Just a few days left to comment on the 2026 NEC!

[Ken_S]

So certain manufacturers have the opportunity to push requirements for new or so called improved products to be required or expand requirements associated with certain products

I won't mention AFCI or GFCI manufacturers, they certainly wouldn't do any of what I mentioned

I read overcurrents and undercurrents recently, as far as the author of that book is concerned these devices are just a natural progression for electrical safety.

 

[jaggedben]

Personally I wouldn't view AFCI as being in the same category as GFCI with respect to any of that.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Oregon’s good they get ride of the junk most of the time

No just a complainer like most
Like Plato said
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors
Applies to this and any other form of authority.
But yes I am worse to just give it lip service.


Okay I’ll give you that new things are always coming and they need to address that.

Well maybe island and peninsula usage has stayed the same 100 years and they keep sticking there nose in non safety issues.
Hell my stove really need a gfci. Super dangerous without it.
Trust the expert there as bad as politicians

Actually prior to the 1996 code there were no requirements that islands and peninsula countertops have any receptacles. They were made optional based on information from the Consumer Products Safety Commissions that said the number of incidents where children were injured by pulling on the hanging cord for appliances like crock pots and coffee pots increased a lot after the requirement to add receptacles to island and peninsula countertops were added in the 1996 code.

Now the concentration is on trying to provide receptacles, but not let them be located were it is likely the cord will hang over the edge.

The task group that was assigned this rule could not come to a recommendation as to what the receptacle requirement should be, so that will be debated by all of the members of Code Making Panel 2 starting 10/14 in Torrance, CA. With the discussion at the task group level, I would expect that the panel will spend a lot of time on this issue.

 

[Ken_S]

Personally I wouldn't view AFCI as being in the same category as GFCI with respect to any of that.

I guess time will tell how effective these devices are. I know many attribute the inherent ground fault function of afcis as the most reliable part of the product.

I know the introduction of these along with cable stackers has greatly improved wiring practices.

 

[AC\DC]

Actually prior to the 1996 code there were no requirements that islands and peninsula countertops have any receptacles. They were made optional based on information from the Consumer Products Safety Commissions that said the number of incidents where children were injured by pulling on the hanging cord for appliances like crock pots and coffee pots increased a lot after the requirement to add receptacles to island and peninsula countertops were added in the 1996 code.

Now the concentration is on trying to provide receptacles, but not let them be located were it is likely the cord will hang over the edge.

The task group that was assigned this rule could not come to a recommendation as to what the receptacle requirement should be, so that will be debated by all of the members of Code Making Panel 2 starting 10/14 in Torrance, CA. With the discussion at the task group level, I would expect that the panel will spend a lot of time on this issue.

That a perfect point of what I was making they turned something that should have been design into a rule with unitend consequences.
Sometimes if it ain’t broke don’t fix.

 

[brycenesbitt]

They were made optional based on information from the Consumer Products Safety Commissions that said the number of incidents where children were injured by pulling on the hanging cord for appliances like crock pots and coffee pots increased a lot after the requirement to add receptacles to island and peninsula countertops were added in the 1996 code.

Now the concentration is on trying to provide receptacles, but not let them be located were it is likely the cord will hang over the edge.

That CSPC data is public, and it's frustrating to read. Everything gets boiled down to a few sentences that don't really say what happened.
These suckers are now available:

 

[jaggedben]

I guess time will tell how effective these devices are.

I think we've had enough time to determine that GFCIs reliably perform as advertised and AFCIs don't.

I know many attribute the inherent ground fault function of afcis as the most reliable part of the product.

I have no idea what you're talking about. AFCIs don't have a ground fault function and I've seen no reason to believe they trip more reliably on a ground fault arc than on the other possible arcs, not to mention neutral to ground faults.

.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

That CSPC data is public, and it's frustrating to read. Everything gets boiled down to a few sentences that don't really say what happened.
These suckers are now available:
View attachment 2573800

That is not listed for use in a countertop. The only pop-up one that is actually listed for that application in the Hubbell one.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I have no idea what you're talking about. AFCIs don't have a ground fault function and I've seen no reason to believe they trip more reliably on a ground fault arc than on the other possible arcs, not to mention neutral to ground faults.

.

All of the original AFCIs had a ground fault function. That has changed in the past few years with some of the brands of AFCIs no longer having a ground fault function.

 

[tortuga]

I have no idea what you're talking about. AFCIs don't have a ground fault function and I've seen no reason to believe they trip more reliably on a ground fault arc than on the other possible arcs, not to mention neutral to ground faults.

The book 'Overcurrents and Undercurrents' he read is from ~2007 I think its a friend of Mikes that wrote it, sounds like it would be a good read on the history.
Don beat me to it, earlier AFCI's had 30ma Ground fault protection, I am not sure when the standard changed or if it even was in the standard.

 

[jaggedben]

I was going to respond to Don's comment by saying we're not talking about dual function devices. But are you guys saying early AFCIs included a non-GFCI ground function and weren't dual function devices? In any case Ken's assertion is out of date at best.

 

[tortuga]

I was going to respond to Don's comment by saying we're not talking about dual function devices. But are you guys saying early AFCIs included a non-GFCI ground function and weren't dual function devices? In any case Ken's assertion is out of date at best.

Yeah it happened circa 2021, according to ramsy UL 1699 did not contain a ground fault sensing requirement. I am not 100% sure if it was a change in a new version of UL 1699 or it never required it?
AFCI breakers prior to ~2021 presumably had what we call Ground Fault Protection Equipment (GFPE), what we used to call class B GFCI a 30ma trip level.
It was briefly discussed in this thread, where Don commented that they removed what he thought was the most important function of an AFCI.

 

[wwhitney]

I was going to respond to Don's comment by saying we're not talking about dual function devices. But are you guys saying early AFCIs included a non-GFCI ground function and weren't dual function devices?

Yes, when the first generation of AFCIs came out, they all incorporated some form of ground fault sensing, as the manufacturers had been unable to come up with a way to pass UL 1699's "Arc-Fault Detection Tests" without it. In the 20ish years since then, manufacturers have been able to optimize to the test, and some manufacturers have thereby managed to eliminate any ground fault sensing from their AFCIs.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Yeah it happened circa 2021, according to ramsy UL 1699 did not contain a ground fault sensing requirement. I am not 100% sure if it was a change in a new version of UL 1699 or it never required it?
AFCI breakers prior to ~2021 presumably had what we call Ground Fault Protection Equipment (GFPE), what we used to call class B GFCI a 30ma trip level.
It was briefly discussed in this thread, where Don commented that they removed what he thought was the most important function of an AFCI.

The first information I found on AFCIs without GFP was in 2010 from GE. They were way ahead of the others on this, and marketed their single pole AFCIs as being suitable for use on multiwire circuits.
And I still think the GFP is the most (maybe the only) functional part of the AFCI for its purposes of preventing fires

 

[Ken_S]

I still standby my comment the the introduction of the afci has improved workmanship.

 

[brycenesbitt]

I still standby my comment the the introduction of the afci has improved workmanship.

Perhaps, even probably, though hard data would be hard to come by on that.
--
I observe that the big difference is not equipment, but permit vs. no permit jobs, in terms of workmanship.
--
If the AFCI's are solving install time issues then consider this alternative: require all circuits to be tested at inspection with a fancy super good circuit analyzer, basically a megger tests on steroids. Ensure it was done right right then, with equipment far more able than a tiny AFCI.

https://www.nahb.org/-/media/NAHB/advocacy/docs/top-priorities/codes/arcfault-circuit-interrupters/afci-and-gfci-requirements-by-state-dec2020.pdf

 

[brycenesbitt]

The 2nd draft in person meetings are underway now in Torrance CA.
--
Each PI will be reviewed and voted on.
Quite a bit of comma, parenthesis and wording changes are done live at the meeting.
Sometimes those have big impacts. CMP-P02 is working on definitions,
and moving on to GFCI and SPGFCI (the special purpose are the ones that are not being handled in perfunctory manner)

 

[kwired]

I guess time will tell how effective these devices are. I know many attribute the inherent ground fault function of afcis as the most reliable part of the product.

I know the introduction of these along with cable stackers has greatly improved wiring practices.

Except some no longer have a ground fault function. At first they all did, as that was the only way to meet all the listing requirements from what I recall, but they eventually figured out ways around that and still meet the listing requirements.

 

[kwired]

I still standby my comment the the introduction of the afci has improved workmanship.

Workmanship, maybe, maybe not. More like made people pay better attention when making connections where multiple circuits may be present in a particular enclosure. GFCI's also did improve this - where they were in use.

Personally I wouldn't view AFCI as being in the same category as GFCI with respect to any of that.

They not in same category other than the GFPE component that they all once had and some (non dual function units) still have.

They gone crazy with GFCI requirements ever since about 2008 NEC though. Many the GFCI requirements added since then had little justification using real world statistics like they had prior to then to drive a rule change, but rather more of a "just in case" along with "because we can" as the basis every time they added a new GFCI related rule.

I would be perfectly happy if they reverted most of the GFCI related rules back to what they were in 2005, not many since then are very justified IMO.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

The 2nd draft in person meetings are underway now in Torrance CA.
--
Each PI will be reviewed and voted on.
Quite a bit of comma, parenthesis and wording changes are done live at the meeting.
Sometimes those have big impacts. CMP-P02 is working on definitions,
and moving on to GFCI and SPGFCI (the special purpose are the ones that are not being handled in perfunctory manner)

But only looking for a 50% + 1 vote at the meeting. Anything that receives that vote will be placed on the formal written ballot, and that requires a 2/3s majority to pass.

​