'Proof' that AFCI devices really locate arcs.

[romex jockey]

:roll::roll:

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

Other way round Pete

They are trying to mimic a euro system's mag trip levels , as Mr Lorocca points out>>>

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.

What Mbrooke fails to mention (unless you've read the UL data he posted) is that domestic breaker manufactures have a mag trip somewhere in the vicinity of 5-6X's our euro counterparts

Given there are only two functions of a magnetic breaker, overcurrent and GF protection, the powers that be are in a bit of a snit

Lorocca's stance is essentially focused on (yet again) the afci's ONLY viable function

~RJ~

 

[don_resqcapt19]

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

I don't think that UL 489 even requires a magnetic or instantaneous trip.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

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.
...

I asked UL about these breakers and received the following response:

In a message dated 11/12/2014 6:49:15 A.M. Central Standard Time, Thomas.R.Lichtenstein@ul.com writes:

Hi Don,

There are no supplemental arc faults at this time. I believe they are still finalizing the certification requirements.​

As far as I know this idea has been scrapped and there will not be a breaker that complies with that code section.

​

 

[Tony 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.

Likewise your style of distribution from MV down wouldn’t be accepted here. In fact a lot of it would be illegal under ESQCA 2002 (electricity supply quality and continuity regulations).

But that isn’t why I joined in the thread. I want solid evidence against AFCI’s

 

[mbrooke]

I asked UL about these breakers and received the following response:


As far as I know this idea has been scrapped and there will not be a breaker that complies with that code section.

[/INDENT]

Thanks Don!

I find it odd that UL was asked to go through the trouble of testing this (again), have it be debated by the CMP, put in the code, a standard set up, and then only to have it scrapped at the last minute.

I could be wrong but in the ROP there seemed to be disagreement on what the minimum fault current might be at a dwelling unit panel. Its ironic though, magnetic trip was looked into and seriously considered in the the mid 90s a possibility to electronic AFCIs, but lost out.

 

[romex jockey]

Thanks Don!

I find it odd that UL was asked to go through the trouble of testing this (again), have it be debated by the CMP, put in the code, a standard set up, and then only to have it scrapped at the last minute.

My 'flying pig' project could assume marketability too, which if i suspected confrontation could simply buy canned studies providing plausible deniability.......

I could be wrong but in the ROP there seemed to be disagreement on what the minimum fault current might be at a dwelling unit panel. Its ironic though, magnetic trip was looked into and seriously considered in the the mid 90s a possibility to electronic AFCIs, but lost out.

Didn't the IEC suggest the NEC address this?

~RJ~

 

[mbrooke]

Thanks Don!



My 'flying pig' project could assume marketability too, which if i suspected confrontation could simply buy canned studies providing plausible deniability.......

I think that even within the CMP, NEMA, ect there is strong disagreement and speculation about AFCIs but no one wants to admit it. I see many UL studies on this subject and at the last minute get thrown under the buss. I also don't see anything being direct either. Claims are made at first and then flip/flop.

Didn't the IEC suggest the NEC address this?

~RJ~

Which, magnetic trip? Possibly, but unsure. Do you know anything about this? I know that in the 90s out of the blue there was significant interest in short circuit and magnetic trip levels in residential breakers which ultimately ended up with the trip thresholds going down to about 10x on single pole 15 and 20 amp breakers.

 

[romex jockey]

But that isn’t why I joined in the thread. I want solid evidence against AFCI’s

Trust me we feel your pain Tony.....

The advocates have put up 10Mil in marketing ,R&D, studies , trade periodicals , nema cheerleaders, etc

In my view, they've also altered the fundamentals of electricity , as well as it's terminology

This is why i join these threads.....

That said, i do empty out my pockets of spare change and wirenuts nightly, should it assume 6-7 digits worth i'll get back to you

~RJ~

 

[mbrooke]

Likewise your style of distribution from MV down wouldn’t be accepted here. In fact a lot of it would be illegal under ESQCA 2002 (electricity supply quality and continuity regulations).

But that isn’t why I joined in the thread. I want solid evidence against AFCI’s

The evidence out already proves two things:

1. 230 volt Europe already has AFCI protection (RCD, low mag trip, plug top fuses)

2. 120 volt North America does not have to worry about arcing at 120 volts to ground.

 

[iwire]

Thanks Don!

I find it odd that UL was asked to go through the trouble of testing this (again), have it be debated by the CMP, put in the code, a standard set up, and then only to have it scrapped at the last minute.

I could be wrong but in the ROP there seemed to be disagreement on what the minimum fault current might be at a dwelling unit panel. Its ironic though, magnetic trip was looked into and seriously considered in the the mid 90s a possibility to electronic AFCIs, but lost out.

I think it's pretty clear you can make more money selling more expensive devices vs less expensive devices

But maybe I am just cynical, after all we had two NEMA reps here telling us how the manufactures are only interested in saving lives and are in no way motivated by profit. :lol:

 

[mbrooke]

I think it's pretty clear you can make more money selling more expensive devices vs less expensive devices

But maybe I am just cynical, after all we had two NEMA reps here telling us how the manufactures are only interested in saving lives and are in no way motivated by profit. :lol:

You are correct. Thats why we never see an easy way to anything any more, the goal is profit. The saving lives part, :roll:

 

[templdl]

I don't think that UL 489 even requires a magnetic or instantaneous trip.

I never found one either and often have wondered if there were "rules" regarding inst trip calibrations. It seems to be customery.
Other than playing it safe to keep it high enough as to not neusance trip and it is ambiguous.
I just know that the inst trip for residential breakers was basically off of the map an not related at all to the rating of the breaker.
SqD was the first manufacture who seemed to tighten up their inst trip calibrations and it was not required. Now what does that tell you?
Go my Knowledge EATON has an equivalent as optional whose std breaker is basically equivalent to SqDs optional high mag which was very interesting. Thus, going with the SqD QO eßentially provided better short circuit protection. SqD could push this as being a benefit.
Other than that there appears to be no incentive to invest in tightening up on inst trip calibrations.
Residential breakers cost basically pennies to make. The mag trip structure is basically very crude being electromechanic in nature which I don't believe thst it is very conducive to being fine tuned to to a lower value on a consistent basis. In my opinion the structure would have told be redesigned in order to provide that capability.

Your thoughts Don?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I never found one either and often have wondered if there were "rules" regarding inst trip calibrations. It seems to be customery.
Other than playing it safe to keep it high enough as to not neusance trip and it is ambiguous.
I just know that the inst trip for residential breakers was basically off of the map an not related at all to the rating of the breaker.
SqD was the first manufacture who seemed to tighten up their inst trip calibrations and it was not required. Now what does that tell you?
Go my Knowledge EATON has an equivalent as optional whose std breaker is basically equivalent to SqDs optional high mag which was very interesting. Thus, going with the SqD QO eßentially provided better short circuit protection. SqD could push this as being a benefit.
Other than that there appears to be no incentive to invest in tightening up on inst trip calibrations.
Residential breakers cost basically pennies to make. The mag trip structure is basically very crude being electromechanic in nature which I don't believe thst it is very conducive to being fine tuned to to a lower value on a consistent basis. In my opinion the structure would have told be redesigned in order to provide that capability.

Your thoughts Don?

I don't really know about the design of the breaker. I guess it must not be too easy to build a good magnetic trip in a low cost breaker. If it was easy the breaker manufacturer's would do it for selective coordination reasons.

Right after Bussmann put the selective coordination rules in 700.28 and 701.27, they brought out a fused breaker panel. Not sure if they sold them but they had them as trade shows. The fuse was in series with the breaker and was used to provide the required selective coordination for a high current fault. The breaker provided the overload protection.

 

[peter d]

Likewise your style of distribution from MV down wouldn’t be accepted here. In fact a lot of it would be illegal under ESQCA 2002 (electricity supply quality and continuity regulations).

So a perfectly safe wiring system in one country is banned in another....makes sense to me. :roll: This is why I don't put much stock in looking to other nations for model advice on wiring systems. We all do things rather differently but end up with functional, safe wiring systems in the end.

But as for the AFCI, it's certainly a cancer that needs to be killed wherever it appears.

 

[mbrooke]

So a perfectly safe wiring system in one country is banned in another....makes sense to me. :roll: This is why I don't put much stock in looking to other nations for model advice on wiring systems. We all do things rather differently but end up with functional, safe wiring systems in the end.

But as for the AFCI, it's certainly a cancer that needs to be killed wherever it appears.

There is nothing perfectly safe about a muli grounded neutral distribution system. For one POCOs know that first hand when the stray voltage lawsuits start running in.

 

[peter d]

There is nothing perfectly safe about a muli grounded neutral distribution system. For one POCOs know that first hand when the stray voltage lawsuits start running in.

Were we talking about outside distribution in this thread? :roll::roll: Why do you have to change the argument to make a point? That is intellectually dishonest.

 

[mbrooke]

Were we talking about outside distribution in this thread? :roll::roll: Why do you have to change the argument to make a point? That is intellectually dishonest.

Because 2 people already drifted the conversation into this area. Nothing wrong with being the 3rd to add my observations.

Anyway, there is this:



https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...hNXNxSNePa64YdQ&bvm=bv.99261572,d.aWw&cad=rja

 

[peter d]

Because 2 people already drifted the conversation into this area. Nothing wrong with being the 3rd to add my observations.

Anyway, there is this:



https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...hNXNxSNePa64YdQ&bvm=bv.99261572,d.aWw&cad=rja

Start another thread about MGN's. This one is about AFCI's.

 

[mbrooke]

Start another thread about MGN's. This one is about AFCI's.

:roll:

But you still put your 2 cents in.


BTW, arc fault logic and MGNs do have something in common, so nice try with the off topic claim

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Thanks Don!

I find it odd that UL was asked to go through the trouble of testing this (again), have it be debated by the CMP, put in the code, a standard set up, and then only to have it scrapped at the last minute.
...

I don't think that the standard was ever completed...not even sure if they started work on one.