Assuming an AFCI works does as advertised...

Status
Not open for further replies.
iwire said:
I assume you mean argue against AFCIs.

This reminded me I saw one of your other posts deriding AHJs for blindly enforcing AFCIs.

It is there job, to do otherwise would be deselection of duty unless a proper amendment was put into place.
Click to expand...

Funny you mention that. I did a job and the AJH said he didn't care if I removed the AFCI's after inspection. :eek: My kind of inspector. :cool:
 
peter d said:
Funny you mention that. I did a job and the AJH said he didn't care if I removed the AFCI's after inspection. :eek: My kind of inspector. :cool:
Click to expand...

You mean the kind that will turn a blind eye but hang you out to dry if the stuff hits the fan.

I will pass on that. :D
 
iwire said:
You mean the kind that will turn a blind eye but hang you out to dry if the stuff hits the fan.

I will pass on that. :D
Click to expand...


This particular inspector was a part timer, he actually was an electrician who still worked every day so he was "down in the trenches", understanding the problems with AFCI's. In fact, he had as many gripes about them as I do. :lol:

Now if he was a full time inspector (re: failed electrician), then I would definitely throw caution to the wind.

And for the record, I didn't remove the AFCI's. In fact, last month I got a call about them tripping because of vacuum cleaner usage. :roll:
 
Theory and code are strange bedfellows

there is always a story

the case of the afci mandate qualifies big time

The IEC confronted the NEC on it's trip magnitudes

Some of you might recall the IEC, it's been on the NEC cover now for a good decade or more

They're electrical contingent dwarfs the NEC

But, the NEC didn't take their advice, instead opting for the afci as the bandaid.

:lol:

This is where i'd urge any career US spark to investigate other systems, you'll forever and day be caught in the nec/theory paradox otherwise.....~RJ~
 
I still assert that low magnetic trip is recognized in the NEC as achieving part of that arc fault circuit interrupter protection requirements, and is indeed listed.

I have a feeling Iwire is now ignoring this seeing its true?
 
romex jockey said:
Theory and code are strange bedfellows

there is always a story

the case of the afci mandate qualifies big time

The IEC confronted the NEC on it's trip magnitudes

Some of you might recall the IEC, it's been on the NEC cover now for a good decade or more

They're electrical contingent dwarfs the NEC

But, the NEC didn't take their advice, instead opting for the afci as the bandaid.

:lol:

This is where i'd urge any career US spark to investigate other systems, you'll forever and day be caught in the nec/theory paradox otherwise.....~RJ~
Click to expand...




NEC aside, I think you bring up something good to the debate. IEC wiring practices not only provide but assure arc protection from the branch circuit origin to the furthest point there from for general use circuits 32 amps and under without a single transistor. If anything AFCIs are a poor, yet profitable imitation of that.
 
romex jockey said:
...

the case of the afci mandate qualifies big time

The IEC confronted the NEC on it's trip magnitudes

Some of you might recall the IEC, it's been on the NEC cover now for a good decade or more

...
Click to expand...
They are not the same "IEC's"
The first is the International Electrotechnical Commission. The one on the NEC is for "international electrical code", a term the NFPA made up to help with sales of the NEC.
 
peter d said:
Funny you mention that. I did a job and the AJH said he didn't care if I removed the AFCI's after inspection. :eek: My kind of inspector. :cool:
Click to expand...

iwire said:
You mean the kind that will turn a blind eye but hang you out to dry if the stuff hits the fan.

I will pass on that. :D
Click to expand...


I will pass on that one to.

The inspector doesn't need to care what you do after the inspection because it's all on you.

Even if you do something that's not to code and the inspector doesn't catch it, it's still not his/her problem, the liability is all yours.

Passing an inspection doesn't relieve you of the responsiblity of haveing a code compliant install.
 
Tony S said:
It can’t be that international. The EU recognises the IEC per se, where does the NFPA-NEC version fit in to this?
Click to expand...

Ummm, it doesn't, but it sounds good, n'est pas?

We also have the International Electrical Code, the International Plumbing Code, the International HVAC Code, et al. that you've likely never heard of. My guess is they use them on our colonial islands like Guam and Puerto Rico and it becomes de facto international.
 
Tony S said:
Nice try Peter, I’ve just been looking in to this, the NEC are signatories to the IEC and the IEC.

The US didn’t start either. So Guam doesn’t really come in to it.
Click to expand...

I was trying to be snide, but according to the ICC website (the organization which oversees all the "international" codes), I wasn't far off. Their claim is that they're used in all fifty states and the District of Columbia (Washington D.C.) as well as being referenced in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and on U.S. military bases constructed abroad.

In my mind it's kind of a strange claim to being an international code, but marketing is marketing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top