AFCI satisfaction poll. Please take a moment to answer.

Learn the NEC with Mike Holt now!

AFCI satisfaction poll. Please take a moment to answer.

  • Total voters
    104
Status
Not open for further replies.
peter d said:
There is literally a Grand Canyon's worth of difference between AFCI and GFCI technology. GFCI is simple, easily defined and understood, and proven, while AFCI technology remains mysterious, its very introduction was filled with misinformation and deception, and is still highly problematic well over a decade after its introduction. I, for one, am getting sick of the GFCI and AFCI comparison.
Click to expand...
I agree, GFCI may have been misunderstood initially, as well as AFCI - yet AFCI is still not been clarified just how or if they even work after what, about 15 years now since first put into code?
 
kwired said:
I agree, GFCI may have been misunderstood initially, as well as AFCI - yet AFCI is still not been clarified just how or if they even work after what, about 15 years now since first put into code?
Click to expand...

Or the fact an AFCI is basically a glorified GFCI :lol:
 
The similarity is the toroidal coil , the differences are the electronica incorporated.

Of particular note would be the euro toroidals , which have been doing the job for over 1/2 century w/o electronica.

Electronics are the weak component , evident in the evolution to self diagnostic devices.

Juxtaposed, this is literally two engineering errors trying to market a right

~RJ~
 
mbrooke said:
Or the fact an AFCI is basically a glorified GFCI :lol:
Click to expand...
Well sort of, seems many have issues with these that they don't have with GFCI's so there is more to it then just GFCI. I honestly have had little experience with them, we had amended the AFCI requirments out of the code until the 2008 cycle was adopted. I haven't done all that much residential work since then and have only done maybe half a dozen new homes max with any significant number of AFCI devices installed, and only one which was more of a major remodel then a all new home under 2014 that I can recall. Will admit to installing a branch circuit here and there or extending one that didn't have AFCI that otherwise should have, but haven't lost any sleep over them at all.
 
peter d said:
There is literally a Grand Canyon's worth of difference between AFCI and GFCI technology. GFCI is simple, easily defined and understood, and proven, while AFCI technology remains mysterious, its very introduction was filled with misinformation and deception, and is still highly problematic well over a decade after its introduction. I, for one, am getting sick of the GFCI and AFCI comparison.
Click to expand...
Now.
 
kwired said:
Well sort of, seems many have issues with these that they don't have with GFCI's so there is more to it then just GFCI. I honestly have had little experience with them, we had amended the AFCI requirments out of the code until the 2008 cycle was adopted. I haven't done all that much residential work since then and have only done maybe half a dozen new homes max with any significant number of AFCI devices installed, and only one which was more of a major remodel then a all new home under 2014 that I can recall. Will admit to installing a branch circuit here and there or extending one that didn't have AFCI that otherwise should have, but haven't lost any sleep over them at all.
Click to expand...

They had to put GFP in AFCIs in order to get them to trip during UL1699 testing.
 
mbrooke said:
Originally didn't all of them have GFP?
Click to expand...
Yes. The AFCI without GF is a relatively recent development.
I would not call that GF protection GFCI though, since the trip current is too high.
An even more recent development is the true dual function units with both AFCI and 6ma GFCI that meets the GFCI standard.
 
mbrooke said:
Originally didn't all of them have GFP?
Click to expand...
As far as I know all of the original branch circuit and feeder type AFCIs had a ground fault function and I believe all of the combination type did too when they first came out, but that is not the case now.
 
GoldDigger said:
Yes. The AFCI without GF is a relatively recent development.
I would not call that GF protection GFCI though, since the trip current is too high.
An even more recent development is the true dual function units with both AFCI and 6ma GFCI that meets the GFCI standard.
Click to expand...

don_resqcapt19 said:
As far as I know all of the original branch circuit and feeder type AFCIs had a ground fault function and I believe all of the combination type did too when they first came out, but that is not the case now.
Click to expand...

My thoughts originally. Didnt they add this GFP because the Arc logic had not developed fully? Or was there another reason for including it?
 
mbrooke said:
My thoughts originally. Didnt they add this GFP because the Arc logic had not developed fully? Or was there another reason for including it?
Click to expand...
I think that back then they actually understood that the GFP could detect faults that the arc logic could not detect.
 
romex jockey said:
BTW, i find it amusing the AFCI is banned in 2014 NH, which the CMP-2 chair hails from.....~RJ~
Click to expand...

That is not exactly true. There is a bill in legislation to amend AFCI's but it has not been completely removed. Definitely a hot topic for the last year here in NH though.

I think the lack of statistical evidence of the device working is an issue. I don't understand why the product was rushed into the NEC and on the market.

I do think the device has an awesome potential if it does what they claim and it can be proven.
 
Last edited:
joebell said:
I don't understand why the product was rushed into the NEC and on the market.
Click to expand...

Put yourself in the manufacturer's shoes. You have spent a lot of $$ in R & D, and if it doesn't get into the code who is going to buy it, especially if it does have problems.

First mention of AFCI in the NEC was in 1999 edition, with a date of effectiveness of Jan 1, 2002. Why did that happen? They weren't ready with product yet but made sure they persuaded the code making panel they would be by that date, because they wanted to start selling instead of sitting on there R & D for three more years when the next code comes out. Even though next code was 2002, there would be many places that don't adopt it right away, so the date in 1999 gets sales up for anyone using 1999 once 2002 comes around.

Then we later find out the first units don't do everything they say they will do, and they come up with the CAFCI, and if I recall put similar date in code to get time to get them to the market but yet assures they don't have to wait three more years to get it into code.

Will they someday have a legitimate product that people trust? maybe, but nothing like using the consumer as a major part of your testing lab and crying it is all about saving lives as justification and continuing to profit by forcing what many consider a poor product into the code.
 
kwired said:
Put yourself in the manufacturer's shoes. You have spent a lot of $$ in R & D, and if it doesn't get into the code who is going to buy it, especially if it does have problems.

First mention of AFCI in the NEC was in 1999 edition, with a date of effectiveness of Jan 1, 2002. Why did that happen? They weren't ready with product yet but made sure they persuaded the code making panel they would be by that date, because they wanted to start selling instead of sitting on there R & D for three more years when the next code comes out. Even though next code was 2002, there would be many places that don't adopt it right away, so the date in 1999 gets sales up for anyone using 1999 once 2002 comes around.

Then we later find out the first units don't do everything they say they will do, and they come up with the CAFCI, and if I recall put similar date in code to get time to get them to the market but yet assures they don't have to wait three more years to get it into code.

Will they someday have a legitimate product that people trust? maybe, but nothing like using the consumer as a major part of your testing lab and crying it is all about saving lives as justification and continuing to profit by forcing what many consider a poor product into the code.
Click to expand...

Its ironic but it goes like this... someone came up with a theory that if a short circuit does not clear a fault within a few cycles it leads to fire. Ok, fair enough, what do I know:roll:. So the idea was to put a 75amp coil inside each 15 and 20amp breaker, but that idea was turned down due to nuisance tripping. So electronic signature analysis was put in place to differentiate between inrush and an arc. They could not do it at the time, so they turned to GFP instead, the exact same component as a GFCI (just at a higher threshold) while still calling the device an AFCI marketed as completely brand new and never thought of as before.


And its not like GFP cant do what a coil does, look what happens at 1:35 with 50 year matured arc fault technology:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRhOEkGgl64
 
mbrooke said:
... So the idea was to put a 75amp coil inside each 15 and 20amp breaker, but that idea was turned down due to nuisance tripping. So electronic signature analysis was put in place to differentiate between inrush and an arc. ...
Click to expand...
But that 75 amp idea is still there...the AFCI does not look for a parallel arcing fault unless the circuit current is 75 amps or more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top