Glaring error in the NEC

Status
Not open for further replies.
kwired said:
Why do you think code definition is wrong?

There are three different definitions and the one that is simply service conductors is:



The other two are more specific but both are still "service conductors".

Also note it says "from the service point". So if service point is say at the mentioned gutter your (A) (or (1)) answer is not a correct answer because part of what is described is ahead of the service point.
Click to expand...
Finally someone who understands English grammar chimes in with the correct analysis of the situation. It simply does not matter where a Service Lateral or an Overhead Service Entrance Conductor begins and ends. All those definitions can tell you is where one specific subtype of service entrance conductor ends and a different subtype or simply the generic type begins. There is only one definition of Service Conductor, and it includes, but is not limited to, all of the specific subtypes.

And while we are on the subject, an answer can be ambiguous (capable of different possibly equally valid interpretations, leaving the speakers intent unclear.)
But it cannot be ambivalent (unable to express a clear preference for one of several alternative actions.)

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 
It's difficult to have a conversation about where the service conductors end without also including where the first mean of overcurrent protection begins.


Jap>
 
Strathead said:
Why? This is not a code question. It is a question derived from the wording in a text book. And you seem to miss the point, the code definition is wrong.
Click to expand...

How can it not be a code question? What is the point of having a multiple-choice written question about 'service conductors' if that phrase isn't meant to refer to the code definition? One can use non-formal language all day on a job site if one likes. But it makes no sense to ask multiple choice questions that involve the meaning of formal code terms, and then claim that's not what you're doing!

As far as the code definition being 'wrong', I've read through the thread and I've still no idea what you're talking about. Not sure how any part of the code can clearly be 'wrong' per se, as opposed to merely contradictory with another part. But I've yet to see any contradiction explained either.
 
So, if the various parts of the service conductor are also service conductor then how can we regulate a fireman’s switch that is part of the service run without becoming the ocpd and thus requiring four wires instead of three wires and a higher voltage calculation? With all our smart brains there. Has to be a way to define and write it so jurisdictions that want it and places it can be of help at can have it without it being a pain in the arse to codify... I know this is a different thread in a way but the amount of different definitions for service conductor comes up here so perhaps the thought train can come up here as well... my own thought would be unfused disconnect that lifts the neutral as well as the live wires, either lifting and connecting the neutral first, or at the same time, and specifically being rated for the maximum rating that could come through the poco connection... but agin, just a student, going crazy
 
After all of this and I have to admit I was wrong. I honestly don't know what I was looking at yesterday because, when I read it with fresh eyes I see it correctly. I honestly can't explain exactly what I thought I was seeing in less than 100 words so I won't even try. It would be fine with me if a moderator just closed this thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top