250.56

Status
Not open for further replies.

charlie

Senior Member
currin said:
. . . It is almost like lawyers determine it rather than electricians and engineers. . .
Have you ever noticed that the code is written in very precise language that some call legalese? It has to hold up in court and the rules are written in such a way that the end result, when applied in the manner that is written in the code, that will achieve a particular result. As time passes and that result is circumvented by the users, a proposal will be made by someone with proper documentation and substantiation to fix the problem . . . that is where you come in. :smile:
 

George Stolz

Moderator
Staff member
currin said:
The 1925 Code first mentioned the 25 ohm requirement. The 1923 code first mentioned driven rods.
Did you see my previous post? I found the requirement in 1918, after a fashion.

Edit: The language may have changed to "rods" after 1918, in previous cycles they used language even more odd than "two grounds". Took me forever to decipher the earlier editions.
 

tom baker

First Chief Moderator
Staff member
Make the proposal. We can all then comment later. Our time is limited, I have several proposals to make. Probably can get Mike Holt to comment on the 25 ohms.
 

charlie

Senior Member
tom baker said:
. . . Our time is limited, . .
Our time is not that limited, we have almost a month (November 7th @ 5:00 PM EST) left to work on wording, documentation, and substantiations. If you are intending to submit test data, it is already too late to even get information for the comment period unless the data already exists. :smile:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top