Definitions

[bennie]

I am aware of at least two active code panel members participating on this forum.

I compliment them for their dedication to the electrical trade. Both appear to be very knowledgeable about electrical technology.

I firmly support a National Electric Code.

I am a harsh critic of the format, and interpretations, of the text, in the NEC book.

Ten very good electricians will have ten different view points of some sections. This is irresponsible, and counter to advancing the education of tradesman. Clarity, and the use of proper words, will correct this problem.

I am not active in the trade anymore. Should the words for ground conductor, change to bond conductor, I am glad to be out of it.

 

[charlie]

Re: Definitions

I am on Panel 10 and I know who "goodcode" is and which panel he is on (it is up to him to divulge that information). I am curious if there are any more active CMP members participating in this forum?

Bennie, I appreciate the kudos. I am sorry you feel that way about the Code. I am wondering how many have put in proposals for changes to "fix" the Code? I do know the usability task group has spent a tremendous amount of time to try to make the Code more user friendly. Fixing the Code is what happened to the cable and raceway Articles, Article 250, the rearrangement of many of the Articles, removing most of the exceptions, etc. It is a slow process but we are working on "fixing" the Code without losing anything in the process.

For what it is worth, the proposal for replacing grounding with bonding has failed in the proposal stage. The TCC has reported it did not get the required 2/3 vote to pass it in Panel 5 plus several panels have rejected the proposal.

I trust everything is going as well as it can for you?

 

[bennie]

Re: Definitions

Charlie: That is good news. That proposal should never come up again. When I reach 75 I may sign the book again

I admit neglecting to participate in the NEC system. I don't have many problems with the intent of the sections, my problem is with the interpretations, all ten of them.

 

[bennie]

Re: Definitions

Charlie: Should an airline pilot have a manual titled "How to fly an airplane" when he gets in the seat, you are in trouble.

If the same pilot also has a book titled "How to read the, How to fly an Airplane manual". You are really in trouble.

Sound like something else?

 

[bphgravity]

Re: Definitions

I am not on a CMP, but I would sure like to be on one. I downloaded the application, but I was told by a good source that getting on a panel is near impossible without an interest organization sponsorship. Any truth to this?

 

[charlie]

Re: Definitions

Bennie, the thing I don't like about your illustration is that electricians are not controlled country wide like pilots are controlled. Any jack leg can pick up a roll of cable and go at it in some parts of the country. In addition, try to just go to an airport and take off. If a guy wants a new outlet put into his home, he can get the parts himself or either ask neighbor to do it for him.

To answer your question, the electrician normally doesn't need the Code except for reference to the tables or for checking on something that he has run into that is unusual. The previous statement applies to trained electricians (normally those who have gone through BAT approved apprenticeship courses). I happen to believe in thorough apprentice training.

I know we have a lot of instructors that are active in this forum.

 

[physis]

Re: Definitions

Go Usability Task Group!

 

[charlie]

Re: Definitions

I was told by a good source that getting on a panel is near impossible without an interest organization sponsorship. Any truth to this?

Yes, you have to be a special expert or something similar to be an individual member. If you are a union member, try going through the IBEW or NECA, non-union, try ABC or IEC, inspector, try the IAEI.

I would much rather have electricians have your attitude towards the code verses those that accept every rule and requirement without question.

Bryan, take that a step further and submit proposals to change all the parts you don't like. That is why I have submitted proposals in the past and still do submit them. The difference is that now, I submit them through EEI where they carry a little more weight. Others submit theirs through their own organizations like the IAEI or IBEW. The panels know that the organization has already looked at the proposal and agrees with the substantiations given or they wouldn't submit that particular proposal.

 

[tom baker]

Re: Definitions

Bryan an easy way to get to know those on the CMP's and become known is to attend your local electrical inspector meetings of the IAEI. Most meetings will have CMP's attending, and the section meetings always have many CMP's there.
By the way this fall all the sections will be meeting in Orlando for the 75th anniversary meeting.
The IAEI has members on every code panel, you'll need to be active so they know who you are, and after a bit you could ask to be on a CMP.

 

[smenser]

Re: Definitions

Charlie,
My name is Steve Menser, Instructor for IBEW local 481 here in Indianapolis. I spoke with you on the phone about 2 years ago, and really enjoyed our conversation, and respect your opinions.(it was in reference to not requiring common trip 2-pole breakers 240.20(B)(2))I appreciate the support you show for apprenticeship training. I believe with the proper training in both electrical theory, and NEC it makes an electrician a true professional craftsman.

 

[charlie]

Re: Definitions

Thanks Steve, I appreciate your support. I taught for ABC and always learned more than the apprentices learned.

 

[bphgravity]

Re: Definitions

Charlie, you have no idea how right you are! I just finished my first year instructing for the Electrical Council of Florida - Manasota Chapter Apprenticeship Program. At first, I couldn't figure out how I was going to fill 3 hours a night at 2 nights a week with information. I figured I would have plenty of time to cover all the required topics (2nd Yr. Theory) and have several sessions left over to do whatever.

[ May 07, 2003, 09:11 PM: Message edited by: bphgravity ]

 

[caj1962]

Re: Definitions

Charlie
I could not agree more with your statement about learning more while you teach. I have been an instructor at IVYTECH for the last 9 years and I do work very hard to stay ahead of the game. I read from this forum everyday and usally by the time I get a chance to post some one already has the right answer. The knowledge that I see expressed in the answers and the questions impresses me. The problems that I face day to day also jump up and bite people all over the country and it is good to see that at times I do come up with the right answers.
Have a great day and a better tomorrow

 

[jmc]

Re: Definitions

Hi Charlie, I learned a heck of a lot in ten years of teaching in a Technical school and learned even more serving as NFPA Staff Liaison for the Code-Making Panels for 22 years. When I was an electrician, I used to ***** about the NEC because I thought it was written by some college guy in an ivory tower in boston. Then when I went to work for NFPA I found out it was the most democratic process in the world. It works very well with 400 voluntary members, such as yourself, providing the expertise. I don't complain any more even though I've retired, maybe I'll be a glutton for punishment and apply for one of the Panels, probably the panel on Grounding or is it bonding???
Regards, John M. Caloggero, JMC Electrical code Consulting.

 

[marissa2]

Re: Definitions

You couldn't be more correct about teaching apprentics. I have been doing't it here in CT for about 5 years now, mostly code and theory. It has to be about the best way to try and keep up with the code and get paid to do it. The only problem here is we teach and test from the 2002 code and use the 99 code in the field. One day an inspector got mad at one of my students for having to 2002 code book on a job.

 

[goodcode]

Re: Definitions

Hello Bennie. After the ROP stage it does not seem that the term "equipment grounding conductor will be replaced by the term "equipment bonding conductor." Your thoughts and those of all interested industry peers should take the form of a comment directed at individual proposals. This issue appeared in many proposals throughout the NEC. The submitters of these proposals are highly respected CMP members and a highly respected and active participant in this code forum. I understand the logic behind these proposals and believe that they are technically correct. This change is directed primarily at the new user. If we were introduced to the NEC using these terms and grew accustomed to applying these terms, the thought of changing to our present approach would seem crazy.
All that said, I can not support this change for two reasons. One, I do not see the user of the NEC having problems with the present text. Two, I think the proposed cure could be worse than the perceived illness.

 

[bennie]

Re: Definitions

Goodcode: Don and I have had many debates on the subject of bonding and grounding. I don't mean any offense to Don.
I asked him to go after being a moderator, due to his impressive knowledge.
We disagree on a few topics, but neither one of us are being tested, or keeping score.

I don't agree that the user of the NEC has no problem with the present text. I have a lot of problems. "Ing" and "ed" are the culprits for confusing a simple application.

 

[bennie]

Re: Definitions

I definitely do not agree that fault current carrying conductors are technically correct to be called bond conductors.

As I have stated many times " a bond is a short circuit" " an equipment ground is an inductor".

Conversely:
An equipment ground conductor, is not a short circuit, and a bond wire is not an inductor.

Electrically they are completely different technical applications.

 

[Ed MacLaren]

Re: Definitions

I was an electrical apprenticeship program instructor here (Canada) for 30 years. We had the same level of confusion here regarding grounding terminology. Very few electricians understood the difference between system grounding and equipment "grounding".

About 10 or 12 years ago our code adopted the term "bonding" in place of what was formerly known as "equipment grounding".
There was a definite and immediate improvement, especially among the younger guys.

It took some time to get the older fellows thinking straightened out. The old "equipment grounding" terminology had promoted the belief that all current, including so-called "ground fault" current, had to return to the earth.

I'm glad those days are over.

Ed

 

[bennie]

Re: Definitions

There is only three assignments for ground wires.

There is only one assignment for a bond wire.

What is confusing about that?