100 Neutral Conductor.

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

fmtjfw

Senior Member
Location
Fairmont, WV, USA
Section/Paragraph: 100 Neutral Conductor.

Deleted Text

Neutral Conductor. The conductor connected to the neutral point of a system that is intended to carry current under normal conditions.

Substantiation:

"normal" is an unenforceable term according to NEC_StyleManual_2011.pdf 3.2.1. "under normal conditions" is essentially redundant and unnecessary.
 
IMHO if you leave "intended to carry current" in without qualification of any kind you have included the EGC in the definition.
Maybe " non-fault current" instead?
But then there is the return current from proximity sensors. Which is a fault as far as I am concerned...
:(


Tapatalk!
 
Last edited:
Section/Paragraph: 100 Neutral Conductor.

Deleted Text

Neutral Conductor. The conductor connected to the neutral point of a system that is intended to carry current under normal conditions.

Substantiation:

"normal" is an unenforceable term according to NEC_StyleManual_2011.pdf 3.2.1. "under normal conditions" is essentially redundant and unnecessary.
Click to expand...

Is that exactly and all that is stated?

The NEC goes out of their way to say "Normal" is unenforceable? Why don't they state the use of other terms and define some of normals synonyms like, typical, basic, average, ordinary, usuall, they don't have to they stop at minimum.

The point I'm trying to make is if you going to pick apart the NEC, you might want to
re-read some books on technaical writing and look at the words as a linguist and or as a lexicographer. Or better yet stop looking at the Code as a Linguist or a lexicographer.

Watching you post all these proposals while are fun to read miss some aspects of
2nd person writing. Besides your just helping others fine tune your sumbittals for themselves!

The NEC Code is so oddly written that they came out with their own rule book, go figure the NEC Style Manual!
 
fmtjfw said:
Section/Paragraph: 100 Neutral Conductor.

Deleted Text

Neutral Conductor. The conductor connected to the neutral point of a system that is intended to carry current under normal conditions.

Substantiation:

"normal" is an unenforceable term according to NEC_StyleManual_2011.pdf 3.2.1. "under normal conditions" is essentially redundant and unnecessary.
Click to expand...
A lot of the definitions are simply too wordy.
Perhaps...

Neutral Conductor. A circuit conductor connected to the system neutral point.


Noting it as a circuit conductor makes the distinction from the EGC's and covers the intended to carry current aspect.
 
cadpoint said:
Is that exactly and all that is stated?

The NEC goes out of their way to say "Normal" is unenforceable? Why don't they state the use of other terms and define some of normals synonyms like, typical, basic, average, ordinary, usuall, they don't have to they stop at minimum.

The point I'm trying to make is if you going to pick apart the NEC, you might want to
re-read some books on technaical writing and look at the words as a linguist and or as a lexicographer. Or better yet stop looking at the Code as a Linguist or a lexicographer.

Watching you post all these proposals while are fun to read miss some aspects of
2nd person writing. Besides your just helping others fine tune your sumbittals for themselves!

The NEC Code is so oddly written that they came out with their own rule book, go figure the NEC Style Manual!
Click to expand...

Table 3.2.1 Possibly Unenforceable and Vague Terms
Acceptable
Adequate
Adjacent
Appreciable
Appropriate
Approximate(ly)
Available
Avoid(ed)
Can
Care
Careful(ly)
Consider(ed)(ation)
Could
Designed for the purpose
Desirable
Easy(ily)
Equivalent(ly)
Familiar
Feasible
Few
Frequent(ly)
Firmly
Generally
Good
Lightly
Likely
Legible(y)
Many
May
Maybe
Might
Most(ly)
Near(ly)
Neat(ly)
Normal(ly)
Note
Periodic(ally)
Practical(ly)
Practices
Prefer(red)
Proper(ly)
Ready(ily)
Reasonable(y)
Safe(ly)(ty)
Satisfactory
Secure(ly)
Several
Significant
Similar
Substantial(ly)
Sufficient(ly)
Suitable
Usual(ly)
Workmanlike
 
GoldDigger said:
IMHO if you leave "intended to carry current" in without qualification of any kind you have included the EGC in the definition.
Maybe " non-fault current" instead?
But then there is the return current from proximity sensors. Which is a fault as far as I am concerned...
:(


Tapatalk!
Click to expand...


I disagree in that the equipment grounding conductor is not intended to carry current under normal conditions as the definition states.
 
Smart $ said:
A lot of the definitions are simply too wordy.
Perhaps...

Neutral Conductor. A circuit conductor connected to the system neutral point.


Noting it as a circuit conductor makes the distinction from the EGC's and covers the intended to carry current aspect.
Click to expand...

I like it! OK if I steal it?
 
Dennis Alwon said:
I disagree in that the equipment grounding conductor is not intended to carry current under normal conditions as the definition states.
Click to expand...

That is why the Code added the requirement for a neutral in the boxes containing light switches, so they can get away from electronic devices hooking to the EGC and using it as current carrying.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top