No, I'm not kidding; that is NEMA's 's official response.
The only way to counter that is with DATA ... not speculation, guesses, or war stories. We need to compile accounts that read like this: "I took a new, fresh out of the box, UL listed appliance, plugged it in to and AFCI protected receptacle under test bench conditions, and the AFCI tripped repeatedly. This happened with several different AFCI's, and of different makes. Evaluation of the appliance by its' manufacturer found no fault with the appliance."
Another type of data might be "The AFCI never tripped until I replaced the light switch with a "Brand L" dimmer / occupancy sensor / bottle opener, after which the AFCI refused to set. Manufacturer "L" tells me this is a common problem, and they advise against using their switches on AFCI-protected circuits."
THAT's the sort of statement we need to make. Until we can produce such data, the "AFCI steamroller" is just going to keep rolling over the committee.
so your insinuating anecdotals will move cmp-2 to further consider afci's in
some respect here Reno?
if i recall 210-12 became the poster-code for ROP's shortly after it's debute
in fact, i'd wager that one specific article attracted more rop's than any other, and perhaps even reaching up into the top 10 rop's (volume wise) in code history.
some of them were EE level, and quite well written btw, many came from debates on line as well
didn't amount to a whole lot,
did it? In fact, it seems we got the runaround over the simplest of requests, like series/parallel clarification
i would suggest, if anyone has copies, for that to be a good starting point, if only for fruitful debate
~S~
