Brazen, Shameless and Unapologetic AFCI Expansion

[mbrooke]

Listen to the first 8 minutes. They aren't even hiding it any more. Manufacturers are giving their "input" on the code because they supposedly know their products better than we do.

 

[texie]

I'm a little surprised at Paul's new position. He pretty much echo's my position now which is that the data for justification is lacking and the lack of transparency in how they work. It just seems to me that they have never proven that they do anything at all. He'll make a lot of new enemies over this new stance. And like Paul, I'm all for progress to newer and better things for safety but if it can't be demonstrated as, for example the GFCI, that it actually works, I'm out.

 

[mbrooke]

I'm a little surprised at Paul's new position. He pretty much echo's my position now which is that the data for justification is lacking and the lack of transparency in how they work. It just seems to me that they have never proven that they do anything at all. He'll make a lot of new enemies over this new stance. And like Paul, I'm all for progress to newer and better things for safety but if it can't be demonstrated as, for example the GFCI, that it actually works, I'm out.

He is either waking up based on what he has seen on the inside or its simply being used in a physiological ploy crafted by his superiors in hopes of deescalating outrage while the expansion of AFCIs go through. Chances are its the prior, but I wouldn't put anything past corporations who spend billions on finding and perfecting every trick in the book.

 

[hbiss]

Trust me (all the way to the bank). The manufacturers are criminals and the NEC is complicit.

What more do we need? Why aren't there class actions suits going on????

-Hal

 

[sameguy]

Must follow code, must follow code,...

 

[hbiss]

And the CPSC?? Who the hell are they? Pffft, fulfilling their mandate is just an excuse to fleece the public.

What's next, requiring those energy saving snake oil gadgets to be installed on every panel?

Already they want SPDs. Another money grab.

-Hal

 

[mbrooke]

And the CPSC?? Who the hell are they? Pffft, fulfilling their mandate is just an excuse to fleece the public.

What's next, requiring those energy saving snake oil gadgets to be installed on every panel?

Already they want SPDs. Another money grab.

-Hal

Simply an organization given credibility to create the perception that multiple yet "independent" organizations are backing AFCIs.

 

[hbiss]

What's next, requiring those energy saving snake oil gadgets to be installed on every panel?

And, really, what is the difference between AFCIs and those energy saving devices? With both, the manufacturers make unsubstantiated claims about their effectiveness.

-Hal

 

[hbiss]

Somebody has got to threaten the NFPA. If they continue to pursue the ever expanding requirement to use these devices without showing concise data as to their effectiveness they will be made to pay. The NEC is the middleman and they have to grow a backbone and tell manufacturers to put up or go away.

The same for GFCIs being required where their effectiveness is questionable.

-Hal

 

[romex jockey]

Bravo Paul! It's been well over a decade since the resistance began , at first we were tin hat conspirators questioning authority , then Dr Joe Engel came out in '12. The grass root awakening monsieur Charles gambled on has taken time toward fruition ...... Take out trade back ~RJ~

 

[mbrooke]

The part which has me enraged being that manufacturers have always known arcing is the very end stage of joule heating, not the beginning. Assuming combustion has not already ensued.

 

[mbrooke]

For example, from 1976:

https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/IR/nbsir76-1011.pdf

 

[jusme123]

Somebody has got to threaten the NFPA. If they continue to pursue the ever expanding requirement to use these devices without showing concise data as to their effectiveness they will be made to pay. The NEC is the middleman and they have to grow a backbone and tell manufacturers to put up or go away.

The same for GFCIs being required where their effectiveness is questionable.

-Hal

You don’t think the manufactures have been putting up? There’s an awful lot of money involved in these code requirements.........

 

[Fred B]

Guys, I know I maybe in the minority here, and as to exact data I dont have it, I do however have some experience with multiple GC's who are doing their own wiring installations calling and complaining about AFCI "nuisance tripping" when they try to use their "table saws" or similar tool, when I explore what is happening I find multiple receptacles having loose connections, loose terminations on breaker, and one time even found a finish nail driven into a wire. When I correct the terminations, suddenly the table saw is no longer tripping the breaker. I have even just for kicks trade out AFCI to standard breaker prior to investigating to see what would happen, breaker didn't trip under table saw load, seeming to validate GC's impressions, but I went on to investigate and found those loose connections, sometimes a full turn and a half loose, tighten connections and replace the AFCI and the saw no longer tripped the breaker. To me that seems to indicate the AFCI is doing what it is promoted as doing. Sorry that is as close to "data" that I can come up with.

 

[hillbilly1]

Funny how the energy crowd is worried about how much power night lights and digital clocks use, but give all the energy wasted by AFCI breakers a pass. LOL!

 

[ActionDave]

So radio pet paul is 20 years late getting to the conclusion that has been the main argument against the adoption of AFCIs from day one, they don't do anything to prevent fires.

 

[texie]

So radio pet paul is 20 years late getting to the conclusion that has been the main argument against the adoption of AFCIs from day one, they don't do anything to prevent fires.

 

[ActionDave]

I'm a little surprised at Paul's new position. He pretty much echo's my position now which is that the data for justification is lacking and the lack of transparency in how they work. It just seems to me that they have never proven that they do anything at all. He'll make a lot of new enemies over this new stance. And like Paul, I'm all for progress to newer and better things for safety but if it can't be demonstrated as, for example the GFCI, that it actually works, I'm out.

The difference is he was aggressive in his defense of AFCI use and adoption into the code with every new cycle. Now for some reason he has decided to contradict everything he has ever said about them by saying there needs to be some evidence that they work and pointing out quite clearly that there is none. He then re contradicts himself again by saying he believes AFCI technology is valid.

I also find it interesting that he comes out and admits that code changes come about based on things other than facts and that there is politicking involved. To hear him before, the CMPs were second to none in purity of purpose.

 

[hbiss]

The difference is he was aggressive in his defense of AFCI use and adoption into the code with every new cycle. Now for some reason he has decided to contradict everything he has ever said about them by saying there needs to be some evidence that they work and pointing out quite clearly that there is none. He then re contradicts himself again by saying he believes AFCI technology is valid.

Times are tough. Maybe they cut his "paid mouthpiece" check.

-Hal

 

[mbrooke]

The difference is he was aggressive in his defense of AFCI use and adoption into the code with every new cycle. Now for some reason he has decided to contradict everything he has ever said about them by saying there needs to be some evidence that they work and pointing out quite clearly that there is none. He then re contradicts himself again by saying he believes AFCI technology is valid.

I also find it interesting that he comes out and admits that code changes come about based on things other than facts and that there is politicking involved. To hear him before, the CMPs were second to none in purity of purpose.

He was a mod on another forum (prior to the one he made a few years ago) where he would edit or delete any reply which was critical of AFCIs or the NEC itself.