Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GFCI Receptacle for garbage disposal

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • nysprkdude
    replied
    Originally posted by ActionDave View Post
    There is none. The only data that exist about AFCIs is how they fail to perform as intended.

    That's a statement without proof. There is data regarding the effectiveness of AFCI vs. 1950's technology circuit breakers.



    What you posted was a list of stats about fires in general. If there was any evidence that AFCIs were effective I would be in favor of them.

    What I posted were the latest stats about fires in general when compared to previous stats reveals a substantial decrease in electrical fires which cause property damage, injuries and death. I'm certain there are other factors but if there are so many that disagree with the effectiveness of AFCI, work towards changing the code.



    It's a sad and sorry tale. The short story is they were rammed into the code by the manufacturers.

    I can't argue with that but why is it that residential sprinkler systems haven't been added to the code? They've been proposing that requirement for 20 years.

    Many are, that's how code changes and additions should work.

    I'm glad that we agree on something here, however: you stated that manufacturers can force things into the code so apparently that's not always how it works. I refer again to the sprinklers.



    If AFCIs were effective insurance companies would be offering financial incentives to policy holders to have them installed.

    Why would an insurance company offer a discount for something that is required by code already? Insurance companies routinely compel property owners to change fuse panels and Federal Pacific panels or threaten to cancel the policy. I have no love for insurance companies myself.



    That is both false and naive. We have rules about automatic transfer switches and generators that were rammed into the code by generator manufacturers with no evidence of problems.

    I'm not certain about what in particular you are claiming to be false and untrue but research 702.12B and follow the protracted path that requirement leads you down. The requirements are poorly written and they should just come out and say that electronic circuitry is required to ensure that "all ungrounded conductors can be simultaneously disconnected," "disconnects shall be capable of being locked in the open position," "shall be capable of being locked with or without a lock applied." Electrical inspectors are backed into a corner with these requirements. The state once again replies that these installations require a variance. There are numerous codes that are improperly written, difficult to comprehend or explain to the electrician or just plain wrong. As an inspector, we don't ge tto pick and choose which codes we like.

    We have rules about derating wires on roof tops that were rammed into the code by the copper producers with no evidence of prior failures.

    Copper producers? More likely electrical engineers.

    The three story limit on the use of romex was removed as a horse trade between code panel members to get a favorable vote on another proposal.

    I don't have knowledge of that however; where's the proof that there was ever a reason to limit the installation of NM cable to three stories?

    In use receptacle covers, changing the listing on rain tite fittings, ....and on it goes
    I don't disagree. Time to retire rather than fight a corrupt system on a daily basis.

    Leave a comment:


  • hbiss
    replied
    Originally posted by ActionDave View Post
    What makes an AFCI trip?
    Lots of things but rarely an arc fault.

    -Hal

    Leave a comment:


  • LarryFine
    replied
    Originally posted by ActionDave View Post
    What makes an AFCI trip?
    LSD?

    Leave a comment:


  • MAC702
    replied
    Originally posted by ActionDave View Post
    Everybody that defends AFCIs compares them to GFCIs.

    GFCIs trip when there is a five millamp fault to ground.

    What makes an AFCI trip?
    Magic, you heretic.

    Leave a comment:


  • ActionDave
    replied
    Originally posted by readydave8 View Post
    He was not comparing technologies, he was comparing old electricians reaction to new technologies.
    Everybody that defends AFCIs compares them to GFCIs.

    GFCIs trip when there is a five millamp fault to ground.

    What makes an AFCI trip?

    Leave a comment:


  • LarryFine
    replied
    Originally posted by readydave8 View Post
    He was not comparing technologies, he was comparing old electricians reaction to new technologies.
    Click image for larger version

Name:	ogy.gif
Views:	5
Size:	2.4 KB
ID:	2380787 Click image for larger version

Name:	ogy.gif
Views:	5
Size:	2.4 KB
ID:	2380787

    Leave a comment:


  • readydave8
    replied
    Originally posted by ActionDave View Post


    GFCIs are different, and anyone who understands the difference between the two technologies would not compare them.
    He was not comparing technologies, he was comparing old electricians reaction to new technologies.

    Leave a comment:


  • hbiss
    replied
    Originally posted by nysprkdude View Post
    How do you think these requirements become code? They are approved by code making panels with data presented to reflect their necessity.
    I'll say it again- the code making panels have representitives who work for the manufacturers and are voting members. This is where all that manipulated data you found came from. We've seen it all before. They used it to help convince the other members to vote with them.

    We ain't just a bunch of hicks here. Some of our members sit on code making panels themselves so we know what goes on.

    One of our members (and a manufacturer's rep) who I believe was a voting member of the CMP that was involved with AFCIs, was so pompus that he was banned from here for a few months. Basically he told us to go screw ourselves if we don't agree with AFCIs. We need to do what they tell us to do and it isn't going to change. Nice.

    Remember one thing, there's a lot of money being made off this if you know what I mean.

    -Hal

    Leave a comment:


  • peter d
    replied
    Originally posted by ActionDave View Post


    That is both false and naive. We have rules about automatic transfer switches and generators that were rammed into the code by generator manufacturers with no evidence of problems.

    We have rules about derating wires on roof tops that were rammed into the code by the copper producers with no evidence of prior failures.

    The three story limit on the use of romex was removed as a horse trade between code panel members to get a favorable vote on another proposal.

    In use receptacle covers, changing the listing on rain tite fittings, ....and on it goes
    This is why I say manufacturers should have no direct participation in the code making process. I'm fine with them serving in an advisory role but I'm adamantly opposed to them being directly involved in the code making and voting process.

    Leave a comment:


  • PaulMmn
    replied
    Originally posted by ActionDave View Post
    ...In use receptacle covers...
    Well, the screw-on caps (with the beaded chain so they don't get lost), the flip-up caps, and IIRC the 'front door' style of protection for outdoor outlets all have issues.

    When you plug in the Christmas lights for their 4-month display, I'm glad there are the bubble covers to keep the connections dry.

    Biggest problem with in-use covers is the ones that don't have gaskets around the cord exits, and don't give a clear view of the interior. I do NOT like wasps!

    Leave a comment:


  • ActionDave
    replied
    Originally posted by nysprkdude View Post
    ....There is a plethora of data that reflects that AFCI has resulted in property damage reduction as well as a reduction to human injuries and death as a result of electrical fire.
    There is none. The only data that exist about AFCIs is how they fail to perform as intended.

    You can look this up for yourself if you don't accept what I posted
    What you posted was a list of stats about fires in general. If there was any evidence that AFCIs were effective I would be in favor of them.

    How do you think these requirements become code?
    It's a sad and sorry tale. The short story is they were rammed into the code by the manufacturers.

    Many codes are the result of a previous documented incident.
    Many are, that's how code changes and additions should work.

    The insurance industry has a significant influence in the making of codes.
    If AFCIs were effective insurance companies would be offering financial incentives to policy holders to have them installed.

    Code panels don't just arbitrarily accept proposals without data to batten the request.
    That is both false and naive. We have rules about automatic transfer switches and generators that were rammed into the code by generator manufacturers with no evidence of problems.

    We have rules about derating wires on roof tops that were rammed into the code by the copper producers with no evidence of prior failures.

    The three story limit on the use of romex was removed as a horse trade between code panel members to get a favorable vote on another proposal.

    In use receptacle covers, changing the listing on rain tite fittings, ....and on it goes

    Leave a comment:


  • nysprkdude
    replied
    Originally posted by ActionDave View Post
    I don't believe this. Show the evidence that AFCI breakers do anything to prevent fires.

    What has been proven that AFCIs can not stop a glowing arc and that there is no way an arc can be sustained at 120V. AFCIs are useless other than the ground fault component


    GFCIs are different, and anyone who understands the difference between the two technologies would not compare them.
    I am not comparing the function of an AFCI to a GFCI despite the fact that I encounter licensed electricians on a daily basis that do not understand how either device functions. The statement was made to reflect that when people do not understand the technology, they routinely scoff at it.

    There is a plethora of data that reflects that AFCI has resulted in property damage reduction as well as a reduction to human injuries and death as a result of electrical fire. You can look this up for yourself if you don't accept what I posted. How do you think these requirements become code? They are approved by code making panels with data presented to reflect their necessity. Many codes are the result of a previous documented incident. The insurance industry has a significant influence in the making of codes. Code panels don't just arbitrarily accept proposals without data to batten the request.

    Leave a comment:


  • romex jockey
    replied
    If manufacturers were to throw in the towel now and give up on AFCI technology it would open them up to huge lawsuits which would probably put some of them out of business.
    I'd only stae that it almost happened....which is why we have the term 'supplemental' in 210.12

    ~RJ~

    Leave a comment:


  • romex jockey
    replied
    Originally posted by hbiss View Post
    The only way to stop litigation involving the alleged safety of AFCI's on the contractor level is to once and for all bring a class action suit against the manufacturers, UL, the CPSC and the NEC and prove the snake oil that they are. A daunting task to be sure that may unfortunately take government intervention as it did with the SawStop situation.

    -Hal
    I know of 3 countries that tried and backed down....

    Originally posted by nysprkdude View Post
    Hal,

    Having said all that. The most recent data I have come across supports the notion that AFCI protection saves lives and substantially limits property damage. I keep these figure on post-it notes at my desk so that I can reiterate them to those who still try to argue that “it’s a ridiculous requirement.” I get that a lot because I work in a medium sized city with a lot of poorly maintained properties for which the expense of AFCI circuit breakers causes a financial hardship.

    This is from the Internet so it must be true, right? Per the NFPA, from 2010 through 2014:
    [LIST][*]45,210 fires in the US were electrical in nature.[*]420 people died as a result of these fires.[*]1370 people were seriously injured.[*]$1.4 Billion in property damages.[/LIST]

    I also have data from before that as well but IMO, if 420 lives could have been saved by AFCI protection, then it would be hard to argue with. Of course, the Marine Corps taught me that “figures don’t lie, but liars can figure” so there is no indication as to whether these statistics include homes that were AFCI protected or not. I ‘ll leave it up to the reader to decide.
    Do you realize how and where these stats are collected?

    Originally posted by kwired View Post
    Where are the statistics that show those fires would have been prevented? Some I can agree with, I'd guess not all were started as a result of something an AFCI would have prevented. Portable heater too close to the curtains - might be noted as as an electrical fire, though it is simply misuse of a product more so than an electrical mishap.
    We do have a resident fire forensic poster, he has posted his findings.

    ~RJ~

    Leave a comment:


  • hbiss
    replied
    Originally posted by nysprkdude View Post
    Hal,

    I understand that everyone has differing opinions about the effectiveness of an AFCI circuit breaker compared to the cost imposed upon the property owner, however; the data collected since AFCI became mandatory in bedrooms in the 2002 code continue to reflect that these devices save lives. When the requirement to utilize GFCI protection initially appeared in the code, I remember as a young electrician hearing the more seasoned guys expressing their dislike as well due to the fact that they were misunderstood and tripped out for the precise reason that they were designed for, much of which was current leakage on old appliances.

    When we consider that ordinary circuit breakers are more than half a century old, many of which have been sitting in a damp basement for that time, we have to accept that the AFCI circuit breaker is a 21st century version of those antiquated breakers. I may be misinterpreting how a customary breaker functions but I believe that the severe corrosion I have observed with the numerous devices I have opened up subsequent to a “failure to trip” circumstance convinces me to accept the protective aspects of the AFCI. Of course, I realize that I am seeing this from the inspector’s perspective so I comprehend the difference of opinion of others as it pertains to these expensive devices. I maintain that an AFCI panel which would only require a microprocessor and circuit breakers similar to shunt trips with one wire that could both monitor the circuit and trip the breaker when an arc is sensed would be a less expensive way of complying with the code.

    Having said all that. The most recent data I have come across supports the notion that AFCI protection saves lives and substantially limits property damage. I keep these figure on post-it notes at my desk so that I can reiterate them to those who still try to argue that “it’s a ridiculous requirement.” I get that a lot because I work in a medium sized city with a lot of poorly maintained properties for which the expense of AFCI circuit breakers causes a financial hardship.

    This is from the Internet so it must be true, right? Per the NFPA, from 2010 through 2014:
    [LIST][*]45,210 fires in the US were electrical in nature. [*]420 people died as a result of these fires. [*]1370 people were seriously injured. [*]$1.4 Billion in property damages. [/LIST]

    I also have data from before that as well but IMO, if 420 lives could have been saved by AFCI protection, then it would be hard to argue with. Of course, the Marine Corps taught me that “figures don’t lie, but liars can figure” so there is no indication as to whether these statistics include homes that were AFCI protected or not. I ‘ll leave it up to the reader to decide.

    I hear the acronym YOLO used daily lately. I contend that "you only live once is not true." You live every day. You only die once. YODO
    You are new here so I'll cut you some slack. If you do some research of this site you will find input from engineers (one who was involved with the original design process), hundreds of ECs who have experience with AFCIs and members of the NEC code making panels themselves. Read how the NEC was compromised by manufacturer influence to require the installation of AFCIs thus creating a huge win for manufacturer profitability.

    Believe me, if our findings were that AFCI technology was viable we would embrace it with open arms. We aren't just against AFCIs because it costs more or we don't like it. The fact is that in the almost 20 years AFCIs have been available they have NEVER been proven to have saved one life. That NFPA data you quote has been shown to be fudged from manufacturers and other proponents of AFCIs.

    AFCIs were a pipe dream back when it was hoped that technology could be developed to build a functional arc sensing device. But unfortunately, 20 years later we now know that the amount of "horsepower" to accomplish that can't be contained within the space relegated to a standard breaker.

    If manufacturers were to throw in the towel now and give up on AFCI technology it would open them up to huge lawsuits which would probably put some of them out of business.

    -Hal

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X