General Discussion:

How are engineering schools handling the subject of the NEC?

Do they teach the NEC at all?


[This message has been edited by Joe Tedesco (edited 11-18-2002).]

In order to get an EE degree at most universities, the NEC is not discussed. Unfortunately, other than a basic class on transmission lines, a general motor theory class and using low voltage meters there is no other trade information required. Most EE schools are set up for electronics, not power, all other information is "on the job training".
I don't recall any mention of conductor gauges, circuit breakers, switchboards, short circuit/withstand ratings, etc. At 5V, those things didn't matter.
Don't get me wrong thought, to become a Professional Engineer, the second part of the exam (second 8 hour exam) requires NEC knowledge and being able to apply it along with many other aspects of power theory and electronics theory.

I guess I've just "outed" myself! I am not worthy.


[This message has been edited by Ron (edited 06-14-2002).]

I too wish I would have gone for my EE. I graduated from WSU (Washington State) with a business degree without knowing that I would ever be interested in being an electrician. I had a friend at school who was an EE and he said it was all math. There is a handful of EEs in my local. And when they talk, you listen.

In NorCal, IAEI and IEEE Industry Applications Society have sponsored short courses that dealt fairly well with the NEC.

I guess I am kind of different than the "Common" EE out of College [BSEE in hand, passed the EIT and looking for a power systems firm type EE to be precise].

Having been in the trade and working hands on in the field, with Inspections, discussing the NEC with others, plus exploring the related areas of Electrical / Electronics makes me wonder why EE's go into the power systems design field when leaving School.

I haven't taken the P.E. exam yet, only working on EIT, but there's not one bit of NEC related stuff in that exam! I am sure the P.E. exam follows the same way!
Odd for a State Issued Professionals' License not to include something in the same respect as a Master Electricians' License!

But as already stated, the exams and studies for BSEE and EIT / P.E. are all math and theories. I guess learning what you can and cannot do when designing projects to meet the basics of the NEC is up to the individual to find out AFTER the License is issued!

Been finding an ever increasing level of poor Electrical Engineering work coming out of sub'ed consulting firms, on numerous project designs.
Anywhere from multiple bounces in plancheck, to flat out incomplete and bad system designs!

It's really bad! what happened anyway? Nearly every planset I get has to be "Re-Engineered" by either myself or some of the few field guys with that ability, in order to work correctly for the clients!

I can't see how some stuff gets through plancheck in the first place! Simple designs, turned into a massive joke on paper!

Ahhh, that felt good to vent again!

Scott SET

What does the term engineering supervision mean when used in the 2002 NEC and in 70E?


[This message has been edited by Joe Tedesco (edited 11-18-2002).]

Note the significant, not-so-subtle difference between the terms engineering and engineer.


If you are hell bent on pursuing the arc stuff, search on Ralph H Lee and Hugh Hoagland. I believe Bussmann may have recently broached the matter, also.

Congrats on the EIT, Scott35. That is sort of a catch-all exam that covers a wide range of everything. {It used to have a question about Fortran, IIIRC.} A working knowledge of the NEC [much less the core trade] along with a gilt-edge power-EE/PE sheepskin is getting rarer; losing out with a lot of “corporate memory” fading. Young punks are occasionally too busy to learn horse sense from a usually good, essentially “free” source—quite possibly the senior, often more-crotchety old b#stards. Your hard-won official recognition should—down the road a bit—pay off.

A problem of sorts is the limited scope of the NEC. NFPA seems to deal in <35kV, except for open-bus clearances, up to 72.5. Utility-type systems are somewhat exempt, with other ANSI standards effectively take precedence over NFPA 70, like C37/switchgear, C57/transformers and C62/surge. But there always is 600V wiring “inside the fence.” I get a kick out of seeing a 230/115/13.8-kV autotransformer with 120V GFCI and 240V 3ø pin-and-sleeve receptacles mounted on the side of that two-story transformer. Perfect irony. In NorCal the large utility has it in their interconnection standards that loads as small as 2,000-kVA can be, if it’s in their best interest, be served at 69- or 115-kV. Most all municipal-type building inspectors glaze over when you toss those drawings and CSI-spec book out for plan check. OTOH, the serving utility can become nitpicky about useless aspects like—whether an additional high sign is needed if the fence turns more than 15°. After all, in their realm they are—by unspoken default—the clear experts. They can be really good for tripey suggestions similar to the seemingly-omnipotent-in-their-own-mind, about-to-be-traded home “inspectors.” The problem is, their leverage/pinch below the belt is based on withholding of hotup if they dislike something stupid.

OTOH, mop-up can be a b*tch, but if you can gear up for it, a profitable b*tch. Takes a lot more patience than I’ve had at times. There’s this guy that proudly sports an “AutoCad Power User” bumper sticker, but that—despite his own opinions—surely doesn’t automatically make the hot dog any sort of competent engineer. There are banjo players that have more NEC common sense than he.



[This message has been edited by Bjarney (edited 06-15-2002).]

[This message has been edited by Bjarney (edited 06-15-2002).]

Also look at the difference in the wording in the sections that Joe cited and in 505.7(A),
"(A) Supervision of Work. Classification of areas and selection of equipment and wiring methods shall be under the supervision of a qualified Registered Professional Engineer."
Why did the CMP choose to use the word "qualified" along with "Registered Professional Engineer"? Are they telling us that not all PEs are qualified?
Don

I consider myself outranked in the presence of an EE.
Sure, maybe i can bend pipe into my company name, or quote some codes verbatim, but this pales by comparision to hardcore electrical theory.
As electricians we're trained to the NEC, one book is all we need know , ever study,or question.
This same document incorporates a disclaimer right from the getgo in 90.1(C), and offers little to no theory, especially in art 250.

Even in my short trade tenure i can offer up example and/or comparission of grounding that will simply leave the average master like myself here gnawing over some silly sylabic NEC interpetation. Or searching thru old ROP's, and struggling for rationale that just isn't there

I can pick out violations too, but can't always tell you why they are a violation, that's the dif.......

Joe,
what are the answers ??

[This message has been edited by sparky (edited 06-15-2002).]

See 250.119

[This message has been edited by Joe Tedesco (edited 11-18-2002).]

Joe,
this is dry code...lacking rationale.....you make my point for me.......

what say we run a 3ph3wire delta service , feeders & branch circuits in GRC...

Scott,
You will find the PE exam to require some knowledge of the NEC.
The Electrical Engineering PE exam in NY includes:
AC/DC circuits, Three Phase Power, Power Factor Corrections, Power Transmission Lines,
Transformers, Induction Motors, Fault Current Calculations, Transients,
Semi Conductor Devices, Semi Conductor Amplifiers, Data Communications and Computer Circuits.
The reference to qualified Engineer pertains to the fact that most states permit an engineer of any discipline (and even an architect) to sign and seal on electrical drawings. So a qualified one, is one that knows something about electricity.

As to the 2 original Q's the engineers had trouble with....

not all EGC's or Delta's are created equal, there is no single boiler plate code reference......

As Ron said
"Most EE schools are set up for electronics, not power..." I had started to pursue an electrical engineering degree in 1980 and got 30 hours of general studies. Travelling and having fun at my work distracted me from finishing then. After 25 years in the trade I began to seriously consider finishing my degree. I could find no college in the Dallas, Tx area (including Tx A&M) that did not require you to spend a lot of time on electronics and computer courses. These schools did not have much related to power. I was told by a counselor at University of Texas at Arlington (a highly rated engineering college) that my work experience or any practical training would not qualify me for any credits or bypass. Most engineers I have dealt with did not really understand the practical aspects of Code application and were not fully able to interpret the requirements.

Gerald Powell

[This message has been edited by gpowellpec (edited 06-27-2002).]

Bjarney,

Thanks for the Congrads on the EIT / FE!!!

Still has a question on FORTRAN. The Reference Manuals I purchased for the exam cover FORTRAN, but only name the other various types of Languages in the preceeding chapter[s] - such as ADA, ALGOL, BASIC, COBOL, Pascal, etc.

One Manual has an example of Nested DO Loop in FORTRAN, which is written as:

DO 100 I = 1, 10
DO 90 J = 2, 6, 2
DO 80 K = 1, 10, 3
80 CONTINUE
90 CONTINUE
100 CONTINUE

Never worked with FORTRAN, but it looks like the same logical approach as BASIC / VB [Visual Basic is what I have been currently trying to get the complete grasp of].

Anyhow, thanks to you and Ron for the messages.

Steve [Sparky],

Please do not feel outranked in the presence of any EE. The two of you together make a complete team, which is the only way to get the project done. One has more Theory skills, and the other has more Installation skills. Without one, the other will suffer.
You being in the field are in the Technician's position.
For a given project, the Technicians are only as good as the Engineer, and the Engineer is only as good as the Technicians. Poor skills on one side effects the other side.

The Engineer does the design and the Technicians do the "Leg Work" [all the hands on stuff, the paper work, phone calls, misc. red tape, and are very much involved with Alpha and Beta testing, which in our Power Electrical field would be kind of like smoke tests of given machinery, or to see if a design works properly for the client].

Wish more of the persons in the field knew this, so they do not feel an EE is the Be-all, End-All, Lord-God-King-Bookoo [stolen from the Zappa tune "Valley Girl"], but their (The Installer) work is meaningless.

I think I am too Liberal for my field

Scott S.E.T.

At a physics-research site, I had the privilege of escorting a couple of real-decent PEs for the initial data acquisition for a couple-of-mile 8-MVA distribution tie line with switchgear mods. NFPA 70 was early in the standards boilerplate for the work, and were virtually universal for dealings involving electrical systems at the operation.

Their contract as-found and as-built drawings listed switchgear dimensions to &#8539;-inch. They took a lot more interest and dedication to the job than most in-house engineering folks. [Our detailed specs for a very complete, years-evolved tried-and-true 13.8kV metering and relaying section showed up verbatim on another site of ‘theirs’ about a year later…]

Competent PEs make the NEC and updates their routine business. A 230kV utility-owned switchyard still has numerous aspects where the NEC is perfectly applicable—with nothing else nearly as appropriate. Ratings of miles of bundled DC- and AC-circuit SIS-wire ampacity calculations and overcurrent protection is one area. Why reinvent the wheel? It is one very useful and widely referenced ANSI standard.

I have had the opportunity to work with a few engineers over the years, and they can be a real mixed bag. The ones who are easiest to work with started as technicians, machinists, or other "hands-on" types. The ones who come right out of college into an engineering job can be a real PITA, in my experience.

I worked as an electronics tech under one EE (I think he had a MSEE) who was rather full of himself. He drew up a schematic for a servo power amplifier, and dropped it on my bench to lash up a prototype. At first glance, the schematic showed several large electrolytic capacitors connected with incorrect polarity, power supply pins on a few ICs reversed, and several other "irregularities". I made a few notations on the schematic, and brought the schematic back to him, and was immediately told that HE was the engineer, I was "only a technician", and not to overstep my bounds by questioning HIS designs.

So I built the device, EXACTLY as drawn, and left it in his office for him. When he powered the thing up, there were several loud bangs and a big cloud of evil-smelling smoke. When the dust settled, several hundred dollars worth of components were destroyed, and about 2 weeks of work were down the toilet. When management found out about what had happened (and the story was backed up by one of the junior engineers), he was out on his ass within days.

I now have his job, FWIW.

Boy, does this thread open some old sores...
There are too many who assume a connection between "electrical engineering" and "electrical work." Engineers are 'number crunchers.' Oddly enough, the code allows you to depart from its' tables if you can do the necessary number crunching, hence the use of the term "engineering supervision."
Unfortunately, too many of our colleges give their grads a 'minor' in elitist snobbery. They teach their students that they are far superior to anyone without a degree, let alone someone in the "trades." Trade schools are looked upon as refuges for those not 'good enough' for a real school! This is then institutionalised by the federal government, who considers the presence of a degree as one of the prime distinctions between "exempt" professionals and "non-exempt" employees.
I'll give Joe's engineer credit for recognising his weaknesses, and asking the right questions. But, to answer Joe's question, I'd be surprised to find ANY engineering school that had any code-related courses, or even had the NEC in the bookstore. EE's are trained for design, with the stars going to microsoft, boeing, etc. The less stellar students go into manufacturing, and those remaining go to work for governments and utilities- at least, that's how it seems. So, anything an engineer knows about the code, or electrical work, is something that he picked up 'on the job,' after college.
I'm not saying that engineers are inferior; I'm saying that they're different. Expecting an EE to know electric work is a lot like expecting a mechanical engineer to know how to fix a car. It can happen, but don't assume it.

In 20+ years I'll guess I've seen 2 sets
of correctly engineered electrical prints.

They were both done by Electrical Contractors.

I've always thought that in order to get a
PE and engineer facility electrical systems, should require some sort of electrical apprenticeship.

Lets see that adds up to about 10 years, I guess I'll be a lawyer.

Joe,

Let me add 2 cents here. I was given a set of prints to plan review. I failed the print and said that I wanted more information on the generator and the grounding of the generator. The engineering company called me and asked why I failed the plan. I told them that I just wanted to inspect the new generator (gen) and to make sure that it was installed as per the engineer's design and to make sure that it all met the NEC. The engineer told me that the contractor was to submit a plan as to how the generator (gen) was to be wired and to make sure that I liked the way the generator was to be wired. I told the engineer that neithe rthe contractor nor I was to be designing this Gen. HE was the person to be designing it, and that I would review his plan to make sure that it met NEC. I couldn't get that through his head. I told the contractor that I didn't want him to design anything, the EE was the man to sign off on the design.

I worked over 25 years as a non-degreed engineer designing electrical distribution systems for a utility. My son will graduate from Tulane with an EE in December. He dosen't care for computer engineering but likes power. He has taken all the power courses Tulane offers. Last Summer I had him drilling holes, pulling wire and making up connections. When he griped about getting zapped with 120 I said "Son, that's valuable experiance you will never get in college. Just because you scored 1550 on the SAT don't think you can design a job better than a tradesman." I don't know where he is going with his career but I hope he will be taking a little wisedom anong with the all the knowledge with him.
The only NEC he knows is the little bit I taught him.
bob

In Maine one has to be a PE in order to provide engineering services.Someone else may do the work on the calculations but it must be signed off by a PE.

Gentlemen:
Scott35, congrats on EIT, LOL with the test to PE
After reading the thoughts of the others above this post, I have to add.
Over the years, I met a few EE's that were great, PE's too.
The rest all seemed to lack what some of us refer to as common sense, aka field experience. (It may look great on paper, but how the h#ll is it to be built.)
came accross a few that had to be "drive-by" as the "detail" on the drawings didn't exist within the shopping center. Had instances where the "electric closet" was 14" deep x 4ft long. Bad equip placement, excessive feeder loading, bad panel schedules.

I don't want to compose a novel of individual situations, and like I said, there are "good" engineers.

With my inspectors hat on, I do plan review and field inspections. The lack of information on E drawings is proliferating. It seems like "locate the devices, panel(s, lights"; print it, submit a bill for services rendered. Hey, where's the circuitry, panel schedule, etc.???

Well that's enough said.

John

As one of those few EE trained in power, I would agree with many of the comments. My background is primarily marine electrical systems where the engineering requirements are far more extensive than most land-based projects. When I first started working in facilities (2 yrs ago) I had little knowledge of the NEC with the exception of a few articles which are referenced by marine standards; motor and transformer protection for example. I was amazed at the details to which the NEC dictates how a building is to be wired. Nothing like this exists in the marine world. I was also amazed at how little information is expected to be shown on electrical plans. My facilities associates stated "Why bother? All the details are in the NEC." Others stated they didn't want the liability of putting too much detail in the plans. In my humble opinion, the NEC was written to make everything cookbook because, unfortunately, there are many installers who have no training in basic electrical theory. I get extremely frustrated when the NEC or some building inspector requires me to oversize some component for the simple reason that the assumption is it won't get installed properly.

As for EE's training in the NEC, it is not offered in colleges for the simple reason that most EE's don't design electical systems for buildings. Nor do colleges teach students how to design systems for airplanes, ships, or trains. All of these are specalized areas that a EE choses after graduation. I would greatly appreciate a good course in the electrical design aspects of the NEC. While I didn't have a clue want color an equipment ground wire should be ( I would have guessed green), I really don't care. I know what it's there for and when I want one. I'll leave it to the electrician to pick the right color. I could give a great seminar on basic electrical theory, including sizing conductors, breakers, fault currents, breaker coordination studies, load analysis, etc. But please don't ask me to install the stuff.

MarineEE makes a very good point. Here (Sweden, Europe) engineers aren't allowed to do wiring, for good reasons. Being an engineer in the wrong field I have only taken the basic course in electrical engineering. Although it contained great theory on motors, voltage drops, 3-phase systems and so on but nothing on how to build systems in real life. Obviously, if you have taken more courses you will know the


However, wiring is for electricians. I see no reason for having an engineer design a "household voltage" system for a normal building. An electrican will do a better job. Non-standard systems or voltages are different.

Just because you have a M.Sc. in engineering, it doesn't mean you know everything. In reality, you often haven't got a clue to what people are talking about but you have to look like you're an expert. (By now I'm rather good at hiding my ignorance )

[This message has been edited by C-H (edited 11-18-2002).]

OK it is my turn to beat this dead horse. I am going to try to be brief, but I don't think it will work.

I feel very strongly that an engineer and an electrician are a TEAM. As has been stated before. An engineer goes to school for 4 years to learn about electricity and an electrician goes through a 4 year apprenticeship to learn about installing electricity. It is two different knowledge bases.

I have to humbly admit that I have a degree in Industrial Engineering (head hung low). My first job was as a facility supervisor and I have been in that field for 11 of the past 14 years. I have taken care of the building and run the maintenance department. I was completely green and knew nothing about anything. I have learned trial by fire. It turns out that I have a pretty good mechanical ability (Who'd a thunk it?) I was in a good position because I could talk nuts and bolts with the guys, and talk to the engineers about their drawings and what was wrong with them.

When you get everybody on the same page and working together it all turns out good. I would never do what the guy did to NJwirenut. I always wanted the guys to look at things and tell me if there is something wrong. As I always told them, If I tell you how to do the job then you will stop thinking and eventually turn your mind off. However I will be there for advice and to answer any and all questions.

Spary, NEVER feel outranked by an EE. You two just know two different areas of electricity. You may not be able to do what he can do, but then again he cannot do what you can do.

Much more to say but I have rattled on long enough. I will know get off my soap box.
Scott

My congrats to you too, Scotts. I work with one PE who told me that the pe exam was a piece of cake compared to the Masters exam. But she is pretty smart, and could easily teach the NEC. Would be boring, because she doesn't seem to know how use stories, etc, as a learning tool.
I work as an electrical designer for an engineering company. There may be several reasons why the plans go out without planchecks. We are very schedule driven and when it is due out, the PM says "GO", we "GO" out, whether ready or not. I don't agree with that attitude. Sometimes the information is not in from the equipment suppliers, so it is not designed properly, only from an estimate.
I have worked with several registered PE's during my career. And some I would not let engineer anything. Some we don't even let close to CAD (we don't want it messed up). Some are better in the theory. Some are even good at both the practical side and theory. Most learn about the NEC after graduation. I've always tried to get it drawn so that it could be built by a contractor. If it needs a detail for me to understand, then it needs it for the contractor to understand. Engineering Supervision? Well, most of our PE's are Master Electrician Licensed. As with the PE, it only means they passed a test. And that's what it is all about, taking a test.

I'm one of those infamous electrical engineers. And in college no course
work on the NEC. I did have classes
on electromagnetic devices like
transformers, motors, generators and
such. Maxwell's equasions and other
physics. Pretty much all theory.
AS I gather, electricians are trained
to create electrical systems that, as
a first priority protect people from
shock and fire hazards, in such a way
that if you do have a failure, that
the rest of the system is built to
protect people. In that light, the
code will make sense to electrical
engineers. Grounding rules, requiring
all wire connections to be done inside
boxes (so if a connection fails it
doesn't shower sparks onto the wood
inside the wall setting it on fire),
color codes (so other electricians can
understand what wire does what by inspection)
and other things that turn out not to
work that well (aluminium wireing) can
be avoided.

I've done simple wiring tasks in my house
(installing more outlets in the new
kitchen we had put in, the inspector
said the only thing I missed was the
green pigtail grounding wires you need
to connect to the metal boxes (I used
"BX" cable (I know "BX" is the wrong term,
forgot what the modern version is called)
and to the green ground screw on the
outlets. He made me put them in and
after that I passed his "rough" inspection.
Must be a newer NEC rule the books in the
library didn't have. Makes sense, you
are then not depending on two #6 steel
screws to pass a fault current to ground).

As for something like installing a new
panel, I think I'd get a licensed electrician
to do that. I'd need to have his knowledge
of the code and his experience to do it
right, and as I don't have that, have him
do it so it is safe and meets code. Oh,
I'd tell him that I'd like to have a
new circuit for a dryer, another for
central air, and some more branch circuits,
but let him figure out the right way to
make it happen.

i thought some of you engineers might get a laugh here.....

Sparky,
Some of those certainly hit close to home. I remember telling jokes with other engineering students when one of us would look at around and say "you know we realy are geeks!" LOL
Scott

Sparky,
My wife agrees with you on every item and so do I.
Chris

I reckon I must be an engineer at heart!

You know the difference between a mechanical engineer and a civil engineer?

A mechanical engineer makes weapons.

A civil engineer makes targets!

Badump Bump *Crash*



(source unknown... read: don't remember, but not original...)

>YOU MIGHT BE AN ENGINEER IF...

>You are always late to meetings.

Fifteen minutes at least...

>You are at an air show and know how fast the skydivers are falling.

No, but I try to calculate it!

>You forgot to get a haircut ... for 6 months.

Ouch! I had forgotten about getting a haircut. Thanks for reminding me!

>You have used coat hangers and duct tape for something other
>than hanging coats and taping ducts.

You mean you can use duct tape for taping ducts, too?

>You know what http:// actually stands for.

Hyper text transfer protocol?

>You see a good design and still have to change it.

But I do spend a few minutes admiring it first...

>You still own a slide rule and you know how to work it.

Of course I do! Doesn't everybody?

>Your checkbook always balances.

I'm not an accountant. The ATM tells me when I'm out of money... The wonder of technology...

>Your laptop computer costs more than your car.

I once bought a $200 car, so obviously any computer I use is more expensive...

>Your wife hasn't the foggiest idea what you do at work.

Not even I know what I do at work...

>You've ever tried to repair a $5 radio.

And succeded!