ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals

>> Home   >> Electrical-Photos   >> Classifieds   >> Subscribe to Newsletter   >> Store  
 

Featured:

 Electrical
 Clearance

 *
 Tools
 *

 Books

 *

 Test Equipment

 

Recent Gallery Topics:
What in Tarnation?
What in Tarnation?
by timmp, September 10
Plumber meets Electrician
Plumber meets Electrician
by timmp, September 10
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 158 guests, and 24 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
#82416 11/13/02 10:48 AM
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 552
T
Member
I just read Mike Holt's newsletter where he withdrawing his proposal to remove the afci requirement from the NEC.Anyone else read this?


Donnie
Work Gear for Electricians and the Trades

Workgear for Electricians

#82417 11/13/02 01:10 PM
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,236
Likes: 1
Member
Yup...

Ya gotta hand it to him for being able to change his mind like that...

Me, I'm still against them. Don (resqcapt19) has me convinced, as well as my own reluctance to sell something I don't fully believe in. GFCIs are another story, a product I do believe in.

First I was for them...

Then against them...

Now, I'll just put 'em (as I have been) in unless the code changes in '05.


Baaaaa, Baaaaa, Baaaaaa...
</bleating sheep>

[Linked Image]


-Virgil
Residential/Commercial Inspector
5 Star Inspections
Member IAEI
#82418 11/13/02 01:51 PM
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 175
E
Member
Good for Mike.
The only way for the AFCI to evolve into a valuable safety device is for us to start installing it, and documenting any deficiencies.

I remember the negative comments about GFCIs 40 years ago.

Ed

#82419 11/13/02 02:37 PM
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,148
R
Member
The most important thing to get out of Mike's report is the fact that the AFCI breaker does use the GFP part of the circuit to provide protection for any type of high resistance connection type of fault. This means that these devices will provide only very limited protection on circuits that do not include an EGC. It does appear based on Mike's observation that these devices will work mostly as claimed for circuits with an EGC. I still have questions about the actual number of fires that these devices will prevent. I think that based on Mike's withdrawal of his proposal, that 210.12 will stay in the code and likely be expanded. There is no question that they will prevent some fires and save some people.
Don


Don(resqcapt19)
#82420 11/14/02 08:47 PM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 642
N
Member
Yea I read Mike's letter. I still do not like AFCIs and am not convinced they are worth the cost or trouble. With my very bad experiences with them, I doubt I'll change my mind.


ed
#82421 11/15/02 10:58 AM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,457
E
Member
nesparky, just curious as to what your very bad experiences with afci's were?

#82422 11/15/02 11:36 AM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 597
E
Member
E Scott,

NESparky sums up his experience about halfway down this second page of a 3 - page thread.

Al


Al Hildenbrand
Work Gear for Electricians and the Trades

Workgear for Electricians

#82423 11/15/02 04:48 PM
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,393
S
Member
the manufacture's seem no longer interested in making 'believers' out of field electricians like us here.

and why should they, if they can shmooze the powers that be
[Linked Image]

Baaaaaaa...Baaaaaaaaa......

[This message has been edited by sparky (edited 11-15-2002).]


Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5