NEC handbook

[roger]

Just looking for a concensus as to how many here regard the hand book as gospel.

Who are these people, or why do these people have any better understanding or interpretation of the word than any of us.

This is a loaded question given the right response.

Roger

 

[bennie]

Re: NEC handbook

Roger: I don't have an answer, but I am sure waiting for yours.

 

[websparky]

Re: NEC handbook

OK Roger, I'll bite!

I have the handbook.(CD Version)
I usually don't use it unless I am trying to research certain issues. However, it is not my only source for research.

My most used reference is the softbound NEC. I like it better because I write all sorts of notes and references in the margins. Plus, over the years I have saved the old ones to look back on when I need to compare changes and the way I used to look at certain issues.

No, I don't take it for gospel. I do take it for what it is, THE code.

Was this the kind of bite you were looking for??

Dave

 

[roger]

Re: NEC handbook

Hello Bennie and Dave.

Dave,

My most used reference is the softbound NEC.

I don't have a current handbook, but of the two I've owned (one being the 47 issue so it doesn't realy count) the NEC was my most used reference also, the handbook seemed to be alot of clutter.

What I am getting at is, with the added effort by these experts to produce this book and the added expense to the buyer it seems as though there would be less arguable issues at hand.

I just see many of the same conflicting issues with the handbook owners as I do with those who haven't spent the additional money.

Roger

 

[charlie]

Re: NEC handbook

The biggest problem with the handbook is that is is updated by one or two persons and the text becomes their opinions. I have found errors and will continue to find errors in the handbook (not many, just two over the years). However, it is done very well and is very useful but it can not be taken for gospel. Just like a screw driver, it is a tool.

 

[bennie]

Re: NEC handbook

The handbook reminds me of the old party game of telling one person a story and having them tell it to another person. This is repeated ten times and the final person tells the story to everyone.

The original and the final are usually a long way apart with facts.

I have a 1940, 1947, and a 1984 Edition of the handbook. Roger knows well the subject that has been corrupted by individual opinion instead of the evolution of facts.

My old gripe and groan, is the difference in the definition of a separately derived system, and the explanation in handbooks since 1984. The definition has remained the same, the description and explanation of the definition has changed.

The real problem is...The opinions in the handbook, even when wrong, become installation standards by acceptance.

[ July 05, 2003, 07:49 AM: Message edited by: bennie ]

 

[iwire]

Re: NEC handbook

I recently got my first NEC Handbook and I am somewhat satisfied.

As far as the opinions expressed I think that is unavoidable, unless you repeat the code article word for word it would have to be opinion.

Imagine if Bennie wrote the commentary on article 250 , or if I did the commentary for GFCIs or multiwire branch circuits and how they should be used more.

[ July 05, 2003, 09:46 AM: Message edited by: iwire ]

 

[pierre]

Re: NEC handbook

I also have the most recent version of the handbook, and like these guys have mentioned, it is 'one' of the 'tools' I use for reference. There are some excellent descriptions and pictures/diagrams located in the handbook that I find very useful. But as has been mentioned, this book should not be read as the definitive answer to all questions. That is where this forum becomes an excellent place to bounce these questions from.
Sometimes, the NEC is a 'little' vague in the text, some people call it a 'gray area', I call it the 'black hole'. Recently I read three different answers (not in this forum, but in three books) to a code reference. To make a long story short, with guidance by many, I finally found the answer in the ROP (Report on Proposals). Does anyone else refer to these publications?

Pierre

 

[bennie]

Re: NEC handbook

Bob: You got that right, things would fall apart I would definitely call a transformer a transformer, and a generator a generator.

A good example of individuals applying their own personal spin on a technical issue, is of course my old obsession "Separately Derived Systems".

When Joseph McPartland before him Arthur L. Abbott were the authors, the schematics were correct, in illustrating a separately derived system.

The authors after him, changed the schematic to be incorrect, from not understanding the definition of a separately derived system.
This led to what I call the distorted interpretation, and application, as it is practiced today.

This incorrect interpretation has now become code.

 

[bennie]

Re: NEC handbook

The generator transfer switch schematics, in the Handbooks by Abbott, and McPartland, are also correct.

The schematics in the later editions are not correct. Yet everyone, even the panel members, believe the new editions.

I think Roger and I, are the only ones in the world on the same page

 

[roger]

Re: NEC handbook

Hello Bennie, along witht the SDS issue that we are in agreement on, I would like to say your statement here

The real problem is...The opinions in the handbook, even when wrong,become installation standards by acceptance.

is the real reason I brought this up.

This goes beyond one issue.

Back to the new day definition, explanation, and accepted diagrams of SDS's; this is a definition that should be looked at and redefined if we are going to continue using this accepted method.

Part of the problem is the belief that the GEC and EGC are not electrical connections due to the fact they aren't doing anything until a fault or surge is present, this thinking would imply a car is not a car unless it's running and moving.

Roger

 

[bennie]

Re: NEC handbook

Roger: This is an excellent topic. I have a lot of documentation that essentially eliminates any transformer being called a separately derived system.

I have written to all the authors of the Soares Grounding Book, expressing my opposition to the direction the separately derived system is going.
I have heard nothing. I would like to meet personally with them and debate this issue. I can easily show what happened to corrupt the definition. It was the personal opinion of the handbook author.

Abbott and McPartland both indicate...The transformer or generator is the source for a separately derived system. They are not the system as the present handbook implies.

The separately derived system can be bonded to the ground electrode conductor at the source or the first switch. This is the same as required for a utility service.

A premises wiring system, includes everything as stated in the definition.

The separately derived system was an ungrounded premises wiring system or isolated system prior to 1914.

The original system was called an isolated system to call attention to the fact it was not grounded. When connecting to the utility power the grounding had to be done. The water pipe was not the first choice in those days, due to there not being running water in most homes.

[ July 05, 2003, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: bennie ]

 

[roger]

Re: NEC handbook

Bennie, another key word that has lost it's true definition is (I'll quote you again, hope you don't mind)

isolated

part of the following quoted sentence

The separately derived system was an ungrounded premises wiring system or isolated system prior to 1914.

I can only envision isolation as being electrically (magnetically) coupled with nothing in any remote way physically connected.

Of course I'm not a rocket scientist. (I'm not a rocket electrician that is)

Roger

 

[bennie]

Re: NEC handbook

Roger: Again I agree completely. An isolated system as referenced in 1908 was a premises with its own power plant. It was isolated from the utility grid. The premises wiring was in all respects a separately derived system. To remain a separately derived system, the MGN had to be disconnected from the premises system.

The reason for disconnecting the neutral/ground was to prevent a high voltage appearing on the premises system during a storm. The GFI situation developed later when GFI's were developed. The GFI issue is not the reason for switching the neutral, as indicated in the handbook.

 

[bennie]

Re: NEC handbook

Roger: I was hoping that more code panel members than Charlie, would tune in to this station.

I am willing to cover my own expenses, to set up a meeting to discuss the technical aspects with some of the code panel members.

I have documents to prove how the interpretation has been changed, with no change in the definition of a separately derived system.

The authors of the handbook are not only making code, they are changing electrical science and technology.

 

[roger]

Re: NEC handbook

Bennie,

I am willing to cover my own expenses, to set up a meeting to discuss the technical aspects with some of the code panel members.

I'll donate to the fund.

Roger

 

[bennie]

Re: NEC handbook

Roger: Another point of contention is...The NEC is now referring to multiple separately derived systems, this is impossible, only one per premises. The definition of "a premises wiring system" is all inclusive, in otherwords; the source of a separately derived system is the same as the service.

The words are "a premises wiring system,(singular) not one or more, of the premises wiring systems.(plural)

[ July 05, 2003, 06:59 PM: Message edited by: bennie ]

 

[hurk27]

Re: NEC handbook

Roger
I tend to treat the handbook like this forum. even though the responces here are very good we still must do some research to validate the true anser. we still can learn who give's the best anser most of the time and after while we can feel comfortble to the person giving the anser but because it is our responceability to do the job right there will be no one else to blame other than ourselves if somthing goes wrong.

As for the changing of the definition of a separately derived system. I think the problem is the english language as we tend to barrow words that were ment for somthing else. look at light and lite one is not dark and one is not heavy then there are even ones that are even spelled the same like car could be an auto, train, tram it goes on for ever. the word Ground is a prime example of this.

 

[charlie]

Re: NEC handbook

Originally posted by Bennie:
I was hoping that more code panel members than Charlie, would tune in to this station.

I am willing to cover my own expenses, to set up a meeting to discuss the technical aspects with some of the code panel members.

Bennie, I would welcome you doing that and you can! The NFPA rules demand that anyone who wishes to address a panel, may do so too speak to his proposal or comment. All that is required is for you or anyone to make a proposal with good substantiation. Then write to the panel chairman to ask for time to address your proposal. That time has to be granted. It is obviously too late for the 2005 Code cycle but it could be done in the 2008 cycle.

As far as other panel members tuning in, I would not hold my breath. I am here because I am honestly interested in your opinions. Additionally, I am learning from you and sometimes eating a little crow (never have liked the taste of it though).

 

[bennie]

Re: NEC handbook

Charlie: Is it true that article 250 is being configured and rewritten by a committee?

This would explain the nonsense in 250.30 (2)(b).

250.104(4) Makes sense. This appears to be an attempt to clean up the ambiguous text of 250.30(3).

Charlie, your proficiency, in a wide area, is excellent. You will not have an impact on the crow population. I eat so much shoe leather that I'm going to change my diet and be a vegetarian.
I am joining PETA.

I hope someone can learn from my experience, but after 50 years I'm still learning.

It is disappointing to hear that the code panel members do not want to participate in these forums. Maybe they are too busy making the world a safer place. Let's hope so.