What Happened to the NEC ?

[wbculley]

Hi Mike:
I've been trying to find a place to ask this ? for many years.
The NEC was originally designed to protect persons from electrical shock or electrocution and equipment and buildings from fire and damage.
What happened to that.Today's code can be understood by almost no one and what we did used to understand is constantly moved around to where you can't find it. The first page now has a disclaimer which says if you use this code and something bad happens don't blame us cause we apparently don't believe it either.It now basically says YOU MUstt Do It This Way Unless You Do It Another Way ?
Plus the whole book is crossed referenced to the whole book. The code panels are a bunch of politically motivated people Mfg,Unions.ContrAssoc. etc very few Elec Engr and maybe NO practising electricians. The Matter of product quality which is currently our biggest problem is completely Ignored.Why can't we have some people with common sense on these panels. Speak up Mike

 

[Ponchik]

I don't think Mike responds in these forums. So i wouldn't hold my breath.

Are you angry about something in the code? are upset that the code exists or it has evolved?

 

[480sparky]

I don't think Mike responds in these forums. So i wouldn't hold my breath.

He does. But I think to date, he's got something like 7 or 9 posts.

Are you angry about something in the code? are upset that the code exists or it has evolved?

I hear Wal-Mart is hiring.

 

[JDB3]

Jdb

Jdb

I agree, that moving code articles around makes it hard to use the NEC. Would be nice to leave articles where they are & NOT be moved around.

 

[brian john]

Hi Mike:
I've been trying to find a place to ask this ? for many years.

Why wait so long every electrician has an opinion, just ask one.

The NEC was originally designed to protect persons from electrical shock or electrocution and equipment and buildings from fire and damage.

Where in the NEC do you see it does not reflect safety?

What happened to that.Today's code can be understood by almost no one and what we did used to understand is constantly moved around to where you can't find it. The first page now has a disclaimer which says if you use this code and something bad happens don't blame us cause we apparently don't believe it either.It now basically says YOU MUstt Do It This Way Unless You Do It Another Way ?

The NEC is was not written to be understood by EVERYONE, it is for professionals, with training and insight, for me that insight comes from others like the MH members. As for how you do something that is based on the NEC, Local Codes, job specs and personal preference.

Plus the whole book is crossed referenced to the whole book.

This can be confusing and I would like to see the NEC set up with less jumping around, but then we would all complain about the weight of the book. Hence the Handbook.

The code panels are a bunch of politically motivated people Mfg,Unions.ContrAssoc. etc very few Elec Engr and maybe NO practising electricians.

I generally agree with this statement, it gets very expensive for the average joe electrician to attend meetings, while not getting paid.

The Matter of product quality which is currently our biggest problem is completely Ignored.Why can't we have some people with common sense on these panels. Speak up Mike

Product quality falls under other standards.

As for Mike speaking up, maybe maybe not, attend a MH seminar and ask him face to face.

 

[kwired]

I think some of the changes the past few cycles, although are harder for those of us who are used to where things were before is actually going to be easier for someone just learning how to use the NEC. There is more consistancy from one article to the next as to how things are arranged.

For examplemost major articles start with a scope as XXX.1 definitions used in that article as XXX.2 and other articles that may be related are mentioned in XXX.3.

Go to wiring methods in chapter 3 and most of them start with scope, definitions, 3XX.10 is uses permitted, 3XX.12 is uses not permitted. They also all pretty much have same structure of part I General, part II installation, part III construction specifications.

Some of this structure was not always there.

 

[stevenje]

He does. But I think to date, he's got something like 7 or 9 posts.

He's got a ways to go, before he becomes a senior member!

 

[wbculley]

you have NEC mindsets

you have NEC mindsets

Obviously from the replies to my "attack" on the Nec you all have locked in mind sets
about the written word. When you get older you will understand more.
Its all a game!

 

[iwire]

Obviously from the replies to my "attack" on the Nec you all have locked in mind sets
about the written word. When you get older you will understand more.
Its all a game!

If our trade was easy we would make even less than we do now.

If I wanted a mindless job I would be a sheetrocker.

By the way many of the people responding have many years under their belts.

 

[roger]

When you get older you will understand more.

How much older?


Roger

 

[brian john]

Obviously from the replies to my "attack" on the Nec you all have locked in mind sets
about the written word. When you get older you will understand more.
Its all a game!

41 years in the trade, maybe 12-15 years left to work, I doubt my mindset is going to change. I have found that as a single electrician that is NOT involved with making the NEC, I have three choices. I can whine and complain and learn NOTHING, I can dedicate my time to getting on a code panel, or I can do my job and utilize the NEC to insure all my work is code compliant, and keep as up to date as possible on all changes.

Which road you take is your choice.

Then there is an option you can take make, personal attacks on fellow tradesmen you have never met. WISE CHOICE

 

[bphgravity]

I believe the NEC would be much shorter document if only the sections were to remain that are purely required to satisfy sections 90.1 (A), (B) & (C) of the code.

I think it would be an intersting excercise if one were to edit the code down to just those principles much like Thomas Jefferson did with the New Testament of the Christian Bible. I am not sure everyone would agree with what would have to stay and what would have to go, but there are positively many requirements that are not necessary for "practical safeguarding of persons and property".

This would be my comparison. A version of the NEC that only satisfies the Practical Safeguarding, Adequacy, and Intention of the code is much like a 1908 Ford Model T. The 2011 NEC is much like a 2011 Ford Mustang. Society will tell you that many of the features of a newer automobile are "necessary", but in truth they are not...

 

[Hendrix]

Obviously from the replies to my "attack" on the Nec you all have locked in mind sets
about the written word. When you get older you will understand more.
Its all a game!

How profound. Isn't life a game ? Or is it a play ?

 

[renosteinke]

Life is but a stage, and we are all players. Willie says so.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

wbculley,
Have you ever submitted a proposal?

As far as electricians on the CMPs, many of the NECA members are active electrical contractors, many of the IBEW members are active electricians and both of those organizations have one member on each of the panels. Many of the manufacturers reps on the panels are electrical engineers.

 

[pfalcon]

Obviously from the replies to my "attack" on the Nec you all have locked in mind sets
about the written word. When you get older you will understand more.
Its all a game!

You aren't getting specific answers because you're not asking specific questions nor giving specific examples of the problems you find in the NEC.

Not only did Atlas shrug but he keeps shrugging cause of all the people who critique the book without actually having read it. They make vague noises about how they object to its contents without really saying anything solid.

Give us a few specific "fer instances" (chapter, verse references) and you'll get many helpful responses. Otherwise the forum members just tend to play.

 

[stevenje]

If our trade was easy we would make even less than we do now.

If I wanted a mindless job I would be a sheetrocker.

By the way many of the people responding have many years under their belts.

If you have been in the trade for a while, you begin to see that there are two completely different types of electricians when it comes to the NEC. The first group rarely picks up or even owns a current code book. They are intimidated by it. They are unwilling or unable to adapt to the changes to keep current with our trade.

The second group see it as a duty and responsibility to the trade. They take pride in the fact, that they are trying understand and stay current with the NEC. They consider it a requirement of their job. They simply like a challenge. And as we all know, the ever changing NEC is a challenge.

IMHO the majority of the members of this forum belong to the second group. And for that fact I am proud to be a member.

 

[bobserrano]

As an inspector myself nothing pleases me more than going to a job and having the electrician pull out the current version of the NEC and justify an installation that I might have issue with. He probably just taught me something very valuable to be used at my trade and given me information I can share with others. I don't think there is anyone who completely 100% knows and understands everything in the NEC. The NEC has and will keep evolving into a better document. It takes willingness, patience, and a disire to discuss in order to learn and understand. On the other hand nothing irks me more than someone saying "I have been doing it this way for 30 years and I haven't burned down a house yet". That statement is just plain ignorant. Kudos to Mike Holt and all of you on this forum for willing to help others better understand the NEC and make this a safer world as far as electrical installations go.

 

[PetrosA]

As an inspector myself nothing pleases me more than going to a job and having the electrician pull out the current version of the NEC and justify an installation that I might have issue with. He probably just taught me something very valuable to be used at my trade and given me information I can share with others. I don't think there is anyone who completely 100% knows and understands everything in the NEC. The NEC has and will keep evolving into a better document. It takes willingness, patience, and a disire to discuss in order to learn and understand. On the other hand nothing irks me more than someone saying "I have been doing it this way for 30 years and I haven't burned down a house yet". That statement is just plain ignorant. Kudos to Mike Holt and all of you on this forum for willing to help others better understand the NEC and make this a safer world as far as electrical installations go.

While I agree with most of what you (and others) are saying, I also think that the NEC has gone downhill in at least two ways.

In my opinion it's way less "user friendly" today than it was 25 years ago when I started. The fact that there are so many misunderstandings and arguments as to intent in pretty simple questions should be a warning indicator to the authors. If the intent of complicating the code is to bring us to a point where, like in some countries, you have to get an engineering degree to become a master electrician than that's fine, but let's make that intent clear. The reality is that most people who use the code have a lot of difficulty understanding the wording and cross referencing (I know I do) and that difficulty in understanding can affect their willingness to reference the code in the first place, which can't be a good thing.

It's credibility has been weakened in many people's minds, most notably by the AFCI requirements but by other product pushes as well. Code changes can be proactive or reactive but the bulk of NEC tradition has been reactive. An example of reactive change would be requiring neutrals at all switch locations to prevent the use of EGC as neutral for occupancy sensors which are a new product required by law in some areas. That's a good thing. A proactive example is the AFCI breaker. One could argue that arc fault dangers would have been better mitigated by reactive code changes like eliminating backstab type devices, requiring more receptacles and non NEC changes like higher standards for device terminals and performance etc. versus proactively requiring a new (and basically untested) technology that costs billions of dollars to implement.

Granted, user friendliness is hard to achieve in a document as large as the NEC and credibility can be defended overall, but both areas could use some work as I see it.

 

[zbang]

An example of reactive change would be requiring neutrals at all switch locations to prevent the use of EGC as neutral for occupancy sensors which are a new product required by law in some areas. That's a good thing.

No, it's not. Just like general legislation, it's adding a specific rule to address something that's already covered by a more general rule elsewhere. AFAIK, it was never compliant to use the EGC as a current carrying conductor, therefore there is no need for a rule to address a specific case of non-compliance. The fact that on retrofit some people were doing non-compliant installations does not mean that a new rule was needed.

This shows up in many discussions about things like where to put a SBJ or whether two ground rods are required. (Rods? Install a second and call it done, why spend 30 minutes discussing.) To be sure, some of these can become confusing, but as a whole they're simple rules that should be applied simply, at least at the outset. Unfortunately, often the way the code is written (stylistically) does not convey the simplicity, and many folks don't take the time to digest the whole of the applicable code and instead fixate on one small section.