AFCI protection might have prevented 34 deaths - California

I watched the full video, and there was absolutely no indication that either parallel or series arc fault detection or even ground fault protection would have made any difference. Nor, necessarily, would overcurrent protection matching the wiring have been sufficient. Although it is not explicitly stated, there is a strong likelihood that ohmic heating in a bad plug/receptacle connection may have been at fault.
IMHO the code violations most likely to be responsible for the loss of life were:
  1. Insufficient smoke detectors with none in the area where the fire started,
  2. Lack of a fire watch by crew during the night,
  3. Irresponsible design with both exits from the sleeping quarters going through a single flammable room.
 
ptonsparky said:
Loose connections. The current flow can be very low but enough heat is generated that the connections can actually glow red. I've seen it more than once and the resulting damage is obvious. Anyplace connections are improperly made.
Click to expand...
Right but that's not an arc. (And no AFCI product has ever made a claim to detect it, nor could one.)
 
Although glowing arc isnt a term we use, it is a arc...i have seen them as well, which is detecting it.
Determining a arc i agree is another matter however. The evidence of an arc is pretty clear though... But citing it as the initial cause of fire is difficult when everything gets burned to heck.
Twa flight 800 is a great example...
For the life of me i cannot remember exactly what and where i saw wires and equipment glow and not trip the breaker- it might have been a old hid ballast? But it was a glowing and turning to liquid- much like a cadweld... And there was no stopping it till we threw (manually) the c.b.
Ok, to be clear, humans can detect it, just for the sake of argument...
 
You guys who want to call glowing connections 'arcs', do you call an incandescent lightbulb an arc too?

To me an arc happens through the air, across a gap between conductors (however temporary and fleeting the gap is). Wikipedia and websters agree, although I'll grant Oxford is vague. To me an arc generally looks quite different from a hot connection, it does not resemble black body radiation; the glow you guys describe as an arc is from the temperature of the metal, looks the same as if you heated it with a non-electric method.
But I guess if you all want to use the word 'arc' less precisely I can't stop you.
 
Call it whatever you want. The point is there is no evidence that AFCIs do anything to prevent fires. There is nothing at 120V that will sustain an arc that would cause a fire. The one thing that causes fires, a glowing connection caused by a tiny arc, is not detected by AFCIs. So why are we spending thousands of dollars a year to install them? And more importantly why is it that so many people think they actually do something to save lives and property?
 
drcampbell said:
AFCI's might have prevented 34 deaths
Click to expand...
Don't see AFCI required for boats, by US Title 33 CFR Sections 183.401 - 183.460, much less in 1981, when Conception was built.

If AFCI was required, it would be subject to the same Chamber of Commerce lobby, funded by builders & contractor associations, that amend out all AFCI's, to protect their Unskilled Slave Labor Force
(USLF).
 
ActionDave said:
Call it whatever you want. The point is there is no evidence that AFCIs do anything to prevent fires.
Click to expand...
Enforcing labor qualifications on any industry, much less local language skills, to communicate with product technical support, becomes a political issue.

Notably missing from the political trolls, is any evidence how UL 1699 fails to help, much less when combined with UL 489.
 
jaggedben said:
You guys who want to call glowing connections 'arcs', do you call an incandescent lightbulb an arc too?

To me an arc happens through the air, across a gap between conductors (however temporary and fleeting the gap is). Wikipedia and websters agree, although I'll grant Oxford is vague. To me an arc generally looks quite different from a hot connection, it does not resemble black body radiation; the glow you guys describe as an arc is from the temperature of the metal, looks the same as if you heated it with a non-electric method.
But I guess if you all want to use the word 'arc' less precisely I can't stop you.
Click to expand...
A arc can glow... it happens through non-conductive material. Everyone here knows how a lightbulb works. Im with calling it a "glow arc" is folly but since you are for wiki and the such- look at lab created arcs on video...
I dont know, seems all views on the subject are interesting seeing that electrical dangers are sorta our doctrine here...
 
rambojoe said:
A arc can glow... it happens through non-conductive material. Everyone here knows how a lightbulb works. Im with calling it a "glow arc" is folly but since you are for wiki and the such- look at lab created arcs on video...
I dont know, seems all views on the subject are interesting seeing that electrical dangers are sorta our doctrine here...
Click to expand...

To me that's just not an arc, whatever is happening, and I will not be persuaded to starting using the term that way. An arc is what you see from plasma, however brief. Lightning is an arc, lighting is not. 😉 However I grant that that is clearly that is not a consensus understanding, and I can't force you not to use the word for things I never would, I just think it muddles the discussion around arc-fault breakers.
 
Guys, I did not watch the video but am framiliar with the tragic incident, that and all vessels like it with passengers sleeping on it are supposed to have a roving watchman on duty during the night "whether or not the vessel is underway, to guard against, and give alarm in case of, a fire, man overboard, or other dangerous situation".
That crew failed to do that and thats what the Captain was criminally charged with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top