Bathroom afci protection ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
peter d said:
:huh:

A GFCI operates on the principle of current differential, an AFCI (supposedly) performs waveform analysis and acts accordingly. I don't see how they do the exact same thing, other than interrupt the circuit when trouble strikes.
Click to expand...

Correct, but both get the intended job done, and one actually has been verified over and over for 60 years. GFP was deliberately put into AFCIs because manufactures could not get the arc signature analysis to trip on actual arcs during UL1699 testing. And it still holds true for half the manufactures.
 
mbrooke said:
Correct, but both get the intended job done, and one actually has been verified over and over for 60 years.
Click to expand...

It's highly debatable that AFCI gets the intended job done. :p

GFP was deliberately put into AFCIs because manufactures could not get the arc signature analysis to trip on actual arcs during UL1699 testing. And it still holds true for half the manufactures.
Click to expand...

I understand that. Therefore my contention is that GFCI is a very valuable and worthwhile technology, while AFCI is as worthless as yesterday's newspaper.
 
bphgravity said:
Yes. See Second Revision #319. However, balloting doesn't close until tomorrow. And regardless of the outcome of the ballot, there is a really good chance that a NITMAM/CAM will be heard at the Annual Meeting. (And then there are Appeals and TIA's)
Click to expand...

Its the only room not AFCI'd. Not sure why there would be a hold out on this room...
 
tom baker said:
Its the only room not AFCI'd. Not sure why there would be a hold out on this room...
Click to expand...

Maybe because am AFCI nuisance trip could render the bathroom dark and hazardous under the wrong circumstances. As an aside to that, Massachusetts has a state amendment that forbids the primary bathroom lighting from being on a GFCI protected circuit.
 
tom baker said:
Its the only room not AFCI'd. Not sure why there would be a hold out on this room...
Click to expand...

The problem is the way the NFPA bundled all the Public Inputs into one First Revision and all Public Comments into one Second Revision. So you can have two changes made to a code section under one FR or SR. You may like one of the changes, but not the other. The two changes are not balloted separately, so you have to take it all or nothing at all. It's a real problem.

So, that is where we are with the 210.12 changes. NEMA supports the expansion of AFCI protection to all 120-volt branch circuits and the changes made to the Informational Notes, but does not support the change made to 210.12(A)(4)(d). NEMA advocates for electrical safety. We believe that AFCI protection should be on all 120-volt branch-circuits, but we do not believe the "system combination" option should be allowed without the listing requirement.

The situation is complicated...
 
bphgravity said:
So, that is where we are with the 210.12 changes. NEMA supports the expansion of AFCI protection to all 120-volt branch circuits and the changes made to the Informational Notes, but does not support the change made to 210.12(A)(4)(d). NEMA advocates for electrical safety. We believe that AFCI protection should be on all 120-volt branch-circuits, but we do not believe the "system combination" option should be allowed without the listing requirement.

The situation is complicated...
Click to expand...


Thats only because NEMA has been mislead. Its a true shame :happysad:
 
bphgravity said:
TNEMA supports the expansion of AFCI protection to all 120-volt branch circuits and the changes made to the Informational Notes, but does not support the change made to 210.12(A)(4)(d).
Click to expand...

Of course, more AFCI sales mean more profits for electrical equipment manufacturers.



NEMA advocates for electrical safety.
Click to expand...

As long as sales and profits are generated for NEMA manufacturers.


We believe that AFCI protection should be on all 120-volt branch-circuits, but we do not believe the "system combination" option should be allowed without the listing requirement.

The situation is complicated...
Click to expand...

Not complicated to anyone with an unbiased view point.
 
peter d said:
Maybe because am AFCI nuisance trip could render the bathroom dark and hazardous under the wrong circumstances. As an aside to that, Massachusetts has a state amendment that forbids the primary bathroom lighting from being on a GFCI protected circuit.
Click to expand...

And in Northampton (MA), the lead inspector has written a local amendment that the primary bathroom lighting cannot be AFCI protected......for the same reason.
 
As mentioned, bathrooms as of the 2014 code cycle do not require AFCI.

AFCI breakers need a standard to which they work, and they need to work to prevent arcs; the above video shows they do not. Also, and my biggest gripe with AFCI, is that they need to be reliably tested/testable by means other than the mfg test button. That they cannot be independently tested via a meter/tester, or even field tested by creating an arc condition (as in the above video) is very troubling to me.

I'm no programmer, but it seems to me to be an easy thing to program AFCI to trip reliably under arc conditions. Take a faulty circuit with bad insulation, over driven NM staple, etc., between ungrounded and grounded or grounding conductors. Any arcs will be random in nature, not cyclic or constant. Program breaker to ignore any arcs the first second, or, say, 20 cycles, it's energized, or when amperage changes (such as starting a vacuum cleaner); only have over-amperage protection. This should eliminate nuisance trips from vacuum cleaners and the like. After that, random spikes/dips in amperage in vs amperage out, such as a loose conductor would cause, would trip the breaker (again, same one second/one third second delay in trip so turning the vacuum off wont trip it either). All it would need is an internal clock, a voltmeter, and a way to record such spikes/dips, recognize the imbalance, and trip on an actual arc fault... or am I oversimplifying this to an illogical degree?
 
bphgravity said:
What is the definition of significant? Significant as compared to what? Are you saying that it is okay if just a small number of people die as a result of an electrical fault or failure. Or should our goal be zero injuries and zero deaths as a result of the use and failure of ANY consumer product, be it a car, airplane, or electrical system?

...
Click to expand...
While that should be the goal, it has to be reasonable in terms of cost benefit....those types of decisions are made every day by manufactures with choices made to accept more death or injury as opposed to increasing the costs of the product. Look at the documents about the Ford Pinto and its gas tank.

If we all drove tanks, without the weapons, there would be less traffic accident deaths or injuries, but that solution does not have a reasonable cost benefit.

There is no doubt in my mind that if the NEC was a federal law, the AFCI rule would have never been accepted, because federal laws are required to look at the cost benefit issues.

The cost benefit is not reasonable for the AFCI, especially when it is very likely that the combination of a lower instantaneous trip and GFCI protection would prevent over 99% of the fires that the AFCI is said to prevent at a much lower cost.

One of those cost/benefit decisions was actually made by the manufacturers of the AFCIs when they chose not to make the AFCI fail safe. When the electronics fail they become standard thermal magnetic breakers...sure the end user is told to test them monthly, but we all know that rarely happens in the real world.
 
bphgravity said:
The problem is the way the NFPA bundled all the Public Inputs into one First Revision and all Public Comments into one Second Revision. So you can have two changes made to a code section under one FR or SR. You may like one of the changes, but not the other. The two changes are not balloted separately, so you have to take it all or nothing at all. It's a real problem.

So, that is where we are with the 210.12 changes. NEMA supports the expansion of AFCI protection to all 120-volt branch circuits and the changes made to the Informational Notes, but does not support the change made to 210.12(A)(4)(d). NEMA advocates for electrical safety. We believe that AFCI protection should be on all 120-volt branch-circuits, but we do not believe the "system combination" option should be allowed without the listing requirement.

The situation is complicated...
Click to expand...
This is one the (few) things I agree with you on. The new code change system has serious flaws in it.
 
peter d said:
Maybe because am AFCI nuisance trip could render the bathroom dark and hazardous under the wrong circumstances. As an aside to that, Massachusetts has a state amendment that forbids the primary bathroom lighting from being on a GFCI protected circuit.
Click to expand...
I honestly don't know how one can determine that losing bathroom light is any more or less dangerous then losing any other light, if it is, why don't we require emergency lighting sources in there?
 
Pharon said:
HOW they work? Let's first prove that they work at all...
Click to expand...

It looks like Eaton has shown that their combos do detect series arcs. The actual test starts about 5 minutes in, before that is pretty much about the evolution and function of circuit breakers.

This is the first time I have seen actual spark making tests. I also noticed that the cord feeding the spark making device is ungrounded lamp cord, so we can be pretty sure that the GFCI part of the breaker is not doing the protection.

 
K8MHZ said:
It looks like Eaton has shown that their combos do detect series arcs. The actual test starts about 5 minutes in, before that is pretty much about the evolution and function of circuit breakers.

This is the first time I have seen actual spark making tests. I also noticed that the cord feeding the spark making device is ungrounded lamp cord, so we can be pretty sure that the GFCI part of the breaker is not doing the protection.
Click to expand...

Yes, I've seen (and posted) that video in the past. But it would be nice to see a YouTube video where an average person (with no bias) could actually duplicate this scenario. Here's another one from NFPA demonstrating a more real-life scenario, but again - they are a biased source, IMO (ff to 2:40 mark):

 
Pharon said:
Yes, I've seen (and posted) that video in the past. But it would be nice to see a YouTube video where an average person (with no bias) could actually duplicate this scenario. Here's another one from NFPA demonstrating a more real-life scenario, but again - they are a biased source, IMO (ff to 2:40 mark):
Click to expand...

But the test in the NFPA video only shows a parallel arc test.

I actually plan on testing an AFCI when it gets warmer. I did it years ago with a series arc and there was no way the breaker would trip. We will see if the new ones are better.
 
K8MHZ said:
But the test in the NFPA video only shows a parallel arc test.
Click to expand...

I believe they show a series arc at 1:25, but not where it actually trips an AFCI.

K8MHZ said:
I actually plan on testing an AFCI when it gets warmer. I did it years ago with a series arc and there was no way the breaker would trip. We will see if the new ones are better.
Click to expand...

If you do, please video it and put it on here - I am sure I'm not the only one who would be interested in seeing your tests.
 
bphgravity said:
What is the definition of significant? Significant as compared to what? Are you saying that it is okay if just a small number of people die as a result of an electrical fault or failure. Or should our goal be zero injuries and zero deaths as a result of the use and failure of ANY consumer product, be it a car, airplane, or electrical system?

I would argue that at some point in time, more lives will be saved from AFCI and GFCI technology than from just equipment grounding alone.
Click to expand...

--
Maybe you would like to quote how many have died from arc faults in periods 1995 thru 2005 & 2006 thru 2016. sell me with facts -- I have no issue with GFI's & seriously zero deaths from any consumer product would have us all eating tofu & drinking distilled water -- Arcs are generally caused by faulty electronics, bad wiring istallations to devices & sometimes hungry rodents -- comparing grounding to AFCI devices as importance is like replacing a diaper with toilet paper. Requiring a disposal to have AFCI & GFCI protection is nonsense IMO
 
kwired said:
I honestly don't know how one can determine that losing bathroom light is any more or less dangerous then losing any other light, if it is, why don't we require emergency lighting sources in there?
Click to expand...


I don't know either, but Massachusetts decided it was a hazard and made a law in that regard. It's funny because usually MA will relax NEC rules rather than strengthen them, though this is one obvious exception. Generally I don't agree with "nanny state" type of code rules but I do see wisdom in that one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top