AFDDs are a massive fraud

[Cookie]

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.

That to me sounds like a series arc fault, or more likely joule heating.

Franklin and UL allued to L-N and L-G.

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.

Sounds like a failed MCB. Or a loose connection at the MCB (series deal).

Fused neutrals? We had those those too 100 years ago and electricians still find them on rare occasions in century old homes. Half the time its a 2 wire 120 volt only service.

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.

Failures, joule heating and old designs are not parellel arcing.

 

[The Ghost]

Failures, joule heating and old designs are not parellel arcing

So there you shifted from the statement

UL and Franklin which openly say MCBs prevent arcing.

to "openly prevent parallel arcing" consistency man consistency!

 

[Cookie]

The above statements are a mystery as to what you are talking about they make no sense and in no way clarify your actual point, which is??????? Forget what bullies have done???

My point is I'm not a conspiracy theorist nor is my knowledge of AFDDs conjecture.

In the US (and I assume else where) "truthers" have given conspiracy theorists a bad reputation.

Case in point: mass shooting happens somewhere in the US. Nut bags claiming to know the "truth" come out of the wood work proclaiming no on died and its all crisis actors. Media somehow paid off by the government. They will call the family members of the victims and harass them to no end... I despise these people to end.

But sadly they've done the damage. In the states anyone thought to believe in conspiracies is now viewed as one of these bullies, or dumb enough to have taken their word.

I was nowhere near thinking anything like that I was just trying to get my head around what you are banging on about. You are saying we don't need AFDD, and you and myriad others find them a problem as they keep tripping So? Where is this going? You are saying just use an RCD without any conclusive evidence that it is fine and safe and what will I do in court say you told me so and here are a couple of studies. I need a lot more than that my friend. And believe me if I was convinced of your propositions I would actually take effective action.

The code should not mandate AFDDs. You don't need them.


Your breakers and RCDs detect parallel arcing already.

Series events can be mitigated through several other technologies. Code should not mandate technology. Otherwise its not impartial and in of itself shows bias.

 

[Cookie]

So there you shifted from the statement

If you mean that in my original post I was referring only to parallel arcing (L-N; L-G) then I guess you could say that.

But- my statement still stands. Your system is already beginning to take care of series arcs:

Thermarestor® - (Thermal Monitoring) - https://thermarestor.co.uk/

to "openly prevent parallel arcing" consistency man consistency!

As in will not keep an arc going longer then a few cycles.

Skepticism results in me using simple words, simple concepts and blanket statements so people can "get it"

 

[Edtwozeronine]

John Ward tested and wrote off AFDDs in a video on YouTube quite some time ago after testing them.

 

[The Ghost]

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

.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

John Ward tested and wrote off AFDDs in a video on YouTube quite some time ago after testing them.

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

 

[Cookie]

So there you shifted from the statement

to "openly prevent parallel arcing" consistency man consistency!

And not to muddy the waters but I feel the need to mention this now before someone asks latter:

UL has a very broad range (blanket) of what they call arcing. Traditionally arcing has revolved around Paschen's Law. However, because continuous arcing is impossible to sustain at 120 volt unless heavy carbonization is present UL had to come up with their own definition of 'a luminous discharge between electrodes...' meaning that even a sputtering short circuit fits their definition of arcing.

They needed to do this because arcing is not a concern at 120 volts the way it is at 230 volts.

However- short circuit or an actual arc- UL testing has shown that MCBs and RCDs can mitigate all parallel events.

................................................


In other words they knew actual arcing is possible at 230 volts nominal.

They and the CMPs for years knew arcing is possible at higher voltages hence why for decades prior 277/480 volt services of 1000amps or greater required and still require a GFP main breaker.

UL knew arcing at 120 volts is typically not possible.

So UL changed the definition (twisted the definition) to say arcing can take place at 120 volts.

And came up with the over driven carbonized path staple theory as a backup should the definition be called out.

UL proves the European system detects arcing at all voltages. UL then says this system needs to be implemented in the US. UL then puts on a show telling the CMP this system needs to be replicated in the US.

But because we are to dumb to be educated on loop impedance and UL pontificates perspective fault current is far lower at the service then it typically is- we must us an electronic breaker instead.

That is an over simplified version of it.


All the while UL, CPSC and CMPs are following the beat of Eaton and other manufacturers.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

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

.

BEAMA.
British Electrotechnical and Allied Manufacturers Association

 

[Cookie]

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

Of course!

What people should be asking is why AFDDs stop at a few amps when series arcing and joule heating take place below that. Why sell a half empty fire extinguisher?

 

[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