210.12(A)(3)

Status
Not open for further replies.

hurk27

Senior Member
AHHH....but while we still have NOT built a perfect mouse trap..we are getting darn close. There (at least in my mind) is a difference. The intent of the AFCI was not to solve against every known condition, only to protect against conditions we can aid to prevent with current technology. All technology has to crawl before it can walk and so while they don't handle 100% of the expressed concerns...we can at least mark the ones off the list that we can help prevent.

But I kinda think we all agree with that. Some just wish (or feel they were mislead) that AFCI's are the means to end all.....they are just another line of defense against potential loss of life and property.

To me this is like installing a red light at an intersection that the electronics to make the red light change has not been developed yet, an extra cost for the tax payers with no visible safety to perform, very against the laws of our country and should have never made it into law as when the NEC is adopted it is law!

Indiana took the stance that if it doesn't do what it says it does then it can not be enforced, and Indiana has deleted 210.12 in all our adopting of the NEC ever since the NEC has required AFCI's

Like Don says the GFP portion of the AFCI is the only part of it that gave us any extra protection in the event of a parallel arc that would migrate to a hot to ground fault, without this I see no protection against an arc to prevent a fire and don't see a way to detect between a good arc and a bad arc since they both would look the same to the arc detection circuit, then only way to different the two would be to gate the arc since a good arc would only last a few cycles so that when an arc happened the detector would ignore it until a couple cycles then if it is still there disrupt the circuit, this way a good arc would be ignored like the arc of a switch turning on or off on an inductive load.
 
Last edited:

MasterTheNEC

CEO and President of Electrical Code Academy, Inc.
Location
McKinney, Texas
Occupation
CEO
To me this is like installing a red light at an intersection that the electronics to make the red light change has not been developed yet, an extra cost for the tax payers with no visible safety to perform, very against the laws of our country and should have never made it into law as when the NEC is adopted it is law!

Indiana took the stance that if it doesn't do what it says it does then it can not be enforced, and Indiana has deleted 210.12 in all our adopting of the NEC ever since the NEC has required AFCI's

Ok wait.....you guys are killing me here.

First, while their are limits to an AFCI that are fairly discussed here, I think we fail sometimes to see good in terms of achievements. AFCI's were NEVER, and I repeat NEVER something pushed by the manufacturers. The inception of AFCI's were to meet a call of need by the CPSC. All the manufacturers did was answer the call so they should not be victimized here. Also another law of the land is "opportunity" and the manufacturers who could, did, and seized on it.

While some will not like the 75A Peak for Parallels or the 5 A Peak for Series arcs and say...what about the glowing arcs?..well what about them?

There has been clearly enough testing to show that extinguishing an arc at the 75A peak will result in reduction of potential fires as with the 5 A for series arcs. Now I will concede that a glowing contacts is a concern that possibly GFP previously addressed, the fact was that UL 1669 did not and still does not require this in their testing process. In fact, the original GFP was done to help manufacturers get past the infamous "cotton ball" test, the only way they could pass it was with GFP.

Now, some manufacturers have stated that they have a way now to pass all of the tests in UL 1669 without the need for GFP built in, I assume they have because they are listed and on the market for sale. I am not here to "wave the I LOVE AFCI flag" I will however say in my unbiased opinion they do bring worth for known conditions that we do have a product that can help save lives and property. I know of some recalls for luminaries that were directly a result of AFCI devices detecting a problem and forcing a recall on the luminaries...enough proof for me.

It's like smoke alarms to me, I would not begin to build a home without them yet I know that they don't prevent anything, in fact the fire has already started before they tell me anything, I know that the majority of people do not maintain them, clean them, replaces batteries in them or test them, yet we keep installing them until that faithful day they work. I just happen to believe that the cost of an AFCI Device does not outweigh the good that they can do, even if that's a leap of faith, I bring the faith.

Then lets talk cost again.....in my house alone my wife opted for granite, media room, 10' ceilings, yada..yada...yada.....all running into thousands of dollars i did not want to spend but she wanted to spend (she won, secret to happy life BTW). Point is, the cost for the AFCI circuit breakers was about $ 740.00 and to be honest i feel worth every penny. The cost things is what it is....safety costs money. Those new cars with airbags in every nook and cranny cost money....safety costs money.

As for a contractor...the playing field is level and the consumers know they are going to pay for safety so I happen to feel that the benefits of what the AFCI can do outweigh the concerns of what some feel they can't do.

Just my two cents on the issues...and yes I do know your feelings on AFCI's my friend and you are entitled to that opinion.:happyyes:
 

ActionDave

Chief Moderator
Staff member
Location
Durango, CO, 10 h 20 min from the winged horses.
Occupation
Licensed Electrician
Ok wait.....you guys are killing me here.First, while their are limits to an AFCI that are fairly discussed here, I think we fail sometimes to see good in terms of achievements. AFCI's were NEVER, and I repeat NEVER something pushed by the manufacturers. The inception of AFCI's were to meet a call of need by the CPSC. All the manufacturers did was answer the call so they should not be victimized here. Also another law of the land is "opportunity" and the manufacturers who could, did, and seized on it....
Sounds a lot like what the bankers used as their defense when their role in the housing crisis came to light.
 

hurk27

Senior Member
While some will not like the 75A Peak for Parallels or the 5 A Peak for Series arcs and say...what about the glowing arcs?..well what about them?

75 amps???, have you ever caculated the availble current on a long run of a 15 amp circuit, lets say 100' run to the other side of the house which is not unheard of on a moderate sized house?

This was a big problem with a first series of AFCI breakers that came out back in 2002 that I had brought up with UL because the sure test AFCI tester would not trip the breaker on long runs, it would on short ones but not on the long runs, I had a thread on it back in 2005, I will try to look up for you to read it also included some e-mails I had with UL that got swept under the rug sort of speak.

In a nut shell a AFCI breaker will never see a 75 amp arc signture on a long run because the impedance of the run will limit the current of the circuit to it being able to see maybe about a 35 amp max current signture on a 100' run of 14/2 NM, this was the reason UL lowered the arc signture current level back then, but sombody missed the boat on this info and raised it back up, go figure.

I have yet to see an ARC fault detector to detect a series arc in a real world test, no one has been able to prove this one as of yet as far as I know, then same thing for a glowing arc, they even admitted that they can not detect a glowing arc, so like I said unless an arc developes into a ground fault and the AFCI breaker has GFP in it, so far I have not seen any real world test that prove other wise and I have done many of them myself.
 

ActionDave

Chief Moderator
Staff member
Location
Durango, CO, 10 h 20 min from the winged horses.
Occupation
Licensed Electrician
I have yet to see an ARC fault detector to detect a series arc in a real world test, no one has been able to prove this one as of yet as far as I know, then same thing for a glowing arc, they even admitted that they can not detect a glowing arc, so like I said unless an arc developes into a ground fault and the AFCI breaker has GFP in it, so far I have not seen any real world test that prove other wise and I have done many of them myself.
Same here. I have not done any serious lab style testing but I have had them hooked up on the workbench..... made some glorious arcs, never got a trip.

Flat screen tv's have been known to trip them, maybe they are a fire hazzard like GE dishwashers. Not a problem for me, I still have an old school RCA. Hard to sell most folks on going with vintage components in their entertainment centres though.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
Then lets talk cost again.....in my house alone my wife opted for granite, media room, 10' ceilings, yada..yada...yada.....all running into thousands of dollars i did not want to spend but she wanted to spend (she won, secret to happy life BTW). Point is, the cost for the AFCI circuit breakers was about $ 740.00 and to be honest i feel worth every penny. The cost things is what it is....safety costs money. Those new cars with airbags in every nook and cranny cost money....safety costs money.

Yes let's talk money, as happy for you and I am that you have granite counters, 10' ceilings and a media room a great many people have to opt for particle board, Formica and a simple living room in their new homes. So your justification for AFCI costs is meaningless, it's just another cash grab with no real increase in safety
 

MasterTheNEC

CEO and President of Electrical Code Academy, Inc.
Location
McKinney, Texas
Occupation
CEO
Yes let's talk money, as happy for you and I am that you have granite counters, 10' ceilings and a media room a great many people have to opt for particle board, Formica and a simple living room in their new homes. So your justification for AFCI costs is meaningless, it's just another cash grab with no real increase in safety

So you are on record as saying AFCI's bring NO increased level of safety to the structure that they are installed in. Sounds to me like you should be arguing the points against them than me. There is documented proof that the concept of the devices work, the nature of the arcs are detected and must have convinced alot of people on the code making panels otherwise.

Oh wait...I also bet you think everyone on the CMP's are " in on the gag...right"?...that the manufacturers own CMP 2. Let me see, in the 2014 alone their are how many manufacturers on the panel... two (2)....out of 19 members and 5 alternates and nonvoting members. So yes, even the home builders and NECA is on the boards....

So it's simply a money grab with no real increase in safety...nice..:slaphead:
 

MasterTheNEC

CEO and President of Electrical Code Academy, Inc.
Location
McKinney, Texas
Occupation
CEO
So you are on record as saying AFCI's bring NO increased level of safety to the structure that they are installed in. Sounds to me like you should be arguing the points against them than me. There is documented proof that the concept of the devices work, the nature of the arcs are detected and must have convinced alot of people on the code making panels otherwise.

Oh wait...I also bet you think everyone on the CMP's are " in on the gag...right"?...that the manufacturers own CMP 2. Let me see, in the 2014 alone their are how many manufacturers on the panel... two (2)....out of 19 members and 5 alternates and nonvoting members. So yes, even the home builders and NECA is on the boards....

So it's simply a money grab with no real increase in safety...nice..:slaphead:

But you are indeed entitled to your opinion...(see how I added that in there...:angel:)
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
I sent a note to UL asking about the listed supplemental arc protection circuit breaker and received the following response.

There are no supplemental arc faults at this time. I believe they are still finalizing the certification requirements.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top