'Proof' that AFCI devices really locate arcs.

Status
Not open for further replies.
mbrooke said:
Dont sweat it, I highly respect what you are doing :):D


I think AFCIs are a giant fraud, the same issues could be addressed others ways, assuming they are responsible for so many dwelling fires to start with.
Click to expand...
I don't consider them to be a fraud as I knew one of the design engineers personally and was aquainted with others. The technology was sincere but I am now of the belief that it was premature and the technology just wasn't received wel by the field as the manufactures had anticipated. I think that the engineers believed strongly in it and the manufacturers were open to a technologically advanced device. I believe that the manufactures totally beleaved in the produce and it was sold as a solution to a protection issue. Thus they took microtechnology and applied it to residential breakers. With 20-20 hindsight such technology hasn't evolved as anticipated. I truly believe that the manufactures wanted to provide a safer product. Both SqD and C-H were in extrermely fierce competition as to who would release the AFCI on the market first. There was some very confidential R&D going on during that time and I am of the belief that it was the competion between SqD and Eaton that forced the product to be accepted, recognized and approved. My opinion.
But fraud? No. As being premature and oversold I'm inclined to agree.
The commercial/industrial breakers that have physically TM trip units eventually have electronic trips available having more features. Be that electronic technology was peak sensing which resulted in nuisance trips because of voltage spikes. An advance in microprocesore technology allowed for an RMS sensing trip and the nuisance trips went away.
It is interesting to follow the evolution of breakers. I am particularly amaised at how the simple task of clearing and arc using various arc chute designs to deionize the arc. The design of the current path from the line terminal to the stationary contact and how it can excellerate the opening of the contacts increasing the current limiting ability, and actually pivoting ower contact, slot motor technology all which is amaising.
 
Yes a fraud.

Just because the engineers trying to make all this work in a small affordable package were sincere has nothing to do with the fraud there employers have committed.

It is very simple to prove this fraud, there is a public record of it.

They claimed AFCIs could do certain things and yet a few code cycles later they had to change AFCIs so they could do what they claimed to the CMP in the first place.
 
mbrooke said:
Why do European breakers even have built in solenoids? What does Europe seem to know that we dont?
Click to expand...

Inverse time/current and the need for an OCPD to match the circuit’s fault loop impedance.


I don’t know if you remember the old SquareD magnetic/hydraulic MCB’s? They were a disaster, I fitted 11 x 12 way boards to new 110V control panels. Later I took 10 of them out and chucked them in the scrap bin, the 11th set fire to the panel. The loop impedance was too high and the MCB were about as subtle as a brick.*



*If someone is insensitive then they are “as subtle as a flying brick”. Don’t ask me where the saying came from.
 
templdl said:
I don't consider them to be a fraud as I knew one of the design engineers personally and was aquainted with others. The technology was sincere but I am now of the belief that it was premature and the technology just wasn't received wel by the field as the manufactures had anticipated. I think that the engineers believed strongly in it and the manufacturers were open to a technologically advanced device. I believe that the manufactures totally beleaved in the produce and it was sold as a solution to a protection issue. Thus they took microtechnology and applied it to residential breakers. With 20-20 hindsight such technology hasn't evolved as anticipated. I truly believe that the manufactures wanted to provide a safer product. Both SqD and C-H were in extrermely fierce competition as to who would release the AFCI on the market first. There was some very confidential R&D going on during that time and I am of the belief that it was the competion between SqD and Eaton that forced the product to be accepted, recognized and approved. My opinion.
But fraud? No.
Click to expand...
Call it what you want. They didn't do what the manufactures said they would. There's no evidence they do now. We are forced to install them not withstanding. Good intentions, impressive demonstrations, and all that doesn't change anything.
 
iwire said:
Yes a fraud.

Just because the engineers trying to make all this work in a small affordable package were sincere has nothing to do with the fraud there employers have committed.

It is very simple to prove this fraud, there is a public record of it.

They claimed AFCIs could do certain things and yet a few code cycles later they had to change AFCIs so they could do what they claimed to the CMP in the first place.
Click to expand...
It is of my opinion that both SqD and C-H were blinded by competing with oneanother and both earnestly viewed the product is being a significant answer to the causes od electrical fires. Rigorous fasctory design tests lead them to believe that the AFCIs were the best thing since sliced bread. I know that during fierld BETA testing that detailed records were kept and any and all reports of trips were followed by a professional being dispatched for an actual N sdite visit. I was copied in on all of the field visits an the results but as I can recall most were not something that I would just as an "oh wow" incident. And as I can recall there wreren't that many when compared to the number and AFCIs installed for BETA test sites. My AFCI tripped because the EGC had been installed such that it folded back and came into contact with the neutral terminal which really wasn't as the result of the AFCI arc detecting technology at all. My factors was set to send an engineer out to my home to investigate until I infgortmed therm of what I uncovered.
So they were very serious about the technology.
But fraud is a serious accusation as I don't believe tyhast was the intent. Should the product have been recognized by the NEC which was initi as lly done for a longer length of time as to allow enough time for fierld ebvasluatin before being required. I don't think that the manufactures made faslse, misleadingstatements concealed anything. Premature requirement of the NEC for their use? Definitely!
Fraud. A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have ...
 
The manufacturers lied. That is fraud. As Don said before, I will never trust anything the manufacturers say about AFCI's. Absolutely nothing.
 
templdl said:
I don't consider them to be a fraud as I knew one of the design engineers personally and was aquainted with others. The technology was sincere but I am now of the belief that it was premature and the technology just wasn't received wel by the field as the manufactures had anticipated. I think that the engineers believed strongly in it and the manufacturers were open to a technologically advanced device. I believe that the manufactures totally beleaved in the produce and it was sold as a solution to a protection issue. Thus they took microtechnology and applied it to residential breakers. With 20-20 hindsight such technology hasn't evolved as anticipated. I truly believe that the manufactures wanted to provide a safer product. Both SqD and C-H were in extrermely fierce competition as to who would release the AFCI on the market first. There was some very confidential R&D going on during that time and I am of the belief that it was the competion between SqD and Eaton that forced the product to be accepted, recognized and approved. My opinion.
But fraud? No. As being premature and oversold I'm inclined to agree.
The commercial/industrial breakers that have physically TM trip units eventually have electronic trips available having more features. Be that electronic technology was peak sensing which resulted in nuisance trips because of voltage spikes. An advance in microprocesore technology allowed for an RMS sensing trip and the nuisance trips went away.
It is interesting to follow the evolution of breakers. I am particularly amaised at how the simple task of clearing and arc using various arc chute designs to deionize the arc. The design of the current path from the line terminal to the stationary contact and how it can excellerate the opening of the contacts increasing the current limiting ability, and actually pivoting ower contact, slot motor technology all which is amaising.
Click to expand...


At engineering college I had to study “control of the AC arc”, really exciting stuff. The strange thing was, the only time I put it to practical use was on DC.

Once an arc is formed it creates ionised air O3 this is far more conductive than O2. The worse scenario is breaking an inductive load, the EMF generated by the inductor will jump much further than normal loads. Established arcs can have devastating affects as I found out at work. The panel wasn’t a pretty site.


To put this in to the context of a domestic circuit. The chances of a parallel arc establishing itself is unlikely. Hence the reason for the UL & BS-EN tests being started with a high voltage pulse, something has to get it going. At our 250V Ph-N and you’re 120-0-120V Ph-N-Ph you could prepare a test sample as per the testing specification, it would sit there for years and nothing would happen.
Series arcs are easily cured by continuity/impedance testing before energising.

They’ll bring AFCI’s or AFDD/AFD’s as they will known here over my dead body. Why do you think I’ve taken such an interest in American affairs?
 
Last edited:
ActionDave said:
Call it what you want. They didn't do what the manufactures said they would. There's no evidence they do now. We are forced to install them not withstanding. Good intentions, impressive demonstrations, and all that doesn't change anything.
Click to expand...
I agree. I,'m nnot denying the results of the AFCIs in the field a extremely disappointing to say the least. They were first accepted by the NEC as being an available option. But it certainly appears that the manufactures place enough pressure and provided evidence toclose the order, that is masking a requirement. It certainly appears as though it was way premature and that it would be best that they be allowed but not required until more evidence is provided to support to the their contribution to prevent loss because of E!evtrical fires of death.
The feelings out there are so strong I would strongly support repealing the requirement that AFCIs must be used as presently required by the NEC.
 
Tony S said:
Series arcs are easily cured by continuity testing before energising.
Click to expand...

Yes because we all know once electrical systems are tested nothing changes, nothing gets damaged, nothing gets compromised. ;)

Testing is not the fix all solution to electrical arcs.
 
Tony S said:
Inverse time/current and the need for an OCPD to match the circuit’s fault loop impedance.


I don’t know if you remember the old SquareD magnetic/hydraulic MCB’s? They were a disaster, I fitted 11 x 12 way boards to new 110V control panels. Later I took 10 of them out and chucked them in the scrap bin, the 11th set fire to the panel. The loop impedance was too high and the MCB were about as subtle as a brick.*



*If someone is insensitive then they are “as subtle as a flying brick”. Don’t ask me where the saying came from.
Click to expand...

Can you explain more about fault loop impedance? Is this behind the solenoid coil?
 
Tony S said:
At engineering college I had to study “control of the AC arc”, really exciting stuff. The strange thing was, the only time I put it to practical use was on DC.

Once an arc is formed it creates ionised air O3 this is far more conductive than O2. The worse scenario is breaking an inductive load, the EMF generated by the inductor will jump much further than normal loads. Established arcs can have devastating affects as I found out at work. The panel wasn’t a pretty site.


To put this in to the context of a domestic circuit. The chances of a parallel arc establishing itself is unlikely. Hence the reason for the UL & BS-EN tests being started with a high voltage pulse, something has to get it going. At our 250V Ph-N and you’re 120-0-120V Ph-N-Ph you could prepare a test sample as per the testing specification, it would sit there for years and nothing would happen.
Series arcs are easily cured by continuity/impedance testing before energising.

They’ll bring AFCI’s or AFDD/AFD’s as they will known here over my dead body. Why do you think I’ve taken such an interest in American affairs?
Click to expand...
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?
 
mbrooke said:
Truth is we dont have solid data. None.






A GFCI will do nothing in a 2 wire cord unless there is an EGC, and an AFCI is unproven only tripping if it can pick up and differentiate the correct arc signature produced by an actual danger. A plug top fuse on the other hand is simple, proven, selected for the cord itself and does the job better than an AFCI.
Click to expand...

GFCI did trip on a troubleshooting call because damaged cord contacted bonded surface in bathroom. These nice folks had one of the white 12' ge specials plugged into the gfci near the vanity straddling the bathroom wall (supported by finishing nails and draped over the top of the funky metal '50s flush mount wall sconce, no less "to keep from tripping over it"-H.O.) feeding a portable space heater that had made its home atop the toilet tank. Complaint was gfci (dedicated and added during a remodel-per H.O. info) just stopped working and there was a faint burning smell. That white cord had literally turned brown in spots with the female tap deformed and the part resting on the sconce had a very small amount of the purple bare showing. Turns out ancient wall fixture was fed with period appropriate 2 wire silver columbia nm but the shell was bonded via a single green solid 14 that was clamped to the cw plumbing ( common practice in the '50s) which was, thankfully, all original and galvanized and bonded to the service. So once crispy cord was removed ( and the path to ground was eliminated ) gfci reset with no issues. Even though it pains me to mention this next part as it will may make some of the pro afci crowd giddy, the ocpd feeding the gfci-a standard and fairly recent sqd qo-did not trip. When I mentioned tactfully to the H.O. our standard spiel about undersized ext cords, he said "If they're so dangerous, why are they sold everywhere?" Given the right circumstances a gfci could prevent fires.
 
user 100 said:
Given the right circumstances a gfci could prevent fires.
Click to expand...

Heck, the appliance manufacturers were able to expand GFCI requirements to dishwashers for the sole purpose of preventing theses appliances from starting fires.

No reason to make safer appliances when they can pass the costs onto someone else. :roll:
 
templdl said:
I don't consider them to be a fraud as I knew one of the design engineers personally and was aquainted with others. The technology was sincere but I am now of the belief that it was premature and the technology just wasn't received wel by the field as the manufactures had anticipated. I think that the engineers believed strongly in it and the manufacturers were open to a technologically advanced device. I believe that the manufactures totally beleaved in the produce and it was sold as a solution to a protection issue. Thus they took microtechnology and applied it to residential breakers. With 20-20 hindsight such technology hasn't evolved as anticipated. I truly believe that the manufactures wanted to provide a safer product. Both SqD and C-H were in extrermely fierce competition as to who would release the AFCI on the market first. There was some very confidential R&D going on during that time and I am of the belief that it was the competion between SqD and Eaton that forced the product to be accepted, recognized and approved. My opinion.
But fraud? No. As being premature and oversold I'm inclined to agree.
The commercial/industrial breakers that have physically TM trip units eventually have electronic trips available having more features. Be that electronic technology was peak sensing which resulted in nuisance trips because of voltage spikes. An advance in microprocesore technology allowed for an RMS sensing trip and the nuisance trips went away.
It is interesting to follow the evolution of breakers. I am particularly amaised at how the simple task of clearing and arc using various arc chute designs to deionize the arc. The design of the current path from the line terminal to the stationary contact and how it can excellerate the opening of the contacts increasing the current limiting ability, and actually pivoting ower contact, slot motor technology all which is amaising.
Click to expand...


I have no doubt the engineers had good intentions, and I have no doubt they sat down and applied a great deal of science, theory and ingenuity to get a product together as instructed by the companies that employed them. But that doesn't mean AFCIs were put into the code under false pretenses. Three major red flags (among others):

1. I have yet to see how the conclusion was reached that 30,000 home fires a year are the result of arc faults.

2. Assuming number one is correct, there are many other alternatives capable of mitigating arc faults yet the most complex and unproven solution was chosen. In fact the only reason manufactuers put GFP into AFCIs was because there was no other way to pass parts of UL1699's testing.

3. It is believed glowing connection account for most electrical fires. Why didn't the CMP mandate something for those if they were indeed so benevolent?




There was some very confidential R&D going on during that time and I am of the belief that it was the competion between SqD and Eaton that forced the product to be accepted, recognized and approved. My opinion.
Click to expand...


So what your saying it was competions between manufacturers that got the CMP on board :happyno::happyno:



iwire said:
Yes a fraud.

Just because the engineers trying to make all this work in a small affordable package were sincere has nothing to do with the fraud there employers have committed.

It is very simple to prove this fraud, there is a public record of it.

They claimed AFCIs could do certain things and yet a few code cycles later they had to change AFCIs so they could do what they claimed to the CMP in the first place.
Click to expand...


We normally disagree one everything:cool:, but this time I agree with you 100%. :thumbsup:





Tony S said:
They’ll bring AFCI’s or AFDD/AFD’s as they will known here over my dead body. Why do you think I’ve taken such an interest in American affairs?
Click to expand...


Why do you think Ive taken so much interest in UK affairs? :p :D

When it comes to arcing ground faults and parellel arc faults in both cords and in wall wiring the UK has already been ahead of the NEC for decades on end without the use of a single semi conductor. Its a travisty those low cost and proven soltions were not applied to the North American market.
 
user 100 said:
GFCI did trip on a troubleshooting call because damaged cord contacted bonded surface in bathroom. These nice folks had one of the white 12' ge specials plugged into the gfci near the vanity straddling the bathroom wall (supported by finishing nails and draped over the top of the funky metal '50s flush mount wall sconce, no less "to keep from tripping over it"-H.O.) feeding a portable space heater that had made its home atop the toilet tank. Complaint was gfci (dedicated and added during a remodel-per H.O. info) just stopped working and there was a faint burning smell. That white cord had literally turned brown in spots with the female tap deformed and the part resting on the sconce had a very small amount of the purple bare showing. Turns out ancient wall fixture was fed with period appropriate 2 wire silver columbia nm but the shell was bonded via a single green solid 14 that was clamped to the cw plumbing ( common practice in the '50s) which was, thankfully, all original and galvanized and bonded to the service. So once crispy cord was removed ( and the path to ground was eliminated ) gfci reset with no issues. Even though it pains me to mention this next part as it will may make some of the pro afci crowd giddy, the ocpd feeding the gfci-a standard and fairly recent sqd qo-did not trip. When I mentioned tactfully to the H.O. our standard spiel about undersized ext cords, he said "If they're so dangerous, why are they sold everywhere?" Given the right circumstances a gfci could prevent fires.
Click to expand...


The brunt of most AFCIs come from GFP, and in fact GFP was deliberately added to them in an effort to pass most of UL1699's testing. UL's testing on over driven staple actually discovered that in all their testing the EGC was involved in all the cases which would trip any basic GFCI.

As for the GFCI tripping first that is almost a given, 5ma will come first before 120 amps do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top