John, that's another thing that deserves considerable discussion, it's own thread, and crosses many forum boundaries.
I won't deny that we need to know the code. However ...
Each of us has a duty to know far more than the code ... we need to know how things work. How else can we design, apply the code, or perform troubleshooting?
Likewise, we all have a duty to participate in making the laws that we agree to honor. This means that we need to correct errors. Errors will not correct themselves.
Even within our own lifetimes there have been such errors corrected. Seatbelt interlocked ignitions and the 55mph speed limit are two examples that come to mind. Other matters are currently 'under review' by the populace; witness the continuing discord regarding both marijuana and abortion. Citizen participation is what drives all of these.
Now, regarding the AFCI, it sure looks like the basic premise behind the device has been called into question. Each of us has some opportunity to affect the adoption, expansion, and even the repeal of rules regarding the device. The "AHJ" can be many many different parties, but the NFPA certainly isn't one of them. Nor is UL or Square D.
No, the burden falls squarely on the AHJ. Those other 'interested parties' might be a useful resource, but that does not lessen the responsibility of the AHJ. Since we have set our country up as one where every AHJ derives its' authority from the consent of the governed, we all have the duty to monitor those we call "AHJ's."
IMO, Mr. Engle has certainly brought enough doubt to the table to justify suspending any AFCI enforcement until the matter is settled. Any AHJ that does not consider this matter is being irresponsible.
Don't give me the 'we're bound to enforce the law' malarky. Every bureaucracy has its' mechanisms for changing, interpreting, and enforcing the 'law.' Nor have bureaucracies had the slightest hesitation in being mighty selective in their applications; witness the current debate regarding 'pre-emption' with regard to immigration laws. On that topic, the "AHJ" has no problem ignoring one group of 'interlopers' while suing another.
"As AHJ, I have no recourse." Then you're not the AHJ. You simply represent the AHJ. If you have to do what the State tells you, then the State is the AHJ. At a minimum, you have a duty to ensure that those who adopt the rules have all the relevant information available to them. I'm pretty sure that means they have to listen to more viewpoints than just the one of the NFPA.
Likewise, we are all part of the code-making process. You know, that 'consensus-based' stuff they brag about. Some of us even are part of code panels. Well, there's a reason proposals get voted on- both in committee and on the convention floor.
These are serious matters. That's why I consider it so critical to examine Mr. Engle's paper so closely. If he's in error, we ought to be able to demonstrate the error. If he's right, the AFCI is a fraud.
This thread has examined only one of his assertions. So far, it looks like he is correct when he asserts that an 'arc fault detector' is no more possible than a time machine or anti-gravity paint.
His paper raises many other issues, each of which needs to be separately examined. I expect to see these issues raised in additional threads.
Reno
perhaps the easiest avenue is to simply get Dr E's paper out there, and let the nonpartisans of the trade educate themselves and decide on a course collectively
there are a lotta ways to do this, aside form the professional forums
i'm sure i don't need to list them for anyone here
~S~
