NEC Typo(s)?

Status
Not open for further replies.
S'mise

S'mise

Senior Member
Location
Michigan
In Michigan we are using the 2005 NEC.

Art 215.3 exception 2: Overcurrent protection for feeders over 600 volts nominal, shall comply with part XI of article 240.

Hard to do because art 240 only has IX parts. I tried searching the subject here but has anyone compiled a list of known mistakes in the '05?
 
Thanks cadpoint that link is helpful, but 215.3 ex2 is not listed there.

nakulak, I've read it over and over and I still think its's a typo. Just hoping someone could confirm (or refute) my suspisions. Art 240 only has 9 parts!
 
Jude, where did you find that? I Googled and searched NFPA's site for an 08 errata and there doesn't seem to be one.
 
S'm, I finally looked in the good book at what your saying, you be correct, U Go! :wink: :confused: :grin: ... 2005 and no • in either issue of the Codes!

LOL, I love finding holes in the Codes ...

Write a letter see what they say!, Let us know...
But if you notice there on target, you question deals with over 600 volts, the call should be IX and not XI...
 
Last edited:
mdshunk said:
There seems to always be an errata sheet come out every cycle, but I don't really remember at what point in time it's generated.
Click to expand...

What's sad is there are some test-writers that use errata to write questions knowing that some who take the test will have an error in their book.
 
480sparky said:
First-hand knowledge. When I took my JW test, I found 8 questions that were asked about Code references that ended up being in the errata. The errata at the time had only 13 total.
Click to expand...

Yes, what does that prove?

It proves there where questions from the errata which is the code. It does not prove they do that to line their pockets.
 
iwire said:
Yes, what does that prove?

It proves there where questions from the errata which is the code. It does not prove they do that to line their pockets.
Click to expand...

Doesn't prove anything, But you can't convince me otherwise. I don't know how many total code references there are in the book, but 8% of the questions managed to find 62% of the known errors.

Terribly suspicious, if you ask me.
 
480sparky said:
Doesn't prove anything, But you can't convince me otherwise. I don't know how many total code references there are in the book, but 8% of the questions managed to find 62% of the known errors.

Terribly suspicious, if you ask me.
Click to expand...


Or it just makes sense to make sure that people are tested on the adopted code.
 
Good to know these things. I plan on double checking to make sure all revisions are corrected in my book. Most look like minor things but things like an ampacity mistake is a big deal! Yes, they are probably waiting for you guys to find the rest of their mistakes before comming out with the 20008 errata. :wink:
 
iwire said:
Or it just makes sense to make sure that people are tested on the adopted code.
Click to expand...

I'm no conspiracy nut. I'm not one of those who believe the Grateful Dead still tours is because Jerry Garcia is a spy for the CIA. But if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, has webbed feet and is covered with feathers.....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top