OK,

(This is in the code section as it will inevitably involve some code discussion)

What is something that you think (seriously) should be included in the code?

I would be inclinded to exclude more than include.

Sparky,

What do you think should be excluded from the NEC? And could you please explain why?

Inasmuch as many other orginizations have a bearing on the NEC, i really don't think they should always be included as some sort of code.

Don't get me wrong here, those other orginizations have there place, just not always in the NEC.

For instance, how many times have you got hung up on a code due to what is really a legal, not electrical interpertation?

That sort of thing kinda gets old...

Sparky: Interesting statements. Is there a specific instance you could quote?

Ben;
If I get hung up on the code, I , like many of us in the field, fall back on what would be the "electrical theory" intended in the NEC.

This becomes harder when influences with other concerns are introduced.

Inasmuch as it can be argued that the NEC is not a document of electrical design,it is also questionable as to it's usage for engineering, safety & liability.

There are hords or resources to address such matters.

I quess , on a good note, and to address the original Q, I would include some more electrical theory intended by codes that seem to go on for page after page.

Sparky,

Of your first paragraph of yesterdays post of electrical theory, why do some installers try ( I'm guessing to save money ) to attach the GEC to a 3/4" copper tubing water line which is near the service panel and not where the underground water line enters the crawl space about 45 feet away?

Yes, in electrical theory, the point of attachment near the service panel would provide the lowest resistance path, but it sure doesn't meet todays' code (see NEC 250-50, 4th paragraph).
His complaint to my boss of my reject was similar to " I'm an electrical engineer and that is the best place to attach the ground wire."

This was in 1997.

Glenn

The exception makes sense, too bad it doesn't address distance. That would make even more sense in that GEC's are subject to voltage drop also.

Ok, enough whinning...in keeping with Bill's original request...

422-16-b dishwashers & disposals....

There is a "permissive rule" that allows for cord and plug connections here.

I really wish it were straight code....

I've just seen too many pieces of romex under a sink abused due to exposure, or dishwashers reinstalled without proper grounding.

550-8-g the ol' mobile home heat tape receptacle....No GFI required !......somehow this sleezed by..

550-10-i, exception. This allows installation of those "self-contained" devices. These have the romex run through them, and simply snap shut onto it, using a few small teeth to make contact with the unstripped romex.

So it' no wonder that 550-12 ( meg-testing) was made, someone got nervous.

550-8-g seems to conflict with 427-22....
427 ( fixed electric heating equipment for pipelines and vessels) is telling me i better have a GFI...???!!!

oops, guess i should read my 99, not 96...

Sparky,

Did you make a mistake?
I just wanted to mention to you and for the benefit of everyone that you can edit your own posts at any time with that little Pad and Pencil above the message window.

Yea...thanks Bill....but that would be hidding my mistakes...

back to biz....too bad there is no code for all those backstabbed receptacles....i hear that there was a recent UL ruling that prohibited #12 wire, but there sure is a whole world of backstabbed devices out there.

Sparky,

Yup, you're right the new receptacles won't accept #12 wire in back. I still see people trying to get it in though. I think that was a good idea that they changed it. The screw terminals give a much more secure connection I think.

Yuppy; i just love the receptacles that have ALL the screws, and ALL the backstabs full.

And the Creme de la Creme....

The power companies in my state all got together to write a guide book, most of it follows or upgrades art 230.

This has grown over time...

The homeowner calls the power company, the power company forwards a pictorial of, say, an underground service, with basic info.

The homeowner, thinking it's as simple as the picture, and without knowledge of the other 100 pages, goes about the installation.

The utility comes by, slaps a "customer-owned " sticker on it, and sparks it up, and absolves itself of any no-no's.

Time goes by, the no-no's surface...and guess who gets to be the bad guy!


[This message has been edited by sparky (edited 01-29-2001).]

I'd like to see better guidelines on sizing bored holes through wood and the number and sizes of cables permitted. Maybe something similar to conduit fills, or even better, a table to make it simple and more likely to be used...

I'm stepping out on a limb in hopes that one doesn't exist already...(I can't find it...)

66'---i hate it when wires are crammed into small holes. i use those self feed bits& a right angle to keep 3 or so 2" home runs to a panel, then branch out.