ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat Box
Recent Posts
Where is Everyone?
by gfretwell - 04/09/21 01:08 AM
HI gang, long time since I was here...
by gfretwell - 04/09/21 01:02 AM
Lock-down Thread
by gfretwell - 04/06/21 09:30 PM
New in the Gallery:
Facebook follies, bad wiring
FPE in Germany pt.2
Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 3 guests, and 19 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Sound Off!! #209458 04/03/13 07:10 PM
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,237
HotLine1 Offline OP
What within the NEC that drives you crazy??

2017 / 2014 NEC & Related Books and Study Guides
Re: Sound Off!! [Re: HotLine1] #209460 04/03/13 08:26 PM
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,389
sparky Offline


Re: Sound Off!! [Re: HotLine1] #209462 04/03/13 09:06 PM
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,237
HotLine1 Offline OP
Short, but a good start. Here in the Garden State, we adopted AFCI with the 2008 NEC, in 2009, and like I said in another thread here, we are living with them.

Re: Sound Off!! [Re: HotLine1] #209467 04/03/13 11:59 PM
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,335
sparkyinak Offline
Dang it sparky, you beat me to the punch line... thumbs

"Live Awesome!" - Kevin Carosa
Re: Sound Off!! [Re: HotLine1] #209468 04/04/13 02:44 AM
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,575
gfretwell Online Content
I have said it many times but the silliest thing in the NEC process is the 3 year code cycle.
By the time half of the country adopts a release of the codes proposals are closed, comments are closed and the new release is at the printer. We are writing a new code without ever test driving the old one.
We were just told Florida will adopt the 2011 NEC as part of the 2013 Florida building code in March of 2014.

Of course you are also buying all of the various code documents every 3 years and having to pay for update classes and all of the other burdens that brings to the trade.

I think that money stream is the main reason NFPA does it.
"Codes" has become a big business.

Stretching that cycle out to at least 6 years and maybe even 10 years would make a whole lot more sense. Bureaucrats who feel they need something new to do on a regular basis would still have TIAs to evaluate and adopt.

I also think no new equipment should be added to the code as a requirement until it has actually been functioning in the field for a while. They already make accommodations for new listed products as something that is allowed but not required. Let the market drive the desire to buy these things, not a government gun.

Greg Fretwell
Re: Sound Off!! [Re: HotLine1] #209469 04/04/13 03:07 AM
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 947
twh Offline
The CEC is the same way but it isn't just about the money. By the time they get a book to the printer, it's already 3 years out of date.

Decisions made by a large committee take an incredible amount of time. Everyone has a comment, a comment on everyone else's comment, and a response to everyone's comments about their own comments. About 10 years ago I got on a mailing list for a proposed change to the CEC. They took a year to decide to do nothing, and I thought that doing nothing was better than some things that were discussed.

The CEC has a section for interpretations for the previous code book. We need to get our new code books just to learn what we should have been doing for the last three years.

Re: Sound Off!! [Re: HotLine1] #209484 04/05/13 10:14 AM
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,233
harold endean Offline

Where do I start?

TR receptacles, AFCI, Poor wording in the NEC. For example, "As soon as possible", "On or near", "And similar areas".

I get this question all the time.
How come you can use #2 AL to feed a whole house at 100amp, but you have to fuse it at 90 amp if it is a feeder.

Sump pumps on GFI's?

The copper bus bar is not UL listed for AL but the gen panel says that all connections are listed for CU/AL?

These are some of the questions I get all day long from different contractors.

Re: Sound Off!! [Re: HotLine1] #209509 04/06/13 02:01 AM
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,721
Scott35 Offline
Broom Pusher and
I would like to see Article 450 addressed more completely - in particular, more details for Isolated Transformers of 600VAC and less (Section 450.3).


One Specific Design Issue:

Dry-Type Transformers re-energizing, due to Utility Outage (i.e.: Drunk Driver hitting Primary Distribution Pole; Affected Primary Circuit isolated, Power restored).

Primary Inrush Current Levels (involving mainly KVAR) will average the following:

25x rated Primary FLA for 0.01 Second,

12x rated Primary FLA for 0.1 Second,

3x rated Primary FLA for 10.0 Seconds.

With most of the Transformers / SDS's in my typical Projects, the SDS will be a 4 Wire System; OCPDs will be placed on both sides (Primary OCPD and Secondary OCPD).

Secondary OCP will be set at 1.25 x the Secondary FLA for the Transformer; and the Secondary Conductors are sized to conform to the Secondary OCPD rating.

On the Primary side, the OCPD will be set anywhere from 1.75 to 2.50 x the Primary rated FLA.
This helps reduce Non-Selective Coordinated Primary Trip issues for Inrush and Secondary Faults.

If the Primary Feeders were allowed to be sized per the Primary FLA - instead of the OCPD, this would assist in reducing the Inrush level without increasing the length of the Feeders.

The Primary Feeders would be limited by the Maximum value found on the Secondary side - as the total load allowed would equal up to the rated Secondary FLA per the Transformer's rated KVA.
For Designs where Two Panelboards are fed from a Single Transformer, the combined OCPDs equal no more than 1.25 X the rated Secondary FLA.

The concept is similar to Article 430 - allowing for the Temporary Over Currents of Motor Starting.

In the past, I have Designed some Projects around this idea - with Approval by the local DBS (Plans Examiners plus Electrical Inspectors).

Any comments?

--Scott (EE)

Last edited by Scott35; 04/06/13 02:02 AM. Reason: typical spelling blunders!

Scott " 35 " Thompson
Just Say NO To Green Eggs And Ham!
Re: Sound Off!! [Re: gfretwell] #209526 04/06/13 08:20 PM
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 46
NickD Offline
Originally Posted by gfretwell
I have said it many times but the silliest thing in the NEC process is the 3 year code cycle.

That's a great one, something that has always rubbed me the wrong way.

My main rant... WHY do they "think" it needs to be updated so often? It's not like it's encyclopedic content where there's large amounts of new information in each consecutive edition. Why not take, say, 5 or even 10 years for a code cycle?

There's also something to be said about the history of electrical "code" in general, too. It has become much more strict and "safety-fied" in the last ~40 years than it had been from the first edition in 1897 to the 1970's...

Polarized prong plugs weren't a "commodity" until the 80s... appliances had largely been without them for more than 75 years. It just makes you WONDER how much of new code is legitimate improvements and how much is "just because we can".

Re: Sound Off!! [Re: HotLine1] #209530 04/07/13 01:06 AM
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 908
NORCAL Offline
I still think AFCI's are snake oil, the idea is good but how to prove they work, you can prove GFCI's work but they went too far, too fast, in expanding AFCI's.

Page 1 of 2 1 2


2020 National Electrical Code
2020 National Electrical
Code (NEC)

* * * * * * *

2020 Master Electrician Exam Preparation Combos
2020 NEC Electrician
Exam Prep Combos:
Master / Journeyman


Member Spotlight
Berkley, MA
Posts: 144
Joined: March 2008
Show All Member Profiles 
Top Posters(30 Days)
BigB 1
Popular Topics(Views)
277,512 Are you busy
211,221 Re: Forum
198,244 Need opinion
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3