2014 ROC ballot

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am impressed that they continue to demonstrate an ability to read. In years to come, they may yet demonstrate nuances such as coherent thought and the ability to compose sentences in English. I am heartened by their pluck and spirit. :)
 
Well, some of my comments were accepted. I consider that progress. Some that I thought would sail through were rejected. I've still been unable to convince the panel that UPS powered "fixed" wiring is enough of a hazard to be specially marked. I hope nobody gets hurt.

More analysis (whining?) later.
 
If anyone is looking for the most ridiculous panel statement, they can stop now, because I have found it. I made a comment to remove the requirement of bonding limited energy cable trays together, based on the fact that bonding the trays to each other (and nothing else) does nothing to improve electrical safety. In fact, all it does is energize the entire tray in the event of a fault. According to panel 8, however, bonding two objects together (and to nothing else) results in an electrical anomoly never before thought possible!


"If properly bonded and grounded, the cable tray voltage potential will go to ground and the cable tray will be at ground
(zero) potential reducing electrical hazards." :lol::lol::lol:

You can stop searching...this is the most absurd sentence in the entire ROC process!
 
Here's an eye-opener:

ommittee to assemble an independent Task Group to review the Ambient Temperature Adjustment Table, 310.15(B)(2)(a), the panel revises its action on Proposal 6-29 from ?Accept in Principle in Part? to ?REJECT?. Thus, Table 310.15(B)(3)(c) shall revert to the NEC 2011 values. This is an effort to respond to all comments on this issue. The panel is unable to come to a decision to revise the values of Table 310.15(B)(3)(c) and looks forward to the independent task group's findings concerning the need for Table 310.15(B)(3)(c), ?Ambient Temperature Adjustment for Raceways or Cables Exposed to Sunlight on or Above Rooftops? and whether CMP-6 acted correctly upon past substantiation. CMP-6 requests that the task group evaluate the need for and the values in Tables 310.15(B)(2)(a), (2)(b) and (3)(c).
Click to expand...

They're admitting they might have screwed up?!? :jawdrop:
 
ryan_618 said:
Note to George: You may not want to see CMP-6's thoughts on your comments!
Click to expand...

On a brighter note, I skimmed through and CMP-5 doubled back based on some comments I made, that feels good. I wish they'd have gone as far as dismissing pieces of building steel and so on as "bonding jumpers", but a least they amended 250.62 to mention 250.68(C).

CMP-2 is as unflappable as ever; looks like we are dedicated EV-charging circuits, GFCI protecting washing machines, and any other dumb idea they could latch on to. :D
 
George Stolz said:
On a brighter note, I skimmed through and CMP-5 doubled back based on some comments I made, that feels good. I wish they'd have gone as far as dismissing pieces of building steel and so on as "bonding jumpers", but a least they amended 250.62 to mention 250.68(C).

CMP-2 is as unflappable as ever; looks like we are dedicated EV-charging circuits, GFCI protecting washing machines, and any other dumb idea they could latch on to. :D
Click to expand...

Washing machines? I think it was dishwashers.

Also dorms, regardless of whether they have cooking facilities, will probably need AFCI protection.
 
raider1 said:
Both Dishwashers and Laundry areas will require GFCI protection.

Chris
Click to expand...

Until manufacturers figure out how to make appliances that don't eventually develop some sort of ground / insulation problems, expect to see GFCIs cropping up in all sorts of places.
 
iwire said:
Do you have documentation that it is a hazard or just a gut feeling?
Click to expand...

I have anecdotal evidence that I've had the snot zapped out of myself by UPSes that I didn't know where ... uh ... UPSes.

If it's FIXED wiring, I don't see how it can't require a disconnecting means.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top