Just how easy is it anyway?

[charlie]

It is interesting to note how many complaints I have heard about how difficult the Code is to understand. Notice the trouble we are all having in formulating good Code that is precise and easy to understand. I am wondering how many of you thought that writing Code would be a lot easier than this?

 

[jimwalker]

Re: Just how easy is it anyway?

I just think that if a journeyman was to read an article that 90% would have no doughts whatsoever as to what they said.Here we sit with a debate over dining rooms lights thats well over 300 posts and still not resolved.If we take a test we must pass by 75% should they not be graded too ?We should not need to look at 3 or 4 articles and exceptions to get a simple answer of yes or no.We are forced to buy a poor quaility book at a price set by them.Not to sure how legal that even is.The least they could do is right it in english.What are the copy rights on LAWS ?

 

[gndrod]

Re: Just how easy is it anyway?

Hi Charlie, The Code does have a method in its madness as I am finding out. Ruminating over the usage of terms in tense (I.e. ground and bond) is a task to write and decipher in itself.
Graphics has to be the answer. Why doesn't the NFPA bite the bullet. Heck, I'll volunteer. For a little while.

rbj, Seattle

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Just how easy is it anyway?

I dunno about that. Graphics could set things in stone that were never intended. And the last thing we need is some putz with a picturebook failing installations because "it doesn't look like the picture."

Imagine it taken to it's worst extreme, that's where it would go, IMO.

 

[pierre]

Re: Just how easy is it anyway?

George
You are way too harsh!
There are as many good inspectors as there are good electricians, and visa-versa

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Just how easy is it anyway?

Pierre, I back up inspectors way more than I attack them. Given a recent experience with one that has no practical experience, offering a enforceable graphic-based tome could be brutal.

You can see the "curve" change with graphics involved, right? A mundane detail can be amplified, overshadowing the intent of the code. The intent of text can be tricky, but I can envision the "intent" of pictures getting real ugly.

Our debates of "intent" would become much much more relevant. "Did they intend to draw a red wirenut?"

Edit to add: Just to make it real clear, I respect any inspector who knows what they are doing, as I respect any electrician who knows what they are doing.

The very few bad apples that know little and abuse power are what I am casting a light on in this thread. I think it would be a bad combination, IMO.

[ April 06, 2005, 12:15 AM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]

 

[gndrod]

Re: Just how easy is it anyway?

Okay George, But then, a velevet tongue with NEC in hand does lead to interpretations that are more adverse than a picture backed up with the Article section callouts. JMO

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Just how easy is it anyway?

True.

Figure 210.52 was a nice addition to the 2005. Diagrams can be very helpful if they're kept simple, and used sparingly. Juzza pinch.

 

[jwelectric]

Re: Just how easy is it anyway?

Mr. Eldridge
I spoke with Ode today and he said to say hi the next time we spoke. He was very informative at this meeting as always.

I find the NEC very easy to understand with little trouble when I put my personal feeling behind me and read it as a safety manual. Sometimes I can?t see what is in front of me until I leave the way I am thinking behind. A good example of this can be found here in this forum.

I am very proud of those that work to make the NEC the book it is today. I can understand how some people get frustrated trying to read the code and admit that sometimes the code making panels blow it as was done this cycle in 680.26 (C).
The wonderful part is that we have a chance to fix it in three years.

I also feel that electrical contractors and code enforcement officials are in the same boat of learning. It is our responsible to teach each other. When either side thinks they know more than the other this is when trouble starts.

Should any panel member have the chance to read this post allow me the chance to thank you for the hard work you put forth in your efforts to make my trade safer.

 

[charlie]

Re: Just how easy is it anyway?

JW, I really appreciate the thoughts but I am Charlie, not Mr. Eldridge. I feel like we are all friends here who happen to disagree sometimes. After the discussions and sometimes arguments, we are still friends.

The important thing I get from this forum is different viewpoints. I have changed my opinion on some things and have been wrong more times than I want to admit. All of you are helping me to become a better panel member and for that, I thank you.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Just how easy is it anyway?

Originally posted by charlie:
I am wondering how many of you thought that writing Code would be a lot easier than this?

What strikes me more than that, is the fact that there are many times that I envision that a phrase would be perfect a certain way, and then get broadsided with a double-meaning that wasn't intended, but is undeniable.

That is one really cool part of this forum. So many different eyes picking something apart, it's a trial by fire before the important people ever see it.

At least there's no problems with 240 or 780.

 

[charlie]

Re: Just how easy is it anyway?

At least there's no problems with 240 or 780.

Right . . . HMMM

 

[physis]

Re: Just how easy is it anyway?

Well Charlie,

I don't think it's particularly difficult to write code. In fact, I think it's exceedingly easy.

Of course if I were stop there it would be a completely redicuolous statemant.

The challenge is writing good code. And I've found after posting only two proposals that I didn't do nearly enough homework to presume my "complaint" should be converted into a proposal.

I don't know how other people use the NEC, but I know how I do. I find the precise code I want and hope it's not written by CMP 2 (sorry, couldn't resist) so that I can proceed with whatever it was I was doing that I needed a code reference for.

It's a completely different operation when your intention is to change the code (hopefully to make it better). The code you want to change can not possibly be considered outside of it's relationship to other codes.

Because of one of the proposals I posted I decided that I needed to take a closer look at what I was "really" doing. I studied article 210 until, at one point, I turned around and saw that most of the ordinary men following behind me were wandering aimlessly in a state of utter confusion. And as I forged ahead, I realized that my proposal was not particularly meaningful in the sense that:

I didn't have a clear enough understanding of how the code I wanted to change was interdependent with so many other things. Long story less long, NOW, I see my initial attempt at a proposal as offering the wrong solution.

Yes JW, it is easy to use the code, once you know a particular area, it's not all that difficult to "refind" something. The same could be said about how "easy" it is to get from your house to the nearest movie theater. In fact, you might not even remember how to write down all the turns you need to make because you don't even have to think about it anymore. So, although that's great for you, how does your honed and sharpened experience with the NEC make it easier for someone else to find something? And then to also know, there isn't something somewhere else that redifines it?

I'd like to see the NEC be useful without a five year investment of whatever kind is currently required.

 

[charlie]

Re: Just how easy is it anyway?

Sam, the Code can be made easy to understand and learn. Let's get rid of all the classified areas, wiring methods but one, no conduit systems, just one type of communication system, just one type of termination, etc.

It is the plethora of equipment, types of manufacturing methods, technologies, etc. that makes the rules so complicated. When all of the items that the Code covers is taken into consideration, the Code is amazingly simple.

 

[physis]

Re: Just how easy is it anyway?

Charlie that would only be true if that were the only source of complication.

 

[iwire]

Re: Just how easy is it anyway?

Sam is it your prospective that the past and present writers of the code are playing some evil joke on us and intentionally making it hard for us?

Do you think the NEC could be easer but these folks said 'the heck with that'.

I for one am glad that the use of the NEC is not easy for the untrained. Thats why they call us.

 

[physis]

Re: Just how easy is it anyway?

Here's an example of something that's just buried.

There are two specific codes that make it manditory for the current of fluorescent lighting loads to be figured based on name plate rather than wattage and their branch ciruuits to be installed to accomidate that figure.

Can anyone tell me where that is?

I see no harm in making it better.

 

[physis]

Re: Just how easy is it anyway?

I was typing while you were posting Bob.

To some degree, I think that leaving things in a state of disrepair is something like that.

I don't think there's is enough impetus on the part of the CMP's to correct problems. They lie in wait for a proposal to be made. That's weird.

I don't expect perfection. But how many code cycles may go by with no action taken to correct something that might be a know problem?

 

[iwire]

Re: Just how easy is it anyway?

Originally posted by physis:
To some degree, I think that leaving things in a state of disrepair is something like that.

I guess that is where we part ways.

Although it may not be perfect I do not consider the code in a state of disrepair and I do believe they are interested in making it better.

As evidence of that Article 250 had a major reorganization. Many people thought it was the end of the world and all the CMPs where doing was making it worse.

Now that we are all used to the revamped 250 it is more organized than before.

Beyond all that you now know how to initiate change so have at it.

 

[physis]

Re: Just how easy is it anyway?

Any stab at the question I posed Bob?

That is disrepair.

And don't misunderstand. Just because I throw a temper tantrum doesn't mean that I believe it's all evil. I just believe it's frustrating sometimes.

Edit:

[ April 10, 2005, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: physis ]