Comments due for 2008 NEC 10/20/06!

[George Stolz]

17-91 reconsider and accept

I agree with you there, Charlie. The distinction between hard-wired and c&p connected pump motors is nonsensical in this case, IMO.

The Explanations of Negative vote to proposal 19-85 explained it quite nicely.

 

[George Stolz]

There is an accepted proposal in 314.24 that requires any ceiling box in a dwelling with 2 switchlegs to be required to be a fan rated box. That is a problem... what about 2 circuit track? what about installing 2 circuits to a ceiling box, one for the light, one as a pass through circuit... or as a pass through to another ceiling fixture?

This should not pass, and comments should be presented for this one as well. What about a box with 2 circuits that installed within 1-3 feet from the corner of the wall... what fan could be installed there???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Holy smokes Pierre! Good catch! Let me sharpen my pencil!!!

 

[tallgirl]

Take it however you want.

My thought was there are already codes in place to help during unusual conditions so yours would not have to break new ground.

Could you put that into English I can understand?

Reasons are given in a variety of places for why GFP is a problem in residential environments. My understanding is that inductive loads can cause GFCIs to trip when they shouldn't. So I'm assuming that what you've suggested would create problems with homeowners when their entire house loses power for no apparently good reason.

I do appreciate the interchange. If this is a useless or pointless idea, I have better things to do with my time and energy.

 

[paul32]

So far, my list:

• 2-198 Center Floor Outlet - Continue to reject
• 2-274 Reconsider & accept
• 2-196 Reconsider, accept/principle/part
• 5-171 Reconsider & accept
• 5-1 (EGC - EBC) Reconsider and accept
• 5-84 Continue to accept
• 5-88 Continue to reject
• 5-119 Reconsider and reject

I'm curious how you actually word the comments. Unless I looked at the wrong thing, when I looked at the form it looked the same as proposals (give the new wording you want and a substantiation). How do you use that to say don't pass that AFCI proposal or listen to the minority opinion! George, I don't think rejecting the expansion of AFCIs is on your list.

 

[George Stolz]

How do you use that to say don't pass that AFCI proposal or listen to the minority opinion! George, I don't think rejecting the expansion of AFCIs is on your list.

I kind of see it as a lost cause. Last cycle, Don sent in a proposal or a comment (I forget now which) that knocked my socks off, and they didn't listen. I could not word it any better than he did, so I feel the effort would be moot.

Here's an example of one I've written. I plan on copying and pasting directly into the NFPA's online comment form, so I was going to get the details done at that point.

5-1 (Entire Document) The panel should reconsider and accept the proposal.

Substantiation: The TCC changes submitted to Article 250 as a result of their research is a good clarification of this Article. However, in addition to the changes proposed by the TCC, it would be to everyone?s benefit if they returned to the task and put forth the change.

What is the definition of ?bonded?? Why is there a conscious effort to evade the term ?bonded? in the proposed future text of the NEC? It is not a dirty word, it?s merely been widely misused in prior editions. Why use the phrase ?connected to the EGC? when the term ?bonded? means the exact same thing in fewer characters? (Personally, I am a fan of the term ?luminaire? over ?lighting fixture? because it is one word that says the same as two, and when the term is well defined it is very useful to all who use or teach the NEC.)

The truly horrible aspect of this situation is that people can have a conversation and visualize two entirely different current paths, one through earth and one through an effective ground fault current path, and believe the other person is visualizing the same concept. As long as the EGC retains it?s current name, the very language we speak is inherently flawed, and this simply cannot be repaired without the panel?s action. The present terminology is an undue hardship on anyone attempting to train, whether in the classroom or in the field.

The Code is not a manual for untrained persons, but it should not actively undermine training for tradition?s sake. It is not a simple task, but it is a worthwhile one for the overall value of the Code. Anyone who currently comprehends what an EGC is and it?s intended purpose will have no problem whatsoever adapting to this change, especially with the word-of-mouth surrounding these sorts of changes. Every electrician under the sun has heard and talked enough about Concrete Encased Electrodes to want to permanently join one, after the 2005 change of 250.50. This would be a similar change, self-advertising, and profoundly improve the Code.

Please, reconsider and accept this proposal.