I sure tweaked a tail or two here...
I sure tweaked a tail or two here...
Bob (Iwire) wrote:
I have no idea why, and I also have no idea why that you often seem to believe that you by yourself could write a better code.
and: (In reference to my comment about this issue and the AFCI issue being stupid)
I do not see this as 'stupid' and are very surprised you do especially considering your signature.
First off, I highly respect Bob and he has given a lot of great answers here and on other forums. His level of experience as an electricain is also a lot greater than mine as well.
But I think in this case, he missed the big cheesy grin on the title line, as I was speaking tongue-in-cheek as to thumbing my nose at the Code.
The Code is indeed written over the course of many years and easily millions of man-hours of experience, more than any one of us can hope to gather in a full lifetime.
Can I, by myself, write a better Code? No, I would not presume to do so. (Well there are some very outdated issues with Art. 540 that I can attest to needing revision.)
BUT I can put forth arguements when something goes beyond assuring a certain level of safety and crosses over into the realm of
dictating a specific design. And like it or not, if the Code is trying to say that I
MUST use a standard toggle switch
instead of a device not otherwise disallowed by UL or an NRTL for that use, then the Code has now crossed over into being a design manual, which we all know it is not. (Art. 90.1(c))
Especially when there is an allowed option of using a breaker lockout.
Should disposals have a positive disconnect
or be provided with a breaker lockout? Absolutely.
Is cord-and-plug connected the safest solution to this debate? Absolutely again. If you are working on the disposal and have a clearly visible break with the cord unplugged that is indeed positive confirmation the power to the unit is off.
The other position I take is that the Code cannot protect the stupid from doing themselves harm. Any reasonable person who is about to attempt repair on that disposal is going to verify that the power is off, and will test at the unit's terminals (if hard wired) to be positive. Anything less is indeed stupid and natural selection will take over. :evil:
77401 said:
Dude its not the code it was one inspector that had a bad day because he couldnt get a H-on the night before.
Luckily common sense prevails the majority of the time.
Yeah, I had caught that it was the inspector, but from the rest of the replies it seems that if we look at this deeper the Code has issues with it too. :roll:
But, you nailed it with that last line that luckily common sense prevails the majority of the time.
The Code is overall a well-meaning and useful document. But it has inconsistencies and conflicting rules as well as a few that are simply vague and serve no solid, real-life safety purpose. In a document of its scope, it is a credit to the CMP's that those issues are few.