A Publication AFCI manufacturers and CMPs don't want you to read

[ActionDave]

Hey once I found out that the NFPA was responsible for the raising oil prices, I knew that they were capable of anything. Or maybe the Illuminati have taken over the NEC.

Spin it any way you want the truth is AFCIs do suck. They do nuisance trip and there is zero evidence they will prevent fires because 120V won't sustain an arc anyway and they do nothing about glowing connection. Then there is the fact that manufactures lied about AFCIs to get them in the code. There is no comparing AFCIs to GFCIs.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Well remember that each panel is made up of 1/3 contractors, 1/3 engineers, and 1/3 manufactures. I would think that if it was really such a deal that the first third would have voted for the change. The CMP members are no longer listed in the code book so I don't have any idea what their affiliation or experience is.

That is not correct. The panels are made up of members from the following groups:

1. Manufacturer (M): A representative of a maker or marketer of a product, assembly, or system, or portion thereof, that is affected by the standard.
2. User (U): A representative of an entity that is subject to the provisions of the standard or that voluntarily uses the standard.
3. Installer/Maintainer (I/M): A representative of an entity that is in the business of installing or maintaining a product, assembly, or system affected by the standard.
4. Labor (L): A labor representative or employee concerned with safety in the workplace.
5. Applied Research/Testing Laboratory (R/T): A representative of an independent testing laboratory or independent applied research organization that promulgates and/or enforces standards.
6. Enforcing Authority (E): A representative of an agency or an organization that promulgates and/or enforces standards.
7. Insurance (I): A representative of an insurance company, broker, agent, bureau, or inspection agency.
8. Consumer (C): A person who is or represents the ultimate purchaser of a product, system, or service affected by the standard, but who is not included in (2).
9. Special Expert (SE): A person not representing (1) through (8), and who has special expertise in the scope of the standard or portion thereof.

Not all groups are represented on every panel and the 1/3 rule is that no single group can have more than 1/3 of the total panel membership.

Also the panel members are listed in the paper copy of the code book.

 

[cowboyjwc]

That is not correct. The panels are made up of members from the following groups:

1. Manufacturer (M): A representative of a maker or marketer of a product, assembly, or system, or portion thereof, that is affected by the standard.
2. User (U): A representative of an entity that is subject to the provisions of the standard or that voluntarily uses the standard.
3. Installer/Maintainer (I/M): A representative of an entity that is in the business of installing or maintaining a product, assembly, or system affected by the standard.
4. Labor (L): A labor representative or employee concerned with safety in the workplace.
5. Applied Research/Testing Laboratory (R/T): A representative of an independent testing laboratory or independent applied research organization that promulgates and/or enforces standards.
6. Enforcing Authority (E): A representative of an agency or an organization that promulgates and/or enforces standards.
7. Insurance (I): A representative of an insurance company, broker, agent, bureau, or inspection agency.
8. Consumer (C): A person who is or represents the ultimate purchaser of a product, system, or service affected by the standard, but who is not included in (2).
9. Special Expert (SE): A person not representing (1) through (8), and who has special expertise in the scope of the standard or portion thereof.

Not all groups are represented on every panel and the 1/3 rule is that no single group can have more than 1/3 of the total panel membership.

Also the panel members are listed in the paper copy of the code book.

How ever it works. So if they are complete crap, how is that the vote is 10 for, 0 against and 1 abstaining? Nobody should be able to shove something down the throats of the whole committee. Is anyone in this forum on a code making panel?

 

[raider1]

The average spark, and Id even say CMP member, is not schooled on theory as they should be and that is no accident...

Really? And just who withheld my schooling in regards to electrical Theory?

We can debate the effectiveness of AFCI all day long, but to insinuate that NFPA selects ignorant people to forward an specific agenda is absurd.

Chris

 

[raider1]

How ever it works. So if they are complete crap, how is that the vote is 10 for, 0 against and 1 abstaining? Nobody should be able to shove something down the throats of the whole committee. Is anyone in this forum on a code making panel?

I am, I sit on CMP 10.

Chris

 

[raider1]

Here is a link to NFPA where you can see each committee member.

http://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/document-information-pages?mode=code&code=70&tab=committee

Chris

 

[ADub]

You don't have to believe it in order for it to be true. Control education and you control everything; ditto for information, studies and statics.

You are an absolute lunatic. You seriously need help


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ICC]

Of course its their job, at least on the outside. However, some of it is rather debatable. Consider handle ties. Yes they are to protect untrained personnel, but is it worth it to idiot proof everything? Will DIYs adding circuits read the code to consider handle ties?




Which would hold water if AFCI actually did their job like GFCIs. Home fires have been steadily dropping, before the inclusion of AFCIs.

However, the publication makes note of something worth considering: "Simply because glowing connections are the cause ofapproximately 80% of electrical fires." If that is true, AFCIs are perhaps the worst possible method in stopping them as not all glowing connections arc, and those that do are hit or miss. AFCIs can not tell safe arcing from dangerous arcing, what guarantee is that they can differentiate dangerous arcing from safe arcing? Also add to the fact AFCIs don't look for series arcs until the 4 or 5 amp range...

Hello Sir,

I'm new here, so also I do not want to offend or hurt...

But seen from here it seems unreal ...

That's not a criticism, it's just a question, why US people dont understand thatAFCIs make the same job than cheap differential breakers (sensitive breakers with a coil) ?

See from here, it's obvious.:happyyes:

What do you think about?

Thank you in advance

Best regards,

ICC -

 

[romex jockey]

Really? And just who withheld my schooling in regards to electrical Theory?

Chris

Not just you Chris

The entire American electrical trade

I posted what should be a fairly obvious theory question about afci validity & have no takers

~RJ~

 

[iwire]

Spin it any way you want the truth is AFCIs do suck. They do nuisance trip and there is zero evidence they will prevent fires because 120V won't sustain an arc anyway and they do nothing about glowing connection. Then there is the fact that manufactures lied about AFCIs to get them in the code. There is no comparing AFCIs to GFCIs.

Dave, you know I am not an AFCI fan, but this has progressed far beyond that, now we are being told our training is being withheld so that we are uneducated and will fall for trickery.

That is frigging nuts. :lol:

 

[peter d]

The average spark, and Id even say CMP member, is not schooled on theory as they should be and that is no accident...

Most electricians have no need to know theory. A commercial construction electrician running 4" PVC in a ditch day in, day out has little to no need to know Ohm's Law. Theory certainly helps an electrician who does a lot of troubleshooting and service but for the vast majority of construction and installing electricians, it's not needed.

 

[iwire]

Please answer the Q i posed Mr. Iwire , otherwise please allow my point to be addressed by others here.

thank you for your participation

~RJ~

As always RJ, no one is stopping you from trying to make your point.

But we are allowed to voice counter opinions.

 

[iwire]

Not just you Chris

The entire American electrical trade

I posted what should be a fairly obvious theory question about afci validity & have no takers

~RJ~

Now your turn.

Answer the question, who is holding all of us down by withholding our education?

 

[peter d]

I'm also a very vocal opponent to AFCI's but this has devolved into the realm of ridiculous.

 

[peter d]

Now your turn.

Answer the question, who is holding all of us down by withholding our education?

Nobody is. Electrical education is there for the taking to those who are interested. I can't speak for all areas, but around here trade education is done by private organizations (schools, trade unions, trade groups, etc.) I hardly think they have an agenda to withhold information. :roll::roll:

 

[romex jockey]

No it's not a daily affair Pete, but any good tradesman respects the theory of his trade.

Myself, I don't feel the theory of electrical arcs is rocket science , yet if one reads the 2013 annual revision cycle ,it's fairly obvious many 210.12 rop's are theory based

Imho, what i'm reading for panel substantiation should be in return ,yet they sorely lack 'theory substance'

This then lowers the bar for us all ,i have not read the latest go-round , but it seems a shame that these folks forwarded valid concerns met with blow off replies.

~RJ~

 

[mbrooke]

Dave, you know I am not an AFCI fan, but this has progressed far beyond that, now we are being told our training is being withheld so that we are uneducated and will fall for trickery.

That is frigging nuts. :lol:

Then why do so many believe AFCIs without questioning them twice? It is absolutely no secret things as simple as waveform analysis isn't published. How many know exactly what that test button does?

 

[mbrooke]

Nobody is. Electrical education is there for the taking to those who are interested. I can't speak for all areas, but around here trade education is done by private organizations (schools, trade unions, trade groups, etc.) I hardly think they have an agenda to withhold information. :roll::roll:

I never mentioned education institutions them selves are withholding information. I see people making leaps, which is perhaps my error. But let me put it this way. Why was it that as little as 20 years ago professional books said that ground rods were responsible for opening OCPDs? Why was it that the CMPs even held similar views of earthing being the center point of article 250?

 

[mbrooke]

Hello Sir,

I'm new here, so also I do not want to offend or hurt...

But seen from here it seems unreal ...

That's not a criticism, it's just a question, why US people dont understand thatAFCIs make the same job than cheap differential breakers (sensitive breakers with a coil) ?

See from here, it's obvious.:happyyes:

What do you think about?

Thank you in advance

Best regards,

ICC -

Thats my point, AFCIs breakers are glorified GFCIs, and some still are. Going even deeper they are entirely based around knocking off the IECs system of arc mitigation (GFP and low mag trip breaker). All that was needed were doctored studies to say that same problems that occur on a 230 volt system can also occur on 120 volts in order to justify their validity.

But again, even if this could happen at 120 volts, the video itself reinforces the fact GFCI/GFP would do the job:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPlELdH0KeM


Is this what you were thinking?


Apologies ahead of time, and thank you

 

[iwire]

Nobody is. Electrical education is there for the taking to those who are interested. I can't speak for all areas, but around here trade education is done by private organizations (schools, trade unions, trade groups, etc.) I hardly think they have an agenda to withhold information. :roll::roll:

See you are just naive, the manufacturers, CMP members, the CPSC, the public and private educators, libraries and even the internet have all gotten together in conclusion to prevent our education so that AFCIs would be blindly excepted.

Isn't that obvious? :lol: