<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" ?>
<!-- RSS generation done by UBB.threads(tm) on Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:35:56 MST -->
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>NEC &amp; other Code Issues RSS Feed</title>
		<link>http://www.electrical-contractor.net/forums/ubbthreads.php</link>
		<description>NEC &amp; other Code Issues RSS Feed</description>
		<generator>ECN Electrical Forums - UBB.threads(tm)</generator>
		<item>
			<title>Re: 250.66 and Ufer</title>
			<link>http://www.electrical-contractor.net/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/205266/Re_250_66_and_Ufer.html#Post205266</link>
			<description>
			<![CDATA[<b>Posted by</b> KJay:<br />
			As I understand it, the research done during the development of CEE/Ufer systems, it was determined that  conductors larger than #4CU had no verifiable effect on increased ability to clear fault current, so this would seem to indicate that increasing the size of the GEC conductor to the ufer (...)]]>
			</description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:35:55 MST</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Re: Short wall</title>
			<link>http://www.electrical-contractor.net/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/205258/Re_Short_wall.html#Post205258</link>
			<description>
			<![CDATA[<b>Posted by</b> gfretwell:<br />
			I doubt 210.52(A) would apply to the laundry room but I still agree it is silly not to have any more receptacles in there.<br />The others do seem to be violations if you can't reach a receptacle with a 6' cord, anywhere along a wall.<br />It was either a guy who didn't understand the code or someone (...)]]>
			</description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 04:48:24 MST</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Re: Pashchen's Law</title>
			<link>http://www.electrical-contractor.net/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/205241/Re_Pashchen_s_Law.html#Post205241</link>
			<description>
			<![CDATA[<b>Posted by</b> renosteinke:<br />
			&quot;The information and data within the discussions here is being correlated and intent is to forward same to those within the code adoption offices of the state.&quot;<br /><br />My point exactly. The subject has a duty to tell the Emperor when he has no clothes.<br /><br />There's a section in the NEC that addresses those (...)]]>
			</description>
			<pubDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:34:12 MST</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Re: 250.32(B)(1) 2005 NEC</title>
			<link>http://www.electrical-contractor.net/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/205189/Re_250_32_B_1_2005_NEC.html#Post205189</link>
			<description>
			<![CDATA[<b>Posted by</b> gfretwell:<br />
			We have multiple EGCs all the time. Every time you pull a green wire in a pipe you have a parallel EGC and the HCF rules even require it.<br />As far as the code is concerned ground is ground and the more the better. If we have multiple circuits passing through a J box, don't we bond all of the (...)]]>
			</description>
			<pubDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 12:14:56 MST</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Re: 517.13 (A)Care Facility Grounding</title>
			<link>http://www.electrical-contractor.net/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/204977/Re_517_13_A_Care_Facility_Grou.html#Post204977</link>
			<description>
			<![CDATA[<b>Posted by</b> wewire2:<br />
			Thanks Yoop<br />Yes,It's standard procedure to crimp the grounds together and land them in the box that contains a non I.G. device or a splice. In using the dictionary definition below, the wording in the NEC commentary is correct. Both systems can still be referred to as functionally independent (...)]]>
			</description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2012 00:02:28 MST</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Re: 30CFR Surface &amp;amp; Underground Mines &amp;amp; 70-E</title>
			<link>http://www.electrical-contractor.net/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/204806/Re_30CFR_Surface_amp_Undergrou.html#Post204806</link>
			<description>
			<![CDATA[<b>Posted by</b> HotLine1:<br />
			Yoop:<br />I wasn't going toward utility/POCO, only used it in an example of jurisdictions.]]>
			</description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 07:39:11 MST</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Re: 310.15(B)(6) Last sentence??</title>
			<link>http://www.electrical-contractor.net/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/204800/Re_310_15_B_6_Last_sentence.html#Post204800</link>
			<description>
			<![CDATA[<b>Posted by</b> George Little:<br />
			Up2Code— Your neutral only  has to be large enough to carry the maximum calculated unbalance load between the neutral and any one ungrounded conductor. So if your storage units had a total load of 50a. and 30 of those amps were 240v. (figure 120/240v feeder) Then your neutral would only have (...)]]>
			</description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2012 20:28:34 MST</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Re: NEC 625.13</title>
			<link>http://www.electrical-contractor.net/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/204754/Re_NEC_625_13.html#Post204754</link>
			<description>
			<![CDATA[<b>Posted by</b> pdh:<br />
			I guess I should not hold any real preference for NEMA plug configurations.  Of all the designs they have for many voltage, system, and amperage configurations, there's only one pairing that is compatible between 120/240 and 240 volt systems, and that's 6-15 vs. 14-15 (e.g. a 6-15P will plug (...)]]>
			</description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2012 18:01:46 MST</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Re: temporary roll up generator</title>
			<link>http://www.electrical-contractor.net/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/204742/Re_temporary_roll_up_generator.html#Post204742</link>
			<description>
			<![CDATA[<b>Posted by</b> HotLine1:<br />
			dbravo:<br /><br />IMHO, you should refer to 590.2 (b), check with the local AHJ regarding your proposed temp install.<br /><br />Conforming with 230 part 1 thru 7 requirements, should not pose any issues, based on what you described above.<br /><br />MOCP at the gen, feeder to your MDP and branch circuits feeding your loads.]]>
			</description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2012 13:00:16 MST</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Re: How Many Receptacles</title>
			<link>http://www.electrical-contractor.net/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/204704/Re_How_Many_Receptacles.html#Post204704</link>
			<description>
			<![CDATA[<b>Posted by</b> gfretwell:<br />
			I agree, I missed the &quot;larger of&quot; or simply misunderstood what they were trying to say.<br /><br />(2) will actually cause more receptacle circuits, not allow more receptacles on one.<br /><br />My bad.]]>
			</description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 30 Dec 2011 17:27:03 MST</pubDate>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
