GFCI Receptacle for garbage disposal

I don't believe this. Show the evidence that AFCI breakers do anything to prevent fires.

What has been proven that AFCIs can not stop a glowing arc and that there is no way an arc can be sustained at 120V. AFCIs are useless other than the ground fault component


GFCIs are different, and anyone who understands the difference between the two technologies would not compare them.
I am not comparing the function of an AFCI to a GFCI despite the fact that I encounter licensed electricians on a daily basis that do not understand how either device functions. The statement was made to reflect that when people do not understand the technology, they routinely scoff at it.

There is a plethora of data that reflects that AFCI has resulted in property damage reduction as well as a reduction to human injuries and death as a result of electrical fire. You can look this up for yourself if you don't accept what I posted. How do you think these requirements become code? They are approved by code making panels with data presented to reflect their necessity. Many codes are the result of a previous documented incident. The insurance industry has a significant influence in the making of codes. Code panels don't just arbitrarily accept proposals without data to batten the request.
 

ActionDave

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Durango, CO, 10 h 20 min without traffic from wing
Occupation
wire pulling grunt
....There is a plethora of data that reflects that AFCI has resulted in property damage reduction as well as a reduction to human injuries and death as a result of electrical fire.
There is none. The only data that exist about AFCIs is how they fail to perform as intended.

You can look this up for yourself if you don't accept what I posted
What you posted was a list of stats about fires in general. If there was any evidence that AFCIs were effective I would be in favor of them.

How do you think these requirements become code?
It's a sad and sorry tale. The short story is they were rammed into the code by the manufacturers.

Many codes are the result of a previous documented incident.
Many are, that's how code changes and additions should work.

The insurance industry has a significant influence in the making of codes.
If AFCIs were effective insurance companies would be offering financial incentives to policy holders to have them installed.

Code panels don't just arbitrarily accept proposals without data to batten the request.
That is both false and naive. We have rules about automatic transfer switches and generators that were rammed into the code by generator manufacturers with no evidence of problems.

We have rules about derating wires on roof tops that were rammed into the code by the copper producers with no evidence of prior failures.

The three story limit on the use of romex was removed as a horse trade between code panel members to get a favorable vote on another proposal.

In use receptacle covers, changing the listing on rain tite fittings, ....and on it goes
 

PaulMmn

Senior Member
Location
Union, KY, USA
...In use receptacle covers...
Well, the screw-on caps (with the beaded chain so they don't get lost), the flip-up caps, and IIRC the 'front door' style of protection for outdoor outlets all have issues.

When you plug in the Christmas lights for their 4-month display, I'm glad there are the bubble covers to keep the connections dry.

Biggest problem with in-use covers is the ones that don't have gaskets around the cord exits, and don't give a clear view of the interior. I do NOT like wasps!
 

peter d

Senior Member
Location
New England
That is both false and naive. We have rules about automatic transfer switches and generators that were rammed into the code by generator manufacturers with no evidence of problems.

We have rules about derating wires on roof tops that were rammed into the code by the copper producers with no evidence of prior failures.

The three story limit on the use of romex was removed as a horse trade between code panel members to get a favorable vote on another proposal.

In use receptacle covers, changing the listing on rain tite fittings, ....and on it goes
This is why I say manufacturers should have no direct participation in the code making process. I'm fine with them serving in an advisory role but I'm adamantly opposed to them being directly involved in the code making and voting process.
 

hbiss

EC, Westchester, New York NEC: 2014
Location
Hawthorne, New York NEC: 2014
Occupation
EC
How do you think these requirements become code? They are approved by code making panels with data presented to reflect their necessity.
I'll say it again- the code making panels have representitives who work for the manufacturers and are voting members. This is where all that manipulated data you found came from. We've seen it all before. They used it to help convince the other members to vote with them.

We ain't just a bunch of hicks here. Some of our members sit on code making panels themselves so we know what goes on.

One of our members (and a manufacturer's rep) who I believe was a voting member of the CMP that was involved with AFCIs, was so pompus that he was banned from here for a few months. Basically he told us to go screw ourselves if we don't agree with AFCIs. We need to do what they tell us to do and it isn't going to change. Nice.

Remember one thing, there's a lot of money being made off this if you know what I mean.

-Hal
 
There is none. The only data that exist about AFCIs is how they fail to perform as intended.

That's a statement without proof. There is data regarding the effectiveness of AFCI vs. 1950's technology circuit breakers.



What you posted was a list of stats about fires in general. If there was any evidence that AFCIs were effective I would be in favor of them.

What I posted were the latest stats about fires in general when compared to previous stats reveals a substantial decrease in electrical fires which cause property damage, injuries and death. I'm certain there are other factors but if there are so many that disagree with the effectiveness of AFCI, work towards changing the code.



It's a sad and sorry tale. The short story is they were rammed into the code by the manufacturers.

I can't argue with that but why is it that residential sprinkler systems haven't been added to the code? They've been proposing that requirement for 20 years.

Many are, that's how code changes and additions should work.

I'm glad that we agree on something here, however: you stated that manufacturers can force things into the code so apparently that's not always how it works. I refer again to the sprinklers.



If AFCIs were effective insurance companies would be offering financial incentives to policy holders to have them installed.

Why would an insurance company offer a discount for something that is required by code already? Insurance companies routinely compel property owners to change fuse panels and Federal Pacific panels or threaten to cancel the policy. I have no love for insurance companies myself.



That is both false and naive. We have rules about automatic transfer switches and generators that were rammed into the code by generator manufacturers with no evidence of problems.

I'm not certain about what in particular you are claiming to be false and untrue but research 702.12B and follow the protracted path that requirement leads you down. The requirements are poorly written and they should just come out and say that electronic circuitry is required to ensure that "all ungrounded conductors can be simultaneously disconnected," "disconnects shall be capable of being locked in the open position," "shall be capable of being locked with or without a lock applied." Electrical inspectors are backed into a corner with these requirements. The state once again replies that these installations require a variance. There are numerous codes that are improperly written, difficult to comprehend or explain to the electrician or just plain wrong. As an inspector, we don't ge tto pick and choose which codes we like.

We have rules about derating wires on roof tops that were rammed into the code by the copper producers with no evidence of prior failures.

Copper producers? More likely electrical engineers.

The three story limit on the use of romex was removed as a horse trade between code panel members to get a favorable vote on another proposal.

I don't have knowledge of that however; where's the proof that there was ever a reason to limit the installation of NM cable to three stories?

In use receptacle covers, changing the listing on rain tite fittings, ....and on it goes
I don't disagree. Time to retire rather than fight a corrupt system on a daily basis.
 

hbiss

EC, Westchester, New York NEC: 2014
Location
Hawthorne, New York NEC: 2014
Occupation
EC
nysprkdude said:
What I posted were the latest stats about fires in general when compared to previous stats reveals a substantial decrease in electrical fires which cause property damage, injuries and death. I'm certain there are other factors but if there are so many that disagree with the effectiveness of AFCI, work towards changing the code.
Think about it. AFCI's haven't been installed in a large enough base yet to cause such a "drastic" change in data. And of the ones installed we know that they don't work. So, yeah, there are other factors at work here.

We already talked about changing the code and the only way that's going to happen is litigation. There is just too much money at stake here for any one party to just throw in the towel.

nysprkdude said:
... why is it that residential sprinkler systems haven't been added to the code? They've been proposing that requirement for 20 years.
And we've been saying the same thing for 20 years! We are all big proponents of sprinklers. All I can surmise is that it's a different code and sprinkler manufacturers don't have the deep pockets the the electrical industry does to lobby for the changes.

nysprkdude said:
Why would an insurance company offer a discount for something that is required by code already?
There are plenty of dwellings that are between fuses and brand new that could be retrofitted with AFCI breakers.

nysprkdude said:
... where's the proof that there was ever a reason to limit the installation of NM cable to three stories?
Same reason that it can't be used in places of assembly for instance. NM is not a "robust" wiring method. Where there are large numbers of people in one place you don't want to rely on an electrical system that can be compromised by an over-driven staple or rodents.
 

jap

Senior Member
Where there are large numbers of people in one place you don't want to rely on an electrical system that can be compromised by an over-driven staple or rodents.
Yet it's perfectly acceptable to be used in a dwelling unit where we eat, sleep, and spend 3/4's of our time. :)


JAP>
 

tortuga

Senior Member
Location
(44.057116, -123.103394)
Occupation
field supervisor
There is none. The only data that exist about AFCIs is how they fail to perform as intended.



What you posted was a list of stats about fires in general. If there was any evidence that AFCIs were effective I would be in favor of them.



It's a sad and sorry tale. The short story is they were rammed into the code by the manufacturers.



Many are, that's how code changes and additions should work.



If AFCIs were effective insurance companies would be offering financial incentives to policy holders to have them installed.



That is both false and naive. We have rules about automatic transfer switches and generators that were rammed into the code by generator manufacturers with no evidence of problems.

We have rules about derating wires on roof tops that were rammed into the code by the copper producers with no evidence of prior failures.

The three story limit on the use of romex was removed as a horse trade between code panel members to get a favorable vote on another proposal.

In use receptacle covers, changing the listing on rain tite fittings, ....and on it goes
The question you all seem to be debating is should UL standards drive the NEC
or should the NEC drive the UL and other construction & performance of equipment standards?

The NEC used to cover the construction & performance, installation and mintenence of electrical equipment.
The future scope of the NEC is basically restricted to installation of electrical equipment in new construction and retrofits.
When the NEC requires Equipment to be Listed it generally is assuming UL’s Standards Technical Panels (STPs) provide the construction & performance requirements for the electrical equipment.
In reality an AHJ can adpot any IEC or other listing standard or waive the requirement for listing (as is necessary with raintight EMT fittings used with Bell boxes).

Since around '02 there has been a push to remove product construction & performance requirements from the NEC.
I suspect the NEC is a little more 'open' of a standard than the UL or other construction & performance standards a AHJ should adopt.
And removing construction & performance standards from the NEC may have been a mistake.
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
Think about it. AFCI's haven't been installed in a large enough base yet to cause such a "drastic" change in data. And of the ones installed we know that they don't work. So, yeah, there are other factors at work here.

Same reason that it can't be used in places of assembly for instance. NM is not a "robust" wiring method. Where there are large numbers of people in one place you don't want to rely on an electrical system that can be compromised by an over-driven staple or rodents.
The first required AFCI's are just starting to get old enough that we may start to see if they are any good at preventing fires. Then comes the question of whether they still function at their age. The biggest concern for electrical fires in the permanent wiring of a structure IMO is the "glowing connection" though, which AFCI's will not detect.

The question you all seem to be debating is should UL standards drive the NEC
or should the NEC drive the UL and other construction & performance of equipment standards?

The NEC used to cover the construction & performance, installation and mintenence of electrical equipment.
The future scope of the NEC is basically restricted to installation of electrical equipment in new construction and retrofits.
When the NEC requires Equipment to be Listed it generally is assuming UL’s Standards Technical Panels (STPs) provide the construction & performance requirements for the electrical equipment.
In reality an AHJ can adpot any IEC or other listing standard or waive the requirement for listing (as is necessary with raintight EMT fittings used with Bell boxes).

Since around '02 there has been a push to remove product construction & performance requirements from the NEC.
I suspect the NEC is a little more 'open' of a standard than the UL or other construction & performance standards a AHJ should adopt.
And removing construction & performance standards from the NEC may have been a mistake.
Seems to me the manufacturers are driving both UL and NEC more than anybody else is.
 
Top