Arc faults will not trip

[mbrooke]

It is explicit in the description of some AFCI operations that "parallel arc" tripping uses what is *effectively* a low mag trip which is only active when an arc signature is detected at the same time. Not sure what the unconditional mag trip level is.

Its said to be 75amps. At least (supposedly) this is the lowest short circuit current one can find in a resi home.

 

[mbrooke]

The UL standards are consensus standards and developed in much the same way as the NEC is. There is a method to submit proposed changes to the standards, but I don't know exactly what that method is. I am sure is it on their web site somewhere.

I don't think the NEC had any AFCI requirements prior to there being a standard for the manufacturers to build the AFCI device to.

So UL1699 is what came first?

 

[peter d]

So UL1699 is what came first?

The way I understand it, manufacturers invented the AFCI and needed a standard to have it listed. So 1699 came into being after the invention of the product. The standard did not proceed the product.

 

[kwired]

I thought I saw a proposal where he sent in asking for GFP to be mandated in AFCIs.

But the CMP would be correct to reject such a proposal as that really belongs in the AFCI standard, not in the NEC, but I don't recall a proposal from him on that issue.

The way I understand it, manufacturers invented the AFCI and needed a standard to have it listed. So 1699 came into being after the invention of the product. The standard did not proceed the product.

Sort of makes sense, how do you have a standard for something that doesn't yet exist?

Does UL already have listing standards for warp drives?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Sort of makes sense, how do you have a standard for something that doesn't yet exist?

Does UL already have listing standards for warp drives?

yes, but homeland has them in the top secret section

 

[romex jockey]

The way I understand it, manufacturers invented the AFCI and needed a standard to have it listed. So 1699 came into being after the invention of the product. The standard did not proceed the product.

The original nema afci task force admitted defeat , when they did UL was asked to create a standard for the product Vs. testing a product to a standard.

To my understanding (which is nothing stellar) of UL , this isn't the norm.

~RJ~

 

[iwire]

yes, but homeland has them in the top secret section

 

[don_resqcapt19]

The original nema afci task force admitted defeat , when they did UL was asked to create a standard for the product Vs. testing a product to a standard.

To my understanding (which is nothing stellar) of UL , this isn't the norm.

~RJ~

Actually that is the norm....UL does and always has created standards. They are an ANSI standards creating agency just like the NFPA (and NEMA) is. They use a consensus method to create their standards as required by the ANSI rules. Their STPs (standard technical panels) are made up of representatives of different groups much like a CPM for the NEC.

 

[romex jockey]

Perhaps i'm not saying this right Don?

I was under the impression that any given manufactures claims were tested via NRTL's as to what it can /can not do, vs. the other way 'round...

~RJ~

 

[kwired]

Perhaps i'm not saying this right Don?

I was under the impression that any given manufactures claims were tested via NRTL's as to what it can /can not do, vs. the other way 'round...

~RJ~

They were tested to NRTL standards, but they also wrote the standards, unfortunately that is sort of normal. Keep in mind there are only 4 AFCI manufacturers, Schnieder, Siemens, Eaton, and GE, if they band together on an issue they sort of have their way with it.