# Manual Transfer Switch



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

Gamit said:


> I have AFCI breakers in my main panel so will it be a code violation if I do not use them in the transfer switch ? And assuming I don’t use them in the transfer switch we know I will lose that arc fault protection but will cause any other issues ?


Might need a bit more info for this one.
Are we assuming this isn't a whole house MTS??


----------



## Gamit (Dec 30, 2009)

Sorry 10 circuit manual transfer switch with portable generator


----------



## MotoGP1199 (Aug 11, 2014)

I think the biggest effect is that you won't have random tripping while on the generator., lol. Yes it would be a violation though as it still needs to be AFCI protected. Also the neutral for those circuits would have to be switched as well or you would not have a complete circuit going to the load.


----------



## kb1jb1 (Nov 11, 2017)

This is the reason I started using the transfer panel type. TRC1003C From generators direct. It acts as a subpanel and you can use AFCI breakers but there will most likely be nuisance tripping with the generator.


----------



## Gamit (Dec 30, 2009)

Are you saying that the neutral would not have continuity through the de energized AFCI breaker ?


----------



## MotoGP1199 (Aug 11, 2014)

Gamit said:


> Are you saying that the neutral would have continuity through the de energized AFCI breaker ?


I think he's saying that style of panel uses regular breakers so you can put in what ever type you want. I would assume you would then just have to spice the neutrals for AFCI's together on those circuits.


----------



## Gamit (Dec 30, 2009)

MotoGP1199 said:


> Gamit said:
> 
> 
> > Are you saying that the neutral would have continuity through the de energized AFCI breaker ?
> ...


I am basically just asking will the circuit work with regular breakers in the transfer switch rather than AFCI breakers without doing anything to the neutrals. This is one of those reliance 10 circuit deals


----------



## MotoGP1199 (Aug 11, 2014)

Gamit said:


> I am basically just asking will the circuit work with regular breakers in the transfer switch rather than AFCI breakers without doing anything to the neutrals. This is one of those reliance 10 circuit deals


No, How would the neutral connect to each AFCI circuit on the existing panel? The neutrals in the existing panel go straight from the load to the breaker. You can't just tie them all together on the new panel.

You would have to do something with the neutrals. And it wouldn't be code compliant.


----------



## Gamit (Dec 30, 2009)

MotoGP1199 said:


> Gamit said:
> 
> 
> > I am basically just asking will the circuit work with regular breakers in the transfer switch rather than AFCI breakers without doing anything to the neutrals. This is one of those reliance 10 circuit deals
> ...


Yes .. I understand that I always was under the impression that the neutral has continuity through the breaker . So your telling me that I take my meter and read from the neutral tale on the breaker with the neutral screw on the breaker it won’t read through ?


----------



## MotoGP1199 (Aug 11, 2014)

OK, I see what your saying. Yes it should have continuity. I have not done this and am not sure if it would create any issues.


----------



## gpop (May 14, 2018)

There are 3 or 4 different designs for the small 30 amp transfer switch's. 

The one you have is similar to a sub panel so the afci/gfci breakers will need to be moved to the transfer switch. 

The cheaper versions are 3 way switches with line/generator feeding load. In which case someone would have to chime in as your power would come from the generator yet the neutral would still go via the gfci breaker. (not sure if that would cause the breakers to trip)


----------



## Gamit (Dec 30, 2009)

gpop said:


> There are 3 or 4 different designs for the small 30 amp transfer switch's.
> 
> The one you have is similar to a sub panel so the afci/gfci breakers will need to be moved to the transfer switch.
> 
> ...


Can someone site the code violation for not using the same protection in the transferring equipment? Looked all over


----------



## MotoGP1199 (Aug 11, 2014)

I think the code violation would be that those area's requiring AFCI protection need AFCI protection. Code doesn't care if it is getting its power from the POCO or a generator. 


On a side note, I think AFCI is total BS and doesn't do anything.


----------



## gpop (May 14, 2018)

I don't deal with residential so im wondering if the breaker feeding a sub panel is afci does that now mean that everything connected to the sub panel is afci protected?


----------



## EJPHI (May 7, 2008)

These transfer switches have a problem with Arc Fault breaker requirements.
If you can, please consider using a breaker interlock kit. For SquareD, it's just a bracket that slides to allow the main or the generator back-feed breaker to drive the bus. Much cleaner and easier. You can also install one if these cute little CT power meters to check the load balance.:vs_cool:


----------



## paulengr (Oct 8, 2017)

gpop said:


> I don't deal with residential so im wondering if the breaker feeding a sub panel is afci does that now mean that everything connected to the sub panel is afci protected?



It’s a sub panel feeder so not AFCI. It would technically make the downstream AFCI but wouldn’t coordinate well.


----------



## paulengr (Oct 8, 2017)

MotoGP1199 said:


> I think the code violation would be that those area's requiring AFCI protection need AFCI protection. Code doesn't care if it is getting its power from the POCO or a generator.
> 
> 
> On a side note, I think AFCI is total BS and doesn't do anything.



The trouble with AFCI is that it’s stretching things. On good, clean laboratory tests it works exactly as promised. But there are two problems. The first is this is a very nonlinear waveform. It isn’t a specific harmonic or a specific surge or any other obvious and “easy” pattern to recognize. Second recognizing an arcing waveform isn’t good enough. There are good arcs and bad arcs. All switching contacts (light switches, breakers, HID and fluorescent lighting) all arc but these are normal, “good” arcs that have to be ignored. This is not an easy problem to solve. So we have to have a bunch of let’s call them test patterns. But what counts as acceptable and what isn’t? What happens when for instance contacts wear or arc chutes get dirty or we get corrosion on relay contacts? In a way, an AFCI is just asking for trouble. I don’t care how many engineers working in clean labs with access to millions of dollars in testing and design say, fundamentally AFCIs are asking for trouble because you can’t show me a calculation or something to tell me what is a “good” arc from switching contacts and a “bad” arc from a loose wire. They’re all arcs and that’s the issue.

With GFCIs for instance we just look at time and differential current. It might add a tiny bit of extra electronics to reject for instance pool pump VFDs but for the most part any junior or senior college EE should be able to figure out how to design a GFCI and they are all the same design. Plus there is no such thing as “good” leakage to ground except in the micro amp range where we can’t make system capacitance totally go away. So it’s easy to agree on what ground faults are and what is good and what is bad. It is still not easy to find compared to say a dead short but not impossible, and often the fault shows up with a Megger so we can break down the circuit until we find the problem. There is no “arc meter”. Again we can’t agree on what an arc is except when we see one...kind of like trying to define ****ography.

This is where we have UL creating a bunch of test cases. So as an equipment manufacturer all we need to do is create software that passes the UL test. Real world doesn’t matter. Except like the more fancy GFCIs that don’t trip on everything but still pass UL, how to make an AFCI that doesn’t trip on things we can’t even define but still passes UL testing? Or how to make UL tests realistic?

Normally in engineering on something like this we just take the “conservative” approach, declare it far too questionable to call it, and don’t do anything about what is a marginal situation. But it got political so now we are stuck with doing what is fundamentally a really bad idea in the first place.


----------

