do we really need AFCIs

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think AFCI's are totally bogus and wish the 2014 CMP would have done some research before requiring us to apply them in even more places than before! Someone is laughing all the way to the bank at our customers expense. I removed them from my new home after the final inspection.
 
A/A Fuel GTX said:
I think AFCI's are totally bogus and wish the 2014 CMP would have done some research before requiring us to apply them in even more places than before! Someone is laughing all the way to the bank at our customers expense. I removed them from my new home after the final inspection.
Click to expand...

Unless they nuisance trip why remove them? Otherwise if they work as well as the manufacturer says they do and don't nuisance what the issue? It is not that uncommon for a common TM breakers to never have a reason to trip. An AFCI may never trip either.
I have some beta AFCIs installed in my home for about 15 years. Other than a neutral to EGC issue in one box I have never had one trip.
 
hurk27 said:
Well most here know my thoughts on AFCI's and why I helped get 210.12 removed from Indiana's electrical code, the only electronics in an AFCI that to me actually did something was the GFP, I have yet to see any other part of an AFCI that did anything that a faster acting breaker with a 30ma-50ma GFP could not accomplish the same amount of protection, we were sold a bill of goods that did not do what they claimed they would, as we were told they would stop a series arc which they will not do as they later twisted their responses to this claim by saying they only meant that it was only after a series arc evolved to a parallel short which any breaker can do the same thing, I have seen so many of the guillotine knife test on a two conductor lamp cord that ended in the breaker ahead of the test setup tripping before the AFCI did, in one case the lamp cord actually caught fire, of course this was back in the early days of AFCI development but from what I have read the only changes are that the AFCI breaker will trip faster now on a parallel arc or fault to which any breaker could be design this way, but motor loads would be a problem, but wait a minute, motor loads are a problem when on a AFCI go figure:rant:
Click to expand...

The GFCI portion is great for exposing wiring issues like nails and other damage to wires. I agree here and am astonished that some breakers no longer have GFCI protection.
 
templdl said:
Unless they nuisance trip why remove them? Otherwise if they work as well as the manufacturer says they do and don't nuisance what the issue? It is not that uncommon for a common TM breakers to never have a reason to trip. An AFCI may never trip either.
I have some beta AFCIs installed in my home for about 15 years. Other than a neutral to EGC issue in one box I have never had one trip.
Click to expand...

I had nuisance tripping on 50% of them. Just decided to knip it in the bud and yank all of them. Too many everyday loads are in conflict with them. Can't you guys just see that this is nothing but a money making proposition for the manufacturers? Conventional breakers have worked fine for years. Quit trying to re invent the wheel..........
 
Folks sometimesaccuse me of introducing "politics" into discussions.

Not this time.

IMO,the entire AFCI issue has become a matter of religious dogma.
 
texie said:
Thought some might like this propaganda piece from NEMA: http://www.afcisafety.org/ Look in the upper right area of the page for Arc Fault Circuit Interrupter Success Stories -NEMA. It seems to me that the issues shown just assume that the AFCI saved the day.
Click to expand...
Some of those problems appear to be of the type the report that I cited in the first post of this thread says that the arc signature detection part of the AFCI cannot detect. I can only assume that the GFP part of the device tripped ....a part at least one AFCI manufacturer has eliminated in their current version.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
Some of those problems appear to be of the type the report that I cited in the first post of this thread says that the arc signature detection part of the AFCI cannot detect. I can only assume that the GFP part of the device tripped ....a part at least one AFCI manufacturer has eliminated in their current version.
Click to expand...
I would agree. That's why I mentioned "propaganda". One of those photos showed only a nicked neutral. I'm not even sure a situation like that (neutral to staple to wood) would even be seen by a AFCI that even had some sort of GFCI. I think it is laughable to think that by those photos one could say that the AFCI saved the day.
 
Don,Did you get to see the piece in IAEI magazine that I mentioned in post #20? I would post a link except that not all could see it unless they are a member.
 
texie said:
Don,Did you get to see the piece in IAEI magazine that I mentioned in post #20? I would post a link except that not all could see it unless they are a member.
Click to expand...

A/A Fuel GTX said:
I had nuisance tripping on 50% of them. Just decided to knip it in the bud and yank all of them. Too many everyday loads are in conflict with them. Can't you guys just see that this is nothing but a money making proposition for the manufacturers? Conventional breakers have worked fine for years. Quit trying to re invent the wheel..........
Click to expand...

The only I have with your reply is that "conventional breakers have worked just fine." May be, may be not.
If you consider trip curves breakers only respond to thermal overloads that are within the trip curve of the breaker as do instantaneous events that are equal to or greater than the magnetic trip of the breaker. As an example an arcing fault often times will not generated a high enough peak current in order to trip a breaker instantaneously but yet it does not conduct enough current for any length of time to trip a breaker thermally because of an overload. And a common TM breaker certainly will not respond to a line to ground incidence. Please don't misunderstand that I'm a proponent of AFCIs as I believe in the technology but I question their practical use. Being a believer in AFCI technology I am ex
tremely disappointed that there is very little if any real life examples of them being attributed to saving lives and/or property.
But what I do know is that the common TM breaker protects wire and does not have the capability to respond to events that are not within its TM curve.
 
33 replies in this thread with not one person saying these things do any good in a dwelling.

Biggest hoax ever foisted on the electrical trade ever. I think this a total scam perpetrated by the manufacturers of these useless and expensive devices.

I have never seen anything AFCI breakers do that normal breakers don't just as well. Except for nuisance tripping.
 
templdl said:
...
But what I do know is that the common TM breaker protects wire and does not have the capability to respond to events that are not within its TM curve.
Click to expand...
I agree that the standard breaker cannot detect and respond to many fire causing events, but I have yet to be convinced that the AFCI without GFP can either. It appears to me that on systems with an EGC, that GFP would prevent just as many fires as they say the AFCI can.
I am not sure how an older system without an EGC can be protected.
 
gaelectric said:
33 replies in this thread with not one person saying these things do any good in a dwelling.

Biggest hoax ever foisted on the electrical trade ever. I think this a total scam perpetrated by the manufacturers of these useless and expensive devices.

I have never seen anything AFCI breakers do that normal breakers don't just as well. Except for nuisance tripping.
Click to expand...
Hoax? Definitely not.
Hoax:
1. An act intended to deceive or trick.
2. Something that has been established or accepted by fraudulent means.

I believe in the technology. Is it of any practical use? As I have said numerous times before I am very confident in the technology. BUT the proof in in the pudding, that I'm extremely disappointed in the lack of any documented evidence of what they have actually contributed other than cost.
I can understand why their use has been added to the NEC requirements. It's great technology. But in a real life situation other than responding to a L-G fault as GFCI already does, understanding the 30ma Vs 5ma sensitivity, is there any evidence of the arc fault technology of being any use other than a lab test setting?
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
I agree that the standard breaker cannot detect and respond to many fire causing events, but I have yet to be convinced that the AFCI without GFP can either. It appears to me that on systems with an EGC, that GFP would prevent just as many fires as they say the AFCI can.
I am not sure how an older system without an EGC can be protected.
Click to expand...

This is my opinion also. If an AFCI were to operate as they stated an older system without an EGC should pose not to be an issue as they are supposed to detect series and L-N arcing.
They may have been designed and tested as such but I'm not sure if they would perform under real life conditions. I'm sure that the insurance companies would view them as being a God send for their old construction clients. AFCIs have been available for over 13 years now and they haven't made any practical impact in the construction industry other than added cost.
As I said before I expected more but I have been extremely disappointed to date.
 
I can see believing in the concept behind the technology, but not the technology itself at this time or any time in the near future.

There's a fundamental difference between AFCI and GFCI technology. With a GFCI, we pretty much know for a fact that if the test button works, it will function to prevent electrocution on faults to ground. It's a LIFE saving technology. AFCIs are different. I've never read literature from ANY manufacturer that claims the product is anything but an "added layer" of insurance against fire. Added layers don't have to perform well, or at all. An extra T-shirt doesn't have to keep you warmer when you get dropped off in the arctic.

The other aspect of AFCI design that I find lacking is that the sensitive electronics inside are subject to every power spike, surge or lightning strike that comes along and could render the device useless, with no way to discover this until it's 1) tested or 2) fails to prevent a fire. We all know how diligently and regularly homeowners (and even electricians...) test GFCI or AFCI devices, so I suspect the failure is a more likely outcome. Whew. Now I feel really safe.

What I find most disturbing is that there's really no way to fight back. Someone recently posted a link to the 2014 CMP responses to petitions for changes to the code. Their most common reaction to things like AFCIs or derating on rooftops is along the lines of "No substantial proof was offered." What substantial proof was offered that these devices work in the first place? What we CAN substantiate is the money being made on them. After 2014, that number will double or triple in size.

The saddest thing is that, to my knowledge, there is no other country on the planet with any device remotely like an AFCI that's required. Most other parts of the world have GFP built into their mains and use GFCI protection for circuits used near water. Had the NEC tried to sell me this concept, I'd have jumped right on the boat. I suspect we have a lot more people on the CMP with a lower level of science background than other countries do, and that allowed the manufacturers to do some massive manipulation.
 
ActionDave said:
What is it that makes you believe in the technology? Is it just because the people you know that worked on the design were good guys and you liked them?
Click to expand...

PetrosA said:
I can see believing in the concept behind the technology, but not the technology itself at this time or any time in the near future.
Click to expand...

Same here. I like the concept of what they say AFCI's can do. I am not convinced they have made a device that will do what they claim though. I don't like the idea of making the consumers be the testing lab either. Will they eventually make a device that says it will do what they claim? Very possible. But stop requiring us to use devices that nobody can seem to prove does what they are supposed to do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top