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 2 1 2
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 24
P
Member
Is there another electrical code in the USA that can be adopted instead of the NEC?




[This message has been edited by pseudonym (edited 01-28-2003).]

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
 

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 582
R
Ron Offline
Member
The ICC has an electric code that is adopted in some jurisdictions.
You can also adopt either of the the two with as many amendments you like to tweak it to your liking.


Ron
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 552
T
Member
What is the matter with the NEC?

Quote
We want to protect against electric shock, fies, explosions and physical damage
This is what it does.



[This message has been edited by txsparky (edited 01-28-2003).]


Donnie
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 24
P
Member
I think that the NEC Committee is out of balance! [Linked Image]

It seems that there are far too many manufacturers who sit on the code panels, and most all of the committee members are like puppets, because their votes are directed votes!

The IAEI electrical inspectors, IBEW, IEC and the true working class dudes understand the hazards, and they try to vote to accept the changes but are never in the majority.

Its really a battle now because of the building code groups who threatened to write a new code!

The ICC is only a few pages long.

That's one of the reasons Article 80 sits in the front of the code. If it was put to the rear, or as an annex it would be out of place because of the ICC code.

The committe includes many "good old boys" and they are long time friends and help each other out.

Some committees have one or two individuals who run the show, and believe me that the name on a proposal sometimes get the rejects.

I overheard a CMP 5 member say that "... ......." proposals always get rejected!

[Linked Image]

Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,233
H
Member
I can agree and disagree with these discussion. I agree that sometimes too many manufactures sit on the code making panels. I CAN see it where the panel talks about the construction of a piece of equipment and how it should be installed. However the manufactures should hang back a bit when it comes to the code itself. I like the NEC because I myself can make a suggestion and get the code changed. I know for a fact that IT DOES work because I have summitted some code changes. TRUE most times things that I suggest mightget by-passed. However I must make sure that I state my concern in a proper and logical way. Something that will make the code easier to understand and easier to follow and as long as it is safe and follows the intent of the code. As a foot note, I did get a suggestion passed from the 1993 to the 1999 NEC. The code making panel agreed to my suggestions that the length of sealtight would increase from 3' to a new 6' length for wiring up hot tubs outside.

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,392
S
Member
FWIW pseudonym
i feel certain factions rule the NEC.

most point to an ROP as the 'democratic' mediator.

but it is a weak voice at best.

Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 197
G
Gwz Offline
Member
Maybe you didn't get the "whole" quote.

It is may understanding that if the proposal dosen't address a saafety issue, then the proposal is to be rejected.

Maybe the quote was similar to this:

We must reject all proposals unless the proposal address'es a safety issue.

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 24
P
Member
Quote
Maybe you didn't get the "whole" quote. We must reject all proposals unless the proposal address'es a safety issue.

Rejected proposals require a technical reason by the committees.

I have good hearing, and did not miss the comment about the name.

Take a look into the old Preprints, TCR's, TCD's, ROP's and ROC's and tell me that a well known electrical industry person gets all Accepts!

sparky, please define the letters FWIW and expand on your comments ... I am not too clear on what you are trying to say ...

[This message has been edited by pseudonym (edited 01-27-2003).]

Joined: May 2001
Posts: 552
T
Member
FWIW=for what its worth;

When I open my 2002 book and look at the lists of names on the CMP's,it looks fairly balanced to me.

[This message has been edited by txsparky (edited 01-27-2003).]


Donnie
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,498
Likes: 1
C
C-H Offline
Member
If you really want to shock the NEC people, you could adopt the Australian/New Zealand code. [Linked Image] (It would take some modifications to take into account the different voltages used in the US. And then some more to take into account the different types of devices, i.e. NEMA style rather than AS/IEC)

Page 1 of 2 1 2

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