arc fault and EMT

[hbiss]

The intent of the CMP was what I originally asked about. Speculation and stating the obvious meaning of the code language does not speak to that. I also expressed an opinion that the code is badly written on this point. Repeating what the code says doesn't speak to that either. Sorry if I missed something that goes beyond those categories, but I didn't notice it.

I don't think they care how badly this Article is written. The only point they want to make clear is that we have to buy and install the product.

-Hal

 

[Jerramundi]

The intent of the CMP was what I originally asked about. Speculation and stating the obvious meaning of the code language does not speak to that. I also expressed an opinion that the code is badly written on this point. Repeating what the code says doesn't speak to that either. Sorry if I missed something that goes beyond those categories, but I didn't notice it.

So now we ARE stating the OBVIOUS MEANING of the code language? You said it, not me. Freudian slip, hahaha.
You could get a murderer off death row, hahaha.

 

[jaggedben]

So now we ARE stating the OBVIOUS MEANING of the code language? You said it, not me. Freudian slip, hahaha.

To mix my metaphors only slightly, you are grasping at strawmen. While my first two posts in this thread were admittedly a bit snide and rhetorical, I think I got to the point pretty clearly in my third post. Allow me to rephrase the question I asked a little bit more clearly:

If wiring protected by metal wiring methods does not need arc-fault protection, then with regard to safety, logic, and common sense (never mind what the code says), why should I need protection at the outlet the if the circuit never extends beyond such wiring methods?

For example, does anyone on this thread honestly think that an integrated, listed LED light fixture presents a significant arc-fault danger compared to conductors inside EMT?

I offer it as a genuine question, but so far no one has taken the opportunity to speak to the it Well, Hal seems implicitly to agree with me that the fixture presents no such danger. Everyone else, despite all my attempts to explain otherwise, seems to think that I've been asking a question about what the code says. It am not. So whatever you think you were saying in the quote immediately above, it is a strawman that does not speak to what I'm asking.

You could get a murderer off death row, hahaha.

Well if the prosecutors are that terrible no one should be criticizing me for it.

 

[Jerramundi]

@jaggedben Oh, so you're one of these guys that calls everything a strawman, gotcha. I was just joking with you because before you were taking the position that the code was "unclear" and then said we were stating the "obvious meaning" of it. Nothing about that is a "strawman."

 

[al hildenbrand]

If wiring protected by metal wiring methods does not need arc-fault protection, then with regard to safety, logic, and common sense (never mind what the code says), why should I need protection at the outlet the if the circuit never extends beyond such wiring methods?

As I understand the whole phenomena of AFCI mitigated calamity reduction, the whole thing is a statistical outcome. That is, enough operations of the imperfect arc discrimination algorithm will be actual energy-release limiting so as to be worth the economic cost of all of the hardware and nuisance trip labor.

I think the premise of your question is based on a false equivalency. Using what the Code says to claim there is no need for AFCI in this OCPD to First Outlet run is too black and white. I would say that the statistical likelihood of an arcing event is low enough for the Code to not yet include these wiring methods in the AFCI-required category.

Yet it will come, in my opinion.

 

[hbiss]

Yet it will come, in my opinion.

Re-read my answer in post #61 above.

-Hal

 

[SSDriver]

AFCI are completely useless except in one scenario. The scenario where you become rich selling a useless item through mandated code. House fires have not gone down at all since AFCI came into affect. States without AFCI's do not have anymore housefires than states with AFCI. Biggest scam in the NEC

 

[Fred B]

@jaggedben: regarding your question If wiring protected by metal wiring methods does not need arc-fault protection, then with regard to safety, logic, and common sense (never mind what the code says), why should I need protection at the outlet the if the circuit never extends beyond such wiring methods? For example, does anyone on this thread honestly think that an integrated, listed LED light fixture presents a significant arc-fault danger compared to conductors inside EMT?
If there are no terminations, wire from LED fixture goes all the way back to branch circuit origination, no wirenuts, no switches or other devices in between, then I might agree an argument for "no outlet", but a termination point anywhere in that path increases risk of failure or arc. If the entire circuit is in EMT, boxes of fire rated sealed design, fixtures sealed likewise, risk to surrounding structure would be minimal to nonexistent, then the stated intent of the code that requires AFCI I would see as adequately addressed (not trying for additional debate on AFCI effectiveness, design, or other "it's a sham" reasoning, there is another thread currently covering that).
As to risk of an arcing fault within a LED fixture it maybe exceptionally low, but I have had an instance of a LED that was tripping an AFCI. Never tore into it to see what was happening (returned for refund/exchange) but all terminations were tight and correctly installed, replaced with another and no more tripping.

From the "codes" perspective, some say it's already to lengthy, bloated, if they were to start adding in all the "what ifs" we would end up with a code that's the size of a law library and I dont think anyone would advocate for that (with exception of the attorneys). I think they try to cover the most common scenarios with enough information to make application, and when it doesn't, or isn't clear, they have mechanism to challenge relevance or language, this has been done in past and that is how we get some of the changes or clarifications in the codes.

 

[kwired]

Any body else feeling like being an electrician is just prepping them for a future career as a lawyer? haha

I felt that way even before AFCI's were introduced into NEC.

 

[kwired]

AFCI are completely useless except in one scenario. The scenario where you become rich selling a useless item through mandated code. House fires have not gone down at all since AFCI came into affect. States without AFCI's do not have anymore housefires than states with AFCI. Biggest scam in the NEC

I still have to wonder if these things will even work when finally called upon to do what was intended when they are 25-30 years old.

 

[kwired]

We are not people in general. When we give a price, for instance, to change out old receptacles or add a ceiling fan and have to explain to the customer that the price is so high because we now have to provide AFCI protection in addition according to code. What do you think the customer is going to do? We don't get the job and some handyman who doesn't know the code or what AFCIs are gets to do it.

This is why 406.4 is so dangerous. It requires added protection for existing or extended circuits and wiring when even minor changes are made that adds significantly to the cost. Customers aren't stupid and don't want to pay for this extra stuff




I have to laugh at that. Maybe that works in California but this is NY and we hate insurance companies and figure they won't pay even if it's a cut and dried case. Even so, I have never heard of an insurance company refusing to pay when there was a fire and there were no AFCI receptacles.

What I can see them refusing to cover is a fire in a building with DIY or jackleg wiring because the owner refused the high price of a licensed contractor due to the predatory requirements of an overreaching Code.

-Hal

I think it can depend on where it happens, who does investigating, etc.

Old fuse panels, maybe FPE or Zinsco breaker panels - they aren't finding they existed after the fire and refusing payment, they notice them at initial inspection of the property and either refuse to insure or at very least will insure at a higher rate, to give an incentive to upgrade it before giving a lower rate. AFCI's are maybe just starting to become something they look harder at when making insurance decisions. Then you still have to prove or disprove it was there before the rules or should have had been informed when taking out the policy on an older home if they wanted such updates to be insurable. That don't mean some won't try just to not have to pay a claim, insurance is good at trying to get out of paying claims on any technicality they can find.

 

[Jerramundi]

AFCI are completely useless except in one scenario. The scenario where you become rich selling a useless item through mandated code. House fires have not gone down at all since AFCI came into affect. States without AFCI's do not have anymore housefires than states with AFCI. Biggest scam in the NEC

And you actually looked into this data? Or are just quoting a certain podcast?

 

[Jerramundi]

...insurance is good at trying to get out of paying claims on any technicality they can find.

Yes they are. That's how they maximize profitability.