2017 NEC webinar today

[petersonra]

Some interesting stuff. Nothing earth shattering. 4 new articles - 3 dealing mostly with alternate energy.

AFCIs will now be required on all branch circuits in dwelling units.

GFCIs will now be required on 250V circuits as well as 125V circuits in the areas currently specified as well as some new requirements for 3 phase GFCI called special purpose GFCI.

more places TR receptacles will be required.

mostly seems to be pandering to the manufacturers.

 

[petersonra]

one other thing. they are changing the definition of structure to specifically exclude equipment. the commentator said that was because some people were claiming equipment located outdoors was a structure.

I wonder if a pole is still a structure?

 

[peter d]

mostly seems to be pandering to the manufacturers.

I agree. This kind of corruption is what makes people like myself lose faith in model codes and standards.

 

[MasterTheNEC]

Yes, we had a huge secret meeting of the "SOOM" (Silent Order Of Manufacturers) and plotted the take over of the entire NEC and to methodically brain wash the entire code making panel process and it's members.:angel:

You have found us out........the tide of dominance will surly change at this point:slaphead:

FYI- Not All Branch Circuits.......You still have the HVAC, Range and Over that we will tackle next.....

 

[fmtjfw]

Yes, we had a huge secret meeting of the "SOOM" (Silent Order Of Manufacturers) and plotted the take over of the entire NEC and to methodically brain wash the entire code making panel process and it's members.:angel:

You have found us out........the tide of dominance will surly change at this point:slaphead:

FYI- Not All Branch Circuits.......You still have the HVAC, Range and Over that we will tackle next.....

The takeover should be easy. Electricians are always willing to change their opinions -- there is evidence everywhere on these fora (forums).

 

[bphgravity]

Not a single one of the seven newly proposed Articles were submitted by a manufacturer or NEMA. The four newly proposed Articles that were approved into a First Revision were submitted by two engineering firms, UL, and the SEIA.

Not a single one of the four new Articles create a mandate for installation. They simply provide prescriptive installations requirements IF and only IF someone choses to install the new systems/equipment. The products exist in the market, have associated product standards, and will now have code requirements.

A great majority of NEMA's public inputs and public comments are an effort to harmonize the NEC with other NFPA standards, product standards published by NEMA, and product standards published by other SDOs like UL, ASHRAE, Etc. The NEMA manufacturers that have submitted PIs & PCs are typically providing a solution to a problem, an innovative advancement in technology, or an enhancement to life safety and fire reduction.

Overall, manufacturer and/or NEMA submitted PIs and PCs are relatively few compared to other industry sectors, statistically speaking.

So, where is all the pandering and corruption? All you chicken little's need to stop crying wolf and screaming out that the sky is falling. You're starting to look a little silly...

 

[brother]

Not a single one of the seven newly proposed Articles were submitted by a manufacturer or NEMA. The four newly proposed Articles that were approved into a First Revision were submitted by two engineering firms, UL, and the SEIA.

Not a single one of the four new Articles create a mandate for installation. They simply provide prescriptive installations requirements IF and only IF someone choses to install the new systems/equipment. The products exist in the market, have associated product standards, and will now have code requirements.

A great majority of NEMA's public inputs and public comments are an effort to harmonize the NEC with other NFPA standards, product standards published by NEMA, and product standards published by other SDOs like UL, ASHRAE, Etc. The NEMA manufacturers that have submitted PIs & PCs are typically providing a solution to a problem, an innovative advancement in technology, or an enhancement to life safety and fire reduction.

Overall, manufacturer and/or NEMA submitted PIs and PCs are relatively few compared to other industry sectors, statistically speaking.

So, where is all the pandering and corruption? All you chicken little's need to stop crying wolf and screaming out that the sky is falling. You're starting to look a little silly...

I was curious of your opinion of the AFCI requirement being made when there wasn't enough testing in the field, and a slow phase in like gfcis. Also what do you think of the poll someone had on this forum concerning AFCIs

 

[ActionDave]

So, where is all the pandering and corruption? All you chicken little's need to stop crying wolf and screaming out that the sky is falling. You're starting to look a little silly...

Your mixing metaphors.

How come each new code cycle comes up with a solution from manufactures in search of a problem?

The people that came up with in use covers had nothing to gain by getting them adopted in the code?

The people that sell wire had nothing to do with rooftop temp corrections?

I will stay away from AFCIs. That one is too easy.

 

[iwire]

one other thing. they are changing the definition of structure to specifically exclude equipment. the commentator said that was because some people were claiming equipment located outdoors was a structure.

Per the current definition equipment outside is a structure. It is good that they are fixing it as long as they did not cause more harm then good.

I wonder if a pole is still a structure?

Good question.

 

[iwire]

Wow, what a surprise that past and present paid mouthpieces of the manufacturers are standing behind the manufactures.

It's almost like it is their job to do so.

 

[petersonra]

Wow, what a surprise that past and present paid mouthpieces of the manufacturers are standing behind the manufactures.

It's almost like it is their job to do so.

The webinar also claimed that the NFPA had changed the process, I think they used the word streamlined, but I don't recall exactly. If by streamlined they mean they made it much harder for the public at large to have any effective input, they are certainly accurate in that respect.

The new TR, AFCI, and GFCI requirements certainly look like a financial windfall for manufacturers.

 

[north star]

$ : $ : $

" petersonra asked: I wonder if a pole is still a structure? "

IMO, Yes !

From the `12 IBC, Ch. 2 - Definitions:"
STRUCTURE - That which is built or constructed. [A]

From an online Dictionary:
"noun
1. mode of building, construction, or organization; arrangement
of parts, elements, or constituents, a pyramidal structure.
2. something built or constructed, as a building, bridge, or dam.
3.a complex system considered from the point of view of the whole
rather than of any single part, the structure of modern science.
4. anything composed of parts arranged together in some way; an
organization.


A pole has not naturally occurred ! :happysad:



$ : $ : $

 

[fmtjfw]

NEC -- manufacturers paradise

NEC -- manufacturers paradise

The webinar also claimed that the NFPA had changed the process, I think they used the word streamlined, but I don't recall exactly. If by streamlined they mean they made it much harder for the public at large to have any effective input, they are certainly accurate in that respect.

The new TR, AFCI, and GFCI requirements certainly look like a financial windfall for manufacturers.

I think we should go back to basics. There are buildings not burning down with knob and tube wiring. I think the restriction on new knob-and-tube wring is just a ploy by the cable and conduit manufacturers.

The hoopla about the efficacy of GFCIs is overrated. I'm sure they have faked the statistics about the lowering of electrocutions since they have been introduced -- and HORRORS -- required. Anyone dumb enough to use electric near water or grounded item deserves what they get.

As a matter of fact the grounding requirements are just a way of selling a third conductor where you only need 2.

And the new fancy receptacles, don't get me started, if using Edison receptacles for lamps and irons and sweepers was good enough for my grandmother, it's good enough for me. It is a good thing however that they are no longer requiring fuse wires on the pendant lamp receptacle rosettes, 'cause they were always blowing when I run the sweeper, the light and the toaster using a multiple adapter. And that rule about receptacles every 12 feet, why you can just run a couple of wires from the light receptacle in the center of the room down to the floor and then run extension cords under the rugs to the radiola and such around the room.

And then there is the business about 90 degree insulation for lighting fixtures (I will not say lumin**res). If you don't touch the wires the insulation powder won't fall off the 60 degree wire.

And then there is the wide prong scam that means I have to trim the neutral prong or buy new extension cords from the extension cord cabal.

You know I would be hard pressed to find a code change in the last 40 years that was not just a way for manufacturers to make more money. None of it is about safety -- they just make it up.

Come to think of it maybe we should just use the 1920 version of the code and quit spending all this money on new code books.

 

[iwire]

I think we should go back to basics. There are buildings not burning down with knob and tube wiring. I think the restriction on new knob-and-tube wring is just a ploy by the cable and conduit manufacturers.

The hoopla about the efficacy of GFCIs is overrated. I'm sure they have faked the statistics about the lowering of electrocutions since they have been introduced -- and HORRORS -- required. Anyone dumb enough to use electric near water or grounded item deserves what they get.

As a matter of fact the grounding requirements are just a way of selling a third conductor where you only need 2.

And the new fancy receptacles, don't get me started, if using Edison receptacles for lamps and irons and sweepers was good enough for my grandmother, it's good enough for me. It is a good thing however that they are no longer requiring fuse wires on the pendant lamp receptacle rosettes, 'cause they were always blowing when I run the sweeper, the light and the toaster using a multiple adapter. And that rule about receptacles every 12 feet, why you can just run a couple of wires from the light receptacle in the center of the room down to the floor and then run extension cords under the rugs to the radiola and such around the room.

And then there is the business about 90 degree insulation for lighting fixtures (I will not say lumin**res). If you don't touch the wires the insulation powder won't fall off the 60 degree wire.

And then there is the wide prong scam that means I have to trim the neutral prong or buy new extension cords from the extension cord cabal.

You know I would be hard pressed to find a code change in the last 40 years that was not just a way for manufacturers to make more money. None of it is about safety -- they just make it up.

Come to think of it maybe we should just use the 1920 version of the code and quit spending all this money on new code books.

Now you are just being silly.

Can you point to any documentation, not from the makers or NEMA that proves AFCIs are doing the job we are promised they do?



Big business is big business regardless if it is cars (Volkswagen Diesel cheat) or electrical manufacturers. To try to pretend that big business does not try to manipulate codes and laws for their own profit is outright ridiculous.

 

[petersonra]

I often wonder how many lives (if any) have been saved by GFCIs and AFCIs. Or by TR receptacles. Most of the justification for extending requirements for these devices seems to rest on assertions rather than facts. I am not saying the assertions are not factual, just that it does not appear to me that any actual facts are getting in the way of these decisions.

 

[jumper]

Come to think of it maybe we should just use the 1920 version of the code and quit spending all this money on new code books.

I do not have a 1920. Can I use my 1923?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

The webinar also claimed that the NFPA had changed the process, I think they used the word streamlined, but I don't recall exactly. If by streamlined they mean they made it much harder for the public at large to have any effective input, they are certainly accurate in that respect. ...

I agree. The new process seems like it was specifically designed to limit public participation in the process.

 

[bphgravity]

Don,

You mean to tell me that a guy of your intelligence truly believes the IT team at the NFPA conspired to purchase a software package with the intent of limiting public participation in the process? The very same public that supports the NFPA's existence through membership and the purchasing of NFPA codes and standards?

It's so disappointing to see the value and potential of this Forum being ruined by this type of unfounded cynicism.

It appears that you and several others on this Forum have become quite jaded and have begun creating a series of delusions to support your lacking enthusiasm for the industry. I say this to you with all due respect. I feel sorry for you.

 

[petersonra]

Don,

You mean to tell me that a guy of your intelligence truly believes the IT team at the NFPA conspired to purchase a software package with the intent of limiting public participation in the process? The very same public that supports the NFPA's existence through membership and the purchasing of NFPA codes and standards?

There is very little public membership in NFPA. It is mostly industry and unions. As for the public buying the standards, it is not like they have all that much choice.

I don't know what criteria was used to evaluate the software selected.

 

[fmtjfw]

Don,

You mean to tell me that a guy of your intelligence truly believes the IT team at the NFPA conspired to purchase a software package with the intent of limiting public participation in the process? The very same public that supports the NFPA's existence through membership and the purchasing of NFPA codes and standards?

It's so disappointing to see the value and potential of this Forum being ruined by this type of unfounded cynicism.

It appears that you and several others on this Forum have become quite jaded and have begun creating a series of delusions to support your lacking enthusiasm for the industry. I say this to you with all due respect. I feel sorry for you.

I've been using computers and writing software since the 1960's. I've used and written text editing systems since the 1970's. I found the 2017 submission process counterproductive for me. I prefer to draft changes as packages and submit them from my locally developed file. The process of "live" editing a copy of 2014 was less comfortable. It also made it difficult or impossible to retain local copies of the changed text, another thing I wished to for my records.

In addition the "versioning" software would occasionally run amok and do a very bad job of generating legislative change format. Also some forms of subordinate statement formatting would come out completely wrong.

Also there appeared to be no way to note "typographical" rather than "substantive" issues.

Actually it was such a pain to make the original "proposals" I decided to completely ignore the "comments" phase.

There was also a period of time when the response time was minutes on simple edits and when my account got completely wedged.

If the goal was to offload the data input from your clerks and secretaries at NFPA, it served that purpose.