Is there any evidence that AFCI have been preventing fire caused by electrical arc?

[Dennis Alwon]

The haters and doubters will never see the afci as being useful. The fact is they are here and if you hate them then write a proposal to change it but back it up.

 

[LarryFine]

AFCI's would only be $12 if they weren't required.

:thumbsup:

 

[480sparky]

The haters and doubters will never see the afci as being useful. The fact is they are here and if you hate them then write a proposal to change it but back it up.

Useful is one thing. There will always be those who say, "If it saves just ONE LIFE......" Problem is, how much do we ALL have to spend to save that one life?

 

[electrofelon]

The haters and doubters will never see the afci as being useful. The fact is they are here and if you hate them then write a proposal to change it but back it up.

But that is kinda like the "Snickers bar" argument: I put a Snickers bar on top of every box on rough in, someone says that is stupid, then I say " well prove to me it's not beneficial."

 

[mbrooke]

New member here, not from US of A.

You guys who are in the US or other countries dealing with AFCI, have you guys found any real evidence of AFCI have been preventing fire caused by electrical arc (AFCI tripped not because of "noisy" loads or real RFI or ground fault)?

AFAIK, on low voltage 240V or less, loose connections with resistive loads are more likely to produce electrical "spark" than electrical arc (unless there are carbon buildups), do AFCIs also trip when there's electrical "spark"?

Do some AFCIs also "measure" voltage waveform instead of only current waveform to sense electrical arc? I ask this because I've read some AFCI can be tripped from "noisy" loads in different circuit (or line side?).

AFCIs in the US were first designed to mimic what the IEC was doing already prior with RCDs and loop impedance mandates.


So if anyone tells you AFCIs will protect you against line to ground and line to line arcing you can confidently reply RCDs and breakers have already been doing that for 30 years.


As for series arcing, assuming AFCIs can detect it, its the end result of joule heating, not the start.

 

[mbrooke]

The haters and doubters will never see the afci as being useful. The fact is they are here and if you hate them then write a proposal to change it but back it up.

Because they aren't useful. I wouldn't put faith into an empty fire extinguisher.


Here is how they are supposed respond to series arcing:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TWZE1X5fFQ&feature=youtu.be&t=72



Same carbon arc test replicated (this should trip in a less then a second according to IEC 62606):


https://youtu.be/jPlOudTIeGc?t=42

 

[mbrooke]

The cost of microcontroller, analog components, and circuit board should be no more than US$ 5, the cost of other parts (selenoid, metal connectors and contacs, wires, enclosure/cover) and the assembling cost should be the around the same as GFCI.

I don't think (I could be wrong on this part) the cost for "research and development" for a device "that only measure waveform" is very expensive.

huge profit there.

Indeed, and truth is its not enough to accurately discriminate the switch mode power supply of a LED bulb vs an actual arc. So in addition to false trips, its hit or miss when left to detect an actual event.

 

[hbiss]

If AFCIs don't really work like they're supposed to be, what prevent you guys (not just electrical guys, but also customers who paid for "fake safety devices") from filing a class action lawsuit?

As was said, it's been tried but because of all the heavy hitters who are making money off this fiasco the funds are virtually unlimited to defend their position. So the issue never once saw the inside of a court room, and that's the way they want it. The fact that the manufacturers are so afraid of a legal challenge shows that they have no confidence that they wouldn't be found guilty of fraud.

The only way to settle this at this point is in the court room. Even if we were able to get the NEC to remove the AFCI requirements, there is still the legal community who will say that the technology exists and will use that defense to go after ECs and building owners saying that, even if AFCIs aren't required they should have installed them and saved my client from injury.

If the manufacturers knew that their products did what they were supposed to they should welcome a court challenge. That right there should tell you it's all smoke and mirrors.

-Hal

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Because they aren't useful. I wouldn't put faith into an empty fire extinguisher.


Here is how they are supposed respond to series arcing:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TWZE1X5fFQ&feature=youtu.be&t=72



Same carbon arc test replicated (this should trip in a less then a second according to IEC 62606):


https://youtu.be/jPlOudTIeGc?t=42

You and Peter have made claims on every afci thread but neither of you, afaik have done anything to try and change things.

 

[mbrooke]

You and Peter have made claims on every afci thread but neither of you, afaik have done anything to try and change things.

There is nothing we can do truth be, as much as I don't want to admit this. Code proposals never get taken seriously unless they are from "inside" UL and talking to local legislatures and politicians yields little in that they themselves are not technical experts.

 

[ptonsparky]

We’ve hashed this over and over with the same results. Nothing’s changed other than we think GE and CH BR styles are different. Some of you know. Some of us don’t.

How about putting this subject to rest right up there with GU vs GD?

Suggestions for solving issues with AFCI installations should be addressed but nothing else.

 

[480sparky]

But that is kinda like the "Snickers bar" argument: I put a Snickers bar on top of every box on rough in, someone says that is stupid, then I say " well prove to me it's not beneficial."

It's not beneficial if you spend your time and money putting the Snickers bars on every box, and there's no benefit to anyone once the drywall goes up.

Well, 'cept maybe for the mice and rats.

 

[romex jockey]

The haters and doubters will never see the afci as being useful. The fact is they are here and if you hate them then write a proposal to change it but back it up.

210.12 probably assumed the all time record rop's ever during the '14 cycle.

These were from none other than Joe Engel (phd EE nema afci-task force chair) and Bob Huddleston (NFPA EE) ,along with multitudes of what you call 'haters'

All were summarily dismissed w/out substainiation , it's like cmp-2 didn't even bother to read them.

Further, CMP-2 has had the same pro-afci seats and/or alternates for over 2 deacdes, manufacture reps, Ul reps, CSPC reps.

As my french friend says it's all 'screwed down'

What needs to be asked , is how many of them own stocks in the market.

~RJ~

 

[romex jockey]

Suggestions for solving issues with AFCI installations should be addressed but nothing else.

If the manufacturers have no clarity as to it's function, how do you expect anyone to guide troubleshooting past conjecture?

~RJ~

 

[al hildenbrand]

If the manufacturers have no clarity as to it's function, how do you expect anyone to guide troubleshooting past conjecture?

~RJ~

It's clear you are describing yourself.

 

[r6680jc]

210.12 probably assumed the all time record rop's ever during the '14 cycle.

These were from none other than Joe Engel (phd EE nema afci-task force chair) and Bob Huddleston (NFPA EE) ,along with multitudes of what you call 'haters'

All were summarily dismissed w/out substainiation , it's like cmp-2 didn't even bother to read them.

Further, CMP-2 has had the same pro-afci seats and/or alternates for over 2 deacdes, manufacture reps, Ul reps, CSPC reps.

As my french friend says it's all 'screwed down'

What needs to be asked , is how many of them own stocks in the market.

~RJ~

I'm not going to choose side here, just wishing no AFCI requirement in my country until at least they're cheap, capable to detect all kind of arc faults, and no false tripping.


Regarding the document by Dr Joe Engel.
Did you spot one small error here?
Quoted from the pdf doc (page 10):

X. The UL “Fire Curve”

An examination of Fig. 10 shows that UL labeled the x-axis as “Available short-circuit current (A)”, not load current. The test circuit is shown in Fig. 11; a cord specimen ready for testing is shown in Fig. 12. There was no load connected to the cord (SPT-2). The resistor shown was used to adjust the available short-circuit current from a low of 1A to a high of 100A. The UL engineer acknowledged that he performed parallel arcing tests, not the series arcing tests he was funded to conduct.

So the wire sample is prepared as a parallel, not a series, fault.

If we see the resistor as a long wire, then yes he was right that it was parallel arc fault.

Now let's try to see the resistor as a reisistive load;
Current flow:
From source > good conductor > load (resistor) > bad conductor > back to source.
We now see it as series arc fault on return path (neutral conductor).
Since it's alternating current, we can also see the current travel backward;
From source > bad conductor > load (resistor) > good conductor > back to source.

The real problem that I saw wasn't the author's small error, but this part:

The UL engineer acknowledged that he performed parallel arcing tests, not the series arcing tests he was funded to conduct.

He was ...
... it's far above my paygrade.

 

[mbrooke]

I'm not going to choose side here, just wishing no AFCI requirement in my country until at least they're cheap, capable to detect all kind of arc faults, and no false tripping.


Regarding the document by Dr Joe Engel.
Did you spot one small error here?
Quoted from the pdf doc (page 10):







If we see the resistor as a long wire, then yes he was right that it was parallel arc fault.

Now let's try to see the resistor as a reisistive load;
Current flow:
From source > good conductor > load (resistor) > bad conductor > back to source.
We now see it as series arc fault on return path (neutral conductor).
Since it's alternating current, we can also see the current travel backward;
From source > bad conductor > load (resistor) > good conductor > back to source.

The real problem that I saw wasn't the author's small error, but this part:



He was ...
... it's far above my paygrade.

Your breakers and RCD already detect all arc faults except series arc faults and have been doing so for 60 years. UL went out of their way researching foreign power system, loop impedance and European circuit breakers before they came to the AFCIs recommendation here in North America.


Here is one of their inspirations:

https://paceforensic.com/pdfs/Circuit_Breakers_The_Myth_of_Safety.pdf


http://paceforensic.com/arcing-fault-circuit-interruptor-breakers


http://paceforensic.com/pdfs/newsletter/KeepingPace-15.pdf

http://paceforensic.com/pdfs/newsletter/KeepingPace-37.pdf

http://paceforensic.com/pdfs/newsletter/KeepingPace-7.pdf


In fact the very first AFCIs were intended to be circuit breakers with a 200amp magnetic pickup. However, the debate ensued that certain dwellings will have less than 200amps short circuit current, estimated down to 75amps, and as such electronics took over from there.

My point being that line to neutral and line to ground arc fault protection means nothing when advertised outside North America because the IEC already takes care of that through its existing codes and equipment.

 

[romex jockey]

I'm not going to choose side here, just wishing no AFCI requirement in my country until at least they're cheap, capable to detect all kind of arc faults, and no false tripping.


Regarding the document by Dr Joe Engel.
Did you spot one small error here?
Quoted from the pdf doc (page 10):


If we see the resistor as a long wire, then yes he was right that it was parallel arc fault.

Now let's try to see the resistor as a reisistive load;
Current flow:
From source > good conductor > load (resistor) > bad conductor > back to source.
We now see it as series arc fault on return path (neutral conductor).
Since it's alternating current, we can also see the current travel backward;
From source > bad conductor > load (resistor) > good conductor > back to source.

The real problem that I saw wasn't the author's small error, but this part:



He was ...
... it's far above my paygrade.

Good catch r6, please keep in mind UL created ,instead of testing to, a standard

Said standard was cutting a piece of zip cord, wrapping it in flamable tape, introducing 15K, and claiming it mitigating a seriers arc.

Your breakers and RCD already detect all arc faults except series arc faults and have been doing so for 60 years. UL went out of their way researching foreign power system, loop impedance and European circuit breakers before they came to the AFCIs recommendation here in North America.


Here is one of their inspirations:

https://paceforensic.com/pdfs/Circuit_Breakers_The_Myth_of_Safety.pdf


http://paceforensic.com/arcing-fault-circuit-interruptor-breakers


http://paceforensic.com/pdfs/newsletter/KeepingPace-15.pdf

http://paceforensic.com/pdfs/newsletter/KeepingPace-37.pdf

http://paceforensic.com/pdfs/newsletter/KeepingPace-7.pdf


In fact the very first AFCIs were intended to be circuit breakers with a 200amp magnetic pickup. However, the debate ensued that certain dwellings will have less than 200amps short circuit current, estimated down to 75amps, and as such electronics took over from there.

My point being that line to neutral and line to ground arc fault protection means nothing when advertised outside North America because the IEC already takes care of that through its existing codes and equipment.

And because of thier attention to the inherent theory , probably are far more suspect

As such, i figure the international community will be decending on NEC based forums for more of an explanation

~RJ~

 

[romex jockey]

https://paceforensic.com/pdfs/Circuit_Breakers_The_Myth_of_Safety.pdf

>>>

http://apps.geindustrial.com/publib...t Curves|DES-011|PDF&filename=DES-011_TAB.pdf

~RJ~

 

[peter d]

You and Peter have made claims on every afci thread but neither of you, afaik have done anything to try and change things.

The fix is in for AFCI's and has been for a long time now. If you think that a few lowly electricians are going to fight against a multi-billion dollar cabal of multi-national manufacturers and affect change, you're dreaming.