Burning Wirenut

[mike7330]

time to bring back the Porcelain Wire Connectors
http://tnblnx3.tnb.com/emAlbum/albums//te_us/te_1_catalogpage8.pdf

;0

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Don, according to Joe Engel in the paper previously linked to, the manufacturers have pulled the GFP from the combination AFCIs.



Leaves me to wonder, what exactly is left in the little black box? :slaphead:

George,
I am not sure I agree that the GFP has been removed, but that is why my statement said the AFCI should be required to have GFP.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

What happens if a ground fault does not occur? I have uncovered many connections - not so many wire nuts but mostly switches or receptacles where this happened and no ground fault - just eventually burned itself until the circuit was open. If it happens with 277/480 it is usually even worse looking and often you don't even have to remove any cover to tell there is a problem in the box.

Did those burnt connections start the building on fire? I think it would be very rare where the heat from a poor connection to a device or to another conductor would be able to generate enough heat to start a fire without causing a ground fault first.

 

[Sierrasparky]

Did those burnt connections start the building on fire? I think it would be very rare where the heat from a poor connection to a device or to another conductor would be able to generate enough heat to start a fire without causing a ground fault first.

Why would you make a such a statement. So what if those in the picture have started a fire. I have seen some that have. So what!

I think the issue begging some discussion is what is up with the protection factor of our AFCI breakers. The cost is considerable for us to be installing them if they are not doing what we think they are supposed to do.

 

[romex jockey]

Did those burnt connections start the building on fire? I think it would be very rare where the heat from a poor connection to a device or to another conductor would be able to generate enough heat to start a fire without causing a ground fault first.

Therein lies the Q Don.

Inasmuch as we can see the wirenut reach incendary limits, as well as Dr Engle's receptacles assuming the same (the pix in his reports)

Unfortnatley there exist no stats in just how many series incedent fires started before (or after, for that matter) the OCPD tripped

Asking for such refined specifics , as you know from your fire service tenure, wouldn't be feasible both in terms of available forensics, as well as existing funding for forenisics (zip in the rural dept's from my experience)

In lieu of such lofty aspirations, we can make some basic assumptions

heat = a potential

provide point of use protection, potential deleted

~rj~

 

[romex jockey]

I think the issue begging some discussion is what is up with the protection factor of our AFCI breakers. The cost is considerable for us to be installing them if they are not doing what we think they are supposed to do.

Dr Engle's entire drive is to enlighten all parties toward agreeing on those 'factors'

XXIII. CONCLUSIONS
The primary goal of this paper was to describe what a
Combination AFCI circuit breaker can do, while also clarifying
what it can?t do. The features of the Combination AFCI, and
the earlier Branch/feeder AFCI, are listed in Table 1. Neither
provides series arc protection, the Branch/feeder provides the
extra important feature of 30mA ground fault protection.
The paper goes on to explain, but not justify, how the
Combination AFCI came to be mandated, while the
Branch/feeder that provides more protection at less cost is
disallowed. The key drivers behind this were the AFCI
manufacturers, their NEMA organization, and UL. The author
hopes this paper will stir discussions amongst the principals
and correct any errors that were made concerning their
products? performance. This would also include supporting
removing the Combination AFCI mandate from the NATIONAL
ELECTRICAL CODE (NFPA 70).
Finally, the author, having participating actively during the
AFCI development, would encourage the IEEE engineering
communities of these great institutions to become more
engaged to insure their codes and standards representatives
fully understand the technical issues. These are their
products; they have a responsibility to insure their products are
not inadvertently misrepresented.

http://www.combinationafci.com/resources/doc_ieee_combination_afci.pdf

~rj~

 

[Sierrasparky]

Does the combination AFCI have the ability to detect a shared neutral like a ones that have GFI protection probably not.

I am going to say that the Code panel had much pressure from the building community regarding trips due to miswired nuetrals and wanted that feature removed. Just saying!

 

[ActionDave]

Does the combination AFCI have the ability to detect a shared neutral like a ones that have GFI protection probably not.

They do. Only GE has a AFCI that appears to not. It can be used on a true MWBC. I haven't tried one yet.

I am going to say that the Code panel had much pressure from the building community regarding trips due to miswired nuetrals and wanted that feature removed. Just saying!

There are a lot of reasons to suspect the CMP reasons for AFCI rules. This isn't one of them.

 

[George Stolz]

I am going to say that the Code panel had much pressure from the building community regarding trips due to miswired nuetrals and wanted that feature removed. Just saying!

I would like to see substantiation to support this comment.

 

[Sierrasparky]

I would like to see substantiation to support this comment.

Just my opinion, Puuuuuuuuuuuureeeeeeeeeee speculation!

Then there is the authors opinion that the Device manufatures cause the standard to not include the GFI feature in the listing because of interference with the sales of GFCI recepts. If I read that correctly.

 

[romex jockey]

The author details UL creating a standard, instead of merely validating one

i'm unclear why they conceeded to do so, yet i suspect it was an unusal circumstance that led them to

perhaps they got caught up in the 'race to technologize' the eletrical community into what they felt (at the time) needed doing

as expected , the road to perdition is paved with good intents....~RJ~

 

[Sierrasparky]

Wake UP people Wake UP..


If you think these panels are made up of impartial technical minded folks. You need to wake up and smell the foul odor. I canot even fathom that the boards and commitees that I sit on or am consult with are any different than the UL , NFPA, CPSC, or any other agency.

There is a quote that I look at on my wall in my office every day

" It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salery depends upon his not understanding it" Upton Sinclair.........

 

[kwired]

What is the most likely cause of all the splices burning that you guys have posted? It looks like a lot of the glow arcs are starting beyond the wirenut, back where the insulation is. Is that the case or are even well twisted splices at risk for burning up?

Why do you think it is starting back on the insulation? It is starting in the connection where a high resistance (not much resistance is considered high in a splice) has occured. The conductor also is a good conductor of heat and the first few inches of conductor will also get pretty hot.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

George,
I am not sure I agree that the GFP has been removed, but that is why my statement said the AFCI should be required to have GFP.

Ge is the only manufacturer I know of that has removed gfp from their afci.

In response to another post ---Some manufacturers make DP afci that will work on a mwbc. Last I checked Cutler Hammer does not make a combination afci dp breaker at all.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Why would you make a such a statement. So what if those in the picture have started a fire. I have seen some that have. So what!

I think the issue begging some discussion is what is up with the protection factor of our AFCI breakers. The cost is considerable for us to be installing them if they are not doing what we think they are supposed to do.

First it is my point that GFP protection would cause a trip in most if not all cases before there was enough heat to start a fire.
As far as the AFCIs, I have never been convinced that they have a real safety related purpose and am not convinced that this new proposed device would either.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Therein lies the Q Don.

Inasmuch as we can see the wirenut reach incendary limits, as well as Dr Engle's receptacles assuming the same (the pix in his reports)

Unfortnatley there exist no stats in just how many series incedent fires started before (or after, for that matter) the OCPD tripped

Asking for such refined specifics , as you know from your fire service tenure, wouldn't be feasible both in terms of available forensics, as well as existing funding for forenisics (zip in the rural dept's from my experience)

In lieu of such lofty aspirations, we can make some basic assumptions

heat = a potential

provide point of use protection, potential deleted

~rj~

Actually there are no real stats on the actual number of fires that are really of electrical origin. Even using the stats that are out there, less than 5% of the total dwelling unit fires are of electrical origin, and of those that are, at least 85% are in dwelling units that are over 20 years old. There is no reasonable evidence that AFCIs or this new device is even needed if you would look at it from a cost v benefit basis.

How costly would this new product be? It appears you would need one at every device and connection point in the system.

 

[kwired]

Did those burnt connections start the building on fire? I think it would be very rare where the heat from a poor connection to a device or to another conductor would be able to generate enough heat to start a fire without causing a ground fault first.

You saying they will never start a building on fire? We put connections in j boxes, outlet boxes, other enclosures that will hopefully contain something like this, but things do happen. How about if same thing happens in an old box that has a bunch of lint or dust in it? May be just enough to start a big enough fire that it spreads to adjacent combustible material.

Maybe the point of the bad connection is in a plugged in item and not part of premesis wiring. Who knows what may happen there.

Did you watch the videos? The one that showed the wire nut melting down and the melted plastic eventually started on fire? A lot of dry location boxes are not sealed well enough to keep this flame from spreading to something outside the box.

 

[Sierrasparky]

First it is my point that GFP protection would cause a trip in most if not all cases before there was enough heat to start a fire.
As far as the AFCIs, I have never been convinced that they have a real safety related purpose and am not convinced that this new proposed device would either.

Just so you guys know I am all for a full functional AFCI with GFCI sieries and parallel detection. I feel that the not combination units with GFCI help to detect improper wiring and this is good.

 

[kwired]

Actually there are no real stats on the actual number of fires that are really of electrical origin. Even using the stats that are out there, less than 5% of the total dwelling unit fires are of electrical origin, and of those that are, at least 85% are in dwelling units that are over 20 years old. There is no reasonable evidence that AFCIs or this new device is even needed if you would look at it from a cost v benefit basis.

How costly would this new product be? It appears you would need one at every device and connection point in the system.

I am not endorsing the product until I know more about it. It may need one at every connection point, it could be costly. If it does what it is supposed to do it may be worth it.

Currently AFCI's are somewhat costly, and nobody has proven they do what they are supposed to do, but we are kind of forced to use them no matter what we think about them.

 

[Sierrasparky]

I am blown away by the response of the members of this forum and their general lack of outrage from the Code bodies, Panels and experts involved in the evolvement of the AFCI breakers and related technology. The whole paper by Engle screams of an expose'. Engle was retained his political correctness but the who AFCI implementation over the last decade screams of inpropriety. It screams of corruption. You have projects funded for a specific test for a particular purpose yet the test and purpose completly ignored and a different test designed. You have erroneous tests develped merely for the advancement and sales of some particular manufacture.

THIS screams for FRAUD!!!!!! I think we should all keep hiding under that rock, NOT!
:rant: