ECN Forum
What are your thoughts when it comes to teaching the NEC?

[This message has been edited by Joe Tedesco (edited 02-23-2003).]
Joe,
i tire of the NEC's black/white doctrine, and the AHJ's captivity to it, as much of the NEC is without a shred of rationale

perhaps the answer is not the literal interpetation of each vowel & constonant of the NEC, but the efficy of the end result.
Sparky,
How do enforce the code if not to the letter, one persons idea of common sense is not the same as someone eles's, or do we just call you for your common sense.

Can you give an example of "much of the NEC is without a shred of rationale"

Bob
As an apprentice instructor I had to deal with several instances where a student pressed for clarification beyond everyone's social comfort level. I appreciated the fact that the class atmosphere was comfortable enough so that any studend felt free to speak their mind, and I tried --quite successfully, I suppose ;-) -- to not act like I knew it all, so that my vulnerability served as an invitation for them to challenge anything I might declare. I learned that the difficulties were visualization ones or simple sematic ones. The students take an indignant exception to anything that violates common sense. So, all that is needed is a clearer picture, so that the meaning is less reliant on words, but more on what they can see. Once I'm sure they were imaging the issue the same as me, then we could work on why the words were selected as they were.
I've never had a student dis me in any serious way, as long as I show that I respect that they are doing the best they can, with the imaginative tools they have available at the time.

There ARE times when people can flame a situation just for their own sick amusement though. I was at one conference where a guy was drunk, and belligerant, and was looking to stir up trouble. I guess that sort of thing has to be expected to eventually occur.

I suppose the foregoing just highlighted what the previous posters to this thread brought up. There's plenty of authoritative voice but little in interpretative nuance in a lot of code issues discussions, and that only serves to show disrespect to the free thinking, imaginative efforts of those who are trying to get a grip on what the code is about. As an instructor, I have found out that it is real easy to explain just what I understand, just the rationale that I think is behind a code article, and then quickly shift discussion before someone mulls it over and seeks clarification about grey areas where I have no ready answer. Such class manipulation is obvious to some of the sharper students, and they might not be willing to be dismissed so easily.
If you have questions about the code and its content you can ask for a Formal Interpretation!

Quote
90.6 Formal Interpretations.

To promote uniformity of interpretation and application of the provisions of this Code, formal interpretation procedures have been established and are found in the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects.




[This message has been edited by Joe Tedesco (edited 02-23-2003).]
Hi Joe,

Here is a code "common sense" question that was posed several years ago at a code class I was attending.

NEC 2002 358.30(A)and(B)

ie.
A breaker panel is mounted to a wall on 3/4" plywood and 16" to the right at the same elevation is a lighting contactor. The two are connected with 3/4" EMT. The length of the EMT is 16".

Does this piece of raceway need to be supported according to the NEC?

The way I read the code says that it is required.

What say you?
I see i've aggitated the 'instructors' here, which is not my intent.

The NEC is far from perfect, and all the ROP's we can muster won't create a document applicable to everyone in every situation.

There are many arbitrary figures that exist in it simply due to member(s) in past history agreeing to a given figure.

i believe it was Mr.John Caloggero who brought up the rule of 6 in the MH forum as one of these.

another is 376.22's magic '30' , to which our Canadian counterparts have 200

many other examples exist without engineered figures to back them up

So you are right in that you can only reasonably enforce to the code's letter, and many on the BB's express this to extreeme degrees Bob

But do not expect our trade to blindly accept these naked king doctrines without being somewhat inquisitive.

Which is why some diplomacy may be appropo (i'm allowed to quote myself here right?) [Linked Image]

Quote
the efficy of the end result.

translation;
"what is the better job?"
Elzappr

I am sure that in your area up in the NW that the instruction must be performed by those who are qualified to teach, and I appreciate you reply.

When do you hold your classes?
WebSparky

Quote
The way I read the code says that it is required.

What say you?

I agree! It is required, but I would sleep and not flinch an eye if it was not supported. I'll use common sense sometimes too!
The question I am most often asked by homeowners and GC's alike is WHY? A lot of times I, as I suspect others are,are put in the position of being contractor/electrician/ahj all rolled into 1 due to lack of an ahj.At times,quoting dry code does me no good if I can't back it up with reasoning.This is why I come here and continue to be a student and learn.Any suggestions other than keep trying to learn? Russell
ga.sparky56

You can ask for help anytime, keep signing on!

Hey Sparky:

Please define "naked king doctrines" and their relationship to the NEC.
Thanks Joe.....

I think if the "spirit" of the code is always considered in regard to the "letter" of the code, we will have been successful in our teaching and application.

I have always seemed to learn better when the concept is presented along with the doctrine, hence a "common sense" is formed.

I have not had the privlege to sit in one of your classes but I have read many of your explanations over the years and I must say you are among the best when it comes to teaching the NEC. No "suck-up" intended, just stating the facts.
Thanks,
Dave
Quote
"naked king doctrines"
Consider me as the little boy Joe, who pointed out the king had no clothes in the old fable.

I would venture there are more that wear "electrican,inspector,ahj" shoes in the trade than do not as EC's, or at least the scales tip in light of the rural contingent.

So we are the students as well as the teachers, and our liveyhood depends on our ability to diplomatically present the NEC's spirit and intent.

Should we do this poorly, we will eat poorly also, a fair contrast to those who can red tag with impunity right or simply be dealt a poor evaluation.

Believe me, you have nothing short of the luxury of blowing off what you consider extranious questions, we do not.

Yeah teaching is tough! and the NEC isn't out to help any of us if one needs to reaserch 4 CMP's back for rationale.





[This message has been edited by sparky (edited 02-23-2003).]
Here is my 2 cents for what it is worth. I was in the business for 25 years and in my own business for 15 of those years. Now I work as an inspector and when I inspect, I treat each and every contractor with the respect that I wanted when I was a contractor. I look at each job before I even look to see who did the work. If it is right I pass the job. If wrong, I tell them that it has to be fixed. No big deal, just fix it and let's move on to the next job. If I make a decision, and the contractor doesn't like it, I will listen to the contractor. If he make a good and valid point and I see his way, then I will change my decision. If it was a homeowner, I will try to help them to get through the job if it is wrong.
i work as my own bussiness for 10 years now in usa ( plus 5 years in france before that ) and what russel did bring up good point and i use the nec book alot to explaint to the comusters and GC also but what i do is keep the commuation line open so we can advoid any misunderstanding reguarding with nec or other codes as requires and i deal with my inspecter and belive or not we both learn something new all time ditto with homeowners some of them did not know about it but this area i feel somecase it can be overtaking and i use the ENC forurms to get the general point but if i have a question i will post it here and i am jugging both 99 and 02 codes depend on the area and i try to stay the most recent code change and just try to be fair with everyone around here. one of my goal is good open commuations . that way the job can be done quick and effect manner per nec codes and other codes as required

merci marc [Linked Image]
Sparky, you are right I should exercise more diplomacy, but you made a strong statement and should expect someone will strongly disagree, and yes there are some things that seem arbitrary, 6 disconnects, no more then 42 circuits in a panel etc.

I just take exception to your statement that "much of the NEC is without a shred of rationale"

For the size of the code I think that there is not to many examples of Articles with out rationale.

The inspectors that I have had dealings with apply commonsense but if you are talking about a code class as Joe was talking about, it must be by the letter or he sends students off with misinformation.

I defiantly do not consider myself an 'instructor' just someone that speaks his mind, sometimes getting myself into trouble. [Linked Image]

Bob
Once upon a time there was a new bride that was hosting her first Christmas dinner for her husband's family. As tradition was, she was preparing a goose to be cooked in a large roasting pan. As her mother-in-law was watching and helping with other parts of the meal, she asked her new daughter-in-law why she had cut the neck of the goose off. Her reply was, "This is the way my grandmother taught my mother and this is the way my mother taught me, so I have always done it this way". With that, the mother-in-law excused herself and went to the other room to ask the grandmother why she had always cut the neck of the goose off.
The grandmother replied, "Oh, that's because my old roasting pan was so small that I never could get the whole bird to fit, so I just cut it off!"

Reminds me of time honored traditions such as;
As long as the conduit is less than 24" long, it's a nipple, and you can put as many wires in it that will fit.
And;
If it's a nipple, you don't have to support it.
Or, how about;
As long as you can get the wires pushed back far enough for the receptacle to fit, you're fine.
And;
Let's use a trough! We can make all the wire nut connections in it and there will be plenty of room the to get all of the wires to all of the panels.

Yes, trying to teach the code to "experienced" electricians can be an up-hill battle at times. We not only need to overcome terminology differences, but also tradition. Yes, the code is important to understand and comprehend. Often times students are on the offensive and are gaurding their knowledge. Often times instructors are on the defensive trying not to "quote the code" but to still trying to get the point across and accepted.
The only sure thing is that the code is going to change every three years. Sometimes the changes make sense, sometimes they are repealed later. The good thing about the whole process is that you and I live in safer structures today and the quality of workmanship has increased throughout.

Just my two cents,
Dave
All previous comments are well thought out and appreciated .... [Linked Image]

Another question now ... what would we do without the NEC? [Linked Image]

Do most of you have the National Electrical Code Handbook?

You may want to read the commentary when answers are needed as to what a rule means.

Most of the commentary comes from the actual substantiation included with the proposals or comments that were sent in to the code making panel.
Um, may I ask a question here? (timid pa dutch fellow in the back kind of half raising his hand)

Being here to learn, and I have, alot, My question is:
Why must the code be written in "philadelphia lawyer"?

Wouldn't a lot of these confusions be avoided if the code was written in english in the first place?

TW

ps, please accept my apology if this is considered a threadjack.
Trainwire:

Give an example that will help to support your comments.

How would you rewrite (In English) Section 210.8, for one example?

or

The entire Article 630 for Welders??

Have you attended any formal classes on the NEC, or seminars, and are you a member of some organization that includes the NEC in their discussions?
To my discredit, I have not attended any classes in the NEC, although not for lack of want to. When You get back to Bensalem, I want to go. Alot of what I do I kind of "grow" into, and wind up on a steep learning curve (read: straight up). Most of my problems with the NEC comes from a lack of familiarity, but there are places that I think could be written a little clearer.
Is what I am saying, is that I need a handbook?

Thanks for your patience.

TW
Yes, the NECH will be helpful.

An electronic version of the handbook is also available.

Again, please clarify this statement:

Quote
but there are places that I think could be written a little clearer.

Please give me some examples ....
Joe:
Recently I "filled in" for an instructor who had a heart problem at a local Vo Tech School. I had his course plan, and had no forseen problems. I'm certified as an instructor for Electrical Trades, and NEC; also an EC and a P/T AHJ. (Not blowing my own horn, just a little backround)

The point that I stressed to the guys in the class was not to "learn" or try to memorize the NEC, but learn how to find what you are looking for.

Fortunatly, the guys in the class "wanted" to be there, and that was an enormous help.

There are some people who can recite the NEC as they "instruct" it full time; I'm not knocking them, just that I believe that guys should know "where to find" what there looking for.

And, I have to agree with Harold again, respect should be a two way street!
John
Bob,
Yes i come on strong, frustration of having to deal with the obvious in the real world vs. those who would turn thier back to it content to debate the inane doesn't help.

Joe,

Is there a need to digress into specific example to make the point?

isn't this entire BB testimony to those who seek clarity in the NEC?

or do your students simply get it the first time?
sparky:

Yes! Trainwire made a statement here, and I want to see what he has to say so I can help him understand the code.

It would not be the first time that a new user of the code sees the rules in a different way than those of us who have some knowledge of the rules, and why they are in the code.

This board is open to anyone who needs help and Yes some of my students do get it the first time, and others are not so quick to learn -- that's the way of the code and the way we have to deal with it.
John

Quote
Fortunatly, the guys in the class "wanted" to be there, and that was an enormous help.

And, I have to agree with Harold again, respect should be a two way street!

This is really the key to the success of any student who wants to learn this game, and become a scholar of the code!

I can appreciate the "emergency call" you had to answer, and always being prepared is the best way!

Can we talk a little about course outlines that are typical for the classes that are presented to teach the code?

A fellow instructor I know starts his discussions with Section 310.15 in the Code.

Yes, some people have the code memorized and can cite the rules immediately, and that's a good sign, better than when someone yells out in class, and says something that is all wrong!
Quote
By Joe Tedesco
what would we do without the NEC?

Job pricing would be uneven between the contractors that do a safe and workman like job and the hacks that will make it work for a buck.

For those that frequent this web site and take pride in their workmanship it would be hard to compete with the handyman that will wire that pool (or whatever) for 1/4 of the price and still make money.
Easy for him to do without the knowledge of safety, only that "white and black make it go".

I think all we have to do is look at the pictures at Violation Photo Forum to see what many people are capable of with the NEC in place; I think it would only get worse without the NEC and enforcement.

Quote
By Joe Tedesco
Do most of you have the National Electrical Code Handbook?

I am waiting for the electronic version to arrive.


[This message has been edited by iwire (edited 02-24-2003).]
Quote
Why must the code be written in "philadelphia lawyer"? --- Trainwire

Because it is written with the intent of it becoming a legal document, which is the reason for all the "shall's and must's" and other imperative verbs in the text. I believe Art#90.1(c) states "Intention. This Code is not intended as a design specification nor an instruction manual for untrained persons." However, Art#90.4 states, "This Code is intended to be suitable for mandatory application by governmental bodies exercising legal jurisdiction..."

Len
My thanks to any and all who agree with me. As I was saying, I find that there is usualy 3 sides to any story. My side, His side, and the truth which is somewhere in the middle. I also try to pride my inspections on a little know chart that I found in Joe. T's book, "Basic Checklist for Building Electrical Inspections". I don't know how many people have seen that chart, but I think that it is very easy to follow.
I have just retired after 28 years of teaching apprentices.

In my opinion, one cannot learn the code, in the same way that one learns a concept or principle.

My approach was to help the students learn how to use the code. How to use the table of contents and index, which sections are basic, and which are ammendatory or supplementary, how exceptions affect rules, which rule/subrule the exception applies to, that kind of thing.

I found that students had a very difficult time with code rules if they didn't first have a sound knowledge of the system or equipment that the rule/rules applied to, including the basic theory.

Ed
gasparky56's and iwire's posts perfectly illustrate my apparent working situation.

BTW, Tomorrow, I'll be opening the panel that the inspector retorqued. If the test-marks are off-kilter enough to show up in a macro-pix, I'll post some...

[Linked Image]

Getting enforcement is the key...
First someone should be familiar with electrical construction. Guys read a self-help book on how to wire a receptacle and think they can go take a code class and understand it.

Secondly, before anybody takes a code class they should learn about and understand theory.

Do you know how many guys don't install main bond screws because they really don't understand what it does.

Third, depending on what portions of the code you are teaching you need to teach it in a different way. When it comes to grounding guys have to see pictures to understand what happens when there is a short. If you're teaching about load calculations understanding a step by step approach is much more valuable.

Teaching the NEC is easy if you have two students and hundreds of hours to explain the difference between the letter of the law and concepts and how to apply them in everyday application.

Having 30 or 40 students will surely leave somebody lacking in truly understanding something. But that's why I tell them to come here and get involved.

This bulletin board is simply the best method for learning if someone truly wants to learn about code.

Long live the board!!!
Hope this post is in proper taste [Linked Image]

I do not have too much difficulty when it comes to interpreting a certain article in the NEC, primarily due to being
exposed to so many Manuals written in a Technical Standard method.

Early on, I found the difficult part was more of the navigation methods, rather than the article themselves. It would
make more sense to me if the NEC had less articles referenced by other articles, and in place snip a small quote of
the referred article. Where multiple references are needed, this could cut down page thumb nailing quite a bit!
This would, of course, add more pages to the code book, requiring it to be larger and include more labor.
This would be my only feasible request, but it's more like the way I would conceive it written (like more towards the
"hard-core" Technical Standards Protocol), and is definitely not the way someone else would like it written!

As to the articles themselves, I have been able to figure out most of the stuff without difficulty. Have mis-interpreted
some here and there, but fortunately did not make too big of an a@# of of myself!

Although, in the past I have not formally instructed persons on NEC interpretations, I have many times helped
co-workers and others to interpret a certain article's intent. In the near future, I will be responsible for training
personnel for all aspects of installations, and this will include NEC (and CEC) knowledge also.

The most common situation I have found when someone asks assistance with NEC article interpretation is the
wordage (Tech. Standards), next is navigation. I can help them catch the navigation methods much easier than article
interpretation. When I explain the protocol of the writing, it makes them even more confused! So far have found to
give them a simple and brief example of a certain article, then try mentioning the "Limits" type terms as being just that
- a minimum or maximum.

Really would like to have more accurate and helpful methods of training for NEC articles.

BTW, a very difficult thing and cause of overall confusion when discussing an article's interpretation (in hind-sight
most of the time), is when an Inspector mistakenly misinterprets an article and issues a non-compliance / correction
notice on something. Not that this occurs a lot, but it does occur.
Sometimes an Electrician will not realize when the CEC, or a local code is used, which brings up a whole bunch of
confusion! This happens more than the Inspector misquotes!

To sum this up, I will be posting a new topic in regards to color coding the GEC in a panel. Looking for any and all
suggested methods.

Scott35 S.E.T.
An inspector in a North Carolina county just across the state line from me,will at times,for a minor infraction call the ec on his cell and say "I think you need another nail guard in this master bedroom". He does this especially for contractors he is familiar with and who do normally excellent work.He's a good guy and a sharp ahj.If you can go to the job and fix it while he's there he won't red tag it.I've heard a lot of carping from ec's who do marginal work at best,about "favoritism" My question is would any of the ahj's here consider this unethical? Or does he just know the difference in an oversight and crappy work?I prefer to think it's the latter. I know this is alittle off the subject but I'd like to get you ahj's input. Russell

[This message has been edited by ga.sparky56 (edited 02-25-2003).]
Quote

BTW, Tomorrow, I'll be opening the panel that the inspector retorqued. If the test-marks are off-kilter enough to show up in a macro-pix, I'll post some...

"The inspector retorqued"?

Inspectors have no business working on a permit inspection, period.

He is not the one who pulled the permit.

He is not the one that has liability or insurance to cover any work he performs.

He is not the contractor.

He may ask you to retourque the panel in his presence.

You, as the permit holder, affirms by your signature, that the work will be done in a professional and workmanlike manner. You have the responsibility and the liability.

Wow! Here in Ohio, I have never heard of any activity like this.

Dave
GaSparky56:
Dependent on the job, and the EC, I also will "call" and explain a minor infraction on a rough. Time permitting, I will stop back that day, or the next and give the approval sticker.
Basically, the same for a final, IF TIME PERMITS.
Most of the time it's 15 inspections, in a 32 square mile twp.
I know "both sides of the fence" and try to be as fair as possible.
John
Joe:
The instructor that I'm filling in for is using Mike Holt's NEC Test Prep.

I have a course for spring term, (basics), that I will be getting ready for within the next two weeks.

John
I think overall the NEC does its job, to say there are no discrepencies is naive.
Sparky makes a good point. One of my pet peeves is 250.130(C). primarily running a seperate equipment grounding conductor, by itself to ensure a ground fault path.
In the handbook it gives this code reference and in the next block the handbook goes on to explain why its a bad idea to do this because it inherantly increases the inductive reactance of the circuit ergo increasing the impedance of the circuit, thus reducing the Effectiveness of the ground fault path.
In Soars book on grounding they write about a similar situation where they use 4/0 cable and conduit and the set-up places one grounding conductor 1 foot away from the conductor supplying the fault( there are a few return pathes) but the conductor placed at the 1-foot distance carries little current.
In comparison to the conduit.
So we have 250.130(C) which allows this practice and again in 410.18 exception.
But as soon as you turn to 300.3(B) it clearly says all conductors shall be in the same raceway, because of the described reduction of impedance with grouped conductors.
These are inconsistancies in the code that are dangerous. It used to beyou could run that extra wire to the first cold water pipe, but that part was dropped.
Thats my two-cents worth.
If I offended anybody that was not my intent.

WOC
We redid our kitchen, and as homeowner
added some outlets that the codes of
the 1950s didn't ask for. Looked up
the parts of the code to see what is
needed for kitchens nowadays. "No
point of a kitchen counter shall be
beyond 24 inches (as measured along the
wall) from an outlet". Okay, but in
my case, there would be a foot or so
of counter where the sink will be that
would be further. I couldn't see putting
an outlet right behind the sink.

Well, when I visited town hall to get the
permits, I talked with the inspector and
asked about that. He said that the
sink area of the countertops is not
counted. But the code book didn't
mention that (at least in the chapter
and verses on kitchens that I could find).
Maybe there was a passage defining what
a kitchen countertop is?

As it turned out, I only missed one thing
for the rough inspection: I didn't
have the green pigtail grounding wires
that are used to connect the metal box
to the green screw on the outlets.
I used "BX" cable and metal boxes. I
went to the store and bought some and
put them in, later that day the inspector
passed me.

For the final inspection, he used a special
test box to check that the GFCIs did in
fact work correctly. Also shows if I
got the polarity and grounding right.
He said that the box slowly ramps up
a fault current from hot to ground, and
he wants to see the GFCI trip out before
it hits 7 ma. They did. He didn't like
the Hubbell outlets I used downstream of
the GFCIs, "These don't grab the plugs
too well". But he passed it. You have
to push a bit to get a plug to seat into
the Hubbell outlets (the industrial grade
"fed spec" ones).

I'm sure he looked at my work much closer
than a job done by an electrician that
he knows the quality of work of. As he
should, I could have gotten some basic
thing wrong.

Back to my point that somehow the code
as written seemed to forget to mention
about sinks in countertops. But more
than likely it is mentioned elsewhere,
and a real electrician would know.
© ECN Electrical Forums