Public Inputs

Status
Not open for further replies.
Seems I got two out of twelve accepted to first revision status.

A third had a comment to the effect of choosing another PI with essentially the same effect but different wording.
 
You can go to First Draft Ballots and see PI's with responses, I think you can also see final ballots with votes and affirmative commentary.

Seems we had all this information in one place with the old ROC.
 
Smart $ said:
Public Inputs with Responses PDF (http://www.nfpa.org/Assets/files/AboutTheCodes/70/70_A2016_NEC_FD_PIResponses.pdf)
Click to expand...

If you go to First Revision with Final Ballot Results you can see the actual vote with the panel members Affirmative or Negative statements to the panel statement.

All I'm saying is that all this info was on the same page in the ROC. It would be nice to have all this on the same page or in one place.

I wonder if they could link the changes in the first draft to the PI, similarly to what they used to do with the NEC Direct website subscription service.
 
joebell said:
If you go to First Revision with Final Ballot Results you can see the actual vote with the panel members Affirmative or Negative statements to the panel statement. ...
Click to expand...
But that only shows the PI's that made it to the first revision (i.e. the rejects are omitted).

When it comes to comment stage, I'm guessing we can only comment on the accepted PI's, and not comment on rejected PI's. That seems a bit biased IMO.
 
This is such a HUGE step backwards in the process of creating the next code. This system is not user friendly and is MUCH less transparent. The only system was thousands of times better.
 
Smart $ said:
...
When it comes to comment stage, I'm guessing we can only comment on the accepted PI's, and not comment on rejected PI's. That seems a bit biased IMO.
Click to expand...
That is a big issue. Under the old system, proposals that were rejected in the ROP often were accepted in the ROC based on the comments. It really takes the public out of the process leaving it up to the CMP members.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
That is a big issue. Under the old system, proposals that were rejected in the ROP often were accepted in the ROC based on the comments. It really takes the public out of the process leaving it up to the CMP members.
Click to expand...

might be part of the reason they changed it. a lot of organizations do not really want input from outside.
 
petersonra said:
might be part of the reason they changed it. a lot of organizations do not really want input from outside.
Click to expand...
One of my PI's has a response message of...
"The existing text is clear and the proposed revision does not provide adequate substantiation to warrant the change without further testing. The submitter is encouraged to work with appropriate agencies to develop test data."

The PI involves sizing feeders and OCPD's after the initial OCPD's of single phase inverters connected to 3Ø systems line-to-line in a delta configuration. According to current wording, the feeders and OCPD sizing must be based on the [arithmetic] sum of inverter output ratings rather than the vector sum. It is a known fact since the advent of 3Ø systems that line currents are less than double phase currents, i.e. line current = phase current × 1.732. Are these guys really that dense???
 
Smart $ said:
One of my PI's has a response message of...
"The existing text is clear and the proposed revision does not provide adequate substantiation to warrant the change without further testing. The submitter is encouraged to work with appropriate agencies to develop test data."

The PI involves sizing feeders and OCPD's after the initial OCPD's of single phase inverters connected to 3Ø systems line-to-line in a delta configuration. According to current wording, the feeders and OCPD sizing must be based on the [arithmetic] sum of inverter output ratings rather than the vector sum. It is a known fact since the advent of 3Ø systems that line currents are less than double phase currents, i.e. line current = phase current × 1.732. Are these guys really that dense???
Click to expand...
I had much the same response to a PI that said you could parallel conductors of any size as long as the OCPD had a rating no greater than the ampacity of a single conductor. They wanted testing to say there is no hazard.

It appears to be a drive to make sure only manufacturer proposals can be accepted.

The NFPA needs to hear our feedback that the new system is not acceptable.
 
petersonra said:
They probably have a thing against ring circuits.
Click to expand...
Maybe so, but as long as the OCPD has rating equal to or less than a single conductor what is the hazard. I think in Europe, the ring circuit has an OCPD with a rating of twice that of the conductor.

Ring circuits was one of the reasons for my proposal. With the energy codes having mandatory maximum voltage drops, I was just trying to provide another option to be able to reduce the voltage drop.
 
Smart $ said:
I did a brief search for a feedback avenue. Didn't find anything with substance.
Click to expand...
They have something new called NFPA Xchange that has an electrical section. I have a couple of comments there. I was at the NFPA conference expo in Chicago yesterday, and they were really pushing you to join Xchange.
You do have to register and sign in.

https://community.nfpa.org/welcome
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top