AFCI GFCI fault resoultion specialist

[MasterTheNEC]

With all the issues of AFCI and GFCI tripping when it seems like they shouldn't, I am wondering if there is enough of it to specialize in it.

I love to troubleshoot. I know that it will take some time to be efficient solving CI trip problems, but I also know that the more years you put in, the fewer hours you have to put in.

To the EC's. If there was a CI fault specialist that was actually good at it, would you call him in, or would you just have your guys try to de-bug it?

Do you think supply houses and box stores would be willing to refer customers to such a specialist?

Do you think the manufacturers would be kind to such a specialist and offer assistance? I ask because I used to to electrical and electronic repairs on cars and the manufacturers were real tight with info. I backward enginnered many systems just so I would have schematics and also did many 'autopsies' on failed devices. I am used to having no factory help. I am also used to having factory help from working on machine control and recording systems. I like it when the factory helps, but don't need them to proceed.

It appears that RFI can be an issue. I hold an Amateur Extra class radio license. 20 years in just one short month. I have been playing with radios for 45 years.

I am used to building my own test equipment.

If there is a fair chance I could make a viable business out of T-shooting CI's, I would put some money into building a 'lab' and having the various brands to experiment with. I worked in R&D for years and that was fun, too.

I lived off doing electrical work on cars for years. The reason was that 90 percent of the mechanics hated doing it, so they sent the stuff to me. I am hoping that 90 percent of the electricians hate chasing AFCI and GFCI faults and would send them to me.

I am not afraid of failing to solve the problems, I am afraid of putting money into something and not get the referrals.

So, do I have a good idea, or a not so good one???

Well...I can only say that I have not experienced the problems some people claim to experience. While nothing is perfect; its darn beneficial to the lives they possibly save. We can't quantify those figures except to look at a reduction of fires as they directly relate to residential fires reported as electrical in nature. And we know anytime something can't be explained (fires) it's gets slapped as Electrical in nature.

And their are specialists out there who live and breath this, the experts are the manufacturers of the products but don't let me stop your entrepreneurial spirit my friend...have at it.

No one wants to resolve issues faster than the manufacturers. While others will argue that AFCI's were rushed too soon, made too many promises early on in the game and well...do nothing to deter a glowing arc scenario except hoping the internal GFI aids in the detection( which all but 1 still have, we know who you are...lol). Neither will taking a boat out in Dutch Harbor Alaska and fishing for crabs....knowing they could DIE...yet they still do it. (wow, that's a crappy analogy and not sure why I went there, still crazy to do that mind you)

Point is...I don't see nearly the issues some people talk about and when I do it is overwhelmingly an installer errors at some point. The reason you hear about some issues is because people promote problems like an urban legend...it builds a life of it's own and they don't even care to investigate what actually could be the cause, just take the issue at face value and assume it was a product concern.

Ok..for fear of being beaten up by the ANTI-AFCI Police I will step back down and say...good luck my friend in your potential business idea.

 

[kwired]

Well...I can only say that I have not experienced the problems some people claim to experience. While nothing is perfect; its darn beneficial to the lives they possibly save. We can't quantify those figures except to look at a reduction of fires as they directly relate to residential fires reported as electrical in nature. And we know anytime something can't be explained (fires) it's gets slapped as Electrical in nature.

And their are specialists out there who live and breath this, the experts are the manufacturers of the products but don't let me stop your entrepreneurial spirit my friend...have at it.

No one wants to resolve issues faster than the manufacturers. While others will argue that AFCI's were rushed too soon, made too many promises early on in the game and well...do nothing to deter a glowing arc scenario except hoping the internal GFI aids in the detection( which all but 1 still have, we know who you are...lol). Neither will taking a boat out in Dutch Harbor Alaska and fishing for crabs....knowing they could DIE...yet they still do it. (wow, that's a crappy analogy and not sure why I went there, still crazy to do that mind you)

Point is...I don't see nearly the issues some people talk about and when I do it is overwhelmingly an installer errors at some point. The reason you hear about some issues is because people promote problems like an urban legend...it builds a life of it's own and they don't even care to investigate what actually could be the cause, just take the issue at face value and assume it was a product concern.

Ok..for fear of being beaten up by the ANTI-AFCI Police I will step back down and say...good luck my friend in your potential business idea.

Here comes the anti-afci police

I have no problem with the intention of AFCI's.

I have seen no real proof in the nearly 15 years of their existence that they do very much of what they claim they will do.

I also have had very little "nuisance tripping" issues with them, doesn't mean I trust they are doing what they are supposed to do though.

I don't like comparisons to GFCI's and the issues people had with those. They are not the same thing, many of us understand and know the concepts of the GFCI and are supportive of that technology and what it can do.

AFCI manufacturers are still hiding something and $$$$ is the driving factor more so then safety. They told us from day one what they are supposed to protect us from. Then a few years later they come up with the "combination" protection type because the first one didn't protect us from everything they said it did:happysad: Sorry but that was just a cover up that they won't admit to. Someday they may truly have something that does what they say it will do and will be reliable, but until then the consumer is part of their testing lab because they want sooner return on their R&D, even though the product isn't finished yet.

 

[MasterTheNEC]

Here comes the anti-afci police

I have no problem with the intention of AFCI's.

I have seen no real proof in the nearly 15 years of their existence that they do very much of what they claim they will do.

I also have had very little "nuisance tripping" issues with them, doesn't mean I trust they are doing what they are supposed to do though.

I don't like comparisons to GFCI's and the issues people had with those. They are not the same thing, many of us understand and know the concepts of the GFCI and are supportive of that technology and what it can do.

AFCI manufacturers are still hiding something and $$$$ is the driving factor more so then safety. They told us from day one what they are supposed to protect us from. Then a few years later they come up with the "combination" protection type because the first one didn't protect us from everything they said it did:happysad: Sorry but that was just a cover up that they won't admit to. Someday they may truly have something that does what they say it will do and will be reliable, but until then the consumer is part of their testing lab because they want sooner return on their R&D, even though the product isn't finished yet.

OK AFCI Police (I do say that in jest)

You do nothing but add to the urban legend (myth) with those unsubstantiated statements. You stated and I quote "I also have had very little "nuisance tripping" issues with them, doesn't mean I trust they are doing what they are supposed to do though." well because you may lack a true understanding (just saying, not blaming) of their technology I could also say the same for my politician.

The "AFCI manufacturers are still hiding something and $$$$ is the driving factor more then safety" is hogwash. Sorry I had to use that term, it was a harry potter special on last night and I can't get it out of my mind) Now, we all know that the CPSC did an independent study back in the 1990's and they called for manufacturers to step up and create a product to meet a growing concern. All the manufacturers did was step up to the plate, in America we call that enterprise.

Ok lets talk about the "they told us they were going to protect us argument". When I purchased my most recent laptop the sales guy told me I would not need to ever buy another one, this one had all the power I would ever need..so I was sold. Hey guess what, he lied but I still shop at Best Buy. They told you they had a product that could help detect arcs found in specific conditions, nothing more and nothing less. However, with continued research the products got better and well increased its protection prospects....everything changes over time just not sure why select few wish to fight it as if the electrician is paying for it out of their own pocket...everyone transfers that cost to the consumer anyway, oh and like my laptop the prices always go it while the AFCI prices have come down.

Lastly and again I really did not want to get into the AFCI debate so (iwire...let it be please...:happyyes You sound like Jesse Ventura and the Conspiracy Files....which is not on the air anymore Jesse....just sayin.

Oh wait....really my last statement in this post. If more people would visit the website www.afcisafety.org and post issues directly to the manufacturers when they have a problem with a product we might see less and less of those "issues" I hear about. We can't expect to fix a problem (if one exists) unless the makers know about it so they can find the solution.

But your points are taken my friend, I just choose to see the glass half full rather than half empty.

 

[kwired]

OK AFCI Police (I do say that in jest)

You do nothing but add to the urban legend (myth) with those unsubstantiated statements. You stated and I quote "I also have had very little "nuisance tripping" issues with them, doesn't mean I trust they are doing what they are supposed to do though." well because you may lack a true understanding (just saying, not blaming) of their technology I could also say the same for my politician.

The "AFCI manufacturers are still hiding something and $$$$ is the driving factor more then safety" is hogwash. Sorry I had to use that term, it was a harry potter special on last night and I can't get it out of my mind) Now, we all know that the CPSC did an independent study back in the 1990's and they called for manufacturers to step up and create a product to meet a growing concern. All the manufacturers did was step up to the plate, in America we call that enterprise.

Ok lets talk about the "they told us they were going to protect us argument". When I purchased my most recent laptop the sales guy told me I would not need to ever buy another one, this one had all the power I would ever need..so I was sold. Hey guess what, he lied but I still shop at Best Buy. They told you they had a product that could help detect arcs found in specific conditions, nothing more and nothing less. However, with continued research the products got better and well increased its protection prospects....everything changes over time just not sure why select few wish to fight it as if the electrician is paying for it out of their own pocket...everyone transfers that cost to the consumer anyway, oh and like my laptop the prices always go it while the AFCI prices have come down.

Lastly and again I really did not want to get into the AFCI debate so (iwire...let it be please...:happyyes You sound like Jesse Ventura and the Conspiracy Files....which is not on the air anymore Jesse....just sayin.

Oh wait....really my last statement in this post. If more people would visit the website www.afcisafety.org and post issues directly to the manufacturers when they have a problem with a product we might see less and less of those "issues" I hear about. We can't expect to fix a problem (if one exists) unless the makers know about it so they can find the solution.

But your points are taken my friend, I just choose to see the glass half full rather than half empty.

My problem with them is how the manufacturers pushed hard and spend a lot just to get them in the code. Had they not done that I don't believe they would have sold their product to the CMP. They probably are onto something that one day will have some impact on electrical safety. They have not proven that yet, and we shouldn't be forced by code to install them if they are not proven to increase safety yet. So far most of what has been proven can be done by other products. I admit to not knowing everything about them, but I have read studies by many that do know something about them. There was not this kind of controversy with GFCI. Those who had the most problems with them were people that just plain did not understand them. This is not as true with the AFCI.

 

[MasterTheNEC]

My problem with them is how the manufacturers pushed hard and spend a lot just to get them in the code. Had they not done that I don't believe they would have sold their product to the CMP. They probably are onto something that one day will have some impact on electrical safety. They have not proven that yet, and we shouldn't be forced by code to install them if they are not proven to increase safety yet. So far most of what has been proven can be done by other products. I admit to not knowing everything about them, but I have read studies by many that do know something about them. There was not this kind of controversy with GFCI. Those who had the most problems with them were people that just plain did not understand them. This is not as true with the AFCI.

See what you have done...you pulled me in didn't you...shame on you..:angel: ( its like a hunter who feeds the deer, he says he is helping feed the wildlife while his only goal is mass slaughter of innocent creatures...man I am all about analogies tonight)

Having been to plenty of the ROC and ROP sessions in my time I will say this, no manufacturer can "PUSH" harder than anyone else to get things into the code. If you believe they did then you must have the opinion that our CMP process is a waste of time and effort; to which I would disagree and I thank them for their dedicated service.

Ok so you say they have not proven them yet, may I ask you what you are looking for as proof? Hopefully not a smoking gun because AFCI's prevent that, well something like that analogy. Well, I have no doubt you have read a little article by someone named Joseph Engle, ring a bell? well his beef is with the "Combination" concept versus a typical branch circuit/feeder AFCI with integral GFI protection. Either way he supports AFCI's but feels the "combination" concept is pointless. I happen to disagree but who am I to argue with genius, well perceived genius anyway.

Look the data produced by the NFPA in the 2012 study shows a sharp decrease in electrical fires that resulted from infrastructure wiring, we can debate that that details but fact you are saying that everyone on the CMP was duped by the manufacturers of AFCI Devices...really come on now. Even the great Mike Holt sent out an email bashing them only to retract that statement after witnessing the testing process.

At the end of the day, would you build a home without smoke alarms? No I doubt you would. However, their net worth is only good if the fire has already started. We can show, with scientific certainty that arcs do exist, we can show how they are created and how it could happen and these products detect it and aid the user in hopefully fix a problem or at least making someone aware of it. How is that not proof. Also did you notice a HUGE recall on luminaries from china that kept causing AFCI's to trip only to find out the AFCI's were RIGHT and a recall was issued. Don't believe me, check out the CPSC website for more details by just searching for "arc fault"

My friend I learned long ago that I was not a good AMWAY salesman so don't let me convince you past your convictions. I do however hope that someday when you DO feel their is proof you can accept you post back to me saying..I love you man...you are an ok guy.:lol:

 

[don_resqcapt19]

The money spent on the AFCI issue would have been much better spent on requiring dwelling unit sprinkler systems that provide a huge life safety benefit for fires from any cause. Remember that fires that are said to be of electrical origin are only about 10% of the total number of dwelling unit fire. With the expansion of the AFCI, the costs to provide them is approaching the cost of a residential fire sprinkler system. A system that would save far more lives than the AFCI will.

There is also information in ULs "Influence of Damage and Degradation on Breakdown Voltage of NM Cables" report that shows some of the things that they have said in the past were causes of electrical fires, do not produce enough energy to cause a fire.

As far as the reduction in the number of fires, who knows what any of those numbers really mean. There has never been any reliable data on dwelling unit fire causes. This is because very few of those fires are ever really investigated. In many cases the company officer on the first due engine company does the fire cause report. It is often solely based on what is in the area, but without any real information as to the exact cause...that is there is nothing to say that it was an arcing fault that caused the fire as opposed to joule heating that caused the fire. The AFCI cannot detect joule heating directly. It can only detect that type of electrical fault when the damage to the insulation from the heat causes a arcing fault or a ground fault. The ground fault would be detected and cleared by the GFP function much quicker than an arcing fault (that is assuming such a fault is even possible at dwelling unit voltages, Paschen's Law). The GFP function in the AFCIs that have GFP trips at 30 to 50mA...the AFCI function doesn't even look for an arcing fault unless the current exceeds 5 amps. Glowing connections with enough heat to start a fire can exist at currents below 1 amp. If the GFP is not restored to the AFCI device, it has no chance of preventing a joule heating electrical fire.

The last issue I have is, that based on the outright lies that were presented in the original proposals, I have zero trust of any of the publicly available information related to AFCIs. The lie I am talking about is the fact that the original proposals said they had a device that will do what they now tell use the combination type AFCI will do...the issue is that those original proposals were some 13 years prior to the combination device hitting the market.

 

[MasterTheNEC]

How's this...we will agree to disagree and leave it that. It remains classy that way.

But for the record....Americans have been fed a lot more BS on other products than the valuable efforts made by manufacturers to help prevent ANY fire. I just happen to support paying for progress. But hey that's just me, I gave up trying to convince people of the value in AFCI's a few years ( opps I mean posts ) ago.

 

[kwired]

I'm all for preventing fires. I am not for profit driven motivation to push a product that is may not yet be ready for code adoption. Sure anybody could have made code change proposals, not everyone has the resources to sell themselves when making a proposal. I'd guess there have been many proposals to lessen AFCI requirements that did not go far because they did not have enough $$$ to impress the CMP with significant R&D to back their information. AFCI is not the only NEC change that this has happened with, but is the one that gets the most attention.

 

[MasterTheNEC]

I'm all for preventing fires. I am not for profit driven motivation to push a product that is may not yet be ready for code adoption. Sure anybody could have made code change proposals, not everyone has the resources to sell themselves when making a proposal. I'd guess there have been many proposals to lessen AFCI requirements that did not go far because they did not have enough $$$ to impress the CMP with significant R&D to back their information. AFCI is not the only NEC change that this has happened with, but is the one that gets the most attention.

So this actually begs me to ask. Have you ever been to an ROP or ROC Meeting?....It's not conducted as you have painted it.

 

[kwired]

So this actually begs me to ask. Have you ever been to an ROP or ROC Meeting?....It's not conducted as you have painted it.

No I haven't. Don't tell me the manufacturers would be assured to get their proposals passed if they had an average Joe installer write the proposal and handle it's submission. They spend some money making sure they get something that will be an easier sell to those that ultimately decide things. IAEI or NECA or other non manufacturing organizations do have more money, but are not as profit driven to sell their point of view.

This is no different then politics, each side has an agenda and has the right to push that agenda. The one that does the better job of selling it to the decision makers is who wins each battle. That often means they will spend more $$$ to make the better presentation - it happens. The manufacturers have more potential profit to lose and will spend more to get their way.