afci

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: afci

I will be very surprised if AFCIs are even on the market in 5 years. I expect that the product liability suits that will result from the misinformation that has been supplied by the manufacturer's will result in the withdrawal of the product from the market.
Don
 
Re: afci

Don, I disagree. I think the manufacturers will have developed a more stable product (they have had a lot of time to do it), that may perform as advertised. They will have the combination unit on the market just before the new requirements take effect. The new units will cost quite a bit more, :mad: and they will be installed. If there are lawsuits, the extra money they are charging will stay on the product until they can recover what is lost on the suits.

If the new units perform as advertised, they will be the next best thing to sliced bread and save more lives than the GFCIs. In the meantime, the NEC is, in fact, being used to sell a dubious product. Sorry Pierre, I am still mad about using the NEC to push an inferior product with no track record. :mad:
 
Re: afci

When GFCI's first came out there were a lot of electricians that didn't trust them either. For some of the same reasons as with the AFCI's. Someday we will see more of both devices required in the homes.
Lou
 
Re: afci

Charlie,
Those are some awful big ifs. I should retract my statement anyway because, based on my understanding of the number of fires that should be prevented, there cannot be enough lawsuits to generate much financial damage. My calculations based on the fire statistics used to support the AFCI rule, show that in the first year of full compliance with 110.12, twelve fires will be prevented. This calculation assumes that 100% of the dwelling units built in that year will have AFCIs per the NEC rule.
Don
 
Re: afci

The 75 amp trip is only one of many tests.
The 5 amp trip is also only one of many tests.

Comparing the two really is apples and oranges, because the combination type will employ both. It will not reduce the 75 amp trip down to 5 amps.

I have a video at the house of the UL testing requirements for these...maybe I'll watch it again tonight (yes, I have no life :D ) and post what the difference is between the tests, because I honestly don't recall off the top of my head.
 
Re: afci

Originally posted by don_resqcapt19:
Charlie,
This calculation assumes that 100% of the dwelling units built in that year will have AFCIs per the NEC rule.
Don
Click to expand...
So the public is expected to pay something close to a half of a billion dollars a year on the dubious premise that it will eliminate 12 fires that might cost a total of what - a few hundred thousand dollars damage in total?
 
Re: afci

Bob,
That is my opinion and I submitted a proposal(2-122) to delete 210.12, based on that information...it was rejected.
Don
 
Re: afci

Originally posted by don_resqcapt19:
Bob,
That is my opinion and I submitted a proposal(2-122) to delete 210.12, based on that information...it was rejected.
Don
Click to expand...
Did they say why? Or was it just the old boy's network at work protecting the "guilty"?
 
Re: afci

Bob,
You can read it here. It is on page 254. Note: this link is to a 500 page pdf file and will take some time to load.
Don
 
Re: afci

Originally posted by don_resqcapt19:
Bob,
You can read it here. It is on page 254. Note: this link is to a 500 page pdf file and will take some time to load.
Don
Click to expand...
Panel Statement:
See the panel action and statement on Proposal 2-116 (Log #452). The economic information provided in the substantiation is of
general nature and the data cited has not been substantiated. The panel has reviewed the analysis and finds that there is no data provided
on loss of life or personal injury and the panel has not attempted to place a monetary value on the loss of life or personal injury.

It's interesting that the data you cited, which can be substantiated is termed unsubstantiated, yet the dubious proposition that any lives were saved at all is given credibility, even though there is aboslutely no substantiation for that conclusion.
 
Re: afci

Bob,
What is very interesting to me is the fact that the data that I cited, was the very same data used to show the need for AFCIs, just shown in a different way.
Don
 
Re: afci

One of my concerns is that AFCIs are NOT installed in old homes that need AFCI the most because of the use of cords.

Also, a lot of home fires have been caused by plugging an electric heater into an 18 gauge cord.

Roger,

Thanks for the reference to NFPA 72 11.6.3. I will bet that the next edition of NFPA 72 will ban supply of smoke alarms from AFCIs. Also, some 120 volt smoke alarms are required to be supplied from a hard wired uninterruptible power supply which defeats the alledged purpose of AFCIs. NEC 760.21 theoretically already has this prohibition - BRK Electronics says that all 120 volt smoke alarms must be wired in accordance with NEC article 760 and NFPA 72. I guess that also means that smokes are supposed to be wired with fire alarm MC cable or other form of nonpower limited fire alarm cable.

Also, I was reading over at www.eng-tips.com that AFCIs are based on a fancy substation relay that was supposed to automatically detect downed powerlines by analyzing the current signature back at the substation. Turns out that the things could not tell the difference between a downed line and a dirty insulator.
 
Re: afci

Charlie,
Don, the assembly lines are already running, how can you stop it now?
Click to expand...
If the new "combo" units really do what is promised, there would be no reason to stop it now, but I'm not yet convinced that they will really do what we have been told. If they work, and continue to work for 20 to 30 years they will be a great safety product. I still think that until these things are self testing and fail safe, they provide little long term benefit.

This process of using the code to require a product to be used before it was ready for market is upsetting...I'm afraid that we will see a lot more of this type of marketing. I think that the NFPA has to require some type of cost benefit analysis before putting rules like this into the code. If the NEC was a federal law, a full cost benefit analysis would have been required.
And before the forum members try to say that I am "anti-safety", I just want to say that had the manufacture's not lied to us in the beginning, I would be a lot more inclined to support AFCI's, but now I am very reluctant to believe any thing that they tell us. I have never just taken the manufacture's word for anything, but now I really dig deeper on any claims made by them. The very first thing that I do when reading any article in the electrical trade magazines is to look at the author and who he works for. The last grounding article in the IAEI magazine is a good example...misinformation on grounding was provided to help provide a bigger market for testing equipment made by the author's employer.
The consensus process has worked well in the past for the NFPA, but it is beginning to appear that the manufactures have too much influence on the code making panels, not only in the NEC, but other NFPA codes too.
Don
 
Re: afci

Originally posted by don_resqcapt19:
The last grounding article in the IAEI magazine is a good example...misinformation on grounding was provided to help provide a bigger market for testing equipment made by the author's employer.
Click to expand...
I'm glad I wasn't the only one that thought that :mad:
 
Re: afci

Don, having perused you last post for something to disagree with you about, I must apologize but I have failed. I must confess that I agree with you completely. :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top