Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2020 Fire Fighter Disco 1 & 2 Family Dwellings 230.85

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #76
    Originally posted by MasterTheNEC View Post
    Actually is quite stupid actually.

    1) No one knows the products like the manufactures. I am 100% sure you do not know them nearly as well.
    Of course, and if you can articulate a supposed problem, code additions provide a solution.

    2) In this case, it was from a former employee who is now an independent consultant and very knowledgeable.
    3) He was not the only one to submit it, it was also submitted in the PI stage by the IAEI as well as other in the fire services. Once it made it to the PC Stage it was tagged to his submittal.
    Experienced inviduals like Don R are saying otherwise.

    4) Having someone submitted versus achieving a consensus and ultimately a 2/3 vote means that way more than the 2-3 manufactures on the committee has to agree with the intent of the proposed change. So your "theory" is that the entire CMP panel is corrupt and that is simply STUPID.
    History has shown any democratic system can be subverted, concurred, swayed, bought out, gerrymandered, fall to social climate induced turn over or to be blunt simply consisting of folks who are not independent thinkers relying on others who they perceive as more knowledgeable.

    If the panel listens to all things presented and feels it is a minimum safety standard change then they make the call. However, there is still voting by the CMP's that take place until Jan 11, 2019, and then lastly the NITMAM stage that can receive negative comments on changes that take place in the second draft, which is what we are voting on as we speak. If you did not like the proposed public input then where was your Public Comment against such a change?....Why is your involvement other than yapping away on a forum about how you disagree with something. The classic approach to those who do not want to be involved but have a comment on everything.
    Sometimes, you need a counter movement where like minds can collect and share their ideas unhindered. There is also the journalism aspect to any democracy. Any matter of public interest or that which impacts the public, can be brought forth to their attention.

    There are some of you that do get involved and make a difference and there are some that just yap their trap. To substantiate your position in well expressed public inputs and public comments and your yapping will have some credit, sit back and whine and complain when you have no credit. I can tell you with 100% certainty that in some cases things do get into the NEC by influence as I have witnessed it personally but it does not speak for the entire committee. What happens is (1) or (2) people with long-standing influence taint the committee because some on committees follow like blind sheep due to the respected nature of the person speaking. Yes, it is getting worse as more "sales" type technical folks get on the panels but to label them all as you all do....shameful and wrong.
    Even if you bared witness to the full breadth and scope of external bias, that to me would be more then enough. Because if it is not stopped now, it will progressively get worse. The mechanism is already there- its already moving on the tracks- it just now needs momentum. All else is in place- meaning the majority of the scheme has already been completed.

    However, you all have a long history of "twisting" folks words to meet your agenda so that's all good.....but clearly you do not know the CMP Panels and what it takes to get something in the NEC. If the manufacturers representative on the committee is well respected then YES they have influence BUT each person votes for their respective representation. for example, I represent AL and CU on different committees so when I ultimately vote it is at the will of the association and not for myself personally. My and other CMP's real role is to listen to the inputs and comments and determine their plausibility to safety and we listen to the various experts in the given field that are advocating for the change. And trust me I respect their knowledge way more than I would yours and I am sure that is mutual.
    I respect you- and I think you are there for good reasons. I do not doubt what you see- but remember its only what you see or rather what the world is meant to see. I have a saying in that regard: "everything has already been decided, but we play court only because law requires us too. Nowhere does law say we can not write the script and direct the show before hand"
    Our comedian shamelessly joked about a blackout. Talk about dark humor.

    Comment


      #77
      Originally posted by kwired View Post
      IMO having said "emergency disconnect" for first responders is somewhat pointless if the general rule for placement is nothing more than in a readily accessible location, outdoors. If going to have such rule it needs to be in specific location that emergency responders will know where to find it. As worded there is a wide open range of places said disconnect might be found, that has only been narrowed down to "readily accessible" and "outdoors". As time goes by it may not even be all that readily accessible when time comes to need to use it. What if a bush gets planted and grows enough that it makes it difficult to find? Stating that a disconnect or at least a remote operating device be within a certain area such as within a certain distance adjacent to main entrance - at least gives first responders a location to know where they should find what they are looking for.

      In past most of these single and two family dwellings were disconnected by first responders by pulling a meter. Only occasionally might you run into CT metering and that idea won't work.
      Most first responders now understand that is not something they should be doing.[/quote]

      On top of all that, there is no guarantee said switch will always interrupt all voltage in the facility, one really needs to test for voltage to be certain, then there could be automatic standby power that kicks in...

      I'm still failing to see the need for such a rule especially it only is for one and two family dwellings.
      As a former first responder, it would be much more important to me to be able to disconnect a commercial structure than a one or two family dwelling unit. The risk is much great in structures that are not dwelling units.
      Don, Illinois
      (All code citations are 2017 unless otherwise noted)

      Comment


        #78
        Originally posted by Adamjamma View Post
        OK, I understand the fact this seems to be another case of making something that will be hard to comply with but... are there any low voltage ways to make a remote system for a cutoff that would meet these requirements? For instance, placing a relay in the cutoffs that when the switch gets flipped tells all electric supplies to shut down... if the fire department flips the switch using the proper key, then all electric supplies are then told by the relays to shut down.
        but using hard wired cat 5 or bell cable so it is easy to embed in walls and keep from harm... maybe using a bell junction type of connection point to lead to the different panels, or generators, or electric panels, then causing the main breakers to turn off... kind of like the Schneider interlock in Europe that simply plugs onto the side of a Schneider main breaker.
        ....
        As currently written the rule does not permit any type of remote disconnect, one of the reasons it that the rule is intended to remove all power inside of the building. A remotely operated disconnect that is inside the building does not do that.
        Don, Illinois
        (All code citations are 2017 unless otherwise noted)

        Comment


          #79
          Originally posted by MasterTheNEC View Post
          Actually is quite stupid actually.

          1) No one knows the products like the manufactures. I am 100% sure you do not know them nearly as well.
          2) In this case, it was from a former employee who is now an independent consultant and very knowledgeable.
          3) He was not the only one to submit it, it was also submitted in the PI stage by the IAEI as well as other in the fire services. Once it made it to the PC Stage it was tagged to his submittal.
          4) Having someone submitted versus achieving a consensus and ultimately a 2/3 vote means that way more than the 2-3 manufactures on the committee has to agree with the intent of the proposed change. So your "theory" is that the entire CMP panel is corrupt and that is simply STUPID.

          If the panel listens to all things presented and feels it is a minimum safety standard change then they make the call. However, there is still voting by the CMP's that take place until Jan 11, 2019, and then lastly the NITMAM stage that can receive negative comments on changes that take place in the second draft, which is what we are voting on as we speak. If you did not like the proposed public input then where was your Public Comment against such a change?....Why is your involvement other than yapping away on a forum about how you disagree with something. The classic approach to those who do not want to be involved but have a comment on everything.

          There are some of you that do get involved and make a difference and there are some that just yap their trap. To substantiate your position in well expressed public inputs and public comments and your yapping will have some credit, sit back and whine and complain when you have no credit. I can tell you with 100% certainty that in some cases things do get into the NEC by influence as I have witnessed it personally but it does not speak for the entire committee. What happens is (1) or (2) people with long-standing influence taint the committee because some on committees follow like blind sheep due to the respected nature of the person speaking. Yes, it is getting worse as more "sales" type technical folks get on the panels but to label them all as you all do....shameful and wrong.

          However, you all have a long history of "twisting" folks words to meet your agenda so that's all good.....but clearly you do not know the CMP Panels and what it takes to get something in the NEC. If the manufacturers representative on the committee is well respected then YES they have influence BUT each person votes for their respective representation. for example, I represent AL and CU on different committees so when I ultimately vote it is at the will of the association and not for myself personally. My and other CMP's real role is to listen to the inputs and comments and determine their plausibility to safety and we listen to the various experts in the given field that are advocating for the change. And trust me I respect their knowledge way more than I would yours and I am sure that is mutual.
          That's a great speech Paul but the bottom line is that nobody who represents a for-profit corporation should be on the code making panels. Money is a great corrupter of people's intentions no matter how rosy a picture you try to paint.

          Comment


            #80
            Originally posted by peter d View Post
            That's a great speech Paul but the bottom line is that nobody who represents a for-profit corporation should be on the code making panels. Money is a great corrupter of people's intentions no matter how rosy a picture you try to paint.
            Again shows your ignorance in the process. I for example represent the Aluminum Association and Copper Development on CMP 5 and 17. If you don't have industry experts (and I could careless if you think I am or not) then you would have worse issues in the NEC. But then again this crap gets old......get on a panel and fix it fella since you have all the answers..LOL...I egarly await your fine work.
            *All code responses are based on the 2017 National Electrical Code®[NEC®]

            Comment


              #81
              Originally posted by don_resqcapt19 View Post
              As currently written the rule does not permit any type of remote disconnect, one of the reasons it that the rule is intended to remove all power inside of the building. A remotely operated disconnect that is inside the building does not do that.
              well, one fear I have about the disconnects is the problem of theives or vandals, which is very common on homes...but also note a section of the proposed code.. this will not be service equipment rated... so, if ot is not service equipment it cannot be between the meter and the main breaker... but instead must have the main breaker installed ahead of it. So, you are talking a high amp variation of a three way switch loop, meter to main breaker, main breaker to firefighter disconnect, firefighter disconnect to breaker panel for #poco, and then somehow running the solar or wind or water power through another firefighter disconnect located in same area...

              All of this done to make it easy for the firefighters to disconnect power at one spot, in theory, which also aids the thieves and vandals, but adds costs to the homeowner or builder, and, in reality, if one thinks about it, unless relays are used, low voltage ones for safety reasons, ie: 12 to 24 volts DC... you still have the probability of live wires in the structure or on the roof of the structure, especially when you have people such as myself who can and do modify grid tied gear such as microinverters to run off grid...

              The use of low voltage relays means yes, there is still low voltages, 12 to 24 volts, present for the responders, but hopefully they will be trained in how to fully safe a solar system when working around it on a roof...IE, disconnect the quick connects at teh panel groups or switch off the various combiner boxes... as they move around them. Given the heights involved in my own area to get to the roofs, I am sure that mainly first responders would be the ones up on the roofs rather than thieves as the roof hight in my area averages 30 feet above ground...

              Also, in my own area, breaker panels are normally on an inside wall, not an outside wall, in a hallway, due to the single thickness walls. Double walls like used in USA and UK are not normal..only cavities in walls here are those left by not filling the blocks with cement.

              So, I would want to see remote switching allowed to shut down the various panels, especially with the no more than six disconnect rule as some of the homes I have dealt with have four breaker panels, each with its own generator or solar interlocks, plus a main panel, plus all the inverters etc... a big trick here is to use a few panels on microinverters specifically for the water pumps to bring the water from underground tanks to roof tanks , tricked to run in daytime from aan ac circuit running from another part of the systems in the house, or to run it directly from DC if a dc water pump was found from the suppliers... Since this is a dedicated system of only two to three panels, sometimes one panel even, and no actual breaker boxes run by some of the people, how to disconnect this without running a remote disconnect is one of the things I need to figure out as I see this way more than some people would think... I am in a country where people have to keep at least a weeks water on site, and where the local water company only supplying water to your neighborhood once per week or twice per week is considered a good water service..lol..
              Student of electrical codes. Please Take others advice first.

              Comment


                #82
                Originally posted by MasterTheNEC View Post
                Again shows your ignorance in the process. I for example represent the Aluminum Association and Copper Development on CMP 5 and 17. If you don't have industry experts (and I could careless if you think I am or not) then you would have worse issues in the NEC. But then again this crap gets old......get on a panel and fix it fella since you have all the answers..LOL...I egarly await your fine work.
                The industry should respond to the NEC rules with products, not the other way around. That's why anyone in the industry should be forbidden. The tail doesn't wag the dog. You can't see this or admit it because your paycheck comes from the industry and you sure aren't going to bite the hand that feeds you.

                Comment


                  #83
                  Late coming to this one, but one thing that has barely been mentioned but seems to me the most important part of this discussion. Standby power. This code would not turn power off at my house. From what I have read it also will not disconnect power from many solar homes.


                  I know what I don't know, and I know where to go to find it!

                  Comment


                    #84
                    Originally posted by MasterTheNEC View Post
                    Welcome to Capitalism genius. If not for manufacturers you would still rubbing two sticks together to obtain fire. You clearly don't understand the "actual" makeup of a CMP but alas I would expect as much...
                    A code of this magnitude should not be directed from a capitalistic manufacturer or installer. It should be a reaction to a requirement from the fire fighting agencies it is allegedly attempting to protect.


                    I know what I don't know, and I know where to go to find it!

                    Comment


                      #85
                      Keeping in mind it s National Code, whenever folks discuss a service disconnect outside the house I think of some of our northern States.
                      At my age, I'm accustomed to restaurants asking me to pay in advance, but now my bank has started sending me their calendar one month at a time.

                      Comment


                        #86
                        You all kill me....for those who say the NEC is overstepping ask yourself why California is now requiring all new one and two-family homes to have PV Solar Panels installed. Now guess that was manufacturers also or your legislators at work.

                        https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...-homes-n872531
                        *All code responses are based on the 2017 National Electrical Code®[NEC®]

                        Comment


                          #87
                          Originally posted by MasterTheNEC View Post
                          You all kill me....for those who say the NEC is overstepping ask yourself why California is now requiring all new one and two-family homes to have PV Solar Panels installed. Now guess that was manufacturers also or your legislators at work.

                          https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...-homes-n872531
                          Apples and oranges. That law was passed by elected officials. There is recourse if those officials pass something their constituents do not like.

                          Comment


                            #88
                            Originally posted by packersparky View Post
                            Apples and oranges. That law was passed by elected officials. There is recourse if those officials pass something their constituents do not like.
                            Exactly. Besides, it's just a distraction from the real issue which is undue manufacturer influence on the CMP. Even if you take the most optimistic view, one can't help but ask why manufacturers need to be part of the code making process. They make products, not code rules. They can make their products to conform to rules and standards. It's not that hard. That's why I say it's corrupt through and through.

                            Comment


                              #89
                              Originally posted by Strathead View Post
                              Late coming to this one, but one thing that has barely been mentioned but seems to me the most important part of this discussion. Standby power. This code would not turn power off at my house. From what I have read it also will not disconnect power from many solar homes.
                              If the solar has a utility interactive inverter, the disconnection of the utility power will cause the inverter to shut down. A generator is another issue, but the code does require an external method to stop the prime mover for the generator. I expect that we will see a signage requirement at the emergency disconnect that would specific the location of any additional power sources in the future.
                              Don, Illinois
                              (All code citations are 2017 unless otherwise noted)

                              Comment


                                #90
                                Originally posted by Strathead View Post
                                A code of this magnitude should not be directed from a capitalistic manufacturer or installer. It should be a reaction to a requirement from the fire fighting agencies it is allegedly attempting to protect.
                                There were four PIs suggesting this rule. One from a retired industry person, one from an electrical contractor, one from a fire fighter associated with the International Association of Firefighters (the largest firefighter union) and one from the safety director of a large IBEW local. As Paul has pointed out, it take a 2/3s majority vote to accept a code change and no single interest group is permitted to have more than 1/3 of the total panel members on the CMP.

                                In many areas this already a common practice because of the local AHJs interpretation of the requirement that the service disconnect be nearest the point of entrance of the service conductors. They, like myself, read the word "nearest" to mean exactly that...you enter the inside of the building and run directly into or directly up or down into the service equipment.
                                Don, Illinois
                                (All code citations are 2017 unless otherwise noted)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X