ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat
Recent Posts
Safety at heights?
by gfretwell - 04/23/24 03:03 PM
Old low volt E10 sockets - supplier or alternative
by gfretwell - 04/21/24 11:20 AM
Do we need grounding?
by gfretwell - 04/06/24 08:32 PM
UL 508A SPACING
by tortuga - 03/30/24 07:39 PM
Increasing demand factors in residential
by tortuga - 03/28/24 05:57 PM
New in the Gallery:
This is a new one
This is a new one
by timmp, September 24
Few pics I found
Few pics I found
by timmp, August 15
Who's Online Now
1 members (Scott35), 538 guests, and 11 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#218875 12/04/17 07:08 PM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 316
L
Member
In Your opinion - What is the biggest , worst, most inconvenient , vague, or best change made in the 2017 NEC ?


Stay up to Code with the Latest NEC:


>> 2023 NEC & Related Reference & Exam Prep
2023 NEC & Related Reference & Study Guides

Pass Your Exam the FIRST TIME with the Latest NEC & Exam Prep

>> 2020 NEC & Related Reference & Study Guides
 

Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,382
Likes: 7
Member
Luckyshadow

I would like to comment on this....but I have not seen any of the '17 changes as of yet.

NJ is not one to adopt a 'new' NEC quickly. I think when I get back to the office Wed. I'll have one of the clerical staff order the '17.

John

PS: Anyone have any comments??


John
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,116
Likes: 4
Member
Sorry, I'm not up on the 2017 NEC either.

I think I made a significant change to a prior NEC, but will never get the credit for that.

Bill


Bill
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,931
Likes: 34
G
Member
The last time I had a proposal "accepted in principle" was about LEDs in closets.
Florida is always a cycle or 2 behind so it will be a while before I get serious about the 17.


Greg Fretwell
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,392
S
Member
We're on the '17 in Vermont , this new inclusion in 110.14 caused quite the flap

>>>
Quote
110.14(D) Installation. Where a tightening torque is indicated as a
numeric value on equipment or in installation instructions
provided by the manufacturer, a calibrated torque tool shall be
used to achieve the indicated torque value, unless the equip‐
ment manufacturer has provided installation instructions for
an alternative method of achieving the required torque.


Apparently someone just had to ask about torque wrench calibration.....and it all went off in the ozone with certifications and qualified testers, etc....

It's Vermont , boring without snow.....

~S~

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,392
S
Member

This one has many wondering where to purchase what's needed....>>

Quote
210.8(B) Other Than Dwelling Units. All single-phase receptacles
rated 150 volts to ground or less, 50 amperes or less and three-
phase receptacles rated 150 volts to ground or less,
100 amperes or less installed in the following locations shall
have ground-fault circuit-interrupter protection for personnel.


~S~

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,392
S
Member
But by far and large, the one '17 change that left everyone in class with that 'kicked in the pants' look was this>>>

Quote
215.2 A 1 Exception No. 2: Where a portion of a feeder is connected at both its
supply and load ends to separately installed pressure connections as
covered in 110.14(C)(2), it shall be permitted to have an allowable
ampacity not less than the sum of the continuous load plus the noncon‐
tinuous load. No portion of a feeder installed under the provisions of
this exception shall extend into an enclosure containing either the feeder
supply or the feeder load terminations, as covered in 110.14(C)(1).



This is hard for me to 'splain , especialy w/o the HB pix .

It's essentially saying we can run a feeder @ 90C

There's a 1/2 page of if's & buts.....

I still don't get it...:(

~S~

Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,382
Likes: 7
Member
~s~
It’s been a while, so.....hello & welcome!!

The torque wrench thing will create debate, as you infer about calibrate.

I have to think about you second post a little bit

The third has my head spinning.


John
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 984
Likes: 1
G
Member
I'd be willing to bet that the torque thing is just to make sure that everyone has one to use instead of trusting the torque standard that we were to at Ford which was "tighten it until it snaps...then back it off a quarter turn".
Something tells me that nobody (except perhaps the truly anal AHJ's) will care about having a recent testing certification.


Ghost307
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,382
Likes: 7
Member
Ghost

FWIW. I know of two AHJs that are going to love the calibration thing..

I do not ‘witness test’, and I am not aware of any other inspectors who want to see/check any torque readings. Basically, it’s on the contractor, or the project design pro/engineer.








John
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,392
S
Member
Originally Posted by HotLine1
~s~
It’s been a while, so.....hello & welcome!!

The torque wrench thing will create debate, as you infer about calibrate.

I have to think about you second post a little bit

The third has my head spinning.



Good to read you as well HotOne .

Yeah the whole calibration thing just went off into the stratosphere here.

Our Green Mountain inspector guild is graced now and then by special guests , one of which was no other than Mr Jeff Sargent of npfa fame.

So he asks how many of us still turn a tool in the field to raise our right hand, then asks if that's our company torque wrench

lotta ..umhhhh...errrs....ahhhs.... from the audience.

Ever seeking compliance, we all go put a torque wrench , or torque wrench(s) in our rigs the next day

All fine and well until one savvy ahj asks 'how old is that thing?'

followed by a lotta 'i dunnos'....

the idea of calibration is thrown out

but no, we can't calibrate them ourselves, because we're not certified to calibrate them

so now we all search for certified calibrators

only to find it may costs more than the tool itself

One for the 'no good deed' files.....

~S~

Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,382
Likes: 7
Member
`s`
Yes there are instances where ‘testing’, ‘calibration’, or documentation’s can cost more than replacements.

Think about a torque wrench from a store similar to Harbor Freight, that is inexpensive and meets the needs of the tradesman. Out of the box, is it ‘calibrated’?? How does the tradesman know? OK, how about a similar tool from Grainger?? Or, how about one from your local supply house??

No derogatory comments are interred to any of the retailers above.



John
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,931
Likes: 34
G
Member
Back before the country was "Walmarted" (AKA you only get the quality you pay for) there was a big push for ISO 9000 that required documented processes for everything and the calibration of test equipment was a big part of that for the field. Just about the time all of that infrastructure was in place, the bean counters figured out the number of customers who would actually pay for that quality were far out numbered by those who wanted something just barley good enough to get the job done. I really do not trust that a tool from an offshore discount tool company even reaches that standard. I have one of those Harbor Fright laser pointed IR guns and all I can say is the laser is good for teasing the dog. The gun is horribly inaccurate. There is no way I would trust a torque wrench from those people.


Greg Fretwell
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,392
S
Member
Well i guess i'm just as guilty Greg

I went out and bought a cheap HD Torque wrench , and toddled off to use it on normal everyday things like meters and panel terminals (i haven't quite gotten down to device terminals as yet)

Only to find that, they're all kinda feeling 1/2 tightened down to me

Perhaps i've been cranking down on stuff for decades , but it just doesn't feel tight to me

But it gets better.....

Now i'm actually finding my readers (i hide them everywhere, it;s a denial thing) to figure the specs, and read that some equipment requires annual re-torquing

How that's going to happen out here in God's country is anyone's guess

~S~

Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,382
Likes: 7
Member
Greg

I hear you loud and clear, and agree 100%. You get what you pay for.

~s~
Yes, with the spec torque, things seem loose; however the more you use the torque wrench, the ‘Normal’ feel will come back to you.

I remember. Few broken terminals in 200 amp meter cabinets!!

Last edited by HotLine1; 12/19/17 06:52 PM. Reason: Inserted the missing ‘l’ in feel

John
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,392
S
Member
Yeah i suppose i'll get comfortable sooner or later HotOne, i guess it'll chalk it up to another 'old dog new tricks' deal and stop howlin 'bout it smile ~S~

Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 316
L
Member
Yes the torque requirement has the potential to become a real pain in the butt, both for those who will follow it and those who have to enforce it !

Another section I find to be helpful to the AHJ is 110.3(C) The NEC has now clarified who is to perform the field listing and labeling of questionable equipment. There has been numerous times I required equipment to be field listed /labeled and the EC has questioned by who and why only by those listed on osha.gov.

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,392
S
Member
That didn't occur to me , good Lord this sure can become complex....~S~

Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,382
Likes: 7
Member
Yes, field listing/labeling, by UL, or another recognized provider is required by AHJs on items that are not ‘labeled’.

A recent field evaluation of five identical custom packaging machines, generated a field label n each, and 27 pages each of data. 2 days on site, $26.5k total. Interesting, that these machines are at 2 other locations, and both of those had the same evaluation. BTW, it was required by the client, not the EC.



John
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 316
L
Member
I can not tell you how many dental chairs I have required to be field listed and labeled ..

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5