Would you, or not??

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wire-Smith said:
would, square d qo or qob. others talk like afci's are a joke, all while cheap brand standard breakers are as well, why use breakers at all then?
Click to expand...

If you've have read anything on this board about AFCIs you can't come away believing anything other than they are a joke. We aren't just blowing smoke because we "just don't like them". We undoubtedly have the most educated people in the industry here who have weighed in with the facts, from how AFCIs got started, the rigged UL standard that that is used to say that they work, and how the NEC was manipulated by manufacturers into making AFCIs mandatory so the manufacturers could use those sales profits from a bogus product to try and develop one that will work. So far they have yet to succeed. AFCIs are the biggest fraud on the American public ever. In the almost 20 years this has been going on, it has yet to be proven that they have saved even one life.

-Hal
 
If I am doing my own work for myself, I would not use AFCIs, but would use EMT and GFCIs on all circuits. If I am doing it as a contractor, it will comply with the NEC, even in areas where 220.12 has been deleted by state or local action.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
... If I'm doing it as a contractor, it will comply with the NEC, even in areas where 220.12 has been deleted by state or local action.
Click to expand...

Is that because you are afraid of a law suit from somebody whose house burned down and they hired some smart lawyer who will argue that his client wouldn't have been injured if AFCIs were installed (even though they weren't required)?

It's happened and this is what it's coming to.

-Hal
 
hbiss said:
If you've have read anything on this board about AFCIs you can't come away believing anything other than they are a joke. We aren't just blowing smoke because we "just don't like them". We undoubtedly have the most educated people in the industry here who have weighed in with the facts, from how AFCIs got started, the rigged UL standard that that is used to say that they work, and how the NEC was manipulated by manufacturers into making AFCIs mandatory so the manufacturers could use those sales profits from a bogus product to try and develop one that will work. So far they have yet to succeed. AFCIs are the biggest fraud on the American public ever. In the almost 20 years this has been going on, it has yet to be proven that they have saved even one life.

-Hal
Click to expand...


i have read some, i'm sure not as much as you. one of the things that always trips me up about the arguments against them and i know of a popular video people post of a guy doing an at home experiment even and he was demonstrating their inability, but the thing that trips me up is the argument "i have seen arcing faults and they didn't trip", the thing i don't like about that argument is no one(not even any manufacturer) claims they will trip on any and all arcing events/signatures), they trip on the signatures that the manufacturers have figured out how to protect against. the technology is evolving and improving, no they don't trip on every arcing signature but to me that doesn't mean they are anymore worthless than low grade standard style breakers(they often don't trip period), they do trip on some arcing signatures, just ask all the people that get nuisance trip calls. i will say there is good argument they are prematurely required by NEC, but i will also say there is a good argument the industry as a whole should bare the cost to improve safety and this is an attempt that will take a lot of money for research and development and if only one manufacturer came up with it and patented it either 1.)it would be vehemently opposed to be entered as code due to the monopoly, or 2.)it would cost a fortune, yeah even more than they do now.


food for thought


ignition of the cable insulation and/or surrounding material typically requires sustained arcing withsufficient energy release.
Click to expand...
https://library.ul.com/wp-content/u...on_of_Damage_and_Degradation_of_NM_Cables.pdf



Report highlights

Fires involving electrical failure or malfunction:



  • [*=left]Between 2010 and 2014, U.S. municipal fire departments responded to an average of 45,210 home structure fires involving electrical failure or malfunction. These fires caused annual averages of 420 civilian deaths, 1,370 civilian injuries, and $1.4 billion in direct property damage.
    [*=left]Non-home structure fires involving some type of electrical failure or malfunction accounted for an estimated annual average of 12 civilian deaths, 210 civilian injuries, and $614 million in direct property damage during this same period.

Fires involving electrical distribution or lighting equipment:



  • [*=left]U.S. fire departments responded to an estimated annual average of 31,960 non-confined home structure fires involving electrical distribution or lighting equipment in 2010-2014.
    [*=left]An estimated annual average of 14,760 non-confined and non-home fires involving electrical distribution and lighting equipment resulted in 20 civilian deaths, 190 civilian injuries, and $659 million in direct property damage each year
Click to expand...

https://www.nfpa.org/News-and-Research/Data-research-and-tools/Electrical/Electrical
 
Wire-Smith said:
i have read some, i'm sure not as much as you. one of the things that always trips me up about the arguments against them and i know of a popular video people post of a guy doing an at home experiment even and he was demonstrating their inability, but the thing that trips me up is the argument "i have seen arcing faults and they didn't trip", the thing i don't like about that argument is no one(not even any manufacturer) claims they will trip on any and all arcing events/signatures), they trip on the signatures that the manufacturers have figured out how to protect against.
Click to expand...

Which is the rigged UL testing that uses a neon sign transformer to pre-carbonize a cut in a length of zip cord. If they won't trip on the majority of normal arcing what the hell good are they?? ESPECIALY AFTER 20 YEARS OF DEVELOPMENT!

ignition of the cable insulation and/or surrounding material typically requires sustained arcing with sufficient energy release.
Click to expand...

And that's just the point. An arc CANNOT be sustained with 120 volts AC.

As for the fire data, we've seen that before. What does it prove? Details are not given, there is no way to know if the cause has been reported accurately and certainly there is nothing to suggest that an AFCI would have prevented any of it. This is the kind of report that you would give to the uninformed to make your argument that there needs to be AFCIs installed everywhere.

You could use that same information to make an argument for sprinklers THAT ACTUALLY DO DO SOMETHING.

-Hal
 
hbiss said:
Which is the rigged UL testing that uses a neon sign transformer to pre-carbonize a cut in a length of zip cord. If they won't trip on the majority of normal arcing what the hell good are they?? ESPECIALY AFTER 20 YEARS OF DEVELOPMENT!



And that's just the point. An arc CANNOT be sustained with 120 volts AC.

As for the fire data, we've seen that before. What does it prove? Details are not given, there is no way to know if the cause has been reported accurately and certainly there is nothing to suggest that an AFCI would have prevented any of it. This is the kind of report that you would give to the uninformed to make your argument that there needs to be AFCIs installed everywhere.

You could use that same information to make an argument for sprinklers THAT ACTUALLY DO DO SOMETHING.

-Hal
Click to expand...


i will look for some more threads on it to read, do you have any you recommend?
 
ActionDave said:
Have you looked at the 2017 code? There was a significant expansion of GFCI requirements.
Click to expand...

I have looked at the 2017 code, and I think that the expanded requirements are a good idea (with a few exceptions).

I do think that eventually, listing requirements for appliances with switchmode power supplies and VFD's (that generate common-mode noise) will have to get better at controlling leakage - I'm specifically thinking of certain washing machines and pool pumps - to eliminate false GFCI trips. That said, class A GFCI's make the world a truly safer place.

AFCI's just don't have the same demonstrable life-safety track record. I sleep well at night without them installed.



SceneryDriver
 
hbiss said:
Here is one I found. Search doesn't work well if you can't recall the title of the thread.

https://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=190333

This is one where the arrogance of a NEC CMP member who is also a member here reflects the attitude of the NEC.

See the link to Dr. Joe Engel's paper.

-Hal
Click to expand...

I would have been cool with requiring GFCI protection in place of AFCI's, GFCI's do work and are pretty cheap, the whole idea behind AFCI's is good but until they evolve beyond snake oil I will remain a skeptic, thank you for posting the link.
 
I would not install them here or there,
I would not install them anywhere.
I do not like those things, you guys;
I do not like AFCI's. :p
 
MAC702 said:
The fact that there are many jurisdictions (so I hear, I couldn't name one offhand) that exempt AFCIs from an otherwise large adoption of the NEC greatly eases my conscience, because I wouldn't install them anyway. I've replaced too many of them in my career, and am friends with a guy who does testing for UL.
Click to expand...

What does the UL guy say about them?
 
Wire-Smith said:
i have read some, i'm sure not as much as you. one of the things that always trips me up about the arguments against them and i know of a popular video people post of a guy doing an at home experiment even and he was demonstrating their inability, but the thing that trips me up is the argument "i have seen arcing faults and they didn't trip", the thing i don't like about that argument is no one(not even any manufacturer) claims they will trip on any and all arcing events/signatures), they trip on the signatures that the manufacturers have figured out how to protect against. the technology is evolving and improving, no they don't trip on every arcing signature but to me that doesn't mean they are anymore worthless than low grade standard style breakers(they often don't trip period), they do trip on some arcing signatures, just ask all the people that get nuisance trip calls. i will say there is good argument they are prematurely required by NEC, but i will also say there is a good argument the industry as a whole should bare the cost to improve safety and this is an attempt that will take a lot of money for research and development and if only one manufacturer came up with it and patented it either 1.)it would be vehemently opposed to be entered as code due to the monopoly, or 2.)it would cost a fortune, yeah even more than they do now.


food for thought



https://library.ul.com/wp-content/u...on_of_Damage_and_Degradation_of_NM_Cables.pdf





https://www.nfpa.org/News-and-Research/Data-research-and-tools/Electrical/Electrical
Click to expand...


And how do we know that report is even on the right etiology? Energize a staple and watch what it does over the years to a stud. The above is pure conjecture carried away in scientific hubris.
 
If there were no AFCI requirement, then I would wire using using metallic wiring methods (MC, EMT, metal boxes, etc). I would wire with the expectation of AFCIs (eg. not using mwbc) but I would not actually install the AFCIs.

-Jon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top