Proposal #2-142 (AFCI's): What Do You Think?

[Physis 3]

I love those guys :grin:

 

[cadpoint]

Why AFCI

Why AFCI

I didn't read every thread, (shame on me), I will say that as we all are consumers we should all be told to not have any equipment "ON" when plugging it in, or "ON" when unpluggin it. Thus not requiring a AFCI.
Who's going to state that in Public. Er A Public Service announcement to
anything near that statement, nope the dollor is ruling on this one.
Will any authority body step up, no I think not! Will the Manufacture
state that in there description of usage of there equipment?
Common sense yes, idiot proof = AFCI...

 

[1electricalgenius]

Kiss

Kiss

Keep it simple stupid

I suspect the # of untrained home owners trying to replace or wire around bad AFCI breakers out weighs their benefit. The fact they are now required on the Bd Rm smoke detector outlets is idiotic. The amount of brain power a home owner would need to dedicate to monthly testing etc of AFCI and the dumbing down of themselves by their assumed protection me thinks would be better invested in being more alert with cords etc in ones home. What I don't like is the whole concept that we can eliminate risk with technology. The world will forever be a deadly place to live and only being "awake" can make one safe. We never eliminate risk, only change its format. How many of us know a building whose properly permitted, installed, inspected fire alarm has gone off so many times that the residents no longer heed the signals? I say make folks smarter and keep buildings stupid. I think the real answer is to use less of everything, simplify our lives, and have safety be from balance not technology.

 

[douglas sartwell]

afci's

afci's

No more proposals from manufacturers. No more foxes in the hen house!

 

[jbower]

Here in New Jersey AFCI protection is optional. Usually I will ask a potential customer if they want them installed at an additional cost. (for the most part they say no). Also I give them my opinion on their reliability. Personally I don't like them because they haven't worked out all of the kinks. And the concept of only requiring them where someone is sleeping doesn't make sense to me either. An arc in the kitchen can start a fire just as easily as in the bedroom.

I agree an arc is an arc. In Va. we have to use AFCI in bedrooms.

 

[weressl]

In the November 2006 issue of EC&M magazine, the cover story was regarding the proposal currently under acceptance (as of end of ROP time) to mandate the use of AFCI breakers for every 15A and 20A circuit in a dwelling unit. It would spell the end of debates about what a bedroom is, which is arguably it's best feature ( ), but there are many strong opinions about it on both sides.

It has inspired me to run a poll of the forum, and see what the results would be.

I'm not really looking for much of a discussion in this: If you just vote, great. If you want to discuss, well, that's peachy too.

The whole AFCI issue puzzles me. It seems a backward soltuion.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the AFCI protect against loose, arcing connections? So why don't we correct the problem, rather than accepting it? The problem arises with equipment or installation that may have quality problems or because its age or installation errors. So why not address the problem rather than the uncorrected consequence?

 

[coulter]

Could I get someone knowledgable to pitch in and remind me?

As I had recalled:

1. AFCI cbs are not designed to pick up bad or malfunctioning (Arc faults) equipment.

2. They will trip on a 30 ma gf.

3. I had understood that the only arc faults they are designed to pick up are in the house wiring supplying an outlet

true, false, some of each?

carl

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Carl,
That has all changed (at least that is what they are telling us) with the "combination" type AFCI that is required to be used starting 1/1/08. It is said to provide protection beyond the outlet...but that is what they said some 13 years ago in the original proposals for this device.
Don

 

[coulter]

Thanks Don -
I think I understand now. What I said was true up to 1/08. But is not true after 1/08. Is that right? (mixed tenses intentional) :roll:

carl

 

[iwire]

So why don't we correct the problem, rather than accepting it?

I agree with you, that would make more sense. :smile:

I can think of two reasons and I hope the reason is the first not the second.

1) The NEC has no power to require any maintenance of electrical systems.

2) If the problem was fixed how could the manufacturers sell the more expensive AFCIs in place of standard breakers?

 

[weressl]

I agree with you, that would make more sense. :smile:

I can think of two reasons and I hope the reason is the first not the second.

1) The NEC has no power to require any maintenance of electrical systems.

Does the NEC presume that the installed equipemnt is operated according to the manufacturer's instructions? Maintenance is part of thet, so indirectly NEC does require that the equipment is properly maintained, otherwise many of the NEC requirements become mote with neglected systems.

 

[andinator]

Does the NEC presume that the installed equipemnt is operated according to the manufacturer's instructions? Maintenance is part of thet, so indirectly NEC does require that the equipment is properly maintained, otherwise many of the NEC requirements become mote with neglected systems.

Good thought, but we are talking houses here...

 

[iwire]

Does the NEC presume that the installed equipemnt is operated according to the manufacturer's instructions?

I don't know what they presume but the operation of the equipment is outside the NECs reach.

Check out the NECs scope in 90.2(A)

There has been talk on the forum before about an NFPA maintenance code but I think it was just talk.