Help with megger results of NM-B

Status
Not open for further replies.
readydave8 said:
Lots of things cost more than they did in the '80s
Click to expand...

Of course. Have you seen, for example, how appliance makers and auto makers have cut back on material or changed to cheaper ones (like plastic) to compensate for higher raw material prices? Heck gas has been high enough to stimulate electric cars and hybrids.


Capitol cost reduction is concern today more then ever.
 
mbrooke said:
Which we must ask, why is our trend to increase while everyone else decreases?





Of course, thats why any electrician regardless of the code at hand should be aware of voltage drop. Even with our conservative wire you can still get excessive voltage drop under the right conditions. Benefit is less cost, material and labor.
Click to expand...
So your answer is we should be able to run #16 to water heaters. :roll:
 
peter d said:
So your answer is we should be able to run #16 to water heaters. :roll:
Click to expand...


Going to an ampacity table based on conditions of use will save copper in most installations. I know you may not agree, but others certainly would.
 
Last edited:
mbrooke said:
Going to an ampacity table based on conditions of use will save copper in most installations. I know you may not agree, but other certainly would.
Click to expand...


I'm all for saving money and reducing material cost. I often wire to code minimum. But what you propose is ridiculous.
 
kwired said:
They put AFCI's in the NEC;)

Of course if you had the money to back up your requested change you have a better chance of getting what you want.
Click to expand...

Manufacturers have far too much influence over the NEC to ever allow ampacity requirements to be relaxed (read: less copper and aluminum for them to sell.)
 
peter d said:
Except that the CEC and IEC are irrelevant to American wiring systems and are just as subjective as the NEC in many ways.
Click to expand...
Not sure you can really say that about the CEC, as there is an intent between CSA and NFPA to bring those codes much closer together. The change in a few of the values in the NEC ampacity tables a couple of code cycles ago, was part of that process.
 
romex jockey said:
Performance testing is an NEC requirement , So is an assured EGC program, there is no 'T&A allowed' , nor would a 'bang test' be advised at high amperages unless one has unlimited funds for equipment and ER visits

The particular meter or method w/meter is not detailed in the NEC, as it's assumed a competent electrician can operate and knows the limitations of more than a mere continuity check

One can either pursue the informational notes , or google this for a world of our trade rags offerings if not.

~RJ~
Click to expand...
There are very limited actual requirements in the NEC for performance testing.

There is no requirement to have an assured EGC program in the NEC.

Informational notes are just that...information...not requirements.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
There are very limited actual requirements in the NEC for performance testing.

There is no requirement to have an assured EGC program in the NEC.

Informational notes are just that...information...not requirements.
Click to expand...
Assured EGC program is an alternative to GFCI protection in some instances though.
 
peter d said:
I'm all for saving money and reducing material cost. I often wire to code minimum. But what you propose is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

If you are an EC this might be a concern, if you are not then the letter of the NEC is the only thing you should be subscribing to

~RJ~
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top