This is a travesty

Status
Not open for further replies.
JFletcher said:
If you want an amendment to the NEC that has a chance of passing, propose that AFCI breakers not be required to be installed in any building type, including dwellings, that has sprinklers. I'd be willing to bet the parts cost of a sprinkler system for a smaller house is less than the dozen+ AFCI needed in most places now.
Click to expand...

Basically follow the Scottsdale, AZ approach.

My understanding is that rather than simply requiring sprinklers, Scottsdale allowed developers to relax other safety requirements if they implemented sprinklers. These were things such as road size and turn radius requirements intended to let fire trucks get to a location quickly, which were very expensive because of the additional land used.

The city also wanted to save money by putting fire stations further apart.

The net result was a big increase in the number of homes with sprinklers, and fewer deaths even though FD response time was slower.

In addition to the 'sprinkler alternative' to AFCIs, I'd suggest: 'AFCI protection shall not be required for circuits in all metallic wiring methods protected by ground fault protection'.

-Jon
 
JFletcher said:
Any fire fighter or fire investigator who could say in 10 seconds that fully sprinkled buildings that can put out a myriad of fire types will always be better than AFCI breakers that can only prevent a few types of fires that are electrical in origin.

If you want an amendment to the NEC that has a chance of passing, propose that AFCI breakers not be required to be installed in any building type, including dwellings, that has sprinklers. I'd be willing to bet the parts cost of a sprinkler system for a smaller house is less than the dozen+ AFCI needed in most places now.
Click to expand...

Two jaw droppers from Don_resqucaptan:

1. Sprinklers are actually mandated for all dwellings, but amendment out at the local level. Why people are not rioting over this, shows everything that is wrong with society.

2. His district lets you skip AFCIs if sprinklers are installed. AFCI costs fund sprinkler installs by something like 1/3.
 
winnie said:
Basically follow the Scottsdale, AZ approach.

My understanding is that rather than simply requiring sprinklers, Scottsdale allowed developers to relax other safety requirements if they implemented sprinklers. These were things such as road size and turn radius requirements intended to let fire trucks get to a location quickly, which were very expensive because of the additional land used.

The city also wanted to save money by putting fire stations further apart.

The net result was a big increase in the number of homes with sprinklers, and fewer deaths even though FD response time was slower.

In addition to the 'sprinkler alternative' to AFCIs, I'd suggest: 'AFCI protection shall not be required for circuits in all metallic wiring methods protected by ground fault protection'.

-Jon
Click to expand...

I nominate this for post of the year :happyyes::happyyes::thumbsup:
 
JFletcher said:
Any fire fighter or fire investigator who could say in 10 seconds that fully sprinkled buildings that can put out a myriad of fire types will always be better than AFCI breakers that can only prevent a few types of fires that are electrical in origin.

If you want an amendment to the NEC that has a chance of passing, propose that AFCI breakers not be required to be installed in any building type, including dwellings, that has sprinklers. I'd be willing to bet the parts cost of a sprinkler system for a smaller house is less than the dozen+ AFCI needed in most places now.
Click to expand...

Your post repeats a common misconception regarding sprinklers and sprinkler systems. They are NOT designed to put out fires. In commercial structures, they are intended to control the fire until the fire department arrives. Their purpose is to limit property damage. In residential structures their purpose to to protect the path of egress. It may happen that depending on the type and size of fire that the sprinklers will put it out, but that's a happy accident.
 
gadfly56 said:
Your post repeats a common misconception regarding sprinklers and sprinkler systems. They are NOT designed to put out fires. In commercial structures, they are intended to control the fire until the fire department arrives. Their purpose is to limit property damage. In residential structures their purpose to to protect the path of egress. It may happen that depending on the type and size of fire that the sprinklers will put it out, but that's a happy accident.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Many fires can and do go out with sprinklers. You would be stunned what 10 GPM can do. But regardless whether the fire goes out or is contained, they end up saving human life more often than not. And contrary to the myths everyone hold about sprinklers, they cost little to install because they can be tapped directly off potable plumbing in most cases.
 
mbrooke said:
Not necessarily. Many fires can and do go out with sprinklers. You would be stunned what 10 GPM can do. But regardless whether the fire goes out or is contained, they end up saving human life more often than not. And contrary to the myths everyone hold about sprinklers, they cost little to install because they can be tapped directly off potable plumbing in most cases.
Click to expand...

The MGM Grand in Vegas in 1980 is a prime example.

and yeah the parts cost next to nothing. some 3/4" PVC, a dozen heads, a backflow preventer... rudimentary sprinkler system. Sure, you can add flow meters, pressure switches, automatic dialing of the FD via a fire alarm panel, more annunciation, etc, etc. Even the basics will always be better than an AFCI.

gadfly56 said:
Your post repeats a common misconception regarding sprinklers and sprinkler systems. They are NOT designed to put out fires. In commercial structures, they are intended to control the fire until the fire department arrives. Their purpose is to limit property damage. In residential structures their purpose to to protect the path of egress. It may happen that depending on the type and size of fire that the sprinklers will put it out, but that's a happy accident.
Click to expand...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoNXGj8JKZE

The above mentioned MGM fire was also extinguished by the building's sprinkler system.
 
Last edited:
JFletcher said:
The MGM Grand in Vegas in 1980 is a prime example.

and yeah the parts cost next to nothing. some 3/4" PVC, a dozen heads, a backflow preventer... rudimentary sprinkler system. Sure, you can add flow meters, pressure switches, automatic dialing of the FD via a fire alarm panel, more annunciation, etc, etc. Even the basics will always be better than an AFCI.
Click to expand...



I see you have been drinking that cool-aid :D:p You don't need backflows or even PVC pipe where potable plumbing is present. You can literally tap the head off the cold water line, all thats needed is a T fitting and some copper/pex branching down.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoNXGj8JKZE

The above mentioned MGM fire was also extinguished by the building's sprinkler system.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the vid :)
 
mbrooke said:
I see you have been drinking that cool-aid :D:p You don't need backflows or even PVC pipe where potable plumbing is present. You can literally tap the head off the cold water line, all thats needed is a T fitting and some copper/pex branching down.

Thanks for the vid :)
Click to expand...

You're welcome. I mentioned bf preventers because unless the potable water is recirculated thru the sprinkler system, there will be dead spots where water will stagnate; I dont want to drink that! and sure, pex is fine.
 
JFletcher said:
You're welcome. I mentioned bf preventers because unless the potable water is recirculated thru the sprinkler system, there will be dead spots where water will stagnate; I dont want to drink that! and sure, pex is fine.
Click to expand...

If I am not mistaken no plumbing codes require back flows for closed dead spots. Think a water hammer leg or that spigot that never opens.
 
JFletcher said:
Any fire fighter or fire investigator who could say in 10 seconds that fully sprinkled buildings that can put out a myriad of fire types will always be better than AFCI breakers that can only prevent a few types of fires that are electrical in origin.

If you want an amendment to the NEC that has a chance of passing, propose that AFCI breakers not be required to be installed in any building type, including dwellings, that has sprinklers. I'd be willing to bet the parts cost of a sprinkler system for a smaller house is less than the dozen+ AFCI needed in most places now.
Click to expand...

I don't know why you quoted me on this.
I never mentioned anything about wanting an amendment to anything.


The trick to all of this is to come up with something that will prevent the fire from starting in the first place, not trying to put it out after the fact.

By the time a sprinkler system has activated, your more than likely full into a life or deaths situation.


JAP>
 
jap said:
I don't know why you quoted me on this.
I never mentioned anything about wanting an amendment to anything.


The trick to all of this is to come up with something that will prevent the fire from starting in the first place, not trying to put it out after the fact.

By the time a sprinkler system has activated, your more than likely full into a life or deaths situation.


JAP>
Click to expand...

Ideally. However, even if AFCIs were to be 100% effective*, they would only stop a small percentage of actual dwelling fires. The remaining chunk would still present life and death situations- where as for 2x-3x the cost of AFCIs, we would eliminate near 100% of those life and death situations.


*Ok, preventing fires in the first place, that is a valid argument. However, the bulk of electrical fires come from glowing connections (joule heating)- with the vast majority of them produce no arcing signature. For the sake of the argument even if 100% of them did, there is a huge question if AFCIs will be able to catch them:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rfqqNg-uVE


Why so? Because AFCIs have to be able to distinguish between current ripples from appliances, motors, switches, light bulbs burning out, power supplies, ect vs an actual loose connection. Wave forums that look almost identical- if not totally identical- must be discriminated by a woeful lack of computing power in residential grade AFCIs. As a result, manufactures must choose between making them more sensitive increasing the odds of tripping on an actual problem while simultaneously nuisance tripping on a variety of appliances or decreasing sensitivity saving headaches for electricians and occupants while increasing the odds of an actual problem going unnoticed.
 
mbrooke said:
Ideally. However, even if AFCIs were to be 100% effective*, they would only stop a small percentage of actual dwelling fires. The remaining chunk would still present life and death situations- where as for 2x-3x the cost of AFCIs, we would eliminate near 100% of those life and death situations.


*Ok, preventing fires in the first place, that is a valid argument. However, the bulk of electrical fires come from glowing connections (joule heating)- with the vast majority of them produce no arcing signature. For the sake of the argument even if 100% of them did, there is a huge question if AFCIs will be able to catch them:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rfqqNg-uVE


Why so? Because AFCIs have to be able to distinguish between current ripples from appliances, motors, switches, light bulbs burning out, power supplies, ect vs an actual loose connection. Wave forums that look almost identical- if not totally identical- must be discriminated by a woeful lack of computing power in residential grade AFCIs. As a result, manufactures must choose between making them more sensitive increasing the odds of tripping on an actual problem while simultaneously nuisance tripping on a variety of appliances or decreasing sensitivity saving headaches for electricians and occupants while increasing the odds of an actual problem going unnoticed.
Click to expand...

There must be half a dozen threads floating around here about treadmills tripping AFCI breakers.
 
mbrooke said:
Ideally. However, even if AFCIs were to be 100% effective*, they would only stop a small percentage of actual dwelling fires. The remaining chunk would still present life and death situations- where as for 2x-3x the cost of AFCIs, we would eliminate near 100% of those life and death situations.


*Ok, preventing fires in the first place, that is a valid argument. However, the bulk of electrical fires come from glowing connections (joule heating)- with the vast majority of them produce no arcing signature. For the sake of the argument even if 100% of them did, there is a huge question if AFCIs will be able to catch them:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rfqqNg-uVE


Why so? Because AFCIs have to be able to distinguish between current ripples from appliances, motors, switches, light bulbs burning out, power supplies, ect vs an actual loose connection. Wave forums that look almost identical- if not totally identical- must be discriminated by a woeful lack of computing power in residential grade AFCIs. As a result, manufactures must choose between making them more sensitive increasing the odds of tripping on an actual problem while simultaneously nuisance tripping on a variety of appliances or decreasing sensitivity saving headaches for electricians and occupants while increasing the odds of an actual problem going unnoticed.
Click to expand...

I take it you missed my comment of someone needs to design something that will. :)
Preferrably an economical solution.

Otherwise we could talk this thing to death, or, just start looking for and alternate to electricity all together.

JAP>
 
gadfly56 said:
There must be half a dozen threads floating around here about treadmills tripping AFCI breakers.
Click to expand...


Because the current draw looks identical to an arc fault that the manufactures programed into the AFCI. Guess how the tripping gets resolved when manufactures get complaints?

jap said:
I take it you missed my comment of someone needs to design something that will. :)
Preferrably an economical solution.

Otherwise we could talk this thing to death, or, just start looking for and alternate to electricity all together.

JAP>
Click to expand...


People can and already have. But it its not going to be economical. Would you be willing to pay $450 for an AFCI breaker?
 
mbrooke said:
Because the current draw looks identical to an arc fault that the manufactures programed into the AFCI. Guess how the tripping gets resolved when manufactures get complaints?




People can and already have. But it its not going to be economical. Would you be willing to pay $450 for an AFCI breaker?
Click to expand...

If it does what you say it will do,

Yes.

JAP>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top