Charlie, my comment was in response to 5-176a.Never mind. I found it. It is item 5-169a. I just submitted the following comment:
Given that the thesis is fairly long, would you care to summarize it with a statement of your own? I don't have time to wade through all that. Once again, this isn't a link or picture dump; you do more service to everyone to state an opinion and cite a source than just drop a link.Joe Tedesco said:My connection was intended only to call attention to the ground rod history and the NEC ROP.
But I believe the two are tied together. 5-169a was written by the CMP itself, and approved by the CMP itself, as the way to handle several proposals that suggested removing the 25 ohm rule.Charlie, my comment was in response to 5-176a.
Reason? Who uses that?I wouldn't say that was a nice way of telling.
I figured they might listen to reason if you tape it to a rock and hit them in the head with it - vinegar might work where sugar failed.
I read it aloud to my fiance, her eyes got big and she said, "Are you ever going to have to work with these people ever again?"
"I don't work with them now, they are the people that write the code. They can't really touch me."
"You can burn a lot of bridges with that."
As I see it, they basically reject at least 50% of everything that comes their way that makes sense (grounding & bonding terms, the permissive NEC doctrine, etc), so rain on them. They can feel angry, laugh, or whatever they want. I hope they spend a minute and review their stances on it.