Burning Wirenut

[ActionDave]

I think most of are aware of it. We are just numb to it. This has been going on for over a decade now.

AFCI's suck. They don't do what they are supposed to do. Everybody knows it. Cant change it.

Maybe some activist types can start an Occupy the NEC movement.

 

[Sierrasparky]

It's one thing to know something through a gut feeling, it's quite another to see you were correct and that the whole process is currupt.

What some don't realize is that UL is being characterized and exposed of potential wrong doing. A Organization hired UL to develope a specific test. The engineer in charge decided to do something different that benifited another. When exposed nobody cared. Now one needs to think , UL is the testing standards of all here in the US. ( I realize there are others) UL however is the Zerox of testing labs. What is exposed here undermines the legitamacy of UL as a whole. It is clear that UL can be influenced by the outside by either cash, power, or pressure. This is bad, this is very bad.
My opinion soley!!!!!:jawdrop:

 

[romex jockey]

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.

At the moment i forget the orginization that sends out/collects back the stats from American fire depts. I recall something along the lines of mostly large city dept's having anyone who takes the time to sent in this voluntary paperwork, while most rurals do not. Add to that the spectre of thumbnail forensics for those who do send them in , simply checking off 'electrical fire'.

As a former FF, i'm not impressed. The fact that 5% of any given trades problems in construction should dominate 95% of UL, NEMA, NEC, CSPC, or any other federally subsidized entity you and i pitch for, up to and including some 'contest' toward erradication of it sits rather poorly with me.

Add to this a decade of marketing hyperbole predicated on their decisions, resulting in many an EC like myself caught in an aura of liability by proxy installing a product of nefarious claims, further, of dubious efficacy past the first V-spike (it says it can't be megged) , is seldom tested, has no lockout mechanism (like the gfci's now do) , etc ad naseum.

Statistics?

Well, One might think by now there should be post-afci fire stats as well if any viable means of collection existed. But perhaps our view internally here are the real blinders, perhaps a comparitive analyisis of American OCDP vs, those countries that utilize the differential might be revealing, as their earth leakage detection has existed well over a generation , and would be somewhat in the ballpark with our desire of GFPE (300 vs. 30 ma, iirc) protection

So yes, the entire history screams the old addage lies, da*med lies, and statistics........

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

i really don't know , methinks the jury's still out on that

i do know that it'd be a lot cheaper than trying to stuff 30 afci's in a 40 cir resi panel (i'm tired of that)

but i doubt they would replace afci technology, rather i see the powers that be confronted toward redefining what an afci technology can / can not do,

with GCI technology marketed to address what they do not

~S~

 

[romex jockey]

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:

so e-mail Dr Engle's article to your state's chief inspector, and it'll be their choice to address it vs. continue hiding

~S~

 

[iwire]

so e-mail Dr Engle's article to your state's chief inspector, and it'll be their choice to address it vs. continue hiding

~S~

You know it never gets old reading posts questioning peoples integrity without any facts.

 

[iwire]

The fact that 5% of any given trades problems in construction should dominate 95% of UL, NEMA, NEC, CSPC, or any other federally subsidized entity you and i pitch for, up to and including some 'contest' toward erradication of it sits rather poorly with me.

Can you expand on this or is it just rederick?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

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.

It remains my opinion that GFP would prevent most of the fires that would be caused by a glowing connection. Yes there may be cases where the lint or other things would let the fire spread, but we cannot afford a system that is 100% safe. We have to take a realistic look at the cost v benefit from any safety device. (something that was never done with the AFCI, if the AFCI would have been a federal regulation, it would not have been accepted because it has a very poor cost v benefit)
As far as the fault not being in the premises wiring I don't see anything that leads me to believe that this new device looks at anything other than the heat at the point of connection.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

At the moment i forget the orginization that sends out/collects back the stats from American fire depts. I recall something along the lines of mostly large city dept's having anyone who takes the time to sent in this voluntary paperwork, while most rurals do not. Add to that the spectre of thumbnail forensics for those who do send them in , simply checking off 'electrical fire'.

NFIRS..National Fire Incident Reporting System. Yes there are some holes in this and the biggest is the last part of your statement.

...

Well, One might think by now there should be post-afci fire stats as well if any viable means of collection existed. ...

That would take many more years to come up with given the few fires that the AFCI can be expected to prevent. If you apply the fire data, including the fact that 85% of the fires said to be of electrical origin, we could expect that since the adoption of the 2008 code that 1150 fires would have been prevented, assuming that the AFCI would be 100% effective in preventing all fires that are said to be of electrical origin. I did these numbers based on estimated housing starts prior to the downturn, so there would be even less fires to look at. There are an estimated 51,000 dwelling unit fires said to be of electrical origin each year. That would mean that the AFCIs could have been expected to prevent less than 3% of the total fires said to be of electrical origin, and assuming 100% compliance with the NEC, 100% adoption of the NEC, and 100% effectiveness of the AFCI.

...
i really don't know , methinks the jury's still out on that

i do know that it'd be a lot cheaper than trying to stuff 30 afci's in a 40 cir resi panel (i'm tired of that)

but i doubt they would replace afci technology, rather i see the powers that be confronted toward redefining what an afci technology can / can not do,

with GCI technology marketed to address what they do not

~S~

I have seen nothing on the costs but it appears you need one of these devices at every point of connection. Even if they are cheap, it will add a lot of labor hours.

 

[PetrosA]

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.

Thanks for pointing that out. I looked at iwire's photo originally and didn't notice that there was a spring to the left of the arc so I assumed those wires were spliced in one of the (still visible) wirenuts to the right. My bad.

 

[renosteinke]

I am not persuaded, and am wondering what new gizmo will suddenly appear in the next code as a required item.

Sorry, but the AFCI soap-opera has made me sceptical. I trust neither demonstrations nor motives.

 

[kwired]

I am not persuaded, and am wondering what new gizmo will suddenly appear in the next code as a required item.

Sorry, but the AFCI soap-opera has made me sceptical. I trust neither demonstrations nor motives.

I am not persuaded either way on this device but do want to know more about it, before we are forced to install another product that may not do what it is supposed to do.

AFCI's were in development long before anybody ever heard of them, and most never heard of them until they were suddenly told they need to install them. The earlier stages of that were at a time when we did not have places like this site to discuss things of this nature. If AFCI's were in their infancy today it would probably go differently, but then again something like that product was needed to make us skeptical of the product mentioned here.

GFCI technology is a whole different story. For the most part only people that don't understand GFCI are the only ones that don't like them. AFCI could become something important someday but it will not be same product that is on market today if they eventually make something we all like and trust.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

...AFCI's were in development long before anybody ever heard of them, and most never heard of them until they were suddenly told they need to install them. The earlier stages of that were at a time when we did not have places like this site to discuss things of this nature. If AFCI's were in their infancy today it would probably go differently, but then again something like that product was needed to make us skeptical of the product mentioned here. ...

While the product was under developement many years before the first code proposal for the 1993 code, there was intense discussion on the forums after the first proposal. I was being told I was aganist safety for bring out some of the same questions that are being asked today.

What really turned me against the AFCIs was the fact the the original proposals said the device they had then would do what they now tell us the combination type AFCIs will do. Those original proposals were made ~13 years before the first combination AFCI hit the market. To me, that was nothing other than fraud on the part of the AFCI manufacturer's. Those lies have left me with a strong distrust of manufacturer supplied information about the functionality of their products.

 

[iwire]

Thanks for pointing that out. I looked at iwire's photo originally and didn't notice that there was a spring to the left of the arc so I assumed those wires were spliced in one of the (still visible) wirenuts to the right. My bad.

It was not a great picture, I had to get them with my cell phone and I was kind of in a hurry so I could kill the circuit.

It was the neutral of a 120 volt MWBC and it was carrying about 10 amps. (measured after the repair)

 

[iwire]

GFCI technology is a whole different story. For the most part only people that don't understand GFCI are the only ones that don't like them.

I doubt that would be the case if we could go back to the 1970s, I bet GFCIs were hated just as much as AFCIs are now.

 

[kwired]

While the product was under developement many years before the first code proposal for the 1993 code, there was intense discussion on the forums after the first proposal. I was being told I was aganist safety for bring out some of the same questions that are being asked today.

What really turned me against the AFCIs was the fact the the original proposals said the device they had then would do what they now tell us the combination type AFCIs will do. Those original proposals were made ~13 years before the first combination AFCI hit the market. To me, that was nothing other than fraud on the part of the AFCI manufacturer's. Those lies have left me with a strong distrust of manufacturer supplied information about the functionality of their products.

I have no idea what forums and number of participants was like back then, but am pretty sure there would be many many more participants potentially involved today.

Internet was not something almost everyone had or even used then. I did not even use internet or own a computer for at least 6 more years after that.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I have no idea what forums and number of participants was like back then, but am pretty sure there would be many many more participants potentially involved today.

Internet was not something almost everyone had or even used then. I did not even use internet or own a computer for at least 6 more years after that.

While there are many more members of this forum now, there are not that many more active participants.

 

[Sierrasparky]

I doubt that would be the case if we could go back to the 1970s, I bet GFCIs were hated just as much as AFCIs are now.

I was there in those days and I was all for the GFCI recpt. I had one installed in my darkroom when I was in my teens the first year they hit the shelvs. Never had a problem. It is still installed at that house today. I used to love to show my friends how it worked. I know that many were miswired and did not work because of this. There was the same issues we have today with appliances that cause them to trip.

The case about AFCI goes way further than those GFCI's. the major one is that I can prove to anyone that the work when there is a fault. ( that is unless the GFCI is damaged) I cannot say the same about AFCI and the IEEE document furthers that suspicion.

 

[iwire]

I was there in those days and I was all for the GFCI recpt.

So was I as a kid, they were cool, but I know that the old timers at the time considered them to be waste and you can still see the urban myths 'they can't run motors' etc.

The case about AFCI goes way further than those GFCI's. the major one is that I can prove to anyone that the work when there is a fault.

In my opinion you would find many back in the day that would say GFCIs did not work. That should not be read as my endorsement of AFCIs.

If there were as accepted as you portray it we would have seen them implemented faster. (IMPO)

 

[Sierrasparky]

If there were as accepted as you portray it we would have seen them implemented faster. (IMPO)

I can't agree with you on that specific point.
You forget that we including I have issue with GFCI in some of the places they are required. I accept their accasional false tripping or even the fact they seem to get destroyed in the power brown outs and surges we have too often where I live.

The main point I am trying to emphisize is that I seriously doub't there was ever any cogent issue that a properly installed, maintained GFCI did not trip at the prescribed leve for which the device was rated and desigend for. I am not speaking of the occasional anomolies of defectively manufactured products.

In the case of the AFCI there appears to be a serious flaw in the specification and implematation of the devices. There may in fact be a specification that has no real world significance or application. I don't think this analogy could be related to the developement or implementation of a GFCI. Remember A GFCI is simply a current differentiator calculator. If it sees a difference at the set threshold it trips. Thats it. A AFCI is whole different animal. They have microprocessors and are way mor complex than AFCI detection.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Bob,
Are you suggesting that we should just accept as fact that the AFCIs do what they tell us they do?