Can I plug my 230V compressor (NEMA 6-20P) into a dryer (NEMA 10-30R) receptacle?

| snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: | |>In misc.industry.utilities.electric bite_me_NOSPAM wrote: |> |>| The NEC code book is NOT an instruction guide for anyone, it is the |>| basis for which state/count/local inspectors go from. |> |>By that logic, the law is not a guide for how to live your life, it |>is the basis for which police arrest you when you do break the law |>you didn't know about. |> |> | | It is not a question of logic - it is a question of intent, and it is | stated in the NEC in article 90-1 (c) (2002 code): | "(c) Intention. This Code is not intended as a design specification | nor an instruction manual for untrained persons."

And this just re-enforces my proposal. Since no instruction manual or design specification can be treated as the code (ever heard of an AHJ that adopts an instruction manual or design specification?), no one can possibly be assured that by following any instruction manual or design specification that they will be in compliance with the code. Thus they are FORCED to still consult with the code to determine that. Then what if the code APPEARS to be in conflict with the instruction manual or design specification because the wording used (for the same intention) is different, and results in different meanings? If the instruction manual or design specification differs with the code, then which do you use?

In cases where the code is poorly written (good intentions that I know and agree with, but were written wrongly) and the instruction manual or design specification were written well, someone who sees the conflict could well choose to go with what the code says (and not what the code means), just because of the fact that the CODE TRUMPS everything else.

If a homeowner installs something one way, by the book, and the book clearly says he can, but the inspector finds it not in compliance with the NEC as adopted by the AHJ, he's going to fail the work, anyway. The homeowner might dispute it, and the inspector would rightly say that only the NEC is applicable. So despite 90-1, the EFFECTIVE USE by inspectors (and there isn't any way around this) is that the code still has to be used as part of the design specification. I suspect

90-1 is there because they know the code is poorly written for such a purpose as instruction manual or design specification.

So my proposal stands. I say there needs to be something that actually

*IS* an instruction manual (or design specification) that can STAND ON ITS OWN and be taken AS THE CODE (e.g. AHJ's can adopt it and allow any use of that instruction manual or design specification and inspection can then be based on it without any cross interpretation with the code).

I'm not saying this is needed for experienced electricians or for any commercial or industrial elecrical work. Experienced electricians do eventually learn what the code MEANS (despite what it says), as do most inspectors (rumor is that some, especially in large cities, just prohibit anything they don't understand). The WHOLE POINT of this is to have ONE BOOK that a DIY homeowner can use to ensure things are done right, and safe, the first time, with no hassles.

What would YOU do if a DIYer installs a receptacle device rated for

40 amps, with #8 copper wire, and protects it with a 40 amp breaker, even though the device is configured for 2 NEMA 5-20R outlets? Think such a device does not exist? I have installed one (but I did it on a 20 amp circuit because I was smart enough even before ever reading the NEC).
Reply to
phil-news-nospam
Loading thread data ...

You don't seem to realize what you are asking for. You want a subset of the code book that cannot possibly be misinterpreted by a DIY person.

Apparently, you do not know what people are capable of! This is not meant as an attack on you. It is simply unimaginable that a book could be written that everybody would understand identically.

In response to your hypothetical: If the DIY guy was a ball-buster, and I was the inspector, I'd bust back. If I was the inspector, and he did it the way he should, I would not. Now a question for you: In the hypothetical, what is the first thing the DIY guy needs to do specifically for the inspection?

Reply to
ehsjr

Reply to
Joe Fabeitz

| Probably something that you ALL know but here goes: | The folks that publish the very techie, boring NEC also publish a "handbook" | with lots of pictures and explanations of the NEC. Appears to be designed | more for the common man / DIYer / pathetic newsgroups junkie, etc.

But, where the handbook and the code differ, does the DIYer still have to consult the code anyway? See, what I want is for the answer to that question to be "NO". E.g. that would mean that whatever the handbook says can be done, is allowable if the DIYer did things according to the book (and that may well mean having done nothing else that went beyond what the book says).

My whole point is for the DIYer to have exactly ONE resource which allows them to get it right and passable the first time without having to consult the code, and that resource be so good that no inspector will ever fail it unless the inspector is at fault or the publisher will cover all costs to modify the project up to passable.

And yes, I know there will be some DIYers that are too dense to follow any book no matter how well written. So it may well be an unachievable goal. Perhaps it might be easier to get the NEC to reword their poorly worded sections so at least those sections can be used as a guide, even though they say the whole code shouldn't be used as a guide. I just want there to be some resource that literally says what it means and can be used to get any home (not commercial or industrial) installation passable the first time if followed to the letter.

The fact that (as another poster reported) some work styles being unpassable in one area, but passable in another, makes me wonder if the inspectors can be consistent with the code itself, at least for homeowner DIY work. If a local area wants to restrict things to a specific way, they should put that in their local code, clearly. And if the DIY homeowner needs to follow it, it damned well better be clear. Take no excuses from bureaucrats.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

NO. The Handbook contains the code, plus explanations and rationale.

sdb

Reply to
Sylvan Butler

In misc.industry.utilities.electric Sylvan Butler wrote: | On 12 Nov 2004 21:28:15 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: |> In misc.industry.utilities.electric Joe Fabeitz wrote: |> |>| Probably something that you ALL know but here goes: |>| The folks that publish the very techie, boring NEC also publish a "handbook" |>| with lots of pictures and explanations of the NEC. Appears to be designed |>| more for the common man / DIYer / pathetic newsgroups junkie, etc. |> |> But, where the handbook and the code differ, does the DIYer still have to |> consult the code anyway? | | NO. The Handbook contains the code, plus explanations and rationale.

If the explanation is going to be clear enough that following it alone would result in a safe installation, then why is a copy of the code itself needed? By including that code, and especially if there is a statement saying that in cases of conflict the code prevails, then it all goes back to having to understand the code. And if the code can be understood and is complete, then the rest isn't needed. But if the code cannot be 100% understood by this target market, why is it included?

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

The handbook is also rather technical and not meant for the DIYer. It is meant to assist professional electricians in their interpretation of the NEC. The code itself contains warnings to the effect that it is not a guide for the proper installation of electrical systems. A certain amount of experience and knowledge of good workmanship and design are assumed on the part of the reader.

WRT why a copy of the code is needed, for the same reason that law school texts cite the law or literary criticism quotes works of literature.

Reply to
ATP

| The handbook is also rather technical and not meant for the DIYer. It is | meant to assist professional electricians in their interpretation of the | NEC. The code itself contains warnings to the effect that it is not a guide | for the proper installation of electrical systems. A certain amount of | experience and knowledge of good workmanship and design are assumed on the | part of the reader.

Here is the code.

Now here is what it really means.

Oh, but if there is any conflict, the code prevails.

Then what good is the handbook.

It's fine if someone reads the code and can't understand any meaning at all and the handbook explains it. But why not just write the code that way (more clearly) in the first case?

| WRT why a copy of the code is needed, for the same reason that law school | texts cite the law or literary criticism quotes works of literature.

The legal system in many cases has the very same problems where what is written in the law is wording that says something entirely different than lawyers and judges understand it to mean. I just think that by trying to write things clearly (what perhaps was attempted in the handbook) in the code itself, much of these troubles can be overcome. And I have in fact worked the same goals at the federal government level and in a couple cases have succeeded in getting some changes.

Of course the "ultimate prevailing law" has to be there. My whole point is we need it to be more readable.

I will be posting sometime in the next few days or weeks some very specific questions, perhaps with hypothetical situations, about specific areas of the code I think need to be reworded.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

I think that is the goal of the NFPA and so far they've done a pretty decent job with a complex subject. Membership is open to all kinds of interested parties and you could probably join one of the groups that recommends revisions to the NEC. If not, there is no doubt some way you could forward comments to the appropriate groups.

Reply to
ATP

| I think that is the goal of the NFPA and so far they've done a pretty decent | job with a complex subject. Membership is open to all kinds of interested | parties and you could probably join one of the groups that recommends | revisions to the NEC. If not, there is no doubt some way you could forward | comments to the appropriate groups.

Overall I do think they have done an excellent job. But what is this about membership? Would that mean paying money to join? I don't think that would be a good way just to provide feedback that gets to the right people if it costs money. Perhaps there is a way to forward comments. But I have not found it, yet, and I take it you have not, either.

What I think would be good would be a group of online open forums for just such feedback. The topics would be various areas of the code and how that code could be changed. It would not necessarily be the official area to discuss it, but it should at least have someone from NFPA reviewing it all and bringing relevant excerpts to those who do make the decisions. But having at least some of those who make the decisions participating so they see the "full world view" ... and we see their view (for example reasons why a suggested change is a good idea or a bad idea) ... would be valuable.

I am familiar with the process used by the federal government for changes in regulatory agency code (such as the FCC). I've participated before the internet was big (and before there was a web to make it easier). Now it can be done online for some agencies. I think this should be a model for all industry specifications writers which get adopted as "law" in various jurisdictions. It's not a "public gets to vote", but it is definitely a "public gets to input knowing it will be read" model.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

You don't actually need to talk to the code-writing people at all. What you need is to find one or more people who can read and understand the code, and write at the same time. Then you can put together your own document that is easy to understand, and describes how to do things in ways that are code compliant.

Anyone who follows the rules in YOUR book will have an installation that's code-legal, and YOUR book will be easy to read and follow. It's true that people who buy, read, understand, and follow the actual code-book will be able to do things that people who restrict themselves to your book won't, but that's one of the consequences of being an amature.

*MY* biggest beef with NEC and BOCA and the ilk is that they appear to intermingle things that are safety/health requirements, which are properly "code", with building maintenance, durability, and useability issues, which ought to be "standards".

--Goedjn

Reply to
default

Contents of "HIS BOOK"

"wire good!"

Reply to
Gymmy Bob

| You don't actually need to talk to the code-writing people at all. | What you need is to find one or more people who can read and | understand the code, and write at the same time. Then you can | put together your own document that is easy to understand, | and describes how to do things in ways that are code compliant. | | Anyone who follows the rules in YOUR book will have an installation | that's code-legal, and YOUR book will be easy to read and follow. | It's true that people who buy, read, understand, and follow the actual | code-book will be able to do things that people who restrict themselves | to your book won't, but that's one of the consequences of being an amature.

And what inspector would use that as the basis? What if there is a different interpretation by the inspector (this really does happen) who says "that books is not the code"?

| *MY* biggest beef with NEC and BOCA and the ilk is that they | appear to intermingle things that are safety/health requirements, | which are properly "code", with building maintenance, durability, | and useability issues, which ought to be "standards".

Those things do cross over. Consider, for example, wire insulation color. We all know it has no effect on how the electrons travel. They don't pick which wire to go on by the insulation color. The insulation does not effect the capacity very much (if any at all). Yet we must use green for ground, etc. It's like a standard. But it's a safety issue. Someone who works with the circuit later on would know the green wire is the ground wire if the original work is done right. Just about everything I see in the NEC goes to safety in one form or another. I can't think of anything off the top of my head that does not.

Standards are for things like sizes to make sure we don't have excessive costs in materials and labor when building, and that replacement parts are readily available. For example, the cutout shape for a duplex receptacle plate is a standard (defined by NEMA). The box sizes are standards. The spacing between where screw holes go are standards. Stuff like that.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

The book doesn't need to be to code. The resulting _WORK_ needs to be to code. For instance, if my book tells you that you have to use 2x10s on 16" centers spanning no more than 15', while BOCA complicates things by telling you about 2x8s spanning 10', and 2x12s spanning 18', then anything that you build using my book will be code-compliant. It's true that an inspector could decide that the table means you're not ALLOWED to use

2x10s for spans less than 10', because they're too big... but nothing is going to protect you from a nutcase inspector, and the point of a sub-set book would be to avoid situations where fine points of interpretation are likely to be an issue.

For the most part, you're right. I don't understand why there are minimum dimensions of an occupiable space, (except for height). but for everything else that occurs, I might be conflating local ordinances with building codes. (vapor-barriers, attic ventilation, insulation requirements, automatic heat, for instance.)

I'd like to see more willingness on the part of local jurisdictions to allow violations where compliance is a pain in the ass, and the actual threat-level is low, but that a local-jurisdiction issue, not a problem with the codes.

--Goedn

Reply to
default

There is a vehicle in the NEC to allow some inspector latitude.

90.4 ..."By special permission, the authority having jurisdiction may waive specific requirements in this Code or permit alternative methods where it is assured that equivalent objectives can be achieved by establishing and maintaining effective safety".

Unfortunately this litigious society has limited that latitude. Nobody wants to take a chance.

Reply to
Greg

|> And what inspector would use that as the basis? What if there is a |> different interpretation by the inspector (this really does happen) |> who says "that books is not the code"? | | The book doesn't need to be to code. The resulting _WORK_ needs | to be to code. For instance, if my book tells you that you have to | use 2x10s on 16" centers spanning no more than 15', while BOCA | complicates things by telling you about 2x8s spanning 10', | and 2x12s spanning 18', then anything that you build using my | book will be code-compliant. It's true that an inspector could | decide that the table means you're not ALLOWED to use | 2x10s for spans less than 10', because they're too big... but | nothing is going to protect you from a nutcase inspector, and | the point of a sub-set book would be to avoid situations where | fine points of interpretation are likely to be an issue.

If the book says one thing and the code says another, then this is the original problem I raised this whole point about in the first place. It still comes back to "you have to read the code" to be sure the work is up to code. Then it's back to the few places where the NEC is poorly written leading to the DIY (who has to work to code like anyone else) misunderstanding because the code writers assume there are no DIY-ers doing any work.

It's hard for me to tell just where all the problems with the NEC could be since I do have more common sense than average, some experienced doing basic wiring, and good knowledge of most of the electrical theory. Thus I can "read into" the wording of the NEC and figure out what they mean. I can also understand what is safe, and what is not (even beyond the NEC). My house will definitely be safer than one built barely to code, or even one built well by the average contractor. but I'll be doing it in ways that most certainly will be ruffling feathers if they knew what I will be doing. Some things I will tell, such as sizing one up on the wiring (e.g. using AWG 10 for 20 amp circuits). Some other things I won't tell.

|> | *MY* biggest beef with NEC and BOCA and the ilk is that they |> | appear to intermingle things that are safety/health requirements, |> | which are properly "code", with building maintenance, durability, |> | and useability issues, which ought to be "standards". |>

|> the original work is done right. Just about everything I see in the NEC |> goes to safety in one form or another. I can't think of anything off the |> top of my head that does not. | | For the most part, you're right. I don't understand why | there are minimum dimensions of an occupiable space, | (except for height). but for everything else that occurs, | I might be conflating local ordinances with building codes. | (vapor-barriers, attic ventilation, insulation requirements, | automatic heat, for instance.) | | I'd like to see more willingness on the part of local jurisdictions | to allow violations where compliance is a pain in the ass, and | the actual threat-level is low, but that a local-jurisdiction | issue, not a problem with the codes.

Or in some cases, people can just move outside of local jurisdictions. In many areas, counties just don't care.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

Phil let mer put this in the perspective of another law we are familiar with. If you actually read the motor vehicle code it would be as confusing as the NEC but they give you a "driving for dummies" book when you get your license. If you do end up in traffic court that driver's license book is not a legal text and you will be judged on what the statute actually says if they don't agree. The 1&2 family NFPA book is just an opinion of what the NEC says by Phil Simmons and has no force of law. If someone can't figure out what the NEC means they shouldn't be wiring. Ignorance of the law is STILL no excuse.

Reply to
Greg

Reply to
Alan Stiver, PE

| Phil let mer put this in the perspective of another law we are familiar with. | If you actually read the motor vehicle code it would be as confusing as the NEC | but they give you a "driving for dummies" book when you get your license. If | you do end up in traffic court that driver's license book is not a legal text | and you will be judged on what the statute actually says if they don't agree.

Whoever said that producing should a book was right. If that book does not accurately state the law, then they should not be giving it out to people. If it does, then it can be used as a defense in traffic court.

Don't presume the people that run the state DMV are smart.

| The 1&2 family NFPA book is just an opinion of what the NEC says by Phil | Simmons and has no force of law.

That's what I suspected.

| If someone can't figure out what the NEC means they shouldn't be wiring. | Ignorance of the law is STILL no excuse.

Perhaps I might agree with that. But these remain facts:

  1. The NEC is written with the experienced electrician in mind.

  1. Some parts of the NEC are so poorly written, only an experienced electrician or someone smart about electrical engineering would know what is really meant (as opposed to what is written).

  2. DIY homeowners will continue to do DIY wiring anyway.

  1. A significant subset of DIY homeowners want to know what is right with certainty so they don't have to do the job over just because someone else wrote some text wrong.

But really, all that needs to be done is for the wording of the NEC to say what it means. But I guess certain electricians and electrical engineers just can't seem to accomplish that.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

NFPA standard #71 Electrical Code for one and two family dwellings. Is not written by any single person. It is a product of the same process as the National Electrical Code. If adopted by a state or local government it has same force of law as the NEC when it is adopted.

-- Tom

Reply to
HorneTD

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.