AFCI satisfaction poll. Please take a moment to answer.

[MasterTheNEC]

And that applies to the supporters of the AFCI as well as its detractors.

INDEED....NOW..lets all hold hands and sing.......oh never mind:angel:

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Then no product standards do. Every product standard simulates the real-world environment or condition. This is not unique to AFCIs. There is absolutely nothing special about UL 1699. Its origin, development, and current state is identical to every other product standard in existence.

If there is a better way to detect arcing faults, it will be found, and the standard will be updated. If there is a better way to test the performance of the arc detection device, it will be found, and the standard will be updated.

This same concept applies to every other electrical product.

The problem is really that arcing fault very rarely cause fires(that is why the standard is not in the real world)...electrical fires are mostly caused by joule heating at a poor connection...something that AFCIs cannot detect and clear.

 

[ActionDave]

So every post made on this Forum that is opposed to AFCIs is profound and scholarly.

Mine aren't.

And anyone that is in support of AFCIs is closed minded, corrupt, and dumb.

It appears you guys have run out of anything technical to argue against AFCIs with so you just result to personal attacks. I get it.

I am working to help make the product standard better - you want to burn the standard out of existence.
I am working to help make the technology better - you want to have the technology banned from the code.
I am working to help the manufacturers provide better education, resources, and guidance on the installation of AFCIs - you want the manufacturers to go to jail.

I'm the closed minded one?

Iwire telling you your arguments in favour of AFCI's are not effective and may be detrimental to your cause is hardly a personal attack. The only one making any personal comments in these current threads has been you.

 

[bphgravity]

I am certainly not under the delusion that I or anybody in support of AFCI technology is going to convince the dozen or so of you on this Forum that have already made up your minds. My goal has simply been to temper all the unsubstantiated comments that have been posted by providing more factual information.

The casual Forum member can make up their own mind. They essentially have two choices:

1. They can believe a handful of individuals that have never even read the UL 1699 standard, have never seen the tests performed, and the only real knowledge about the history and development of AFCI technology is from what they have found in a few random google searches.

OR

2. They can believe in the information that has been validated and supported by the CPSC, NFPA, NEMA, UL, FEMA, OSHA, USFA, IAEI, IBEW, IEC, NECA and not less than dozen other reputable electrical associations.

The egos that some of you must have to presume and think they could possibly know better than the men and women in these organizations that have directly worked with or contributed to AFCI technology.

I'm in really good company and feel immensely confident and comfortable where I am at...

 

[peter d]

I am certainly not under the delusion that I or anybody in support of AFCI technology is going to convince the dozen or so of you on this Forum that have already made up your minds. My goal has simply been to temper all the unsubstantiated comments that have been posted by providing more factual information.

The casual Forum member can make up their own mind. They essentially have two choices:

1. They can believe a handful of individuals that have never even read the UL 1699 standard, have never seen the tests performed, and the only real knowledge about the history and development of AFCI technology is from what they have found in a few random google searches.

OR

2. They can believe in the information that has been validated and supported by the CPSC, NFPA, NEMA, UL, FEMA, OSHA, USFA, IAEI, IBEW, IEC, NECA and not less than dozen other reputable electrical associations.

That those organizations support or endorse AFCI's actually tarnishes their reputations and draws them away from being considered reliable sources of information and truth.

 

[kwired]

I am certainly not under the delusion that I or anybody in support of AFCI technology is going to convince the dozen or so of you on this Forum that have already made up your minds. My goal has simply been to temper all the unsubstantiated comments that have been posted by providing more factual information.

The casual Forum member can make up their own mind. They essentially have two choices:

1. They can believe a handful of individuals that have never even read the UL 1699 standard, have never seen the tests performed, and the only real knowledge about the history and development of AFCI technology is from what they have found in a few random google searches.

OR

2. They can believe in the information that has been validated and supported by the CPSC, NFPA, NEMA, UL, FEMA, OSHA, USFA, IAEI, IBEW, IEC, NECA and not less than dozen other reputable electrical associations.

The egos that some of you must have to presume and think they could possibly know better than the men and women in these organizations that have directly worked with or contributed to AFCI technology.

I'm in really good company and feel immensely confident and comfortable where I am at...

I believe in the concepts that founded this country including the constitution, the democratic form of government, etc. yet don't believe every decision ever made by our lawmakers was always the right decision, whether recent or long time ago. Same goes for all the organizations you mentioned with ties to the electrical industry.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

...
2. They can believe in the information that has been validated and supported by the CPSC, NFPA, NEMA, UL, FEMA, OSHA, USFA, IAEI, IBEW, IEC, NECA and not less than dozen other reputable electrical associations.

...

Actually all of my information comes from digging into the very deep well hidden details provided by those sources.

 

[iwire]

So every post made on this Forum that is opposed to AFCIs is profound and scholarly. And anyone that is in support of AFCIs is closed minded, corrupt, and dumb.

I have not ever said anything close to that, and I not a guy that has bad mouthed the CMPs I like to believe that they are all dedicated people trying to do the right thing.

But at the same time once a course is chosen it is human nature not to want to back away from it for many reasons. My feeling is these people were lied to by the manufacturers and made decisions based on falsehoods.

It appears you guys have run out of anything technical to argue against AFCIs with so you just result to personal attacks. I get it.

I am going to ask you to go back and read the posts you have made, you have made many personal attacks and spoken to people like you are somehow above them due to your connection to NEMA and have the UL standards at your finger tips.

I am working to help make the product standard better - you want to burn the standard out of existence.

I could not possibly care less about the standard.

I am working to help make the technology better - you want to have the technology banned from the code.

How are you personally working to make the technology better, I am truly interested in that statement.

Banned? No but pull the requirement out of the NEC till such time, if ever the technology matures, is reliable and reduces fires.

I am working to help the manufacturers provide better education, resources, and guidance on the installation of AFCIs - you want the manufacturers to go to jail.

So you are sticking with all AFCI issues are installer issues?

You must have forgotten about the post you made long ago about Siemens AFCIs and their admission they have or had troubles with some vacuums and other appliances.

No I have never mentioned jailing anyone, don't be ridiculous. All I want is the manufactures to be truthful in what AFCIs can do or not and stop pointing the finger at installers..

I'm the closed minded one?

Yes, you seem deaf to all the posts reporting problems with AFCIs

Can you provide real life, not in the lab success stories?

Can you provide any real evidence that it is arcing events causing most home electrical fires?

Can you show any cost vs benefit analysis showing a positive result for AFCIs ?

 

[klineelectric]

Meanwhile all of us in the field dealing with random ghost tripping afci's keep losing money on nonsense service calls and the manufacturers keep raking in more and more money with each code change requiring more afcis. I don't know about anyone else but in my area to compete and get jobs the profit margin does not allow for multiple call backs where there is nothing wrong with the installation. If I do something wrong and my installation or a carpenters nail etc is tripping the afci, that is one thing and will almost always show itself when a load is applied to the circuit. These trips can always be found and rectified. Its the "electrical noise" or certain electronics (dvd players computer loads etc), led bulbs, dimmers, line side(power co) connections or ham radios for god sake that have us in the field pulling our hair out. I think any electrician worth his weight in copper strives for and demands safe electrical installations. I don't think anyone on here or elsewhere would have a problem at all with afcis if it wasn't for these ghost trips. This is NOT a case of liking or not liking a product. It a case of having a product crowbarred into the market that is not ready to deal with these real world (and not intended by any manufacturer or member of the CMP) "non arc faults" , tripping a breaker that is intended to trip for a completely rational reason. I recently had a new refrigerator trip an arc fault whenever it cycled into energy saving mode. (Yes we are required to put refrigerators on afci in my area). So once homeowners start losing hundreds or thousands of dollars of food, hopefully there will be an uproar from beyond the electrical community. I just hope it is aimed at the rightful culprits not the electrical contactors.

 

[romex jockey]

Well Said NEMA Rep...Well Said!

Great taste, less filling would be an apt reply ......

~RJ~

 

[romex jockey]

BTW, i find it amusing the AFCI is banned in 2014 NH, which the CMP-2 chair hails from.....~RJ~

 

[romex jockey]

Yes, you seem deaf to all the posts reporting problems with AFCIs

Can you provide real life, not in the lab success stories?

Can you provide any real evidence that it is arcing events causing most home electrical fires?

Can you show any cost vs benefit analysis showing a positive result for AFCIs ?

If you want canned studies, all you need do is ask Iwire

I could not possibly care less about the standard.

I would encourage you to 'care' about standards, and who makes them

The responses here are NEMA's ability to selectively choose members, and further selectively coerce an NRTL towards listings that create a standard vs. standards that create a listing (which would be the norm)

~RJ~

 

[readydave8]

Meanwhile all of us in the field dealing with random ghost tripping afci's keep losing money on nonsense service calls and the manufacturers keep raking in more and more money with each code change requiring more afcis. I don't know about anyone else but in my area to compete and get jobs the profit margin does not allow for multiple call backs where there is nothing wrong with the installation. If I do something wrong and my installation or a carpenters nail etc is tripping the afci, that is one thing and will almost always show itself when a load is applied to the circuit. These trips can always be found and rectified. Its the "electrical noise" or certain electronics (dvd players computer loads etc), led bulbs, dimmers, line side(power co) connections or ham radios for god sake that have us in the field pulling our hair out. I think any electrician worth his weight in copper strives for and demands safe electrical installations. I don't think anyone on here or elsewhere would have a problem at all with afcis if it wasn't for these ghost trips. This is NOT a case of liking or not liking a product. It a case of having a product crowbarred into the market that is not ready to deal with these real world (and not intended by any manufacturer or member of the CMP) "non arc faults" , tripping a breaker that is intended to trip for a completely rational reason. I recently had a new refrigerator trip an arc fault whenever it cycled into energy saving mode. (Yes we are required to put refrigerators on afci in my area). So once homeowners start losing hundreds or thousands of dollars of food, hopefully there will be an uproar from beyond the electrical community. I just hope it is aimed at the rightful culprits not the electrical contactors.

This post gets down to some of the issues I have with AFCI's without bringing up conspiracy theories, personalities, etc.

 

[mivey]

The problem is really that arcing fault very rarely cause fires(that is why the standard is not in the real world)...electrical fires are mostly caused by joule heating at a poor connection...something that AFCIs cannot detect and clear.

That's the difference between something looking good on paper and something actually being good in practice.

 

[mivey]

Actually all of my information comes from digging into the very deep well hidden details provided by those sources.

If only more would have done that. Too much rubber-stamping and head-nodding is why a lot of that got green-lighted before it was ready for prime-time.

 

[mivey]

I have not ever said anything close to that
...
Can you show any cost vs benefit analysis showing a positive result for AFCIs ?

This entire post just hits so many nails on the head.

I believe the AFCIs do work fine in the lab. The relevance of that is what I question.

Also, the fact remains that the devices were implemented under falsehoods and misrepresentations. The consumer is being used as a guinea pig so the manufacturers can get subsidized at-gunpoint field research done in order to get the product ready, for whatever it may eventually be worth.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

...
Can you show any cost vs benefit analysis showing a positive result for AFCIs ?

In my opinion, based on a careful study of the information from the sources that Bryan cited, the AFCI is not even close to being cost effective even after 20 years.

If you assume that there are about one million dwelling units built each year and the additional cost for the AFCIs required by the 2014 NEC is $600 per dwelling unit you will find that the total installation cost over 20 years is about 12 billion dollars. When you apply the rate of electrical fires for dwelling units less than 20 years old to all of those new dwelling units, you will find over the 20 years, assuming 100% compliance with the 2014 AFCI rule and a 100% effectiveness of the AFCI in preventing fires that are of electrical origin that you would have prevented about 11,500 fires. That is a cost of over one million dollars per fire prevented. The average dwelling unit fire loss in the US is less than $50,000 per fire.

Not even remotely close to being cost effective.

 

[peter d]

Also, the fact remains that the devices were implemented under falsehoods and misrepresentations. The consumer is being used as a guinea pig so the manufacturers can get subsidized at-gunpoint field research done in order to get the product ready, for whatever it may eventually be worth.

Even worse, the contractor has to assume all the liability if he decides to remove it should nuisance tripping become a serious issue. I'm finding that contractors are willing to take this risk now more and more.

 

[ActionDave]

Meanwhile all of us in the field dealing with random ghost tripping afci's keep losing money on nonsense service calls and the manufacturers keep raking in more and more money with each code change requiring more afcis. I don't know about anyone else but in my area to compete and get jobs the profit margin does not allow for multiple call backs where there is nothing wrong with the installation. If I do something wrong and my installation or a carpenters nail etc is tripping the afci, that is one thing and will almost always show itself when a load is applied to the circuit. These trips can always be found and rectified. Its the "electrical noise" or certain electronics (dvd players computer loads etc), led bulbs, dimmers, line side(power co) connections or ham radios for god sake that have us in the field pulling our hair out. I think any electrician worth his weight in copper strives for and demands safe electrical installations. I don't think anyone on here or elsewhere would have a problem at all with afcis if it wasn't for these ghost trips. This is NOT a case of liking or not liking a product. It a case of having a product crowbarred into the market that is not ready to deal with these real world (and not intended by any manufacturer or member of the CMP) "non arc faults" , tripping a breaker that is intended to trip for a completely rational reason. I recently had a new refrigerator trip an arc fault whenever it cycled into energy saving mode. (Yes we are required to put refrigerators on afci in my area). So once homeowners start losing hundreds or thousands of dollars of food, hopefully there will be an uproar from beyond the electrical community. I just hope it is aimed at the rightful culprits not the electrical contactors.

Well at least you have this to comfort you.

I know every member of CMP-2 personally and am in awe of their intellect, passion, and dedication to the electrical industry.....

 

[bphgravity]

Not even remotely close to being cost effective.

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...