my NEC agenda

The 2008 NEC already adopted one of my personal agendas with the code,
even though I never submitted any proposals (only mentioned there here
and a couple other places which I believe had no contributory factor).
That change was elimination of 408.35. Actually, I would have been
satisified with increasing the limit to at least 72.
With the new expanded AFCI requirement, larger panels may be needed to
space out the breakers to avoid building up too much heat in there.
Let's see ... space the AFCI breaker at every other slot? No. But
maybe a cycle of 2 filled and 1 empty might be enough. If they do
end up needing to be every other slot, then they will have to be at
different slots on the other side to avoid putting everything on the
same phase. But I like the 2 filled / 1 empty idea better (allows
for 2-pole AFCI within the scheme).
They do need to make a corresponding change to 90.8(B) to match it.
Since to comment period is over, hopefully they will clear it up as
an editorial issue.
The other change in my agenda is 210.6(A)(1) and 210.6(A)(2). I would
allow, in _single_ dwelling units, up to 277 volts supplying luminaires
other than screw in type provided the luminaire frame is connected to
the EGC, with the 120 volt limit remaining for pre-existing ungrounded
luminaires. I would expect these would be wired with 240 volts in most
homes choosing to go higher than 120. I would also completely eliminate
210.6(A)(2).
I believe everything that can use 240 volts should use 240 volts where
practical and safe. And I believe it is safe in virtually all cases in
a home in the USA that is wired in compliance with current code.
Certain things like Edison-screw-base lamps should still be limited to
120 volts L-N as well as limited to only L-N, regardless of the use of
incandescent or compact fluorescent lights.
I would allow for 240 volt (and even, if available, 277 volt) outlets
for general use without a requirement for a minimum current level.
In most cases rule 210.6(A)(2) is easy to get around because most 240 volt
appliances are over the 1440 VA level. And for those that are not, the
receptacle can often be justified for the existance of one somewhere that
does use 240 volts and may need to be used at that location.
Many computer power supplies are more efficient when supplied with 240
volts. With less current, the building wiring will also be heating up
less and wasting less power.
BTW: I still oppose any bans on the use of incandescent lighting for task
lighting purposes where long term task work could be done (and that most
definitely includes the kitchen). But I would use 12-volt halogen type
lights in these cases, anyway. If anyone can invent a new kind of light
that produces the same spectrum that incandescent does in the 400-700nm
spectrum (and presumably much less outside of that range) then I would
be willing to consider adopting that technology.
Speaking of lights, does anyone know of a compact fluorescent lamp that
screws into a standard base that provides the same _light_ level as a
15-watt incandescent?
A question: should 210.12 be expanded to require AFCI protection also on
240 volt (and if used, 277 volt) circuits?
Reply to
phil-news-nospam
Loading thread data ...
I suppose you mean the elimination of the 42 overcurrent device limit. The Canadians have been allowed over this limit for years and maybe this is a change to help converge the CEC and NEC. With NAFTA and globalization I am sure there is pressure to issue a truly International Electrical Code and the NFPA certainly wants to be at the forefront on this. After all, buying all the code books and going to the classes every three years is a multi-million dollar market. I maintain that there is a non safety element in the rewriting the NEC every three years. This really doesn't bother me personally since I too am engaged in marketing these changes.
ref: 408.35 Number of Overcurrent Devices on One Panelboard. Not more than 42 overcurrent devices (other than those provided for in the mains) of a lighting and appliance branch-circuit panelboard shall be installed in any one cabinet or cutout box.
Reply to
Jerry
| snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: |> The 2008 NEC already adopted one of my personal agendas with the code, |> even though I never submitted any proposals (only mentioned there here |> and a couple other places which I believe had no contributory factor). |> That change was elimination of 408.35. Actually, I would have been |> satisified with increasing the limit to at least 72. |> | I suppose you mean the elimination of the 42 overcurrent device limit. | The Canadians have been allowed over this limit for years and maybe
You mean Canadians don't have such a low limit, if any. I'm sure some USians have been smuggling 84-space panels over the border for years to sell on the black market here :-)
| this is a change to help converge the CEC and NEC. With NAFTA and | globalization I am sure there is pressure to issue a truly | International Electrical Code and the NFPA certainly wants to be at the | forefront on this. After all, buying all the code books and going to | the classes every three years is a multi-million dollar market. I | maintain that there is a non safety element in the rewriting the NEC | every three years. This really doesn't bother me personally since I | too am engaged in marketing these changes.
Truly international? So I'd be allowed to wire up 240 volt L-N circuits for anything?
Well, I don't want ring circuits to be allowed.
| ref: | 408.35 Number of Overcurrent Devices on One Panelboard. | Not more than 42 overcurrent devices (other than | those provided for in the mains) of a lighting and appliance | branch-circuit panelboard shall be installed in any one cabinet | or cutout box.
Exactly. It's gone in 2008. Any wagers on how long it takes for the 84 space ones (that's the largest I've seen in the Canadian catalogs) to show up here, at least available at the electrical distributor, if not the big box stores?
Reply to
phil-news-nospam

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.