another AFCI nuisance trip question

[al hildenbrand]

Yes? No? Oh, that's right, you believe everything manufacturers tell you.

Ibid.

 

[kwired]

The content of the Eaton Installation Instruction Leaflet says: "General Troubleshooting Guidelines -- Check for grounding problems", and etc.

If the Eaton line of AFCIs didn't react to ground faults, this Eaton Installation Instruction Leaflet would not tell you to troubleshoot it.

They should react to high current ground faults on thermal-magnetic function also. But now you are assuming about as much as you claimed I was early on here. I said if you introduce a ground fault and it responds, it must have GFP on some level, but you rejected that idea as proof there is GFP. Now you are saying an instruction that doesn't directly state there is GFP (which BTW is kind of what you were once asking for someone to produce) seems to suggest there must be GFP.

 

[al hildenbrand]

They should react to high current ground faults on thermal-magnetic function also.

Yes, the AFCI breaker does react to high current and give LED Indicator codes of "0", "2" or "3".

BUT, your "gotcha" does not give an LED Indictor code of "5" which is for "Ground Fault"

You know, like "checking for continuity between the Branch Circuit Load Neutral and Ground Wire." Just like the Eaton Installation Instruction Leaflet says about troubleshooting.

But now you are assuming about as much as you claimed I was early on here. I said if you introduce a ground fault and it responds, it must have GFP on some level, but you rejected that idea as proof there is GFP.

Kwired, I can SAY I have tested a breaker to my inspector, or I can show him the document. If my inspector doesn't agree with me, which does he have to pay attention to? (Not your inspector, not "a" inspector, MY inspector.)

Now you are saying an instruction that doesn't directly state there is GFP seems to suggest there must be GFP.

Sure it has a GROUND FAULT SENSING COMPONENT. It says that if one finds continuity between the Branch Circuit Load Neutral and the Ground Wire, "find the location of the FAULT and correct THE ISSUE." You can read it yourself in the Eaton Installation Instruction Leaflet troubleshooting instructions. You see that? The Eaton AFCIs see a ground fault as A FAULT, and they even tell you that that is why they shut themselves off with a separate unique LED blink code.

(which BTW is kind of what you were once asking for someone to produce)

Nope. Never did. Really, . . . go back and read what I asked. Please.

I asked for documentation of the ABSENCE of ground fault sensing on the rumored second AFCI.

 

[romex jockey]

Al...Al....Al.....you keep insisting for some manufacturers 'doc' to stand on, while claiming their sales reps that would explain it ,or their doc links (by proxy) a 'comedy' here



>>>choose<<<



~RJ~

 

[al hildenbrand]

Al...Al....Al.....you keep insisting for some manufacturers 'doc' to stand on, while claiming their sales reps that would explain it ,or their doc links (by proxy) a 'comedy' here



>>>choose<<<



~RJ~

Nothing to choose. I'm wholly consistent. YOU said:

Originally Posted by romex jockey

There's always manufacturers reps to ask directly Al

~RJ~

 

[romex jockey]

Nothing to choose. I'm wholly consistent. YOU said:

to which you replied>

You caution to not believe the published NEC 110.3 Manufacturer's Installation Instruction Leaflet because of "propaganda", but you say there is "always" the manufacturer's reps, the hired manufacturer's sales help ? ? ?

OK. Seriously now. Setting comedy aside:

~RJ~

 

[kwired]

Al...Al....Al.....you keep insisting for some manufacturers 'doc' to stand on, while claiming their sales reps that would explain it ,or their doc links (by proxy) a 'comedy' here



>>>choose<<<



~RJ~

+1

and now seems to be taking the document he has recently been focusing on to have given him the information he was earlier wanting someone else to produce.

If happy with that then his argument should be over.

All I said earlier was that intentionally introducing a ground fault and having the device trip was sufficient evidence for many to assume it does have GFP on some level. He wanted more proof then that and was pretty adamant about it. Now has settled to some extent on reading between the lines of the installation instructions :blink:

 

[al hildenbrand]

and now seems to be taking the document he has recently been focusing on to have given him the information he was earlier wanting someone else to produce.

Kwired: That is your lie. You are making that up, irrespective of what I actually wrote, and you keep repeating your lie.

If happy with that then his argument should be over.

I haven't argued anything is this, I just tried to get you to read and comprehend my own words and published documents.

 

[kwired]

Kwired: That is your lie. You are making that up, irrespective of what I actually wrote, and you keep repeating your lie.



I haven't argued anything is this, I just tried to get you to read and comprehend my own words and published documents.

Maybe was your intent, I just called it how I saw it, sorry if I was wrong. You also discredited my mentioned method of testing as having any validity whatsoever - or at least that is how I took any response from you. Which from there maybe skewed my reading and understanding of anything further you may have mentioned. I apologize if that is what happened.

What one takes from reading or hearing something isn't always the same thing that was intended to be written or said, especially when emotion gets entangled in it.