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]

So really you think BEAMA is wrong in its contention that they do work and that RCD and MCB are not able to do what an AFDD does

BEAMA Guide to Arc Fault Detection Devices (AFDDs)

www.beama.org.uk

.

Honestly: YES!

You have to realize Siemens, Eaton, Schneider have billions to invest with a reputation no one dares to question. Along with North America as an example to their "success"

 

[Cookie]

Note to our American friends.

The above is an example of irony.

I know he's not really going to double the offer. Because he knows I'm not really trying to sell a diesel. We all know that we were conned (well some of us) by the government to switch to diesel engines. Which came about because idiots in government were conned by dubious science and corrupt manufactures. I don't really not believe your statements, but say I do to make myself look stupid which, hopefully, people don't believe. Its called irony, it's very subtle and something that Brits spot intuitively.

As for your campaign, good luck with that. We, on the hand, tend to shrug our shoulders, move on, and think ourselves lucky that we live in a country that allows us to say what I have.

I will not tell you again.

Thats exactly what these manufacturers want. People to shrug their shoulders and move on while they sell their products through the NEC, CEC, BS7671, IEC 60364, NEN 1010, VDE, AS / NZS 3008, NFC 15-100, insert your code of choice here.

All being done underneath committees and harmonization.

 

[Cookie]

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.

And thats where MCBs come in.

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.

And UL has not only determined that arcing has impedance but also a high peak current but low RMS value. UL has also determined parellel arc faults never take place under 100amps. UL has also discovered (proven) that a breaker with a magnetic pickup of below the perspective short circuit current will clear an arcing fault. Its on back and white, and I'm hoping people will remote their "likes" when I quote it from the report.

- 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.

As I said, the Youtube videos I linked are silly. Never once did I say they should be taken as 100% legit. But you choose to ignore the fact I acknowledging that.

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.

Because UL has proven MCBs detect parallel arcing. Its not a Youtube video. Its not something I did in a garage or someone's lay opinion. Its the "facts" as stated by the ultimate authority on the subject matter.

And yes, they are all over the world with profund reputation and manufacters know that.

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

Of course! And thats where the IEC comes in LOL.

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.

They take influence from the IEC. And we know the IEC has UL influence... to say the least...

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 have given you UL reports on black and white saying MCBs do what AFDDs do- and you are doing mental hopscotch to avoid understanding that. Posters have openly admitted to not reading my links yet are commenting on my posts as though they did. At this point I think nothing can or will convince you. I can only guess as to why.

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.

In your opinion. An AFDD stops looking for series arcs below a few amps, a thermarestor socket will see the heat at the connection regardless of current or even arcing and cut the power.

Would this protect property and subsequently save lives?.. YES.

Its fun to think they will because of advertisements and claims.

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

Again, I'm sorry but I have to say it: you don't understand the theory being discussed, have not read my links and don't understand of the products already in existence.

Explain to me how point of use thermal detection (example given by thermarestor) is not a practical alternative affording less protection then an AFDD that decides arcing or a glowing connection over 1000*F is not an issue because I'm only drawing a few amps. Explain.

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.

Well, look at my links. The products are already in existence. And it works well enough that you can still use a plastic consumer unit in theory.

The smoke you talk about is when you reach hundreds of degrees. Point of use heat sensors can cut the power well below that.

 

[Des 56]

I cant see corruption by big business having influence here on matters of introducing new safety devices in our electrical industry

Electrical safety in the United Kingdom is very successful for almost all the population
The powers that be could be considered to be quite successful in protecting the general population with decisions they have made over the years

Even when idiots take to doing their own attempts at installation,the safety devices used in this country tend to protect them from themselves

I tend to have trust in the IET that they do what they think is best for us

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Is this the same IET, who phone you up when you don’t renew, then offer you a reduced rate because you’ve been ill and unable to work, then charge you the full rate twice and change your membership number after telling you it won’t change?

 

[The Ghost]

Ok 10 out of 10 for your efforts to educate on the matter of the usefulness (or not) of AFDD you have gone above and beyond and I do mean that genuinely. Now to progress this to some purpose, what is it you suggest we do? Veto the regs. and the product? I do know that a large proportion of posts on here are the dreaded problems of RCD tripping randomly. And is with some amount of trepidation we welcome the AFDD into play with the attendant tripping problems we will have to sort out. Maybe we should initiate a class action against the players introducing these products, but really with their resources what chance? I do know the schemes we are registered with would not renew our registration in the event we refused to use AFDD. We are really like you and seem to be between a rock and a hard place. As I said it is somewhat quixotic to assume the above will work. And really if I had to choose a hard path it would need to be more to do with endless war and vested interests in munitions sales or something of that order.

 

[Sisyphus]

[/QUOTE]

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.

The IEC ,and by proxy BS standards have adopted UL 1699 Darkwood

why else would we be here?

~S~

 

[Sisyphus]

My understanding, is that his test method was not up to par.
Apparently he should have used a larger load or something.

The test method, once understood, should reveal itself as fraud to any 1/2 competent spark

https://i.Upload the image directly to the thread.com/eOF06wB.jpg
~S~

 

[Cookie]

I cant see corruption by big business having influence here on matters of introducing new safety devices in our electrical industry

We can't see gravity but its there. So much so if we jump up, it pulls us back down. We can't see magnetism, but its field can sure make metal glow red hot.

Electrical safety in the United Kingdom is very successful for almost all the population
The powers that be could be considered to be quite successful in protecting the general population with decisions they have made over the years

Even when idiots take to doing their own attempts at installation,the safety devices used in this country tend to protect them from themselves

I tend to have trust in the IET that they do what they think is best for us

I'm sure the IET is still that way, but benevolence is sadly the most susceptible to being taken for a ride.

Like you the IET doesn't know the true history. They just know what manufacturers and the IEC has told them through rigged science, dog and pony demonstrations and friendly respect.


Sisyphus can maybe find Jreaf's post (he is a member of another forum) where in the 70s manufacturing reps and industry leaders would openly talk about the majority of electrical manufacturers merging into just a few companies over time.

That was 50 years ago.

20 years ago came the idea of having manufacturing reps on the CMP covertly changing the dynamics of the NFPA code making process.

15 years ago came the idea of gradually turning UL into a propaganda piece for the manufacturers. UL can prove just about anything a manufacturer wants them to, and create just about any standard they would like to see.

As I said, UL is no longer none profit. It is for profit. In such a business model you will never go wrong by doing what is right in client's eyes. Customer is always right. Always. Period.

8 years ago came the idea of global harmonization through committees. Manufacturer driving organizations can shape the IEC as they see fit and with that the global electrical codes.


Why? Electricity is no longer profitable. It was near perfected in the 70s and 80s. Devices cost pennies to make and last 60 years if not more. What else lasts that long today?

But if you can build obsolescence into each product- along with securing more of it during any new build, addition or renovation- profits will skyrocket by orders of magnitude.

AFDDs are only the very beginning of someone's a much larger financial goals. Call me One day I will be vindicated.

 

[Darkwood]

@Cookie

I am somewhat confused here, you seem to be manipulating the debate to suit your position, you on one hand demonstrate how external influences are themselves manipulating regulation and standards by masking results or fudging data to suit their own interests financially and at no point have I disagreed your claims, then on the other hand you use the exact same source of information to confirm your position.... either the UL is reliable or it is not but you cannot use it to make both sides of the argument.

I have been in this trade for 30 yrs and I have seen arcing in devices running on 110v and a few amps by design, to say arcing cannot occur at these voltages less than 100amps is a bold sweeping incorrect statement, I have seen safety extra low voltages arcing and causing damage to adjacent material especially when the load is inductive by nature and contaminants promote the situation, like I have said before, our standards are aiming at these scenario's and environments, I would question whether UL tested all the possible scenarios which would seem an impossible task given the amount of environmental influences that could promote arcing.

You also bring up thermarrestors as an alternative solution but fail to recognise the simple issue that an AFDD can monitor a full circuit including load at a small relative cost where as thermarrestors only monitor the location they are applied to a circuit and add additional wiring and installation costs well in excess of the AFDD while giving a fraction of the protection of the circuit. I do recall we had this discussion some 5yrs ago and got a rep on site to present his own pitch which didn't go down too well for him and led him to alter the claims on their website.

I will also add thermarrestors cannot be applied to DNO equipment IE the incoming cutout for a few reasons, we cannot connect upstream to cut the power to the cutout nor are we allowed to interfere or adapt their property, here in the UK the cutout in most houses built prior to the 90's is internal connection in the property and that is a substantial section of the UK domestic, commercial and industrial layout, over my time I know several fires caused through cutout loose terminations.

So reflecting on my posts and also just to reiterate I am not saying there is no substance to your claims but you have provided evidence from a body to shore up your argument then in other posts discredited them as a valid source due to corrupt influences and agreed with me your youtube link was a mistake, my challenge to present an alternative to AFDD's came back with a solution that totally falls short of the bar, thermarrestors saw the light in approx 2014 in this country as an industry push and never took off, not because of the regulatory restrictions but the fact they simply are not a practical solution and cannot give the same cover as and AFDD...(yes they have their uses but fail to replace the cover of an AFDD) Q' - how does a thermarrestor detect a damage cable that leads to an arc fault, how do you predict where a cable may be damaged for whatever reason be it physical contact, chemical erosion etc etc .. an AFDD does all the above at source and I have already started implemented them in my control panel designs for machinery where we have such problems due to contamination when the machines are not maintained properly.

I will end that I am not trying to promote or make the claim we should have AFDD's thrust on our regulations but what I am saying is just because you can give examples of corrupt financial influence in the system does not mean their use is not warranted, you haven't given me any real evidence that I cannot find alternative reports that contradict the findings you link to and also what my experience in the industry shows, you keep linking to UL findings which you yourself are attacking as a corrupt organisation. If your concerns are realised then you cannot use their data to prove your position, it is called a circular argument IE akin to using the bible to prove God exists ...

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

 

[Cookie]

@Cookie

I am somewhat confused here, you seem to be manipulating the debate to suit your position, you on one hand demonstrate how external influences are themselves manipulating regulation and standards by masking results or fudging data to suit their own interests financially and at no point have I disagreed your claims, then on the other hand you use the exact same source of information to confirm your position.... either the UL is reliable or it is not but you cannot use it to make both sides of the argument.

I'm glad you picked up on this and yes it certainly seems that way.

But here is what I'm getting at

1) Because not all of it is lies- its truth with lies mashed together.

2) The UL reports read either way say the IET is wrong to mandate them come time.

Assuming the UL reports are right: RCDs and MCBs detect parallel arcs just as well if note better and all that need to happen is the IET tweaking the loop impedance tables.

Assuming the UL reports are bogus: Insufficient evidence exists that arcing is a problem, is behind fires, or that AFDDs do as claimed. Heavily influenced by external bias from the consumer product safety commission and manufacturers.

I have been in this trade for 30 yrs and I have seen arcing in devices running on 110v and a few amps by design, to say arcing cannot occur at these voltages less than 100amps is a bold sweeping incorrect statement,

Parallel arcing. UL reports say parallel arc are not found below 100amps in the residential setting.

On the other hand, series arcs can be found at any current level- yet in the use AFCIs stop sensing them below 5 amps.

I have seen safety extra low voltages arcing and causing damage to adjacent material especially when the load is inductive by nature and contaminants promote the situation, like I have said before, our standards are aiming at these scenario's and environments, I would question whether UL tested all the possible scenarios which would seem an impossible task given the amount of environmental influences that could promote arcing.

Was it DC? Was it arcing our joule heating?

Remember that joule heating can char anything. Once the heat further loosens the connection some arcing may take place. People often assume when seeing this end stage arcing that the arcing came first and that is what caused the charring.

You also bring up thermarrestors as an alternative solution but fail to recognise the simple issue that an AFDD can monitor a full circuit including load at a small relative cost where as thermarrestors only monitor the location they are applied to a circuit and add additional wiring and installation costs well in excess of the AFDD while giving a fraction of the protection of the circuit. I do recall we had this discussion some 5yrs ago and got a rep on site to present his own pitch which didn't go down too well for him and led him to alter the claims on their website.

Less cost- and less protection.

Joule heating does not produce a waveform, arcing can take place below several amps, and the arc signature might not get caught. AFDDs have serious limitations in being able to discern dangerous series arcing from safe arcing.

Yes every device will need to have thermal monitoring- but I'd rather have something that gets hot spots 100% of the time instead of say 5% of the time.

Now I honestly do not know about cost. I'm guessing it will cost more. And thats a conversation that people in the UK need to have whether or not its worth it.

I will also add thermarrestors cannot be applied to DNO equipment IE the incoming cutout for a few reasons, we cannot connect upstream to cut the power to the cutout nor are we allowed to interfere or adapt their property, here in the UK the cutout in most houses built prior to the 90's is internal connection in the property and that is a substantial section of the UK domestic, commercial and industrial layout, over my time I know several fires caused through cutout loose terminations.

True. But also remember AFDDs will not detect anything on the line side.

So reflecting on my posts and also just to reiterate I am not saying there is no substance to your claims but you have provided evidence from a body to shore up your argument then in other posts discredited them as a valid source due to corrupt influences and agreed with me your youtube link was a mistake, my challenge to present an alternative to AFDD's came back with a solution that totally falls short of the bar, thermarrestors saw the light in approx 2014 in this country as an industry push and never took off, not because of the regulatory restrictions but the fact they simply are not a practical solution and cannot give the same cover as and AFDD...(yes they have their uses but fail to replace the cover of an AFDD) Q' - how does a thermarrestor detect a damage cable that leads to an arc fault, how do you predict where a cable may be damaged for whatever reason be it physical contact, chemical erosion etc etc .. an AFDD does all the above at source and I have already started implemented them in my control panel designs for machinery where we have such problems due to contamination when the machines are not maintained properly.

Point of use thermal dynamics give way better cover then any AFDD ever could and will not fail down the road like electronics when needed most.


A damaged cable is detected by RCDs, MCBs and in the case of flex your fused plugs.

Yes a series break will not get detected in flex, but that can be solved by either screening the cable or setting the bar higher for flex.

I will end that I am not trying to promote or make the claim we should have AFDD's thrust on our regulations but what I am saying is just because you can give examples of corrupt financial influence in the system does not mean their use is not warranted, you haven't given me any real evidence that I cannot find alternative reports that contradict the findings you link to and also what my experience in the industry shows, you keep linking to UL findings which you yourself are attacking as a corrupt organisation. If your concerns are realised then you cannot use their data to prove your position, it is called a circular argument IE akin to using the bible to prove God exists ...

But keep in mind, truth or lies, said corruption says MCBs and RCDs do the same thing in regards to parallel arcing. Then said corruption turns to the IEC/IET and say err no you have dangerous parallel arcing RCDs and MCBs can not detect.

Right here you have the same folks saying two separate things. 180 flip based on the market.


The hubris so blatantly obvious.

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

What specifically does the thesis contradict with what I said? Be specific, cite me sentences and figures. I'm not saying you are wrong.


And btw, the VFDs you speak of are making AFDDs way less sensitive because the waveform during normal operation gets mistaken as dangerous arcing.

 

[GBDamo]

I cant see corruption by big business having influence here on matters of introducing new safety devices in our electrical industry

Electrical safety in the United Kingdom is very successful for almost all the population
The powers that be could be considered to be quite successful in protecting the general population with decisions they have made over the years

Even when idiots take to doing their own attempts at installation,the safety devices used in this country tend to protect them from themselves

I tend to have trust in the IET that they do what they think is best for us

Agreed, with a but and that but is value returned Vs investment made.

When the safety inprovements are large and the investment is low, it's a no brainer. Low hanging fruit...

When the safety improvements are marginal and the investment high then you're going to get push back.

How many lives will AFDDs save? How much property will be saved? I'm not convinced it will be sufficient to warrant the cost.

And before some one starts getting all emotive with "if it saves one babie's life...." the logical end point of that argument is either make electricity 100% safe, impossible, or ban it. The reality is much more nuanced.

SPDs fall under a similar argument but as the cost is relatively low and they seem reliable then fitting them seems obvious.

Think of the reputational damage AFFDs could cause you when you recommend a device that is, expensive, of little statistical benifit and prone to nuisance trips.

 

[Bobster]

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.

 

[Sisyphus]

Sisyphus can maybe find Jreaf's post (he is a member of another forum) where in the 70s manufacturing reps and industry leaders would openly talk about the majority of electrical manufacturers merging into just a few companies over time.

That was 50 years ago.

20 years ago came the idea of having manufacturing reps on the CMP covertly changing the dynamics of the NFPA code making process.

15 years ago came the idea of gradually turning UL into a propaganda piece for the manufacturers. UL can prove just about anything a manufacturer wants them to, and create just about any standard they would like to see.

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~

 

[Sisyphus]

How many lives will AFDDs save? How much property will be saved? I'm not convinced it will be sufficient to warrant the cost.

And before some one starts getting all emotive with "if it saves one babie's life...." the logical end point of that argument is either make electricity 100% safe, impossible, or ban it. The reality is much more nuanced.

20 yrs ago AFDD manufacturers took out full page ad's of FF's holding sooty children as an advertisement here....

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.

Well, if you work in the states, you know profit is cloaked in the guise of safety

It's big biz, which is where we fall into the altruism rabbit hole

Many examples exist, anecdotally having taken 30 yrs of patients to the ER @ $1000USD a pop just for admissions taught me the rich will live, poor will die here.

One can copy/paste that to the OP as well, AFDD's are a billion $$ industry , with political protection of similar moral turpitude.

I would not wish it on any other country, which is why we're here

~S~