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
  • In response to the above I am preparing a video of the full tests, with metal electrodes. Everyone will probably find it interesting.

  • Like this?

    Four AFDDs Compared - Arc Fault Detection Devices - Bing video

    Z.

  • Part 2 of that series of tests was, well..... thought provoking ...    :-)

  • Saw this John Ward afdd test video when it first came out. The Eaton afdd seemed to be the better device out of the four shown but when tested with the single wire real life arcing test it utterly failed.

    Again lack of any real world data and spurious claims of preventing fires goes to show that these devices are dubious.

  • I think the manufacturers' argument is that any initial brief arcing chars the insulation, causing a carbon build-up - which eventually leads to longer arcs which are the real fire risk. So the JW etc tests are not realistic. (I have no strong opinion either way, just pointing out that there's another side to the argument.)

Reply
  • I think the manufacturers' argument is that any initial brief arcing chars the insulation, causing a carbon build-up - which eventually leads to longer arcs which are the real fire risk. So the JW etc tests are not realistic. (I have no strong opinion either way, just pointing out that there's another side to the argument.)

Children
No Data