AFCI Breakers

[mbrooke]

We are not just talking about CMP-2 here. CMP-1, CMP-3, CMP-4 and the CC have all accepted AFCI proposals. That is in awful lot of people and organizations that you seem to believe can't think for themselves and can be so easily fooled. Be careful, some of these organizations probably represent you...

Just in-case one of you wasn't keeping track, the following organizations have publically endorsed, supported, and have advocated for AFCIs: NEMA, NFPA, CPSC, USFA, OSHA, ICC, IAEI, NECA, IEC, IBEW, IEEE, ESFi, UL, ETL, and CSA. This is not an all-inclusive list. You are calling into questions the credibility of our finest associations and the people that represent them. And with little to no evidence whatsoever...

Conspiracy theories belong in the books and movies. Let's leave them out of our industry...

Many of these organizations have to be affiliated with AFCIs because code forces them to. Keep in mind it was the CPSC that contacted NRTLs and said "look for arcing and solutions to them" so of course they will say we 'believe this is the best way to stop them'. Now, if they were asked to investigate all possible origins of fire I am sure their answer would have been different and thus appear to be endorsing something totally different.


Again, thank you for the information, but my understanding it was the CPSC that first called arcing out as the problem.


No one is saying any of these organizations are corrupt, and clearly they aren't saving countless lives each year but no one is immune to human error. Even a straight A student can have a hiccup.

 

[mbrooke]

People have been very successful getting the NEC changed without spending a dime. Now some changes require a little more substantiation than just a good idea. That's where associations like the IAEI are of such great benefit to be a member of. You can submit an idea for a code change proposal to the your local Division, Chapter, or Section. These proposals get distributed to the entire membership for comments. Sometimes a proposal gets so much attention, it ends up getting a lot of time and money put into it to make sure it is successful. All from one or a small group of persons.

Im sure that part is true.

A good case in point would be extra duty in-use outlet box hoods. On the surface, it looks like a NEMA proposal, but it's actually a proposal on behalf of a collaborative effort. Both OSHA and the IAEI petitioned NEMA and its members to do something about the quality of the standard in-use covers. They were simply not holding up in real-world applications per the installation requirements of A406 & A590. This OSHA/IAEI petition resulted in all the major manufacturers coming together to find a solution. A bunch of time and dollars went into getting the applicable UL standards updated, a improved product to market, and a NEC code change to correct the problem.

This was a good idea, I think many of us have seen broken or misused outlet box covers.

And by the way, when the NRTLs evaluate an enclosure to ensure it meets the provisions to be installed in a wet location, they don't wait for it to rain. They have rain simulators. When the FIU hurricane testing center is evaluating a window for impact rating, they don't wait for a hurricane to make landfall. They have wind simulators. Just about every single listed electrical product is tested on a simulator of some kind. This is not special or unique to AFCIs. Some bad things only happen after other bad things have happened first. This is the case with arc-faults. Not conditioning the cable specimens for testing would be much further from a real-world test. Its that simple.

Of course all testing agencies use simulation. But testing for an overload is easy, an arc fault is difficult to be quantified. Turning electrical tape into soup to reflect a real world unknown is not the same as a laboratory overload which mimics a real world overload with near 100% accuracy.

I wasn't going to bring this up, but at this point I think it needs to be said. Some of you have fallen completely in love with Mr. Engel and his whitepaper. And I am okay with that because I think he really believes in his product and his test procedures. He is a great man that has done great things for our industry. Now some of you absolutely despise the current AFCI manufacturers for their profit motive and desire to expand their markets. You say they can't possibly be doing anything for the good of society because the almighty dollar is in-charge. What do you think the outcome of Mr. Engel's proposals to the 2014 NEC would have meant to him personally? I wonder what the value of his AFCI patents would have been had combination AFCIs been reversed back to the branch/feeder type AFCI? Maybe this is a coincidence, I will let you deicide. You either don't want to see that angle or you are just lying to yourself.

There are ways to stop arc faults (assuming they are a major problem) without the use of a single semi conductor. Iwire's signature should be the moto in every organization including the NFPA:

Most systems work best if they are kept simple rather than made complicated; therefore simplicity should be a key goal in design and unnecessary complexity should be avoided.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

Codes and standards development is sausage making. It gets a bit messy at times and your hands might get a little dirty. Everybody thinks their sausage is the best sausage. It tastes better, uses better ingredients, is better for you. All the sausage goes to the judges and some win, some lose. Some of the losers refuse to accept the loss and resort to making claims that the contest was rigged, the judges were paid off, and the winning sausage has no merits. Don't do that...

Enjoy the rest of your Sunday afternoon.

And that's the problem if true, they should be based on hard unbiased science. God doesn't play dice.

 

[Sierrasparky]

I wasn't going to bring this up, but at this point I think it needs to be said. Some of you have fallen completely in love with Mr. Engel and his whitepaper. And I am okay with that because I think he really believes in his product and his test procedures.


He is a great man that has done great things for our industry. Now some of you absolutely despise the current AFCI manufacturers for their profit motive and desire to expand their markets. You say they can't possibly be doing anything for the good of society because the almighty dollar is in-charge. Yup!!!!

What do you think the outcome of Mr. Engel's proposals to the 2014 NEC would have meant to him personally? NOTHING, he was working for Eaton.


I wonder what the value of his AFCI patents would have been had combination AFCIs been reversed back to the branch/feeder type AFCI? Maybe this is a coincidence,
Eaton owns that patent not the employee. He may have been given a bonus.


I will let you deicide. You either don't want to see that angle or you are just lying to yourself.

Please crawl out from under that rock you are living and join the real world.
The only good thing about a AFCI is the GFI sensing.
I will not tell that AFCI do not find problem wiring in existing installations , However a GFCI could do the same.

 

[mbrooke]

One of my biggest questions is who and how was the conclusion reached that 30,000 home fires a year are the result of arc faults?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-SBly_2bPQ


I see this claim everywhere, but again I cant seem to find any supporting evidence.

 

[bphgravity]

One of my biggest questions is who and how was the conclusion reached that 30,000 home fires a year are the result of arc faults?

1. US Fire Administration - National Fire Incident Reporting System
2. US Consumer Product Safety Commission - Annual Residential Fire Loss Estimates
3. NFPA - Survey of Fire Departments for US Fire Experience
4. US Department of Housing & Urban Development - Healthy Home Issues: Injury Hazards
5. System Planning Corporation - TriData Annual Fire Reports

 

[growler]

One of my biggest questions is who and how was the conclusion reached that 30,000 home fires a year are the result of arc faults?

I see this claim everywhere, but again I cant seem to find any supporting evidence.

I think that 30K home fires is the total number of electrical related residential fires.

There is a graph at http://afcisafety.org

I have had to deal with fire reports before and I have never seen one that had the exact cause of the fire listed ( electrical fire in master bedroom, that sort of thing). Unless there is a death they don't get investigated very well.

 

[mbrooke]

1. US Fire Administration - National Fire Incident Reporting System
2. US Consumer Product Safety Commission - Annual Residential Fire Loss Estimates
3. NFPA - Survey of Fire Departments for US Fire Experience
4. US Department of Housing & Urban Development - Healthy Home Issues: Injury Hazards
5. System Planning Corporation - TriData Annual Fire Reports

Can you post links or documents on how dwelling fires were found to stem from arc faults?

 

[mbrooke]

I think that 30K home fires is the total number of electrical related residential fires.

There is a graph at http://afcisafety.org

I have had to deal with fire reports before and I have never seen one that had the exact cause of the fire listed ( electrical fire in master bedroom, that sort of thing). Unless there is a death they don't get investigated very well.

The issue is investigation is terrible, and even trained inspectors have a hard to time determine what was the culprit because any fire evidence destroys itself.

In those 2 videos its a safe bet that a GFCI would have caught it, and notice how the guy had to move the wire to get internal sparking which btw the cable did not look terrible when the problem was found.

 

[George Stolz]

I hadn't deigned to visit the afcisafety website yet. My entire outlook has been changed! There is a video with a couple uninformed homeowners singing their praises alongside a lady who works for one of the manufacturers!

Below that, there's a couple YouTube videos from a guy who thinks that putting a coil in a switch leg to identify it increases the resistance of the wire, resulting in a fire hazard!

I was so impressed I signed up for the AFCI class offered by UL, to see what troubleshooting hints I had been missing out on. I got confused when they started talking about "home run circuits" and "other circuits", but I feel like if I study hard and eat my vitamins I might get to work for UL some day!

 

[kwired]

The issue is investigation is terrible, and even trained inspectors have a hard to time determine what was the culprit because any fire evidence destroys itself.

In those 2 videos its a safe bet that a GFCI would have caught it, and notice how the guy had to move the wire to get internal sparking which btw the cable did not look terrible when the problem was found.

Other problem is that a fire investigator may be able to fairly accurately determine the fire started in a specific location - and that there is electrical equipment at that location that likely was involved - but unless they also understand electrical theory they still can not really tell you why that component caused the condition, and certainly can not tell you if a fuse, breaker or an AFCI device could have possibly prevented the incident - though they could easily be brainwashed into thinking the AFCI will prevent any fire that is electrical in nature and then it becomes sort of a default disclaimer to mention that when such a situation comes up.

 

[peter d]

I don't know about the rest of you, but all Bryan has done is further convince me what a gigantic scam the AFCI is.

 

[growler]

I hadn't deigned to visit the afcisafety website yet. My entire outlook has been changed! There is a video with a couple uninformed homeowners singing their praises alongside a lady who works for one of the manufacturers!

Below that, there's a couple YouTube videos from a guy who thinks that putting a coil in a switch leg to identify it increases the resistance of the wire, resulting in a fire hazard!

I was so impressed I signed up for the AFCI class offered by UL, to see what troubleshooting hints I had been missing out on. I got confused when they started talking about "home run circuits" and "other circuits", but I feel like if I study hard and eat my vitamins I might get to work for UL some day!

George did you notice that graph on the number of electrical fires? Between 2008-2009 there was a dip of over 4000 fires. I wish someone would explain that one. There really shouldn't be that type of fluxuation unless the method of counting fires was changed. If AFCIs were actually working your would expect to see a very gradual decrease in the number of electrical fires over a peroid of years.

 

[growler]

I don't know about the rest of you, but all Bryan has done is further convince me what a gigantic scam the AFCI is.

They only have two options.

Option #1. Come clean and admit the truth. Not going to happen ( everyone has learned from our government never to tell the truth).

Option #2. Stick to the original story line and hope that if they spend enough of the customers money on research and development that they can eventualy produce a product that works and thus be vindicated ( see I told you it would work). The year is now 2040 and all the houses are now fire proof and no need for AFCI protection because new sources of energy have been found. All the Fire Department does is run around burning books ( so no one can read about the great AFCI scam). Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury, 1953 ( he could see the future).

 

[ActionDave]

I really do understand what's going on here. Everybody wants to be a rebel fighting the good fight against the big oppressive industrial machine....

I am the the least activist minded person there is. I just want to do my job. I think Kwired post sums up nicely what a lot of us feel. If it works and makes electrical installs safer I'm for it. AFCI's aren't there yet.

Did the manufactures lie about AFCI technology? Yes. You can spin it but you can't deny it.

Do AFCI's nuisance trip? Yes. I have seen it happen with my own eyes. I was a AFCI defender before this happened to me.

Should we be forced to install these breakers? No. Especially since there are effective alternatives available now. Require 30ma GFPE protection and you might get some grumbles but nothing like there is now.

 

[mbrooke]

Other problem is that a fire investigator may be able to fairly accurately determine the fire started in a specific location - and that there is electrical equipment at that location that likely was involved - but unless they also understand electrical theory they still can not really tell you why that component caused the condition, and certainly can not tell you if a fuse, breaker or an AFCI device could have possibly prevented the incident - though they could easily be brainwashed into thinking the AFCI will prevent any fire that is electrical in nature and then it becomes sort of a default disclaimer to mention that when such a situation comes up.

Exactly my point. I wish this forum had a like button, but this is for your post: :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:


Location is usually easy, yet cause tends to be a unknown. Fire destroys evidence, and 99.9% of the time its impossible to determine the exact mechanism. Saying arc faults are responsible for dwelling fires is nothing other than a random guess. The lack of evidence overwhelmingly says so.

 

[mbrooke]

George did you notice that graph on the number of electrical fires? Between 2008-2009 there was a dip of over 4000 fires. I wish someone would explain that one. There really shouldn't be that type of fluxuation unless the method of counting fires was changed. If AFCIs were actually working your would expect to see a very gradual decrease in the number of electrical fires over a peroid of years.

That sharp dip raises questions, you would expect the majority of fires to be in older dwellings not yet equipped with AFCIs. One is left to assume if new homes are having all the fires.

 

[George Stolz]

George did you notice that graph on the number of electrical fires? Between 2008-2009 there was a dip of over 4000 fires. I wish someone would explain that one. There really shouldn't be that type of fluxuation unless the method of counting fires was changed. If AFCIs were actually working your would expect to see a very gradual decrease in the number of electrical fires over a peroid of years.

There are an almost infinite number of variables, I would be hard pressed to rest all the glory on AFCIs. Flooding, earthquakes, a warmer winter, etc. All of these would have an impact, likely greater than AFCIs.

 

[bphgravity]

I don't know about the rest of you, but all Bryan has done is further convince me what a gigantic scam the AFCI is.

I feel its been a very productive discussion. While I sincerely hoped to answer the questions posed to the best of my abilities, it's really the questions that are more interesting than the answers. If you sift through all the rhetoric and banter (mine included) and get the discussion down to it's most basic elements, there are obviously major gaps in the messaging that AFCI advocates are providing and the information you guys actually want and need. I know your frustration and skepticism is real. In my travels to the various events and meetings that I attend, I get many of the same inquires and sense many of the same doubts.

The history, purpose and details of the 15+ year old UL 1699 standard is apparently not well understood. While the cost to own a copy is certainly a barrier, it's surprising to me how many electrical professionals have never read it or seen the tests performed. Industry needs to do a better job getting this information out to the general electrical workforce that are dealing with AFCIs day-in and day-out. This isn't generally true for most of the other listed products. For the most part, electrical professionals are more interested in the code requirements and do not have much interest in the product standards. Since AFCIs seem to be the exception, this information should probably be added to presentations and in AFCI literature.

Unwanted and nuisance tripping of AFCI devices and the methods for troubleshooting the protected circuit seems to be the number one complaint from the field. Interestingly, the reports that I have received indicate essentially an "all-or-none" phenomenon. That is, it seems like you either have nearly no problems with AFCIs or you have nothing but trouble with AFCIs. This is not easy to explain. I have a network of electrical contractors in all of my (11) states in the south that voluntarily report to me their experiences with AFCIs and this holds true for them as well. Most are really not having or have had very few problems to report. A few are reporting problems on nearly every installation. The free training program from UL Knowledge Services does provide some good procedures and tips for troubleshooting AFCI protected circuits, but more needs to be offered.

The last significant matter I am taking away from this discussion is the issue with reported fire data. It's quite clear you all want solid evidence that shows as the installation of AFCI devices increase, the number of residential fires from electrical faults are decreasing. We have really good correlating data of this nature for GFCIs, but that data goes back to around 1975. Electrocution deaths from the use of a consumer product is easier to report and track. As GFCIs got expanded to various locations throughout a building, the number of deaths in those areas started to dramatically decline. It's a no-brainer. Fire data is a bit more tricky. More work and effort needs to be dedicated to this task.


Anyway, I will be at the South Carolina BCC - Code Study Committee Meetings this week in Columbia. Next week is the IAEI Georgia Chapter Meeting being held just outside of Atlanta. The week after I will be instructing a 2-hour presentation on Retrofit Kits for Lighting and Signs at (6) locations throughout the state of Alabama. And for the last week of the month I will be in Nashville, TN for the NASFM annual conference. If any of you happen to be in the area or plan to attend these events, please track me down and introduce yourself. I would love to meet you in person. I swear I do not have horns, red scaly skin, and a spiky tail. Nor will I try to serve you any "kool-aid".

 

[don_resqcapt19]

George did you notice that graph on the number of electrical fires? Between 2008-2009 there was a dip of over 4000 fires. I wish someone would explain that one. There really shouldn't be that type of fluxuation unless the method of counting fires was changed. If AFCIs were actually working your would expect to see a very gradual decrease in the number of electrical fires over a peroid of years.

If you look back over a longer time frame, you will find that there are dips and rises in the number of fires and the number of fires from the various causes. From 1980 to 2000, the average number of dwelling unit fires from all causes was cut in half. Since 2000 there has a be a small downward decline in the total number of dwelling unit fires.

The fire cause and origin information used to show the need for AFCIs also showed that ~85% of the dwelling unit fires that are of electrical origin occur in dwelling units that are at least 20 years old.

It will be many years, even if the AFCI could prevent 100% of the fires that are said to be of electrical origin before that reduction would have any real statistical impact.

In the first year of full compliance with the 2014 NEC AFCI rule, you could expect that the AFCIs would prevent ~60 fires.

 

[kwired]

Last home close to me that I can think of that happened to be a total loss in a fire was started by an electric heater that was determined to be too close to combustible materials. I was not involved with wiring in that place nor the investigation, the house was old enough there wouldn't have been any AFCI @ original construction, it did have some fairly major remodeling in more recent years and may or may not have had some AFCI installed - but the fire started in a garage - so likely didn't have AFCI anyway. I also doubt AFCI would have made any difference. Don't know if official reports considered this an electrical fire or not.

One fire I was involved with rebuilding and tried to analyze what happened some myself after fire marshal did their investigation was about 18-24 months ago when the fire occured, was in a home constructed in late 1970's or early 1980's. Fire marshal said fire started at a particular receptacle outlet location - but gave no other reason why. Others from fire dept agreed and I could agree they had right general area for source of ignition as well as remaining framing near that location was nearly consumed compared to other areas that were effected.

The receptacle in question was not supplying any load at the time - but there likley was load passing through and on to other outlets. My thoughts was it was likely the "glowing connection" that caused this fire. There was no outlet box to be found in the remains, but that don't mean it wasn't burned in the fire, and remains of the receptacle was not easy to confirm glowing connection either, plus I don't know what disturbance occurred to it before I saw it.

Would AFCI have prevented this? Most likely not. If it would have, what assurance do we have that after the install is 35-40 years old like this was that it would still be working? That seems to be the age where you see those kind of problems the most and where such protection would be most needed if it works.