AFCI Everthing!

[romex jockey]

btw,
for those of you that view me as some sort of radical dissident, i would recommend googling Mr Bob Huddleston re: AFCI

when an nfpa engineer opines in the fashion he did, it's my opinion the trade , as well as cmp-2 , should lend an ear

~R~

 

[jap]

My advice as an EC here is to purposely allow the state to write up a violation to show they (and not I, the EC) advocates these devices

Yes , i know i'll probably be saving those tickets for a long long time......

~R~

All those violation tickets would be embarassing to me and hard to keep track of, especially when I know I'm going to go right back in and install what is required anyway to be able to pass inspection.

I'd simplify things and just keep a copy of the code book and point out where I was required to install them, if I had to defend myself.

It's already neatly bound and doesnt tend to fly off the dash of my truck.

 

[John120/240]

The problem with AFCI's is simple

they don't do what they claim to do

so let me ask the EC's here this.....

We install, on the average, $1000 worth of specialized breakers in a new home.

For some of us, this has been code since the '99 cycle

That's a lotta $$$ in false protection out there

Sooner or later, and it will probably be later the way the nfpa is perpetuating this fraud, the truth will bubble to the surface as it always does

many of us expect litigation to follow, possibly other watchdogs like the CPSC , etc being involved

Where does the onus of guilt lie then? My advice as an EC here is to purposely allow the state to write up a violation to show they (and not I, the EC) advocates these devices

Yes , i know i'll probably be saving those tickets for a long long time......

~R~

There are proper procedures for changing the NEC code. If you have a valid argument , collect evidence supporting your position, write a proposal with your recommended corrections and submit it to the NEC.

 

[romex jockey]

Yes we know John, and that's all been done

In fact, i'd wager 210.12B has assumed the most valid and intricate rop's for any code in the entire nfpa library's history (any of you code sluths feel free to take issue here)

sadly. all round-filed with little to no ado

despite that, they continue to insist on a democratically processed living document, i'd laugh if that was not such a sad state of affairs, being so juxtaposed to the US consititution's Orwellianism

sure, it works when we want something relatively inconsequential , 2 screws holding a receptacle, or some legalese corrected into literacy

but we're talking an electrical fundamental here, seems there's a huge void for it's consideration

For instance, even if afci's did detect a series arc, it's far too late given the incendiary damage a glowing connection will do before it degrades to an arcing situation

To hammer that point home, we (field sparkies) seem to post a cornucopia of damage done via glowing vs arcing, you'd think we'd make the connection (pun intented)

~R~

 

[jap]

With all of this being said,

(1) Do you ever get a final inspection passed without AFCI's installed where they need to be? I dont.
(2) Do you ever really see them doing away with requrements for AFCI's now that they're in place ? I dont.
(3) Do you think this would be such a big issue if AFCI's worked like they were supposed to? I dont.

I dont think the idea of Arc Fault protection is such a bad Idea, they just havent perfected it yet.
I dont think we should fault them for coming up with the AFCI, I just think we should demand better performance out of the protection devices we are required to install.

 

[peter d]

Yes we know John, and that's all been done

In fact, i'd wager 210.12B has assumed the most valid and intricate rop's for any code in the entire nfpa library's history (any of you code sluths feel free to take issue here)

sadly. all round-filed with little to no ado

despite that, they continue to insist on a democratically processed living document, i'd laugh if that was not such a sad state of affairs, being so juxtaposed to the US consititution's Orwellianism

sure, it works when we want something relatively inconsequential , 2 screws holding a receptacle, or some legalese corrected into literacy

but we're talking an electrical fundamental here, seems there's a huge void for it's consideration

For instance, even if afci's did detect a series arc, it's far too late given the incendiary damage a glowing connection will do before it degrades to an arcing situation

To hammer that point home, we (field sparkies) seem to post a cornucopia of damage done via glowing vs arcing, you'd think we'd make the connection (pun intented)

~R~

:roll::roll:

 

[romex jockey]

I dont think the idea of Arc Fault protection is such a bad Idea, they just havent perfected it yet.
I dont think we should fault them for coming up with the AFCI, I just think we should demand better performance out of the protection devices we are required to install.

I think the factions that perpetuated the inital 'contest' that created the afci operated in a vacuum , and know we exist in it as well jap

For instance, the OP here is about afci'ing everything, which most American sparkies consider ridiculous

Nobody here seems to realize that the better part of the electrical world isn't American, that there are other systems that in fact DO have whole dwelling protective devices set up in staged sensitivities

Lord help we actually think outta the box they've managed to socially engineer us into eh?

~R~

 

[iwire]

I think the factions that perpetuated the inital 'contest' that created the afci operated in a vacuum , and know we exist in it as well jap

For instance, the OP here is about afci'ing everything, which most American sparkies consider ridiculous

Nobody here seems to realize that the better part of the electrical world isn't American, that there are other systems that in fact DO have whole dwelling protective devices set up in staged sensitivities

Lord help we actually think outta the box they've managed to socially engineer us into eh?

~R~

Ah, the 'nobody knows what I know' argument.

All the above paragraph does is reinforce my belief your stance is one of protest and not 'professional integrity' or even good judgment.

 

[romex jockey]

Is this not an educational forum created by the trades most prominent educator Iwire?

i think we can all agree our trade is not some sort of theologically based belief system

The difference between that and an informed decision is exactly what this place is for, is it not?

so here is the challenge ....and you DO have this choice....

I invite you (et all) to entertain the scientific approach , and not simply feign it as the powers that be have obviously led you to do

~R~

 

[kwired]

fees are @ their discression Kwired, many times i'm simply allowed to rectify the situation without their return via personal recognizance....~R~

My inspectors may do that with me also, but they certainly don't have to, and there are set fees they can not change once they start the official correction notice procedure.

Yes we know John, and that's all been done

In fact, i'd wager 210.12B has assumed the most valid and intricate rop's for any code in the entire nfpa library's history (any of you code sluths feel free to take issue here)

sadly. all round-filed with little to no ado

despite that, they continue to insist on a democratically processed living document, i'd laugh if that was not such a sad state of affairs, being so juxtaposed to the US consititution's Orwellianism

sure, it works when we want something relatively inconsequential , 2 screws holding a receptacle, or some legalese corrected into literacy

but we're talking an electrical fundamental here, seems there's a huge void for it's consideration

For instance, even if afci's did detect a series arc, it's far too late given the incendiary damage a glowing connection will do before it degrades to an arcing situation

To hammer that point home, we (field sparkies) seem to post a cornucopia of damage done via glowing vs arcing, you'd think we'd make the connection (pun intented)

~R~

AFCI manufacturers have spent a lot of $$ to get the code where it is. That doesn't mean they are right, just means they have deep enough pockets to convince the CMP's that they have something worthwhile there. You are free to spend just as much or more trying to convince them otherwise. Simply telling them these devices are bogus is not enough, you need convincing evidence.

I dont think the idea of Arc Fault protection is such a bad Idea, they just havent perfected it yet.
I dont think we should fault them for coming up with the AFCI, I just think we should demand better performance out of the protection devices we are required to install.

Pretty much my thoughts, not a bad idea, but is not perfected yet either. Manufacturers know they don't have a perfect product, but they put a lot into R&D already and are pushing hard to get it in code so they can recover some of it.

Ah, the 'nobody knows what I know' argument.

All the above paragraph does is reinforce my belief your stance is one of protest and not 'professional integrity' or even good judgment.

I agree.

Is this not an educational forum created by the trades most prominent educator Iwire?

i think we can all agree our trade is not some sort of theologically based belief system

The difference between that and an informed decision is exactly what this place is for, is it not?

so here is the challenge ....and you DO have this choice....

I invite you (et all) to entertain the scientific approach , and not simply feign it as the powers that be have obviously led you to do

~R~

There are many here that see things your way when it comes to AFCI. There is also the reality of the fact they are in the code, we must get our installations approved so both us and the customer can move on. Repealing the AFCI associated codes is a different issue. Simply refusing to install them is just asking for issues with inspectors, customers, etc. Inspectors don't always agree with the AFCI requirements either, but their job is still to enforce the code as presented to them. They too are free to participate in any action to attempt to get AFCI written out of the code, as is the homeowner.

 

[jap]

I think the factions that perpetuated the inital 'contest' that created the afci operated in a vacuum , and know we exist in it as well jap

For instance, the OP here is about afci'ing everything, which most American sparkies consider ridiculous

Nobody here seems to realize that the better part of the electrical world isn't American, that there are other systems that in fact DO have whole dwelling protective devices set up in staged sensitivities

Lord help we actually think outta the box they've managed to socially engineer us into eh?

~R~

They may produce an Arc Fault protection device that you could put on a main breaker to protect the whole house in other areas,
I dont know and dont care.

The fact that we install them on the individual branch circuits, so that if a vacuum cleaner happens to accidently trip it, it doesnt shut down the entire house, makes me that much more proud to be an American.

JAP>

 

[kamty]

I always use pig-tails on all recepticals, never use the stab-in-back, and tape around all devices. This maximizes the prevention of accidental contact with ground.

 

[romex jockey]

AFCI manufacturers have spent a lot of $$ to get the code where it is. That doesn't mean they are right, just means they have deep enough pockets to convince the CMP's that they have something worthwhile there. You are free to spend just as much or more trying to convince them otherwise. Simply telling them these devices are bogus is not enough, you need convincing evidence.

With respect to the forum rules, as well as the IEEE's similar copywrite one, i maintain that this paper should clear up any doubts about significant evidence


off as of a minute ago>>>


(Presented at the 19th Annual IEEE IAS Electrical Safety Workshop, Daytona Beach, Jan/Feb 2012)
This material is posted here with permission of the IEEE. Internal or personal use of this material is
permitted. However, permission to reprint/republish this material for advertising or promotional purposes or
for creating new collective works for resale or redistribution must be obtained from the IEEE by writing to
pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
By choosing to view this document, you agree to all provisions of the copyright laws protecting it.


Dear sirs or Madam,

I would like your permission to post a link to Dr Joseph C Engel, PhD's Feb 2012 paper titled

"COMBINATION AFCIs: WHAT THEY WILL AND WILL NOT DO" @ Mike Holts forum please

http://forums.mikeholt.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1468305

respectfully
~Romex Jockey


~R~

 

[romex jockey]

This is the IEEE RightsLink info, for any interested parties>

http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/rightslink_usetypes.html#top

~R~

 

[al hildenbrand]

Dear sirs or Madam,

I would like your permission to post a link to ...

Respectfully, I don't think you have to be that circumspect. The paper is available, without restriction on viewing, at his web site: www.combinationafci.com


The link to the paper is second from the top on the right side of the screen. More specifically, the link to the paper is:

Combination AFCIs: What They Will And Will Not Do

The author, "Joe Engel graduated from University of Cincinnati in 1962 with a MSEE degree and University of Pittsburgh with a PhD in 1969. He worked as an electronic/electrical circuit designer/manager at Westinghouse?s Science and Technology Center, Pittsburgh PA from 1963 to 1993. From 1993 to 2007 he managed Eaton | Cutler-Hammer?s Electronic R&D Department. He served as a company adviser to numerous IEC, NEC, UL, and SAE panels. He holds over 100 US Patents and is a member of the IEEE and SAE."

 

[romex jockey]

Thank you Al

~R~

 

[iwire]

btw,
for those of you that view me as some sort of radical dissident, i would recommend googling Mr Bob Huddleston re: AFCI

when an nfpa engineer opines in the fashion he did, it's my opinion the trade , as well as cmp-2 , should lend an ear

~R~

I bet he would still install them without requiring an inspector to fail it first.

 

[iwire]

Is this not an educational forum created by the trades most prominent educator Iwire?

Has anyone here edited, deleted, removed, or otherwise put a gag on your views in this thread?

No, they have not.

But some of us do find your way of dealing with the AFCI issue to be foolish if in fact you really do what you claim you have.

 

[romex jockey]

yes, i've been approached by a mod concerning copywrite rules here

I've also been asked for evidence as to my stance

I find Dr Joe to have written what i consider the best paper on afci's i've read to date, no technical or historic detail is left unaddressed

I await this forums better read posters response to this gem

~R~

 

[don_resqcapt19]

yes, i've been approached by a mod concerning copywrite rules here

...

~R~

That was over a year ago and it was not related to openly available information. You had posted a link to the UL AFCI standard. That is not openly available and links to that type of copyrighted material are not permitted on this forum.