NEC Typo(s)?

Status
Not open for further replies.
He has been taking a dirt nap for a few years.




................that's what 'they' want you to think............
heehaw.gif
 
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?

They actually repeated the same mistake for 2008. Good catch.
 
I just sent an e-mail to Jean O'Connor at the NFPA to get this fixed in the next edition of the NEC. This is just a typo and should provide no consternation since "Part IX. Overcurrent Protection over 600 Volts, Nominal? does exist. :smile:
 
I just sent an e-mail to Jean O'Connor at the NFPA to get this fixed in the next edition of the NEC. This is just a typo and should provide no consternation since "Part IX. Overcurrent Protection over 600 Volts, Nominal? does exist. :smile:

Could you have them fix 110.12, too? :D:D
 
I just sent an e-mail to Jean O'Connor at the NFPA to get this fixed in the next edition of the NEC. This is just a typo and should provide no consternation since "Part IX. Overcurrent Protection over 600 Volts, Nominal? does exist. :smile:

Thank you, it's good to remove stuff like that that makes me scratch my head.;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top