2014 NEC NECA Analysis of Change- 310.15(B)(3)(c) Exception

[MasterTheNEC]

No, I doubt that I am the only one that reads it like that. You work for a manufacturer to shape the code for the benefit of the manufacturer. You are not being put on a CMP for the benefit of society.

That is where people like you are full of ...well.......I do not serve to shape the code for manufacturers...I serve because I care about making a better NEC and why I serve on UL, ASTM and other committees....your assumptions are full of it........

Frankly I could care less what you believe....you can sit in the background and mock those who give of their time to serve on various panels, you can also think their is a master plan by the manufacturers to shape the entire NEC to their advantage....Third World Order....what ever you wanna call it.

Fact is many people give of their time...not work time but our weekends, nights and holidays up to serve on these panels.......and all you and many others do is mock it.....what ever.....you are a MOD so I guess your opinion carries some weight....ONLY HERE....:angel:

 

[iwire]

I can relate to how it can be a safety issue.....when it is grossly overlooked......

We can make anything a safety issue if we try but we should not try to make it an issue if it is not one.

Are there any statistics showing injuries or deaths from voltage drop?

 

[iwire]

That is where people like you are full of ...well.......I do not serve to shape the code for manufacturers...I serve because I care about making a better NEC and why I serve on UL, ASTM and other committees....your assumptions are full of it........

:lol:

The company you work for is paying you to be on a CMP to be a tool of theirs to shape the code for their own benefit. For you to try to deny that is truly disingenuous.

I am sure you like the trade and enjoy being on involved in all the things you mention. That does not change the fact you are being paid for the companies benefit.

Frankly I could care less what you believe....you can sit in the background and mock those who give of their time to serve on various panels, you can also think their is a master plan by the manufacturers to shape the entire NEC to their advantage....Third World Order....what ever you wanna call it.

Fact is many people give of their time...not work time but our weekends, nights and holidays up to serve on these panels.......and all you and many others do is mock it.....what ever.....you are a MOD so I guess your opinion carries some weight....ONLY HERE....:angel:

The fact is it is your job and you are paid to do it.

Is this not your title "Manager, Codes & Standards at (removed for privacy) Corporation"?

 

[ActionDave]

I disagree completely with the analysis/interpretation.
The wording of the exception is found in the section on conductors on rooftops. The plain English interpretation is that all that is being excepted is the temperature adder. But the wording "...conductors shall not be subject to this ampacity adjustment." leaves that subject to dispute.

I do find it unreasonable that an exception in the specific clause on rooftop wiring could be taken to imply exemption from all temperature based ampacity adjustments for this wire type regardless of where it is used.
I also find it nonsensical that the basic temperature based ampacity adjustment applies to this wire type everywhere but on a rooftop.

In short, I think that the commentary is flat out wrong.

It would have been better if the wording of the exception specifically referenced the temperature adder and not the "ampacity adjustment".

PS: Just like the Handbook, the Analysis of Change does not have the normative standing of the Code itself. And in this case I think they blew it.

Hmmmm.... It is obvious that since I never saw the sense in the temperature adjustments I was quick to grab on to anything that would get rid of them. A lot of higher ups in the electrical world must feel the same.

 

[MasterTheNEC]

:lol:

The company you work for is paying you to be on a CMP to be a tool of theirs to shape the code for their own benefit. For you to try to deny that is truly disingenuous.

I am sure you like the trade and enjoy being on involved in all the things you mention. That does not change the fact you are being paid for the companies benefit.



The fact is it is your job and you are paid to do it.

Is this not your title "Manager, Codes & Standards at (removed for privacy) Corporation"?

I am....but we produce both CU and AL and nothing on the panel I serve would technically benefit a wire and cable manufacturer. I get paid to be the technical code expert for the corporation I work for.....the choice to be on panels and help develop codes is a personal choice, the industry needs our product regardless of my panel activity...also I was not hired to be on panels. I make choices everyday that are not company driven, I answer dozens of calls daily from around the country to give my personal NEC interpretations of the NEC,UL,ASTM or ANSI codes other than those just directly related to wire and cable....which has taken me over a year to become fluent in all things OTHER than the NEC.....a lot of reading and trying to understand each organizations method of standard development.

I admittedly refuse to believe I serve on these panels to only promote the wire and cable industry and most certainly do not know everything about the codes I represent..this is why i come here hoping to debate beliefs and each of us to be respected for such beliefs even if we disagree and not be judged for it......

I submitted over 20 PI's this cycle and only a few had anything to do with wire and cable......it has been a life's passion to help develop the codes we use today......teach those who would like to be taught and try to assist others long before I came to this company.....and never got paid a dime for my free advice regardless of if you agree or disagree with it.....

I have had wonderful jobs and have had a blessed life thus far...I would not change the course of my career for anything......I have slowly moved up to where I aspired to be and I love giving back to the electrical industry...in any way I can. My serving on panels is less about the company I represent and more about giving back....call it what you wish...people who really know me...(none of which come on this forum clearly) know that my efforts are genuine.....I don't actually sweat those who disagree....however obviously I do enjoy debating about it...I keep coming back don't I....:angel:

Anyway.....enough of that. My focus was to show that this slide was incorrectly stated and nothing more yet it always comes back to me and what i do for a living...lol...such is life as it has not changed for years so I guess I should not assume it will now.

 

[tom baker]

Interesting story on the change, at the Boise IAEI code change conference (fall of 2007), for the 2008 NEC, the Copper Development (CDA)rep was presenting that section on rooftops, this is the change where they used conduit, and of course EMT is not conduit. The the CDA proposed the change if I recall.
Anyway the former chief electrical inspector for Los Vegas was sitting next to me, Tom, he said, in 30 years I never saw an overheated conductor on a rooftop.
I have a nice slide chart by the DCA on the ambient temp for various cities...

 

[ActionDave]

Interesting story on the change, at the Boise IAEI code change conference (fall of 2007), for the 2008 NEC, the Copper Development (CDA)rep was presenting that section on rooftops, this is the change where they used conduit, and of course EMT is not conduit. The the CDA proposed the change if I recall.
Anyway the former chief electrical inspector for Los Vegas was sitting next to me, Tom, he said, in 30 years I never saw an overheated conductor on a rooftop.
I have a nice slide chart by the DCA on the ambient temp for various cities...

I think that is true across the board. There must be a stack of rejected proposals big enough to sink an oil tanker where the CMP's said, "unsubstantiated". So how did this temperature garbage get adopted into the code.

 

[resistance]

I agree with you.

I third that!

 

[George Stolz]

I disagree...because I sat in on this discussion at the ROC.....

One virtue of the extensive amount of note keeping and written process that produces changes in the NEC is that generally we don't have to rely on eyewitness accounts from questionable sources to inform us as to how to read the NEC, thankfully.

 

[iwire]

I am....but we produce both CU and AL and nothing on the panel I serve would technically benefit a wire and cable manufacturer. I get paid to be the technical code expert for the corporation I work for.....the choice to be on panels and help develop codes is a personal choice,

The company you work for compensates you for the time and travel spent on the CMP right?

They do not do so without expecting something in return regardless of how much you personally enjoy being on a CMP.

Anyway.....enough of that. My focus was to show that this slide was incorrectly stated and nothing more yet it always comes back to me and what i do for a living...lol...such is life as it has not changed for years so I guess I should not assume it will now.

Playing the victim is not the way to go. Take responsibility for the situation, you can be, and often are as abrasive as the rest of us. You bring it on yourself.

 

[MasterTheNEC]

One virtue of the extensive amount of note keeping and written process that produces changes in the NEC is that generally we don't have to rely on eyewitness accounts from questionable sources to inform us as to how to read the NEC, thankfully.

They are no more questionable than the "from the hip interpretations" spit out on bullish and thuggery style "Code Forums" either....:angel:

 

[kwired]

Only you would read it that way...........I will be nice.....

After all the threads in here fighting that manufacturers don't do those things......like Don said.....the Energy Code and Green Codes are taking care of that......already


But I happen to believe Voltage Drop is important.....so if I did support it the reason would be for the merit of the intent.

P.S. Yes Bob....I'm Joking

Voltage drop is important - to some things, others not so important, any requirements on VD belong in other codes besides NEC at least for general purpose VD, I think NEC does have VD requirements in some specific applications but not as a general rule - I'm fine with that.

QUOTE=don_resqcapt19;1654273]I don't see how an energy use rule would be within the purpose of the NEC.[/QUOTE]

That is where people like you are full of ...well.......I do not serve to shape the code for manufacturers...I serve because I care about making a better NEC and why I serve on UL, ASTM and other committees....your assumptions are full of it........

Frankly I could care less what you believe....you can sit in the background and mock those who give of their time to serve on various panels, you can also think their is a master plan by the manufacturers to shape the entire NEC to their advantage....Third World Order....what ever you wanna call it.

Fact is many people give of their time...not work time but our weekends, nights and holidays up to serve on these panels.......and all you and many others do is mock it.....what ever.....you are a MOD so I guess your opinion carries some weight....ONLY HERE....:angel:

How is this all that much different then all our public elected officials that we voted for and we often still mock them, just not here that is against the rules, but code making members are fair game here

You want to make a change in the world of a system used by many others, you will get criticism, some of it you need to listen to and take considerations, some of it is nothing but meaningless rants.