2020 Fire Fighter Disco 1 & 2 Family Dwellings 230.85

Status
Not open for further replies.

MasterTheNEC

Senior Member
You manipulating post again?..lol...why not twist more of my posts as usual. Read the statement again as clearly reading comprehension is not your strong point my friend. My response was to Peter D's remarks.

If you don't think folks who give of their time to be apart of the process "don't care" then you are clearly not educated on the process and assume alot. Easy to sit in the background on a forum and second judge members actions....i would expect as much here.

I just tried to bring you insight from the process and you all twist it as usual. Yes, manufacturers have influence but they make up a small count in the room. Learn the process first before you label folks. Yeah, folks giving their time away from families is not caring....nice one.
 

romex jockey

Senior Member
And there lays the issue. If people cared, then the outcome of the whole process would benefit everyone.
sadly, they only validate change through the lense of corporate profit.

who are these people? well my best quess is, they're the very same manufacturer that debuted the RSS in the '17....not the passage's one/two family ref

690.12 N(C) Initiation Device. The initiation device(s) shall initiate
the rapid shutdown function of the PV system. The device “off”
position shall indicate that the rapid shutdown function has
been initiated for all PV systems connected to that device. For
one-family and two-family dwellings
, an initiation device(s)
shall be located at a readily accessible location outside the
building.
Of further note would be, the switch in question w/o PV would require shunt trip or relay to work , not exactly cost effective considering amlost every meter manfacturer offers meter/main combo's w/lotto

Another good idea flushed out the bowels of shill CMP's :rant:

~RJ~
 

mbrooke

Senior Member
You manipulating post again?..lol...why not twist more of my posts as usual. Read the statement again as clearly reading comprehension is not your strong point my friend. My response was to Peter D's remarks.

If you don't think folks who give of their time to be apart of the process "don't care" then you are clearly not educated on the process and assume alot. Easy to sit in the background on a forum and second judge members actions....i would expect as much here.

I just tried to bring you insight from the process and you all twist it as usual. Yes, manufacturers have influence but they make up a small count in the room. Learn the process first before you label folks. Yeah, folks giving their time away from families is not caring....nice one.
I know it was Peter D's remark that you were quoting.

Yahhh, PC representing a manufacturer and then replied that you do not care. I care because for me this yet again raises a red flag for me. It then gets accepted into the code, another red flag and a pattern which I keep seeing. Even in the ROPs manufacturer and UL reps get consideration instead of a full blown reject regardless of what is submitted. Its like the none members are unsure of what is submitted, but have been conditioned to believe that if its a manufacturer or NRTL it must be legit.
 

mbrooke

Senior Member
sadly, they only validate change through the lense of corporate profit.

who are these people? well my best quess is, they're the very same manufacturer that debuted the RSS in the '17....not the passage's one/two family ref



Of further note would be, the switch in question w/o PV would require shunt trip or relay to work , not exactly cost effective considering amlost every meter manfacturer offers meter/main combo's w/lotto

Another good idea flushed out the bowels of shill CMP's :rant:

~RJ~

Wishful thinking, feel goods, compartmentalized code making, and honestly people who do not understand real world practice.
 

MasterTheNEC

Senior Member
I know it was Peter D's remark that you were quoting.

Yahhh, PC representing a manufacturer and then replied that you do not care. I care because for me this yet again raises a red flag for me. It then gets accepted into the code, another red flag and a pattern which I keep seeing. Even in the ROPs manufacturer and UL reps get consideration instead of a full blown reject regardless of what is submitted. Its like the none members are unsure of what is submitted, but have been conditioned to believe that if its a manufacturer or NRTL it must be legit.
Obviously Not or you would have gotten the "I dont care" as being directed to Peter d's opinion to which I still don't care. Clearly a moment for some folks to seize attention to which again I don't really give a hoot. However, it will be the last time I provide any insight from a CMP perspective.

Also clearly folks like to backseat comment rather than get involved and rely on "Others" to get things done..Classic
 

mbrooke

Senior Member
Obviously Not or you would have gotten the "I dont care" as being directed to Peter d's opinion to which I still don't care. Clearly a moment for some folks to seize attention to which again I don't really give a hoot. However, it will be the last time I provide any insight from a CMP perspective.

Also clearly folks like to backseat comment rather than get involved and rely on "Others" to get things done..Classic
Ok, perhaps I misheard. But you have to realize I am not happy with some of these code requirements that to be blunt have nothing to do with actual safety.


You can stay, I like the updates.

My opinions are based on my own research- not relying on others- but remember that I can't make it into the these meetings. Ideally they need to be recorded and posted. Can you do this Master The NEC?
 

Adamjamma

Senior Member
OK, I understand the fact this seems to be another case of making something that will be hard to comply with but... are there any low voltage ways to make a remote system for a cutoff that would meet these requirements? For instance, placing a relay in the cutoffs that when the switch gets flipped tells all electric supplies to shut down... if the fire department flips the switch using the proper key, then all electric supplies are then told by the relays to shut down.
but using hard wired cat 5 or bell cable so it is easy to embed in walls and keep from harm... maybe using a bell junction type of connection point to lead to the different panels, or generators, or electric panels, then causing the main breakers to turn off... kind of like the Schneider interlock in Europe that simply plugs onto the side of a Schneider main breaker.

Of Course, the other idea would be to require all houses to have an external lockable rotary switch capable of the 225 or 400 amps... lol... that has all the inputs possible for the home through it, and has a position of OFF as well... One I saw was only 50 amps but, the center off, poco left, solar right, is a possible way of stopping the power.. except it does not remotely stop the power at the various panels. Thus, live power is still available on the roofs.

Most of you are way more experienced than me, so I am sure you guys could come up with the way to fix this, then get MR Holt to take it to the boards to get into code.
 

peter d

Senior Member
Obviously Not or you would have gotten the "I dont care" as being directed to Peter d's opinion to which I still don't care. Clearly a moment for some folks to seize attention to which again I don't really give a hoot. However, it will be the last time I provide any insight from a CMP perspective.
You've provided all the insight we could ever need. The NEC is now forced use of particular products to line the manufacturer's pockets. Manufacturers only exist to make profit and satisfy shareholders and nothing more.
 

MasterTheNEC

Senior Member
You've provided all the insight we could ever need. The NEC is now forced use of particular products to line the manufacturer's pockets. Manufacturers only exist to make profit and satisfy shareholders and nothing more.
Welcome to Capitalism genius. If not for manufacturers you would still rubbing two sticks together to obtain fire. You clearly don't understand the "actual" makeup of a CMP but alas I would expect as much...:happysad:
 

peter d

Senior Member
Welcome to Capitalism genius. If not for manufacturers you would still rubbing two sticks together to obtain fire. You clearly don't understand the "actual" makeup of a CMP but alas I would expect as much...:happysad:
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.
 

MasterTheNEC

Senior Member
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.
Clearly you don't otherwise you would know how stupid your statement was...LOL
 

MasterTheNEC

Senior Member
Then why are manufacturers submitting code proposals that will benefit their bottom line? Not so stupid after all.
Actually is quite stupid actually.

1) No one knows the products like the manufactures. I am 100% sure you do not know them nearly as well.
2) In this case, it was from a former employee who is now an independent consultant and very knowledgeable.
3) He was not the only one to submit it, it was also submitted in the PI stage by the IAEI as well as other in the fire services. Once it made it to the PC Stage it was tagged to his submittal.
4) Having someone submitted versus achieving a consensus and ultimately a 2/3 vote means that way more than the 2-3 manufactures on the committee has to agree with the intent of the proposed change. So your "theory" is that the entire CMP panel is corrupt and that is simply STUPID.

If the panel listens to all things presented and feels it is a minimum safety standard change then they make the call. However, there is still voting by the CMP's that take place until Jan 11, 2019, and then lastly the NITMAM stage that can receive negative comments on changes that take place in the second draft, which is what we are voting on as we speak. If you did not like the proposed public input then where was your Public Comment against such a change?....Why is your involvement other than yapping away on a forum about how you disagree with something. The classic approach to those who do not want to be involved but have a comment on everything.

There are some of you that do get involved and make a difference and there are some that just yap their trap. To substantiate your position in well expressed public inputs and public comments and your yapping will have some credit, sit back and whine and complain when you have no credit. I can tell you with 100% certainty that in some cases things do get into the NEC by influence as I have witnessed it personally but it does not speak for the entire committee. What happens is (1) or (2) people with long-standing influence taint the committee because some on committees follow like blind sheep due to the respected nature of the person speaking. Yes, it is getting worse as more "sales" type technical folks get on the panels but to label them all as you all do....shameful and wrong.

However, you all have a long history of "twisting" folks words to meet your agenda so that's all good.....but clearly you do not know the CMP Panels and what it takes to get something in the NEC. If the manufacturers representative on the committee is well respected then YES they have influence BUT each person votes for their respective representation. for example, I represent AL and CU on different committees so when I ultimately vote it is at the will of the association and not for myself personally. My and other CMP's real role is to listen to the inputs and comments and determine their plausibility to safety and we listen to the various experts in the given field that are advocating for the change. And trust me I respect their knowledge way more than I would yours and I am sure that is mutual.
 

mbrooke

Senior Member
Actually is quite stupid actually.

1) No one knows the products like the manufactures. I am 100% sure you do not know them nearly as well.
Of course, and if you can articulate a supposed problem, code additions provide a solution.

2) In this case, it was from a former employee who is now an independent consultant and very knowledgeable.
3) He was not the only one to submit it, it was also submitted in the PI stage by the IAEI as well as other in the fire services. Once it made it to the PC Stage it was tagged to his submittal.
Experienced inviduals like Don R are saying otherwise.

4) Having someone submitted versus achieving a consensus and ultimately a 2/3 vote means that way more than the 2-3 manufactures on the committee has to agree with the intent of the proposed change. So your "theory" is that the entire CMP panel is corrupt and that is simply STUPID.
History has shown any democratic system can be subverted, concurred, swayed, bought out, gerrymandered, fall to social climate induced turn over or to be blunt simply consisting of folks who are not independent thinkers relying on others who they perceive as more knowledgeable.

If the panel listens to all things presented and feels it is a minimum safety standard change then they make the call. However, there is still voting by the CMP's that take place until Jan 11, 2019, and then lastly the NITMAM stage that can receive negative comments on changes that take place in the second draft, which is what we are voting on as we speak. If you did not like the proposed public input then where was your Public Comment against such a change?....Why is your involvement other than yapping away on a forum about how you disagree with something. The classic approach to those who do not want to be involved but have a comment on everything.
Sometimes, you need a counter movement where like minds can collect and share their ideas unhindered. There is also the journalism aspect to any democracy. Any matter of public interest or that which impacts the public, can be brought forth to their attention.

There are some of you that do get involved and make a difference and there are some that just yap their trap. To substantiate your position in well expressed public inputs and public comments and your yapping will have some credit, sit back and whine and complain when you have no credit. I can tell you with 100% certainty that in some cases things do get into the NEC by influence as I have witnessed it personally but it does not speak for the entire committee. What happens is (1) or (2) people with long-standing influence taint the committee because some on committees follow like blind sheep due to the respected nature of the person speaking. Yes, it is getting worse as more "sales" type technical folks get on the panels but to label them all as you all do....shameful and wrong.
Even if you bared witness to the full breadth and scope of external bias, that to me would be more then enough. Because if it is not stopped now, it will progressively get worse. The mechanism is already there- its already moving on the tracks- it just now needs momentum. All else is in place- meaning the majority of the scheme has already been completed.

However, you all have a long history of "twisting" folks words to meet your agenda so that's all good.....but clearly you do not know the CMP Panels and what it takes to get something in the NEC. If the manufacturers representative on the committee is well respected then YES they have influence BUT each person votes for their respective representation. for example, I represent AL and CU on different committees so when I ultimately vote it is at the will of the association and not for myself personally. My and other CMP's real role is to listen to the inputs and comments and determine their plausibility to safety and we listen to the various experts in the given field that are advocating for the change. And trust me I respect their knowledge way more than I would yours and I am sure that is mutual.
I respect you- and I think you are there for good reasons. I do not doubt what you see- but remember its only what you see or rather what the world is meant to see. I have a saying in that regard: "everything has already been decided, but we play court only because law requires us too. Nowhere does law say we can not write the script and direct the show before hand"
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
IMO having said "emergency disconnect" for first responders is somewhat pointless if the general rule for placement is nothing more than in a readily accessible location, outdoors. If going to have such rule it needs to be in specific location that emergency responders will know where to find it. As worded there is a wide open range of places said disconnect might be found, that has only been narrowed down to "readily accessible" and "outdoors". As time goes by it may not even be all that readily accessible when time comes to need to use it. What if a bush gets planted and grows enough that it makes it difficult to find? Stating that a disconnect or at least a remote operating device be within a certain area such as within a certain distance adjacent to main entrance - at least gives first responders a location to know where they should find what they are looking for.

In past most of these single and two family dwellings were disconnected by first responders by pulling a meter. Only occasionally might you run into CT metering and that idea won't work.
Most first responders now understand that is not something they should be doing.[/quote]

On top of all that, there is no guarantee said switch will always interrupt all voltage in the facility, one really needs to test for voltage to be certain, then there could be automatic standby power that kicks in...

I'm still failing to see the need for such a rule especially it only is for one and two family dwellings.
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.
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
OK, I understand the fact this seems to be another case of making something that will be hard to comply with but... are there any low voltage ways to make a remote system for a cutoff that would meet these requirements? For instance, placing a relay in the cutoffs that when the switch gets flipped tells all electric supplies to shut down... if the fire department flips the switch using the proper key, then all electric supplies are then told by the relays to shut down.
but using hard wired cat 5 or bell cable so it is easy to embed in walls and keep from harm... maybe using a bell junction type of connection point to lead to the different panels, or generators, or electric panels, then causing the main breakers to turn off... kind of like the Schneider interlock in Europe that simply plugs onto the side of a Schneider main breaker.
....
As currently written the rule does not permit any type of remote disconnect, one of the reasons it that the rule is intended to remove all power inside of the building. A remotely operated disconnect that is inside the building does not do that.
 

peter d

Senior Member
Actually is quite stupid actually.

1) No one knows the products like the manufactures. I am 100% sure you do not know them nearly as well.
2) In this case, it was from a former employee who is now an independent consultant and very knowledgeable.
3) He was not the only one to submit it, it was also submitted in the PI stage by the IAEI as well as other in the fire services. Once it made it to the PC Stage it was tagged to his submittal.
4) Having someone submitted versus achieving a consensus and ultimately a 2/3 vote means that way more than the 2-3 manufactures on the committee has to agree with the intent of the proposed change. So your "theory" is that the entire CMP panel is corrupt and that is simply STUPID.

If the panel listens to all things presented and feels it is a minimum safety standard change then they make the call. However, there is still voting by the CMP's that take place until Jan 11, 2019, and then lastly the NITMAM stage that can receive negative comments on changes that take place in the second draft, which is what we are voting on as we speak. If you did not like the proposed public input then where was your Public Comment against such a change?....Why is your involvement other than yapping away on a forum about how you disagree with something. The classic approach to those who do not want to be involved but have a comment on everything.

There are some of you that do get involved and make a difference and there are some that just yap their trap. To substantiate your position in well expressed public inputs and public comments and your yapping will have some credit, sit back and whine and complain when you have no credit. I can tell you with 100% certainty that in some cases things do get into the NEC by influence as I have witnessed it personally but it does not speak for the entire committee. What happens is (1) or (2) people with long-standing influence taint the committee because some on committees follow like blind sheep due to the respected nature of the person speaking. Yes, it is getting worse as more "sales" type technical folks get on the panels but to label them all as you all do....shameful and wrong.

However, you all have a long history of "twisting" folks words to meet your agenda so that's all good.....but clearly you do not know the CMP Panels and what it takes to get something in the NEC. If the manufacturers representative on the committee is well respected then YES they have influence BUT each person votes for their respective representation. for example, I represent AL and CU on different committees so when I ultimately vote it is at the will of the association and not for myself personally. My and other CMP's real role is to listen to the inputs and comments and determine their plausibility to safety and we listen to the various experts in the given field that are advocating for the change. And trust me I respect their knowledge way more than I would yours and I am sure that is mutual.
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.
 

MasterTheNEC

Senior Member
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.
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top