Poll: Have you seen happenings which an AFDD might have prevented?

[JohnW2]

Poll stimulated by recent discussion.

Configuration options of poll are limited. You can tick up to three boxes, but please don't tick 'No' if you tick any of the others, since that would totally confuse things

Kind Regards, John

 

[chivers67]

NO!

 

[JohnW2]

NO!

That doesn't surprise me, and you seem to be in pretty good (albeit not yet very extensive) company!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

@Adam_151 ... could you perhaps elucidate about your 'other' (other than personal injury or fire) response?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Any more takers/voters? (this poll is at risk of scrolling off 'Page 1' fairly soon

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

At least we now have a dozen votes, but it would be nice to have at least a few more.

'MCQ' polls of this type are of fairly limited usefulness on their own, so it would be interesting/helpful if those who vote anything but "No" could post here a brief decryption of the event(s) underlying their vote and the reason(s) they believe that the consequences may have been prevented by an AFDD. Thanks.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SUNRAY]

I have an example of (false) tripping of AFDD which doesn't fit in the poll.
In large control panels where multiple large loads may be switched in quick succession, literally a sequence of events separated only by the operating or release times of a series of contactors.

Any form of electric welding could have the same problem.

 

[JohnW2]

I have an example of (false) tripping of AFDD which doesn't fit in the poll. ... In large control panels where multiple large loads may be switched in quick succession, literally a sequence of events separated only by the operating or release times of a series of contactors. Any form of electric welding could have the same problem.

Yes, I tried to think of a way of incorporating 'downside' anecdotes about AFDDs in the poll, but couldn't think of a sensible way of doing it.

Plenty of 'arcs' in arc welding, but presumably not on the 'mains' side of the kit.

However, unless you have something else to report (in the other direction) does that not qualify you for a "No" vote?

Kind Regards, John

 

[bernardgreen]

Electric motors using commutator and brushes create a continuous string of arcs that could trip an AFDD.

 

[securespark]

Yes, as a maintenance spark, I saw shed-loads of electrical accessories and consumer units where loose connections had caused burning.

In my cases, these faults did not lead to loss of property or life, but some of them had the potential to if left longer.

Fusebox AFDD/ RCBO combos are around a ton apiece.

I reckon (like RCBOs and RCDs before them) these bits of kit will plummet in price once they catch on (excuse the pun) and I reckon they will eventually become mandatory on every circuit.

 

[SUNRAY]

Yes, I tried to think of a way of incorporating 'downside' anecdotes about AFDDs in the poll, but couldn't think of a sensible way of doing it.

Plenty of 'arcs' in arc welding, but presumably not on the 'mains' side of the kit.

However, unless you have something else to report (in the other direction) does that not qualify you for a "No" vote?

Kind Regards, John

I very nearly did vote no but then I decided that adding the AFDD in that situation in itself craeted a faulty (unreliable) and potentially hazardous system, albeit no worse than a general power cut.

It seemed counter intuitive to vote 'no', implying nothing wrong, when the addition of the device actually created a potential hazard.

On the other hand I've found terminal/wire/switch contacts overheating problems where I imagine an AFDD could have potentially pointed to the fault sooner. On that basis I'd be voting option 4 and contradicting my 'No' vote.

I elected to not vote to save the confusion.

 

[JohnW2]

Electric motors using commutator and brushes create a continuous string of arcs that could trip an AFDD.

Yes, I would have expected that - but I haven't a clue as to how common it is for such arcs to trip an AFDD. Anyway, per your 'No' vote, that certainly does not constitute an example of an AFDD 'preventing' anything!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, as a maintenance spark, I saw shed-loads of electrical accessories and consumer units where loose connections had caused burning. In my cases, these faults did not lead to loss of property or life, but some of them had the potential to if left longer.

Sure, I imagine that many/most of us have seen examples of that.

However, 'loose connections' resulting in overheating, and potential burning, do not usually result in arcs. If I understand correctly, to create a arc one needs periods when the connections become (or try to become) 'totally disconnected' - and I would have thought that was pretty (probably very) rare.

I reckon (like RCBOs and RCDs before them) these bits of kit will plummet in price once they catch on (excuse the pun) and I reckon they will eventually become mandatory on every circuit.

That is also my suspicion, perhaps really better described as a 'fear' - since I have yet to see anything approaching enough evidence to convince me that this 'solution' relates to a 'problem' sufficient to justify deployment of the solution.

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

Why a fear?

 

[JohnW2]

I very nearly did vote no but then I decided that adding the AFDD in that situation in itself craeted a faulty (unreliable) and potentially hazardous system, albeit no worse than a general power cut. It seemed counter intuitive to vote 'no', implying nothing wrong, when the addition of the device actually created a potential hazard.

It's obviously for you to decide whether you can/could vote, but I thought that the question was sufficiently clearly worded that a "no" vote from you would be appropriate ...

.... if you have never "seen/heard of consequences of electrical faults which might have been prevented by an AFDD" then that would seem to me to clearly justify a "No" answer - even if you have seen situations indicating a potential downside of AFDDs?

On the other hand I've found terminal/wire/switch contacts overheating problems ...

As I've just written to secure, we've all seen situations in which poor/loose connections etc. have resulted in overheating, hence potential fire risk, but ....

.... where I imagine an AFDD could have potentially pointed to the fault sooner. On that basis I'd be voting option 4 and contradicting my 'No' vote.
I elected to not vote to save the confusion.

... as I also wrote to secure, I personally would not "imagine" that but, although I suppose it would be strictly true to say that an AFDD "could have the potential" to detect such a situation, I personally would suspect ('imagine'?!) that it's very rare for the situations of loose/poor connections (resulting in overheating) be associated with any arcing.

A big problem with my desire to see "!evidence" is that it is probably essentially impossible to determine whether any particular incident of overheating, thermal damage or overt fires was associated with any arcing and, if so, whether the incident would have been avoided (or, at least, mitigated) had there been an AFDD in 0lace which detected any arcing that might have happened.

Kind Regards, John