Charlie,
Don, The UL standard has not been revised. There are several different types of AFCIs and they have separate listings (I am sure that it will be quite confusing).
Sorry for posting an incorrect statement. I guess that my point should be that the NEC does not now require the use of "combination type" AFCIs, but will in the '05 code. From the ROP and ROC, it appears that the new rule requiring the use of "combination" type devices is to require the use of a device that will do most of what we have all been told that AFCIs could do. The big problem was that the branch circuit and feeder type AFCIs cannot provide all of the protection that the AFCI and safety people say that we need. There was a major "spin" program used to get the original AFCI requirement into the code, because the manufacturer's knew that the product that was available at the time of the acceptance of the current and previous AFCI rules could not do what they had implied.
I'm still not convinced that the AFCI is a cost effective method for preventing home fires. The major reason that I make this statement is because the fire loss statistics used to support the AFCI rules say that 85% of the dwelling unit fires of electrical origin occurred in dwelling units over 20 years old. This means that if the bedroom circuits in every new dwelling unit constructed this year gets AFCI protection, that we could expect to prevent less than 20 fires, of the 70,000+ that will occur this year. The other issue is the longevity of these devices. Can we reasonably expect that they will still be functional in 20 years when they may be needed? They do not fail safe, so when the electronics fail the become a standard thermal magnetic breaker. Yes, I know that the instructions require a monthly test by the home owner, but it is my opinion that few home owners will actually perform this test.
Don
[This message has been edited by resqcapt19 (edited 04-27-2004).]
