1 members (Scott35),
538
guests, and
11
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 316
OP
Member
|
In Your opinion - What is the biggest , worst, most inconvenient , vague, or best change made in the 2017 NEC ?
|
|
|
|
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
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
Member
|
We're on the '17 in Vermont , this new inclusion in 110.14 caused quite the flap >>> 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
Member
|
This one has many wondering where to purchase what's needed....>> 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
Member
|
But by far and large, the one '17 change that left everyone in class with that 'kicked in the pants' look was this>>> 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
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
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. 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
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
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
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 ~S~
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 316
OP
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
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
OP
Member
|
I can not tell you how many dental chairs I have required to be field listed and labeled ..
|
|
|
Posts: 22
Joined: August 2009
|
|
|
|