# Strong delusion about AFCI's



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

I would say all of the above creating a powerful web of illusions, aka matrix. In short brainwashing, lots and lots of brainwashing. If people understood electrical theory well enough it would begin to make sense, unfortunately our education system fails us royally. A dumbed down public is easy to fool: A lack of understanding coupled with benevolent assumptions leads to accepting information without questioning it. 

If electricians only knew how the rest of the world did it, they would be rioting.

And yes, AFCIs are about as useful as gum wrapper. Arc logic is the industry equivalent to a witch hunt.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

MTW said:


> Why are so many electricians incapable or unwilling to see the truth about AFCI's? Is it lack of understanding of the code making process? Electrical theory? Propaganda from manufacturers and safety organizations? All of the above?
> 
> What can be done to educate electricians about these fraudulent and worthless devices?


Because most electricians have a woman in their lives and don't have much leftover time to worry about such things, when they know they can just put them in, get inspection passed, get paid, and bring home bacon to please aforementioned desirable object and get the goodies.


----------



## ecelectric (Mar 27, 2009)

Don't forget that half of these NEC boards are occupied by the manufacturers , just saying


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

ecelectric said:


> Don't forget that half of these NEC boards are occupied by the manufacturers , just saying


No group can have more than 1/3 of the membership on a code making panel. It takes a 2/3s majority to pass.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> No group can have more than 1/3 of the membership on a code making panel. It takes a 2/3s majority to pass.


But come reality that means nothing, the rest can be influenced. Think about how history and the world was changed or ruled by only a handful of people.


The CMP is comprised of marionettes with very long strings. The rest is just a smoke screen.


----------



## NacBooster29 (Oct 25, 2010)

meadow said:


> But come reality that means nothing, the rest can be influenced. Think about how history and the world was changed or ruled by only a handful of people.
> 
> The CMP is comprised of marionettes with very long strings. The rest is just a smoke screen.


Anyone can make suggestions, its an open process. If you're not involved, you can't complain. 
And there is more than on cmp. 

I think the ones that don't understand the technology are the ones complaining about it. 
Realistically how are.afci breakers hurting anyone's business?


----------



## Chris1971 (Dec 27, 2010)

NacBooster29 said:


> Anyone can make suggestions, its an open process. If you're not involved, you can't complain.
> And there is more than on cmp.
> 
> I think the ones that don't understand the technology are the ones complaining about it.
> Realistically how are.afci breakers hurting anyone's business?


Stated very well.:thumbsup:


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

NacBooster29 said:


> Anyone can make suggestions, its an open process. If you're not involved, you can't complain.
> And there is more than on cmp.
> 
> I think the ones that don't understand the technology are the ones complaining about it.
> Realistically how are.afci breakers hurting anyone's business?




I understand the technology as well as the cause of electrical fires. You are just assuming I don't understand it therefore condemning due to what you assume is a lack of knowledge. For the sake of any argument don't assume anything. 

Yahhh, anyone can make suggestions, but its up to the CMP to vote which ones go in and which ones don't. People make good proposals and get denied. 

AFCI protection can be accomplished via a $30 sub main GFP, and the money that is going toward panels full of AFCIs can be used to address the actual cause of most electrical fires.


----------



## tersus (Jul 3, 2012)

So I've got to educate the customer about the benefits of afci, and doing things the 'right' way, when I try to explain to them why Jerry Jobber's price is so much lower than mine. All the while I need to be educated on the conspiracy that is afci. I'm willing to see the 'truth about afci's', but I don't think it's going to help me much. Sucks, just sayin'..


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

IMO I think that price difference is what drives HO to choose handymen instead of electricians. 

If electricians meggered their circuits there would not even be a logical need for AFCIs. Potential hazards like an over driven staple would be caught before hand.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

NacBooster29 said:


> > Anyone can make suggestions, its an open process. If you're not involved, you can't complain.
> > And there is more than on cmp.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> No group can have more than 1/3 of the membership on a code making panel. It takes a 2/3s majority to pass.


True, right on down to Roberts Rules of order Don

But just like our Congress, those few key incumbents manage to legislate junk science 

End result>>>>>afci's are our trades global warming....

~CS~


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

MTW said:


> Why are so many electricians incapable or unwilling to see the truth about AFCI's? Is it lack of understanding of the code making process? Electrical theory? Propaganda from manufacturers and safety organizations? All of the above?
> 
> What can be done to educate electricians about these fraudulent and worthless devices?


someone with some scientific clout (and I don't mean the current breed of pseudo-scientists whose data is determined by their employer) needs to debunk them, in a positive and definitive way. Until then, we will (collectively) be pi$$ing up a tree.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

wildleg said:


> someone with some scientific clout (and I don't mean the current breed of pseudo-scientists whose data is determined by their employer) needs to debunk them, in a positive and definitive way. Until then, we will (collectively) be pi$$ing up a tree.


If I may, the data that was presented to get AFCIs into the code is unproven to begin with. To date no evidence exists demonstrating all these electrical fires are a result of arcing or to what degree. It just speculation. Disproving what has yet to be proven is the issue here IMHO. 


But I do agree with you, there needs to be unbiased research as to the true origins of electrical fires.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

meadow said:


> But come reality that means nothing, the rest can be influenced. Think about how history and the world was changed or ruled by only a handful of people.
> ....


So you are saying only the members of the CMP that represent manufactures have the ability to influence other CMP members?

I have influenced CMP members to revers their position on proposed changes with comments in the ROC.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> True, right on down to Roberts Rules of order Don
> 
> But just like our Congress, those few key incumbents manage to legislate junk science
> 
> ...


Well in congress, it is a lot different. First we have a two party system (something that Jefferson said would destroy our democracy) that has a major influence and second you have bills with lot of unrelated things in them...neither of which exist at the CMP.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

meadow said:


> ... To date no evidence exists demonstrating all these electrical fires are a result of arcing or to what degree. ...


On that point there is no real evidence that all of the dwelling unit fires that were said to be of electrical origin really were of electrical origin. Very few dwelling unit fires are investigated by a trained fire investigator.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> So you are saying only the members of the CMP that represent manufactures have the ability to influence other CMP members?
> 
> I have influenced CMP members to revers their position on proposed changes with comments in the ROC.


To a degree yes. However its not something out in the open though.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> On that point there is no real evidence that all of the dwelling unit fires that were said to be of electrical origin really were of electrical origin. Very few dwelling unit fires are investigated by a trained fire investigator.


I agree 100%, and that is half the point I am trying to make. People are just assuming fires are electrical, with people then assuming a certain percentage of that already false statistic is the result of arcing.


----------



## NacBooster29 (Oct 25, 2010)

Someone from this forum should do a bench test. With an actual afci, and record it and post a link to YouTube. 
That would be conclusive evidence. 
There are a lot of people who dislike them simply based on cost, or because handymen don't use them. 
I guess if that is your market than saving a few bucks is important. 

But to simply snap a pic of a panel and state there are $800 dollars worth of afci breakers is misleading. 
At 50 bux a whack that's 16 arc faults. 
Someone didn't plan their circuits very well. 
We can piss and moan all day, but at the end of the day it gets us no where..


----------



## Cow (Jan 16, 2008)

NacBooster29 said:


> Someone from this forum should do a bench test. With an actual afci, and record it and post a link to YouTube.


It looks like this guy already did it.

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

On youtube, in his description, he said he sent the video to NEC panel 6 as well.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

NacBooster29 said:


> Someone from this forum should do a bench test. With an actual afci, and record it and post a link to YouTube.
> That would be conclusive evidence.
> There are a lot of people who dislike them simply based on cost, or because handymen don't use them.
> I guess if that is your market than saving a few bucks is important.
> ...



Even if arc fault breakers do reliably detect arcs and trip on a bench top test that does not prove dwelling fires are caused by arcs. All it proves is that an intentional arc created in a controlled environment will trip an AFCI. 

The circuits in CS's panel can be protected via a $30 GFP sub main which provides the same level of safety, if not more. 

As for not planning circuits well, that may be a large enough home where code minimum would require that . Even for a small home, how is adding less circuits moving forward? If anything it stresses the connections more, increasing the chance of a glowing fault, something AFCIs will not catch.


I have no problem paying extra for safety, that's not the issue. The issue is spending money on something that provides nothing in return.


----------



## te12co2w (Jun 3, 2007)

NacBooster29 said:


> Anyone can make suggestions, its an open process. If you're not involved, you can't complain.
> And there is more than on cmp.
> 
> I think the ones that don't understand the technology are the ones complaining about it.
> ...


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

te12co2w;1898258Most people at least believe in gfcis now though. I am not sure afcis will ever reach that level of acceptance.[/quote said:


> That's because arc faults are a witch hunt, you can not reliably differentiate between normal and abnormal arcing with limited logic circuits still in research and development. GFCIs on the other hand only trip for a legitimate reason that being current leaking from the hot or neutral onto an alternate path.
> 
> 
> If GFCIs were required at the origin of all 120 volt branch circuits not only would home wiring offer people protection, but also fire protection. The AFCI beakers with 30 and 50ma GFP have caught a lot of sloppy wiring. An over driven staple, hot arcing to a ground, ect will produce a current imbalance via the EGC and trip any GFCI. Further, you don't need to have a GFCI breaker for every circuit, you can have a few sub-main GFCIs which will do the same at lesser cost.
> ...


----------



## te12co2w (Jun 3, 2007)

meadow said:


> That's because arc faults are a witch hunt, you can not reliably differentiate between normal and abnormal arcing with limited logic circuits still in research and development. GFCIs on the other hand only trip for a legitimate reason that being current leaking from the hot or neutral onto an alternate path.
> 
> 
> If GFCIs were required at the origin of all 120 volt branch circuits not only would home wiring offer people protection, but also fire protection. The AFCI beakers with 30 and 50ma GFP have caught a lot of sloppy wiring. An over driven staple, hot arcing to a ground, ect will produce a current imbalance via the EGC and trip any GFCI. Further, you don't need to have a GFCI breaker for every circuit, you can have a few sub-main GFCIs which will do the same at lesser cost.
> ...


 I agree that the afci breakers have made us better electricians. When I first installed them I did have some ground wires and neutral touching. Neutrals from different circuits combined and so on. That was somewhat humbling, but I still haven't bought into the technology.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

te12co2w said:


> I agree that the afci breakers have made us better electricians. When I first installed them I did have some ground wires and neutral touching. Neutrals from different circuits combined and so on. That was somewhat humbling, but I still haven't bought into the technology.


I agree, GFP is great at catching errors. I've had GFP catch screw ups I otherwise would have over looked. 

But, that goes to show you why GFP should have been mandated over Arc logic.


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

I still don't put GFCI's on a freezer in a garage if there is no permit. Although with the new alarmed GFCI's I have done that a few times.
On the other hand I would never ever change out an AFCI breaker with a non.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

sbrn33 said:


> I still don't put GFCI's on a freezer in a garage if there is no permit. Although with the *new alarmed GFCI's *I have done that a few times.
> On the other hand I would never ever change out an AFCI breaker with a non.


I have had them for 2 or 3 years- nothing new about them :thumbsup: They are not very loud


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

Yea, our city made them code for any type of sump or condensate pump.


----------



## te12co2w (Jun 3, 2007)

Alarmed gfi? This is the first I've heard of them. All brands?


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

meadow said:


> To a degree yes. However its not something out in the open though.


How is it not in the open? The meetings are open to the public, and all of the proposals and panel actions are published for public review.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

NacBooster29 said:


> ...
> I think the ones that don't understand the technology are the ones complaining about it. ...


I fully understand the technology and understand that the device cannot do what they tell us it will do.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> How is it not in the open? The meetings are open to the public, and all of the proposals and panel actions are published for public review.


Show us the publicly accessible NFPA link to all the 210.12B ROPs that have been rejected in the last 15 years Don.....

~CS~


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

MTW said:


> Why are so many electricians incapable or unwilling to see the truth about AFCI's? Is it lack of understanding of the code making process? Electrical theory? Propaganda from manufacturers and safety organizations? All of the above?
> 
> What can be done to educate electricians about these fraudulent and worthless devices?


If the code cycle I am working under requires them to be installed in order to get my inspection then I will install them in order to get my inspection.

Now if I were a trunk slammer as you seem to be then I would do as you and any other trunk slammer would do.


----------



## manchestersparky (Mar 25, 2007)

I do believe it is the Consumer Products Safety Commission that is behind the development of the afci.

The CMP can ( and has) change their stand on an issue during the comment stage. I have had some proposals accepted and a one changed ( to accept it) during the comments stage.

Anyone can write a proposal, but most just accept things and complain.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> How is it not in the open? The meetings are open to the public, and all of the proposals and panel actions are published for public review.




The meeting may be public, but not the real reasons why members agree or disagree.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

macmikeman said:


> Because most electricians have a woman in their lives and don't have much leftover time to worry about such things, when they know they can just put them in, get inspection passed, get paid, and bring home bacon to please aforementioned desirable object and get the goodies.


Cool story bro.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

NacBooster29 said:


> Anyone can make suggestions, its an open process. If you're not involved, you can't complain.
> 
> And there is more than on cmp.


Oh please.  Plenty of proposals have been put in to remove the AFCI rules from the NEC and they have all been rejected. Furthermore the AFCI rules have been expanded. At least Indiana and Idaho have statewide amendments to remove the AFCI rules. 



> I think the ones that don't understand the technology are the ones complaining about it.


I understand the technology and electrical principles involved quite well which is why I'm so adamantly against them. 




> Realistically how are.afci breakers hurting anyone's business?


For me, it's a matter of principle. We are being forced to use a fraudulent product.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

wildleg said:


> someone with some scientific clout (and I don't mean the current breed of pseudo-scientists whose data is determined by their employer) needs to debunk them, in a positive and definitive way. Until then, we will (collectively) be pi$$ing up a tree.


I would love to see that happen, along with industry professionals. Then it wouldn't be so much of a "David vs. Goliath" fight.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

I think this thread is proof of how people not only blindly follow but defend change no matter how corrupt it is. The more enlightened you are the less you appear to be...


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> So you are saying only the members of the CMP that represent manufactures have the ability to influence other CMP members?
> 
> I have influenced CMP members to revers their position on proposed changes with comments in the ROC.


Normally I agree with you, but on this issue you are dead wrong. Manufacturers have one and only one motivation when it comes to code making panels - they need to use their influence so they can put rules into the NEC (that just so happen to require certain products that they make) which will increase their profits. 

You really think manufacturers have a benevolent purpose and motivation on NEC CMP's? It's laughable if you do.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

aftershockews said:


> If the code cycle I am working under requires them to be installed in order to get my inspection then I will install them in order to get my inspection.


I install them too. But it doesn't mean I like it.


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

MTW said:


> I would love to see that happen, along with industry professionals. Then it wouldn't be so much of a "David vs. Goliath" fight.


Well, unfortunately, I have a prediction for you that you don't want to hear. My prediction is based on the last 40 years of watching so called tech giants deliver unfinished software and hardware products, touted as the latest greatest thing, and then update them until they could provide another supposedly latest greatest thing (also unfinished), ad infinitum.

My prediction is that by the time the train gets enough steam behind it, they will have figured out how to actually make this BS product work in a manner whereby they can prove it does something positive. I give it about 5 years.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

manchestersparky said:


> I do believe it is the Consumer Products Safety Commission that is behind the development of the afci.
> 
> The CMP can ( and has) change their stand on an issue during the comment stage. I have had some proposals accepted and a one changed ( to accept it) during the comments stage.
> 
> Anyone can write a proposal, but most just accept things and complain.


The _exact _history and functionality of the afci was written in 2012 by an industry leader who's involvement hailed back to it's R&D creation 

This is a _proponent _of the technology btw. 

But far and beyond that, it addresses anyone's _complaints_ about it.

To date, none of our trade rags _ will _publish this information

Meanwhile CMP-2 members have invited themselves into our trade rags to opine on the afci, mostly in non scientific terms. 

These same members can be seen on CMP-2 as either standing OR alternates now with fair consistency , especially when 210.12 events are on the horizon

The code making process has been infiltrated. And by that i mean UL, CSPC as well as manufacturers collectively focused on the product w/o regard to pertinent info that would roundfile it

~CS~


----------



## mgraw (Jan 14, 2011)

wildleg said:


> Well, unfortunately, I have a prediction for you that you don't want to hear. My prediction is based on the last 40 years of watching so called tech giants deliver unfinished software and hardware products, touted as the latest greatest thing, and then update them until they could provide another supposedly latest greatest thing (also unfinished), ad infinitum.
> 
> My prediction is that by the time the train gets enough steam behind it, they will have figured out how to actually make this BS product work in a manner whereby they can prove it does something positive. I give it about 5 years.


I agree. I think the AFCI requirement is nothing more than a way for consumers to pay manufacturers for their R&D. My guess is manufacturers didn't want to spend millions of dollars researching a product that may not work. The good side to this is eventually we may get a product that really does work.


----------



## CTshockhazard (Aug 28, 2009)

Cow said:


> It looks like this guy already did it.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLmC5quELrE
> 
> On youtube, in his description, he said he sent the video to NEC panel 6 as well.


No, no, no, clearly that didn't trip because he installed it with on in the down position.:laughing:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

The afci _double speak_ was outed quite a while ago.....>

AFCI - Why I Have a Problem With It

note carbonized, uncarbonized.....

~CS~


----------



## FaultCurrent (May 13, 2014)

If you know the history of the NEC it was written originally by the insurance industry. "In 1891, the New York Board of Fire Underwriters published a standard for electrical installations which eventually became adopted by the National Board in 1892. While only two pages of text, the 1881 code contains requirements still found in the NEC today."

You guys are ignoring the main force behind any of these changes, whether it be helmet laws, seat belts, tamper proof medicine caps, or AFCI's. Insurance companies. Insurance companies love the government writing laws that will reduce claims. Do manufacturers benefit? Absolutely.

Fact, many residential fires are electrical in nature. Fact, many electrical fires are caused by low level arcing ground faults. Fact, frayed extension cords or faulty appliances are the source of many such faults. Fact, most fatalities occurred in the bedroom even though the fires did not start there. Smoke inhalation while sleeping.

Now, manufacturers in response to insurance company pressure developed the AFCI. CMP has manufacturers saying yes these devices work. Government members agree that AFCI's may save lives. AFCI adopted into the code. Insurance industry happy. Manufacturers happy. 

Nuisance tripping, yes. Cost more, yes. Major bellyaching from some electricians, yes.

Do they save lives? Maybe. I remember the same bellyaching about GFCI back in the seventies. Did installing GFCI's save lives? Yes. Hand wringing about the GFCI in one bathroom killing the receptacle in the other bathroom and homeowner not able to figure it out? Yep.

So an AFCI trips, reset it. Do hack electricians install AFCI wrong and then customer is angry? Yep, see it all the time. Do I think AFCI was rolled out too soon without the needed improvements to make it way more functional? Yes. Will they eventually be perfected and save lives? I say yes.

Rage over the AFCI is based on what? Cost? Functionality? Big government?


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

MTW said:


> Cool story bro.


It is my pleasure to direct thought and answers to specific members and instances , who by their very circumstance have a poverty of experience that would help them to understand the bigger picture. :thumbsup:


----------



## AllWIRES (Apr 10, 2014)

Waaaa.....


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

FaultCurrent said:


> Rage over the AFCI is based on what? Cost? Functionality? Big government?


Functionality 

It does _not_ mitigate a series arc. And even if it did , the majority of arcs (aside from those mechanically produced) , start out as a glowing connection. 

They are marketed under fraudulent parameters with CMP members who work at UL, and the CPSC convincing the rest that they do...

Now one would think CMP-2 members would consider that we have prominent EEs agreeing with this , along with the rest of the electrical world having a good laugh 


~CS~


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

FaultCurrent said:


> Fact, many residential fires are electrical in nature. Fact, many electrical fires are caused by low level arcing ground faults. Fact, frayed extension cords or faulty appliances are the source of many such faults. Fact, most fatalities occurred in the bedroom even though the fires did not start there. Smoke inhalation while sleeping.



But those facts are based on questionable statistics. Its a fact many home fires are written off as electrical without proof. Its a fact low level arcing is purely speculator (again, how was the evidence gathered?). Its a fact glowing connections are real producing no arc signature. Its a fact GFP does catch arcing ground faults. And its an undisputable fact North America is the only part of the world using AFCIs. Its a fact Europe not only meggers and tests all circuits for insulation compromise but also implements RCD at the circuit origin. Its a fact that megs/RCDs costs less than AFCIs.


These are pure assumptions recreated in labs under none real world conditions and then stated as fact by authorities which people blindly believe to be true simply because of the perceived notion they hold benevolent character. Authorities don't always get it right (look at history), certainly not when monetary incentive causes conflicts of interest. At the end of the day authorities hold as much weight as the next person: They have a story to tell just like I have a story to tell. Nothing more to it.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

This _'we got over GFCI protection'_ canard is lame fellas

apples/oranges please....

The_ 'it'll get better'_ shtick is too

sounds like the lies we tell the terminally ill.....

~CS~


----------



## micromind (Aug 11, 2007)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> So you are saying only the members of the CMP that represent manufactures have the ability to influence other CMP members?


The plain and simple fact that AFCIs are required is, in my mind, proof positive that members of the CMPs can indeed be influenced by other members. Either that or the members of the CMP that required AFCIs are incredibly stupid.

Or both........

I'm guessing here, but I believe that the original intention of having manufacturers representatives on CMPs was to determine whether or not a proposed device requirement could actually be constructed. 

These days they are their main purpose has shifted to something more like 'increased corporate profit through legislation'. 

It's really sad that these people are so drunk with power that they cannot see that they are being played as fools in the game of corporate profit.


----------



## NacBooster29 (Oct 25, 2010)

These days they are their main purpose has shifted to something more like 'increased corporate profit through legislation'.

It's really sad that these people are so drunk with power that they cannot see that they are being played as fools in the game of corporate profit.[/QUOTE]

The entire NEC being republished every 3 years is ludacris! 
I do realize technology changes with the times. But a simple amendment on a 5 year cycle would probably suffice.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

chicken steve said:


> This _'we got over GFCI protection'_ canard is lame fellas
> 
> apples/oranges please....
> 
> ...


I agree, I know exactly what a GFCI can and cannot do. We're told AFCI's can do certain things by manufacturers but enough evidence has come out now to suggest otherwise.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

NacBooster29 said:


> These days they are their main purpose has shifted to something more like 'increased corporate profit through legislation'.
> 
> It's really sad that these people are so drunk with power that they cannot see that they are being played as fools in the game of corporate profit.


The entire NEC being republished every 3 years is ludacris! 
I do realize technology changes with the times. But a simple amendment on a 5 year cycle would probably suffice.[/QUOTE]

I agree and I am no longer buying the NEC. I'll get acquainted with the relevant changes for residential and commercial as I don't care about all the rest.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

I would ask to be shown statistics of electrical fires where i a CMP member 

The NFPA along with it's U.S. Fire Administration’s National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS). albeit somewhat _conjecture_ given nothing more than a smoking cellar hole, and/or lack of scene forensics.

That said, because there's a melted receptacle outlet posted in pro forums every other day, i'd guess the chief incendiary culprit to be a _glowing connection_

It's a given that glowing connections degrade into arcing ,or simply non connection. Anything you hear about carbonized paths are a parallel, not *series* event.

This *one* fundamental has been UL and CPSC members (CMP alternates) writing articles like this



> *Existing AFCIs do not detect another cause of electrical fires– the glowing connection* – unless an arc or ground fault is also present. A glowing connection is a special case of a high resistance connection that can dissipate a considerable amount of energy and glows to the point of incandescence.
> 
> Besides their heat output, glowing and other poor connections are manifested by excessive voltage drop across the connection. The magnitude of the voltage drop varies with the impedance of the connection and the load current. (The impedance of the circuit will also have an effect on the ability of a conventional circuit breaker to instantaneously trip when the short circuit current is below the instantaneous trip threshold.) *The AFCI will detect some of the secondary effects of the glowing connection, such as arc faults and ground faults.* By detecting these secondary effects, the AFCI can eliminate a critical factor in further destruction – the flow of electric current.


Prior to those _'secondary effects'_ is>










Further techno babble>



> At the present time the UL Standard for Arc-Fault Circuit-Interrupters (AFCIs) does not require AFCIs to detect a high-impedance fault condition known as a
> "glowing connection". Paragraph 1.3 of UL 1699 states:
> *These devices are not intended to detect glowing connections.
> The glowing connection has been documented by a number of technical
> investigators as a potential ignition mechanism*. The purpose of this investigation was to assess the ability of a Branch/Feeder AFCI incorporating ground fault protection to respond to a glowing connection occurring at a wiring device termination. The ability to interrupt such a thermal event is seen as an additional mechanism by which AFCIs may be used to reduce the risk of electrical ignition


~CS~


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

micromind said:


> The plain and simple fact that AFCIs are required is, in my mind, proof positive that members of the CMPs can indeed be influenced by other members. Either that or the members of the CMP that required AFCIs are incredibly stupid.
> ...


You completely missed my point. The comment that I commented on implied that only CMP members can influence other CMP members. My point is that other people also influence the CMP members. 

How many of the posters in the forums that now see problems with the AFCIs submitted proposals or comments on the issue? 

You also have to remember that at the time that AFCIs were adopted, there was no field experience showing that they don't do what the members were being told they would do. 

There was strong support for these devices, even in the forums. People who did a little digging and posted questioning comments about the functionality of the AFCI at that time were called anti-safety. I had a number of debates on the functionality of the AFCI at the time of the original adoption....there was very very little support for my point of view. 

There was especially strong negative reaction to my suggestions that these devices, even if they did everything that they are said to be able to do, are not cost effective. The response was, "you can't put a cost on a life". 

Even today, you can't show cost effectiveness, even when you make the assumption that the AFCI would prevent 100% of the fires that are said to be of electrical origin. Using the same fire cause and origin information that was used to say that we need the AFCI device, you will find that in the first year of compliance with the 2014 AFCI rules, you would expect to prevent 55 fires....that works out to a cost of over 11 million dollars per fire prevented. Even when you run the numbers out for 20 years, they are still not cost effective...over 20 years, again assuming 100% effectiveness, the AFCI would prevent about 14,000 fires at a cost of about $900,000 per fire prevented.

Statements like that got hammered in the forums...no one wanted to hear that the AFCI might not be able to do what everyone was being told that they could do.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> You completely missed my point. The comment that I commented on implied that only CMP members can influence other CMP members. My point is that other people also influence the CMP members.
> 
> How many of the posters in the forums that now see problems with the AFCIs submitted proposals or comments on the issue?
> 
> ...



I think they are all misinformed, what they were never told is that the bulk of electrical fires are from glowing connections. Ignoring that simple fact will never make a dent in electrical fires. So the money being thrown on AFCIs is like spending money on gold plated walls instead of using it to install fire sprinklers in an office building. Both cost money, only one of them might actually do something. The other is just a marketing wet dream.


----------



## micromind (Aug 11, 2007)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> You completely missed my point. The comment that I commented on implied that only CMP members can influence other CMP members. My point is that other people also influence the CMP members.
> 
> How many of the posters in the forums that now see problems with the AFCIs submitted proposals or comments on the issue?
> 
> ...


You're right, Don, I did miss your point. I thought you were stating that the CMP members could be influenced only by other people associated with the actual CMP.

But I cannot help but wonder, if 100,000 licensed journeyman electricians wrote to the CMP stating that the requirement for AFCIs should be removed from the code based on their own personal experience in the field, would it have even the slightest effect? 

I very strongly suspect not. 

If so, then it would mean that certain persons with large egos (or a sudden increase in personal wealth.......) would need to admit that they were wrong. 

The possibility of that happening is zero. 

P.S. Not everyone disagreed with your assessment of AFCIs when they first came out. I was (and still am) strongly opposed to them, as were several other members here.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

micromind said:


> You're right, Don, I did miss your point. I thought you were stating that the CMP members could be influenced only by other people associated with the actual CMP.
> 
> But I cannot help but wonder, if 100,000 licensed journeyman electricians wrote to the CMP stating that the requirement for AFCIs should be removed from the code based on their own personal experience in the field, would it have even the slightest effect?
> 
> ...


Now that they are in the code, it is very unlikely they will ever be removed. Just submitting a proposal or comment would not be enough unless those proposals and comments had a solid technical substantiation. I think solid comments could have prevented the AFCI rule from getting into the code, but maybe not.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> Now that they are in the code, it is very unlikely they will ever be removed. Just submitting a proposal or comment would not be enough unless those proposals and comments had a solid technical substantiation. I think solid comments could have prevented the AFCI rule from getting into the code, but maybe not.




And that's my point about the CMP. If 10,000 electricians wrote to the CMP it is more likely to trigger an add campaign from the NFPA then reconsidering AFCIs. But who knows, people have more power than they give themselves credit for, or a willing to use.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Correct me if i am _wrong_, as far as i can tell the NFPA maintains no on line repository for past _cycle_ ROP's . 

~CS~


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> Correct me if i am _wrong_, as far as i can tell the NFPA maintains no on line repository for past _cycle_ ROP's .
> 
> ~CS~


Steve,
You are incorrect. 

PDF copies of past ROPs and ROCs are available back to the 1981 code. Prior to that, sometimes you only have the ROP or the ROC. Note that the ROP was previously known as the TCR (technical committee report) and the ROC as the TCD (technical committee documentation). 

Go to this page, select the edition in the drop down box and then click on "Read the archived revision information"

The oldest that I found is for the 1911 edition.


----------



## Shockdoc (Mar 4, 2010)

I hate $47 a breaker, sloppy panels from that garbage. Hell no i won't use them unless enforced by paperwork.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

Methinks most of us wouldn't be a hating AFCI so much, and castigating the cmp's for biting into the dream of breakers preventing fires, if we all didn't have to go troubleshooting non problems, problems that are internal to the piece of do do breakers themselves, not the installation of the branch wiring. That is the whole reason I hate the damn things, not the fifty dollar price tags for one of them. I loose way more money on time lost trying to correct for problems that turn out to not even exist in a circuit . That is why I hate them, I would have been fine with them otherwise. P.S. the guys who say they never had any problems with afci's false tripping are outright liars or they never installed any and need to just get off this forum and go back to Mike Holt where lying about never having had any issue with afci's is acceptable behavior because everybody over there is perfect and all.................


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

Shock and Mac said it.

Ive said it before and I say it again, you can AFCI protect a whole home at $45 without nuisance tripping and without having everything go in the dark:


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

meadow said:


> Shock and Mac said it.
> 
> Ive said it before and I say it again, you can AFCI protect a whole home at $45 without nuisance tripping and without having everything go in the dark:


I like the concept, but I hate those British panels. :laughing:


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

MTW said:


> I like the concept, but I hate those British panels. :laughing:


I do to. There Un-American, but we can certainly do one better:


----------



## manchestersparky (Mar 25, 2007)

Me wonders if when the GFCI was created- Was there this much push back ???


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

manchestersparky said:


> Me wonders if when the GFCI was created- Was there this much push back ???


Boatloads. From the stupid carpenters. You know, the guys who would carry their energized extension cords thru deep puddles on rainy days on the jobsites and trip the gfi's. They would cuss like hell, all the while not realizing the only reason they were able to raise such a fuss is because the gfi just saved their life.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

Had they required GFCI at the branch circuit origin not only would people protection requirements be fulfilled but also fire safety requirements. Around here the bath, garage and exterior outlets where all placed on one GFCI breaker in the panel and sometimes the kitchen counter tops on another two. It was that way until the mid 90s.

But why do it that way when you can have GFCI outlet + AFCI breaker or combo which costs just as much as the two. See the marketing?


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> Steve,
> You are incorrect.


Gratefully so, thx Don..


> PDF copies of past ROPs and ROCs are available back to the 1981 code. Prior to that, sometimes you only have the ROP or the ROC. Note that the ROP was previously known as the TCR (technical committee report) and the ROC as the TCD (technical committee documentation).
> 
> Go to this page, select the edition in the drop down box and then click on "Read the archived revision information"
> 
> The oldest that I found is for the 1911 edition.



And so we do have the resource of past ROP's after all....


So what do we see?

210.12 is probably the most proliferated code passage ever. 

We've entities who have pointed out fire statistics _(much as you yourself have done)_ , we've a gaggle of _'please include afci's on my goat milker'_ etc, sorts which read like ROP spam.

And then we've the higher order , which would be t hose that delve into and present the theoretical aspects of this nefarious device, not the least of which would be Dr Joe Engel's inclusions, which btw reference NFPA as well as other organizations documents.

What i'm reading are long concisely worded ROP's met with constant 2 sentence rejection _i.e.-we aren't going to opine on it, because we're not going to read it all_

However, this did catch my eye.....




> Panel Statement: UL 1699, the ANSI/UL Standard for AFCIs, does not
> include prescriptive construction requirements for AFCIs but instead relies on
> compliance with performance tests.
> ** All UL certified AFCIs comply with the performance requirements for arc
> ...


There's some serious _'pass the buck_' going on here. Dave Dini has held a CMP-2 seat now for longer than i can remember , he is literally 'UL' when it comes to 1699

~CS~


----------



## Jhellwig (Jun 18, 2014)

Good god the horse has been dead for 16 years............


----------



## Shockdoc (Mar 4, 2010)

MTW said:


> I like the concept, but I hate those British panels. :laughing:


They actually look well designed as in the feed and branch circuits enter inside a second panel behind the front panel that houses the ocpds.


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

MTW said:


> Why are so many electricians incapable or unwilling to see the truth about AFCI's? Is it lack of understanding of the code making process? Electrical theory? Propaganda from manufacturers and safety organizations? All of the above?
> 
> What can be done to educate electricians about these fraudulent and worthless devices?


If you are saying that they have no value...explain why.


----------



## FaultCurrent (May 13, 2014)

Residential electrical fires http://www.nfpa.org/research/reports-and-statistics/fire-causes/electrical

New combination devices do protect in both series and parallel faults.

Series Arc faults http://www.eaton.com/ecm/groups/public/@pub/@electrical/documents/content/ct_206788.pdf

As far as "glowing connections" they are few and far between. Burned connections at loose lugs or wirenuts, frayed appliance cords, bad connections at plug strips or receptacles, or nails or other penetrations into cables are the source of many fires. Read the NFPA report. These hazards could be reduced if the circuit was protected by an AFCI. 

The only way to gauge effectiveness of the AFCI in reducing the number of electrical fires is to observe a drop in electrical fires in residences protected vs. non-AFCI protected homes. I personally believe this to be the case especially as the AFCI devices are perfected.

Like I said before, the same bellyaching over GFCI's went away as they became cheaper and were shown to reduce injury or worse. I expect the same result over the coming years and I do think as suggested above, whole house AFCI will be in the not so distant future.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

FaultCurrent said:


> > Residential electrical fires http://www.nfpa.org/research/reports-and-statistics/fire-causes/electrical
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

FaultCurrent said:


> ...
> The only way to gauge effectiveness of the AFCI in reducing the number of electrical fires is to observe a drop in electrical fires in residences protected vs. non-AFCI protected homes. I personally believe this to be the case especially as the AFCI devices are perfected. ...


That will take years and years. When you look a the fire cause and origin reports, you will find that 85% of the fires that are said to be of electrical origin occur in dwelling units that are at least 20 years old. If the AFCI was 100% successful in preventing all of the fires that are said to be of electrical origin, you would prevent 55 fires in the first full year of compliance with the 2014 NEC AFCI rules. Even at 20 years the number of fires that you would expect to prevent with an AFCI that is 100% effective is less than 14,000. 

The average number of dwelling unit fires in the US between 2007 and 2011 was 366,000. Less than 15% of those fires are fires that are said to be of electrical origin. That would mean less than 5500 of those fires were of (said to be) electrical origin. I don't think that 55 out of 5500 is a statistically significant number.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> That will take years and years. When you look a the fire cause and origin reports, you will find that 85% of the fires that are said to be of electrical origin occur in dwelling units that are at least 20 years old. If the AFCI was 100% successful in preventing all of the fires that are said to be of electrical origin, you would prevent 55 fires in the first full year of compliance with the 2014 NEC AFCI rules. Even at 20 years the number of fires that you would expect to prevent with an AFCI that is 100% effective is less than 14,000.
> 
> The average number of dwelling unit fires in the US between 2007 and 2011 was 366,000. Less than 15% of those fires are fires that are said to be of electrical origin. That would mean less than 5500 of those fires were of (said to be) electrical origin. I don't think that 55 out of 5500 is a statistically significant number.


 
This of course is assuming those fire were correctly reported and that arcing was behind it. 


I agree with your past statements that residential fire sprinklers are the ultimate investment with ultimate payback.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

meadow said:


> This of course is assuming those fire were correctly reported and that arcing was behind it.


That is why my post said "fires that are said to be of electrical origin". I included all fires that are said to be of electrical origin, as there are no real stats that say how many are from electrical arcs. Even with every fire included, and a 100% effective AFCI, you still would only expect to prevent 55 fires in the first full year of compliance with the NEC. Actually it would be a bit less than that as the 2014 NEC does not require AFCI protection for every circuit.


> I agree with your past statements that residential fire sprinklers are the ultimate investment with ultimate payback.


I put an exception in our city electrical code that says if you install a code compliant fire sprinkler system, you are not required to install any AFCIs.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> That is why my post said "fires that are said to be of electrical origin". I included all fires that are said to be of electrical origin, as there are no real stats that say how many are from electrical arcs. Even with every fire included, and a 100% effective AFCI, you still would only expect to prevent 55 fires in the first full year of compliance with the NEC. Actually it would be a bit less than that as the 2014 NEC does not require AFCI protection for every circuit.
> 
> I put an exception in our city electrical code that says if you install a code compliant fire sprinkler system, you are not required to install any AFCIs.


 I know, my bad, I was just trying to re-iterate the point. I agree with what you are saying 100%, and I think that many are ignoring those facts.

Personally I would have added the same exception to the electrical codes If I had the power.


----------



## NC Plc (Mar 24, 2014)

This thread is a prime example as to why I frequent this site. So much interesting information in here.


----------



## FaultCurrent (May 13, 2014)

One thing we can all agree on, Fire Investigators tend to blame any fire they cannot find a cause for as "electrical in nature." This does lead to inflated statistics. It will take years and years to say if there is a payoff for AFCI's. By then it will be a moot point, they will be using more advanced equipment, and this issue will be ancient history.

I've seen a lot of barbequed Zinsco stabs, burned lugs, whatever, but to go to a job and see actual "glowing connections"...

I'm not a real big supporter of the AFCI and because of the Manufacturer-Insurance collusion we have them as a requirement today. I'm just not so ready to discount them as being useless. I still say that they they were rolled out into the marketplace prematurely and have a somewhat deserved bad rap.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

FaultCurrent said:


> One thing we can all agree on, Fire Investigators tend to blame any fire they cannot find a cause for as "electrical in nature." This does lead to inflated statistics. It will take years and years to say if there is a payoff for AFCI's. By then it will be a moot point, they will be using more advanced equipment, and this issue will be ancient history.


 
I hope so. If something that stops glowing connection came out I think it will be a massive step forward in our industry. If the product is made simple, reliable and effective that is something I would support 100%.




> I've seen a lot of barbequed Zinsco stabs, burned lugs, whatever, but to go to a job and see actual "glowing connections"...


 You have never seen a burnt up connection? :blink: 







> I'm not a real big supporter of the AFCI and because of the Manufacturer-Insurance collusion we have them as a requirement today. I'm just not so ready to discount them as being useless. I still say that they they were rolled out into the marketplace prematurely and have a somewhat deserved bad rap.


 
I will say this, the 30 and 50ma GFP has caught a lot of bad electricians and over driven staples. However with values like 50ma, electronics can be eliminated from a GFP making it indestructible. A large toroid does take up more space, but in a double pole sub-main topology it would not matter.

I personally would drop arc requirements for protecting 98% of home circuits with GFP. Proven, safe, reliable and cheaper.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

NC Plc said:


> This thread is a prime example as to why I frequent this site. So much interesting information in here.


This place rocks. 

BTW, this is food for thought:

http://www.nfpa.org/Assets/files/AboutTheCodes/70/Investigation_Damage_Degradation_NMCables.pdf

http://www.nfpa.org/research/fire-p...ety/other/damage-and-degradation-of-nm-cables


They admit an over driven staple can cause arcing, but only if a multi killo volt surge is imposed. That is possible under worst case scenarios, but the kicker is those same spikes that case arcs to take place also kill AFCI electronics. The paradox gets deeper.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

Here's some food for thought. In the following report, you will read about a 1973 condo building that was severely damaged by fire last month and was torn down before the embers had even been extinguished, thus preventing a thorough investigation from taking place. They said the fire origin was "undetermined" but listed electrical as the likely sources of ignition. 

http://wpri.com/2015/04/16/report-cause-of-condo-complex-fire-undetermined-due-to-demolition/

This type of nonsense is why we cannot trust most fire "investigations".


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

MTW said:


> Here's some food for thought. In the following report, you will read about a 1973 condo building that was severely damaged by fire last month and was torn down before the embers had even been extinguished, thus preventing a thorough investigation from taking place. They said the fire origin was "undetermined" but listed electrical as the likely sources of ignition.
> 
> http://wpri.com/2015/04/16/report-cause-of-condo-complex-fire-undetermined-due-to-demolition/
> 
> This type of nonsense is why we cannot trust most fire "investigations".





And that's how it really works. :no:


----------



## nrp3 (Jan 24, 2009)

In the aftermath of a fire, how detailed an investigation is done? Does it matter whether there was a fatality, or does it depend upon the municipality and its resources? Insurance? I wonder if there is enough left to prove anything other than it may have been electrical in origin.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Isn't this just the _perfect_ marketing arena .:no:

We have statistics by Gawd . The org i posted earlier sends out an annual questionnaire , which i'm told maybe 1/3-1/2 of FD's respond to.

And there's alleged fire forensics to back them up. I can tell you first hand what that amounts to. I served with some great FF's , but to be honest they wouldn't know an outlet from an omlet w/o silverware....


Then there's the whole UL debacle. As i posted prior, the CMP hangs their hat on UL performance tests . Unfortunately i've found little detail of just what specific test quantifies series mitigation, through this nefarious microprocessor with a '_memory'._

Anyone that can _detail_ those changes bettwen afci versions gets the kewpie doll...

But hey, we've our UL boy on CMP-2 , except when he's busy with 690.11, so it appears the CMP isn't the _only_ org that can be influenced, as it also appears the manufacturers have also purchased studies through UL 

Then we have the ROP process, with condescending _blow off_ responses to trade icons trying to clarify theory , stats , or any sense of reality

Add to this CSPC alternate piranhas , making the collusive stew ripe with bias , does anyone know how much Eaton stock these perennial predators own?

Then we have sparky's who wouldn't know a glowing connection if their azz was on fire. Makes me truly feel ashamed , because we post one every day in pro forums. On the theoretical scale we've not evolves to stand erect....

What this trade needs is a class action suit.

~CS~


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> On that point there is no real evidence that all of the dwelling unit fires that were said to be of electrical origin really were of electrical origin. Very few dwelling unit fires are investigated by a trained fire investigator.


I strongly believe that very few "electrical" fires are caused by the premises wiring system itself. I believe that improper use of extension cords, Christmas lighting, space heaters and other portable electrical appliances are primarily to blame.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

MTW said:


> I strongly believe that very few "electrical" fires are caused by the premises wiring system itself. I believe that improper use of extension cords, Christmas lighting, space heaters and other portable electrical appliances are primarily to blame.


And that's the whole jist of it MT, we've been reduced to a _belief _system.

~CS~


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

meadow said:


> And that's how it really works. :no:


Fire statistics = questionable at best.

AFCI = a paperweight at best, one of the biggest scams in the electrical industry at worst.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

MTW said:


> Fire statistics = questionable at best.
> 
> AFCI = a paperweight at best, one of the biggest scams in the electrical industry at worst.


You just said what I have been typing for threads on end in 2 sentences


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> And that's the whole jist of it MT, we've been reduced to a _belief _system.
> 
> ~CS~


With cognitive dissonance added as seat belt...


----------



## FaultCurrent (May 13, 2014)

chicken steve said:


> Isn't this just the _perfect_ marketing arena .:no:
> 
> We have statistics by Gawd . The org i posted earlier sends out an annual questionnaire , which i'm told maybe 1/3-1/2 of FD's respond to.
> 
> ...


 So you say it's collusion, whatever. Submit some actual documented evidence to the CMP showing the ineffectiveness of AFCI's, how they fail to perform, stop fires, or save lives. Maybe you will change their minds. :whistling2: I will be the first to applaud if you succeed.


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

*Another way to see...*



MTW said:


> Why are so many electricians incapable or unwilling to see the truth about AFCI's? Is it lack of understanding of the code making process? Electrical theory? Propaganda from manufacturers and safety organizations? All of the above?
> 
> What can be done to educate electricians about these fraudulent and worthless devices?


Hello MTV and sorry for my English. 

The EGC wire connected to neutral, the absence of independent differential devices of breakers produce confusion. The word 'arc' adds even more: An arc is the result of a disorder, but it does not give the origin. So say that arcs are the essential cause of electrical fire mean nothing…. Everything is mixed...

Perhaps the best way is to list the main defects that may occur and list if protections neutralize them or not. For example for the most dangerous:

1-Hot spot in a connection / Glowing connection
2-Mechanical failure, arcs, serie Arcs into connections
3-Insulaton leak / Parallele Arc –Serie arcs Phase - Ground / EGC wire
4-Overcurrent
5-Short circuit / Parallele Arc Phase –Neutral

These other phenomena are less dangerous (either by their type or their rarity, for example the arcs within a same wire are rare outside connections)

6- Insulaton leak / Parallele Arc Neutral - Ground / EGC wire
7-Serie Arcs (onlyin the same wire )*

Annotations:
NC * does not detect the fault or detects it the fault but to too high values (IYO).

About these tables :

They are simplified, so several defects can be cumulative, some nuances are possible, but these shades do not alter the substance of the matter (IYO).
The area "Appliance" concerns only simple elements, fixture, extension cords and power strips to not make too complicated tables.

Table 1 below :The USA before AFCIs ( 2000’years) 



Table 1.1 below: The USA After AFCIs ( Today ) 




Whereas that AFCIs can not detect arcs (and series arcs) in the same wire, or in a connection (as indicated by several engineers and even by Dr. Joe Engel) gives us a table like this. So, if it's the case, we can see that the only thing that changes is in line 3 : Insulaton leak / Parallele Arc Phase - Ground / EGC wire

(The two tables here for a best view)




Now it is interesting to continue comparisons with other available protections:

Table 2 With AFCIs / GFCIs




We see that there's no difference

Table 3 a synthesis presented differently without the area of the table:


Cote : Bob Huddleston in 2002 on the Mike Holt's forum, “AFCI - Why I Have a Problem With It :_“We believe that the electrical community in general (authors included) has been duped into thinking that these devices are a significant safety improvement, while in reality they will only do what GFCIs and regular circuit breakers do already”.
_
Now, where it becomes more 'funny', is if we look at what is done elsewhere to achieve roughly the same result. 

Indeed, the risk of line 3 are well known in Europe, and for decades. There are publications (even by international manufacturers). It is considered that a defect to high in this line is dangerous for fire hazard. 

So the problem was solved simply. Just by the addition of residual current devices (while the main circuit breaker was already differential type 0.5 Amps) 

These electromechanical devices are particularly efficient and reliable. 

So, often, may be just with a minor wiring modification and the addition of a differential device / or the installation of a differential main breaker (about $200-300 for example) it was may be possible to reach almost to the same result, or better (B on the table 4 below) ?

Table 4:



Indeed it is normal to ask questions… As the main risk of fire, the hot spots to the connections remain uncontrolled, while it would be easy to neutralize cheap...

It's just questions...

Best regards,

FICC -


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

Do those values assume the AFCI has GFP (RCD)? 

GFP is what really does all the work, and the AFCIs without it are, well, wishful thinking.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

Also, Mr French ICC, how much does a 30ma 40amp RCD cost? One like this here >>>


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

meadow said:


> Do those values assume the AFCI has GFP (RCD)?
> 
> GFP is what really does all the work, and the AFCIs without it are, well, wishful thinking.



Hello Meadow, I'm glad to hear from you :notworthy:

_Do those values assume the AFCI has GFP (RCD)? _

I think that it's not difficult to test...

_GFP is what really does all the work, and the AFCIs without it are, well, wishful thinking._

Everybody can redo the tables, and check....:thumbup: 

What do you think about, you? 

Tank you very much,

Best regards,

FICC-


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

meadow said:


> Also, Mr French ICC, how much does a 30ma 40amp RCD cost? One like this here >>>


Thank you for your reply 

Depending on marks, distributors etc, between € 20 and € 80 ( $22-100) for roughly the same quality! (Note that it’s differential switches, (schema TT). They are placed upstream of several breakers and they protect several circuits). I’m not sure that is possible to place differential switches ( upstream few breakers) when the EGC wire is connected to the neutral … The differential breakers (like your GFCI)are more expensive, because we don’t use them. 

http://www.bricodepot.fr/toulon/interrupteur-differentiel-30-ma/prod29708/

Differential main breakers which must be used here, cost almost nothing in proportion, idem, based on marks, distributors, etc, here are among the cheapest: (I chose the mark for you, my friends)

Here it's a single-phase:

http://www.kelelek.com/produit/kel001697/disjoncteur_branchement_differentiel_500ma_2p_30/60a_selectif_general_electric_585021

Here it's a 3 phases + Neutral :

http://www.kelelek.com/produit/kel001699/disjoncteur_branchement_differentiel_500ma_4p_10/30a_selectif_general_electric_585032

In my mind a main breaker with a 100-300 ma differential device should be effective for the line 3 ( case B / table 4 ) with a little change of the wiring upstream...

I hope that these informations will interrest the community 

Best regards, FICC-


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

French ICC said:


> Hello Meadow, I'm glad to hear from you :notworthy:
> 
> _Do those values assume the AFCI has GFP (RCD)? _
> 
> ...


 
Thank you for asking me 

In table 1, part 5 (phase-neutral parallel arc):

I could be wrong but I politely disagree. While standard US breakers provide short circuit protection, some have a very high magnetic trip, exceeding 32x the handle rating. My understanding, and pardon if I am wrong, French Circuit breakers (Type B) for socket circuits have a magnetic trip of only 5x the handle rating. This very low magnetic trip threshold can be said to provide parallel arc protection, but US breakers usually have far more incident energy during a fault involving impedance. 


Further, some AFCIs lack RCD; so any fault like a phase to PE fault entirely relies on arc logic. Arc logic alone is questionable. 


Personally, Europe has already developed a system to detect parallel and series arc faults that is very cheap, will rarely fail, and reliable. All that is missing is the ability to detect glowing connections imo.

What do you think?


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

French ICC said:


> Thank you for your reply
> 
> Depending on marks, distributors etc, between € 20 and € 80 ( $22-100) *for roughly the same quality!* (Note that it’s differential switches, (schema TT).




Same quality? To us breakers? US breakers are worse IMO, they have electronics that can fail, where as these RCDs are only a coil and a solenoid? No electronics to fail? 




> They are placed upstream of several breakers and they protect several circuits).


 :thumbup: This is what I have been trying to tell many people in USA. Much cheaper to have a sub main AFCI/GFCI/RCD; than RCBO/individual AFCI on every circuit. 






> I’m not sure that is possible to place differential switches ( upstream few breakers) when the EGC wire is connected to the neutral … The differential breakers (like your GFCI)are more expensive, because we don’t use them.


 

TN-C system can not be used with RCD. RCD must be used after TN-C become TN-S. 

You do not use RCBO? Only RCD and then MCB?





> .
> 
> http://www.bricodepot.fr/toulon/interrupteur-differentiel-30-ma/prod29708/http://www.bricodepot.fr/toulon/interrupteur-differentiel-30-ma/prod29708/
> 
> ...




[/QUOTE]


Thank you!!!! 

The us should implement this design. Have 30ma sub main RCD and ditch all other AFCI/GFCI requirements imo.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

I do not understand the choice of NEC CEC arc logic @ 32X ocpd *vs.* IEC 5X ocpd

~CS~


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> I do not understand the choice of NEC CEC arc logic @ 32X ocpd *vs.* IEC 5X ocpd
> 
> ~CS~




5x OCPD vs AFCI is more profitable. Electricians and CMP has argued nuisance tripping but in Europe type B,C,D ect rating are available to combat that. You wont find a type B,C or D strength AFCI for those nuisance trip scenarios. 


I think one of these days I need to start a thread on how Europe does wire and circuit breaker sizing.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Well i can understand it from a _marketing_ objective Meadow, after all i am an _evil_ contractor 

But i have a hard time with the _engineering_ logic, especially from a broader international view....:001_huh:

~CS~


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> Well i can understand it from a _marketing_ objective Meadow, after all i am an _evil_ contractor
> 
> But i have a hard time with the _engineering_ logic, especially from a broader international view....:001_huh:
> 
> ~CS~


Your not Evil, just being forced to follow a corrupted NEC. 


French ICC might be able to explain the logic better than me. To my knowledge IEC based codes follow KISS: Keep It Simply Stupid. In this cases a method has been devised to AFCI, GFCI and self test using no electronics with little material investment.


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

meadow said:


> Thank you for asking me
> 
> In table 1, part 5 (phase-neutral parallel arc):
> 
> I could be wrong but I politely disagree. While standard US breakers provide short circuit protection, some have a very high magnetic trip, exceeding 32x the handle rating. My understanding, and pardon if I am wrong, French Circuit breakers (Type B) for socket circuits have a magnetic trip of only 5x the handle rating. This very low magnetic trip threshold can be said to provide parallel arc protection, but US breakers usually have far more incident energy during a fault involving impedance.


No problem Meadow, I accept critics, they are always welcome. 

Generaly for homes, we use breakers type C ( 5-10 or 7 to 10 In)
The Tables are good for only electrical wiring, Please, note that the Tables concerns only the electrical wiring, and at the line 5 "short circuit" in a direct and quickly contact. (Phase-Neutral) = thousands of Amperes. You have problems with your breakers on direct short-circuits (here we say "a bolted short-circuits" ? 

I have simplified for the better understanding. But, yes we can consider that "slow short-circuits" can occurs, and it's possible to create an other line for that. ( I have it, if you want) 



meadow said:


> Further, some AFCIs lack RCD; so any fault like a phase to PE fault entirely relies on arc logic. Arc logic alone is questionable.


The word 'arc' make confusion, arcs are the result of disorders but they do not give the origin. IMO perhaps it sould be better to name the origine of faults, and not to mix all the things with "arcs"...:whistling2:



meadow said:


> Personally, Europe has already developed a system to detect parallel and series arc faults that is very cheap, will rarely fail, and reliable. All that is missing is the ability to detect glowing connections imo.
> 
> What do you think?


I'm agree 100% !!!

Best regards

FICC-


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

Sorry Meadow, my bad english !

"Have you problems with your breakers on direct short-circuits (here we say "a bolted short-circuits" please ?" 

Thank you and sorry again.

FICC-


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> Well i can understand it from a _marketing_ objective Meadow, after all i am an _evil_ contractor
> 
> But i have a hard time with the _engineering_ logic, especially from a broader international view....:001_huh:
> 
> ~CS~



Hello Chicken steve, a link below (in french) you look at "Courbe de déclenchement" > Google tranlate  It's very simple :thumbsup:


http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disjoncteur

Best regards

FICC-


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

French ICC said:


> No problem Meadow, I accept critics, they are always welcome.


 Thank you, perhaps I have misunderstood  






> Generaly for homes, we use breakers type C ( 5-10 or 7 to 10 In)
> The Tables are good for only electrical wiring, Please, note that the Tables concerns only the electrical wiring, and at the line 5 "short circuit" in a direct and quickly contact. (Phase-Neutral) = thousands of Amperes. You have problems with your breakers on direct short-circuits (here we say "a bolted short-circuits" ?


 There is no type B used in France? My understanding is the UK uses type B for sockets, and type C for lights/transformers and type D for motors? 

Our breakers do fine on direct short circuits, but some have very high magnetic trip and will take a while if the fault is not a direct short circuit. A parallel arc fault (phase to neutral) has impedance, and this will take much longer on higher magnetic trips.

This explains the phenomenon:


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

From this thread:

http://www.electriciantalk.com/f2/afcis-not-needed-parellel-arc-faults-83753/


A breaker with a low magnetic trip takes care of a parallel phase to neutral arc fault, or a short circuit with impedance. The incident energy is reduced. 






> I have simplified for the better understanding. But, yes we can consider that "slow short-circuits" can occurs, and it's possible to create an other line for that. ( I have it, if you want)


 I would add a line "slow short circuits", a good idea IMO. Slow short circuits are what where used to get AFCIs into the code. Low magnetic trip would have done the same, but arc logic was took over.

A low magnetic trip drastically reduces the incident energy at a fault, especially if arcing. 




> The word 'arc' make confusion, arcs are the result of disorders but they do not give the origin. IMO perhaps it sould be better to name the origine of faults, and not to mix all the things with "arcs"...:whistling2:


 Perhaps, you are correct. It may not be a god idea for me to be mixing arcs with incident energy. We still in fact have no proof parallel arcs are responsible for electrical fires. 






> I'm agree 100% !!!
> 
> Best regards
> 
> FICC-


 Thank you again!


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

French ICC said:


> Sorry Meadow, my bad english !
> 
> "Have you problems with your breakers on direct short-circuits (here we say "a bolted short-circuits" please ?"
> 
> ...



Our breakers do fine on direct short circuits*, but some, ESPECIALLY older residential breakers have a very high magnetic trip:

http://apps.geindustrial.com/publibrary/checkout/GES-9884?TNR=Time%20Current%20Curves|GES-9884|generic

Some old breakers go up to as much as 35x, and some from the 1970s and earlier in time, had no magnetic trip.

Compare this with European magnetic trips:

http://www.neweysonline.co.uk/MCBs/Static.raction




> All 3 MCB types use a magnetic fault protection, which trips the MCB within one tenth of a second when the overload reaches a set level.
> 
> 
> Type B trips between 3 and 5 time full load current;
> ...


 (Also attached see picture)

........................................................................

* Two old breaker brands that have a very high failure rate are FPE and Zinsco Sylvania. These breakers have not been made for the past 40 years. 

FPE:

https://www.google.com/search?q=fpe...fp-panels-today-please-assit-41870%2F;800;600

https://www.google.com/search?q=fpe...a=X&ei=5SZgVcmTBYH8oASdxYGIAw&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg#


Zinsco Sylvania:


https://www.google.com/search?q=fpe...IAw&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg#tbm=isch&q=zinsco+breaker



...............................................................................

B, C, D, trip curves


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

French ICC said:


> Hello Chicken steve, a link below (in french) you look at "Courbe de déclenchement" > Google tranlate  It's very simple :thumbsup:
> 
> 
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disjoncteur
> ...


Yes i understand the function FrenchOne.

Correct me if i am wrong, but Dr Joe Engel forwarded an ROP to the NEC to have afci address gfci function @30ma _(referred to here as GFCI *B *, or GFPE 'ground fault protection of equipment' ) _

This was rejected. 

He understood _(and better than i do)_ that the afci's only _REAL_ function was gfci *B* protection , much as your RCD. 

CMP-2 apparently did not accept UL standards of testing the afci as being the same ....?

Ergo, from an _'engineering perspective'_ , the afci addresses nothing but the consumers wallet via _'arc fairy tales'_ 

I find this rather distressing , especially in that i personally know a number of EE's that can parse out technical jargon_ (from whatever source)_ to very fine and accurate degree...

It all simply proves to me the CMP either can not, or will not do the same

~CS~


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

The way I see the reasoning behind it: AFCI only came about because arc fault protection could be achieved via GFP, GFP could be accomplished via GFCI. That would mean simply moving GFCIs to the branch circuit origin; eliminating the position of a potential marketing product. Because AFCI is somehow different than GFCI it can be granted its own independent price point. 

With Code now requiring GFCI everywhere in addition to AFCI, both can be sold as separate devices, thus twice the profit; or a "dual function" device giving the same double profit all because GFP went from 50 or 30ma to 5ma. It does not cost $30 extra to take the same circuit board, leave a resistor out and drop the GFP threshold. 

However, with the presence of electronics posing a potential failure point, we now have another "problem" needing a "solution". "Self testing" is that answer, which when implemented (mandated) further boosts that 2x profit to 3x or more.

Where as the IEC has taken Self test, GFCI, AFCI and produced a single $30 device, where its use is maximized across several circuits.

......................................................................................................................


Here are two scenarios:

UK consumer unit 

2 $30 30ma RCDs= $60 for whole home AFCI, GFCI, no need to self test (electronics free) breaker.

*$60 total* 

In the US, under the 2014 NEC:

20 circuits x $37 AFCI= $740

9 GFCIs with "self test" (feeding through for cost) x25= 225 

*$965* for a typical situation. 

See the price difference simple marketing tricks get you?


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Methinks i found the chief source of delusion.....

May 2105 NFPA journal



> We know, based on work conducted by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission *and others*


 <<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>



> I didn’t expect to encounter electrical outlets that were turning on and off by themselves. I called a licensed electrician, who discovered a *serious arcing condition *in a branch circuit that was on the verge of starting a fire. We also learned that, just a few weeks before our arrival, neighbors had lost their home to a fire that was *caused by an electrical arc fault.*


 <<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>



> Opponents of the requirement continue to lobby for its removal at the state and local levels, claiming that AFCIs unnecessarily increase the cost of new homes beyond the means of prospective buyers. *They also claim that new electrical systems are not prone to arc-faults*.


 <<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>




> What they fail to acknowledge is that new electrical systems soon become aging electrical systems, which could result in* fires caused by arc fault*


~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

meadow said:


> See the price difference simple marketing tricks get you?



What i see area number of UL testing _wrongs _trying to make a marketing _right_ Meadow


The CMP-2 rejected the majority of 210.12 ROP's via UL substaintiation(s)

UL apparently continues to change it's testing parameters* , so the CMP-2 can continue to reject ROP's , thus manufacturers can continue to re-invent the afci wheel




_*-none of which appears to be intricate public knowledge....?_

~CS~


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

meadow said:


> [/font][/color]
> 
> Same quality? To us breakers? US breakers are worse IMO, they have electronics that can fail, where as these RCDs are only a coil and a solenoid? No electronics to fail?
> 
> ...


Thank you!!!! 

The us should implement this design. Have 30ma sub main RCD and ditch all other AFCI/GFCI requirements imo. [/color]
[/quote]

_Same quality? To us breakers?_

Sorry for my english ... No Meadow. I wanted to say about the same quality between french differential switches (20 to 80, no very important difference ) 

_TN-C system can not be used with RCD. RCD must be used after TN-C become TN-S._ 

I'm agree...

_You do not use RCBO? Only RCD and then MCB?_

We use differential devices anywere...but a differentiel device alone....:whistling2: So we use :

Differential device with switches = RCD.
Differential device with breaker = RCBO_, _as we can protect several breakers with a differential switche, we use rarely RCBO(for homes)

*These devices are perfectly reliable. ZERO X tripping, I say well ZERO.
*
Sorry for not me be better expressed 

Best regards,
FICC-


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

meadow said:


> The way I see the reasoning behind it: AFCI only came about because arc fault protection could be achieved via GFP, GFP could be accomplished via GFCI. That would mean simply moving GFCIs to the branch circuit origin; eliminating the position of a potential marketing product. Because AFCI is somehow different than GFCI it can be granted its own independent price point.
> 
> With Code now requiring GFCI everywhere in addition to AFCI, both can be sold as separate devices, thus twice the profit; or a "dual function" device giving the same double profit all because GFP went from 50 or 30ma to 5ma. It does not cost $30 extra to take the same circuit board, leave a resistor out and drop the GFP threshold.
> 
> ...



And everybody can produces RDC, RCDO, GFCIs, etc.. because patents are in the public domain, there is competition and the prices are low.

With french eyes, how to say... Perhaps you are near of the truth...


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

*MTW Question*



meadow said:


> Thank you, perhaps I have misunderstood
> 
> There is no type B used in France? My understanding is the UK uses type B for sockets, and type C for lights/transformers and type D for motors?


Hello Meadow. 

For homes, we use type C 



meadow said:


> _Our breakers do fine on direct short circuits, but some have very high magnetic trip and will take a while if the fault is not a direct short circuit. A parallel arc fault (phase to neutral) has impedance, and this will take much longer on higher magnetic trips.
> 
> This explains the phenomenon:
> _
> ...


I agree...



meadow said:


> _Perhaps, you are correct. It may not be a god idea for me to be mixing arcs with incident energy. We still in fact have no proof parallel arcs are responsible for electrical fires.
> _


*I think that the best way to understand is to not speak arcs, but faults / related with the protections* (it's more simple here, I understand that it can shock the US mind, because is more difficult to see )

For example :

*The most dangerous :*

-Hot spot in connection = Glowing connection
-Arcs or serie arcs in a connection...
-Overcurrent...
-Short circuit = Only direct contact Phase to neutral 
-Slow short-circuit = Only Phase to Neutral
-Insulation fault phase to EGC or to ground = AT FIRST, it's the job of the differential device will trip before breaker, if the insulation fault is between Phase and EGC)

*The less dangerous:*

-Insulation fault Neutral to EGC 
-Arcs into the same wire (not in a connection) (rare) 

If you limit the area at the electrical installation, you can have as areas :

-Panel
-wiring
-J-Box
-Terminal (outlets, lights)
-Appliances (only extensions cordes), because others appliance can have protections (fuses or other) 

*In this way, it's very easy to understand quickly* *that Breakers and Differential devices makes* (virtually?) *all the work...*:whistling2: Please, tell me if I made errors !

I think in addition it's very difficult, and perhaps impossible to understand with an other way... 

Please consider that I have no merit, it is very easy to see that here with the shemas of our installations, I'll be well gene to understand if I do not know these shemas! :no:



meadow said:


> Thank you again!


Thank you to you ! 

If this can help.

Best regards,

FICC-


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> Yes i understand the function FrenchOne.
> 
> Correct me if i am wrong, but Dr Joe Engel forwarded an ROP to the NEC to have afci address gfci function @30ma _(referred to here as GFCI *B *, or GFPE 'ground fault protection of equipment' ) _
> 
> ...


Hello Chicken Steve 

The "courbe of declenchement" concerns breakers. 



chicken steve said:


> CMP-2 apparently did not accept UL standards of testing the afci as being the same ....?
> 
> Ergo, from an _'engineering perspective'_ , the afci addresses nothing but the consumers wallet via _'arc fairy tales'_


In my mind, Dr Joe Engel wanted that the 30 mAmp differential function remains in the AFCI. Because he say that glowing connections are an important risk of fire. And because he said too that the serial arc detection do not work ! 



chicken steve said:


> I find this rather distressing , especially in that i personally know a number of EE's that can parse out technical jargon_ (from whatever source)_ to very fine and accurate degree...
> 
> It all simply proves to me the CMP either can not, or will not do the same
> 
> ~CS~


The ways of the Lord are impenetrables, but IMO, I think that there is still a differential function in the AFCI... Not at 30 mA but just in the top... 50 maybe?

Nobody has tested ? 

Thank you very much.
Best regards,
FICC-


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

French ICC said:


> _Same quality? To us breakers?
> 
> Sorry for my english ... No Meadow. I wanted to say about the same quality between french differential switches (20 to 80, no very important difference )
> _




Ok, thank you! Quality is same! I understand now 




_



TN-C system can not be used with RCD. RCD must be used after TN-C become TN-S.

Click to expand...

_ 
Makes perfect sense now  




> I'm agree...
> 
> _You do not use RCBO? Only RCD and then MCB?_
> 
> ...


 

This is where I see a major down fall of the US AFCI/GFCI design in terms of capitol cost. This concept has never been made public knowledge with few electricians knowing its even possible. 

Here in the US we only have RCBO (AFCI/GFCI + breaker combo), we do not have RCD then MCB. If this topology was implemented with AFCI and GFCI we would spend 1/12 the cost on AFCI/GFCI per home. 

Electricians may argue "but if I had a sub main AFCI, I would loose half the circuits in a home during a fault". And while that may be true, the NEC is not a design manual. It would be an inconvenience yes, but the mission statement the NEC adheres to (practical safeguards) would be fulfilled. Same way the NEC does not require selective coordination of none emergency power systems or 3 way switches in a home. A nuisance yes, but a lack of 3 ways switches will not burn down a home. 




*



These devices are perfectly reliable. ZERO X tripping, I say well ZERO.


Click to expand...

* 
*BIN*GO! RCDs are fully matured technology. They will not trip unless they have a reason to. AFCIs trip for many reasons not associated with arcing. Big difference. 







> Sorry for not me be better expressed
> 
> Best regards,
> FICC-


 You are fine. I can understand


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

French ICC said:


> And everybody can produces RDC, RCDO, GFCIs, etc.. because patents are in the public domain, there is competition and the prices are low.
> 
> With french eyes, how to say... Perhaps you are near of the truth...



Good to know I am getting closer, Im trying 

In the US the sub main concept is unheard of, nor every been attempted. Perhaps it is not a profitable model for manufactures?


Mr. French ICC, here is our typical AFCI RCBO:

http://www.homedepot.com/p/Eaton-15...ype-Breaker-BR115CAFCS/202276733?N=5yc1vZbm16

http://www.amazon.com/Siemens-Q115A...nterrupter/dp/B0013TOF6W/ref=pd_bxgy_60_img_y

http://www.homedepot.com/p/Square-D...it-Breaker-HOM115CAFIC/202353305?N=5yc1vZbm16




Typical GFCI RCBO:

http://www.homedepot.com/p/Square-D...ker-QO120GFICP/100013610?N=5yc1vZbm16Z1z0rsui

http://www.homedepot.com/p/Square-D...er-HOM120GFICP/100002959?N=5yc1vZbm16Z1z0rsui

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...d_t=101&pf_rd_p=2071309062&pf_rd_i=6355924011


GFCI socket:

http://www.amazon.com/Leviton-7899-...?s=lamps-light&ie=UTF8&qid=1432456983&sr=1-27

http://www.homedepot.com/p/Leviton-...ns-White-R72-07599-0RW/202026815?N=5yc1vZc33a


Dual function breaker (GFCI+AFCI+breaker) {Notice higher price for only 25ma reduction in differential}

http://www.amazon.com/Siemens-Q115DFH-Function-Circuit-Breaker/dp/B00LN74SOI

http://www.amazon.com/Square-Schneider-Electric-Single-Pole-Function/dp/B00KHVLZRO

http://www.homedepot.com/p/Square-D...I-and-GFCI-Circuit-Breaker-QO115DFC/204844646

http://www.homedepot.com/p/Square-D...-and-GFCI-Circuit-Breaker-QO115PDFC/204844648


As you can see, each circuit alone requires at least a $50, and often more since we can no longer share neutrals with these devices.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> What i see area number of UL testing _wrongs _trying to make a marketing _right_ Meadow
> 
> 
> The CMP-2 rejected the majority of 210.12 ROP's via UL substaintiation(s)
> ...



I could be wrong, but I think UL and other NRTLs are spinning their wheels trying to develop AFCI tests reflecting the real world. Perhaps some might already be aware arcs are not well quantified in the real world, let alone in lab testing.

When it comes to everything surrounding AFCIs be it CMP, manufacturers, NRTLs ect very little if anything is public knowledge I regret to say.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

French ICC said:


> > For example :
> >
> > *The most dangerous :*
> >
> ...


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

meadow said:


> I could be wrong, but I think UL and other NRTLs are spinning their wheels trying to develop AFCI tests reflecting the real world. Perhaps some might already be aware arcs are not well quantified in the real world, let alone in lab testing.
> 
> When it comes to everything surrounding AFCIs be it CMP, manufacturers, NRTLs ect very little if anything is public knowledge I regret to say.



Well, maybe they could hire a _real _electrician Meadow....

These NRTL's are allegedly where the _manufacturing rubber meets the marketing road_, not so much the CMP's.

We can find their standards..... 

UL search

Yet finding the _exact_ test procedure is often more a chore. Most of the studies and/or dissertation i've read all allude to a* path*. 

The semantics of carbonized/non carbonized being literary genius when objectively viewed.

But most electricians know '_series_' means *no path*

~CS~


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> Well, maybe they could hire a _real _electrician Meadow....
> 
> These NRTL's are allegedly where the _manufacturing rubber meets the marketing road_, not so much the CMP's.
> 
> ...


 
I think your observations are good ones. 

In truth a carbonized arc path can sustain an arc at a much lower voltage, however according to UL tests (breakdown of NM) voltage spikes in the kv range were needed to carbonize an arc path. However, in reality those same spikes would damage an AFCI rendering it inoperable. 


Perhaps some other force might be at play?


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

meadow said:


> Perhaps some other force might be at play?


like that which a bizillion dollar industry can buy......:whistling2:~CS~:no:


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> like that which a bizillion dollar industry can buy......:whistling2:~CS~:no:


Or cover up :laughing::no:


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

meadow said:


> French ICC said:
> 
> 
> > I agree, but if I may, and I may be wrong, going by my theory alone here are the biggest dangers in terms of commonality/risk:
> ...


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

Where is the evidence that a self sustaining arcs, either parallel or series, can even exist at dwelling unit voltages?
If that is possible why does 230.95 only apply to 480Y/277 volt systems and not to 208Y/120 volt systems? 

It does not apply to 208Y/120 because self sustaining arcing faults are not an issue at that voltage.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

A_ fair Q_ Don

For the FrenchOne's benifit>



> *230.95 Ground-Fault Protection of Equipment.*
> Ground-
> fault protection of equipment shall be provided for solidly
> grounded wye electric services of more than 150 volts to
> ...


~CS~


----------



## mapmd (Oct 26, 2014)

meadow said:


> I would say all of the above creating a powerful web of illusions, aka matrix. In short brainwashing, lots and lots of brainwashing. If people understood electrical theory well enough it would begin to make sense, unfortunately our education system fails us royally. A dumbed down public is easy to fool: A lack of understanding coupled with benevolent assumptions leads to accepting information without questioning it.
> 
> If electricians only knew how the rest of the world did it, they would be rioting.
> 
> And yes, AFCIs are about as useful as gum wrapper. Arc logic is the industry equivalent to a witch hunt.


First: *Americans don't get out enough to learn from other countries*, neither from beneficial attributes nor negative attributes to be avoided. If we did we'd model our work schedules based on the French system, our schools off the German system, and our healthcare like that of Norway or Sweden.

Second: Codes are put in place by a corrupt government bureaucracy. Understanding of theory? No, they understand money! Why do you think any industry has lobbyists at every level of government whispering in the ears of every single politician? Because of $$$ duh! The companies which make or sell any particular device stand to profit from the products being bought. 

Now if only there was a way to mandate that those products are bought, and have someone (perhaps some bureaucracy somewhere?) force private individuals & companies to purchase a particular product from another private corporation (kinda reminds you of the ACA huh?) then those manufacturers stand to make out like bandits.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> Where is the evidence that a self sustaining arcs, either parallel or series, can even exist at dwelling unit voltages?
> If that is possible why does 230.95 only apply to 480Y/277 volt systems and not to 208Y/120 volt systems?
> 
> It does not apply to 208Y/120 because self sustaining arcing faults are not an issue at that voltage.


I think this is perhaps the most common sense post in regard to arc faults.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

> Hello Meadow
> 
> *-1. High resistance connection (Glowing connection) *
> OK


 Agree

_*



-2. Short circuit
Only Phase-Neutral OK ( or parallele arc phase to neutral)

Click to expand...

*_That works to. 

*



-3. Short circuit with some degree of impedance (phase to EGC arc fault)

If I can afford, not ! It is where are all its confusions...:thumbsup: It's a very important point !
Is it you please consider that a leak of a phase ( or a neutral) to a mass, a land or a EGC wire is an insulation fault. You'll understand in next...

Click to expand...

*You may to clarify. Not all short circuits are a straight good metal to metal contact. In theory an arc fault has a higher peak current than RMS current, which is why magnetic trip works so well vs relying on thermal trip. Thermal trip is a function of RMS where magnetic trip is more a function of peak current.

However, this assume to RCD, with RCD everything becomes irrelevant because any leakage to ground will trip. 







> I propose, if you want :
> *- Insulation** fault with some degree of impedance **(phase to mass, ground, or EGC)*


Sounds good :thumbsup:




_*



-4. Pyrophoric carbonization of wood via energized staple or nail
OK but I think that perhaps it's less important for the demonstation...It's not finaly an insulation fault ? (Perhaps it's better to develop it after..?)

Click to expand...

*_*Not an insulation fault involving EGC or neutral, but imo this condition is responsible for many fires in wood framed construction. I have reason to believe this condition is being mislabeled as an arc fault to drive AFCIs. There is next to no literature on this subject, but I would not be to surprised as to why that is :whistling2:*

*This is the closest I could find: *

http://www.fireengineering.com/arti...al-hazards-warrant-firefighter-vigilance.html

http://www.worldcat.org/title/open-...horic-carbonization-phenomenon/oclc/610154980

http://www.mikeholt.com/newsletters.php?action=display&letterID=1513


*If a simple open neutral can cause this, imagine what a sustained 120 volt potential will do. *










*



-6. Over load*
If I can afford, I agree with you (*) but people thinks that is an important risk..And for the demonstation and the global understanding prehaps this 
risk shoud be placed here,... 


Click to expand...

If you want. But am I correct to assume the only real risk from an overload is the connections being stressed more increasing the probability of an glowing connection? *




_



Much less likely but equal dangerous

*-5. parallel arc phase to neutral ?*
It's a short-circuit, like 2 ... What did you think ?

Click to expand...

__It is a short circuit with impedance, yes, but this concept is being used to drive AFCIs. The theory is that an over driven staple will produce a parallel arc fault and ignite wooden framing members, however, nearly all laboratory tests of over driven staples have caused current to leak to ground, not phase to neutral. RCD will catch this failure then. I believe a phase to neutral arc fault in building wiring is an *extremely* rare occurrence. In any case testing has shown where a parallel arc fault does occur the peak current is very high, enough that low magnetic trip will catch. _


_There is the argument that appliance cords can parallel arc and they can given the right conditions, however a simple fuse in plug will stop this, again the theory being a parallel arc will produce great current. _




_*



7. Series arc fault
Ok or arc fault BUT NOT INTO A CONNECTION

Common occurrence but not likely to be as dangerous 


Click to expand...

*_*My belief outside of a damaged cord being stepped on repeatedly this is a none issue in building wiring. Building wiring connections fail as glowing connections, not arc faults.*

*Even if, for the sake of the argument, arcing connections in building wiring are happening a device designed to detect glowing connection will catch it once it causes heating.*

*Thus, I believe that series arcs are rare in building wiring, and a poor endeavor to spend money on. *




_*



1. Neutral to EGC short
Ok, if I can, insulation fault Neutral to mass, ground or EGC

Click to expand...

*_*Yes, and because US wiring lacks RCD this is a problem in nearly every building, although other than the magnetic fields it creates it generally is minimal risk except where conduit is used as inductive heating goes up, but again the risk is nowhere near as great as say a glowing connection. *





_*



2. Break in connection (no continuity) 
OK, if I can it's arc fault into a connection I would like ( if you want) to place this risk in N°2 because it's OFTEN the logical conséquence of the risk 1


Click to expand...

*_*I would just assume the connection opened without a prolonged arc or glowing point. *





> So, if I can just for the understanding :
> 
> -1. High resistance connection (Glowing connection)
> -2. Break in connection (no continuity) -arcs, sérial arcs into connection
> ...


 I would revise it like this, but its entirely my opinion which isn't always correct:

1. glowing connection
2. Phase to earth fault
3. short circuit (phase neutral)
4. Over load
5. break in load (this of course assumes no series arc, but again I believe series arcs in building wiring are rare. 






> This done, if you want, we can look on the side of the protections...As you know,
> 
> A breaker detects short circuits and overcurrent.
> A differential device detects insulation faults


 That's correct. 






> A GFCI has 2 functions:
> A differential function
> A Breaker function


 Yes, a GFCI breaker does this, but not a GFCI socket. GFCI socket only differential. 






> An AFCI has in theory 4 functions
> Surge protector (for ptoteger it electronic components)


 I disagree, an AFCI offers no surge protection to my knowledge. But you may know something about this. 



> A differential function 50 ma?


 Yes, 50ma in most cases. I have heard of 30ma as well, but its what I have heard. 





> A Breaker function
> A function of detection of abnormal series arches (which does not work according to Dr. ENGEL and others)


Correct, as well as parallel arcs.

So 80% of combination AFCIs have:

Breaker (thermal plus magnetic trip_

50 or 30ma differential

Parallel arc fault 

Series arc fault

About 10 to 20% of combination AFCIs do not have differential  This is so shared neutral circuits can be used an nuisance tripping will not occur when electricians cross circuits or have a neutral to ground fault.

Here is one example:

http://apps.geindustrial.com/publib...TNR=Application and Technical|DET-719|generic






> If you build the tables with these bases (which are strictly accurate) you will notice that everything done between the breaker function and the differential function !
> 
> Here is the truth IMO
> 
> ...


 Series arcs are rare, and parallel arcs not likely, and nearly all fault involve ground which differential can pick up 100% of the time. In fact arc logic will not catch sloppy wiring or insulation damage the way differential can.


Thus nearly all safety an AFCI provides comes from RCD, something that does not nuisance trip. 


My apologies if the wording is not clear  Please forgive.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

mapmd said:


> First: *Americans don't get out enough to learn from other countries*, neither from beneficial attributes nor negative attributes to be avoided. If we did we'd model our work schedules based on the French system, our schools off the German system, and our healthcare like that of Norway or Sweden.
> 
> Second: Codes are put in place by a corrupt government bureaucracy. Understanding of theory? No, they understand money! Why do you think any industry has lobbyists at every level of government whispering in the ears of every single politician? Because of $$$ duh! The companies which make or sell any particular device stand to profit from the products being bought.
> 
> Now if only there was a way to mandate that those products are bought, and have someone (perhaps some bureaucracy somewhere?) force private individuals & companies to purchase a particular product from another private corporation (kinda reminds you of the ACA huh?) then those manufacturers stand to make out like bandits.



If Americans learned and took what worked from other countries we would not only have the greatest most powerful nation on earth all over again and then some but those making billions will be making millions. Other countries are people friendly, not capitalist friendly, at least in terms of our NEC.

If the USA wanted real electrical safety at an unbeatable price the UK is the place to look. Its safe to say the UK is decades ahead from US and even most of the world.


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

Hello Meadow. 

Sorry for some small inaccuracies. I have well translate now. 
Thank you very much for all.
Best Regards
FICC-


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

meadow said:


> Agree
> 
> 
> _You may to clarify. Not all short circuits are a straight good metal to metal contact. In theory an arc fault has a higher peak current than RMS current, which is why magnetic trip works so well vs relying on thermal trip. Thermal trip is a function of RMS where magnetic trip is more a function of peak current.
> ...


*Thank you for your reply.

**I do not offense anyone, i**n reply to MTW, I think that it is easier to see things differently...*  

*Please consider a circuit starting Phase Terminal (wire, outlet or light for example, neutral wire) and ending to the neutral bus.
Now, consider that (in this circuit) an abnormal direct, or slow contact between the phase and the neutral = a short circuit. 
Then, please, consider that an abnormal contact of this circuit with something else, and that produces a leakage current from Phase or neutral, to ground, mass, or the EGC wire = an insulation fault. *

*Some may say: a short circuit is also an insulation fault between phase and neutral. Yes, but in this case, the current remains in the circuit.* *Let's say insulation fault when the current (or a part of current) out of the circuit. **It's technicaly right, and if you reason from there, you have the key...
*





meadow said:


> *Not an insulation fault involving EGC or neutral, but imo this condition is responsible for many fires in wood framed construction. I have reason to believe this condition is being mislabeled as an arc fault to drive AFCIs. There is next to no literature on this subject, but I would not be to surprised as to why that is ...*
> 
> *This is the closest I could find: *
> 
> ...


I can not open the documents except the video.
I saw the video, thanks for the link !
Yes, an imperfect neutral is very dangerous. I stayed on single-phase circuits to simplify the tables but you are right.

*I suggest a line for this phenomenon!*



meadow said:


> *If you want. But am I correct to assume the only real risk from an overload is the connections being stressed more increasing the probability of an glowing connection? *


You are right !!!

I think, with all the respect that I owe you, for the moment remain to the essential, and once the tables are clear, it will enter the details... What did you think?



meadow said:


> _It is a short circuit with impedance, yes, but this concept is being used to drive AFCIs. The theory is that an over driven staple will produce a parallel arc fault and ignite wooden framing members, however, nearly all laboratory tests of over driven staples have caused current to leak to ground, not phase to neutral. RCD will catch this failure then. I believe a phase to neutral arc fault in building wiring is an *extremely* rare occurrence. In any case testing has shown where a parallel arc fault does occur the peak current is very high, enough that low magnetic trip will catch. _
> 
> 
> _There is the argument that appliance cords can parallel arc and they can given the right conditions, however a simple fuse in plug will stop this, again the theory being a parallel arc will produce great current. _



You are right = Short-circuit, OK



meadow said:


> *My belief outside of a damaged cord being stepped on repeatedly this is a none issue in building wiring. Building wiring connections fail as glowing connections, not arc faults.*
> 
> *Even if, for the sake of the argument, arcing connections in building wiring are happening a device designed to detect glowing connection will catch it once it causes heating.*
> 
> *Thus, I believe that series arcs are rare in building wiring, and a poor endeavor to spend money on. *


Yes, you are right !

But as the community think that is an important point, I thInk that is interresting to have a line for this, and see if this phenomenom is detected or not. If this line is not present, some can says why there is no line for arcs, etc... It's for that that I had put this line. 
If the line is present, no problem! 
What do you think about? 



meadow said:


> *Yes, and because US wiring lacks RCD this is a problem in nearly every building, although other than the magnetic fields it creates it generally is minimal risk except where conduit is used as inductive heating goes up, but again the risk is nowhere near as great as say a glowing connection. *


OK !



meadow said:


> *I would just assume the connection opened without a prolonged arc or glowing point. *


Yes, you are right !

As previously, as the community think that is an important point, I think that is interresting to have a line for this...



meadow said:


> _A breaker detects short circuits and overcurrent.
> A differential device detects insulation faults
> _
> That's correct.
> ...


OK...GFCI socket only differential with switch. 




meadow said:


> _An AFCI has in theory 4 functions
> _
> _Surge protector (for to protect it electronic components) _
> 
> I disagree, an AFCI offers no surge protection to my knowledge. But you may know something about this.


It seems to me that I saw that there was one, but perhaps it is not very important for here.



meadow said:


> _So 80% of combination AFCIs have:
> 
> Breaker (thermal plus magnetic trip__


_OK -_



meadow said:


> _50 or 30ma differential_


_OK -_



meadow said:


> _Parallel arc fault
> Series arc fault_


*And here come the problem ? *

*I do not say that there is not an electronic device which can detect parallel arc, but if we refer at all what we are saying since the beginning
*
*-Parallele arc faut between phase and neutral = short circuit (direct or low ) 
**-Parallele arc faut between phase to mass, ground or EGC **(direct or low )** =Insulation fault *

So, the differential function and the breaker function (if the trip is low) do already the job... So, what's new ? 

Don't take it not bad, it's just a question  ...




meadow said:


> _
> Series arc fault_


*And here come the problem part II ... ?*

*This function, ( for very rare cases, as you have said), was the only really difference for safety (IMO, it's possible that I'm wrong) between a device which have a Differential function+Breaker function (with low trip). *

*But Dr J. Engel has made a publication which explain that this phenomenon can not be present in US homes electrical installation...*



meadow said:


> I would revise it like this, but its entirely my opinion which isn't always correct:


If I can afford to stay in this "different" approach, taking into account what was said, etc... I propose this:

1 - Glowing connection :
1.1 Without arc by Joule effect
1.2 With arcs or serie arcs or Breaking load*

2 - Insulation fault from Phase to EGC :
2.1 Direct contact
2.2 Slow contact

3- Insulation fault from Phase to Ground or mass :
3.1 Direct contact
3.2 Slow contact

4 - Short Circuit (Phase -Neutral):
4.1 Direct contact
4.2 Slow contact

5 - Overcurrent

6- Weak neutral (For 2 phases+N circuits) 

7- Insulation leak from Neutral to Ground or mass or EGC
8- Arcs or serie arcs (Breaking load*) not into connections (wires) 

Like this :



Making a worksheet for each protection and making comparisons, must arrive at a good summary, to give a response to MTW, IMO.

I hope to have offended anyone, it's just a point of view.



meadow said:


> My apologies if the wording is not clear  Please forgive.


*The same for me Meadow, thank you for all.
*
Best regards,
FICC-


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

In addition, sorry, I'have forget, it's necessary to adds a


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

In addition , I forgot , perhaps it is necessary to add a line for 
short-circuit between 2 phases.

And sorry for the previous post , it is left alone ...

FICC-


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

*



Thank you for your reply.

I do not offense anyone, in reply to MTW, I think that it is easier to see things differently... 

Please consider a circuit starting Phase Terminal (wire, outlet or light for example, neutral wire) and ending to the neutral bus.
Now, consider that (in this circuit) an abnormal direct, or slow contact between the phase and the neutral = a short circuit. 
Then, please, consider that an abnormal contact of this circuit with something else, and that produces a leakage current from Phase or neutral, to ground, mass, or the EGC wire = an insulation fault. 

Some may say: a short circuit is also an insulation fault between phase and neutral. Yes, but in this case, the current remains in the circuit. Let's say insulation fault when the current (or a part of current) out of the circuit. It's technicaly right, and if you reason from there, you have the key...




Click to expand...

*
*Thank you for clarifying this, I was a bit confused by what insulation fault meant, but it is now clear *












> I can not open the documents except the video.
> I saw the video, thanks for the link !
> Yes, an imperfect neutral is very dangerous. I stayed on single-phase circuits to simplify the tables but you are right.
> 
> *I suggest a line for this phenomenon!*


My apologies for not working  Sorry. 


This issue with this is not so much the voltage imbalance, but the energized grounding (earthing) system as is normal for TN_C_S supply where PEN has broken. The current will trickle into the wood as show:

http://www.mikeholt.com/htmlnews/grounding/un250-66.jpg

While this can be the byproduct of an open neutral with TN-C-S installation, it can happen other ways. IMO if a nail or staple became energized by a phase, the current will trickle into the wood and start a fire years down the road.

My belief is that this phenomenon has been occurring with many over driven staples and the resulting pyrophoric carbonization was falsely blamed on arcing, not chronic current leakage. If that is true, than the entire nail/staple arcing theory is completely false. This is profound, because arcing staples were one of the biggest reasons to get AFCIs into the code, however current leaking into wood produces no arcing signature, so in theory arc logic is the wrong approach altogether; translating to: AFCIs were mandated under false pretense. 






> You are right !!!
> 
> I think, with all the respect that I owe you, for the moment remain to the essential, and once the tables are clear, it will enter the details... What did you think?


Up to you, I think its a good idea. :thumbsup:







> You are right = Short-circuit, OK
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The line is ok then. 





















OK !








> Yes, you are right !
> 
> As previously, as the community think that is an important point, I think that is interresting to have a line for this...
> 
> ...



You are correct, GFCI socket only differential switch. 




_



OK -



OK -



*And here come the problem ? *

*I do not say that there is not an electronic device which can detect parallel arc, but if we refer at all what we are saying since the beginning
*
*-Parallele arc faut between phase and neutral = short circuit (direct or low ) 
**-Parallele arc faut between phase to mass, ground or EGC **(direct or low )** =Insulation fault *

Click to expand...

__Ok, sounds reasonable. _

_Perhaps the language difference might be at fault, but so far you are correct. I was wrong. _







> So, the differential function and the breaker function (if the trip is low) do already the job... So, what's new ?
> 
> Don't take it not bad, it's just a question ...


Nothing, the 30ma GFP is what does all the work in AFCIs that have it. 



*



And here come the problem part II ... ?

This function, ( for very rare cases, as you have said), was the only really difference for safety (IMO, it's possible that I'm wrong) between a device which have a Differential function+Breaker function (with low trip). 

Click to expand...

**Im not sure I understand *

Personally, RCD plus low magnetic trip does everything a combination AFCI does minus series arc protection.








*



But Dr J. Engel has made a publication which explain that this phenomenon can not be present in US homes electrical installation...

Click to expand...

Do you have the link by chance? You can PM me. 

I would say he is correct, at 120 volts, can you ever sustain a dangerous arc long enough? 

*





> If I can afford to stay in this "different" approach, taking into account what was said, etc... I propose this:
> 
> 1 - Glowing connection :
> 1.1 Without arc by Joule effect
> ...



No one is offended  If anything I am still learning, this is a very good topic and very complex but I am slowly beginning to understand how it all works. I highly value you knowledge! 



*



The same for me Meadow, thank you for all.

Best regards,
FICC-

Click to expand...

*[/quote]

*Thank you! Sorry for my poor interpretation.  Its me more than anything else. *


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

*link....*



> But Dr J. Engel has made a publication which explain that this phenomenon can not be present in US homes electrical installation...


I believe the French One is referring to this Meadow>

COMBINATION AFCIs:WHAT THEY WILL AND WILL NOT DO

This was Joseph C Engel, PhD, 2012 IEEE conference offering. 

Dr. Engel's tenure hails back to the R&D days of afci's

He has also forwarded a number of ROP's to CMP-2

An industry leader, who is being  ignored....

~CS~


----------



## Shockdoc (Mar 4, 2010)

Anything that requires so much enforcement as an electrical device is a con. Cable was never dated nor color coded prior to AFCI, i thought things would get better in the future when i was younger. Saturday i bought a Eagles and Four Tops CD . I wish i could have bought blue, red, green and grey circuit breakers too.


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> I believe the French One is referring to this Meadow>
> 
> COMBINATION AFCIs:WHAT THEY WILL AND WILL NOT DO
> 
> ...


Hello 

Yes Chicken Steve, it's the document.
Best regards,
FICC-


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

Dr. Engel was one of Eatons lead designers for the AFCI.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> Dr. Engel was one of Eatons lead designers for the AFCI.


I wonder why he participated in it?


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

meadow said:


> *And here come the problem ?
> 
> *_*I do not say that there is not an electronic device which can detect parallel arc, but if we refer at all what we are saying since the beginning
> *
> ...




*If a wire cutted, with a low contact it can have arcs or serie of arcs (?). Idem in a loss connection too (rarely or at the end of heating when the thermal expansion are present).

I think that is this phenomenom that advertisements of AFCIs aimed, if I have well understand =Arcs in the same wire ( like an arc in a switch ) but the AFCIs may detect a series of arches under these conditions. The "tour de force ( according the advertisements) " to make difference between normals arcs ( present for exemple in switchs or in motors like vacuums ) and a serie of abnormal arcs into damaged wires or loss connections...
*
*But Dr J. Engel has made a publication which explain that this phenomenon can not be present in US homes electrical installation... So what is difference between these products and GFCIS? 
*
*( See from here, this function is useless because arcs are not a cause of electrical fires, and if arcs are presents , it's often too late).
*


meadow said:


> *Do you have the link by chance? You can PM me.
> 
> I would say he is correct, at 120 volts, can you ever sustain a dangerous arc long enough? *


*Chicken Steve (Thank ) has posted the link* :thumbsup:




meadow said:


> No one is offended.



*Thanks much for all. I just worked on the subject, I have no particular merit.

In addition I have an admiration without Terminal for Americans who understand what I say or what I write while I massacre the English as I do! You are smart and you live in a great country! :thumbsup:
*
Best regards,

FICC-


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

*Error, sorry :*

*( See from here, this function is useless because arcs are not a Major cause of electrical fires, (a minor cause) and in addition if arcs are presents , it's often too late).*

Thank you !


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

French ICC said:


> *( See from here, this function is useless because arcs are not a Major cause of electrical fires, (a minor cause) and in addition if arcs are presents , it's often too late).*
> 
> Thank you !


I agree 100%, and this is what makes me so angry with so few people being able to understand this. The majority of electrical fires have nothing to do with arcing. Conditions such as glowing connections are often rebranded as arcing faults to sell these devices which is complete fraud. 


Granted AFCIs with GFP do catch wiring errors and insulation damage, however AFCIs (like GE's) having no GFP are completely worthless. These homes have the same level of protection as a $4 thermal magnetic breaker.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

French ICC said:


> *If a wire cutted, with a low contact it can have arcs or serie of arcs (?). Idem in a loss connection too (rarely or at the end of heating when the thermal expansion are present).
> *


*Ok, that makes more sense. That is true, a cut wire with the 2 end touching can create an arc. *

*This IMO is very rare in home as you say. *


*



I think that is this phenomenom that advertisements of AFCIs aimed, if I have well understand =Arcs in the same wire ( like an arc in a switch ) but the AFCIs may detect a series of arches under these conditions. The "tour de force ( according the advertisements) " to make difference between normals arcs ( present for exemple in switchs or in motors like vacuums ) and a serie of abnormal arcs into damaged wires or loss connections...


Click to expand...

**That is true (claimed), but come reality:*

*1. AFCIs can not distinguish between normal and none normal arcs*

*a. AFCIs trip on NRTL listed appliances having an arc signature*
*b. Some AFCIs trip from radio interference*
*c. dangerous arcing does not always trip them*

*2. Arcing is a rare condition in home wiring, making up only a very small percentage of fires. Arc logic alone, even if 100% effective will not make a difference in electrical fires.*







*



But Dr J. Engel has made a publication which explain that this phenomenon can not be present in US homes electrical installation... So what is difference between these products and GFCIS? 


Click to expand...

**80% of AFCIs are just GFCIs with a ripple sense circuit. 99% of the work is done via differential, 99% of the dangerous conditions are cleared via differential. Had code required GFCIs at the branch circuit origin the same effect would have been accomplished without the headaches or added cost. *


*Unfortunately some AFCIs do not have differential; meaning these devices will rely entirely on unproven, underdeveloped, underpowered arc. **An AFCI without differential is totally worthless as a number of dangerous conditions can still take place. *






*



( See from here, this function is useless because arcs are not a cause of electrical fires, and if arcs are presents , it's often too late).


Click to expand...

**Exactly!!!!!!!! :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup: *

*90% of all electrical fires are glowing connections!*

*Breakers, AFCI, GFCI, testing, and everything in between will not stop a glowing connection. Nothing and I mean nothing currently on the market will stop them. Yet this simple fact which was taught to me as a kid, and known by nearly all experts, is being deceptively rebranded as an arc fault. *


*The remaining 10% of electrical fires are caused by misused appliances such as space heater or **stopped via conventional breakers/differential (GFP). *

*Arc faults are this 1% out of 1% in fire statistics. *


*This is where the delusion comes from. Rebranding structural fires (many not even conclusively determined to be of electrical origin) as arc faults is at the heart of this deception. *



*



Chicken Steve (Thank ) has posted the link :thumbsup:




Thanks much for all. I just worked on the subject, I have no particular merit.

In addition I have an admiration without Terminal for Americans who understand what I say or what I write while I massacre the English as I do! You are smart and you live in a great country! :thumbsup:

Best regards,

FICC-

Click to expand...

[/quote]*


*I think you are brilliant. Out of all people you should be the one writing the codes. Not NFPA or Geneva Switzerland. *


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> Dr. Engel was one of Eatons lead designers for the AFCI.



Yes he was Don, some of said history being inclusive in his paper

He's a proponent of the protective qualities , but is also an honest man who wishes to _set the record straight_ about them.

Nobody wants to listen.

Dr Joe being no ordinary cheeseburger 

BTW< I have emailed his paper to every trade periodical over the last few years

No takers.... 

But they'll print any pro-opinion some nfpa _yahoo _wishes 

I've also seen a number of '_NRTL studies_' , bought and paid for by manufactures

One starts to see a pattern after a while & one starts to realize there is no unbiased party anymore

~CS~


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> ...
> BTW< I have emailed his paper to every trade periodical over the last few years
> 
> No takers.... ...


All of those periodicals are free and controlled by their paying customers ... the advertisers. Most of the articles are really just long winded advertisements.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> All of those periodicals are free and controlled by their paying customers ... the advertisers. Most of the articles are really just long winded advertisements.


True Don

But the NFPA itself , despite it being a _for profit _biz, is seen in a more altruistic light, yet we have>>>>


link

_Author(s): Don Bliss. Published on May 1, 2015._

IN FEBRUARY, MY WIFE AND I escaped Boston’s record-breaking winter and traveled to Florida, where my in-laws have a 45-year-old seasonal home in a 55–plus residential community. We were there to do some upkeep, and it didn’t take us long to recognize some of the risks faced by our nation’s aging population—people who live in aging homes and are dependent on aging electrical wiring systems.

The home had been vacant for several months, so when we arrived I spent some time checking for typical problems like water leaks and insects. I didn’t expect to encounter electrical outlets that were turning on and off by themselves. I called a licensed electrician, who discovered a serious arcing condition in a branch circuit that was on the verge of starting a fire. We also learned that, just a few weeks before our arrival, neighbors had lost their home to a fire that was *caused by an electrical arc fault.*

Aging adults and aging wiring are a dangerous mix. *Arcing causes an estimated 34,300 home structure fires each yea*r in the U.S., according to NFPA data. These fires result in an annual average of 320 civilian deaths, 1,150 civilian injuries, and $1 billion in direct property damage. Older Americans are often the victims of these fires because they are likely to live in older homes with aging wiring, and people on fixed incomes may not have the ability to upgrade or make repairs to their electrical systems. Even worse, they may try do-it-yourself fixes that can be even more dangerous. According to NFPA statistics, adults 65 and older face the highest risk of fire death, along with children under age five.

We know, based on work conducted by the *U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission* *and others*, that the frequency of fires in residential electrical systems is disproportionately higher in homes that are more than 40 years old. A study by the Fire Protection Research Foundation attributed this phenomenon to a number of critical factors, including inadequate and overburdened electrical systems, misuse of extension cords and makeshift circuit extensions, thermally reinsulated walls and ceilings that bury wiring, and poorly done electrical repairs. The homes of today will not be immune to these conditions as they become the older homes of tomorrow.

Fortunately, the 2014 edition of NFPA 70®, National Electrical Code®, specifies a simple, cost-effective solution to the problem of* arc-fault fires* by requiring the installation of arc-fault circuit interrupters, or AFCIs, in new dwelling units. Opponents of the requirement continue to lobby for its removal at the state and local levels, claiming that AFCIs unnecessarily increase the cost of new homes beyond the means of prospective buyers. *They also claim that new electrical systems are not prone to arc-faults.*

What they fail to acknowledge is that new electrical systems soon become aging electrical systems, which could result in *fires caused by arc faults*. The reality is that the installation of AFCIs in new homes, in accordance with the 2014 NEC®, costs about the same as a cup of coffee per month over the life of a 30-year mortgage.

We know what the problem is. We know what the solution is. Let’s stop pretending that new homes are immune from electrical fires and that they will never become old homes. Let’s ensure that every new dwelling in the country is protected by AFCIs—a technology that is proven to save lives and prevent the destruction of our homes.

_DONALD BLISS is vice president of Field Operations for NFPA.
_

So how is it Mr Bliss cites the CSPC and '_others'_ without realizing those same people decided almost 40 years ago glowing connections were the problem?

*Exploratory Study of Glowing Electrical Connections*




> Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 77 -608341
> National Bureau of Standards Building Science Series 103


~CS~


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

After reading that garbage, the NFPA now has absolutely zero credibility with me. Not that there was much to begin with. :whistling2:


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> True Don
> 
> But the NFPA itself , despite it being a _for profit _biz, is seen in a more altruistic light, yet we have>>>>
> 
> ...


Hello 

Everything is coincidence...I ask the question in my mind...:blink:

Follow the following:

*In France, everybody knows that glowing connections are the main cause of electrical fires, so, nobody heard talk of AFCIs before the video report “The electrical french connection or the real truth about afcis?” (2013) **Then, the French Journalist make a publication ( a summary of video report ) **An enormous scandal not to denounce?
*
http://www.aaim.tv/electrical-fires-scandal/ 

*It is a chronological place, and here, a part of the end:*

.../..

_“* AAIM.TV puts on line the video-report “The Electrical French Connection or The Real Truth about AFCIs ».*

*The French company C, ( NOTE OF FICC: who have 2 important subsidiaries in USA )* indicates on its French website that it is going to launch similar products adapted *the 3rd quarter 2013 in France*: There is a rapid presentation no real explanations available = *mistake 404.*

*The interviewed wholesalers never heard anything about this and these products never arrive. *(FICC in 2013)

And one learns otherwise that “…there is finally a wave of interest for the arc fault detectors, caused by the example of the United States »(!) « That a number of countries called for a norm defining a protection against the dangerous arcs now identified as a major reason for the electrical fires »

…./…

One also learns that CEI, (one of the world organisms of normalization that works on this new norm) started at the end of 2008, its works in technical sub-committee. (CEI: Commission Electrotechnique Internationale).

The objective being to arrive to an international norm (Europe) for an arc detection device…/… *The CEI could lean on the UL norm of the AFCIs*

•As semblance to give an answer to « the French have all bet on an American technology the AFCIs » of the report from AAIM.TV a publication on the site of the company C will indicate that for these products, __*the companies regrouped some – colleges of experts -
*
•The computer of the journalist of AAIM.TV is hacked, the web site ww.aaim.tv is pirated.

•AAIM.TV files a complaint.

…/…"
_
*At the end of 2014 (and not 2013) we'll hear again about these arcs by the Company indicating that it has the only product capable of improving night security:*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhK9q6wsi3U

*Then, (this shouldremindyou tips)*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoTSyI8yg60

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6QKXStJtsQ

*etc…*

*But this does not seem to move up. In parallel, w**hat happened on French wikipedia*: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incendie_d'origine_%C3%A9lectrique 

*“The causes of** electrical fires :* (???) = *Arc 
*
The electric arc is the most common cause as experts (2). Electric arcs are often caused by the degradation of insulation and connections in outdated facilities and / or not maintained. These degradations cause overheating and charring of insulation in which arcs appear since carbon is a current conductor. Is the simultaneous presence of electrical arcs and atoms which initializes the flame. According to tests from the IEC 62663, just an arc of 2.5 amps for 1 second to fire a cable or connection.
.../...

*Notes and references :*

(2) ↑ New Technology for Preventing Residential Electrical Fires:Arc-Fault Circuit Interrupters (AFCIs)By Douglas A. Lee, Andrew M. Trotta, William H. King, Jr. [archive]

This page (wikipedia) was last modified May 17, 2015.

Best regards,

FICC-


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> True Don
> 
> But the NFPA itself , despite it being a _for profit _biz, is seen in a more altruistic light, yet we have>>>>
> 
> ...


That has to be some of the worst propaganda I have ever read :laughing: They don't even make an effort to make at look at least pseudo real. Even a sparky new to the trade could pick that apart. 


But again, to this day I have yet to see how the NFPA reached the conclusion that 34,000 fires are caused by arcing. Its pure assumption.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

*Our trades global warming ?*



> The CEI could lean on the UL norm of the AFCIs


Can you hear me_ laughing _across the pond FrenchOne....? :laughing:


Seriously, does anyone really think a manufacturer can coerce multiple countries, and buy multiple_ "colleges of experts"_ ?

BTW, i opened all your video's , my French is really lousy , but i get the point of spam propaganda

~CS~


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> Can you hear me_ laughing _across the pond FrenchOne....? :laughing:
> 
> 
> Seriously, does anyone really think a manufacturer can coerce multiple countries, and buy multiple_ "colleges of experts"_ ?
> ...


*Hi ! 

I have no idea, but I had seen this go ...

Nobody works on the tables by chance ? 
*
*Eaton implante le siège mondial de sa division onduleurs en Isère*

http://www.lesechos.fr/05/05/2008/LesEchos/20165-071-ECH_eaton-implante-le-siege-mondial-de-sa-division-onduleurs-en-isere.htm

Le 05/05/2008. DE NOTRE CORRESPONDANTE À GRENOBLE. Avec l'installation du siège mondial de sa division protection électrique distribuée à Montbonnot, aux portes de Grenoble, l'américain Eaton se retrouve désormais face à son concurrent sur le marché mondial des onduleurs, Schneider Electric. Et leurs employés peuvent se croiser au restaurant d'entreprise. *« C'est très stimulant »,* commente Hervé Tardy, directeur général de la division protection électrique distribuée du groupe Eaton, qui a effectué toute sa carrière au développement des mêmes produits au sein de Schneider Electric. 
En octobre 2007, après le rachat de l'américain APC et pour se conformer aux règles de concurrence européennes, le groupe Schneider Electric a cédé à Eaton, pour 420 millions d'euros, l'activité MGE Office Protection Systems qui a réalisé un chiffre d'affaires d'environ 150 millions d'euros en 2006. Six mois plus tard et après l'acquisition en décembre de la société taïwanaise Phoenixtec Power Company Ltd (495 millions de dollars américains de chiffre d'affaires), le groupe américain revendique le rang de numéro deux, avec 23 % de parts d'un marché mondial évalué à 4 milliards de dollars en 2006, derrière Schneider Electric (40 %). _« Nous allons poursuivre les opérations de croissance externe et notre ambition est de devenir le numéro un mondial », _commente Hervé Tardy. 
Un choix stratégique 


Après les Etats-Unis à Raleigh (Caroline du Nord) et la Chine à Shenzhen, le groupe Eaton installe en Isère et sur 4.500 m2 de bureaux son troisième centre de recherche et développement, qui emploie 140 personnes, dont 60 transférées de l'ex-Schneider MGE UPS sur la base du volontariat et les autres recrutées. _« Le choix de la région grenobloise est stratégique, car l'environnement y est stimulant. Il favorise la créativité grâce aux nombreux acteurs des marchés de l'informatique, des télécoms et de l'énergie, et à une main-d'oeuvre dynamique et motivée. »_ 
La division d'Eaton a déjà engagé un partenariat avec l'Inria de Montbonnot sur le développement du logiciel libre. Hervé Tardy estime que le groupe, qui a fait de l'environnement un de ses principaux vecteurs de croissance, _« aurait toute vocation à intégrer le pôle de compétitivité Tenerrdis, dédié aux nouvelles technologies de l'énergie. Mais cela va être compliqué, car le pôle est présidé par Schneider Electric. »_ 


Just a rapid automatic translation here: 

*Eaton implements the global headquarters of its UPS division in Isère
*
THE 05/05/2008. OUR CORRESPONDENT IN GRENOBLE. With the installation of the global headquarters of its electrical protection division distributed in Montbonnot, near Grenoble, American Eaton is now faced with his competitor in the global inverter market, Schneider Electric. And employees can cross the canteen.*"It's very exciting,"* commented Hervé Tardy, general manager of the distributed power protection division of the Eaton group, which has spent his entire career to the development of the same products at Schneider Electric.

In October 2007, after the takeover of the US CPA and to comply with European competition rules, the Schneider Electric Group sold to Eaton, for € 420 million, MGE Office Protection Systems business, which had sales Business of about 150 million euros in 2006. Six months later and after the acquisition in December of the Taiwanese company Phoenixtec Power Company Ltd. (495 million US dollars in sales), the US group claims rank number two with 23% share of a global market estimated at $ 4 billion in 2006, behind Schneider Electric (40%). "We will pursue acquisitions and our ambition is to become the world number one," says Hervé Tardy.

A strategic choice.

After the US in Raleigh (North Carolina) and China in Shenzhen, the Eaton group settles in Isère and 4,500 m2 of office its third research and development center, which employs 140 people, including 60 transferred from the former -Schneider MGE UPS on a voluntary basis and the other recruited. "The choice of the Grenoble area is strategic because the environment is stimulating. It encourages creativity through the many actors of IT, telecoms and energy, and a dynamic and motivated workforce. "

The Eaton division has already initiated a partnership with INRIA Montbonnot on the development of free software. Hervé Tardy believes that the group, which has made the environment one of its key growth drivers, "would every vocation to integrate Tenerrdis competitiveness cluster, dedicated to new energy technologies. But it will be complicated because the pole is chaired by Schneider Electric. "


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

French ICC said:


> > Hello
> >
> > Everything is coincidence...I ask the question in my mind...
> >
> ...


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

meadow said:


> French ICC said:
> 
> 
> > *Same crap just marketed differently to appeal to France. That is very depressing indeed. So how will these be implemented? Are they a dual function AFI/RCD or installed separately in addition to RCD? *
> ...


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Eaton/Schneider must like the Euro competition rules better than the USA rules?

~CS~


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

meadow said:


> French ICC said:
> 
> 
> > I watched the documentary and I think its excellent.
> ...


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

Nobody works on the table by chance ?

:001_huh:


----------



## pete87 (Oct 22, 2012)

MTW said:


> Why are so many electricians incapable or unwilling to see the truth about AFCI's? Is it lack of understanding of the code making process? Electrical theory? Propaganda from manufacturers and safety organizations? All of the above?
> 
> What can be done to educate electricians about these fraudulent and worthless devices?




It is getting worse , with AFCI being required almost everywhere .

Tagging them with GFCI breakers will make it harder to get rid of them .

Recently , self test lock out breakers , will cause grief at the High service call rate and replacement part $ .




Pete


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

French ICC said:


> meadow said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, low cost without X tripping, without extra work or extra wire, and without periodic mantenance, etc...
> ...


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

pete87 said:


> It is getting worse , with AFCI being required almost everywhere .
> 
> Tagging them with GFCI breakers will make it harder to get rid of them .
> 
> ...


 
Welcome to the new world order, it just keeps getting better and better. :no:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

meadow said:


> French ICC said:
> 
> 
> > > I think its criminal, and I think its a blatantly obvious
> ...


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

French ICC said:


> *Hi ! I do not know... Someone knows it there is links by chance? :whistling2:
> 
> *http://www.lesechos.fr/05/05/2008/LesEchos/20165-071-ECH_eaton-implante-le-siege-mondial-de-sa-division-onduleurs-en-isere.htm
> 
> ...








Best regards

FICC-


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

Sorry for my English :001_huh:

*Hi ! I do not know... Someone knows if there is links by chance?*


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

*A good method?*



MTW said:


> Why are so many electricians incapable or unwilling to see the truth about AFCI's? Is it lack of understanding of the code making process? Electrical theory? Propaganda from manufacturers and safety organizations? All of the above?
> 
> What can be done to educate electricians about these fraudulent and worthless devices?


*:wallbash: **What do AFCIs?*




Sorry for my english.
Best regards.
FICC-


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

French ICC said:


> Sorry for my English :001_huh:
> 
> *Hi ! I do not know... Someone knows if there is links by chance?*




*Zlan*




















~CS~


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

*No miracle*

*There is or there is not a Ground fault device in a Electrical Protection?*

:wallbash:







:laughing:


----------



## Sprink (Apr 21, 2012)

Indianan is out; with some hope and a push from the Home Builders Association of Michigan the code change will happen.
That would make 48 states to go.

I could not find any updated info. 
Did it pass? 

http://iaei-michigan.org/2015-mrc/


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Sprink said:


> Indianan is out; with some hope and a push from the Home Builders Association of Michigan the code change will happen.
> That would make 48 states to go.
> 
> I could not find any updated info.
> ...


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

0 Responses to 2015 MRC Adoption
Steve says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation. 
June 16, 2015 at 6:11 PM
*Read this>*
http://www.combinationafci.com/resources/doc_ieee_combination_afci.pdf

~S~
Reply


----------



## Sprink (Apr 21, 2012)

The Phoenix Society For Burn Survivors needs to know WHAT THEY WILL AND WILL NOT DO.

Note the PDF email list they provide.


http://www.mfsia.com/news-events/


----------



## MidiMagic (Jun 16, 2015)

I have come across many devices that trip GFCIs and many that trip AFCIs. Here is a list:

1. Scientific equipment made before there was such a thing as GFCI was made with the hot and neutral both bypassed through capacitors to the equipment ground, to reduce power line noise getting into the equipment. This trips the GFCI every time.

2. Some older stereo equipment is made the same way the scientific equipment is made, for the same reason.

3. Some antique tube radios and record players have the chassis connected through a capacitor to one side of the two-wire cord. Others actually have the chassis connected directly to one side of the power line. The user is insulated from the chassis by plastic knobs and parts. But capacitive coupling to the user's hand will trip the GFCI.

4. Some of the older touch activated lamps trip GFCIs. They also react falsely when a carrier-current device is used.

5. Some light-show devices trip GFCIs and AFCIs. Many of them are the high voltage touch globes.

6. I have seen old rapid-start fluorescent fixtures trip GFCIs and AFCIs. They induce a tiny current in the grounded reflector to start the lamp.

7. I had a power-failure light that trips either device when you put the removable light into the inductive charger. I threw it away because it also interfered with carrier current devices.

8. I had a computer DSL modem that tripped GFCIs. It had a capacitive connection between the power line neutral and the phone line ground.

9. I have an electrostatic air filter that trips GFCIs if it is placed too close to an electric outlet..


----------



## MidiMagic (Jun 16, 2015)

My though is that 2/3 of the committee members are Democrats. Most Democrats are deathly afraid that someone will get hurt from some hidden danger.

On the other hand, I expect the price of the AFCI to drop, just as the GFCI price has fallen.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

MidiMagic said:


> My though is that 2/3 of the committee members are Democrats. Most Democrats are deathly afraid that someone will get hurt from some hidden danger.


You're right about that. :thumbsup:



> On the other hand, I expect the price of the AFCI to drop, just as the GFCI price has fallen.


The AFCI has been around for over a decade now, and that has not been the case.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

Sprink said:


> Indianan is out; with some hope and a push from the Home Builders Association of Michigan the code change will happen.
> That would make 48 states to go.
> 
> I could not find any updated info.
> ...


$300 for a 2,400sqft home. Who are they kidding beside themselves? Whom ever wrote that has no clue that they have no clue.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

> As a burn survivor and someone who cares deeply about fire prevention in Michigan, I am shocked to learn that a special interest group is trying to remove arc fault circuit interrupters from Michigan’s residential code.


Apparently Amy does not '_care deeply_' enough to realize that special interest group are a bizillion $$ industry pooning her.....

~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

French ICC said:


> *There is or there is not a Ground fault device in a Electrical Protection?*
> 
> :wallbash:
> 
> ...



I'm not getting this.... It appears the bulb is in series , and the circuit depends on an earth return....?

what am i missing?

unfuzz me please....~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

MTW said:


> The AFCI has been around for over a decade now, and that has not been the case.



*$57* for a Sq D QO afci yesterday.....

~CS~


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

MidiMagic said:


> I have come across many devices that trip GFCIs and many that trip AFCIs. Here is a list:
> 
> 1. Scientific equipment made before there was such a thing as GFCI was made with the hot and neutral both bypassed through capacitors to the equipment ground, to reduce power line noise getting into the equipment. This trips the GFCI every time.
> 
> ...


Hello 

You are right, we had often the same with RCD 30 ma in 90's years. Why this phenomenoms make trip AFCIs and GFCIs ? Because both doing about the same thing... 

In addition, Electronic GFCIs are less reliable than electromecanics GFCIs, 30 mA or 50 mA is too less to ensure a good stability of power supply_.(Even more with 115V circuits, electronics gfics, and with all neutral connected at a bus)
_
We have the dobble of voltage. So with a 30 mA GFCIs, 7 watts for a trip, not Electronics GFCIs, the neutrals are not connected together to a neutral bus...And sometimes (very rarely) it's trip... (thunderstorms)

We use GFCIs technology since 60's years and we knows that 70 watts are enought to control insulation faults. (0.3 mA GFCIs) 

Why a so low sensibility ? One can imagine people have thinked that it was possible to make people believe that to detect glowing connections (the main cause of electrical fire - AFCIs, Fire guard) with detect very low defect value of insulation fault, while it was impossible to do. And, perhaps, it was useful to hide the fact that "the new magic function" to detect arcing in a loss connection couldn't work ?

In the same time, often, just 1 differential device 300 mA for example (with a minor change of wiring) you can controle perfectly insulation faults. Almost the same safety, without "X" tripping, for $200-300. But not quite expensive... ? 

I dont want offense nobody, it just a question 
And sorry for my english.

Best regards,

FICC-


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> I'm not getting this.... It appears the bulb is in series , and the circuit depends on an earth return....?
> 
> what am i missing?
> 
> unfuzz me please....~CS~


It's very simple. Differential device ( Ground Fault ) was invented (1955 in my memory ) to detect an insulatIon fault. So the Ground Fault has made possible the disconnect between EGC wires and neutral wires. 

Come back to the roots, and disconnect the neutral...

If you put a regular circuit breaker like in the drawing with a good Earth electrode, the circuit breaker will do not trips.

If you put a other protection, and if it trips, it's because there is a ground fault device included in the protection. Even if one say that there is no ground fault device in the protection. 

No miracle.

And if you use few résistors, (or others Tools) with this wiring and with some tests, (and ith a good earth electrode) you will discover the value of the ground fault protection. 

Best regards


----------



## Travelboysteve (Aug 13, 2013)

macmikeman said:


> Because most electricians have a woman in their lives and don't have much leftover time to worry about such things, when they know they can just put them in, get inspection passed, get paid, and bring home bacon to please aforementioned desirable object and get the goodies.



:thumbup::thumbup:
:laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing:

Yep


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

*What is the link?*

Hello Chicken Steve 

What is the link between this:
​ ​

And this:

​


?

In 2000, when I hear about arcs parallel between phase wire and PE wire (EGC) or phase wire and Earth, I :laughing: Because arcs are consequences of insulation fauts, and not the defects. It's the roots, since 1950's...

Best regards


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

So basically a GFCI/GFP does everything an AFCI does?


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

I just got a call the other day from a customer. I partially rewired the house last year and she had lost power in a few rooms. I asked her if she had been using the vacuum and she said yes. I knew immediately what the problem was.  If it happens again, I'm going back and taking the AFCI's out.


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

meadow said:


> So basically a GFCI/GFP does everything an AFCI does?


Hello Meadow 

*I think that as the serie arcs detection dont works, there is not difference. If you lok at the table "Here how all must be summited" thre is not difference. And it's not new: 
*
*2002 : AFCI - "Why I Have a Problem With It" by **Bob Huddleston, engineer:*

https://www.mikeholt.com/mojonewsar...I_-_Why_I_Have_a_Problem_With_It~20020801.htm


.../..."My question is this why does the National Electrical Code require these expensive devices to be installed in bedrooms of new houses, when they WILL NOT TRIP ON A SERIES ARC FAULT? The authors believe that broken wires and loose connections are a common cause of electrical failure which results in fire, and Manufacturer ‘B’ says that their AFCI will trip if these events occur (and we have proven that they will not trip). 

*We believe that the electrical community in general (authors included) has been duped into thinking that these devices are a significant safety improvement, while in reality they will only do what GFCIs and regular circuit breakers do already.* .../...

*What do you think about Meadow? 

Your technical opinion is very interresting !* :thumbsup:

Best regards,

FICC-


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

The afci debut in the '99 and '02 NEC had us installing version #1.

In '08 they then became _'combination afci'_ , allegedly addressing both series and parallel arcs.

This was something we were under the impression the prior 8 years of AFCI requirements did, both series and parallel

So in '08, can anyone explain to me exactly what _testing procedure _ was used to pass the afci as both S & P ?

<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Further, in '08 it appears that the GFCI function was also confronted. 

Why?

Of note are the '08 ROP's , one by Joe Engel asking for the afci to be 30ma gfci.

Rejected....

Why?


~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

French ICC said:


> It's very simple.
> No miracle.


No, i just had to look at it a _long time_ FrenchOne.:whistling2:

Electricity (in my mind) is a circle....

~CS~


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

MTW said:


> I just got a call the other day from a customer. I partially rewired the house last year and she had lost power in a few rooms. I asked her if she had been using the vacuum and she said yes. I knew immediately what the problem was.  If it happens again, I'm going back and taking the AFCI's out.


:blink:

Hello MTW...

In my mind, I'm wondering how to tell the difference between normal arcs and abnormal arcs, by looking for a tiny change in the curve? While the current generates electromagnetic phenomena... Only start-ups of devices, radio waves also generate electromagnetic phenomena... That power supply is not linear (arcs maneuvres network, surge, high frequency) and all these phenomena, including the 'normal' arcs are constantly vary this curve... Whaoo ... :no: ... a Joke...

In addition for a function that is useless...

http://inspectapedia.com/electric/Engel_IEEE_Combination_AFCIs.pdf

VIII. STUDY OF THE CAUSES OF HOME ELECTRICAL FIRES

Test 12: Operation Inhibit

Why didn’t UL use copper-copper electrodes, instead of the odd combinations of carbon and phosphor-bronze and carbon-copper?

Copper - Copper 

"A person named F. Pashchen in 1889 published a law .../..."

----------------------------

During this time, with very little money you could do pretty much the same thing... Do you know where is Bug?

Best regards,

FICC-


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> No, i just had to look at it a _long time_ FrenchOne.:whistling2:
> 
> Electricity (in my mind) is a circle....
> 
> ~CS~


Yes Chicken Steve, with the Earth...




Sorry, it's in French but it's easy to understand....

What do you think about ?

Best regards


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

http://www.geindustrial.com/product...PRODUCTS&pnlid=3&famid=8&catid=36&id=cb-qafci


> *Series Protection* − A series arc fault is the unintended flow of electricity over a gap within a single wire. These arc faults were not detectable until advanced technology allowed the development of the Combination AFCI breaker


http://w3.usa.siemens.com/us/intern...LoadCentersBreakersMurray/MYPM-COMBO-0907.pdf


> Combination AFCI
> “Combination” does NOT mean an AFCI + GFCI
> Provides protection against the high-energy
> parallel (line-to-neutral and line-to-ground)
> ...


https://www.platt.com/CutSheets/Eaton Distribution/Breakers-Residential-ArcFault.pdf


> FIREGUARD
> AFCI responds to* series arcs* in
> two conductor plus ground fixed premises
> wiring (Type N-B wire) of Zone


http://www.afcisafety.org/products.html


> This *series arc detection* is beneficial to detect lower level arcing in both branch circuits and power supply cords. Combination AFCI protection is required by the NEC® as of January 1, 2008.


http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/...n=versionless&parent_id=1074583377&sequence=1


> *Series Arcing Detection	Y*


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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


~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

French ICC said:


> > Yes Chicken Steve, with the Earth...
> >
> > Sorry, it's in French but it's easy to understand....
> 
> ...


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> The afci debut in the '99 and '02 NEC had us installing version #1.
> 
> In '08 they then became _'combination afci'_ , allegedly addressing both series and parallel arcs.
> 
> ...



Perhaps it was useful of not say that there is still a differential fuction in the AFCIs, because people can beleive that is not the same that a ground fault technology ? And in second, perhaps other products could being seem unnecessary because, 2 ground fault devices in the same circuit, it's too, and is no good for the business.... ? 

:laughing:

I think I heard something on the side of WDC...


----------



## Sprink (Apr 21, 2012)

Sprink said:


> Indianan is out; with some hope and a push from the Home Builders Association of Michigan the code change will happen.
> That would make 48 states to go.
> 
> I could not find any updated info.
> ...


I guess I will answer my own question.
However it is complicated process. That’s the way they like it. A little digging around I found this. Administrative Rules Process in a Nutshell

https://www.michigan.gov/documents/lara/Admin_Rules_Process_353271_7.pdf

For reference: the code change is filed under OOR# 2013-022 LR - Construction Code - Part 5. Residential Code. Go to page 26 and look for R408.30537B / E3902.11

It can be found here.
http://w3.lara.state.mi.us/orr/Files/ORR/1182_2013-022LR_orr-draft.pdf

With a little more digging I find this. A timeline of the code changes. 
BUREAU OF CONSTRUCTION CODES RULES STATUS CHART 2014/2015 TASKS
http://m.michigan.gov/documents/lara/lara_bcc_rules_status_chart_2014_2015_469190_7.pdf

Look for part 5 Residential Code. This code change started 4/10/13 and made it thru 8 different processes to 5/28/15 Public Hearing. Now look at the next four processes. The hearing report should be submitted to JCAR by 7/19/15.Once JCAR passes it all that is needed is a filing by the sectary of state. And it becomes law 120 day s after filing 1/2016

Now I go back to the Office of Regulatory Reinvention and find some good info. It looks like OOR# 2013-022 LR has already made it to JCAR on 6/5/15. Here is the link.
http://w3.lara.state.mi.us/orr/Rules.aspx?type=Number&id=R+408.30501

Jcar was scheduled for a meeting *6/17/15(yesterday)* but was canceled. Here is a link.
http://house.michigan.gov/publiccommitteeschedule/MeetingDisplay.aspx?BroadcastKey=5251

Jcar received the filing 6/5/15 and has until 6/26/15 to do something. Check the first link for process. 

So if everything goes well Michigan should be *AFCI free by 11/2015*. 

It might help if the electricians in Michigan email the Jcar members. It made it this far it would be a shame if it gets canned. 
http://house.michigan.gov/mhrpublic/committeeinfo.aspx?comkey=338

Also note there are other changes electricians in Michigan may be interested in.

There you go a Michigan road map to AFCI freedom. :thumbsup:


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

Reading those against Michigan's plan I think the only reason we have delusions is from misinformed passion. People actually believe AFCIs prevent fires simply by what manufactures and the NFPA advertises.


----------



## telsa (May 22, 2015)

Universal motors are everywhere on the planet -- especially in home vacuums.

As their commutators wear down -- inevitably -- it must surely be the case that such motors will produce pseudo series faults something intense.

After enough false positives, the normal human response is disgust.

One can just count on breakers being thrown into the trash at every turn. 

They won't be staying in the house panel.

Guilt by association will have GFCI breakers pulled and tossed, too.

There will be a political firestorm when the larger public (views on 60 Minutes ?) discovers that the NEMA players have jammed them for serious money -- and it's all a scam.

In a world of declining semi-conductor pricing, the NEMA crowd is pricing the electronic logic of AFCIs to the Moon.

Further, they are setting themselves up for epic class action lawsuits when their stuff doesn't pan out and folks die in house fires. Fires started by series arc faults that their protection didn't spot.

We know how this plays out -- because it happens to Big Pharma every month of the year.

The NEMA players have made a strategic error of the first magnitude, over selling such 'snake oil.' It's certain to end in a veil of tears.

We'd all be better off if GFCI protection was the norm... For it actually works.

AFCI = Too many false trips; and horrifically expensive when compared to realistic estimates of damage prevention and lives saved.

Smoke alarms in every room -- on the economics -- put AFCIs to shame... and they cover more than electrical fires.


----------



## pete87 (Oct 22, 2012)

Michigan may be AFCI free and join the other states that are AFCI Free .

That is good News .




Pete


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

telsa said:


> *Further, they are setting themselves up for epic class action lawsuits when their stuff doesn't pan out and folks die in house fires. Fires started by series arc faults that their protection didn't spot.
> *





At this point there is MORE than enough for a class action lawsuit if not multiple class action lawsuits. The arcing staple theory is bogus, the claims that all these dwelling fires are from arcs have never been proven, the high price, the nuisance tripping, alternatives to AFCIs that do the same at less cost, ect ect the list goes on and on. 

210.12 was put in the NEC entirely under false pretense. Any good lawyer or judge will see that from a mile away. 





> We know how this plays out -- because it happens to Big Pharma every month of the year.
> 
> The NEMA players have made a strategic error of the first magnitude, over selling such 'snake oil.' It's certain to end in a veil of tears.


 
Believe me, eventually people will find out. A lie of such magnitude is impossible to hide. 



> We'd all be better off if GFCI protection was the norm... For it actually works.


 
And does the same thing as an AFCI mind you. That part right there infuriates me, it clearly proves its a price point marketing strategy for manufactures. 




> AFCI = Too many false trips; and horrifically expensive when compared to realistic estimates of damage prevention and lives saved.


 I don't see AFCI making any dent in fires. Most fires are actually caused by glowing connections, something an AFCI will not stop. 





> Smoke alarms in every room -- on the economics -- put AFCIs to shame... and they cover more than electrical fires.


 I agree. Fire sprinklers are an even better investment. The cost of AFCIs will actually cover a good part of a resi sprinkler systems while returning investment countless times over. If fire sprinklers were made mandatory for all wood framed dwellings I would actually support it regardless of what people say about cost because sprinkler do as claimed. AFCIs do not, big difference.

I normally disagree with your posts, but I think this one is spot on.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> Apparently Amy does not '_care deeply_' enough to realize that special interest group are a bizillion $$ industry pooning her.....
> 
> ~CS~


Amy is a victim of a lie, she is being brainwashed for lack of better terms. If AFCI did as claimed I would say she is correct, unfortunately what is being hidden from her says otherwise.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

French ICC said:


> Hello Meadow
> 
> *I think that as the serie arcs detection dont works, there is not difference. If you lok at the table "Here how all must be summited" thre is not difference. And it's not new:
> *
> ...




I agree 100% with the above, many times over. Why so? Because nearly all dangerous conditions (arcs) involve current going into the EGC where a GFCI will stop this with 100% accuracy, including other dangers like wiring errors that arc logic alone will not catch. 

Series arcs are rare (most series phenomenon is actually a high resistance glowing connection without arcing), and yet have to hear of parallel arcs taking place in structural wiring. 

Further, arc logic is not accurate. The logic used in AFCI breakers is primitive, and must take into account normal arcing. The result is that an AFCI will actually miss a real dangerous arc. This is why AFCIs without GFP protection are useless. 

Placing GFCIs at the branch circuit origin would not only provide people protection where needed but also fire protection at half the price with 100% accuracy and zero nuisance tripping.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

This is just pure fear mongering propaganda at its finest. 



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3g5Bt0to4wg



How can over burdened electrical circuits have a greater chance of arcing? Do people drive more nails and staples into wires when the home uses more power? Does a standard thermal magnetic breaker not trip on an overload? Do people not call an electrician to add a circuit when a breaker is repeatedly tripping? Or say, hmmm, 'maybe I cant run a space heater, hair dryer and plasma at the same time because it pops the breaker'? 


If they mean more load is more likely to stress a high resistance connection there may be some validity, only problem being glowing connections produce no arcing signature. I have yet to see how an circuit loaded to the max, even over that can increase the chance of arcing. 


And that iron left to ignite clothing, please tell me, other than subconsciously implementing paranoia, how will an AFCI stop that? Ditto to what appears to be tailored cords for this video.


And "...proving to be so effective at stopping fires that beginning 2008 the national electrical code is requiring they be installed in all newly constructed homes". Where is the proof to back up that claim? All I hear is people reading off of teleprompters and scripts while taking things out of context in front of burning homes. 

This sums it up well:

“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”

"How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think."


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

meadow said:


> ... This is why AFCIs without GFP protection are useless. ...


But they pass the tests required by the standard without the GFP and the GFP costs money so some manufacturers no longer provide that function.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> But they pass the tests required by the standard without the GFP and the GFP costs money so some manufacturers no longer provide that function.



True but these tests do not reflect real world scenarios IMO. And even if they did arc logic alone misses a lot.


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

I recently had the opportunity to get into a junction box and I was the culprit who moved the conductors just that amount more so as to totally sever the conductor that apparently had been hanging on by a strand, or two. In the darkness of the back of the box I saw the arcing going on...nothing blinking....nothing else obvious. An arc fault circuit breaker notices the characteristic waveform of an arc "signature" and opens the circuit. I am a believer..


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

meadow said:


> True but these tests do not reflect real world scenarios IMO. And even if they did arc logic alone misses a lot.


It doesn't matter what they reflect...it is what the manufacturers of the devices are required to build to. The only way to change what is built is to change the standard the devices are built to.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> It doesn't matter what they reflect...it is what the manufacturers of the devices are required to build to. The only way to change what is built is to change the standard the devices are built to.


You sound like you're in favor of AFCI's now. :whistling2:


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

RIVETER said:


> I recently had the opportunity to get into a junction box and I was the culprit who moved the conductors just that amount more so as to totally sever the conductor that apparently had been hanging on by a strand, or two. In the darkness of the back of the box I saw the arcing going on...nothing blinking....nothing else obvious. An arc fault circuit breaker notices the characteristic waveform of an arc "signature" and opens the circuit. I am a believer..


Arcing between what two things?


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> It doesn't matter what they reflect...it is what the manufacturers of the devices are required to build to. The only way to change what is built is to change the standard the devices are built to.


Exactly all the more reason to scrap them.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

RIVETER said:


> I recently had the opportunity to get into a junction box and I was the culprit who moved the conductors just that amount more so as to totally sever the conductor that apparently had been hanging on by a strand, or two. In the darkness of the back of the box I saw the arcing going on...nothing blinking....nothing else obvious. An arc fault circuit breaker notices the characteristic waveform of an arc "signature" and opens the circuit. I am a believer..



They do, but how do they tell the difference between a normal vs abnormal arc waveform? How does the breaker know the arcing J box isn't a vacuum cleaner?


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> It doesn't matter what they reflect...it is what the manufacturers of the devices are required to build to. The only way to change what is built is to *change the standard the devices are built to*.


As opposed to _amending_ the standard to _fit_ the device....

Apparently that's what they did to debut the *combo afci* in the '08 

However, nobody seems to be able to _specifically_ point out what 'standard' _(in terms of NRTL testing requirements)_ in UL1699 changed....The best i am able to come up with is 'carbonized path'....IE.....a PATH , Parallel NOT series operation

I find this an important point, as most of CMP-2's 210.12B ROP rejections are based on NRTL findings

~CS~


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

*The "arcs concept"*



I read comments, and I understand a little, perhaps not the entiere mind. Also don't be not angry if I make mistakes or if what I write may offend some. 

People talk about the detection of arcs and the AFCIs... Some are for the AFCIs, others are against the AFCIs... "arcs", "arc waves" etc...

Please, dont be angry, but IMO, all this is, is a false debate, because in my mind, this notion of "arcs" is a concept not necessarily very objective for sell very expensive products. And unnecessary. 

IMO, the genius of this concept "arcs" is to hid that in fact, almost all of the "abnormal" arcs are only the consequences of 2 basic defects. And we know that very well, there is technically no doubt, but this is never said: Because these basic defects, we can control them since decades, with reliable devices and simple, and for almost nothing cost! 

So, what is the goal to go scan curves to detect abnormal arcs ? And in addition, in the same times, when AFCIs has been mandatory, a lot of people knew that serie arcs detection was a joke? 

The "good people" (and this is not a derogatory term in my mind) want the good and want to do the good. But there is also a proverb that says "when the poor bicker among themselves, the rich have the peace"

Perhaps in all these arguments are the explanations of this great disappointment. :furious:

Not to offense anybody, it's just questions.

Best regards


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

meadow said:


> This is just pure fear mongering propaganda at its finest.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




(Sorry again for my english) 

*"More the lie is big, more credible it's.. More the lie is often repeated and more people believe it is the truth" 
*
This citation comes from a "German journalist" Born in Rheydt (Germany) on 10-29-1897 and dead in Berlin on 05-01-1945. He had a great experience and great skills in propagande: Joseph Goebbels


----------



## 3phazed2ground (Jun 23, 2015)

I just read some of these previous posts, including those of French ICC.

I am American and French resident. I am also electrician here.
The AFCIs don't much use to me, except as an overly expensive way to provide differential protection that was lacking in branch circuits in the USA, and that the French have been using since the 60s for a much more reasonable price.

Thus detecting arcs IMO is useless because arcs are not a cause, rather the consequences of defects, as shown in post #187, and it is the glowing connection that is the cause of electrical fires.

Regards and thanx for this forum,


----------



## 3phazed2ground (Jun 23, 2015)

The AFCIs don't have much use to me,...


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

3phazed2ground said:


> I just read some of these previous posts, including those of French ICC.
> 
> I am American and French resident. I am also electrician here.
> The AFCIs don't much use to me, except as an overly expensive way to provide differential protection that was lacking in branch circuits in the USA, and that the French have been using since the 60s for a much more reasonable price.
> ...


 Hello!  Welcome to the forum! :thumbsup:

I agree with what you say. A rather unfortunate: 20% of AFCIs no longer have differential protection. This renders them useless in the few cases where they can stop danger.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

I sure this thread has been viewed by the engineers and execs at Schneider, Siemens, Eaton and GE. I hope you guys know we're on to your scam. :whistling2:


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

MTW said:


> I sure this thread has been viewed by the engineers and execs at Schneider, Siemens, Eaton and GE. I hope you guys know we're on to your scam. :whistling2:


Don't worry, they are, their even bragging about it :laughing::laughing:

http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=170069&page=8&p=1654400#post1654400

Hey honies, sup?


----------



## 3phazed2ground (Jun 23, 2015)

FYI, A couple of years ago I saw that a French group had plans to bring the AFCI to the French market. Intrigued by this, I asked all of my supply houses about it, they didn't have any news at the time of my questioning and laughed at the thought because heat from poor connections is the reason for electrical fires. This is probably why we are requires to verify that the screw connectors at the breaker are tight. Even the state monopoly electric company's technicians verify the main breaker connection screws because they are liable as the residential main breaker is the property of ERDF.

So I hadn't heard anything for over 2 years about the launch of the AFCI here... maybe because even non-electricians are aware of the physics phenomenon called the joule effect... I learned about it here first hand when I would find melted insulation on loose terminal connections or oxidized connections. I had one case in an newer home built about 200 years ago with a 1 meter footer foundation and 80cm thick stone walls with dirt mortared joints and a stone floor with a humidity problem that had a capillary effect rising above the outlets... my solution was radical and time consuming as I soldered each daisy-chained copper connection one-by-one. The only thing that I could guarantee is the continuity of my copper from one end to the other, there remains the risk of oxidation between my solder point and the outlets screw lug. Short of putting a conductive grease on these lugs (3mm screws) there ain't much I can do to protect the connection points with existing available technology on the market.

I had another case where ground water seeped its way into a parking garages PVC conduit system that used individual solid conductor wires. It appears that after years of the waters moving the salts from the earth and the concrete the surround the PVC, it attacked the insulation and eventually lead to a resistance heating of the impure water that was in the tube and in contact with the a potential of 230/400v. When I found the fault, it was steaming and with the lights off, I could see a glowing red core through the opaque PVC conduit... it was beautiful, but ready to cause a fire in the garage.

After 20 years here in France, I have seen my fair share


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

MTW said:


> I sure this thread has been viewed by the engineers and execs at Schneider, Siemens, Eaton and GE. I hope you guys know we're on to your scam. :whistling2:



How...has been viewed by....? I'm not sure...You think so ?


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

3phazed2ground said:


> FYI, A couple of years ago I saw that a French group had plans to bring the AFCI to the French market. Intrigued by this, I asked all of my supply houses about it, they didn't have any news at the time of my questioning and laughed at the thought because heat from poor connections is the reason for electrical fires. This is probably why we are requires to verify that the screw connectors at the breaker are tight. Even the state monopoly electric company's technicians verify the main breaker connection screws because they are liable as the residential main breaker is the property of ERDF.
> 
> So I hadn't heard anything for over 2 years about the launch of the AFCI here... maybe because even non-electricians are aware of the physics phenomenon called the joule effect... I learned about it here first hand when I would find melted insulation on loose terminal connections or oxidized connections. I had one case in an newer home built about 200 years ago with a 1 meter footer foundation and 80cm thick stone walls with dirt mortared joints and a stone floor with a humidity problem that had a capillary effect rising above the outlets... my solution was radical and time consuming as I soldered each daisy-chained copper connection one-by-one. The only thing that I could guarantee is the continuity of my copper from one end to the other, there remains the risk of oxidation between my solder point and the outlets screw lug. Short of putting a conductive grease on these lugs (3mm screws) there ain't much I can do to protect the connection points with existing available technology on the market.
> 
> ...


Was this conduit failure from the utility power company main supply?

I would think an RCD or main differential would have tripped if applied to the boiling water situation?


I agree 100% when you say Joule effect is responsible for many fires. In my opinion 90 to 97% of structural wiring fires. Even the best made connections are at risk from loosening up over time or unforeseen installer error. No AFCI or RCD will stop this. So from the start AFCIs will not stop 90% to 97% of electrical fires. 


Here in the US its even worse. We have a method called "back stabbed outlets" which are 120 volt 15 amp sockets where solid wire just pokes right in:

https://www.google.com/search?q=bac...utlets-side-wire-versus-back-wire%2F;1323;883

https://www.google.com/search?q=bac...hooting-outlets-not-working-pic.html;1024;680


https://www.google.com/search?q=bac...419-run-new-wire-existing-outlet.html;600;409


This method fails more frequently, with most Google pictures accompany a charred receptacle yet the NEC, NRTLs and the CPSC refuse to ban this method while pushing AFCIs that do nothing about it. 


The system is very backwards.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

French ICC said:


> How...has been viewed by....? I'm not sure...You think so ?


I'm only guessing. This is and Mike Holt's forums are the top electrician's discussion forums, and I have to image they have taken notice of the commentary at some point in time. However, they are probably too elite to care what we think of them. Furthermore, they are deluded into believing their products actually work so they will not listen to reason anyway.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

MTW said:


> I'm only guessing. This is and Mike Holt's forums are the top electrician's discussion forums, and I have to image they have taken notice of the commentary at some point in time. However, they are probably too elite to care what we think of them. Furthermore, they are deluded into believing their products actually work so they will not listen to reason anyway.


Not guessing, see the first post at top :laughing:


----------



## Sprink (Apr 21, 2012)

meadow said:


> Not guessing, see the first post at top :laughing:



They must be busy erasing everything over there.:laughing: Site down for maintenance. (10:45pm) 
Now I get This-DNS_PROBE_FINISHED_NXDOMAIN.(10:55pm)


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

Sprink said:


> They must be busy erasing everything over there.:laughing: Site down for maintenance. (10:45pm)
> Now I get This-DNS_PROBE_FINISHED_NXDOMAIN.(10:55pm)




:lol: Id imagine!


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

MTW said:


> I'm only guessing. This is and Mike Holt's forums are the top electrician's discussion forums, and I have to image they have taken notice of the commentary at some point in time. However, they are probably too elite to care what we think of them. Furthermore, they are deluded into believing their products actually work so they will not listen to reason anyway.


Sorry, I was ironic of course ! 
I also think that this thread has been read and reread :blink:
No problem for me.
Best regards,
FICC-


----------



## pete87 (Oct 22, 2012)

chicken steve said:


> The afci debut in the '99 and '02 NEC had us installing version #1.
> 
> In '08 they then became _'combination afci'_ , allegedly addressing both series and parallel arcs.
> 
> ...


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

*There is or there is not a ground fault ? That is the question !*



meadow said:


> Hello!  Welcome to the forum! :thumbsup:
> 
> I agree with what you say. A rather unfortunate: 20% of AFCIs no longer have differential protection. This renders them useless in the few cases where they can stop danger.


Hello Meadow

On this thread :

#173 

Best Regards

GFICC-


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

meadow said:


> ... Fire sprinklers are an even better investment. The cost of AFCIs will actually cover a good part of a resi sprinkler systems while returning investment countless times over. If fire sprinklers were made mandatory for all wood framed dwellings I would actually support it regardless of what people say about cost because sprinkler do as claimed. AFCIs do not, big difference.
> ...


They are in the model residential building codes, but that requirement is most often deleted when the state or local unit of government adopts the model code. They are deleted for cost reasons.

As of now there are 97 cities in Illinois that require sprinkler systems for new dwelling units. Our city permits the deletion of AFCIs if a sprinkler system is installed, but does not require sprinkler systems.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> They are in the model residential building codes, but that requirement is most often deleted when the state or local unit of government adopts the model code. They are deleted for cost reasons.
> 
> As of now there are 97 cities in Illinois that require sprinkler systems for new dwelling units. Our city permits the deletion of AFCIs if a sprinkler system is installed, but does not require sprinkler systems.


:no: They can delete a life safety product worth its weight in gold but not a fraudulent product like AFCIs. The world is backwards. 


Personally I believe all towns should consider deletion of AFCIs of a fire sprinkler system is installed or other safety measures are taken. In nearly every new code proposal in the past the NEC would let you choose how to accomplish something. Even recent code requirements like arc flash energy reduction let you choose from a list rather than push one product to achieve the intent. I fail to see why they could not have done this with AFCIs.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

meadow said:


> They do, but how do they tell the difference between a normal vs abnormal arc waveform? How does the breaker know the arcing J box isn't a vacuum cleaner?


It is easy...self sustaining arcing does not even exist at the voltage that requires AFCI protection.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

meadow said:


> :no: They can delete a life safety product worth its weight in gold but not a fraudulent product like AFCIs. The world is backwards.
> 
> 
> Personally I believe all towns should consider deletion of AFCIs of a fire sprinkler system is installed or other safety measures are taken. In nearly every new code proposal in the past the NEC would let you choose how to accomplish something. Even recent code requirements like arc flash energy reduction let you choose from a list rather than push one product to achieve the intent. I fail to see why they could not have done this with AFCIs.


The adopting authority can delete any part of any model code that they adopt...there was just a lot more pressure to delete the sprinklers than there ever has been to delete AFCIs.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> The adopting authority can delete any part of any model code that they adopt...there was just a lot more pressure to delete the sprinklers than there ever has been to delete AFCIs.




:no: If people knew the truth there would be just as much pressure to revise 210.12


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> It is easy...self sustaining arcing does not even exist at the voltage that requires AFCI protection.


That alone proves AFCIs to be bunk.


----------



## CEAUTOMATION (Jul 12, 2013)

macmikeman said:


> Because most electricians have a woman in their lives and don't have much leftover time to worry about such things, when they know they can just put them in, get inspection passed, get paid, and bring home bacon to please aforementioned desirable object and get the goodies.


Best comment ever!!!!!


----------



## Sprink (Apr 21, 2012)

Sprink said:


> I guess I will answer my own question.
> However it is complicated process. That’s the way they like it. A little digging around I found this. Administrative Rules Process in a Nutshell
> 
> https://www.michigan.gov/documents/lara/Admin_Rules_Process_353271_7.pdf
> ...


Its Official Michigan is Afci free 
Filed with the Great Seal: 10-9-15
Effective Date: 2-8-16
It appears that JCAR did not want to vote on this and let the 15 day rule take effect.
(Rules can be filed by ORR with the Office of the Great Seal after 15 session
days expire or JCAR has waived the 15 day requirement.) I made a mistake in the quoted part. (15 Session days) not just days.
Who is next? New Hampshire?


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

*Bravo!*

I believe NH already ousted them , as well as Indiana:thumbsup::thumbsup:~CS~:thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## nrp3 (Jan 24, 2009)

The bill is in subcommittee and running parallel to the proposed amendment of the code at the building code review board.

Where can I find the language of the Michigan ruling and the official announcement?


----------



## Sprink (Apr 21, 2012)

Hey nrp3,
Look at my quote. I posted all the info (links) you need.:thumbsup:


----------



## nrp3 (Jan 24, 2009)

Is this a version of the 14 code or 11 code?


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

Sprink said:


> Its Official Michigan is Afci free


Good for Michigan. :thumbsup: Little by little, the AFCI juggernaut is being challenged.


----------



## Sprink (Apr 21, 2012)

nrp3 said:


> Is this a version of the 14 code or 11 code?


NEC or Michigan Residential Code?
I do not know if this helps but give it look.

Go to this link

http://w3.lara.state.mi.us/orr/Files/RIS/1182_2013-022LR_ris.pdf

See page 4.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

chicken steve said:


> I believe NH already ousted them , as well as Indiana:thumbsup::thumbsup:~CS~:thumbsup::thumbsup:


The New Hampshire link you posted is a house bill...but did it pass?


----------



## Chris1971 (Dec 27, 2010)

MTW said:


> The New Hampshire link you posted is a house bill...but did it pass?


What other states have gotten rid of AFCI protection?


----------



## nrp3 (Jan 24, 2009)

The bill is in subcommittee and they are watching what happens at the board level. If they are satisfied with the board amendment the bill will die. If not it will proceed.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> I believe NH already ousted them , as well as Indiana:thumbsup::thumbsup:~CS~:thumbsup::thumbsup:



Has this passed yet?


----------



## nrp3 (Jan 24, 2009)

No, not in NH. It is only a bill in subcommittee.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

nrp3 said:


> No, not in NH. It is only a bill in subcommittee.



Darn


----------

