Re: Patient Room Voltages
Steve,
I've posted some rants about the NEC Handbook not being binding.
I personally feel if the Handbook is bundled, published, and distributed by the NFPA that it should be as binding as the NEC itself.
The spin on that position is that the NEC is a consensus document requiring at least 320 CMP volunteers, and ten code making panels (CMP's) plus a Correlating Committee. The thought is that the Handbook would require more wo/manpower to output than the NEC. The Handbook is compiled by five authors.
The NFPA NEC Handbook is treated like any one of the other bazillion 3rd party after-market handbooks. It cannot be relied on and the NFPA assumes no liability for its content or interpretations. You may notice that the Handbook uses everyday terms that are not even used in the NEC (i.e.- subpanel).
Off topic: I believe the NEC would benefit greatly by adding a lot more periods. The NEC is a compilation of run-on sentences. In my opinion if each two or three part sentence was broken down into two or three complete sentences just by adding periods the clarity of the NEC would increase 1000-fold. The other option would be to add more verbiage to each run-on sentence to more clearly identify who possesses certain parts of a sentence. I think the "add periods" idea would keep things tight without adding redundant verbosity.
I believe it would be a win/win/win situation to make the NEC Handbook part of the legal document of the NEC. It would add value to the NEC & to the Handbook. Right now it's just well thought out shooting from the lip and educated conjecture. The Handbook, in my opinion, should be the official interpretation of the NEC.
Sorry to stray off topic. Please don't shoot the messenger. I'm standing up for all of us anal-retentive card carrying members of DENSA