Brazen, Shameless and Unapologetic AFCI Expansion

Status
Not open for further replies.
mikeames said:
I don't understand your post. What do you have issue with? That GFCIs don't work? I was not making a technical comparison. I was simply pointing out that there is a dispute over AFCIs not having an impact on safety yet their required use is being expanded. Contrast that to GFCIs which have also seen expansion yet their Impact on safety IS significant. The industry has no issue with GFCIs. We do question AFCIs. So what do you not agree with?
Click to expand...
What he kind of said in his reply was that they don't exactly protect against shock. Is possible to get a pretty good shock before it trips the device. In that case it still does limit duration of the event where non GFCI devices won't trip at all. Also something to consider is they still lessen the shock risk quite a bit simply because they often do trip long before a user comes along to contact anything. A little moisture in an extension cord often develops enough fault to trip it before you come along and become part of a current path, or many other similar situations are the majority of the trips that do happen.
 
kwired said:
What he kind of said in his reply was that they don't exactly protect against shock. Is possible to get a pretty good shock before it trips the device. In that case it still does limit duration of the event where non GFCI devices won't trip at all. Also something to consider is they still lessen the shock risk quite a bit simply because they often do trip long before a user comes along to contact anything. A little moisture in an extension cord often develops enough fault to trip it before you come along and become part of a current path, or many other similar situations are the majority of the trips that do happen.
Click to expand...
Yea I get that but my initial post was not technical in nature. Regardless of any GFCI shortcomings they still save lives and the numbers show it. They are not fool proof we know. We could give examples like fiberglass isolated tubs and a radio still killing people with GFCI. I wasn't finding loop holes. The GFCIs have stats that overwhelmingly support their implementation. AFCIs don't. Initially that could be discounted as low adoption numbers but after more than a decade with no noticeable change in numbers, something has got to be said. Thus my comment about comparing them to GFCIs. That's a good comparison, not from a technical application standpoint but from a regulatory standpoint. If AFCIs were saving lives at half the rate GFCIs are there would be less pushback. Instead nobody is sure, which says something by itself.
 
mikeames said:
Yea I get that but my initial post was not technical in nature. Regardless of any GFCI shortcomings they still save lives and the numbers show it. They are not fool proof we know. We could give examples like fiberglass isolated tubs and a radio still killing people with GFCI. I wasn't finding loop holes. The GFCIs have stats that overwhelmingly support their implementation. AFCIs don't. Initially that could be discounted as low adoption numbers but after more than a decade with no noticeable change in numbers, something has got to be said. Thus my comment about comparing them to GFCIs. That's a good comparison, not from a technical application standpoint but from a regulatory standpoint. If AFCIs were saving lives at half the rate GFCIs are there would be less pushback. Instead nobody is sure, which says something by itself.
Click to expand...
I agree with you . AFCI was an OK idea to try to pursue, but the product we have does not really do much of what it was intended to do. And on top of that we don't really know if it will actually work after twenty to thirty years when the wiring it protects has a better chance of failing catastrophically. One thing that does seem to happen after that sort of time is failed connections (glowing connections) and afci's at the most only detect those during final stage when they actually burn open
 
Does anyone think a huge signed petition might show CMP's that enough people are actually upset with the expansion and demand "proof" of AFCI's working? I think as long as no one is really pressing them on this they will continue on their current path. AFCI's would be a total disaster in the commercial/industrial setting.
 
SSDriver said:
Does anyone think a huge signed petition might show CMP's that enough people are actually upset with the expansion and demand "proof" of AFCI's working? I think as long as no one is really pressing them on this they will continue on their current path. AFCI's would be a total disaster in the commercial/industrial setting.
Click to expand...
CMPs only look at PIs and PCs...I don't think they would even look at a petition.
 
The place to send your petition is your state electrical board. They have the power to remove AFCI requirements when they adopt new Code cycles.

Someplace a couple of years back somebody posted what worked for their state.

-Hal
 
I have gripe at the conerstone of this guy's whole argument. This guy being the video's creator and author. My line in the sand was 2005. Hey Paul, show me the data. Yer calling for it now in 2020. I was calling for it back in 2005. Right here. This forum.
 
My substantiation for my stance in 2005 was, we caught the manufacturer's lying. Lying about the actual arc detection and interruption circuitry.
It was just a gfi. So by my current standards , your vote is null and void. The vote should have been tossed out in 2005. Stop the steal.
 
From what I heard Paul saying he doesn't oppose AFCI's, he just opposes most further expansion of it in the NEC, maybe even some of the past expansion. Was ok in the bedrooms but possibly needed to just stay there.

I guess I'd settle for that to some degree at this point.
 
So I wrote that arcing had nothing to do with in wall fires, and it was locked:

https://forums.mikeholt.com/threads...ver-driven-staple-fires.2557751/#post-2629435

This in particular is paramount in preventing the expansion of AFCIs and why fire statistics haven't changed and won't change.

Arcing has little if anything to do with the incidents researched by UL and shown to the CMP. The etiology is nothing more than a baseless theory, twisted to fit a destination cause.
 
mbrooke said:
And how exactly does that control the CMPs or assure their neutrality?
Click to expand...
You would have to go read the ANSI rules for the creation of consensus standards, I don't have a copy, but all standards writing organizations have to comply with those rules to be able to issue an ANSI standard.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
You would have to go read the ANSI rules for the creation of consensus standards, I don't have a copy, but all standards writing organizations have to comply with those rules to be able to issue an ANSI standard.
Click to expand...

Who says compliance is mandatory? And who enforces it? We see NEC rules which go against the intent of the code. Those on the CMP play by their own rules, everyone else looks on.
 
UL tests TO a standard, or claim of a standard made by any given manufacturer.

For UL to create a standard is unprecedented

To have the CSPC ,NEMA & ANSI comply is as well.....

~RJ~
 
romex jockey said:
UL tests TO a standard, or claim of a standard made by any given manufacturer.

For UL to create a standard is unprecedented

To have the CSPC ,NEMA & ANSI comply is as well.....

~RJ~
Click to expand...
UL is both a listing agency and a standard writing organization as is FM. The vast majority of listing standards used in the electrical industry are UL standards.

No product is tested to a standard made by any given manufacturer. The manufacture builds their equipment to a published standard and has the product tested for conformance to that standard.

UL is an accredited ANSI standard writing organization just like NFPA. The same rules that apply to NFPA in the writing of their codes and standards apply to UL in writing product standards.

All of the testing agencies test the the appropriate product standard, no matter who has written that standard.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
UL is both a listing agency and a standard writing organization as is FM. The vast majority of listing standards used in the electrical industry are UL standards.

No product is tested to a standard made by any given manufacturer. The manufacture builds their equipment to a published standard and has the product tested for conformance to that standard.

UL is an accredited ANSI standard writing organization just like NFPA. The same rules that apply to NFPA in the writing of their codes and standards apply to UL in writing product standards.

All of the testing agencies test the the appropriate product standard, no matter who has written that standard.
Click to expand...
When something new comes out how is the listing standards determined? I can imagine the manufacturer(s) still have some involvement in creating the listing standards. As product evolves standards may change, and can see either UL making change on their own or the manufacturer comes up with new ideas for the standards and presents them to UL, may end up in some compromise for the final listing standard from what the original idea was.
 
kwired said:
When something new comes out how is the listing standards determined? I can imagine the manufacturer(s) still have some involvement in creating the listing standards. As product evolves standards may change, and can see either UL making change on their own or the manufacturer comes up with new ideas for the standards and presents them to UL, may end up in some compromise for the final listing standard from what the original idea was.
Click to expand...
The listing standards are created by a Standards Technical Panel and like the NEC code making panels, the rules require that the panel members represent multiple view points, and like the NEC, no more than one third of the members can be from any one group such as manufacturers.

The changes are made in the same manner. Someone submits a change proposal and it is acted on by the STP.
Both UL Standards Making Organization and the NEC operate under the same ANSI rules for consensus standards. As with the NEC, anyone can submit a proposed change to a product standard, however it is not as easy as the process for the NEC.

Of course proposals for changes in the standards come from manufacturers, and even a request for a new product standard may come from a manufacture. Especially in the case of a new product that does not fall under any existing standard. In that case, the UL staff people will write most of the safety rules in the standard and it will be give to a STP, just like a new code article would be assigned to an CMP in the NEC process.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
UL is both a listing agency and a standard writing organization as is FM. The vast majority of listing standards used in the electrical industry are UL standards.

No product is tested to a standard made by any given manufacturer. The manufacture builds their equipment to a published standard and has the product tested for conformance to that standard.

UL is an accredited ANSI standard writing organization just like NFPA. The same rules that apply to NFPA in the writing of their codes and standards apply to UL in writing product standards.

All of the testing agencies test the the appropriate product standard, no matter who has written that standard.
Click to expand...

Which brings us to this>>>

UL had simply developed yet another “series arc simulator”, this time using SPT-2 cord, instead of carbon and phosphorbronze, or carbon and copper electrodes. The author assumed NEMA would reject the test. Instead, it was accepted although not made mandatory, or so he thought. As will be explained in the section discussing UL1699, the fire curve later became the UL1699 40.4 Carbonized path arc clearing time test. This test is the only arc performance test difference between the Branch/feeder and the Combination AFCI. After accepting the test, the Task Force admitted its failure to develop a Standard, and turned the task over to UL. This is not a normal UL responsibility; manufacturers develop Standards, and UL is paid to test and list products to these Standards

from>>> What was the Task Force to do now?
section of>>>http://www.combinationafci.com/resources/doc_ieee_combination_afci.pdf

~RJ~
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top