Whatever.

This is the first time I have read a description of how these devices work. I work in Washington State, which has refused to require AFCI's for other than bed rooms. An inspector told me that the state is under pressure from insurance companies for this reason. Maybe it is time for AHJ's to exempt the "Combination" requirement until manufacturers can justify a need, other than greed. UL and NEC requirements only become law when governments rubber-stamp them.

I really enjoyed reading this article. It was very well presented and I agreed (whatever that is worth) with 99% of it. Dr. Engel presents his arguments in a very readable and understandable manner. He is truly an asset to the electrical field. His continued dedication will save lives.

I went to his website to put a couple of comments, however, my computer locked up, when I tried some of his link, and there was no place to comment. So maybe he will read this.

- Neither AFCI nor GFCI protection is required in laundry rooms (unless within 6' of a sink) or kitchens (unless a receptacle outlet serves the countertops). This includes all receptacle and lighting outlets. Also, since light switches are not considered "outlets", as defined by the NEC, switches located in rooms to lighting outlets in rooms not requiring AFCI protection are not required to be AFCI protected (such as switches to garage or outdoor lighting. Dr. Engel states that AFCI protection is required everywhere that GFCI protection is not required.

- I have been installing AFCI protection on older dwellings whenever I replace fuse panels with breaker panels. All of them so far will trip on existing circuits that get their neutral from another branch circuit such as what happens when some 3way circuits are run with 2 conductor cables. This requires me to rewire the existing circuit. It is a aggravating, but I assumed that the GFP part of the AFCI was catching it and it did need to be corrected. Dr. Engel states that the new combination type AFCIs do not provide ground fault protection for equipment (30 milliamps).

Thank you Dr. Engel for everything you are trying to do for us and for the general public. I hope you don't retire. We need you.

I seem to remember some time ago a publicity battle waged on arc fault devices and their suitability for the protection claimed. As a result code adoption for these devices was deleted by various entities across the country. From reading the studies and reports included in this email it appears that those folks were clairvoyant in their opposition. In my opinion,far too many instances in code development are implemented that wind up to the benefit of product manufacturers. Perhaps that's why the question of lengthening the code cycle between editions to allow greater consideration and adoption discussion is being seriously discussed today. Peter Bowers, IEC-Chesapeake

When commercial interests supersede legitimate proven safety concerns, the entire code is cheapened. If you can’t prove a new code is based on an existing, provable, repeatable hazard, then it’s nothing more than sales hype.

Mike, you started out against Arc-Faults, then endorsed them. Based on some real world testing revealed in this letter where do you stand now?