ROP Proposals......1 for 3 so far

Status
Not open for further replies.
radiopet

radiopet

Senior Member
Location
Spotsylvania, VA
Well I got shot down on my proposal to reduce the depth of conduit within the 5' area around the pool with regards to allowing Nonmetallic Rigid Conduit serving pool associated under 4in of concrete slab.

I found out the hard way that when you write a sucky proposal that does not say what you want said clear enough that it has no change of making it. I should have simply said I wanted to add a new depth to the table 680.10 rather than make it an exception. They totally took what I was trying to say wrong.

Oh well.......atleast one of my proposals have made it so far.

Here is the image of what I was proposing:

www.theelectricalguru.com/68010.jpg

yeah in know..I spelled thick wrong.....I corrected it on my comment reply to NFPA
 
Last edited:
cadpoint

cadpoint

Senior Member
Location
Durham, NC
Jmhp

Jmhp

radiopet said:
opps.....sorry I actually did spell THICK right...my bad.
Click to expand...

MS word and yahoo (define ...) as a side a bar works great for me... udner is your fault... :rolleyes:

Having read the first 25 + - pages and not even out of the 90's, and of what the NFPA rejected, noting that the style format was quoted many times, its not hard to understand that while the submittal approached to clear up and present a precise application the langange was a large portion of rejections that didn't CYA the point of the pitch, or to the tune of the NFPA style.

Even the average person could understand the need for the application but while they defaulted to other principles that to me seemed (not allows) was just a fail safe application on their part.
 
infinity

infinity

Moderator
Staff member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Journeyman Electrician
Dennis Alwon said:
I don't think so. The link has it spelled thich. Unless my eyes have really gone bad.
Click to expand...


I see it spelled t-h-i-c-k but I see under spelled wrong. :roll:

68010.jpg
 
radiopet

radiopet

Senior Member
Location
Spotsylvania, VA
lol....it's all good. Regardless of how I spell it they will SHOT it down. I just failed to see the need for the 18" of depth when under a concrete slab, in PVC Raceway with wet location rated conductors. I was approached by a large pool installation company at a seminar I was doing and we talked about it and I looked at his concerns about maintaining the depth when trying to install things like wet niche luminaries. So I came up with the proposal and it sunk faster than a row boat with hole in it.

It's all good however, my cheezy proposals actually made it but I was gunning for this one to have a better chance....Here's the snap, and the kick, its up...up...up and just a little to the right...no score !
 
V

Vertex

Senior Member
radiopet said:
Well I got shot down on my proposal to reduce the depth of conduit within the 5' area around the pool with regards to allowing Nonmetallic Rigid Conduit serving pool associated under 4in of concrete slab.

I found out the hard way that when you write a sucky proposal that does not say what you want said clear enough that it has no change of making it. I should have simply said I wanted to add a new depth to the table 680.10 rather than make it an exception. They totally took what I was trying to say wrong.

Oh well.......atleast one of my proposals have made it so far.

Here is the image of what I was proposing:

www.theelectricalguru.com/68010.jpg

yeah in know..I spelled thick wrong.....I corrected it on my comment reply to NFPA
Click to expand...

You may not have written it clearly enough, but I believe that is a secondary reason why it was rejected. How do you expect it to be accepted when it makes logical sense?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top