EC&M Forensic Case Book Article

Status
Not open for further replies.
don_resqcapt19 said:
I sent an e-mail to the author....he replied that testing showed that the box did not have a good connection to ground, but did not provide any details.
Click to expand...
Of course it did not have good connection. These guys always have the answer you cannot cross examine unless you were present.
 
jim dungar said:
At one point the author discusses how the baby monitor was ruled out as the source of the fire, because when it was opened there were no signs of a fire on the inside.
Yet the receptacle is being blamed, when it also does not have any signs of a fire internal to its box/enclosure.
Click to expand...
Jim, there is quite a "disconnect" that happens in the authors' language about the receptacle and box/enclosure.

The author(s) claim there is a clear violation of the NEC in what they show, but to my eye, I am not shown that violation in Photo 2. The author(s) claim that the NEC requires a "wire" for a ground connection is, simply, the author making up his own Code.

Now, following on Don's paraphrase of the author's email response about "testing". . . if continuity, and / or polarity, testing resulting in an electrical lack of continuity in the Equipment Grounding Conductor back to the Main Bonding Jumper in the Electrical Service Disconnect did, in fact, exist, that should be stated, AND, the forensic examination continued to reveal the point, or points, of dis-continuity. It may be as simple as showing the lack of an auto-ground feature in the receptacle device.

We can't know, because the "proof" offered is not proof at all, and the rest of the article does not include any information to support the conclusion of the authors.
 
He was very quick to respond to my email question, as have been most of the authors of EC&M articles....others could send him additional questions:)
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
.. ..others could send him additional questions:)
Click to expand...
I left the article author(s) the 1999 NEC 250-118(9) rule quote, including the rule about the EGC "enclosing" the circuit conductors, in a comment that is now up at the www.ecmweb.com article page comment section, along with a question about the receptacle device yoke features.

I would imagine he is on a crash course of learning about the 1999 or 1996 NEC Article 333 Armored Cable wiring method, but, I can't be sure what this expert actually knows based upon the muddled language of the published article.
 
The following is part of one of the authors comments.
No ground means neutral must take up the slack. It's often not strong enough to do this without getting very, very, very hot.
Click to expand...
 
Now they are censoring comments on EC&M.

I commented as to this

"No ground means neutral must take up the slack. It's often not strong enough to do this without getting very, very, very hot."




I asked where he gets his info from.
 
al hildenbrand said:
There is a time lag before the comment is posted because EC&M has to "review" your comment by a human, first. Do you think that is why it is not live yet?
Click to expand...


Nope its been several days.

I think they have mud on their face at this point!

Please with a comment like this


"No ground means neutral must take up the slack. It's often not strong enough to do this without getting very, very, very hot."

What electrician , engineer or other knowledgeable person would make such a comment.
Then to cause a EC harm!


Fishey
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top