Testing old wiring before arc fault protection

[mbrooke]

Florida just adopted 2011 NEC. So I will be paying close attention on here about how those unfortunate EC's with 2014 NEC are coping with the AFCIs in kitchens. Seems like a lot of potential for nuisance trips on those circuits, small motor loads, heating elements etc.

My biggest beef at the moment isnt even the 2017 NEC, its that the rest of the world is about to fall victim:rant::


http://www.automation.siemens.com/t...omponents/Technology_Primer_5SM6_AFD_Unit.pdf

http://blog.schneider-electric.com/...rnational-standards-for-arc-fault-protection/

Arc fault demonstrator:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TWZE1X5fFQ

He seems confident, oh wait he is selling them:lol::

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkmn5BsU9Oc

 

[peter d]

:blink::blink: I envy Indiana, they are light years ahead from all of us

Indeed. :thumbsup: Somehow only a handful of states have been able to see beyond the fraud of the AFCI.

 

[peter d]

Florida just adopted 2011 NEC. So I will be paying close attention on here about how those unfortunate EC's with 2014 NEC are coping with the AFCIs in kitchens. Seems like a lot of potential for nuisance trips on those circuits, small motor loads, heating elements etc.

It all depends on how much electronics are in kitchen appliances, which is pretty much all of them except apartment/builders grade ones.

 

[mbrooke]

Indeed. :thumbsup: Somehow only a handful of states have been able to see beyond the fraud of the AFCI.

Im just hoping the rest of the world can see it. Check the links out here:


http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=172353&page=9&p=1682161#post1682161


Its a dark day for the human race :happysad:

 

[klineelectric]

My biggest beef at the moment isnt even the 2017 NEC, its that the rest of the world is about to fall victim:rant::


http://www.automation.siemens.com/t...omponents/Technology_Primer_5SM6_AFD_Unit.pdf

http://blog.schneider-electric.com/...rnational-standards-for-arc-fault-protection/

Arc fault demonstrator:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TWZE1X5fFQ

He seems confident, oh wait he is selling them:lol::

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkmn5BsU9Oc

I don't know if that would help or hurt the reputation of AFCIs. On one hand the rest of the world would see what a nuisance these things are, but on the other hand the manufacturers would be raking in sooooooo much money they would be untouchable ( if they already aren't )

 

[peter d]

Im just hoping the rest of the world can see it. Check the links out here:


http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=172353&page=9&p=1682161#post1682161


Its a dark day for the human race :happysad:

Not surprising, since Eaton, Schneider, GE and Siemens are all giant multi-nationals who see the profit potential across the globe, and it looks like they will be exploiting said potential. I have zero respect for anyone who represents and defends these companies. :happyno:

 

[mbrooke]

Not surprising, since Eaton, Schneider, GE and Siemens are all giant multi-nationals who see the profit potential across the globe, and it looks like they will be exploiting said potential. I have zero respect for anyone who represents and defends these companies. :happyno:

It so obvious, look at this:

"a) Parallel arcing faults
Parallel arcing faults can be caused e.g. by aging of the insulation
material or by the presence of conductive soiling between the line
conductors.
Parallel arcing fault between a line conductor (L) and an
earthing conductor (PE):
Current flows through the arc from the line conductor to PE. In this
case an existing RCD with a maximum rated residual current of 300 mA
can be used for fire protection purposes. This is expressly required for
certain areas (e.g. "premises exposed to a fire hazard" according to
IEC 60364-4-42; HD 384.4.482 S1)."

RCDs already are required all over the globe, so why even mention it?

Second, first thing I noticed. Really? Radios sounding scratchy before a fire? Where can I find that documented evidence?

 

[GoldDigger]

I don't know if that would help or hurt the reputation of AFCIs. On one hand the rest of the world would see what a nuisance these things are, but on the other hand the manufacturers would be raking in sooooooo much money they would be untouchable ( if they already aren't )

I take issue with one item in the interview.
His "non-dangerous arc fault" is just an arc! There is no fault involved.

 

[klineelectric]

I take issue with one item in the interview.
His "non-dangerous arc fault" is just an arc! There is no fault involved.

:lol: He says and I quote "our arc fault devices can CLEARLY distinguish between dangerous and non dangerous ones (arc faults) and shuts off only the dangerous ones." ..........REALLY!

 

[mbrooke]

I take issue with one item in the interview.
His "non-dangerous arc fault" is just an arc! There is no fault involved.

Its not even an arc. Its a short circuit that doesnt clear in 8 half cycles. The first guys who pointed that out had to coin the term "arcing short circuit"

 

[GoldDigger]

Its not even an arc. Its a short circuit that doesnt clear in 8 half cycles. The first guys who pointed that out had to coin the term "arcing short circuit"

I was referring to the commutator sparking in the drill motor. Is that a persistent short circuit?

 

[mbrooke]

I was referring to the commutator sparking in the drill motor. Is that a persistent short circuit?

My mistake. You are correct, that would be a series or "serial" arc fault.

However the word "arc fault" was first used to describe short circuits.


This and this:

http://paceforensic.com/pdfs/newsletter/KeepingPace-7.pdf

http://paceforensic.com/pdfs/Circuit_Breakers_The_Myth_of_Safety.pdf

Also notice how that point was proven (see vids):

http://paceforensic.com/videos

 

[USMC1302]

I live in Indiana, and have followed the AFCI threads, as they seem to be the perfect example of entities that while maybe having good intentions, can't admit they might have gotten it wrong. Here, it appears the Builders Association has been the group that has fought off the requirement, and they're being attacked as anti-safety. Since the general public and government officials don't know all of the background on the issues, there are only the "experts" to rely upon for guidance. In this case, the system failed us. I'm not sure what other states are hold-outs, but I'd bet Indiana will be forced to drink the Kool Aid before too long.

 

[USMC1302]

I guess using twisted logic, maybe AFCI's on everything might not be a bad idea, since there would never be another house fire of electrical origin. Lawsuits for defective products to follow.

 

[mbrooke]

I live in Indiana, and have followed the AFCI threads, as they seem to be the perfect example of entities that while maybe having good intentions, can't admit they might have gotten it wrong. Here, it appears the Builders Association has been the group that has fought off the requirement, and they're being attacked as anti-safety.

Attacked, because people believe they work. If AFCIs worked I would understand and even support the term anti-safety, however I know that not to be the case. The issue here is blind trust in authority.

Since the general public and government officials don't know all of the background on the issues, there are only the "experts" to rely upon for guidance. In this case, the system failed us. I'm not sure what other states are hold-outs, but I'd bet Indiana will be forced to drink the Kool Aid before too long.

I agree. And experts are being used to push that agenda. No offense to Indiana, but I have a feeling even they dont know to what extent people are being played with.

Who took AFCIs out anyways?

Anyway, if anyone is interested:

http://www.in.gov/dhs/files/LSA_Doc._09-139_-_Public_comments.pdf

 

[mbrooke]

I guess using twisted logic, maybe AFCI's on everything might not be a bad idea, since there would never be another house fire of electrical origin. Lawsuits for defective products to follow.

Problem is most home fires have nothing to do with arcing, even in electrical origin. Getting technical here is one a glowing connection will never trip an AFCI.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Excluding supplemental arc protection breakers thats true, but the code lets you achieve arc fault mitigation with a standard breaker under the right conditions. ....

There is no such thing as a "supplemental arc protection breaker" and there probably never will be as there is no standard to build and list such a breaker to. Yes, I know the code says you can do something if you have one of those breakers, but you can't really as those breakers do not exist.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

210.12 (A) 4

[/quote] 210.12(A)(4) (d) The combination of the overcurrent device and outlet branch-circuit AFCI shall be identified as meeting the requirements for a system combination–type AFCI and shall be listed as such. [/quote]
As far as I know there is no such listed combination.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I guess using twisted logic, maybe AFCI's on everything might not be a bad idea, since there would never be another house fire of electrical origin. Lawsuits for defective products to follow.

Not even NEMA will say that the AFCI can prevent all electrical fires....they will just respond to the suit with the comment that the fire was caused by joule heating and not an arcing fault and their device is not intended to protect from fires caused by joule heating (also known as a glowing connection)

 

[mbrooke]

There is no such thing as a "supplemental arc protection breaker" and there probably never will be as there is no standard to build and list such a breaker to. Yes, I know the code says you can do something if you have one of those breakers, but you can't really as those breakers do not exist.

You are correct, and this is a question for the CMPs, but why list something that doesnt exist? Is it true UL scrapped the supplemental arc protector? From what Ive heard it is simply a regular breaker with a known fixed magnetic trip value.