AFCI data on home fires 10 yrs later. Any real evidence they work’?

Status
Not open for further replies.
hbiss said:
But someone with deep pockets is going to have to come up with conclusive evidence and that's a little like proving UFOs exist. You have the manufacturers who swear they are effective and on the other hand absolutely no evidence that they have ever prevented even one fire or saved one life. It's all based on hearsay and conjecture because there is no way that statistical data can be determined, and manufacturers know it.

So basically it's all smoke and mirrors to get you think that it's worth it for Americans to pay millions of dollars a year and put up with the inconvenience solely on the say so of manufacturers who claim their products save lives- while reaping billions in profits.

-Hal
Click to expand...

Gotcha....:thumbsup:
 
ActionDave said:
You've never seen them work preventing a real fire in a residence because they can't.

The manufactures have fessed up that AFCI technology is bogus, that they were forced into the code, and they are beta testing them on the American public while making a profit on them at the same time. I posted the article from Electrical Contractor a year or two ago.
Click to expand...

Ummm...OK...if you say so fella:)
 
ActionDave said:
You've never seen them work preventing a real fire in a residence because they can't.

The manufactures have fessed up that AFCI technology is bogus, that they were forced into the code, and they are beta testing them on the American public while making a profit on them at the same time. I posted the article from Electrical Contractor a year or two ago.
Click to expand...

Well if that's the case the NFPA should be held equally liable as well and named in the suit. That's clearly collusion.

-Hal
 
Honestly....you all won't get me into a debate. I could careless if you like em, use em, trash em.....my response was originally to the gentleman in VA to make sure he knows that in dwelling units of a multi-family building under the IBC requires compliance with 210.12 as the VSBC only amends the IRC.

I don't work for circuit breaker or device manufacturers...piss on em...thats their fight to convince you as i could careless....Go Capitalism!
 
hbiss said:
Well if that's the case the NFPA should be held equally liable as well and named in the suit. That's clearly collusion.

-Hal
Click to expand...

They'd be hapless victims like the rest of us; the members of the CMPs don't need technical expertise or intelligence, just political clout or connections. That pretty much clears them of culpability.
 
MasterTheNEC said:
LOL....OK
Click to expand...
I tried to link to the article but got a 404 error. Looks like somebody trying to cover some tracks. Here's a link to the post I made-
http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=177105&p=1743628#post1743628

And here is a copy of the text from the article-
Combination-type AFCIs add a layer of intelligence to the operation of the basic, run-of-the-mill circuit breaker. Their internal circuitry monitors waveform characteristics and heat to detect potential problems.


“On top of having the thermomagnetic caps, it looks at the sine waves that come off the power line,” said Ashley Bryant, product manager with Siemens. 


Though manufacturers might use slightly different approaches, each has, in general, developed algorithms that enable the breakers to ignore patterns outside normal ranges that are the harmless byproducts of electronics, appliances and other common household loads.


Over the years, AFCIs have had their detractors, including opponents who argue the devices can trip in the absence of a true fault, called “nuisance” tripping. Manufacturers admit that the technology had issues, especially in its early days, in part because every home’s electrical load is unique, and developers weren’t able to test every possible combination of loads and breakers.


When you design any product, you design it to meet certain standards,” Bryant said. 


In the case of AFCIs, this is Underwriters Laboratories (UL) Standard 1699, Standard for Arc-Fault Circuit Interrupters.


“You do as much testing as you possibly can, but as soon as you put it out in the field, there are going to be surprises,” she said.

Click to expand...
 
George Stolz said:
They'd be hapless victims like the rest of us; the members of the CMPs don't need technical expertise or intelligence, just political clout or connections. That pretty much clears them of culpability.
Click to expand...
LOL....Yes i agree we are all hacks on the CMP's....so glad we have been exposed..whew...what a weight lifted off our shoulders.
 
George Stolz said:
No case? You said you'd seen them work. I wasn't sure if you meant work, like, preventing a real life fire or work like making breaker manufacturers impressive quarterly reports.
Click to expand...
Oh im sure their reports are quite impressive. In fact, record earnings im sure in 2017 alone no doubt. I shall make them buy the first round at the next CMP function to celebrate their good fortune no doubt...:)
 
MasterTheNEC said:
LOL....Yes i agree we are all hacks on the CMP's....so glad we have been exposed..whew...what a weight lifted off our shoulders.
Click to expand...

Paul, Don, Skip, whatever you are calling yourself these days; that wasn't a slam, it was a fact. They're not all gurus, and CMP-2 fell for a shiny object no matter what their intentions were.
 
George Stolz said:
They'd be hapless victims like the rest of us; the members of the CMPs don't need technical expertise or intelligence, just political clout or connections. That pretty much clears them of culpability.
Click to expand...

As long as no money changed hands, yes.

So MasterTheNEC, I don't understand your position. What do you base your pro AFCI stance on. The evidence here is overwhelming that there IS no evidence. Maybe you know something that we don't. Please enlighten us non believers.

-Hal
 
George Stolz said:
No case? You said you'd seen them work. I wasn't sure if you meant work, like, preventing a real life fire or work like making breaker manufacturers impressive quarterly reports.
Click to expand...
Ahhh....considering im usually trashed by now anyway by others Mr.Mod i will elaborate. I have witnessed testing of UL1699 and the devices intended function but not all manufacturers to which each have their own methods to meet the standard . I have seen the CPSC reports and spoken first hand to customers where the devices detected a defect in an imported luminarie product sampling that has indeed caused a fire and was key in a recall. Also a few other first hand issues that i just as well keep to my self.

Why....because i again don't truly care if you love em or hate em.....i'm down with either opinion which is my own evolution over the past few years....its all good and to each their own.
 
hbiss said:
As long as no money changed hands, yes.

So MasterTheNEC, I don't understand your position. What do you base your pro AFCI stance on. The evidence here is overwhelming that there IS no evidence. Maybe you know something that we don't. Please enlighten us non believers.

-Hal
Click to expand...
Nope.....you are welcome to believe what you believe fella. Just as democrats can believe what they want and republicans what they want.....i will stick to convincing only me.....truly the only one i care about in the forum.
 
Longstanding animosities aside, I think all the detractors are interested in hearing about genuine verifiable instances of success with the product.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top