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

[peter d]

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.

Why do we have any reason to trust them when the manufacturers outright lied about the availability of the combination AFCI when the first branch/feeder AFCI's hit the scene?

 

[romex jockey]

And you'd be entirely right Pete.

Think of all the huge corporations who've misled us...:rant:

big tobacco, big pharma, monsanto, etc etc ad nasuem...

We're not even on the public radar...who do not have a grasp of electrical theory, which even our own trade sadly falls short of :happysad:

That said , UL's AFDD doctrine has gone global , whom perhaps are far more inquisitive , holding theory over their claims

....:thumbsup: ~RJ~

 

[hbiss]

UL's AFDD doctrine has gone global , whom perhaps are far more inquisitive , holding theory over their claims

....:thumbsup: ~RJ~

And perhaps the AFCI manufacturers greed in wanting to expand to a global market will lead to their demise. I have a feeling that the rest of the world isn't as gullible as Americans.

-Hal

 

[mbrooke]

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.

Well said, and the reason no meaningful large scale change can ever take place. Code making panels bring in profit the way advertising dollars never could or can.

 

[electrofelon]

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.

I am sorry, that is not a valid argument. You have not provided any evidence to back up your assertion. The snickers bar as been shown to be beneficial

 

[JohnWick]

There has to be hundreds of pages on this site on this subject. To cut to the chase: AFCIs are the biggest fraud on the American people ever. Manufacturers infiltrated the Code making panel with their employees and got the NEC to require their use. Big win for the manufacturers profits. In their 20 years of existence they have never been proven to have saved one life. There is no evidence that they have prevented any fires either. Nobody knows exactly how they are supposed to work because the manufacturers keep that a secret. So your guess is as good as anybodies. It has been suggested that it is impossible to put enough "computing horsepower" into that small of a package to do what they claim they will do. All we do know is they don't work and proving that they do is impossible.

-Hal

Yeah, I've read, Thanks for the post

 

[romex jockey]

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.



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.

Rather conflicting.......now I'm interested in those countries whom employ loop resistance opining on UL's inclusion to the IEC....~RJ~

 

[mbrooke]

Rather conflicting.......now I'm interested in those countries whom employ loop resistance opining on UL's inclusion to the IEC....~RJ~

Not conflicting. UL simply rigged the claim that if a short circuit does not clear a breaker magnetically (within 4 cycles) it can result in fire.