Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011
Results 101 to 108 of 108

Thread: 2020 NEC AFCI

  1. #101
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    1,331
    Quote Originally Posted by JFletcher View Post

    AFCI technology, at the very very least, needs to be taken back to the drawing board and all requirements to use them immediately suspended... at worst, it would not surprise me to see a multi-billion-dollar class action lawsuit against the makers of these devices. Give it another 20 or 30 years, AFCIs will probably be seen the same way as FPE Breakers and aluminum branch circuit wiring of the 70s.
    I'm aware of a few law firms , as well as restore CSA who were approached on the idea .

    One focused on 210.12(A)(3) specifically>>>"listed supplemental arc protection circuit breaker"

    I'll wager most of you know what they are

    I forget which code cycle introduced it, '11 ,maybe '08 , i don't have the rop's from that cycle anymore ,but with 210.12 taking up more rop time and space than most all other concernes combined all essentially roundfiled with a short rationale ,it became a venture in futility

    IIRC, 7 manufacturers ,along with UL and the CSPC were involved , so when it became clear this was a deeper pockets issue confronting big $$$$'s those law firms lost interest fairly quick, so did a number of journalists

    It became obvious social media was the only avenue left

    so thx for reading....

    ~RJ~

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    23,577
    Quote Originally Posted by mbrooke View Post
    ...I remember Don saying that residential codes actually mandate sprinklers, but its amended out at the local level. I still can not wrap my mind around that
    The International Residential Code requires dwelling units to have fire sprinklers. The status of the adoption of that provision, according to the NFPA is shown below.

    • States/regions requiring fire sprinklers in new, one- and two-family homes: CA, MD, Washington, D.C.
    • States prohibiting statewide and new, local adoptions of fire sprinkler requirements in new, one- and two-family homes: AK, AL, AZ, CT, DE, GA, HI, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, PA, SC, SD, TX, UT, VA, WV, WI
    • States allowing local adoptions of sprinkler requirements for new, one- and two-family homes: AR, CO, FL, IL, IA, ME, MT, NE, NV, NM, OK, OR, RI, TN, VT, WA, WY
      (*Note: In MA and NY, homes of a certain size must be sprinklered)

    In Illinois, over 100 municipalities require dwelling unit fire sprinkers.

    NFPA 5000, Building Construction and Safety CodeĀ®, also requires dwelling unit sprinkler systems. Not sure how widely adopted this code is.
    Don, Illinois
    Ego is the anesthesia that deadens the pain of stupidity. Dr. Rick Rigsby
    (All code citations are 2017 unless otherwise noted)

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    7,284
    Quote Originally Posted by don_resqcapt19 View Post
    The International Residential Code requires dwelling units to have fire sprinklers. The status of the adoption of that provision, according to the NFPA is shown below.
    [/I][/LIST]
    In Illinois, over 100 municipalities require dwelling unit fire sprinkers.

    NFPA 5000, Building Construction and Safety CodeĀ®, also requires dwelling unit sprinkler systems. Not sure how widely adopted this code is.


    Thank you! Great info was always. I aspire to be like you
    I'm in over my head...

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Louisville, Ky
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by kwired View Post
    Not saying you are wrong, but usually such evidence would be consumed in the fire and even be further disturbed by firefighters making it nearly impossible to determine such precision in the cause. They often will be able to say it started in a certain area with some confidence based on burn patterns, maybe even be able to say there was wiring in the vicinity that likely contributed, but often the board with the nail in it is consumed in the fire and so is the insulation on the conductor. Only chance of getting that one right is if there is arcing evidence on the conductors I guess.
    I would tend to agree with you on that and I wonder what it was they found or saw that led to that official conclusion. Could be what was reported as an official conclusion was merely conjecture minus actual evidence based on the absence of any other probably cause.

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Hawthorne, New York NEC: 2014
    Posts
    3,570
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan L. View Post
    Could be what was reported as an official conclusion was merely conjecture minus actual evidence based on the absence of any other probably cause.
    Most likely "nobody died and the cause can't be determined without spending $$$$$ if at all. So blame it on electrical, give the insurance company something feasible so they can pay the claim and call it a day".

    -Hal

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    7,284
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan L. View Post
    I would tend to agree with you on that and I wonder what it was they found or saw that led to that official conclusion. Could be what was reported as an official conclusion was merely conjecture minus actual evidence based on the absence of any other probably cause.
    Even evidence is open to debate and misinterpretation. An over driven staple and a smoldering stud behind sheet-rock in real time could theorize arcing between the hot and ground charring the wood, while another that the staple was energized by the hot conductor for years (trickle current) leading pyrophoric carbonization. If the prior is assumed, and its likely given the dominant theory of arcing, then said theory is only strengthened with misinterpreted evidence. Next time a more consumed wall section is found, but localized, its tempting to also call that arcing even if high resistance connection at the outlet box caused it in reality. Theory and guessing has a way of gaining a life of its own, as we tend to become polarized seeking evidence in its favor and ignoring that to the contrary.
    I'm in over my head...

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Placerville, CA, USA
    Posts
    19,234
    Quote Originally Posted by mbrooke View Post
    Even evidence is open to debate and misinterpretation. An over driven staple and a smoldering stud behind sheet-rock in real time could theorize arcing between the hot and ground charring the wood, while another that the staple was energized by the hot conductor for years (trickle current) leading pyrophoric carbonization. If the prior is assumed, and its likely given the dominant theory of arcing, then said theory is only strengthened with misinterpreted evidence. Next time a more consumed wall section is found, but localized, its tempting to also call that arcing even if high resistance connection at the outlet box caused it in reality. Theory and guessing has a way of gaining a life of its own, as we tend to become polarized seeking evidence in its favor and ignoring that to the contrary.

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    7,284
    Quote Originally Posted by GoldDigger View Post
    Thanks
    I'm in over my head...

Posting Permissions

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