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>
-Virgil Residential/Commercial Inspector 5 Star Inspections Member IAEI
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
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.