NECplus

[bphgravity]

I see the NFPA has reduce the price for subscription to the NECplus service to $10. They must not be getting a huge reception?

 

[iwire]

I see the NFPA has reduce the price for subscription to the NECplus service to $10. They must not be getting a huge reception?

That is still $120 a year to access a web site to help explain a product they sold us earlier. :roll:

I think that is crazy.

 

[celtic]

This site is free

 

[ryan_618]

If the following is an example of the info NECplus provides, I don't think I will be interested:

Q. The laundry in a dwelling unit has two 20-ampere circuits. Because only one circuit is required for a dwelling unit laundry by 210.52(F), is it permitted to use the second circuit to feed receptacles in a room other than the laundry?
Answer A. No. These circuits are not permitted to supply outlets other than the laundry receptacle outlets.
According to 210.11(C)(2), a receptacle installed in the laundry area is a laundry receptacle outlet. As such, it is required to be supplied by the one or more 20-ampere branch circuits installed to supply the laundry equipment. And, to ensure that the entire capacity of the laundry branch circuit(s) is reserved for laundry equipment, the Code does not permit outlets/loads in other rooms to be supplied by the circuit.

In my opinion, this answer is wrong on many levels.

 

[steve66]

I'm willing to provide wrong answers for a lot less than $10 a month.:smile:

 

[480sparky]

I'm willing to provide wrong answers for a lot less than $10 a month.:smile:

Hey, I provide wrong answers here all day long, and I don't charge anything!

 

[roger]

Yeah, I'll keep getting my answers here.

Roger

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

Yeah, I'll keep getting my answers here.

Roger

Even if it takes 3 pages and 100 posts to wade through.

 

[celtic]

Even if it takes 3 pages and 100 posts to wade through.

What's wrong with being fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated - leaving nothing merely implied....and the off topic tangents are always a fun trip

 

[steve066]

Even if it takes 3 pages and 100 posts to wade through.

That way you can always get the answer you wanted!!

Steve

 

[Energize]

If the following is an example of the info NECplus provides, I don't think I will be interested:

Q. The laundry in a dwelling unit has two 20-ampere circuits. Because only one circuit is required for a dwelling unit laundry by 210.52(F), is it permitted to use the second circuit to feed receptacles in a room other than the laundry?
Answer A. No. These circuits are not permitted to supply outlets other than the laundry receptacle outlets.
According to 210.11(C)(2), a receptacle installed in the laundry area is a laundry receptacle outlet. As such, it is required to be supplied by the one or more 20-ampere branch circuits installed to supply the laundry equipment. And, to ensure that the entire capacity of the laundry branch circuit(s) is reserved for laundry equipment, the Code does not permit outlets/loads in other rooms to be supplied by the circuit.

In my opinion, this answer is wrong on many levels.

First off, is this indeed an answer the NECPlus provided?

You also stated it was "wrong on many levels". The obvious one I see is they state all outlets in the laundry room are for laundry equipment and cannot supply other outlets in other rooms. What other "levels" makes this answer wrong? IOW, what else is wrong?

Thanks -

 

[charlie b]

It?s not just ?wrong? in the sense of involving incorrect information. It is ?wrong? in the sense of ?badness,? the sense of doing a disservice to the industry.

The technical errors comprise one ?level? of ?wrongness.? The fact that an authoritative organization is publishing incorrect information is another level. The fact that the particular organization that is publishing this particular set of incorrect information happens also to be the organization that publishes the NEC is a third level. The fact that they are charging so much money, and that they do not do enough to make sure their information is correct is a fourth level.

 

[cschmid]

What's wrong with being fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated - leaving nothing merely implied....and the off topic tangents are always a fun trip

Oh No that would never happen here..

It?s not just ?wrong? in the sense of involving incorrect information. It is ?wrong? in the sense of ?badness,? the sense of doing a disservice to the industry.

The technical errors comprise one ?level? of ?wrongness.? The fact that an authoritative organization is publishing incorrect information is another level. The fact that the particular organization that is publishing this particular set of incorrect information happens also to be the organization that publishes the NEC is a third level. The fact that they are charging so much money, and that they do not do enough to make sure their information is correct is a fourth level.

Well that answers my question when I seen it promoted on the back cover of my code book..thank You

 

[ptonsparky]

I am confused often enough without another source of confusion that costs me even more money. This is the only reputable source I need.:-?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Another thing to note is the opinions expressed on NEC plus are not processed in accordance with the NFPA rules for committee projects and are not official...just opinions like you find in the handbook commentary and on this site.
Don

 

[ryan_618]

First off, is this indeed an answer the NECPlus provided?

You also stated it was "wrong on many levels". The obvious one I see is they state all outlets in the laundry room are for laundry equipment and cannot supply other outlets in other rooms. What other "levels" makes this answer wrong? IOW, what else is wrong?

Thanks -

The code only requires one receptacle in the laundry [210.52(F)]. 210.11(C) requires a 20A circuit to feed the required outlet. This circuit can feed other outlets in the laundry, but it can't leave the laundry. In other words, I could run a 20A circuit to a receptacle mounted on the ceiling of the laundry. That would satisfy 210.52 and 210.11. After that, I could use a 15A circuit to feed everything else in the laundry, and that circuit could leave the laundry as well.

In regards to "is this an NECplus answer", yes it is. I got it from the public section of NECplus. Here is the link: http://www.necplus.org/Lists/CodeTo...rg/Public/Applying%20the%20Code%20Answer.aspx

 

[tallguy]

Another thing to note is the opinions expressed on NEC plus are not processed in accordance with the NFPA rules for committee projects and are not official...just opinions like you find in the handbook commentary and on this site.
Don

All kidding aside, I would opine that the posts on this site are inherently more valuable than a printed or website based NEC interpretation. Here one gets the benefit of multiple perspectives -- design engineers, master electricians, j-men and women, apprentices, residential, commercial, industrial, old-work, new-work (this is starting to sound like Dr. Seuss :smile: ), service, electrical inspectors, combo inspectors, and on and on.

If someone writes a bonehead answer in one of those outlets, you might see a correction weeks or months later. Here, a knucklehead post is liable to be corrected within hours, or sometimes minutes.

There are certain issues about which there is inconsistency, either in interpretation/application (e.g. "subject to physical damage") or typical practice (using SER for service entrances), and for these we get to see all angles, and can learn how things are typically done in different jurisdictions.

And, as Celtic mentioned, it's fun here -- something not to be overlooked. Is there anything funny in the NEC, handbook or otherwise? Other than the first half of 90.1(C) of course...:grin:

 

[tallguy]

The code only requires one receptacle in the laundry [210.52(F)]. 210.11(C) requires a 20A circuit to feed the required outlet. This circuit can feed other outlets in the laundry, but it can't leave the laundry. In other words, I could run a 20A circuit to a receptacle mounted on the ceiling of the laundry. That would satisfy 210.52 and 210.11. After that, I could use a 15A circuit to feed everything else in the laundry, and that circuit could leave the laundry as well.

In regards to "is this an NECplus answer", yes it is. I got it from the public section of NECplus. Here is the link: http://www.necplus.org/Lists/CodeTo...rg/Public/Applying%20the%20Code%20Answer.aspx

Sounds like they want to treat it like a bathroom circuit... They would need to have 210.11(C)(2) changed to say "Such circuits shall have no other outlets."

 

[cschmid]

All kidding aside, I would opine that the posts on this site are inherently more valuable than a printed or website based NEC interpretation. Here one gets the benefit of multiple perspectives -- design engineers, master electricians, j-men and women, apprentices, residential, commercial, industrial, old-work, new-work (this is starting to sound like Dr. Seuss :smile: ), service, electrical inspectors, combo inspectors, and on and on.

If someone writes a bonehead answer in one of those outlets, you might see a correction weeks or months later. Here, a knucklehead post is liable to be corrected within hours, or sometimes minutes.

There are certain issues about which there is inconsistency, either in interpretation/application (e.g. "subject to physical damage") or typical practice (using SER for service entrances), and for these we get to see all angles, and can learn how things are typically done in different jurisdictions.

And, as Celtic mentioned, it's fun here -- something not to be overlooked. Is there anything funny in the NEC, handbook or otherwise? Other than the first half of 90.1(C) of course...:grin:

I agree with that statement..I have reread several articles and view them differently because of the info I have read here..There are alot of good brains on this site..So lets keep up the good work..

 

[iwire]

All kidding aside, I would opine that the posts on this site are inherently more valuable than a printed or website based NEC interpretation. Here one gets the benefit of multiple perspectives --

I agree and it is for that reason I rarely answer NEC questions that show up in my PM box. I feel much better posting on the forum and then providing what I think is the answer. If I blow it someone will (as they should) call me on it.

Here, a knucklehead post is liable to be corrected within hours, or sometimes minutes.

You can count on it, sometimes within seconds.