NEC REWRITE!!!!!!!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dicklaxt

Senior Member
That title got your attention didn't it?


If the NEC was written so it didn't have all the cross references ,,,,, it would be a million dollar book...............

Now I'm not saying the authors are not doing a good job but they are certainly following the format of bygone days. Yes , it would also be a monumental task to do away with the referencing and rewrite so as not to lose the intent and it would probably require more than one volume........


It sure would be great to pick up a book, do a search and then find the answer all in one spot.I sometimes forget what I was looking for before I find the answer and sometimes quit looking in frustration and try again later.The answer is there some where but finding it is a chore to say the least. When you do find the answer and if you don't note where, then the battle of looking for it again is even more frustrating.................


Sure, I may be suggesting Utopia but it sure would be nice...................the Little Green Guys from outer space will probably be the ones to do it tho or better still maybe they will read this and send us a copy of their current book..smile

dick
 
Interesting idea!

Interesting idea!

I've wanted to make a webpage (HTML) version of the NEC for some time. This would allow you to follow the references like you do on the web. If that existed it would not be hard to make all the referenced text inline rather than just the reference. I think the mechanics of it are pretty simple when compared with the licensing negotiations with NFPA. I'd guess that the NEC and related books (handbook, pocket books, NECPlus?) are the biggest selling items for them, and quite a bit of their revenue. Anyway something to think about.
 
Huh?

Huh?

JoeStillman said:
If you buy the CD version from NFPA, the references are already hyperlinked. You can also do a word or phrase search, which I find extremely helpful.
Click to expand...

How does it work? I've tried clicking and right clicking on a code reference in the text and all it does is highlight text in blue.
I've also tried pressing the "L" key (identified as the link shortcut) and clicking, again no joy.

I've got the 2011 downloaded and licensed version (70-11SB-PDF.pdf (SECURED)) version from NFPA.
 
Without cross references there would be 3 or 4,000 pages as many things would have to be repeated.
 
Maybe no so bad

Maybe no so bad

2011 is at 870 pages now. A fair number of the references are to tables, which I presume, you would not want to repeat at each reference. Lets assume 10 references per page, a reference averages 10 characters and the item referenced average 200 characters. So we get 8700 reference replacements. This would generate an additional 190 characters per reference or 1,653,000 new characters. A line of text contains about 60 characters and there are about 150 lines per page. This gives 9000 characters per page. Dividing this into 1,653,00 give an additional 184 pages.
 
References to tables etc are fine. It's the references to other verbage that is the problem,which in many cases is not even applicable.Understandably there would be more pages or volumes as I noted but I still think comprehension of the rule is of prime importance and having to chase all over ,sort it out as to what applies, put it together mentally is only fuel for mis interpretation.

dick
 
Generally speaking - It is never a good idea to put information in more than one place. Eventually it will be wrong in at least one.

Accurate references are the way to go.

For example, while I'm not particularly a fan of James Stallcup, his 'code loops" are an excellent tool.

ice
 
iceworm said:
Generally speaking - It is never a good idea to put information in more than one place. Eventually it will be wrong in at least one.

Accurate references are the way to go.

For example, while I'm not particularly a fan of James Stallcup, his 'code loops" are an excellent tool.

ice
Click to expand...

I agree. However there are ways to solve that with technology. You have a framework document and identifiers within that for duplicated text and use a software tool to do the insertions.

When the next NEC is issued I plan to take the text and build a KWIC index to it (Keyword in context).
This takes every word in the text and the n word before it and the n words after it and produces an alphabatized list.

With this I can find all the duplicated text or near duplicated text and try to convince NFPA to use only a single phrase for the same concept.

I tried in this review cycle to get all definitions that are used in more than one article to be placed in article 100. Also not to use the same term with different definitions. This didn't go as well as I hoped. For instance the article 800 people said their article was used by people without access to the rest of the Code.


My personal preference is for more references rather than fewer. Make it smaller. But this is based on the way I think. I wrote software and software specifications for decades and I like things to be organized in chunks. For instance saying that connections must meet the requirements of 110.14 means to me that the set of requirements that fill a page of text apply and I essentially know what that means. Given 110.14 text repeated in the 22 spots in the 2011 NEC that it is referenced, and knowing that there may be differences in each place, I have to think more and read more.

Other people think in a more linear way, and find references break their train of thought and (especially when references contain other references) find them very confusing.

Given proper application of technology both needs can be met.
 
I think we could cut it down to 20 or 30 pages.

Chapter I: Do This
Chapter II: Don't Do This

And then if you still don't understand it you could buy a copy of "Charlies Rules."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top