The Electrical Contractor Network

ECN Electrical Forum
Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals

Books, Tools and Test Equipment for Electrical and Construction Trades

Register Now!

Register Now!

We want your input!

Featured:
   

2017 NEC and Related
2017 NEC
Now Available!

   
Recent Posts
Calling all Non-US members!! (Non-US only)
by aussie240
Yesterday at 02:39 AM
Photo Upload Tutorial
by DanK
12/06/16 11:35 PM
Sprinklered equipment 26-008
by bigpapa
12/02/16 04:24 PM
On Delay Relay with Auto Reset
by Potseal
12/01/16 09:59 AM
Wow, that was close!
by jraef
11/28/16 07:06 PM
New in the Gallery:
12.5A through 0.75mm˛ flex (just out of curiosity)
Shout Box

Top Posters (30 Days)
gfretwell 13
HotLine1 9
Texas_Ranger 8
sparkyinak 7
Trumpy 6
Who's Online
0 registered (), 228 Guests and 5 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#154568 - 07/31/06 07:31 AM New 406.11
Alan Nadon Offline
Member

Registered: 03/10/05
Posts: 398
Loc: Elkhart, IN. USA
It seems that changing the Code to sell products is the coming thing.
(New) "406.11 Tamper resistant Receptacles in Dwelling Units. In all areas specified in 210.52, all 15- and 20- ampere receptacles shall be listed tamper resistant receptacles."
Add that to the expansion of 210.12 and you can have receptacles that are AFCI protected plus GFI protected and just to make it totally idiot proof the receptacle is tamper proof.
This may save energy since older people will never be able to make the system work.
Alan--
_________________________
Alan--
If it was easy, anyone could do it.

Top
2014 / 2011 NEC & Related Books and Study Guides
#154569 - 07/31/06 09:30 AM Re: New 406.11
SolarPowered Offline
Member

Registered: 07/05/04
Posts: 615
Loc: Palo Alto, CA, USA
I don't understand where exactly we are in the process. Is that proposal something that's already been 99% approved, or is it a lame-brained suggestion from left field that's 99% sure to be rejected?

[This message has been edited by SolarPowered (edited 07-31-2006).]

Top
#154570 - 07/31/06 12:12 PM Re: New 406.11
renosteinke Offline
Cat Servant
Member

Registered: 01/22/05
Posts: 5305
Loc: Blue Collar Country
As it stands now, the committees have accepted these changes. This is our time to raise cain if we disagree- and maybe the committee will back off!

After the comment period closes, the committees will meet again, and decide what they wish to submit to the conferences for approval.

If the conference attendees agree, the provisions will become part of the new code.

I also hope that the committee members visit ECN, and can get the feedback direct.

I also agree that 'tamper-proof' receptacles are an unnecessary general requirement. The code is supposed to set 'minimum' standards...and not be used to gradually "improve" things.

Top
#154571 - 07/31/06 12:41 PM Re: New 406.11
gfretwell Offline

Member

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 9045
Loc: Estero,Fl,usa
At a certain point the general population needs to understand where this BS is coming from and demand that their states stop accepting this stuff.
I always ask how much of this do you think survives the first year of installation?
When you make something so inconvenient people can't stand it they rip it out, then you have nothing.
The nanny state is out of control.
_________________________
Greg Fretwell

Top
#154572 - 08/01/06 09:13 PM Re: New 406.11
trobb Offline
Member

Registered: 06/08/06
Posts: 111
Loc: Iowa City, IA
Heaven forbid kids hurt themselves and learn something...

Top
#154573 - 08/04/06 08:32 AM Re: New 406.11
Alan Nadon Offline
Member

Registered: 03/10/05
Posts: 398
Loc: Elkhart, IN. USA
Try to find a tamper resistant receptacle for a floor box or one that is GFI for the bathroom.
Stop the madness send in a comment form.
Alan--

[This message has been edited by Alan Nadon (edited 08-04-2006).]
_________________________
Alan--
If it was easy, anyone could do it.

Top
#154574 - 08/04/06 08:47 AM Re: New 406.11
SteveFehr Offline
Member

Registered: 03/19/05
Posts: 1192
Loc: Chesapeake, VA
I imagine they'll become a tad easier to find if NEC 2008 requires them!

This seems no different than any other new code- NFPA identifies a safety risk that can/does cause death or injury, and mandates a technological fix, even if it create a nuisance. Yeah, it will cost a boatload more than the 50-cent contractor specials we're used to, but so does GFCI and AFCI protection. I'd argue that if it saves even one life in the next two decades, it's worth all the cost and effort.

Top
#154575 - 08/04/06 09:48 AM Re: New 406.11
Fred Offline
Member

Registered: 04/30/01
Posts: 461
Loc: Straughn, IN 47387
I don't buy the "If it saves one life it was all worth it" argument. Especially coming from a government that still subsidizes tobacco. Mandating tamper-proof receptacles in all installations is ridiculous. AFCIs are great in theory but are far from proven as far as I can tell. Most of this kind of stuff is not so much safety driven as it is profit driven. Why don't we require seatbelts/airbags on school busses? Because it's not cost-effective to the manufacturers with the most lobby money. If receptacle were really a wide-spread safety concern the consumer market would be demanding an improvement, not the manufacturers. I wish I could invent a widget and then create legislation to require everyone to purchase it.

Top
#154576 - 08/04/06 12:07 PM Re: New 406.11
gfretwell Offline

Member

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 9045
Loc: Estero,Fl,usa
Maybe we are going at this the wrong way. We should be going after the polititians who adopt these stupid codes. If NFPA started seeing large numbers of AHJs who rejected the new codes they would change or die.
I think NFPA et al is a huge boondoggle in the first place. They started as a safety organization. Now they just seem to be selling books, CDs and classes.
_________________________
Greg Fretwell

Top
#154577 - 08/04/06 06:08 PM Re: New 406.11
resqcapt19 Offline
Member

Registered: 11/10/00
Posts: 2209
Loc: IL
Steve,
 Quote:
NFPA identifies a safety risk that can/does cause death or injury, and mandates a technological fix, even if it create a nuisance.

If you check the ROP you will find that the proposal for this requirement came from the manufactures who will reap the profits from the sale of more expensive wiring devices.
Don
_________________________
Don(resqcapt19)

Top
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 >



ECN Electrical Forums - sponsored by Electrical Contractor Network - Electrical and Code Related Discussion for Electrical Contractors, Electricians, Inspectors, Instructors, Engineers and other related Professionals