ECN Forum Forums General Topics of the Trade General Discussion Area Arc Fault Circuit Breakers

"Not that expensive..."

The next code cycle is looking to require all 120 circuits to be AFCI protected.

"Normal" breakers cost less than $5 each.

"AFCI" breakers cost about $35 each.

Now, it's not unusual for a house to have 30 breakers. That $900 in additional costs- for the breakers alone!

The few new homes I've seen have been largely filled with "skinnies," or breakers that let you place two circuits in one 'full size' breaker space. These panels are already full. So, the AFCI requirement will easily double the number of panels in a house.

Since panel feeders are often (locally) required to be in pipe, etc., you can count on the AFCI requirement to add several thousand to the cost of wiring a new house. For those who consider that 'small change,' well, I do not. I cannot recall any single code change before, whose effect on the price of a house could be counted in percentage points!

[This message has been edited by renosteinke (edited 11-27-2006).]

I gotta say Reno, you certainly have an eloquent way of putting things! Never quite thought of it that way. Sadly, I think the trend of expensive code changes will continue.

Joe

And these expensive manufacturer driven requirements will result in much less respect for the NEC.
Don

Bob, I meant my remark more in the context of airbags (and arc faults) being forced down the public's throat and also giving a false sense of security.


I totally agree that airbags have saved far more lives than they've taken. But I look at airbags as a band-aid to make up for the fact that modern vehicles are lightweight recycled beer can shells, not like the days of old with good solid frames and steel bodies. Despite that, they do indeed work well ...now. The early ones were quite dangerous IIRC , even if they worked "properly."


Exactly! Show me the proof that they have saved someone's life or property..that they will last for years without attention in a crowded panel, then as you pointed out, actually work when needed. (Not likely.)


Bingo!!


Something the CMP's better get a grip on soon or we may well see a spike in electrical-related fires and deaths due to boneheaded rules driving the DIY's to do a lot more to avoid the "Expensive EC who swears that I must have those $35 breakers when the $5 one from the Box store works just as good!"

This whole thing makes me want to hurl.....




[This message has been edited by mxslick (edited 11-28-2006).]

I agree mx' and a good question would be how or what solutions could be made to prevent a long term disaster to maintain the NEC's respect.

Maybe that could be a good topic for further discussion?

Luke




[This message has been edited by Luketrician (edited 11-28-2006).]

Deleted post

[This message has been edited by Ann Brush (edited 11-28-2006).]

My proposal to severely roll-back AFCI requirements was rejected specifically because the committee was "not aware of any documented nusiance tripping of an AFCI with a listed appliance."

The comments I have heard made by a manufacture's regional rep as to which appliances will cause nuisance trips are not quite "documentation."

With the period for comments to the report on proposals now closed, we are not in any position to provide the committee with any evidence .. for now.

I sincerely hope that committe members read this thread.

More important, I hope that they, the AFCI manufacturers, and the NFPA take the time to read the US Supreme Court case "ASME vs. Hydrolevel." That's 435 US 556 (1982) for the lawyers out there.
The very basis for that case is that a manufacturer used his membership on code committees to obtain a ruling that put an upstart competitor out of business. The ASME tried to argue that they were not liable. They lost - big time!

IF such documentation exists, then the manufacturers of AFCI's are opening themselves up to major damage awards ... even a violation of the RICO act could be alleged. And, as Ken Leigh recently prooved, even the most successful executives, with the best connections, can be sentenced to prison.

Now, the idea that any 'confidentiality' agreement would require anyone to be a party to such a fraud raises some serious ethical issues.
However, I was also taught that science is based upon controlled experiments, with repeatable results. What happens in one lab ought to happen in another. If another lab just happened to duplicate the research, and come up with similar results, those results would be suitable for presentation to the code committee.


[This message has been edited by renosteinke (edited 11-29-2006).]

One thing I find preplexing is inconsistent AFCI tripping, at least in my own home with GE AFCI's.

For example, I was using an electric sander you could see acrcing away from halfway across the house, and no trip. That same sander, when plugged into another circuit, would immediately trip. My miter saw, where I don't see any arcing, will instantly trip any AFCI in the panel. I hate having to run extension cords all over the house to reach a GFCI circuit, or even more rare "standard" breaker circuit.

By the same token, I don't buy the argument that nuisance tripping will cause homeowners to start opening up panels, exposing them to danger. (As has been said here, let Darwinism straighten things out.) That same argument can be made about GFCI breakers too. I can't tell you how many times I wanted to pull the GFCI out when my holiday lights wouldn't come on in the rain. Funny how for years I never got shocked by holiday lighting with plain old circuit breakers... a little tingle now and then when wet, but nothing to worry about.

Joe

Joe,
The currently available AFCIs should not be tripping under the conditions that you have described as they don't even look at the arc until the current exceeds 75 amps.
Don

I can say the information was not generated in the US or by a US company. That's all I will say.