Handbook vs NEC Code Book

[mbrooke]

I don't think the NEC is written to confuse people. The need to put forth huge amounts of information and the desire to have some continuity from cycle to cycle is bound to cause some confusion. I think the only thing that really irritates me is when I look at the index and it says, " see lightning rods" or some such when it would be shorter to write "page 77"

Perhaps not confuse intentionally, but vague, or pseudo dual meaning, yes. Im not the person that sees a complex entity making such blatant errors. Yes, perhaps there is confusion within code changes, but I see many articles standing for decades where the interpretation can go either way. In fact half the debates here are "whats the intention of article X" The fact the AHJ has the last call kind of makes me think its written that way. In regards, it has been part of culture in the past to not be direct about laws or rules even though when they were created for a specific purpose. Perhaps laws effecting a person should have room for argument, but I see no reason to do so in the NEC.


Now one can argue other all codes are confusing based on the nature. True, but look at the CEC for example. It is far more clear and concise. It tells you what is ok and not ok in direct terms.

 

[mbrooke]

The following is from the handbook itself:

"or the contributors" Which one could argue the NEC. Although your point is still a valid one.

 

[mbrooke]

That is my complaint with the code book. An inspector in Chicago does not have an opinion. He is the AHJ.
There may well be a way to challange it, but your out of your mind to do that.

IMO the code should be written so there is very little interperting going on. The big shots here on this web site don't always agree, and you all seem to be experts.


It's also plane stupid to be able to install something like it is shown in the hand book and fail an inspection. It never happened to me, but I've read about it.
Thanks
Mike

I agree 100%. This is an area, though legal in nature, that should not have interpretation. I have a feeling its intentional so individual AHJ micro climates can have an influence, or some political shenanigans, but in reality no valid point exists. If anything it basically lets people say "well, if its so vague, I will interpret it the way I want", which isn't yielding practical safe guards all the time. I have done myself before.



My honest opinion is the NEC needs a huge clean up. I don't think 2 phase would be found in any new installation and those existing will cease to do so. Knob and tub as well, fuse boxes too. I see so many hold overs pre 1950s. Also, some silly design recommendations should be scrapped. Requiring a dedicated circuits for a cord and plug hood is not the intention of the code.



At this point the code has a dated feel, with "feel goods" being added like TR receptacles and handles ties but no change in structure.



Grounding and bonding needs a major overhaul. When you bond an appliance grounding has nothing to do with that. The code is overly (more) concerned about grounding electrodes rather than bonding. A ground rod wont do much in terms of safety, but unbounded anything in the structure like pluming passed the water meter is a real danger. UFER enforcing also needs to change, and be made stricter as I rarely see it done. Not bonding the UFER in a structure is only half a bonding system, and thus dangerous as it will always be a remote earth separate from a structure's equal potential system. Sizing EGCs in voltage drop cases should also be revised, since at this point its foggy.


And yes, I believe testing requirements for new and existing installations that have undergone work or modification by an electrician should be put in place inside the NEC. NEC says shall be free of defect, but to this day I have yet to see an electrician verify that. For example, requiring for example earth fault loop impedance testing will in the least ensure an intact EGC. All it takes is a plug in tester and 8 seconds.


Many other requirements that fall out of safety onto design should be eliminated as they serve no real purpose other than profit and conflict.

 

[Strathead]

So in the next edition, when all the pages referred to are changed (lighting rods are on page 79 then), are you going to volunteer to change all the specific page references throughout the handbook, proofread and guarantee the results?

This is why you memorize code references, not page numbers. If you memorize page numbers, you have to re-memorize everything every 3 years.

You totally misunderstood my reference. It wasn't page it was see... I wasn't commenting on the use of sections instead of page numbers. I was commenting on how they send to another index section instead of just telling you where to go.

 

[Strathead]

That is my complaint with the code book. An inspector in Chicago does not have an opinion. He is the AHJ.
There may well be a way to challange it, but your out of your mind to do that.

IMO the code should be written so there is very little interperting going on. The big shots here on this web site don't always agree, and you all seem to be experts.


It's also plane stupid to be able to install something like it is shown in the hand book and fail an inspection. It never happened to me, but I've read about it.
Thanks
Mike

We are humans. We can argue over just about anything. I have never forgotten my high school math teacher telling me that 2 plus 2 doesn't necessarily equal four. All of our math is based on the premise that 1 plus one equals two, but that can't be proven so, "if 1+1=2 then 2+2=4" If everyone lived in identical hovels and used electricity the exact same way, then perhaps the codes could be written with clarity, otherwise we need to have some ability to think for ourselves.

 

[Strathead]

I agree 100%. This is an area, though legal in nature, that should not have interpretation.

I feel you are oversimplifying a very complex situation. There are always areas where things can be improved, but a general statement like "the code should be written to prevent interpretation." is itself complex. So let's remove the exception that allows conduit to be strapped at 5 feet from a box under certain conditions, or wait, let's require all conduit to be strapped 5 feet from a box, but what if the first location is 4' 9" and there is no place to strap at 5'. I am exaggerating, yes, but I am trying to make a point that the code is trying to give you BASIC guidelines on electrical installations for safety. If it was your way, we would still be running rigid and knob and tube everywhere because that is what the code said.

 

[kwired]

The one time I did a job using Black, Red & Blue for the hot conductors, and got failed for the blue one, got re-inspected by a different inspector and passed.
Thanks
Mike

I see a challenge in there to the inspector that rejected it if it were my job, more details could possibly change that, but on the surface that one needs challenged.

We are humans. We can argue over just about anything. I have never forgotten my high school math teacher telling me that 2 plus 2 doesn't necessarily equal four. All of our math is based on the premise that 1 plus one equals two, but that can't be proven so, "if 1+1=2 then 2+2=4" If everyone lived in identical hovels and used electricity the exact same way, then perhaps the codes could be written with clarity, otherwise we need to have some ability to think for ourselves.

Exactly. It is hard to write a code that covers every possibility without some questions at times.

No offense to anyone intended this just reminded me of the old saying about how it is hard to idiot proof anything, once you do idiot proof it - along comes a better idiot.

Same with the code - once you think you have covered everything - along comes something that is not specifically covered anywhere, but they have enough general rules that you need to fall back on when something specific is not covered for the most part and if you think the general rules make something unsafe you do have the option to submit change proposals for the next code.

 

[mbrooke]

I feel you are oversimplifying a very complex situation. There are always areas where things can be improved, but a general statement like "the code should be written to prevent interpretation." is itself complex. So let's remove the exception that allows conduit to be strapped at 5 feet from a box under certain conditions, or wait, let's require all conduit to be strapped 5 feet from a box, but what if the first location is 4' 9" and there is no place to strap at 5'. I am exaggerating, yes, but I am trying to make a point that the code is trying to give you BASIC guidelines on electrical installations for safety. If it was your way, we would still be running rigid and knob and tube everywhere because that is what the code said.

Code can set basic guidelines without being vague.Different IMO. What you describe IMO is a design guide. How many times have we here even admitted to ourselves does that comma mean and, or, but?

Clarity, while giving the individual person a right to think and make exceptions in extreme cases is best.

 

[Strathead]

Same with the code - once you think you have covered everything - along comes something that is not specifically covered anywhere, but they have enough general rules that you need to fall back on when something specific is not covered for the most part and if you think the general rules make something unsafe you do have the option to submit change proposals for the next code.

Well put and where I was trying to go. I think you would agree there are places where the code has gotten cumbersome, and could be totally rewritten, but they have actually been trying to do a little of that the last couple cycles. One that I can think of is the requirement to use a water pipe as a grounding electrode if it is metal in contact with the earth.

 

[kwired]

Well put and where I was trying to go. I think you would agree there are places where the code has gotten cumbersome, and could be totally rewritten, but they have actually been trying to do a little of that the last couple cycles. One that I can think of is the requirement to use a water pipe as a grounding electrode if it is metal in contact with the earth.

Maybe I am missing something but they have wanted us to use metal water pipes for grounding electrodes even before dirt was invented.

 

[Strathead]

Maybe I am missing something but they have wanted us to use metal water pipes for grounding electrodes even before dirt was invented.

I didn't finish my thought. I don't believe I have been on a job where the incoming water line was copper in at least 10 years. And that includes gold plated spec. government jobs. I believe (just my opinion) that a water pipe could be an optional supplemental ground, but not a, or the primary ground means. In reality I don't really think that, because any plumber who comes in to repair it can replace it with PVC without an electrician being the wiser. Because of that, I believe a water pipe should be treated no differently than a gas pipe. 'bonded where it may become energized.'

 

[mike1061]

All of our math is based on the premise that 1 plus one equals two, but that can't be proven so, "if 1+1=2 then 2+2=4"

That's ridiculous. It's suppose that there my be some deep logic there, but it's really silly. All of electricty is based on that same math.
Thanks
Mike

 

[GoldDigger]

You totally misunderstood my reference. It wasn't page it was see... I wasn't commenting on the use of sections instead of page numbers. I was commenting on how they send to another index section instead of just telling you where to go.

And I think you missed the point too. A "see ...." reference will not need to be updated no matter how much the structure of the document changes, while a duplicate direct reference is one more change to be tracked when the document is edited.
Note that with modern indexing software that does not need to be a serious concern.

 

[mike1061]

My honest opinion is the NEC needs a huge clean up. I don't think 2 phase would be found in any new installation and those existing will cease to do so. Knob and tub as well, fuse boxes too. I see so many hold overs pre 1950s. Also, some silly design recommendations should be scrapped. Requiring a dedicated circuits for a cord and plug hood is not the intention of the code.

Well, if it's in the code do you have to use it? Around here we have a lot of Knob & Tube and a lot of fuse boxes. There getting updated but there still there.

At this point the code has a dated feel, with "feel goods" being added like TR receptacles and handles ties but no change in structure.

I don't have a problem with either of these, as longs as it's clear when your supposed to use them.

Grounding and bonding needs a major overhaul. When you bond an appliance grounding has nothing to do with that. The code is overly (more) concerned about grounding electrodes rather than bonding. A ground rod wont do much in terms of safety, but unbounded anything in the structure like pluming passed the water meter is a real danger.

This has been discussed a lot before.

Thanks
Mike

 

[mwm1752]

The NFPA 70 has to reference decades of installation. We have buildings with knob & tube, AL romex, bx cable, that need to be addressed from time to time. The handbook is extremely helpful with commentary and can only be taken at face value. As they say we can agree to disagree and move on. Designers & architects are always searching for that never been done before effect and that is where the code is scrutinized in inspections. There will always be judgement calls and life safety should be on top of the list when they are made. Hey , if it was easy anyone could do it. Electrical installations require professionalism within the constraints of the code. How many out there have issues but have not tried to submit code changes? There's your sign.

 

[mike1061]

I see a challenge in there to the inspector that rejected it if it were my job, more details could possibly change that, but on the surface that one needs challenged.

Exactly. It is hard to write a code that covers every possibility without some questions at times.

I posted a thread about that at the time.

I know it's hard to write the book. It's still amazing to me that the smart people here don't have the same opinion of the same text. Reading and writing have never been easy for me, so reading the code book is very though for me. But you guys seem to know so much.
Thanks
Mike

 

[mbrooke]

Well, if it's in the code do you have to use it? Around here we have a lot of Knob & Tube and a lot of fuse boxes. There getting updated but there still there.

But why still talk about them like a new installation or wiring method? Technically I could still install 2 phase power with a fuse board, knife switches and knob and tube.

I don't have a problem with either of these, as longs as it's clear when your supposed to use them.

I do. What will handle ties accomplish in commercial? Why does a corded range hood need a dedicated circuit? Why light up receptacles in hospitals? Why ballast discos in luminaires?


To me this is just idiot proofing something.

This has been discussed a lot before

Thanks
Mike

I know, just making a list Plus not everyone reads boring grounding and bonding threads.

 

[Strathead]

That's ridiculous. It's suppose that there my be some deep logic there, but it's really silly. All of electricty is based on that same math.
Thanks
Mike

It isn't silly. It is just deeper than we generally need to worry about. If I asked you whether H2O is a solid or a liquid I would assume you would say a liquid, but that is not really true. It is either or both, dependent upon the temperature. Like you say electricity is based on the same math. We still don't really know how electricity works. Hole flow, skin effect, electron flow, is an electron even a particle? We have developed rules based on theories that work. that is the same as math. My original point either way was little or nothing is sure, so writing the code as a sure thing is not feasible.

We here are a very good example of that. There are some very smart people here who could carry on for days on any subject you wish to argue. The sky is blue. The sky is up. Broccoli is green. Even dumb old me can think of arguments against these statements.

 

[GrayHair]

Back to the original post:

1. As don_resqcapt19 points out, the handbook contains the opinions of it authors and contributors; not the NFPA or its
committees.
2. As mkgrady pointed out, the ultimate opinion, IF it comes to it, belongs one sitting on a bench, wearing a black robe and wielding a gavel.
​

The only time I ever tried "discussing a point" with an Inspector out of anything other than an actual code book, I found myself talking to thin air. However, with my code book in hand, he listened, considered and passed the install. The document was a verbatium copy of pertinent sections of 70, but was non-starter. Anyway, I doubt there is a jurisdiction that has adopted the handbook.

The above, like the handbook, is opinion (mine ) and non-enforceable :rant:. Now, had I written the code, it would be perfect . . . . . . for me!

 

[mike1061]

Like you say electricity is based on the same math. We still don't really know how electricity works. Hole flow, skin effect, electron flow, is an electron even a particle? We have developed rules based on theories that work. that is the same as math.

You are right, very intersting point.
Thanks
Mike