Rewire
Senior Member
- Location
- Lake of the Ozarks
has anyone installed one yet? How has it worked out?What is the cost?
new AFCI receptacle
- Thread starter Rewire
- Start date
- Status
- Location
- Chapel Hill, NC
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Contractor
There are some out there but not sure of the availabilty. Here is one on the web but who knows if it's really available
Rewire
Senior Member
- Location
- Lake of the Ozarks
levington was putting one out Oct 1
Rewire
Senior Member
- Location
- Lake of the Ozarks
they are cheaper than a breaker
They may be cheaper than the breaker but you have to comply with this.
210.12(B)
Exception No. 1: Where RMC, IMC, EMT or steel armored cable, Type AC, meeting the requirements of 250.118 using metal outlet and junction boxes is installed for the portion of the branch circuit between the branch-circuit overcurrent device and the first outlet, it shall be permitted to install a combination AFCI at the first outlet to provide protection for the remaining portion of the branch circuit.
Rewire
Senior Member
- Location
- Lake of the Ozarks
Sales of AC will go up
kwired
Electron manager
- Location
- NE Nebraska
- Occupation
- EC
You asked what cost was in first post then later said they are cheaper than a breaker:?
One big advantage regardless of cost would be installation where you have a breaker panel where there is no AFCI's available to fit the panel, like Pushmatic, FPE, Zinsco...
JJWalecka
Senior Member
- Location
- New England
Good point
Rewire
Senior Member
- Location
- Lake of the Ozarks
dont get excited I was just assuming the cost would be kless as gfi recptacles are cheaper than breakers I should have placed a ? at the end
renosteinke
Senior Member
- Location
- NE Arkansas
"Cost less"
"I dont think there is any benefit of having a AFCI receptacle, it just doesn't make sense"
"Have to comply with this"
Gee, I don't suppose anyone thought to let the market decide? Free markets work, every time they're tried.
No, instead, we have this 'central planning' mindset where we prefer, instead, to have private committees be lobbied by special interests, to decide in advance what's good for us, then to impose a 'one size fits all' solution.
So what if it doesn't make sense to one man? It might very well make sense to someone else. (High heels are an example of this ... I, for one, cannot understand their appeal - but half of humanity seem to think they're a great wayto make shoes!)
Instead, this 'expert-driven,' authoritarian model has put us in the twilight zone ... where we fight like mad to get something (AFCI devices) allowed, but no one wants to sell them.
It's hard to even just say "AFCI" without re-opening all the various debates on the topic. So, I'll just cut to the chase:
Assuming AFCI's even exist and function as claimed, IMO there are plenty of advantages to using a device rather than a breaker. Not least among these situations is for service work on existing homes.
IMO, the restrictions placed on using the devices are designed to discourage their use, and nothing more. You can make the exact same arguments to apply the same restrictions to GFCI devices. Indeed, one breaker maker (C-H) has already tried to get a stampede going in that direction. (C-H ran an article in IAEI News, where they pointed out all the failings in abused devices, devices that were made under an obsolete standard, and used in conditions that do not conform with current code requirements).
IMO, the pricing assumptions are correct. It comes back to free markets working - as demonstrated, again, by the GFCI experience. When onlt one guy can make something you're required to use, the price is always much higher than when that 'something' can be made by anyone and purchased -or not- willingly.
Finally, IMO the entire issue is centered on assumptions that Romex / NM is an unsafe wiring method, and that arc-faults arise only in homes. I have problems with those assumptions.
"I dont think there is any benefit of having a AFCI receptacle, it just doesn't make sense"
"Have to comply with this"
Gee, I don't suppose anyone thought to let the market decide? Free markets work, every time they're tried.
No, instead, we have this 'central planning' mindset where we prefer, instead, to have private committees be lobbied by special interests, to decide in advance what's good for us, then to impose a 'one size fits all' solution.
So what if it doesn't make sense to one man? It might very well make sense to someone else. (High heels are an example of this ... I, for one, cannot understand their appeal - but half of humanity seem to think they're a great wayto make shoes!)
Instead, this 'expert-driven,' authoritarian model has put us in the twilight zone ... where we fight like mad to get something (AFCI devices) allowed, but no one wants to sell them.
It's hard to even just say "AFCI" without re-opening all the various debates on the topic. So, I'll just cut to the chase:
Assuming AFCI's even exist and function as claimed, IMO there are plenty of advantages to using a device rather than a breaker. Not least among these situations is for service work on existing homes.
IMO, the restrictions placed on using the devices are designed to discourage their use, and nothing more. You can make the exact same arguments to apply the same restrictions to GFCI devices. Indeed, one breaker maker (C-H) has already tried to get a stampede going in that direction. (C-H ran an article in IAEI News, where they pointed out all the failings in abused devices, devices that were made under an obsolete standard, and used in conditions that do not conform with current code requirements).
IMO, the pricing assumptions are correct. It comes back to free markets working - as demonstrated, again, by the GFCI experience. When onlt one guy can make something you're required to use, the price is always much higher than when that 'something' can be made by anyone and purchased -or not- willingly.
Finally, IMO the entire issue is centered on assumptions that Romex / NM is an unsafe wiring method, and that arc-faults arise only in homes. I have problems with those assumptions.
kwired
Electron manager
- Location
- NE Nebraska
- Occupation
- EC
I don't even want to speculate which will cost more. If things go my way they will be competitively priced as compared to breakers and if anything help bring cost of either down.
If you have to use specific wiring methods on the supply side they likely will not be used too much except for the cases I brought up like for pushmatic, FPE, etc. panels where there is no AFCI breaker available, especially if they are in the same price range as the breakers.
Although I think AFCI's are most snake oil this will not be big deal in cases where a panel is located in a utility room or garage. I would simply mount an AFCI receptacle in a surface mounted box at the panel with a metallic nipple and connect the existing circuit conductors to the load side. Heck they should start making faceless versions for this type of installation where numerous circuits would need to be protected and multi-gang boxes could be located under or beside a panel.
This same concept is a good way to get around having to turn off all the conductors of MWBC's just to work on one.
Roger
This same concept is a good way to get around having to turn off all the conductors of MWBC's just to work on one.
Roger
hillbilly1
Senior Member
- Location
- North Georgia mountains
- Occupation
- Owner/electrical contractor
Then you still have to get around 70E, because there probably no provision to add a lock and tag!
kwired
Electron manager
- Location
- NE Nebraska
- Occupation
- EC
I don't see it making any difference in the MWBC case. There is still risk of opening a neutral conductor that is carrying current and two pole breakers or handle ties would still be required. Then comes LOTO for the guy working on the circuit. Will these AFCI devices have a way to lock off power if used as a disconnecting means? Can they even be considered a disconnecting means?
You're missing the point, the handle ties would still be in place for 210.4 and you are correct that the dangers that were present before the 2008 requirement are back in play but, IMO even with that being the case, being able to isolate one conductor from the MWBC is probably better than working on it live which I think is done probably more now than pre handle tie requirement.
Now I am missing your point. My point is the first device from the circuits origin is where the AFCI receptacle will have to be installed to meet 210.12(B) and the closer to the panel the better as far as protecting the whole circuit is concerned.
I don't see where an AFCI receptacle would need to be handled any differently or considered a disconnecting means any differently than a standard receptacle would.
Roger
kwired
Electron manager
- Location
- NE Nebraska
- Occupation
- EC
What I am trying to bring into the picture is the main reason for requiring simultaneous disconnection of all ungrounded conductors of a MWBC, as well as the fact that safe work practices dictates LOTO procedures. If this AFCI receptacle is similar in design to a GFCI (basically just a test and reset button for operator controls) How do you turn off a circuit and then ensure it can not be turned on by someone else while you are working on it? The circuit breaker versions do have attachment devices that can be used to lock them in the open position.
But I do agree any method of removing power is safer than not removing it at all. But OSHA does not really care that much even if a small effort was made, and if someone incidentally turns something on the electrons in the conductors do not care one bit, if there is continuity they are going to follow it.
hillbilly1
Senior Member
- Location
- North Georgia mountains
- Occupation
- Owner/electrical contractor
The load side of the receptacle would no longer be a multiwire circuit past that point, so I don't think that would be an issue. It's just from an OSHA standpoint whether it can be used as a disconnecting means and also being capable of locking out, but as you and Roger have said, at least it would reduce the temptation to work it hot since not all two or three circuits have to be shut off.
- Status