i recently attended a mike holt code seminar.mr. holt stated that 90% of arcing in wiring is parallel arcing.i would have to strongly disagree.from my experience,most of the arcing comes frome series arcing.i would also like to state that mr. holt said that a rec would have to melt to clear a series arc when using arc fault protection.he seems to feel that this is an acceptable practice.i think that this statement is completely assanine.in my thirty years experience i have never heard of something more dangerous.at first mr. holt was strongly against the use of arc fault protection,but after a demonstration by the manufacturer showing a rec melting and clearing a series fault,he now thinks they are acceptable?
parallel arc vs series arc
- Thread starter domnic
- Start date
- Status
- Location
- Massachusetts
Re: parallel arc vs series arc
How do you define a series arc?
IMO a parallel arc is much more common, most faults I repair are line to ground faults.
A line to ground fault is a parallel arc.
How do you define a series arc?
IMO a parallel arc is much more common, most faults I repair are line to ground faults.
A line to ground fault is a parallel arc.
Re: parallel arc vs series arc
In dwelling units there are a considerable number of glowing contact faults and reports from the field indicate to me that the arc fault Branch / Feeder OCPD is better than nothing.
I think the 90% figure "MAY" be from the statistics that 50% of reported arcing faults occur beyond the face of the outlet, in other words the STP cord to and within the utilization equipment.
One of my students reported that a loose screw (needed less than a 1/4 turn to set) on a receptacle with a 60W lamp (table lamp) continued to trip a AFCI. New wiring with NM/B and Nonmetallic Enclosure.
Others will argue the merit of these devices and debate is good!! They do not appear to give anything away to a conventional inverse trip breaker and they certainly seem to enhance protection. I think they are here to stay and I suspect they will get better, as well as cheaper.
We will see!!
I have some pictures of glowing contacts but I can not post.
Charlie
In dwelling units there are a considerable number of glowing contact faults and reports from the field indicate to me that the arc fault Branch / Feeder OCPD is better than nothing.
I think the 90% figure "MAY" be from the statistics that 50% of reported arcing faults occur beyond the face of the outlet, in other words the STP cord to and within the utilization equipment.
One of my students reported that a loose screw (needed less than a 1/4 turn to set) on a receptacle with a 60W lamp (table lamp) continued to trip a AFCI. New wiring with NM/B and Nonmetallic Enclosure.
Others will argue the merit of these devices and debate is good!! They do not appear to give anything away to a conventional inverse trip breaker and they certainly seem to enhance protection. I think they are here to stay and I suspect they will get better, as well as cheaper.
We will see!!
I have some pictures of glowing contacts but I can not post.
Charlie
Re: parallel arc vs series arc
Yes loose connections may estableish series arcing, and a glowing contact. The Rap o the AFCI is that it will not clear this fault unless a ground fault is also established because the series arc current is considerablly below it's trip threshold. In these cases the breaker tends to respond to a GF. Less sensitive than a GFCI but still kinda the same.
The Combination devices are supposedly going to respond to a lowere fault current and I believe respond to faults beyound the outlet. Inwall Beyound Wall!!
Charlie
Yes loose connections may estableish series arcing, and a glowing contact. The Rap o the AFCI is that it will not clear this fault unless a ground fault is also established because the series arc current is considerablly below it's trip threshold. In these cases the breaker tends to respond to a GF. Less sensitive than a GFCI but still kinda the same.
The Combination devices are supposedly going to respond to a lowere fault current and I believe respond to faults beyound the outlet. Inwall Beyound Wall!!
Charlie
Re: parallel arc vs series arc
iwire,
a series arc fault could be a number of things.the first things that come to mind are;loose wire nut,loose lug,loose screws on rec and switches,and loose connections in panels.we have a thirty man shop,some residential,the rest is commercial-industrial.the majority of arcing we find is series arcing.do you have any experience with residential wiring or do you concentrate mainly on commercial-industrial?you mentioned line to ground faults.in most cases this is cleared by the overcurrent protection.if you are having that much of a problem with line to ground faults,it seems to me that there is a lot of sloppy wiring in your area.
iwire,
a series arc fault could be a number of things.the first things that come to mind are;loose wire nut,loose lug,loose screws on rec and switches,and loose connections in panels.we have a thirty man shop,some residential,the rest is commercial-industrial.the majority of arcing we find is series arcing.do you have any experience with residential wiring or do you concentrate mainly on commercial-industrial?you mentioned line to ground faults.in most cases this is cleared by the overcurrent protection.if you are having that much of a problem with line to ground faults,it seems to me that there is a lot of sloppy wiring in your area.
- Location
- Massachusetts
Re: parallel arc vs series arc
Sounds like your area has some sloppy wiring of it's own.
Right back at ya in regards to loose wire nuts, loose lugs, loose screws on rec and switches, and loose connections in panels.
Sounds like your area has some sloppy wiring of it's own.
Re: parallel arc vs series arc
domnic,
It is of my opinion that there is a better approach to addressing your question with regard to Mike's presentation as your post appears to be very critical of him. Did you ask Mike why he made that conclusion before you posted here?
With you 30 years of experience I may be preaching to the choir. I don't know if Mike was limiting his presentation to residential 15 and 20a AFCI application but stepping beyond that with arcing faults the damage can be so great that it's difficult to determine where it started.
With loose terminals for instance the heating and cooling commonly causes the terminal to loosen further eventually causing an arc. An arc ionizes the air around it making the air conductive. Should the scope of the ionized air reach a ground there will then be a L-G arcing fault. From the evidence that I have seen L-L arcing fault only appear after a L-G arc has been established.
One can never determine what the results of an arcing failure, either series or parallel, because each is unique animal.
With series arcing there is no way that it can be detected that I know of other than in that where the AFCI can be applied.
Should arcing occur at a load side terminal; of a breaker there may be a chance that the heat will be conducted into the breaker derating the thermal element an trip the breaker.
Line side failure often just heat the stationary contact which heats the moving contact of that phase and basically destroys the moving contact spring which results in contact welding.
L-G and L-N arcing faults are commonly ignored by standard breakers because the current feeding into the arc is high enough in magnitude to trip the breaker magnetically of long enough in duration to trip the breaker thermally.
domnic,
It is of my opinion that there is a better approach to addressing your question with regard to Mike's presentation as your post appears to be very critical of him. Did you ask Mike why he made that conclusion before you posted here?
With you 30 years of experience I may be preaching to the choir. I don't know if Mike was limiting his presentation to residential 15 and 20a AFCI application but stepping beyond that with arcing faults the damage can be so great that it's difficult to determine where it started.
With loose terminals for instance the heating and cooling commonly causes the terminal to loosen further eventually causing an arc. An arc ionizes the air around it making the air conductive. Should the scope of the ionized air reach a ground there will then be a L-G arcing fault. From the evidence that I have seen L-L arcing fault only appear after a L-G arc has been established.
One can never determine what the results of an arcing failure, either series or parallel, because each is unique animal.
With series arcing there is no way that it can be detected that I know of other than in that where the AFCI can be applied.
Should arcing occur at a load side terminal; of a breaker there may be a chance that the heat will be conducted into the breaker derating the thermal element an trip the breaker.
Line side failure often just heat the stationary contact which heats the moving contact of that phase and basically destroys the moving contact spring which results in contact welding.
L-G and L-N arcing faults are commonly ignored by standard breakers because the current feeding into the arc is high enough in magnitude to trip the breaker magnetically of long enough in duration to trip the breaker thermally.
Re: parallel arc vs series arc
Common Guys, no of us is perfect although we are professionals and would like to think that we are, that our work refect. But, considering the thousands of termination the you make there is that small percentage that you could have been distracted, unintentionally skipped something that is normally habit because you may have been rushed.
Common Guys, no of us is perfect although we are professionals and would like to think that we are, that our work refect. But, considering the thousands of termination the you make there is that small percentage that you could have been distracted, unintentionally skipped something that is normally habit because you may have been rushed.
- Location
- Massachusetts
Re: parallel arc vs series arc
It was a joke and I readily admit I have had things go bad.
Re: parallel arc vs series arc
i have had things go wrong myself.mike holt helped me get my masters license through his books and articles but i am compelled to speak my mind when i disagree with something.i completely disagree with his opinion of arc falt protection.i am almost under the impression that he has sold out to the manufacturers.
i have had things go wrong myself.mike holt helped me get my masters license through his books and articles but i am compelled to speak my mind when i disagree with something.i completely disagree with his opinion of arc falt protection.i am almost under the impression that he has sold out to the manufacturers.
Re: parallel arc vs series arc
Here is the text from Mike Holt's newletter of Monday, Dec. 9th, 2002.:
AFCI Update
MIKE HOLT'S POSITION AS OF OCTOBER 30, 2002
I have pressed the manufacturers of AFCI devices to demonstrate the superiority of the AFCI circuit breaker (as compared to a standard circuit breaker) in preventing a fire from loose terminals and connections. My challenge was specifically directed to Cutler-Hammer because they disputed some of the comments I made in my newsletters. Cutler-Hammer had offered many times to "demonstrate their AFCI technology," but I refused this invitation. I requested, instead of their demonstration, a comparison test of AFCI circuit breakers against a standard circuit breaker, but Cutler-Hammer refused this request. As a result, I submitted a proposal October 30, 2002 to have the AFCI requirement removed from the NEC based on the following:
1. UL 1699, the AFCI standard, does not require the AFCI circuit breaker to protect against fires caused by arcing at loose connections, at loose wires in wire connectors, or at loose screws.
2. Many in the industry (including myself) felt that an AFCI protective device, as required by the NEC, will not significantly reduce the incidence of fires at loose terminations and connections and the AFCI protection device (as currently listed) will not prevent them.
3. The public and the electrical industry have placed their trust in UL and the National Fire Protection Association to protect them. The Code process must be a guardian of public safety and it must put the public interest first. We will fail to maintain public trust if we do not remove the requirements for AFCI's from the NEC until this technology is demonstrated to prevent a fire from loose terminals and connections.
4. If the AFCI protection device is not required to protect against loose terminals, then what good is it? The data available today does not support how many residential fires have been started from loose terminal connections as compared to an arcing fault. Nor can data support how many fires can be linked to faults in premise wiring as compared to faults associated with the plugged-in load.
5. The public and the industry should have the opportunity to see a demonstration where an AFCI will prevent a fire from loose terminals, under the same conditions that a standard molded circuit breaker and fuse could not, or did not. Since the manufacturers state that this device will prevent a fire from this condition (their promotion material), they should show us the proof.
6. What is needed is a comprehensive study on the true causes of electrical fires by a Task Force of people qualified for this purpose. This study should provide the details on the causes of fires, where they occur, and what actions the industry should take to help reduce them. This study needs to be available for public input and debate (just like the NEC process). I'm sure that with the proper study valuable information will be acquired. We may learn:
New products to high-load stress test the wiring system.
To improve the training of electrical professionals on common wiring hazards, and the use of tools designed to find potential hazards.
Better communication to the public about the danger of unqualified persons performing electrical work and the importance of conducting inspections of existing wiring systems by qualified professionals.
To closer look at new products, if any, the NEC should require?
MIKE HOLT'S POSITION AS OF NOVEMBER 5, 2002
On October 31, 2002, Cutler-Hammer contacted me and offered to provide the comparison testing of protective devices as I requested. This meeting was held on Monday, November 4, 2002 in Pittsburgh, PA with Dr. Clive Kimblin [Manager of Standards], Mr. John Wafer [VP and Group Chief Technology Officer], Dr. Joe Engel [Electronics Engineering Manager], and Mr. Brendan Foley [Product Manager]. I personally paid all of the costs incurred for this trip, including transportation and lodging (very expensive when you make last minute reservations).
After having attended the comparison demonstration, and getting the chance to have my concerns and questions addressed directly by those that have the knowledge of this technology, I have changed my position on the effectiveness of AFCI protection devices. As a result, I will withdraw my proposal to remove AFCI's from the NEC.
It is true that AFCI circuit breakers are not required to protect against loose "glowing" connections, but AFCI circuit breakers that are dual-listed for AFCI/GFI or AFCI/GFCI should prevent most fires from high-resistance heating (glowing) at loose terminals and connections http://www.mikeholt.com/htmlnews/afci/ULreportonterminals.pdf.
The performance tests comparing AFCI/GFI with a standard circuit breaker demonstrated that AFCI/GFCI circuit breakers will save lives under the conditions identified by the manufacturers, including from loose terminals or connections. The comparison test was simple; there were two outlet boxes each containing a duplex receptacle with loose terminals. A 1,500W load was applied to each, and after an hour or so, the receptacles melted and the AFCI/GFI circuit breaker opened within three to eight half-cycles, whereas the standard circuit breaker did not trip.
I personally thought that it was the heat (650?F at the hottest point) from the loose terminals that caused the fire. What I discovered was that the heat from the loose terminals melted the wiring device and the circuit conductors in the box, creating a line-to-neutral or line-to-ground fault. If the available short-circuit current of the fault was 100A, it could take between one and five seconds (120 to 600 half-cycles) or even longer to clear the fault with a standard inverse-time circuit breaker, whereas an AFCI/GFI circuit breaker would clear the fault in less than nine arcing half-cycles from a line-to-neutral fault or two half-cycles from a ground fault.
NOTE: AFCI circuit breakers are not required by the NEC to be dual-listed (AFCI/GFI or AFCI/GFCI). Nevertheless, all four U.S. manufacturers include ground fault circuitry and Cutler-Hammer has chosen to dual-list their devices. The NEC should make dual-listing a requirement since there is no cost difference between dual-listing or not.
I still feel that a comprehensive study on the true causes of electrical fires by a Task Force is needed to provide accurate details on the origin of electrical fires, where they occur, and what actions the industry should take to help reduce them. This study should be available for public input and debate, just like the NEC process.
We all play a critical role in improving life safety by becoming involved in some manner, whether by submitting a proposal, commenting on a proposal, being a Code panel member, or an "outsider" like myself trying to keep people on their toes.
I know you must have lots of questions and I hope the following will answer most of them. I am organizing a meeting in Pittsburgh at the Cutler-Hammer Technology and Quality Center for December 17th from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. to demonstrate how an AFCI circuit breaker protects against a fire from loose terminals and connectors, as well as the technology. If you are interested in attending, please contact me as soon as possible.
As always, please let me know your thoughts and feelings. Mike Holt
Notice that he says, "creating a line-to-neutral or line-to-ground fault". He does not know. If this test was conducted AFCI vs GFCI, it is likely that a GFCI would have tripped even before the AFCI if it were a line to ground fault.
I think he was bamboozled by this demonstration.
~Peter
Here is the text from Mike Holt's newletter of Monday, Dec. 9th, 2002.:
AFCI Update
MIKE HOLT'S POSITION AS OF OCTOBER 30, 2002
I have pressed the manufacturers of AFCI devices to demonstrate the superiority of the AFCI circuit breaker (as compared to a standard circuit breaker) in preventing a fire from loose terminals and connections. My challenge was specifically directed to Cutler-Hammer because they disputed some of the comments I made in my newsletters. Cutler-Hammer had offered many times to "demonstrate their AFCI technology," but I refused this invitation. I requested, instead of their demonstration, a comparison test of AFCI circuit breakers against a standard circuit breaker, but Cutler-Hammer refused this request. As a result, I submitted a proposal October 30, 2002 to have the AFCI requirement removed from the NEC based on the following:
1. UL 1699, the AFCI standard, does not require the AFCI circuit breaker to protect against fires caused by arcing at loose connections, at loose wires in wire connectors, or at loose screws.
2. Many in the industry (including myself) felt that an AFCI protective device, as required by the NEC, will not significantly reduce the incidence of fires at loose terminations and connections and the AFCI protection device (as currently listed) will not prevent them.
3. The public and the electrical industry have placed their trust in UL and the National Fire Protection Association to protect them. The Code process must be a guardian of public safety and it must put the public interest first. We will fail to maintain public trust if we do not remove the requirements for AFCI's from the NEC until this technology is demonstrated to prevent a fire from loose terminals and connections.
4. If the AFCI protection device is not required to protect against loose terminals, then what good is it? The data available today does not support how many residential fires have been started from loose terminal connections as compared to an arcing fault. Nor can data support how many fires can be linked to faults in premise wiring as compared to faults associated with the plugged-in load.
5. The public and the industry should have the opportunity to see a demonstration where an AFCI will prevent a fire from loose terminals, under the same conditions that a standard molded circuit breaker and fuse could not, or did not. Since the manufacturers state that this device will prevent a fire from this condition (their promotion material), they should show us the proof.
6. What is needed is a comprehensive study on the true causes of electrical fires by a Task Force of people qualified for this purpose. This study should provide the details on the causes of fires, where they occur, and what actions the industry should take to help reduce them. This study needs to be available for public input and debate (just like the NEC process). I'm sure that with the proper study valuable information will be acquired. We may learn:
New products to high-load stress test the wiring system.
To improve the training of electrical professionals on common wiring hazards, and the use of tools designed to find potential hazards.
Better communication to the public about the danger of unqualified persons performing electrical work and the importance of conducting inspections of existing wiring systems by qualified professionals.
To closer look at new products, if any, the NEC should require?
MIKE HOLT'S POSITION AS OF NOVEMBER 5, 2002
On October 31, 2002, Cutler-Hammer contacted me and offered to provide the comparison testing of protective devices as I requested. This meeting was held on Monday, November 4, 2002 in Pittsburgh, PA with Dr. Clive Kimblin [Manager of Standards], Mr. John Wafer [VP and Group Chief Technology Officer], Dr. Joe Engel [Electronics Engineering Manager], and Mr. Brendan Foley [Product Manager]. I personally paid all of the costs incurred for this trip, including transportation and lodging (very expensive when you make last minute reservations).
After having attended the comparison demonstration, and getting the chance to have my concerns and questions addressed directly by those that have the knowledge of this technology, I have changed my position on the effectiveness of AFCI protection devices. As a result, I will withdraw my proposal to remove AFCI's from the NEC.
It is true that AFCI circuit breakers are not required to protect against loose "glowing" connections, but AFCI circuit breakers that are dual-listed for AFCI/GFI or AFCI/GFCI should prevent most fires from high-resistance heating (glowing) at loose terminals and connections http://www.mikeholt.com/htmlnews/afci/ULreportonterminals.pdf.
The performance tests comparing AFCI/GFI with a standard circuit breaker demonstrated that AFCI/GFCI circuit breakers will save lives under the conditions identified by the manufacturers, including from loose terminals or connections. The comparison test was simple; there were two outlet boxes each containing a duplex receptacle with loose terminals. A 1,500W load was applied to each, and after an hour or so, the receptacles melted and the AFCI/GFI circuit breaker opened within three to eight half-cycles, whereas the standard circuit breaker did not trip.
I personally thought that it was the heat (650?F at the hottest point) from the loose terminals that caused the fire. What I discovered was that the heat from the loose terminals melted the wiring device and the circuit conductors in the box, creating a line-to-neutral or line-to-ground fault. If the available short-circuit current of the fault was 100A, it could take between one and five seconds (120 to 600 half-cycles) or even longer to clear the fault with a standard inverse-time circuit breaker, whereas an AFCI/GFI circuit breaker would clear the fault in less than nine arcing half-cycles from a line-to-neutral fault or two half-cycles from a ground fault.
NOTE: AFCI circuit breakers are not required by the NEC to be dual-listed (AFCI/GFI or AFCI/GFCI). Nevertheless, all four U.S. manufacturers include ground fault circuitry and Cutler-Hammer has chosen to dual-list their devices. The NEC should make dual-listing a requirement since there is no cost difference between dual-listing or not.
I still feel that a comprehensive study on the true causes of electrical fires by a Task Force is needed to provide accurate details on the origin of electrical fires, where they occur, and what actions the industry should take to help reduce them. This study should be available for public input and debate, just like the NEC process.
We all play a critical role in improving life safety by becoming involved in some manner, whether by submitting a proposal, commenting on a proposal, being a Code panel member, or an "outsider" like myself trying to keep people on their toes.
I know you must have lots of questions and I hope the following will answer most of them. I am organizing a meeting in Pittsburgh at the Cutler-Hammer Technology and Quality Center for December 17th from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. to demonstrate how an AFCI circuit breaker protects against a fire from loose terminals and connectors, as well as the technology. If you are interested in attending, please contact me as soon as possible.
As always, please let me know your thoughts and feelings. Mike Holt
Notice that he says, "creating a line-to-neutral or line-to-ground fault". He does not know. If this test was conducted AFCI vs GFCI, it is likely that a GFCI would have tripped even before the AFCI if it were a line to ground fault.
I think he was bamboozled by this demonstration.
~Peter
physis
Senior Member
Re: parallel arc vs series arc
I have to say, I am very impressed with the way Mike addresses this.
One of the things that stands out, to me, is the stance taken by Cuttler Hammer. Essentially their attitude seems to have been "take a hike pal" until a rather weightful NEC proposal was presented to them.
Appearantly there is something in the NEC's "forcing" AFI's on the public at large that has quite a value to Cuttler Hammer.
On a different note, I am somewhat happy to hear that AFI's are, indeed, a good thing. I do believe they are a good thing, But I also still wonder if they're ready and wether they are being over billed.
Peter, thank you for the, if not lengthy, informative post.
Edit: I'll also add that it changes some of my thinking on the subject.
[ February 12, 2005, 10:11 PM: Message edited by: physis ]
I have to say, I am very impressed with the way Mike addresses this.
One of the things that stands out, to me, is the stance taken by Cuttler Hammer. Essentially their attitude seems to have been "take a hike pal" until a rather weightful NEC proposal was presented to them.
Appearantly there is something in the NEC's "forcing" AFI's on the public at large that has quite a value to Cuttler Hammer.
On a different note, I am somewhat happy to hear that AFI's are, indeed, a good thing. I do believe they are a good thing, But I also still wonder if they're ready and wether they are being over billed.
Peter, thank you for the, if not lengthy, informative post.
Edit: I'll also add that it changes some of my thinking on the subject.
[ February 12, 2005, 10:11 PM: Message edited by: physis ]
charlie
Senior Member
- Location
- Indianapolis
Re: parallel arc vs series arc
Peter, I tend to agree with your conclusion. While the existing AFCI will somewhat protect the building wiring, it will not protect the smaller conductors in cords where there are generally no grounding conductors and the impedance is higher. They will absolutely not protect the cords from series arcing. The bottom line is that they will not perform as promised. BTW Clive is on CMP-10.
Peter, I tend to agree with your conclusion. While the existing AFCI will somewhat protect the building wiring, it will not protect the smaller conductors in cords where there are generally no grounding conductors and the impedance is higher. They will absolutely not protect the cords from series arcing. The bottom line is that they will not perform as promised. BTW Clive is on CMP-10.
Re: parallel arc vs series arc
Thanks Peter,
That was interested.
It has been 5 years since being employed by C-H and having some pretty good relationships down into the engineering level I could have at least got a more reasonable justification as to why they appear to be avoiding giving a direct answer. Sometimes it's not getting to the right person.
If I recall Clive was and still is the engineering manager who I meet some years back. He talks with an English accent and is a pretty sharp guy. But, since the little AFCI is small when compared to his overall product responsibility I'm not sure if our question should have stopped with him but should have been discussed with those assigned to the AFCI product. It's like hitting a brick wall.
When I see this happening I feel handicapped by being on the outside looking in and feel a bit helpless.
Instead of feeling a bit "blown off" by C-H it would have been nicer if we could have gotten a straight answer whether or not we may have liked the answer or not.
That's what I enjoyed so much about working for (W) and C-H as the privilage of having relationships with those engineers who actually do the design engineering of the products and know how they work. Excellent excellent people and a great brain trust to address field application issues.
Thanks Peter,
That was interested.
It has been 5 years since being employed by C-H and having some pretty good relationships down into the engineering level I could have at least got a more reasonable justification as to why they appear to be avoiding giving a direct answer. Sometimes it's not getting to the right person.
If I recall Clive was and still is the engineering manager who I meet some years back. He talks with an English accent and is a pretty sharp guy. But, since the little AFCI is small when compared to his overall product responsibility I'm not sure if our question should have stopped with him but should have been discussed with those assigned to the AFCI product. It's like hitting a brick wall.
When I see this happening I feel handicapped by being on the outside looking in and feel a bit helpless.
Instead of feeling a bit "blown off" by C-H it would have been nicer if we could have gotten a straight answer whether or not we may have liked the answer or not.
That's what I enjoyed so much about working for (W) and C-H as the privilage of having relationships with those engineers who actually do the design engineering of the products and know how they work. Excellent excellent people and a great brain trust to address field application issues.
pierre
Senior Member
- Location
- Westchester County, New York
Re: parallel arc vs series arc
There are no "cure all to end all" treatments in this type of application, at least not now. I suggest that you try to go to the shows that CH is presenting their AFCI type breakers at and watch the demonstration they provide. I think that enough good is now attributed to the AFCI breaker that they are worth installing, and as technology evolves, they will get better. I think where these manufacturers really screwed up was in the marketing - as now no one trusts them at all anymore - the marketing was very bogus, hard to come back after leading the market with false information.
There are no "cure all to end all" treatments in this type of application, at least not now. I suggest that you try to go to the shows that CH is presenting their AFCI type breakers at and watch the demonstration they provide. I think that enough good is now attributed to the AFCI breaker that they are worth installing, and as technology evolves, they will get better. I think where these manufacturers really screwed up was in the marketing - as now no one trusts them at all anymore - the marketing was very bogus, hard to come back after leading the market with false information.
charlie
Senior Member
- Location
- Indianapolis
Re: parallel arc vs series arc
Pierre, as cynical as I am, I still believe the combination type AFCIs will be the best thing since sliced bread . . . if they work as advertised. I have opposed the use of AFCIs since their inception because they were unproven. I still oppose them for the same reason and do not feel like the Code should be used as a sales device.
Pierre, as cynical as I am, I still believe the combination type AFCIs will be the best thing since sliced bread . . . if they work as advertised. I have opposed the use of AFCIs since their inception because they were unproven. I still oppose them for the same reason and do not feel like the Code should be used as a sales device.
harley
Member
- Location
- Pennsylvania
Re: parallel arc vs series arc
A loose connection becomes a high resistance connection thus overheating insulation and recpt may melt internally. Sorry Charlie present AFCI's do protect 2 wire ext. cords you have not witness the CH demos or reviewed U.L. 1699 spec. A load working with a parallel arc fault of branch circuit will operate normally, a load with a series arc will stop/intermittently operate. Hence if it don't work i unplug and fix or don't use it. Here again how to recognize good series arc (switch, motor brushes) to bad series arc? Most users want saftey Mike H being a champion others U.L., NEC, Manuf(breakers, recptacle) home builders are in this for the POLITICS need more be said.
A loose connection becomes a high resistance connection thus overheating insulation and recpt may melt internally. Sorry Charlie present AFCI's do protect 2 wire ext. cords you have not witness the CH demos or reviewed U.L. 1699 spec. A load working with a parallel arc fault of branch circuit will operate normally, a load with a series arc will stop/intermittently operate. Hence if it don't work i unplug and fix or don't use it. Here again how to recognize good series arc (switch, motor brushes) to bad series arc? Most users want saftey Mike H being a champion others U.L., NEC, Manuf(breakers, recptacle) home builders are in this for the POLITICS need more be said.
charlie
Senior Member
- Location
- Indianapolis
Re: parallel arc vs series arc
Harley, I must respectfully disagree with you. Why are they requiring the new combination type AFCI if the ones that are being installed now work so well? Also, I am not a fan of the requirement of burning up a device before the arc signature gets bad enough to trip the device.
Harley, I must respectfully disagree with you. Why are they requiring the new combination type AFCI if the ones that are being installed now work so well? Also, I am not a fan of the requirement of burning up a device before the arc signature gets bad enough to trip the device.
- Status