'Proof' that AFCI devices really locate arcs.

[mbrooke]

Not sure the patent limited that to a GFCI. If it did then a lot of connections would be left out and that kind of defeats the whole purpose.

I will have to check the patent. But considering AFCIs with GFP exist on a whole lot of circuits it would not be difficult to implement, certainly not in 230 volt countries where all circuits are GFCI.

In any case professional research can obtain a working GCI without needing a GFCI, this is where self fusing comes in.

Yeah, nothing bulky about that!

Which costs $35 bucks and protect 10 circuits while we have to spend 1,200 for the same applying protection to each individual branch circuit :lol:

Say what?:?

Can GFCI protection not be provided from the branch circuit origin? Most new builds do anyways with dual function breakers about.

 

[user 100]

"Last I checked all new wiring has an EGC"-mbrooke

Yes all new wiring. And newer installs also have larger boxes. What to do in an older installation comprising of old nm w/o egc and shallow and sometimes very full gem boxes? We could rewire those older places (which most of the time isn't necessary) and if we rewire them to accomodate this idea(s), why not just do everything correctly with standard connectors and devices and eliminate any need for what would amount to individual fusing?

 

[user 100]

I have seen handymen who are more cvompitent that some licensed electrician that I have run across over the year. But if I was to advise someone it definitely would be to get a reputable licensed electrician.

Some of our most renowned cardiovascular surgeons have said that the average person could perform heart surgery with a certain amount of minimal training, but would you want that joe somebody trying to fix your ticker? While we cannot ascertain an individuals ability solely based on licensing, we at least know that there is a chance they might know what they are doing.

 

[mbrooke]

"Last I checked all new wiring has an EGC"-mbrooke

Yes all new wiring. And newer installs also have larger boxes. What to do in an older installation comprising of old nm w/o egc and shallow and sometimes very full gem boxes? We could rewire those older places (which most of the time isn't necessary) and if we rewire them to accomodate this idea(s), why not just do everything correctly with standard connectors and devices and eliminate any need for what would amount to individual fusing?

True, but installs like that can be grandfathered as they already are in many, many ways.

 

[mbrooke]

Some of our most renowned cardiovascular surgeons have said that the average person could perform heart surgery with a certain amount of minimal training, but would you want that joe somebody trying to fix your ticker? While we cannot ascertain an individuals ability solely based on licensing, we at least know that there is a chance they might know what they are doing.

I think what he is trying to say is that a license does not grantee a person will acknowledge code or have passion/pride in their work. There is also the issue of education, which tends to cater to the lowest common denominator rather than the leaders of tomorrow. A renowned physicist despite his accomplishments did not have much good to say for his education.

 

[ggunn]

Some of our most renowned cardiovascular surgeons have said that the average person could perform heart surgery with a certain amount of minimal training...

But to be able to do so with a low enough probability of a fatal screwup that I would be willing to lie on the table and let him open me up is another thing entirely.

 

[mbrooke]

* wrong post, disregard

 

[mivey]

And how would that be more difficult or problematic?

Ok, where do you see more wires other than the typical neutral, ground, hot in those vids?

So your saying we only splice neutrals in boxes but leave hots and grounds floating about?

I somehow thing you don't understand the concept.

How is internal complexity equate to installation complexity?

If these concepts are foreign to you then you must make up junction boxes, splices, switch legs, etc. different from what I see in normal work. Not sure what your normal course of EC work covers but clearly your experience is much different than mine. It makes me feel like I'm discussing this with someone with very little background or someone who is trying to be purposefully blank. Either way, this particular vein has become tiresome and not very interesting anymore.

 

[mbrooke]

If these concepts are foreign to you then you must make up junction boxes, splices, switch legs, etc. different from what I see in normal work. Not sure what your normal course of EC work covers but clearly your experience is much different than mine. It makes me feel like I'm discussing this with someone with very little background or someone who is trying to be purposefully blank. Either way, this particular vein has become tiresome and not very interesting anymore.

I don't know if you've been PMing with Iwire but how are individual wire nuts different then a terminal blocks? Picture taking all the splices in a typical dwelling J-box and tapping them together in under a wrap of tape. Thats basically how you would hook up a single terminal block. Yes I get commercial with multiple circuits in conduit would be a challenge, but if this goes into production do you think any bugs wont be worked out?

 

[mivey]

I don't know if you've been PMing with Iwire

No, but if you and he have some insights you would like to share with everyone then go ahead.

but how are individual wire nuts different then a terminal blocks?

More compact. You should know that. There is a reason we use terminal blocks in control wiring and there is a reason we use wire nuts in device & junction boxes. Convenience, size, available space, ease of use all play factors.

I find it incredible that you think requiring extra conductors at a terminal so the connection can be monitored will not require more space or add complexity/time. Not really worth discussion and I would rather go back to the main topic.

Picture taking all the splices in a typical dwelling J-box and tapping them together in under a wrap of tape. Thats basically how you would hook up a single terminal block.

:roll:

Yes I get commercial with multiple circuits in conduit would be a challenge, but if this goes into production do you think any bugs wont be worked out?

The inventor hasn't done so in over a decade so what do you think?

 

[mbrooke]

No, but if you and he have some insights you would like to share with everyone then go ahead.

More compact. You should know that. There is a reason we use terminal blocks in control wiring and there is a reason we use wire nuts in device & junction boxes. Convenience, size, available space, ease of use all play factors.

I find it incredible that you think requiring extra conductors at a terminal so the connection can be monitored will not require more space or add complexity/time. Not really worth discussion and I would rather go back to the main topic.

Lets agree to disagree on this one. If you want you can draw me a picture or diagram you may. Maybe Im just not thinking past what was shown in the video: a simple 3 wire to 3 wire splice.

The inventor hasn't done so in over a decade so what do you think?

The inventor doesn't have access nor work for billion dollar corporations. So he has to make do with what available. But come market you can bet Ideal industries or Eaton will make something top notch if they really wanted to.

I still stand behind my statements, if we really want to tackle glowing connections this is the way to do it. Other methods being worked on by large corporations involve retrofiting wireless electronic sensors at the ends of each circuit branch and each device, something that will not only be bigger but loads more expensive.

 

[peter d]

I still stand behind my statements, if we really want to tackle glowing connections this is the way to do it. Other methods being worked on by large corporations involve retrofiting wireless electronic sensors at the ends of each circuit branch and each device, something that will not only be bigger but loads more expensive.

I said it before and I will say it again - we don't need another gimmicky device that adds more labor and complexity to deal with an issue that's related to lousy workmanship. You've been spot on with your criticism of AFCI's but you go off the rails with this one.

 

[peter d]

If these concepts are foreign to you then you must make up junction boxes, splices, switch legs, etc. different from what I see in normal work. Not sure what your normal course of EC work covers but clearly your experience is much different than mine. It makes me feel like I'm discussing this with someone with very little background or someone who is trying to be purposefully blank. Either way, this particular vein has become tiresome and not very interesting anymore.

Mbrooke clearly has a power systems background than a straight, every day electrician one. But this is an engineer friendly forum so that shouldn't matter much. I disagree with him on this thermal fusing idea but his insights on AFCI's are spot on.

 

[mbrooke]

I said it before and I will say it again - we don't need another gimmicky device that adds more labor and complexity to deal with an issue that's related to lousy workmanship. You've been spot on with your criticism of AFCI's but you go off the rails with this one.

Im just stating what the NEC could have mandated instead of AFCIs if they were indeed that desperate. Considering that 90 to 95% of electrical related fires are from Joule Heating it would have been far more common sense then AFCIs. And if anything it shows supposed arc faults are a drop in the bucket, that is assuming they are a problem to begin with.

 

[peter d]

Im just stating what the NEC could have mandated instead of AFCIs if they were indeed that desperate. Considering that 90 to 95% of electrical related fires are from Joule Heating it would have been far more common sense then AFCIs. And if anything it shows supposed arc faults are a drop in the bucket, that is assuming they are a problem to begin with.

I get that, but you should be looking at this from the standpoint that there was no problem that demanded a solution in the first place. Joule heating is a problem, to be sure but it does not demand a solution. Proper workmanship and following instructions with portable wiring is the solution to joule heating. As the old saying goes, "You can't fix stupid."

 

[mbrooke]

I get that, but you should be looking at this from the standpoint that there was no problem that demanded a solution in the first place. Joule heating is a problem, to be sure but it does not demand a solution. Proper workmanship and following instructions with portable wiring is the solution to joule heating. As the old saying goes, "You can't fix stupid."

I agree, but our CMPs say there is a problem. :roll: If they passed a rule that ACTUALLY made at least a small dent in electrical fires be it GFCIs, GCIs or plug top fuses I wouldn't be anywhere this vocal. But knowing theres total gimmick in place is over the top.

 

[iwire]

I agree, but our CMPs say there is a problem. :roll: If they passed a rule that ACTUALLY made at least a small dent in electrical fires be it GFCIs, GCIs or plug top fuses I wouldn't be anywhere this vocal. But knowing theres total gimmick in place is over the top.

So your solution seems to be swap the gimmick of their choosing with another gimmick of your choosing that adds labor and complexity to each installation.

Sorry that is no solution.

 

[john374]

One that is often difficult in not impossible to do is to reinvent the cause of an electrical event as the evidence is quite often destroyed fitting the even. When the breaker trips it is often difficult to repeat the event which leads us to draw from our past experiences to what masy have caused the event. You get there sftere the fact to reset the breaker. Then our opinions are the based on assumptions.
When there is an arcing short circuit at such a low voltage as 120vac what does it take to sustain the arc as I've seen the results of arcing at much higher voltage which may have started out as a series are, the air gets ionized and the arc often involves an adjacent phase and/or ground. The results were not pretty.
But at 120v as you pointed out I believe, is there enough voltage present to even sustain an arc?

Now sure what kind of arc you're speaking about but: I was personally present when a HO pulled on a vacuum cord and the wall receptacle came out of the wall and an arc ensued. The arc, flames and all, started to scorch the panel board wall and I had to run to the electrical panel and switch the circuit breaker; while the HO just stood watching the arc and the flame growhmy: She later siad the arc must have lasted at least 5 to 10 seconds. ; the panel was in the next room. Now, that was an interesting experience. My first residential arc.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Now sure what kind of arc you're speaking about but: I was personally present when a HO pulled on a vacuum cord and the wall receptacle came out of the wall and an arc ensued. The arc, flames and all, started to scorch the panel board wall and I had to run to the electrical panel and switch the circuit breaker; while the HO just stood watching the arc and the flame growhmy: She later siad the arc must have lasted at least 5 to 10 seconds. ; the panel was in the next room. Now, that was an interesting experience. My first residential arc.

An actual arc as in jumping between two conductors with an air space between them, or burning and sparking wiring?

 

[mbrooke]

So your solution seems to be swap the gimmick of their choosing with another gimmick of your choosing that adds labor and complexity to each installation.

Sorry that is no solution.

Look at it like this, if they really want to feel good and accomplish something might as well make code changes that can at least prevent some fires rather then require something even more expensive which prevents nothing.


For example: GFCIs are already mandated, evolved and proven. The 30ma GFP in older AFCIs has caught a lot of sloppy work. The NEC could have just required GFCIs in place of AFCI and everyone would have been happy. Perhaps not ideal for many, but far more common sense.