All it takes is this guy inventing an electrical term "the Joule effect" and he expects us to blindly believe it.
When some long paper makes up their own terminology...and then quotes 'experts' who they will not name in order to support it I immediately smell snake oil.
BTW - There is a well-known phenomenon named the Joule Effect; but it is entirely unrelated to electricity.
His invention his choice of terms. But I promise you AFCIs have 10,000 times more made up and misused terms to justify them. Remember what "short circuit arcing" became? Somehow we all blindly believe this.
I read the article (http://www.santepublique-editions.fr/obj...ril-21-2016.pdf) and can safely say that I do not have the expertise to comment on the validity of the claims made one way or the other. That said I find the format that it was presented in strangely similar to internet articles where the author is ultimately trying to get you to make an investment in something that is on the cusp of being the next big thing. The bolded text and constant repetition of certain phrases seems unprofessional for a subject that is meant to be taken serious.
Lastly, has anybody viewed the video on the website promoting this technology (http://c-joule-effect-inc.com/electrical_fires.html)? It shows a loose connection in a screw on wire connector gradually heating and eventually producing a flame. I have seen beginnings of this at loose connections on devices and at terminals but never at a screw on connector. Not saying it doesn't happen but I'm wondering how often have any of the other forum members seen a screw on connector in some stage of burning up as shown in the video?
A malfunction at the junction
#217194 - 05/29/1604:49 AMRe: A publication manufacturers don't want you to read
Isn't that why we require boxes at every connection? I am a little curious how they created that bad a connection in a wirenut. That seemed to be the perfect storm of enough contact to create a circuit with enough resistance to burn up. I bet they had to try that quite a few times to get it right and a suspicious person would wonder if there was another substance involved.
#217196 - 05/29/1609:45 AMRe: A publication manufacturers don't want you to read
Yes, that first link consists of little more than marketing hyperbole and technical-sounding babble.
The second link .... well, UL had nothing to do with it.
Instead, let's look at some facts, before we go off into fantasy land.
To begin with, I point to that UL / NFPA / DOE study of a few years back, where they looked at the electrical systems of several 50-year old homes. Where damage was found, they also found major, basic wiring errors. For example, the use of improper splices.
What struck me in that examination of 'old' wiring was that every failing would have been prevented had the rules and practices of that period been followed- nothing since added to the NEC would have prevented them.
As for the use of boxes .... well, I'm simply amazed to see that Australia manages to do without boxes at their devices- yet doesn't seem to have an increased fire loss as a result.
The AFCI drama is worth noting, simply because those devices were presented to s in a manner very similar to the technique used in the first link. That is: lots of emotional appeal; blanket assertions of a 'major problem' and invented claims of losses; and pretty artwork.
Glowing connections? I've seen some awesome art regarding the use of wire nuts in coupling aluminum and copper wires. Alas, the pretty art never explained why such connections seem to be a problem only in the USA, and not in Canada.
I'm especially wary of European-based commentary regarding wire nuts. I don't think wire nuts were ever very popular in Europe; they seem to have gone direct from "Choc Block" connectors (sort of a terminal strip) to Wagos (pressure connectors).
Fires exist - but very few have any connection to the electrical system within the house. Once you look closer, and eliminate gross abuse of appliances (like setting a heater too close to flammables) and incompetent tampering (such as open splicing of thermostat wire to house wire, in order to add a ceiling fan), the number of 'electrical' fires dwindles to insignificance.
Unfortunately , glowing connection technology flies in the face of afci technology.
The fundamental theory of electrical physics being the crux of the issue.
The 'powers that be' have ,in concert with multiple oversight entities , made quite the effort to change canon and/or ignore this reality.
If you'll please indulge me ,i'll post evidence to this end>
Concern — NEC CMP-2 accepted adoption of this new requirement based on inaccurate and misleading documentation submitted by the manufacturers of these devices.
Concern — At a recent meeting of NEC CMP-2, UL made a presentation that demonstrated that the AFCI devices would not detect all arcing faults. The UL representative described the basic technical problems with the device. It will not be able to detect all arcs that may produce a fire. Asked if the device will detect all arcs between the breaker and the first outlet, the answer was no. The answer was the same for detecting arcs in an outlet, in the cord from the outlet to the appliance, and the appliance itself. Asked what the percentage of arcs may be detected, the answer was they do not know
Concern — Unfortunately, the devices can pass only four of the tests, not the full 14 tests needed for this product to protect residential occupancies as outlined in a UL study for the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).
2-76 Log #687 NEC-P02 Final Action: Reject (210.12) __________________________________________________ ______________ Submitter: Robert Huddleston, Jr., RLH Engineering Consulting Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 210.12(A): All 120-volt, single phase, 15- and 20-ampere branch circuits supplying outlets…shall be protected by a listed arc-fault circuit interrupter, combination-type, installed to provide parallel arc fault protection of the branch circuit. 210.12(B): Branch Circuit Extensions or Modifications – Dwelling Units. (1) A listed combination-type AFCI located at the origin of the branch circuit. Substantiation: A CD shall be provided to each Code-panel Principal Voting Member showing actual real-world testing of combination-type AFCIs.
This testing clearly demonstrates and proves that these devices do not trip when sensing a real-world series arc-fault, as they are advertised. Regardless of the type of series arc fault (loose connection, broken wire, damaged cord, junction box splice failure), combination-type AFCI devices do not trip and provide protection even though they claim to provide such. Please view the Powerpoint presentation on the CD and click on the imbedded video for testing results. It is completely inappropriate for the National Electrical Code to specify and require equipment that does not work properly. It is sincerely hoped that the Panel will correct this issue. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject Panel Statement: Replication of the experiments shown in the video shows that there is minimal actual arcing occurring. When arcing does occur, causing the sparking seen in the video, its duration is very short and the energy is three orders of magnitude below what is required to ignite the NM cable or surrounding materials.
The waveform looks the same as when a wall switch is switched on and off. If the AFCI responded to this waveform it would increase the incidence of unwanted tripping while not contributing significantly to mitigating fire hazards. Number Eligible to Vote: 11 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Abstain: 1
So CMP-2 was basically informed by afci manufacturers that they've no idea just what arc(s) an afci can detect, yet they turn around and substaintiate rejection of Mr Huddleston with their intricate knowledge of them AND their waveforms