AFCI and GFCI Kitchens

Status
Not open for further replies.
Further, and of more importance (or at least reality) is why afci's have a lower mag trip rating

from 210.12(A)(4)(b) >>>


. The maximum length of the branch-circuit wiring
from the branch-circuit overcurrent device to the
first outlet shall not exceed 15.2 m (50 ft) for a
14 AWG conductor or 21.3 m (70 ft) for a 12 AWG
conductor.
Click to expand...

these #'s are not arbitrary , they exist for a REASON

~RJ~
 
romex jockey said:
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~
Click to expand...

I was simply making an observation about the effectiveness of an egc under certain conditions. Accidents do happen and extenuating circumstances can worsen an already bad situation-gfci is good insurance and a good compliment to the egc in certain areas.
 
bphgravity said:
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.
Click to expand...

Mr. RJ has 20,205 more posts then you on one other electrical based forum alone, let alone a dozen others which he contributes to. Mr. RJ is an articulate man. In any case pointing out the number of posts someone makes is irrelevant to their understanding of the topic being discussed. In fact I could even ask why you are posting on a forum with highly opinionated members (many of whom seem to dislike NEMA) then spending efforts on the company itself.



I don't run from anything.
Click to expand...

Here is on example:

http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=170894&p=1663233#post1663233

After I asked you this:

http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=170894&page=2&p=1663238#post1663238


I still am curious how arc analysis technology helps in an inadequate EGC event during a ground fault. I take NEMA has been shown evidence AFCIs help regarding this?



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...
Click to expand...

I think that is simply more conjecture. RJ has not hid his face in the past so again this would prove you wrong. Second some members would wish to remain anonymous especially when discussing highly controversial subjects. You have NEMA's protection however most other members posting here do not.
 
bphgravity said:
...
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...
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but those are "facts" from people that have a vested interest in selling those products. Not even close to an unbiased source.

Like I have said before, I no longer have any trust in any information from NEMA or its member manufacturers on the AFCI issue, and little trust on their information on any other issue.

This is only based on the out right lies that were made in support of the original AFCI rules. Those original comments said that they had a device that would do what they now tell us that the combination AFCI device will do. The only problem those comments were made some 13 years prior to the existence of the combination AFCI.

(Yes, I know that you have defended those comments on the basis that the manufacturers really didn't know what the AFCI could do, and they "thought" it could do all of those things. I am sorry, but if they only "thought" they knew what the device could do, they should not even attempted to bring the product to the market.)

Based on that history, why would I look to that source for factual information????

"fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me"
 
Well, the good news for those who don't care for the AFCI and their cardologists is that the '17 Code, unless there is a change, as I understand it, will mandate ALL 15 and 20 amp 125v outlets and devices be AFCI protected.

All 120-volt, single-phase, 15- and 20-ampere branch circuits supplying outlets or devices installed in dwelling units shall be protected by any of the means described in 210.12(A)(1) through (6):
 
augie47 said:
Well, the good news for those who don't care for the AFCI and their cardologists is that the '17 Code, unless there is a change, as I understand it, will mandate ALL 15 and 20 amp 125v outlets and devices be AFCI protected.

All 120-volt, single-phase, 15- and 20-ampere branch circuits supplying outlets or devices installed in dwelling units shall be protected by any of the means described in 210.12(A)(1) through (6):
Click to expand...

I saw that, the low point in our trade. At this point its flat out consumer abuse. In so far I see no grantee that inverter motor furnaces will not cause tripping.
 
mbrooke said:
I saw that, the low point in our trade. At this point its flat out consumer abuse. In so far I see no grantee that inverter motor furnaces will not cause tripping.
Click to expand...
I flat out refuse to install afci's on heating equipment. I don't care what the code says.
 
peter d said:
I flat out refuse to install afci's on heating equipment. I don't care what the code says.
Click to expand...

2nd home, furnace tripped, place froze up tighter than a witch's heart.

I had to prove 210.12 B required it on a service upgrade where the panel was moved (more than 6')

We are on the '14....

If you're a resi EC, and not in the litigant crosshairs now, you will be when you adopt the '14 , and most certainly under the '17.

You'll have no recourse, and no voice in the matter , nor will the powers that be allow you any.

What you are witness to in the nfpa is corporate control under the illusion of choice.

Some of the most eloquently well written comments and rops to ever grace them have been summarily thrown under the cmp-2 rejection bus with no more than a two sentence comeback. As my french friends say 'screwed down'....

Personally, i'm ALL FOR the '17 placing the afci boot in all of your posteriors .

I've spent over a decade reading ,corresponding , and meeting gifted people (thank you) on this issue

The '17 means more like me will have a 'dog in the fight'

bring it on!

~RJ~
 
Last edited by a moderator:
romex jockey said:
2nd home, furnace tripped, place froze up tighter than a witch's heart.

I had to prove 210.12 B required it on a service upgrade where the panel was moved (more than 6')

We are on the '14....

If you're a resi EC, and not in the litigant crosshairs now, you will be when you adopt the '14 , and most certainly under the '17.

You'll have no recourse, and no voice in the matter , nor will the powers that be allow you any.

What you are witness to in the nfpa is corporate control under the illusion of choice.

Some of the most eloquently well written comments and rops to ever grace them have been summarily thrown under the cmp-2 rejection bus with no more than a two sentence comeback. As my french friends say 'screwed down'....

Personally, i'm ALL FOR the '17 placing the afci boot in all of your posteriors .

I've spent over a decade reading ,corresponding , and meeting gifted people (thank you) on this issue

The '17 means more like me will have a 'dog in the fight'

bring it on!

~RJ~
Click to expand...

Abuse of power, pure abuse of power. Or as they say absolute power corrupts absolutely.

This is exactly why I believe organizations should be limited in power with checks and balances. And every day I thank God I am speaking out against the NFPA and not something more wicked because I am sure all of us would have been quietly silenced a long time ago.

To punish the average electrician for having contempt toward authority is a shame when the vagaries of fate made the average electrician an authority himself (and a darn good one). :thumbsup:
 
Thanks...

Thanks...

Thanks, Bryan. to the point and perfect


bphgravity said:
Pretty Close...

As you stated, 210.8(A)(6) requires the receptacles serving the countertop services to be GFCI protected. But don't forget 210.8(A)(7) that requires GFCI protection of any other receptacle within 6 ft of the outside edge of the kitchen sink. This may include receptacles in or adjacent to the kitchen that are not serving the countertop surfaces.

210.12(A) does require all of the 120V, 15A and 20A branch circuits supplying the kitchen to be AFCI protected, but you can use any of the (6) methods outlined in the Section.

In reality, you have two practical circuit configurations.

1. Install a dual-function (AFCI/GFCI) circuit breaker to your circuits supplying the kitchen and your all set.
2. Install a Combination-Type AFCI circuit breaker on the circuits supplying the kitchen and GFCI receptacles where required in or adjacent to the kitchen.

You may also chose to utilize a method employing an outlet branch-circuit type AFCI as another option. Just keep in mind that dual-function (AFCI/GFCI) receptacles do not exist on the market at this point in time.
Click to expand...
 
mbrooke said:
Mr. RJ has 20,205 more posts then you on one other electrical based forum alone, let alone a dozen others which he contributes to. Mr. RJ is an articulate man. In any case pointing out the number of posts someone makes is irrelevant to their understanding of the topic being discussed. In fact I could even ask why you are posting on a forum with highly opinionated members (many of whom seem to dislike NEMA) then spending efforts on the company itself.





Here is on example:

http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=170894&p=1663233#post1663233

After I asked you this:

http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=170894&page=2&p=1663238#post1663238


I still am curious how arc analysis technology helps in an inadequate EGC event during a ground fault. I take NEMA has been shown evidence AFCIs help regarding this?





I think that is simply more conjecture. RJ has not hid his face in the past so again this would prove you wrong. Second some members would wish to remain anonymous especially when discussing highly controversial subjects. You have NEMA's protection however most other members posting here do not.
Click to expand...



And as I anticipated BPH bailed again when asked a serious question. :happyno:
 
Romex Jockey,
Are you still dealing with the AFCI and furnace thing?
I am assuming the insurance company is the one wanting proof AFCI protection on a furnace circuit is necessary. The gall of them if that is the case. It would prove all they want is someone to pay the bill right or wrong.

To the insurance industry:
"""""Look insurance companies you probably lobbied for these stinkin devices and what difference does it make they are mandated in a new home!!!!!! """
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
I'm sorry, but those are "facts" from people that have a vested interest in selling those products. Not even close to an unbiased source.

Like I have said before, I no longer have any trust in any information from NEMA or its member manufacturers on the AFCI issue, and little trust on their information on any other issue.

This is only based on the out right lies that were made in support of the original AFCI rules. Those original comments said that they had a device that would do what they now tell us that the combination AFCI device will do. The only problem those comments were made some 13 years prior to the existence of the combination AFCI.

(Yes, I know that you have defended those comments on the basis that the manufacturers really didn't know what the AFCI could do, and they "thought" it could do all of those things. I am sorry, but if they only "thought" they knew what the device could do, they should not even attempted to bring the product to the market.)

Based on that history, why would I look to that source for factual information????

"fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me"
Click to expand...

Bravo, bravo! This sums up exactly how myself and many others feel. :thumbsup:
 
No, you don't get it. It's not your place to tell me what positions I need to take or what arguments I have to make here on this Forum or anywhere else for that matter. I get to choose where I spend by energy and effort.

If you want to call that "bailing-out", so be it. Every question and comment you have made with regard to AFCIs, I have heard at least ten times before. You have not presented anything that is new, profound, or compelling. It's old, boring, and repetitive.

I am truly disappointed that I will not get your support for AFCI technology. But guess who's support I do have:

MIKE HOLT. Mr. Holt has made his position on AFCIs quite clear. In fact, in his most recent newsletter regarding GFCI and AFCI protection, Mike goes out of his way to suggest AFCIs should be installed on other circuits and other occupancy types not currently required by the code. That is a bold statement to make. http://www.mikeholt.com/newsletters.php?action=display&letterID=1588

DAVID CLEMENTS - IAEI CEO. You happen to read Mr. Clements "Point in Time" article in the most recent IAEI News Magazine (Sept/Oct 2015)? Mr. Clements makes it very clear that he and the IAEI fully support AFCI technology and continued adoption and enforcement of the technology.

JEFF SARGENT - NFPA. Here are few videos from a recent hearing in NC on the adoption of the 2014 NEC where Mr. Sargent clearly indicates his the and NFPA's support for AFCI technology:

http://www.wral.com/nc-regulators-pit-cost-versus-safety-in-codes-for-circuit-breakers/14901909/
http://mms.tveyes.com/Transcript.as...:07:29+AM&Term=electrical+fires&PlayClip=TRUE

Bottom line, I and the other AFCI supporters are in pretty good company. I want no part of your delusional conspiracy theories.
 
bphgravity said:
No, you don't get it. It's not your place to tell me what positions I need to take or what arguments I have to make here on this Forum or anywhere else for that matter. I get to choose where I spend by energy and effort.

If you want to call that "bailing-out", so be it. Every question and comment you have made with regard to AFCIs, I have heard at least ten times before. You have not presented anything that is new, profound, or compelling. It's old, boring, and repetitive.

I am truly disappointed that I will not get your support for AFCI technology. But guess who's support I do have:

MIKE HOLT. Mr. Holt has made his position on AFCIs quite clear. In fact, in his most recent newsletter regarding GFCI and AFCI protection, Mike goes out of his way to suggest AFCIs should be installed on other circuits and other occupancy types not currently required by the code. That is a bold statement to make. http://www.mikeholt.com/newsletters.php?action=display&letterID=1588

DAVID CLEMENTS - IAEI CEO. You happen to read Mr. Clements "Point in Time" article in the most recent IAEI News Magazine (Sept/Oct 2015)? Mr. Clements makes it very clear that he and the IAEI fully support AFCI technology and continued adoption and enforcement of the technology.

JEFF SARGENT - NFPA. Here are few videos from a recent hearing in NC on the adoption of the 2014 NEC where Mr. Sargent clearly indicates his the and NFPA's support for AFCI technology:

http://www.wral.com/nc-regulators-pit-cost-versus-safety-in-codes-for-circuit-breakers/14901909/
http://mms.tveyes.com/Transcript.as...:07:29+AM&Term=electrical+fires&PlayClip=TRUE

Bottom line, I and the other AFCI supporters are in pretty good company. I want no part of your delusional conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

Likewise, us AFCI detractors have some pretty good company as well.

I am truly disappointed to hear that Mike Holt has been deluded by the AFCI scam. I would expect someone of his stature to be able to see through the lies and misinformation, but apparently not. Bottom line for me, the more you and "industry experts" dig in on this issue, the less I trust you, and the less I want to use and endorse your products.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top