User Tag List

Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 8 9 10 11 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 110

Thread: 2020 Fire Fighter Disco 1 & 2 Family Dwellings 230.85

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    24,140
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by augie47 View Post
    Keeping in mind it s National Code, whenever folks discuss a service disconnect outside the house I think of some of our northern States.
    It is already a common practice for many contractors up here
    Don, Illinois
    (All code citations are 2017 unless otherwise noted)

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    24,140
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by peter d View Post
    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.
    While there are rules in the code that I don't like, there is ZERO basis to even suggest corruption. You are way off base here.
    Don, Illinois
    (All code citations are 2017 unless otherwise noted)

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    13,938
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by don_resqcapt19 View Post
    While there are rules in the code that I don't like, there is ZERO basis to even suggest corruption. You are way off base here.
    Your world view is far more rosy and optimistic than mine. I stand by what I said - money and profit motivation corrupt even the best of intentions and desires and that includes the code making process. Look at how easily politicians are bought off and you're going to tell me that the code making process is somehow immune from corruption? Are you serious? I'd say you're the one who is off base.

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    9,176
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by don_resqcapt19 View Post
    While there are rules in the code that I don't like, there is ZERO basis to even suggest corruption. You are way off base here.


    Read the ROPs. Look at the rules themselves vs physics and the real world. Then look at how code rules force more products.

    Yes there is nothing out in the open beyond a doubt suggesting corruption, but just on the surface red flags are going up for me and it needs to be taken seriously starting now.

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    2,524
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Read Dr Engel's ROP , circa '14

    call it what you will....

    he was trying to right a serious wrong

    ~RJ~

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NE Nebraska
    Posts
    41,346
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by peter d View Post
    Manufacturers influencing CMP's to require the use of their own products by force and decree is not capitalism, that's pure corruption. As for CMP's, I understand them just fine and including manufacturers on them is one of the worst decisions the NEC ever made.
    I don't have a problem with manufacturers being involved, they do know things and do a lot of research. Problem is they also do this for profit, they don't want to put a lot of research into something and have no return from it, this leads to some extent lobbying with as much positive information as possible for selling their perspective and to keep any negatives to a minimum, throw the name of safety in there a lot and it becomes an easier sell to others that aren't invested in the same ways.

    Why isn't you or I on these CMP's, might not be that we aren't knowledgeable enough, just aren't in the right position or have the time to dedicate to it. I don't know enough about how it all works, I doubt the members are paid or at least receive any extraordinary pay directly for being a CMP, but they can receive pretty good pay from whoever they do ordinarily work for. I can see them maybe being paid enough to cover most of their direct costs related to being part of the CMP. If I wanted to pay myself extra for being involved in the code making process, I have to work even harder at my regular job to raise the funds.

    Quote Originally Posted by don_resqcapt19 View Post
    Most first responders now understand that is not something they should be doing.

    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.[/QUOTE]Which I ask why just one and two family dwellings? The rule does make some sense but then limiting it to just those two applications makes no sense at all.

    Quote 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.
    Every rule you can make has an upside and a downside. If the rule in question benefits you in some way you focus on as much of the upside as possible, regardless of what the downsides may be. Not going to be many exceptions to this, not in today's world.

    Quote 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.
    Kind of already addressed this above, industry experts are necessary, but at same time can't have too many involved with common benefits from whatever issue is the topic or it becomes too one sided. Too one sided means more focus on the positives and less attention on possible negatives.

    Quote 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.
    And there should be more studies done to verify if there is a need, and/or if different training is necessary.

    Is under 1000 volts really that much of an issue for first responders that they shouldn't enter a burning building before power is shut down? By the time it is more significant of an issue the building might not be safe to enter, period, and there is nobody going to be successfully rescued at that point anyway.

    Quote 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
    Last I knew California law and the NEC were not written by the same people. California even writes their own electrical code, though the bulk of it comes directly from NEC AFAIK.

    Quote Originally Posted by don_resqcapt19 View Post
    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.
    PI's can come from anybody, those with extra interest and time/money to pursue are the ones that keep it moving through the process or find ways to make it stall.
    I live for today, I'm just a day behind.

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Ocala, Florida, USA
    Posts
    3,090
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by don_resqcapt19 View Post
    While there are rules in the code that I don't like, there is ZERO basis to even suggest corruption. You are way off base here.
    I think corruption is too strong of a word, and I don't advocate some sort of overreaction to a minor problem. We have too much of that already. However, the industry's influence on the issues we are talking about is obvious and often costly and the benefit questionable. My biggest pet peeve is arc fault. For example. In this case, if the intent is to protect fire fighters by giving a method of disconnecting power without entering a facility, then I have two comments. First and agreement that limiting it to dwelling units (just like with arc fault) makes me question the motive and as such it would be applicable to ALL facilities. Second, the wording. It should require exactly what its intent is. A means of ensuring all power is removed from the facility prior on the exterior of the building. In one place if also desired. How that is accomplished is purley means and methods and should not be in the code. In this case, meaning that shunt trip should be an option.


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

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    2,524
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think corruption is too strong of a word, and I don't advocate some sort of overreaction to a minor problem.
    sure....

    how's a capitalist system only sees capitalist remedies sound ?


    ~RJ~

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Hawthorne, New York NEC: 2014
    Posts
    4,735
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Or a solution to a problem that doesn't exist or nobody wants. Capitalists are good at turning that into $$$$.

    -Hal
    Last edited by hbiss; 01-04-19 at 06:01 PM.

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Hawthorne, New York NEC: 2014
    Posts
    4,735
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm reminded of the Saw Stop. An inventor invents and patents a product that stops a table saw blade before it cuts the operator. His invention should make him millions if saw manufacturers adopted his technology. But saw manufacturers balked at paying him the per saw licensing fee and weren't convinced that the safety brake system wasn't without major drawbacks or was even needed. Undaunted, the inventor petitions the CPSC to REQUIRE all manufacturers to use his technology. Fortunately that backfired also.

    Maybe we need the government to get involved with what goes on within the NEC. Apparently the CPSC is involved with the AFCI debacle also.

    CPSC commissioners in favor of the rule point out that the $200 price difference is dwarfed by the financial cost, and pain and harm caused by 30,000 ER visits and more than 4,000 amputations every year. CPSC's analysis puts the annual cost of table saw accidents at around $4 billion.

    Susan Young with the industry group the Power Tool Institute claimed at the hearing that some of the commission's research in this area is flawed. She said the proposed rule needs even more study and "lacks essential data from critical studies currently being conducted and continuing throughout 2017."

    CPSC Acting Chairman Ann Marie Buerkle said she was also concerned that the rule might force companies to license technology from SawStop, which she said might create a monopoly.


    Other commissioners said the rule wouldn't create some kind of unfair monopoly. They said that's not the CSPC's concern anyway — which companies win or lose because of a safety rule.

    Sally Greenberg, the executive director of the National Consumers League, agrees. "That isn't their job. Their job is to get safer products to the marketplace," she says.


    Meanwhile, Congress has thrown up a roadblock against safer saws.

    The House Appropriations Committee approved a bill for the 2018 fiscal year that includes a clause prohibiting the CPSC from acting on table saw safety.
    "None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used to finalize any rule by the Consumer Product Safety Commission relating to blade-contact injuries on table saws," the rider on the budget bill reads.


    The Power Tool Institute has already invested tens of thousands of dollars this year to lobby Congress against the CPSC rule.
    Full article here:

    https://www.npr.org/2017/08/10/54247...n?sc=17&f=1001

    -Hal

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •