Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 46

Thread: Cost of AFCI breaker vs Receptacle

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    woodbridge, ct. USA
    Posts
    1,104
    An inspector I know who allows it uses the reasoning if they don't make it (in this case the listed breaker) then he can't enforce it. (using the plug). Is alum mc ok? I thought it had to be armor or emt. And if anyone cares to answer what exactly is the difference since you have a ground in romex. How is the home run protected with 2 ground paths opposed to one if using a afci device?

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Hawthorne, New York NEC: 2014
    Posts
    3,749
    Quote Originally Posted by GerryB View Post
    An inspector I know who allows it uses the reasoning if they don't make it (in this case the listed breaker) then he can't enforce it. (using the plug).
    Then he shouldn't allow the use of AFCI receptacles to begin with because they are non-code compliant. Every one of those things are illegal!

    And if anyone cares to answer what exactly is the difference since you have a ground in romex. How is the home run protected with 2 ground paths opposed to one if using a afci device?
    It's not the ground paths but rather that the "AFCI unprotected" run of cable is protected from damage by virtue of it's armor or raceway and any potential arc-fault within will be contained.

    -Hal

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    woodbridge, ct. USA
    Posts
    1,104
    Quote Originally Posted by hbiss View Post
    Then he shouldn't allow the use of AFCI receptacles to begin with because they are non-code compliant. Every one of those things are illegal!



    It's not the ground paths but rather that the "AFCI unprotected" run of cable is protected from damage by virtue of it's armor or raceway and any potential arc-fault within will be contained.


    -Hal
    Interesting but I don't get it still because mc alum is not protected from damage by the alum. If subject to damage it must be protected, just like romex. 330.17

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Williamsburg, VA
    Posts
    5,438
    If you have to use a listed breaker, one that is rated for use with a afci receptacle, and have to pull in MC or AC cable, why even bother? It seems to me that putting an afci breaker in the panel, or if the panel is too old, putting a small sub panel directly next to the original panel that can accept breakers would be a more logical choice than pulling in new home runs and using basically what amounts to half a product.
    Electricians do it until it Hertz!

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Hawthorne, New York NEC: 2014
    Posts
    3,749
    Quote Originally Posted by JFletcher
    If you have to use a listed breaker, one that is rated for use with a afci receptacle, and have to pull in MC or AC cable, why even bother? It seems to me that putting an afci breaker in the panel, or if the panel is too old, putting a small sub panel directly next to the original panel that can accept breakers would be a more logical choice than pulling in new home runs and using basically what amounts to half a product.
    Quote Originally Posted by GerryB View Post
    Interesting but I don't get it still because mc alum is not protected from damage by the alum. If subject to damage it must be protected, just like romex. 330.17
    Hey, it took all their brain power just to come up with this cockamamie idea, now you want them to think of everything?

    -Hal

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Hawthorne, New York NEC: 2014
    Posts
    3,749
    Actually this looks like a way for device manufacturers (like Leviton) to get into the panel and breaker market.

    By the way, 330.17 makes no distinction between steel and aluminum sheathed MC or AC cables. All must be protected from damage with nail plates where necessary where it is run through framing members.

    -Hal

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    woodbridge, ct. USA
    Posts
    1,104
    Quote Originally Posted by hbiss View Post
    Actually this looks like a way for device manufacturers (like Leviton) to get into the panel and breaker market.

    By the way, 330.17 makes no distinction between steel and aluminum sheathed MC or AC cables. All must be protected from damage with nail plates where necessary where it is run through framing members.

    -Hal
    I found out the hard way with mc down to an outlet box below counter height in a comm. kitchen. Had to change it to emt.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,704
    Quote Originally Posted by GerryB View Post
    I found out the hard way with mc down to an outlet box below counter height in a comm. kitchen. Had to change it to emt.
    Why?

  9. #19
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia
    Posts
    23,192
    Quote Originally Posted by Sierrasparky View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GerryB View Post
    I found out the hard way with mc down to an outlet box below counter height in a comm. kitchen. Had to change it to emt.
    Why?
    Because, when it comes to protection from possible damage, MC is treated more like NM than like FMC,
    Code references based on 2005 NEC
    Larry B. Fine
    Master Electrician
    Electrical Contractor
    Richmond, VA

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,704
    Quote Originally Posted by GerryB View Post
    I found out the hard way with mc down to an outlet box below counter height in a comm. kitchen. Had to change it to emt.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sierrasparky View Post
    Why?
    Quote Originally Posted by LarryFine View Post
    Because, when it comes to protection from possible damage, MC is treated more like NM than like FMC,
    I don't see the code violation here .

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •