AFCI satisfaction poll. Please take a moment to answer.

Learn the NEC with Mike Holt now!

AFCI satisfaction poll. Please take a moment to answer.

  • Total voters
    104
Status
Not open for further replies.
MasterTheNEC said:
You people are unreal....lol....sorry your life experiences have left you all so jaded and scorn. I am nearly 100% you all have no clue what it takes to be on a CMP as you throw stones from the peanut gallery..... Good Luck !
Click to expand...

I resemble that remark. :lol:

Some of my experiences with the code-making process have indeed left me jaded; I didn't waste my time submitting a single proposal this cycle, because they have demonstrated themselves collectively to be not just resistant but immune to common sense. Historically, they have proven all too eager to leap into sweeping radical changes if the changes have been proposed by the manufacturers, likely believing that just although they cannot wrap their minds around the scope of the change, that the manufacturers surely had vetted their ideas before suggesting them. If the little man rebuts the manufacturer's proposals with evidence (statistics, history, and verifiable statement) they are swept aside without serious consideration. Don Ganiere is a shining example of this phenomenon, as noted in every ROP/ROC since the AFCI became a gleam in the NFPA's eye.

Meanwhile, when the little man (such as myself and others on this forum without a recognizable company or organization standing behind them) propose simple, common sense changes related to either the language misuse, or a common trade practice that benefits field personnel that bear no negative impacts on safety (and in some cases have been successfully executed for years without consequence) then the panel is reticent to hear out and/or help the little man. When the stars align and they actually read the proposal, give it due attention and act accordingly, somehow they still manage to screw it up. Example: 2008 358.30(C). The little man gave a dose of sense, and NFPA managed to inoculate itself from it.

Personally, I would invest my time improving this badly worded book that has had ample opportunity for revision in it's hundred year history to make it easier on field personnel to read, study, implement, and test from. Unfortunately it's a fool's errand when the people that sit upon the panel don't demonstrate fifth grade reading proficiency. How many cycles did the little man point out the error with the nonexistent prohibition in the parallel conductor sizing rule regarding conductors smaller than 1/0? How did it get written that way in the first place? There have been many examples of the CMPs demonstrating that they just flat do not understand 90.5 and the nature of the code.

I am a fairly honest person: I don't mind admitting that generally I am convinced I am right when I write a proposal, and I do get emotionally invested in my ideas. I was dealt a pretty heavy emotional blow when I danced with the dragon that is Article 310 with the intent of taming it. I got so close to remodeling the tattered, tortured heart of the NEC to a clean, orderly, easily referenced series of sections. The only way to fix Article 310 to make it habitable for future generations is to bulldoze it, and it almost happened! But alas, people that can't build sentences were in charge of the remodel, it fell apart, and I was standing just close enough to hear the thud as it happened. That was crushing, but it also served to wake me up to realize there are much more fulfilling ways for me to spend my time than attempting to help them fix their broken book. I have had scant personal experience with the code making process in the grand scheme of things, but what l have seen has left a bad taste in my mouth.

I don't care about a person's intentions and desires at work. If they are bad at their jobs, I get rid of them. Paul W. Abernathy, you may sing their praises from the rooftops about how good they are at what they do, and how their hearts are in the right spot, how they give at church on Sundays and are the cream of the crop in their respective fields - but at the end of the day, if they can't write sentences, arrange outlines of text, and abide by the rulebook of their task, they are incompetent. If they can't respect the dramatic impacts that their actions can have, and execute their offices with trepidation and deliberation, listen to all voices before coming to a conclusion, they are myopic and dangerous, and threaten the integrity of their work.

If they are as sycophantic with the manufacturers as you are with them, the trade is doomed.
 
George Stolz said:
I resemble that remark. :lol:

Some of my experiences with the code-making process have indeed left me jaded; I didn't waste my time submitting a single proposal this cycle, because they have demonstrated themselves collectively to be not just resistant but immune to common sense. Historically, they have proven all too eager to leap into sweeping radical changes if the changes have been proposed by the manufacturers, likely believing that just although they cannot wrap their minds around the scope of the change, that the manufacturers surely had vetted their ideas before suggesting them. If the little man rebuts the manufacturer's proposals with evidence (statistics, history, and verifiable statement) they are swept aside without serious consideration. Don Ganiere is a shining example of this phenomenon, as noted in every ROP/ROC since the AFCI became a gleam in the NFPA's eye.

Meanwhile, when the little man (such as myself and others on this forum without a recognizable company or organization standing behind them) propose simple, common sense changes related to either the language misuse, or a common trade practice that benefits field personnel that bear no negative impacts on safety (and in some cases have been successfully executed for years without consequence) then the panel is reticent to hear out and/or help the little man. When the stars align and they actually read the proposal, give it due attention and act accordingly, somehow they still manage to screw it up. Example: 2008 358.30(C). The little man gave a dose of sense, and NFPA managed to inoculate itself from it.

Personally, I would invest my time improving this badly worded book that has had ample opportunity for revision in it's hundred year history to make it easier on field personnel to read, study, implement, and test from. Unfortunately it's a fool's errand when the people that sit upon the panel don't demonstrate fifth grade reading proficiency. How many cycles did the little man point out the error with the nonexistent prohibition in the parallel conductor sizing rule regarding conductors smaller than 1/0? How did it get written that way in the first place? There have been many examples of the CMPs demonstrating that they just flat do not understand 90.5 and the nature of the code.

I am a fairly honest person: I don't mind admitting that generally I am convinced I am right when I write a proposal, and I do get emotionally invested in my ideas. I was dealt a pretty heavy emotional blow when I danced with the dragon that is Article 310 with the intent of taming it. I got so close to remodeling the tattered, tortured heart of the NEC to a clean, orderly, easily referenced series of sections. The only way to fix Article 310 to make it habitable for future generations is to bulldoze it, and it almost happened! But alas, people that can't build sentences were in charge of the remodel, it fell apart, and I was standing just close enough to hear the thud as it happened. That was crushing, but it also served to wake me up to realize there are much more fulfilling ways for me to spend my time than attempting to help them fix their broken book. I have had scant personal experience with the code making process in the grand scheme of things, but what l have seen has left a bad taste in my mouth.

I don't care about a person's intentions and desires at work. If they are bad at their jobs, I get rid of them. Paul W. Abernathy, you may sing their praises from the rooftops about how good they are at what they do, and how their hearts are in the right spot, how they give at church on Sundays and are the cream of the crop in their respective fields - but at the end of the day, if they can't write sentences, arrange outlines of text, and abide by the rulebook of their task, they are incompetent. If they can't respect the dramatic impacts that their actions can have, and execute their offices with trepidation and deliberation, listen to all voices before coming to a conclusion, they are myopic and dangerous, and threaten the integrity of their work.

If they are as sycophantic with the manufacturers as you are with them, the trade is doomed.
Click to expand...


Do you have any links to your proposals, Im actually interested in them. And being honest I agree with a lot of what you say, especially the last part which is well said :)

What I find the most interesting is that so many foreign codes apply common sense with exceptionally simple, elegant fool proof solutions to complex problems while the NEC runs in the opposite direction using DIY/unqualified screw ups as an excuse to push complex gimmicks.
 
mbrooke said:
Do you have any links to your proposals, Im actually interested in them. And being honest I agree with a lot of what you say, especially the last part which is well said :)
...
Click to expand...
Go to this page and select the edition you want and then select revision information. You will be able to look that the proposals (now called public inputs) and the comments. For the previous editions, it is all pdf files. For the 2017, there are pdf files, but also an online interactive file to post public inputs and public comments. The 2017 is open for public comment at this time.

I am not really happy with the new on line system. It appears to be a step backwards and it has made it very difficult to make a public comment on a public input that the CMP has rejected. I also don't see it as being any where near as transparent as the previous method.
 
Well said George.

I would only add one can be a pro trade , yet skeptical of it's bureaucratic manifestations.

~RJ~
 
romex jockey said:
You may find, as i did, the one sentence response to page long ROP's disappointing Mbrooke.....~RJ~
Click to expand...

As much as I dont want to say so, Ive seen it many times over and over. It seems to be a simply yes or no regardless of how good or bad the evidence or practicality stands. At this point its nothing more than what the manufacturing reps want or more precisely their companies.
 
peter d said:
The CMP certainly seems utterly given over the manufacturers at least as far as AFCI's are concerned.
Click to expand...

And to be honest other things as well. At one point the CEC had many of the exact practices as the NEC, but in resent years the CEC has began to relax some of them. Although they seem to have fallen to AFCIs just as badly.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
Go to this page and select the edition you want and then select revision information. You will be able to look that the proposals (now called public inputs) and the comments. For the previous editions, it is all pdf files. For the 2017, there are pdf files, but also an online interactive file to post public inputs and public comments. The 2017 is open for public comment at this time.

I am not really happy with the new on line system. It appears to be a step backwards and it has made it very difficult to make a public comment on a public input that the CMP has rejected. I also don't see it as being any where near as transparent as the previous method.
Click to expand...

I suggest everyone who has 10 minutes to spare go to this site and submit a revision 210-12 Arc-fault protection. It is fairly easy to do, one glitch was when you are almost done it asks you to add a public comment #, says there are no public comments, you will have to click out and see what # they assigned your comment (mine was three digit) then simply put that # in and click next. The 2017 revision now removes the specific areas where afcis are required and simply says ALL 15 and 20amp 120v outlets are to be afci protected. Maybe if there original intent was to detect frayed or damaged cords then we should get rid of circuit afci requirements and have manufacturers integrate afci tech into all new plug in equipment so that the equipment itself will trip. This way the line side of the circuit will not be affected only the affected equipment. I did not use that suggestion in my submittal but should have. I know all of these ideas we have are pipe dreams because of the BIG MONEY involved, but if we don't at least try for change than all of our talk is just that.
 
klineelectric said:
...It is fairly easy to do, one glitch was when you are almost done it asks you to add a public comment #, says there are no public comments, you will have to click out and see what # they assigned your comment (mine was three digit) then simply put that # in and click next. ...
Click to expand...
I think they are really looking for a PI number (public input) or FR number (first revision number). PI #4218 called for 210.12 to be deleted.

Note if you open the first draft and the first draft report in separate tabs or windows you can find the number you need. The numbers are in the first draft report.

Having to do this from two separate documents is one of the things that makes the comment process much more difficult when you are using this new system.
 
Here we go, just finished a new home FOR the general contractor I do work for. He wanted me NOT to put afci breakers in his home but I insisted that I would not do that and installed them.
After all I've put them in all the jobs we've done for their customers. Plus this would give him a real sense of how these do/don't react to situations.

Well, it's the day they are moving in and guess what.......... they pull out a brand new Dyson Ball vacuum and it tripped the afci on the living room circuit, then tried the dining room circuit--- same thing.

How can anyone stand behind this S!?t. Whether it be the afci OR faulty products.
Guess I'll report this to the AFCI problem site. See if they have record of issues with Dyson products.

We,ve been working with afci's now for what.... 10 years ?........isn't about time for the BS to stop.
 
I voted "somewhat satisfied". AFCI have caught wiring problems that would have gone unnoticed with standard breakers, like damaged cable, shorts between ground/neutral, neutrals of different circuits tied together, etc. Yes, we've gotten calls for 'my vacuum wont work in x outlet', and 'the breaker keeps tripping when I plug y into the outlet'. Turns out "y" was some old pos shop vac or something else that should be in a dumpster, not in service.

Also, VA code only requires them in bedrooms right now. I might feel differently if we were on the 2014 NEC.

They are pricey... too pricey. and coming from commercial work, I find that sprinklers, interconnected smoke detectors, compartmentalization, and proper firestop would be much more useful (and perhaps even cheaper on a residential scale) than a panel full of AFCIs, which I hear are coming on the 17 code cycle.
 
mopowr steve said:
Here we go, just finished a new home FOR the general contractor I do work for. He wanted me NOT to put afci breakers in his home but I insisted that I would not do that and installed them.
After all I've put them in all the jobs we've done for their customers. Plus this would give him a real sense of how these do/don't react to situations.

Well, it's the day they are moving in and guess what.......... they pull out a brand new Dyson Ball vacuum and it tripped the afci on the living room circuit, then tried the dining room circuit--- same thing.

How can anyone stand behind this S!?t. Whether it be the afci OR faulty products.
Guess I'll report this to the AFCI problem site. See if they have record of issues with Dyson products.

We,ve been working with afci's now for what.... 10 years ?........isn't about time for the BS to stop.
Click to expand...

I can assure you its not the products. Every product has its own distinct waveform, often near indistinguishable from simulated dangerous arcing. The electronics in AFCIs are to primitive and to underdeveloped to take this into account.
 
JFletcher said:
I voted "somewhat satisfied". AFCI have caught wiring problems that would have gone unnoticed with standard breakers, like damaged cable, shorts between ground/neutral, neutrals of different circuits tied together, etc. Yes, we've gotten calls for 'my vacuum wont work in x outlet', and 'the breaker keeps tripping when I plug y into the outlet'. Turns out "y" was some old pos shop vac or something else that should be in a dumpster, not in service.
Click to expand...


Absolutely nothing a GFCI would not pick up on. Code violation or sloppy work have been caught by the GFP built into AFCIs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top