ECN Forum Forums Code Related Discussion NEC & other Code issues AFCI Controversy Continues...

For those of you that get Mike Holt's emails, this is old hat...

However, I'd like the chance to rally behind him and flood the CMP's with ROC's to get rid of 210.12 as it stands.

What do you think?


[This message has been edited by sparky66wv (edited 08-02-2002).]

Here's mine:


Go here: http://forums.nfpa.org:8081/pcsubmit/pcsrch.html

and type (no quotes) "70" in the first box, and "nfpa70" in the second, select "F2003" in the third box then search. The NEC choice will be at the bottom of choices, click "select", then follow the instructions.

It's fairly easy to do! (And you're casting your vote!)

[This message has been edited by sparky66wv (edited 08-02-2002).]

finally, some of the heavies get it, and respond....it was only a matter of time.

I had posted the GWC discussion a while back, very revealing, some interesting banter between current & ex-employees of CH. .... corporate intergrity ...harump!


myself, i've already sent an ROP, i had basically asked that the definition be changed to portay the specific arc addressed....but more power to Kelly electric, i should hope that the 210.12 ROP's will be of sufficent length to move the CMP to consider THE TRUTH in that they were buffaloed by a manufacturer....

this really remains a good example of the protitituion of the safety community biased by commerce, carpetbagging NEC lobbists waving thier bogus stats.... it would seem that anything presented under the guise of safety is pontificated ad nauseum ,overshadowing all reason, a trump card palyed too often IMO.
The ultimate ROP here would be of the safety communities orgin, to defend thier credibility.

in closing, it's good to see electricians provide ROP's instead of the usual influx of manufacturer's, i urge all to cast a vote, lest they overrun us.

( you new ya'd get me cranked here Virg..)




[This message has been edited by sparky (edited 08-03-2002).]

Actually, because of the money invested by the manufactures in this product, I think we will see an expansion of their use.Don

Still no sign of these devices being introduced into this part of the world as yet.

This whole AFCI deal begs the question ....


Who's NEC is this?

210.12 apparently belongs to Cutler-Hammer.

(Oops! Did I say that out loud?)

Yes Virgil you did. And for what it's worth I agree.

The truth is Don is right, and unless we can apply some serious pressure we will have to live with it. (yes I have cast my vote)

Now to step into another issue manufacturer backed, what do you guys and girls think is the driving force behind NM not being allowed in drop ceilings after it was permitted to go to 4 floors?

Roger

Evidently I got here late to the party and missed this event. Everyone is trying to ban article 210.12B, and according to the some of these websites the State of Nebraska has not accepted the AFCI article( I couldnt find a reason why they rejected it either). I didnt know A state could adopt and pick and choose the articles they wanted.
What exactly is the problem with AFCIs, are they "Unsafe at any speed ?" or not safe enough
I got a report from MHE about how some guy has a problem with them not working, according to him.
They did all of these tests for an 'Unknown Chemical Company', and tested AFCIs made by 'unknown Manufacturers'.
To believe this report is to believe that UL, the NFPA, the entire code panel, and the Siemens, Square-D and Cutler-Hammer companies are involved in some gigantic conspiracy all for the purpose of selling a 33 dollar circuit breaker. And this NO-name chemical company as far as we know could be an illegal Meth-Amphetimine lab is some seedy back alley. Why wouldnt the chemical company underwrite this experiment and then freely publish the results. Where were these concerned 'Testers' when the article was proposed in '99, we have been aware of this coming article for 3 years, that should have been sufficient time to prepare test and statements to the effect that these devices were garbage, but evidently none of NOTE came forward.
I have used exactly 6 of these AFCI breakers since January 1st and have no problems with them, But this is not a testamonial eihter way I dont see the problem with them.
According to one manfacturer of record ( I use Siemens) they were tested at Under/Writers and approved for the purpose stated. We are not to believe UL. ?
Someone want to tell me why there is a problem with these ? Because I dont see it.

-Mark-

The problem is that they don't detect series faults.

Series faults are things like loose wirenuts, loose terminal screws, and anything connecting conductors in series. I have no statistics to back me up, but I would guess that the majority of electrical house fires are started by series arc faults.

The AFCI's detect parallel faults (if more than 70A), and so do regular 15A & 20A CB's.

Overly-simplified Analogy: Let's invent something, and call it a "Crime Stopper" but this device will only detect and protect against jay-walking. Yes it does stop a crime, but it's stopping the minor and least worrisome crime, not the ones that are really doing the damage, like crack dealing. Now let's lobby to have these put into every home, and charge, oh say $50 a piece for them. then we can have a press release later saying "oh yeah, they only detect jay-walking, your not really protected from any other crime"

See my point?

Arc Fault Circuit Interrupters should do just that, or be called Parallel Arc Fault Circuit Interrupters, as per Steve's suggestion.




[This message has been edited by sparky66wv (edited 08-04-2002).]