# Evil forces at work



## FaultCurrent (May 13, 2014)

They forces at work again...who is right?

http://www.ocala.com/article/20160404/ARTICLES/160409913


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

The worst part of this is that since they've been made mandatory before they work, there's no longer an incentive for the manufacturers to develop something that works. 

In time, things would be safer if the regulatory bodies held out for a robust product rather than rolling over for what's available now. 

Well, in five or ten years the manufacturers will have to drum up something more expensive that purports to improve safety, maybe the next one will work better.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

All emotional blather , including the FF's spiel. FF's are about as qualified to opine on electrical theory as a weatherman is about the stock market.

go here>

long read alert 

~CS~


----------



## Barjack (Mar 28, 2010)

I'd like to buy Joseph Belcher a beer.



> Joseph Belcher, of the Florida Home Builders Association, said the device seems impractical and expensive. Without it, he said, homeowners could save $200 for each unit. Because it could cut off electricity while people are away, it would spoil food, he added.
> 
> Belcher told the commission the National Association of Home Builders estimates a cost of over $2.5 billion per year nationally to provide all the fault protection required in homes.
> 
> “It is not a major fire problem at all,” he said. “The arc fault requirement is one step beyond where we need to go.”


----------



## RePhase277 (Feb 5, 2008)

Well, if the best argument presented is "We don't want our milk to spoil...", no wonder it was voted down. How about "They are a scam and don't work the way the manufacturer claims..."


----------



## Spunk#7 (Nov 30, 2012)

I've often wondered what the fuse manufactures think about AFCIs? Maybe they have an alternative.


----------



## Barjack (Mar 28, 2010)

I'm just glad we're not the only ones against this infernal rule. I'll take help from anywhere at this point. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## emtnut (Mar 1, 2015)

Well, as one lady said ... some homeowners are getting granite countertops.
I have no f^%ing clue why she brought that up .... but she did :blink:
:no::no::no:

Maybe it wasn't a pro AFCI vote, but another anti-granite-countertop agenda


----------



## RePhase277 (Feb 5, 2008)

Spunk#7 said:


> I've often wondered what the fuse manufactures think about AFCIs? Maybe they have an alternative.


They do have a much better alternative. They call them "fuses".:laughing:


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

All LIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AFCIs have nothing to do with fire mitigation. Period.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

InPhase277 said:


> They do have a much better alternative. They call them "fuses".:laughing:



Ummm, your laughing but are actually 100% correct. 


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


An arc fault is nothing more then a re-labelled short circuit. I am not even remotely exaggerating.


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

Enhance your calm AT.


----------



## donaldelectrician (Sep 30, 2010)

FaultCurrent said:


> They forces at work again...who is right?
> 
> http://www.ocala.com/article/20160404/ARTICLES/160409913





They Mark AFCI's as Fire Saving Devises .... In the 70's ...


Hell of a fight to get rid of them now that they went back to some GFCI teck .

that actually dose something ... But Not What was Proposed .



Go Figure
Don


----------



## RePhase277 (Feb 5, 2008)

AcidTrip said:


> Ummm, your laughing but are actually 100% correct.


I'm laughing because it turns out that the oldest circuit protection technology is still the best circuit protection. Many things have gotten better: wire, fittings, grounding and bonding, connectors, sealants, lubricants, GFCIs, sensors... but the same ol' fusible metal strip from 1898 is still going strong virtually unchanged. That makes me LOL.


----------



## cad99 (Feb 19, 2012)

Can I haz $200 granite countertops?


Living the dream one nightmare at a time


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

InPhase277 said:


> I'm laughing because it turns out that the oldest circuit protection technology is still the best circuit protection. Many things have gotten better: wire, fittings, grounding and bonding, connectors, sealants, lubricants, GFCIs, sensors... but the same ol' fusible metal strip from 1898 is still going strong virtually unchanged. That makes me LOL.



And it actually mitigates arc faults by their own standards. But yes, you are 100% correct.


----------



## papaotis (Jun 8, 2013)

isnt that pretty much what a standard breaker is supposed to do, if working properly?i mean ,among other things


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

papaotis said:


> isnt that pretty much what a standard breaker is supposed to do, if working properly?i mean ,among other things



Pretty much. But because regular breakers do no always trip under 8 half cycles they decided to call that an "arc fault".


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

Mike Holt didn't like em at first, but then he went to a factory making them and did an about face on it. Actually I really think the NSA has the goods on Mr. Holt , just like how they do on Justice Roberts and you get similar results now out of both.............................. :laughing:





See, I warned you this snooping was going to effect everybody here.........


----------



## donaldelectrician (Sep 30, 2010)

InPhase277 said:


> I'm laughing because it turns out that the oldest circuit protection technology is still the best circuit protection. Many things have gotten better: wire, fittings, grounding and bonding, connectors, sealants, lubricants, GFCIs, sensors... but the same ol' fusible metal strip from 1898 is still going strong virtually unchanged. That makes me LOL.





The Edison Fuse is still the Safest Way to protect you and yours .


I can not believe that AFCI's save more AZZ than a toilet seat .



Don


----------



## donaldelectrician (Sep 30, 2010)

Spunk#7 said:


> I've often wondered what the fuse manufactures think about AFCIs? Maybe they have an alternative.




I think the folks who own AFCI's

Own the Fuse Companies .



Don


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

macmikeman said:


> Mike Holt didn't like em at first, but then he went to a factory making them and did an about face on it.


I didn't know he made an about face, did he put any info on his site that showed why he's a believer now? 

I am willing to listen, I just haven't seen anything that shows these things doing what they need to do to prevent a fire. 

I have seen doctored video with voltages different from actual household voltages, but that's borderline fraudulent, and I'm being generous when I say "borderline," those videos increase my skepticism. 

If he changed his tune after being threatened by a legion of lawyers, it increases my skepticism and cynicism and possibly a few other cisms.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

splatz said:


> > I didn't know he made an about face, did he put any info on his site that showed why he's a believer now?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

splatz said:


> I didn't know he made an about face, did he put any info on his site that showed why he's a believer now?
> 
> I am willing to listen, I just haven't seen anything that shows these things doing what they need to do to prevent a fire.
> 
> ...





Allow me to brush off the chicken feathers cluttering up things around here and link you to this newsletter. You have to read all the way. And the paragraph '' As of'' http://www.mikeholt.com/newsletter-search.php?search_param=afci


Edit: Link misdirected to front page. Scroll down to the Afci update article


----------



## cuba_pete (Dec 8, 2011)

InPhase277 said:


> I'm laughing because it turns out that the oldest circuit protection technology is still the best circuit protection. Many things have gotten better: wire, fittings, grounding and bonding, connectors, sealants, lubricants, GFCIs, sensors... but the same ol' fusible metal strip from 1898 is still going strong virtually unchanged. That makes me LOL.


I think insulation is a huge part as well. If you keep the insulation from burning to begin with it goes a long ways.


----------



## cuba_pete (Dec 8, 2011)

donaldelectrician said:


> The Edison Fuse is still the Safest Way to protect you and yours .
> 
> 
> I can not believe that AFCI's save more AZZ than a toilet seat .
> ...


Aww, Christ...don't say that...people will start believing that that dude invented the fuse too...


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

InPhase277 said:


> I'm laughing because it turns out that the oldest circuit protection technology is still the best circuit protection. Many things have gotten better: wire, fittings, grounding and bonding, connectors, sealants, lubricants, GFCIs, sensors... but the same ol' fusible metal strip from 1898 is still going strong virtually unchanged. That makes me LOL.



Why did your post get likes but mind didnt? 


If people only knew the truth they would be rioting.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

macmikeman said:


> Allow me to brush off the chicken feathers cluttering up things around here and link you to this newsletter. You have to read all the way. And the paragraph '' As of'' http://www.mikeholt.com/newsletter-search.php?search_param=afci
> 
> 
> Edit: Link misdirected to front page. Scroll down to the Afci update article



That means nothings. Mike Holt is a celebrity in the industry, of course he is going to say what the manufactures want him to. That and his forum.


----------



## Galt (Sep 11, 2013)

It seems to me the money could save more lives if spent elsewhere but what I would really like to see is the cost of building a new home go down. More employment for all trades.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

splatz said:


> I didn't know he made an about face, did he put any info on his site that showed why he's a believer now?
> 
> I am willing to listen, I just haven't seen anything that shows these things doing what they need to do to prevent a fire.
> 
> ...



What you need to know is that 120 volts electricity does not arc, at least by the term scientists used for years and what Paschen's law describes. Therefore UL had to change the definition to include anything that emits light, including sparks: 

"a continuous luminous discharge of electricity across an insulating medium, usually accompanied by the partial volatilization of the electrodes" 


What emits sparks? A short circuit. So therefore any short circuit can be called an arc and thats just what happened:


http://paceforensic.com/pdfs/newsletter/KeepingPace-15.pdf

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

http://paceforensic.com/pdfs/newsletter/KeepingPace-37.pdf 



As for 120 volts of electricity, lets see what other sections of the industry have to say:


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

Galt said:


> It seems to me the money could save more lives if spent elsewhere but what I would really like to see is the cost of building a new home go down. More employment for all trades.



It would be. In fact AFCI cover a good portion of mandatory home fire sprinklers. Thats right, mandatory by the NFPA... but amended at the local level.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

AcidTrip said:


> That means nothings. Mike Holt is a celebrity in the industry, of course he is going to say what the manufactures want him to. That and his forum.




If you actually read Mike Holt's support of the AFCI, you would see that it's based on the inclusion of GFCI protection in addition to AFCI protection. I understand why he would support it in that case, but now manufacturers are going in the other direction and removing the current differential part of the breaker.


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

AcidTrip said:


> It would be. In fact AFCI cover a good portion of mandatory home fire sprinklers. Thats right, mandatory by the NFPA... but amended at the local level.


Residential fire sprinklers are mandated by ICC not NFPA, NFPA does not publish the International Residential Code ICC does.

Since the 2009 edition of the International Residential Code and effective January 1st of 2011, section R313 has required automatic fire sprinkler systems to be installed in one and two family dwelling units.

Many states (Utah included) have amended this provision out of the adopted residential code.

Chris


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

MTW said:


> If you actually read Mike Holt's support of the AFCI, you would see that it's based on the inclusion of GFCI protection in addition to AFCI protection. I understand why he would support it in that case, but now manufacturers are going in the other direction and removing the current differential part of the breaker.



I have read it. Mike Holt does not flat out call AFCIs a major scam. In fact since the earlly 2000s he has become silent and he technically has to. He is a celebrity looked upon by many, if he was to say these are the greatest scam in the 100 years of the electrical trade he not only holds the burden of proof and liability going along with it, but also his career. If someone like Holt got in the way of Culter Hammer or Schneider he would loose everything within 24 hours. The stakes are far to high, and the investment far to great for the NFPA or the companies backing it to admit being wrong. 


GFP had its merits but as you say its being taken out. At this point all Mike can do is play the big people game. 







raider1 said:


> Residential fire sprinklers are mandated by ICC not NFPA, NFPA does not publish the International Residential Code ICC does.
> 
> Since the 2009 edition of the International Residential Code and effective January 1st of 2011, section R313 has required automatic fire sprinkler systems to be installed in one and two family dwelling units.
> 
> ...


I know, but the raw standards mandate fire sprinklers in dwellings. However its amended when applied to the real world. The NEC however is not... I think this is key.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

Oppps, yes, you are correct. My fault, I was wrong. It is the ICC, not the NFPA.


But, my question: why amend that and not AFCIs? Its pure hypocrisy. One has been proven to save lives, the other is already a chunk of fire sprinkler capitol costs and does nothing.


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

AcidTrip said:


> Oppps, yes, you are correct. My fault, I was wrong. It is the ICC, not the NFPA.
> 
> 
> But, my question: why amend that and not AFCIs? Its pure hypocrisy. One has been proven to save lives, the other is already a chunk of fire sprinkler capitol costs and does nothing.



Utah does amend the IRC in regards to AFCI. The amended IRC in Utah only requires AFCI protection for bedroom circuits. Utah has rejected the expansion of AFCI technology since the 2005 NEC.

Chris


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

macmikeman said:


> Allow me to brush off the chicken feathers cluttering up things around here and link you to this newsletter. You have to read all the way. And the paragraph '' As of'' http://www.mikeholt.com/newsletter-search.php?search_param=afci
> 
> 
> Edit: Link misdirected to front page. Scroll down to the Afci update article


I've been at this 2 decades now Mac, you would not believe the time i've invested..... 

You'll see all sorts opine across the 'net on afci's 

Most of what's out there sorely lacks one fundamental element 

*Theory*

Although it's true some respect it, and some won't,_ theory_ will hand 98% of what's out spewing chunks of blather there their azz _(inclusive of some nema cheerleaders @ MH btw)_

20 years ago i was a _conspirator theorist_ just for questioning and digging:no:

About that same time i was a FF too. It's not so much a glorified gig, quite humbling to be in the presence of those who sit and witness their entire existence go up in smoke, trust me you feel small.....


I didn't think it right to sell them some _magic widget_ them , and we don't now

that's _'we' _of international scale, people with a shred of integrity, and the balls to stand up against fraud _(the same 'we' who dragged me to ET btw)_

So as you cruise those forums , look at the post counts, thread awards, monthly thread winners, and all that _BRINGS THOSE SITES THE BIZ_

Yeah, WE know how to work a grass root crowd, heck maybe we'll even *make the electrical trade great *again....:laughing:~CS~:whistling2:


----------



## Galt (Sep 11, 2013)

A lot of rural Wi. homes do not have the well capacity to operate a sprinkler system.


----------



## donaldelectrician (Sep 30, 2010)

MTW said:


> If you actually read Mike Holt's support of the AFCI, you would see that it's based on the inclusion of GFCI protection in addition to AFCI protection. I understand why he would support it in that case, but now manufacturers are going in the other direction and removing the current differential part of the breaker.




That GFCI Equipment Teck in with the AFCI ls a sales ploy so you feel like you are doing something good and not totally wasted effort .


i knew they will push it on this , after they failed and were exposed .


The $$$$ spent here takes away from real fixes and needed electrical upgrades .



Don


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

donaldelectrician said:


> That GFCI Equipment Teck in with the AFCI ls a sales ploy so you feel like you are doing something good and not totally wasted effort .


That and the fact arc signature analysis was so immature and so crappy that GFP had to be used for 12 years in order to pass UL1699 testing. 






> i knew they will push it on this , after they failed and were exposed .


They just shift to a new problem and focus on that. 




> The $$$$ spent here takes away from real fixes and needed electrical upgrades .
> 
> 
> 
> Don


AFCIs will actually increase electrical fires, no decrease them. Most electrical contractors wired to about 5 to 6 va per foot (if not more) because extra circuits cost next to nothing. After AFCIs everyone is now doing the code minimum 3 va per foot not only to cover AFCI costs but the fact you cant pull 14/3. Fewer circuits that are stressed more.

Canada limits the number of receptacles and lights on a circuit to about 12 (if I remember right) putting them at something like 8va per foot in a home. While extreme, most contractors settled on 5va which is imo optimal. I say this because electricians know best what is right and what is not but are now forced to wire to code minimum which will back fire when DIYs rip out the nuisance tripping AFCI not only with a standard breaker but on several amps higher.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

Galt said:


> A lot of rural Wi. homes do not have the well capacity to operate a sprinkler system.



As do most Skyscrappers and large buildings. Google fire sprinkler reserve tank. Ok, some wells might not be happy filling it in a short time, but in most places city water is adequate. Even if 1/4 of the homes in the US were sprinkled a major difference would be seen.


----------



## RePhase277 (Feb 5, 2008)

AcidTrip said:


> As do most Skyscrappers and large buildings. Google fire sprinkler reserve tank. Ok, some wells might not be happy filling it in a short time, but in most places city water is adequate. Even if 1/4 of the homes in the US were sprinkled a major difference would be seen.


I would rather have a breaker that actually worked the way AFCIs claim to than to have all my stuff soaked with water.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

InPhase277 said:


> I would rather have a breaker that actually worked the way AFCIs claim to than to have all my stuff soaked with water.



But AFCIs dont do what they claim to. Even if they did, arc faults have never been proven to what degree are responsible for home fires. My bet is only a very, very small percentage of actual electrical fires.


----------



## tbartek (Nov 30, 2012)

I have one of my students pair of linemans pliers with a nice burned out cutting edge that proves that AFCI's do not work as advertised. At least square D's don't.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

tbartek said:


> I have one of my students pair of linemans pliers with a nice burned out cutting edge that proves that AFCI's do not work as advertised. At least square D's don't.



Did they have GFP in them? If you cut into a GFP AFCI the burn was limited. Cut into a non GFP AFCI and the burn looks like that of a regular breaker.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

This is what real arcing looks like, one that actually follows the qualifications of Paschen's law:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

My Q would be , is a consuming arc that sustains itself and creates a path of carbonization have bona fide scientific parameters illicited on the lower voltage end of the possible scale?

~CS~


----------



## Anathera (Feb 16, 2016)

only time I have seen an AFCI trip that may have been as advertised was when someone punched a staple down too hard on 12/2 but we never did find an actual burn in the wire so it may have just been a fluke. 
It did trip instantaneously on a 120v Arc welder though, haha don't think that was the manufactures intention


----------



## inetdog (Apr 13, 2016)

More likely that the staple caused a ground fault trip, since that might not leave as much of a mark.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

A staple ...is....a......path......~CS~


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> My Q would be , is a consuming arc that sustains itself and creates a path of carbonization have bona fide scientific parameters illicited on the lower voltage end of the possible scale?
> 
> ~CS~



Well, it depends on who you ask... First it is IMPOSSIBLE to sustain an arc at 120 volts with similar metals like copper to copper or in normal residential wiring practices. You simply cant do it. It is however possible to have 120 volts track across a heavily carbonized surface (much like drawing out a graphite line across a sheet of paper and then using that as a conductor). Carbonization has been used to justify theoretical arcing at 120 volts, however one is left to wonder 1. how much that actually constitutes as an arc 2. how such conditions form in residential wiring. 




One give away has been manufactures using GFP in order to pass the carbonation tests carried out in UL1699. For 10 years manufactures could not develop a signature analysis that would catch that "leaking" current and relied on GFP, perhaps because its not a true ripple rich waveform like that you would find across two electrodes in air taking holding a genuine arc. 

As for carbonizing NM in AFCI testing a 15,000 volt potential is applied across cut insulation in repeated 30 second intervals until the insulation is completely charred and melted across the conductors.


Now how does wiring get this way in residential? A theory has been crafted (though never been even remotely proven) that dwellings over the years are subjected to brief multi thousand volt surges which carbonize NM with overdriven staples to the point where 120 volts can track across. Assuming such was true, repeated multi thousand volt spikes will render the electronics within AFCI inoperative. 


The carbonization theory takes much imagination to stitch together. But hey in the least it has proven GFP does the same as signature analysis in such lab simulations :laughing:


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

Anathera said:


> only time I have seen an AFCI trip that may have been as advertised was when someone punched a staple down too hard on 12/2 but we never did find an actual burn in the wire so it may have just been a fluke.





Its not a fluke, most likely it was the built in GFP which is nothing more then a relaxed GFCI. Why GFP over arc analysis? This might is one of several reasons:




> It did trip instantaneously on a 120v Arc welder though, haha don't think that was the manufactures intention



The wave form analysis in AFCIs is hit or miss and everyone including industry professionals know that:




> *Furthermore, some commercial AFCIs often fail to trip when necessary or trip when they should not; the accuracy of arc fault detection was only approximately 50% in a previously published research report [39]. Consequently, it remains difficult to accurately detect all arc faults in circuits,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And the fact 120 volts under best case $$$ funded scenarios does not equate to a high probability:




> For example,* the probability of fire ignition due to arc faults increases from 3.5% for 120 V to 83% for 240 V,* and their nominal current levels are both 15 A [49]. Compared to 120 V, the higher voltages from 220 to 240 V are more likely to break down gaps and lead to more arcs [50,51]. Arc currents are usually continuous in higher voltage systems, but they are sometimes intermittent in 120 V systems [49,50]. Thus, higher voltage systems generate larger arc energy and thus provide better conditions for the ignition of electrical fires [50,51].



http://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/16/4/500/htm


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Grand link AT :thumbsup:

But lets back up a tad please......

Carbon, or _carbonization_ is the byproduct of heat , or fire. 

It's what's left in my woodstove.....:whistling2:

~CS~


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> Grand link AT :thumbsup:
> 
> But lets back up a tad please......
> 
> ...


Yup. And they want us to think homes are subjected to 15,000 volt surges at routine intervals to create it.


----------



## FaultCurrent (May 13, 2014)

I don't believe that the AFCI protection is really about wiring in the walls or whatever part of construction. It's more to do with what's plugged in. The likelihood of a frayed cord or or a power strip having worn parts or broken insulation is a real issue. Example, I have a golf cart battery charger with a 120 volt cord. Over the years the cord is suffering where it leaves the plastic cord clamp at the charger. I noticed that I can see the exposed rubber conductors but have been too lazy to fix it. The other day I plugged it in and the copper stranded wires at the clamp finally had made contact. The breaker didn't trip but the the cord went up in smoke at the connector. And I have seen burned power strips where the cheap receptacles burned up from overload. Can this type of failure cause fires. Probably.

These are the types of problems AFCI's are designed to stop. Do they? Who knows. And the nuisance tripping has given them a black eye. Are they effective and worth all the expense to install?

I am not sold on AFCI right now. I don't think they are sophisticated enough to tell a low level fault from arcing on a washing machine timer contact right now. But insurance companies pushed these things into law and they are here to stay.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Fault, your cord snafu was a GF , not a series event. Nothing on the market mitigates a series event,aka>_glowing connection_

GC's are, by UL's own decree (1977), the numero uno incendiary culprit 

check this out>

https://youtu.be/_2HyTRxzwXs?t=169

~CS~


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

FaultCurrent said:


> I don't believe that the AFCI protection is really about wiring in the walls or whatever part of construction. It's more to do with what's plugged in. The likelihood of a frayed cord or or a power strip having worn parts or broken insulation is a real issue. Example, I have a golf cart battery charger with a 120 volt cord. Over the years the cord is suffering where it leaves the plastic cord clamp at the charger. I noticed that I can see the exposed rubber conductors but have been too lazy to fix it. The other day I plugged it in and the copper stranded wires at the clamp finally had made contact. The breaker didn't trip but the the cord went up in smoke at the connector. And I have seen burned power strips where the cheap receptacles burned up from overload. Can this type of failure cause fires. Probably.
> 
> These are the types of problems AFCI's are designed to stop. Do they? Who knows. And the nuisance tripping has given them a black eye. Are they effective and worth all the expense to install?
> 
> I am not sold on AFCI right now. I don't think they are sophisticated enough to tell a low level fault from arcing on a washing machine timer contact right now. But insurance companies pushed these things into law and they are here to stay.



And you want to know what provides the best (and proven) protection against arc faults in cords?


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

FaultCurrent said:


> > I don't believe that the AFCI protection is really about wiring in the walls or whatever part of construction. It's more to do with what's plugged in. The likelihood of a frayed cord or or a power strip having worn parts or broken insulation is a real issue. Example, I have a golf cart battery charger with a 120 volt cord. Over the years the cord is suffering where it leaves the plastic cord clamp at the charger. I noticed that I can see the exposed rubber conductors but have been too lazy to fix it. The other day I plugged it in and the copper stranded wires at the clamp finally had made contact. The breaker didn't trip but the the cord went up in smoke at the connector. And I have seen burned power strips where the cheap receptacles burned up from overload. Can this type of failure cause fires. Probably.
> >
> > These are the types of problems AFCI's are designed to stop. Do they? Who knows. And the nuisance tripping has given them a black eye. Are they effective and worth all the expense to install?
> 
> ...


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

AcidTrip said:


> And you want to know what provides the best (and proven) protection against arc faults in cords?


http://www.uk-plugs.com/


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

splatz said:


> http://www.uk-plugs.com/



Yup, thats it! 

And you wan't to know how you catch so called "series arc faults"? With this:


http://thermarestor.co.uk/


The UK (running at more than 150 volts to ground where arcing may be legit) has both series and parallel arc fault protection without a SINGLE transistor. If that doesnt raise eye brows I don't know what will.


----------



## FaultCurrent (May 13, 2014)

The CPSC was the driving force behind the push to adopt AFCI into the NEC. It started the effort in 1996. It based a lot of it's policy on this. "CPSC's Home Electrical System Fires Project involves a broad coalition of public and private organizations, including fire prevention officials, the insurance industry, and the National Electrical Safety Foundations, which will identify solutions to the home wiring problems that contribute to electrical fires."

The insurance industry is always behind any law that will reduce their liability. Seat belts, helmet laws, and AFCI's. 

Combination AFCI's are now required per 210.12, they protect against series and parallel arc faults. Series protection detects arcing across a break in the hot or neutral conductor. Parallel protection detects arcing between the hot and neutral or ground, or the neutral and ground.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Fault, i would encourage you to take some time and read this by Dr Joe Engel, one of nema's original afci-task force members

~CS~


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

FaultCurrent said:


> The CPSC was the driving force behind the push to adopt AFCI into the NEC. It started the effort in 1996.


Only because manufactures gave them attention. The effort was well under way before 1996:

http://paceforensic.com/pdfs/newsletter/KeepingPace-15.pdf

http://paceforensic.com/pdfs/newsletter/KeepingPace-37.pdf

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






> It based a lot of it's policy on this. "CPSC's Home Electrical System Fires Project involves a broad coalition of public and private organizations, including fire prevention officials, the insurance industry, and the National Electrical Safety Foundations, which will identify solutions to the home wiring problems that contribute to electrical fires."


In its mission statement yes, they need to sound professional. And I am sure they compiled data together from many different sources. 




> The insurance industry is always behind any law that will reduce their liability. Seat belts, helmet laws, and AFCI's.


Show me where insurance companies endorse AFCIs on black and white.



> Combination AFCI's are now required per 210.12, they protect against series and parallel arc faults. Series protection detects arcing across a break in the hot or neutral conductor. Parallel protection detects arcing between the hot and neutral or ground, or the neutral and ground.


Parallel arc fault= short circuit

Series arc fault = glowing connection 

Existing phenomenon was simply re-labelled to justify AFCIs, along with the definition of arcing so system under 150 volt to ground could be included.




In fact the papers linked to Paceforensics give it away, notice the term "arcing short circuit" and the constant reference to magnetic trip levels.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

> Parallel arc fault= short circuit
> 
> Series arc fault = glowing connection
> 
> ...


Excerpt from link>>>>



> While there is a test for the maximum short-circuit rating,
> there is no test for a* minimum short-circuit rating*. In other
> words, how high of a short-circuit current is required for a
> miniature circuit breaker to trip instantaneously. *Testing
> ...


~CS~


----------



## FaultCurrent (May 13, 2014)

A fault or fault current is any abnormal electric current. Whether it is a line to ground, line to line or whatever. You guys are just picking the fly ****e out of pepper.

Glowing connection. WTF. An incandescent filament is a glowing connection. If I put too much current through any conductor it could be a glowing connection, so what? 

The intention of requiring AFCI's was an attempt to reduce electrical fires that were caused by low level arcing faults. In addition to the protection provided by the Branch Feeder AFCI, the Combination AFCI provides for series arc detection down to 5 amperes. This series arc detection is beneficial to detect lower level arcing in both branch circuits and power supply cords.

The insurance companies are the reason the NEC and UL exist. To establish standards to reduce fires and subsequent claims being paid. To deny they are not a force in writing the NEC is to deny the obvious. Ever read the front portion of a Code Book? 
"The National Fire Protection Association has acted as sponsor of the National Electrical Code since 1911. The original Code document was developed in 1897 as a result of the united efforts of various* insurance*, electrical, architectural, and allied interests."

If you notice, "Douglas A. Lee, U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, MD [C]
Andrew M. Trotta, U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, MD [C]
(Alt. to Douglas A. Lee" are members (non-voting) of CMP 2. These are the same guys who came up with the original AFCI recommendation to the NEC panel.

https://www.cpsc.gov//PageFiles/108307/necletter.pdf


----------

