ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat
Recent Posts
Violation?
by renosteinke - 01/27/23 09:52 PM
Does NEC 551.71 (F) apply to dwellings?
by BigB - 01/20/23 10:46 AM
Power submeter connections
by HotLine1 - 01/19/23 09:09 AM
AFDD's coming to the UK
by Texas_Ranger - 01/17/23 07:22 PM
New in the Gallery:
Burger King crown sillyness
Burger King crown sillyness
by wa2ise, December 11
240/208 to a house
240/208 to a house
by wa2ise, October 9
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 21 guests, and 10 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
#53042 06/15/05 10:41 PM
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 804
B
BigB Offline OP
Member
Does anyone know the GFCI threshold on C/H AFCI breakers? Assuming they have GFCI protection built in. Would an AFCI serve as GFCI protection in a required location? (such as an outdoor receptacle tapped into a bedroom circuit).

#53043 06/15/05 10:56 PM
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,788
Likes: 14
G
Member
If I read the spec right this is 5MA protection and they say it provides GFCI protection http://www.eatonelectrical.com/unsecure/cms1/TB00500002E.PDF

It is page 27


Greg Fretwell
#53044 06/16/05 06:16 AM
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,148
R
Member
Most AFCIs have their ground fault trip set at 30 to 50 mA and are not suitable for use where GFCIs are required. There are AFCIs that have the ground fault trip set at 5 mA and those can be used where GFCIs are required.
Don


Don(resqcapt19)
#53045 06/16/05 09:12 AM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,370
Likes: 1
Cat Servant
Member
Call me a "doubting Thomas," but I am still cynical as regards AFCI products. Without regard to what the mfr claims, and considering the economy of GFCI devices, I would prefer to have a GFI receptacle where GFI protection is required.
The AFCI, however, has to be in (or real close) to the panel- which may be nowhere near the receptacle. Leads to a game of "hide and seek."

The code may require AFCI's, and the mfrs may claim wonders for them, but I will only tolerate them until there's some more of a track record for them.

In fairness, my cynicism is partly inspired by the "bait and switch" campaign pulled by the mfrs in getting these things into the NEC. That, however, is another thread.

#53046 06/16/05 10:42 AM
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 16
T
Member
Do they make arc-fault receptacles? I have heard reference to them but have never been able to find any. Doesn't the code talk about the receptacle version someplace?

#53047 06/16/05 12:26 PM
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,374
R
Moderator
The 2005 talks about "devices", but doesn't specify receptacles. I am told that the devices being made right now are simply a faceless AFCI, with no receptacle, just a test and reset button.


Ryan Jackson,
Salt Lake City
#53048 06/17/05 10:17 PM
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 6
S
Junior Member
My employer inquired and found that there were "no plans" on developing an Arc-fault recepticle by any major manufacturer.

#53049 06/18/05 02:59 AM
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 717
M
Member
The more I install them the more I like them. I believe I like them due to the gfi built into them. What I think I now see is what a great idea it would have been to require "coordinated ground fault circuit protection " on general purpose lighting and receptacle branch circuits all along since gfi's first were developed. When I say coordinated I mean like this - say for instance ground fault protection set at 200 milliamps at the service, 50 milliamps at branch circuit breakers, and a 5 milliamp requirement at all the current required places. I think any real fire stopping attibuted to ark fault breakers is because of the gfi portion of the device . The Industry would have been better served to go about this as a ground fault protection issue, rather than a promise of reducing fires which may or may not happen, but at least there would be less fresh fodder for attorney's to mine.

#53050 06/18/05 01:06 PM
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 85
C
Member
I may be wrong here but I think the purpose of AFCI was also to protect the integrity of the wiring and not just from the wallbox on. Thereby making AFCI receps. useless.

#53051 06/18/05 04:11 PM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,370
Likes: 1
Cat Servant
Member
Well, Canadian Sparky, you've identified the very point of controversy there.
AFCI's were first advertised as an answer to frayed cords and such. I even saw pics of AFCI receptacles.
Then, before their use became mandatory (and parts houses started carrying them), a slight change was made in the code wording, calling for protecting the entire circuit- and the devices disappeared. Now the press releases all spoke of the staple pinching the romex.

At that point, some folks began to feel they had been misled as to the purpose of the AFCI.

In the latest code (2005), there is a provision for using a device mounted near the panel to protect everything downstream from that point.

Having such a device will accomplish two things- allow you to add AFCI to circuits from an older (or obsolete) panel, and bring down the cost.

GFI Breaker $35
GFI Device $12

AFI Breaker $35
AFI device ?

It has been alleged that a breaker costs so much more than a device only because you have to go to one manufacturer for the breaker, while anybody's device will fit in the box.


Link Copied to Clipboard
Featured:

Tools for Electricians
Tools for Electricians
 

* * * * * * *
2023 National Electrical Code (NEC)
2023 NEC Now Available!
 
* * * * * * *

2020 Master Electrician Exam Preparation Combos
2020 NEC Electrician
Exam Prep Combos:
Master / Journeyman

 

Member Spotlight
Radar
Radar
Los Angeles
Posts: 349
Joined: April 2004
Top Posters(30 Days)
BigB 9
triple 3
Popular Topics(Views)
302,563 Are you busy
231,913 Re: Forum
216,547 Need opinion
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5