'Proof' that AFCI devices really locate arcs.

[templdl]

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.

Now, how do we go about neutering them. That is allowing for then to used as optional on their own merits. Take them out of the NEC as a requirements. The big problem at this point on what would the manufactures do if all of the sudden they are not a code requirement and what that implies. I personally would not be a happy camper if I had to spend a significant amount of money be cause they were required and the that requirement mwas reversed.
Can you see a big mess about that? It would leave the manufacturers with egg of their face.
The biggest problem with the AFCI is that the supposed technology was not driven by field issues that had to be resolved. It was appeasrently instigated be the manufactures to solve a none problem.
And it is now 15+ years later.....
If a fraud has been committed and prtoved that would provide momentum if getting the requirement reverse. If that does happen good old Pandora's 's box would be opened with probable law suites to recover the unnecessary costs of both paats and labor.

 

[mbrooke]

Only in your dreams, not in the real world.

And this is where I say you start skirmishes. Because I know that you know 50ma RCDs are applied all over the world and nothing is tripping unless there is a reason.

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.

But the way you were wording it was that a main GFP only came about to protect the bussing as well as the down stream equipment. If that was truly the intent (to protect the bussing) the 6 throw rule would be forbidden in this case.

 

[mbrooke]

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.

If Iwire wants proof I have that, I can get it and he is welcome to question it. All he has to do is ask nicely rather then instigating a response.

 

[iwire]

And this is where I say you start skirmishes. Because I know that you know 50ma RCDs are applied all over the world and nothing is tripping unless there is a reason.

I do not know that and as a matter of fact what I have read is they do trip and cause electricians to be called out to troubleshoot them.

But the way you were wording it was that a main GFP only came about to protect the bussing as well as the down stream equipment. If that was truly the intent (to protect the bussing) the 6 throw rule would be forbidden in this case.

I said no such thing, go back and quote the post that lead you to believe that.

The intent of the section is protect equipment downstream of the device. That rules out service conductors. Sometimes the busing in equipment are service conductors.

Even if they eliminate the six disconnect allowance there is plenty of switchgear that will have bus between the wire terminations and he first OCPD / GFP device.

You don't connect eight sets of conductors directly to a breaker. You tie them into bus bars that connect to the breaker.

I have no idea why you feel this is a huge issue in a thread called 'proof AFCIs locate arcs. :huh:

 

[iwire]

If Iwire wants proof I have that, I can get it and he is welcome to question it. All he has to do is ask nicely rather then instigating a response.

OK,

PLEASE, show me some facts that the present GFP requirements are insufficient.

 

[mbrooke]

I do not know that and as a matter of fact what I have read is they do trip and cause electricians to be called out to troubleshoot them.

When they trip there is an issue. Perhaps we need to re-define what you considering nuisance tripping?

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.

Nope, worlds apart. A lot of AFCI tripping comes from the inability to differentiate between normal and abnormal current waveforms, a GFCI, RCD or GFP does not. They do not trip on current well below their rating nor do they trip from outside interference or other factors we all know to be common with AFCIs.

So in this regard it is a step forward.

Thats like me telling you a fridge thats tripping a new GFCI and Im going to take it out because its nusince tripping. Your answer as well as mine will be the GFCI is sensing an actual current leakage which means a fault.

I said no such thing, go back and quote the post that lead you to believe that.

You did indirectly here:

http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=170744&page=42&p=1666513#post1666513

And I say that because it was my response to this:

It's necessary at that voltage level to prevent the switchgear from becoming a pile of molten metal. It's certainly not necessary for 120/240 volt residential services.

What I take away is that perhaps you agree with this statement that a GFP main is intentionally required at the very beginning to protect the switch gear.

The intent of the section is protect equipment downstream of the device. That rules out service conductors. Sometimes the busing in equipment are service conductors.

Exactly, so we are not protecting the main gear. Anyway its getting of point, lets agree to disagree.

Even if they eliminate the six disconnect allowance there is plenty of switchgear that will have bus between the wire terminations and he first OCPD / GFP device.

True, but not as much.

 

[mbrooke]

OK,

PLEASE, show me some facts that the present GFP requirements are insufficient.

Where, in what place? I think they are sufficient for 1000amp and over 480 volt services.

 

[romex jockey]

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


.

Selective Coordination is the jist of GFPE in 230.95.

You'll also find most manufacturers suggest megging prior to energizing , and settings applied ....

Instructions for GFP

In short (pun intended) 230.95 mimics the euro model . Of interest note 230.95A performance testing

Our hospital GFP requirements {517.17. Ground Fault Protection For Healthcare Facilities} elevates this concept to life and limb importance.

Thus, we are not talking mere 'equipment protection' , thank you....


Of interest to you (et all)might be informational note #1 to 230.95......

Informational Note No.1: Ground-fault protection that
functions to open the service disconnect affords no protec-
tion from faults on the line side of the protective element. It
serves only to limit damage to conductors and equipment
on the load side in the event of an arcing ground fault on
the load side of the protective element.

This is one of the few places i know of that the NEC openly states 'Arcing Ground Fault'

Albeit that one could buck boost a 150V system, it's generally accepted 230.95 addresses 480/277

This starts to make more sense according to Friedrich Paschen .....

~RJ~

 

[Tony S]

I do not know that and as a matter of fact what I have read is they do trip and cause electricians to be called out to troubleshoot them.

Could you tell me where you read that?

I run a similar forum to MH in the UK for professional electricians. We use 30mA as standard and I will state quite categorically we get very few threads regarding RCD’s spuriously tripping.

They trip for a reason, IE a fault path to earth (ground). A fault that can and does occur in any wiring system in the world.

PS,
We don't want or need AFCI's

 

[don_resqcapt19]

...
PS,
We don't want or need AFCI's

But I will bet that you will end up with them.

 

[Tony S]

But I will bet that you will end up with them.

They already have a BS-EN number and will be designated AFDD (arc fault detection device).

I’m relying on the US to discredit them before the IET get conned in to accepting them.

The 18^th edition of our regulations are liable to be issued late 2016 in time for January 2017.

In all seriousness don, the more information we can get the better our chance of fighting the damned things off.

It took a long time to get RCD’s accepted across the domestic electrical trade. When I started 40 years ago they were recommended, they are now a requirement.

We can drag our feet if needs be.

 

[mbrooke]

They already have a BS-EN number and will be designated AFDD (arc fault detection device).

I’m relying on the US to discredit them before the IET get conned in to accepting them.

The 18^th edition of our regulations are liable to be issued late 2016 in time for January 2017.

In all seriousness don, the more information we can get the better our chance of fighting the damned things off.

It took a long time to get RCD’s accepted across the domestic electrical trade. When I started 40 years ago they were recommended, they are now a requirement.

We can drag our feet if needs be.

The IET is being conned unfortunately, especially considering the UK already has what would be considered AFCI protection under UL testing and most of UL1699.

RCDs, low magnetic trip with earth fault loop impedance, and plug top fuses all provide advanced fire protection.

 

[peter d]

Could you tell me where you read that?

I run a similar forum to MH in the UK for professional electricians. We use 30mA as standard and I will state quite categorically we get very few threads regarding RCD’s spuriously tripping.

They trip for a reason, IE a fault path to earth (ground). A fault that can and does occur in any wiring system in the world.

PS,
We don't want or need AFCI's

I can't speak for others, but I have no doubt that they don't nuisance trips like our AFCI's do.

What we're talking about is how a fault will remove power to other unfaulted circuits, simply because your switchboards are broken up so they have one or more RCD's protecting multiple circuits. That type of design would be unacceptable here.

 

[peter d]

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.













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.

:roll::roll:

Again, your answer to AFCI's is to adopt a European model for North American wiring systems. That's just pie in the sky wishful thinking, not based in reality. If you had actual real world experience with residential troubleshooting, I guarantee this is not the approach you would take. The fact remains in North America we use individual current differential devices on individual branch circuits, not mains. Does it add more cost? Yes, it does. Does it make for a better wiring system, both for the end user and electrician? Absolutely.

 

[templdl]

The IET is being conned unfortunately, especially considering the UK already has what would be considered AFCI protection under UL testing and most of UL1699.

RCDs, low magnetic trip with earth fault loop impedance, and plug top fuses all provide advanced fire protection.

Think about it, what came first the chicken or the egg. With UL testing is there was essentially a none problem in the first place who determine what the UL testing requirements are. We're the manufactures highly influential in the establishment of the rules?
With TM breakers the thermal element responds to a specific inverse TC curve in most applications it coordinates with the protection of wire. Calibration is +-10%. The magnetic element is in so much not so critical. It just has to trip in response to a high instantaneous rise in current. But what is that definition/standard? Normally of the larger industrial breakers the mag trip is 10x the rating of the breaker and if adjustable normally 5-10x. When it comes to the smaller residential breaker it used to be that the simply had to respond to a fauld of significant magnitude. I don',t believe the manufactures w as nted to deal with the issue with nuisance tripping. The mag trip element is very crude and basically doesn't lend itself to be fine tuned for a more precise calibration.
It is of my opinion that SqD has lead the way by providing a breaker with a lower mag than was customery.
The reason that I brought this up is if there is any UL criteria for the magnetic trip and is there any NEC requirement.
They certainly have one for the AFCI whereit is of my opinion that more attention should be given to magnetic trips.
The only place that I can recall that the instantaneous trip is addressed in art 430-52 when it comes to combination motor starters. There the intent is to protect the motor circuit should the motor fail.
I am of the strong belief that more attention should be given to the magnetic trip elements of the residential breaker.

 

[mbrooke]

:roll::roll:

Again, your answer to AFCI's is to adopt a European model for North American wiring systems.

Nope, just making a point GFCIs/GFP does the same thing.

That's just pie in the sky wishful thinking, not based in reality. If you had actual real world experience with residential troubleshooting, I guarantee this is not the approach you would take. The fact remains in North America we use individual current differential devices on individual branch circuits, not mains. Does it add more cost? Yes, it does. Does it make for a better wiring system, both for the end user and electrician? Absolutely.

You make me out to be oblivious. :happyno: I am well aware that trouble shooting 6 or 10 circuits is a lot more difficult then one, and if the issue is from a neutral to ground fault you then need to take another step and pull all 6 or 10 neutrals off the neutral bar to megger them. If the issue is an appliance a sub main automatically makes 5 times more appliances suspect. Say what you want about my experience you know nothing about, I am well aware of the disadvantages.

My point was that actual trouble aside a sub main would be cheaper, that was it.

 

[mbrooke]

Think about it, what came first the chicken or the egg. With UL testing is there was essentially a none problem in the first place who determine what the UL testing requirements are. We're the manufactures highly influential in the establishment of the rules?

Oh, of course. It was the CPSC and then manufacturers that asked for UL testing to be done with arcing being a specific concern. UL1699 was then created through manufacture influence.

I think this is key in the whole AFCI cabal because the CPSC had already determined the problem was arcing. UL only came into the picture to validate the CPSC claims, or at least they did in part.

These are rather revealing:

http://www.cpsc.gov//PageFiles/102851/technolopt1.pdf

http://www.cpsc.gov//PageFiles/102864/technolopt2.pdf

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...Lh335Uw3W3Jy4bMww&sig2=CZw_nkKZRawpar4eFZMNQg


And, to agree with your claim you are correct. The CPSC created to problem of arcing. They somehow determined that to be the cause of electrical fires with zero proof or theory.

With TM breakers the thermal element responds to a specific inverse TC curve in most applications it coordinates with the protection of wire. Calibration is +-10%. The magnetic element is in so much not so critical. It just has to trip in response to a high instantaneous rise in current. But what is that definition/standard? Normally of the larger industrial breakers the mag trip is 10x the rating of the breaker and if adjustable normally 5-10x. When it comes to the smaller residential breaker it used to be that the simply had to respond to a fauld of significant magnitude.

Good info, thanks

I don',t believe the manufactures w as nted to deal with the issue with nuisance tripping. The mag trip element is very crude and basically doesn't lend itself to be fine tuned for a more precise calibration.
It is of my opinion that SqD has lead the way by providing a breaker with a lower mag than was customery.

I agree, and this IMO has been a significant advancement in safety without increasing cost. Win-win.

The reason that I brought this up is if there is any UL criteria for the magnetic trip and is there any NEC requirement.

For standard breakers there is no requirement in UL489 for a magnetic trip element in standard resi breakers, same goes for the NEC.

However the is an exception. 210.12 A (3) reads like this:

(3) A listed supplemental arc protection circuit breaker installed
at the origin of the branch circuit in combination
with a listed outlet branch-circuit type arc-fault circuit
interrupter installed at the first outlet box on the branch
circuit where all of the following conditions are met:
a. The branch-circuit wiring shall be continuous from
the branch-circuit overcurrent device to the outlet
branch-circuit arc-fault circuit interrupter.
b. The maximum length of the branch-circuit wiring
from the branch-circuit overcurrent device to the
first outlet shall not exceed 15.2 m (50 ft) for a
14 AWG conductor or 21.3 m (70 ft) for a 12 AWG
conductor.
c. The first outlet box in the branch circuit shall be
marked to indicate that it is the first outlet of the
circuit.

While this says nothing about magnetic trip the ROPs mention that a supplemental arc protection breaker has a known magnetic trip and UL's report regarding magnetic trip providing arc fault protection is mentioned in the ROP. FWIW supplemental arc protection breakers are under UL489e rather than UL1699.

They certainly have one for the AFCI whereit is of my opinion that more attention should be given to magnetic trips.

Are you referring to the above? Give me time and I will find the ROP.

The only place that I can recall that the instantaneous trip is addressed in art 430-52 when it comes to combination motor starters. There the intent is to protect the motor circuit should the motor fail.
I am of the strong belief that more attention should be given to the magnetic trip elements of the residential breaker.

I do it, especially if the same protection can be offered as an AFCI or GFP.

 

[iwire]

Nope, just making a point GFCIs/GFP does the same thing.

There is a huge difference between 5 mA GFCI and 30mA to a few hundred amp GFP.

You make me out to be oblivious. :happyno:

Only because that is how you are comming across.

I am well aware that trouble shooting 6 or 10 circuits is a lot more difficult then one, and if the issue is from a neutral to ground fault you then need to take another step and pull all 6 or 10 neutrals off the neutral bar to megger them. If the issue is an appliance a sub main automatically makes 5 times more appliances suspect. Say what you want about my experience you know nothing about, I am well aware of the disadvantages.

If you are aware than you are deliberately being misleading about the effort and costs of troubleshooting.

My point was that actual trouble aside a sub main would be cheaper, that was it.

Which is a pie in the sky dream.

There will be troubleshooting over the course of the electrical installation.

Not maybe, not possibly .... there will be.


I will respond to the other posts later, I have a date with a hot lady tonight.

 

[mbrooke]

There is a huge difference between 5 mA GFCI and 30mA to a few hundred amp GFP.

In regards to providing protection to home wiring 5ma, 30ma and 50ma all do the same. This is what should have been mandated instead of AFCIs.

Only because that is how you are comming across.

I know, I suck at with expressing my ideas, everyone knows that :lol:

If you are aware than you are deliberately being misleading about the effort and costs of troubleshooting.



Which is a pie in the sky dream.

There will be troubleshooting over the course of the electrical installation.

Not maybe, not possibly .... there will be.

You are correct, from a troubleshooting stand point it is a lot more difficult.

I will respond to the other posts later, I have a date with a hot lady tonight.

:thumbsup:


Anyway, I know you wanted proof regarding my claims about 210.12 A (3) in another thread so I will post them. See my next post:

 

[mbrooke]

Anyway, backing up my claims that a supplemental arc protection breaker mentioned in 210.12 A (3) may be nothing more then a reduced magnetic trip breaker or a breaker with a known magnetic trip value. Also backing up my statement that according to UL magnetic trip can mitigate arc faults.

From the 2014 ROP:

The UL report states “breakers can be effective at mitigating arcing faults,
provided the available fault current can be guaranteed to exceed the magnetic
trip level of the circuit breaker by a factor of 1.25.”

The function of UL489e (supplemental arc breaker):

(b)The branch circuit breaker shall be listed and marked as having an
instantaneous trip not exceeding 300 amperes.

This proposal establishes a circuit breaker
listing and marking requirement for the magnetic trip level at or below 300A in
order to ensure the breaker will protect the circuit from a parallel arcing fault
when at least 500A of available fault current is present as required in the first
parameter.

LAROCCA, R.: While we support the panel action, continued support is
dependent upon review of additional data that would confirm the availability of
sufficient short circuit current capability at the panel of a typical installation.
The arc fault protection of the branch circuit will be provided by a system
that includes an outlet branch circuit AFCI, a circuit breaker having a known
instantaneous trip current and a branch circuit of a limited length and resistance
to ensure that the fault current is sufficient to trip the breaker during a parallel
arcing fault at the installation point of the outlet branch circuit AFCI. The latest
UL Research Report takes into consideration the impact of the available current
at the panel on the acceptable length of the branch circuit home run to the first
outlet. Calculation shows that as the available current at the origin of the
branch circuit varies, so does the allowable length of the home run.
Additional study is needed to provide data regarding the current available at
the origin of the branch circuit in a typical installation. From this data, the
panel will be able to determine if modification of the panel action should be
considered at the ROC.

The report focused on providing data on the performance of conventional
circuit breakers with respect to arc faults in the home run portion of the branch

circuit and identified the parameters that must be met and controlled for this to
happen.
As long as these parameters are controlled, it can be concluded that an outlet
branch circuit type arc-fault circuit interrupter could possibly be used in
conjunction with a low-magnetic type circuit breaker to protect the branch
circuit. The critical parameters summarized in the report include: a minimum
available fault current, a maximum magnetic trip level for the circuit breaker,
impedance of the conductor, the actual voltage and the length of the conductor.
This proposal is based on utilizing the parameters set forth by the UL Report
to revise 210.12 to permit using an outlet branch circuit arc-fault circuit
interrupter in conjunction with a low magnetic trip circuit breaker.

(2) A listed outlet branch circuit type arc-fault circuit interrupter installed at
the first outlet on the branch circuit where all of the following conditions are
met:
(a) The branch circuit over current protection device shall be a listed circuit
breaker having an instantaneous trip not exceeding 300 amperes.

(2) A listed outlet branch circuit type arc-fault circuit interrupter installed at the
first outlet on the branch circuit where all of the following conditions are met :
(a) The available fault current at the branch circuit overcurrent device shall not
be less than 500A and the ambient temperature shall not be less than 20°C
(68°F).
(b)The branch circuit breaker shall be listed and marked as having an
instantaneous trip not exceeding 300 amperes.
(c) The branch circuit wiring shall be continuous from the branch circuit
overcurrent device to the outlet branch circuit arc-fault circuit interrupter.
(d) The maximum length of the branch circuit wiring from the branch circuit
overcurrent device to the first outlet shall be determined using the following:
L = (0.4×Vrms) / (1.25×300×pL)
L is the maximum length of the “home run” in feet;
pL is the resistivity per unit foot of each conductor of the NM cable gauge
being used; and
Vrms is the actual supply voltage.

Can be found here starting at page 70-129 (139 in the viewer):


https://www.nfpa.org/Assets/files/AboutTheCodes/70/70-A2013-ROP.pdf


The UL reports that back this:


http://newscience.ul.com/wp-content...lity_to_Mitigate_Parallel_Arcing_Faults_1.pdf

http://newscience.ul.com/wp-content...lity_to_Mitigate_Parallel_Arcing_Faults_2.pdf

http://library.ul.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/40/2015/02/BreakerMitigationofArcFaults.pdf

UL489e:

http://infostore.saiglobal.com/store/details.aspx?ProductID=1674760

http://www.downloadstool.org/1447-UL-489E-pdf.html