What do you think my odds on that proposal would be ??
Current carrying conductors
- Thread starter andrew@lgiforensic.com
- Start date
- Status
What do you think my odds on that proposal would be ??
jumper
Senior Member
- Location
- 3 Hr 2 Min from Winged Horses
Zip, but I suppose anything is possible.
kwired
Electron manager
- Location
- NE Nebraska
- Occupation
- EC
About the same as the odds of your potential proposal mentioned in the Pigtailing thread:happyyes:
But try anyway.
Back to OP discussion - I agree that the inside of a raceway installed in a wet location is also a wet location, and possibly agree that inside of a raceway in a damp location is also a damp location.
That said what about:
What is the inside of a pipe, tubing, or any other enclosed space that is not a NEC recognized raceway? Wet, dry, damp? NM is not generally prohibited here without other details and conditions.
If subject to condensation I can see wet or damp, but if somehow controlled so that condensation can not normally happen, I may have to say it very well could be dry.
Great example may be a utility chase of some sort (could be constructed of anything imaginable including a pipe or tube) between two buildings, sections of same building, etc. and it may contain more then just electric cables.
Thats the whole problem with this proposal thing. The only people that have the time or inkling to write proposals are either retired electricians or ones that get subsidies from manufacturers. I really don't want to waste much time and/or energy on something with less then 1:2 odds
kwired
Electron manager
- Location
- NE Nebraska
- Occupation
- EC
Retired electricians? Don't sound like retirement to me, just a little different type of job
Manufacturers or someone hired by manufacturers - probably is true in a lot of cases - look at AFCI incorporation into the NEC. Also look at other new products in general over the years that had no code sections that pertained to them.
Changes to things that have been unchanged for long time don't happen all that easily though, you usually need to show injuries, deaths, property damage that may have been avoided if a different installation standard were present for a certain area of concern, and possibly evidence of how much less damages would be if your proposal were to be accepted.
There are a lot of proposals that don't change the actual code requirements, but just are an attempt to reword something to clarify meaning of what is already present that get rejected, but there are also some that are accepted.
Retired electricians? Don't sound like retirement to me, just a little different type of job
Manufacturers or someone hired by manufacturers - probably is true in a lot of cases - look at AFCI incorporation into the NEC. Also look at other new products in general over the years that had no code sections that pertained to them.
Changes to things that have been unchanged for long time don't happen all that easily though, you usually need to show injuries, deaths, property damage that may have been avoided if a different installation standard were present for a certain area of concern, and possibly evidence of how much less damages would be if your proposal were to be accepted.
There are a lot of proposals that don't change the actual code requirements, but just are an attempt to reword something to clarify meaning of what is already present that get rejected, but there are also some that are accepted.
I'm not being a smart allick but i'm not so sure of that. I'm sitting here reading my analysis of changes 2014 and here are a few changes where I don't see a relation to that above bold
210.8(A)(7) I can see this one but can't find injury stats yet
210.8(D) Can't find stats on this really (we argued this in another thread)
210.52 (E)(1) Iffy evidence more of convenience
210.52(E)(3) Convenience
210.52(G) Convenience
210.64 Convenience
310.10(H)(2) Love this one but doubt any injuries or death ever
330.30(D)(3) Don't care for this one much, doubt ever caused any death or injuries
Etc...so on and so forth
Just saying. Not being a smart allick but i'm guessing that 90% of changes were for better design and not based on injury or death statistics
Just another myth. Have you taken the time to read some of the accepted ROP's and note who the submitters are? You'd be surprised at how many are everyday working electricians, inspectors, engineers, ...... and some are even members of this forum.
If you feel strongly about something give it a shot, you might or might not get it accepted but one thing's for sure, if you don't submit your odds are known.
Roger
kwired
Electron manager
- Location
- NE Nebraska
- Occupation
- EC
Did you read the ROP's. I don't know what they are on anything you mentioned but knowing why the change was made sometimes helps understand. That don't mean all will agree with the change either but tells you what the CMP was thinking.
I also didn't say you couldn't get any of those changes, but you do need to convince the CMP of your idea, some of what I suggested can help.
fmtjfw
Senior Member
- Location
- Fairmont, WV, USA
210.8(D) -- rumor is that GE builds dishwashers that fail badly
210.52(E)(1) -- the intent here is to make it easier to use an outside receptacle rather than heaving an extension cord out a window and eventually closing the window on said cord
210.52(G) again fewer extension cords
210.64 again ...
310.10(H)(2) no doubt some bozo tried to parallel AL and CU conductors somewhere
330.30(D)(3) loosens the 12 inch rule for vibration uses.
- Location
- Massachusetts
The real problem is there is already a non-metalic cable listed for wet locations so the chances of getting standard NM approved for wet locations is zip.
- Status