Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Best Feature of the 2008 NEC and controversial changes

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

    Best Feature of the 2008 NEC and controversial changes

    The 2008 NEC has the changes in gray text boxes, they jump right off the pages at you. It makes the gray areas very clear! But from an instructors point it will make it easy for the student to follow allong
    I've already found my first 2011 NEC change.
    Next weekend I post the changes for the Anchorage IAEI meeting that generated the most comments. Ryan Jackson took a lot of heat for his proposal that conduit longer than 18" between two enclosures or boxes has to be supported, but that wasn't his intent in the proposal.
    One change I wasn't aware of is an 702 generator with ATS will have to be able to automatically load shed or pick up the entire load.
    Moderator-Washington State
    Ancora Imparo

    #2
    Originally posted by tom baker
    . Ryan Jackson took a lot of heat for his proposal that conduit longer than 18" between two enclosures or boxes has to be supported, but that wasn't his intent in the proposal.

    That has been discussed here before. I'm curious, what was his proposal and why did he take some heat?
    Rob

    Moderator

    All responses based on the 2017 NEC unless otherwise noted

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by infinity
      That has been discussed here before. I'm curious, what was his proposal and why did he take some heat?
      If i remember, the intent was the converse. That conduit runs between panels/equipment that were ?? inches or less would be considered to be supported by the panels/equipment and didn't need any other means of support.

      Here is the substantiation for the Code proposal the way that it was sent in to the NFPA:

      Unsupported raceways are violations of the Code that occur everyday. As written, a 3 inch length of conduit between enclosures is required to be supported, despite the fact that it adds little if any structural value to the system. Quite often, particularly with conduit nipples, securing and supporting a raceway shorter than 36 inches is not possible. Furthermore, securing and supporting is of little value on lengths less than 36 inches where the conduit terminates at a box on each end, where the box is installed and supported in compliance with its applicable Code section.

      But this substantiation refers to conduit lengths 36 inches and less and Tom's post refers to 18 inches. So maybe we are not talking about the same proposal here.

      Ryan?
      Eric Stromberg, P.E. Texas

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by tom baker
        The 2008 NEC has the changes in gray text boxes, they jump right off the pages at you. It makes the gray areas very clear!

        Boy howdy, that is going to make it hard for me to get a free, readable, copy of the NEC by running it, page by page, through my company's copying machine!
        Charles E. Beck, P.E., Seattle
        Comments based on 2017 NEC unless otherwise noted.

        Comment


          #5
          Tom Baker wrote: It makes the gray areas very clear

          The goal of every teacher.

          On the other hand, it could be said that the NEC was always black and white. Now, there are many gray areas. :wink: :cool:
          Eric Stromberg, P.E. Texas

          Comment


            #6
            The proposal was for 3' of unsupported raceways to ba allowed. Panel 8 twisted it to require anything over 18" to be supported, and to not have a length limitation on raceways with concentric or eecentric knockouts! Now there is a requirement to secure a 2" long raceway if it has a concentric!

            This all got brought up because an installer called me and aksed if his AHJ could legally require him to secure an 18" length of conduit. I told him that in the 2005 NEC, nothing allows a typical raceway to be unsupported. I then made the proposal to make the industry practive of 3' legal, but it went down the tube when CMP 8 got a hold of it.
            Ryan Jackson, Salt Lake City
            Inspector, Instructor

            Comment


              #7
              Here is the link to the original discussion on this proposal, should anyone be interested. http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthrea...hlight=raceway
              Ryan Jackson, Salt Lake City
              Inspector, Instructor

              Comment


                #8
                It makes the gray areas very clear!
                And I was always told there were no gray areas in the NEC
                Don, Illinois
                (All code citations are 2017 unless otherwise noted)

                Comment


                  #9
                  I, myself do not like seeing the "gray areas" to designate the changes. I liked the line in the margin. It is just another item in the book that the casual reader will have to be aware of. It will also screw up the way I hightlight the book. :wink:
                  Instructor, Industry Advocate

                  Comment


                    #10
                    I consider EMT securely fastened if the length is 3 feet or less between connectors. The NEC doesn't specify how it has to be fastened.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Nec

                      (NEC)-National ELECTRICAL "CONFUSION"!????????????

                      Comment


                        #12
                        derating roof conductors

                        Why the wording "from the bottom?" on the new proposal. I don't have the latest CROP, Thanks!

                        Mike Holt has done well by us all with this site, Kudos!

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X