This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

AFDDs - when do they work?

I'm struggling to see the benefots of fitting AFDD's.

I've searched the web, but cannot find any compelling evidence that they actually help in safety.

 The Proffesional Journals all say they are a good thing, but with little content to show the data used to show they make a difference.

As we know, many fires are not caused by arcs, the build up of fluff in a tumble dryer is a typical example.

When I did my Social Housing work, I found many burnt out shower switches, along with washing machine sockets and occasional cooker switches that were totally burnt around the terminals, yet, in many cases would still work until the switch finally fell apart. Clearly some of these switches had been arcing, then had fused the cable to the terminal, others showed black terminals with only a small contact area, thus heating the terminals and causing the 'fishy' smell, which was quite typical.

Is there any evidence that AFDD's would stop these failures?

What about internal appliance faults?

Wasnt Grenfell started in a fridge? If so, would AFDD detect that fault?

And, what are appliance manufacturers doing to make their goods safer? From what I see, there are still thin tin plate terminals on cookers,and poor, loose spade terminals inside firdges and other appliances.They are made to be as cheap as possible, and it shows when you tighten up a terminal, and it bends the back plate as it is so thin.   

Parents
  • Strangely we do have evidence from the USA which has mandated AFDDs for 13 years. It may be because of poor fire investigation but there is no statistically significant difference between fire rates 13 years ago and now, although one would expect the to be. Another point is that AFDDs in the USA are very significantly cheaper than here, and also Germany which has had them for several years has no statistics. This is all very curious, as allegedly they are useful to prevent fires. If they are useful for appliances then they should obviously be incorporated in those! I think Andy is on the right lines here. (Personal opinion BTW, just to be clear).

    I will repeat my point, the product standard test is not real and is useless, unlike the RCD test which has stood the test of time and is much more like real situations.

  • Strangely we do have evidence from the USA which has mandated AFDDs for 13 years. It may be because of poor fire investigation but there is no statistically significant difference between fire rates 13 years ago and now, although one would expect the to be.

    Only if a significant number of electrical installations (compared with the initial number of electrical installations > 13 years ago) had been either newly installed, or refurbished to the relevant codes in force at the time.

    Another point is that AFDDs in the USA are very significantly cheaper than here, and also Germany which has had them for several years has no statistics. This is all very curious, as allegedly they are useful to prevent fires.

    Well, I can see why one would make that point.

    But to counter it, I must ask are there any statistics on exactly how many lives have been actually saved with RCDs? Probably not, and I don't think anyone would even bother commissioning a research study, because we really don't need that to make the decision whether to use them ... at least  in 2022; compare, however, with 'back in the day' when I definitely heard discussions along the lines 'We've had ADS for years and we know it works, what's the statistics behind spending the extra money, especially as we've heard RCDs might be unreliable'.

    I will repeat my point, the product standard test is not real and is useless,

    David, where is the evidence for that statement? Ought that not to be compiled and papers submitted?

Reply
  • Strangely we do have evidence from the USA which has mandated AFDDs for 13 years. It may be because of poor fire investigation but there is no statistically significant difference between fire rates 13 years ago and now, although one would expect the to be.

    Only if a significant number of electrical installations (compared with the initial number of electrical installations > 13 years ago) had been either newly installed, or refurbished to the relevant codes in force at the time.

    Another point is that AFDDs in the USA are very significantly cheaper than here, and also Germany which has had them for several years has no statistics. This is all very curious, as allegedly they are useful to prevent fires.

    Well, I can see why one would make that point.

    But to counter it, I must ask are there any statistics on exactly how many lives have been actually saved with RCDs? Probably not, and I don't think anyone would even bother commissioning a research study, because we really don't need that to make the decision whether to use them ... at least  in 2022; compare, however, with 'back in the day' when I definitely heard discussions along the lines 'We've had ADS for years and we know it works, what's the statistics behind spending the extra money, especially as we've heard RCDs might be unreliable'.

    I will repeat my point, the product standard test is not real and is useless,

    David, where is the evidence for that statement? Ought that not to be compiled and papers submitted?

Children
No Data