AFCI Breakers

[mbrooke]

No, you have it all wrong. My point is that I have first hand experience. Many like yourself have this myopic view of the industry yet can provide no evidence this is the case. You assume it.

Because we yet have to see evidence arcing is responsible for hundreds of thousands of US home fires. Yet we have evidence of manufacturers on CMPs, published UL papers speaking against official claims and experts like Joe Engels speaking out.

I have been to the ICC code development hearings where my and the manufacturer's rear-ends have been handed to us on a platter. I have been in the code review board hearings in a half a dozen states where there are three anti-manufacturer representatives for every one supporter. And I have been to the CMP meetings where the NEMA and manufacturer submitted proposals are the most scrutinized and debated by far.

Then how did AFCIs get into the code? What you are telling me more people where against them then all of a sudden a small minority over took the rest?

I am a certified electrical instructor, a licensed electrical contractor, and a licensed electrical inspector / plans examiner. I serve as an officer and educator for contractor associations and inspector associations. I AM LOYAL TO ALL SECTORS OF THE ELECTRICAL INDUSTRY. If I knew for even ONE second that there was some sort-of "AFCI conspiracy" or back-room deals going down to get electrical products into the codes by the manufacturers, I would quit this job immediately. It is simply not the case.

All it takes if misinformation to get people to agree. I am sure you are loyal, and I am sure you are well meaning, but ironically (no offense to anyone) all that easier to dupe. If information is coming from an entity we trust, we are far less likely to question that information when its wrong.

Think about this for a second. There are only four manufacturers of AFCI breakers for the US market. You know who they are and they are monsters of the industry.

Of course, all the easier to get what they want. A few million out the back door is good return on investment.

Do you really think the sale of AFCI's even make a line item on these company's revenue sheet? Take GE for an example, the entire low-voltage distribution section represents a tiny fraction of the company. Every NEMA Codes and Standards meeting I have attended, I hear the same mantra over and over and over from the manufacturers; "What best serves our customers".

They increase revenue. When a manufacturing tries to gain 10 cents here, 5 cents there, over and over and over it adds up to what you see now. Every code mandated change in the benefit of manufactures adds up over time.

The manufacturers want the products they produce to be as cheap as possible, as safe as possible, and as functional as possible. And nobody that has participated on this thread can possibly know this batter than me.

Thats absolutely true, but what would you rather sell: A million safe, cheap and function products or a billion safe, cheap and functional products?

NEMA and the manufacturers work on the CMPs have prevented proprietary equipment and systems from being added to the code. They have corrected language in the code that has been misinterpreted by over-zealous AHJ's. They have had sections revised to provide clarity and accuracy. They have added permissions to the code to allow options and choice. They have provided solutions to industry complaints and problems with innovation and technology. They have ensured industry standardization of just about every product permitted or required by the code. They have added provisions to the code that are saving more lives and property year after year.

Thats true, in the case of arc flash mitigation choices were given, but why not for AFCIs? Why not meggering? Fire Sprinklers? Metal conduit?

There are no successful companies that only have an eye on the bottom line. If the manufacturers don't serve their customers and the industry, they die.

Thats true, but when its mandated? Thats the worst of all. There is no requirement for the product to please the customer. None. In that case the manufacturer will make profit regardless.

And don't forget that it is the NRTLs and manufacturers that are leading the fight against counterfeit electrical products. They are leading the fight against conflict materials and rare earth elements and minerals used in electrical products. They are finding the solutions for our energy crisis and crumbing electrical infrastructure.

They are, because it rakes in profit for them. Of course there is nothing wrong with making the world a better place, and yes that take labor and in turn cost, thats normal, and thats ok. But it doesn't mean they are automatically immune to corruption. Priests and nuns have committed crimes, and no the judge doesn't automatically say "well they have done so much good for the world, so I am going to pardon them for there crime"

You know what, your are all correct. The manufacturers are doing everything they can to destroy the very industry that allows them to exist. They are working covertly to add unnecessary requirements to the code just so that code loses its credibility and the trust of the industry. Really? You guys are lunatics.

If they think it will work out, why not? So far have they destroyed themselves? No. Are they making more money? Yes. Do they know code will be enforced regardless? Yes.

This is not a communistic country. Companies are permitted to make a profit while offering products and services that benefit the society. That profit reduces the cost of products and services, allows for innovation and technology, and allows for 400,000 jobs at over 7,000 facilities in the US alone.

They are, companies can do as they want. But again that is seperate from useing the code as a profit engine. Some industiures exist entierlly because law requires them, so if its worked for them do really think someone isnt going to try the bussiness venture out in the NEC?

The CMPs are made up men and women that work for manufacturers in the codes and standards or engineering divisions of the company.

:happyno:

They are not sales people, they are not marketers, they do not sit on the stockholder boards making financial decisions for the company. They are individuals that believe in the work they do and they love the industry. They are genuinely concerned abut the wellbeing of their customers and society.

They certainly dont make desitions for the company, the compney makes desitions for them. Companies can certianly sway their opinions in a direction to get something into the code along with then convincing others in the CMP.


If these employees do as the company wants; they get money, respect, prestige, you name it. So of course these people do as they are told becase theirs another dozen in line waiting to replace them.

One last thing. The US Fire Administration has reported residential building electrical malfunction fires for the five-year period of 2007 to 2011 show a 4 percent decrease in fires, a 16 percent decrease in deaths, and a 13 percent decrease in dollar loss. There is no possible way that AFCIs are playing a role in this statistic.

Hasnt been proven, nor documented how that conclusion was reached.

BTW, one last thing. Glowing connections are beleived to be responsible for 90 to 95% of electrical fires, why hasnt anyone done something to adress this? Like the NEC?

 

[mbrooke]

There is no evidence that a self sustaining arc can even exist at dwelling unit voltages. The testing labs create a carbonized path using thousands of volts before testing the AFCI. That is not the real world.

And even if true for the real world, that high voltage surge will destroy the electronics in an AFCI rendering them useless.

Also of note, when the CPSC went to NRTLs they were already asking them to investigate arcing rather than all possible phenomenon responsible for dwelling electrical fires.

If self sustaining arcs exist at dwelling unit voltages, then why does 230.95 apply only to 480Y/277 volt systems and not to 208Y/120 volt systems?

X2. That says it all.

Detailed studies of electrical fires show that most are from joule heating at a high resistance connection...something that no device on the market can detect and clear. In some cases a GFP would clear this type of fault before a fire starts because the heat damaged insulation would result in a ground fault, but GPF is not a required function of the AFCI device and one manufacturer no longer uses GFP in any of their AFCIs and a second does not use GFP in some of theirs.

You certainly arent oblivious, thats for sure! :happyyes: Glowing connections are the biggest cause of electrical fires by far yet the NEC has done nothing to address them. I have even seen various code proposals, and yet still, nothing. But they chose mythical arcing. :blink::blink:

 

[GoldDigger]

Anybody kept count?


Seems like maybe 2-1/2 folks think afci the best thing since condoms that change color for std, everybody else not so keen (or even downright hostile) on the efficacy of these foisted devices.

Check out the poll at http://forums.mikeholt.com/poll.php?pollid=493&do=showresults.

 

[mbrooke]

The NFPA and NEMA don't make laws. The NEC is developed through a consensus process and receives ANSI accreditation.

They dont make laws, but many places choose to use them as laws.

When a new edition gets published, it becomes up to the state and local jurisdictions to decide whether or not to make the new code law. And every state has the authority to amend or modify the codes and standard they adopt in whatever manner they deem necessary for their community.

Thats true, but most dont. How many states, towns ect have an unamended NEC? Only a small part? How many states require AFCIs?

NEMA has (4) individuals that advocate for the adoption of the NEC in the US. The NFPA only has (2). That's it.

And what those 6 individuals are doing is working so the number is irrelevant.

The money spent by these two organizations on code adoption initiatives is miniscule. NEMA has 400 members. The NAHB has 140,000 members. NEMA has no state or local chapters. The NAHB has 800 state and local chapters. NEMA's Codes & Standards Committee has 40 members. The NAHB Board of Directors has 2,200 members. NEMA and the NFPA are not the powerhouses you guys imagine them to be. Its simply not the case.

Then why do 45+ states require AFCIs? Yes all these members have no power to change law, but they certainly know close to 100% of the US eventually adopts their recommendations into law. As do manufacturers. So yes, they are theoretically power houses.

I remember when I was a kid hearing my dad complain about the government when seatbelt laws started going into effect. My dad felt the government had no right to make him use a seatbelt and shouldn't have the authority to make car manufacturers install them. He actually felt seatbelts were death traps and would probably cause more injuries and deaths. And sure enough, people are still dying in car accidents, even when wearing seatbelts. So along comes airbags, with more promise of reducing the loss of life while increasing the cost of vehicles. This made my dad feel vindicated. "See", he would say; "Seatbelts were suppose to save us all, but they didn't, did they. Now we to pay for air bags, anti-lock brakes, and all this other crap and they probably don't work either."

And in some cases they dont work, but well before adoption there was proof mostly in the from testing that they do work. I have yet to see proof that hundreds of thousands of home fires are caused by arc faults or that arcing is even common in residential wiring.

You guys know where I am going with all this. Standard overcurrent devices do a pretty good job for most of the faults that occur on a wiring system. But shock, electrocution, and fire still occur under certain conditions.

Of course. No one is disputing either of those things.

Combine a standard overcurrent device with GFCI and more lives and property are saved. AFCI's are just the latest technology to address a problem with our wiring systems.

When GFCIs at the branch circuit origin address those same problems, if not more than an AFCI while also providing electrocution protection.

Of course GFCIs alone are not as profitable. A second price point is.

And just like seatbelts, air bags, and antilock brakes; no one device or even the combination of many devices will cover every possible condition that may result in a fire, injury, or loss of life.

Of course, unskilled people will always be working on electrical systems and glowing connection will always be responsible for most electrical fires. So right there exists two major excuses to pass more gimmicks without addressing the root of the problem. So yahhh, fires will always happen without code requirments ever making a major dent, if at all.

It is going to take some time to see the results just as it did for GFCIs. And we know that 210.12(A) can't do it all on its own. That's why we have 210.12(B),(C), and 406.4(D)(4). Over a period of time, and not overnight, as more AFCIs get installed in both new and existing dwellings, a complimentary reduction in fires, deaths and loss of property will occur as well.

Fire reduction by how much?

And FWIW I am in no way against GFCIs but the biggest reason behind their implemntion had to do with missing or broken EGCs. Had a 3 prong requirment been mandated on all metal frame appliances, earth fault loop impedance testing to confirm intact EGCs and fewer unskilled personel we would only need 1/16 of the GFCI requirements we have now from a shock and electrocution perspective. GFCI are were also an answer to a problem that could have been addressed in other ways.

But in any case when GFCIs are placed at the branch circuit orgin they provide both AFCI and GFCI protection. Remember its the NRTL reports that flat out proved an over driven staple leads to line to ground current which an GFCI will sense.

One more point. We currently have 25 states that have adopted the 2014 NEC, 18 of them have with NO AFCI AMENDMENTS. Of the 17 states that are still on the 2011 NEC, 12 have NO AFCI AMENDMENTS. So, trace this trend backwards for about a decade and try to calculate the number of AFCIs that have been installed throughout the US and are still in use today. Its in the millions. And of all those millions of AFCIs out there, less than a fraction of 1% of them have been reported as having a problem or experiencing nuisance tripping. And I am sorry, as important and significant as this Forum is, it is not a representative sample of the total US electrical industry.

But that doesnt take into account how many AFCIs will fail in service down the road. That doesnt take into account if they will trip reliably, or on an actual danger.

The logic used to sense arcs in AFCIs is another story.

I have been in direct contact with several of the largest homebuilders in the US. This includes DR Horton, PulteGroup, Lennar and others. I have asked them how much of a problem are AFCis and guess what, there is no problem. When compared to defective drywall, water leaks, energy conservation requirements, and a host of others complaints; AFCIs don't even get a ranking. In fact, the entire electrical system doesn't even get a ranking. They are more concerned about the cost and issues associated with installing "high-efficacy" lamps than they are about AFCIs. That is a fact. So for the 12 of you out there having problems, I sincerely apologize.

I will let the contrctors speak up on this.

Lets not forget that AFCI technology has now entered the receptacle outlet market. This means not less than 4 more American companies are in on the conspiracy. The list now includes 8 US electrical corporations, NEMA, UL, NFPA, the CPSC, all the voting members of CMP-2, ANSI, OSHA, the USFA, state governments, county governments, city governments, and bigfoot. REALLY?

They are just meeting customer demands for what someone put into the code. Even then the orignal 4 are still making more money.

All this in-fighting is just making our industry weaker. If we can't hold a coalition amongst ourselves, we can never advance our industry. Get on board, get out of the way, or get run over. The choice is yours...

So you are saying we are all going to get run over for questioning AFCIs?

We arent fighting, we are having an intellectual discussion looking at the pros and cons on all sides. You cant tell me the CMPs or anyone else does not have heated debates.

 

[romex jockey]

No, you have it all wrong. My point is that I have first hand experience. Many like yourself have this myopic view of the industry yet can provide no evidence this is the case. You assume it. I have been to the ICC code development hearings where my and the manufacturer's rear-ends have been handed to us on a platter. I have been in the code review board hearings in a half a dozen states where there are three anti-manufacturer representatives for every one supporter. And I have been to the CMP meetings where the NEMA and manufacturer submitted proposals are the most scrutinized and debated by far.

I am a certified electrical instructor, a licensed electrical contractor, and a licensed electrical inspector / plans examiner. I serve as an officer and educator for contractor associations and inspector associations. I AM LOYAL TO ALL SECTORS OF THE ELECTRICAL INDUSTRY. If I knew for even ONE second that there was some sort-of "AFCI conspiracy" or back-room deals going down to get electrical products into the codes by the manufacturers, I would quit this job immediately. It is simply not the case.

Think about this for a second. There are only four manufacturers of AFCI breakers for the US market. You know who they are and they are monsters of the industry. Do you really think the sale of AFCI's even make a line item on these company's revenue sheet? Take GE for an example, the entire low-voltage distribution section represents a tiny fraction of the company. Every NEMA Codes and Standards meeting I have attended, I hear the same mantra over and over and over from the manufacturers; "What best serves our customers".

The manufacturers want the products they produce to be as cheap as possible, as safe as possible, and as functional as possible. And nobody that has participated on this thread can possibly know this batter than me.

None are so blind as those who refuse to see......

~RJ~

 

[donaldelectrician]

Any Chance of getting the ," Edison Based Fuse ", back ?

Still the Best and Safest OCP for the Home .

Also the cheapest .




Don

 

[Dennis Alwon]

GE AFCIs have no GFP in them, so right there you are installing a product that is doing absolutely nothing to improve safety yet paying 14 times more per breaker.

So you are saying AFCI does nothing without GFCI. Then why have afci if it does nothing????? I know that is arguable but I find your statement to be a bit off saying it does nothing. I have seen them trip so they do something

 

[mbrooke]

So you are saying AFCI does nothing without GFCI. Then why have afci if it does nothing????? I know that is arguable but I find your statement to be a bit off saying it does nothing. I have seen them trip so they do something

But trip on what? It is not clear how reliably AFCIs can distinguish between normal and abnormal arcs. This of course assumes arcs are a problem at 120 volts.

 

[iwire]

I agree with most of your points until we get to this.

And FWIW I am in no way against GFCIs but the biggest reason behind their implemntion had to do with missing or broken EGCs. Had a 3 prong requirment been mandated on all metal frame appliances, earth fault loop impedance testing to confirm intact EGCs and fewer unskilled personel we would only need 1/16 of the GFCI requirements we have now from a shock and electrocution perspective. GFCI are were also an answer to a problem that could have been addressed in other ways.

No amount of new laws, codes or standards will ensure EGC continuity.

An area that has long had requirements for EGC connected metal frames still had deaths resulting from broken EGCs. I am talking about commercial kitchens.

The GFCI is a good step in trying to address those types of issues. In expensive proven technology.

 

[peter d]

So you are saying AFCI does nothing without GFCI. Then why have afci if it does nothing????? I know that is arguable but I find your statement to be a bit off saying it does nothing. I have seen them trip so they do something

Unless you have seen the electrons moving in and out of the processor inside of the AFCI, you have no idea why it tripped, and neither does anyone else. AFCI's are not like vehicles where we can plug a diagnostic computer into the car and find out exactly what is going wrong, and go to the root source of the problem. Much AFCI related troubleshooting is pure guess work and chasing one's tail, as we've seen many stories of that over the years.

 

[peter d]

Bryan,

Has a manufacturer ever made a mistake? Ever produced a deficient product that requires recall? (Look no further than the automotive industry.) Well of course the answer is yes. Manufacturers are comprised of fallible human beings that make mistakes. You make them out to be almost god-like, both in their benevolence and the products they produce. The truth is they are far from benevolent and far from perfect. No amount of platitudes and smooth sounding sales pitches you produce is going to convince me otherwise.


....

Anyway, there's not really much more I can say that hasn't been said a thousand times already on this subject by people more educated and articulate than I am. There is a great gulf between the two sides on this issue and I do not see how they can ever reconciled. I can state categorically that there are extremely serious deficiencies with these devices that should mandate them being pulled from the shelves and requirements removed from the NEC.

As a tangent to this discussion, those who have followed my postings over the years will probably remember that I was an "NEC Purist" of sorts when I first joined this forum. I believed the NEC was the infallible rule of law for any electrical installation and the slightest deviation from the NEC and you were a hack and not worthy to be called an electrician, and I wasn't afraid to say so. Now, over a decade later my thinking about the NEC has radically changed. Over the course of time I have seen the NEC move away from its stated goals and move toward protecting unqualified people, particularly with rules for ballast disconnects and handle ties for multi wire branch circuits. I have seen the AFCI rules expanded without considering the opposing viewpoint. I now greatly distrust the NEC and the code making process and I no longer look upon it with the respect that I used to. This distrust is directly related to the AFCI issue. It has completely undermined my faith that the code is about protecting life and property and more about lining the pockets of manufacturers. Sure, the NEC still retains many important rules for producing a safe electrical system. But as the saying goes, "A few bad apples spoil the bunch."

 

[donaldelectrician]

Bryan,

Has a manufacturer ever made a mistake? Ever produced a deficient product that requires recall? (Look no further than the automotive industry.) Well of course the answer is yes. Manufacturers are comprised of fallible human beings that make mistakes. You make them out to be almost god-like, both in their benevolence and the products they produce. The truth is they are far from benevolent and far from perfect. No amount of platitudes and smooth sounding sales pitches you produce is going to convince me otherwise.


....

Anyway, there's not really much more I can say that hasn't been said a thousand times already on this subject by people more educated and articulate than I am. There is a great gulf between the two sides on this issue and I do not see how they can ever reconciled. I can state categorically that there are extremely serious deficiencies with these devices that should mandate them being pulled from the shelves and requirements removed from the NEC.

As a tangent to this discussion, those who have followed my postings over the years will probably remember that I was an "NEC Purist" of sorts when I first joined this forum. I believe the NEC was the infallible rule of law for any electrical installation and the slightest deviation from the NEC and you were a hack and not worthy to be called an electrician, and I wasn't afraid to say so. Now, over a decade later my thinking about the NEC has radically changed. Over the course of time I have seen the NEC move away from its stated goals and move toward protecting unqualified people, particularly with rules for ballast disconnects and handle ties for multi wire branch circuits. I have seen the AFCI rules expanded without considering the opposing viewpoint. I now greatly distrust the NEC and the code making process and I no longer look upon it with the respect that I used to. This distrust is directly related to the AFCI issue. It has completely undermined my faith that the code is about protecting life and property and more about lining the pockets of manufacturers. Sure, the NEC still retains many important rules for producing a safe electrical system. But as the saying goes, "A few bad apples spoil the bunch."

2X

Well Said Peter D




Don

 

[ActionDave]

As a tangent to this discussion, those who have followed my postings over the years will probably remember that I was an "NEC Purist" of sorts when I first joined this forum. I believed the NEC was the infallible rule of law for any electrical installation and the slightest deviation from the NEC and you were a hack and not worthy to be called an electrician, and I wasn't afraid to say so. Now, over a decade later my thinking about the NEC has radically changed. Over the course of time I have seen the NEC move away from its stated goals and move toward protecting unqualified people, particularly with rules for ballast disconnects and handle ties for multi wire branch circuits. I have seen the AFCI rules expanded without considering the opposing viewpoint. I now greatly distrust the NEC and the code making process and I no longer look upon it with the respect that I used to. This distrust is directly related to the AFCI issue. It has completely undermined my faith that the code is about protecting life and property and more about lining the pockets of manufacturers. Sure, the NEC still retains many important rules for producing a safe electrical system. But as the saying goes, "A few bad apples spoil the bunch."

Me too. I feel the same way.

 

[romex jockey]

So you are saying AFCI does nothing without GFCI. Then why have afci if it does nothing????? I know that is arguable but I find your statement to be a bit off saying it does nothing. I have seen them trip so they do something

This is why Dr Joe Engel's ROP's were important (at least to him) , because he knew it was the only real function they had

~RJ~

 

[romex jockey]

As a tangent to this discussion, those who have followed my postings over the years will probably remember that I was an "NEC Purist" of sorts when I first joined this forum. I believed the NEC was the infallible rule of law for any electrical installation and the slightest deviation from the NEC and you were a hack and not worthy to be called an electrician, and I wasn't afraid to say so.

I used to fall asleep with my NEC , and basically considered any gurus and mentors the right hand of God

That was decades ago.....

One comes full circle ,the reality becoming clearer that altruistic values do not exist in a capitalist system where only capitalist remedies come forth

It kinda sucks seeing all one's icons come down off the mountain

~RJ~

 

[Tony S]

It was Peter’s comment that prompted this.

In a way I find it funny but at the same time very sad.
A US based electrician should have faith in the NEC, just the same as my fellow electricians and I should have with the UK’s IET. Both organisations have gone off course, driven by inaccurate (downright biased) information. In both cases the manufacturers seem to have a considerable say in matters. But I’m sure their input is totally unbiased.

My interest and my worry is the UK picks up on AFCI’s. At the moment they would have a major hurdle as there is no set test procedure for an installed unit.

 

[GoldDigger]

It was Peter’s comment that prompted this.

In a way I find it funny but at the same time very sad.
A US based electrician should have faith in the NEC, just the same as my fellow electricians and I should have with the UK’s IET. Both organisations have gone off course, driven by inaccurate (downright biased) information. In both cases the manufacturers seem to have a considerable say in matters. But I’m sure their input is totally unbiased.

My interest and my worry is the UK picks up on AFCI’s. At the moment they would have a major hurdle as there is no set test procedure for an installed unit.

In principle, it is as simple as buying a custom arc signature generator for each AFCI brand and model.
Since each variation (brand, model, firmware date) will have a different set of signatures, there cannot be a one-size-fits-all tester.

As for the current UL test procedures, their carbonized path and carbon/bronze electrode arc generators have little if anything to do with the RF characteristics of real arcs in real wiring.

 

[ActionDave]

......The CMPs are made up men and women that work for manufacturers in the codes and standards or engineering divisions of the company. They are not sales people, they are not marketers, they do not sit on the stockholder boards making financial decisions for the company. They are individuals that believe in the work they do and they love the industry. They are genuinely concerned abut the wellbeing of their customers and society........

There is good reason to to be wary of Do Gooders with the time and means to pursue their agenda.

 

[Sierrasparky]

There is good reason to to be wary of Do Gooders with the time and means to pursue their agenda.

Agenda!

Exactly, Look up "agenda21" It will enlighten you. :blink:

 

[Tony S]

In principle, it is as simple as buying a custom arc signature generator for each AFCI brand and model.
Since each variation (brand, model, firmware date) will have a different set of signatures, there cannot be a one-size-fits-all tester.

As for the current UL test procedures, their carbonized path and carbon/bronze electrode arc generators have little if anything to do with the RF characteristics of real arcs in real wiring.

I almost hate to ask this, how much would a “custom arc signature generator” cost for each manufacturer?

Test equipment is essential if you’re going to guarantee your work. You wouldn’t be trading here without it.

OK I’ve got my tin hat on, let the onslaught begin ;-)