Help with megger results of NM-B

[romex jockey]

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.

230.95(C), 590.6(B) ,550.17,552.60, 708.6, 700.3, 424.45, 551.60 are not info notes Don

They all elude to testing

The only debate here is the means to do so

~RJ~

 

[romex jockey]

The only sure way is calculate the minimum resistance permitted. There can’t be a one size fits all figure.

Eggzactly.....................

As much as they (the NEC) tries, it can not catalog and bottle every scenario down to a code standard


They've literally thrown theory under the manufacturing bus here .......


~RJ~

 

[romex jockey]

Only in limited temporary installations and is anyone talking about those?

I am

been there, done it

required.

period.

~RJ~

 

[don_resqcapt19]

230.95(C), 590.6(B) ,550.17,552.60, 708.6, 700.3, 424.45, 551.60 are not info notes Don

They all elude to testing

The only debate here is the means to do so

~RJ~

And none of them apply to general wiring, which this thread is talking about.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I am

been there, done it

required.

period.

~RJ~

Not required by the NEC...it is a shall be permitted "exception" to providing GFCI protection.

 

[romex jockey]

And none of them apply to general wiring, which this thread is talking about.

I concede general wiring is not required Don


But the nay sayers here have trashed 2 threads claiming what is good practice is not the norm at all, diregarding those circumstantial passages where it is required

Further, they have openly dismissed foreigners methods as non applicable

I protest this.

~RJ~

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I concede general wiring is not required Don


But the nay sayers here have trashed 2 threads claiming what is good practice is not the norm at all, diregarding those circumstantial passages where it is required

Further, they have openly dismissed foreigners methods as non applicable

I protest this.

~RJ~

I agree that it is a good practice, but I don't think it is the norm for most installations done in the US. I know for sure it is not the norm around my area.

 

[peter d]

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.

So are we going to see sideways panels, reduced ground wires in romex, grounding straps on plastic boxes, and all the other Canadian distinctives enter the NEC? Or will it be the other way around? My money is on the CEC becoming more like the NEC.

 

[peter d]

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~

I have no clue what you're trying to say and I'm certainly not going to try to figure it out either.

 

[peter d]

Further, they have openly dismissed foreigners methods as non applicable

I protest this.

~RJ~

Protest away then. Tell me how much relevance British Standards have in your daily installations? Between 0 and 1% would be accurate.

 

[mbrooke]

I agree that it is a good practice, but I don't think it is the norm for most installations done in the US. I know for sure it is not the norm around my area.

True, it not the norm however testing of GFP is required in hospitals so a fault on one circuit does not take out the main.

 

[mbrooke]

Protest away then. Tell me how much relevance British Standards have in your daily installations? Between 0 and 1% would be accurate.

All safe electrical installations follow the laws of physics. Neither the NEC nor BS7671 are just written using random numbers or words.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

So are we going to see sideways panels, reduced ground wires in romex, grounding straps on plastic boxes, and all the other Canadian distinctives enter the NEC? Or will it be the other way around? My money is on the CEC becoming more like the NEC.

The first changes based on that were the changes to the ampacity tables and the NEC was changed to match the CEC.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

True, it not the norm however testing of GFP is required in hospitals so a fault on one circuit does not take out the main.

But the required testing is of the GFP device itself, and not of the protected circuit(s).

 

[mbrooke]

The first changes based on that were the changes to the ampacity tables and the NEC was changed to match the CEC.

I somewhat disagree. When table 310.16 became 310.15 the ampacity for #14 and #12 went down in the 60*C column, but in the CEC they went up in the all three. I will post pics.

 

[mbrooke]

Ok, here are the tables for the 2009 and 2012 CEC. My understanding is that the 2009 table was used for decades prior being as conservative as the NEC (if not more), however the 2012 has many places where the ampacity goes up. 14, 12 and 10 gauge conductors are still limited to 15, 20 and 30amps via rule 14-104 for general use circuits, however many articles like electric heat, fixed loads, motors, ect over ride 14-104 so they can be loaded as specified in table 2.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I somewhat disagree. When table 310.16 became 310.15 the ampacity for #14 and #12 went down in the 60*C column, but in the CEC they went up in the all three. I will post pics.

Thanks....I had not looked at the CEC and was just going by the commentary in two code change books.

 

[iwire]

I am

been there, done it

required.

period.

~RJ~

230.95(C), 590.6(B) ,550.17,552.60, 708.6, 700.3, 424.45, 551.60 are not info notes Don

They all elude to testing

The only debate here is the means to do so

~RJ~

OK, this thread is about mega testing of NM-B, which of this specialized testing requirements you are pointing to would be involved with NM-B?

 

[iwire]

I'd rather there were less veiled threats and alienation from sorts who's >>>>JOB<<<< it is to keep the peace here.

~RJ~

I don't speak in riddles, when I (BBQ) found a forum no longer to my liking instead of complaining I simply left.

So it's no veiled threat, I am simply and clearly stating that if you do not like a website you do not have to go there.

 

[iwire]

But the nay sayers here have trashed 2 threads claiming what is good practice is not the norm at all, diregarding those circumstantial passages where it is required

Further, they have openly dismissed foreigners methods as non applicable

I protest this.

~RJ~

So the basic theory here is when people disagree with you they are nay sayers that trash the thread yet you are free to insult CMP members and others you disagree with.

Got it.