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.

 

[Cookie]

Hi - yes, I agree, don’t shoot the messenger .
I am sorry to say that I’ve not looked at your links yet.

The links are key. They say what I've been saying in black and white. I can post plenty more but I think there is enough to digest right now.

And Sisyphus is right, AFCIs are a nightmare in the US one that I hope does not spread past our boarders.

 

[marconi]

Electricians are above all practical people with a good understanding of theory, certainly in the UK. There has been much theory and academic referencing on AFDDs.

I suggest to Cookie and Sisyphus they now illustrate their criticisms of AFDDs by some examples - case studies - in the domestic, commercial, industrial settings - explaining why they did/did not perform correctly, and what sort of electrical events cause them to trip erroneously? Are there any 'fixes' for when they trip erroneously? How often does nuisance tripping occur? What could be done to improve the detection and threshold rules to reduce nuisance tripping?

 

[Darkwood]

Having perused this thread, linking out to some of the content to view or read I have found some valid points but also some biased almost on the conspiracy level hype to boot.

The introduction of AFDD's to the UK and the regulations that surround them make there implementation very much different to that of the US, it is very easy to demonstrate that an RCD can stop certain types of arc fault and make it look like a conclusive argument but as other have mentioned this totally ignores parallel and series faults which would not be detected by mcb's and or rcd's. This alone for me shows an advantage to using AFDD's in certain situations where the environment is such that an arc fault has a heightened risk of causing a fire, in fact the implementation of AFDD's into the BS7671 shows this by specifying these exact situations in the implementation guidelines.
I would argue the point that if this was all just a pointless exercise to make big bucks for certain groups where there were no actually net safety advantage then our regulations would have pushed them onto our market in a very different way.

AFDD's now are very different to those found decades ago, electronic monitoring of arc fault type means a significantly reduced occurrence of nuisance tripping which were the the bane of past generations, remembering here that arcs are naturally part of many electrical household device like vacuum motors so the device needs to distinguish between a natural arc and a fault arc.

I do find the links provided by our American member Cookie are weighted to expose specific and relevant points that support his own beliefs/concerns here but many relevant points that have been raised have not been addressed that counters that view in these links, I also get very skeptical when youtube videos of poorly demonstrated, set-up and measured experiments are part of the defense of position here.

Like I said and has been expressed earlier on, AFDD's cannot be replaced by the use of and RCD and MCB, yes!.. in certain demonstrated scenario's we would expect an rcd to function and negate the need for a AFDD but it is the other types of arc fault that only an AFDD would detect that make them a relevant introduction into the regulations, what should be the argument or discussion here is if the introduction of AFDD's will have an overall positive effect of reducing property damage and subsequently reducing injury and fatality caused by fires derived from an arc fault. Personally I think we already have installation practices and regulations that minimise this in domestic and it is only when we see poor workmanship and/or ignorance to the BS7671 that we have these situations, we already have a legal system that can act on such times, however when we creep into commercial and industrial I do see a genuine benefit in certain scenarios.

It will probably be a decade before we actually know whether they have been effective but I am not convinced on the counter argument and the header of this thread that AFDD's are a massive fraud .. this is a grossly sweeping statement and what I expect of hardcore conspiracy theorists, even making some relevant points and quite good discussion points does not justify the title of this thread, I would also be interested if we can get a response to the very relevant points raised that counter that claim and make AFDD's a viable solution to reduce property fires.

I don't think our American member is out to deliberately mislead us in anyway but I expect the use and implementation of AFDD in the US market is very different to that of how they are been introduced over here, I belief this has given a very skewered and skeptical view of the need for them when it comes to other countries, that and a limited knowledge of our regulations may be a large part of making such a sweeping bold claim that simply imho has not been shown or demonstrated.

 

[Sisyphus]

We have no reason to purposely mislead you Darkwood.

What we do understand is , coropratism has drowned out the nay sayers here , you folks have a better grasp on the theory the we do, and perhaps your system allows for scrutiney

I'll try and hit on points asked....

First, know that AFDD's debuted in the late 90's here, and were mandated for a decade before they were confronted and upgraded to 'combination' AFDD's . What is meant by this is series/parallel mitigation.....7 manufacturers should have had callbacks ,or worse..... because that is what they marketed on originally.

This was a UL/CSPC/NEMA collaborative

I know of 3 class action suits stifled before they ever met the courtroom door, one being retore CSA.

They simply wrote the old version into code usage instead

To this day, they do not mitigate series arcs.

~S~

 

[Sisyphus]

As to stats, we do know of one Chicago spark /firefighter who took the time to reveal them on NEC forums

The thing is , we are 50 odd fiefdoms in the consideration of electrical bureaucracy's adoption ,licensure ,inspection ,as well as the collection of fire forensics , a rather broad contingent of variables....

Anecdotally, having served on a FF brigade ,as well as being their token spark , revealed the validity of unfunded forensics juxtaposed to manufacturers claims as the perfect vehicle for the old statistics adage

~S~

 

[Sisyphus]

Pursuant to the above, NEMA decided quite some time ago to field the discontent>

AFCI Unwanted Tripping Report | AFCI Safety

www.afcisafety.org

~S~

 

[Sisyphus]

Further.... UL1699, it seems to have holes one could launch a cow through in terms of variables.

To my understanding (which can be confronted) the chief operational component to all 'enhanced OCPD protection' is the time honored toroidal coil , needing all conductors to 'sense' irregardless of all electronica lumped onto it.

And so we've one manufacturer of AFDD's that not only differs, it does so blatantly and overtly marketing themselves as such


>>>>>

http://apps.geindustrial.com/publibrary/checkout/DEA-635?TNR=Brochures|DEA-635|PDF&filename=DEA-635.PDF

GE’s AFCI enables shared neutrals. Ordinarily you would not be able to have just one neutral coming back to the circuit breaker for the AFCI to function properly. GE’s AFCI has the ability to ignore the neutral. You can wire a multi-wire circuit or a shared neutral the same way you would wire a thermal magnetic breaker.

The above ^^^ has caused quite the ado among the US contingent of sparks

Yet here is a prime example of fundamental theory , something we hope you folks have a more definitive grasp of, as well as voice in

~S~

 

[Cookie]

Electricians are above all practical people with a good understanding of theory, certainly in the UK. There has been much theory and academic referencing on AFDDs.

I suggest to Cookie and Sisyphus they now illustrate their criticisms of AFDDs by some examples - case studies - in the domestic, commercial, industrial settings - explaining why they did/did not perform correctly, and what sort of electrical events cause them to trip erroneously? Are there any 'fixes' for when they trip erroneously? How often does nuisance tripping occur? What could be done to improve the detection and threshold rules to reduce nuisance tripping?

And how do we go about creating these case studies? We don't have access to hundreds of thousands, research labs, their accreditation or trust. However just about any electrician in the field can tell you in great detail how they trip LED lights, treadmills, computer power supplies, garage door openers, vacuum cleaner, routers, TVs, stereos, refrigerators, microwaves, space heaters and a host of other devices. Along with how to mitigate tripping everywhere from dedicated circuits to strings of interference filters to extension cords to literally placing all AFCIs on one leg:

What could be done to improve the detection and threshold rules to reduce nuisance tripping?

Why Improve what is a bad idea to begin with? Why try to find a measles cure when vaccines prevent the illness in the first place?

Its not about threshold (magnitude) but discrimination. Just about everything has a waveform, often indistinguishable from a dangerous arc. I think that is what is hard to grasp for many folks. You need levels of computing power and research simply not going to be found at $35 a pop.

 

[Darkwood]

I am not too au fait with how this has all transpired across the pond and on that point I can conclude there is possibly a lot of truth to what you both have said, the point I was trying to make is you seem to be projecting the issues experienced in America onto other very different economical and regulated systems like the UK and thus my comment on the thread title.
I have no doubt at all that big corporates lobby for favourable outcomes that financially benefits themselves and stifles competition and blocks government policy change, that happens everywhere (your own NRA as a classic example).
US regulations and practices for installation protection is very different from ours, AFDD's are been introduced to protect systems of higher risk from such faults where there tends to be a ready source of flammable material near and around electrical equipment i.e. joinery shops, chemical industry etc etc, this hasn't suddenly been thrust on us, it has been implemented after decades of investigations into the most common causes of fire in properties, our system is more transparent than it seems the US is, we can use freedom of information act to get information, studies, polls etc that are used in the lead up to regulatory changes and we do have a period to challenge them, the bodies that implement these changes do give notice years in advance which allows for challenges to be implemented if deemed necessary so I dare say our system is more transparent.
Is the UK system better?.. possible but it is far from perfect, we have our own crosses to bear and our forums are filled with very different repeated content which stems from certain industry bodies pushing regulatory requirements and also the failure to regulate other bodies that has all had an impact on our trade and the regulations that have subsequently been brought in but that's a whole different thread.

 

[Cookie]

Having perused this thread, linking out to some of the content to view or read I have found some valid points but also some biased almost on the conspiracy level hype to boot.

The introduction of AFDD's to the UK and the regulations that surround them make there implementation very much different to that of the US, it is very easy to demonstrate that an RCD can stop certain types of arc fault and make it look like a conclusive argument but as other have mentioned this totally ignores parallel and series faults which would not be detected by mcb's and or rcd's.

You haven't read the links. They specifically say MCBs and RCDs mitigate parallel arcing. Specifically. Saying they don't is a giveaway you haven't understood what I have been saying all along.


Series faults- AFDDs do not detect them under under a few amps.

Further series faults can be detected by other means like heat detection.

Saying AFDDs must be used for series events is code governing technology which violates the basic principles and structure of the code.

This alone for me shows an advantage to using AFDD's in certain situations where the environment is such that an arc fault has a heightened risk of causing a fire, in fact the implementation of AFDD's into the BS7671 shows this by specifying these exact situations in the implementation guidelines.
I would argue the point that if this was all just a pointless exercise to make big bucks for certain groups where there were no actually net safety advantage then our regulations would have pushed them onto our market in a very different way.

All you have to do is get the regs to think they do something good.

AFDD's now are very different to those found decades ago, electronic monitoring of arc fault type means a significantly reduced occurrence of nuisance tripping which were the the bane of past generations, remembering here that arcs are naturally part of many electrical household device like vacuum motors so the device needs to distinguish between a natural arc and a fault arc.

Then why are trips still happening over here in the US?

I do find the links provided by our American member Cookie are weighted to expose specific and relevant points that support his own beliefs/concerns here but many relevant points that have been raised have not been addressed that counters that view in these links, I also get very skeptical when youtube videos of poorly demonstrated, set-up and measured experiments are part of the defense of position here.

The UL and Franklin links stand by themselves without the questionable you tube vids.

UL and Franklin which openly say MCBs prevent arcing.

UL and Franklin which are the official starting place of AFCIs.

Both of whom were taken very seriously by the industry and NFPA.

Despite Franklins untrolled experiments of lighting cardboard and blankets that had I done the same I would be been a laughing stock.

Like I said and has been expressed earlier on, AFDD's cannot be replaced by the use of and RCD and MCB, yes!.. in certain demonstrated scenario's we would expect an rcd to function and negate the need for a AFDD but it is the other types of arc fault that only an AFDD would detect that make them a relevant introduction into the regulations, what should be the argument or discussion here is if the introduction of AFDD's will have an overall positive effect of reducing property damage and subsequently reducing injury and fatality caused by fires derived from an arc fault. Personally I think we already have installation practices and regulations that minimise this in domestic and it is only when we see poor workmanship and/or ignorance to the BS7671 that we have these situations, we already have a legal system that can act on such times, however when we creep into commercial and industrial I do see a genuine benefit in certain scenarios.

It will probably be a decade before we actually know whether they have been effective but I am not convinced on the counter argument and the header of this thread that AFDD's are a massive fraud .. this is a grossly sweeping statement and what I expect of hardcore conspiracy theorists, even making some relevant points and quite good discussion points does not justify the title of this thread, I would also be interested if we can get a response to the very relevant points raised that counter that claim and make AFDD's a viable solution to reduce property fires.

What I think this boils down to is your inability to believe that humans make mistakes. That money motivates. That humans lie. That is the limiting factor in all this. Not the counter evidence or their claims.

Forget what bullies have done hiding behind conspiracy theories. I am not one of them.

On the other hand I and countless others in the states know the history and the fall out.

and a limited knowledge of our regulations may be a large part of making such a sweeping bold claim that simply imho has not been shown or demonstrated.

You do know UL extensively researched the UK system with great tenacity? The EU system? Doing loop impedance calcs for your and our systems more in depth then anyone has ever under taken here (ie not just tables but measuring the actual complex admittance, susceptance, conductance and elastance in a computer model). Building computer models of various homes and flats. Building actual US and UK power systems based on actual buildings? Testing European MCBs, RCDs and plugs, cords, twin and earth, ect in numbers. Subjecting hundreds of model circuits to short circuits, overloads, HV, thermal imaging, accelerated aging, oscilliography, ect, ect.

You do know that 15 plus years of obsessive research and emulation of the UK power system lead to the creation of AFCIs?

To say that any of this is based on limited knowledge of UK regs is very wrong. Because UL can tell you exactly how accurate or inaccurate your tables are 8 decimal places out.

 

[Cookie]

I am not too au fait with how this has all transpired across the pond and on that point I can conclude there is possibly a lot of truth to what you both have said, the point I was trying to make is you seem to be projecting the issues experienced in America onto other very different economical and regulated systems like the UK and thus my comment on the thread title.
I have no doubt at all that big corporates lobby for favourable outcomes that financially benefits themselves and stifles competition and blocks government policy change, that happens everywhere (your own NRA as a classic example).
US regulations and practices for installation protection is very different from ours, AFDD's are been introduced to protect systems of higher risk from such faults where there tends to be a ready source of flammable material near and around electrical equipment i.e. joinery shops, chemical industry etc etc, this hasn't suddenly been thrust on us, it has been implemented after decades of investigations into the most common causes of fire in properties, our system is more transparent than it seems the US is, we can use freedom of information act to get information, studies, polls etc that are used in the lead up to regulatory changes and we do have a period to challenge them, the bodies that implement these changes do give notice years in advance which allows for challenges to be implemented if deemed necessary so I dare say our system is more transparent.
Is the UK system better?.. possible but it is far from perfect, we have our own crosses to bear and our forums are filled with very different repeated content which stems from certain industry bodies pushing regulatory requirements and also the failure to regulate other bodies that has all had an impact on our trade and the regulations that have subsequently been brought in but that's a whole different thread.

Your not aware of what happened here, but we are. Including wanting to replicate the UK system. And 12 years ago I would not only be saying the same but the efforts to make these global which is happening right now.

 

[Devonchris]

On balance I do believe that there is credibility in what Cookie is saying. And I respect his right to anonymity. From what he says AFDD is not the l

What I think this boils down to is your inability to believe that humans make mistakes. That money motivates. That humans lie. That is the limiting factor in all this. Not the counter evidence or their claims.

I don't think that's true. Anyway I haven't time to debate it now, as I'm trying to sell my 6 month old diesel car and the best offer I've had is a fiver.

 

[Cookie]

On balance I do believe that there is credibility in what Cookie is saying. And I respect his right to anonymity. From what he says AFDD is not the l


I don't think that's true. Anyway I haven't time to debate it now, as I'm trying to sell my 6 month old diesel car and the best offer I've had is a fiver.

But why do you assume that?

At least 1/3 of the panel members in the NFPA CMPs are affiliated with manufacturers.

 

[The Ghost]

UL and Franklin which openly say MCBs prevent arcing.

Now that is a classic! To which I will reply...NO they don't. That is most definitely a false statement. Why do I say that? My experience has showed me again and again having seen the results of arcing on neutrals mostly, that cable and boxes have melted down including MCBs' due to arcing and the MCB just stood and watched. So who will I beleive? You or my lying eyes? As to overcurrent despite all the theory and guff etc. about OCPD and its thermal ability to shut off the supply again not necessarily. On a ring final circuit (32a) someone thought to pop a 10Kw dishwasher. Rather than the MCB operating it preferred to completely melt down without switching off. Bear in mind as to BS7671 when I started out as a trainee it was common to find the neutral fused as well as the line. This was sanctioned by earlier regs. This showed me that they do not know or think about all the things they should! Since then I always have a weather eye as to, does this actually make sense in the real world. Bottom line here, what is the fraud? What is it you actually want help with? Why do you think the AFCI is such a problem with tripping? We here have conjectured that AFDDs' would be tripping out when a fridge compressor switches in or a light switch is switched on it is very much a case of Quod Ed Demonstrandum.

You haven't read the links. They specifically say MCBs and RCDs mitigate parallel arcing. Specifically. Saying they don't is a giveaway you haven't understood what I have been saying all along.

But that is exactly what he did say! But look above they do NOT always by any means at all in real life whatever your links say because personally I have witnessed (and I dare say many others on here) MCBs' complete (sometimes) inability to react as theory says they should.

 

[Darkwood]

Let's say we have a L-N arc fault, RCD's will not detect such a fault as is the nature of there operation in detecting residual leakage to earth and thus an imbalance in current flow in the live wires.
MCB or RCBO and fuses will only operate if the arc fault meets their operating criteria found in their time/current curve so as to operate/trigger the device, it has however been shown that impedances measured in arc faults at our national voltage ratings are shown to diminish current flow in parallel faults thus increasing the likelihood of the device failing to detect the fault.

@Cookie - The youtube vid' posted demonstrating a arc fault and subsequent temperature values was to say the least a laughable video, the conditions were not controlled, the temperature measurement method was flawed and questionable and thus any data gathered was irrelevant, the fact you post stuff like this because it fits your position without scrutinising it and seeing the obvious flaws demonstrates you may have a form of cognitive dissonance in that you are happy to accept anything that supports your mindset with little to no scrutiny yet play the opposite game of auto dismissing any points raised that do not shore up your argument.

I do not know why you wrote the section about the UL as I am very aware of them but you have to accept that other national bodies and standards exist around the world and to assume that the UL standards somehow trump (pardon the pun) all the others is a disillusioned view to take, even when taking into account the history and size of this body, like you have found, it isn't always a good thing. I am also well aware the UL would love to become the worlds recognised safety symbol as would any of the main bodies like CE, regarding the UL achieving this then that can only be good for US business and trade given they would thus have leverage to manipulate world trade from within the standards they must conform to, what you will find though is the rest of the world is not so easy to just hand over this influential power so your claim that we are just going through the same motions that the US did 15/20 yrs ago are simply your unfounded opinion. We have our own trading and safety standards which also go through similar lab testing, computer analysis etc etc

The UK regulations are not governed by UL standards, in part there may be sections are areas that are lifted and repeated but there exists no direct influence hence the implementation of AFDD's in the UK BS 7671 is very different in approach and effect than that of your electrical standards.

Please remember you are the one coming onto a UK based forum telling us AFDD introduction into the BS7671 is fraudulent, this is based on your own experiences in the US, at no point have you posted anything that demonstrates this nor have you provided any irrefutable evidence, regardless of whether of not the UL has done intensive research and modelling into our own grid networks and installations is not in itself proof, it just demonstrates a research facility trying to ensure products made under UL standards could possible be meet the requirements of other nations following different codes... I totally fail to see how this is any kind of rebut to what I have said.

I ask you some simple questions with what I consider to be the correct answers ..firstly forget all that has occurred in the US and all the controversy you suggest AFDD's are having in the US and just think about my questions...


Do the AFDD provide a level of protection that is ill afforded by other devices or variations of devices ?...YES.
Would this protect property and subsequently save lives?.. YES.

Is the overall cost and implementation of using the devices warranted by the fires expected to be avoided?... remains to be seen but in Europe the biggest cause of property fires are electrically related, a device that can reduce this and has been demonstrated to should be worth reviewing.

Are there any other practical alternatives that afford the same level of detection of arc faults and protection from them?... NO

I noted you mentioned heat sensors/detection so I am all ears here on how you expect to monitor every part of an electrical installation including the integrals of faulting appliances with heat detection as an alternative and at what cost ... by the time your average heat detector has gone into alarm you already have a substantial problem, even smoke detectors are too slow in comparison to avoiding the fire altogether.