ECN Forum Forums General Topics of the Trade General Discussion Area NFPA: Missed Opportunities?

has anyone else noticed how in the last few years people on this forum have stopped refering to the NEC as "the electricians bible", "The Good Book" etc? just an observation...

The AFCI is supposed to detect s short duration arc that will not be there long enough to operate the breaker. It looks for very high current spikes repeating rapidly.
That is why it will not see a series arc or a loose connection. I find it funny that they said this was going to do something for a faulty extension cord on a heater. The only way the AFCI would operate is if the insulation melted and the conductors arced together. In my experience they weld and trip the breaker but I suppose that might not happen. The overheating itself will not trip the AFCI

Thanks gfretwell for the explanations...they are helpful...I've always been inherently curious about the inner workings of things. I think the idea of AFCIs is a good one, but they need to work on the actual implementation. I do agree with the overall theme of this topic though, I hate seeing the NEC become more about selling products than safety. I mean if a new product actually helps by all means require it, but it seems there was little research to show these do their job. Let products get recommended by their own merit...not by some marketing department.

So what can be done to have this requirement removed?

Why can we not demand evidence?

How could this have been passed without evidence?

Was or is there evidence?

OK, being new (to this forum and the industry), what is the process for code changes, and who is allowed to be involved?

The manufacturers, and the NFPA, claim to have evidence to support their claims. This evidence is NOT available to the public. It derives entirely from some "test" houses, with created flaws, sponsored from the NFPA. Or, at least, that's what they tell me.

I really don't want this thread to become just another re-hash of the AFCI issue. I am hoping to wake some folks up, and prevent the AFCI fracas from becoming the "beginning of the end" for the NFPA. They, IMO, have simply missed too many opportunities, and need to act now - or risk becoming irrelevant.

Until now, the code was changed in the following manner:
1) Old code issued;
2) Period in which anyone can submit proposals for the next edition;
3) Committees examine proposals, and make their decisions. These are published;
4) Period in which anyone can comment on the committee decisions;
5) Committees consider these comments, and prepare their recommendations. In effect, compile the new code;
6} Present the new code at a convention, where it is voted on by NFPA members present.

For the next edition of the NEC (2008), the NFPA has added an additional step just prior to the convention. I am not sure of the details, but I believe it a requirement for prior notice of any motions that might be made.

Can this system be abused, or manipulated? Absolutely. The most recent requirement - membership for at least six months before a convention in order to vote - was the direct result of the spanking the NFPA got from the US Supreme Court, after the Steel Tube Institute packed a convention.

Another area in which the NFPA may be missing an opportunity relates to the "Veeck decision." In short, it looks as if the NFPA has lost it's legal monopoly on publishing the NEC. For an organization whose primary income is from selling copies of the NEC, this can be a serious blow.
The NFPA has had "the way" shown to them. At least three extremely profitable publishers base their businesses on publishing works that are "in the public domain." What they sell, what IS copyright protected, are the indexes, commentary, and other supplemental material that comes along with the public text.

How many fumbles remain, before the NFPA is out of the game?

Another way NFPA did a Tony Romo is their obstinate failure to put the NEC online. They finally reluctantly did but made it hard to find and hard to use since they used the PDF format.
Since the purpose of the NEC is to promote safety, it should be freely and readily available.
~Peter

Peter, the point Reno is making is these people don't develop standards to promote safety. They create standards to SELL them. That is one reason why a standard is barely through the adoption stage when the "new and improved" standard is coming off the press.
I am pretty much retired as an inspector but I like to keep my credentials up. That costs me well over $1000 a code cycle by the time I buy all the documents I need and fulfill my CEU obligations. Has electricity really changed that much in the last 20 (or even 100)years?

It is a racket

edit (they made me retire because I can't type)

[This message has been edited by gfretwell (edited 01-24-2007).]