ECN Forum Forums Code Related Discussion NEC & other Code issues Lets Talk About Screws Some More

Ryan J, with all due respect,the Handook IS the Code Book with illustrations and intent. I have never had an AHJ tell me the Handbook is not enforcable. They have used it in conjunction with the "Official" Code Book.

Nothing personal, JMHO.

eesparx,

This is from the front of the NEC 2002 Handbook published by NFPA:

"The commentary and supplementary materials in this handbook are not part of the Code and do not constitute Formal Interpretations of the NFPA /..... / The commentary and supplementary materials, therefore solely reflect the personal opinions of the editor or other contributors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the NFPA or its technical committees."

Bill

[This message has been edited by Bill Addiss (edited 05-21-2004).]

Bill Addis,

I agree. I didn't mean to imply the supplementary material and commentary were part of the code.

Also from the front of the book:
"Notice Concerning Code Interpretations: This ninth addition of the National Electrical Code Handbook is based on the 2002 edition of the NFPA 70, National Electrical Code/. . . . /The handbook contains the <b>complete text<b/> of the NFPA 70 and any <b>applicable Formal Interpretatiions <b/>issued by the Association. These documents are accompianed by explanatory commentary and other supplementary materials".

In non-professional terms, The Weasel Clause:
"The commentary and supplementary materials in this handbook are not part of the Code and do not constitute Formal Interpretations of the NFPA /..... / The commentary and supplementary materials, therefore solely reflect the personal opinions of the editor or other contributors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the NFPA or its technical committees."


I take the code and profession very seriously; just enjoying a good debate.

I love this place.

Sheesh, I need to proofread before hitting the "send" button.

Hi eesparx, you can always edit your post if you need to with this button.

I have the hand book and I already know about the exhibits you speak of.

If you read the text with them you will find that it is info from UL for aluminum connections, no mention of copper.

Besides that there is no reference to a code section to enforce it. You could say 110.3(B) if instructions come with the product that specify a direction to wrap the screw.

This is just something to talk about, I expect the people working under my supervision to use the standard clock wise wrap.

Bob

If the wire is properly captive under the screw head, then IMHO it doesn't matter if the wire is wrapped clockwise or counter-clockwise.

This however is a matter of good practise: when you go clockwise, the wire pulls into the screw, and when you go counter-clockwise the wire gets pulled out of the screw. It is _harder_ to install the wire properly when your hook goes counter-clockwise.

Consider a wire that 'loops' around a screw, coming from somewhere, going 3/4 around the screw, and then continuing to another location. You can no longer define clockwise or counter-clockwise for this wire, but it can still be properly seated under the screw head.

-Jon

Violation? , I'd say no, looks like the box is bonded to me. Should the wire be wrapped the other way, yes but it looks like it is under the head of the screw.
Of course the hole isn't marked GND

Violation, 250.8. "Grounding conductors and bonding jumpers shall be connected by exothermic welding, listed pressure connectors, listed clamps or other listed means." My bet is since that screw is the only screw in the box its probably a sheet metal screw used to mount the box. Anyway, its not an exothermic weld or a listed connector so it's a violation.

Kalbrecht,

Please read this thread very carefully.

Peter

[This message has been edited by CTwireman (edited 05-21-2004).]

Yup, I read that post back when it was posted. Did I quote the code wrong or are going to show me a listing for that screw?