AFCI data on home fires 10 yrs later. Any real evidence they work’?

Status
Not open for further replies.
MasterTheNEC said:
....
So in summary....do AFCI solve everything. Heck no...are they better than nothing, yes my opinion and no in yours....i can accept that.....can YOU?
....
Click to expand...
They were a lot better when they all had GFP as part of the device. All of the original branch circuit and feeder type had GFP. At least two manufacturers no longer have GFP in their combination devices.

it appears to me that they would be much better at detecting and clearing a high resistance or glowing connection fault, before a fire started if they still had a 30 to 50 mA ground fault trip. Now you must have at least 5 amps of current for the device to look for a series fault. You can produce more than enough heat from a poor connection to start a fire with a lot less than 5 amps of current.

For the record I did have a proposal to require this, but it was rejected because the CMP says that belongs in the product standards. There have been many cases in the past where the NEC has driven the product standards and this should be one of them.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
They were a lot better when they all had GFP as part of the device. All of the original branch circuit and feeder type had GFP. At least two manufacturers no longer have GFP in their combination devices.

it appears to me that they would be much better at detecting and clearing a high resistance or glowing connection fault, before a fire started if they still had a 30 to 50 mA ground fault trip. Now you must have at least 5 amps of current for the device to look for a series fault. You can produce more than enough heat from a poor connection to start a fire with a lot less than 5 amps of current.

For the record I did have a proposal to require this, but it was rejected because the CMP says that belongs in the product standards. There have been many cases in the past where the NEC has driven the product standards and this should be one of them.
Click to expand...

And I can't disagree with anything you have stated but mandating the GFCI or GFP aspect really does need to be standard driven. However, they did as you suggested back with AFCI OBC Devices and we remember the debate that caused.

Guess we just have to take what it is....adapt and move forward. I know I have and decided to just teach the NEC in my seminars or events and try to leave my personal thoughts out...except in my videos and podcasts..those are fair game...:)
 
We should just have GFCI/AFCI main breakers, one fault and poof your entire house is without power. Safety first!

For the satire impaired, I am being completely sarcastic, however I think that's where we're ultimately headed
 
MasterTheNEC said:
Why?.....am I not able to provide my opinion openly? Oh that right....I don't live in the real world...lol..because the electrons change over time...Got It...;)

Thousands eh....hmmm....i see the same folks on these threads as I always see....not thousands...;)
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm actually confident that THOUSANDS of ECs have dealt with AFCIs since their inception.

I would imagine that most ECs would waste no more time impotently complaining on an Internet forum than logging into AFCI websites to help manufacturers with perfecting their snake oil. No forum member's participation revolves around AFCI.

I didn't ask you to carry water for the manufacturers in this thread; you volunteered and then failed.
 
JFletcher said:
We should just have GFCI/AFCI main breakers, one fault and poof your entire house is without power. Safety first!

For the satire impaired, I am being completely sarcastic, however I think that's where we're ultimately headed
Click to expand...

I would celebrate a main breaker AFCI requirement. It would kill the requirement in the first month.
 
George Stolz said:
Yeah, I'm actually confident that THOUSANDS of ECs have dealt with AFCIs since their inception.

I would imagine that most ECs would waste no more time impotently complaining on an Internet forum than logging into AFCI websites to help manufacturers with perfecting their snake oil. No forum member's participation revolves around AFCI.

I didn't ask you to carry water for the manufacturers in this thread; you volunteered and then failed.
Click to expand...

LOL..Typical George....Yeah I Failed....Classic Mod
 
MasterTheNEC said:
LOL..Typical George....Yeah I Failed....Classic Mod
Click to expand...

Your reading skills are above this. Look again, that is exactly what happened. You need a new prescription of eyeglasses that filter out your ego when you post, they would save a lot of foolishness.

As I clearly said; just because an AFCI breaker tripped does not mean that a standard one wouldn't. You offered no proof, just rhetoric.
 
If I can stand on an apparent invisible middle ground here....

I don't really think any of us are opposed to safer electrical installations. I don't think any of us are against afci technology on paper, and in theory. I do see that many of us have had and continue to have bad experiences with afci Breakers as they currently are.

Master the NEC wrote earlier that AFC I Breakers were not required so much in Virginia due to lobbying. That may be true and perhaps they lobbied for the wrong reasons but ultimately they have the correct outcome. We have blissfully few of the things in panels.

The next logical step to me is programmable / smart Breakers that know the difference between a fancy vacuum cleaner and a glowing connection, or a series fault. The technology wouldn't be perfect, kind of like how this voice recognition screws up words and capitalizes things that should not be, however it would be a big improvement over current afci technology.
 
To expound upon my above post, think of like Siri or Google for your breaker panel. You could tell it that you are running your vacuum cleaner on a circuit and it may ignore for 10 or 15 minutes any faults that occur on that circuit. It may even learn what your vacuum cleaners electrical signature looks like, and consider it normal. Where as a glowing connection, even 2 amps, that it does not normally see, the breaker might trip.

This may sound like sci-fi, however keep in mind are cell phones now better than the communicators they had in the original Star Trek.
 
George Stolz said:
J, sensible as the idea is, to do so would be tacit acknowledgement that their technology sucks. They'll never do it.
Click to expand...


The technology sucks, the idea does not. Although I'm not a Gambling Man, I would bet that in my lifetime that smart Breakers will replace afci, and it will be a distant bad memory, like aluminum wiring in the 70s.
 
JFletcher said:
I don't think any of us are against afci technology on paper, and in theory.
Click to expand...

George Stolz said:
J, sensible as the idea is, to do so would be tacit acknowledgement that their technology sucks. They'll never do it.
Click to expand...


They are chasing ghosts. The original theory which created AFCIs has never been proven to this day. Now if they could trip on conditions which are obviously dangerous like glowing connections with high accuracy and good discrimination then I would be in favor and say the theory is sound.
 
the fact is, they don't do what they claim they do.

another crusader, Mr Bob H, an NFPA EE....>>>

https://youtu.be/iLmC5quELrE

Anyone can try this with similar results, it's easy......others have provided more elaborate methods>>>

https://youtu.be/_2HyTRxzwXs


Bob forwarded his rationale of why afci's do not mitigate a series event to CMP-2

They told him something along the lines of 'That's not the arc signature it's looking for'

Insinuating they know specific and/or proprietory afci arc signatures

So why don't they trip? Because UL uses an 'arc simulator'>>

https://i.imgur.com/eOF06wB.jpg
they cut and then wrap a piece of extension cord in flammable tape , and pump kilovolts through it until it ignites, and 1699 assumes afci 'combination'

~RJ~
 
George Stolz said:
Your reading skills are above this. Look again, that is exactly what happened. You need a new prescription of eyeglasses that filter out your ego when you post, they would save a lot of foolishness.

As I clearly said; just because an AFCI breaker tripped does not mean that a standard one wouldn't. You offered no proof, just rhetoric.
Click to expand...

Wow.....you nailed me George....good job Mod...you smacked down another member of the forum. Pound that chest fella....LOL. Considering I presented nothing and just showed the CPSC report and never attempted to argue anything...but as usual you just had you mission ahead of you Mr.Mod....Good Job you smart man...:angel: guess one sucky Mod with a few good Mods is a fair trade off...LOL

Ego...LOL.....do you even read your posts...LOL....wait who are you again...oh thats right...nobody....BTW i told you many times (go back and try to read it) that I don't care what you believe and i don't care to change anyone here since i really don't care...lol...most certainly not about you..:)
 
Last edited:
Yes many have read the report Master.

In fact there have been many published 'acfi technology' reports, articles, papers etc.

All via manufacturers and their hired mouthpieces.

In fact ,check out the Mar/April '18 IAEI's article , pg 18.....anyone who is marginally read on afci technology could probably point out the 'holes' written into it, if not the historic revisionism

Other than Dr Joe, there's very little in the way of opposing viewpoints

And i'm aware of many who ,upon fearing to pull the lions tail, declined.

So, if anyone here really wants CHANGE , there has got to be an investigative journalist with a set of brass ones involved.

The same follows for any class action suit, not one of 'em is going to pull the 'who watches the watchers' card, when it's plain to see the manufacturers can throw a bizillion $$$'s against it

Trust me, it's all been said /done, restore CEC to Parisian lawyers all declined.

It's been all grass roots now, for well over a decade

You want to help? Teach the specifics of a toroidal coil , it can only sense what a toroidal coil can sense regardless of any electronica lumped onto it. Teach Paschen's law and how 690.11 actually makes sense where 210.12 does not. Spread Dr. Joe as far as you can

Thx

~RJ~
 
Michigan used to require AFCI protection in bedrooms, circa 2003.

We no longer do, and here is a good discussion for the reason we no longer require AFCI for one and two family dwellings.

http://house.michigan.gov/sessiondocs/2015-2016/testimony/Committee346-1-27-2016-5.pdf

The last I read was that there was a bill in state congress to re-instate AFCI requirements. It was sidelined for technical review, and that's the last I heard of it.
 
JFletcher said:
The technology sucks, the idea does not. Although I'm not a Gambling Man, I would bet that in my lifetime that smart Breakers will replace afci, and it will be a distant bad memory, like aluminum wiring in the 70s.
Click to expand...

I have thought this for years.

It wouldn't be that difficult. New devices would have a chip with an ID and a current pattern. When plugged in, the device and the breaker would do a 'handshake' and the breaker would allow this new load without tripping. Any load without a 'handshake' would shut down the breaker.

As fast as communication technology is growing, and the size of the devices are shrinking, I think 'smart breaker' technology is not too far off the horizon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top