don’t really care. Won’t be fitting any.
I simply don’t believe that there is any justification for them, a bit like SPDs
MCB/RCD on consumer unit tripping
- Thread starter Jimip
- Start date
Help Support Talk Electrician Forum:
I simply don’t believe that there is any justification for them, a bit like SPDs
Sharpend
"It Just Is"
Wouldn’t it be more prudent to increase the risk rather than try to eliminate it, this way less people would be inclined to interfere with it? Of course you can’t legislate for idiots but we shouldn’t be bowing to the minority, that’s the most undemocratic thing I’ve heard.
??
??
I am not keen on afdd’s but spd’s I have been fitting for years, they are proven technology and they work, so they should be fitted imho.
phil d
Well-known member
I remember Tony telling me he'd spoken to quite a few yanks on forums and they didn't like AFDD's either.
I think it's a sad indictment of the way our industry is going when too many people involved in making up our regs seem to have a vested interest in the equipment they are recommending, by that I mean manufacturers of the equipment.
I remember a few years back at one of the elecs events chatting with someone from one of the test equipment manufacturers, they were trying to sell me one of their latest MFT's, which was designed to comply with the latest regs, the big selling point was that it had, alongside the reading a red and a green light, if the reading was within the limits the green lit, if not the red lit, I also saw one from another maker that had a tick and a cross to indicate pass or fail.
After comparing these meters with my own I discovered that apart from these fancy and in my opinion unneccessary 'gadgets' there was no difference to my own, except of course that purchasing one in order to 'comply' with the latest regs would relieve me of a good chunk of hard earned cash.
Maybe it's my age, or maybe it's just me, but I've grown very suspicious of a lot of modern stuff, it's a bit like tools, these days there's a seperate tool for everything, the thing is when you're just starting out you can't afford them all so you learn to do several things with one tool, by the time you're older and in a position to afford all these fancy tools you start to ask yourself do you really need them.
I think it's a sad indictment of the way our industry is going when too many people involved in making up our regs seem to have a vested interest in the equipment they are recommending, by that I mean manufacturers of the equipment.
I remember a few years back at one of the elecs events chatting with someone from one of the test equipment manufacturers, they were trying to sell me one of their latest MFT's, which was designed to comply with the latest regs, the big selling point was that it had, alongside the reading a red and a green light, if the reading was within the limits the green lit, if not the red lit, I also saw one from another maker that had a tick and a cross to indicate pass or fail.
After comparing these meters with my own I discovered that apart from these fancy and in my opinion unneccessary 'gadgets' there was no difference to my own, except of course that purchasing one in order to 'comply' with the latest regs would relieve me of a good chunk of hard earned cash.
Maybe it's my age, or maybe it's just me, but I've grown very suspicious of a lot of modern stuff, it's a bit like tools, these days there's a seperate tool for everything, the thing is when you're just starting out you can't afford them all so you learn to do several things with one tool, by the time you're older and in a position to afford all these fancy tools you start to ask yourself do you really need them.
To be honest when you have people saying that it’s possible that an AFDD could have prevented Grenfell.
The LFB pushing for them, with LFB able to get Government to legislate for AFDD’s if they want, compounded by the threat of a Coroner, then on top of that the manufacturer lobby saying that AFDD’s are a brilliant product.
I guess the remainder of JPEL 64 were backed into a corner.
The LFB pushing for them, with LFB able to get Government to legislate for AFDD’s if they want, compounded by the threat of a Coroner, then on top of that the manufacturer lobby saying that AFDD’s are a brilliant product.
I guess the remainder of JPEL 64 were backed into a corner.
all with brown envelopes in their pockets and the likes of white good manufacturers are allowed to sell carp in the UK AND the DCLG are allowed to continue to produce wooly, weak open to interpret building regulations .......
Talk about having sloping shoulders .....
Would an AFDD have prevented a fridge ctching fire? It's not often I have seen a burnt out appliance - 1 tumble drier in 20 yars to be precise. I seem to remember, deep in the regs, a comment about RCDs (300mA) being used in animal barns as a form of fire protection. So that would suggest RCDs offer fire protection anyway, rendering AFDDs redundant??
Bring back re-wirable fuses
msl1: 
boltonsparky
Senior Member
I remember reading this somewhere only a few days ago, can't remember where though.
Edit: here it is https://electrical.theiet.org/wiring-matters/years/2019/77-september-2019/which-rcd-type/
Last edited by a moderator:
I can guarantee that there were no brown envelopes.
I agree totally that appliance manufacturers need their collars felt over the quality and safety of their products.
Law, apparently cannot be prescriptive these days so it will always be open to interpretation.
One of the major issues is the reduction in funding for Trading Standards their overall budget has been cut by half in recent times, also the designated trading standards system where a single trading standards body is responsible for the actions of that body nationwide.
The argument is that the AFDD would have detected any arcing and disconnected from the supply thus removing the source of energy.Would an AFDD have prevented a fridge ctching fire? It's not often I have seen a burnt out appliance - 1 tumble drier in 20 yars to be precise. I seem to remember, deep in the regs, a comment about RCDs (300mA) being used in animal barns as a form of fire protection. So that would suggest RCDs offer fire protection anyway, rendering AFDDs redundant??
Bring back re-wirable fuses
A 300mA RCD is indicated for fire prevention, this is basically an order of magnitude of current less than that detected by the RCD.
The point given is that any current less than that in the AFDD standard is claimed not to have sufficient energy to cause a fire...
Fly Moose
Active member
Some thing silly.
Last time I seen arcing was on Carry on Screaming. I am not convinced its what they make out.
Last time I seen arcing was on Carry on Screaming. I am not convinced its what they make out.
so even more reason for manufacturers to produce sub standard kits ...
so low current devices like fridges probably won’t activate a AFDD
so whats the actual specification of how they operate? i.e a fuse / MCB will operate at x seconds at x current, an RCD is to operate in x ms at x current... AFDD 'it may or may not trip if it detects an arc of a very specific type, whilst exactly 7.12a is flowing through a radial, not a ring, and it must be on the 2nd tuesday of the month'
An AFDD is designed to trip at the last possible moment to minimise nuisance trips.
It constantly analyses the current and voltage waveforms to identify arcing and if this is identified it will trip.
The way this is done involves high speed signal processing, FFT's and look up tables.
The arc has to be sustained and repeated.
The exact way each device operates is down to the OEM, they just need to perform in accordance with the standard.
In the event of a L>E arc, it is likely that the RCD would trip first.
In the event of a L>N arc the AFDD should detect this before the MCB.
In the event of a L>L arc or a N>N arc the it is only the AFDD that will detect this.
L>L or N>N are series arcs in the same conductor caused by damage.
This is typically in flexes such as abused extension leads, etc.
I don’t have the product standard printed out here to quote from in hospital.
You need a copy of BS EN 62606, £350 from BSI for the perfrmance requirements.
It constantly analyses the current and voltage waveforms to identify arcing and if this is identified it will trip.
The way this is done involves high speed signal processing, FFT's and look up tables.
The arc has to be sustained and repeated.
The exact way each device operates is down to the OEM, they just need to perform in accordance with the standard.
In the event of a L>E arc, it is likely that the RCD would trip first.
In the event of a L>N arc the AFDD should detect this before the MCB.
In the event of a L>L arc or a N>N arc the it is only the AFDD that will detect this.
L>L or N>N are series arcs in the same conductor caused by damage.
This is typically in flexes such as abused extension leads, etc.
I don’t have the product standard printed out here to quote from in hospital.
You need a copy of BS EN 62606, £350 from BSI for the perfrmance requirements.
Sharpend
"It Just Is"
Great info as always, Sidey, stay strong my friend.
