Does anyone have any working experience with thermally protected outlets
like these:

http://www.bsafeelectrix.com/faq.htm

Multi-sensors in the outlet are preset to trip a contact switch in the
outlet when abnormal /temperature is detected at the binding head screw
terminals and / or at the outlets.

The information seems a little off:

An AFCI is not available in a standard outlet, only as a combination
Circuit Breaker. It works by recognizing various arcing signatures and as
noted in question nos. 5 and 7, an AFCI will not recognize a series arcing,
"glowing connection" condition.

I own several AFCI's in standard outlet form, so . . .

--
Bobby G.

On 02/26/2014 05:25 AM, Robert Green wrote:
Does anyone have any working experience with thermally protected outlets
like these:

http://www.bsafeelectrix.com/faq.htm

Multi-sensors in the outlet are preset to trip a contact switch in the
outlet when abnormal /temperature is detected at the binding head screw
terminals and / or at the outlets.

The information seems a little off:

An AFCI is not available in a standard outlet, only as a combination
Circuit Breaker. It works by recognizing various arcing signatures and as
noted in question nos. 5 and 7, an AFCI will not recognize a series arcing,
"glowing connection" condition.

I own several AFCI's in standard outlet form, so . . .





The AFCI can distinguish between a "normal" arc such as would be
detected when a circuit is energized as compared to arcing conditions
that would be caused by faults. Paragraph 7 states (in a perhaps
confusing way) that it does not protect against a "glowing condition"
which the thermally protected outlet is specifically designed to handle.


Possibly you were thrown by their use of the word "signature"?

I have a good friend who once had a job designing circuit breakers and
he explained to me the amount of sophistication those devices have. The
AFCI's are designed to recognize wave-form variations other than
overloads and "trip" if such a fault is detected. They cannot remotely
detect heat though...and thus the reason for the thermally protected outlet.


BTW: He explained to me the an AC breaker "trips" at the zero point of
the sine wave and FWIW a completely different type of device from a DC
breaker.

"philo " wrote in message
...
On 02/26/2014 05:25 AM, Robert Green wrote:
Does anyone have any working experience with thermally protected outlets
like these:

http://www.bsafeelectrix.com/faq.htm

Multi-sensors in the outlet are preset to trip a contact switch in
the
outlet when abnormal /temperature is detected at the binding head screw
terminals and / or at the outlets.

The information seems a little off:

An AFCI is not available in a standard outlet, only as a combination
Circuit Breaker. It works by recognizing various arcing signatures and
as
noted in question nos. 5 and 7, an AFCI will not recognize a series
arcing,
"glowing connection" condition.

I own several AFCI's in standard outlet form, so . . .

The AFCI can distinguish between a "normal" arc such as would be
detected when a circuit is energized as compared to arcing conditions
that would be caused by faults. Paragraph 7 states (in a perhaps
confusing way) that it does not protect against a "glowing condition"
which the thermally protected outlet is specifically designed to handle.


Possibly you were thrown by their use of the word "signature"?

Sorry, I was unclear. The site said AFCI's were only available in breaker
box form, not outlet form. Since I have a number of AFCI outlets I know
what they're saying is either false or way out of date. Either way, it
makes me suspicious about all the other claims on the site if they got that
wrong.

I have a good friend who once had a job designing circuit breakers and
he explained to me the amount of sophistication those devices have. The
AFCI's are designed to recognize wave-form variations other than
overloads and "trip" if such a fault is detected. They cannot remotely
detect heat though...and thus the reason for the thermally protected
outlet.

Yes, we've have a lot of discussion here about how AFCI's work. I believe
it was postulated that the outlets cost half of what an equivalent breaker
costs because the breakers have to be small enough to fit in a circuit
breaker slot. There's a lot more room for the arc detecting electronics in
an AFCI outlet.

BTW: He explained to me the an AC breaker "trips" at the zero point of
the sine wave and FWIW a completely different type of device from a DC
breaker.

Agreed. The modern circuit breaker is a very different beast than the first
breakers to hit the market which, IIRC, were basically bi-metallic strips
that broke contact when an overcurrent heated them to the tripping point. I
believe the problem with those sorts of breakers is that they can become
welded in the closed position. Newer breakers work magnetically: current
through the breaker flows through a small magnetic coil. At a certain
threshold, the magnetic field is strong enough to actuate the trip arm,
tripping the breaker. This detection method is almost instantaneous and
doesn't have the contact welding problem of older breaker designs.

AFCI breakers incorporate not only the elements of a standard circuit
breaker, but elements of GFCI's in addition to arc detection capabilities.
Despite all those capabilities they may be unable to detect a condition
where a space heater or toaster plug is only partially plugged in, creating
a glowing connection.

I bought the AFCI outlets primarily to make sure that the space heaters I
use don't start a fire through a bad, high-current connection. However in
reading some of what Bud posted I believe I would have been better off with
thermally protected outlets.

Now that I know about them and the limitations of AFCI outlets I will be
adding thermally protected outlets to all of the circuits where devices that
draw more than 10A are plugged in. (And yet more annotations to the circuit
panel legend on the inside of the panel door reminding me to check those
outlets if the space heaters or the toaster oven stops working!) At least
they are less than half the price of the AFCI outlets. I will equip all
potentially high current outlets with an AFCI at the first outlet in the
branch and use TPO's at each outlet that serves space heaters, toasters,
hairdryers, etc.

Ideally, the AFCI outlets should incorporate thermal sensors to protect
against glowing connections but there may not be enough room in this
generation of AFCI outlets to add that sort of protection.

Thanks for your input, Philo.

--
Bobby G.

On 02/26/2014 12:40 PM, Robert Green wrote:



snipped but read

Now that I know about them and the limitations of AFCI outlets I will be
adding thermally protected outlets to all of the circuits where devices that
draw more than 10A are plugged in. (And yet more annotations to the circuit
panel legend on the inside of the panel door reminding me to check those
outlets if the space heaters or the toaster oven stops working!) At least
they are less than half the price of the AFCI outlets. I will equip all
potentially high current outlets with an AFCI at the first outlet in the
branch and use TPO's at each outlet that serves space heaters, toasters,
hairdryers, etc.

Ideally, the AFCI outlets should incorporate thermal sensors to protect
against glowing connections but there may not be enough room in this
generation of AFCI outlets to add that sort of protection.

Thanks for your input, Philo.




All very interesting, I'll have to check to see what's available the
next time I'm in a hardware store...looks like the technology is
changing pretty fast.

As of late I've been working on the lighting in my old house and phasing
out the incandescent bulbs.

On 2/26/2014 5:25 AM, Robert Green wrote:
Does anyone have any working experience with thermally protected outlets
like these:

http://www.bsafeelectrix.com/faq.htm

Multi-sensors in the outlet are preset to trip a contact switch in the
outlet when abnormal /temperature is detected at the binding head screw
terminals and / or at the outlets.

The information seems a little off:

An AFCI is not available in a standard outlet, only as a combination
Circuit Breaker. It works by recognizing various arcing signatures and as
noted in question nos. 5 and 7, an AFCI will not recognize a series arcing,
"glowing connection" condition.

I own several AFCI's in standard outlet form, so . . .


In addition to that out of date information, the BSafe site has
information on a product with planned delivery 2010. Seems like they
could keep the site up to date.


FAQ 10 Can a BSafe outlet be "daisy chained" for wiring outlets downstream?
It appears that the outlet has only one set of terminals, so a
connection to a downstream load is made with external wirenuts.
Wire-through connections with loose connections cause some of the
glowing connections. BSafe just avoids wire-through. (This is also in
FAQ 2.)

FAQ 5 AFCIs can't detect a glowing connection?
The UL investigation for Cutler Hammer found that the ground fault
feature in AFCIs may (or may not) detect a glowing connection that
carbonizes the plastic resulting in a path to ground in the receptacle.

The UL investigation for Cutler Hammer is at:
May 31, 2001 UL SPECIAL SERVICES INVESTIGATION ON BRANCH/FEEDER ARC
FAULT CIRCUIT INTERRUPTER INCORPORATING EQUIPMENT GROUND FAULT PROTECTION

Another piece from Cutler Hammer
http://www.eaton.com/ecm/groups/publ.../ct_136002.pdf
talks about a UL carbonized path test for AFCIs, and glowing connections.

AFCI detection can be done without ground fault detection - then the
neutral would probably not have to connect through the AFCI. The ground
fault feature (usually at 30 mA) adds to the fault problems the AFCI
will detect.

I doubt the UL test for the BSafe receptacles tests the thermal feature.

That feature may provide additional protection. It should be a lot
faster than an AFCI trip on ground fault through carbonized plastic.

On 2/26/2014 12:40 PM, Robert Green wrote:
"philo " wrote in message
...
On 02/26/2014 05:25 AM, Robert Green wrote:

I own several AFCI's in standard outlet form, so . . .

The AFCI can distinguish between a "normal" arc such as would be
detected when a circuit is energized as compared to arcing conditions
that would be caused by faults. Paragraph 7 states (in a perhaps
confusing way) that it does not protect against a "glowing condition"
which the thermally protected outlet is specifically designed to handle.

AFCIs may (or may not) trip eventually on a glowing connection.


Possibly you were thrown by their use of the word "signature"?

Sorry, I was unclear. The site said AFCI's were only available in breaker
box form, not outlet form. Since I have a number of AFCI outlets I know
what they're saying is either false or way out of date. Either way, it
makes me suspicious about all the other claims on the site if they got that
wrong.

I have a good friend who once had a job designing circuit breakers and
he explained to me the amount of sophistication those devices have. The
AFCI's are designed to recognize wave-form variations other than
overloads and "trip" if such a fault is detected. They cannot remotely
detect heat though...and thus the reason for the thermally protected
outlet.

Yes, we've have a lot of discussion here about how AFCI's work. I believe
it was postulated that the outlets cost half of what an equivalent breaker
costs because the breakers have to be small enough to fit in a circuit
breaker slot. There's a lot more room for the arc detecting electronics in
an AFCI outlet.

IMHO there is a lot more room in an AFCI circuit breaker. The second
link in another post shows the inside of an AFCI breaker

The breaker also trips on overload and shorts, part of the cost. But you
need to get an AFCI breaker from the manufacturer of the panel, a
controlled market.


BTW: He explained to me the an AC breaker "trips" at the zero point of
the sine wave and FWIW a completely different type of device from a DC
breaker.

Electronic switches can open at zero voltage (or zero current, which is
not the same time with an inductive load). The circuit breakers we use
have a mechanical trip and are not likely to open at a zero crossing.
But zero crossings help extinguish the arc from breaker contacts
opening. DC arcs are harder to extinguish. If contacts have both AC and
DC ratings the DC ratings are almost certainly lower voltage and/or current.

I don't know of major differences in DC breakers. DC switches are fast
acting "snap" switches. AC switches can be slower "silent" - the zero
crossings help extinguish the arc. I think AC breaker operate fast.
There are techniques for blowing-out the arc which may be used more on a
DC breaker.


Agreed. The modern circuit breaker is a very different beast than the first
breakers to hit the market which, IIRC, were basically bi-metallic strips
that broke contact when an overcurrent heated them to the tripping point. I
believe the problem with those sorts of breakers is that they can become
welded in the closed position. Newer breakers work magnetically: current
through the breaker flows through a small magnetic coil. At a certain
threshold, the magnetic field is strong enough to actuate the trip arm,
tripping the breaker. This detection method is almost instantaneous and
doesn't have the contact welding problem of older breaker designs.

The circuit breakers we use are thermal-magnetic (and have been for a
long time). Trips on overload are thermal (bimetal). For high fault
currents the "instantaneous" trip is magnetic. (Instantaneous means
there is no intentional time delay.) Adding AFCI or GFCI features, the
trip is magnetic through a solenoid coil that unlatches the breaker.


AFCI breakers incorporate not only the elements of a standard circuit
breaker, but elements of GFCI's in addition to arc detection capabilities.
Despite all those capabilities they may be unable to detect a condition
where a space heater or toaster plug is only partially plugged in, creating
a glowing connection.

I bought the AFCI outlets primarily to make sure that the space heaters I
use don't start a fire through a bad, high-current connection. However in
reading some of what Bud posted I believe I would have been better off with
thermally protected outlets.

If they work like the web page says they should increase the protection.
(I don't think a very high percentage of failures are glowing
connections at a receptacle.)

As you probably read, if they trip they can't be reset.


Now that I know about them and the limitations of AFCI outlets I will be
adding thermally protected outlets to all of the circuits where devices that
draw more than 10A are plugged in. (And yet more annotations to the circuit
panel legend on the inside of the panel door reminding me to check those
outlets if the space heaters or the toaster oven stops working!) At least
they are less than half the price of the AFCI outlets. I will equip all
potentially high current outlets with an AFCI at the first outlet in the
branch and use TPO's at each outlet that serves space heaters, toasters,
hairdryers, etc.

Ideally, the AFCI outlets should incorporate thermal sensors to protect
against glowing connections but there may not be enough room in this
generation of AFCI outlets to add that sort of protection.

Thanks for your input, Philo.

--
Bobby G.

"bud--" wrote in message news:530ea8ce$0$55711$c3e8da3
On 2/26/2014 12:40 PM, Robert Green wrote:
Philo wrote

stuff snipped

Yes, we've have a lot of discussion here about how AFCI's work. I
believe
it was postulated that the outlets cost half of what an equivalent
breaker
costs because the breakers have to be small enough to fit in a circuit
breaker slot. There's a lot more room for the arc detecting electronics
in
an AFCI outlet.

IMHO there is a lot more room in an AFCI circuit breaker. The second
link in another post shows the inside of an AFCI breaker

That's an interesting point. I looked at both units (actually, I compared a
typical non AFCI breaker because I had a spare lying around with the
dimensions of the AFCI breaker) and concluded they contain roughly the same
number of cubic inches of volume, albeit in very different geometries. The
AFCI breaker has to be a circuit breaker as well, so some of the internal
space is already spoken for. I might have to break out the vernier calipers
for more accurate measurements. (-:

The breaker also trips on overload and shorts, part of the cost. But you
need to get an AFCI breaker from the manufacturer of the panel, a
controlled market.

Hmm. That would probably better explain the serious cost differential. The
issues with the AFCI breakers, aside from cost, is that they all take
pigtails and, from what a poster said in another thread, they tend to run
warm since they have to incorporate a power supply for the arc detection
electronics. In my circuit panel, the last thing I need is to have to make
more connections to the neutral bar(s). So I played around with one and
then decided that outlets were the way to go because of cost and pigtail
requirements. And because I knew where the outlet closest to the panel was
by simple visual inspection so protecting all downstream outlets was simple.

Now that I can hunt down the first outlet in the older circuits with my X-10
meter, I think it was the right decision and will save $100's if I choose to
protect all the circuits (I probably won't - I am no longer convinced
they're the hot stuff they have been made out to be).

BTW: He explained to me the an AC breaker "trips" at the zero point of
the sine wave and FWIW a completely different type of device from a DC
breaker.

Electronic switches can open at zero voltage (or zero current, which is
not the same time with an inductive load). The circuit breakers we use
have a mechanical trip and are not likely to open at a zero crossing.
But zero crossings help extinguish the arc from breaker contacts
opening. DC arcs are harder to extinguish. If contacts have both AC and
DC ratings the DC ratings are almost certainly lower voltage and/or
current.

That explains something I've always wondered about - why switch ratings and
such always seemed to indicate DC was more powerful. I suppose when you
consider the total number of seconds that AC is at 0 volts it makes a
difference. Interesting.

I don't know of major differences in DC breakers. DC switches are fast
acting "snap" switches. AC switches can be slower "silent" - the zero
crossings help extinguish the arc. I think AC breaker operate fast.
There are techniques for blowing-out the arc which may be used more on a
DC breaker.

More reading by me is definitely required here. I didn't know there was
going to be homework. )-:

Agreed. The modern circuit breaker is a very different beast than the
first
breakers to hit the market which, IIRC, were basically bi-metallic
strips
that broke contact when an overcurrent heated them to the tripping
point. I
believe the problem with those sorts of breakers is that they can become
welded in the closed position. Newer breakers work magnetically:
current
through the breaker flows through a small magnetic coil. At a certain
threshold, the magnetic field is strong enough to actuate the trip arm,
tripping the breaker. This detection method is almost instantaneous and
doesn't have the contact welding problem of older breaker designs.

The circuit breakers we use are thermal-magnetic (and have been for a
long time). Trips on overload are thermal (bimetal). For high fault
currents the "instantaneous" trip is magnetic. (Instantaneous means
there is no intentional time delay.) Adding AFCI or GFCI features, the
trip is magnetic through a solenoid coil that unlatches the breaker.

Thanks. I can see my understanding of their function was incomplete. I am
sure I read that one of the reasons the magnetic operation was adding was to
prevent the welding of the bimetallic contacts when faced with extremely
high trip currents. Even *more* reading required! (Not that I will retain
anything I learn about it. Oh well.)

AFCI breakers incorporate not only the elements of a standard circuit
breaker, but elements of GFCI's in addition to arc detection
capabilities.
Despite all those capabilities they may be unable to detect a condition
where a space heater or toaster plug is only partially plugged in,
creating
a glowing connection.

I bought the AFCI outlets primarily to make sure that the space heaters
I
use don't start a fire through a bad, high-current connection. However
in
reading some of what Bud posted I believe I would have been better off
with
thermally protected outlets.

If they work like the web page says they should increase the protection.
(I don't think a very high percentage of failures are glowing
connections at a receptacle.)

I have two melted outlets that inspired this whole journey. It would be
nice to know if they would have tripped the AFCI outlets instead of
melting.

As you probably read, if they trip they can't be reset.

No, I just posted that as an example and stopped reading when they claimed
AFCI outlets didn't exist. That's good to know. I suppose the price is low
enough that it's not much of an issue, but I would have expected them to
operate like GFCI/AFCI outlets with a reset button. A little disappointing.
Maybe in the four years or so that have passed since there have been
improvements in thermally protected outlets and resetability is possible.
Before I buy any TPO's I will be sure to do a more thorough scan of what's
out there.

Now that I know about them and the limitations of AFCI outlets I will be
adding thermally protected outlets to all of the circuits where devices
that
draw more than 10A are plugged in. (And yet more annotations to the
circuit
panel legend on the inside of the panel door reminding me to check those
outlets if the space heaters or the toaster oven stops working!) At
least
they are less than half the price of the AFCI outlets. I will equip all
potentially high current outlets with an AFCI at the first outlet in the
branch and use TPO's at each outlet that serves space heaters, toasters,
hairdryers, etc.

Ideally, the AFCI outlets should incorporate thermal sensors to protect
against glowing connections but there may not be enough room in this
generation of AFCI outlets to add that sort of protection.


Thanks for your inputs, Philo and Bud.

--
Bobby G.

"philo " wrote in message
...

stuff snipped

All very interesting, I'll have to check to see what's available the
next time I'm in a hardware store...looks like the technology is
changing pretty fast.

Today the big multipage Harbor Freight catalog arrived and I looked through
it and decided I didn't really need *anything* (which is quite something -
there's usually always some doodad I can't resist). The saddest part about
not needing anything is that I've already purchased $100's of dubious stuff
that I may never use but somehow feel that I might. Wait - step drills! -
don't have any and someday I may need to enlarge a pre-existing hole.
Someday. Let's see how much money I actually spend just going to HF for a
set of drills.

--
Bobby G.

"bud--" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 2/26/2014 5:25 AM, Robert Green wrote:
Does anyone have any working experience with thermally protected outlets
like these:

http://www.bsafeelectrix.com/faq.htm

Multi-sensors in the outlet are preset to trip a contact switch in
the
outlet when abnormal /temperature is detected at the binding head screw
terminals and / or at the outlets.

The information seems a little off:

An AFCI is not available in a standard outlet, only as a combination
Circuit Breaker. It works by recognizing various arcing signatures and
as
noted in question nos. 5 and 7, an AFCI will not recognize a series
arcing,
"glowing connection" condition.

I own several AFCI's in standard outlet form, so . . .


In addition to that out of date information, the BSafe site has
information on a product with planned delivery 2010. Seems like they
could keep the site up to date.

Who knows if they're even still operating? Last night I went to order take
out from a local Chinese place that's been here since I got my master's -
about 30 years ago - and got the do DO DEE sound of "the number you have
dialed is not in service." Checking Yelp confirmed they are gone with the
wind, in just one week since I last ordered from them just like the little
family owned Thai restaurant of equal age. One day, they just weren't there
anymore and the new restaurant was selling papusas. Oh well. Tempus fugit.

FAQ 10 Can a BSafe outlet be "daisy chained" for wiring outlets
downstream?
It appears that the outlet has only one set of terminals, so a
connection to a downstream load is made with external wirenuts.
Wire-through connections with loose connections cause some of the
glowing connections. BSafe just avoids wire-through. (This is also in
FAQ 2.)

That's pretty ironic.

FAQ 5 AFCIs can't detect a glowing connection?
The UL investigation for Cutler Hammer found that the ground fault
feature in AFCIs may (or may not) detect a glowing connection that
carbonizes the plastic resulting in a path to ground in the receptacle.

The UL investigation for Cutler Hammer is at:
May 31, 2001 UL SPECIAL SERVICES INVESTIGATION ON BRANCH/FEEDER ARC
FAULT CIRCUIT INTERRUPTER INCORPORATING EQUIPMENT GROUND FAULT PROTECTION

Another piece from Cutler Hammer

http://www.eaton.com/ecm/groups/publ.../ct_136002.pdf
talks about a UL carbonized path test for AFCIs, and glowing connections.

AFCI detection can be done without ground fault detection - then the
neutral would probably not have to connect through the AFCI. The ground
fault feature (usually at 30 mA) adds to the fault problems the AFCI
will detect.

I am not sure I follow. Is this saying that I could connect the AFCI
breakers without the pigtails and still have arc but not ground fault
protection? Surely this would give the AHJ conniptions.

I doubt the UL test for the BSafe receptacles tests the thermal feature.

One thing I discovered a long time ago with worklights from China is that
there's a thriving market in China for forged UL hologram stickers. Is it
really possibly that the UL would bypass testing the safety function that
would be the reason people bought the TPO in the first place? That's pretty
incredible.

That feature may provide additional protection. It should be a lot
faster than an AFCI trip on ground fault through carbonized plastic.

The price is low enough that I will probably pick up a few to test, although
the testing is going to be destructive. If it does catch a deliberately
"half plugged" line cord then I suppose I'll use them in the high current
outlets in the kitchen and where I have space heaters operating. The melted
outlets I've experienced probably would not have started fires (fingers
crosses) but they did make an awful smell and scared my wife quite a bit.
There's just not a lot of flammable material inside outlet boxes - mostly
meltable stuff.

Thanks for your input again, Bud. This has been a most informative thread
for me.

--
Bobby G.

"bud--" wrote in message news:530ea8ce$0$55711$c3e8da3

stuff snipped

Yes, we've have a lot of discussion here about how AFCI's work. I
believe
it was postulated that the outlets cost half of what an equivalent
breaker
costs because the breakers have to be small enough to fit in a circuit
breaker slot. There's a lot more room for the arc detecting electronics
in
an AFCI outlet.

IMHO there is a lot more room in an AFCI circuit breaker. The second
link in another post shows the inside of an AFCI breaker

You know a guy like me that measures the cold water inlet temperature is
going to break out the vernier calipers . . . (-:

The Leviton AFCI outlet is 1.5" deep, 1.5" wide and 2.5" tall = 5.625ci of
space.

The Square D QO breaker is 2.5" deep, 3" tall and .75" thick = 5.625ci of
space.

Doesn't seem possible but we both were wrong. (-: Same room inside each.
Measurements are approximate because of the designs. The outlet has a "pod"
behind the topmost outlet that's .25 thick and 1" square and will seriously
crowd a shallow outlet box, but that's offset by some hollows in the design.
I suppose I could always build a little tub and submerge them both,
Archimedes-style, to calculate the true displacement from the overflow but
that's not going to happen. I wouldn't have believed they were so similar
in volume had I not measured them.

So it definitely seems that you're right about the cost differential being
far more attributable to proprietary design than size since there's no
appreciable size difference.

--
Bobby G.

On 2/27/2014 2:36 PM, Robert Green wrote:
"bud--" wrote in message news:530ea8ce$0$55711$c3e8da3
On 2/26/2014 12:40 PM, Robert Green wrote:
Philo wrote

stuff snipped

Yes, we've have a lot of discussion here about how AFCI's work. I
believe
it was postulated that the outlets cost half of what an equivalent
breaker
costs because the breakers have to be small enough to fit in a circuit
breaker slot. There's a lot more room for the arc detecting electronics
in
an AFCI outlet.

IMHO there is a lot more room in an AFCI circuit breaker. The second
link in another post shows the inside of an AFCI breaker

That's an interesting point. I looked at both units (actually, I compared a
typical non AFCI breaker because I had a spare lying around with the
dimensions of the AFCI breaker) and concluded they contain roughly the same
number of cubic inches of volume, albeit in very different geometries. The
AFCI breaker has to be a circuit breaker as well, so some of the internal
space is already spoken for. I might have to break out the vernier calipers
for more accurate measurements. (-:

My thinking is in a breaker you can move the current-trip mechanism to
the side (as was done in an internal picture in my second link). A
receptacle has contacts for the plug all over the inside. A GFCI I
looked inside put the trip solenoid and plunger between the ground
contacts for the plug.

The breaker also trips on overload and shorts, part of the cost. But you
need to get an AFCI breaker from the manufacturer of the panel, a
controlled market.

Hmm. That would probably better explain the serious cost differential. The
issues with the AFCI breakers, aside from cost, is that they all take
pigtails and, from what a poster said in another thread, they tend to run
warm since they have to incorporate a power supply for the arc detection
electronics. In my circuit panel, the last thing I need is to have to make
more connections to the neutral bar(s).

Wouldn't think you would need another neutral position. The circuit
needs a neutral connection, but it goes through the AFCI. The AFCI
neutral replaces the circuit neutral at the neutral bar.

So I played around with one and
then decided that outlets were the way to go because of cost and pigtail
requirements. And because I knew where the outlet closest to the panel was
by simple visual inspection so protecting all downstream outlets was simple.

AFCIs are also intended to protect the circuit wiring. For new
construction, protection can be an AFCI receptacle with the rest of the
circuit wired through it (like you did), but the wiring from panel to
receptacle has to be in some of the metal-walled wiring methods.

Wiring through the first receptacle actually protects the upstream
wiring from a series arc (loose connection) since the arc current will
flow through the AFCI (to the load) and it will trip.


Now that I can hunt down the first outlet in the older circuits with my X-10
meter, I think it was the right decision and will save $100's if I choose to
protect all the circuits (I probably won't - I am no longer convinced
they're the hot stuff they have been made out to be).

Cute idea.

I would figure out what is on the circuit and make a guess which
receptacle is first - a PITA. And something else could be first, like a
ceiling light box.


Would be interesting to see data on how many fires are caused by arcs
vs. glowing connections.

Code change proposals are often denied because there is no data to show
the change would result in safer wiring. I have never seen the data to
support AFCIs. There was a change proposal to allow smoke detectors in
bedrooms to not be on an AFCI protected circuit. (At that time only
bedrooms had to be AFCI protected.) It was denied for a reason something
like there was no data to show that would be safer. But the code panel
had no data to show AFCIs were a significant fire source. (The next NEC
greatly expanded the locations where AFCI protection is required.) (I
believe that line-operated smoke alarms that are on AFCI circuits must
have a battery backup.)

On 2/27/2014 2:55 PM, Robert Green wrote:
"bud--" wrote in message

AFCI detection can be done without ground fault detection - then the
neutral would probably not have to connect through the AFCI. The ground
fault feature (usually at 30 mA) adds to the fault problems the AFCI
will detect.

I am not sure I follow. Is this saying that I could connect the AFCI
breakers without the pigtails and still have arc but not ground fault
protection? Surely this would give the AHJ conniptions.

It is easier to make an AFCI that does not have ground fault protection;
I don't see why the neutral would have to go through then. But the UL
standard requires ground fault protection, which means the neutral has
to go through the AFCI (else it would trip on any load).


I doubt the UL test for the BSafe receptacles tests the thermal feature.

One thing I discovered a long time ago with worklights from China is that
there's a thriving market in China for forged UL hologram stickers. Is it
really possibly that the UL would bypass testing the safety function that
would be the reason people bought the TPO in the first place? That's pretty
incredible.

UL tests to a standard. I doubt the standard for receptacles has any
tests for a thermal trip. The standard could be revised, or a different
standard written, but I doubt that has happened.


That feature may provide additional protection. It should be a lot
faster than an AFCI trip on ground fault through carbonized plastic.

The price is low enough that I will probably pick up a few to test, although
the testing is going to be destructive. If it does catch a deliberately
"half plugged" line cord then I suppose I'll use them in the high current
outlets in the kitchen and where I have space heaters operating. The melted
outlets I've experienced probably would not have started fires (fingers
crosses) but they did make an awful smell and scared my wife quite a bit.

Hey - great idea for a new device - a SFCI
(stink-fault-circuit-interrupter).

On 02/27/2014 02:41 PM, Robert Green wrote:


Today the big multipage Harbor Freight catalog arrived and I looked through
it and decided I didn't really need *anything* (which is quite something -
there's usually always some doodad I can't resist). The saddest part about
not needing anything is that I've already purchased $100's of dubious stuff
that I may never use but somehow feel that I might. Wait - step drills! -
don't have any and someday I may need to enlarge a pre-existing hole.
Someday. Let's see how much money I actually spend just going to HF for a
set of drills.




I have quite a few step drills, they come in handy for light jobs such
as sheet metal. If you get one, don't use them for any heavy duty drilling.


Speaking about *not* getting anything...my wife tells me she managed to
get in and out of Macy's without buying anything.

THat must be a first.

"bud--" wrote in message news:5310c737$0$9704$c3e8da3
2:36 PM, Robert Green wrote:
"bud--" wrote in message news:530ea8ce$0$55711$c3e8da3
On 2/26/2014 12:40 PM, Robert Green wrote:
Philo wrote

stuff snipped

IMHO there is a lot more room in an AFCI circuit breaker. The second
link in another post shows the inside of an AFCI breaker

That's an interesting point. I looked at both units (actually, I
compared a
typical non AFCI breaker because I had a spare lying around with the
dimensions of the AFCI breaker) and concluded they contain roughly the
same
number of cubic inches of volume, albeit in very different geometries.
The
AFCI breaker has to be a circuit breaker as well, so some of the
internal
space is already spoken for. I might have to break out the vernier
calipers
for more accurate measurements. (-:

My thinking is in a breaker you can move the current-trip mechanism to
the side (as was done in an internal picture in my second link). A
receptacle has contacts for the plug all over the inside. A GFCI I
looked inside put the trip solenoid and plunger between the ground
contacts for the plug.

Clearly figuring out which device is actually more spacious is something
I'll leave to someone with the actual engineering specs of both devices and
LOTS of time on their hands. I was just surprised that they were so equal
in my rough measurements.

The breaker also trips on overload and shorts, part of the cost. But
you
need to get an AFCI breaker from the manufacturer of the panel, a
controlled market.

Hmm. That would probably better explain the serious cost differential.
The
issues with the AFCI breakers, aside from cost, is that they all take
pigtails and, from what a poster said in another thread, they tend to
run
warm since they have to incorporate a power supply for the arc detection
electronics. In my circuit panel, the last thing I need is to have to
make
more connections to the neutral bar(s).

Wouldn't think you would need another neutral position. The circuit
needs a neutral connection, but it goes through the AFCI. The AFCI
neutral replaces the circuit neutral at the neutral bar.

http://www.google.com/search?q=AFCI+breaker

The images at the top all have pigtails. Mine had a pigtail. I assume it's
looking for some difference in something but I was unable to find out why
they required the pigtail the last time I looked. I should have researched
it further but that was a dealbreaker and once I discovered the outlets that
were much cheaper I didn't care much *why* the pigtails were there.

This time I looked harder for the reason for the pigtails. (-:

If this is not the main panel or first panel from the meter, the wires
only go to the neutral bus, not the ground bus. And the neutral bus must be
isolated from the grounds and panel.---Thanks for the answers. This is not
the first panel so the neutral and ground are not bonded. The AFCI breaker
sticks out and covers up the neutral bar. I am putting 8 of these AFCI
breakers in the panel. Those twisted pigtails sure are using up a lot of
space on the sides of the panel. Straightening them out and cutting them to
length sure will make the job neater.

http://www.doityourself.com/forum/el...r-pigtail.html

(Although this wasn't posted a year ago when I was looking. So it seems they
might be there for subpanel use - damn, I guess I can just look at the
installation instruction for the breaker.)

http://www.afcisafety.org/qa.html says

Are there any wiring and unstallation guidelines?

Which does not inspire confidence but they also say:

The basic difference between installing the AFCI versus a standard thermal
magnetic circuit breaker is the requirement to connect both the hot and
neutral conductor to the proper terminals of the AFCI. In a circuit wired
with a conventional circuit breaker, the hot conductor is connected to the
breaker and the neutral conductor is connected directly to the neutral bar
of the load center.

Whatever the reason for the pigtails I decided the outlets are a lot easier
to deal with. (-:

It seems that the AFCI's don't require more neutral buss bar real estate
after all, they just require that the neutral wire from a branch circuit to
be directly connected to the breaker (which has two terminals) and then the
pigtail wire from the breaker goes to the spot formerly occupied by the
neutral branch wire on the neutral buss bar.

AFCIs are also intended to protect the circuit wiring. For new
construction, protection can be an AFCI receptacle with the rest of the
circuit wired through it (like you did), but the wiring from panel to
receptacle has to be in some of the metal-walled wiring methods.

I assume that's because of the fear that the unprotected segment of wire
will spark so they contain in conduit which makes the outlet method less
cost attractive in new work, as perhaps it should be. Protection of branch
circuits is best done at the panel, I would think.

Wiring through the first receptacle actually protects the upstream
wiring from a series arc (loose connection) since the arc current will
flow through the AFCI (to the load) and it will trip.

I assume the conduit (or is that word misapplied - is "metal-walled" more
inclusive of other types of wiring?) is required to protect against other
types of arcs that can occur?

Now that I can hunt down the first outlet in the older circuits with my
X-10
meter, I think it was the right decision and will save $100's if I
choose to
protect all the circuits (I probably won't - I am no longer convinced
they're the hot stuff they have been made out to be).

Cute idea.

In practice, there's often a device in a circuit that attenuates nearby X-10
signals so it's not foolproof. It's a better strategy than pulling all the
outlets, though. Still not sure proceeding any further with AFCI's is worth
the time or expense. I'll do the circuits I added, but not the older ones
(which probably need them more)

I would figure out what is on the circuit and make a guess which
receptacle is first - a PITA. And something else could be first, like a
ceiling light box.

I have a screw in outlet adapter for just those sorts of occasions. I once
had a fluorescent shop light that had been very X-10 friendly for years
suddenly starting "singing" with over a 1 volt noise emission precisely at
X-10 transmission frequency. One volt was a lot for stock X-10 to contend
with and since that light was very close to the breaker panel, electrically,
it stomped most X-10 transmissions.

Would be interesting to see data on how many fires are caused by arcs
vs. glowing connections.

There's a lot of clamor about it here and I think they're talking about you
(-:

http://www.afcisafety.org/qa.html

Some have argued that it should be shown how many times an AFCI has "
prevented" a fire from occurring. Of course, this is not a feasible request.
The AFCI disconnects the power when an arc fault occurs, therefore no
incidence of fire or arc is reported to authorities. The same can be true
when a smoke alarm siren alerts the homeowner and the small smoking event is
extinguished without incident. Is that statistic reported to the Federal
Government or local fire department? Of course not. Safety prevention is
just that ... prevention. The only statistics that are reported are those
that have resulted in a fire or a response of a fire department. Many safety
protection actions go unreported.

Code change proposals are often denied because there is no data to show
the change would result in safer wiring. I have never seen the data to
support AFCIs. There was a change proposal to allow smoke detectors in
bedrooms to not be on an AFCI protected circuit. (At that time only
bedrooms had to be AFCI protected.) It was denied for a reason something
like there was no data to show that would be safer. But the code panel
had no data to show AFCIs were a significant fire source. (The next NEC
greatly expanded the locations where AFCI protection is required.) (I
believe that line-operated smoke alarms that are on AFCI circuits must
have a battery backup.)

They do make an interesting point about GFCI's going through the same birth
pangs:

When Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters (GFCIs) were introduced in the
1970s, similar discussions took place regarding the cost/benefit to the
consumer, homebuilder and others. GFCIs have been a standard requirement in
homes for over 30 years with additional locations and circuits being added
over time as well. GFCI also has a statistical track record over time as to
the reduction of electrocutions. On an annualized basis, in 1983, there were
almost 900 electrocutions total per year with approximately 400 being
consumer product related. Ten years later, the total was reduced to 650
annually and slightly over 200 consumer product electrocutions annually.
With over 20 years of history, statistically based analysis of GFCIs was
built on a solid foundation of data. AFCIs are new and have only been
installed in new construction on bedroom circuits for a few years. As with
all products, given time, they too will be able to provide a solid
statistical base of measure.

In other words, Bud, come back in 20 years and they'll tell you if it was
all worth it.

--

Bobby G.

"bud--" wrote in message
b.com...
On 2/27/2014 2:55 PM, Robert Green wrote:
"bud--" wrote in message

AFCI detection can be done without ground fault detection - then the
neutral would probably not have to connect through the AFCI. The ground
fault feature (usually at 30 mA) adds to the fault problems the AFCI
will detect.

I am not sure I follow. Is this saying that I could connect the AFCI
breakers without the pigtails and still have arc but not ground fault
protection? Surely this would give the AHJ conniptions.

It is easier to make an AFCI that does not have ground fault protection;
I don't see why the neutral would have to go through then. But the UL
standard requires ground fault protection, which means the neutral has
to go through the AFCI (else it would trip on any load).

I just saw this message - the dog unsubbed me from the group which did a lot
of nasty things. It explains the pigtail. Thanks.

stuff snipped

UL tests to a standard. I doubt the standard for receptacles has any
tests for a thermal trip. The standard could be revised, or a different
standard written, but I doubt that has happened.

With the evidence for AFCI being so sketchy, I am sure there's even less
evidence that TPO's prevent fires.

That feature may provide additional protection. It should be a lot
faster than an AFCI trip on ground fault through carbonized plastic.

The price is low enough that I will probably pick up a few to test,
although
the testing is going to be destructive. If it does catch a deliberately
"half plugged" line cord then I suppose I'll use them in the high
current
outlets in the kitchen and where I have space heaters operating. The
melted
outlets I've experienced probably would not have started fires (fingers
crosses) but they did make an awful smell and scared my wife quite a
bit.

Hey - great idea for a new device - a SFCI
(stink-fault-circuit-interrupter).

Don't laugh. A meltdown of an early model Lights Of America (made in China)
CFL burned out with a horrific smell that freaked my wife out for days.
Spousal Foul odor Circuit Interrupter. No fire and no realistic probability
of one, but the stink was sure a black mark for CFLs in her book.

--
Bobby G.

On 3/2/2014 8:55 AM, Robert Green wrote:

Clearly figuring out which device is actually more spacious is something
I'll leave to someone with the actual engineering specs of both devices and
LOTS of time on their hands. I was just surprised that they were so equal
in my rough measurements.

The size of the AFCI receptacle can make it harder to install if there
are a lot of wires in the box. The AFCI is larger than a simple
receptacle. (Same is true for a GFCI receptacle.)

For determining how many wires can connect to a box, a receptacle or
switch volume is factored in. I am surprised the larger volume of a
GFCI/AFCI is not accounted for.


The images at the top all have pigtails. Mine had a pigtail. I assume it's
looking for some difference in something but I was unable to find out why
they required the pigtail the last time I looked. I should have researched
it further but that was a dealbreaker and once I discovered the outlets that
were much cheaper I didn't care much *why* the pigtails were there.

AFCIs require the neutral be wired though the device for the same reason
GFCIs do. For the ground fault feature the AFCI runs the hot and neutral
through a current transformer and looks at the difference in the current
between them. If it is 30 mA or more the AFCI trips.


Wiring through the first receptacle actually protects the upstream
wiring from a series arc (loose connection) since the arc current will
flow through the AFCI (to the load) and it will trip.

I assume the conduit (or is that word misapplied - is "metal-walled" more
inclusive of other types of wiring?)

Also may include metal sheathed cable - MC and AC.

is required to protect against other
types of arcs that can occur?

It adds safety for parallel arcs (L-N, L-G). With romex you can get a
parallel arc from a nail or screw driven through the cable. A lot harder
to do with metal walled, and the metal provides some fire protection if
you manage to do it. There is much higher current available for parallel
arcs.

"philo " wrote in message
...
On 02/27/2014 02:41 PM, Robert Green wrote:


Today the big multipage Harbor Freight catalog arrived and I looked
through
it and decided I didn't really need *anything* (which is quite
something -
there's usually always some doodad I can't resist). The saddest part
about
not needing anything is that I've already purchased $100's of dubious
stuff
that I may never use but somehow feel that I might. Wait - step
drills! -
don't have any and someday I may need to enlarge a pre-existing hole.
Someday. Let's see how much money I actually spend just going to HF for
a
set of drills.




I have quite a few step drills, they come in handy for light jobs such
as sheet metal. If you get one, don't use them for any heavy duty
drilling.

I am probably going to pass. I am trying not to acquire any more junk
unless the need is urgent.

Speaking about *not* getting anything...my wife tells me she managed to
get in and out of Macy's without buying anything.

THat must be a first.

I was surprised at all the stuff my wife bought at HF. Garden stuff,
dollies, etc.

--
Bobby G.

"bud--" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 3/2/2014 8:55 AM, Robert Green wrote:

Clearly figuring out which device is actually more spacious is something
I'll leave to someone with the actual engineering specs of both devices
and
LOTS of time on their hands. I was just surprised that they were so
equal
in my rough measurements.

The size of the AFCI receptacle can make it harder to install if there
are a lot of wires in the box. The AFCI is larger than a simple
receptacle. (Same is true for a GFCI receptacle.)

Not only is it larger, one end is 1/4" thicker than the other, so you have
some space to tuck wires but not an awful lot. I had no troubles with
new(ish) 12/2 Romex using them as pass throughs but this is new work and I
always try to use roomy metal boxes for RTE - room to expand. I've never
had to take stuff OUT of boxes. The only time I gained any space in a
wiring box was replacing the failing 40 year old light switches with newer
ones that were remarkably small in comparison. But soon afterward I was
cramming large X-10 devices into smallish boxes. Fortunately they used
pigtails which meant wire nuts but a lot of flexibility in wire cramming.
Unfortunately wire nutting stranded and solid wire is an artform and skill
at it evolves slowly. )-:

For the really critical stuff I once chiseled out the whole thing but that
turned out to be a project that I immensely underestimated, time-wise and
since then I tend to choose any other method. Even installing a new box in
a plaster and lathe wall is easier than working around an old box. The damn
Reader's Digest book made it look a lot simpler than it turned out to be. I
can still see the faint outlines of the canal I dug to string new wire after
the old one broke right at the entrance to the switchbox. The front porch
light switch is where I learned to be very gentle with old wiring and the
toilet shutoff valve was where I learned to be very gentle with old
plumbing.

For determining how many wires can connect to a box, a receptacle or
switch volume is factored in. I am surprised the larger volume of a
GFCI/AFCI is not accounted for.

Really? I assume you're talking NEC.

I know of several problem outlet boxes in My Very Old House that those units
would not fit into because X-10 devices of similar dimensions did not fit.
Twisting and fussing with those old, cloth covered wires is very dicey
business if you hate chiseling plaster as much as I do.

The images at the top all have pigtails. Mine had a pigtail. I assume
it's
looking for some difference in something but I was unable to find out
why
they required the pigtail the last time I looked. I should have
researched
it further but that was a dealbreaker and once I discovered the outlets
that
were much cheaper I didn't care much *why* the pigtails were there.

AFCIs require the neutral be wired though the device for the same reason
GFCIs do. For the ground fault feature the AFCI runs the hot and neutral
through a current transformer and looks at the difference in the current
between them. If it is 30 mA or more the AFCI trips.

"Some difference in something" I was right! (-: So the effect is that the
neutral of the load isn't mixed into the pool of shared neutrals directly -
it has to pass through the breaker so the GFCI component can determine if
the neutral from the load is or is not at ground potential. I assume that
is what the white pigtail is always at because it's connected to the neutral
buss bar which is bonded to ground at the panel.

The latest thing I read about AFCI operation is that they captured the
signatures of over 100 different arc sources and try to pattern match any
detected arc to their internal arc sig library. That's how they exclude the
arcs produced by motors, switch contacts, vacuum cleaners and other "good
arc" creators.

Rather than my inept paraphrasing, I'll just post the URL and the abstract.

A Method for Parallel Arc Fault Detection and Identification

http://www.atlantis-press.com/php/do...er.php?id=4448

Abstract-Every year, fires bring great loss and damage, and
arc faults is one of main causes. But it is identified that the
conventional circuit breakers fail to interrupt the circuit when
an arc fault occurs. It is necessary to find new protecting
techniques to improve the safety of circuits and reduce the
probability of fires. This paper shows a simple method of
detecting parallel arc faults. In this thesis, two significant
characters of parallel arcs, the "shoulders" and the high
amplitude, are obtained by experiments and then a circuit for
discriminating the parallel arcs depending on them is designed.
Other normal working household appliances, such as
computers, air-conditions, are also have the similar characters,
not easily distinguished from arc faults. The waveforms of
those appliances are studied and compared with arcs. Results
show that they still have different features in "shoulders" or
amplitudes. At last, the correctness and reliability of this
method are tested by an AFCI-tester.

Some interesting diagrams . . .

stuff snipped

I assume the conduit (or is that word misapplied - is "metal-walled"
more
inclusive of other types of wiring?)

Also may include metal sheathed cable - MC and AC.

Was it ever called armored cable or BX? That's what I seem to remember from
NYC wiring codes. That and my poor Dad regularly cutting himself on that
coiled sheath.

is required to protect against other
types of arcs that can occur?

It adds safety for parallel arcs (L-N, L-G). With romex you can get a
parallel arc from a nail or screw driven through the cable. A lot harder
to do with metal walled, and the metal provides some fire protection if
you manage to do it. There is much higher current available for parallel
arcs.

Is that because L and N are directly connected with no intervening load?

--
Bobby G.

On 3/2/2014 4:32 PM, Robert Green wrote:
"bud--" wrote in message

Also may include metal sheathed cable - MC and AC.

Was it ever called armored cable or BX? That's what I seem to remember from
NYC wiring codes. That and my poor Dad regularly cutting himself on that
coiled sheath.

AC is "armored cable" and a brand name is BX (allegedly made by the
Bronx Cable company in Bronx NY). I've usually heard it called BX.

Romex was developed by the Rome Wire Company in Rome NY. It is another
brand name that has become a common name for the product (which is NM).

is required to protect against other
types of arcs that can occur?

It adds safety for parallel arcs (L-N, L-G). With romex you can get a
parallel arc from a nail or screw driven through the cable. A lot harder
to do with metal walled, and the metal provides some fire protection if
you manage to do it. There is much higher current available for parallel
arcs.

Is that because L and N are directly connected with no intervening load?

Yup.

"bud--" wrote in message news:530ea8ce$0$55711$c3e8da3

stuff snipped

[ http://www.bsafeelectrix.com/faq.htm ]

If they work like the web page says they should increase the protection.
(I don't think a very high percentage of failures are glowing
connections at a receptacle.)

As you probably read, if they trip they can't be reset.

Worse than that, it appears you can't even buy them. They list Smarthome as
a distributor but they don't seem to sell them. I'll call around in the AM.

I wanted to get a few for testing for a Hometoys article to see whether the
thermal outlet or the AFCI outlet upstream (if either) would trip if I
plugged in a 1500W space heater into one of a (preburned g) outlet strip's
remaining good outlets part way. That's what's cause two outlet meltdowns
so far - accidental partial insertions - so I know there's a need for the
protection.

The question is whether it will actually do what it says. If it exists.
That 2010 date on the website gives me a queasy feeling . . .

--
Bobby G.