GE af breaker

Status
Not open for further replies.
mbrooke said:
Wow!


The sad/scary/unsettling part is that doc is almost 95% identical to UL1699.


Having IEC committees may not be a good idea after all.
Click to expand...

Rather unsettling indeed:happysad:

Any international standard less than a group effort obviously allows bais

~RJ~
 
al hildenbrand said:
Look, even you say the installation sheet you had doesn't support your "theoretical understanding".

My anecdotal testing can't be provided as documentation to my AHJ. Eaton has to actually publish it. . .
Click to expand...

I never said "Use these breakers on MWBC's." I'm simply saying I have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the BR line no longer contains GFPE. Why is it impossible for you to admit that? :?
 
romex jockey said:
Rather unsettling indeed:happysad:

Any international standard less than a group effort obviously allows bais

~RJ~
Click to expand...



Well, it is a group effort, and thats exactly whats doing it:


https://www.ansi.org/standards_activities/iec_programs/overview?menuid=3


Said members whose affiliation speaks by itself:


[h=2]USNC/IEC Officers[/h] [h=4]President[/h] Kevin Lippert, Eaton Corporation
[h=4]Vice-President - Technical[/h] Sonya Bird, UL
[h=4]Vice-President – Finance[/h] Steven Rood, Legrand North America
[h=4]Vice-President - Electrotechnical Conformity Assessment[/h] Timothy Duffy. Rockwell Automation
[h=4]Past-President[/h] Philip M. Piqueira, Underwriters Laboratories
[h=4]General Secretary[/h] Tony Zertuche, American National Standards Institute
tel: 212.642.4892
e-mail: tzertuche@ansi.org



Where has Eaton and UL come into the AFCI saga before? Oh I don't know, just about everywhere...
 
romex jockey said:
Rather unsettling indeed:happysad:

Any international standard less than a group effort obviously allows bais

~RJ~
Click to expand...

Or rather, a simpler way to view it:



2vyiz2.jpg




Same concept applicable to the NFPA, but just one example out of hundreds:


2vyk54.jpg
 
newbie

newbie

williamphelps said:
Have a 10 year old house and it needs to be brought up to code. It has over 10 multi-wire branch circuits. "common neutral" I am thinking about replacing the main and sub panels with GE so I can install their mod3 AF breakers. I am thinking it will save time as the MOD3 doesn't require separating all the neutrals. Does anyone have any experience with this?
Click to expand...
Thank you all for the discussion and the welcomes. The only question I had was if anyone had ever gone down the road of comparing the time between using the mod 3 breaker and not using it. Al answered that question for me. I was amazed at how many big distributors did not know the benefits of using the Mod3. The GE distributor in my town literally took them out of stock and said it "was old stuff". When I took him the newest information sheet on the breaker his jaw dropped and he said "why didn't they ever send this to me". I am just a novice compared to any of you guys, but unless I am missing something the MOD3 had and has the potential of being a huge time saver ever since GE developed them. There are in access of 220 receptacles and switches in this house and do to circumstances it has to conform to 2014 code. I estimate 10 to 12 hours of misc neutral tracking and reconfiguring to accommodate Eatons AF breaker specs, (I am old and slow):lol: Or 4 hours to install GE panels and put in Mod3s. I won't go into how well the Mod3s fit in to the existing panels. Anyway breakers and panels are on the way, so I will let you all know whether it was a good choice or not when its done. Thanks GUYs:D
 
al hildenbrand said:
Read your own words written by your hand.
Click to expand...

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never endorsed the use of BR breakers on multiwire circuits. That being said, I would like to do some further tests on them to see if it's feasible.

But all this is a distraction from the main issue, so I'll ask plainly - do you still believe that the current generation of BR breakers available now contain 30 mA GFPE?
 
al hildenbrand said:
Can you provide either documentation, or a link to documentation, from Eaton that says that? The BR AFCI has been rumored to be without a ground fault component for easily half a decade, but no one can show that Eaton says so. Have you actually found the document?
Click to expand...

Wouldn't any manufacturers docs hail directly from UL1699 Al?

110.3B>>>UL1699.

Which ,incidentally, was parsed out in detail via Dr Joe Engle's '12 IEEE disertation.

Assuming this digestable , the bigger Q still remains

In that nobody can, despite all the avialable info, describe how the afci works

being this an eductaional site, one would think this not such a lofty aspiration

until the next 'afci wtf ' thread......i rest my case


;) ~RJ~
 
peter d said:
I'll ask plainly - do you still believe that the current generation of BR breakers available now contain 30 mA GFPE?
Click to expand...
My belief has nothing to do with my complying with the manufacturer's installation instructions.

al hildenbrand said:
anecdotal testing can't be provided as documentation to my AHJ. Eaton has to actually publish it. . .
Click to expand...
 
And therin lies the problem Al

nothing we do /use /install in the physical universe should be based on belief

thx

~RJ~
 
al hildenbrand said:
My belief has nothing to do with my complying with the manufacturer's installation instructions.


​
Click to expand...

Why do you refuse to answer the question? You can still install BR AFCI's all day long on regular 2-wire circuits and be in compliance with the installation instructions. Why are you so hung on the MWBC issue? The issue is whether they contain GFPE or not and I proved that they don't. So I'll help you out and I'll provide the words for you. It's really not that hard: "I am Al and I was wrong". ;)
 
peter d said:
The issue is whether they contain GFPE or not and I proved that they don't.

SEE this Opening Post in peter d's thread:
peter d said:
Not too long ago there was some controversy here about whether or not the most recent iteration of Eaton's BR AFCI included GFPE or not. One member insisted it was still included based on manufacturers literature, while others like myself said it's no longer part of the breaker.

Today I confirmed that GFPE is in fact absent from the current interation of BR AFCI breakers. I have been doing a rewire and have installed four new of these breakers (with plug on neutral and generation 5.3 software.)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

[SARCASM] All bow and genuflect before the new nationally recognized testing laboratory, peter d. In a new advancement, peter d pontificates that all anyone need do is believe what he says, not what he writes, but what he means. Throw away the documents, like he does. . . who really needs them when you believe as he says. [/SARCASM]

Peter d, your ad hominem aggression and long written record at this Forum over the last years of being an AFCI scofflaw give you little credibility.

And, Romex Jockey,

romex jockey said:
And therin lies the problem Al

nothing we do /use /install in the physical universe should be based on belief

thx

~RJ~
Click to expand...

RJ, your interest in dragging a simple request for a newly published manufacturer's installation document into an epistemological tangle simply impacts information so badly that not even a soap suds enema will help.

I don't regularly work with Eaton products, let alone, the BR line. That said, I will see if I can locate a newly released "Eaton next generation type BR AFCI."

Maybe some one who stocks the "Eaton next generation type BR AFCI" could post a scan of the Eaton type BR AFCI installation instructions dated late 2018 or newer (as per the recollection of peter d who threw his copy away.)
 
al hildenbrand said:
RJ, your interest in dragging a simple request for a newly published manufacturer's installation document into an epistemological tangle simply impacts information so badly that not even a soap suds enema will help.
Click to expand...

It's a repetitive request on any pro forum Al.

Myself, i post the sources available.

Further, i've seen you post no more than opinion

so who's got game?:cool:

~S~
 
romex jockey said:
Further, i've seen you post no more than opinion

so who's got game?:cool:
Click to expand...

Perhaps you are thinking of an alternate universe's epistemology. You have even reposted the GE document I offered for the OPs original question.

Go back and review my Post #6.
al hildenbrand said:
What I mean is on Page 3 in this PDF document. This is a more recent publication than the original that you reference. GE shows, both wiring a load neutral through one AFCI, and not another, AND not bringing the load neutral to either AFCI breaker is correct per GE diagrams.
Click to expand...
 
We're well aware GE is different Al, the doc's have been around for a while



My Q to you is, are you taking it as stand alone gospel, or do all the supporting docs not count?

~RJ~
 
romex jockey said:
We're well aware GE is different Al, the doc's have been around for a while

My Q to you is, are you taking it as stand alone gospel, or do all the supporting docs not count?
Click to expand...

Can you please use nouns? I can't read your mind.
 
al hildenbrand said:
[SARCASM] All bow and genuflect before the new nationally recognized testing laboratory, peter d. In a new advancement, peter d pontificates that all anyone need do is believe what he says, not what he writes, but what he means. Throw away the documents, like he does. . . who really needs them when you believe as he says. [/SARCASM]

Peter d, your ad hominem aggression and long written record at this Forum over the last years of being an AFCI scofflaw give you little credibility.
Click to expand...

And none of this changes the fact that the Eaton BR AFCI does not contain GFPE, contrary to your claims. :cool:
 
al hildenbrand said:
Can you please use nouns? I can't read your mind.
Click to expand...

I speak/write rather clearly, thx Al

The bottom line to 99% of all afci threads is simple

'how does it work'?:?

Now we can ring up manufacturers specs ,aka 110.3B , on any make model, can we not?

All their claims are based on UL1699 (follow so far??)

UL1699 was created in conjunction with eth CSPC & NEMA , it was a contest originally.

NEMA had an afci-task force.

the chair was a Dr Joe Engel EE Phd, who ,in '12 fowarded a lengthly dissertation to the IEEE aka 'COMBINATION AFCIs:WHAT THEY WILL AND WILL NOT DO'
http://www.combinationafci.com/resources/doc_ieee_combination_afci.pdf
&&&
https://www.mikeholt.com/documents/nec/pdf/Arc-FaultCircuitInterrupters.pdf

This is where the afci 'buck' stops

and is further supported by this site's owner/operator

https://www.mikeholt.com/mojonewsarchive/AFCI-HTML/HTML/AFCI_Cutler-Hammer_Responds~20021002.htm

~RJ~
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top