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

If I've understood the legal position correctly (being a foreigner!), the NEC is not a legal requirement as and of itself. It becomes mandatory in any given state only because the state passes a law to say the electrical work must comply with the NEC.

Therefore, the state is free to amend the NEC in any way it wishes, either by adding extra requirements or by changing or deleting various articles. (And the same goes for counties or cities being able to add extra requirements, such as Chicago's everything-in-conduit rule, right?)

O.K., all jump on me now because I've got that wrong....

Speaking impartially as I don't have any experience of these critters, I get the impression that most of the folk here who are unhappy about AFCIs are concerned that they are being marketed as a "cure all" solution to any and all possible arc faults, while in fact they will only detect and trip on specific types of arc-faults. Wrong again?

Edit:
O.K., Virgil beat me to it while I was typing my reply!




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

You got it Paul, give that man a fine Cuban cigar! (They're legal now aren't they?)



More than anything, I'm miffed because I've spent much effort in being an advocate for these things, just to find out it's all a big scam to make $$$.

I plan on being as diligent an "enemy" as I was an ally.

The (inverse) Saul/Paul phenomenon?



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

Sparky66:
I understand what a series fault is. What I dont understand is why everybody is buying this "REPORT" by and unnamed company unnamed researchers and treat it like it is the last word on AFCIs. They wouldnt even name the brand of breaker used, as far as credibility goes it falls way short of convincing me that these devices do not work.
There is no proof that they dont work either. The companies that make them had them all listed and tested by UL, is UL in on the conspiracy to?
It seems all well and good to be skeptical about a new product but to trash it without valid testing and then compare that to the testing done by the people who make them they miss the mark.
As I said except for the exorbitant price for these breakers I cant see any reason to recind 210.12B.
If compared to all the products the Electrical manufacturers sell this one item doesnt seem to be a record breaker in and by itself.
Paul:
I was always of the impression that if a state or locality accepted the NEC it could not pick and choose the parts it liked and discard the ones it did not. That part was left up the AHJ and the writing of the local codes.
This whole AFCI thing sounds more and more like another conspiracy theory run amok.
As I said I dont have a problem with them and have not seen any documentation to the contrary.
-Mark-

Let time tell.I'm sure the first time a fire starts in a bedroom, and it is traced to a damaged cord or something of that nature with the a/f not opening there may be some liability issues.The manufacture seems to be taking some serious risks with their claims.
Just read the packaging on these things.Doesn't seem to be any disclaimers, other than installation and testing.

The unit of government that adopts the NEC is free to make any changes that it wants to. Many areas have their own local rules that modify the NEC. Look at the inside back cover of the NEC under "adoption by reference". It says, "Any deletions, additions, and changes desired by the adopting agency must be noted separately".
As far as the AFCIs are concerned, I think that they have been promoted as being able to prevent far more fires than they actually will. If you look at the stats in the '98 ROP and ROC used to support the AFCI requirement, you will find that if all bedroom circuits in both new and existing dwelling units had AFCI protection, they would be expected to prevent about 800 fires per year in the US.
Don

Mark, more a 'truth in advertising' issue about said magic widgets efficy....
The search engine for this forum coughed up 66 responses to 'AFCI'.
A lot has been hashed out....

Mark (et all)...ask, & do not blindly accept ..... facts please..
(the archives will concere)

--what do AFCI's protect?
It protects the branch circuit,the listing agree, limited ability beyond, do not believe all this 'crimped' lampcord bull,
In a nutshell, the powers that be are stating our wiring methods S**K !
I beg to differ, institute real inspections by real inspectors and weed out the disidents please...short of this is two wrongs to make a right.
I've installed 100's of these little 'trade jems' since VT instituted them per state law in the 99 cycle.
Now VT is aparently having a change of heart, due to what is being seen in the field, or presented as public knowledge.
Subsequently, our rules are not out yet....

The crux is complicated here, but the listing disparity applies...

I argued the series-parrallel point and took up an hour of a recert, the instructor had the UL book out,the actual wording being 'carbonized' and 'noncarbonized' arcing, very vauge.....BTW, most in the class were under the impression of all round arc protection. This is NOT so....

--what is the expected lifespan of the AFCI?
you cannot megger the thing....

so...i would not bet that given the deterioration of NM and the probable need for the AFCI 30-40 years from now it will be able to function to tesing lab efficy....

I would not bet on the monthly tests done until then either..

--what statistics were the AFCI predicated on?

Fire dept's to not normally do detailed forensics, nor insurance companies, a cellarhole with no one apparently being home is many times coined 'electrical' in nature.

FF's in the know have voiced thier opinion across the internet about the stat's, the underlying message being the old addage used to present them to the NFPA ...


--how does an AFCI work?

simple Q , deserves a simple answer right?

(check archives...)




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

This is why I have a problem believing the 'Report' that was sent out by MHE. This was sent to him and he forwarded it his subscribers, not supporting it nor disavowing it either.
The report may well be true, I dont know and I have trouble believing a report with no substantial documentation, especcially when the report says, an Unnamed Chemical Company used AFCI breakers from manufacturer A and B .
If there is solid evidence that the device will not do as advertised it should be brought to the fore and investigated, and the whole article recinded(of the NEC)and these companies sued for fraud and this would include an awful lot of people but I would hope that it is looked into with a little more scholarship than has been put into the effort to discredit the 'poor'AFCI so far.
Didnt Bill bring in someone from Cutler-Hammer back in the beginning of the year to allay all the fears that had been coming out about this new device.
What makes me skeptical is for what purpose the cost of this thing, half this stuff is assmebled in Mexico at little or nothing cost to the companies involved. There are too many people involved here that support the claims made by the manufacutrers of these
devices for this to be a scam. People like UL who we as electricians have always trusted, one of the first things you learn as an apprentice is." is it UL approved"?

Still skeptical, doubting Thomas thats me...

-Mark-

skepticism is our trades' strong point,and should be heartily applied in this matter.


Real UL's response here when asked about series arc's, this was in an IAEI mag a while back.
I would include that the question was answered in a very evasive manner.

One can also surf Zlan , a manufacturer, to the same conclusion.

The contention of the manufacturers, when confronted with the 'series' question is that any arc of incendiary caliber would eventually go to ground anyways......



This is then further progandized in trade mag articles which allude to thier all-arc status, with no real specifications or parameters given

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

The quoted article does indeed confirm that the majority of fires are caused by series arcs:

Actually, I started changing my mind back when we were talking about AFCI's and I found out that they didn't protect from series faults.

I agree that the lab experiment you speak of wasn't official and we can choose to ignore it, but when Virginia, Massachusettes, and Nebraska say "no" to 210.12, that speaks volumes.

I had planned in the beginning to replace my fuse-box with a panel and have everything on AFCI (since I have an old house).

Mike Holt's email to my response of the article above said the very same thing.

AFCI's are the modern trade equivalent to snake oil.

I'll stand firm on that opinion until they come up with one that detects series faults.

As far as UL, I'm sure they tested to see if they would detect parallel faults, and I imagine that the manufacturers were quite honest with UL on the limited ability to detect series faults, and UL dropped the ball by not stating the difference on the Listing and Labelling.

JMHO

I'm not saying that they don't work, I assume they work very well on parallel faults. But the very name of these devices lends one to believe that they can do a whole lot more and protect both types of arcs, and the truth is, they detect the type of arc that is the least likely to cause a fire (between the two, all other things considered equal).

Man, I just get more steamed the more I think about this... They've duped us all!
(Except for the jacklegs that don't even know what an AFCI is and haven't installed any... they're turning out to be the smart ones!)



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