AFCI and GFCI Kitchens

Status
Not open for further replies.
peter d said:
I agree.

Without these forums and the ability to bring our concerns to the airwaves (so to speak), many of us would still be in the dark about the scam of the AFCI. I still believe the line in the sand is drawn and there is no compromise possible between the manufacturers and other pro-AFCI people. They gave us a scam and we should do everything possible to fight against it.
Click to expand...
Im with you, just not sure how to have our little voices heard. Apparently (according to bph) I was the only one to place a comment on first revision 2017 Nec to get these things outta there. I KNOW Im not the only one who feels this way.
 
klineelectric said:
Im with you, just not sure how to have our little voices heard. Apparently (according to bph) I was the only one to place a comment on first revision 2017 Nec to get these things outta there. I KNOW Im not the only one who feels this way.
Click to expand...

Proposals have been submitted to remove AFCI's from the code since the very beginning, including but not limited to members of this forum. Despite their best efforts, AFCI rules were only expanded, and now they have won their final victory in the 2017 NEC.
 
peter d said:
Proposals have been submitted to remove AFCI's from the code since the very beginning, including but not limited to members of this forum. Despite their best efforts, AFCI rules were only expanded, and now they have won their final victory in the 2017 NEC.
Click to expand...

So what recourse do we have? Class action?
 
peter d said:
I agree.

Without these forums and the ability to bring our concerns to the airwaves (so to speak), many of us would still be in the dark about the scam of the AFCI. I still believe the line in the sand is drawn and there is no compromise possible between the manufacturers and other pro-AFCI people. They gave us a scam and we should do everything possible to fight against it.
Click to expand...

Especially when its all propped up by lies with all the science saying AFCIs will never do anything significant.
 
klineelectric said:
Im with you, just not sure how to have our little voices heard. Apparently (according to bph) I was the only one to place a comment on first revision 2017 Nec to get these things outta there. I KNOW Im not the only one who feels this way.
Click to expand...

This is why I sound like a broken record player. Only about 4-9 others on this site seem to agree. The rest just dont seem all that concerned, and I still meet tons of people who believe in AFCIs simply because the NFPA and a few manufactures say so.
 
mbrooke said:
This is why I sound like a broken record player. Only about 4-9 others on this site seem to agree. The rest just dont seem all that concerned, and I still meet tons of people who believe in AFCIs simply because the NFPA and a few manufactures say so.
Click to expand...
I'll keep listening to that record skip at least it feels as though some kind of word is getting out there.
 
klineelectric said:
I'll keep listening to that record skip at least it feels as though some kind of word is getting out there.
Click to expand...

Hopefully people will see and do their own research.

2 big things you need to know:

1. AFCI got there start when someone discovered short circuits can take longer then a few cycles to clear renaming them "arcing short circuits" This discovery then made the leap of being behind thousands of fires without solid proof or evidence.

2. AFCI technology has already been in use all over the world for decades in the form of GFP and low mag trip breakers yet electrical fires have not dipped.
 
klineelectric said:
I'll keep listening to that record skip at least it feels as though some kind of word is getting out there.
Click to expand...

As you should. I seriously believe those who pushed AFCIs had no idea what they were promoting. While I have nothing against GFCIs, take a look at what source is being used to in this paper on page 6. Both the person who wrote this and the one who quoted it as a source show a fundamental misunderstanding in electrical theory. Further, a handyman page is the last thing I would consider reliable:


https://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/102103/electropt2.pdf
 
Can't we focus on the simplicity of the toroidal coils function ?

It's the chief component of gfci/afci technology

It's only going to do what a toroidal does, no matter what electronica is introduced to it

~RJ~
 
romex jockey said:
Can't we focus on the simplicity of the toroidal coils function ?

It's the chief component of gfci/afci technology

It's only going to do what a toroidal does, no matter what electronica is introduced to it

~RJ~
Click to expand...

Speaking of that, yes, the 30ma GFP is the only valid function inside AFCIs. The rest is pure marketing hubris.

But, the above is a black eye for the CPSC. Yet again I find another document where the author has a poor grasp of electrical theory. I have no doubt this is what happened with AFCIs on many levels. Lack of understanding appears to be the back bone.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
But one brand has eliminated that function from all of their AFCIs and a second from one of their product lines.
Click to expand...

mbrooke said:
:happysad::happysad: Thats just wrong. At that point you have a breaker which is completely worthless.
Click to expand...

Seriously????

Now, don't misunderstand me. I've a long history here in struggling with the AFCI debacle as forced upon the electricians installing them. I am not changing my opinion in this post.

But!

This single non-GFP solution, to the "Grand Concept" of AFCI as foisted upon us, I find to be the most efficacious, in terms of customer relations after the install, in terms of flexibility of use with multiwire branch circuits, and, MOST IMPORTANTLY, the paradigm most likely to result in the product liability lawsuit that will least ambiguously lead to the whole AFCI mess being forced to clean up its act.
 
al hildenbrand said:
Seriously????

Now, don't misunderstand me. I've a long history here in struggling with the AFCI debacle as forced upon the electricians installing them. I am not changing my opinion in this post.

But!

This single non-GFP solution, to the "Grand Concept" of AFCI as foisted upon us, I find to be the most efficacious, in terms of customer relations after the install, in terms of flexibility of use with multiwire branch circuits, and, MOST IMPORTANTLY, the paradigm most likely to result in the product liability lawsuit that will least ambiguously lead to the whole AFCI mess being forced to clean up its act.
Click to expand...

GFP is not behind all nuisance tripping. In fact when GFP does trip, its usually tripping on a code violation. The arc signature analysis on the other hand is notorious for tripping on NRTL listed appliances, and to this day whether or not it will detect any dangerous conditions reliably is unknown. In fact some dangerous conditions like a ground fault on BX with no bonding strip can only be cleared via GFP.
 
mbrooke said:
GFP is not behind all nuisance tripping. In fact when GFP does trip, its usually tripping on a code violation. The arc signature analysis on the other hand is notorious for tripping on NRTL listed appliances, and to this day whether or not it will detect any dangerous conditions reliably is unknown.
Click to expand...
Right, which is why stripping away the GF protection is desirable. It leaves the AF technology standing on its own to be judged.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top