Legality of NEC Handbook

[kwired]

But the writers are considered experts in their field of work, otherwise who the heck would buy the book?!:lol:

So is Mike Holt and some others. The advantage the handbook has is it is published by same organization that published the NEC and maybe doesn't need as big of a marketing budget as others may need if they were to try to publish similar material.

 

[weressl]

So is Mike Holt and some others. The advantage the handbook has is it is published by same organization that published the NEC and maybe doesn't need as big of a marketing budget as others may need if they were to try to publish similar material.

Yeah, don't think that the level of authority is comparable. Do you think that NEC would publish it if they do not consider it authoraive, even if not legaly binding?

 

[jumper]

Yeah, don't think that the level of authority is comparable. Do you think that NEC would publish it if they do not consider it authoraive, even if not legaly binding?

Laz, the NFPA publishes the NEC and the NECHB.

 

[weressl]

Laz, the NFPA publishes the NEC and the NECHB.

Yah, that's what I meant to say......:blink: You had a point other than that?:happysad:

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Yeah, don't think that the level of authority is comparable. Do you think that NEC would publish it if they do not consider it authoraive, even if not legaly binding?

I don't see where the NFPA handbook has any more "authority" than any other well researched publication. None of the members of the CMPs work on any of those types of books as far as I know. The NFPA clearly states that the commentary in the handbook is just "opinion". I don't give the NFPA handbook commentary any more value than posts by well respected members on this forum.

 

[weressl]

I don't see where the NFPA handbook has any more "authority" than any other well researched publication. None of the members of the CMPs work on any of those types of books as far as I know. The NFPA clearly states that the commentary in the handbook is just "opinion". I don't give the NFPA handbook commentary any more value than posts by well respected members on this forum.

The world is all about credentials. The professional and academic world is absolutely based on that. Unless you are published, peer reviewed, they don't care how smart you are. Just the facts of life, Don.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

.... The professional and academic world is absolutely based on that. Unless you are published, peer reviewed, they don't care how smart you are. ...

Yes, the handbook was published, but I am not aware of any "peer" review of that publication.

 

[weressl]

Yes, the handbook was published, but I am not aware of any "peer" review of that publication.

Nor did I claimed that it was. This is what I wrote: "The world is all about credentials. The professional and academic world is absolutely based on that. Unless you are published, peer reviewed, they don't care how smart you are."

So firstly it is doubtful that people without any established credentials, as I defined above, would be invited to contribute to that book. Secondly, any publication is subject to editorial review and technical publications are also routinely subject to review by technical expert in the field. Thirdly NFPA, both from the legal and technical standpoint of view, would not intentionally publish something that is not technically AND legally sound, disclaimers notwithstanding. They have a credibility to protect.

 

[fmtjfw]

I don't like the handbook

I don't like the handbook

1) It contains pictures. The pictures show an instance of the application of the code. The pictures are commentary. The pictures may be wrong.
2) It contains commentary. I prefer to be confused by the code and not by the code and commentary.
3) It's heavier and more expensive.

I guess, having been a software architect, I'm just more used to printed specifications (with a few charts and diagrams).