AFCI Breakers

[bphgravity]

The problem with that for me is that you represent the industry, and I have a serious mistrust of any information from that source on the AFCI issue.

The industry has given me NO reason to believe anything they say about AFCIs.

This is like a study on Oscam's razor. "The principle states that among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove to provide better predictions, but—in the absence of differences in predictive ability—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better."

One the one hand, we have NEMA, UL, the CPSC, CMP-2, and host of other AFCI advocates all conspiring together to create a product and mandate to use that product, which doesn't even work just so the manufacturers of that product are able to profit from the sale of that product.

Or...

These same entities are all working together to find a solution to a serous problem by engaging in the exact same activities that have developed and produced every other code required or permitted electrical products that solve other similar and serious problems.

There isn't a single product standard that hasn't needed to be modified, amended, and supplemented at some point in the history of the products development. And every single product has performance gaps, that when discovered, need to addressed by industry to be overcome or corrected. The evolution of AFCIs is rather typical and unremarkable when looking at the big picture. Compared to a few other technologies like PV or EVSE, the development of AFCIs is quite stable and modest.

As far as arcing and fires, there is little evidence that they cause many fires, but there is a huge amount of information that shows joule heating at poor connections do cause many fires, and even UL says that AFCI devices cannot detect joule heating (also known as a poor connection, a high resistance connection or a glowing connection).

As you know, this particular issue is still under investigation and a solution will be found. I think the most likely outcome will be another enhancement to the current generation of AFCI devices and a modification to the existing testing procedures or perhaps the addition of a another test or even series of tests. Or, it could end up being another supplement to the current standard resulting in a whole new generation of AFCI devices. Maybe something like "Combination Plus AFCIs". No body has their head buried in the sand or are pretending to not see this giant elephant in the room. Product engineers are losing sleep every night over this problem...

 

[romex jockey]

glowing along....

glowing along....

Exploratory study of Glowing Connections

Ul , circa 1977....

Senior Research EE for UL

circa 2001....

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).
The CPSC study referenced, “Technology for Detecting
and Monitoring Conditions that Could Cause Electrical
Wiring System Fires,” involved an in-depth study of five
different technologies to detect and monitor precursory
conditions that could lead to fires in residential
electrical wiring systems.

Arc-fault detection technology
was only one of the five technologies being studied.
Not all of the 14 experimental tests described in that
report were intended for arc-fault technology.

For example, electrical ignition most frequently occurs
as the result of Joule heating or electrical arcing.

It should not be expected that those ignition scenarios
representing Joule (I2 R) heating would necessarily be
prevented by an AFCI.

Love the wording DD .....

~RJ~

 

[bphgravity]

Please refer to UL1699 40.4 in it's entirety

thx

~RJ~

Okay...

40.4.5 The current shall be limited by a purely resistive load ahead of and in series with the cord
specimen in the test circuit.

40.4.6 The test shall be conducted by connecting the cord specimen in series with the AFCI.

It's electricity 101. The current of the circuit has only one path to flow.

Something tells me you drove your apprenticeship instructors absolutely insane...

 

[romex jockey]

No body has their head buried in the sand or are pretending to not see this giant elephant in the room. Product engineers are losing sleep every night over this problem...

May those poor EE suffering from chronic insomnia capitulate in a litigant arena ......

~RJ~

 

[bphgravity]

May those poor EE suffering from chronic insomnia capitulate in a litigant arena ......

~RJ~

So the entire extent of your argument is to copy and paste others people's discredited work and to throw-out cute little zingers like a politician during a debate?

Zero substance, zero facts, zero value.

How ironic, that you in particular, would bring up litigation considering your current use of trademark violation...

 

[mbrooke]

As you know, this particular issue is still under investigation and a solution will be found. I think the most likely outcome will be another enhancement to the current generation of AFCI devices and a modification to the existing testing procedures or perhaps the addition of a another test or even series of tests. Or, it could end up being another supplement to the current standard resulting in a whole new generation of AFCI devices. Maybe something like "Combination Plus AFCIs". No body has their head buried in the sand or are pretending to not see this giant elephant in the room. Product engineers are losing sleep every night over this problem...

Then why isnt there a solution already? Why arent there self fusing connections already in existence? Why is Eaton trying to solve the problem with incredibly complex and expensive electronics.

The part that floors me is that Europe has already mastered GFCI, arcing ground fault and parellel ground faults without the use of ANY electronics. The same solutions here are not only excessively complex, failure prone, but incredibly expensive. Iwire's signature says it best.

 

[mbrooke]

Something tells me you drove your apprenticeship instructors absolutely insane...

Yup, because when you have people who a devoid of electrical theory and forced into blind compliance you get people who dont question anything regardless how good or bad it really is...

 

[don_resqcapt19]

This is like a study on Oscam's razor. "The principle states that among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove to provide better predictions, but—in the absence of differences in predictive ability—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better."

One the one hand, we have NEMA, UL, the CPSC, CMP-2, and host of other AFCI advocates all conspiring together to create a product and mandate to use that product, which doesn't even work just so the manufacturers of that product are able to profit from the sale of that product.

Or...

These same entities are all working together to find a solution to a serous problem by engaging in the exact same activities that have developed and produced every other code required or permitted electrical products that solve other similar and serious problems.

There isn't a single product standard that hasn't needed to be modified, amended, and supplemented at some point in the history of the products development. And every single product has performance gaps, that when discovered, need to addressed by industry to be overcome or corrected. The evolution of AFCIs is rather typical and unremarkable when looking at the big picture. Compared to a few other technologies like PV or EVSE, the development of AFCIs is quite stable and modest.



As you know, this particular issue is still under investigation and a solution will be found. I think the most likely outcome will be another enhancement to the current generation of AFCI devices and a modification to the existing testing procedures or perhaps the addition of a another test or even series of tests. Or, it could end up being another supplement to the current standard resulting in a whole new generation of AFCI devices. Maybe something like "Combination Plus AFCIs". No body has their head buried in the sand or are pretending to not see this giant elephant in the room. Product engineers are losing sleep every night over this problem...

It has to do with only one thing...they lied and I no longer trust them and NEVER will.

 

[mbrooke]

*Edit to post #366 should read as this:


"...Europe has already mastered GFCIs, arcing ground faults, and parallel arc faults the use of ANY electronics. The UK even has a none AFCI solution for damaged flexible cords."

 

[bphgravity]

I am really sorry you feel that way Don...

Was Ptolemy lying when his model of the solar system placed the Earth at its center? Was Thomas Edison lying when he stated the following way back in 1881, "I beg to say that the system of Electric Lighting of the Edison Electric Light Company is absolutely free from any possible danger from fire, even in connection with the most inflammable material". I really don't think so. While proven quite false with time, both really believed the validity of these ideas at the moment in time they were professed.

I agree that it is quite unfortunate that the first generation AFCIs did not turn out to be everything they were intended and proclaimed be. But I also feel it is quite fortunate that the manufacturers have made diligent efforts to correct that mistake with new and better technology AND continue to work on that technology to fill all the performance gaps that have been discovered &/or learned with time and experience.

Never say never, Don. Your not the kind-of guy that would intentionally paint himself into a corner with such absoluteness...

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I am really sorry you feel that way Don...

Was Ptolemy lying when his model of the solar system placed the Earth at its center? Was Thomas Edison lying when he stated the following way back in 1881, "I beg to say that the system of Electric Lighting of the Edison Electric Light Company is absolutely free from any possible danger from fire, even in connection with the most inflammable material". I really don't think so. While proven quite false with time, both really believed the validity of these ideas at the moment in time they were professed.

I agree that it is quite unfortunate that the first generation AFCIs did not turn out to be everything they were intended and proclaimed be. But I also feel it is quite fortunate that the manufacturers have made diligent efforts to correct that mistake with new and better technology AND continue to work on that technology to fill all the performance gaps that have been discovered &/or learned with time and experience.

Never say never, Don. Your not the kind-of guy that would intentionally paint himself into a corner with such absoluteness...

They were tested for 3 years after those first proposals...there is no way that they did not know that they could not do what they were telling us they could do. It was an intentional deception. Really some one should be in jail for fraud.

In fact there were lots of questions on the forums, back then, about what they could do, and anyone who suggested they couldn't do what we were told they could do was hammered as "anti-safety". Even then when you dug deep into the little information that was made available about AFCIs, you could see that that there were serious issues.

 

[mbrooke]

I am really sorry you feel that way Don...

Was Ptolemy lying when his model of the solar system placed the Earth at its center? Was Thomas Edison lying when he stated the following way back in 1881, "I beg to say that the system of Electric Lighting of the Edison Electric Light Company is absolutely free from any possible danger from fire, even in connection with the most inflammable material". I really don't think so. While proven quite false with time, both really believed the validity of these ideas at the moment in time they were professed.

Profit aside, I think this relates to AFCIs. I dont think you or most others are lying, rather mislead and misunderstanding.

I agree that it is quite unfortunate that the first generation AFCIs did not turn out to be everything they were intended and proclaimed be. But I also feel it is quite fortunate that the manufacturers have made diligent efforts to correct that mistake with new and better technology AND continue to work on that technology to fill all the performance gaps that have been discovered &/or learned with time and experience.

Never say never, Don. Your not the kind-of guy that would intentionally paint himself into a corner with such absoluteness...

Still doesnt mean anything. You can have the best most advanced AFCIs in the world, if arc faults are a rare animal in residential thats means nothing. That amount of money spent from design to testing to installation is a complete waste.


You know more then me, so maybe you can answer this. How did the CPSC determine so many home fires were the result of arc faults?

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I agree that there is no question that GFCI's were a PITA when they first arrived on the scene. It took awhile to get the kinks out but unfortunately the afci's are taking longer and I for one think that the manufacturers have done a diligent job trying to solve these issue. I am not going to argue the merit of the afci mostly because I am a bit ignorant of all the studies etc. I am not as untrustworthy as Don but I do understand his concern

 

[bphgravity]

How did the CPSC determine so many home fires were the result of arc faults?

In 1980, the USFA commissioned a fire loss comparison study that showed the US suffered one of the world’s highest death rates from fire – two to
four times higher than experienced in European countries. The USFA report helped prompt the CPSC to delve deeper into the cause of electrical fires. Most of the existing electrical fire data available to the CPSC from local fire departments blamed “failure of electrical wiring,” a generic description that did little to help pinpoint the real cause of electrical fires.

To get better data, the CPSC paid the USFA to train fire investigators in select cities to analyze electrical fires for the root cause. The inspectors gathered detailed data on 149 fires in 16 cities in 1980-81 and 1984-85. A final report completed in December 1987 found that electrical fires occurred most often in branch circuit
wiring, followed by receptacle outlets and extension cords. In 1993, the EIA and UL attempted to identify a solution for the specific problem of arcing faults in
appliance and extension cords. Since arcing faults often lead to short circuits, they sought to define an appropriate decrease in the short-circuit trip level of circuit breakers. This was determined by an analysis of the available current at receptacle outlets. The report found a tradeoff between increased protection and nuisance tripping due to high initial currents associated with certain electrical appliances at turn-on. A proposal to the 1996 NEC was rejected unanimously with the CMP recommending “a more complete analysis of actual cord problems and alternate solutions such as other cord constructions, supplemental overcurrent protection, and electronic sensing is needed.”

Around this time, the CPSC began work on a more comprehensive study to identify a technical solution to mitigate the risk of electrical fires. In December 1994, the CPSC issued a call to 800 US and foreign manufacturers, asking them to submit any promising new technology for evaluation. The request was republished in the January 2005 edition of UL Trends. 19 inventors and manufacturers responded, and 11 products were submitted for testing. The CPSC retained UL to evaluate five technologies: arc-fault detection, modified-trip circuit breakers (similar to those in the EIA/UL study), ground-fault circuit interrupters, supplementary protection, and surge protection.

After months of testing, UL concluded in September 1995 that “from the technologies analyzed, arc-fault detection appeared to be very promising, especially when added to residential branch-circuit breakers and combined with other proven technologies such as ground-fault protection.”

See the timeline attached:

 

[mbrooke]

In 1980, the USFA commissioned a fire loss comparison study that showed the US suffered one of the world’s highest death rates from fire – two to
four times higher than experienced in European countries. The USFA report helped prompt the CPSC to delve deeper into the cause of electrical fires. Most of the existing electrical fire data available to the CPSC from local fire departments blamed “failure of electrical wiring,” a generic description that did little to help pinpoint the real cause of electrical fires.

To get better data, the CPSC paid the USFA to train fire investigators in select cities to analyze electrical fires for the root cause. The inspectors gathered detailed data on 149 fires in 16 cities in 1980-81 and 1984-85. A final report completed in December 1987 found that electrical fires occurred most often in branch circuit
wiring, followed by receptacle outlets and extension cords.

Ok, sounds good. Did the the report ever find the exact cause behind these fires?

In 1993, the EIA and UL attempted to identify a solution for the specific problem of arcing faults in
appliance and extension cords. Since arcing faults often lead to short circuits, they sought to define an appropriate decrease in the short-circuit trip level of circuit breakers. This was determined by an analysis of the available current at receptacle outlets. The report found a tradeoff between increased protection and nuisance tripping due to high initial currents associated with certain electrical appliances at turn-on. A proposal to the 1996 NEC was rejected unanimously with the CMP recommending “a more complete analysis of actual cord problems and alternate solutions such as other cord constructions, supplemental overcurrent protection, and electronic sensing is needed.”

Who was contacted to find the leading cause of fires regarding in wall wiring if EIA and UL were asked to look at cords?

Around this time, the CPSC began work on a more comprehensive study to identify a technical solution to mitigate the risk of electrical fires. In December 1994, the CPSC issued a call to 800 US and foreign manufacturers, asking them to submit any promising new technology for evaluation. The request was republished in the January 2005 edition of UL Trends. 19 inventors and manufacturers responded, and 11 products were submitted for testing. The CPSC retained UL to evaluate five technologies: arc-fault detection, modified-trip circuit breakers (similar to those in the EIA/UL study), ground-fault circuit interrupters, supplementary protection, and surge protection.

When they were looking for solutions, did the CPSC already have an idea as to what was causing electrical fires?

After months of testing, UL concluded in September 1995 that “from the technologies analyzed, arc-fault detection appeared to be very promising, especially when added to residential branch-circuit breakers and combined with other proven technologies such as ground-fault protection.”

See the timeline attached:

True, but my understanding is that they were already told in advance to research primarily arcing?

Correct me if I am wrong, but it was the CPSC that first made the claim arcing was a concern?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

... A final report completed in December 1987 found that electrical fires occurred most often in branch circuit
wiring, followed by receptacle outlets and extension cords. ...

Something that most fire service investigators and electricians who do service calls do not believe. Even the AFCI proposals said that the building wiring system accounted for less than 40% of the fires that were said to be of electrical origin.

 

[user 100]

In 1980, the USFA commissioned a fire loss comparison study that showed the US suffered one of the world’s highest death rates from fire – two to
four times higher than experienced in European countries. The USFA report helped prompt the CPSC to delve deeper into the cause of electrical fires. Most of the existing electrical fire data available to the CPSC from local fire departments blamed “failure of electrical wiring,” a generic description that did little to help pinpoint the real cause of electrical fires.

To get better data, the CPSC paid the USFA to train fire investigators in select cities to analyze electrical fires for the root cause. The inspectors gathered detailed data on 149 fires in 16 cities in 1980-81 and 1984-85. A final report completed in December 1987 found that electrical fires occurred most often in branch circuit
wiring, followed by receptacle outlets and extension cords. In 1993, the EIA and UL attempted to identify a solution for the specific problem of arcing faults in
appliance and extension cords. Since arcing faults often lead to short circuits, they sought to define an appropriate decrease in the short-circuit trip level of circuit breakers. This was determined by an analysis of the available current at receptacle outlets. The report found a tradeoff between increased protection and nuisance tripping due to high initial currents associated with certain electrical appliances at turn-on. A proposal to the 1996 NEC was rejected unanimously with the CMP recommending “a more complete analysis of actual cord problems and alternate solutions such as other cord constructions, supplemental overcurrent protection, and electronic sensing is needed.”

Around this time, the CPSC began work on a more comprehensive study to identify a technical solution to mitigate the risk of electrical fires. In December 1994, the CPSC issued a call to 800 US and foreign manufacturers, asking them to submit any promising new technology for evaluation. The request was republished in the January 2005 edition of UL Trends. 19 inventors and manufacturers responded, and 11 products were submitted for testing. The CPSC retained UL to evaluate five technologies: arc-fault detection, modified-trip circuit breakers (similar to those in the EIA/UL study), ground-fault circuit interrupters, supplementary protection, and surge protection.

After months of testing, UL concluded in September 1995 that “from the technologies analyzed, arc-fault detection appeared to be very promising, especially when added to residential branch-circuit breakers and combined with other proven technologies such as ground-fault protection.”

See the timeline attached:

Well bph, I haven't been on here in a week, and much like the others I didn't get out of the way and yet I wasn't run over. I see also that nothing has really changed-you still cannot prove conclusively that the current afci is effective, let alone explain WHY it is even necessary.

 

[Curious nerd]

As you know, this particular issue [glowing connections] is still under investigation and a solution will be found. I think the most likely outcome will be another enhancement to the current generation of AFCI devices and a modification to the existing testing procedures or perhaps the addition of a another test or even series of tests. Or, it could end up being another supplement to the current standard resulting in a whole new generation of AFCI devices. Maybe something like "Combination Plus AFCIs". No body has their head buried in the sand or are pretending to not see this giant elephant in the room. Product engineers are losing sleep every night over this problem...

How is it even theoretically possible for a breaker to detect an incandescent high-resistance splice or termination? It's just one more resistive load.

There might be detectable non-linearities, but the same is true for a lot of electronic devices that might get plugged in. All those point contacts and metal-oxide junctions remind me of diode design, but lots of people plug in things with diodes.

What can a breaker "see" sitting in the panel to distinguish a glowing connection from an incandescent light bulb or other load? Doesn't the protection have to be located in each box in the circuit?

 

[peter d]

How is it even theoretically possible for a breaker to detect an incandescent high-resistance splice or termination? It's just one more resistive load.

It's not possible, that's why these devices have been around for well over a decade now and are still incapable of detecting this problem.

 

[peter d]

It has to do with only one thing...they lied and I no longer trust them and NEVER will.

Same here. :thumbsup:

I consider everything I hear from manufacturers and their representatives like Bryan about AFCI's to be pure propaganda and deception. They started with a lie and they have to continue lying to cover their tracks. They had an opportunity to turn back early on but they are well beyond that point now.