'Proof' that AFCI devices really locate arcs.

[romex jockey]

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?

Paschens law aside , any 'arc' we experience is an end result of a bad connection.

Said connection degrades from low Z to high Z, according to load and usage.

Incendiary levels are present , and are present LONGER in this stage.

Also, and one can not stress this enough, the vast majority are a series event.

No, i'm not going to post UL studies, Yes i am going to claim that this one fundamental is evidenced in every pro forum's burnt offerings on a daily basis , seen in the field by us 100X's that.

IF there is any fraud, it is those entities out there trying to reverse engineer electrical theory to fit a product & product standard, listing, etc.

~RJ~

 

[don_resqcapt19]

...
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?

Where do we send the flowers? Very knowledgeable people, like you, voiced objections here without success.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

From proposal 2-128 for the 1999 code.

Submitter. Thomas Mock, Electronic Industries Assoc ...
EIA believes that adding this protection to branch or feeder circuit breakers will have a dramatic effect in reducing the incidence of fires started by arcing faults in branch wiring and components, fixture wire, extension cords, appliance cords, and even in appliances

From proposal 2-213 for the 1996 code.

SUBMITTER: D. Bruce Langmuir, Electronic Industries Association
(proposed code rule)Circuit breakers for 15Aand 20A branch circuits supplying receptacles in living and sleeping areas of dwelling units shall be a listed type identified as having specified instantaneous trip characteristics to mitigate the effects of arcing faults. ...
(part of substantiation) We have demonstrated that the use of branch circuit breakers with specified half-cycle instantaneous trip times and with specified maximum inrush current trip levels will reduce fires caused by arcing faults. The technology currently exists to provide branch circuit breakers with these characteristics, and such are commercially available. The Electronic Industries Association is interested in this subject because of the power cords that connect our products to die power supply system.

 

[templdl]

got 3 hours?.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rr_f2IzquB0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awXgoPlNyN4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DL5aon0nRI

~RJ~

I'm not so sure that is fraud but there certsainly appears to be evidence that the powers to be, powerful manufacturers of the AFCI products, are protecting themselves from completion, blocking the glowing connecting technology. It certainly poses to be a significant threat to them.
I watched the first video in its entirety and found no reason to doubt its credibility.
The series of post in regard to the AFCI is incredible and in my judgement is the most significant and important topic discussed and debated on the forum bar none!! Outstanding!
It is a distinct possibility that it my open a lot of eyes on the product and hopefully it will make and impact. Pandora's box by chance?
As I've said numerous time the proof is in the pudding where the insurance companies would recognized the significant savings they would get as a result of the use of the AFCI. After 15 years and 100 of thousands if installations, silence! This indicates to me that after all of the smoke that has been blown by the manufactures the AFCIs don't pass the smell test.
And, yes, that is very disappointing to my as I have attempted to no be negative as so many some others are. But it is getting more and more difficult continue saying that the jury is still out but I think it is time to consider that this is where the rubber meets the road of the AFCI. Sat this point in time it is not cracked up to what it is supposed to be.

 

[romex jockey]

Do not be coerced templdl

Think on it this way, if you had a bizillion $$$ industry, what would you do to protect it?

They own the NRTL, they own the CMP, they own the CSPC, and by proxy they own basic electrical theory along with any statistical analysis by having all these sorts parrot their canned studies.

Meanwhile (and you corportate whores lurking please take note) i've made the same claims since '99 .....

Somebody, sometime,somewhere with enough $$$ to stand up to you will take you down

~RJ~

 

[Tony S]

This just shows what it’s like to get detailed information about “supposed” electrical fires. I don’t suppose your fire services are any different.

Merseyside Fire & Rescue Authority Headquarters Strategy and Performance Bridle Road Bootle Merseyside L30 4YD Telephone: 0151 *** 4000 (Calls may be recorded) Julie Yare / Jean Crimmins 0151 *** 4479/4474 Debbie Appleton 0151 *** 4402 Fax: 0151 *** 4631 Web Site: w8w.merseyfire,***.uk

Your Ref: Our Ref: F*I/**/2015 Date: 9^th July 2015


Dear Mr *****,


FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 - INFORMATION REQUEST



Your request for information has now been considered.

You requested the following information.


‘I'm a retired electrician and am researching the number of house fires caused by consumer units (fuse box) any year after 2008. Any information would be greatly appreciated.’


Response

Incidents to have been started by a Consumer Unit or Fuse Box
Date range: 01/01/2009 - 31/12/2014
Data Extracted: 06/07/2015

Limited to the following:
Primary Fires within Dwellings
Limited to the following ignition sources:
Electricity supply - Wiring, cabling, plugs
Electricity supply - Apparatus – batteries, generators
In addition to a narrative search for the keywords of *consumer*, *fuse?box* and *fusebox*

Please note that this data is taken from IRS (Incident Recording System).
IRS is a live system and therefore there is a possibility that figures contained within this report are subject to change without notification.
Figures can change due to Quality Assurance issues, late IRS report submissions and reports delayed due to investigations being under way

Year	Total
2009	19
2010	20
2011	9
2012	10
2013	13
2014	16
Grand Total	87

If you have any queries or concerns then please do not hesitate to contact The Corporate Information Sharing Officer or The Director of Strategy and Performance on the above numbers.

If you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request please contact the Corporate Information Sharing Officer, Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority Headquarters, Bridle Road, Bootle, Merseyside, L30 4YD,

You can also contact the Information Commissioner at:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF


Yours sincerely


Jean Crimmins
Corporate Information Sharing Officer

 

[templdl]

Do not be coerced templdl

Think on it this way, if you had a bizillion $$$ industry, what would you do to protect it?

They own the NRTL, they own the CMP, they own the CSPC, and by proxy they own basic electrical theory along with any statistical analysis by having all these sorts parrot their canned studies.

Meanwhile (and you corportate whores lurking please take note) i've made the same claims since '99 .....

Somebody, sometime,somewhere with enough $$$ to stand up to you will take you down

~RJ~

I a not being coerced as I am open to credible constructive comments and observations. I have seen nergastive cvommernts from the fierld regarding AFCIs ever since they were required by the NEC. Most of the negatives were asa result of nuisance trips resulting in callbacks which is understandable. But there were many that were simply negative based upon the assumption the The AFCI added needless cost and were making the manufactures rich. Yes, this attitude was a cancer where there was no bases for the negative opinions.
BUT, as time went of it became more and more appearently that the AFCIs were not providing the type of protecting as highly toute by the manufactures. I defended the technology waiting for any indications at all that AFCIs were in fact masking a difference. I wanted to give them time enough for the insurance industry respond and to provide a premium reduction incentive to encourage their use. What has it been, 15 years now? And nothing but silence.
As such I only have to conclude that they are adding needless expense with nothing in return but a high priced GF sensor.
At first, after they were first required, other than the nuisance tripping issues, the negative comments were baseless, that is without asn actual track record the negatives dfidn',t mean a thing s often happens when a new product is introduced. Now, 15 years has passed hand now the track record is slim to none. By being one that said 'I told you so' I was right all along was made based upon assumption at that time. Enough time has passed to cause one to lagitimately judge that the AFCI does not pass muster.
I am in total agreement. I am also extremely disappointed because the AFCI technology did seem to be relevant.
It also is interesting that the manufactures are blackballing a technology that may be a solution to one of the causes of electrical fires. Glowing connections definitely are most likely the significant cause of elecrical fires. It make sense. Should there infact be a device that is superior to the AFCI, which appears to be ineffective anyway I am in total support of that technology. I wish there was a way that we can help that guy break his technology of glowing connections loose. I think it is a major solution to one on the biggest causes of electrical fires bsr none.
The major electrical manufactures essentially invest a great deal of money in lobbying to get things approved.i.e. the AFCI. I know thst the company that I worked for worked very hard to sell the technology and were elated when they did. Not unlike the lobbyest that hit on congress.
The question is, where no we go from here? How do we promote the glowing connection technology?
Assuming the smoke on this subject is starting to clear and we seem to all be of one accord how can we drive the glowing technology as a real solution?

 

[iwire]

This just shows what it’s like to get detailed information about “supposed” electrical fires. I don’t suppose your fire services are any different.

Much different.

On line for your viewing http://www.nfpa.org/research/reports-and-statistics

 

[user 100]

I a not being coerced as I am open to credible constructive comments and observations. I have seen nergastive cvommernts from the fierld regarding AFCIs ever since they were required by the NEC. Most of the negatives were asa result of nuisance trips resulting in callbacks which is understandable. But there were many that were simply negative based upon the assumption the The AFCI added needless cost and were making the manufactures rich. Yes, this attitude was a cancer where there was no bases for the negative opinions.
BUT, as time went of it became more and more appearently that the AFCIs were not providing the type of protecting as highly toute by the manufactures. I defended the technology waiting for any indications at all that AFCIs were in fact masking a difference. I wanted to give them time enough for the insurance industry respond and to provide a premium reduction incentive to encourage their use. What has it been, 15 years now? And nothing but silence.
As such I only have to conclude that they are adding needless expense with nothing in return but a high priced GF sensor.
At first, after they were first required, other than the nuisance tripping issues, the negative comments were baseless, that is without asn actual track record the negatives dfidn',t mean a thing s often happens when a new product is introduced. Now, 15 years has passed hand now the track record is slim to none. By being one that said 'I told you so' I was right all along was made based upon assumption at that time. Enough time has passed to cause one to lagitimately judge that the AFCI does not pass muster.
I am in total agreement. I am also extremely disappointed because the AFCI technology did seem to be relevant.
It also is interesting that the manufactures are blackballing a technology that may be a solution to one of the causes of electrical fires. Glowing connections definitely are most likely the significant cause of elecrical fires. It make sense. Should there infact be a device that is superior to the AFCI, which appears to be ineffective anyway I am in total support of that technology. I wish there was a way that we can help that guy break his technology of glowing connections loose. I think it is a major solution to one on the biggest causes of electrical fires bsr none.
The major electrical manufactures essentially invest a great deal of money in lobbying to get things approved.i.e. the AFCI. I know thst the company that I worked for worked very hard to sell the technology and were elated when they did. Not unlike the lobbyest that hit on congress.
The question is, where no we go from here? How do we promote the glowing connection technology?
Assuming the smoke on this subject is starting to clear and we seem to all be of one accord how can we drive the glowing technology as a real solution?

What should happen next is that it needs to shown publicly that glowing connections are the real bogey man and that this miracle afci won't prevent fires due to them. We know it won't, they (manufacturers) know it won't, and as pointed out by many in the other afci threads on this forum, even the insurance industry has a pretty good idea they dont. We would have our work cut out for us in order to change public perception because unlike the flashy (and non existent at residential voltages) spectacular sustained arcing associated (stupidly) with "arc faults", glowing connections aren't sexy. They're boring. They're silent and they just sit there and cook-out of sight and out of mind (until the fd shows up). I think too that irregardless of what ever technology becomes available to detect these problem joints there needs to be every effort by the trade to eliminate certain residential practices that contribute to glowing connections. We all know what they are too- daisy chained backstabs (have replaced many of these that had been installed correctly and I don't care if they save time- they still suck and are more likely than the screws or pressure plates to cause issues)-and yes, pretwisting before capping solid 12 and 14 still has its place and really isn't a throwback to the days of barrel crimps and tape ( when you do old resi work and see the 4 indent buchanan around those twisted hot and neutral wires that still looks pristine, that should give you a hint right there about the merits of pretwisting). And go after the hacks-get them prosecuted.

Problems with those cords- the solutions mbrooke and others have championed need to be publicized. Folks like it when they see a danger quickly extinguished as would happen with a demonstrated fused cord. Makers of small appliances would complain about extra cost but the public could be won over fairly easily. Also it would be imperative that any new tech that could detect the glowers be fairly inexpensive and cost effective (unlike the afci).

 

[mbrooke]

got 3 hours?.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rr_f2IzquB0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awXgoPlNyN4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DL5aon0nRI

~RJ~

Ok, watched most of it. So wait, correct me if I am wrong. This man creates a splice that stops glowing connections and then AFCI makers try and destroy it because it threatens the sale of AFCIs? :rant:

That makes all the sense in the world now that I think about it. Actually it explains everything. I have seen many code proposals attempting to address glowing connections, (many submitted with solid evidence mind you) with CMPs rejecting it in a single sentence. If this is true it confirms what I have long suspected, the CMPs and major manufacturers could not care less about safety, they would rather continue to have fire and electrocution statistics as an excuse to push expensive products doing absolutely nothing as claimed.


Where did you find this? Its profound! :jawdrop:

 

[romex jockey]

Mbrooke(et all)....

The entire GC theory flys in the face of afci technology.

The owner of this site knew this early on>

http://www.mikeholt.com/mojonewsarchive/AFCI-HTML/HTML/AFCI_Cutler-Hammer_Responds~20021002.htm

Please note the enclosed link , and it's claims>>>>

link

To sum up, simple point of use thermodynamics trump any OCPD microprocessor

The 'big boys' know this.....it's nothing new either......decades old in fact.....

That said, they've tried almost every conceivable approach to change cannon , via contrived testings ,EE dissertations , etc ad nasuem down afci alley....

They've also tried to mimic the GC patent held , and it they had been successful the makers of afci technology would trash them for it overnight

The level(s) of corporate espionage have escalated to have the inventor constantly confronted , even hospitalized with a mystery 'bug'

Trust me, they want it that bad.....

~RJ~

 

[K8MHZ]

I have a receptacle that had an audible arc (HO thought there was a fly in the room) and burnt. I didn't touch the screws, the ones on the hot side were backed out. Probably not tightened years ago when it was installed. As soon as I can afford an AFCI just to test, I am going to re-create the arc and see if an AFCI can detect it.

The receptacle was the first load on the circuit which also had the kitchen, dining room and two bedrooms on it. When the microwave was used, the 'fly' would be heard. Then the fly would go quiet and the house would go dark. I can easily replicate the downstream load and the connection that was arcing.

 

[user 100]

I have a receptacle that had an audible arc (HO thought there was a fly in the room) and burnt. I didn't touch the screws, the ones on the hot side were backed out. Probably not tightened years ago when it was installed. As soon as I can afford an AFCI just to test, I am going to re-create the arc and see if an AFCI can detect it.

The receptacle was the first load on the circuit which also had the kitchen, dining room and two bedrooms on it. When the microwave was used, the 'fly' would be heard. Then the fly would go quiet and the house would go dark. I can easily replicate the downstream load and the connection that was arcing.

Unfortanately, most of the time you won't hear anything from a loose connection/bad termination in a home. Many times when occupants are queried after a fire they will report no prior warning that anything was amiss with the electrical system. I have seen , as we all have, some spectacular failures in residential and wondered why the h.o. didn't see it coming. I learned early on that most h.o.s treat their wiring like a utility-its "fine" until it fails. It important to note that most terminations and joints in a home are tucked away in a box at construction of the dwelling and will not be seen again by anyone until demolition. H.O. doesn't see it therefore it isn't a concern. H.O. are also ignorant. Actually had a lady tell me one time after a small but very smoky fire ( loose type r scotch lok/melted neutrals in sw box -early '80s home) that she was told by someone (unlicensed idiot) that "heat dissapation" was a normal occurence, and that everything was "fine". God I HATE the trunk slammers.

 

[K8MHZ]

Unfortanately, most of the time you won't hear anything from a loose connection/bad termination in a home. Many times when occupants are queried after a fire they will report no prior warning that anything was amiss with the electrical system. I have seen , as we all have, some spectacular failures in residential and wondered why the h.o. didn't see it coming. I learned early on that most h.o.s treat their wiring like a utility-its "fine" until it fails. It important to note that most terminations and joints in a home are tucked away in a box at construction of the dwelling and will not be seen again by anyone until demolition. H.O. doesn't see it therefore it isn't a concern. H.O. are also ignorant. Actually had a lady tell me one time after a small but very smoky fire ( loose type r scotch lok/melted neutrals in sw box -early '80s home) that she was told by someone (unlicensed idiot) that "heat dissapation" was a normal occurence, and that everything was "fine". God I HATE the trunk slammers.

That is why I kept this particular receptacle. I have others that failed and melted but this one can be proved that an arc was present.

My take is that even with an arc so pronounced it's audible, there will be a question as to the detection of same until I can prove otherwise. I want to create a real world situation, not a controlled lab experiment using items forced into failure and then subject to many times more voltage than available in a residence.

 

[user 100]

That is why I kept this particular receptacle. I have others that failed and melted but this one can be proved that an arc was present.

My take is that even with an arc so pronounced it's audible, there will be a question as to the detection of same until I can prove otherwise. I want to create a real world situation, not a controlled lab experiment using items forced into failure and then subject to many times more voltage than available in a residence.

I say go for it and let us know how it went.

 

[templdl]

I see this is your 9th post, correct? Welcome!!
This is a most awesome as well as very professional electrical forum frequented by some very knowledgeable members. I appreciate your opinion and input and trust that you will contiue te a valued contributor.
Yes, I was at one point in time a very big proponent of the AFCI technology and have defended them regularly while trying to hold my breath for some proof that they actually were reasons for saving life and property. I am no longer able to hold me breath as other than the GF feature as is already made availale with the GFCI breakers the highly bragged about AFCI has proven to be all smoke and no go, no pun intended.
Thanks again for your comment.

 

[templdl]

Mbrooke(et all)....

The entire GC theory flys in the face of afci technology.

The owner of this site knew this early on>

http://www.mikeholt.com/mojonewsarchive/AFCI-HTML/HTML/AFCI_Cutler-Hammer_Responds~20021002.htm

Please note the enclosed link , and it's claims>>>>

link

To sum up, simple point of use thermodynamics trump any OCPD microprocessor

The 'big boys' know this.....it's nothing new either......decades old in fact.....

That said, they've tried almost every conceivable approach to change cannon , via contrived testings ,EE dissertations , etc ad nasuem down afci alley....

They've also tried to mimic the GC patent held , and it they had been successful the makers of afci technology would trash them for it overnight

The level(s) of corporate espionage have escalated to have the inventor constantly confronted , even hospitalized with a mystery 'bug'

Trust me, they want it that bad.....

~RJ~

Thanks, I is interesting how these documents and communication are starting to come out of the woodwork. I am familiar with the people Mike communicated with. I looked did for dates of the communications but I may have missed them.
I much appreciate your refences as I will be printing them out for further review. I like it how Mike was trying to hold Clive's feet to the fire to justify AFCIs. It is the first time that a saw this document.
Thanks

 

[templdl]

What's the problem withan arc, it creates ozone doesn't it? Just think of the benefit that it will oxidize unwanted odors in your home. when disburse into the space to be treated. O3 attacks odor causing substances at their source to permanently remove odors in the treatment area. I bats an expensive ozone generator and those stinky spray air deorderizers. But the smell of ozone itself is pungernt and should be detected. If you smell it you should be inquisitive enough to sniff it out to see where the odThe OdorFree will oxidize unwanted odors in your facility. Ozone generators create O3, or ozone, which disburses into the space to be treated. O3 attacks odor causing substances at their source to permanently remove odors in the treatment area.
That aside, ozone dose have a pungent smell and one would like to think it to be a wise thing to follow your nose to find its sourse.
I thought this string of posts deserved a little chuckle.

 

[user 100]

I see this is your 9th post, correct? Welcome!!
This is a most awesome as well as very professional electrical forum frequented by some very knowledgeable members. I appreciate your opinion and input and trust that you will contiue te a valued contributor.
Yes, I was at one point in time a very big proponent of the AFCI technology and have defended them regularly while trying to hold my breath for some proof that they actually were reasons for saving life and property. I am no longer able to hold me breath as other than the GF feature as is already made availale with the GFCI breakers the highly bragged about AFCI has proven to be all smoke and no go, no pun intended.
Thanks again for your comment.

Templdl, I feel that if a product is said to have particular purpose, then it should fulfull that purpose. One aspect of the afci debacle that is most annoying is the subtle change in public opinion regarding standard ocpds. We have people actually believing afcis will prevent their homes from burning down and this nonsense is due 100% to the foolishness that has come from the manufacturers. In this respect, Afcis appear to be only a confirmation of the old adage that a lie repeated often enough becomes fact. Im also wary of a lot of new innovations in this trade due to past experiences. Take the original aluminum nm. Shortly after its introduction, there were very knowledgable professionals who questioned terminating it to any standard device and their suspicsions about metallurgy were met with ridicule from many in the industry. The manufacturers lobby got to work and those guys were portrayed as paranoid, ignorant and even afraid of change. "Creep" couldn't happen. Aluminum was cheap and the wave of the future-copper was too expensive was never going to come down in price and was on its way out. Well 45 years later we are still dealing with the ( at times deadly) legacy of those failed (and still failing )terminations.

Of course afcis are NOT the fire hazard that al nm was and never will be. But my point here is that profit many times overrides common sense and honesty. The debacle over kaiser romex was so totally unnecessary. Had proper extensive testing been done and had the powers that be not been so easily swayed by manufacturers profit motivated claims, much expense and heartache would have been spared.> The afci mess has also proven another other old adage true, "that the more things change, the more they stay the same".

 

[templdl]

Templdl, I feel that if a product is said to have particular purpose, then it should fulfull that purpose.The afci mess has also proven another other old adage true, "that the more things change, the more they stay the same".

It is like the second amendment in our constitution where it is often misquoted that there is a separation of church and state. Not so if it is actually read. As is the AFCI where it seems to been now accepted of being true, the solution to prevent loss of life and property because of electrical failures. So often untruths are repeated so much that they are accepted as being fact. I just hope that this form will be instrumental is opening peoples eyes up regarding the use of AFCIs. If they don't work they should be exposed and as such shouldn't the mfg b lbelieve for a product that doesn't preform as described? Otherwise than being an expensive GFCI what does it actually do?