Update onthe 2011 NEC

[tom baker]

From NEIS/NECA here is an update on the 2011 NEC
http://www.neca-neis.org/newsletter/report.cfm?articleID=9788
A few more proposals this time, 5077.
It appears one of my proposals made it, for an new article on wind turbines.

 

[George Stolz]

My blood pressure just went up 35%, Tom, thanks.

Section 250.53(A):
CMP-5 accepted a proposal to require any single rod, pipe, or plate electrode to be supplemented by one additional electrode with an exception that demonstrates that the single electrode has a resistance not exceeding 25 ohms to ground.

Stupid! Stupid! Stupid!

 

[SEO]

Thanks for the info Tom. I didn't see my proposal.

 

[raider1]

Thanks Tom,

Looks like I will be sharpening my pencil for the comment period.

Chris

 

[George Stolz]

Thanks for the info Tom. I didn't see my proposal.

Well, it's a pretty short summary. We probably won't see the full ROP before July.

 

[SEO]

Well, it's a pretty short summary. We probably won't see the full ROP before July.

I haven't had any luck getting proposals accepted in the past but I keep trying. I'll wait for the ROP maybe I'll be surprised.

 

[electricalperson]

*New* 404.2(C):
This requires lighting loads supplied by grounded general purpose circuit to have a grounded (neutral) circuit conductor at the switch outlet locations.

they mentioned that was one of the proposals for the 2008 code at the super code conference in 2007

 

[infinity]

My blood pressure just went up 35%, Tom, thanks.

Quote:
Section 250.53(A):
CMP-5 accepted a proposal to require any single rod, pipe, or plate electrode to be supplemented by one additional electrode with an exception that demonstrates that the single electrode has a resistance not exceeding 25 ohms to ground.



Stupid! Stupid! Stupid!

George does this really change much?

 

[George Stolz]

No, but it means my proposal to eliminate the 25 ohm requirement in it's entirety fell on deaf ears.

 

[infinity]

No, but it means my proposal to eliminate the 25 ohm requirement in it's entirety fell on deaf ears.

Ahh, sorry bud. :roll:

 

[cadpoint]

From this, did you look at: ( http://www.neca-neis.org/newsletter/report.cfm?articleID=9788 )

Proposed:
406.34
406.3(D)(4)

Wow, talk about making work!


Why not call it what it is, "lead" ? Come on...

Since when has the NEC mis-identified something, OK that might be stretch, but why now...
Pb is the chemical symbol, sounds Pretty dumb to me!