. There is also claims that the manufactures claim of certain protection features my be false. I am starting this thread to promote conversation as well as substantiation of the issue. If anyone has documentation on the subject please comment.
If anyone has a copy of the UL 1999 please post what you can.

Here is a link to the IEEE document that was refrenced in another thread:
http://www.combinationafci.com/resou...ation_afci.pdf
Click to expand...

A very interesting article indeed. If the author and his research are in fact true and correct, this is a sad commentary on NEC, UL and NEMA. I hope this gains some traction so we can get to the bottom of this. Hopefully Mike Holt will have further comments on this.
 
Not sure of their effectiveness, but I do know that I do change afci and gfci breakers that are only a few years old and are failing to work properly.
 
texie said:
A very interesting article indeed. If the author and his research are in fact true and correct, this is a sad commentary on NEC, UL and NEMA. I hope this gains some traction so we can get to the bottom of this. Hopefully Mike Holt will have further comments on this.
Click to expand...

Additional comments:
The more I think about this, and seeing all the comments in the other threads, the more outraged I am over this. This appears to be a total sham forced on the industry and the consumer. We all, as professionals, should be outraged at this. One good thing we can say about AFCI's, at least the one's with 30 ma ground fault, is it forced electricians to clean up their act regarding mixing/and or combining neutrals of different circuits and grounded neutrals.

sierrasparky: I admire your passion on this.
 
I can see in a preliminary precursory research of the ROP and such that the Panels were duped. The panels thought they were implmenting a better product filling the void of actually detecting a sieries fault. But the test was virtually innocuous.

"The UL engineer acknowledged that he performed parallel arcing tests, not the series arcing tests he was funded to conduct" from the white paper.

and After accepting the test, the Task Force admitted its failure to develop a Standard, and turned the task over to UL. This is not a normal UL responsibility; manufacturers develop Standards, and UL is paid to test and list products to these Standards "
 
texie said:
Additional comments:
The more I think about this, and seeing all the comments in the other threads, the more outraged I am over this. This appears to be a total sham forced on the industry and the consumer. We all, as professionals, should be outraged at this. One good thing we can say about AFCI's, at least the one's with 30 ma ground fault, is it forced electricians to clean up their act regarding mixing/and or combining neutrals of different circuits and grounded neutrals.

sierrasparky: I admire your passion on this.
Click to expand...

I am as well. The worst problems occur after a service change that requires them. Its 5 and you want to go home but half the breakers are tripping on the 45 year old wiring:rant:

There are far bigger things the code making panels should be worried about, example back stabbed outlets.

The only good thing that has come is like you said the 30ma GFCI protection, sadly many manufacturers are getting rid of it in fear of being labeled of having nuisance tripping issues. Once it goes away AFCIs will be totally useless.

The code making panels are a shame.
 
mbrooke said:
I am as well. The worst problems occur after a service change that requires them. Its 5 and you want to go home but half the breakers are tripping on the 45 year old wiring:rant:

There are far bigger things the code making panels should be worried about, example back stabbed outlets.

The only good thing that has come is like you said the 30ma GFCI protection, sadly many manufacturers are getting rid of it in fear of being labeled of having nuisance tripping issues. Once it goes away AFCIs will be totally useless.

The code making panels are a shame.
Click to expand...

Don't blame the code making panels or the NEC, this was started by the Consumer Products Safety Commission in 1992 when they contracted with UL to provide research and evaluation on new products such as arc-fault detection, modified trip circuit breakers, ground fault interrupting products and supplemental protection (fuses and thermal cut-outs). UL was the one that said "...the most promising new technology evaluated is arc-fault detection technology..."
 
cowboyjwc said:
Don't blame the code making panels or the NEC, this was started by the Consumer Products Safety Commission in 1992 when they contracted with UL to provide research and evaluation on new products such as arc-fault detection, modified trip circuit breakers, ground fault interrupting products and supplemental protection (fuses and thermal cut-outs). UL was the one that said "...the most promising new technology evaluated is arc-fault detection technology..."
Click to expand...

True, but if the allegations are correct UL devised ignored the contract to develop a real world test to detect a series or glowing arc and instead developed a test to confirm the operation of an existing device that could not detect these real world seiries arc.

As I said earlier this removes the legitamacy of UL and NEC, and all others that were involved.
How many other consumer products were allegidly bought off as compliant?
 
In another thread I heard the Mike Holt had a seiries fault demostratrtion. I wonder if it is still around.
Somone that knows him should contact him about this.
 
Sierrasparky said:
In another thread I heard the Mike Holt had a seiries fault demostratrtion. I wonder if it is still around.
Somone that knows him should contact him about this.
Click to expand...
I saw that demonstration on his own site. I don't know if it is still there but I am sure it is in cyber space somewhere. Mike was originally against the arc faults. Later on he recanted and endorsed them. What made him change his mind is a mystery.
 
Very interesting. Did I read this right it takes @ 372 volts to sustain a series arc? the whole article was eye opening. Thanks for the post.
 
Big corporations will always push their agenda. It’a all about money! If you don’t like the AFCI rule, then make a statement to your jurisdiction. If they (AFCI’s) want sell, they want last!!! Our State made a decision against them, but some jurisdictions have decided to vote them in. I spent close to $300 for breakers in Seattle<<<<Now this is ridiculous!!!! If you add in their high price permit cost (For a 5 minute electrical inspection), that's $600. Talk about scams :thumbsdown::rant:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top