mbrooke
Batteries Included
- Location
- United States
- Occupation
- Technician
Bryan has a script to follow. He cannot deviate from it, or else he will lose his position in NEMA.
I know right? :lol:
Bryan has a script to follow. He cannot deviate from it, or else he will lose his position in NEMA.
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.
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.
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!!!!!! """
Bottom line, I and the other AFCI supporters are in pretty good company. I want no part of your delusional conspiracy theories.
explained how an AFCI helps mitigate risk in old BX circuits without a bonding strip. I feel this is a major concern regarding older homes and want to know if AFCIs protect against this real world hazard.
In some cases the old bx cable will heat up and glow rather than trip a breaker when a ground fault is present. I am no expert on afci but if there is a continuous arc or arcing that is causing this condition I suspect the afci would trip.
Is the glowing itself usually restive or does it create an arc signature? Or arcing at the fault usually accompanies the glowing?
Is the glowing itself usually restive or does it create an arc signature? Or arcing at the fault usually accompanies the glowing?
In the case of old BX, in my own opinion that GFCI or GFP would be much quicker to react than AFCI without GFP.
In the case of old BX heating, other than for some very odd circumstances it is a detectable ground fault well before heating or any arcing is going to happen.
In the case of old BX, in my own opinion that GFCI or GFP would be much quicker to react than AFCI without GFP.
In the case of old BX heating, other than for some very odd circumstances it is a detectable ground fault well before heating or any arcing is going to happen.
A glowing connection can exist w/o grounding out Iwire
~RJ~
A glowing connection can exist w/o grounding out Iwire
A glowing connection can exist w/o grounding out Iwire
~RJ~
Can't answer for RJ, but I have a feeling he wasn't considering the BX cable sheath would typically only carry current during a ground fault but rather that any high resistance can cause glowing connection.And male Leghorn chickens weigh 4-5 pounds at adulthood but that is not what we are talking about is it?
Explain how the BX we are talking about can heat up without a ground fault.
Don't wonder off into left field, stick with the specific topic you pulled my quote from.
Can't answer for RJ, but I have a feeling he wasn't considering the BX cable sheath would typically only carry current during a ground fault but rather that any high resistance can cause glowing connection.
And male Leghorn chickens weigh 4-5 pounds at adulthood but that is not what we are talking about is it?
Explain how the BX we are talking about can heat up without a ground fault.
Don't wonder off into left field, stick with the specific topic you pulled my quote from.
Which is fine, but he should not use my quote that was specifically about glowing BX cable as the the place to add that info because it was not about that.
If old BX is heating up and even glowing - it is because there is fault current flowing on it. The reason they required a bonding conductor in AC cables many years ago is because the sheath alone has too much resistance to be a reliable equipment grounding conductor. Simpler GFCI technology will trip when this kind of thing happens though, and probably much faster then AFCI will respond