AFCI and GFCI Kitchens

Status
Not open for further replies.
iwire said:
So basically the manufacturer knows there is a problem with their design, fixing it themselves would cut into thir profits so they asked the NFPA to make this poor design someone else's problem.

You don't see how screwed up that is?
Click to expand...


No, Bryan cannot see that. He is completely brainwashed by and beholden to manufacturers. He cannot allow even the slightest possibility that they make errors. If he did, the door would be cracked open to admitting that AFCI's have serious design shortcomings, and as we well know, he cannot go there.
 
Wow, thanks for the free psychoanalysis. I didn't even need to schedule an appointment...

I'm not arguing the merits of the GFCI / AFCI rules for kitchens, just presenting the facts. Questions have been asked and I have answered them with the same exact information that was provided to NEMA and the CMP. That's it.

I truly respect your (and others) right to not agree with the requirement or how the requirement got in the code. That is an important discussion and one that is frequently beat to death on this Forum. In this case, I am simply helping the OP understand what he is required to do, and why the requirement is there. Good or bad...
 
bphgravity said:
Wow, thanks for the free psychoanalysis. I didn't even need to schedule an appointment...

I'm not arguing the merits of the GFCI / AFCI rules for kitchens, just presenting the facts. Questions have been asked and I have answered them with the same exact information that was provided to NEMA and the CMP. That's it.

I truly respect your (and others) right to not agree with the requirement or how the requirement got in the code. That is an important discussion and one that is frequently beat to death on this Forum. In this case, I am simply helping the OP understand what he is required to do, and why the requirement is there. Good or bad...
Click to expand...

No psychoanalysis going on, just stating the truth. You always side with manufacturers on issues like this because you have a vested interest in doing so. That is plainly obvious to most everyone with an objective mindset on this forum.

The product should been improved. Instead, a band-aid approach was taken and that is simply wrong.
 
I nor NEMA represents large appliance manufacturers. So, I am not "siding" with anyone.

In Post #2, I stated the rules, and two methods to comply with those rules. No opinion, no siding.
In Post #5, I included another requirement I missed in Post #2 and some idea of what might happen in the 2017 NEC. No opinion, no siding.
In Post #10, I responded to a follow-up question on why dishwashers were added to 210.8. No opinion, no siding.
In Post #16, I further clarified my statements in Post #10 by explaining why we are seeing more an more appliances being added to the GFCI rules. No opinion, no siding.

You and others don't agree wit the requirement. GREAT! My posts are not trying to convince you or others to change your mind. And besides, that doesn't change the facts of what has occurred and why it has occurred.

The NEMA Field Rep Program best serves it's members when it is best serving electrical professionals like yourself. Whether you want to believe it or not, we are on the same team...
 
bphgravity said:
I nor NEMA represents large appliance manufacturers. So, I am not "siding" with anyone.

In Post #2, I stated the rules, and two methods to comply with those rules. No opinion, no siding.
In Post #5, I included another requirement I missed in Post #2 and some idea of what might happen in the 2017 NEC. No opinion, no siding.
In Post #10, I responded to a follow-up question on why dishwashers were added to 210.8. No opinion, no siding.
In Post #16, I further clarified my statements in Post #10 by explaining why we are seeing more an more appliances being added to the GFCI rules. No opinion, no siding.

You and others don't agree wit the requirement. GREAT! My posts are not trying to convince you or others to change your mind. And besides, that doesn't change the facts of what has occurred and why it has occurred.
Click to expand...

You defended the GFCI requirement despite its very dubious and questionable need because of a known and documented product defect. That is most certainly siding with manufacturers.

The NEMA Field Rep Program best serves it's members when it is best serving electrical professionals like yourself. Whether you want to believe it or not, we are on the same team...
Click to expand...

No Bryan, we are not on the same team. You represent multinational mega corporations that are motivated by profit and profit alone. I can never be on that team in good conscience.
 
peter d said:
No, Bryan cannot see that. He is completely brainwashed by and beholden to manufacturers. He cannot allow even the slightest possibility that they make errors. If he did, the door would be cracked open to admitting that AFCI's have serious design shortcomings, and as we well know, he cannot go there.
Click to expand...

He would simply be laid off. I would assume Bryan has the employment he has because he meets certain job skill deemed desirable for the position. :thumbsup:
 
bphgravity said:
The problem with appliances is that it is very hard to predict how it will be used, misused, and abused during it's life.
Click to expand...

That is 100% true, however the NFPA should not be punishing the rest of us because a small handful of people are deliberately misusing appliances, or to be blunt in a civil internet forum: being aggressively stupid.

If we really wanted to protect people as such we would have to ban electricity altogether, and even those folks would find some way to put themselves in danger.

And since there are ancillary conditions present with some appliances, the potential hazard is that much greater.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by ancillary conditions? What conditions are of concern here?

Anyone who goes to a scrap yard and compares appliances from the 70s, 80s and even 90s to what you typically find on the sales floor in a home center would be mortified. The quality drop is serve and methods used to connect wiring harnesses to electronic controls is very poor.

So if guarding against fire hazard is the intent I can understand that however the manufacturers should be forced to rectify this; not consumers, electricians, the NFPA ect.

The manufacturer of boat hoists or marina equipment, for example, have to meet very stringent design and operational requirements of the associated product standard. Most of the time, this will prevent shock and electrocution to those using this equipment without the need for GFCI protection. The problem is the user and the associated conditions at and around this type of equipment. This is where GFCI protection fills in the safety gap.
Click to expand...

So what Im reading is that poorly designed appliances while being misused is the culprit...




So dishwashers, vending machines, drinking fountains, high-pressure spray washers, tire inflation and automatic vacuum machines are other examples of equipment with rather robust and stringent product standards that cannot fully predict the user and conditions of use.
Click to expand...

Of course, the only way a drinking fountain, vending machine, tire inflation, auto-vac and pressure washer can harm someone in normal use is through an open EGC. Open EGCs are the result of unqualified personnel and mis-use.


However, the likelihood of misuse, abuse and poor conditions are much greater for these particular types of equipment then most others found in the home and office. This is where GFCI protection fills in the safety gap.
Click to expand...

Its the fact all this equipment is metal framed and located in an environment where the body is much more likely to have an impedance low enough to cause harm should it become energized from an open EGC.

If so many statics are taking place then there is a far greater issue. What causing so many machines to have a poor grounding connection?

Also, FWIW a GFCI is far less reliable then an EGC. North American GFCIs have electronics, and coupled with line surges and exterior conditions when placed outside the likely hood of them being operational in 20 years (when a machine is much more likely to develop a fault) is many times greater.
 
bphgravity said:
Wow, thanks for the free psychoanalysis. I didn't even need to schedule an appointment...
Click to expand...

I dont think there was an PHD level psychological analysis going on, just normal observation (at least by what has been posted here).


I'm not arguing the merits of the GFCI / AFCI rules for kitchens, just presenting the facts. Questions have been asked and I have answered them with the same exact information that was provided to NEMA and the CMP. That's it.
Click to expand...

If this is what it takes to make profound decisions effecting law then I would say I am truly frightened. :eek: I am seeing more hearsay then solid evidence or electrical theory in the code making process.

I truly respect your (and others) right to not agree with the requirement or how the requirement got in the code. That is an important discussion and one that is frequently beat to death on this Forum. In this case, I am simply helping the OP understand what he is required to do, and why the requirement is there. Good or bad...
Click to expand...

Its not so much how it got into the code, but rather does it meet the objective of the code? More and more bad requirements are pushing the NEC off from its tracks ruining its true mission. At this point practical safeguards are turning into rhetoric which will ever widen the gap between qualified and unqualified as well as the trust electricians have in the code.

In the end it will all back fire with a broken system doing the opposite of what was really intended in terms of practical safe guarding.
 
mbrooke,

I appreciate the effort you have taken to break down every sentence I have posted to question and comment on. But maybe I didn't make myself clear in my response to peter d. You and others clearly want to argue the merits of the code requirement and how it got into the code. I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in that. For the sake of this particular thread, it doesn't matter who or why someone likes or doesn't like the requirements.

The fact of the matter is the requirement is there and got there for certain reasons. Those are simply facts. That is my only objective in my replies to this thread. You guys can have at it you think it adds to the discussion. In this case, I don't think it helps the OP with his question so I'm staying out of it.

There are plenty of requirements in the code that I personally and professionally feel are design considerations, unnecessary, or do not fall within the scope and purpose of the NEC. I am more than happy to argue my opinion on those requirements when that is the context of the thread.
 
mbrooke said:
Also, FWIW a GFCI is far less reliable then an EGC. North American GFCIs have electronics, and coupled with line surges and exterior conditions when placed outside the likely hood of them being operational in 20 years (when a machine is much more likely to develop a fault) is many times greater.
Click to expand...

Until that egc becomes compromised-there is no way we can guarantee permanent egc compliance-its impossible. You can also have those situations where an egc remains intact, but a skinned or badly pinched cord (accidents happen) with a small amount of exposed conductor draped on the floor becomes wet (like the kitchen floor) from a nearby plumbing leak and, under the right circumstances, shocks someone-the actual risk is small, but it does happen.

We could have better cords, but with the cost cutting going on today, thats unlikely.

Gfcis can go bad and continue to provide power (I'm aware that we have self testing gfci w/ lockout or light indicating the death or ineffectiveness of the device nowadays due to UL 943 revision, but opinions vary wildly on that, and I'm not going there) but remember that something could happen to the egc on an appliance in higher risk areas before that decade or two is up.
 
wag the dog mentality

wag the dog mentality

user 100 said:
Until that egc becomes compromised-there is no way we can guarantee permanent egc compliance-its impossible. You can also have those situations where an egc remains intact, but a skinned or badly pinched cord (accidents happen) with a small amount of exposed conductor draped on the floor becomes wet (like the kitchen floor) from a nearby plumbing leak and, under the right circumstances, shocks someone-the actual risk is small, but it does happen.

We could have better cords, but with the cost cutting going on today, thats unlikely.

Gfcis can go bad and continue to provide power (I'm aware that we have self testing gfci w/ lockout or light indicating the death or ineffectiveness of the device nowadays due to UL 943 revision, but opinions vary wildly on that, and I'm not going there) but remember that something could happen to the egc on an appliance in higher risk areas before that decade or two is up.
Click to expand...


250.4(A)(5) can be imposed on reno jobs User

In fact many times the state will require a complete rewire over a total % reno

IF the EC wishes to 'save' any older wiring , the AHJ will make it his companies personal responsibility to meet 250.4(A)(5)

That said, i'm an EC, have been an EC, am most likely going to be an EC until they put me in the ground

Just how would you propose EGC validation, were it YOUR good name, liability, bottom dollar?

Isn't it 'wag the dog' to be hanging your hat on enhanced protection , allowing the CSPC and NRTL's to go soft on NEMA allowing manufacture of 3rd world appliances ,cords, and electrical goods in lieu of proper ECG's ,as well as any testing pursuant to it?

~RJ~
 
bphgravity said:
mbrooke,



The fact of the matter is the requirement is there and got there for certain reasons. Those are simply facts. That is my only objective in my replies to this thread. You guys can have at it you think it adds to the discussion. In this case, I don't think it helps the OP with his question so I'm staying out of it.
.
Click to expand...

NEMA runs crying from facts when presented with them

~RJ~
 
romex jockey said:
NEMA runs crying from facts when presented with them

~RJ~
Click to expand...


NEMA is a 90 year old association with origins dating back 110 years. We are a world-renowned organization with an impeccable service record to the electroindustry. We don't run from anything. I don't run from anything. The fact that I have over 7,000 more posts to this Forum than you clearly indicates my level of devotion to this industry.

I respect your opinion Mr. Romex Jockey, but really, that's the best you can offer to this discussion? BTW, its pretty easy to say whatever you want when hiding your identity behind a user name. Just saying...
 
NEMA needs a class action suit to deflate it's ego BP

They are respected about as much as big oil , along with a similar history of collusion for their own gain

And you've been presented with the 'fact's , right from ex nema-afci members, UL testing information ,and NFPA EE's

Only to cry foul and leave past threads

So don't be telling me (et all) YOU respect a da*m thing about our 'opinions' here

~RJ~
 
Furthermore Mr Holland

Yes i maintain my anonymity, full disclosure is NOT a forum requirement here

Why?

Because i witnessed YOUR people put my friend in the hospital for opposing them over this issue

~Romex Jockey~
 
Okay, I think that about sums it up...

Anyway, there is still a bit of time for anyone to submit a comment on one of the resolved PIs &/or FRs related to GFCI and AFCI requirements in the code. So, make your voice be heard. While the banter back-and-forth on this Forum may provide useful information and insight on these issues, they really don't have any impact on the code development process.

If anyone is interested in the bounty of resources and guidance materials on GFCIs and AFCIs available from NEMA and the industry, I am more than happy to share those with you. This will allow you to look at the facts yourself and make your own judgments without having to sift through the crazy conspiracy theories and off-the-wall comments from a few of the members of this Forum...
 
This is what the original nema afci task force turned it's back on>>>>
arc%20simulator_zpsybdjtqy4.jpg

This is the actual simulator @ UL> KV are introduced to 'pass' series arc protection
15KV%20simulator_zpsnbvnmcpq.jpg

This is the tape the testing element is wrapped in>
Tape%20on%20fire_zpsu6b5lamh.jpg

Note the flammability>
Tape%20on%20fire%20again_zpspkijlciy.jpg

And obvious result of any cord subjected to this is>
Cord%20in%20flames_zpsk0srret3.jpg

This is what you get to tell your customers>
GE%20afci%20brkr_zpsmqq8t9ej.jpg


Now if the above makes ANYONE here think i'm some conspirator theorist , i think they've zero idea what a 100 billion dollar industry can buy themselves into

~RJ~
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top