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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Point is....i dont care to convince anyone either way anymore. Just make sure you install em properly is all i care about.

And whom ever said i was pro AFCI....well that is true but im also pro Bible...sometimes we all just gotta have a little faith in something....

Nite gents......
 
Ceiling Mounted Light Fixtures Recalled by Thomas Lighting Due to Fire and Shock Hazards

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with the firm named below, today announced a voluntary recall of the following consumer product. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

Name of product: Thomas Lighting ceiling flush mount light fixtures

Units: About 83,750

Manufacturer: Thomas Lighting, of Elgin, Ill; part of Philips Consumer Luminaires Corporation, of Elgin, Ill.
Hazard: The fixture's socket wire insulation can degrade, leading to charged wires becoming exposed, causing electricity to pass to the metal canopy of the fixture. This poses a fire and electric shock hazard to consumers.

Incidents/Injuries: Thomas Lighting has received 11 reports of defective fixtures which resulted in the home's Arc Fault Circuit Interrupter (AFCI) tripping. No injuries have been reported to the firm.

Description: This recall involves 28 different models of ceiling flush-mounted light fixtures manufactured between June 1, 2010 through November 25, 2010 with a diameter ranging from 7.5" to 13". All affected fixtures have a round base or canopy affixed to the ceiling and a dome- or cylindrical-shaped cover. The recalled fixtures have a variety of finishes including metal and/or clear or frosted glass and contain one, two or three light bulbs. Canopies are a range of colors including white, bronze, brass (gold) and nickel. Most models have a nib in the center of the dome cover in the same color as the canopy. Although the manufacturer's name, the fixture model number and production date can be found on a printed label on the ceiling-side of the fixture's metal canopy, consumers are advised not to remove the metal canopy from the ceiling in order to access this label.
Sold at: Electrical distributors and lighting wholesalers nationwide from July 2010 through July 2011 for between $19 and $50 as Thomas Lighting products.

Manufactured in: China

Remedy: Consumers should immediately stop using the light fixture, avoid direct contact with the fixture and contact Thomas Lighting to arrange for a free in-home repair of the fixtures by a qualified electrician.

Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact Thomas Lighting at (800) 764-0756 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's website at www.thomaslighting.com
 
Before i left i wanted to post the CPSC luminaire that i was referring too. However, that was quite some time ago when i was at NEMA so....you asked i gave.

Like I said....far be it for me to not have an opinion and i guess since i work for a manufacture and on (2) CMP's im everything the MOD says i am....lowest of the low no doubt and i like it...LOL.

Anyway....Love Em or Hate Em.....INSTALL EM...LOL

Score- AFCI Manufactures 1 - Holt Site Experts 0.....LOL
 
MasterTheNEC said:
Before i left i wanted to post the CPSC luminaire that i was referring too. However, that was quite some time ago when i was at NEMA so....you asked i gave.

Like I said....far be it for me to not have an opinion and i guess since i work for a manufacture and on (2) CMP's im everything the MOD says i am....lowest of the low no doubt and i like it...LOL.

Anyway....Love Em or Hate Em.....INSTALL EM...LOL

Score- AFCI Manufactures 1 - Holt Site Experts 0.....LOL
Click to expand...

I guess i should say this....my posts tonight have been kinda half-hearted as im traveling from some business related meetings and clearly bored.

Just for the record.....I don't think AFCI's are the holy grail and I do think manufacturers are allowed to potentially manipulate the results in UL 1699. However, with that said and baring the glowing connection issue and high frequency concerns they do provide some added level of protection in my opinion..which outweighs the cost ...again i know its worth nothing here but is what it is.

Enjoyed it folks but off to other issues. I enjoyed my short stint back.....thanks for being gentle Mr.Mod...:)
 
MasterTheNEC said:
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.
Click to expand...

Then you're aware of Dr Joe Engel's paper

Most of the specifics, including the UL simulator are easily googled

~RJ~
 
good paper link -- key concluding paragraph:

The paper goes on to explain, but not justify, how the Combination AFCI came to be mandated, while the Branch/feeder that provides more protection at less cost is disallowed. The key drivers behind this were the AFCI manufacturers, their NEMA organization, and UL. The author hopes this paper will stir discussions amongst the principals and correct any errors that were made concerning their products’ performance. This would also include supporting removing the Combination AFCI mandate from the NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE (NFPA 70).


 
hbiss said:
Given that, we could go a long way without resorting to extraordinary means such as AFCIs, by tightening up workmanship standards and materials. Outlaw backstabbing and requiring that insulated staples be used with Romex are a couple of changes that could be made. Grounds touching neutrals cause false tripping and not necessarily a hazard but maybe we need to change Romex construction to have an insulated green ground.

-Hal
Click to expand...

I recall a video where an electrician set up a small panel with arc fault breaker and did different arcing scenarios with wires. A hot/neutral or hot/ground short tripped the breaker, as with a standard type. Broken hot or broken neutral arcing did not trip it. That backed up my constant argument that they do no good. I have replaced dozens, maybe hundreds of switches and receptacles burned up by backstabbing. Many of them were "protected" by arc fault breakers. Proper wiring methods would eliminate most problems on circuits. Not sure about insulated staples but I would support insulated grounds. Bare grounds have a way of finding the terminals somehow. I also pigtail my devices. Time consuming but prevents a lot of trouble.

There was also a video linked from here about an Indiana fire marshall a few years ago, claiming that AFCI's would have prevented a tragic house fire. I responded to the video, asking him if he checked out whether devices were backstabbed. He never responded. I called his office and was told he was back to firefighting at some local dept. I tried to reach him there and had no luck. He was institutional, as many authorities are. they always think 1 more rule, 1 more law, 1 more miracle device.

A few people here argued with me on backstabbing, that they had done it with no problems. Most of them didn't do service work. Most people who have done service agreed with me. Stabbing will hold ok for a short time or maybe for years on light loads or buildings with no vibration. But heavy loads or houses near train tracks; problem after problem. And my pigtailing means no receptacle carries more than its own load, GFCI's being the one exception.

AFCI's were shoved down our throats by overzealous tyrants at the NFPA.
 
clicked on a couple posts to comment on, but there were many I didn't read, sorry if I go somewhere that has been covered :
MasterTheNEC said:
Not from my view.....i happen to believe in them and the original mandate by the CPSC.

However, i am very aware my opinion on this is not popular here. I can live with that....:roll:
Click to expand...
I think this was response to a claim of political type activity involving adopting AFCI's into code. My reply is it is political on both sides of the issue. I won't claim they are a total fraud and have some benefit - but also have imperfections. With the price tag they come with - nobody wants to pay for something that fails in many common situations. Even though they maybe improved them over time - we are still paying for them and they still do have some problems. Read on.

ActionDave said:
For me it was almost exactly the opposite. I had no trouble with the old AFCIs. I kept telling people just do a good job wiring and you won't have any trouble. I got the reputation as a AFCI demon exorcizer. Every time I could track it down to a wiring error.

Then came the day when I got the call of a breaker tripping when the trim carpenters were trying to use their new saw. By the time I sorted it all out it was clearly a nuisance trip. That's when the light came on.

A year later, same problem with power tools nuisance tripping AFCIs on another house that we wired, different brand breaker. After the HOs moved in I get a call asking why the TV conks out about once a week. Same house had trouble with LEDs nuisance tripping. Called GE, got a whole speech about how hard it is to sort out electronic noise but we'll send some new breakers right away. These were better than the ones on the shelf just six months ago I was told. After that I had no doubt that AFCI was a scam no matter how the story gets told.
Click to expand...
And consumers want to be the test lab subjects and still have to pay for the product that is forced on them by a code. Electronics and the complexities that go with them was nothing new when they first came out with AFCI's either. Must not have been much real world testing before they put them out, or they should have gone back to the drawing board and rethought what they were going to put out there. Instead greed said we must sell these, we can then make needed improvements after making some profits on them. win for manufacturers, lose for consumer, contractor is just stuck in the middle and gets yanked both ways.

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...
That maybe burns me the most - their profiting by basically having laws that require people to purchase their product that is not well accepted by the professionals that handle them.

This is sort of no different for the consumer - why do I want to pay for something that doesn't really work right? If it saves a house fire or two in a million homes - my risk of being in a serious automobile crash is probably a much higher risk, I'd rather pay more for air bags in the car that may actually help save me, vs paying extra for that AFCI that may never save me, but is almost guaranteed to cost me even more money with the other troubles it brings with it because it is far from a perfected product so far.
 
romex jockey said:
Then you're aware of Dr Joe Engel's paper

Most of the specifics, including the UL simulator are easily googled

~RJ~
Click to expand...

I clicked on the link. There goes the housework I was going to get done this morning. It was worth it though.

Kwired, with the recent recall of airbags, you may want to rethink that example. I'm extremely cynical though, safer cars just seem to breed worse drivers and tends to eliminate natural selection.
 
Last edited:
Paul, standard circuit breakers protect against ground faults. There is no reason for the AFCI to get "extra credit" for the instances you linked to. Is there a documented control case showing a fire from these fixtures on standard breakers? That would be proof.
 
George Stolz said:
Paul, standard circuit breakers protect against ground faults. There is no reason for the AFCI to get "extra credit" for the instances you linked to. Is there a documented control case showing a fire from these fixtures on standard breakers? That would be proof.
Click to expand...
Greetings Again George.

I do understand that you and many others would truly like me to carry the torch so to speak on this one simply because I "believe". However, i am not interested in carrying that burden for the manufactures anymore. There are AFCI experts whom I know very well and who know of this forum. If they wish to come and carry the sword so be it.

As for me....George I am perfectly fine with the opinion others have on AFCI devices. I am also very against slamming things into the NEC based on political reasons but alas its never a perfect system and we all have marching orders.

However, i consistently see comments about CMP members in here and quite honestly you lump all CMP members together and I bet most if not all have no clue how it really works but are simply critical of everything and heck...thats your right.

Yeah I get paid to be there and be on code panels....but If I didn't think my efforts made a difference then I would not waste my time...i have other issues to attend too. Do we get it 100% right....nope but you have no idea of the workload encountered each meeting and weeding through some of the public inputs that do come in for review.

So in summary....do AFCI solve everything. Heck no...are they better than nothing, yes my opinion and no in yours....i can accept that.....can YOU?

If not....CHANGE IT.....many ways to get things changed.
 
romex jockey said:
Then you're aware of Dr Joe Engel's paper

Most of the specifics, including the UL simulator are easily googled

~RJ~
Click to expand...

I have read it.....LOL....and with all due respect to Joe, he helped create the AFCI proliferation. So his first study and his article are in conflict. Eaton, for obvious reasons disagrees with Mr.Engels revolution after the fact. But I like Joe so its all good. As i said (and sadly seem to keep repeating) to each their own is perfectly acceptable.
 
MasterTheNEC said:
There are AFCI experts whom I know very well and who know of this forum. If they wish to come and carry the sword so be it.
Click to expand...

Bring 'em on!


MasterTheNEC said:
So in summary....do AFCI solve everything. Heck no...are they better than nothing, yes my opinion and no in yours....i can accept that.....can YOU?

If not....CHANGE IT.....many ways to get things changed.
Click to expand...

But it seems your opinion counts more than the thousands of ECs who have had to deal with AFCIs in the real world for the last 15 years.

And you've already stated that the NEC will not budge.

-Hal
 
hbiss said:
Bring 'em on!




But it seems your opinion counts more than the thousands of ECs who have had to deal with AFCIs in the real world for the last 15 years.

And you've already stated that the NEC will not budge.

-Hal
Click to expand...

Why?.....am I not able to provide my opinion openly? Oh that right....I don't live in the real world...lol..because the electrons change over time...Got It...;)

Thousands eh....hmmm....i see the same folks on these threads as I always see....not thousands...;)
 
MasterTheNEC said:
I have read it.....LOL....and with all due respect to Joe, he helped create the AFCI proliferation. So his first study and his article are in conflict. Eaton, for obvious reasons disagrees with Mr.Engels revolution after the fact. But I like Joe so its all good. As i said (and sadly seem to keep repeating) to each their own is perfectly acceptable.
Click to expand...

Short version is Joe led the first NEMA afci task force, which disbanded admitting defeat.

NEMA simply went about hiring who would tell them what they wanted to hear, particularly the use of the simulator to pass it through UL

Joe wrote a few well written rop's in a vain attempt to clarify , his IEEE paper being forwarded as well

CMP-2 shut him down

But i'm not going to dump on CMP-2 , because the players involved have now been on board either as alternates or direct members for well over a decade.

They've been the watchdog & mouthpiece for afci's hailing from the CSPC, and UL

further, no trade rag will publish Joe's paper, not one!!!

~RJ~
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top