2017 NEC webinar today

Status
Not open for further replies.
peter d said:
I can't believe you even have the audacity to make such a statement when it's well known the manufacturers lied about the performance of the AFCI from the very beginning. Yes, they lied and lying about the performance of a product is corruption. The debate doesn't end with that reality, it begins with it. They have never once issued any type of mea culpa for that, and that's why I do not believe a single word from manufacturers and people like you that represent them.
Click to expand...

I think it is more concerning that once that it was uncovered that AFCI protection did not work as advertised, we still do not have UL changing what is needed for a product to say it has that protection or the NFPA revisiting the AFCI requirement. Instead we have the same questionable protection with it being required in even more locations every cycle.
 
ASG said:
I think it is more concerning that once that it was uncovered that AFCI protection did not work as advertised, we still do not have UL changing what is needed for a product to say it has that protection or the NFPA revisiting the AFCI requirement. Instead we have the same questionable protection with it being required in even more locations every cycle.
Click to expand...

I am not sure I know with any certainty what the real performance of AFCIs is, but it appears to me that at the very least it has been over stated.
 
I know this was addressed toward Don, but if I may.


bphgravity said:
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?
Click to expand...

While I have no proof, it would not surprise me if it was indeed true.

The very same public that supports the NFPA's existence through membership and the purchasing of NFPA codes and standards?
Click to expand...

The public is indirectly forced to buy copies of the NEC and other material only because its mandated into law in many places. Further if companies are funding the NFPA in some way, what difference would it make?


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.
Click to expand...


For those who understand deep electrical theory, its not a delusion. To us its like seeing the universe through a space telescope or physical matter with an electron microscope. When I see unsupported claims along with science which contradicts those very claims I can not help but wonder what is really going on. Why would the NEC mandate such a product under those conditions? The only logical conclusion that I (and many of us here) can reach is either ignorance, corruption, or both. Any 3 of which are exceptionally toxic to the development of codes having such a compelling influence.

IMO I do not believe this forum is potential is being damaged, on the contrary the AFCI discussion has been saturated with scientific theory which is what this forum is built upon.
 
bphgravity said:
What's worse is that you are a moderator. This means a good majority of the users of this Forum look to you for leadership and dependability. It is simply irresponsible to make claims of conspiracy and corruption with no evidence and no proof.

Take for example the AFCI debate. The technical arguments have plenty of merit and are extremely interesting. As soon as someone pulls the corruption card, the debate is over. It soon becomes a pile-on thread of silliness and outright craziness.

You moderators are much like a CMP. Imagine if every time one of you moderators were to post an answer or comment, someone jumps on and says all moderators are corrupt and are working together to limit free speech on the Forum, instead of sticking to the discussion at hand. Something tells me you wouldn't like it so much, especially if the claims are unfounded.
Click to expand...

When technical arguments contradict almost all claims made the institutions like ESFI, NEMA, ect we can only ask why would such a product be mandated? The only 3 logical conclusions a person can reach are ignorance, corruption or both.

From that point on theorizing conspiracy is not really unfounded.
 
mbrooke said:
When technical arguments contradict almost all claims made the institutions like ESFI, NEMA, ect we can only ask why would such a product be mandated? The only 3 logical conclusions a person can reach are ignorance, corruption or both.

From that point on theorizing conspiracy is not really unfounded.
Click to expand...

That are certainly the most obvious choices. OTOH, sometimes people do really stupid things and they are such control freaks that they are just plain unwilling to admit they did something that stupid and undo it.
 
petersonra said:
That are certainly the most obvious choices. OTOH, sometimes people do really stupid things and they are such control freaks that they are just plain unwilling to admit they did something that stupid and undo it.
Click to expand...

Some people will even damage their own reputation then admit to being wrong. :happyno:
 
I personally have not had any issues with the new process. I was able to submit my comments without much problem and it took me maybe 10 minutes.

I do agree that there is some transparency issues that need to be dealt with.

For example the new purposed language in 310.15(B)(3)(a) would not allow 310.15(A)(2) Exception to apply to adjustment factors for more than 3 current carrying in a raceway or cable, but there was no public input that purposed that change. Somewhere within the public input process that change was made and there is not a panel statement provided that showed any substantiation for the change.

Chris
 
raider1 said:
I personally have not had any issues with the new process. I was able to submit my comments without much problem and it took me maybe 10 minutes.

I do agree that there is some transparency issues that need to be dealt with.

For example the new purposed language in 310.15(B)(3)(a) would not allow 310.15(A)(2) Exception to apply to adjustment factors for more than 3 current carrying in a raceway or cable, but there was no public input that purposed that change. Somewhere within the public input process that change was made and there is not a panel statement provided that showed any substantiation for the change.

Chris
Click to expand...


More ways to get you to use more copper. The roof top adder a few years ago was the epitome of that.

Is the adder still there btw?
 
mbrooke said:
I think the deleted it in the 2017, but time will tell.
Click to expand...

A first revision for the 2017 NEC will eliminate the roof top adjustment for conductors. There are some comments to keep the table but my feeling is it will continue to be eliminated.

Chris
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top