# Glowing Connections



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Gentlemen,


A topic of interest seems to be _'glowing connections'_ , which i would like to start a dedicated thread on, possibly harvesting information for posterity from the crew here. 

To start, some of the basic questions i'll throw out are quite simple , yet may be found hard to answer>

~What defines a glowing connection?

~What contains a glowing connection?

~What elicits glowing connections?

~What prevents glowing connections?

~What detection exists for a glowing connection?

~What statistics exist for glowing connections?

~What differences are found in USA glowing connections VS. those of other electrical systems?

~What studies have been done on glowing connections?

~What trade related periodicals or publications exist on glowing connections?



~CS~


----------



## Black Dog (Oct 16, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> Gentlemen,
> 
> 
> A topic of interest seems to be _'glowing connections'_ , which i would like to start a dedicated thread on, possibly harvesting information for posterity from the crew here.
> ...





> ~What prevents glowing connections?


Making them up properly..


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

~CS~


----------



## Roger123 (Sep 23, 2007)

Here is something I picked up on line Steve. Should answer some of your question. 

"The glowing connection usually begins its life as an intermittent connection, or a series 
arc. But then something very strange happens. The localized heating caused by the series 
arc makes the connected metals begin to oxidize. Once the contact points are oxidized, 
electrical resistance begins to increase. This increase in resistance, because it is in series 
with the normal current flow, causes resistance heating just like in an electric heater. The 
heating that occurs is very localized, but it begins to cause an alloying of the dissimilar 
metals. These alloys have additional, and unexpected, electrical properties. That is, they 
are semiconductors, and behave in a non-linear fashion to electric current flow. Because 
of this non-linear behavior, heating can occur at very low currents such as those drawn 
by a "wall wart" type battery charger or AC adapter. A glowing connection may take 
hours, days or years to develop but once it has any flickering of lights or intermittent 
behavior of electrical devices ceases. Instead, a very low voltage drop occurs (usually 2 
volts or so), even when relatively high current electrical loads are in use. Because of this 
small voltage drop, incorrect behavior of the load seldom occurs, and so it does not 
attract the attention of the user or building occupant."


----------



## The_kid (Nov 4, 2014)

Replacing this service/panel was the job for today. Think it was caused by a glowing connection?


----------



## Bootss (Dec 30, 2011)

I showed a lady a glowing red wire in a combo panel once, and she said she'd take care of it later. I think she thought I was doing some trickery.
:laughing::laughing::no:


----------



## guest (Feb 21, 2009)

The_kid said:


> Replacing this service/panel was the job for today. Think it was caused by a glowing connection?


Looks like the guy in this thread that Meadow posted was there..:whistling2::laughing:

http://www.electriciantalk.com/f2/diy-service-upgrade-live-meter-92649/


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Bx qualifies as a_ glowing wiring method_ imho.... 

One can witness a line of dots working it's way through old plaster/lathe 

Usually due to corrosion, and the fact that the outer metallic wrap is 5-6X's longer than the interior cloth covered conductors.

~CS~


----------



## Almost always lurkin (Jul 30, 2014)

Chicken Steve asked about studies.

fire.*nist*.gov/bfrlpubs/build77/PDF/b77005.pdf

nvlpubs.*nist*.gov/*nist*pubs/jres/85/jresv85n6p429_A1b.pdf (aluminum wire only)

http://www.interfire.org/features/electric_wiring_faults.asp (about halfway through the document)


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

Almost always lurkin said:


> Chicken Steve asked about studies.
> 
> fire.*nist*.gov/bfrlpubs/build77/PDF/b77005.pdf
> 
> ...


Looks good, I think I have something to read up on


----------



## LARMGUY (Aug 22, 2010)

Roger123 said:


> Here is something I picked up on line Steve. Should answer some of your question.
> 
> "The glowing connection usually begins its life as an intermittent connection, or a series
> arc. But then something very strange happens. The localized heating caused by the series
> ...


So according to this if I have a small voltage drop at the outlet as compared to the service panel I could possibly have a glowing connection?


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Almost always lurkin said:


> Chicken Steve asked about studies.
> 
> fire.*nist*.gov/bfrlpubs/build77/PDF/b77005.pdf
> 
> ...



:thumbsup:




> One of the earliest efforts to study glowing connections dates to *1961* [ [36] ]. The primary results are shown in Figure 5. The connection acts as a non-linear circuit element. For currents over 10 A, drops of around 2 V were found. But for small currents, voltage drops in the tens of volts can be found. At a maximum current of 20 A, ca. 50 W is dissipated in a copper/brass connection and around 35 W for copper/iron. The study noted that the power dissipation depends only on the materials involved and not on the nominal size of the contacts. It was also found that to start the glowing process, a current of 4 – 6 A had to be supplied; glowing of freshly-made connections could not be started with smaller currents.


So would my crappy Ideal Voltage Analyzer be any help is my Q here

~CS~


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

*Glowing connection*



Lep said:


> I showed a lady a glowing red wire in a combo panel once, and she said she'd take care of it later. I think she thought I was doing some trickery.
> :laughing::laughing::no:


Hello, I'm new here, I'm French and I dont speak a good english. So, by advance, apologize for mistakes, and I do not want offense anybody.

In France, in this case, if a fire start, we can have legal persecutions. We have an "obligation de conseil" "obligation to counsel" and we must inform (of risk) the consumer by a registred letter (or a letter gave signed by the consumer). 

It's no the same for you ? 

Best regards,

FICC-


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

French ICC said:


> In France, in this case, if a fire start, we can have legal persecutions. We have an "obligation de conseil" "obligation to counsel" and we must inform (of risk) the consumer by a registred letter (or a letter gave signed by the consumer).
> 
> It's no the same for you ?
> 
> ...


French One,

Our legal system works differently . 

Most of us have a _moral_ obligation to inform the consumer

But i know of no _legal _obligation 

A wise EC _(electrical contractor)_ will document a hazard, maybe even include findings of a hazard in an invoice


Others may opine, as we are many states, with many exclusive legalities....

~CS~


----------



## nrp3 (Jan 24, 2009)

I have the next step up on that analyzer. Its cool, though I think I have used that Voltage Drop function once to actually catch something. Seen a few bootleg grounds show up with it. It has its place.


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

The_kid said:


> Replacing this service/panel was the job for today. Think it was caused by a glowing connection?
> 
> 
> View attachment 49721
> ...



Hello, and sorry for my english.

Nice pictures ! :devil2:

Generally the origine is well visible with a little experience, for simple cases. 

On a vertical wall, there is a visible "V" where the fire started ( the tip), ( An "O" for horizontal structure, the center). 

With glowing connection it's less clear, because the heating walked in the cables (few centimetres) around the glowing connection. The cables are became like radiators. The heating craking the isulation of cables. 

So the fire can start a the glowing connection only by overheating. And the tip of the V or the center of the O is clear...

But the loss of a good isulation of cables can provoke contact with 'slow short circuit' or other in the cable between 2 wires at the place or it's favorable (folding for example) or with an other cable ( more rarely). 

But if all this disordres are near of a connexion, (10-20 ms) the first origine is very certainely a glowing connection!

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

If I can help,

Best Regards, 

FICC-


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> French One,
> 
> Our legal system works differently .
> 
> ...


Hello! 

No critical or judgement in my post. I'm sure that LEP is right and correct. Just to say this different aproche: You are luky because, sometimes in this case, it's more complicated for us.

Thank you,

Best regards,

FICC-


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

This is a daily event for us French One>










we understand it happens on your side of the pond as well>










i don't understand the differences in our systems well enough to claim which is would have glowing connections happen more or less....?

~CS~


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

Roger123 said:


> Here is something I picked up on line Steve. Should answer some of your question.
> 
> "The glowing connection usually begins its life as an intermittent connection, or a series
> arc. But then something very strange happens. The localized heating caused by the series
> ...


Hello Roger123.

I agree with you. There are good explanations of the phenomena who make the overheating exponential. Just a precision. Very often, the hot spot born and increase without arc, only by Joule effetc So there is not necessary (and often never) intermittent connection, at the begining. 

Sorry for my English, 

If I can help, :thumbup:

Best regards

FICC-


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

Hmmmmm French guys would of have to have made sure to mention Joule..... 



Anyway , Longs Drugs sells glowing connections in the ''hardware'' aisle.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

nrp3 said:


> I have the next step up on that analyzer. Its cool, though I think I have used that Voltage Drop function once to actually catch something. Seen a few bootleg grounds show up with it. It has its place.


I'd be interested in hearing more nrp3

Most of us would probably place a_ load_ on circuits we suspect have bad connections 

But that seems so _'old school'_ , given some of the more eloquent metering technology available

~CS~


----------



## Almost always lurkin (Jul 30, 2014)

How dumb is this question?

Since a key ingredient in forming a glowing connection is to oxidize the conductors, can it be prevented by making every connection with anti-oxidant goop? Are there ECs who put Noalox or something like it on copper-to-copper connections instead of just copper-to-aluminum? Is there even enough time in the world to do that?


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

Almost always lurkin said:


> How dumb is this question?
> 
> Since a key ingredient in forming a glowing connection is to oxidize the conductors, can it be prevented by making every connection with anti-oxidant goop? Are there ECs who put Noalox or something like it on copper-to-copper connections instead of just copper-to-aluminum? Is there even enough time in the world to do that?


Interesting question. I wonder if the anti oxidant would create enough of a current path even with a loose connection to avoid a glowing one. And if it did, would heat up and eventually vaporize, creating a glowing connection anyway. And no, there's not enough time it the world.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

I've make up these>








with>








then>








then>








then>








all in an effort to keep the *O* from the oxidization....

but i just can't see that happening everywhere

~CS~


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

chicken steve said:


> all in an effort to keep the *O* from the oxidization....
> 
> but i just can't see that happening everywhere
> 
> ~CS~


I think that "O" stands for "overkill". :whistling2:


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

MTW said:


> I think that "O" stands for "overkill". :whistling2:


:laughing:

Good catch!


----------



## Almost always lurkin (Jul 30, 2014)

MTW said:


> Interesting question. I wonder if the anti oxidant would create enough of a current path even with a loose connection to avoid a glowing one. And if it did, would heat up and eventually vaporize, creating a glowing connection anyway. And no, there's not enough time it the world.


Not only that, I believe at least one formulation of protective goop is flammable.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Now that just pucks the strings of my little OC heart Lurkin :thumbsup:

What is the _ignition_ temperature of Noalox? Electrical Tape? Plastic boxes? Cheap receptacles? 

We install all 90F equipment , but a glowing connection can _exceed_ that....

~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Exploratory study of Glowing Electrical Connections

1977 vintage.....

any updates appreciated...

~CS~


----------



## Almost always lurkin (Jul 30, 2014)

"It is concluded that systematic research has been inordinately scarce on this topic, and that much of the research that does exists is only available in Japanese."

http://www.interfire.org/features/electric_wiring_faults.asp


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> This is a daily event for us French One>
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hello ! 

For us also! Glowing connections are the real problem of electrical fires. More and less I do not know, but i know that is the cause of almost all electrical fires. And not the arcs or short circuits ...:laughing:

Nice picture! 

Best regards,

FICC-


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> Now that just pucks the strings of my little OC heart Lurkin
> 
> What is the _ignition_ temperature of Noalox? Electrical Tape? Plastic boxes? Cheap receptacles?


it's a very good question. :thumbsup:

By a friendly relationship, > (R&D Engineer) I had the value of ignition of cables ( French and europeens cables) in 2001 (in my memory). It was very low, with and without flammes. 

I was very surprised 

I will looking for this informations. SInce, I tried to get new information and I did not have clear information .. But I know that, when the cracking of PVC is done, (and by heating only, without arcs) the isulation wire is much more flammable.:whistling2:

Best regards,

FICC-


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

*Why, IMO, Glowing Connections are the Main cause of electrical fires?*



chicken steve said:


> This is a daily event for us French One>
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*Why, IMO, Glowing Connections are the Main cause of electrical fires?*

Gentleman's, 

I would like apologize by advance for my English and for the mistakes linked to a the translation and I dont want offense anyone. I just want to display a summary of the knowledge I have gained on this issue. It come from my experience, experience of colleagues, tests, papers, interview of engineers experts and experts from the courts, technical staff of insurance company's, and works, especially with JP Denonain ( CV post 151# of the topic "The differences in our electrical systems"). 

If it can help.

Here we use RCD since 60’s, with the public schema TT, for dwelling. In this schema, it's mandatory to have a RCD at the head of electrical installation (Main Breaker) and all masses are interconnected to an individual earth electrode, separated of the Neutral. But for specific cases, we use also TN-C and TN-C-S schema ( close schemas used in the USA) 

This global overview give a good comparison of these different systems. 

Indeed, an overload or a direct parallel arc between Phase and Neutral (short circuit) will be detected by a circuit breaker. A parallel arc between Phase and PE (or a mass, insulation fault) will be detected at acceptable values by an RCD or a GFCI. An parallel arc between Neutral and PE (insulation fault) will be maybe detected by a GFCI. For these defaults, without RCD or GFCI, the defaults can be detected too late, and the risk of fire is more important.


*Isolated hot spots remains undetectable.*

A common point between all this schemas (except these cases) is that it's remains impossible to detect from a panel, an isolated hot spot in an electrical installation. *The laws of physic are universals and to two side of Atlantique,* to find isolated hot spots in electrical installations, it is used thermographic infrareds. *The evidence that there is no automatic protection to detect these specific defaults: **An isolated hot spot can start and rise in a circuit, and nothing can detect him. *

*It's embarrassing if we want to prevent fires, but it’s a fact.*


*In time, all kind of events can alter the connections.*

Even well done, many factors can weaken the connections. The vibrations of the ground, the period (screws), the oxidation,electromagnetic surges following occasional short circuits with motors starting up, and small transformers being plugged in, or high frequency surges induced by network operations, or by lightning strikes to the ground or between clouds, and finally to various degradations due to aging from hostile and damp environments, and from tugging forces when the mechanical fixtures are inadequate. 


*The electrical equipment is of good quality **but* *c**onnections are intended to create hot spots. **These hot spots which can increases only in an exponential curve...and to generate Glowing connections.*

In addition, and to resume, the Global Resistance of a connection (Rg) can be written as the sum of several sub-resistances ( r1+r2+r3, etc.).

For a home connection could express it like that (to summary):

RG = r1 = Related to resistivity of materials (wires and connection device) related to temperature + r2 = Resistance related to oxidation cooper + r3 = Resistance related to oxidation brass ( for example) + R4 =Resistance related to the contact surface + etc. (depending on specific cases)

We know that all parts of this system are interdependent: If one of these sub-resistance increases, all the other sub-resistances will increase, and step by step, the temperature will rise continuously. 

Here, for example, we will say that this is R2 which initiates the process. But it can start with any other sub-resistance.

*r2* : Copper oxidizes readily in air, in time. And very few oxides can increase greatly the resistance. In addition, *we know that heat greatly enhances the oxidation of copper: *On the pictures posted by Meadow on the topic "The differences in our electrical systems" post # 248 

http://www.electriciantalk.com/attachments/f2/49361d1424996723-differences-our-electrical-systems-001sk-reihenklemme-l2.jpg

For example, we can see the characteristic oxidation of the copper as result of hot spot. The same on the pictures posted by “Chiken Steve” # 3 and 4 or other.

So, always for example, if *r2* (oxidation copper) increases a little, it will generate a small hot spot by Joule effect. The heat will be transmitted across the connection. The system finds its thermal balance with heat dissipations (copper and brass transmit heat well)</SPAN>,with a peak of heating at the heart of glowing connection and the temperature of the connection increased, *RG is increased. *

*So the resistivity of materials* *r1* will increase so (the resistivity increase with the temperature) *r2, r3* will increases = *Global Resistance (Rg) will increase again*. The Global resistance increased, the heat will increase again. The resistivity of materials will further increase…ect. 

Here an explanation of these phenomena for industrial connection but is the same principles: 

http://www.multi-contact.com/AcroFiles/Catalogues/SZ_Multilam-F_(en)_hi.pdf


*These hot spots **are intended to create favorable elements to ignite fires and these fires.*

These defaults increase very slowly at the beginning. This leaves the time to degrade the insulation and to prepare the favorable elements to ignite the fire. Even with few watts this is possible with time, in month or years. The temperature slowly cracking insulation wires and other. And at each use, in the same conditions, with the same power and in the same time, the heating peak will increase more than once before. And the temperature rise will transform the PVC insulation (cracking) = This is allows the enabling environment to ignite a fire = *At this step, it's too late for safety.*


*The temperature will rise according to an exponential curve*.*The risk of fire **becomes critical.*

As the standards require that connections devices must have good resistance against temperature, ect ... there may chance that fault contact interrupt current! At high temperatures, thermal expansion will occur, and this can also lead to arcs. 

*Depending on conditions, the* *first arc can ignite the fire. The Joule effect alone can light the fire, without arc*. (for example we had made tests with more of 1150°F in glowing connections, it is enough to ignite PVC ...)

In France, since 60’s, RCD limit insulation fault to 0.5 Amp. or 0.3 Amp. *In 90’s , differential devices 30 ma (like GFCIs) had been generalized for all circuits. I have think at this time, *(like Dr. J.Engel says in his publication)* that this protection (0.03 amp) can prevent more against glowing connection.* Why not, circuits breakers works very well here, and there is RCD and differential device 30 ma for all circuits. In addition, the TT schema, with RCD and earth electrode, separated of the neutral makes very soft tripping, almost without arcs. *We have no more big arcs tripping* *here since decades*, and the faults are very well identified and mastered at very low values, for example here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMC6PkpiIq4 *6’59 > 6’19
*
*One can not do better*. 

In addition we use spring connectors also since 20 years. 

*But after all this the proportion of electrical fires remained virtually unchanged, (30% of home fires have an electrical origin). Reminding of at all professionals, engineers and experts, all days, what is knows since decades: *

*The real problem is not the arcs or the short circuits, but hot spots in glowing connections. *

*Because nothing can detect it.*

*And** they kill and injure people everyday.*

Thank you for your attention, 

Best regards.

---------------------
An Other document if it can help : http://www.iafss.org/publications/fss/11/45/view


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

French ICC said:


> *
> An Other document if it can help : http://www.iafss.org/publications/fss/11/45/view*


*

Thank you French One! :thumbsup:

This document mentions changes to the 2014 NFPA 921 >>>





Distinguishing Between Arcing and Melting Damage
Distinguishing between arcing and thermal melting damage was based on the presence of visual indicators
of arcing. The following characteristics are listed in the proposed changes to NFPA 921 (2014) as
“frequently exhibited [in] arc damaged conductors:” [14]

• Localized point of contact
• Sharp demarcation between damaged and undamaged area
• Copper drawing lines visible outside of damaged area
• Corresponding damage on the opposing conductor
• Resolidification waves
• Locally enlarged grain size
• High internal porosity when viewed in a cross-section
• Localized round depressions
• Small beads & divots over a limited area
• Round, smooth shape of artifact

Click to expand...


NFPA 921



What does NFPA 921 address?
All aspects of fire and explosion investigation are covered from basic methodology to collecting evidence to failure analysis. Guidelines apply to all types of incidents from residential fires and motor vehicle fires to management of complex investigations such as high-rise fires and industrial plant explosions.

Click to expand...

So it would seem that the NFPA, through detailed laboratory analysis , is reclassifying 'glowing connection' , from arcing connections

Can anyone pick out just where this change is?

~CS~*


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> Thank _you_ French One! :thumbsup:
> 
> This document mentions changes to the 2014 NFPA 921 >>>
> 
> ...


Hello Chicken Steve 

I do not understand why NFPA is reclassifying _'glowing connection' _, from arcing connections. IMO It's an abuse of language. What is the goal? 

All professionnnals knows that it's possible to have glowing connection and fire without arc. 

Is it a joke, Chicken Steve ? :laughing:

Best regards.

FICC-


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

I repeatedly hear an unwritten marriage, where glowing connections are called "glowing arcs" creating the perception an AFCI will stop a glowing connection.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

[French ICC;1727417]Hello Chicken Steve 

_Bonjour M. électricien français_ 



> I do not understand why NFPA is reclassifying _'glowing connection' _, from arcing connections. IMO It's an abuse of language. What is the goal?


I am unsure here , i picked this out of one of your links and followed it. It appears there is a 2014 NFPA _'change'_ that has occurred , however the NFPA is a huge library of codes , and i do not know the one referenced well

So i ask here if anyone does? 



> All professionnnals knows that it's possible to have glowing connection and fire without arc.


yes agreed..



> Is it a joke, Chicken Steve ? :laughing:


No Sir.....:whistling2::laughing:

Best regards.

FICC-[/QUOTE]

Best
~CS~


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

meadow said:


> I repeatedly hear an unwritten marriage, where glowing connections are called "glowing arcs" creating the perception an AFCI will stop a glowing connection.



Hello 

Thank you for this explanation.

Sorry I do not want offense anybody, but can one imagine phenomenom who is not more named by an "authority" can not more occurs in homes? 

:whistling2:


----------



## five.five-six (Apr 9, 2013)

French ICC said:


> Is it a joke, Chicken Steve ? :laughing:


That's generally a fair interpretation.


----------



## Almost always lurkin (Jul 30, 2014)

How much good would a star washer do on a screwed connection to reduce the risk?


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

*amazing...*



five.five-six said:


> That's generally a fair interpretation.



Hello five.five-six 

It sounds amazing ...

:icon_redface:

Best regards,

FICC-


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

Almost always lurkin said:


> How much good would a star washer do on a screwed connection to reduce the risk?


Hello Almost always lurkin 

Thank you for your interest.

IMO, unfortunately not. 

In my memory, it's the Americans who invented the modern connections devices during the Second World War (the assembly of prefabricated boats) ... Since there are tons of patents about these devices and everything has already been tried long ago. 

IMO,the loosening is only part of the problem.

If I can help.

Best regards,

FICC-


----------



## Almost always lurkin (Jul 30, 2014)

Some people say that star washers make "gas-tight" connections. If air can't get to the electrical connections, how could a problem happen?


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

Almost always lurkin said:


> Some people say that star washers make "gas-tight" connections. If air can't get to the electrical connections, how could a problem happen?




I'm sorry I did not understand the meaning of "washers star". I apologize. I thought you meant washers that prevent loosening. There are also many patents and solutions for tight connections, which can be very useful in some cases, I agree. But IMO oxidation is only a part of the overall problem. A hotspot can start with another element that oxidation in the chain of sub-resistors. Oxidation was just an example.

In addition to housing, it seems difficult to make waterproof connections for all electrical, Main Breaker, circuit breakers, junction boxes, connectors, sockets, fans, switches, AC, etc ...

What about you?

Sorry for the misinterpretation.:blink:

Best regards

FICC-


----------



## five.five-six (Apr 9, 2013)

He's talking about these things, they are used mostly for bonding grounds to painted surfaces.


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

*Thank you!*



five.five-six said:


> He's talking about these things, they are used mostly for bonding grounds to painted surfaces.


That's it !:thumbup:
Sorry for the misinterpretation! :whistling2:
FICC-


----------



## Almost always lurkin (Jul 30, 2014)

I was afraid "star washer" wouldn't translate well. I should have posted a picture in the first place!

A "lock washer" prevents loosening. Star washers scratch through oxide layers into clean metal. I believe they also make it harder to loosen the screw.

How do aerospace people make electrical connections? They've got severe vibration problems and big temperature changes. A fire on an airplane is worse than a house fire.


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

Almost always lurkin said:


> I was afraid "star washer" wouldn't translate well. I should have posted a picture in the first place!
> 
> A "lock washer" prevents loosening. Star washers scratch through oxide layers into clean metal. I believe they also make it harder to loosen the screw.


It's right.



Almost always lurkin said:


> How do aerospace people make electrical connections? They've got severe vibration problems and big temperature changes. A fire on an airplane is worse than a house fire.


It's right too. The fire in an airplane is very serious. I had a friend pilot line. We talked about it at the restaurant with others. he said "if there is a fire on the plane, I have to keep the left arm in the air because it was going to crash ..." Obviously there was one who asked why .. . "To save the watch"

Seriously I explored this way in 2000's. The planes are 115 V / 400 Hz in my memory. There were accidents (one with a connection to a video screen in the back of a seat) and often "incidents" especially in parts kitchens. For my works I had the chance to visit an A 330 maintenance (its interior was completely disassembled) and see electrical circuits.

The connections for aviation pose the same problems. There are circuits breakers, of course, but also large computer systems monitoring in permances circuits, which are also often duplicated. But an isolated hot spot remains undetectable by these computer systems. I remember the words of the engineer who accompanied me on this visit, we were in a part under the cockpit. There were metallization connections (to mass). My question showing these connections "? If there is a hot spot here" His response ;: "we are ****ed."

The problem is mastered by the quality of the workforce, through multiple checks and maintenance operations, and the quality of the wires and connections devices. Each connection is designed for a specific use in a specific location, and each connection device costs a fortune compared to a house connection...:whistling2:

But I also heard a few times that a plane had to turn back because of smoke in the cabin ...:blink:

If I can help,

Best regards


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

French ICC said:


> The problem is mastered by the quality of the workforce, through multiple checks and maintenance operations, and the quality of the wires and connections devices. Each connection is designed for a specific use in a specific location, and each connection device costs a fortune compared to a house connection...:whistling2:


With all due respect to the idea of quality connections, i just don't see that happening here.

If anything, the electrical market is focused on _quicker easier_ connections

~CS~


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> With all due respect to the idea of quality connections, i just don't see that happening here.
> 
> If anything, the electrical market is focused on _quicker easier_ connections
> 
> ~CS~




Yes quickly, cheaper, quickly, cheaper, it's like us.. 

But for plane connection it's also the true that the good quality, with it's hight cost is not appropriate for dwellings...

Best regards


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

I guess it's easier to jump out of a burning _dwelling_ than a burning _plane_ French One....:whistling2:~CS~:no:


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> I guess it's easier to jump out of a burning _dwelling_ than a burning _plane_ French One....:whistling2:~CS~:no:



It dépend. If you are in the 30th floor ...maybe to jump out of a plane with a parachute in this case ... always with the left arm above ...:laughing:


----------



## five.five-six (Apr 9, 2013)

Why is it that every time French ICC posts, all I hear is Chicken Steve in the voice of Pepe Le pew?


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

Almost always lurkin said:


> Some people say that star washers make "gas-tight" connections. If air can't get to the electrical connections, how could a problem happen?



Hello.

That's what you were thinking?

http://img.myzupics.com/ac/connex-et-1.jpg

http://img.myzupics.com/ac/connex-et-2.jpg

Best regards


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

Check these out:

http://www.electriciantalk.com/f2/glowing-wire-63626/


----------



## Almost always lurkin (Jul 30, 2014)

I had wondered about things like that too.


----------



## Bad Electrician (May 20, 2014)




----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

Bad Electrician said:


>


 
Awesome!! :thumbup:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Today's find>










~CS~


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

meadow said:


> Awesome!! :thumbup:


Already posted on *"Will 14 gauge on a 30 amp burn down a home?"*

I think it may helpful also herere:

We designed an entire protocol tests for temperature rise and how they could conduirent to fires. 

In summary, this protocol took into account:

All phenomena that can lead to overheating.
How could detect existing protections or not these heating.

The effects of a single hot spot phenomena that allow the creation of conducive elements on the primer of the fire, and cacking degassing (degassing we suspected toxic gas and / or flammable during cracking) in addition to charring PVC insulation.

The impact related to aging (dust and others) as well as the environment.

These tests were designed all the connections and taking into account a segmentation of the buildings.

I give you a few excerpts.

http://img.myzupics.com/ac/0001.png
http://img.myzupics.com/ac/0002.png
http://img.myzupics.com/ac/0003.png
http://img.myzupics.com/ac/0004.png
http://img.myzupics.com/ac/0005.png

Here some diagrams ( just for the example) of some test proposed:

http://img.myzupics.com/ac/s001.png
http://img.myzupics.com/ac/s002.png
http://img.myzupics.com/ac/s003.png

Some other schemas for testing in part of building:
http://img.myzupics.com/ac/s005.png
http://img.myzupics.com/ac/s006.png
http://img.myzupics.com/ac/s009.png
http://img.myzupics.com/ac/s0091.png
http://img.myzupics.com/ac/s007.png


*The proposed segmentation:*

http://img.myzupics.com/ac/sector001.png
http://img.myzupics.com/ac/sector002.png

*And the conclusion:*

http://img.myzupics.com/ac/conclusion-sector002.png

*With the team, I proposed this protocol to a US XXX "body" .
The persons seemed highly interest to conduct these tests and to publish them. 
All was fine. 
We were at the highest level, people seemed very interested...All looked good.
But suddenly, everything is complicated .... ...and nothing is done  

If it's can help,

Best regards,
*
FICC-


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

French ICC said:


> But suddenly, everything is complicated .... ...and nothing is done


Perhaps there's some complaint dept we could send all of these to......>?










~C:whistling2:S~


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> Perhaps there's some complaint dept we could send all of these to......>?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*Hello  **I dont know.... But for me the question is: **Why ?*

*If you see here:
*
http://img.myzupics.com/ac/conclusion-sector002.png

*Where the information contained are a synthesis of official publication, it's esay to understand that if you can monitoring the température of connections, you can prevent about 80% of electrical fires.:devil2:*

*Where is the problem?*

*:whistling2:


*


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

French ICC said:


> *
> 
> Where is the problem?
> 
> ...


*

The problem is two fold

first, there exists no point of use thermal sensing on the electrical market

second, we are led to believe a glowing connection will eventually 'ground out' , and trip any given OCPD.

~CS~*


----------



## Bootss (Dec 30, 2011)

Wonder if some sort of inspection requirement/recommendation every certain amount of years would help eliminate glowing / loose connections?

Perhaps a writing campaign to homeowners insurance companies would persuade them to recommend inspections to the homeowners?

Maybe some sort of third party standard the inspection would have to meet so that the electrition is not just making something up.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Lep said:


> Wonder if some sort of inspection requirement/recommendation every certain amount of years would help eliminate glowing / loose connections?
> 
> Perhaps a writing campaign to homeowners insurance companies would persuade them to recommend inspections to the homeowners?
> 
> Maybe some sort of third party standard the inspection would have to meet so that the electrition is not just making something up.


We supposedly have the CPSC Lep

~CS~


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> The problem is _two_ fold
> 
> first, there exists no_ point of use_ thermal sensing on the electrical market
> 
> ...


Hi Chicken Steve ! 

What is "OCPD" please?

Thank you !

FICC-


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

Lep said:


> Wonder if some sort of inspection requirement/recommendation every certain amount of years would help eliminate glowing / loose connections?
> 
> Perhaps a writing campaign to homeowners insurance companies would persuade them to recommend inspections to the homeowners?
> 
> Maybe some sort of third party standard the inspection would have to meet so that the electrition is not just making something up.


Hello Lep  and sorry for my English.

I do periodic checks connections for public buildings. The easiest are the connections in the panels. Then for the junctions boxs and terminal (outlets, lights, fans, AC, appliances), it seems economically unfeasible for homes.

What do you think about?

Best regards,

FICC-


----------



## pete87 (Oct 22, 2012)

Lep said:


> Wonder if some sort of inspection requirement/recommendation every certain amount of years would help eliminate glowing / loose connections?
> 
> Perhaps a writing campaign to homeowners insurance companies would persuade them to recommend inspections to the homeowners?
> 
> Maybe some sort of third party standard the inspection would have to meet so that the electrition is not just making something up.





The Last thing I would want is CA . intruding in peoples lives again . They will turn it into a Cash Cow . This is the state where you need a Lawyer to Junk a Scooter , no help from local DMV , been there , enuff of that .



Pete


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

pete87 said:


> The Last thing I would want is CA . intruding in peoples lives again . _They will turn it into a Cash Cow_
> Pete


:thumbsup:

Hello Pete, Sorry for my English.

What is a "DMV local" if you please ?

Thank you, best regards,

FICC-


----------



## five.five-six (Apr 9, 2013)

Lep said:


> Wonder if some sort of inspection requirement/recommendation every certain amount of years would help eliminate glowing / loose connections?
> 
> Perhaps a writing campaign to homeowners insurance companies would persuade them to recommend inspections to the homeowners?
> 
> Maybe some sort of third party standard the inspection would have to meet so that the electrition is not just making something up.


While they are in there they could check for other things too. It would probably be cheaper just to mandate everyone install Telescreens with IR cameras in every room. That way they could check for glowing connections any time day or night and without any inconvenience to the residents of the dwelling. Heck, you would never even know if or when they were watching. Perhaps they could set up an anonymous "glowing connection tip line" Where comrades could report suspected glowing connections or anything else they thought might be suspicious.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

French ICC said:


> Hi Chicken Steve !
> 
> What is "OCPD" please?
> 
> ...


Over Current Protective Device (most often a breaker or a fuse)


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

*Over Current Protective Device*



don_resqcapt19 said:


> Over Current Protective Device (most often a breaker or a fuse)


Thank you !

Best regards,

FICC-


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> We supposedly have the CPSC Lep
> 
> ~CS~


Hello Chicken Steve 

But hot spots are not detected....


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

French ICC said:


> Hello Chicken Steve
> 
> But hot spots are not detected....


from page #14>
http://www.cpsc.gov//PageFiles/108737/AFCIFireTechnology.pdf




> An AFCI also uses a ground current sensor (typically 30 mA) for *“pre-arcing”*
> detection and protection. This sensor allows the AFCI to detect slowly-developing
> insulation breakdown that typically precedes line-to-ground and line-to-neutral arc faults.


~CS~


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

Lep said:


> Wonder if some sort of inspection requirement/recommendation every certain amount of years would help eliminate glowing / loose connections?
> 
> Perhaps a writing campaign to homeowners insurance companies would persuade them to recommend inspections to the homeowners?
> 
> Maybe some sort of third party standard the inspection would have to meet so that the electrition is not just making something up.


Hello Lep, 

Do not take my question wrong, I do not want to offend anyone but:

*"Is this a problem for insurance companies if there are electrical fires in homes?" ... :blink:*

*Best regards,*

*FICC-*


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> from page #14>
> http://www.cpsc.gov//PageFiles/108737/AFCIFireTechnology.pdf
> 
> 
> ~CS~


*OK Steve **Chicken, thank you very much for these explanations *

*IMO, such as arc detection in series would not work (It was Dr. J. Engel says so and is well positioned for this, and it publishes, + others) these products do nothing more than that were already RCDs. Ans in addition, I think for the Glowing connections, detect series arcs is useless ... see my post # 298 on the topic "The differences in our electrical systems"
*
*And hot spots is still not detected in the glowing connection*. :devil2:

I hope I do offense anyone ...If it can help.

Best regards,

FICC-


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

It is an _older_ document French One

The claim is also _unsubstantiated_

What i would like you to take note of are the _authors_>>>




> * Mr. Lee and Mr. Trotta are staff Electrical Engineers with the U.S. Consumer
> Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and each have over 13 years of experience in
> electronic detection systems, electrical distribution systems, and electrical consumer
> products. Mr. King is currently the Chief Engineer for Electrical and Fire Safety with
> ...


~CS~


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> from page #14>
> http://www.cpsc.gov//PageFiles/108737/AFCIFireTechnology.pdf
> 
> 
> ...


While all of the original branch circuit and feeder type AFCIs had a GFP circuit, that is not and never has been required by the UL AFCI standard.


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> It is an _older_ document French One
> 
> The claim is also _unsubstantiated_
> 
> ...


Thank you very much Chicken Steve 


http://www.combinationafci.com/resources/doc_iee_paper_presentation_orlando_2012_02_03.pdf

Best regards,

FICC-


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> While all of the original branch circuit and feeder type AFCIs had a GFP circuit, that is not and never has been required by the UL AFCI standard.


Hello and thank you 

IMO, I think (even I'm sure) that they always have a GFP circuit... But the real problem is that the hot spots still are not detected in the glowing connections.. ... :devil2:

Sorry for my English,

Best regards,

FICC-


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

It's become rather evident a disparity exists .

There is what the afci creators_ said _it could do

Then it was tested to UL to perform at _some_ level of function , and i'm still wondering just what this _'cotton test'_ being referred to is about....

Then it was marketed with a fire suppression shtick.

~CS~


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

French ICC said:


> Hello and thank you
> 
> IMO, I think (even I'm sure) that they always have a GFP circuit... But the real problem is that the hot spots still are not detected in the glowing connections.. ... :devil2:
> 
> ...


There are at least 2 manufacturers of the "combination" type AFCI that do not have a GFP circuit. GE does not have it in any of there current line and Eaton does not have it in one of their lines.

Yes, even the GFP does not directly detect a glowing connection, however if the wiring system has an EGC it is likely that the GFP would trip when the heat from the glowing connection damages the conductor insulation enough to cause a ground fault. It is my opinion that this would very often happen before a fire is started.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> ...
> There is what the afci creators_ said _it could do
> ... ~CS~


That is one of my major issues with the AFCI. They plain out lied to the CMP in the original proposals as to what an AFCI could do. The original proposals said that the device they had would do what they now tell us that the combination type AFCI will do...the only problem is that those proposals were some 13 years before the combination type AFCI existed.


----------



## Bootss (Dec 30, 2011)

French ICC said:


> Hello Lep,
> 
> Do not take my question wrong, I do not want to offend anyone but:
> 
> ...


insurance company simply say we're not going to insure your house untill "XYZ "electrical inspection completed so many years apart.
its the same thing as these obsolete panels upgrade requirements mandated by insurance company

(same thing with smoke detectors ,etc.)


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Have you seen this Don?

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

~CS~


----------



## Almost always lurkin (Jul 30, 2014)

French ICC said:


> :thumbsup:
> 
> Hello Pete, Sorry for my English.
> 
> ...


Hello again,

"DMV" stands for "Department of Motor Vehicles". It's the government agency that does driver's licenses and car registration. The word "local" is there because they often have many local branch offices.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> Have you seen this Don?
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLmC5quELrE
> 
> ~CS~


Is that a combination or none combination AFCI?


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

meadow said:


> Is that a combination or none combination AFCI?


Good question, but would it actually make a difference though? :whistling2:


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

MTW said:


> Good question, but would it actually make a difference though? :whistling2:


According to experts yes, but I know better. 

YOu should see the pyrophoric carbonization theory I am working on. Hint... it doesn't involve an arcing signature :laughing:


----------



## pete87 (Oct 22, 2012)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> ... combination type AFCI will do...the only problem is that those proposals were some 13 years before the combination type AFCI existed.




Don is the Combination AFCI using the GFPE 30ma threshold for equipment or the 4 to 6 ma threshold of the GFCI for people .




Pete


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

Don would know more but I think its between 30 to 50ma...


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

Came across this in DIY chatroom:

http://www.diychatroom.com/f18/electrical-outlet-back-stab-246561/


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> There are at least 2 manufacturers of the "combination" type AFCI that do not have a GFP circuit. GE does not have it in any of there current line and Eaton does not have it in one of their lines.


Thank you very much 

I have a question for you, please, (no offense, I just want to be sure there is no misunderstanding because translations):

*What is (in you mind ) an GFC protection ?
*
Thank you in advance



don_resqcapt19 said:


> Yes, even the GFP does not directly detect a glowing connection, however if the wiring system has an EGC it is likely that the GFP would trip when the heat from the glowing connection damages the conductor insulation enough to cause a ground fault. It is my opinion that this would very often happen before a fire is started.


:thumbsup:

*IMO the problem is to detect an abnormal temperature at heart of terminal of glowing connection, nothing else. :whistling2:*

*I agree with you 100%, what you say and truly relevant!:notworthy:
*
Best regards, 

FICC-


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

meadow said:


> Is that a combination or none combination AFCI?


 *Hello! **I think that is a combination type :001_huh:*

Best regards


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

meadow said:


> Don would know more but I think its between 30 to 50ma...


:thumbsup: 

...or 100


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

Lep said:


> insurance company simply say we're not going to insure your house untill "XYZ "electrical inspection completed so many years apart.
> its the same thing as these obsolete panels upgrade requirements mandated by insurance company
> 
> (same thing with smoke detectors ,etc.)


Ok thank you very much. Lep, I appreciate 

Here, the insurance companies want nothing for homes. There a few years, insurance companies have bad accounts with industrial sites (Unlike homes, one industrial disaster can be very expensive, operating loss pollution, indirect costs, etc ... while a house, we generally know how much it will cost ... ). 

= They asked for periodic inspections in industrial sites. .. These inspections have reduced losses in industrial sites. Since nothing happens ....

Tnak you again and best regards.

FICC-


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

Lep said:


> insurance company simply say we're not going to insure your house untill "XYZ "electrical inspection completed so many years apart.
> its the same thing as these obsolete panels upgrade requirements mandated by insurance company
> 
> (same thing with smoke detectors ,etc.)


Sorry Lep , I did not see your location. You are in a great place! :thumbup:

I understood in meetings that for SF and perhaps and sure elsewhere, the insurance companies take into account (as an aggravating element) that the houses are often very close to each other. 

If it can helps, 

Best regards,

FICC-


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

Almost always lurkin said:


> Hello again,
> 
> "DMV" stands for "Department of Motor Vehicles". It's the government agency that does driver's licenses and car registration. The word "local" is there because they often have many local branch offices.


Thank you very much. 

It's seems complicated, maybe as our French administration? :wallbash: :icon_redface: :furious:


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

French ICC said:


> *Hello! **I think that is a combination type :001_huh:*
> 
> Best regards



 Thats just sad :no: But not surprising considering it has to take into account UL listed appliances with a mediocre circuit board.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

French ICC said:


> :thumbsup:
> 
> ...or 100



:no:


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

meadow said:


> :no:


50 ?....:whistling2:


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

meadow said:


> :no:


Sorry Meadow.

I just saw: it was a question, the post is gone too soon, it missing "?"
It was just an interrogation.

Best regards,

FICC-


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

French ICC said:


> Sorry Meadow.
> 
> I just saw: it was a question, the post is gone too soon, it missing "?"
> It was just an interrogation.
> ...


 
Ok my bad


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Are incendiary levels reached _before or after_ gfp protection is the Q here folks.....

~CS~


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

pete87 said:


> Don is the Combination AFCI using the GFPE 30ma threshold for equipment or the 4 to 6 ma threshold of the GFCI for people .
> Pete


There is no requirement for the trip point as the UL standard for AFCIs does not require GFP. The AFCIs that use GFP have a trip point of at least 30mA.

Note a "combination" AFCI is not to be confused with a dual function AFCI. A combination AFCI is one that is intended to detect and clear both series and parallel arcing faults.
A "dual function" AFCI is a device that is both a AFCI and a GFCI. These are coming into the market because of the 2014 code rules that require both AFCI and GFCI protection for some locations.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> Have you seen this Don?
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLmC5quELrE
> 
> ~CS~


Yes, and my question would be; "how much current was flowing in the circuit?
The AFCI does not look for parallel arcing faults unless the current exceeds 75 amp. The AFCI does not look for series arcing faults unless the current exceeds 5 amps.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

MTW said:


> Good question, but would it actually make a difference though? :whistling2:


Yes it would make a difference. The original branch circuit and feeder type AFCI is designed to detect parallel arcing faults. The fault in the video is a series arcing fault. The "combination" AFCI is intended to detect both series and parallel arcing faults.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

I believe you're looking at an average 1200-1500 Watt space heater Don

~CS~


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

French ICC said:


> Thank you very much
> 
> I have a question for you, please, (no offense, I just want to be sure there is no misunderstanding because translations):
> 
> ...


GFP is ground fault protection and will detect current that is flowing on a path other than the two circuit conductors. Most often the term for this is a ground fault and GFP = Ground Fault Protection. While it works the same as GFCI protection, the trip point for GFP is higher. The trip point for the GFP that is in the AFCI is at least 30mA.




> :thumbsup:
> 
> *IMO the problem is to detect an abnormal temperature at heart of terminal of glowing connection, nothing else. :whistling2:*
> 
> ...


I am not aware of any device on the market that can directly detect the abnormal temperature caused by a high resistance connection. These can occur a low currents, and even if they are a form a "series arc" (I don't believe they are) the AFCI does not look for series arcs unless the current on the circuit exceeds 5 amps.

At the current time, it is my opinion that the best technology available to prevent fires from a high resistance connection is the GFP. The temperature causes enough damage to the conductors to result in a ground fault and the GFP will clear that fault. The wiring systems we use all have Equipment Grounding Conductors, and it is very likely that there will be enough thermal damage to the conductor insulation to cause a ground fault condition before a fire is started.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> GFP is ground fault protection and will detect current that is flowing on a path other than the two circuit conductors. Most often the term for this is a ground fault and GFP = Ground Fault Protection. While it works the same as GFCI protection, the trip point for GFP is higher. The trip point for the GFP that is in the AFCI is at least 30mA.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


From a over driven staple or glowing connection?


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> Yes, and my question would be; "how much current was flowing in the circuit?
> The AFCI does not look for parallel arcing faults unless the current exceeds 75 amp. The AFCI does not look for series arcing faults unless the current exceeds 5 amps.


Hello! 

It does not give the heating power 1500 watt? Or I misheard, sorry if I did not understand what he says, I apologize 

Best regards


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

meadow said:


> From a over driven staple or glowing connection?


 I don't think that there is any questions that the GFP would detect and clear a fault from an over driven stapel. 
It is my opinion that the GFP would be likely to clear a glowing connection before a building fire is started.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

French ICC said:


> Hello!
> 
> It does not give the heating power 1500 watt? Or I misheard, sorry if I did not understand what he says, I apologize
> 
> Best regards


 If that is the case there would be enough current for the AFCI to be looking for the arcing fault. (I did not watch the complete video, so I missed some information)
Next question, the AFCI has to see the arc for 4 out of 8 half cycles. Was that happening with the "man made" arc, or was the time between the arcs too long?


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> Yes it would make a difference. The original branch circuit and feeder type AFCI is designed to detect parallel arcing faults. The fault in the video is a series arcing fault. The "combination" AFCI is intended to detect both series and parallel arcing faults.


And if you think it actually works, I have a bridge in NYC to sell you.


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> GFP is ground fault protection and will detect current that is flowing on a path other than the two circuit conductors. Most often the term for this is a ground fault and GFP = Ground Fault Protection. While it works the same as GFCI protection, the trip point for GFP is higher. The trip point for the GFP that is in the AFCI is at least 30mA.


*Thank you don_resqcapt19* 



don_resqcapt19 said:


> I am not aware of any device on the market that can directly detect the abnormal temperature caused by a high resistance connection. These can occur a low currents, and even if they are a form a "series arc" (I don't believe they are) the AFCI does not look for series arcs unless the current on the circuit exceeds 5 amps.


Ok, thank you very much. Here a page of the Dr. Joe Engel publication (2012) http://www.combinationafci.com/resources/doc_iee_paper_presentation_orlando_2012_02_03.pdf
and I'm sorry if I make mistakes because of the translation. 










it's esay to test?



don_resqcapt19 said:


> At the current time, it is my opinion that the best technology available to prevent fires from a high resistance connection is the GFP. The temperature causes enough damage to the conductors to result in a ground fault and the GFP will clear that fault. The wiring systems we use all have Equipment Grounding Conductors, and it is very likely that there will be enough thermal damage to the conductor insulation to cause a ground fault condition before a fire is started.


*IMO, it's very interesting. 

*According our tests and others, I think that the problem is triple:

There are huge differences in temperatures a few inches from the glowing connection hot spot. For example more than 100 ° C for a difference of 1 cm. After temperature decreases more faster. It's because the heat dissipations are very high. Then, the temperature rises in a glowing connection according to a exponential curve, it's slow at the begining. The nearest insulation wires are slowly charred, farthest not, they remains intacts, virtually no possible contact. But very near and in the connection, the elements conducive to fire ignition are quickly présents. 

At this point we must think that a ignition of fire requires several conditions (fire quadrature). If these conditions are present, it takes a lot of luck for the phenomenon you describe happens before a fire, I think that in fact, it's virtually impossible.

If these conditions are not present, by dint of heat it will perhaps have a fault contact, or other things that alert = We have beautiful pictures on forums...



If it can help,

Best regards,

FICC-


----------



## Almost always lurkin (Jul 30, 2014)

US engineers talk of a "fire triangle". What does "fire quadrature" mean? Google doesn't help.


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

Almost always lurkin said:


> US engineers talk of a "fire triangle". What does "fire quadrature" mean? Google doesn't help.


Oups. I'm confused. Thank you to point this out to me! 

It's the "tétraèdre du feu" in French Language, and I make a mistake between several Window screens open... :blink: 

*Fire tetrahedron* is OK for you ?

Sorry again and I apologize.

Best regards,


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Almost always lurkin said:


> US engineers talk of a "fire triangle". What does "fire quadrature" mean? Google doesn't help.


Try 'Fire tetrahedron' Lurkin....










~CS~


----------



## pete87 (Oct 22, 2012)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> There is no requirement for the trip point as the UL standard for AFCIs does not require GFP. The AFCIs that use GFP have a trip point of at least 30mA.
> 
> Note a "combination" AFCI is not to be confused with a dual function AFCI. A combination AFCI is one that is intended to detect and clear both series and parallel arcing faults.
> A "dual function" AFCI is a device that is both a AFCI and a GFCI. These are coming into the market because of the 2014 code rules that require both AFCI and GFCI protection for some locations.



Thanx Don . So these new Dual Function AFCIs will have the GFCI 4 to 6 ma trip protection i assume .



Pete


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

> *Third*, UL introduced the concept of *“arc simulators”* as a
> means of producing a continuous low current series arcing
> event, without any justification.
> 
> ...



Page 8

One can read their *test methods* and summaries , inclusive of GFP protection _mitigating a glowing contact _Here


~CS~


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> I don't think that there is any questions that the GFP would detect and clear a fault from an over driven stapel.


 
Would GFP still clear if the nail only came in contact with the hot? 








> It is my opinion that the GFP would be likely to clear a glowing connection before a building fire is started.


 
Not in all cases. Some yes, but if the box is plastic a fire may start first.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

meadow said:


> Would GFP still clear if the nail only came in contact with the hot?


 Probably not, but a nail hitting only a single conductor is unlikely to cause a fire.


> Not in all cases. Some yes, but if the box is plastic a fire may start first.


True, but an AFCI without GFP has almost no chance of preventing that fire.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> > Probably not, but a nail hitting only a single conductor is unlikely to cause a fire.
> 
> 
> Even if its the hot conductor and the nail or staple had 120 volts on it?
> ...


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> That is one of my major issues with the AFCI. They plain out lied to the CMP in the original proposals as to what an AFCI could do. The original proposals said that the device they had would do what they now tell us that the combination type AFCI will do...the only problem is that those proposals were some 13 years before the combination type AFCI existed.


I'm sorry but i have to take issue with _who is lying to who_ here Don

'99 CMP-2 had a UL rep , as well as a OCPD manufacturer .

They've continued on as both UL rep, and Manufacturing rep, even to the point of writing NEC digest articles as a duo.

I'm seen their names come up repetitively ever since

2011 690.11 being their latest jem.

CMP wasn't _lied_ to

CMP is _doing_ the lying....

~CS~


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

Another nuisance trip thread 


http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=168250


Hopefully they will be less of a hassle in PV systems.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

meadow said:


> don_resqcapt19 said:
> 
> 
> > Even if its the hot conductor and the nail or staple had 120 volts on it?
> ...


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> I'm sorry but i have to take issue with _who is lying to who_ here Don
> 
> '99 CMP-2 had a UL rep , as well as a OCPD manufacturer .
> 
> ...


Steve,
The original proposals did not come from within the CMP. The original proposals for the 96 code said that the devices that were available then had the functionality of the combination type AFCI is said to have.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> meadow said:
> 
> 
> > How would connecting a hot wire to the wood framing start a fire? If the wood is conductive enough to flow enough current to start a fire, that current would exceed the 30mA GFP trip point and the GFP would clear the circuit.
> ...


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> Steve,
> The original proposals did not come from within the CMP. The original proposals for the 96 code said that the devices that were available then had the functionality of the combination type AFCI is said to have.


The CMP does not generate ROP's , but it can be infiltrated by the _advocates _of them. 

I find it rather_ biased _that the CMP would actually seat a breaker manufacturer, as well as a UL rep.

They literally _created testing parameters to fit the product_, not the other way 'round.

You'll find the _same list of names_ involved behind recent ROP's as well Don. 

690.11 being one example.

~CS~


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

meadow said:


> Would GFP still clear if the nail only came in contact with the hot?
> 
> Not in all cases. Some yes, but if the box is plastic a fire may start first.


*Gentleman’s* 

I hear of parallel arcs, dual functions, GFP, and others ... I do not understand so So it seems that Everything was complicated at will, but everything is so simple ....

I hope to offend anyone, and I am very happy that someone tells me errors there are here, thank you in advance.

*In my mind, to prevent the risk of fire, to sum up, we well know how to do only 2 things:
*
*-To detect overcurren*t (fuse or circuit breaker)
*-T**o** detect a difference with a torus** (Picture A) *between the current entering a circuit by the phase and the current cost of the circuit by the neutral* (differential device) from us.
_* Or with an electronic device, but the principle is the same._

*I leave aside voluntarily serial arcs detection.
*
A breaker, everybody knows ...

A differential device is necessarily associated with a cut-off means.

For homes:
Either a switch = Inter. Differential (not present in the US).
Either to a breaker = Differential breaker here = GFCI by example for you

*The differential devices can have multiple sensitivities, 1 Amp. 0.5Amp. 0.3 Amp. 0.03 Amp. They may also have more or less rapid tripping times. **But the principle is exactly always the same (1).*

*Here, we have two clearly identifiable functions, *(inter. differential supplying severalbreakers,</SPAN>*Picture B). We do not use the words "arcs" for faults but:*

*Short circuit = as in US. *
*Insulation fault , a "leakage" of the circuit to a mass or PE*, or earth (2) *_*Protective Earth_

*What are the faults that we can have in a French electrical installation?*

*From the panel, except the overcurrent which will make breaker trip, we can have fault contacts ONLY between:*

*- Phase and Neutral* = This is a short circuit = is the breaker that reacts.
*- Phase and PE (2)* = An insulation fault = the differential device reacts.
*- Neutral and PE (2)* = An insulation fault(2) = the differential device reacts if it is sensitive enough.

*So in any case, it is either the breaker or the differential device which react.* *Nothing other*. 
Since they are usually separated quickly identifying defects. For circuit breakers, it is less clear to identify the nature of the defect, but it is the same: either Breaker portion that reacts, either the differential device that reacts.

In the US, you have differential breakers ( RCD ) and your PE are connected to the neutral, it a little more complicated for understanding.

However,

*What are the faults that we can have in an US electrical installation?*

*As in France, except the overcurrent qui will make breaker trip, we can have fault contacts ONLY between:*

*- Phase and Neutral *
*- Phase and PE (2) = *(a "leakage" of the circuit to a mass or PE, or heart)
*- Neutral and PE (2)* (a "leakage" of the circuit to a mass or PE, or heart)

*If a Circuit breaker protects the circuit:
*
*- Phase and Neutral* = a parallel arc Phase-Neutral = (SHORT CIRCUIT) = the BREAKER trip.
- *Phase and PE(2)*= a parallel arc Phase-PE (FAULT ISOLATION (2) & SHORT CIRCUIT) = the BREAKER trip.
- *Neutral and PE(2)* = a parallel arc Neutral-PE (FAULT ISOLATION(2)) nothing happens ...(?)

*If a GFCI protects the circuit:

*A fault contact between:

- *Phase and Neutral* = a parallel arc Phase-Neutral = (SHORT CIRCUIT) = *the BREAKER part trips.*
- *Phase and PE (2)* = a parallel arc Phase-PE = (FAULT ISOLATION (2) & SHORT CIRCUIT) *= the DIFFERENTIAL DEVICE part will trips faster*.
*- Neutral and PE (2)* = a parallel arc Neutral-PE (FAULT ISOLATION) *= the DIFFERENTIAL DEVICE part will trips if it is sensitive enough *(to resume).

*If an AFCI protects the circuit:*

A fault contact between:

*- Phase and Neutral* = a parallel arc Phase-Neutral = (SHORT CIRCUIT) = *the BREAKER part trips.
- Phase and PE (2)* = a parallel arc Phase-PE = (FAULT ISOLATION & SHORT CIRCUIT) = *the DIFFERENTIAL DEVICE part will trips faster.
- Neutral and PE (2)* = a parallel arc Neutral-PE (FAULT ISOLATION) =* the DIFFERENTIAL DEVICE part will trips if it is sensitive enough *(to resume).

*In conclusion, if the series arc detection does not work**s** in American homes, what are all those names dual functions and others?*

*What other faults, what other functions other than breakers part and differential part there is in this litterature*? *
* of sellers

*IMO the AFCIs are only differential circuit breakers, with **literature and a surge protector fonction.*

Tell me please if I'm wrong, I accept all the reviews, I'll thank you.

*A**nd** in addition, Inter. differential 30 mA generalized since the 1990s here, did not significantly reduce fires: Because they rarely detect glowing connections! :devil2:*

If it can help,

Best regards


Picture A:










Picture B:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

> *In conclusion, if the series arc detection does not works in American homes, what are all those names dual functions and others?*


_merde_....:whistling2:~CS~


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> The CMP does not generate ROP's , but it can be infiltrated by the _advocates _of them.
> 
> I find it rather_ biased _that the CMP would actually seat a breaker manufacturer, as well as a UL rep.
> 
> ...


The CMPs are made up of members from a number of groups, and I see no reason why testing agencies or manufacturer reps should not be able to be members of the CMP. No single group, such as manufacturer reps can have more than 1/3 of the total CMP membership. A proposal takes a 2/3s majority vote to be accepted.


> Manufacturer (M): A representative of a maker or marketer of a product, assembly, or system, or portion thereof, that is affected by the standard.
> User (U): A representative of an entity that is subject to the provisions of the standard or that voluntarily uses the standard.
> Installer/Maintainer (I/M): A representative of an entity that is in the business of installing or maintaining a product, assembly, or system affected by the standard.
> Labor (L): A labor representative or employee concerned with safety in the workplace.
> ...


If manufacturers can't be on the CMP, then why should inspectors or contractors be permitted to be on the CMPs?


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Bias depends on any members_ motivations _Don.

Do we really want members that are investors , own stocks in , or are employed in any way shape or form by what is being_ proposed_ via ROP to a CMP ?

How these members are _vetted _might be a fair question. 

It's no secret the _'enhanced detection'_ kuwpie doll was conjured up by the captains of industry_ (via Joe Engels paper)_ , so how many members got in on the afci IPO ?

Doesn't the _'Follow the $$$' _adage apply to OUR trade every bit as much as it does the political world

~CS~


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

French ICC said:


> *Gentleman’s*
> ...
> *Short circuit = as in US. *
> *Insulation fault , a "leakage" of the circuit to a mass or PE*, or earth (2) *_*Protective Earth_


We don't really have a conductor that is called "PE". Our fault clearing path is called the Equipment Grounding Conductor (EGC) and is connected to the circuit grounded conductor (neutral) and the grounding electrode conductor at the service disconnect for the building.

A short circuit is an unintentional connection between an ungrounded conductor and an ungrounded conductor of a different phase or an unintentional connection between an ungrounded conductor and the grounded (neutral) conductor. If these are "solid" faults they will flow enough current so the the breaker will trip quickly. However if the fault is an "arcing" fault the current is limited by the impedance of the arc and the breaker may not quickly trip as there is not enough current flowing to cause the breaker to trip.

The "leakage" of current to the equipment grounding conductor or to a conductive object that is connected to earth is called a ground fault here. As in the above if the fault path is solid the breaker will quickly trip, but in many cases the fault current path for a ground fault has a higher impedance and the current is limited to the point that the breaker does not clear the fault.


> *What are the faults that we can have in a French electrical installation?*
> 
> *From the panel, except the overcurrent which will make breaker trip, we can have fault contacts ONLY between:*
> 
> ...



In general we do not use differential devices in the US. They are required for specific cases, but are not in general use.





> In the US, you have differential breakers ( RCD ) and your PE are connected to the neutral, it a little more complicated for understanding.



Again, in general we do not use differential devices here. If we do they are called GFCIs (ground fault circuit interrupters, which are people protection and open the circuit at ~5mA) or GFP or GPFE (ground fault protection, which is equipment protection and operates at a higher trip point, sometimes at hundreds of amps, sometimes at a much lower current, for example the GFP that is part of some of our AFCIs or the GFP required to protect heat tracing equipment often has a 30 to 50 mA trip point.




> ...
> *If an AFCI protects the circuit:*
> 
> A fault contact between:
> ...



The requirement for the AFCI was driven by people who say that the standard thermal magnetic circuit breaker that we use will not open on a parallel arcing fault because the impedance of the arc limits the current so that the breaker's instantaneous or magnetic trip function does not quickly clear the fault. The AFCI is intended to be able to detect the arc signature wave form and open the circuit before a standard breaker would.
Note that in addition to the arc signature recognition function the AFCI is also functions as a standard thermal magnetic circuit breaker

If there is a phase to the Equipment Grounding conductor or other ground fault path, the GFP (differential) part of the AFCI would open the circuit. That of course assumes that the AFCI actually has a GFP function. The UL standard has NEVER required that the AFCI device have a GFP function, however all of the original branch circuit and feeder type AFCIs had a GFP function with a 30 to 50 mA trip. The NEC now requires the use of a "combination" type AFCI and one manufacturer (GE) no longer uses a GFP circuit in any of their AFCIs. A second manufacturer (Eaton) no longer uses a GFP in one of their AFCI lines. 

A fault between the neutral and the Equipment Grounding Conductor, will rarely cause a heat producing arc. This type of fault would only be cleared if the device has a differential function and as I pointed out, not all of the combination type AFCIs have that function.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> The requirement for the AFCI was driven by people who say that the standard thermal magnetic circuit breaker that we use will not open on a parallel arcing fault because the impedance of the arc limits the current so that the breaker's instantaneous or magnetic trip function does not quickly clear the fault. The AFCI is intended to be able to detect the arc signature wave form and open the circuit before a standard breaker would.
> Note that in addition to the arc signature recognition function the AFCI is also functions as a standard thermal magnetic circuit breaker



Why we have such high magnetic trips {5X's the euro model} would be the Q here.....>
Published 24 yrs ago

~CS~


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> The CMPs are made up of members from a number of groups, and I see no reason why testing agencies or manufacturer reps should not be able to be members of the CMP. No single group, such as manufacturer reps can have more than 1/3 of the total CMP membership. A proposal takes a 2/3s majority vote to be accepted.
> 
> If manufacturers can't be on the CMP, then why should inspectors or contractors be permitted to be on the CMPs?


No one who stands to make a profit by the decisions of the CMP should be a member of the CMP. 

But we are so accustomed to corruption that we actually defend it.

I sit on the Board of Directors of a nonprofit organization that I sometimes do electrical work for. When a vote is called concerning said electrical work, I recuse myself from that vote.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> Bias depends on any members_ motivations _Don.
> 
> Do we really want members that are investors , own stocks in , or are employed in any way shape or form by what is being_ proposed_ via ROP to a CMP ?
> 
> ...


Every person that exists has a bias and an agenda. I just don't see an issue here. 

What kind of system do you want to write the code...the US Congress?


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

HackWork said:


> No one who stands to make a profit by the decisions of the CMP should be a member of the CMP.
> 
> ...


So other than the end users who is left to be on the CMPs??? 

The contractors, electricians, inspectors, manufacturers, testing organizations, labor organizations and just about every other group or person that would have any knowledge of electrical systems would have a vested economic interest in the code rules.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> So other than the end users who is left to be on the CMPs???


 I already told you, anyone who doesn't make a profit off of the decisions.


> The contractors, electricians, inspectors, manufacturers, testing organizations, labor organizations and just about every other group or person that would have any knowledge of electrical systems would have a vested economic interest in the code rules.


Exactly.

Code should be made for safety, not for making people profit.

Like I said, some of you just can't help but defend corruption.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> > Every person that exists has a bias and an agenda.
> 
> 
> Myself included Don.
> ...


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

HackWork said:


> I sit on the Board of Directors of a nonprofit organization that I sometimes do electrical work for. When a vote is called concerning said electrical work, I recuse myself from that vote.


I guess we can write off any congressional aspirations you may have then Hax...:whistling2:~CS~:laughing:


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> Originally Posted by *French ICC*
> *Gentleman’s*_
> ...
> *Short circuit = as in US. *
> ...


Thank you very much don_resqcapt19 

That is my mind the PE (Protective EARTH) here it's called Earth wire:













don_resqcapt19 said:


> A short circuit is an unintentional connection between an ungrounded conductor and an ungrounded conductor of a different phase or an unintentional connection between an ungrounded conductor and the grounded (neutral) conductor. If these are "solid" faults they will flow enough current so the the breaker will trip quickly. However if the fault is an "arcing" fault the current is limited by the impedance of the arc and the breaker may not quickly trip as there is not enough current flowing to cause the breaker to trip.


OK, it was for to be summary. In 2 or 3 phases schema, of course a contact between 2 phase is a short-circuit

Please consider, don_resqcapt19, in a monophase schema, that a short circuit is an contact between phase an neutral, nothing else. It's because your PE is connected to the neutral, you say a short circuit. Try to get out of this schemas please. If you have a current leaking out of the circuit, by an isulation fault, and that current leaks from PE, consider that this is a defect isolment, and you'll catch the thing.



don_resqcapt19 said:


> The "leakage" of current to the equipment grounding conductor or to a conductive object that is connected to earth is called a ground fault here. As in the above if the fault path is solid the breaker will quickly trip, but in many cases the fault current path for a ground fault has a higher impedance and the current is limited to the point that the breaker does not clear the fault.


OK, thank you. that's exactly what I want to see you. The same defect (leak to PE) is either a short circuit or a ground fault, or by going to the EP. But first fault is the insulation fault (you can call it other) with a contact with PE

Try to keep this classification in your mind for the futur it is right and it has the merit of being perfectly in relation to what really do protections.

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



don_resqcapt19 said:


> *What are the faults that we can have in a French electrical installation?*
> 
> *From the panel, except the **overcurrent which will make breaker trip, we can have fault contacts ONLY between:*
> 
> ...




OK don_resqcapt19, I understand. It was to see that overcurrent & short circuit, and insulation fault are the basis of electrical protection. In all country, (for homes; for this risk, and to resume) we can to detect and prevent only these phenomenoms; by breakers and differential devices. Nothing else.

In all country electrical installations are designed with these very simple basis. (TT, IT*, TN-C, TN-S, TN-C-S) _IT* is a bit particular, but I do not want to confuse at this stage.
_



don_resqcapt19 said:


> In the US, you have differential breakers ( RCD ) and your PE are connected to the neutral, it a little more complicated for understanding.
> 
> Again, in general we do not use differential devices here. If we do they are called GFCIs (ground fault circuit interrupters, which are people protection and open the circuit at ~5mA) or GFP or GPFE (ground fault protection, which is equipment protection and operates at a higher trip point, sometimes at hundreds of amps, sometimes at a much lower current, for example the GFP that is part of some of our AFCIs or the GFP required to protect heat tracing equipment often has a 30 to 50 mA trip point.


Okay, don_resqcapt19, I know. I mean you do not have a differential switch at home, I certainly do not say it's better to one side or the other.

I say that in the USA as the device is always integrated with the breaker, and like PE is connected to the neutral, it's a little more difficult to understand the proof that I'm doing.


don_resqcapt19 said:


> *If an AFCI protects the circuit:*
> 
> A fault contact between:
> 
> ...


_Inverted to ease:_

Note that in addition to the arc signature recognition function the AFCI is also functions as a standard thermal magnetic circuit breaker.

OK 1ere function, breaker.

_Inverted to ease:_

The requirement for the AFCI was driven by people who say that the standard thermal magnetic circuit breaker that we use will not open on a parallel arcing fault because the impedance of the arc limits the current so that the breaker's instantaneous or magnetic trip function does not quickly clear the fault. 

IMO it's literature, i do not want offense anybody but..."that the standard thermal magnetic circuit breaker that we use will not open on a parallel arcing fault because the impedance of the arc limits the current .."

What is the type of arc ? 

IF it is a defect of isulation is logical because if PE is connected to the Neutral and an insulation fault is to bolt a short circuit. And fault will be detected by the breaker = too late, too dangerous. Hence the good idea to place a device in the differential protection, which will detect "leakage" or the insulation fault much earlier.

The AFCI is intended to be able to detect the arc signature wave form and open the circuit before a standard breaker would.

Ok, what type of arc? What is an arc signature?

I posted on the topic The differences in our electrical systems page 9 from post # 191. Look, if you want these posts...



don_resqcapt19 said:


> If there is a phase to the Equipment Grounding conductor or other ground fault path, the GFP (differential) part of the AFCI would open the circuit. That of course assumes that the AFCI actually has a GFP function. The UL standard has NEVER required that the AFCI device have a GFP function, however all of the original branch circuit and feeder type AFCIs had a GFP function with a 30 to 50 mA trip. The NEC now requires the use of a "combination" type AFCI and one manufacturer (GE) no longer uses a GFP circuit in any of their AFCIs. A second manufacturer (Eaton) no longer uses a GFP in one of their AFCI lines.
> 
> A fault between the neutral and the Equipment Grounding Conductor, will rarely cause a heat producing arc. This type of fault would only be cleared if the device has a differential function and as I pointed out, not all of the combination type AFCIs have that function.


*IMO there is always a differential functIon, and it's esay to test... *

*If you redo the reasoning on the bases which are those of electrical protections, turning everything in every way, you will always arrive to the fundamentals .... **Try ...*

*Thank you very much for you reponse. I appreciate. 
*
If it can help, 

Best regards.

FICC-


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> The CMPs are made up of members from a number of groups, and I see no reason why testing agencies or manufacturer reps should not be able to be members of the CMP. No single group, such as manufacturer reps can have more than 1/3 of the total CMP membership. A proposal takes a 2/3s majority vote to be accepted.
> 
> If manufacturers can't be on the CMP, then why should inspectors or contractors be permitted to be on the CMPs?


Hello again 

If you want, look at this story :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awXgoPlNyN4

1' > 6'56

and here :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DL5aon0nRI

24'27 > 30'45

Best regards,

FICC-


----------



## Almost always lurkin (Jul 30, 2014)

Here's something that happened in real life, three houses down from mine.

I'm missing some critical information on this. There are fundamental questions I can't answer for you.

The neighbors had an extension cord malfunction. As I remember, the smoke detector went off, they grabbed the baby and ran out of the house, and on the way out saw an arc traveling along the length of the extension cord. It was hot enough to ignite furniture, which is what set off the smoke detector.

The circuit breaker never tripped. Nobody was hurt but the house was a total loss.

The circuit breaker might have tripped 
- if it had a lower threshold for magnetic trip
- if it had been able to recognize that the current between phase and neutral was being conducted by plasma and not copper
- if it had differential current detection. Assuming it was a three-wire extension cord, there must have been current leaking to the EGC given how badly the insulation was damaged.
- if it had not been a Zinsco.


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

*Sorry for forgetting:
*
_Inverted to ease:_

The requirement for the AFCI was driven by people who say that the standard thermal magnetic circuit breaker that we use will not open on a parallel arcing fault because the impedance of the arc limits the current so that the breaker's instantaneous or magnetic trip function does not quickly clear the fault. 

IMO it's literature, i do not want offense anybody but..."that the standard thermal magnetic circuit breaker that we use will not open on a parallel arcing fault because the impedance of the arc limits the current .."

What is the type of arc ? 

IF it is a defect of isulation is logical because if PE is connected to the Neutral and an insulation fault is to bolt a short circuit. And fault will be detected by the breaker = too late, too dangerous. Hence the good idea to place a device in the differential protection, which will detect "leakage" or the insulation fault much earlier.

*It's the second function! *(differential device)

Best regards.

FICC-


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

Almost always lurkin said:


> Here's something that happened in real life, three houses down from mine.
> 
> I'm missing some critical information on this. There are fundamental questions I can't answer for you.
> 
> ...


Hello 

Sorry... What is a Zinsco please ?

Thank you!

Best regards


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

French ICC said:


> The AFCI is intended to be able to detect the arc signature wave form and open the circuit before a standard breaker would.
> 
> Ok, what type of arc? What is an arc signature?


Zlan's _'arc signatures'_ proliferated the 'net 15 yrs ago French One

most are now gone.....

Their focus was a toroidal coil with an air gap>








connected to a microprocessor with a _'library'_ of arc signatures>


http://www.cpsc.gov//PageFiles/104638/AFCI9-28.pdf

~CS~


----------



## theJcK (Aug 7, 2013)

French ICC said:


> Hello
> 
> Sorry... What is a Zinsco please ?
> 
> ...


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinsco

Just the second best company from Federal Pacific.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

French ICC said:


> *Sorry for forgetting:
> *
> _Inverted to ease:_
> 
> ...


 
I believe that to be untrue in reality. My belief is where people believed arc faults were setting fires to dwellings was in reality pyrophoric carbonization. 


No testing was done to adequately differentiate between the two, or at least no mentioned.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

French ICC said:


> Hello
> 
> Sorry... What is a Zinsco please ?
> 
> ...


https://www.google.com/search?q=zin...a=X&ei=qY_7VJCdKIafgwSsgoLoDg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg

https://www.google.com/search?q=zin...oAg#tbm=isch&q=zinsco+breaker&revid=809976713


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> Why we have such high magnetic trips {5X's the euro model} would be the Q here.....>
> Published 24 yrs ago
> 
> ~CS~


My understanding is that UL 489 does not even require a magnetic trip function for a circuit breaker. As far as I know all of our breakers have that function, but it ranges from about 6x to 30x or more.

I agree that a GFP with a low magnetic trip, would prevent fires. 

I am not really sure why there is so much concern with dwelling unit electrical fires....they are less than 12% of the total number of dwelling unit fires.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

meadow said:


> don_resqcapt19 said:
> 
> 
> > GFP aside, what would happen with a standard breaker or AFCI without GFP? Id imagine current trickling into wood would not be good?
> ...


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> Bias depends on any members_ motivations _Don.
> 
> Do we really want members that are investors , own stocks in , or are employed in any way shape or form by what is being_ proposed_ via ROP to a CMP ?
> 
> ...


Steve,
What group of members for a CMP don't have a vested economic interest, other than a "user" and even a user has an economic interest as he has to pay for the application of the code rules.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

French ICC said:


> *Sorry for forgetting:
> *
> _Inverted to ease:_
> 
> ...


But the NEC does not require differential protection.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

MTW said:


> And if you think it actually works, I have a bridge in NYC to sell you.


I have never ever said that


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> meadow said:
> 
> 
> > With dwelling unit voltages, I don't see anything happening. The current flow would be in nano-amps or less.
> ...


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

HackWork said:


> I already told you, anyone who doesn't make a profit off of the decisions.
> ....


And that only leaves code users who, in most cases, have no electrical knowledge. You can even say the users make a profit on avoided costs, if the code does not require anything.
Everyone else make a profit off the code...the electrician, the contractor, the labor organizations, the manufacturers, the inspectors, the testing labs...can't think of anyone who would not have a vested economic interest.
That is the reason that no one group can have more than 1/3 of the total membership of a CMP and the reason that an accepted proposal requires a minimum of a 2/3s majority.

Tell me how you would make it work and who would be on the CMPs.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> Steve,
> What group of members for a CMP don't have a vested economic interest, other than a "user" and even a user has an economic interest as he has to pay for the application of the code rules.


That it's far less altruistic when one delves into the details is evident for those , like you and I Don. I don't live in a black/white world , nor delude myself there will ever be one.

So i would be naive to insist them all overgrown _safety boyscouts_, yet it's also evident there needs to be some level of self policing if they _violate_ the public trust vested in them for enlightened self interests.



~CS~


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

meadow said:


> I believe that to be untrue in reality. My belief is where people believed arc faults were setting fires to dwellings was in reality pyrophoric carbonization.
> 
> No testing was done to adequately differentiate between the two, or at least no mentioned.


Yes, and that is where everything mixes! 

Best regards


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> Steve,
> What group of members for a CMP don't have a vested economic interest, other than a "user" and even a user has an economic interest as he has to pay for the application of the code rules.


Are you really comparing an end user (ie, a homeowner's) economic interest in electrical code to a manufacturer's? Are you serious??


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> And that only leaves code users who, in most cases, have no electrical knowledge. You can even say the users make a profit on avoided costs, if the code does not require anything.
> Everyone else make a profit off the code...the electrician, the contractor, the labor organizations, the manufacturers, the inspectors, the testing labs...can't think of anyone who would not have a vested economic interest.
> That is the reason that no one group can have more than 1/3 of the total membership of a CMP and the reason that an accepted proposal requires a minimum of a 2/3s majority.
> 
> Tell me how you would make it work and who would be on the CMPs.


Once again, for the third time, someone who doesn't stand to make a profit from the decisions.


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> But the NEC does not require differential protection.


Yes,I agree. I have never said that the NEC require a differential protection. Please, look again. Best regards, FICC-


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

French ICC said:


> Yes,I agree. I have never said that the NEC require a differential protection. Please, look again. Best regards, FICC-



a shame....










~CS~


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> Zlan's _'arc signatures'_ proliferated the 'net 15 yrs ago French One
> 
> most are now gone.....
> 
> ...


OK Chicken Steve, and hello !

But if the serial Arcs detection do not works....The only arcs that remain possible are those that can occur when there is a short circuit or when there is an insulation fault!  :laughing:
Not? 

Best regards, FICC-


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

French One

please read >>>this 

I_ can not _translate it, hopefully _you _can


You'll most likely conclude they (testing lab) people are creating a _rationale _for arcs ,arcing , glowing connections , etc.


You'll also recognize the same names that have involved themselves in this matter now for 2 decades....

~CS~


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

meadow said:


> don_resqcapt19 said:
> 
> 
> > Asking politely, how do you know? Do you have a link?
> ...


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

French ICC said:


> Thank you very much don_resqcapt19
> 
> That is my mind the PE (Protective EARTH) here it's called Earth wire:
> 
> ...


Actually our single phase systems have two ungrounded conductors and a grounded conductor. A short circuit can be between two ungrounded conductors or between an ungrounded and a grounded conductor.
You can call it a PE, we call it the EGC. It is our safety conductor and connected to the grounded conductor and the grounding electrode conductor.
While for practical purposes there is no difference between a fault to the grounded conductor and a fault to the EGC, we call the first a short circuit and the second a ground fault. If the current flow exceeds the trip point of the OCPD, the OCPD clears the circuit for either type of fault. However it may take a bit longer for a ground fault to clear on circuits that exceed 30 amps. On circuits 30 amps and less the EGC is the same size as the ungrounded conductor. On circuit larger than 30 amps the EGC is smaller and the increased impedance of the smaller fault clearing path will increase the trip time. The ECG requirements are such that they will permit enough current to flow so that the OCPD will operate in the "instantaneous" portion of the time current trip curve.




> OK, thank you. that's exactly what I want to see you. The same defect (leak to PE) is either a short circuit or a ground fault, or by going to the EP. But first fault is the insulation fault (you can call it other) with a contact with PE


It really doesn't make any difference what caused the actual fault.



> ...
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schéma_de_liaison_à_la_terre


I am sorry, but I don't consider anything in wikipedia to be a reliable source and never look at anything in wikipedia.




> OK don_resqcapt19, I understand. It was to see that overcurrent & short circuit, and insulation fault are the basis of electrical protection. In all country, (for homes; for this risk, and to resume) we can to detect and prevent only these phenomenoms; by breakers and differential devices. Nothing else.


It is my understanding that a differential device looks at the current on all of the intended current paths, and trips where these currents do not sum to zero. If they don't sum to zero, then there is current flowing on a path other than a circuit conductor. That type of protection is not, in general, required or used in areas covered by the NEC.




> I say that in the USA as the device is always integrated with the breaker, and like PE is connected to the neutral, it's a little more difficult to understand the proof that I'm doing.



In general our breakers do not have differential protection.
 



> Note that in addition to the arc signature recognition function the AFCI is also functions as a standard thermal magnetic circuit breaker.
> 
> OK 1ere function, breaker.
> 
> ...



The theory is that anything other than a "bolted" fault has impedance and that this impedance may limit the fault current so that the beaker is operating outside of its instantaneous trip range.
 



> IF it is a defect of insulation is logical because if PE is connected to the Neutral and an insulation fault is to bolt a short circuit. And fault will be detected by the breaker = too late, too dangerous. Hence the good idea to place a device in the differential protection, which will detect "leakage" or the insulation fault much earlier.


I agree that GFP (differential protection) would be a good idea, but our codes do not require that type of protection for most circuits.
 



> The AFCI is intended to be able to detect the arc signature wave form and open the circuit before a standard breaker would.





> Ok, what type of arc? What is an arc signature?



You would have to ask the AFCI manufacturers...no one else has any idea what an arc signature wave form is. Even the manufactures use different algorithms to detect what they can an "arc signature". These algorithms are proprietary and not available to anyone.
 
*



IMO there is always a differential functIon

Click to expand...





and it's esay to test...

Click to expand...

*I am sorry but that is not correct under the rules of the NEC. Differential or ground fault protection is normally required. Maybe it should be, but it isn't.


Please note, that I have not seen any evidence that the AFCI can really do what we are told it can do, and do not support the code requirement to use them. However, there is no chance that the rule that requires us to use them will ever be removed from the code and there is every likelihood that their use will be expanded in future code cycles.
My focus, at this time is to get the UL standard or the NEC changed to require that AFCI have a 30 mA GFP function. 

I strongly support the requirements in the model codes that dwelling units have a fire sprinkler system as I believe that would save many more lives and prevent many more injuries than the AFCI ever will. I have placed an amendment in our local electrical code to say that if you install a code compliant sprinkler system in a dwelling unit, then you do not have to install AFCIs. The idea is to encourage more dwelling units to have fire sprinkler systems. The elimination of the AFCI requirement will pay for 25 to 30% of the sprinkler system costs.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

> I strongly support the requirements in the model codes that dwelling units have a fire sprinkler system as I believe that would save many more lives and prevent many more injuries than the AFCI ever will. I have placed an amendment in our local electrical code to say that if you install a code compliant sprinkler system in a dwelling unit, then you do not have to install AFCIs. The idea is to encourage more dwelling units to have fire sprinkler systems. The elimination of the AFCI requirement will pay for 25 to 30% of the sprinkler system costs.


 
I do as well, a fire sprinkler on top of something to stop glowing connections (heck even without stopping glowing connections) will save thousands of lives. Resi fire spriklers would be mandatory in my world. 


In terms of French ICC keep in mind French IEC based codes are very different from NEC or CEC codes. For example in France there is no main bonding jumper on the neutral. Faults are cleared via grounds rods hence some of the difference you see.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

meadow said:


> I do as well, a fire sprinkler on top of something to stop glowing connections (heck even without stopping glowing connections) will save thousands of lives. Resi fire spriklers would be mandatory in my world.


Actually both the NFPA and ICC model codes require fire sprinklers for one and two family dwelling units, but most AHJs who adopt those codes are deleting that requirement.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> Actually both the NFPA and ICC model codes require fire sprinklers for one and two family dwelling units, but most AHJs who adopt those codes are deleting that requirement.




Never knew about the ICC model, but if some federal law was enacted (to be honest I don't know if that is even possible) the local amendments would be over ridden. I think it boils down to close ties to contractors. No single state or town wants to push out housing growth.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

*Resi sprinklers*

I think 99% of adds are out of touch with reality but this ones not far off:


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

HackWork said:


> Are you really comparing an end user (ie, a homeowner's) economic interest in electrical code to a manufacturer's? Are you serious??


Just as serious as you are in accusing the CMP of wrong doing


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> Just as serious as you are in accusing the CMP of wrong doing


Voting for code changes for the sole purpose of the company you work for profiting, instead of for safety, is right in your opinion?


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> Just as serious as you are in accusing the CMP of wrong doing



I call taking bribes a wrong doing in my book. Half the CMP is comprised of marionettes with really long strings.


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> Zlan's _'arc signatures'_ proliferated the 'net 15 yrs ago French One
> 
> most are now gone.....
> 
> ...


 

Hello Chicken Steve!​  ​ *Who is STMicroelectron...? *http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/STMicroelectronics​ :blink:​ ​ :whistling2:​ Best regards,​ FICC-​


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

French ICC said:


> Hello Chicken Steve!​  ​ *Who is STMicroelectron...? *http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/STMicroelectronics​ :blink:​ ​ :whistling2:​ Best regards,​ FICC-​


STM are an international fortune 500 company , mostly euro based corporates (France, Italy) who's main products are _microprocessors._

they manufacture the _microprocessor_ used in the AFCI

the patent for them, as well as their many _'claims_' can be viewed here>

http://www.google.com/patents/US6504692

Shortly after the afci debuted in the NEC, the IAEI published an article>
 Alan Manche, “The Truth About AFCIs (Part 1)”, IAEI News, (January/February 2003): further confusing these 'claims'

~CS~


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> Originally Posted by *French ICC*
> _Thank you very much don_resqcapt19
> 
> That is my mind the PE (Protective EARTH) here it's called Earth wire:
> ...


*Thank you *

*OK, all you tell me, I know. I also know that it is quite difficult intellectually, because it comes out of habit, I understand that. **I made shortcuts to try to catch the stuff (including short circuits), and shortcuts are necessarily incomplete, I can to discuss them, no problem...

**I know US electricians (and NA engineers ) who had the same locks at begining but after they have understood ...

**I respect your code, I have no problem with that ...

**Re-try from the beginning on the basis that I told you if you want ...

**Best regards,*
*
FICC-*


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Please note in these papers i've posted that UL makes the determination 5 amps can have incendiary results , where the afci trips @ 75amps.

I'm at a loss as to how this possibly makes sense , or somehow is rationalized towards fire suppression as the majority of arcing electrical phenomena start out as a glowing connection.

~CS~


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> STM are an international fortune 500 company , mostly euro based corporates (France, Italy) who's main products are _microprocessors._
> 
> they manufacture the _microprocessor_ used in the AFCI
> 
> ...


*Hello Chicken Steve 

STMicroelectronics is a global company under French law .. / ... The head office is located in Paris .. / ... Originally named SGS-Thomson, it was then renamed STMicroelectronics in 1998 following the withdrawal of Thomson capital ... / ...

Best regards*


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> Just as serious as you are in accusing the CMP of wrong doing


I still consider this post of your's a copout. 

It's crazy for you to say that a homeowner has the same economic interest in electrical code as a manufacturer of expensive electrical products does.

Do you actually believe that the manufacturer will make decisions and votes based on safety? No. It will all be based on company profit.

Like I said in my first post, people like you will come to defense of the corruption.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Oh, so you know these _mafia électrique_ people French One....? :jester:~CS~:laughing:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

HackWork said:


> I still consider this post of your's a copout.
> 
> It's crazy for you to say that a homeowner has the same economic interest in electrical code as a manufacturer of expensive electrical products does.
> 
> ...


One can view Congress the same way Hax. 

The influence of $$$ does that.

Take the $$$ out of the equation , and you'll have a better system.

~CS~


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> One can view Congress the same way Hax.
> 
> The influence of $$$ does that.
> 
> ...


Exactly. What the CMP does is no different than what the government does.

A politician spends his whole career making decisions that directly help out a particular corporation, and then retires from politics to a $5 million/year job for that same corporation. And not only do we accept this, we defend it!


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

I reserve the right to _question_ authority Hax

Unfortunately , even this is being oppressed by the NEC 

210.12 has had more rop's thrown out via their _unsubstantiated _stamp than any other specific code in the last 2 decades.

Some of them were simple, some the most eloquently technical pieces i've ever read

It's time for Congressional investigation

just my 'tax payer' opinion.

~CS~


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

HackWork said:


> Exactly. What the CMP does is no different than what the government does.
> 
> A politician spends his whole career making decisions that directly help out a particular corporation, and then retires from politics to a $5 million/year job for that same corporation. And not only do we accept this, we defend it!


Hello! 

If the electricital laws are the same everywhere, which you say is also valid in France! Thank you!:thumbup:

Best regards,

FICC-


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

Id venture to say some CMP members and all major manufactures know glowing connections are the root of all electrical fires, but would rather suppress that fact because more profit is made offering solutions that never treat the actual problem.


----------



## Bad Electrician (May 20, 2014)

HackWork said:


> Like I said in my first post, people like you will come to defense of the corruption.


Hack That is a unfair accusation of Don, while I do not know him personally what I have seen of his pot are fair and very knowledgable. That he agrees with the actions of the CMP are based on his personal beliefs and I do not believe influenced by money or some belief that corporations know best. 

Though my beliefs tend to follow your line in this subject. I have seen how corporations try to bend standards to benefit their product and damn be the end user or the competition. 

As Chicken Steve has always said "FOLLOW THE DOLLAR"


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Bad Electrician said:


> Hack That is a unfair accusation of Don, while I do not know him personally what I have seen of his pot are fair and very knowledgable. That he agrees with the actions of the CMP are based on his personal beliefs and I do not believe influenced by money or some belief that corporations know best.
> 
> Though my beliefs tend to follow your line in this subject. I have seen how corporations try to bend standards to benefit their product and damn be the end user or the competition.
> 
> As Chicken Steve has always said "FOLLOW THE DOLLAR"


Brian, anyone who defends the CMP is defending corruption.

Don is a nice guy and one of the most code knowledgeable people I've seen. But that doesn't change the fact that he is here defending manufacturers sitting on the CMP for the sole purpose of making more profit, which goes directly against the entire point- safety.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

Nothing against Don, but I politely agree to disagree. I am with Hacks on this, the CMP is corrupt and defending them isn't helping anymore. I personally hear of manufacturing reps bragging about code changes.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Electrical academic type people, writers, engineers, inspectors, contractors all may have a small economic interest in the code. But it's reasonable to believe that these types of people mainly care about safety as their main motivator.

A manufacturer cares about one thing and one thing only, profit. Their votes will be for unsafe practices as long as if makes them more profit. 

I don't see how this could even be up for debate.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

HackWork said:


> Electrical academic type people, writers, engineers, inspectors, contractors all may have a small economic interest in the code. But it's reasonable to believe that these types of people mainly care about safety as their main motivator.
> 
> A manufacturer cares about one thing and one thing only, profit. Their votes will be for unsafe practices as long as if makes them more profit.
> 
> I don't see how this could even be up for debate.



That's how it works. They will stomp on anyone trying to bring something life saving to the market. I still cant believe that to this day there isn't something to stop a back stabbed outlet from melting.


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> Oh, so you know these _mafia électrique_ people French One....? :jester:~CS~:laughing:


*French compagnies ?*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DL5aon0nRI

*Look at this story, 9'31 to 14'27 Chicken Steve.*

*There is not a conflict of interest? :laughing:*

*It's just a question ...:blink:*

*Best regards*

*FICC-*


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

HackWork said:


> Voting for code changes for the sole purpose of the company you work for profiting, instead of for safety, is right in your opinion?





meadow said:


> I call taking bribes a wrong doing in my book. Half the CMP is comprised of marionettes with really long strings.


So bring your *proof *to the local federal prosecutor.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

Bad Electrician said:


> Hack That is a unfair accusation of Don, while I do not know him personally what I have seen of his pot are fair and very knowledgable. That he agrees with the actions of the CMP are based on his personal beliefs and I do not believe influenced by money or some belief that corporations know best. ...


I don't believe that the CMPs action on AFCIs was correct, but I also don't believe there were any bribes or corruption involved in their actions.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

I know quite a few members on the cmp some of whom live nearby and to say they are corrupt is absurd. Sure the manufacturers have a second agenda but they don't outnumber the panels and others are there to keep it in check somewhat.

Sure there are times when the cmp manufacturers push their product and get in it but that is not the sop


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> I don't believe that the CMPs action on AFCIs was correct, but I also don't believe there were any bribes or corruption involved in their actions.


Back alley deals do not need to exist to _corrupt _any system Don. 

All it really takes is like minded people. 

~CS~


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

HackWork said:


> Electrical academic type people, writers, engineers, inspectors, contractors all may have a small economic interest in the code. But it's reasonable to believe that these types of people mainly care about safety as their main motivator.
> 
> A manufacturer cares about one thing and one thing only, profit. Their votes will be for unsafe practices as long as if makes them more profit.
> 
> I don't see how this could even be up for debate.


Hello HackWork 

Have you saw the document of Joe Engel "Combinaison AFCIs that they will and will not do" (I assume yes), about the adoption of these produtcs. 
Sorry for my English. 

Best regards, 

FICC-


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Dennis Alwon said:


> I know quite a few members on the cmp some of whom live nearby and to say they are corrupt is absurd. Sure the manufacturers have a second agenda but they don't outnumber the panels and others are there to keep it in check somewhat.
> 
> Sure there are times when the cmp manufacturers push their product and get in it but that is not the sop


What i suspect we have is a _belief _system , basically a pack of unsubstantiated data that the CMP is parroting.

This includes the CSPC, and UL , who are both creating their own rationale. If you've read my links they are doing everything possible to associate a glowing connection with a series arc.

You'll also find the same names involved , over a period of time.

So i would counter here to have any CMP-2 member explain how these microprocessors detect a series arc in SCIENTIFIC DETAIL , with LAB STUDIES done by an independent unbiased party.

Further ,and to verify _'belief'_ we have a NFPA EE who has openly demonstrated a series arc (the man's got brass ones) does not trip an afci

The _'feedback'_ most pro forums give that are closer to biblical scripture than anything scientific

Even better, you've the perfect market for a fairy tale widget to statistically hide it's inefficiencies within, along with the usual contingent of firemen who'll never understand the finer points .

I find this systemic in it's flaws, to where those CMP-2 members probably vote much like our Congress on information they have not the time to read.

~CS~


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> So bring your *proof *to the local federal prosecutor.


To which is difficult, even then convincing a federal prosecutor of wrong doing stands little ground in that he is not an electrician, engineer or electrical expert. Information will go over his head for the same reason legal information would go over mine. Its like giving a typical police officer finical records and then asking him what monetary & contract laws Goldman Sachs has broken over the years. He wont have clue much the same way if I gave him every shred of evidence against the CMP. Only an expert in the field like a banker or finical attorney can spot the fraud.


For this reason the opinions and findings of independent Electrical experts hold all the weight.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

French ICC said:


> *French compagnies ?*
> 
> *Look at this story, 9'31 to 14'27 Chicken Steve.*
> 
> *FICC-*


You are lucky to still be among the living French One....~CS~:whistling2:


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> So bring your *proof *to the local federal prosecutor.


Proof of what? Who said anything about a federal crime?

You quoted a question that I asked you, why not answer it?


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Proof that UL, CPSC and CMP members were stockholders would'nt amount to jack Hax. 

What is needed is a class action suit. 

The public vs. afci

~CS~


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

Dennis Alwon said:


> I know quite a few members on the cmp some of whom live nearby and to say they are corrupt is absurd. Sure the manufacturers have a second agenda but they don't outnumber the panels and others are there to keep it in check somewhat.
> 
> Sure there are times when the cmp manufacturers push their product and get in it but that is not the sop


Sometimes one does not even have to be aware of corruption. People can be lead to think and act in ways which they think is right but in reality fulfills someone else's wish (being mislead with false information). Further people can be wrong. Here is one example where it openly admitted at 1:06:45:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpgAVE4UwFw




Even if those you who you know in person are squeaky clean (and some code making panels have no reason to be corrupt) that doesn't change others. 

In the end its irrelevant. We have a code falling behind with the rest of the world idiot proofing everything and requiring expensive products that haven't even had the bugs worked out yet.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> Proof that UL, CPSC and CMP members were stockholders would'nt amount to jack Hax.
> 
> What is needed is a class action suit.
> 
> ...


FIFY :whistling2::jester:


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> ...
> So i would counter here to have any CMP-2 member explain how these microprocessors detect a series arc in SCIENTIFIC DETAIL , with LAB STUDIES done by an independent unbiased party.
> ...
> ~CS~


And we have the exact same issues with the product in the video posted by French ICC. We also have the same issues presented in that video of getting the product required to make profits.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

I'd say a 3rd party is warranted Don

I'm not too happy as an EC selling folks a product of _nefarious_ claims 

Unfortunately, the class action suit paradigm has evolved in America to insist on a _victim_. 

Misinformed , Misled and or Mis-Marketed goods do not rate consumer protection to said levels like they have in the past

Another leg of the perfect marketing storm stool imho...

~CS~


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> And we have the exact same issues with the product in the video posted by French ICC. We also have the same issues presented in that video of getting the product required to make profits.


*Hi! 

Maybe I'm wrong, but I have the impression that you have not seen these documents. Is this the case?

Regards*


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

The only thing class action suits do is make lawyers rich.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

French ICC,
Is this the proposal talked about in the video you posted?


> 2-126 Log #2513 NEC-P02 Final Action: Reject
> (210.13)
> ________________________________________________________________
> *Submitter*: Edoardo Roncone, C. Joule Effect, Inc.
> ...


It is very very unlikely that the CMP would ever look at a product like this unless there is a third party standard to build and test against. Also the owner of this technology would have to be willing to license the technology to other manufacturers as a single source product will never be required by the NEC. If fact the AFCI was delayed three years because there was on on manufacturer at the time of the original proposals.

It is also interesting that there was no follow up comment in the Report on Comments by anyone on this proposal. Not even by the original submitter.

As far as the comments about the members of CMP 2, there was only one manufacturer rep on the panel at the time of this proposal. I assume he is the person referred to in the video.


> CODE-MAKING PANEL NO. 2
> Articles 210, 215, 220, Annex D,
> Examples D1 through D6
> Mark R. Hilbert, Chair
> ...





> 1. M Manufacturer: A representative of a maker or marketer of a product, assembly, or system, or portion thereof, that is affected by the standard.
> 2. U User: A representative of an entity that is subject to the provisions of the standard or that voluntarily uses the standard.
> 3. IM Installer/Maintainer: A representative of an entity that is in the business of installing or maintaining a product, assembly, or system affected by the standard.
> 4. L Labor: A labor representative or employee concerned with safety in the workplace.
> ...


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

HackWork said:


> Proof of what? Who said anything about a federal crime?
> 
> You quoted a question that I asked you, why not answer it?


I see all bias as equal.


----------



## Almost always lurkin (Jul 30, 2014)

FICC asked what an "arc signature" is. It's difficult to find out.

Patents are supposed to explain how a device works.

I found a list of references in, of all places, a talk page on Wikipedia. An EE posted all the links he could find. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arc-fault_circuit_interrupter#Detection_Method


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

French ICC said:


> *Hi!
> 
> Maybe I'm wrong, but I have the impression that you have not seen these documents. Is this the case?
> 
> Regards*


What documents are you asking about? My comment was on the video you posted. 
That video has the same exact issues that others in this thread are accusing the AFCI manufacturer's and CMP members of having.

I am not saying the a product to detect glowing connections is not needed.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

> There is minimal information for the panel to consider such a technology. Appropriate 3rd party standards that would cover testing and listing of such devices, as well as an independent 3rd party study as to the potential capabilities of the device, is necessary in order to consider whether this technology should be required


 And that doesn't apply to AFCIs but does to GCI?  

Its all BS. They accept what they want to and play diplomatic.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

> It is also interesting that there was no follow up comment in the Report on Comments by anyone on this proposal. Not even by the original submitter.


I believe there was, but i'll let the French One answer that Don

~CS~


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> I believe there was, but i'll let the French One answer that Don
> 
> ~CS~


If the proposal I posted is the correct proposal, there were no comments on that proposal in the ROC. (at least not in the PDF copy I have on my computer)

Did they resubmit for the 2017 cycle?


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Almost always lurkin said:


> FICC asked what an "arc signature" is. It's difficult to find out.
> 
> Patents are supposed to explain how a device works.
> 
> I found a list of references in, of all places, a talk page on Wikipedia. An EE posted all the links he could find. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arc-fault_circuit_interrupter#Detection_Method





> The article does not give specifics because the industry and manufacturers have not authoritaritively published detailed functionality or internals.


patent w/claimsinclusive of over 170_ points_ 

I lost track of how many times it mentioned 'concept' ....



> The disclosed concept pertains generally to circuit interrupters and, more particularly, to arc fault circuit interrupters. The disclosed *concept* also pertains to arc fault detectors for arc fault circuit interrupters and, more particularly, to operational amplifier circuits for such arc fault detectors.


~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> If the proposal I posted is the correct proposal, there were no comments on that proposal in the ROC. (at least not in the PDF copy I have on my computer)
> 
> Did they resubmit for the 2017 cycle?


I'm unsure, so it's best to allow French One to comment Don

I did, at the time, read what i_ thought_ was a comment ....

~CS~


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> What documents are you asking about? My comment was on the video you posted.
> That video has the same exact issues that others in this thread are accusing the AFCI manufacturer's and CMP members of having.
> 
> I am not saying the a product to detect glowing connections is not needed.


*Hello 

Sorry for the misunderstanding, related to translation.
My question is have you seen the entire videos?

Best regards
*


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

Almost always lurkin said:


> FICC asked what an "arc signature" is. It's difficult to find out.
> 
> Patents are supposed to explain how a device works.
> 
> I found a list of references in, of all places, a talk page on Wikipedia. An EE posted all the links he could find. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arc-fault_circuit_interrupter#Detection_Method


Thank you !

Best regards

FICC-


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

French ICC said:


> *Hello
> 
> Sorry for the misunderstanding, related to translation.
> My question is have you seen the entire videos?
> ...


Yes, I watched all of it.


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> Yes, I watched all of it.


*Ok. If you have see and understand the whole video report of the French journalist, I dont understand the mind of your questions. Sorry, maybe the translation or other. Regards*


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

meadow said:


> Came across this in DIY chatroom:
> 
> http://www.diychatroom.com/f18/electrical-outlet-back-stab-246561/


Hello 

*French outlet , direct from Paris : :laughing:*

:devil2:


​ 





 











*Best regards*

FICC-​


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

Not within a wall or building wiring, but in a toaster over 

http://www.diychatroom.com/f47/why-...ven-turning-orange-normal-248265/#post1845754


----------



## French ICC (Mar 21, 2011)

meadow said:


> Not within a wall or building wiring, but in a toaster over
> 
> http://www.diychatroom.com/f47/why-...ven-turning-orange-normal-248265/#post1845754


Nice Glowing connection ! 

Thank you ! 

FICC-


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

I could post one a day French One

There is nothing to prevent it, although those marketing afci's continue to insist they prevent it . 

They are all the same names, the same people, from the same _'oversight' _bureaucracies , sworn to the public's service of safety

I want to know how much $$$ these people have invested and/or made 

I want to know so that we can demand they recluse themselves from any further participation in those public service bureaus of safety 

They need to be investigated here

~CS~


----------

