AFCI Everthing!

Status
Not open for further replies.
kwired said:
If you consider the computing power that can fit into a pocket sized device - yes it is plausible. After all that is the heart of the AFCI - a small processor.
Click to expand...

True. But a pocket computer aka smartphone/mobile device costs $600 whereas an AFCI cost $40. :)
 
peter d said:
True. But a pocket computer aka smartphone/mobile device costs $600 whereas an AFCI cost $40. :)
Click to expand...

The average "non smart phone" probably has more computing capability than the processor in the average AFCI, as well as many other pocket sized devices. Some cost more some cost less. My comment wasn't about price, it was about the fact that the technology is capable of being packed into a small area.
 
kwired said:
The average "non smart phone" probably has more computing capability than the processor in the average AFCI, as well as many other pocket sized devices. Some cost more some cost less. My comment wasn't about price, it was about the fact that the technology is capable of being packed into a small area.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of that. Yet why is the reputation of AFCI's still dubious and unknown after all these years, when we live in an age of micro-technology?
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
The heat is from the I?R heat across the high resistance connection.


We have been mislead as to the functionality of these devices from day one by their supporters. I don't think an AFCI will ever be able to directly detect that type of fault. There have been proposals to require wiring devices with some type of thermal detection for this type of problem but those proposals have been rejected.
Click to expand...
At the breaker, how would a glowing fault be distinguishable from a toaster or space heater on the circuit?
 
peter d said:
I'm aware of that. Yet why is the reputation of AFCI's still dubious and unknown after all these years, when we live in an age of micro-technology?
Click to expand...
The processing of information is likely not the problem, getting the right information to process is.

ggunn said:
At the breaker, how would a glowing fault be distinguishable from a toaster or space heater on the circuit?
Click to expand...
I don't see that it is distinguishable.
 
This short article speaks a bit about the ability to create the continuous series arc.

http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/cpmt/tc1/h2011/abstracts/6-1.pdf

I once connected an AFCI to a GFCI as the only load. This GFCI had a "shorted SCR" to the shunt trip coil. After about 2 seconds after turning on the power the coil burst into flames.
I had posted a video but it appears to have been lost.

Anyways ... The AFCI did not trip. They only address a very limited range of the conditions that might cause a fire.
Some of them are however pretty good at nuisance tripping :)
 
I believe in science and advancements but sometimes the answers are closer at hand and a lot simpler. We have had electricity for well over 100 years now. I have seen installations known to be installed in 1920 that were still working relatively well because they were well installed. (No, I do not advocate going back to K/T, don't start that.) I see systems now that were installed in the 1970's, 80's & 90's with backstabbing that are causing problems. A good install that lasts over 90 years with less trouble than a mediocre install after 40-50 bout less than 50 years, even though materials are far better? What does that tell you?

I know a lot of you have seen similar things out there, regardless of where you live and work. I stand by my statement that good wiring methods are the 1st foundation of safe & reliable wiring.
 
I think materials are far worse than they use to be. Seems like it takes very little to nick the insulation of of modern day romex.
Used to be the insulation was a lot thicker and the sheath was more robust. Same with the devices, they were much sturdier than the new cheap residential crap.

I think we're all a victom of our own creation.

Maybe if the conductors and the devices werent so easily damaged we wouldnt need the extra protection that they're trying to manufacture.
 
jap said:
I think materials are far worse than they use to be. Seems like it takes very little to nick the insulation of of modern day romex.
Used to be the insulation was a lot thicker and the sheath was more robust. Same with the devices, they were much sturdier than the new cheap residential crap.

I think we're all a victom of our own creation.

Maybe if the conductors and the devices werent so easily damaged we wouldnt need the extra protection that they're trying to manufacture.
Click to expand...

I partly agree about some of the jackets but we had some in the mid 70's that were very soft and easily torn. I think the conductor insulation is better than ever. I know it is not labeled as such, but I am sure it is THHN. THHN is tougher than any other I have seen, except maybe TFFN. Most Romex in the 70's had TW conductor insulation, as I remember. It was thicker but more easily damaged. Much softer. It was good for heat, as I recall but not abrasion.

I agree on a lot of the devices. Some of the ground terminals nearly twist off if not braced when tightening. I see a fair number of range outlets with poor quality terminals. Even had a Hubbell brand awhile back that the terminals bent out of shape when tightening. Sad thing when a "Cadillac" brand is so poorly made.

I despise the quality of a lot of lighting fixtures now too. I replace ballasts in a lot of troffers at my church. I will soon have to add screws to the lenses to hold them in, the latches are so flimsy. Even some expensive lights have dirt cheap sockets that are very brittle and easily broken. Hate to see them when they've been used a few years. I've replaced a few wall packs there with plastic lenses that burned up. I hate nearly all the weatherproof flourescent strip lights I have worked with. Many have cracked covers new from the box. The clips often fall off while installing and or when opening cover to replace a tube. Bad enough with cheap lights but those are high dollar. Same complaint with belly pan clips that do not hold at all, with lights costing nearly $100 each. A good belly pan clip is not rocket science.

Do manufacturers have no pride except in their prices?
 
Our views are not far apart.
I think the biggest problem with cheaply made products and arc fault breakers is that they steal a little of our thunder.

I think every good electrician is offended when something out of his control makes him look bad, like a lens sagging after you put it in
or a breaker tripping for no good reason, if things worked like they should we wouldnt be arguing the pros and cons.

At least for me, I take pride in things properly protected but not Tripping for no reason.

I like to tell the customer the breaker did it's job, not I'm not sure why the breaker is tripping.

JAP>
 
jap said:
...

I like to tell the customer the breaker did it's job, not I'm not sure why the breaker is tripping.

JAP>
Click to expand...

I like to be able to explain to the customer what, exactly, the breaker does. I can do that with a regular magnetic breaker, and with a GFI breaker, but not with a AFCI - it's a proprietary secret.
 
PetrosA said:
I like to be able to explain to the customer what, exactly, the breaker does. I can do that with a regular magnetic breaker, and with a GFI breaker, but not with a AFCI - it's a proprietary secret.
Click to expand...

You are not alone. Anybody that can explain just what it does is likely not going to be understood:happyyes:
 
jap said:
Our views are not far apart.
I think the biggest problem with cheaply made products and arc fault breakers is that they steal a little of our thunder.

I think every good electrician is offended when something out of his control makes him look bad, like a lens sagging after you put it in
or a breaker tripping for no good reason, if things worked like they should we wouldnt be arguing the pros and cons.

At least for me, I take pride in things properly protected but not Tripping for no reason.

I like to tell the customer the breaker did it's job, not I'm not sure why the breaker is tripping.

JAP>
Click to expand...

Well spoken, there is our common ground.
 
jmellc said:
We are fools to use the ones we have to use now and the code authorities are fools for making us do it. That code was bought & paid for by manufacturers. I still say any code that requires AFCI while allowing backstabbing is a code unworthy of any respect.
Click to expand...

You need to read the history of AFCI breakers and how they got in the code. It was not manufacturers who pushed for it.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
As I recall all of the original proposals were submitted by Eaton, however the effort was driven by the CPSP.
Click to expand...

That is correct and they asked UL to look into a method to stop arc faults. They looked at GFCI, AFCI (which was new) and some other methods. UL then decided that AFCI was the way to go. The reason for the activation date, is that, not all of the manufactures were up to speed with the AFCI and needed time to develop a product.
 
cowboyjwc said:
That is correct and they asked UL to look into a method to stop arc faults. They looked at GFCI, AFCI (which was new) and some other methods. UL then decided that AFCI was the way to go. The reason for the activation date, is that, not all of the manufactures were up to speed with the AFCI and needed time to develop a product.
Click to expand...
One of the biggest problems I have with the whole AFCI thing is the fact that those original proposals said that they had a device that would do what they now tell us that the combination AFCI will do...those original proposals were ~13 years prior to the sale of the first combination AFCI.
Based on that total fraud, I am very reluctant to believe anything that is published by the manufacturers about these devices.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top