Proposal #2-142 (AFCI's): What Do You Think?

[don_resqcapt19]

Pierre,

The temperature issue of the breakers will become a non-issue after November of '07. The electronics that control the devices are being re-engineered and will run at a reduced temperature. I spoke with 3 of the 4 manufacturers and they have all said their new products will be available by November of '07.

But given the history of the promises and statements from the manufacturers on this issue, there is no reason to believe anything that they say.
Don

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

Don
I will trust them to their word until they break it. I like to be on the positive side, let someone else screw it up.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Pierre,

I will trust them to their word until they break it. I like to be on the positive side, let someone else screw it up.

That is exactly my point...they haven't yet made a promise that they have kept and I have no reason to expect that they will keep this one.
Don

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

Don
I guess we will find out in 9 months.

 

[iwire]

Don
I guess we will find out in 9 months.

Yes I am sure they are telling the truth now.

Why would they lie? It's not like there was millions of dollars hanging in the balance of the CMPs decission.

 

[peter d]

I remember Don saying that the AFCI was introduced some 13(!) years ago, or at least talk of requiring them in the NEC. I am not an EE but I am having trouble understanding why the manufacturers cannot perfect this technology after 13 years.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Peter,
I guess I should have said 12 years ago. The original proposals were for the 1996 NEC so they would have been submitted prior to November, 1994. These proposals said that the device could provide the protection that the combination device is claimed to be able to provide. As far as I know the combination AFCI device is not yet on the market.
Don

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

The combination device with the change in the electronics controlling the device should be on the market in November of '07, as per my conversation with the manufacturers. That will be the time to see how much they have improved the device to do what was originally proposed. They say it will happen, so a "pregnant" nine months we will wait. :wink:

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Pierre,

The combination device with the change in the electronics controlling the device should be on the market in November of '07, as per my conversation with the manufacturers.

A device with the functionality of the combination device is what was promised 12 years ago and it is still not available. Square D told the CMP that their combination device hit the market this past October. Has anyone seen one?
Don

 

[tom baker]

Pierre,

A device with the functionality of the combination device is what was promised 12 years ago and it is still not available. Square D told the CMP that their combination device hit the market this past October. Has anyone seen one?
Don

Is this the type allowed in the NEC to be installed within 6 ft of the branch circuit device.....?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Tom,

Is this the type allowed in the NEC to be installed within 6 ft of the branch circuit device.....?

It is the combination type device that is required to be used 1/1/08. It can either be a breaker or a stand alone device. Also under the 2008 code the AFCI device can be at the first outlet if the branch circuit is run from the panel to the first outlet in metal conduit or cable. My point is that the original proposals to require the AFCI device said that is could provide protection beyond the outlet. This is the type of protection that the combination device is said to provide, but it is not yet on the market as fas as I know.
Don

 

[Bob NH]

I remember Don saying that the AFCI was introduced some 13(!) years ago, or at least talk of requiring them in the NEC. I am not an EE but I am having trouble understanding why the manufacturers cannot perfect this technology after 13 years.

One problem with perfecting the technology is that arc faults are not well defined, and it is hard to discriminate real arc faults from valid circuit loads such as switching power supplies, battery chargers, electronic ballasts, smoke detectors, dimmers, and other devices that use only part of the sine wave.

The AFCI must accept all valid partial-sine switching events that may be used now or in the future, and discriminate as an "arc fault" anything that is a hazardous real arc. And then the discrimination function must be programmed into a module that probably costs $2 to produce so it can be sold for $59 after everyone takes their markup.

If the NEC required the suppliers to demonstrate that they accepted all of the existing electronic load devices on the market before they could get a listing, and demonstrate that they could detect as valid arc faults at least 99% of faults that could be produced in a real circuit, it would probably be a long time before they could be required.

A GFCI that only has to detect an unbalance of 6 milliamps in a 20 amp load is simple by comparison.

 

[iwire]

Bob I agree with all that you brought up.

The problem I have with it is the manufactures already said they had done all of that way back when they wanted the requirement added.

 

[peter d]

One problem with perfecting the technology is that arc faults are not well defined, and it is hard to discriminate real arc faults from valid circuit loads such as switching power supplies, battery chargers, electronic ballasts, smoke detectors, dimmers, and other devices that use only part of the sine wave.

So would it be fair to ask if they are attempting to design the impossible, and they are selling little more than glorified GFPE's for now?

 

[peteo]

Siemens combination AFCI for Jan 2008 NFPA 70

Siemens combination AFCI for Jan 2008 NFPA 70

I do not care to actively enter the discussion of the merits of the newest devices. The issues are more than I wish to comment on at this time.

Siemens has several AFCI related headlines on their residential market page with items released this month (Dec 2006.) Since that page will probably not last long, I'm providing links to the referenced material. The upshoot is that Siemens claims to have released a device which is listed for use as a 2008 combination AFCI item.

The page I visited to find this,
http://www.sea.siemens.com/reselec/default.html

Brochure​

Press Release​

Letter to IAEI Electrical Inspectors ​

 

[iwire]

When I read this one it makes me angry.

http://www.sea.siemens.com/reselec/docs/SiemensAFCIletter.pdf

Basically they are trying to make it sound like any state that does not accept the new requirements is putting the public at risk.

Also this...

The estimated $250 to $500 cost to fully equip an entire house with Combination AFCIs is a small price to pay to ensure the safety of the homeowners.

...serves to remind me how much money they stand to make because of this new requirement.

 

[celtic]

When I read this one it makes me angry.

This one is my favorite:

The American public cannot know all of the technical considerations that go into making the decisions that underpin the NEC, nor does it need to.

...so just jam it down people's throats.

Funny, that the American public doesn't need to know, but a very large majority of electricians here are against it....what is it that WE know, that THEY don't want to share with the "American public"?

 

[radiopet]

Boy...they rushed to get that press release out in time for the buying season....

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Branch/feeder AFCIs protect only against line-to-ground and line-to-neutral arcs, known as parallel or high-energy arcs.

Just a few short years ago, they said this was not a true statement when I and others were telling this to the public.
Don

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I sent the following to Seimens in response to the statement that Celtic quoted in post #37.
That is one of the most arrogant statements that I have ever read in a published document. You and the other manufacturers have done your best to conceal the real facts and mislead the public and the code making panels in order to force sales of a product that is not yet ready for the marketplace. If your combination device really works, it will be the first device that does what was promised the device could do some 13 years ago in the original proposals. With all of the effort to mislead, why should anyone believe your current statements??? It appears to me that you and the other manufacturers need additional funds to complete the R&D on this product and by using the code, you are forcing these costs to be shouldered by the public and not by your stockholders,…they will reap the profits and should be funding the R&D.

Don