ECN Forum Forums General Topics of the Trade General Discussion Area AFCI's and Fires

Though I think that AFCI's promise sounds good. But the only live demonstrations that I have actually witnessed could be attributed to the GFI 30ma built-in protection or that a good quality quick trip breaker would likely have seen also. Noting that the AFCI have a lower instantaneous trip settting, who's to say that the rest of the electronics does much.

What would be helpful is if we could get our collective hands on the tests with complete data on the current waveforms and maximum amperage values for the tests with video. I would think that that would help in the conversion process. As I think about it, maybe I did see a video once that may have covered some of this, if so it was not memorable enough.

Sign me as a hopeful sceptic. (I have not installed them in my own home yet.)

I am planning on letting this technology mature a little more myself before I buy it for my house.
All you have to do is look at the progression over the 8 years that this has been mandated in the code.
The people who bought version 1.0 in 2002-2003 really didn't get much for their $50. It only claims to find a parallel arc inside the wall. Expanding this to parallel faults on the load side of the receptacle came later and finally the series arc detection fairly recently. There are examples of every version installed out there (along with a significant number of Square Ds that don't work at all).
Other than the recalled SqD, how does the average homeowner, or even the average electrician, know what they have?

Among the things that bothered me in the article .... remember it comes direct from one of the manufacturers .... was the very strong push for more AFCI's, on every household circuit.

The author plainly stated that he wants EVERY circuit in his home so proetcted. Later statements imply unkind things about those who don't share this opinion- and worse things about those who question or oppose this technology.

Which is an interesting detail: I can't speak for others, but I have nothing against this technology per se; I do have some issues with the idea of having every circuit in the home being REQUIRED to have this protection.

The ever-shifting basis used to argue in favor of this product has me sceptical - and questioning my morals and intelligence (as the author does) isn't going to ease my concerns. Quite the opposite, in fact.

210-12 does require all of 'em on an afci....

~S~

well it's been since the late 90's for us up here, but maybe i've missed something...

do you figure they'll get better ? version 4.0, 5.0.....

or do you figure the specifications will finally be revealed to us?

or do i open the box they come in to let it breath?

~S~

I am sure they will get better. As I pointed out, the 2002 version only claimed to detect a parallel fault (basically a short) inside the wall, not in the line cords on the load side of the faceplate. It was basically looking for spikes in the 60-70a range. There have already been 2 major improvements since then.
Like every other bleeding edge technology, the pioneers take all the arrows. I will wait until this settles down, the product starts actually starts doing what it promises and the price drops. I only wish NFPA had the same restraint ... but I suppose it isn't their money they are making people spend to beta test for CH and SqD.

actually the white book stated 'carbon' and 'non-carbon' arcing(s) at the time Greg.

this was taken by many to mean parrallel and series mitigation, with much ado .....





well there's the rub. they go for about $38 ea. now, depending on brand / supplier.

that's over $1000 on most homes w/200A 40 cir panels

at that point, the consumer is making an investment that we, the contractor, are obligated to validate.

unfortunatly, they make only one propietory tester that i know of, don't have a lockout mechanism like gfi's, and state on the paperwork to disconnect when meggering

so the reality is, if you live where there's surges, spikes, your investment may stop somewhat short of efficay, and mostly look pretty.

as i've installed many version 1.0's that have ten years tenure at this point, there spectre of an arc related incident isn't out of the realm of reality either

i often think (as contractors do) who would be liable with a code compliant install , and afci's that didn't do the job.

~S~

That is a good point about how many are still going to be working after a few years. This article is from the IAEI magazine and they found out in my area about a third of the device type GFCIs and over half of the breaker types were just "looking pretty" but did not work.

http://gfretwell.com/electrical/gfci1.pdf

The AFCI is more complicated than a GFCI and would be more susceptible to surge damage.

Well since i doubt there is actually anyone old enough to recall the introduction of molded case breakers I will make the assumption that the conversations were just like this one. Who would install a one dollar circuit breaker when I can use a 10 cent fuse and achieve the same degree of safety. Then there was XO and bull dog breakers etc. Regular circuit breakers took a number of iterations to get them to today. The science is always growing.
My real issue is how we as consumers become the test bed for these emerging technologies. Just look at the development of Windows. How many iterations until a new operating system is released and it actually works better than previous versions.
As for the subject of this thread. AFCI technology has made a great promise of improved safety but we all testify that it has included a lot on unfulfilled promises yet to be realized. It has great potential to add a real improvement over what was here before.

I really object to the argument , the claim, that safety improvement and new technology have 'always; been opposed by critics who gave since been discredited, or that cost is the only factor.

To correct the record: there was never opposition to replacing fuses with breakers, or that HFCI's were opposed as are AFCI's are today. The issues are as different as cheese and chalk.

Breakers were available for decades before they became common in homes, yet some homes were built with them anyways. IMO, the deciding factor was the convenience of being able to reset the breaker, and the ease of manufacturing a panel that would take multiple circuits.

Keep in mind that it was never mandated that fuses be replaced with breakers, that breakers continue to be made that can be installed in a plug-fuse holder, and that there is still a role for fuses.

The GFCI met with tremendous sceptcism, and was initially called for in extremely limited locations. It took several decades before it achieved general acceptance. Even so, devices are readily available, as well as are breakers. Yet, we have still not required that ordinary circuits use GFCI's; only when needed to address a specific risk.

Just as important, we can easily explain their operation, and readily test for it.

I do recall a great deal of dispute regarding the merits of adding a ground wire, and that dispute still festers in the background. Here, perhaps, is a parallel to the AFCI issue, in that the 'pro-bonding' side continues to expand the range of NEC requirements on the topic.

None of that is really relevant here; the author of the article is quite clear they he wants AFCI's on every circuit, and that anyone who disagrees is a terrible person.

For the first point, IMO, expect that the scope of AFCI's will continue to expand, ar, at least, that such proposals will be made. Expect continued opposition to AFCI devices.

As to the second, he fails to directly answer any concerns, and, instead, wastes a lot of paper with irrelevant and faulty "fire science."