AFCI Breakers

Status
Not open for further replies.
I actually think it is pretty awesome that so much power and influence is being bestowed onto the manufacturers and NRTLs by the members of this Forum. I only wish that were true in the REAL world.

Let's take a User of the code, the NAHB, for example. This particular association has more members, political influence, and impact on the construction industry than the NFPA, NEMA, IAEI, and ICC combined. The financial impact of construction codes, including the NEC, is of much greater consequence to the homebuilders than it is to any other entity.

And you contractors (Labor) aren't off the hook either. If you think the IBEW, NECA, and IEC are taking naps in the back of the room during CMP meetings, you are sorely mistaken.

Insurance is the main reason we even have construction codes, including the NEC. They establish the acceptable (coverable) risk of all things in society. When insurance says there are too many people being shocked and electrocuted, industry has no choice but to respond. When insurance says there are too many fires in buildings, industry has no choice but to respond.

I agree that Enforcing Authorities are just about the only truly altruistic entities. There is no profit to be made by development of the codes and standards. But this doesn't mean AHJ's aren't significantly influenced by entities in the other categories. This usually occurs at the City Manager or Mayor level. It goes something like this:

"Mr. Mayor, we voters and major contributors to your election this past year really don't like this new code requirement that is being proposed. It would be so great if your building department agreed with this sentiment and made sure this doesn't go through. It would be a real bummer if we couldn't do business in this community any longer and have to back a more friendly candidate at the next election."

Bottom line:

The last thing that MOST contractors want to have happen is a fire or death occur on a system or equipment they installed or worked on.

AND

The last thing that MOST inspectors want to have happen is a fire or death occur on a system or equipment they inspected and approved.

AND

The last thing that MOST NRTLs want to have happen is a fire or death occur on a system or equipment they evaluated, tested, and certified.

AND

The last thing that MOST manufacturers want to have happen is a fire or death occur on a system or equipment they manufacturer and have their name on.

Guess what... they are all in the same boat.
 
bphgravity said:
...

Let's take a User of the code, the NAHB, for example. This particular association has more members, political influence, and impact on the construction industry than the NFPA, NEMA, IAEI, and ICC combined. The financial impact of construction codes, including the NEC, is of much greater consequence to the homebuilders than it is to any other entity.

...
Click to expand...
While they may have strong influence in the adoption of the code, it is obvious they don't have strong influence in the writing of the code.

The problem with the AFCIs is that we have been lied to since day one on this issue. There is no reason for any reasonable person to believe any of the information about AFCIs that comes from either the manufacturers or the testing labs.
 
ActionDave said:
Very true.

Nice to see you back.
Click to expand...

mbrooke said:
Best reply ever regarding AFCIs :D:)


If this forum had a like button with unlimited likes I would hit it at least 1000 times. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Thanks. :thumbsup:

Now if only more electricians saw the fraud that is AFCI's, things might change. However, I believe the manufacturers and industry groups are far too powerful to ever admit their fraud now, so they have to perpetuate it at all costs. I have nothing but contempt for the NEC for accepting this garbage and forcing it upon all electricians and consumers alike to use and pay for it.
 
I have said this before on the "other forum" but it bears repeating. One area in which I strongly agree with UK practice is local fuse protection at every plug on the cordset. We have the same requirement here in the USA albeit to a much more limited degree on Christmas and other seasonal lighting products. I would be completely in favor of dropping AFCI's completely and instead requiring fuse protection on every small gauge cordset and line cord. That would go a long way towards actually reducing electrical fires particularly since so many originate from the improper and unsafe use of cordsets.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
While they may have strong influence in the adoption of the code, it is obvious they don't have strong influence in the writing of the code.

The problem with the AFCIs is that we have been lied to since day one on this issue. There is no reason for any reasonable person to believe any of the information about AFCIs that comes from either the manufacturers or the testing labs.
Click to expand...

As the old saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." The manufacturers have been fooling us for over a decade now and the NEC now has full complicity in this scam. The NEC has had plenty of opportunity to consider the objections to AFCI's via comments submitted but they have flatly rejected any proposal to pull back AFCI requirements. Therefore I cannot trust the NEC just as I cannot trust the manufacturers of AFCI's.
 
kwired said:
Should they call the button something besides "test"? I guess some people think you need sophisticated equipment to test most anything or else you are a hack.
Click to expand...

a/ I find that insulting.

b/ I can guarantee a RCD will operate within both time and current curves. Can you?

c/ the test button is purely for the homeowner to use, NOT for an electrician after an installation or modification.



There a lot of deriding of the NEC on here. Believe it or not I’m a member or our governing body, the IET, that doesn’t mean I agree with them. Far from it, more than once I’ve proved them wrong, they use convenience, I prefer sound logic.
 
bphgravity said:
I actually think it is pretty awesome that so much power and influence is being bestowed onto the manufacturers and NRTLs by the members of this Forum. I only wish that were true in the REAL world.
Click to expand...

Let's look at the real world.

The manufacturers and NRTLs would not pay people to represent their interests on the CMPs if they did not see a return on their investment.

That is the real world and no amount of trying to ignore that will change the fact.
 
Tony S said:
There a lot of deriding of the NEC on here. Believe it or not I’m a member or our governing body, the IET, that doesn’t mean I agree with them. Far from it, more than once I’ve proved them wrong, they use convenience, I prefer sound logic.
Click to expand...

You have not provided any sound logic.

All you have said is the test procedure you prefer must be done because it exists.
 
iwire said:
Let's look at the real world.

The manufacturers and NRTLs would not pay people to represent their interests on the CMPs if they did not see a return on their investment.

That is the real world and no amount of trying to ignore that will change the fact.
Click to expand...

Every single member of CMP-2 is being paid or compensated in some way to serve on that panel. Even the IAEI reps. And every single member is hoping for a ROI that lines up with their interest.

There are a bunch of employees of manufacturers and NRTLs that serve on CMPs and other Task Groups that cover areas of the NEC that don't even fall into the product line or standards produced by their companies. And trust me, a lot of these people are not being compensated for the hours and hours of travel, afterhours work, and weekend work that goes into serving on a CMP. And most volunteer to serve on panel and could quit anytime.

The CMP membership process is as fair and balanced as it can possibly be. Every single interest has an opposing interest. Its democratic.
 
Do the CMP members look at outside information or just what they have been spoon fed via the proposal and comment process?

The biggest issue with the AFCis is much of the original information was not even close to being factual. That original information really made the AFCI look like a great thing, but it fell apart when you started digging into the real technical facts. It appears that CMP never looked into the real technical facts about these devices.
 
Sierrasparky said:
A manufacture has no place on a board that votes laws that can benefit them financially.

I do not know about the rest of the country but here in Calif. a person cannot sit on a board that makes code or law or legislation where that individual has a financial benefit.
It's called the Brown Act. That is my understanding.
Click to expand...
In small communities around here you often hear of school board members or city council members that abstain from voting on an issue that may somehow involve their business or even a competetive type of business to what they run, seems like a good idea to me.
 
bphgravity said:
I actually think it is pretty awesome that so much power and influence is being bestowed onto the manufacturers and NRTLs by the members of this Forum. I only wish that were true in the REAL world.
Click to expand...

In my opinion I think you live in some alternate universe or live under a rock.
The manufacture lobby is very very influential, even more so these days.
 
It has been our experience that arc fault breakers work great so long as you don't have any loads plugged into the circuit, or intend to plug anything into the circuit, or have any sort of switching action. :thumbsdown:
 
YourElectricianOC said:
It has been our experience that arc fault breakers work great so long as you don't have any loads plugged into the circuit, or intend to plug anything into the circuit, or have any sort of switching action. :thumbsdown:
Click to expand...
Risk of fire goes down quite a bit as well when there is no load drawing any current, so I guess they do prevent fires;)
 
Sierrasparky said:
In my opinion I think you live in some alternate universe or live under a rock.
The manufacture lobby is very very influential, even more so these days.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:

It absolutely blows my mind that anyone could even entertain the idea that manufacturers and their organizations like NEMA have a benevolent purpose when it comes to making rules on NEC panels. These are the same rules that require the very products that they make. That is the definition of corruption, yet somehow we as electricians have been conditioned to accept it because it's part of the holy text aka the NEC.

Do you really think the executives at Schneider, Siemens, Leviton, etc are having board meetings where they discuss what good they are going to do for the community with their electrical products? No, I'm pretty sure they're talking about profitability, sales, efficiency, and other profit motivated things. But anyway, I'm repeating myself. There are those that have accepted the fraud of AFCI's, and those that see the truth, and there's a very wide margin between the two.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
Do the CMP members look at outside information or just what they have been spoon fed via the proposal and comment process?

The biggest issue with the AFCis is much of the original information was not even close to being factual. That original information really made the AFCI look like a great thing, but it fell apart when you started digging into the real technical facts. It appears that CMP never looked into the real technical facts about these devices.
Click to expand...

Good question and I would like to know the answer to that as well. However, at this point it's water under the bridge because as I stated before, the CMP has now had plenty of time to do some diligence on the technicalities. Therefore they can't claim ignorance as they once could when AFCI's first came on the scene.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top