Technical terminology discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
wbalsam1 said:
...end goal which was to learn about problematic, inherently difficult, uncertainly-worded areas of the code...
Click to expand...
I know it would have helped me if you had led off with this sentence.

I believe you are looking for a discussion on ambiguous terms such as "likely to become energized" and "workmanship like manner".
 
200.7(C)(2) The conductor... shall be permanently reidentified... by painting...

I've been in the trade 20+ years and I've never seen paint on a conductor. Is this for real?
 
jeremysterling said:
200.7(C)(2) The conductor... shall be permanently reidentified... by painting...

I've been in the trade 20+ years and I've never seen paint on a conductor. Is this for real?
Click to expand...

What, you've never done a rough in a building where
you come back for trim and find alll your wires in a
recept box all the same color.Egg shell white?:D
 
wbalsam1 said:
The intent, albeit through humor, was to evoke a conversation about how vague and imprecise our code language is. :)
Click to expand...


I think any term that is not a commonly used as part of the language should appear in the definition section...

I know there are more, because I've run into it many times, but the only one I can think of now is 314.16.(B)(3)...

What the heck exactly is a "hickey" that it takes up the volume of one largest conductor, no matter what size the conductor is?

And to the other side of the aisle... since it doesn't actually eradicate it, but rather moves it, and uses energy itself, I would suggest "rotary flatulence evacuation utilization equipment" or possibly "rotary flatulence relocation appliance".

I would suggest those things but I don't know if the flatulence must be rotational or not.:smile:

Sorry wbalsam... I think your topic is legit, but I couldn't help myself.
 
jeremysterling said:
200.7(C)(2) The conductor... shall be permanently reidentified... by painting...

I've been in the trade 20+ years and I've never seen paint on a conductor. Is this for real?
Click to expand...

While working at the Donald Cook nuke plant in Bridgeman, MI in the mid 80s, we painted all of our conductors before pulling them in.
We had a device that you inserted one end of the wire into and pulled it out the other side.
When the wire came out it was coated with some kind of fast drying paint and the conductor was coated.
I haven't seen it done since though.
 
It's not only the code book that could use more precise terminology - so can this forum! I have a couple sheets of paper near me that explain abbreviations I come across - no way can I understand some of the reply's without those notes. We also need to use punctuation.....not using it correctly can change the entire meaning.
I remember my early training - it seems we had our own jargon for everything.
When I began to talk with the salesmen and order material I had to learn the proper name of almost everything. After that I would always question my electricians what they meant when they used words that could be misunderstood.
 
steelersman said:
I agree. I hate that term as well. It's especially uncool to be saying it around a customer or directly to them.

ON a different note, I've never had to be the one to mount the exhaust fan, just wire it. That's always been the mechanical contractors job, unless of course you're replacing one, or you're acting as the mechanical contractor and running duct work also. But I've never done that and don't plan to either.
Click to expand...

Wellllllll....

In practicality, do you wire that fan because it is needed when one is exhausted or when...........:D
 
jeremysterling said:
200.7(C)(2) The conductor... shall be permanently reidentified... by painting...

I've been in the trade 20+ years and I've never seen paint on a conductor. Is this for real?
Click to expand...
You can special order conductors that have painted "tracer" stripes on them. In industrial control panels it is not unusual to see grounded white conductors with different color stripes to signify what system they belong to.
 
The reason that the NEC is written the way it is, is because once it's adopted by the Jurisdiction, it becomes law, so it is written in "legaleze", as it were.

It is also written at about a 3rd year college level, and not to put anyone down, the average American reads at an 8th grade level.

I've always believed that it should all be written like Article 210, while there are a few areas in there that can be confusing, all in all it pretty much means what it says.
 
I don't have any particular problem with acronyms as long as they are in common use between people in the same field and the probability of misunderstandings is minimal.

What I do have a bit of a hang up over is the incorrect use of abbreviations.
For example, the unit of power commonly used is the kW. It isn't kw or KW or Kw.
I don't know quite why it bothers me as much as it does. Maybe, as qualified individuals in the field we should know the correct terms. Getting them wrong does not reflect well on us.
I try to make sure that any documentation that goes out from our company gets it right.
Pedantic for sure, but with some justification in my opinion.
 
Besoeker said:
What I do have a bit of a hang up over is the incorrect use of abbreviations.
For example, the unit of power commonly used is the kW. It isn't kw or KW or Kw.
Click to expand...

Agreed.. but it does separate the knowing from the unknowing.
I once came across a highly regarded City Manager who was touted as being electrically savvy. But the first words out of his mouth gave him away.
He told me that the City had a 69kVA loop around the perimeter of the City. He meant to say 69kV. But it clued me in that he didn't know electrical.

(My favorite word when I came to my first Electric shop in 1982 was motor peckerhead :) )
The juvenile in me loved it.
JM
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top