AFCI trip on new furnace

ActionDave said:
The ground fault circuitry, added to AFCIs because they suck otherwise, is what was effective. AFCIs are a fraud and a waste of money.
Click to expand...
While all of the original branch circuit and feeder type AFCIs, had a ground fault circuit, many of the brands of the currently required combination type AFCIs no longer have a ground fault protection circuit. GE was the first to eliminate that about 10-12 years ago, then one of the Eaton lines and most recently Siemens.
 
hbiss said:
You would think the code making panels would be smart enough to figure this out themselves. It's not like the mountain of complaints all these years has been hidden. It's almost like they are in on the fraud.

Has anybody ever written a PI to have all AFCI requirements stricken? And dozens of other companies and individuals to barrage them with the same for every new code cycle?

-Hal
Click to expand...
I see it somewhat no different than how big businesses get in cahoots with politicians and persuade them to make laws that favor their bottom line. I don't want to turn the thread toward politics just want to point out there is similarity to what does happen there. This just not on quite as big of scale that the general public sees in some political things as they get these products installed and often don't know what they are and only notice it if it frequently trips on them. Is more of a "Code politics" sort of thing and mostly seen by the people out there in the electrical professions, and doesn't matter which side you are on the issues are mostly only a thing within the electrical professionals community.

Is easy to be bought in by presentations that the manufacturers provide showing the benefits of these devices, and they can dismiss any problems by claiming if it saves just one life it is worth it, and some people will take that bait. There simply isn't deep enough pockets by any organization opposing these to put the money into any kind of campaign against them as the manufacturers will dump a lot of money into convincing code making panels otherwise. So we are stuck following rules we don't entirely agree with or do take at least some risk not following those rules in situations where there is not going to be code enforcement involved.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
While all of the original branch circuit and feeder type AFCIs, had a ground fault circuit, many of the brands of the currently required combination type AFCIs no longer have a ground fault protection circuit. GE was the first to eliminate that about 10-12 years ago, then one of the Eaton lines and most recently Siemens.
Click to expand...
I know, and it's a shame that AFCI, which is ineffective, is still being mandated when we all could be safer with RCD or GFPE level protection.
 
kwired said:
There simply isn't deep enough pockets by any organization opposing these to put the money into any kind of campaign against them as the manufacturers will dump a lot of money into convincing code making panels otherwise.
Click to expand...
Not a campaign, a class action lawsuit. This is huge enough for some large law firm to make some money with an action against the manufacturers and the NFPA.

-Hal
 
hbiss said:
Not a campaign, a class action lawsuit. This is huge enough for some large law firm to make some money with an action against the manufacturers and the NFPA.

-Hal
Click to expand...
I keep saying it's too bad that the 100% AFCI requirement for all resi branch circuits didn't make it into the code a couple cycles back. That was our best chance of having the right lawyer get his pipes frozen or his medical device tripping out in the middle of the night and start the ball rolling on a class action suit.
 
ramsy said:
Most xFCI devices are not designed to be durable, with unshielded integrated circuits, subject to damage without SPD, and Test-buttons subject to mechanical failure from exposure to the elements.

Lighting strikes 5 miles away, and xFCI is junk, never was suitable for service equipment, nor as a comparison to simpler thermal magnetic breakers.
Click to expand...
I'm beginning to think you don't care for these items. :)
GFCIs have improved considerably since they were required to become self-testing.
Prior to that, 5 miles was being conservative.

I do not press the test button on my AFCIs. They self-destruct, or at least the older ones did.
MDSW tripped a DF AFCI a week or two ago. Same vacuum she uses every week and has since then. I didn't bother with codes; it reset and as long as the thermal function works, I can live with it.
 
ptonsparky said:
I'm beginning to think you don't care for these items. :)
Click to expand...
In my area most service equipment goes outdoors, with little shade, or dog houses for circuit breakers. Sun exposed covers get too hot to touch within a few hours.

Integrated circuits are getting cooked in there, and utility excursions, or transient voltages have the least impedance at service equipment.

I don’t believe unshielded electronic circuit breakers.are suitable for service equipment, much less expected to operate properly in ambient extremes, behind sheet metal covers baking in the sun.
 
ActionDave said:
I know, and it's a shame that AFCI, which is ineffective, is still being mandated when we all could be safer with RCD or GFPE level protection.
Click to expand...
When they were proposing AFCI's to the CMP in the late 90's one of the CMP members who saw the tests made this comment:

Test results with a residual current detector (RCD) were
provided. An RCD ts 1000 times more sensitive to arc faults and
only one device is required per dwelling. Since it is a mandatory
product m Europe, it would be a more cost-effective alternative
and it can be retrofitted into existing housing Panel 2 needs to
consider it as an alternative (see below)
Click to expand...
1998 NFPA-70 A98 ROP, Page 112
Log #1820
 
tortuga said:
When they were proposing AFCI's to the CMP in the late 90's one of the CMP members who saw the tests made this comment:


1998 NFPA-70 A98 ROP, Page 112
Log #1820
Click to expand...
It has long been my opinion that the GFP that was in the original branch circuit and feeder type AFCIs did most of the work. Even go an engineer from one of the breaker companies to agree, but it is not a requirement of the product standard. It was in the original AFCIs because they needed it to pass all tests required by UL 1699.
I submitted a proposal for the NEC that would have required all AFCIs to have GFP. but it was rejected as that is a requirement that belongs in a product standard and not in the code.

However even with GFP there is nothing that can directly detect the joule heating from a poor connection and that is the most common type of fault. The current AFCIs have to wait until it is an actual arcing fault, but you can have an actual arcing fault that is production enough heat to start a fire and not trip the AFCI because the AFCI does not look for series faults where the current is less than 5 amps and does not look for a parallel fault where the current is less than 75 amps.
With GFP, there is a chance that the heat from the poor connection will result in a ground fault before a fire is started.

Also if self sustaining arcing faults are a real thing at 120 volts, why does 230.95 not require ground fault protection for 208Y/120 volt systems, like its for 480Y/277 volt systems? The purpose of 230.95 is to provide at trip for a self sustaining arcing fault where the impedance of the arc is limiting the current to a level that the standard OCPD will not trip.
 
hbiss said:
Someone please tell me how an RCD differs from a GFCI and how it's effective in detecting arc faults. All I'm seeing is that it is constructed the same as a GFCI.

-Hal
Click to expand...
They are pretty much the same as they both detect current outside the normal path.
 
With all the problems we have had with AFCI breakers on washers, dryers, refrigerators, and microwaves, we switched to Dual-function breakers, and that stopped most of the problems. They are more expensive, but at least they work. I agree with the statements above; AFCI breakers should never have been allowed in the code. They are unnecessary and an extra cost when houses already cost too much. I think we can thank the manufacturers for pushing a lot of changes we didn't need in "the name of safety".
 
hbiss said:
That's what I thought, but how are they supposedly able to detect arc faults when GFCIs don't?

-Hal
Click to expand...
They don't.
Their technology is similar to that of a GFCI, for all intents they just have different trip values and timing.

They are designed for the European markets with ring circuits and such.
 
hbiss said:
That's what I thought, but how are they supposedly able to detect arc faults when GFCIs don't?

-Hal
Click to expand...
The both do the same thing....not sure a self sustaining arc fault at 120 volts even exists. The GFP device opens the circuit when the joule heating results in enough damage to the insulation to cause a ground fault.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top