Mikesh ... you've brought out two of the basic issues I have with most of the code changes since, say, the '70's .... and in particular, one of my gripes about the code aproach to AFCI's.
Older homes: Yup, no doubt. Yet, as the very study you cite makes plain, the older homes had quite a few very basic violations, the sort of stuff even Edison, maybe even Franklin, knew better than to do. For example, overloaded circuits. Improper splices.
Which brings me to the AFCI issue. Assuming the technology is what it is claimed to be, and the desire is to save lives ... would not the very highest priority be to add AFCI's to older systems, systems that may hve degraded over time, are probably already inadequate, and have most likely see some unqualified 'repairs?' This is a circumstance screaming for an AFCI device, since there is unlikely to be an AFCI available for the service equipment available.
Yet, the AFCI device has been staunchly opposed by the breaker makers. Having had the rug pulled out once already, it's no surprise the device makers are wary of entering the market now.
I'll go it one better: give me an AFCI device that also tells me WHY it tripped. Overload? Ground fault? Arc detected?
With the AFCI breakers also incorporating 30mA ground-fault detection, I also want to know why NONE of them are classified by UL for providing the 30mA ground fault protection where it is required for protecting equipment. UL is quite plain on this point: NO AFCI is listed for that use. What's the story?
