|
1 registered (Merlin),
96
Guests and
2
Spiders online. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
#197369 - 11/23/10 02:14 PM
Re: Table 310.15[B],16
[Re: gfretwell]
|
Member
Registered: 11/27/07
Posts: 729
Loc: MA, USA
|
I just received my 2011 Handbook, so for those still waiting, I assume this means they are now available everywhere. The change I was asking about above appears to be mostly just the Table numbering and some 60C and 90C ampacity changes. It looks like they have reduced ampacity for some copper conductors at 60C by 5 Amps, but increased some other aluminum conductors by the same amount.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#197370 - 11/23/10 05:31 PM
Re: Table 310.15[B],16
[Re: KJay]
|
Member
Registered: 04/03/02
Posts: 4904
Loc: Brick, NJ USA
|
Thanks Kjay! I'm waiting for the CD & Handbook combo....
_________________________
John
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#197384 - 11/24/10 07:23 AM
Re: Table 310.15[B],16
[Re: HotLine1]
|
Member
Registered: 02/16/02
Posts: 1823
Loc: Boonton, NJ
|
I haven't got any new books yet, Waiting to see what the best deal I can do, plus my state is very slow at adopting the new NEC after it is out.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#197387 - 11/24/10 09:01 AM
Re: Table 310.15[B],16
[Re: harold endean]
|
Member
Registered: 04/03/02
Posts: 4904
Loc: Brick, NJ USA
|
Harold: I know what you mean about state adoption, but I get a 'new' NEC ASAP, and the changes ASAP to prepare my courses and for my 'absorbition' time.
My CO rejected the PO request for the '11 NEC for the office to conserve $$ based on 'we don't need it yet'.
_________________________
John
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#197432 - 11/29/10 07:12 AM
Re: Table 310.15[B],16
[Re: HotLine1]
|
Member
Registered: 02/16/02
Posts: 1823
Loc: Boonton, NJ
|
John,
I work for 4 different towns and some of my towns would never buy me a code book. Last year was the first time (I believe) that I got code books for every town. They are all watching their money.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#198840 - 02/05/11 05:40 PM
Re: Table 310.15[B],16
[Re: gfretwell]
|
Member
Registered: 02/05/11
Posts: 15
Loc: North Pole, Alaska
|
So Mike Holt put in the name change thing. 310.16 was pretty easy to remember and has been the same for the last 30 years. It was Table 310.12 in my 1971 Code. So now we have 310.15(B)(16) that is much more difficult to remember and say and write. I wonder when does usability become more important than the Style manual?
Edited by nercGerald (02/05/11 05:40 PM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#198846 - 02/05/11 07:23 PM
Re: Table 310.15[B],16
[Re: KJay]
|
Member
Registered: 06/16/04
Posts: 768
Loc: Sacramento, CA
|
It had to be changed if you think about it. When cited all and every know that the table referenced by 310.16 is different than 310.15 (B) 16.
Otherwise, in all correspondence the adjusted values are not apparent.
_________________________
Tesla
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|