Handbook vs NEC Code Book

Status
Not open for further replies.
mbrooke said:
Why so? Explain ;)
Click to expand...
I can't produce any supporting documentation but learned a long time ago that the reason a ground rod never needs more then a 6 AWG copper (per NEC) is that a ground rod/pipe/plate is not able to dissipate more energy then can be delivered via a 6 AWG copper conductor. Same for a CEE except the size conductor is 4 AWG.

It may be true that some water pipes or building steel situations can not handle the current that the GEC could possibly deliver to them, but it is not as likely that a single rod/pipe/plate electrode or CEE would ever be able to handle more then a 6 or 4 AWG could ever deliver to them.
 
kwired said:
I can't produce any supporting documentation but learned a long time ago that the reason a ground rod never needs more then a 6 AWG copper (per NEC) is that a ground rod/pipe/plate is not able to dissipate more energy then can be delivered via a 6 AWG copper conductor. Same for a CEE except the size conductor is 4 AWG.

It may be true that some water pipes or building steel situations can not handle the current that the GEC could possibly deliver to them, but it is not as likely that a single rod/pipe/plate electrode or CEE would ever be able to handle more then a 6 or 4 AWG could ever deliver to them.
Click to expand...


I agree, but couldn't a ufer handle more?
 
iwire said:
Well maybe the problem is that the person relying on the handbook doesn't have much else to back up what their opinion is. That is just as possible as your spin on it. :)

It is simply a case of the handbook is great when it agrees with me and it stinks when it doesn't. You know .... human nature ....... everyone driving faster than me is an idiot and everyone driving slower than me is a moron.:p
Click to expand...

No spin here. I'm just stating what I see regarding this. I simply ask for examples of the book being wrong since it's brought up so much.:p

I do appreciate the example given which is what I was asking. I would say since that was clearly wrong it either got printed before the final edition of the revised code or just plain overlooked. I would say this will be changed in future editions. Unlike other times when the same commentary is given every edition but still hear some don't agree with it.

If you were insinuating that I "hang my hat" on the handbook, then you are wrong. I'm plenty capable of reading the code and making my own determination. Only copy of the handbook that I own is the 2005. I look at it on occasion to look at something that could be a little more clear in the code to see what it has to say.
Or to look at pictures, I like pictures!:)
 
Little Bill said:
No spin here. I'm just stating what I see regarding this. I simply ask for examples of the book being wrong since it's brought up so much.:p
Click to expand...

But it is your own take on it. :)

It is just as valid to say people should not bring up the handbook to prove their point.

If they can't prove their point (and I include myself here) using the words in the code book that is a failure on their part.
 
Little Bill said:
I do appreciate the example given which is what I was asking. I would say since that was clearly wrong it either got printed before the final edition of the revised code or just plain overlooked. I would say this will be changed in future editions.
Click to expand...

Why it is wrong, or that it may be corrected in the future is not relevant. The fact is it is wrong and cannot be used to validate that code section.
 
Since the handbook is an NFPA publication, it may be possible that if they discover this error they will release some Errata notice like they do with the NEC itself in those situations. They may also have the error corrected in any books published after they discover it.
 
How often do we use the NFPA 70 ROP's & ROC's for a particular year to get a basis for intent. The commentary in the Handbook( most of the time) aligns itself with the ROP/ROC. To clarify coments about the handbook not being code -- again -- The commentary is the only difference from the straight NFPA 70 editions. There are non enforceable sections in the straight NFPA editions as well does this make it a non code? Of course not. Would ROC/ROP comments be able to be submitted into court as a guiding factor on individual interpretation of code? If the code is brought into a court case as factual evidence, is it not the interpretation that is in trial and cannot the literature use by the industry as a reliable source be entered as a means for judgement rendered?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top