2008 NEC Report on Proposals now available - free

Contacting the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and requesting a free copy of the Report on Proposals (ROP) book will
provide the information necessary to develop comments on the proposals. These comments must be submitted to NFPA by 5:00 p.m. EST, Oct. 20, 2006. Call NFPA at (617) 770 - 3000 and request an NEC ROP.
The ROP is available on CD and can be read in as a PDF file.
One of the changes is to now require combination AFCI protection for all residential 120 volt 15 and 20 ampere circuits. After three Code cycles of requiring arc-fault circuit interrupter (AFCI) protection of 15- and 20- ampere, single-phase, 120-volt bedroom circuits, proposal No. 2-142 has been accepted to require AFCI protection for all 15- and 20-ampere, single-phase, 120-volt circuits in dwelling units.
In addition, the new AFCI devices will be the combination devices, not the branch/feeder AFCI devices. The 2005 NEC had a mandatory deadline permitting branch-feeder AFCI devices until Jan. 1, 2008. In addition, the exception to 210.12(B), permitting an AFCI device to be extended out 6 feet from the origin of the branch circuit in a panelboard to a separate AFCI device, has been revised by deleting the requirement of enclosing the conductors in a metal raceway or a cable with a metal sheath.
For further information try this link: http://www.ecmag.com/editorial_detail.aspx?id !27
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 22 Sep 2006 08:42:46 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@electrician2.com wrote:

It has beev available on the NFPA web site for months. Mike Holt has the link if you don't like wading through the screens. You can also get the comment form there on PDF or DOC format.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

The NFPA had the CD delivered to me in North Pole, Alaska within three days by UPS at no cost.
Who is Mike Holt? Is he an electrician or engineer?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 23 Sep 2006 00:18:51 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@electrician2.com wrote:

www.mikeholt.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

So he has a web site. There are no prequalifications for having a web site. The question is who is Mike Holt? Is he an electrician, master electrician, electrical administrator, or licensed electrical engineer? I cannot find any record of him having a license in Alaska or Washington.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 23 Sep 2006 15:19:04 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@electrician2.com wrote:

Check Florida. Mike has been around a while (master electrician, inspector and road show instructor). I use his site for the links and pictures. There is really a lot of good stuff on there.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 23 Sep 2006 15:19:04 -0700 snipped-for-privacy@electrician2.com wrote:
| snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:
|> |> >Who is Mike Holt? |> www.mikeholt.com | | So he has a web site. There are no prequalifications for having a web | site. The question is who is Mike Holt? Is he an electrician, master | electrician, electrical administrator, or licensed electrical engineer? | I cannot find any record of him having a license in Alaska or | Washington.
Why would you conduct a search so narrow? Better check the other 48 states. He's been around a while and has published quite a lot of educational material on code compliance. You can also see a lot of his proposals in the 2008 ROP. Maybe you should look through his web site some.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote:

So what are his qualifications?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 24 Sep 2006 19:21:24 -0700 snipped-for-privacy@electrician2.com wrote: | | snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote:
|>
|> |> |> |> >Who is Mike Holt? |> |> www.mikeholt.com |> | |> | So he has a web site. There are no prequalifications for having a web |> | site. The question is who is Mike Holt? Is he an electrician, master |> | electrician, electrical administrator, or licensed electrical engineer? |> | I cannot find any record of him having a license in Alaska or |> | Washington. |> |> Why would you conduct a search so narrow? Better check the other 48 states. |> He's been around a while and has published quite a lot of educational |> material on code compliance. You can also see a lot of his proposals in |> the 2008 ROP. Maybe you should look through his web site some. |> |> -- |> |---------------------------------------/----------------------------------| |> | Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
|> |------------------------------------/-------------------------------------| | | So what are his qualifications?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=%22mike+holt%22&num 0
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 23 Sep 2006 00:18:51 -0700 snipped-for-privacy@electrician2.com wrote: | | snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:
|> |> >he ROP is available on CD and can be read in as a PDF file. |> |> It has beev available on the NFPA web site for months. Mike Holt has |> the link if you don't like wading through the screens. You can also |> get the comment form there on PDF or DOC format. | | The NFPA had the CD delivered to me in North Pole, Alaska within three | days by UPS at no cost. | | Who is Mike Holt? Is he an electrician or engineer?
I'm NOT an electrician, yet I know who Mike Holt is. I guess you have been living isolation up there?
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<| Who is Mike Holt? Is he an electrician or engineer?
I'm NOT an electrician, yet I know who Mike Holt is. I guess you have been living isolation up there? >
So he is popular. He has a web site. He submits proposals. So what are his qualifications? I don't think you get it. I think Mike Holt is a front man who has several ghost writers that employ several web site developers, writers, and graphic artists. I know more about Mike Holt than you realize. I wonder if he could come to Alaska or Washington and qualify to carry my electrician tools on a construction job?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 24 Sep 2006 19:29:55 -0700 snipped-for-privacy@electrician2.com wrote:
| So he is popular. He has a web site. He submits proposals. So what | are his qualifications? I don't think you get it. I think Mike Holt | is a front man who has several ghost writers that employ several web | site developers, writers, and graphic artists. I know more about Mike | Holt than you realize.
Then maybe you should spill the bean.
| I wonder if he could come to Alaska or Washington and qualify to carry | my electrician tools on a construction job?
I somehow don't think that literally carrying your electrician tools is the issue. And in any particular state my be more of a complication of bureacracy. Would YOU be able to hire out your services as an electrician legally in any of the other 48 states? Maybe you could if your license is transferrable or recognized by reciprocal licensing. Ask the same question of Mike Holt.
Did you notice the 97 proposals he made for NEC 2008 in the ROP? I know you have a copy already, but for others reading this:
http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/ROP/NEC2008ROP.pdf http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/necdigest/NEC2008ROPDraft.pdf http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/necdigest/NEC2008CommentForm.pdf
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote:

I think that most of his proposals were made by one or more of his ghost writers. Like I said, I know a little about his game.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 24 Sep 2006 20:53:49 -0700 snipped-for-privacy@electrician2.com wrote:
| I think that most of his proposals were made by one or more of his | ghost writers. | Like I said, I know a little about his game.
Then tell us about it.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 21:49:22 -0400 snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:
| On 22 Sep 2006 08:42:46 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@electrician2.com wrote: | |>he ROP is available on CD and can be read in as a PDF file. | | It has beev available on the NFPA web site for months. Mike Holt has | the link if you don't like wading through the screens. You can also | get the comment form there on PDF or DOC format.
One still has to wade through screens on Mike Holt's site. But at least the site isn't badly programmed and full of excessive images like the NFPA site is. My guess is NFPA contracts out their web site, whereas someone _in_ Mike Holt's organization does his. Contracted out web sites tend to be rather uniformly the worst.
That's not to say Mike Holt's web site doesn't have bugs ... it does. But they are fewer than what NFPA has, and don't really get in the way.
Anyway, I hereby "officially" give the NFPA web site a red tag :-)
And now that I did the leg work ... here ya go ... one click:
http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/ROP/NEC2008ROP.pdf 997 pages 13256085 bytes, 13.26 MB, 12.64 MiB dated: 2006-06-13 13:01:09
A comment for is on the 998th page of the ROP, or you can use these:
http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/necdigest/NEC2008CommentForm.pdf 64195 bytes, 64.2 kB, 62.7 kiB dated: 2006-06-16 14:38:00
http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/necdigest/NEC2008Commentform.doc 35328 bytes, 35.3 kB, 34.5 kiB dated: 2006-06-16 14:38:05
And then there is the draft code, which I presume is the first draft of how it will appear if all the rejections and acceptance stay as they are:
http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/necdigest/NEC2008ROPDraft.pdf 802 pages 4317301 bytes, 4.32 MB, 4.12 MiB dated: 2006-06-22 14:52:55
Note that the dates refer to the file meta data, generally when the file was copied into the web site, not when the document was finalized. The above were found on:
http://www.nfpa.org/itemDetail.asp?categoryID 35
If I had seen this URL before ever visiting the NFPA site, I could have guessed very confidently that it was a poorly designed contracted out web site. Whenever the URL names an actual templating script AND the contents are identified in "query string" form AND utilize numbers, it just reeks of one or the other, if not both.
That's not to say _all_ contracted out web sites are bad. I haven't done any formal gathering of statistics on it, but it "feels" like at least 90% of contracted out web sites are bad.
I'm not really an official website inspector, but I do play one online :-) We could sure use some, though.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 22 Sep 2006 08:42:46 -0700 snipped-for-privacy@electrician2.com wrote:
| Contacting the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and | requesting a free copy of the Report on Proposals (ROP) book will | provide the information necessary to develop comments on the proposals. | These comments must be submitted to NFPA by 5:00 p.m. EST, Oct. 20, | 2006. | Call NFPA at (617) 770 - 3000 and request an NEC ROP. | | The ROP is available on CD and can be read in as a PDF file. | | One of the changes is to now require combination AFCI protection for | all residential 120 volt 15 and 20 ampere circuits. After three Code | cycles of requiring arc-fault circuit interrupter (AFCI) protection of | 15- and 20- ampere, single-phase, 120-volt bedroom circuits, proposal | No. 2-142 has been accepted to require AFCI protection for all 15- and | 20-ampere, single-phase, 120-volt circuits in dwelling units.
How extensive is the testing to ensure reliable operation of these devices? I still find that many ground fault devices will trip in high RF fields that aren't high enough to disrupt most TV sets.
This should be tested in a laboratory under safe conditions. And I do believe insufficient testing in this regard has been done so far.
One issue I have found is that continuous application of the RF field results in continuous energization of the tripping solenoid, which I believe is unlikely to be designed to safely dissipate the heat that could result. Normally such a solenoid would trip with energy for only a brief instant since the leakage current would be cut off once the contacts open. But with an RF field presenting false leakage current (it's the RF current traveling along the wiring in common mode) it could remain continuously on, burn up the coil insulation, and short out. While I'm concerned with this, despite the fact that such a short condition should be interrupted by the upstream OCPD, I am much more concerned when the device _is_ the OCPD. If GFCI and AFCI breakers are prone to this problem, this could result in loss of overcurrent protection on the branch circuit and depend on the main OCPD, as well as producing substantial damage in the panel.
For reasons described, I'm unwilling to perform the tests myself. I don't want to burn down my house. And I certainly do not suggest you test this in anything but appropriate high energy laboratory setups that correctly mimick real world conditions without the real world safety hazards (e.g. nothing burn-down-able).
Next question:
Does this combination protection require 6 ma level leakage protection or is the 30 ma level sufficient where the 6 ma level is not otherwise specified?
My concern for this is that long branch circuit runs are known to have more charging current apparent leakage and either reduce the margin of false tripping, or potentially force the device to trip. I realize a subpanel is one way to deal with this. However, having found voltage on neutrals at a distance from the bonding, I'm far more comfortable with all branch circuits running to one panel room where the first panel is grounded well and short neutrals run to subpanels that may be needed for larger numbers of circuits. But that makes ground fault protection harder to do when it's done at the panel.
Or maybe NON-combination AFCI devices can be permitted at the panel in cases where GFCI protection is provided near the utilization?
Next question:
I understand many motor devices are known to regularly trip AFCI devices. What kind of progress is being made by manufacturers to correct this?
Consider someone replaces a panel in an older home and has to put in AFCI combination devices, and then finds that they always trip when window air conditioners are turned on? Not all homes have central air conditioning (and in fact I despise it so much myself I won't have it in the new house I will be building).
Of course one work around is to buy a BIG air conditioner (at least 1440 VA) and put it on a dedicated 240 volt circuit.
Next point:
Maybe this will be the final death of shared neutral circuits, unless Square-D starts making double pole combination AFCI breakers.
I'm divided on this, myself. I like the fact that Cutler-Hammer does make double pole AFCI combination breakers, which would allow even more circuits (e.g. 240 volt ones) to be protected (even though not required by NEC). OTOH, I have no love of shared neutral circuits and would be happy to see them go away. I just wish the NEC would outright prohibit them, at least on circuits having outlets in more than one box (I don't have a problem with shared neutral that serves outlets in exactly one box).
| In addition, the new AFCI devices will be the combination devices, not | the branch/feeder AFCI devices. The 2005 NEC had a mandatory deadline | permitting branch-feeder AFCI devices until Jan. 1, 2008. In addition, | the exception to 210.12(B), permitting an AFCI device to be extended | out 6 feet from the origin of the branch circuit in a panelboard to a | separate AFCI device, has been revised by deleting the requirement of | enclosing the conductors in a metal raceway or a cable with a metal | sheath.
Seems a bit contradictory to me. Is this a good idea or bad idea to have a separate AFCI protection outside of the main panel?
What about a subpanel that happens to serve just one branch circuit? Wouldn't that be effectively a branch/feeder deployment?
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 24 Sep 2006 03:47:57 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote:

Phil, long time, no see
I am assuming these are likew the GFCI breaker and the GFCI part is in addition to the normal OCPD hardware with the addition of a trip coil. Even when the AFCI is totally dead it is still a breaker. SqD has this in their recalled AFCIs. They say the breaker part is still normal.
http://members.aol.com/gfretwell/gfci.jpg

It can be either. Most are 30ma. The "combination" part refers to protecting the branch circuit plus the outlet connected load.

Most AFCI trips seem to be traced to ground faults. One source is that big cludge of white wires in a fan box. If there is a little conductor sticking out it can short to ground. That was never a problem before GFCI protection. It gives fans a bad rep.

I'm sure they will be along

The device type was to retrofit older panel installations with obsolete breaker styles or fuses.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 01:16:41 -0400 snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote: | On 24 Sep 2006 03:47:57 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: | | |> it could remain continuously on, burn up the coil insulation, |>and short out. While I'm concerned with this, despite the fact that |>such a short condition should be interrupted by the upstream OCPD, |>I am much more concerned when the device _is_ the OCPD. If GFCI and |>AFCI breakers are prone to this problem, this could result in loss |>of overcurrent protection on the branch circuit and depend on the main |>OCPD, as well as producing substantial damage in the panel. | | Phil, long time, no see | | I am assuming these are likew the GFCI breaker and the GFCI part is in | addition to the normal OCPD hardware with the addition of a trip coil. | Even when the AFCI is totally dead it is still a breaker. | SqD has this in their recalled AFCIs. They say the breaker part is | still normal.
Basically, if the little chip based circuit goes dead, the OCPD parts (thermal and magnetic) should still operate. But that could be false confidence ... "the power is on, the breaker must be OK" or "I reset the breaker and it comes on, so it must be working".
One simple test can verify if a GFCI breaker really is working as it should, and that's by putting 20,000 ohm 3/4 watt resistor between the hot wire and ground to pull 6 milliamps across. It better trip, and fast. The test button the breaker can do that, though connected to the neutral on the source side of the current sensor.
Testing an AFCI will be harder. It has more aspects to the protection it provides. If it is a combination AFCI+GFCI, what will the test switch on the breaker actually be testing? The GFCI function? The AFCI function? I think one hazard is that the AFCI protection, which is much more involved than GFCI protection, could go dead while the GFCI protection remains working. If the test button tests that GFCI part by being the previously mentioned 6 milliamp crossover test, you end up with false positive confidence.
The AFCI protection also has more than one aspect to what it protects for. It tests for current levels that represent a L-N or L-G arc at a level I've read is around 70 amps or so. This is below the magnetic trip point, and the thermal trip would be a few seconds away (enough time for the arc to ignite other material). And it also tests for current waveforms that represent a series arc such as from a loose connection, or contacts to the hot wire that have substantial impedance and would not otherwise trip either thermal or magnetic and maybe not even leakage.
So how does one test an AFCI properly? And how can we equip all home owners to have this kind of test available to them to do on, say, a yearly basis. How can one test button a breaker really do it?
|>Does this combination protection require 6 ma level leakage protection |>or is the 30 ma level sufficient where the 6 ma level is not otherwise |>specified? | | It can be either. Most are 30ma. The "combination" part refers to | protecting the branch circuit plus the outlet connected load.
So does the code require the GFCI protection be part of the combination?
|>I understand many motor devices are known to regularly trip AFCI devices. |>What kind of progress is being made by manufacturers to correct this? | | Most AFCI trips seem to be traced to ground faults. One source is that | big cludge of white wires in a fan box. If there is a little conductor | sticking out it can short to ground. That was never a problem before | GFCI protection. It gives fans a bad rep.
But those are fans that would give people a shock if they touched it while grounded (or a tingle otherwise). That would be a deserved bad rap if so.
|>Next point: |> |>Maybe this will be the final death of shared neutral circuits, unless |>Square-D starts making double pole combination AFCI breakers. |> | I'm sure they will be along
They've "justified" their lack of double pole breakers with a publication describing the negatives of shared neutral wiring. Just how much will the changes in the code change that for Square-D? Given that many kitchen installations apparently do have shared neutral (I've never seen any myself, but I've only looked close enough at about a dozen), retrofitting new panels (to replace fuse boxes and Federal Pacific junk) might mean having to put in the AFCI protection under the new code (I don't know if it limits its application to new circuits, or if it would apply to a new panel, too). If the existing circuit is a shared neutral, at least the GFCI part of the breaker would require all 3 wires go through the current sensor together to get the correct measurement. I'm presuming AFCI functions measure via the same sensor. But are these retrofits going to make enough demand for Square-D to start making such breaker? Or will the 2008 code not require this on certain retrofits?
|>Seems a bit contradictory to me. Is this a good idea or bad idea to have |>a separate AFCI protection outside of the main panel? |> |>What about a subpanel that happens to serve just one branch circuit? |>Wouldn't that be effectively a branch/feeder deployment? | | The device type was to retrofit older panel installations with | obsolete breaker styles or fuses.
Presumably for new circuits added later. If the circuit predates AFCI requirements, and so does the panel, I wouldn't expect AFCI protection to be added after the fact unless insurance companies start requiring it.
Still, I think local AHJ's need to have some provision to allow exceptions on a case by case basis. With the requirement being limited to a bedroom, it could be practical to deal with issues like treadmill exercise machines and vacuum cleaners by moving them to another room or plugging them in at the hallway. But with AFCI everywhere, that leaves virtually no options in cases where the equipment is false tripping AFCI protection.
My garbage disposal motor must be pulling a LOT of current. It's on a circuit separate from the lights, yet when it starts, it can pull the lights down to near nothing for half a second. It has never tripped the breaker so I presume it's below the magnetic trip level which is suitable for motors on such circuits. But will an AFCI breaker also handle it? That's not something I know as I don't have any AFCI breakers right now.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote:

If a breaker has both AFCI and 6mA GFCI protection it needs a test button for each.

Series arc protection is not required until 2008 and I don't think AFCIs are available yet with that protection. AFCIs now (parallel arc) look at the waveform in addition to current magnitude.
I was surprised when I read parallel arc detection looked at high current, 70A pulses, but at least that is relatively non-normal. Series arc has the current generally lower than the load current. Would think it would be really hard to differentiate "arc" from "normal".

Series arc detection is also added in the new AFCIs.

New AFCIs, like the old ones, have 30mA GFCI as part of arc protection.
A breaker could have both AFCI and GFCI combined, but that is not the change.
---------------------------- What is the progress on the new AFCIs? Are any in production? Near production? Problems?
bud--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: | |> | I am assuming these are likew the GFCI breaker and the GFCI part is in |> | addition to the normal OCPD hardware with the addition of a trip coil. |> | Even when the AFCI is totally dead it is still a breaker. |> | SqD has this in their recalled AFCIs. They say the breaker part is |> | still normal. |> |> Basically, if the little chip based circuit goes dead, the OCPD parts |> (thermal and magnetic) should still operate. But that could be false |> confidence ... "the power is on, the breaker must be OK" or "I reset |> the breaker and it comes on, so it must be working". |> |> One simple test can verify if a GFCI breaker really is working as it |> should, and that's by putting 20,000 ohm 3/4 watt resistor between |> the hot wire and ground to pull 6 milliamps across. It better trip, |> and fast. The test button the breaker can do that, though connected |> to the neutral on the source side of the current sensor. |> |> Testing an AFCI will be harder. It has more aspects to the protection |> it provides. If it is a combination AFCI+GFCI, what will the test |> switch on the breaker actually be testing? The GFCI function? The |> AFCI function? I think one hazard is that the AFCI protection, which |> is much more involved than GFCI protection, could go dead while the |> GFCI protection remains working. If the test button tests that GFCI |> part by being the previously mentioned 6 milliamp crossover test, you |> end up with false positive confidence. |> | | If a breaker has both AFCI and 6mA GFCI protection it needs a test | button for each.
I would argue that AFCI functionality itself needs 2 test buttons, and thus an AFCI+GFCI (regardless if it is 6ma or 30ma) needs 3 test buttons.
|> The AFCI protection also has more than one aspect to what it protects |> for. It tests for current levels that represent a L-N or L-G arc at |> a level I've read is around 70 amps or so. This is below the magnetic |> trip point, and the thermal trip would be a few seconds away (enough |> time for the arc to ignite other material). And it also tests for |> current waveforms that represent a series arc such as from a loose |> connection, or contacts to the hot wire that have substantial impedance |> and would not otherwise trip either thermal or magnetic and maybe not |> even leakage. |> | | Series arc protection is not required until 2008 and I don't think AFCIs | are available yet with that protection. AFCIs now (parallel arc) look at | the waveform in addition to current magnitude.
Series arc has been described in some brochures I've read. Whether it is required or not, if they describe it with the product, the product better have it.
| I was surprised when I read parallel arc detection looked at high | current, 70A pulses, but at least that is relatively non-normal. Series | arc has the current generally lower than the load current. Would think | it would be really hard to differentiate "arc" from "normal".
The pattern may be telling. Lighting would have a variety of waveform patterns, depending on if it is incandescent, fluorescent, discharge, etc. That can be modified with dimmers. But the pattern is relatively steady.
Computer switching power supplies that are not specifically corrected for it (cheap ones are not), would have sharp current pulses. But even these would be steady.
Motors would have some more random arcing. But their current phase shift could reveal more about it being a motor.
Who knows what induced RF fields could do to AFCI. It can definitely fool some GFCI.
|> So how does one test an AFCI properly? And how can we equip all home |> owners to have this kind of test available to them to do on, say, a |> yearly basis. How can one test button a breaker really do it? |> |> |> |>Does this combination protection require 6 ma level leakage protection |> |>or is the 30 ma level sufficient where the 6 ma level is not otherwise |> |>specified? |> | |> | It can be either. Most are 30ma. The "combination" part refers to |> | protecting the branch circuit plus the outlet connected load. |> | | Series arc detection is also added in the new AFCIs. | |> So does the code require the GFCI protection be part of the combination? |> | | New AFCIs, like the old ones, have 30mA GFCI as part of arc protection. | | A breaker could have both AFCI and GFCI combined, but that is not the | change.
Some have 6mA GFCI protection.
The code says "combination type" but doesn't define it. A liberal interpretation could say "if it combines AFCI with _any_ other kind of protection, it is thus a combination type, and therefore meets the requirement".
Since 210.12(B) Exception 1(b) refers to the arc-fault circuit interrupter as separate from the overcurrent protection device, but does not exclude it from being a "combination type", that would suggest that the intent of 210.12 is that "combination type" must be including some kind of protection other than overcurrent.
OTOH, I really think separate devices for each type of protection is better, although usually not practical to install. Imagine and visualize a breaker panel. Now imagine for the break slots on the left hand side, each has two more slots to the left. For the ones on the right, each has two more slots to the right. The bus runs down the middle divide 6 columns of slots into 3 on the left and 3 on the right. It would be a rather wide panel. For each "triplet of slots", separate OCPD, GFCI, and AFCI would be installed. Then when you have an interruption event, you can determine the cause of the event based on which device tripped. Additionally, you would not have as much of a heat issue between different functions that you might otherwise have.
They're packing a LOT more functionality in a 3/4 inch wide little plastic box, now. And that functionality is going to be expected to be reliable for _decades_ of use without maintenance or testing.
| What is the progress on the new AFCIs? | Are any in production? Near production? | Problems?
Square-D, Cutler-Hammer, and GE have them. I haven't been able to find a Siemens catalog to download from their horrible web site. I will limit my own selection to Square-D or Cutler-Hammer, anyway, and I am leaning towards Cutler-Hammer CH series. Cutler-Hammer has AFCI with 30mA GFCI, AFCI with 6mA GFCI, and in both one pole and two pole versions.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.