I was just looking at another NEC forum, and I suddenly realized that the NFPA (the author of the NEC) has dropped the ball pretty badly, at least twice.

The first instance was the advent of the internet. By all rights, the premier electrical ought to be one started by the NFPA ... and not a few put up by dedicated electricians. When they finally did start up an electrical chat ... well, when was the last time YOU were there?

The second relates to the qualifications of electrical trades. First, let me pont out a few examples:
The NRA, a private group, has established a virtual monopoly on the qualification of firearms instructors.
The Red Cross has a similar strong presence in First Aid and Swimmng certification.
Even the NFPA has a strong role in firefighter training, as well as determining the actual "business practices" of Fire Departments.

So who certifies electricians? Here in Reno, we are changing over to "ICC" issued Journeyman cards. These cards will be accepted anywhere ICC codes are adopted.
This is ironic, as the ICC defers to the NEC on electrical matters. Building code, Fire code, etc., are under their umbrella.

I suppose the next failing of the NFPA will be the loss of credibility to its' NEC. Can this happen? Well, looking at the recent spate of "manufacturer driven" code changes, the NEC no longer gets the respect it once did.

Like you and I have discussed before John the Code seems to be getting less grounded in common sense.

Like the requirement for a seperate circuit for a range hood that is cord and plug connected, but not if hard wired. Or how many times is a breaker lockout really needed so when you change out a dishwasher no one turns on the breaker. Even the builders grade model in my townhouse lasted 15 years. I moved before it needed to be replaced. Is a lockout required for those electric hand dryers in the restrooms? I would think they get changed more than a dishwasher.

There are some that have changed during the recent Code cycles like where only grade level receptacles needed GFI protection and balconies didn't. I guess people never went outside after a rainstorm to listen to a radio.

Try finding a pool filter with a twist-lock plug from the manufacturer. I doubt you will, but that is what the Code calls for. Do you cut off the cord end to install the twist-lock and remove the UL listing?

Tripped over one of my pet peeves.....

AFCI's and Smoke detectors. Does the smoke detector circuit really "enter" the bedroom? Different inspectors interpret differently (surprise?).

Smoke detectors on seperate circuit? Not in my practice - tie 'em to something REAL obvious - lighting that's used every night. I want people to know if it has tripped....... Same with the Sump Pump in the basement - tie to the outside lights, not the basement freezer circuit (leads to lots of smelly food in a wet basement) - fixed one this spring.

And now, proposed GFI's everywhere? Proposal sponsored by manufacturers, or those of us who get faulty one's out of the box, or failures after short term usage....

I admit, I haven't done my homework on the proposal, but it smells like an AFCI......

Ever try to "field test" an AFCI? Plugging in a 2 HP contractor's saw with the on switch on, I guess doesn't draw an arc - just some sparks that burn off the tips of the plug..... Only "special" arc's qualify?

End rant..... bad Monday.....

Grov

Grov, you have defined the weakness of the AFCI. It only detects parallel arcs (shorts to the neutral). A short to ground would activate the ground fault protection in an AFCI long before this gizmo figures out there is an arc.
It doesn't see a series arc at all. That is your saw, a loose breaker or the backstabbed receptacle with the aluminum wire your window shaker is plugged into.

I am a bit new...can anyone explain how exactly an AFCI detects an arc? I know a GFI senses current differences between hot and neutral...but what characteristics of an arc does an AFCI look for?

well, not exactly.....but.....susposedly
the AFCI recognizes the characteristics of an arcing fault by electronic circuity that compares the signature of an arcing fault through memory chip technology. That's why it takes a little while to recognize the arcing fault. Which is not good for the dirty brushes on your skill saw (nuisance tripping), but should not pick up the arcing from closing a light switch.

Do you REALLY want to get me started on this whole thing about how the NEC is bowing to manufacturers at the expense of our profession? It's shameful. 'Nuff said...

The arc in motor brushes and a plug being pulled are series arcs. The AFCI can't see those. It only detects a shorting arc and then at about 70a or so.

70a? Wouldn't it usually trip from regular overcurrent protection than from an arc? I'm still a little confused as to how it works and the real practical benefit (ok an AFCI that does actually detect dangerous arcing...that is good, but if they really don't do that good of a job...)

AFCI protection of can lights in a bedroom, on a separate circuit from convenience outlets... especially since the selling point of AFCI adoption was faulty extension cords and space heaters...

[This message has been edited by DougW (edited 01-23-2007).]

has anyone else noticed how in the last few years people on this forum have stopped refering to the NEC as "the electricians bible", "The Good Book" etc? just an observation...

The AFCI is supposed to detect s short duration arc that will not be there long enough to operate the breaker. It looks for very high current spikes repeating rapidly.
That is why it will not see a series arc or a loose connection. I find it funny that they said this was going to do something for a faulty extension cord on a heater. The only way the AFCI would operate is if the insulation melted and the conductors arced together. In my experience they weld and trip the breaker but I suppose that might not happen. The overheating itself will not trip the AFCI

Thanks gfretwell for the explanations...they are helpful...I've always been inherently curious about the inner workings of things. I think the idea of AFCIs is a good one, but they need to work on the actual implementation. I do agree with the overall theme of this topic though, I hate seeing the NEC become more about selling products than safety. I mean if a new product actually helps by all means require it, but it seems there was little research to show these do their job. Let products get recommended by their own merit...not by some marketing department.

So what can be done to have this requirement removed?

Why can we not demand evidence?

How could this have been passed without evidence?

Was or is there evidence?

OK, being new (to this forum and the industry), what is the process for code changes, and who is allowed to be involved?

The manufacturers, and the NFPA, claim to have evidence to support their claims. This evidence is NOT available to the public. It derives entirely from some "test" houses, with created flaws, sponsored from the NFPA. Or, at least, that's what they tell me.

I really don't want this thread to become just another re-hash of the AFCI issue. I am hoping to wake some folks up, and prevent the AFCI fracas from becoming the "beginning of the end" for the NFPA. They, IMO, have simply missed too many opportunities, and need to act now - or risk becoming irrelevant.

Until now, the code was changed in the following manner:
1) Old code issued;
2) Period in which anyone can submit proposals for the next edition;
3) Committees examine proposals, and make their decisions. These are published;
4) Period in which anyone can comment on the committee decisions;
5) Committees consider these comments, and prepare their recommendations. In effect, compile the new code;
6} Present the new code at a convention, where it is voted on by NFPA members present.

For the next edition of the NEC (2008), the NFPA has added an additional step just prior to the convention. I am not sure of the details, but I believe it a requirement for prior notice of any motions that might be made.

Can this system be abused, or manipulated? Absolutely. The most recent requirement - membership for at least six months before a convention in order to vote - was the direct result of the spanking the NFPA got from the US Supreme Court, after the Steel Tube Institute packed a convention.

Another area in which the NFPA may be missing an opportunity relates to the "Veeck decision." In short, it looks as if the NFPA has lost it's legal monopoly on publishing the NEC. For an organization whose primary income is from selling copies of the NEC, this can be a serious blow.
The NFPA has had "the way" shown to them. At least three extremely profitable publishers base their businesses on publishing works that are "in the public domain." What they sell, what IS copyright protected, are the indexes, commentary, and other supplemental material that comes along with the public text.

How many fumbles remain, before the NFPA is out of the game?

Another way NFPA did a Tony Romo is their obstinate failure to put the NEC online. They finally reluctantly did but made it hard to find and hard to use since they used the PDF format.
Since the purpose of the NEC is to promote safety, it should be freely and readily available.
~Peter

Peter, the point Reno is making is these people don't develop standards to promote safety. They create standards to SELL them. That is one reason why a standard is barely through the adoption stage when the "new and improved" standard is coming off the press.
I am pretty much retired as an inspector but I like to keep my credentials up. That costs me well over $1000 a code cycle by the time I buy all the documents I need and fulfill my CEU obligations. Has electricity really changed that much in the last 20 (or even 100)years?

It is a racket

edit (they made me retire because I can't type)

[This message has been edited by gfretwell (edited 01-24-2007).]