'Proof' that AFCI devices really locate arcs.

Status
Not open for further replies.
templdl said:
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.
Click to expand...

That would be the first amendement, and the Supreme Court seems to agree with Thomas Jefferson that is what it means.
 
K8MHZ said:
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.
Click to expand...

I would suggest any interested sparky do just that Mark

Here's an NFPA EE doing just that>>>>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLmC5quELrE

~RJ~
 
iwire said:
That would be the first amendement, and the Supreme Court seems to agree with Thomas Jefferson that is what it means.
Click to expand...

Yes, excellent point as I stand to be corrected. :ashamed1: I have the importance of the 2nd amendment on my mind to much. But I beg to differ on Jefferson's 'opinion' or interpretation though which off topic.
 
romex jockey said:
I would suggest any interested sparky do just that Mark

Here's an NFPA EE doing just that>>>>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLmC5quELrE

~RJ~
Click to expand...

Awesome demonstration! Thanks for poiinting it out! Being a "former believer" in AFCI technology, a staunch backer that is. I was trusting that this product would be the answer. However, any reasonabk person would conclude at this time that the product doesn't do what they say ithat is suosed to do. If I can be convinced as such any reasonable person would be able to agree also. It has been 15+ years now.
 
The type of arcing exhibited in the video would not likely result in a fire hazard. In fact, this type of arcing most resembles that of normally operating equipment and switching operations. This type of arcing is identified in one or more of the 7+ unwanted tripping tests outlined in the UL 1699 standard. Therefore, the AFCI is actually working perfectly as it does not recognize this type of arcing as that which needs to be extinguished to prevent fire ignition.

The arc-faults that actually start fires are recognized by AFCIs that are able to pass the 4 arc tests outlined in the UL 1699 standard. These tests simulate what actually occurs in the real world where cables and cords are damaged, misused, or deteriorating. The simulated tests exhibit identical characteristics, in a short period of time, to specimen cables and cords pulled from the field that have undergone natural conditioning.

Its much like rain or wind simulators. We don't have to wait for a storm or hurricane to test if a product is suitable for a wet location or can withstand wind-driven debris. We have simulators that provide the same performance criteria.

You can't drive a car into a wall at less than 15 MPH to prove that air bags don't work. Air bags don't go off at that speed and impact. The "test" conducted in this video is the same. You can't "test" and AFCI in this manner and make the claim they don't work. Wrong test, wrong results.
 
I see these threads are making the MH newsletters now Byran , so you might want to inform you're nema task force buddies to get their story straight

The truth , like the little bubbles in my cocktail tonight, will eventually rise up....

~RJ~
 
bphgravity said:
The type of arcing exhibited in the video would not likely result in a fire hazard. In fact, this type of arcing most resembles that of normally operating equipment and switching operations. This type of arcing is identified in one or more of the 7+ unwanted tripping tests outlined in the UL 1699 standard. Therefore, the AFCI is actually working perfectly as it does not recognize this type of arcing as that which needs to be extinguished to prevent fire ignition.

The arc-faults that actually start fires are recognized by AFCIs that are able to pass the 4 arc tests outlined in the UL 1699 standard. These tests simulate what actually occurs in the real world where cables and cords are damaged, misused, or deteriorating. The simulated tests exhibit identical characteristics, in a short period of time, to specimen cables and cords pulled from the field that have undergone natural conditioning.

Its much like rain or wind simulators. We don't have to wait for a storm or hurricane to test if a product is suitable for a wet location or can withstand wind-driven debris. We have simulators that provide the same performance criteria.

You can't drive a car into a wall at less than 15 MPH to prove that air bags don't work. Air bags don't go off at that speed and impact. The "test" conducted in this video is the same. You can't "test" and AFCI in this manner and make the claim they don't work. Wrong test, wrong results.
Click to expand...

My opposition to afci is still crystal clear but Bph did highlight an issue I had with the now widely circulated Huddleston video. I remember seeing this several years ago and thinking then that something didn't stick. The degree of series arcing shown in the video, if present at the side terminals on a receptacle, would only be indicative of a very loose termination-something that is far different from the " just not quite tight enough and just a little too resistant" problem joint that eventually glows and burns-(something the afci so far does nothing about). Another thing is that it only demonstrates series arcing-which is unlikely to cause a fire-not saying it doesn't happen, just unlikely. Bph points out, correctly, that the series arcing shown in Huddlestons video behaves not unlike the arcing found in switching ops, which if it wasn't designed to detect, it won't ( however, the untold number of nuisance trips in which the sole culprit was the sp light switch say otherwise). The other big thing taken away from this is it shows the importance of good terminations above all else.
 
romex jockey said:
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~
Click to expand...



I have no doubt they want his idea, and I would imagine only to bury it. Low cost solutions threaten profit. There were several low cost solutions to unproven arc faults and yet they still choose the most expensive option despite being unreliable. Im seeing the same thing here yet again. Self fusing wire splices are only real way to tackle high resistance connections, but that isn't stopping manufacturers from developing an expensive computer based matrix for each circuit that will not be anywhere near as reliable or effective.

Your documentary makes it obvious, practical safeguarding is no longer a concern.
 
mbrooke said:
I have no doubt they want his idea, and I would imagine only to bury it. Low cost solutions threaten profit. There were several low cost solutions to unproven arc faults and yet they still choose the most expensive option despite being unreliable. Im seeing the same thing here yet again. Self fusing wire splices are only real way to tackle high resistance connections, but that isn't stopping manufacturers from developing an expensive computer based matrix for each circuit that will not be anywhere near as reliable or effective.

Your documentary makes it obvious, practical safeguarding is no longer a concern.
Click to expand...

True, but the same folks who allude to afci's incorporating GC protection also are hot to produce a point of use GC receptacle MBrooke.

Should the patent wars result in their favor, they'd be more than willing to sell us $30 receptacle outlets along WITH $40 afci's , denouncing their former claims as conjecture

~RJ~
 
user 100 said:
My opposition to afci is still crystal clear but Bph did highlight an issue I had with the now widely circulated Huddleston video. I remember seeing this several years ago and thinking then that something didn't stick. The degree of series arcing shown in the video, if present at the side terminals on a receptacle, would only be indicative of a very loose termination-something that is far different from the " just not quite tight enough and just a little too resistant" problem joint that eventually glows and burns-(something the afci so far does nothing about). Another thing is that it only demonstrates series arcing-which is unlikely to cause a fire-not saying it doesn't happen, just unlikely. Bph points out, correctly, that the series arcing shown in Huddlestons video behaves not unlike the arcing found in switching ops, which if it wasn't designed to detect, it won't ( however, the untold number of nuisance trips in which the sole culprit was the sp light switch say otherwise). The other big thing taken away from this is it shows the importance of good terminations above all else.
Click to expand...

User....

afci technology does not mitigate a series arc, period.

Never had, never will

The old 'the microprocessor knows the dif' is manufacturing kool aid, even the afci task force can not explain it, nor can George Spencer, et all proponents

Huddlestons original paper, published on MH, still stands

The only change being a contrived standard, test & listing. (i.e.- they changed nothing in the product itself in '08)


THAT SAID, even if the mighty afci DID mitigate a series arc, it would still not address the pre-arc major incendiary event a high R is capable of

~RJ~
 
romex jockey said:
True, but the same folks who allude to afci's incorporating GC protection also are hot to produce a point of use GC receptacle MBrooke.

Should the patent wars result in their favor, they'd be more than willing to sell us $30 receptacle outlets along WITH $40 afci's , denouncing their former claims as conjecture

~RJ~
Click to expand...




:happyno:
 
K8MHZ said:
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.
Click to expand...

the chief inspector of a city near here, and i were playing with an AFCI.

here is what we did:

put a 100 watt lightbulb as a load across the AFCI.

removed a wirenut, and fiddled with the wires to draw
an arc, similar to what one would expect with a loose
wirenut, the sort of horrible situation the AFCI is supposed
to mitigate.

were we to use a larger load, like a hairdryer, we would be
able to pull a larger arc due to the higher current flow, but
we didn't bother to get that involved.

we were able to make an arc large enough to start a fire,
and win our merit badges in fire making. the AFCI did not
threaten our merit badges whatsoever.

the ONLY way i've ever been able to successfully trip an AFCI
externally to the devices test button, is with my ideal AFCI tester.

the AHJ and my conclusion: AFCI's serve as a profit stream for
manufacturers, and little else.
 
Fulthrotl said:
the chief inspector of a city near here, and i were playing with an AFCI.

here is what we did:

put a 100 watt lightbulb as a load across the AFCI.

removed a wirenut, and fiddled with the wires to draw
an arc, similar to what one would expect with a loose
wirenut, the sort of horrible situation the AFCI is supposed
to mitigate.

were we to use a larger load, like a hairdryer, we would be
able to pull a larger arc due to the higher current flow, but
we didn't bother to get that involved.

we were able to make an arc large enough to start a fire,
and win our merit badges in fire making. the AFCI did not
threaten our merit badges whatsoever.

the ONLY way i've ever been able to successfully trip an AFCI
externally to the devices test button, is with my ideal AFCI tester.

the AHJ and my conclusion: AFCI's serve as a profit stream for
manufacturers, and little else.
Click to expand...
The load is too small for the AFCI to even look for an arcing fault. It only looks for series arcing faults when the current is 5 amps or greater and it only looks for parallel arcing faults where the current is 75 amps of greater.
 
bphgravity said:
These tests simulate what actually occurs in the real world where cables and cords are damaged, misused, or deteriorating. The simulated tests exhibit identical characteristics, in a short period of time, to specimen cables and cords pulled from the field that have undergone natural conditioning.
Click to expand...

Fulthrotl said:
put a 100 watt lightbulb as a load across the AFCI.
removed a wirenut, and fiddled with the wires to draw
an arc, similar to what one would expect with a loose
wirenut, the sort of horrible situation the AFCI is supposed
to mitigate.
Click to expand...

don_resqcapt19 said:
The load is too small for the AFCI to even look for an arcing fault. It only looks for series arcing faults when the current is 5 amps or greater and it only looks for parallel arcing faults where the current is 75 amps or greater.
Click to expand...

So we need a load of 6ea. 100 watt lamps before the AFCI will detect a series arc? ( I knew that).

A cord to a vacuum cleaner or space heater is protected but the average lamp, TV, stereo, computer?

How usefull would an air bag be if you needed a crash speed of 60mph for it to function? You could still say it works but it would offer very limited protection.
 
romex jockey said:
User....

afci technology does not mitigate a series arc, period.

Never had, never will

The old 'the microprocessor knows the dif' is manufacturing kool aid, even the afci task force can not explain it, nor can George Spencer, et all proponents

Huddlestons original paper, published on MH, still stands

The only change being a contrived standard, test & listing. (i.e.- they changed nothing in the product itself in '08)


THAT SAID, even if the mighty afci DID mitigate a series arc, it would still not address the pre-arc major incendiary event a high R is capable of

~RJ~
Click to expand...

I knew I was going to be dodging the rocks with that post. I have absolutely no issues whatsoever with Huddlestons paper. Afcis are nothing more than money driven hocus pocus-no more, no less. I was only making an observation about the type of arcing in the video and the fact that, yes, series arcing can and does behave similiar to switching and that most series arcs (not all) will not result in a fire (which further underlines the preposteroussness of the manufacturers claims about the necessity of afci protection against series arcing) and also how it could be concluded that for some (not myself) the video may not be a smoking gun. My opposition to these devices has not wavered at all-they are unnecessary and ill conceived at best. The mention of nuisance tripping was a counter to bph's claim about ul 1699, not an endorsement that afcis are reliable for detecting some series arcing -they are NOT.

As for bph's claim about testing and simulating real conditions: give me a break- they're nonsense.The degree of series arcing shown in the video WILL cause a fire in many instances, whatever occurs in a lab. Put that same arcing in a slater nail on that is full of dust, roach crap, vintage nm and a '70s backstabbed 5-15; now imagine that setup surrounded by dried out 40 yr old syp framing and behind that hideous 1/4 formaldehyde rich paneling we've all seen-you won't get much more real than that. Yet the acfi did nothing.....
 
We all have are pinions about if the AFCIs are bugus and not based upon using fact reason and logic. But let's say that they are capable of doing what they say they do, for years I have been waiting for the insurance companies to jump all over this with some financial incentives like flies on s__t via premium deductions or credits should the homeowners install them. Nothing but silence which tells me that AFCIs are of no consequence and are by in large useless and ignored. It is obvious that the insurance companies must view them as ineffective when it comes to redfucing losses/claims.
If that isn't a big indication of an ineffective product what is?
 
user 100 said:
Also it would be imperative that any new tech that could detect the glowers be fairly inexpensive and cost effective (unlike the afci).
Click to expand...
What detection methodology at the panel could distinguish a glowing fault in the wall from a toaster on the kitchen counter?
 
Fulthrotl said:
the chief inspector of a city near here, and i were playing with an AFCI.

here is what we did:

put a 100 watt lightbulb as a load across the AFCI.

removed a wirenut, and fiddled with the wires to draw
an arc, similar to what one would expect with a loose
wirenut, the sort of horrible situation the AFCI is supposed
to mitigate.

were we to use a larger load, like a hairdryer, we would be
able to pull a larger arc due to the higher current flow, but
we didn't bother to get that involved.

we were able to make an arc large enough to start a fire,
and win our merit badges in fire making. the AFCI did not
threaten our merit badges whatsoever.

the ONLY way i've ever been able to successfully trip an AFCI
externally to the devices test button, is with my ideal AFCI tester.

the AHJ and my conclusion: AFCI's serve as a profit stream for
manufacturers, and little else.
Click to expand...


Basically you have discovered 2 things:

1. The 5 amp series arc threshold is to high

2. AFCIs do not react to local hot spots that start fires


My understanding is that glowing connections and series fires have been observed under 1 amp. And when you think about it under the right conditions it is possible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top