Intent

[milwaukeesteve]

Intent.
My 3 year old breaks a lamp while playing ball in the house. Did he intend to break the lamp, no. However, he was naughty, he was throwing a ball in the house, and now my lamp is still broken.
Of course his intent was not to break the lamp, but the end result is that my lamp is broken.

Intent.
That word has popped up throughout several posts lately. I contend that intent is only the driving force behind the result, but in the end the result is the only thing real.

Intent.
Do we look at the intent of the code panel when interpreting a code rule? Do we know the intent of the code panel on all rules? How much weight is behind intent, compared to what the rule states? In the end, we are left with the rule, only, and must make all rulings and judgements based on what is stated and the wording used. But at somepoint we need to know why the rule was written in the first place, don't we?

I feel that intent only tells us why, where as the code rule tells us what is.

 

[physis]

Re: Intent

I agree with you Steve.

It's hard to have an objective discussion when there's too much intent involved. You can't interpret the NEC through intent. As if so many of us even know what the intent actually is to begin with.

And it wouldn't matter if the intent were the opposite of the printed words. The intent is unenforceable.

But that doesn't mean you can never talk about intent either. There are times when it's relevant.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Intent

Originally posted by physis:
And it wouldn't matter if the intent were the opposite of the printed words. The intent is unenforceable.

Amen!

There are a lot of discussions we've had where the intent is generally perceived to be the exact opposite of what the code calls for!

Intent is almost a four-letter-word, IMO. The text must stand on it's own. Otherwise the text must be corrected.

Although when the intent sides with me, it's a good thing.

 

[bphgravity]

Re: Intent

To me, the word intent means history. If we don't know where we once were, we can't know the best way to proceed.

My copies of previous ROP and ROC records are just as valuable to me as the NEC itself. It allows me to understnad the thought process and reasoning behind many of the requirements we must meet today.

For me, intent is essential for NEC understanding.


Edit: In all actuality, the intent is the same for each and every section of the NEC - the practical safeguarding of persons and property. The trick is understanding how the section accomplishes that task.

[ May 15, 2005, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: bphgravity ]

 

[physis]

Re: Intent

I would disagree that intent means history.

But I will agree that having ROP's and ROC's along with a good number of past cycles (and also experience with them) puts you in a good position to judge intent based on history.

 

[jwelectric]

Re: Intent

Originally posted by bphgravity:
To me, the word intent means history. If we don't know where we once were, we can't know the best way to proceed.

My copies of previous ROP and ROC records are just as valuable to me as the NEC itself. It allows me to understnad the thought process and reasoning behind many of the requirements we must meet today.

Edit: In all actuality, the intent is the same for each and every section of the NEC - the practical safeguarding of persons and property. The trick is understanding how the section accomplishes that task.

can not be said any better

 

[jwelectric]

Re: Intent

Let me also add the words of soneone else. The last sentance of this post hold a lot of wisdom

Unfortunately the rules have been distorted by individuals that were not aware of the Code-Panel discussions and have not followed the history of the particular Code sections in the technical committee reports that are being discussed in this forum.

To see the complete post click here

 

[iwire]

Re: Intent

Originally posted by jwelectric:
Let me also add the words of soneone else. The last sentance of this post hold a lot of wisdom

Unfortunately the rules have been distorted by individuals that were not aware of the Code-Panel discussions and have not followed the history of the particular Code sections in the technical committee reports that are being discussed in this forum.

To see the complete post click here

I would add that the history behind a rule is nice to know however all that is relavant is the words contained in the section today, that's all that is enforceable.

Intent and history can not enter into enforcement.

 

[physis]

Re: Intent

I've decided to dissect your post Bryan, only because I have nothing better to do and your perspective on the topic is a good one and has got me thinking.

To me, the word intent means history. If we don't know where we once were, we can't know the best way to proceed.

I've always thought that the quote by, I forget who, Socrates?, "we stand on the shoulders of giants" was very meaningful, one of my favorites.

This is great for understanding something about the ideas and concerns behind the NEC and it's purpose. And I agree there is a lot of value in it.

As applied to interpreting the NEC, much less useful. You simply can't use this insight to put up a building.

My copies of previous ROP and ROC records are just as valuable to me as the NEC itself. It allows me to understand the thought process and reasoning behind many of the requirements we must meet today.

I wouldn't argue with that for a second. A valuable asset.

For me, intent is essential for NEC understanding.

I think this is thin ice. Although I agree to a large extent, there has to be a clear boundary between code and intent. You can understand that the intent is the opposite of the code until you turn purple.

But it is true that it's better to see that the code and it's intent, for whatever reason, don't agree if that's the case.

In all actuality, the intent is the same for each and every section of the NEC - the practical safeguarding of persons and property. The trick is understanding how the section accomplishes that task.

A little idealistic but probably pretty accurate in a general sense. Doesn't help a lot in understanding any particular situation. But it usually does reduce to that. And I'll admit that when I'm at odds with a code if I come to a resolution it usually lies in that direction.

 

[physis]

Re: Intent

Wow, I've been typing this for while, that's when you got your post in.

Hi Bob.

 

[jwelectric]

Re: Intent

Bob and Sam

With the utmost of respect to your thoughts of the word ?intent? I am compelled to disagree. As outlined below you can see ?intent? is referenced several times.

80.15 (G) (2) (a.) The true intent of the codes or ordinances described in this Code has been incorrectly interpreted.

90.7 It is the intent of this Code that factory-installed internal wiring or the construction of equipment need not be inspected at the time of installation of the equipment,

422.33 (B) Connection at the Rear Base of a Range. For cord-and-plug-connected household electric ranges, an attachment plug and receptacle connection at the rear base of a range, if it is accessible from the front by removal of a drawer, shall be considered as meeting the intent of 422.33(A).

770.154 (E) FPN: It is not the intent to require that these optical fiber cables be listed specifically for use in cable trays.

 

[luke warmwater]

Re: Intent

Originally posted by physis:
I've always thought that the quote by, I forget who, Socrates?, "we stand on the shoulders of giants" was very meaningful, one of my favorites.

I believe that was the famed alchemist Isaac Newton.

 

[physis]

Re: Intent

JW,

With all due respect.

Are you trying to misrepresent this section as if we don't have a copy to refer to?

80.15 (G) (2) (a.) The true intent of the codes or ordinances described in this Code has been incorrectly interpreted.

Or is my second guess the accurate one.

You have the CD and used the search function. And because you've found four occurrences, felt compelled to mount an arguement that you can, somehow, based on those references, enforce intent.

Foregive me if I'm misinterpreting your intentions JW. You could prevent that possiblity by actually "stating" your intention or whatever point it is you're trying to make.

Thank you for the correction Todd. Alchemist, I don't think I remember that honor.

Edit: I left out some verbage.

[ May 15, 2005, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: physis ]

 

[iwire]

Re: Intent

Originally posted by jwelectric:
Bob and Sam

With the utmost of respect to your thoughts of the word ?intent? I am compelled to disagree. As outlined below you can see ?intent? is referenced several times.

Mike we can disagree but an inspector can absolutely not enforce intent even if they where in the CMP meetings and truthfully 'know' the intent.

The only binding words are what are written in the code sections.

For what it is worth Article 80 is informational only it also can not be enforced unless specifically adopted.

FPNs are informational only.

As far as sections that use the word intent that is a different mater, then it is part of the code.

If I was an inspector I could believe the intent of 210.52(B)(1) is to make all kitchen outlets be 20 amp circuits.

I could not enforce that, the words in the sections do not bare that out.

 

[electricmanscott]

Re: Intent

The problem with the words is that often times they do not spell out exactly what the intent of the code is leaving it widely open to interpretation. Commonly referred to as a gray area. We all know that there a very many articles that are not a simple this or that answer. That is where you, and by you I mean the electrician, the inspector the ahj all the parties involved, have no choice but to try do figure out what the intent of the article is. To belive you can only go by the words written is very short sighted because many times the words contradict each other. I wish it was as simple as reading what is written and taking a definite answer. Anyone who has ever posted a question this forum knows that it is not the case.

 

[jwelectric]

Re: Intent

Sam
I have downloaded the CD to my hard drive and no longer use the CD but yes I did do a search of the word ?intent? and posted a few of the sections that came up.

I left out a couple that I can use later should this progress into a full debate such as this one
90.4 Enforcement.
This Code is intended

Bob

Mike we can disagree but an inspector can absolutely not enforce intent even if they where in the CMP meetings and truthfully 'know' the intent.

If I was an inspector I could believe the intent of 210.52(B)(1) is to make all kitchen outlets be 20 amp circuits.

I agree with you on the enforceability of intent and neither can he enforce what he believes either

 

[jwelectric]

Re: Intent

Scott

To belive you can only go by the words written is very short sighted because many times the words contradict each other. I wish it was as simple as reading what is written and taking a definite answer. Anyone who has ever posted a question this forum knows that it is not the case.

I don?t understand this post. I think that the code is crystal clear and I have no problem at all reading the code.
If you are having trouble with an article just ask me and I will give you a answer. Let me also say that if anyone disagrees with me, well they are just plain wrong and you can tell them I said so.

 

[physis]

Re: Intent

Scott,

you bring up a point that's (I think) a little different than what we've been arguing about.

Not all that long ago I thought it was sloppy to have codes that seemed to be mostly "gray area".

For example:

Indoor service panels being mounted near service conductor enterance.

Exposure to physical or severe phyical damage.

My point is that some things are intentionally left to the discretion of the AHJ.

But I don't believe that everything falls into that category. I think some things are not intended to be beat to smitherines like we've been doing here in the recent past.

[ May 15, 2005, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: physis ]

 

[iwire]

Re: Intent

Originally posted by electricmanscott:
To believe you can only go by the words written is very short sighted because many times the words contradict each other.

To believe otherwise means one inspector can interpret intent differently than the next inspector.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Intent

Originally posted by jwelectric:
I don?t understand this post. I think that the code is crystal clear and I have no problem at all reading the code.
If you are having trouble with an article just ask me and I will give you a answer. Let me also say that if anyone disagrees with me, well they are just plain wrong and you can tell them I said so.

Hey Scott, if you ever want a guided tour of Paris, just let me know, because I'm the King of France.