I bought an AFCI tester, I used an AFCI tester, I threw the AFCI tester back at the Mfg. It did not test or trip a constantly tripping circuit.

I mounted a bad switch that I removed from a house in a water proof box and it has a pig tail with a 5-15 plug on the end. It was removed because it spit sparks and green flame out past the toggle every time you disconnected the light. It trips an AFCI every time. That became my tester. We put a panel mount needle recording ammeter in the 4sq box.

This will cause a nightmere for contractors and inspectors.The increase in sensitivity is going to cause all kinds of call backs for installers and us inspectors. lets table it for another code cycle ,so we can work the bugs out.

In addition to all the AFCI problems mentioned here NYC has no limit on the # of receptacles that can be installed on a single circuit (I believe they used to before they went to the NEC). I regularly see 3-4 bedrooms as many as 24 DUPLEXES on a single AFCI breaker. Even if 8 devices would work on them (I've never gotten more than 5 without tripping) there is potential for over 48 devices. Talk about a nuisance.

I am reminded that they NEC came about because of insurance companies. AFCI has been a big problem in some applications. In the artical they stated that there has not been any substantiated claim of AFCI not working with equipment or appliances. I can prove them wrong. I have had many items that will not work on AFCI circuits. Vaccums, ceiling fans, audio systems with high current amps, water bed heaters, hair dryers. to name a few. These are items I have personally witnessed and have testes. I install a lot of lighting control systems, most panels have a come neutral bus. You can not combine loads from different brach circuits when using AFCI. Also ceiling fans are manufactured with a common neuttral for fan motor and light. I don"t think AFCI are bad. They just don"t need to be installed on every circuit.Such as dedicated spaces for appliances, entertainment centers. Lighting that is hard wired or smoke detectors. These circuits could be easily seperated from receptical outlets for general use. We need some common sense here. I know the real driving factor is not saftey. It is profit. And, there will be a lot of it if those making the products are pushing for code changes.

Someone here said contact the NFPA and tell them instead of discussing it here. I think it would be better if this discussion was sent to the NFPA intact.

I read the article. Left me confused on one point: AFCI protects from one thing, GFCI protects against another. So someone wants to add AFCI. What happens to GFCI? Are they proposing to replace GFCI with AFCI? Or are they adding AFCI and keeping GFCI so now we have both requirements? How is that going to work? Has anybody tried these things out?

I am all for more technology. Keeps engineers employed, off the streets and out of trouble. Keeps making money for the fat cats. Keeps them from making real trouble. Besides, you didn't think you were actually going to get to keep any of your money, did you?

I think it is a big mistake for the NEC to require ALL 15 and 20 Amp branch circuits to be AFCI protected. The number of service calls because of nuisance trips is going to be huge, and costly. The cost of these breakers is also going to be a lot for home owners and builders to absorb. Certainly the cost will decrease as technology and production costs change. Until then, the increase of the costs for the electrical could be as much as $1000.00, possibly more. I hope that this proposal fails.

How many devices have a UL stamp and listing but are mis-applied and or mis-installed because all you get is a logo and a standard number?

This is treating the small cut from a spent ball on Stonewall Jackson's right hand while the severed artery and shattered left arm bleed on.

I believe that if you're going to make us spend this kind of money, the solution should have a significant impact and it should work better.

On a similar note, California would have less pollution problems for less cost to the economy if instead of making the car makers design hybrids or add tens of thousands in pollution curbing gadgets on NEW cars, they would just tell everyone that has an old beater that we'll swap you for a newer one of your choice. One beater makes more pollution than a thousand new cars.

One old DIY wreck of a home with equally decrepit appliances has more fire hazard potential than ten thousand new homes built & wired properly and with new listed electrical gadgets inside.

I encourage all to contact NFPA as well. We can grouse here all day and no one will pay this any mind.

Don't forget that many homeowners won't know how to reset these devices. (How many sevice calls are from tripped GCFI's!)

I think this is fantastic, anything to protect the public is great

As an electrical designer I think it's a terrible idea. I live in a new 3 story townhouse in Sacramento CA and the electrical contractors on the project have no idea how the AFCI circuits work or how to install them. There has been nothing but trouble or they just don't install them. There is so much nuisance tripping that owners just swap them out for the standard breaker. I’ve seen it first hand. Many times the inspectors so happen to not notice. If AFCI is going to take over the world of residential construction then they need to reduce the hazard tripping. Most people do not like AFCI, as for myself…I think it’s too early to implement this device on such a scale. The bugs need to be worked out first.

Changing the NEC to require AFCI's will happen eventually, what really needs to be done is the NEC require that all US built houses be wired by licensed electricians. In my jurisdiction (Local 688) half of the counties have no building department so changing the NEC will still be ignored by Home Store electricians or local builders who "know enough to be dangerous". Trying to get the local and state government to step in is nearly impossible because of the ingrained mind set of years gone by. " We don't want building departments telling us what to do" is a common quote come voting time when even trying to get the issue on a ballot. Public safety is the main reason for the NEC but when areas are not forced to follow it, what good is the document?

I'm beleive that UL has define more than just circuit breakers as AFCI devices, such as wirng devices also.

When is the industry going to provide AFCI protected local wiring devices. These as I understand the UL definitions are the most agressively protective for the actual application of AFCI.

I've been waiting for quite a while now for the wiring device type.. Maybe it is time instead of generally using the breakers throughout a residence...

I understand the intent of requiring AFCI circuits throughout a dwelling. At this time I am not sure that the added costs and problems justify the added safety.

My question is: What is the difference between a dwelling unit and an office? The uses of a 120V 15 or 20 amp circuit in an office are very similar to those used in a dwelling. Just where will this requirement stop?

As an electrical designer I think it's a terrible idea. I live in a new 3 story townhouse in Sacramento CA and the electrical contractors on the project have no idea how the AFCI circuits work or how to install them. There has been nothing but trouble or they just don't install them. There is so much nuisance tripping that owners just swap them out for the standard breaker. I’ve seen it first hand. Many times the inspectors so happen to not notice. If AFCI is going to take over the world of residential construction then they need to reduce the hazard tripping. Most people do not like AFCI, as for myself…I think it’s too early to implement this device on such a scale. The bugs need to be worked out first. I understand trying to protect the people but you can’t protect stupid people, they’ll screw it up some how!

[quote]This Is a Test According to Underwriters Laboratories, Northbrook, Ill., special equipment isn’t necessary for testing of AFCIs. There isn’t a reason for a test on circuits with AFCIs that wouldn’t be conducted on standard circuits. If you choose to test the installation, it’s possible to check it’s properly functioning by pressing the test button after the device has been energized with 120V, as if in service. Pushing the test button, which imposes a simulated arcing condition on the circuit, should result in the device opening. If the device does not open, then the AFCI should be replaced. If the device opens and can be reset, then it is a properly functioning AFCI. The test button is the only recognized method for testing the proper operation of the AFCI. You can also perform an insulation resistance test to verify that the wiring and connections are properly insulated. Disconnect all loads and verify that unconnected wire ends are insulated. To prevent AFCI and GFCI devices from being damaged by high voltage, disconnect the load wire to any device in the circuit. Use an insulation resistance tester that will apply a direct current voltage of at least 500V to the circuit you’re testing. All resistance readings should be at least 1 megohm. The test should indicate that the insulation is intact and that an arc would not be likely to occur in the portion of the circuit tested.[/quote]

I'm not sure what UL is referring to with the statement the test button on the device is the only recognize test method. Right after the requirement came out in the 2002 Code, my department got a AFIC tester for each inspector. It looks very much like a GFIC tester but is for AFIC and is approved by UL.

IIRC, we had to wait several weeks because the first batch of testers were recalled by UL.

Am I misreading something?

We have been unable to operate power tools on AFCI protected circuits, even in new construction. No brush operated motor (almost all cord fed power tools) should be able to operate under AFCI protection by their very design. (What is the difference between the arc in brush operated motors and objectional arcs caused by loose or improper connections?) So by next year all home owners will have to change to cordless tools, and hope they will work. Note that the typical arc when a cordless charger is plugged in or unplugged will often trip these devices. How can a proper test be made without simulating an actual smoking arc? How will HID lighting operate, which depends on a continuous arc to operate? GFCI's are an entirely different technology and they work.

Not a good use of money. Strike it down.

I've spoken with a couple new residential electricians who've said they receive many warranty calls from new homeowners complaining of AFCI tripping. The electricians state there is nothing they (electricians) can do so the homeowners simply replace the breakers with non-AFCI types to eliminate the nuisance. This does not seem to solve any problem.

I saw one AFCI circuit that tripped with one radio, one table lamp and a TV. It would as a test trip with everything already on to avoid switch arc or trip with the 3rd item (any 3rd) being added or turned on. The 3rd item what's up GE told me that 8 devices was the limit and so did Square D. New Mexico's Code mods allow 10 devices on the circuit.

I was on a brand new apartment building doing repairs and I will tell you slowing down the fast pace of new construction would have solved the massive electrical problems that cropped up in the rough stage an got worse when the devices were installed. Even with all the clean up and electrical fires I adverted the AFCIs still tripped.

My question is just how many fires would the AFCI have prevented in homes that were built within the past 20 years? The statistics that they give for the volume of house fires is based upon a total. If broken down, I think we will find that the number of house fires due to arcing in homes within the past 20 years will be much less due to improved wiring practices and better testing of appliances we use throughout the home. Homeowners are also beginning to utilize unconventional types of lighting in there homes. We have had several instances in which ceiling fans with neon lighting have been installed and will not work on an AFCI protected circuit. In order to pass final inspection they have had to remove these fans. You know after they obtained the C.O. they removed the AFCI breaker and replaced the fans. Food for thought.

This is car air bags. How many people have car air bags killed and crippled to make us safer?

If you wear your seat belt and if the car is well built, you will survive a wreck. I've survived over a dozen, including 4 deer collisions, a few high speed crashes when people ran stop signs and such on me, and a rollover in the Army.

If I'd had an air bag with the last deer, it would have deployed, blocked my vision and disabled my ability to steer, and I would have gone off the embankment into a tree after it had deflated, and I'd be dead or paralyzed. Instead I hit bambi solid at 70mph and launched him clear, steered on, and drove home. This was a 2000lb toyota corolla and I still drive it.

Who do you write to at NFPA to oppose this?

Two comments concerning AFCIs.

I have found that I cannot operate a chop saw that is plugged into an outlet that is protected by an AFCI circuit breaker. This was a GE AFCI. Anyone else find a similar condition? If this is a consistent problem then there may be some disappointed home owners that have shops in their garages that are protected by AFCIs.

Also, does "all 15A and 20A circuits" include bathroom circuits and other GFCI protected circuits? Will AFCI combination devices protect against ground faults as well? I would appreciate thoughts on this matter.

The NEC presently requires certain receptacles in dwellings to be GFCI type. If proposal #2-142 passes what effect will it have to the locations currently requiring GFCI type receptacles? Will there be a clarification addressing the two different situations, that is GFCI vs. AFCI? The intent of the proposal and its application must be clearly stated.

I was reading the article AFCI on the brink and there was a quote from a gentleman I forget his name and he said there was no evidence that there was a problem with appliance tripping these type breakers. The man has many more creditentials than I will ever have but he must not do service calls or talk to customers because I've seen many instances where the appliance just won't work in my observations most were dealing with lighting but I'm sure there are plenty of others. I'm sure AFCI's are going to a part of our lives but to this point the technology isn't there yet.

AFCI protection is an over rated costly addition. They can be touchy to install, especially in a partial rehab. An entire industry will shoulder the expense for a change of questionable value. I think certain experts are trying to justify their jobs or just trying to show their relevence. Has anyone looked into how much money and golf trips the gear manufacturers have invested into pushing this change through?

This is going to seriously impact residential jobs. It is still a battle here to justify GFIs and just bedroom AFCIs. I also am not sure AFCIs are that mature a product. I still get a lot of work trying to stop AFCIs from tripping on new houses.

Did you notice the error made in the first sentence. For several decades I've looked for a copy of the National Electric Code, but all I have been able to find is the "National Electrical Code". WHOOPS!

There has to be a cost-benefit analysis.

For the price of installing all AFCI:

How many old and poorly wired homes could be gutted out and rewired safely and up to snuff, and how many lives would that save?

How many defective old appliances could be recalled and traded for new ones with safe designs?

How many smoke alarms could be bought and installed?

To reduce a problem (fire deaths) in a population you don't expend all your effort and money on one little chunk because you have a solution that works for that little piece. You expend effort and money in proportion to risk and what gives the greatest reduction of those most common hazards.

If it's 1918-1919 and 40 million people are dying from the flu, and 40 thousand are dying from tuberculosis, you don't spend most of your millions looking for a cure for TB!