It will or It won't

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tshea said that we should just wire in the smoke detectors to a shunt trip. The problem with that is if the smoke detectors go off that means there is already a fire, usually.

The Idea is of course for the AFCIs to prevent this. They are designed to mitigate the effects of arching faults but cannot eliminate them completely. In some cases, the initial arc may cause ignition prior to detection.

I think we need to give them a chance. I always ask how many lives do we have to save to decide if it's a good idea or not. I think one would be enough.

Remember we have no idea how many lives are saved each year by GFCIs, no body calls in and tells us that the GFI tripped when the hair dryer fell in the sink, but we can probably figure out how many we lost because a GFCI wasn't installed.

My thought is, put the AFCI on the main and protect the whole house. The only reason that it is only bedrooms is because after kitchens that is where most of the fires start.

*Most tragic fires that start at night or in the early morning hours are electrical fires.

*There is a fire every 67 seconds in the U.S. and a fatality every 105 minutes.

*In 1994 there were 42,900 electrical fires resulting in 370 deaths and $680 million in losses.

*Cords and plugs, light fixtures, switches, receptacles, lamps, and fixed wiring were blamed for 35,600 fires, 330 deaths and 1220 civilian injuries.

To me an AFCI seems like a cheap price to pay.

[/quote]
 
cowboyjwc said:

*Cords and plugs, light fixtures, switches, receptacles, lamps, and fixed wiring were blamed for 35,600 fires, 330 deaths and 1220 civilian injuries.
Click to expand...

How many of these deaths had working smoke detectors? There are a lot of HO who will replace an AFCI because of it tripping out due to a fault. They won't look for the cause; they will look for the cheapest replacement, which will be a standard breaker. Now everyone's happy; the store got to sell a breaker; the insurance company gets to raise our rates because of all the claims filed; and the contractors get paid to repair the fire damage. :D
 
Larry
I look at the idiots that replace an Arc-Fault or a Ground Fault Circuit Interrupter the same as the person that speeds on our highways.

We, the taxpayers, buy signs and posts, pay two or three people to install them every so often along our roads, hire a law enforcement officer, buy him a new car, spend several thousand dollars to equipment the car, hire judges and build court houses just so we can take a chance on getting caught speeding.

Now if we would just obey the law to start with, look how much money we could save on taxes. There would be fewer wrecks and the insurance would go down.

Maybe if we approached it in a different way this could be stopped. Invoke a law that if you are caught speeding your car is impounded and sold at public auction and the driver is made walk for 10 years.

There will always be an idiot out there that will speed down the highway as will there be idiots out there that will remove anything that they are not completely sold on in the electrical trade.

:)
 
Mike,
There will always be an idiot out there that will speed down the highway as will there be idiots out there that will remove anything that they are not completely sold on in the electrical trade.
Click to expand...
The extreme amounts of misinformation spewed out by the manufacturers on this issue make any reasonable person wonder what is going on.
don
 
I have no problem with the idea of an arc-fault circuit interrupter circuit breaker. I do have a problem with being required by the NEC to install any product that is unproven. If it can be shown that AFCIs perform as they have been promoted to the public I would be one of the first to advocate their widespread, mandated use in homes. That day is not yet here. Anyone who believes that the main advocates for AFCIs are soley motivated by safety is being deceived. Money is the main motivation just like any other broad safety issue. The "if it saves one life it will be worth it" argument doesn't always work. Take my great state of Indiana as an example of no common sense on the subject of highway safety. In Indiana you must wear a seatbelt or face the possibility of being fined. But you are allowed to ride a motorcycle nearly buck naked without a helmet. The lobby to repeal the helmet law evidently had more money. I am confident that making all motorcycle riders wear helmets would result in at least one saved life.
Give me an AFCI that does all it is supposed to do and I'll sell my customers on it without the NEC mandating it. That's the way the free market is supposed to work.
 
Of course it's about money, what isn't? If it weren't we'd all be putting the $5 Murray breakers in every panel we installed, except on the lables it always says "only breakers listed for this panel shall be installed".

In 1992, the Consumer Products Safety Commission initiated the "Home Electrical System Fires Project." The CPSC contracted with UL to provide research and evaluation. In their assessment, the products and technology that could potentially decrease the likelihood of residential fires included:

*Arc-falult detection
*Modified-trip circuit breakers
*Ground fault interrupting products
*Supplememtal protection (fuses and thermal cut-outs)

In it's discussion of arc-fault detection, UL provided the following summary to the CPSC: "...The most promising new technology evaluated is arc-fault detection (AFD) technology...AFD technology is capable of detecting and responding to arcing-fault currents below normal load currents as well as above and, therefore, has the potential to monitor and detect precursory arcing conditions that may not constitute an immediate threat of ignition...but which could eventually lead to ignition."

In 1992 UL in conjunction with Electronic Industries Association initiated a fact-finding study on the available fault current found at receptacles:

*Fact finding report is dated Oct. 25, 1993
*15A-943 receptacles-300A available (Average)
*20A-647 receptacles-476A available (Average)
*Low of 75A
*High of 2200A

In November 1993, the need for protection was initiated in the 1996 NEC cycle through data submitted by the Electronic Industries Association to CMP 2.
 
I'm going to go ahead and be the bad guy. I think it is funny seeing Sqaure D make a proposal to push their products like this. I think what is even funnier is watching them squirm when a proposal eliminates their products, such as the rules in 700 and 701 for selective coordination. If you want to see a company sweating bullets, watch the circuit breaker manufacturers now that bussmann has cornered the market for standby systems.
 
dnem said:
Plugs on AFCIs save kids with scissors and allow chewing pets to keep all their teeth...
David
Click to expand...

Not really. The Branch/Feeder type of device in use today provides a VERY minimal amount of protection downstream from the outlet. This is the basis for the "new and improved" combination types required in 2008.

Now lets see if these things actually do what they are supposed to...
 
Always ready for a parable, here I go:

Meet Tammy.
101398.jpg


You're a supervisor at a respectable business, overseeing Production. Your boss heard good things about Tammy, through a trusted associate, so he took his friend's advice and hired her on to oversee the shipping and receiving dock at your business. He skipped the interview process, because he trusted your friend's judgement. You might have uttered something under your breath about the circumstances, but were relieved to get some help, and the boss never seems to listen to your opinion anyway. :D

When Tammy walks in the door, you (her supervisor) immediately notice that she's got a severe attitude problem. Ask her to stay late for fifteen minutes to wait for a truck, or to run up to the front office to grab an important package, and she has a tendency to slash the tires on your car. Nobody's died or been assaulted, or anything like that, but the chick's got some mad squabbles. :D

You complain loudly to the boss, who's been keeping an eye on Tammy's file, but never considers terminating her. She's not very efficient, but she beats paying someone else more, or incurring overtime. Over time, her antics mellow out a little bit, but you just know there's someone better out there for the job, and look forward to her replacement.

Inexplicably, at the request of her boyfriend (who's rumored to double as her pimp), one morning the boss walks in and announces that due to her good behavior, he's decided to give Tammy a case of scotch, a pound of heroin, and promotes her to Director of the production department of the company.

Does this seem like the actions of an informed, stable boss? :D

What's worse, is that the Tammy that is ready to sit in that office chair is not even the same person that was working the dock; someone more tempermental is impersonating Tammy, and never even introduced herself before taking the position.

It's madness. We can keep putzing along with these existing AFCI's, but to require combination-style devices that don't yet exist to protect and entire house is wholly irresponsible. :(
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top