'Proof' that AFCI devices really locate arcs.

Status
Not open for further replies.
templdl said:
It's alot more fun to have it in your hand to look at and to play with believe me. I'm glad to find someone who is as curious as I am to figure out how they work.
If I can find an extra copy of breaker basics I'll include it as my gift to you.
Click to expand...

How many clear breakers do you have? Ive always wanted one.
 
mbrooke said:
How many clear breakers do you have? Ive always wanted one.
Click to expand...

Having only 2 this is my only extra which I've kept for 30 years and I'm willing to lend out. Since I have never seen any others I'm not willing to give it up.I have kept them in my curio cabinet along with numerous other collectables including a 1889 light bulb an actual working model of a small closed-core type transformer with interchangeable cores, a vacuum bottle from a size 4, 140a vacuum contactor, etc.
There are some on EBay from various manufacturers such as item 121707266725, 231497269362, 311025555993, 351282488150, 231497779199.
Do a search on transparent circuit breakers.
 
templdl said:
Having only 2 this is my only extra which I've kept for 30 years and I'm willing to lend out. Since I have never seen any others I'm not willing to give it up.I have kept them in my curio cabinet along with numerous other collectables including a 1889 light bulb an actual working model of a small closed-core type transformer with interchangeable cores, a vacuum bottle from a size 4, 140a vacuum contactor, etc.
There are some on EBay from various manufacturers such as item 121707266725, 231497269362, 311025555993, 351282488150, 231497779199.
Do a search on transparent circuit breakers.
Click to expand...

Thanks! I looked at them, but most are not US though. Its ok though, Ive cracked open my fair share. :lol:
 
mbrooke said:
The point that I am trying to make with listing all these different methods is that the CMP has at least 50 other options available that do what AFCIs claim to do.
Click to expand...
That is what is so irritating, especially the "claim to do" part.
 
growler said:
I fully agree. I will admit that I have no idea of how the majority of electrical fires start.
Click to expand...
But to hear the manufacturer and code reps, they have it all figured out. I guess they really are on a much higher level than us mere mortals.
 
mbrooke said:
FWIW, I see most breakers have one or two factory calibration screws that are cemented or papered over, is it possible these alone determine the trip rating? (ie tightened to X turns for 15 amps Y turns for 20? (see pic for example)
Click to expand...
I could not see them. Where are they at specifically?
 
mivey said:
I could not see them. Where are they at specifically?
Click to expand...

I took a look at a 2p C-H breaker and found a label on the load end of the breaker next to the load end terminsl. I removed the label and there was a screw there which I would assume is for calibration.
I have not disassembled one so I'm not positive.
The Briant/BR breakers that I have don't appear to have any provisions though. I didn't bother pulling a SqD QO.
But I do know that the larger industrial/commercial breakers do but the small residential breakers would not make sence because of cost.
They are manufactured and assembled per design with a sample pulled periodically to do a calibration check.
 
mivey said:
They claim it, but can't support the claims.
Click to expand...

Exactly my first point. The rest Im just playing along with to further disprove AFCIs, but once the assumption is turned off its clear that not a single shroud of evidence exists that 30,000 home fires are the result of arcing. Even the experts cant seem to pinpoint if the problem is cords or in wall wiring for something they seem to be so sure about.


The good news is that even some of the CMP members are catching on, see these two from the 2017 first drft report:
 
mbrooke said:
The good news is that even some of the CMP members are catching on, see these two from the 2017 first draft report:
Click to expand...
Maybe. Won't be the first time that reason was ignored. I think that train has too much momentum and the detractors will be ignored and out-voted, brow-beat into submission, or techno-intimidated into changing their minds.
 
mbrooke said:
Exactly my first point. The rest Im just playing along with to further disprove AFCIs, but once the assumption is turned off its clear that not a single shroud of evidence exists that 30,000 home fires are the result of arcing. Even the experts cant seem to pinpoint if the problem is cords or in wall wiring for something they seem to be so sure about.


The good news is that even some of the CMP members are catching on, see these two from the 2017 first drft report:
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing the quote from the CMP.

I think I made myself know over the years as a believer in the AFCI technology. I was confiident that the value of AFCIs would be confirmed by the insurance industry as their ability to reduce the incidences of electrical fires coused by electrical faults It has been ,15 years now and Nada, zilch, silence!!
I have thern in my own home and other that a fancy GFCI they are now providing false security.
The manufactures developed a product to solve a problem when there were no problem needed to be solved and then sold it as the greatest advancement in the prevention of electrical fires.
I believe that it is time for the NEC to back up where they allowed their use but did not require their use as included in rt he NEC originally. The NEC must go back to making them optional.
 
mivey said:
Maybe. Won't be the first time that reason was ignored. I think that train has too much momentum and the detractors will be ignored and out-voted, brow-beat into submission, or techno-intimidated into changing their minds.
Click to expand...

I regret to say thats probably what is happening, and for them its more convenient as the good guys leave to save their sanity while "desirable" people take their place :happyno:
 
templdl said:
Thanks for sharing the quote from the CMP.

I think I made myself know over the years as a believer in the AFCI technology. I was confiident that the value of AFCIs would be confirmed by the insurance industry as their ability to reduce the incidences of electrical fires coused by electrical faults It has been ,15 years now and Nada, zilch, silence!!
I have thern in my own home and other that a fancy GFCI they are now providing false security.
The manufactures developed a product to solve a problem when there were no problem needed to be solved and then sold it as the greatest advancement in the prevention of electrical fires.
I believe that it is time for the NEC to back up where they allowed their use but did not require their use as included in rt he NEC originally. The NEC must go back to making them optional.
Click to expand...

Welcome! :)

The way I see it manufacturers were not even looking to solve a problem, 'AFCI' is simply a price point hatched up by clever marketing. Similar to adding an extra button to a washing machine for a few bucks but raising the cost of the machine by $100 for having an extra feature a lower model does not. Few know that many appliances use the same control board or used the same timers for several different models across a range of prices, all that differs are closing an extra circuit that simply activates another pre-installed program within the chip.


At this point 210.12 needs to be deleted in its entirety.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top