AFCI satisfaction poll. Please take a moment to answer.

[romex jockey]

What about the number of lives saved? What about the number of people that will not have life-long breathing problems from smoke inhalation? What about the number of people that don't have to have a dozen skin-graft surgeries? What about the number of first responders that have died from falls, entrapment, smoke inhalation, and burns at residential fires? What about the number of pets that have been lost to residential fires?

You can't nickel and dime the conversation down to cost vs benefit...

Perhaps it's time to run those full page ads in the trade rags again Bryan.

The ones with dashing FF's in full turnout gear carrying the sooty little girl out of an electrical conflagration with that stern glare into the readers eyes, just above the might {slices, dices & makes julian fries} AFCI....

Plucks the strings of my old black heart every time!!!

Have you folks considered a reality show? :lol:

We live in a subsidized society where all have to pay-in but only so many benefit. If there is a better way, society has yet to figure it out...

The term you seek would be meritocracy , i wouldn't hold you breath waiting on it....

~RJ~

 

[PetrosA]

What about the number of lives saved? What about the number of people that will not have life-long breathing problems from smoke inhalation? What about the number of people that don't have to have a dozen skin-graft surgeries? What about the number of first responders that have died from falls, entrapment, smoke inhalation, and burns at residential fires? What about the number of pets that have been lost to residential fires?

You can't nickel and dime the conversation down to cost vs benefit...

I pay what I consider an exorbitant amount of money each year for my homeowner's insurance. More specifically, the "hurricane" insurance I am required to have on my financed home because I live in Florida. Even worse is the amount I have to spend flood insurance because I live in SFHA and my home happens to be below BFE. We haven't had a land-falling hurricane in the state of Florida since 2005. There have only been two land-falling hurricanes to have a direct impact on my region in the last 40-years. There has NEVER been a flooding event in the recorded history of my town where floodwaters reached the levels identified on the FIRM.

My point is that AFCIs are also insurance. Some homeowners may never need their AFCIs, and they are fortunate. Still, some homeowners will need their AFCIs and suddenly their $600 investment has exponential value to them, their families and friends, and the first responders that didn't need to respond.

We live in a subsidized society where all have to pay-in but only so many benefit. If there is a better way, society has yet to figure it out...

Wow. You know, the Nazis gave us many useful technological advances like methods for mass producing machine guns, better armor, rocket technology, jet engine advances and many other things. The one thing their boy Joseph Goebbels came up with that I really, really dislike is refined propaganda techniques. This post is all about them.

Many more people in this country die each year as a result of poorly engineered roads, intersections and crosswalks that don't get upgraded until the death toll reaches a predetermined number because of exactly the cost-to-benefit ratio than die in home fires. Just the number of pedestrians killed each year is twice the number of people killed in home fires. Even without additional technology, you're still way safer at home than outside of it.

Fifteen years in, AFCIs still cost on average ten times what a regular breaker does, in spite of the fact that they're mass produced and really don't contain a lot of technology by today's standards. You can buy a smartphone for the same price as an AFCI breaker. You can buy the entire panel and all the other breakers for less than what the AFCIs in it cost. Don illustrated that we're not talking about nickels and dimes, but rather about $600,000,000 per year in added costs. Fifteen years is a lot of time for the price to remain so high.

 

[MasterTheNEC]

Brian....I have learned that it is simply not worth the effort here.......and when CMP's and life saving advancements get compared to NAZI's and so on.....just smile and understand one thing, the posts here (majority) are from individuals who dislike an ounce of safety a product may provide yet they have no problem charging their clients for OTHER things I am sure.

Your efforts are noble and keep up the great fight....but it will only be successful to those with open minds my friend.

So continue on NEMA Rep....your doing GREAT things in the SOUTH !

 

[PetrosA]

Brian....I have learned that it is simply not worth the effort here.......and when CMP's and life saving advancements get compared to NAZI's and so on.....just smile and understand one thing, the posts here (majority) are from individuals who dislike an ounce of safety a product may provide yet they have no problem charging their clients for OTHER things I am sure.

Your efforts are noble and keep up the great fight....but it will only be successful to those with open minds my friend.

So continue on NEMA Rep....your doing GREAT things in the SOUTH !

You need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills. Nowhere did I compare any organization or life saving advancement to the Nazis. I was referring specifically to the way Bryan worded his post and the overt manipulation techniques and phrases that are in it. And yes, Goebbels' techniques are taught across our country in marketing and political science classes all the time.

You are using the same techniques (consciously or not) when you group the users here and paint them as anti-safety, money gouging contractors to create an US and THEM division. Joe would be proud.

 

[bphgravity]

I really am not trying to play on your emotions. I'm simply pointing out a fact, or at least a reality...

There are many, many code requirements that are result of way fewer deaths, injuries, and loss of property than what AFCIs are designed to mitigate. Let's take Section 555.3 for example. There is no doubt that Marinas are dangerous locations that can be extremely hazardous to human life. I fully support the ground-fault protection requirement required by this Section as it has immense life safety value. And the 2017 NEC will likely strengthen this Section substantially.

When compared to the number of deaths associated with residential structural fires, loss of life at Marinas from electrocution or drowning as a result of exposure to electricity is quite low. Will the cost to provide this protection at every new and substantially altered Marina match, dollar for dollar, what the estimated loses are for the tragic events that occur a few times per year at Marinas? Probably not.

Like it or not, we pay a high price for life and property safety in this country. The value of that life and property safety is calculated in many more ways than just dollars and cents. Anyone that has lost a family member in a residential fire or at a marina would pay any price to have that person still be alive.

While each and every one of us has a different definition of minimum. The consensus is that the NEC is a minimum standard for life and property standard. If there was any substantial evidence whatsoever that AFCIs are not necessary for the minimum protection of certain dwelling branch circuits, we would not be having the rate of AFCI development and expansion that has occurred over the last several code cycles.

 

[PetrosA]

I really am not trying to play on your emotions. I'm simply pointing out a fact, or at least a reality...

...

While each and every one of us has a different definition of minimum. The consensus is that the NEC is a minimum standard for life and property standard. If there was any substantial evidence whatsoever that AFCIs are not necessary for the minimum protection of certain dwelling branch circuits, we would not be having the rate of AFCI development and expansion that has occurred over the last several code cycles.

I don't suspect you of trying to play on my or anyone else's emotions. If anything, I think the way you formulated the post I referred to earlier is marketing talk that you've heard a lot of and it's become second nature at this point to express those things that way.

Here's where my opinion and yours differ: For me, it's not enough that there is consensus among US manufacturers and others who have some kind of vested interest in marketing a given product. Electricity is international and there are many, many highly qualified electrical experts in highly advanced countries around the world, including countries where wood frame construction is common, who also care deeply about protecting end users. But, not one European or Asian country has followed our "lead" on the AFCI bandwagon. Not Great Britain, not Japan, not France, not Germany, not Australia. In fact, many of the latest safety trends have arrived here from abroad such as CAT ratings for test equipment or tamper resistant receptacles so there is clearly attention paid to safety in those places. Why, if this technology is so good, so effective and so worth the money, are none of these countries following suit? What's holding them back from protecting their own citizens like we do ours? They certainly have the money to afford it. Electrical gear tends to cost way more overseas than it does here, so it's not likely a question of cost. There must be some other reason. Any thoughts?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

What about the number of lives saved? What about the number of people that will not have life-long breathing problems from smoke inhalation? What about the number of people that don't have to have a dozen skin-graft surgeries? What about the number of first responders that have died from falls, entrapment, smoke inhalation, and burns at residential fires? What about the number of pets that have been lost to residential fires?

You can't nickel and dime the conversation down to cost vs benefit. ...

Cost benefit analysis is done by every manufacturer for every product they make. This device would never make it past that analysis...look at the case of the Ford Pinto.

 

[ActionDave]

Brian....I have learned that it is simply not worth the effort here.......and when CMP's and life saving advancements get compared to NAZI's and so on.....just smile and understand one thing, the posts here (majority) are from individuals who dislike an ounce of safety a product may provide yet they have no problem charging their clients for OTHER things I am sure.

I don't think that is one bit true of the regular members who post here. I know it is not true for me. Think about the number of threads about GFCI's in garages for freezers.

There's not one where the majority opinion says they should not be protected. That's a small, easy example. There are others.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

..

When compared to the number of deaths associated with residential structural fires, loss of life at Marinas from electrocution or drowning as a result of exposure to electricity is quite low. Will the cost to provide this protection at every new and substantially altered Marina match, dollar for dollar, what the estimated loses are for the tragic events that occur a few times per year at Marinas? Probably not.

...

Is it really when you only look at dwelling unit fires and fire deaths in newly constructed dwelling units? The NFPA says on average there were 366,600 dwelling unit fires and 2570 dwelling unit deaths per year for the years 2007 through 2011. Fires that were said to be of electrical origin accounted for 13% of the deaths and about 10% of the fires. That is one fire death for ever 110 fires that are said to be of electrical origin. Based on one million new homes, 100% compliance with the 2014 AFCI rule and 100% effectiveness of the AFCI you would expect to prevent 55 fires the first year.

I think you will find that there are more deaths from the electrical problems at the marinas.

 

[MasterTheNEC]

I don't think that is one bit true of the regular members who post here. I know it is not true for me. Think about the number of threads about GFCI's in garages for freezers.

There's not one where the majority opinion says they should not be protected. That's a small, easy example. There are others.

But I think this issue is a bit more polarized by theory versus fact. The clear statement that glowing arcs are not part of UL 1699 shows what the AFCI technology is clearly NOT looking for but the conjecture is that it should be....well you have the wrong audience for that here. Obviously to me some (not all) are still harboring resentment from statements said over a decade ago....I am sure glad we don't have this conversation about AL conductors from the late 60's and early 70's anymore.....technology advances but the product never came off the market during it's advancement into the 8000 series.

In your example of GFCI's - That technology also faced strong opposition and it has evolved many, many times under UL 943 and it still evolving with the self testing component and I am sure it will evolve even more. My point is you do not wait for something to be perfect in the eyes of some...you try to produce it to appeal to the masses.

Now those that say the Manufacturers are just in it for the money......well free enterprise is always linked to money but the AFCI is a technological break-thru that was requested by a separate entity and became reality by the ingenuity of the manufacturer....how is that wrong?

I think it is not that people like myself and obviously Bryan think AFCI's are not without issues.....but it just happens to be our opinion that it protects for that it was intended to protect and if it saves one life or property then the cost to me (your opinions differ) that it's beneficial.

In my original state of Virginia the cost of construction continues to rise, wind bracing requirements expanding, construction framing changes resulting in an increase in lumber costs and so on in the name of safety and to say that the CMP 2 are simply pandering to the manufacturers in accepting AFCI technology is void of fact.....there are still some honest people in the world and many do sit on panels but unless you are intimate with the CMP process from the actual table view (without saying the individuals are on a holiday- thats an ignorant statement) then how would you really know what the CMP things.

Just my thoughts on it....BASH away....

P.S. And no I will not get into another TECHNOLOGY debate on AFCI's..I will leave that to the manufacturers of those if they choose to come visit. My statements are personal and my beliefs in the process and hope they are respected.

 

[George Stolz]

...there are still some honest people in the world and many do sit on panels but unless you are intimate with the CMP process from the actual table view (without saying the individuals are on a holiday- thats an ignorant statement) then how would you really know what the CMP things.

Boy, that really got to you, didn't it? :happyyes:

 

[romex jockey]

Honest people can be misled, the examples are endless

If you need convincing , talk to any octogenarian german ....


~RJ~

 

[don_resqcapt19]

...
P.S. And no I will not get into another TECHNOLOGY debate on AFCI's..I will leave that to the manufacturers of those if they choose to come visit. My statements are personal and my beliefs in the process and hope they are respected.

But the technology and the cost vs benefit issues are the only real debates on the AFCI.

 

[MasterTheNEC]

Boy, that really got to you, didn't it? :happyyes:

lol...Maybe

 

[mbrooke]

But I think this issue is a bit more polarized by theory versus fact. The clear statement that glowing arcs are not part of UL 1699 shows what the AFCI technology is clearly NOT looking for but the conjecture is that it should be....well you have the wrong audience for that here. Obviously to me some (not all) are still harboring resentment from statements said over a decade ago....I am sure glad we don't have this conversation about AL conductors from the late 60's and early 70's anymore.....technology advances but the product never came off the market during it's advancement into the 8000 series.

In your example of GFCI's - That technology also faced strong opposition and it has evolved many, many times under UL 943 and it still evolving with the self testing component and I am sure it will evolve even more. My point is you do not wait for something to be perfect in the eyes of some...you try to produce it to appeal to the masses.

Now those that say the Manufacturers are just in it for the money......well free enterprise is always linked to money but the AFCI is a technological break-thru that was requested by a separate entity and became reality by the ingenuity of the manufacturer....how is that wrong?

I think it is not that people like myself and obviously Bryan think AFCI's are not without issues.....but it just happens to be our opinion that it protects for that it was intended to protect and if it saves one life or property then the cost to me (your opinions differ) that it's beneficial.

In my original state of Virginia the cost of construction continues to rise, wind bracing requirements expanding, construction framing changes resulting in an increase in lumber costs and so on in the name of safety and to say that the CMP 2 are simply pandering to the manufacturers in accepting AFCI technology is void of fact.....there are still some honest people in the world and many do sit on panels but unless you are intimate with the CMP process from the actual table view (without saying the individuals are on a holiday- thats an ignorant statement) then how would you really know what the CMP things.

Just my thoughts on it....BASH away....

P.S. And no I will not get into another TECHNOLOGY debate on AFCI's..I will leave that to the manufacturers of those if they choose to come visit. My statements are personal and my beliefs in the process and hope they are respected.

Glowing arcs is a misnomer. Its either a series arc or a high resistance connection.


MasterTheNec, I know you have respect for AFCI technology, and perhaps you are correct that there are hazards that need to be addressed and AFCI mitigate them. However that same mitigation can be achieved via a combination of GFP, low magnetic trip, plug top fuses and insulation resistance testing. All simple proven low cost solutions.

 

[MasterTheNEC]

But the technology and the cost vs benefit issues are the only real debates on the AFCI.

True Dat...but I guess by now (maybe I am mellowing out in my old age) I prefer to leave it up to the manufacturers to explain the benefits. I know our company operates on a simple principal that has been established by our CEO....and that is quite simply "Do the Right Thing"......if someone has an issue with our product.....for what ever reason...make it right.....but I can't speak for everyone but I honestly believe the vast majority have good intentions.

I also know that due to NEMA Ethics that is it NOT a situation where all the manufactures of AFCI devices sat in a room and said...lets mislead the public....you don't have to believe me and I am sure most of you wont but it is what I believe, it is from the Kool-Ade I drink....and is my opinion. I (out of my own pocket) purchased all AFCI 120V Circuit Breakers for the house that I purchased in McKinney TX (umm I mean Arkansas)....and I don't regret it one bit because I have that right...

I don't feel doped....mislead.....deceived.....in fact for what I expect them to protect against (not what I wish they would protect against) I am quite pleased with the purchase.

In the end to each his own....I DO NOT discount your experienced, your concerns, your theories......quite the opposite....but I just happen to believe you can't put a cost on safety and I believe they bring value to protecting my home and my family against specific conditions (not all conditions) and choose lead with my family on my mind versus the cost.

 

[MasterTheNEC]

Glowing arcs is a misnomer. Its either a series arc or a high resistance connection.


MasterTheNec, I know you have respect for AFCI technology, and perhaps you are correct that there are hazards that need to be addressed and AFCI mitigate them. However that same mitigation can be achieved via a combination of GFP, low magnetic trip, plug top fuses and insulation resistance testing. All simple proven low cost solutions.

BUT..all that technology costs money too........It would seem to me that multi-million dollar companies all would like to One-Up the next best thing yet they all seem to mingle around the current technology. So I am not an Expert in their technology nor privy to their design specifications in various patents.....either way the standard does not seem to mind making a distinction against a glowing contact and an arc because it says in UL 1699 that glowing contacts are not considered in the standard.

Again I appreciate your points and respect them...I am just going to believe that the manufactures are honorable and do the right thing......but to me if I knew 100% that they mislead me then knowing the nature of my combative spirit I would attempt to change the standard which would force manufacturer compliance....but I am not at that stage at this point.

Those of you with brighter minds than mine...never said (remembering the GURU flack) I knew it all just enjoying giving back to others what I do happen to know.....if you have greater knowledge on this subject I do indeed bow to that knowledge but I ask you to get involved, write a white paper on it, heck send it to me and I will put in the hands of people who may be able to help....I do not have the advanced knowledge obviously to do that.

But I do honor your points and have never attempted (it's been assumed) to be combative in the debate....just providing opinion and if it came across otherwise please ignore my ignorance.

 

[mbrooke]

BUT..all that technology costs money too........It would seem to me that multi-million dollar companies all would like to One-Up the next best thing yet they all seem to mingle around the current technology. So I am not an Expert in their technology nor privy to their design specifications in various patents.....either way the standard does not seem to mind making a distinction against a glowing contact and an arc because it says in UL 1699 that glowing contacts are not considered in the standard.

The current technology is profitable, and secures cost for device makers. A 10 cent plug top fuse and GFCI breaker isnt as profitable as an AFCI.

Again I appreciate your points and respect them...I am just going to believe that the manufactures are honorable and do the right thing......but to me if I knew 100% that they mislead me then knowing the nature of my combative spirit I would attempt to change the standard which would force manufacturer compliance....but I am not at that stage at this point.

I have docs, and Ive have spoken with foreign electricians who believe they can achieve AFCI protection via other methods which do not involve electronics.

Those of you with brighter minds than mine...never said (remembering the GURU flack) I knew it all just enjoying giving back to others what I do happen to know.....if you have greater knowledge on this subject I do indeed bow to that knowledge but I ask you to get involved, write a white paper on it, heck send it to me and I will put in the hands of people who may be able to help....I do not have the advanced knowledge obviously to do that.

But I do honor your points and have never attempted (it's been assumed) to be combative in the debate....just providing opinion and if it came across otherwise please ignore my ignorance.

Thank you for your respect. This is a complex subject but fortunately it can scientifically be verified.

 

[donaldelectrician]

First pole i ever voted in . No AFCI's .

The sooner we get the AFCI's out of the NEC the better .

There is a higher price to be paid later down the road on replacement of these AFCI's .

If the manufactures had to pay the service fee on all AFCI service calls ...Ca Ching .


Don

 

[romex jockey]

I find all this defense of NEMA unfounded fellas.

I caution anyone willing to hang their altruistic hat on corporatists to consider many are international , utilize 3rd world sweat shop labor, offshore for tax advantages , proliferate the market with cheap junk which most of us view as having dodged the NRTL bullet, and have little allegiance to the N in NEMA past their 1/4ly profits.

I trust their judgment for our trades integrity about as much as i trust Wall street for our economy.


~RJ~