User Tag List

Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 9 10 11 12 13 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 122

Thread: GFCI Receptacle for garbage disposal

  1. #101
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    2,525
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by peter d View Post
    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.
    It's a GE as far as i can tell, all i'll say is less problems w/them Pete

    Quote Originally Posted by kwired View Post

    Seems to me the manufacturers are driving both UL and NEC more than anybody else is.
    Dig, and you'll find the same UL and CSPC members as either cmp-2 seats or alternates over the last 2 decades

    ~RJ~

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    39
    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.

    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.



    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.



    There are plenty of dwellings that are between fuses and brand new that could be retrofitted with AFCI breakers.



    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.
    1) I believe that "places of assembly was dropped from 334.10 and 334.12 which used to refer one to chapter 5 which included "places of assembly."

    2) An AFCI circuit breaker is intended to diagnose and shut the circuit off for the conditions of over-stapling and rodent activity.

    It may be a true statement that we don't have enough data to make a scientific conclusion but I believe that it is the insurance company lobby that drives the requirement. Regardless, inspectors and electricians alike can agree to disagree, however; it is the inspector's signature that goes on the final inspection.

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NE Nebraska
    Posts
    41,360
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by nysprkdude View Post
    1) I believe that "places of assembly was dropped from 334.10 and 334.12 which used to refer one to chapter 5 which included "places of assembly."

    2) An AFCI circuit breaker is intended to diagnose and shut the circuit off for the conditions of over-stapling and rodent activity.

    It may be a true statement that we don't have enough data to make a scientific conclusion but I believe that it is the insurance company lobby that drives the requirement. Regardless, inspectors and electricians alike can agree to disagree, however; it is the inspector's signature that goes on the final inspection.
    Over stapling shouldn't happen if any care is taken during installation. Even if it still happens, GFCI (a technology many trust a lot more) will trip if a fault between either conductor and another path occurs. Rodent activity is not something an AFCI is designed to protect from, conditions can result that may trip AFCI, GFCI or even regular thermal-mag function though. I've seen nearly bare NM cables from rodent activity, as long as nothing touches something it shouldn't they can exist for some time with no noticeable troubles.

    If insurance industry was the primary lobbying party for AFCI requirements, why don't we see discounts for having them?

    AFCI started out as an idea from CPSC, they told the manufacturers to make something to address this, and it has been manufacturer control over them ever since. Once they finally came up with a product that sort of worked, they wanted to sell it whether it was truly ready or not, and start recovering what they had put into research and development. Then when they made improvements to what they told us was the right product in the beginning, they put dates in NEC because they weren't quite ready to release those improved products, but didn't want to wait another three years before next code cyce would make us start to use them. The manufacturers had to have a lot of clout involved in the code making process to get their way like they did, and $$ is what drives the manufacturing more than anything else. If you get deeply involved in code making and listing process, whether good or bad for everyone else, it means $$ for them.

    There may be some good in AFCI products, but the technology was forced into codes and listing standards even if it wasn't ready for the rest of the world, and was done for the $$ more so than general public interest.
    I live for today, I'm just a day behind.

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    4,187
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by kwired View Post
    Over stapling shouldn't happen if any care is taken during installation.
    Some may mean that literally.

    I've heard some guys argue that if you nail the NM down too tight it will cause an arc fault to trip.

    Even if it doesn't damage the insulation, or, so some may think.

    I've yet to witness doing so, would magically reduce the flow of electrons enough to make such an event occur.


    JAP>

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    39
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hbiss View Post
    Lots of things but rarely an arc fault.

    -Hal
    Pull out the cord of a running vacuum cleaner in the dark and tell everyone what you see. I believe it's called an arc.

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    39
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by kwired View Post
    Over stapling shouldn't happen if any care is taken during installation. Even if it still happens, GFCI (a technology many trust a lot more) will trip if a fault between either conductor and another path occurs. Rodent activity is not something an AFCI is designed to protect from, conditions can result that may trip AFCI, GFCI or even regular thermal-mag function though. I've seen nearly bare NM cables from rodent activity, as long as nothing touches something it shouldn't they can exist for some time with no noticeable troubles.

    If insurance industry was the primary lobbying party for AFCI requirements, why don't we see discounts for having them?

    AFCI started out as an idea from CPSC, they told the manufacturers to make something to address this, and it has been manufacturer control over them ever since. Once they finally came up with a product that sort of worked, they wanted to sell it whether it was truly ready or not, and start recovering what they had put into research and development. Then when they made improvements to what they told us was the right product in the beginning, they put dates in NEC because they weren't quite ready to release those improved products, but didn't want to wait another three years before next code cyce would make us start to use them. The manufacturers had to have a lot of clout involved in the code making process to get their way like they did, and $$ is what drives the manufacturing more than anything else. If you get deeply involved in code making and listing process, whether good or bad for everyone else, it means $$ for them.

    There may be some good in AFCI products, but the technology was forced into codes and listing standards even if it wasn't ready for the rest of the world, and was done for the $$ more so than general public interest.
    Can anyone address the issue with the code requirements for using an AFCI receptacle? Mainly, the requirement that they must be used with a circuit breaker that has been approved for use with the AFCI receptacle. Until Leviton began to manufacture panels and circuit breakers recently, there was no circuit breaker manufacturer that identified their breaker for use with an AFCI receptacle. Of course, receptacle manufacturers did not make circuit breakers and circuit breaker manufacturers did not make receptacles. So...who was going to take on the liability of another manufacturer? None. Can't use an AFCI receptacle unless a receptacle manufacturer, such as Leviton states that their circuit breakers are approved for use with AFCI receptacle. I have not researched whether Leviton makes such a statement regarding the use of AFCI receptacles with their c/b's. Then.... inspectors are supposed to measure the distance of the circuit from the panel? Right!

    I still believe that AFCI c/b's do detect faults that 1950's c/b's cannot. Rodent damaged wires are not a concern until a connection is made between conductors, probably by the rodent or rodents that chewed the wire to begin with. A 1950's technology c/b wouldn't shut the circuit off even if the critter was crispy. I've seen demonstrations at electrical trade shows where a broken paper clip is inserted into a receptacle protected by a regular circuit breaker. The paper clip turns cherry red and the c/b never kicks. Same demo with an AFCI, c/b trips immediately. Trickery?

    I have also tripped the AFCI c/b's in my own house intentionally and they work as advertised. Of course I am now wondering if intentionally tripping an AFCI to save walking the three flights of stairs to shut the breaker off so I can safely work on the circuit actually damages the AFCI breaker or circuit wiring.

    I've read that there is no definitive test device to ensure that the AFCI actually works and the testers that are available can actually damage the circuit thereby creating liability for the inspector using the supposed AFCI tester. This thread has caused me to question the viability of AFCI's despite the fact that I have seen evidence of them working as advertised. I perform over 1500 electrical inspections per year for the past 16 years and have yet to encounter an AFCI c/b that did not function and/or caused a fire.

    Having made that statement, I have also returned to properties that I previously inspected observing AFCI c/b's were installed as per code requirement only to find that the breakers are no longer in the panel. I cannot prove who is responsible for this phenomenon but I'm wondering if electrician's that read this forum take them out after I depart the premises. In this thread, the consensus of opinion appears to be that many are skeptical of their effectiveness. Actually, I suspect that the tenants remove them because the local pawn shop has AFCI circuit breakers for sale.

    So...as with many code requirements, inspectors will continue to enforce the code so that we can't be sued and the question of their effectivity will remain debatable until definitive proof is published for our perusal.

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    39
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jap View Post
    Some may mean that literally.

    I've heard some guys argue that if you nail the NM down too tight it will cause an arc fault to trip.

    Even if it doesn't damage the insulation, or, so some may think.

    I've yet to witness doing so, would magically reduce the flow of electrons enough to make such an event occur.


    JAP>
    In the Northeast, where houses and lumber expand and contract with the changes in the weather, an over stapled condition "could" trip the AFCI c/b if the staple creates a path between the line to neutral or line to equipment ground. Haven't seen it occur but theoretically, it could happen.

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    39
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hbiss View Post
    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
    So....like everything else, money makes the world go around and even the CMP's are corrupt?Guess I haven't thought of that before but your statement causes me to reflect upon that fact. It is difficult being an electrical inspector who enforces the code because we are compelled to do so. On the other hand, it is difficult for electrical contractors who adhere to the code as well as requiring them to have the necessary insurances. They will more-than-likely lose a job to a contractor that doesn't comply with the previously reiterated as it is much cheaper to do a job when you can cut corners. Where I am employed, electricians are required to be licensed but I would stand behind the statement that a license doesn't make one a better contractor and not having a license doesn't necessarily constitute a bad contractor. Licenses are only required for work within the City, however; across that imaginary line that is the immediate suburb, no license is required. I don't see the data that reflects a greater incidence of electrical fires in the suburbs so I question the validity of the license requirement. I do see a difference between a conscientious contractor and a hack though. Unfortunately, my employer does not prosecute the more than 50% of electrical work performed by unlicensed individuals without a permit and an inspection. I am leaning toward the elimination of licenses because it is ridiculous that within the state, there is no reciprocity between municipalities and that practice facilitates the company that proctors the test from Maine to Miami to be financially successful. Why is it necessary for a contractor to possess a license from city to city within the same state or from state to state for that matter when the same company gives that test? I appreciate the contributions of persons on this forum because it does often cause me to look at things in a different perspective. It's just sad that I am cognizant that even though I attempt to perform in a professional manner, I am now aware that almost everything is corrupt. Time to retire.

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NE Nebraska
    Posts
    41,360
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jap View Post
    Some may mean that literally.

    I've heard some guys argue that if you nail the NM down too tight it will cause an arc fault to trip.

    Even if it doesn't damage the insulation, or, so some may think.

    I've yet to witness doing so, would magically reduce the flow of electrons enough to make such an event occur.


    JAP>
    I've heard that before, don't believe it one bit. If it damages insulation, 120 volts isn't high enough to arc without some help from other contaminant within the cable sheath.

    Some of us were smart enough to use plastic strap type staples long before this AFCI thing came along, and found it did help lessen some problems, and even used "stacker style" straps when securing multiple cables so that one doesn't have as much of a chance of driving the strap in too far and causing such issues.
    I live for today, I'm just a day behind.

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NE Nebraska
    Posts
    41,360
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by nysprkdude View Post
    Pull out the cord of a running vacuum cleaner in the dark and tell everyone what you see. I believe it's called an arc.
    That is supposed to be one arc that should not trip the AFCI's. You also have an arc in any switch when you open or close it with a load. Those are all arcs that are not supposed to trigger the AFCI protection.
    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
  •