AFDDs are a massive fraud

[Cookie]

Derailed another thread with AFDDs, so I am starting this one. I will simply say that UK RCDs and MCBs provide arc fault protection as is. UL not only knows that, but extensively researched UK power systems in an effort to emulate the very same concept 40 years. One the simply fact (growing concern) that the US National Electrical Code does not prohibit a maximum earth fault loop impedance.

 

[Sisyphus]

[

Finally here is one of many well established and documented thesis that all come up with similar conclusions all of which contradict some of the claims you make, I therefore put it too you the info you reference is presented out of context, dated, incorrect or simply been misinterpreted, also you fail to address the emerging appliance market that see's HF interference, VFD control which can introduce harmonics into the cables like found in my washing machine and other electrical characteristics like PV that were not relevant only a few decades ago all of which have changed how arc faults behave and effect our installations.

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/44400660.pdf

An apt thesis Darkwood

One fundamental stands out

DC ionizes far more than AC

Our NEC mandated all PV systems incorporate AFDD protection a few cycles ago...iirc it's 690.12

Nobody argued it

~S~

 

[Cookie]

There's a formula i use on a regular basis that calculates the monetary value of a persons life.

We then use the value to check against cost of implementing safety systems. Thankfully, the cost of life in the western world (where I do most of my work) is so high, the safety always has to be implemented.

IET will likely have done the same with the introduction of AFDDs.

Why not just mandate fire sprinklers over time?

 

[Cookie]

I remember, but can't find it Cookie

I'd simply say ,anyone watching our system will realize deregulation & acquisitions have snowballed to total control and influence here

~S~

Did you get my PM I sent here?

 

[The Ghost]

You have made points regards AFDD and RCD which are clear. Whether this is accepted or not is for each individual. You have then made points about big business being corrupt. Again understood. Re-iterating those points is now redundant. Among various statements you have made there is a light sprinkling of "...that is why we are here..." "...We need your help..." As I have asked in my last post, what is it you want we get the points you make with various levels of agreement now what????? Why repeat your self there are only so many ways you can say there is evil big business and after a certain point it becomes tedious. There are only so many ways you can say RCDs' are AFDD and AFDD are a con. Great I think we have got it to the point of tedium. So...what is it you want to do about it. And please do not repeat there are evil people out there and AFDD are bad etc.

 

[Cookie]

You have made points regards AFDD and RCD which are clear. Whether this is accepted or not is for each individual. You have then made points about big business being corrupt. Again understood. Re-iterating those points is now redundant. Among various statements you have made there is a light sprinkling of "...that is why we are here..." "...We need your help..." As I have asked in my last post, what is it you want we get the points you make with various levels of agreement now what????? Why repeat your self there are only so many ways you can say there is evil big business and after a certain point it becomes tedious. There are only so many ways you can say RCDs' are AFDD and AFDD are a con. Great I think we have got it to the point of tedium. So...what is it you want to do about it. And please do not repeat there are evil people out there and AFDD are bad etc.

Because we want you to reject AFDDs entirely. I'm not asking you to buy, but reject.

Of course me and Sisyphus are met with great skepticism and doubt by some folks which (no offense) don't appear to understand or care for the theory.

Understanding theory is key as to why.

 

[The Ghost]

Ok all very well @Cookie but why didn't you succesfully reject them in America? And why do you think we could do so or more importantly how? Frankly speaking and don't tell anyone I have already rejected them for various reasons in the type of work I do.

 

[Cookie]

Ok all very well @Cookie but why didn't you succesfully reject them in America? And why do you think we could do so or more importantly how? Frankly speaking and don't tell anyone I have already rejected them for various reasons in the type of work I do.

Because Americans are all talk and no act. The NEC can be amended at the local level but no one can or wants to convince idiot law makers.

You on the other hand could be more vocal.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

I have not read all of this thread, most of the tech is over my head, I'm just a sparks. But we have just quoted for an electrical refurb of a private historic property recommending AFDD's to be used based on the belief that they will provide the highest possible level of fire prevention caused by an electrical fault. Was that a mistake?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I have not read all of this thread, most of the tech is over my head, I'm just a sparks. But we have just quoted for an electrical refurb of a private historic property recommending AFDD's to be used based on the belief that they will provide the highest possible level of fire prevention caused by an electrical fault. Was that a mistake?

Only if it has over priced the quote to such an extent that the quote is rejected.

 

[Sisyphus]

You have made points regards AFDD and RCD which are clear. Whether this is accepted or not is for each individual. You have then made points about big business being corrupt. Again understood. Re-iterating those points is now redundant. Among various statements you have made there is a light sprinkling of "...that is why we are here..." "...We need your help..." As I have asked in my last post, what is it you want we get the points you make with various levels of agreement now what????? Why repeat your self there are only so many ways you can say there is evil big business and after a certain point it becomes tedious. There are only so many ways you can say RCDs' are AFDD and AFDD are a con. Great I think we have got it to the point of tedium. So...what is it you want to do about it. And please do not repeat there are evil people out there and AFDD are bad etc.

Simply that you question the technology

You see, we can not , not publicly , not in any trade rag, nor at any convention, etc.

All the nay sayers here have been silenced

It's been grass roots , all on this god forsaken 'devil box' , for some it's been well over a decade. Others i know of have dropped out, because they've allowed their anonymity to slip.

I have not read all of this thread, most of the tech is over my head, I'm just a sparks. But we have just quoted for an electrical refurb of a private historic property recommending AFDD's to be used based on the belief that they will provide the highest possible level of fire prevention caused by an electrical fault. Was that a mistake?

US sparks often lament how the NEC has become some 'belief system'

 

[Cookie]

I have not read all of this thread, most of the tech is over my head, I'm just a sparks. But we have just quoted for an electrical refurb of a private historic property recommending AFDD's to be used based on the belief that they will provide the highest possible level of fire prevention caused by an electrical fault. Was that a mistake?

And its the fact that most everyone is not up on tech which allows them to push something which appears to make sense.

 

[DPG]

So you're saying that the one who allowed his identity to be known was silenced? I find that hard to believe.

 

[The Ghost]

The land of the free and the brave, no more then?

 

[Sisyphus]

These may be well worth your time to digest>

~S~

 

[UNG]

This is certainly an interesting thread and debate that I have no doubt will continue for a good while longer about a rather expensive piece of kit that the IET has foisted on us with the publication of the 18th edition with little real evidence and prior knowledge out there to support it's introduction.

This has only been compounded by the lack of information and knowledge available since the introduction of the 18th edition regarding the application and installation of AFDD's.
Since the mooted introduction the AFDD most of the information available seems to have a more negative bias than a positive one, and while the AFDD manufacturers are putting out what appears to be a positive attitude to the product they clearly have a vested interest when you look at the cost and it will certainly help their profits

From an on the ground engineering point of view how exactly do you fault find the cause of an AFDD tripping especially if it is a nuisance trip with no test equipment available to verify the operation of the unit, does an AFDD's ability to detect a fault degrade over time or if it detects a fault does that reduce it's future efficacy or do you just replace it, there seems to be so many unknowns and unanswered issues with this new piece of kit you have to wonder why the IET have jumped in feet first on this one

I'm still yet to be convinced that the AFDD will bring any positive benefits to installations in the UK with the information currently available and this thread is confirming my view at the moment