AFCI Michigan

Status
Not open for further replies.
bphgravity said:
Scroll down to "Part 5: Residential Code" on page one: http://michigan.gov/documents/lara/lara_bcc_2015_residential_code_502813_7.pdf

This goes into effect on February 8, 2016.


This is the "commercial" code and amendments that went into effect on June 18, 2015: http://michigan.gov/documents/lara/lara_bcc_electrical_2014_part_8_rules_492610_7.pdf?20150623100911


In short, if you are fortunate enough to be able to purchase a new home in the state of Michigan, you are not afforded the protection of AFCIs. However, if you happen to live in other than a one- and two-family dwelling (R1, R2, R4 Occupancy), you are afforded the protection of AFCIs. This is unfortunate and tends to result in lawsuits against contractors simply following the rules.

So be careful and consult your legal counsel...
Click to expand...

If AFCI protection is not required in single family homes in Michigan since June 18, 2015 then, why would you be sued for not installing them in a single family home after June 18, 1015?
 
chris1971 said:
If AFCI protection is not required in single family homes in Michigan since June 18, 2015 then, why would you be sued for not installing them in a single family home after June 18, 1015?
Click to expand...

Don't mind Bryan, he was just using lies and fear tactics. Nothing he said in that regard was true or could be verified.
 
peter d said:
Don't mind Bryan, he was just using lies and fear tactics. Nothing he said in that regard was true or could be verified.
Click to expand...

I don't see how you could be sued for following the rules set forth by the state of Michigan? Don't get me wrong, people can sue over anything. On a side note, more states should adopt the new AFCI rules that Michigan enacted. Hell, they should be completely removed by the NEC.
 
chris1971 said:
If AFCI protection is not required in single family homes in Michigan since June 18, 2015 then, why would you be sued for not installing them in a single family home after June 18, 1015?
Click to expand...

No, you are not reading it correctly. The "commercial" code went into effect on June 18, 2015. This applies to all dwellings that are not one- and two-family dwellings. When the "residential" code goes into effect on February 8, 2016, one- and two-family dwellings will not require AFCI protection. So again; R1, R2, and R4 dwellings will be required to be AFCI protected but R3 will not. It is obvious to me that the Homebuilders Association in Michigan got the AFCIs removed from the product they manufacturer to protect their profits. And since they don't represent apartment, condo, and multifamily housing owners, they don't care that AFCIs are still required there. So, it has nothing to do with whether or not AFCIs work. Its all about protecting some entities profit and not the safety of the citizens involved.
 
mbrooke said:
And ok, lets say BPH is correct. All nuisance tripping is from defective appliances, cool. Then can you or someone please show me how the high frequency current ripple from an LED driver in a refrigerator creates a fire hazard?
Click to expand...

It doesn't. If an AFCI is designed and tested to open the circuit at certain frequency signatures, appliances like refrigerators have to be designed to not operate at those frequencies. This is where standard harmonization comes into play. The operating parameters of UL 250, in this example, cannot fall into certain ranges or signatures outlined in UL 1699. This ensures interoperability. There have been a few cases where refrigerators have been found to be operating outside of the UL 250 standard for compatibility with AFCIs. That "high frequency current ripple" as you describe it mimics one of the characteristics of a hazardous arcing fault. So, we don't want appliances exhibiting these characteristics under normal operations.

Again, this is very, very rare. We only know of two specific models of refrigerator that had this problem and that problem has been corrected by the refrigerator manufacturer. It now appears that essentially 100% of all UL 250 household refrigerators on the market today are fully compatible with AFCIs.
 
mbrooke said:
I think its BPH would needs better training and education. I have asked him repeatedly for over a year now to go into the science and theoretical aspect of arc faults and their mitigation. To this day he refuses to touch this area. Personally I am willing to bet BPH knows nothing about Paschen's law, volatilization of electrodes, incident energy, or waveform analysis.
Click to expand...

Hey, I am busy just like all you guys. I don't get back to every thread and every repeat discussion on this Forum. TOO BAD. That being said, I have made it very clear in previous posts that I am no longer interested in trying to convince the few of you on this Forum on the merits and purpose of the UL 1699 performance tests or the history of AFCI technology development. You don't believe any of it anyway.

I'm going to go look up all those big words in my electricity for dummies manual and see if I can figure out what they mean and then maybe I will be as smart as you...
 
bphgravity said:
Hey, I am busy just like all you guys. I don't get back to every thread and every repeat discussion on this Forum. TOO BAD. That being said, I have made it very clear in previous posts that I am no longer interested in trying to convince the few of you on this Forum on the merits and purpose of the UL 1699 performance tests or the history of AFCI technology development. You don't believe any of it anyway.

I'm going to go look up all those big words in my electricity for dummies manual and see if I can figure out what they mean and then maybe I will be as smart as you...
Click to expand...

BPH, why do you refuse to answer the questions posed to you? I haven't asked you to convince me of the merit of AFCIs? I haven't asked you to say that they don't work.

I've asked you if you can provide us with case law supporting your assertions. I've asked you if it's a possibility that the data pool you base your functionality claims of AFCIs on could perhaps not be as deep as you think, skewing the results. I've asked you how the verified complaint numbers for GFCIs stack up against AFCIs.

You have addressed none of these questions.

This is the exact reason why people don't trust what you say on this forum. I've posted before thinking that I know the answer, knowing that my opinion is correct, only to be re-educated by someone who knew more than me or who could disprove what I was saying. I don't ignore the people who challenge my posts, and I certainly don't refuse to answer questions that might weaken my position. You, however do.

Unless you address the hard questions, what you say on this topic will never be taken seriously, which is a shame, because you are in a unique position to weigh in with information that the rest of us don't have ready access to.

Answer the hard ones, BPH.
 
bphgravity said:
I'm going to go look up all those big words in my electricity for dummies manual and see if I can figure out what they mean and then maybe I will be as smart as you...
Click to expand...

Welcome to the premiere on line educational NEC dedicated facility to ever grace ascii Byran

You'll find it attracts the best and brightest , inclusive of all the tenacity ,diligence and perseverance such sorts usually posses

No stone is left unturned in what are amazingly meticulous debates here , and inasmuch as the kind hearted will and do take those of less horsepower in consideration, it rarely extents itself to the disingenuous .

~RJ~
 
bphgravity said:
It doesn't. If an AFCI is designed and tested to open the circuit at certain frequency signatures, appliances like refrigerators have to be designed to not operate at those frequencies.
Click to expand...

This concerns me because now almost every appliance needs to be redesigned in some way. This costs money, and depending on the appliance can also create other problems from re-engineering. At best the code is over reaching, because a high current signature is not a fire hazard and should thus not be of any concern. At worst, manufactures are being forced (punished) to take action for the downfall of AFCIs costing consumers money.


People already have to pay up to thousands more to wire a house with AFCIs (yes thousands, because its not just the breakers that cost money, the extra 2 wire home runs and then trouble shooting do) and then on top of that have to pay extra for every consumer good they purchase so its compatible with their AFCIs.


I know this does not look wrong to you, but to others... :jawdrop:




This is where standard harmonization comes into play.
Click to expand...

What are we harmonizing to?

The operating parameters of UL 250, in this example, cannot fall into certain ranges or signatures outlined in UL 1699. This ensures interoperability.
Click to expand...

Interoperabilty with what? A good AFCI (and the technology does exist in utilities) can differentiate between dangerous and none dangers arcing. Current AFCIs cant because 1. they just dont have enough computing power, 2. Are still in R&D.





There have been a few cases where refrigerators have been found to be operating outside of the UL 250 standard for compatibility with AFCIs. That "high frequency current ripple" as you describe it mimics one of the characteristics of a hazardous arcing fault. So, we don't want appliances exhibiting these characteristics under normal operations.
Click to expand...

You know whats funny. The fact the IEC has has devolved a complete system for mitigating arc faults without any nuisance tripping. I find it repulsive that 2nd world and even third world countries some only having electricity 3 hours day can plug anything with any current signature into their AFCI protected sockets without nuisance tripping let alone the rest of the 1st world outside while a first world super power is battling a problem that was already resolved 60 years ago. Its people who passed AFCIs and those who like you who support them which bring the United States down to level which ranks with places Id rather not mention.


Again, this is very, very rare. We only know of two specific models of refrigerator that had this problem and that problem has been corrected by the refrigerator manufacturer. It now appears that essentially 100% of all UL 250 household refrigerators on the market today are fully compatible with AFCIs.
Click to expand...

Again, the manufacturer had to eat the bill. Those same fridges being sold outside the US going into AFCI protected sockets were not subjected to that qualm.
 
bphgravity said:
Hey, I am busy just like all you guys. I don't get back to every thread and every repeat discussion on this Forum. TOO BAD. That being said, I have made it very clear in previous posts that I am no longer interested in trying to convince the few of you on this Forum on the merits and purpose of the UL 1699 performance tests or the history of AFCI technology development. You don't believe any of it anyway.
Click to expand...

You have the mic and lime light. Go into the history. Im all ears.


BTW, if I may, what do you think about this video?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emxfsOUTkUg




I'm going to go look up all those big words in my electricity for dummies manual and see if I can figure out what they mean and then maybe I will be as smart as you...
Click to expand...


And this is where I think the problem resides. The words we use should not be big or beyond your grasp. They are the basis of electrical theory which is essential to AFCIs. If you are going to defend something, defend it where it matters.
 
bphgravity said:
Hey, I am busy just like all you guys. I don't get back to every thread and every repeat discussion on this Forum. TOO BAD.
Click to expand...

You can't make claims like you did and not provide any evidence to back them up. Once again - please show us where contractors have been successfully sued for not intentionally exceeding adopted codes.
 
bphgravity said:
No, you are not reading it correctly. The "commercial" code went into effect on June 18, 2015. This applies to all dwellings that are not one- and two-family dwellings. When the "residential" code goes into effect on February 8, 2016, one- and two-family dwellings will not require AFCI protection. So again; R1, R2, and R4 dwellings will be required to be AFCI protected but R3 will not. It is obvious to me that the Homebuilders Association in Michigan got the AFCIs removed from the product they manufacturer to protect their profits. And since they don't represent apartment, condo, and multifamily housing owners, they don't care that AFCIs are still required there. So, it has nothing to do with whether or not AFCIs work. Its all about protecting some entities profit and not the safety of the citizens involved.
Click to expand...

I look forward to the day when AFCI protection isn't required anywhere. We've been sold snake oil by the manufacturers. They have the deep pockets and the best lobbyists money can buy.
 
chris1971 said:
I look forward to the day when AFCI protection isn't required anywhere. We've been forced to use snake oil by the manufacturers who bought out the law. They have no morals with deep pockets and the best lobbyists money can buy.
Click to expand...

FIFY :thumbsup::thumbsup:
 
chris1971 said:
I look forward to the day when AFCI protection isn't required anywhere. We've been sold snake oil by the manufacturers. They have the deep pockets and the best lobbyists money can buy.
Click to expand...

It's far worse than that i'm afraid....

What we have is a NEMA rep openly accusing 1000 years of viewing trade experience of incompetence.

That takes brass ones.....

~RJ~
 
chris1971 said:
I look forward to the day when AFCI protection isn't required anywhere. We've been sold snake oil by the manufacturers. They have the deep pockets and the best lobbyists money can buy.
Click to expand...

I'm looking forward to the day that AFCI protection is required everywhere because the technology has been proven, beyond a doubt, to mitigate fire hazards, and the proliferation of the breakers with AFCI protection makes them as affordable as the standard breakers they have replaced, and the issue of false tripping will have been resolved and as such, become non-existent.

Today is not the day.

Tomorrow isn't looking good, either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top