AFCI BERAKER

[iwire]

And neither does NEMA, the CMP or others. Which is why AFCIs were passed under false pretense.

And other than a couple of NEMA reps I don't think anyone here disagrees with you about that.

At this point it is like making threads pointing out water is wet.

 

[iwire]

More than likely a combination of all of the above.

I have no doubt along with other issues I am not aware of.

 

[mbrooke]

And other than a couple of NEMA reps I don't think anyone here disagrees with you about that.

At this point it is like making threads pointing out water is wet.

I know, I have been making my point rather slow.

Granted most here do not buy it either, but I still see many professionals outside this forum buying into the propaganda. The CMP seems to believe it (which is a problem all by itself), either that evidence is being hidden.

 

[mbrooke]

I have no doubt along with other issues I am not aware of.

I am willing to bet misused space heaters and candles make up a large chunk.

 

[iwire]

I am willing to bet misused space heaters and candles make up a large chunk.

Candles are claimed to be (and it makes sense to me) a huge cause of fires, cooking is the other big one.

Much to my wife and kids dislike I all but banned candle use in our house.

 

[iwire]

Granted most here do not buy it either, but I still see many professionals outside this forum buying into the propaganda. The CMP seems to believe it (which is a problem all by itself), either that evidence is being hidden.

But is there any chance whatsoever that going on at length about here on this forum will change the CMPs direction?

IMPO no, not a chance at all.

 

[mbrooke]

Candles are claimed to be (and it makes sense to me) a huge cause of fires, cooking is the other big one.

Much to my wife and kids dislike I all but banned candle use in our house.

Unless the power goes out I avoid candles. Dont want to become another "arc fault statistic"

But is there any chance whatsoever that going on at length about here on this forum will change the CMPs direction?

IMPO no, not a chance at all.

I would not be surprised if a few CMP members read these forums. I think the CMP was lied to, and a lot of information is being withheld. I think it is best at least a few folks hear both sides of the debate instead of biased data or claims. The way I see it hard science and hard electrical theory should do all the talking.


Even if the CMP does not change its view, it can certainly change those who adopt codes on a local level as well as other industry professionals.

 

[iwire]

Unless the power goes out I avoid candles. Dont want to become another "arc fault statistic"

I would not be surprised if a few CMP members read these forums. I think the CMP was lied to, and a lot of information is being withheld. I think it is best at least a few folks hear both sides of the debate instead of biased data or claims.

Even if the CMP does not change its view, it can certainly change those who adopt codes on a local level as well as other industry professionals.

I know we have had CMP members here and it would not surprise me that people that make decisions on local levels are here as well.

That said, I doubt they will be very influenced by a bunch of guys on an internet forum. The Internet is chock full of opinions so I think most of us take what we read on it with a large grain of salt.

They are IMPO much more likely to listen to their sponsors and info from NEMA, UL the manufacturers etc.

Consider the two forum members from NEMA that have posted on this topic. They are 100% convinced that AFCIs are the way to go and speak down to any of us that have an opposing view.

 

[mbrooke]

I know we have had CMP members here and it would not surprise me that people that make decisions on local levels are here as well.

That said, I doubt they will be very influenced by a bunch of guys on an internet forum. The Internet is chock full of opinions so I think most of us take what we read on it with a large grain of salt.

They are IMPO much more likely to listen to their sponsors and info from NEMA, UL the manufacturers etc.

Consider the two forum members from NEMA that have posted on this topic. They are 100% convinced that AFCIs are the way to go and speak down to any of us that have an opposing view.

Im willing to bet a lot of different guys are here, including those who do research and testing.

Opinions are just that, opinions. That doesn't say the right ones can be eye opening or strike an epiphany.

If anything the NEMA folks have proven the system is broken. I personally saw them leave out info and bail when proven wrong. Part that got me was the lack of evidence to support their claims regarding an AFCI's ability to reduce fires.

 

[bphgravity]

AFCI requirements have been accepted by three different CMPs (2, 4, 18). Each individual and organization represented on those panels have had years - a decade - to research, review and study AFCI technology and USFA fire stats. And the data provided to the CMPs is independently produced by the USFA and CPSC, not NEMA or the AFCI manufacturers.

The data does show that residential fires are on the decline:

For the years 2009-2011, there was an average of 25,900 residential electrical fires. This resulted in 280 deaths, 1,125 injuries, and $1.1 billion in property losses. For the years 2011-2013, there was and average of 23,490 residential electrical fires. This is a decrease of 2,410 fires per year. Deaths during these years have decreased to 159 from 280. Injuries are down to 827 from 1,125. And property losses are down to just over $500 million from just over $1 billion.

Now nobody is claiming this substantial reduction in residential electrical fires can be attributed to AFCIs alone. But, there is plenty of evidence buried within these numbers that show fires as a result of arcing in malfunctioning wiring, cords, and devices have declined at the same rate. This reduction in fires can be attributed to AFCIs.

Let's look at this another way. The states that do not currently enforce AFCI requirements have much higher rates of residential fire and fire deaths as compared to those states that do enforce AFCI requirements. The two most residential fire-prone states in the south are Alabama and Mississippi. These two states also happen to have no state mandate for NEC adoption. However, states like Texas and Florida have significantly lower fire and fire deaths rates even though they are much bigger and more greatly populated. These two states happen to have a strong state mandate for NEC code adoption and enforcement. This is not a coincidence.

AFCIs are saving lives and property. And that is the exactly the purpose of the NEC.

 

[peter d]

Let's look at this another way. The states that do not currently enforce AFCI requirements have much higher rates of residential fire and fire deaths as compared to those states that do enforce AFCI requirements. The two most residential fire-prone states in the south are Alabama and Mississippi. These two states also happen to have no state mandate for NEC adoption. However, states like Texas and Florida have significantly lower fire and fire deaths rates even though they are much bigger and more greatly populated. These two states happen to have a strong state mandate for NEC code adoption and enforcement. This is not a coincidence.

AFCIs are saving lives and property. And that is the exactly the purpose of the NEC.

I consider you to be nothing more than a drone and a mouthpiece for manufacturers with profit motivation. I trust what you say as far as I can throw the Empire State building. Anyone who works for and/or represents organizations with pure profit motivation have no right to lecture anyone about safety when that product they make enhances their bottom line. Manufacturers seek to make money and profit alone, and nothing else. That's the sole reason they exist.

 

[Little Bill]

AFCI requirements have been accepted by three different CMPs (2, 4, 18). Each individual and organization represented on those panels have had years - a decade - to research, review and study AFCI technology and USFA fire stats. And the data provided to the CMPs is independently produced by the USFA and CPSC, not NEMA or the AFCI manufacturers.

The data does show that residential fires are on the decline:

For the years 2009-2011, there was an average of 25,900 residential electrical fires. This resulted in 280 deaths, 1,125 injuries, and $1.1 billion in property losses. For the years 2011-2013, there was and average of 23,490 residential electrical fires. This is a decrease of 2,410 fires per year. Deaths during these years have decreased to 159 from 280. Injuries are down to 827 from 1,125. And property losses are down to just over $500 million from just over $1 billion.

Now nobody is claiming this substantial reduction in residential electrical fires can be attributed to AFCIs alone. But, there is plenty of evidence buried within these numbers that show fires as a result of arcing in malfunctioning wiring, cords, and devices have declined at the same rate. This reduction in fires can be attributed to AFCIs.

Let's look at this another way. The states that do not currently enforce AFCI requirements have much higher rates of residential fire and fire deaths as compared to those states that do enforce AFCI requirements. The two most residential fire-prone states in the south are Alabama and Mississippi. These two states also happen to have no state mandate for NEC adoption. However, states like Texas and Florida have significantly lower fire and fire deaths rates even though they are much bigger and more greatly populated. These two states happen to have a strong state mandate for NEC code adoption and enforcement. This is not a coincidence.

AFCIs are saving lives and property. And that is the exactly the purpose of the NEC.

Show us some stats (confirmed) that say: Evidence was found that there was faulty wiring that demonstrated an arc condition and due to the tripping of the AFCI breakers in X number of houses, probable fires were prevented.

Maybe all the other reasons for fires were corrected and that lowered the reported fire stats.
Just saying there were fewer fires doesn't prove to me that the reason was due to the use of AFCIs.

 

[bphgravity]

I consider you to be nothing more than a drone and a mouthpiece for manufacturers with profit motivation. I trust what you say as far as I can throw the Empire State building. Anyone who works for and/or represents organizations with pure profit motivation have no right to lecture anyone about safety when that product they make enhances their bottom line. Manufacturers seek to make money and profit alone, and nothing else. That's the sole reason they exist.

Well, that's too bad you feel that way. My employer doesn't dictate who I am personally and professionally. My personal and professional ethics would never be compromised by my own profit motive or of that of the NEMA member companies I represent. My service to the electrical industry is above reproach.

Manufacturers have to provide safe and effective products to make money and a profit. Not a single NEMA member company wants an electrical product they manufacture result in the loss of life or property or NOT work to prevent the loss of life and property. The (4) manufacturers of AFCI breakers and the (4) manufacturers of AFCI receptacles have an impeccable history of providing safe, reliable, and cost effective products dating back to the dawn of the electrical industry.

Is it fair to say that contractors seek to make money and profit alone, and nothing else? Is it fair to say electrical instructors seek to make money and profit alone, and nothing else? Of course not. We ALL want to make a good living while providing a valuable service to the communities we serve.

I can't put my finger on exactly why you are so angry and negative about the electrical industry, but it is certainly directed at the wrong people...

 

[bphgravity]

Show us some stats (confirmed) that say: Evidence was found that there was faulty wiring that demonstrated an arc condition and due to the tripping of the AFCI breakers in X number of houses, probable fires were prevented.

Maybe all the other reasons for fires were corrected and that lowered the reported fire stats.
Just saying there were fewer fires doesn't prove to me that the reason was due to the use of AFCIs.

There is no reporting system in place to provide those specific stats. Homeowners and contractors don't notify the local building/fire department when a fire doesn't occur.

The same is true for GFCIs. There is no way to know how many people were NOT shocked or electrocuted due to GFCI protection. But we do know there are significantly fewer electrocutions year after year that correlate with the increase and expansion of GFCIs.

There is a positive correlation between the increase and expansion of AFCIs with the reduction of fires and fire deaths. Again, are there other contributing factors? Yes. But AFCIs are a significant factor that is contributing to the lives and property being saved.

AFCIs are not the one and only solution to the residential fire problem. Many other requirements of the NEC and IRC are also significant contributing factors.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

....
Now nobody is claiming this substantial reduction in residential electrical fires can be attributed to AFCIs alone. But, there is plenty of evidence buried within these numbers that show fires as a result of arcing in malfunctioning wiring, cords, and devices have declined at the same rate. This reduction in fires can be attributed to AFCIs.
...

There is not even any evidence that an arcing fault can even exist, let alone start a fire, at dwelling unit voltages.

Given that only 15% of the dwelling unit fires that are said to be of electrical origin occur in dwelling units lest than 20 years old, it is highly unlikely that AFCIs have anything what so ever to do with any reduction in fires.

Using the same fire stats that have been used to show that we need AFCIs, you would see that the first full year of compliance with the 2014 AFCI rule, the AFCIs could only be expected to prevent 60 fires (based on the construction of 1,000,000 new dwelling units and all of them having the AFCIs required by the 2014 NEC), and that assumes that they could prevent 100% of the fires that are said to be of electrical origin.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

...
Let's look at this another way. The states that do not currently enforce AFCI requirements have much higher rates of residential fire and fire deaths as compared to those states that do enforce AFCI requirements. The two most residential fire-prone states in the south are Alabama and Mississippi. These two states also happen to have no state mandate for NEC adoption. However, states like Texas and Florida have significantly lower fire and fire deaths rates even though they are much bigger and more greatly populated. These two states happen to have a strong state mandate for NEC code adoption and enforcement. This is not a coincidence.
...

The number of dwelling unit fires in those states have been higher than the national average long before the AFCI was even thought of.

 

[user 100]

Well, that's too bad you feel that way. My employer doesn't dictate who I am personally and professionally. My personal and professional ethics would never be compromised by my own profit motive or of that of the NEMA member companies I represent. My service to the electrical industry is above reproach.

Manufacturers have to provide safe and effective products to make money and a profit. Not a single NEMA member company wants an electrical product they manufacture result in the loss of life or property or NOT work to prevent the loss of life and property. The (4) manufacturers of AFCI breakers and the (4) manufacturers of AFCI receptacles have an impeccable history of providing safe, reliable, and cost effective products dating back to the dawn of the electrical industry.

Is it fair to say that contractors seek to make money and profit alone, and nothing else? Is it fair to say electrical instructors seek to make money and profit alone, and nothing else? Of course not. We ALL want to make a good living while providing a valuable service to the communities we serve.

Bph, I do believe that many who work for nema are undoubtedly committed to providing safe effective products and to this end, nema has a very good track record. Anybody who claims that we haven't benefited in some way due to nema standards is nuts. We all ultimately want safe installations without question, but there is a differing of opinions about how to provide that. One sticking point with a lot of electricians is still the issue that other cheaper products existed before afcis that were pretty effective at preventing the things afcis are supposed to protect us from. Why weren't they chosen?

The shame is that the afci concept is actually a pretty good idea-an ocpd at the bc origin that protects against a wide swath of hazards that a standard ocpd wouldn't detect- if afcis wouldn't have had so many issues, weren't so expensive, and were demonstrably effective (like a gfci) we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I have my doubts about their overall effectiveness and I don't see the need for this level of protection for an average residence, but I think that these products are exceedingly safe and its true they have caught lots of sloppy wiring.

 

[Little Bill]

but I think that these products are exceedingly safe and its true they have caught lots of sloppy wiring.

That a GFCI would have caught!
Since the GF function in the AFCI is what caught the problems. Now some mfg have taken that out.

 

[user 100]

That a GFCI would have caught!.

I know that-read just before the middle of my last post.

 

[GoldDigger]

Does the statistical decrease in fires correspond just as well to the widespread introduction of GFCIs as it does to AFCIs?
Has anyone tried that analysis, or have they just looked at correlations with electrocutions?