• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Does a light fixture replacement trigger AFCI?

90.1A Practical Safeguarding

110.12 Workmanlike manner

110.12A Openings shall be closed
110.27A live parts guarded from accidental contact

Tiger has plenty of stuff he can cite...Shame the department doesn't have the will to back him up....
 
Yikes:

You'd think these guys would at least try to be nice with their pension funds near collapse, the market plunge of the last two days is really going to exasperate the situation.

An Arizona Senate candidate has suggested building a wall between Arizona and Calfiornia:

SHTF said:
“As we look in Arizona, we often look into the dangers of the southern border,” McSally said during a round-table discussion about “sanctuary cities” Tuesday at the White House. “But if these dangerous policies continue out of California, we might need to build a wall between California and Arizona as well to keep these dangerous criminals out of our state,” she said, smiling, and perhaps a little sarcastically.

She added that California can’t just “provide sanctuary for these criminals and think that it’s only impacting California dangerously.” McSally’s comments come on the heels of the announcement that the federal government is suing the state of California (state government) for failing to enforce their laws.

The Trump administration’s “America First” policy is a thorn in the side of many states that use illegal immigrants as votes to elect far-left Communists.

California’s governor, Jerry Brown (D), was upset that he has to follow others’ rules while making California almost unbearable with the number of rules, laws, and regulations he demands the residents of the Golden State adhere to, Brown became the offended hypocrite everyone knew he was in the wake of the federal lawsuit over sanctuary cities. Try not to choke on California’s hypocrisy. Never forget that the state (and Democrats in general) loves laws, just not the laws of others.

“You called this an act of war from the federal government,” a reporter began asking Brown. Brown immediately looked confused. “An act of war? That’s pretty strong. But I reciprocate that comment,” Brown responded.¹


¹ http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-ne...-wall-between-california-and-arizona_03222018
 
Last edited:
How bout installing a gate on the golden gate bridge between Oakland and San Francisco, has that been proposed yet?
 
$ ~ $ ~ $

Once again **conarb** I have removed your inappropriate language
from Post # 21.......You WILL NOT be dropping any "F Bombs" on

this Forum !

If you want to report me to Jeff, go ahead!........This Forum appears
to not be for you any longer, ..for someone with such foul and gutter
type language.


Clean up your act !!!! :mad:


$ ~ $ ~ $
 
North Star:

I'll try to clean up my language but it reflects my frustration with an unconstitutional unelected body mandating what we do, and you guys are enforcing it.
 
I'll jump in with north star..........this is NOT a political forum............this is supposed to be, from my understanding, a forum to exchange information related to building codes...........not a political viewpoint. Correct me if I am wrong......
 
  • Like
Reactions: JBI
I'll jump in with north star..........this is NOT a political forum............this is supposed to be, from my understanding, a forum to exchange information related to building codes...........not a political viewpoint. Correct me if I am wrong......
That's my beef Fatboy, codes have become political, that's what I want, get the political codes out of the codes.
 
North Star:

I'll try to clean up my language but it reflects my frustration with an unconstitutional unelected body mandating what we do, and you guys are enforcing it.

Instead of a private message (again) I am going to tell you this publicly since you lack the ability to restrain from cleaning up your language before you hit the 'post reply' button. I am going to consider this your last warning. There are plenty of political forums that may tolerate this but 1) This is not a political forum and 2) We do not tolerate the type of language you are using. Please conarb, a little discipline goes a long way and we are trying to keep this forum as professional as possible.
 
90.1A Practical Safeguarding

110.12 Workmanlike manner

110.12A Openings shall be closed
110.27A live parts guarded from accidental contact

Tiger has plenty of stuff he can cite...Shame the department doesn't have the will to back him up....
Wrong thread Steve.
 
Yikes,
The main panel need not be updated if a separate panel is installed for the purpose of handling the light circuits.
 
Instead of a private message (again) I am going to tell you this publicly since you lack the ability to restrain from cleaning up your language before you hit the 'post reply' button. I am going to consider this your last warning. There are plenty of political forums that may tolerate this but 1) This is not a political forum and 2) We do not tolerate the type of language you are using. Please conarb, a little discipline goes a long way and we are trying to keep this forum as professional as possible.
Jeff:

Nobody addresses my concern that the codes have become political, the biggest example is the Green Code, we have a Green party in this country that doesn't amount to much, at least at the present time, but Green Parties in several European Countries are very powerful. Going deeper, why do we enforce Energy Codes? In a free country why are we mandating how much energy a man can use? I realize that we get it a lot worse here in the Bay Area, but even look at that cartoon I posted with the shower head dripping, nothing gets the average public madder than shower heads that don't give a full stream of water, or toilets that have to be flushed three times, I've told of doing an ADA job in a large Catholic church, going back on complaints with the priest wanting to know why the toilets don't work, showing me a big sign saying: "Flush Three Times", I had to explain to him that the building code required low-flow toilets, so people who hate these things blame the building code.

This thread is an example of somthing else, an architect (Yikes) comes on asking if he can avoid arc/fault when changing fixtures, most here try to give him interpretations as to why he has to have them, not how he can avoid them, why do some here think we even need them, is that a political belief that leads to over-the-top enforcement?
 
Jeff:
This thread is an example of somthing else, an architect (Yikes) comes on asking if he can avoid arc/fault when changing fixtures, most here try to give him interpretations as to why he has to have them, not how he can avoid them, why do some here think we even need them, is that a political belief that leads to over-the-top enforcement?
Especially in this case I can't see how anyone could justify requiring AFCIs for a lighting circuit. It's not as if the fixtures or any part of the circuit are accessible to residents. I do agree with that as you said people have been trying to give them reasons to justify adding them instead of helping him come up with a determination that they wouldn't be required.

At least in my opinion it's the same with many of the electrical codes. Having GFCI or AFCI or even grounding receptacles for that matter doesn't affect anybody but the owner of the residence and his guests. That's unlike some of the energy and water conservation codes that at least reduce the overall usage of those commodities which potentially could help reduce the costs of them for others.
 
Jeff:

Nobody addresses my concern that the codes have become political, the biggest example is the Green Code, we have a Green party in this country that doesn't amount to much, at least at the present time, but Green Parties in several European Countries are very powerful. Going deeper, why do we enforce Energy Codes? In a free country why are we mandating how much energy a man can use? I realize that we get it a lot worse here in the Bay Area, but even look at that cartoon I posted with the shower head dripping, nothing gets the average public madder than shower heads that don't give a full stream of water, or toilets that have to be flushed three times, I've told of doing an ADA job in a large Catholic church, going back on complaints with the priest wanting to know why the toilets don't work, showing me a big sign saying: "Flush Three Times", I had to explain to him that the building code required low-flow toilets, so people who hate these things blame the building code.

This thread is an example of somthing else, an architect (Yikes) comes on asking if he can avoid arc/fault when changing fixtures, most here try to give him interpretations as to why he has to have them, not how he can avoid them, why do some here think we even need them, is that a political belief that leads to over-the-top enforcement?

You can debate codes and how they were implemented all you want. If you want to use vulgar language I have an issue with that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JBI
Home of the Brave, Land of the Free, our codes intended to protect many of us from ourselves and "others" who chose to believe that they are above the law. Yes on the surface many of our code requirements may be questionable but they serve a purpose, that being protecting us from poor workmanship and material failures. It won't be long before residual plastic is found in our seafood.
 
Home of the Brave, Land of the Free, our codes intended to protect many of us from ourselves and "others" who chose to believe that they are above the law. Yes on the surface many of our code requirements may be questionable but they serve a purpose, that being protecting us from poor workmanship and material failures. It won't be long before residual plastic is found in our seafood.
I don't see how a lot of the codes, particularly electrical codes protect us from ourselves or poor workmanship, all they do is increase the costs of building a new home or updating an existing one.
 
I don't see how a lot of the codes, particularly electrical codes protect us from ourselves or poor workmanship, all they do is increase the costs of building a new home or updating an existing one.

Electricity can kill by either direct contact with live parts or from fires caused by faulty installations. Electricity done wrong will ruin your stuff. If you want to get rid of some code, start with plumbing (the lesser code). It's next to impossible to screw up plumbing to the point that it is deadly.
 
AFCI's are a fraud being perpretated on the home buying/building public.

AFCI's were originally developed as a bandaid for homes wired with aluminum romex, built (mostly in Canada), in the late 1960's to mid-1970's. After about 20 years of heating and cooling the aluminum wire connections loosen (creep) and overheat. It also crystalizes and breaks resulting in arcing (90 volts). The life of an AFCI is...........about 20 years.

Michigan removed the requirement for AFCI's on 2/8/2016.
The reason Michigan deleted AFCI's is explained by a century old law of physics. A person named F. Pashchen in 1889 published a law which sets out what has become known as Paschen's Law. He determined the relationship between breakdown voltage, the gap between two metal plates, and the pressure. With air as the gas, the minimum voltage is 327V. The peak of a 120VAC sine wave is only 170V, and thus continuous low current arcing is, by a law of physics, not possible with copper-copper. Thus claims that a Combination AFCI will respond to arcing at a break in a conductor or a loose connection flies in the face of a law of physics.

http://www.combinationafci.com/resources/doc_ieee_combination_afci.pdf
 
AFCI's are a fraud being perpretated on the home buying/building public.

AFCI's were originally developed as a bandaid for homes wired with aluminum romex, built (mostly in Canada), in the late 1960's to mid-1970's. After about 20 years of heating and cooling the aluminum wire connections loosen (creep) and overheat. It also crystalizes and breaks resulting in arcing (90 volts). The life of an AFCI is...........about 20 years.

Michigan removed the requirement for AFCI's on 2/8/2016.
The reason Michigan deleted AFCI's is explained by a century old law of physics. A person named F. Pashchen in 1889 published a law which sets out what has become known as Paschen's Law. He determined the relationship between breakdown voltage, the gap between two metal plates, and the pressure. With air as the gas, the minimum voltage is 327V. The peak of a 120VAC sine wave is only 170V, and thus continuous low current arcing is, by a law of physics, not possible with copper-copper. Thus claims that a Combination AFCI will respond to arcing at a break in a conductor or a loose connection flies in the face of a law of physics.

http://www.combinationafci.com/resources/doc_ieee_combination_afci.pdf
The link is an article that was written in 2012. A lot can happen in five years. It's relevance in 2018 is a question.
 

And with copper wire! Some fraud.
I have seen three cases where new work would trip the AFCI, the electricians wanted me to approve doing away with the AFCI breaker, in each case they had to do their forensic electrician work and eventually found loose connections. I like AFCIs.
 
AFCI's are a fraud being perpretated on the home buying/building public.

AFCI's were originally developed as a bandaid for homes wired with aluminum romex, built (mostly in Canada), in the late 1960's to mid-1970's. After about 20 years of heating and cooling the aluminum wire connections loosen (creep) and overheat. It also crystalizes and breaks resulting in arcing (90 volts). The life of an AFCI is...........about 20 years.

Michigan removed the requirement for AFCI's on 2/8/2016.
The reason Michigan deleted AFCI's is explained by a century old law of physics. A person named F. Pashchen in 1889 published a law which sets out what has become known as Paschen's Law. He determined the relationship between breakdown voltage, the gap between two metal plates, and the pressure. With air as the gas, the minimum voltage is 327V. The peak of a 120VAC sine wave is only 170V, and thus continuous low current arcing is, by a law of physics, not possible with copper-copper. Thus claims that a Combination AFCI will respond to arcing at a break in a conductor or a loose connection flies in the face of a law of physics.

http://www.combinationafci.com/resources/doc_ieee_combination_afci.pdf
Thanks Roger, as you can see from here inspectors want as many codes as they can get, as long as the ICC allows only government members to vote I don't see any hope
 
The link is an article that was written in 2012. A lot can happen in five years. It's relevance in 2018 is a question.
Tiger, surely, you don't believe the laws of physics change? Or do you?

Flexo: I never said that an AFCI wouldn't trip on overload. What I said was, you can not sustain a continous arc at household voltages in copper wire, ergo, it's a false assumption that an AFCI will prevent a fire due to a continuously arcing broken wire. The original branch/feeder type AFCI's (AVZQ) contained a GFCI function that probably is what actually caused those devices to trip. Only some of the current code mandated Combination AFCI's (AWAH) retain that function. AFCI's don't detect glowing connections. See the Table on page 6 and the photos on page 8 of the above-referenced report.

The video you posted only proves that a standard breaker won't detect a glowing connection, not that an AFCI will (which won't either).The video producer offers no backup to his statements.

The bottom line is that manufacturers have a product that has outlived its market and theywant to keep selling it.
 
From the OP: Question: where in the NEC does it say, or infer, that replacing a light fixture triggers AFIC for the lighting circuit?

I think that the answer is "nowhere".

Thanks, GPE.

 
  • Like
Reactions: JBI
Tiger, surely, you don't believe the laws of physics change? Or do you?

The bottom line is that manufacturers have a product that has outlived its market and they want to keep selling it.

A test performed in 1889 along with a commentary published in 2012 is less than compelling. From the instruments to the metal alloy, it could be a new ballgame in this new day.....128 years later. The test hardly qualifies as a “law of physics”.

The 2012 commentary was created by an engineer in the employ of a manufacturer. As one would expect, that manufacturer rose to the top. The conclusion of the commentary did not call for eliminating AFCI from the code but rather the return of the feeder/branch circuit AFCI breaker.

The term combination AFCI is supposed to mean that the breaker will respond to series arcing as well as parallel arcing. The 2012 commentary states that this is false advertising because the series arcing goes undetected. If that is true, UL must take action to correct the misunderstanding. To further complicate the issue is that in the wild most people take combination to mean GFCI as well as AFCI. I see that often.

How does this square with any of the arguments against AFCI:
https://www.amazon.com/Siemens-Q120...882&sr=8-1&keywords=siemens+afci+gfci+breaker

Apparently it is a combination AFCI as well as a GFCI breaker. I bet that there is a Standard for that...and I would not be surprised to learn that it is a Draft Proposal....years old.
 
Last edited:
Top