What code section do you find absolutely ridiculous?

Status
Not open for further replies.
480sparky said:
200.7(C)(1).

Having to remark a white that's used for an ungrounded in a switch loop is silly. If you pull out a switch and it has a black and white from an NM cable on it, and you can't figure out the white is hot, you don't need to be messing with it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but it helps keep the, "what an idiot, he switched the neutral", comment's to a minimum.:happyyes:
 
Last edited:
I may change my mind about a silly code section if someone can tell me the difference between LFNC-B and LFNC.

356.10 uses permitted. (5)Type LFNC-B shall be permitted to be installed in lengths longer than 6 ft where secured.

356.12 uses not permitted. (3) In lengths longer than 6 ft., except as permitted by 356.10(5).
 
cowboyjwc said:
I may change my mind about a silly code section if someone can tell me the difference between LFNC-B and LFNC.

356.10 uses permitted. (5)Type LFNC-B shall be permitted to be installed in lengths longer than 6 ft where secured.

356.12 uses not permitted. (3) In lengths longer than 6 ft., except as permitted by 356.10(5).
Click to expand...
LFNC-C has no reinforcement and LFNC-A has reinforcement only between the cover and core. LFNC-B is the only one with reinforcement as part of the conduit cover itself, which is why it is allowed in lengths greater than 6 feet (when supported properly). In short, I think they're worried about the covering of A and C getting nicked.
 
Talk about opening a can of worms!

Still, for my money ... the silliest NEC rule is the relatively recent requirement that every residence have at least one phone outlet.

Huh? We survive nearly a century of phone service without any formal code requirement to allow for it ... and now, when everyone is ditching their 'land line' for cell phones / internet phones / cable phones ... and they discover a need to REQUIRE it?
 
Art.650??? Maybe there are more "pipe organ" installs than I thought....I do work in a small town...:huh:
 
renosteinke said:
Talk about opening a can of worms!

Still, for my money ... the silliest NEC rule is the relatively recent requirement that every residence have at least one phone outlet.

Huh? We survive nearly a century of phone service without any formal code requirement to allow for it ... and now, when everyone is ditching their 'land line' for cell phones / internet phones / cable phones ... and they discover a need to REQUIRE it?
Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to play devils advocate... although my last post sounded like that. I feel that lots of people read the Code and don't understand the reasoning behind why the code was implemented. Perhaps the Rules of the Code book are there to protect people. Much Like the "Caution HOT" labels are now put on Coffee cups after the famous McDonald's incident. I agree that some of them seem redundant but once people understand the why behind it, it might actually make sense.

As far as the phone requirement, I think better late than never. :)
 
And buggy whip stands by the front door? :)
In these days of Wi-Fi, even preinstalling CAT 5 does not seem as valuable as it once was.

Tapatalk!
 
Pharon said:
LFNC-C has no reinforcement and LFNC-A has reinforcement only between the cover and core. LFNC-B is the only one with reinforcement as part of the conduit cover itself, which is why it is allowed in lengths greater than 6 feet (when supported properly). In short, I think they're worried about the covering of A and C getting nicked.
Click to expand...
Thank you.
 
steve66 said:
Article 770 - Optical Fiber Cables and Raceways.

What does that have to do with an electric code?
Click to expand...

1. People might confuse them with "real" cables and raceways otherwise?
Although a zero conductor cable is a little strange from the start.

2. ELECTROmagnetism, duh.
:angel:

Tapatalk!
 
I am going thru Mike Holt library 2011 videos and he runs a train over article 680 (and CMP). Especially over 680.26 (B) (7)

(7).All fixed metal parts shall be bonded



including, but not limited to, metal-sheathed cables and race- ways, metal piping, metal awnings, metal fences, and metal


door and window frames.





That means window frames and gutters and rooftops. And probably a car if you park close by.

I do not do any work about that Article. Do you have any take on that?
 
Last edited:
darekelec said:
I am going thru Mike Holt library 2011 videos and he runs a train over article 680 (and CMP). Especially over 680.26 (B) (7)

(7).All fixed metal parts shall be bonded



including, but not limited to, metal-sheathed cables and race- ways, metal piping, metal awnings, metal fences, and metal


door and window frames.





That means window frames and gutters and rooftops. And probably a car if you park close by.

I do not do any work about that Article. Do you have any take on that?
Click to expand...

The first part of understanding this is to understand there is a difference between grounding and bonding, in particular the "equipotential bonding" that is covered in that section and and why it is done.

Though an electrically isolated metal item is likely not much of a threat, should that item be "grounded" (not bonded) it introduces hazards.

Bonding require by that section brings all items subject to being touched by pool users to the same potential. This equipotential system could be operating at thousands of volts above true ground, but because everything in the user's reach is at the same potential it is no different to the user then a bird sitting on a high voltage line - he is isolated from other potential points.

Remember the grounding electrode system and equipment grounding conductor network of any premises is connected at the service equipment to the current carrying grounded conductor of the service. Any voltage drop on that service grounded conductor is also present on the GEC/EGC and anything bonded to them. So even if there is only a 1 volt drop on the service grounded conductor, that one volt will be present between the system and anything earthed but not bonded to the system - maybe a pool ladder that for some reason did not get bonded - a user may feel the effects here, if the voltage drop increases even more that likelihood only increases.

Then consider most areas the POCO uses the grounded neutral conductor of their primary system for current carrying and the fact that it is bonded to the secondary grounded conductors - you have a point of introduction of the voltage drop on the primary neutral into the picture as well. Many electrocutions you hear of at boat docks are caused by this very problem - they bring that potential to the area via the EGC of a boat hoist or something in the area of the dock and the problem voltage is simply voltage drop of either service or POCO primary neutral conductors and the potential to "true earth".

Sorry for being a little long winded - but hope it helps.
 
Mike's problem was probably that normally insulated from ground metal parts do not have to be bonded.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
darekelec said:
Mike's problem was probably that normally insulated from ground metal parts do not have to be bonded.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I understand, an isolated metal door or window cladding maybe isn't much of a threat, but should it become grounded somehow then it is. Those items are not generally located that close to an in ground pool, but could have a better chance of being something to consider for above ground pools, spas, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top