ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat
Recent Posts
Increasing demand factors in residential
by gfretwell - 03/28/24 12:43 AM
Portable generator question
by Steve Miller - 03/19/24 08:50 PM
Do we need grounding?
by NORCAL - 03/19/24 05:11 PM
240V only in a home and NEC?
by dsk - 03/19/24 06:33 AM
Cordless Tools: The Obvious Question
by renosteinke - 03/14/24 08:05 PM
New in the Gallery:
This is a new one
This is a new one
by timmp, September 24
Few pics I found
Few pics I found
by timmp, August 15
Who's Online Now
1 members (CoolWill), 250 guests, and 13 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
#154568 07/31/06 10:31 AM
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 399
A
Member
It seems that changing the Code to sell products is the coming thing.
(New) "406.11 Tamper resistant Receptacles in Dwelling Units. In all areas specified in 210.52, all 15- and 20- ampere receptacles shall be listed tamper resistant receptacles."
Add that to the expansion of 210.12 and you can have receptacles that are AFCI protected plus GFI protected and just to make it totally idiot proof the receptacle is tamper proof.
This may save energy since older people will never be able to make the system work.
Alan--


Alan--
If it was easy, anyone could do it.
Stay up to Code with the Latest NEC:


>> 2023 NEC & Related Reference & Exam Prep
2023 NEC & Related Reference & Study Guides

Pass Your Exam the FIRST TIME with the Latest NEC & Exam Prep

>> 2020 NEC & Related Reference & Study Guides
 

#154569 07/31/06 12:30 PM
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 625
S
Member
I don't understand where exactly we are in the process. Is that proposal something that's already been 99% approved, or is it a lame-brained suggestion from left field that's 99% sure to be rejected?

[This message has been edited by SolarPowered (edited 07-31-2006).]

#154570 07/31/06 03:12 PM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,445
Likes: 2
Cat Servant
Member
As it stands now, the committees have accepted these changes. This is our time to raise cain if we disagree- and maybe the committee will back off!

After the comment period closes, the committees will meet again, and decide what they wish to submit to the conferences for approval.

If the conference attendees agree, the provisions will become part of the new code.

I also hope that the committee members visit ECN, and can get the feedback direct.

I also agree that 'tamper-proof' receptacles are an unnecessary general requirement. The code is supposed to set 'minimum' standards...and not be used to gradually "improve" things.

#154571 07/31/06 03:41 PM
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,923
Likes: 32
G
Member
At a certain point the general population needs to understand where this BS is coming from and demand that their states stop accepting this stuff.
I always ask how much of this do you think survives the first year of installation?
When you make something so inconvenient people can't stand it they rip it out, then you have nothing.
The nanny state is out of control.


Greg Fretwell
#154572 08/02/06 12:13 AM
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 110
T
Member
Heaven forbid kids hurt themselves and learn something...

#154573 08/04/06 11:32 AM
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 399
A
Member
Try to find a tamper resistant receptacle for a floor box or one that is GFI for the bathroom.
Stop the madness send in a comment form.
Alan-- [Linked Image]

[This message has been edited by Alan Nadon (edited 08-04-2006).]


Alan--
If it was easy, anyone could do it.
#154574 08/04/06 11:47 AM
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,213
S
Member
I imagine they'll become a tad easier to find if NEC 2008 requires them!

This seems no different than any other new code- NFPA identifies a safety risk that can/does cause death or injury, and mandates a technological fix, even if it create a nuisance. Yeah, it will cost a boatload more than the 50-cent contractor specials we're used to, but so does GFCI and AFCI protection. I'd argue that if it saves even one life in the next two decades, it's worth all the cost and effort.

#154575 08/04/06 12:48 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 449
F
Member
I don't buy the "If it saves one life it was all worth it" argument. Especially coming from a government that still subsidizes tobacco. Mandating tamper-proof receptacles in all installations is ridiculous. AFCIs are great in theory but are far from proven as far as I can tell. Most of this kind of stuff is not so much safety driven as it is profit driven. Why don't we require seatbelts/airbags on school busses? Because it's not cost-effective to the manufacturers with the most lobby money. If receptacle were really a wide-spread safety concern the consumer market would be demanding an improvement, not the manufacturers. I wish I could invent a widget and then create legislation to require everyone to purchase it.

#154576 08/04/06 03:07 PM
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,923
Likes: 32
G
Member
Maybe we are going at this the wrong way. We should be going after the polititians who adopt these stupid codes. If NFPA started seeing large numbers of AHJs who rejected the new codes they would change or die.
I think NFPA et al is a huge boondoggle in the first place. They started as a safety organization. Now they just seem to be selling books, CDs and classes.


Greg Fretwell
#154577 08/04/06 09:08 PM
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,148
R
Member
Steve,
Quote
NFPA identifies a safety risk that can/does cause death or injury, and mandates a technological fix, even if it create a nuisance.
If you check the ROP you will find that the proposal for this requirement came from the manufactures who will reap the profits from the sale of more expensive wiring devices.
Don


Don(resqcapt19)
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5