# AFCI in 2017



## manchestersparky

2017 NEC will complete the afci requirements for dwellings !!

REVISION: 210.12(A) – WHOLE-HOUSE AFCI PROTECTION
The continual expansion for arc-fault circuit-interrupter (AFCI) protection appears to be complete with the proposed revisions to 210.12(A), which would require AFCI protection for all 120-volt, single-phase, 15- and 20-ampere branch circuits supplying outlets or devices installed in dwelling units. The “laundry list” of rooms or areas requiring AFCI protection was removed, leaving AFCI protection required for the entire dwelling unit. By the time the 2017 edition of the NEC is published, the electrical industry will have over 15 years of experience with the manufacture and installation of AFCI devices, and over 9 years of experience with combination-type (detects both parallel and series arcing events) AFCI devices. With the expanded requirement in the 2014 NEC, there were very few 120-volt single-phase 15- and 20-ampere branch circuits in a dwelling unit (garages and bathrooms) that did not require AFCI protection. This will accomplish the original objective sought by the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to reduce residential electrical wiring fires from the original AFCI proposals in the early 1990s.

CMP-2 also chose to delete 210.12(A)(4)(d), which required listing both the outlet branch-circuit (OBC) AFCI outlet device and the branch-circuit overcurrent device as a “System Combination.” This revision will basically allow the OBC AFCI outlet device to be installed at the first outlet of a branch circuit to provide the necessary AFCI protection. Substantiation for this revision provided significant statistical assurance that the “home run” portion of the branch circuit is protected from parallel arcing faults and the arcing for “hammer-damaged cable” exhibited arcing in less than 10 percent of the surge events and exhibited arcing that lasted over a single half-cycle.


----------



## 480sparky

manchestersparky said:


> ... By the time the 2017 edition of the NEC is published, the electrical industry will have over 15 years of experience with the manufacture and installation of AFCI devices, and over 9 years of experience with combination-type (detects both parallel and series arcing events) AFCI devices........


And ZERO years figuring out why they still trip for no reason.


----------



## Meadow

Its funny, because arcing is not even a problem at 120 volts. A few mouse clicks away to Eaton and GE's industrial or utility divisions say the exact opposite of their residential division. :lol::lol::lol::no: 


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...FLCuqqLZSzGmlA&bvm=bv.110151844,d.cGc&cad=rja 


http://optimalcontrol.net/user_manu..._Use_with_Low_Voltage_Equipment_GET-3212C.pdf


----------



## Dennis Alwon

AcidTrip said:


> Its funny, because arcing is not even a problem at 120 volts.


Why not... I have seen arcing melt a plastic box and have seen a 24v lighting system wirenut melt right off from the arcing. Do you think that there is no way that could start a fire? 

I have seen a fire started by an open JB behind a kitchen cabinet where the cover was left off and the wires arced.


----------



## Meadow

Dennis Alwon said:


> Why not... I have seen arcing melt a plastic box and have seen a 24v lighting system wirenut melt right off from the arcing. Do you think that there is no way that could start a fire?
> 
> I have seen a fire started by an open JB behind a kitchen cabinet where the cover was left off and the wires arced.



There is a difference between arcing and joule heating.


----------



## chicken steve

AcidTrip said:


> There is a *phenomenal* difference between arcing and joule heating.


fify....:whistling2:

sorry AT



~CS~


----------



## chicken steve

manchestersparky said:


> 2017 NEC will complete the afci requirements for dwellings !!



The ROP's went through unopposed i'm told, save for the lamentation of a one cmp member who will quickly be forgotten. 

Myself, i'll be adding an average of $1000 a bid new construction, contracting all reno work inclusive of afci interface callbacks @ premium rates, as well as all smoke jobs (which usually require afci protection via 210.12B) , etc as nauseum 

(btw, i've already gone through the litigant meatgrinder via afci induced freeze up) 

But that isn't the best part.....:no:

I'll be forwarding a direct # to state AHJ's and officials for *ANY* complaints

In fact, i'm advising all EC's to follow suit :whistling2:

~CS~


----------



## Meadow

chicken steve said:


> The ROP's went through unopposed i'm told, save for the lamentation of a one cmp member who will quickly be forgotten.
> 
> Myself, i'll be adding an average of $1000 a bid new construction, contracting all reno work inclusive of afci interface callbacks @ premium rates, as well as all smoke jobs (which usually require afci protection via 210.12B) , etc as nauseum
> 
> (btw, i've already gone through the litigant meatgrinder via afci induced freeze up)
> 
> But that isn't the best part.....:no:
> 
> I'll be forwarding a direct # to state AHJ's and officials for *ANY* complaints
> 
> In fact, i'm advising all EC's to follow suit :whistling2:
> 
> ~CS~



Arent any of these inspectors cutting you slack?


----------



## chicken steve

AcidTrip said:


> Arent any of these inspectors cutting you slack?


I don't _expect _them , nor do i _ask_ them to AT

What i do expect is the state to _stand behind_ their doctrine

My (et all) tax $$$'s go towards said _personal _responsibility.

~CS~


----------



## Meadow

chicken steve said:


> I don't _expect _them , nor do i _ask_ them to AT
> 
> What i do expect is the state to _stand behind_ their doctrine
> 
> My (et all) tax $$$'s go towards said _personal _responsibility.
> 
> ~CS~



You know the gang better then I do, but Id fight. Those who blindly follow authority are my peeve. (Not you, but the inspectors who believe this merde)


----------



## Dennis Alwon

AcidTrip said:


> There is a difference between arcing and joule heating.


And what does joule heating have to do with it. We are talking arc flash to some degree. Joule heating is basically running power through an element or metal.


----------



## don_resqcapt19

Dennis Alwon said:


> And what does joule heating have to do with it. We are talking arc flash to some degree. Joule heating is basically running power through an element or metal.


Are we really? ... there is no evidence that self sustaining arcs even exist on 120/240 volt systems.


----------



## pete87

They are going to force AFCI's on the Third World Next ...

There will be no Running from them ...




Pete


----------



## Meadow

Dennis Alwon said:


> And what does joule heating have to do with it. We are talking arc flash to some degree. Joule heating is basically running power through an element or metal.




Everything. Joule heating is the direct result of a high resistance connection usually caused by poor contact (such as a loose connection)

Arc flash not the same as arcing. Arc flash is the ball of energy released when you short circuit something, such as dropping a wrench across live buss bars in switch-gear.


----------



## Meadow

don_resqcapt19 said:


> Are we really? ... there is no evidence that self sustaining arcs even exist on 120/240 volt systems.



I agree, ask any POCO running large underground networks. Arcing is rarely a concern at 120/208, but come 277/480 all the engineers will get wide eyed.


----------



## pete87

AcidTrip said:


> Everything. Joule heating is the direct result of a high resistance connection usually caused by poor contact (such as a loose connection)
> 
> Arc flash not the same as arcing. Arc flash is the ball of energy released when you short circuit something, such as dropping a wrench across live buss bars in switch-gear.





It will VAPORIZE a few feet of Bus Bar....Until blows itself out ...




Pete


----------



## chicken steve

AcidTrip said:


> You know the gang better then I do, but Id fight. Those who blindly follow authority are my peeve. (Not you, but the inspectors who believe this merde)[/QUOTE
> 
> I've waited almost 20 yrs for this AT .....
> 
> Manufacturers will _only_ be confronted as to afci efficacy is through proliferation of the product .
> 
> *So bring them on*!:thumbup: No more _'bench sitters'_ or _'cheerleaders'_ or _'NEC partisans'_
> 
> Make the Insurance men, AHJ's , Reps, et all bureaucratic entities (state and federal) accountable, responsible , and inescapable of their collective decision
> 
> THEN, maybe they'll rise to the lofty literary level of actually *reading *something beyond 210.12....
> 
> 
> ~CS~


----------



## Meadow

pete87 said:


> It will VAPORIZE a few feet of Bus Bar....Until blows itself out ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pete



Correct, but in home wiring a short circuit trips a breaker. In fact because 120 volts can not sustain itself typical short circuits had to be re-labelled as arcing:


----------



## Meadow

chicken steve said:


> AcidTrip said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know the gang better then I do, but Id fight. Those who blindly follow authority are my peeve. (Not you, but the inspectors who believe this merde)[/QUOTE
> 
> I've waited almost 20 yrs for this AT .....
> 
> Manufacturers will _only_ be confronted as to afci efficacy is through proliferation of the product .
> 
> *So bring them on*!:thumbup: No more _'bench sitters'_ or _'cheerleaders'_ or _'NEC partisans'_
> 
> Make the Insurance men, AHJ's , Reps, et all bureaucratic entities (state and federal) accountable, responsible , and inescapable of their collective decision
> 
> THEN, maybe they'll rise to the lofty literary level of actually *reading *something beyond 210.12....
> 
> 
> ~CS~
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think all of the above have been brainwashed and mislead by a trillion dollar industry.
Click to expand...


----------



## Dennis Alwon

So you are saying that joule heating is not an arc. Well I may have to disagree with that. If , in fact, an arc fault is tripping do to arcs then how does one explain the vacuum phenomena. Is it really joule heating that is tripping the afci in these situations? 

Sounds like a bit semantics to me.

It seems that every thread on afci a few members get on their soap box on this issue. I have seen documentation stating both that afci work and some that deny it. I admit I don't keep up on the studies but if you truly think this is worthless then substantiate your claims and make proposals.

I respect your opinion but to be honest I am not convinced either way however I do know that I have to deal with it.... Talk here is fine but it will not change the rules.


----------



## Meadow

Dennis Alwon said:


> So you are saying that joule heating is not an arc.


Yes. I stand behind that 100% because its been proven in laboratories. A glowing connection produces no arc signature, in fact you don't see arcing, it just glows red hot:












Same thing in the utility world, show me the arc:






In fact UL1699 openly says AFCIs will not protect against glowing connections. 




> Well I may have to disagree with that. If , in fact, an arc fault is tripping do to arcs then how does one explain the vacuum phenomena. Is it really joule heating that is tripping the afci in these situations?



That would be an actual arc signature. Arc signatures trip AFCIs. You have to realize arcing and joule heating are to very separate phenomenons. Yet one is responsible for most fires (joule heating) and arcing (like seen in the sky) is rare at 120 volts. 





> Sounds like a bit semantics to me.


Not when you research the 2 concepts. 






> It seems that every thread on afci a few members get on their soap box on this issue. I have seen documentation stating both that afci work and some that deny it. I admit I don't keep up on the studies but if you truly think this is worthless then substantiate your claims and make proposals.




Because AFCIs are complete fraud. They are nothing more then a marketing gimmick. A GFCI does the exact same thing. Evil does not take place because of bad people, it takes place when good people let bad people do bad things. To sit back and not speak up is aiding a massive crime. 


Even if arcing was a major problem for the sake of the argument, AFCIs are still grossly under developed:











> I respect your opinion but to be honest I am not convinced either way however I do know that I have to deal with it.... Talk here is fine but it will not change the rules.


I feel sorry you have to deal with it. I feel sorry for everyone that has to. The only ones who stand to gain are the manufactures. The consumer, electrician and legal system has been screwed.


----------



## Meadow

Dennis Alwon said:


> Why not... I have seen arcing melt a plastic box and *have seen a 24v lighting system wirenut melt right off from the arcing*. Do you think that there is no way that could start a fire?
> 
> I have seen a fire started by an open JB behind a kitchen cabinet where the cover was left off and the wires arced.



Also, I just want to point out that with DC sustained arcing is possible at a much lower voltage:


----------



## Wpgshocker

You are not a scientist. You don't have a testing facility. You have no accreditation. You have opinion and regurgitate other so-called studies. 

Until you show scientific and irrefutable evidence that wholly disproves the benefit (no matter how small) of AFCI's, then you should smile and collect your pay cheque. You don't get paid to complain about a couple hundred bucks of cost on a new home wire. You don't get paid to spew your opinion to customers. If one person's life is saved, it is worth it to anyone with half a brain. Do you argue about the color of maurettes? That causes as much personal harm to you as the installation of an AFCI breaker.

It's not a big deal. It causes you no personal harm. 
Why waste so much energy whining about something so minute?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Pharon

Wow, that's harsh.

I would take the opposite view -- namely that AFCIs should NEVER have been mandated by Code unless (a) there was a pressing need due to numerous house fires caused SPECIFICALLY by arcing, AND (b) a device existed in the marketplace that would prevent such a thing.

As it stands, every single member of CMP 2 should resign out of embarrassment for this hell on earth they've unleashed on the public, which serves no provable purpose whatsoever.


----------



## Meadow

Wpgshocker said:


> You are not a scientist. You don't have a testing facility. You have no accreditation. You have opinion and regurgitate other so-called studies.


:laughing: How do you know? Its fair to say you know nothing about my background or life experience. 

As for those so called studies, what makes them invalid? Especially when some are written by the very father of AFCIs, Joe Engels. If the lead developer is calling them out, (who has all the credentials), then I guess nothing will convince you otherwise. 



> Until you show scientific and irrefutable evidence that wholly disproves the benefit (no matter how small) of AFCI's, then you should smile and collect your pay cheque.


First show me the proof that 30,000 home fires per year are the direct result of arcing. Show me. Its easier to prove a positive than a negative. 




> You don't get paid to complain about a couple hundred bucks of cost on a new home wire. You don't get paid to spew your opinion to customers.


So? I was not aware you had to be paid in order to speak. And I guess you've never been an electrician chasing nuisance trips? 





> You don't get paid to spew your opinion to customers. If one person's life is saved, it is worth it to anyone with half a brain. Do you argue about the color of maurettes? That causes as much personal harm to you as the installation of an AFCI breaker


.

That same amount of money could actually save lives if invested elsewhere. And FWIW, you do know in all your wisdom where arcing is indeed a legit concern (such as 230 volt countries) AFCI technology does not use a single semiconductor or nuisance trip, right? 



> It's not a big deal. It causes you no personal harm.
> Why waste so much energy whining about something so minute?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Wait until the NEC balloons to the size of a filing cabinet. Then will you be asking why no one spoke up.


----------



## Meadow

Pharon said:


> Wow, that's harsh.
> 
> I would take the opposite view -- namely that AFCIs should NEVER have been mandated by Code unless (a) there was a pressing need due to numerous house fires caused SPECIFICALLY by arcing, AND (b) a device existed in the marketplace that would prevent such a thing.
> 
> As it stands, every single member of CMP 2 should resign out of embarrassment for this hell on earth they've unleashed on the public, which serves no provable purpose whatsoever.



Especially when a GFCI does the exact same thing, and today actually better. GFP was actually put into AFCIs because they hadn't yet developed arc signature analysis that could pass UL1699. UL's own testing showed worse case that over driven staples involve the EGC.


----------



## Meadow

Wpgshocker said:


> You are not a scientist. You don't have a testing facility. You have no accreditation. You have opinion and regurgitate other so-called studies.
> 
> Until you show scientific and irrefutable evidence that wholly disproves the benefit (no matter how small) of AFCI's, then you should smile and collect your pay cheque. You don't get paid to complain about a couple hundred bucks of cost on a new home wire. You don't get paid to spew your opinion to customers. If one person's life is saved, it is worth it to anyone with half a brain. Do you argue about the color of maurettes? That causes as much personal harm to you as the installation of an AFCI breaker.
> 
> It's not a big deal. It causes you no personal harm.
> Why waste so much energy whining about something so minute?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Condemnation without investigation is the highest forum of ignorance. When we tried to debate this same subject with you a while back on you just bailed:


http://www.electriciantalk.com/f29/afci-breaker-functionality-123073/index2/#post2236145 


Which indicates to me you are reaching these conclusions without apprehension.


----------



## Dennis Alwon

I have not read the proposal that were submitted for this but in general for a proposal to get accepted there must be substantiation. I assume that was done but whether or not the substantiation was legit or not is not my knowledge,


----------



## Pharon

AcidTrip said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2HyTRxzwXs


I don't know about you, but this video scares the crap out of me. I wouldn't be surprised if this type of undetectable thing is the cause of 99.9% of all electrically-related house fires. Electrical inspectors don't even typically check for this type of thing before passing inspection. At least not to my knowledge.


----------



## 480sparky

Dennis Alwon said:


> I have not read the proposal that were submitted for this but in general for a proposal to get accepted there must be substantiation. I assume that was done but whether or not the substantiation was legit or not is not my knowledge,


Is the ROP out? If so, I can't find it.


----------



## Meadow

Pharon said:


> I don't know about you, but this video scares the crap out of me. I wouldn't be surprised if this type of undetectable thing is the cause of 99.9% of all electrically-related house fires. Electrical inspectors don't even typically check for this type of thing before passing inspection. At least not to my knowledge.












Same here. That is classic joule heating due to high resistance contact. It produces no arc signature so nothing will be able to stop it. But, as you say connections are not something inspectors check for quality... in truth its just impractical and nothing stops Joe DIY from screwing with them. 

As Ive always said, stuff like this along with misused candles, space heaters and DIY screw-ups are behind most electrical fires.


----------



## Meadow

And no, candles are not electrical, but my point is that most house fires are not investigated in depth and as such its often common to just write down "electrical" in origin.


----------



## Pharon

480sparky said:


> Is the ROP out? If so, I can't find it.


They've been "substantiating" this since the 1990s. Here's an excerpt from the 2010 ROC. Looks like they're at least equally worried about looking like fools if they reverse (which I identified in bold text):



> ____________________________________________________
> 2-65 Log #1274 NEC-P02 Final Action: Hold
> (210.12)
> ____________________________________________________
> Submitter: James W. Carpenter, International Association of Electrical
> Inspectors
> Comment on Proposal No: 2-153
> Recommendation: We support the panel’s action for rejection of this proposal.
> 
> Substantiation: AFCI technology was first introduced in the early 1990s and has been included in the code development process in the 1999, 2002, 2005, and 2008 editions. AFCI requirements have been a progressive process, as well as substantiated over the past four NEC Code cycles.
> 
> Accordingly, this Code Panel has gradually expanded the AFCI protection
> requirements over numerous code cycles with the intent to increase electrical safety in the home, but do so on a gradual basis. However, the expansion of AFCI requirements didn’t come without extensive deliberation by the panel, based on sound technical substantiation and data.
> 
> The following past ROPs & ROCs below clearly establish the Panel’s long
> history and technical discussions, which has resulted in an equitable code that ensures a minimum level of safety.
> 
> NFPA 70 1999 Proposals 2-128, 2-129, 2-130
> NFPA 70 1999 Comments 2-56, 2-65, 2-66, 2-67, 2-68, 2-69, 2-70, 2-85
> NFPA 70 2002 Proposals 2-102, 2-103, 2-106, 2-110, 2-112, 2-113, 2 115, 2-116
> NFPA 70 2002 Comments 2-71, 2-78, 2-79, 2-80, 2-81, 2-82
> NFPA 70 2005 Proposals 2-123, 2-133, 2-134, 2-142, 2-146, 2-149, 2 150, 2-134a, 2-161, 2-167
> NFPA 70 2005 Comments 2-87a, 2-93, 2-105, 2-108, 2-110
> NFPA 70 2008 Proposals 2-142, 2-126
> NFPA 70 2008 Comments 2-95, 2-129, 2-137
> 
> As stated by CMP 2 Members F. Coluccio, R. LaRocca and J. Pauley, acceptance of this proposal would remove AFCI protection for parallel arcing faults from the first portion of the branch circuit, which is in direct conflict to past panel actions to increase safety. Rejecting this proposal will ensure the level of safety for these branch circuits are not reduced.
> 
> The submitter’s substantiation lacks merit as the Standard for AFCIs, UL 1699, doesn’t consider as a component, the proximity to an arcing source.
> 
> Regarding costs associated with metal raceways or cables, the submitter has not provided any cost analysis or data to demonstrate what is too cost prohibitive. In addition, CMP 2’s panel statement from the 2002 ROP (2-106) further supports this concept:
> 
> “AFCIs Listed to UL 1699 are available, and the standard addresses efficacy, unwanted (nuisance) operation and operation inhibition. Cost should not be an issue for the panel to resolve. The panel reviewed a large amount of data, heard presentations on various positions on AFCIs, and received public comment on the topic. Upon that review, the panel arrived at the requirements in the 1999 NEC and continues to support that established position.”
> 
> With respect to the state adoption, states throughout the U.S. continue to recognize and adopt the important safety provisions included in the 2008 NEC, despite the opposition from some industry groups. The panel needs to rise above the political battlefield and continue to move forward with what is in the best interest of safety for citizens.
> 
> In the panel statement ROP 2-166, the Code-Making Panel stresses that “AFCI protection is for protection from fire ignition for branch circuits.” Consequently, with this statement and others in the past... the entire branch circuit shall be protected.”
> 
> In the panel statement from ROP 2-155: “AFCI devices are widely available in the market and the panel notes that the cost has already come down since the introduction of AFCIs into the 1999 NEC.” Therefore, cost should not be considered.
> 
> With regards to the substantiation that “wiring insulation has dramatically improved in the past 50 years.” This is a consideration that should be addressed from the original proposal in 1999 and reviewed as to the comparison of Consumer Product Safety Commission fundamental data as to eliminate the AFCI requirement completely based on the introduction of 90 degree C insulation.
> 
> As indicated with this substantiation, the crisis with home structure fire civilian death, it appears that “Cord and Plugs” cord-and-attachment-plug connection accounts for the significant share in 2002-2005 concerning this issue. If it is the cords of appliances and equipment that are of apprehension, then AFCI and/or leakage-current detector-interrupter protection may need to be applied to the product standard as with NEC section 440.64 and addressed by Code-Making Panels 17 and 18.
> 
> *Should we disregard the past panel action concerning AFCI outlets many other consequences will occur. This will challenge the wisdom that the electrical industry’s leaders have credible knowledge.* We have discussed, assessed, informed, and legislated the concept of the entire branch circuit being protected as referenced from zone 1 Consumer Product Safety Commission study, where 36% of residential electrical fires occur. This change will provide the information for state and local jurisdictions to amend this entire section from the National Electrical Code.


----------



## Pharon

I also found this, which seems to outline causes of many electrical fires, though I'm not sure how qualified fire fighters are at diagnosing the cause back to an electrical source:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...-DVldXVT81UakP9LT53SQg&bvm=bv.110151844,d.eWE


----------



## Dennis Alwon

480sparky said:


> Is the ROP out? If so, I can't find it.


Sorry I was talking about the original rop's for the year the afci's were implemented


----------



## pete87

Wpgshocker said:


> You are not a scientist. You don't have a testing facility. You have no accreditation. You have opinion and regurgitate other so-called studies.
> 
> Until you show scientific and irrefutable evidence that wholly disproves the benefit (no matter how small) of AFCI's,
> 
> 
> Show me that AFCI is safer than a EDISON FUSE .....
> 
> 
> I will Bank on NO CB is safer and saves more LIVES than ... a Fuse .
> 
> 
> CB's have a life ratting ...service life ... Kinda ... Right .
> 
> 
> 
> Pete


----------



## don_resqcapt19

Dennis Alwon said:


> So you are saying that joule heating is not an arc. Well I may have to disagree with that. ....


The AFCI people made it clear and so did UL, that joule heating is not an arc. Joule heating is just the heat produced by the I²R losses across a high resistance connection.
From an article written by David Dini of UL.


> ... For example, electrical ignition most frequently occurs as the result of Joule heating or electrical arcing. It should not be expected that those ignition scenarios representing Joule (I2R) heating would necessarily be prevented by an AFCI.


----------



## chicken steve

Ul made it clear 40 yrs ago....

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build77/PDF/b77005.pdf

Pursuant to this OCPD manufacturers have also, in the past , opined on the _one element_ that constitutes an incendiary event , magnetic trip values.

This has a lot of focus in the IEC, not the NEC

Bottom line, the physics of electricity are being coerced here

~CS~


----------



## Dennis Alwon

don_resqcapt19 said:


> The AFCI people made it clear and so did UL, that joule heating is not an arc. Joule heating is just the heat produced by the I²R losses across a high resistance connection.
> From an article written by David Dini of UL.


The comment made a loose connection arc is not an arc but just joule heating. IOW, I believe he was saying an arc is only from a short circuit


----------



## nrp3

The biggest gripe I have is the nuisance calls. I'd like to say that I haven't had as many, but its a pain in the ass. I am tired of explaining to everyone I install them for that I have no choice, change a plug, lengthen/modify a circuit, its going in. If we are in one of those situations where its become too complicated to accomplish this and the customer doesn't want to spend the money to replace the panel, etc, I am just going to walk away. I have already had people say they'll just get someone not licensed to do it. I am really not happy with the idea of putting any heating equipment on them. I am still not convinced they provide the benefit they claim. Still, there's no way I'm not putting them in where required. I have been to the state commitee that has the power to amend the code at the state level and they don't have it in them to modify it. There is still a bill in commitee.


----------



## Pharon

My space heater always trips my AFCI after a few minutes, when it cycles on and off. But if I keep it on high, it holds indefinitely.


----------



## Meadow

Dennis Alwon said:


> The comment made a loose connection arc is not an arc but just joule heating.


A loose connection can arc if jiggled at 120 volts or is very heavily carbonized, but, the vast majority of poor connection wind up as glowing connections which do not produce an arc signature. 


The melted boxes you saw were from heat (thermal damage) but that was the chances are that was byproduct of Joule heating. 






> IOW, I believe he was saying an arc is only from a short circuit


Thats what got AFCIs started. A person theorized that when a short circuit does not clear within a few cycles it can lead to fire. I have yet to see that proven, but its what got the ball rolling. A 75 amp magnetic trip circuit breaker was originally proposed as this was anticipated to be the lowest short circuit current one might find on a dwelling branch circuit, but due to nuisance tripping was rejected since many items like motors pull more then 75amps inrush. Thus, a solid state approach was taken that would start monitoring current at 75amps, but not trip unless the waveform was indicative of a sputtering short circuit or "parallel arc fault"


Years latter it was theorized this was not enough so "series" arc fault protection was added. 

All in all glowing connections were never addressed, and FWIW I can still start a fire with current under 5 amps which is the threshold where series arc detection begins (values below that will never trip even with an arcing rich signature).


----------



## Meadow

Pharon said:


> My space heater always trips my AFCI after a few minutes, when it cycles on and off. But if I keep it on high, it holds indefinitely.



Which is why this crap product should never have been released. Everyone working in AFCI R&D who has extensive knowledge in current waveform will tell you the waveforms from vacuum cleaners and switches is often IDENTICAL to that from dangerous arcing such as a person making and breaking a severed cord in series with the load.

And its because of that manufactures have had to tone down the sensitivity giving you breakers as seen in the Youtube vid.


----------



## Meadow

chicken steve said:


> Ul made it clear 40 yrs ago....
> 
> http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build77/PDF/b77005.pdf
> 
> Pursuant to this OCPD manufacturers have also, in the past , opined on the _one element_ that constitutes an incendiary event , magnetic trip values.
> 
> This has a lot of focus in the IEC, not the NEC
> 
> Bottom line, the physics of electricity are being coerced here
> 
> ~CS~



And its even more interesting. The IEC has low mag trip levels mainly due to the voltage drop across the EGC during a short circuit. On a 120 volt circuit the voltage from case to remote earth is 60 volts during a fault rather 115 volts, so to them such is a greater concern hence the implementation. 

The IEC takes care of arcing faults via RCDs (GFP/GFCI), which, ironically has been and is still used in AFCIs in order to get them to pass UL1699.


----------



## Meadow

nrp3 said:


> The biggest gripe I have is the nuisance calls. I'd like to say that I haven't had as many, but its a pain in the ass. I am tired of explaining to everyone I install them for that I have no choice, change a plug, lengthen/modify a circuit, its going in. If we are in one of those situations where its become too complicated to accomplish this and the customer doesn't want to spend the money to replace the panel, etc, I am just going to walk away. I have already had people say they'll just get someone not licensed to do it. I am really not happy with the idea of putting any heating equipment on them. I am still not convinced they provide the benefit they claim. Still, there's no way I'm not putting them in where required. I have been to the state commitee that has the power to amend the code at the state level and they don't have it in them to modify it. There is still a bill in commitee.



Is it liability their afraid of? (not amending the code at the local level) :blink:


----------



## nrp3

There's not GFCI in all of them though, you can take two single pole GE's now and create a 2 pole AFCI for an existing MWBC.


----------



## nrp3

I don't think the will is there.


----------



## Meadow

nrp3 said:


> There's not GFCI in all of them though, you can take two single pole GE's now and create a 2 pole AFCI for an existing MWBC.


Correct, which makes these nothing more then a $35 thermal magnetic breaker. 




nrp3 said:


> I don't think the will is there.


:no: We are way to complacent to what is down right ignominious.


----------



## pete87

Dammm ... C.S. I keep trying to download that article ....

I am Probably being Censored !



We are going about this ... All Wrong !

We have to " Cut a Deal "



Pete


----------



## Meadow

pete87 said:


> Dammm ... C.S. I keep trying to download that article ....
> 
> I am Probably being Censored !
> 
> 
> 
> We are going about this ... All Wrong !
> 
> We have to " Cut a Deal "
> 
> 
> 
> Pete


Powers that be have done it to many who opposed AFCIs or have brought the truth about fires to the surface.


----------



## pete87

pete87 said:


> Dammm ... C.S. I keep trying to download that article ....
> 
> I am Probably being Censored !
> 
> 
> 
> We are going about this ... All Wrong !
> 
> We have to " Cut a Deal "
> 
> 
> 
> Pete





What I Mean Is ... We are the Voice of the World Electrical Industry .... Right !

We Have Needs .... Members in Failing Health ... Members in Jail .... ect.

I say we allow ourselves to be Bought ! 

We support the A.F.C.I. ... for a $$$ consideration !



Later we corner a spot ... in the N.E.C. to allow " Edison Fuses " for those of us

that care ...



Pete


----------



## Meadow

pete87 said:


> What I Mean Is ... We are the Voice of the World Electrical Industry .... Right !
> 
> We Have Needs .... Members in Failing Health ... Members in Jail .... ect.
> 
> I say we allow ourselves to be Bought !
> 
> We support the A.F.C.I. ... for a $$$ consideration !
> 
> 
> 
> Later we corner a spot ... in the N.E.C. to allow " Edison Fuses " for those of us
> 
> that care ...
> 
> 
> 
> Pete



Never take the deal. They will never let you turn around, and by then you will be so dependent on them youd have no choice. :jester::whistling2:


----------



## Wpgshocker

You are funny. Crazed rantings for what? 
What exactly have you accomplished? All this stress, for what exactly? 
$40 -$60 more for a breaker? Seriously? 
Of all the causes to champion, this ranks the highest? 
And yet the mere possibility of a life saved isn't worthwhile?
You are stressing yourself out. 

I will probably "bail" from this too, logic and reason have no place here.
But it was nice of you to go digging through my old posts like a crazy person to further your lunacy.


Edit:
Ahhhhh, I didn't realize you were Meadow. That explains everything. I have been successfully trolled!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## pete87

AcidTrip said:


> Never take the deal. They will never let you turn around, and by then you will be so dependent on them youd have no choice. :jester::whistling2:






Hot Chicks .... Like Rich Old Men 

I will take the Deal .



Pete


----------



## Meadow

pete87 said:


> Hot Chicks .... Like Rich Old Men
> 
> I will take the Deal .
> 
> 
> 
> Pete



:no::jester:


----------



## Sprink

nrp3 said:


> I don't think the will is there.


Update - New Hampshire

Here is the original Bill as introduced.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2015/HB0533.html

Here is what the committee came up with.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/amendments/2015-2515H.html

The Bill failed 

https://www.billtrack50.com/BillDetail/557273

Here is the list of committee members.

https://trackbill.com/committee/nh-executive-departments-and-administration/348-5505/

:blink:


----------



## pete87

Sprink said:


> Update - New Hampshire
> 
> Here is the original Bill as introduced.
> 
> http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2015/HB0533.html
> 
> Here is what the committee came up with.
> 
> http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/amendments/2015-2515H.html
> 
> The Bill failed
> 
> https://www.billtrack50.com/BillDetail/557273
> 
> Here is the list of committee members.
> 
> https://trackbill.com/committee/nh-executive-departments-and-administration/348-5505/
> 
> :blink:






White Mountain Folks getting upset ... They Should ...

Establishing February 6 as Ronald Reagan Day... what are these R up too ?


Those are great old Arc videos , this fight is ongoing , and they keep winning . 

I think it is stacked ... 


Pete


----------



## Meadow

Wpgshocker said:


> You are funny. Crazed rantings for what?
> What exactly have you accomplished? All this stress, for what exactly?
> $40 -$60 more for a breaker? Seriously?
> Of all the causes to champion, this ranks the highest?
> And yet the mere possibility of a life saved isn't worthwhile?
> You are stressing yourself out.
> 
> I will probably "bail" from this too, logic and reason have no place here.
> But it was nice of you to go digging through my old posts like a crazy person to further your lunacy.
> 
> 
> Edit:
> Ahhhhh, I didn't realize you were Meadow. That explains everything. I have been successfully trolled!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



If you understood the physics you would know AFCIs have nothing with saving lives. But since you don't, its easier to come up with personal attacks.


----------



## chicken steve

Wpgshocker said:


> You are funny. Crazed rantings for what?
> What exactly have you accomplished? All this stress, for what exactly?
> $40 -$60 more for a breaker? Seriously?
> Of all the causes to champion, this ranks the highest?


Try a billion dollar industry that has successfully managed to coerce the npfa,ul,cspc into allowing false security into every American home WP

AFCI's do not mitigate a series event, never did, most likely never will.

A series event is usually what we see the most btw. Perhaps a pix will help you understand (this doesn't require a scientist level smarts)>










Like most series events, this spent the lions share of it's demise as a glowing connection, the most incendiary event stage , as determined by UL 40 yrs ago.

The original NEMA-afci task force _publicly admitted_ it's failure to produce technology to sense a series event with ocpd 'electronica' 

This is because a toroidal coil _(chief operating component)_ is only capable of being a toroidal coil , no matter how many electronic waveforms it sees....

Why is this? Well , the electrical fundamental could not be changed>>>











This, however, did not stop NEMA from it's pursuit of AFD (Arc Fault Detection) 

So they approached UL to create a standard. And this is where we should be paying attention, because UL tests TO a standard, it doesn't not CREATE one.

And so , UL & Nema created the *arc simulator*>




















With this device, they 'test' an extension cord wrapped in flammable tape @ *15,000 volts *










Amazingly, a series event occurs>











Resulting in the marketing of>>>>>












So, if you've the horsepower to follow this far, my Q to you (et all) would be how could this occur without collusion?

Further, just what are you going to inform your inquiring customer base (and they WILL ask when they see this) what they do?

~CS~


----------



## Meadow

WP tells us to read Paschens law:



> Paschens law, might wanna read it. What distance apart are the conductors in your "evidence"? Also, Paschens law does not relate to current already flowing, rather ramping up voltage to the break over point.


when UL's own docs, from scientists and laboratories (because WP wants that) say exactly what we've been saying: arcing is not a problem at 120 volts.

Perhaps one stands to gain from not bailing and insulting others?


----------



## Meadow

chicken steve said:


> Try a billion dollar industry that has successfully managed to coerce the npfa,ul,cspc into allowing false security into every American home WP
> 
> AFCI's do not mitigate a series event, never did, most likely never will.
> 
> A series event is usually what we see the most btw. Perhaps a pix will help you understand (this doesn't require a scientist level smarts)>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like most series events, this spent the lions share of it's demise as a glowing connection, the most incendiary event stage , as determined by UL 40 yrs ago.
> 
> The original NEMA-afci task force _publicly admitted_ it's failure to produce technology to sense a series event with ocpd 'electronica'
> 
> This is because a toroidal coil _(chief operating component)_ is only capable of being a toroidal coil , no matter how many electronic waveforms it sees....
> 
> Why is this? Well , the electrical fundamental could not be changed>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This, however, did not stop NEMA from it's pursuit of AFD (Arc Fault Detection)
> 
> So they approached UL to create a standard. And this is where we should be paying attention, because UL tests TO a standard, it doesn't not CREATE one.
> 
> And so , UL & Nema created the *arc simulator*>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With this device, they 'test' an extension cord wrapped in flammable tape @ *15,000 volts *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazingly, a series event occurs>


15,000 volt Neon gas transformer says it all.


----------



## chicken steve

So the Q is, why is this some _hard to grasp concept_ for the average spark AT? :whistling2:

I couldn't be a _zit on a scientists azz_, and i get it.....~C:laughing:S~


----------



## Meadow

chicken steve said:


> So the Q is, why is this some _hard to grasp concept_ for the average spark AT? :whistling2:
> 
> I couldn't be a _zit on a scientists azz_, and i get it.....~C:laughing:S~



People are the byproduct of a successful well funded marketing campaign. Or, its simpler then that. People from an early age are taught to listen to authority without question. Works well until authority abuses their power.


----------



## pete87

AcidTrip said:


> Which is why this crap product should never have been released. Everyone working in AFCI R&D who has extensive knowledge in current waveform will tell you the waveforms from vacuum cleaners and switches is often IDENTICAL to that from dangerous arcing such as a person making and breaking a severed cord in series with the load.
> 
> And its because of that manufactures have had to tone down the sensitivity giving you breakers as seen in the Youtube vid.




Wait a minute ... So people in my community , with AFCI's , Can Not Vacuum 

there Home ?


We got to " Clean this Mess Up "





Pete


----------



## Meadow

pete87 said:


> Wait a minute ... So people in my community , with AFCI's , Can Not Vacuum
> 
> there Home ?
> 
> 
> We got to " Clean this Mess Up "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pete


Im sure they can, but nusianace tripping affects vacs the most.


----------



## pete87

480sparky said:


> And ZERO years figuring out why they still trip for no reason.




I thought they solved that ....

Kids on meth running around clicking there Over Amp CB Units ....




Turn Off Radio's ... this is Explosive ... uh ...Please .





Pete


----------



## Meadow

pete87 said:


> I thought they solved that ....
> 
> Kids on meth running around clicking there Over Amp CB Units ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turn Off Radio's ... this is Explosive ... uh ...Please .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pete


By taking out the actual dangerous arc protection :laughing::no:


----------



## chicken steve

AFCI's trip because of two basic causes

~The Toroidal sees a ground fault of 30ma

~The inrush of any given motor exceeds 75A

~CS~


----------



## Meadow

chicken steve said:


> AFCI's trip because of two basic causes
> 
> ~The Toroidal sees a ground fault of 30ma
> 
> ~The inrush of any given motor exceeds 75A
> 
> ~CS~



That an the fact everything looks like a series arc fault to them.


----------



## chicken steve

Unfortunately so AT

And this is where the average spark easily _assumes_ such a phenomenon can be viably mitigated , as was I many moons ago...:no:

Most of us are completely unaware of mag trip levels, along with the manufacturers history of mag trip levels , and just what mag trip levels can amount to in the _'real world'_ of service work.

Since i have been able to do some reading (thx :thumbsup certain epiphanies relevant to electrical theory have come to light for me.

But not everyone has the time or inclination to read technical jargon. Nor is a theoretical benchmark of interest if it is not a requirement of our profession , even less if not of UL's....

Notice the > :blink: when i ask how close the Xfomer is in all the '_why did my afci trip' threads_'? 

Perhaps i'm a byproduct , and just don't know it....:laughing:~CS~:laughing:


----------



## pete87

chicken steve said:


> Unfortunately so AT
> 
> And this is where the average spark easily _assumes_ such a phenomenon can be viably mitigated , as was I many moons ago...:no:
> 
> Most of us are completely unaware of mag trip levels, along with the manufacturers history of mag trip levels , and just what mag trip levels can amount to in the _'real world'_ of service work.
> 
> Since i have been able to do some reading (thx :thumbsup certain epiphanies relevant to electrical theory have come to light for me.
> 
> But not everyone has the time or inclination to read technical jargon. Nor is a theoretical benchmark of interest if it is not a requirement of our profession , even less if not of UL's....
> 
> Notice the > :blink: when i ask how close the Xfomer is in all the '_why did my afci trip' threads_'?
> 
> Perhaps i'm a byproduct , and just don't know it....:laughing:~CS~:laughing:





How close is XFMR ... So many variables ....

Has there ever a Electrical Product that ...



I find that People accept the " Kids on Meth with over amp CB Units "
easier than actually trying to theorize Why There AFCI has Tripped .




Pete


----------



## Meadow

chicken steve said:


> Unfortunately so AT
> 
> And this is where the average spark easily _assumes_ such a phenomenon can be viably mitigated , as was I many moons ago...:no:
> 
> Most of us are completely unaware of mag trip levels, along with the manufacturers history of mag trip levels , and just what mag trip levels can amount to in the _'real world'_ of service work.



A parallel arc fault is nothing more then a short circuit which does not blow its breaker within 8 half cycles.

Electronics took the place of a 75amp mag trip threshold hold supposedly to stop nuisance tripping... 



> Since i have been able to do some reading (thx :thumbsup certain epiphanies relevant to electrical theory have come to light for me.
> 
> But not everyone has the time or inclination to read technical jargon. Nor is a theoretical benchmark of interest if it is not a requirement of our profession , even less if not of UL's....


People blindly follow what they are told, despite even official docs saying otherwise. 




> Notice the > :blink: when i ask how close the Xfomer is in all the '_why did my afci trip' threads_'?
> 
> Perhaps i'm a byproduct , and just don't know it....:laughing:~CS~:laughing:


You know about AFCIs more then I do. Does available fault current at the panel increase nuisance tripping?


----------



## te12co2w

chicken steve said:


> (btw, i've already gone through the litigant meatgrinder via afci induced freeze up)
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be forwarding a direct # to state AHJ's and officials for *ANY* complaints
> 
> In fact, i'm advising all EC's to follow suit :whistling2:
> 
> ~CS~


 I live in a cold climate too. I have been worried about afci's and water freeze ups for years now. I haven't thought up good language for the contracts to protect myself if something like that happens. I have had to deal with gfci's tripping on faulty freezers loaded with expensive food. Usually those freezers that are in garages or basements where no one checks on them regularly. Now I tell people to install freeze alarms or some kind of power outage alarm.


----------



## Pharon

Here's a video by Eaton. FF to 7:30 - they seem to demonstrate an arc fault from a lamp cord that will trip their AFCI. How do you reconcile this?


----------



## pete87

Pharon said:


> Here's a video by Eaton. FF to 7:30 - they seem to demonstrate an arc fault from a lamp cord that will trip their AFCI. How do you reconcile this?
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqZfuRDNz04





Is there a " Zippy the Pin Head " ... at this forum ?

Zippy will know !




Pete


----------



## chicken steve

Pharon said:


> How do you reconcile this?


For starters, they could take the afci out of that Eaton_ gizmo_ , and put it in a _regular _panel.....

~CS~


----------



## chicken steve

AcidTrip said:


> You know about AFCIs more then I do. Does available fault current at the panel increase nuisance tripping?


Yes, more than the average ocdp 

~CS~


----------



## emtnut

chicken steve said:


> The ROP's went through unopposed i'm told, save for the lamentation of a one cmp member who will quickly be forgotten.
> 
> Myself, i'll be adding an average of $1000 a bid new construction, contracting all reno work inclusive of afci interface callbacks @ premium rates, as well as all smoke jobs (which usually require afci protection via 210.12B) , etc as nauseum
> 
> (btw, i've already gone through the litigant meatgrinder via afci induced freeze up)
> 
> But that isn't the best part.....:no:
> 
> I'll be forwarding a direct # to state AHJ's and officials for *ANY* complaints
> 
> In fact, i'm advising all EC's to follow suit :whistling2:
> 
> ~CS~


Stupid Q time .... What is AFCI induced freeze up :blink:


----------



## pete87

emtnut said:


> Stupid Q time .... What is AFCI induced freeze up :blink:





Uh ... Sounds like a Northern Problem !


I would be Worried Big Time ... if a Lightning Storm came through ...

Knocked Out some AFCI's ... 

ect ect ect ...


Hey ... Where is Zippy ?




Pete


----------



## Meadow

chicken steve said:


> Yes, more than the average ocdp
> 
> ~CS~



Let me see... so your saying that when inrush is reduced to a motor less chance the AFCI breaker will trip? Dumb it down for me a bit :thumbsup:


----------



## chicken steve

emtnut said:


> Stupid Q time .... What is AFCI induced freeze up :blink:


Serious Q, _not_ at all stupid ....

AFCI's operate like GFCI's , just 30ma ENut

Neither like older ignitors and/or control circuitry commonly found in older equipment. 

This sword of damocles looms over our future existence as EC's

~CS~


----------



## chicken steve

AcidTrip said:


> Let me see... so your saying that when inrush is reduced to a motor less chance the AFCI breaker will trip? Dumb it down for me a bit :thumbsup:




Where to start AT ?

It behooves one to have an understanding of magnetic trip values , as well as the history of OCPD manufacturers focus , and i suppose our Euro counterparts testing diligence of earthing and trip times. 

There is a LOT written btw....but perhaps starting with 210.12(A)(3)(b) would be prudent here....



> b. The maximum length of the branch-circuit wiring
> from the branch-circuit overcurrent device to the
> first outlet shall not exceed 15.2 m (50 ft) for a
> 14 AWG conductor or 21.3 m (70 ft) for a ]2 AWG
> conductor


.


Note the lengths mentioned, they are NOT arbitrary , they exist for good reason, which CMP-2 knows ALL about




> Since the release of that report, Code proposals have been developed within Code Panel 2 based on this mathematical relationship. These proposals have been hampered by uncertainty in an appropriate value
> 
> for Ipssc, the available current at the panelboard. In some applications of the formula, Ipssc is assumed to be arbitrarily large and therefore is neglected.
> 
> However, the effect of Ipssc can be significant until the available
> current at the panelboard rises very high, to 5kA or higher. Though obtaining solid data on realistic values for Ipssc has been difficult, proposals within Code Panel 2 have put forth a minimum available current of
> 500A at the panelboard.
> 
> A UL investigation into the available current at receptacles conducted in 1993
> tends to substantiate this value.6 Using 500A for Ipssc will tend to significantly shorten the allowable run
> length if the magnetic trip level (Imag) is held at 300A. However, there is a desire to hold the maximum run length to 50 feet while assuming 500A available at the panelboard.
> 
> This forces either the wire gauge or the maximum allowable magnetic trip level to be adjusted to balance the equation: since it is preferable to
> assume that 14 AWG will be used, the magnetic trip level of the circuit breaker must be lowered.
> 
> This work focuses on experimentally verifying the mathematical relationship when available panelboard current is adjusted while maintaining a 50-foot run length.


UL source


~CS~


----------



## Meadow

chicken steve said:


> Where to start AT ?
> 
> It behooves one to have an understanding of magnetic trip values , as well as the history of OCPD manufacturers focus , and i suppose our Euro counterparts testing diligence of earthing and trip times.
> 
> There is a LOT written btw....but perhaps starting with 210.12(A)(3)(b) would be prudent here....
> 
> .
> 
> 
> Note the lengths mentioned, they are NOT arbitrary , they exist for good reason, which CMP-2 knows ALL about
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UL source
> 
> 
> ~CS~



So with what I read, mag trip mimicks and AFCI breaker? Is that why parallel arc fault protection starts 75amps?


----------



## Pharon

Here's another video that shows actual arc faults (FF to 1:20) and AFCIs clearing them (FF to 2:40):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyGYOt2WqYU]


----------



## Meadow

Pharon said:


> Here's another video that shows actual arc faults (FF to 1:20) and AFCIs clearing them (FF to 2:40):
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyGYOt2WqYU]




That looks like its lab re-created and dramatized.


----------



## Pharon

AcidTrip said:


> That looks like its lab re-created and dramatized.


Maybe. But show me some Joe-do-it-yourself on YouTube simulating a fault like the ones shown in this video and having that NOT trip an AFCI, and then maybe you have a legitimate argument. The one you posted earlier wouldn't be a real-life situation with the wiring itself like the ones in this video (nail, etc.).


----------



## chicken steve

Pharon said:


> Maybe. But show me some Joe-do-it-yourself on YouTube simulating a fault like the ones shown in this video and having that NOT trip an AFCI, and then maybe you have a legitimate argument. The one you posted earlier wouldn't be a real-life situation with the wiring itself like the ones in this video (nail, etc.).


Bob H is an NFPA EE Pharon

He's written for M Holt too

no cheesburger ,jmho

The scenario you see him in is closer to a RL one than UL has done.....easy to recreate too, should you (et all) be so inclined.

~CS~


----------



## Meadow

Pharon said:


> Maybe. But show me some Joe-do-it-yourself on YouTube simulating a fault like the ones shown in this video and having that NOT trip an AFCI, and then maybe you have a legitimate argument. The one you posted earlier wouldn't be a real-life situation with the wiring itself like the ones in this video (nail, etc.).




Which video posted earlier?


----------



## Pharon

AcidTrip said:


> Which video posted earlier?


This one:



AcidTrip said:


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


----------



## Pharon

chicken steve said:


> Bob H is an NFPA EE Pharon
> 
> He's written for M Holt too
> 
> no cheesburger ,jmho
> 
> The scenario you see him in is closer to a RL one than UL has done.....easy to recreate too, should you (et all) be so inclined.
> 
> ~CS~


I've no doubt that it's easy to recreate. My point is that the arc signature he's simulating is different than the one you'd find with a frayed lamp cord, nail through Romex, or ancient wiring. That's all.

The video I just posted is from NFPA, so it's not exactly unbiased. I would be interested in seeing simulations of what they're doing by real-life people on YouTube, to see if it has any merit. But I couldn't find any.


----------



## Meadow

Pharon said:


> This one:



Perhaps, but he is trying to replicate a series arc fault.


----------



## chicken steve

AcidTrip said:


> So with what I read, mag trip mimicks and AFCI breaker? Is that why parallel arc fault protection starts 75amps?


How would one know the difference if say, the Eaton rep's machine was simply dialing that in AT ?

~CS~


----------



## chicken steve

Pharon said:


> The video I just posted is from NFPA, so it's not exactly unbiased. I would be interested in seeing simulations of what they're doing by real-life people on YouTube, to see if it has any merit. But I couldn't find any.


There are more players in the acfi game than the nfpa Pharon

~CS~


----------



## Pharon

chicken steve said:


> There are more players in the acfi game than the nfpa Pharon
> 
> ~CS~


Of course. But it's only the NFPA that forces everyone to use them.


----------



## chicken steve

True they provide more enforcement through proxy , than creation of electrical _'law'_ in recent times Pharon.

That said , there is a_ lot_ of information out there on this issue , and by folks with far more alphabet after their names than this old bird will ever assume.

I encourage those of meticulous nature to seek out and delve into it all......

~CS~


----------



## Meadow

Pharon said:


> Of course. But it's only the NFPA that forces everyone to use them.



True, but those who do blindly take their word.


----------



## Meadow

chicken steve said:


> How would one know the difference if say, the Eaton rep's machine was simply dialing that in AT ?
> 
> ~CS~



YOu remember when square D would demonstrate their QO circuit breakers in the past? :whistling2:


----------



## chicken steve

Yes, along with the Sq D reps AT

~CS~


----------



## pete87

chicken steve said:


> Serious Q, _not_ at all stupid ....
> 
> AFCI's operate like GFCI's , just 30ma ENut
> 
> Neither like older ignitors and/or control circuitry commonly found in older equipment.
> 
> This sword of damocles looms over our future existence as EC's
> 
> ~CS~




Only Pete 87 will hold the EC's of Manyanna ...




We are well aware that AFCI.s bear the Fruitful Benefits of GFCI,s ...

We only seek your blessing with a small generosity ..... Our Cut !




Pete


AFCI.s save more AZZ than a Toilet Seat ...


----------



## chicken steve

Pharon said:


> I've no doubt that it's easy to recreate. My point is that the arc signature he's simulating is different than the one you'd find with a frayed lamp cord, nail through Romex, or ancient wiring. That's all.


The problem with arc signatures is only Zlan industries , along with George Spencer can answer as to _specifics_ Pharon.

I find this most allusive .....

~CS~


----------



## chicken steve

fwiw, this article fits here


~CS~


----------



## Meadow

chicken steve said:


> fwiw, this article fits here
> 
> 
> ~CS~



So basically lower mag trip makes for a smaller spark as seen here?


----------



## chicken steve

Yes AT

and i don't need a translator to _'get it'_.....~CS~


----------



## Meadow

chicken steve said:


> Yes AT
> 
> and i don't need a translator to _'get it'_.....~CS~



Even more eye opening for me, the RCD (GFCI) trips at the exact same time as the breaker at 1:40 

So GFCIs result in less sparking also? :blink:


----------

