'Proof' that AFCI devices really locate arcs.

[mbrooke]

:roll:

The manufactures do make GFP for what ever value you want.

But no one wants a GFP main in a house .... No one.

Not talking about a main GFP, its already been said the idea would be at least two submains. In any case I would say you really have no proof that no one will be willing to take such an approach. Its a safe bet many contractors doing economy construction would take that option if it was offered, as well as some HO when they see the cost difference in a service upgrade.

Actually when GFP is required by code it is specifically to protect the equipment including the switchgear.

But what if I have six service disconnects?

 

[iwire]

Not talking about a main GFP, its already been said the idea would be at least two submains.

No one wants that either.

The call backs and troubleshooting would kill any savings.

But what if I have a six service disconnects?

In that case the bus bars are no more protected from ground fault than they are from over-current.

Those bus bars would be considered service conductors and service conductors are not protected at all.

You are reaching .....

 

[mbrooke]

No one wants that either.

The call backs and troubleshooting would kill any savings.

So your saying code violations on new circuits are a norm? We are talking GFCI, not AFCI.

In that case the bus bars are no more protected from ground fault than they are from over-current.

Those bus bars would be considered service conductors and service conductors are not protected at all.

Exactly, the switchgear in that case is not protected, so the intent of the NEC isnt really so much into protecting the gear.

You are reaching .....

Perhaps a bit of projection?

 

[iwire]

So your saying code violations on new circuits are a norm? We are talking GFCI, not AFCI.

First off, are you talking about GFCI or GFP? they are not the same thing.

I am saying when you put multiple circuits and multiple pieces of utilization equipment together on one GFCI or GFP device troubleshooting is more time consuming and more likely This would be as much about the wiring system as the utilization equipment it runs.

A person who had experience in building wiring systems would know this to be true and would not keep trying to explain it away.

Exactly, the switchgear in that case is not protected, so the intent of the NEC isnt really so much into protecting the gear.

So the fact the requirement is called Ground-Fault Protection of Equipment must be a mistake.

It is impossible to protect the equipment before the device, if the NEC required us to do so that would be a huge change. One that you have not shown any reason should be contemplated.

 

[mbrooke]

First off, are you talking about GFCI or GFP? they are not the same thing.

I knew you would ask. 30 ma and up GFP.

I am saying when you put multiple circuits and multiple pieces of utilization equipment together on one GFCI or GFP device troubleshooting is more time consuming and more likely This would be as much about the wiring system as the utilization equipment it runs.

You have a point here finding a fault will be more difficult, but that should not stop the option from being offered.

A person who had experience in building wiring systems would know this to be true and would not keep trying to explain it away.

The above paragraph is true, but is doesn't stop almost every country on earth outside of North America from doing it, including 1000amp and over 277/480 volt services in the US. So I guess its not as bad as you make it out to be.

So the fact the requirement is called Ground-Fault Protection of Equipment must be a mistake.

Doesn't specify directly specify gear, that is the catch.

It is impossible to protect the equipment before the device, if the NEC required us to do so that would be a huge change. One that you have not shown any reason should be contemplated.

Exactly, its impossible without getting the POCO somehow involved which will never happen. If the intent was to protect the gear the code would not allow 6 throws in this case, they would mandate a single main.

 

[iwire]

I knew you would ask. 30 ma and up GFP.

Then why be misleading and use the wrong terminology?

You have a point here finding a fault will be more difficult, but that should not stop the option from being offered.

Why do you keep saying it is not offered? https://www.platt.com/platt-electri...eakers/Eaton/GFEP230/product.aspx?zpid=196021

The above paragraph is true, but is doesn't stop almost every country on earth outside of North America from doing it,

As my parents taught me early, the fact other people are doing it, successfully or not is not a reason to do it as well.

You need to prove the need for this here before we go with 'everyone else is doing it'

including 1000amp and over 277/480 volt services in the US. So I guess its not as bad as you make it out to be.

In those sizes ... in the US ... the setting is not 30mA it is typically several hundred amps. Often about a 25% of the breakers rating.

Those don't typically nuisance trip, but now we are well above the current levels you want to protect us from the fires we have not proven the cause of.

Doesn't specify directly specify gear, that is the catch.

There is no catch, we don't protect service conductors, if we protect them they are no longer service conductors. And again, show the need before offering a solution.

Exactly, its impossible without getting the POCO somehow involved which will never happen. If the intent was to protect the gear the code would not allow 6 throws in this case, they would mandate a single main.

And I maintain you are incorrect, the intent is to protect the gear when it is possible. {Practical safeguarding 90.1(A)} If you could show the need for this expansion of requirements I am sure you would get the support of the manufacturers as many ECs use the six disconnect rule to specifically avoid purchasing the more expensive GFP equipment.

 

[mbrooke]

Then why be misleading and use the wrong terminology?

Just the term I choose for the sake of the convo, Im sure you would be griping if I said RCD "not a term recognized here":roll:

Why do you keep saying it is not offered? https://www.platt.com/platt-electri...eakers/Eaton/GFEP230/product.aspx?zpid=196021

Show me a new split bus load center that accommodates that.

As my parents taught me early, the fact other people are doing it, successfully or not is not a reason to do it as well.

You need to prove the need for this here before we go with 'everyone else is doing it'

Look at all the AFCI tripping from sloppy wiring. 30/50ma GFP sure is proving that out there in numbers. And as of yet I never h hear or see how 110.7 is verified in the field. But GFP sure does a good job indicating it when its violated

In those sizes ... in the US ... the setting is not 30mA it is typically several hundred amps. Often about a 25% of the breakers rating.

So your saying home wiring has normal leakage currents in the amps range?

In any case your claim means nothing, if a fault took place on a down stream 277 volt 20amp circuit the potential result is still the same:

The main trips, taking the entire building out with it. You say this approach is unacceptable yet done ever day here in the US. And dont tell me that scenario cant happen, because the vast majority of the time the dials on these GFP breakers are left as they came out of the factory: at the lowest values not taking any coordination into account.

Those don't typically nuisance trip, but now we are well above the current levels you want to protect us from the fires we have not proven the cause of.

You are just tossing out random facts trying to look right dancing around what we both know is true:

Home wiring does not produce leakages requiring GFP in the amps range. 50ma GFP for every 6 to 12 circuits is sufficient. The device will only trip for a fault, and its cheaper then protecting each circuit individually. You can not deny that.

There is no catch, we don't protect service conductors, if we protect them they are no longer service conductors. And again, show the need before offering a solution.

We still call switchgear by the same name regardless what we call the internal bussing. Reality is we do not protect the gear as you made it sound to be the code intent of main GFP:

Actually when GFP is required by code it is specifically to protect the equipment including the switchgear.

And I maintain you are incorrect, the intent is to protect the gear when it is possible. {Practical safeguarding 90.1(A)} If you could show the need for this expansion of requirements I am sure you would get the support of the manufacturers as many ECs use the six disconnect rule to specifically avoid purchasing the more expensive GFP equipment.

You claim x but then say y disproving x. Sure GFP protects gear from a fault perspective, but from a code perspective the NEC isnt to concerned imo.

 

[romex jockey]

230.95 Ground-Fault Protection of Equipment has been around longer than i have, and most likely many of you.

the AFCI's only viable function is it's 30ma GFPE. It simply mimics the toroidal RCD , anything more is marketing hyperbole

Either device's nitty gritty comes down to it's AIC let through , the proverbial incendiary grenade

The distinction becomes more acute in our TN-C-S system.

~RJ~

 

[donaldelectrician]

230.95 Ground-Fault Protection of Equipment has been around longer than i have, and most likely many of you.

the AFCI's only viable function is it's 30ma GFPE. It simply mimics the toroidal RCD , anything more is marketing hyperbole

Either device's nitty gritty comes down to it's AIC let through , the proverbial incendiary grenade

The distinction becomes more acute in our TN-C-S system.

~RJ~

It is that 30ma GFPE in the AFCI's that have that , a reason some people think that they are not worthless then .

The AFCI's ride this GFPE and pairing the AFCI with GFCI's to keep them in the House and new LOCO's bath and kitchen . They continually make their products harder to get out of the NEC .






Don

 

[mbrooke]

230.95 Ground-Fault Protection of Equipment has been around longer than i have, and most likely many of you.

the AFCI's only viable function is it's 30ma GFPE. It simply mimics the toroidal RCD , anything more is marketing hyperbole

Either device's nitty gritty comes down to it's AIC let through , the proverbial incendiary grenade

The distinction becomes more acute in our TN-C-S system.

~RJ~

All the more reason 30/50 ma GFP is a good idea for home circuits, GFP greatly reduce the incident energy at every ground fault both by tripping instantaneously and tripping well below current reaches high levels. Its a myth that all short circuits go from infinity to zero ohms in milliseconds.

It is that 30ma GFPE in the AFCI's that have that , a reason some people think that they are not worthless then .

The AFCI's ride this GFPE and pairing the AFCI with GFCI's to keep them in the House and new LOCO's bath and kitchen . They continually make their products harder to get out of the NEC .

Don

That is the only reason why Im not going entirely ape over 210.12, but considering a GFCI does the same is where the fraud begins.

 

[peter d]

In any case your claim means nothing, if a fault took place on a down stream 277 volt 20amp circuit the potential result is still the same:

The main trips, taking the entire building out with it. You say this approach is unacceptable yet done ever day here in the US. And dont tell me that scenario cant happen, because the vast majority of the time the dials on these GFP breakers are left as they came out of the factory: at the lowest values not taking any coordination into account.

You've clearly never had to deal with calls from tripped AFCI's. What do you think will happen every time a GFPE main or sub main trips? :roll::roll:

 

[peter d]

J
We still call switchgear by the same name regardless what we call the internal bussing. Reality is we do not protect the gear as you made it sound to be the code intent of main GFP:

That makes no sense. :huh:

Fault into large frame breaker without GFP in gear = potential catastrophic meltdown

Same fault but with GFP = no meltdown

Not sure what your point is other than to be argumentative.

 

[iwire]

Just the term I choose for the sake of the convo, Im sure you would be griping if I said RCD "not a term recognized here":roll:

You want to have a technical discussion but you choose to use the wrong terms.

That is your issue not mine.

Show me a new split bus load center that accommodates that.

What?

Look at all the AFCI tripping from sloppy wiring. 30/50ma GFP sure is proving that out there in numbers. And as of yet I never h hear or see how 110.7 is verified in the field. But GFP sure does a good job indicating it when its violated

I have said it before and will say it again.

I would fully support an NEC requirement for GFCI or GFP for every circuit at a branch circuit level in place of the AFCI requirements.

I will always be against GFCI or 30 mA GFP at a main or sub-main level.

Currently the code allows both (sadly not in place of AFCI but in addition to) and there are products available to achieve both.

So your saying home wiring has normal leakage currents in the amps range?

I am saying that cumulative leakage current of the branch circuits and appliances could easily approach the 30mA trip of typical GFP breakers that would be used in a home.

I am saying that even if the cumulative leakage current was 0mA that one random faulty appliance will trip it all and that makes troubleshooting difficult and costly to the homeowner.

In any case your claim means nothing, if a fault took place on a down stream 277 volt 20amp circuit the potential result is still the same:

OK so now we have jumped back out of dwellings and into large buildings with NEC required GFP. GFP that has trip ranges not in mA but in hundreds of amps.

The main trips, taking the entire building out with it. You say this approach is unacceptable yet done ever day here in the US.

I did not say that is unacceptable.

That is acceptable because the trip setting is not 30mA, it is 200, 400, 600, 800 amps and no normal level of leakage current is going to trip it.

And dont tell me that scenario cant happen, because the vast majority of the time the dials on these GFP breakers are left as they came out of the factory: at the lowest values not taking any coordination into account.

I would never say that, I could find at least a few threads that I have started about going out and troubleshooting this very issue. Sometimes on jobs done by the company I work for.

We do not adjust the breakers until the engineer of record provides the correct settings.

It seems sometimes it takes a customer building going down a few times to motivate the engineer to provide a one line diagram with all the breakers settings. To be fair they typically want the installed feeder lengths before they can do the calculations that is why they are not provided at the start.

You are just tossing out random facts trying to look right dancing around what we both know is true:

Random facts? :huh:

All I said in that post was we really do not know what causes the electrical fires being reported.

I could have sworn in another post you mentioned that yourself. :huh:

Home wiring does not produce leakages requiring GFP in the amps range.

I agree and why I said those larger GFP breakers have trip ranges well above what you want to protect us from.

Your reading comprehension seems to be falling. :huh:

50ma GFP for every 6 to 12 circuits is sufficient.

It might be, it probably is. Of course both of us are guessing with no facts to back it up.

The device will only trip for a fault, and its cheaper then protecting each circuit individually. You can not deny that.

Yes I can deny that a single main GFP for every 6 to 12 circuits is more costly to the homeowner than 6 to 12 individual GFP devices

When labor costs for a company run $35 to $50 per hour for warranty work and the hourly rate to a homeowner is $75 to $150 per hour troubleshooting quickly ... very quickly negates the savings per device.

You continue to expect your ideas would work flawlessly in the real world even though it is very apparent you have little to no real world experience with the costs associated with troubleshooting randomly tripping circuits.

We still call switchgear by the same name regardless what we call the internal bussing. Reality is we do not protect the gear as you made it sound to be the code intent of main GFP:

It is the intent to protect the equipment.

Please note the title of the section and look up the definition of equipment in article 100.

You claim x but then say y disproving x. Sure GFP protects gear from a fault perspective, but from a code perspective the NEC isnt to concerned imo.

Thankfully you are here to save us all.

 

[templdl]

All the more reason 30/50 ma GFP is a good idea for home circuits, GFP greatly reduce the incident energy at every ground fault both by tripping instantaneously and tripping well below current reaches high levels. Its a myth that all short circuits go from infinity to zero ohms in milliseconds.






That is the only reason why Im not going entirely ape over 210.12, but considering a GFCI does the same is where the fraud begins.

A product that was prematurely require by the NEC, a big yes. But fraud commited by the manufacturers, no. The two major competitors were competing to get the AFCI out into the market sincerely thinking that this new technology would have N fact reduction or eliminate property cause my electrical fires and save lives. I do believe the intentions were good.
But in order to get it into the market it had to be UL list so a set of testing standards had to be established. I'm sure that the manufacturers hd to do a lot of selling to UL to convince then of the capability of the AFCI. I sure that give the parameters for testing and getting the device approved were lagitimate the big question is if there really was an electronic saftey issue that was a major cause of electric fires of was it assumed to be.
It is of my opinion that it is a cutting edge technology which has merit based upon what the manufactures perceived to be one of the leading causes of electrical fires. So the manufacturers set out to develop a product to mitigate arcing fault as they interpreted them to be. They tried to emulate arcing faults as they though would occur in the field. There is no problem in doing that.
The next thing is to get the device UL listed and I'm sure that UL didn't dream up setting up the standard for this device but the manufacturers have to direct them to develop a set of realistic standards.
But that does't mean that this new product that is now UL listed that there is in fact a real application for them? At this point do they perform ads the manufactures said that they would?
The NEC recognized the device by allowing for their use in electric installations. No problem with that because now they are optional.
For some reason there was enough lobbying done by the manufactures to convince the NEC of their use in the prevention of electrical fires.
At this point other than the normal negative naysayers in the field that will always have negative opinions anyway, the product was used but with reservation each year that passed after their required use by the NEC resulted in more and more question regarding what they really do started to add up not do that their GF feature.
As you may know I always wanted to give then a chance to prove themselves with documentation from fire investigations as well as the insurance industry recognizing that they have been instrumental in the reduction of insurance claims. II has been 15 years now and there has been nothing.
The product may do what it has been designed to do but do those design requirements actually reflect real life? Is there really as problem the really needs to be resolved? It certainly doesn't appear as such.
But fraud? No. Let's not define it as such. Allowing it to get out of control by being allowed without being vetted? Yes.

 

[mbrooke]

You've clearly never had to deal with calls from tripped AFCI's. What do you think will happen every time a GFPE main or sub main trips? :roll::roll:

Big difference. AFCIs nuisance trip, a properly applied 50ma sub-main does not. If it trips, there is a problem.

That makes no sense. :huh:

Fault into large frame breaker without GFP in gear = potential catastrophic meltdown

Same fault but with GFP = no meltdown

Not sure what your point is other than to be argumentative.

Iwire claims the code intent of GFPE is to always protect switchgear yet the NEC clearly allows main switchgear over 1000amps to be unprotected by GFPE when a 6 throw rule is used.

I am 100% sure if I made the claim "GFPE is there to protect switchgear in addition to equipment" it would be the other way around with Iwire saying "nope, code lets me get away with that in 6 throw scenarios".

Iwire likes to start this skirmishes, and in this case I dont know why considering we have the same view on AFCIs.

 

[iwire]

That makes no sense. :huh:

Fault into large frame breaker without GFP in gear = potential catastrophic meltdown

Same fault but with GFP = no meltdown

Not sure what your point is other than to be argumentative.

He is pointing out that when you have service gear (think of S&S) made of two to six service disconnects that the bus bars supplying these service disconnects are not GFP protected and he is correct. They are also not protected from overcurrent in anyway. Just like all service conductors.

The only way for way for the NEC to require GFP for those short sections of bus bar would be to do away with the allowance that allows more than one service disconnect. Of course you would still have unprotected service conductors feeding this singe main so the safety gain would be minimal to none.

If he could show that these short sections of of unprotected bus bars where causing property damage or injuries that GFP on that level could prevent he might have something. But instead he seems to be arguing for the sake of arguing over an issue he has no facts to support.

 

[iwire]

A product that was prematurely require by the NEC, a big yes. But fraud commited by the manufacturers, no.

There is no doubt the manufacturers made fraudulent claims to the CMP. To me that is a fact, not an opinion and it is documented in the ROCs and ROPs.


I am not saying the engineers involved in developing the product did anything at all wrong. But the individuals from the manufacturers pushing the code changes did. They made claims that were beyond the abilities of the product they wanted, and succeeded to have become code required.

 

[ActionDave]

.....Iwire likes to start this skirmishes...

No he does not.

Yes, he will challenge anybody; be it someone like me, a wire pulling grunt, or a well schooled engineer type, to back up what they say. But to just pick a fight for sport, no.

 

[iwire]

Big difference. AFCIs nuisance trip, a properly applied 50ma sub-main does not.

Only in your dreams, not in the real world.

If it trips, there is a problem.

Yes, you are right.

And now problem could be with any one of the six to twelve circuits and the utilization equipment they supply.

Lets say the its the defrost circuit on the basement fridge. It only happens sometimes when the unit goes into defrost. How does the electrician narrow this down in one stop? The clock $ starts running as soon as I am heading to the call.

This is the problem with using a single sensitive device on multiple pieces of a equipment.


It is a real problem, not an imagined one. It is the same problem electricians and home owners have with AFCI troubleshooting and you want to compound this by tying more equipment to one device.

That is not a step forward, that is a step in reverse.

Iwire claims the code intent of GFPE is to always protect switchgear yet the NEC clearly allows main switchgear over 1000amps to be unprotected by GFPE when a 6 throw rule is used.

Yes, the NEC does not require protection of service conductors. That is a clear fact. If they were protected they would no longer be service conductors.

 

[mbrooke]

You want to have a technical discussion but you choose to use the wrong terms.

That is your issue not mine.

In this case you are correct, GFCI was the wrong term being 5ma. A submain would be at least 30ma. I choose that term to reiterate the submain would not be an AFCI, my mistake.

What?

I think you know Im referring to: a load center (main breaker if needed) with a primary buss and then secondary buss fed by a GFP breaker.

Here is an example of a load center with a secondary buss:

https://www.google.com/search?q=gen...dlgAYM:;cEAZzYBmqt5CNM:&imgrc=23EaB7ZPdlgAYM:

https://www.google.com/search?q=gen...P6uzsiExwIVgYENCh1dOwCL#imgrc=eg0W1NBLLTOQoM:

http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/th/aplus/siemens/siemens-GENTFRSWTCH-main-lg.jpg



Now take that 125 amp sub breaker and add 50ma GFP to it.

I have said it before and will say it again.

I would fully support an NEC requirement for GFCI or GFP for every circuit at a branch circuit level in place of the AFCI requirements.

Ok, very good we agree on something

I will always be against GFCI or 30 mA GFP at a main or sub-main level.

Currently the code allows both (sadly not in place of AFCI but in addition to) and there are products available to achieve both.

And as an electrician and installer you have every right to be against that, code should not restrict nor mandate it, but manufactures should offer a sub-main load center as an alternative to achieving GFP protection.

I am saying that cumulative leakage current of the branch circuits and appliances could easily approach the 30mA trip of typical GFP breakers that would be used in a home.

You are 100% correct, however only if done incorrectly. That is why the number of circuits and combined length of cable would be restricted relative to the GFP threshold. That or the threshold would be increased.

This is often why two or more sub-main RCDs are employed so the normal leakage current does not cause nuisance tripping. FWIW when RCDs were first introduced in the 60s and 70s they were so expensive that they were only used as main breakers so as a result a trip threshold of 300, 500 or 1000ma was used. So far the only time any of these device trip is on a genuine fault.

Also, I know you might say 'no North American manufacture could fit more then one submain in a panel without going to a DIN rail" and with that I say not true. Dual split buss panels were common at one point in time

http://www.nachi.org/forum/attachments/f19/47132d1312566462-unknown-object-panel-dscn5736.jpg

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/A...8zvP-q0oG0F-Zjf28fQrP69pZ40XCQuhS2sGHL4P3Qx0k

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/c...mdVPNVVrysP8XdBSARMLGhIehVVgtFI9-BodCh4VJDhKA

http://www.nachi.org/forum/attachments/f19/24840d1224962175-need-help-understanding-panel-086.jpg

http://inspectapedia.com/electric/Cutler_Hammer_Panel_2118_BobSissons.jpg

I am saying that even if the cumulative leakage current was 0mA that one random faulty appliance will trip it all and that makes troubleshooting difficult and costly to the homeowner.

True, but that should not stop manufactuers from offering that option. I know others have metioned on ET (shockdoc for one) that if they offered a submain system they would use it.

OK so now we have jumped back out of dwellings and into large buildings with NEC required GFP. GFP that has trip ranges not in mA but in hundreds of amps.

Yes, because a building of that size has a much higher leakage current so the GFP is sized accordingly and in turn correctly. A correctly set GFP does not nusince trip.

The part we seem to be debating is that it is somehow ok for a fault to take out a giant building with emergncy lights that probebly have never been tested but not ok to take out a half dozen circuits in a home. This part I do not get.

I did not say that is unacceptable.

That is acceptable because the trip setting is not 30mA, it is 200, 400, 600, 800 amps and no normal level of leakage current is going to trip it.

Of course, its sized accordingly. So I take it the only concern you have with a submain GFP in resi is that someone might not do it correctly, in that case its the isntaller who is at fault, not the concept. And no we should not disallow something because an idiot can screw it up.

I would never say that, I could find at least a few threads that I have started about going out and troubleshooting this very issue. Sometimes on jobs done by the company I work for.

We do not adjust the breakers until the engineer of record provides the correct settings.

It seems sometimes it takes a customer building going down a few times to motivate the engineer to provide a one line diagram with all the breakers settings. To be fair they typically want the installed feeder lengths before they can do the calculations that is why they are not provided at the start.

And this proves my point: The NEC, manufacturers nor many installer seem to care or see a problem with a main GFP or feel enough concern with taking out more then one circuit.

Yes the building owner is not always pleased about it, but it doesnt stop GFP mains from being used which is my point.

The reason why the NEC allowed this incredibly crude approach was because other methods would add far more cost in the eyes of most builders/electricans (especially back then) to achieve the same without taking down a whole building. Taking down a whole building while inconvinent fulfills practical safegurads at an econimical price without mandating gimmicks. A cheap way to protect everything down stream from an arc fault.

And this leads me to another point:

Decades age when the NEC had a real concern in regards to arcing they made a very simple mandate: just apply GFP. They did not madnate anything more complex, unproven or so forth. Manufacturers came out with the cheapst thing possible: a main GFP.

Random facts? :huh:

All I said in that post was we really do not know what causes the electrical fires being reported.

I could have sworn in another post you mentioned that yourself. :huh:

You are correct, we do not know the cause of residnetial fires in detal.

My point was that when I try to make a point you get bogged down in the small details and how code may say this instead of that.

I agree and why I said those larger GFP breakers have trip ranges well above what you want to protect us from.

Your reading comprehension seems to be falling. :huh:

You claim 30/50ma will nusince trip. When done right it wont.

It might be, it probably is. Of course both of us are guessing with no facts to back it up.

Well there are 3 parts to this.

1. Engineering equations yield deasnet results of the total capacitive coupling in a circuit.

2. Testing can easilly verfiy these theories both for cables and applaicnes.

3. The IEC and foriegn sprkies have enough experince to tell you when at the typical leackage currents for each circuit or set of combined circuits. Ditto for appalinces.

Yes I can deny that a single main GFP for every 6 to 12 circuits is more costly to the homeowner than 6 to 12 individual GFP devices

But not capital cost.

When labor costs for a company run $35 to $50 per hour for warranty work and the hourly rate to a homeowner is $75 to $150 per hour troubleshooting quickly ... very quickly negates the savings per device.

Well it depnds. First consider that faults in properlly wired systems are rare. So the total capital cost saved by employing this on a mjor level is of set by the lesser times service is required. Further, we both know that there are some incredibly cheap buolding methods and contractors who in the end will force the consumer to spend far more money then was saved in the beggining. Does that stop anythin? No. Although in this case I doubt that anology fits well considering my first statment.

You continue to expect your ideas would work flawlessly in the real world even though it is very apparent you have little to no real world experience with the costs associated with troubleshooting randomly tripping circuits.

There not my ideas, more like that of 50 countires totalling billions of people :lol: In so far they all seem content, its only people like you who fight tooth and nail to have more complex, expensive installtions with manufacturer driven CMPs trashing everything. And people like you wonder why everything is so difficult with the excuse 'thats life, go with the flow'

It is the intent to protect the equipment.

Please note the title of the section and look up the definition of equipment in article 100.

Of course its the intent to protect, and it could be done without taking out a whole building, but guess what: practical safe guarding at the lowest cost prevails.

Thankfully you are here to save us all.

Nope, we are all in this togther. One person will be slinced, a dozen people ignored, but if everyone speaks up AFCIs and all the other gimmcks will dissappear over night while the cost of new installations fall.