User Tag List

Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst ... 8 9 10 11 12 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 122

Thread: GFCI Receptacle for garbage disposal

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Hawthorne, New York NEC: 2014
    Posts
    4,848
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ActionDave View Post
    What makes an AFCI trip?
    Lots of things but rarely an arc fault.

    -Hal

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    39
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote 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.

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Hawthorne, New York NEC: 2014
    Posts
    4,848
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by nysprkdude
    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.
    Think about it. AFCI's haven't been installed in a large enough base yet to cause such a "drastic" change in data. And of the ones installed we know that they don't work. So, yeah, there are other factors at work here.

    We already talked about changing the code and the only way that's going to happen is litigation. There is just too much money at stake here for any one party to just throw in the towel.

    Quote Originally Posted by nysprkdude
    ... why is it that residential sprinkler systems haven't been added to the code? They've been proposing that requirement for 20 years.
    And we've been saying the same thing for 20 years! We are all big proponents of sprinklers. All I can surmise is that it's a different code and sprinkler manufacturers don't have the deep pockets the the electrical industry does to lobby for the changes.

    Quote Originally Posted by nysprkdude
    Why would an insurance company offer a discount for something that is required by code already?
    There are plenty of dwellings that are between fuses and brand new that could be retrofitted with AFCI breakers.

    Quote Originally Posted by nysprkdude
    ... where's the proof that there was ever a reason to limit the installation of NM cable to three stories?
    Same reason that it can't be used in places of assembly for instance. NM is not a "robust" wiring method. Where there are large numbers of people in one place you don't want to rely on an electrical system that can be compromised by an over-driven staple or rodents.

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    4,222
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hbiss View Post
    Where there are large numbers of people in one place you don't want to rely on an electrical system that can be compromised by an over-driven staple or rodents.
    Yet it's perfectly acceptable to be used in a dwelling unit where we eat, sleep, and spend 3/4's of our time.


    JAP>

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Hawthorne, New York NEC: 2014
    Posts
    4,848
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Guess they think the possible loss of only a few people justifies the lower expense.

    -Hal

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    13,959
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ActionDave View Post
    What makes an AFCI trip?
    Perfectly good appliances that are brand new out of the box are one example. Barring a hard N-G fault, the cause is almost always completely unknowable.

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    2,618
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    These don't trip as much>>>

    ~RJ~

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    13,959
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by romex jockey View Post
    These don't trip as much>>>

    ~RJ~
    Those are nothing more than a GE label on a Siemens/Murray DF breaker. So Siemens DF breakers aren't problematic? I'm asking since I don't use them much, or GE for that matter.

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    (44.057116, -123.103394)
    Posts
    540
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ActionDave View Post
    There is none. The only data that exist about AFCIs is how they fail to perform as intended.



    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.



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



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



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



    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
    The question you all seem to be debating is should UL standards drive the NEC
    or should the NEC drive the UL and other construction & performance of equipment standards?

    The NEC used to cover the construction & performance, installation and mintenence of electrical equipment.
    The future scope of the NEC is basically restricted to installation of electrical equipment in new construction and retrofits.
    When the NEC requires Equipment to be Listed it generally is assuming UL’s Standards Technical Panels (STPs) provide the construction & performance requirements for the electrical equipment.
    In reality an AHJ can adpot any IEC or other listing standard or waive the requirement for listing (as is necessary with raintight EMT fittings used with Bell boxes).

    Since around '02 there has been a push to remove product construction & performance requirements from the NEC.
    I suspect the NEC is a little more 'open' of a standard than the UL or other construction & performance standards a AHJ should adopt.
    And removing construction & performance standards from the NEC may have been a mistake.
    Comments based on 2017 NEC unless otherwise noted.

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NE Nebraska
    Posts
    41,670
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hbiss View Post
    Think about it. AFCI's haven't been installed in a large enough base yet to cause such a "drastic" change in data. And of the ones installed we know that they don't work. So, yeah, there are other factors at work here.

    Same reason that it can't be used in places of assembly for instance. NM is not a "robust" wiring method. Where there are large numbers of people in one place you don't want to rely on an electrical system that can be compromised by an over-driven staple or rodents.
    The first required AFCI's are just starting to get old enough that we may start to see if they are any good at preventing fires. Then comes the question of whether they still function at their age. The biggest concern for electrical fires in the permanent wiring of a structure IMO is the "glowing connection" though, which AFCI's will not detect.

    Quote Originally Posted by tortuga View Post
    The question you all seem to be debating is should UL standards drive the NEC
    or should the NEC drive the UL and other construction & performance of equipment standards?

    The NEC used to cover the construction & performance, installation and mintenence of electrical equipment.
    The future scope of the NEC is basically restricted to installation of electrical equipment in new construction and retrofits.
    When the NEC requires Equipment to be Listed it generally is assuming UL’s Standards Technical Panels (STPs) provide the construction & performance requirements for the electrical equipment.
    In reality an AHJ can adpot any IEC or other listing standard or waive the requirement for listing (as is necessary with raintight EMT fittings used with Bell boxes).

    Since around '02 there has been a push to remove product construction & performance requirements from the NEC.
    I suspect the NEC is a little more 'open' of a standard than the UL or other construction & performance standards a AHJ should adopt.
    And removing construction & performance standards from the NEC may have been a mistake.
    Seems to me the manufacturers are driving both UL and NEC more than anybody else is.
    I live for today, I'm just a day behind.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •