NEC Errors

What is the proper procedure for reporting (possible) errors in the 2005 NEC? After applying the Errata issued December 24, 2004 I'm still finding some discrepancies.

I scanned through the NFPA web site and didn't find a 'bug report' page.

Reply to
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
Loading thread data ...

AFAIK....

formatting link
John

Reply to
John Ray

| What is the proper procedure for reporting (possible) errors in the 2005 | NEC? | After applying the Errata issued December 24, 2004 I'm still finding | some discrepancies. | | I scanned through the NFPA web site and didn't find a 'bug report' page.

I've run across things I thought were wrong in the NEC. What people have told me to do is send in a request to make a change for the 2008 code, which closes in November 2005.

What I find are mostly examples of poor language. The rest is more a case of difference of opinion.

What kinds of problems are you seeing in it?

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

References to nonexistent paragraphs for one thing.

Reply to
Paul Hovnanian P.E.

I have found about 35 errors in the NFPA/IAEI Analysis of Changes to the

2005 NEC book. Some of them are fairly significant. I will putting these up at my site electrician.com in the near future.
Reply to
Gerald Newton

I feel sorry for the poor bastards who are taking the journeyman's test. 5 guys in my company have taken the test upwards of 8 times and still not passed.

I have found about 35 errors in the NFPA/IAEI Analysis of Changes to the

2005 NEC book. Some of them are fairly significant. I will putting these up at my site electrician.com in the near future.
Reply to
Brian

On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 19:37:01 -0700 Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote: | snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: |> |> On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 20:05:10 -0700 Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote: |> |> | What is the proper procedure for reporting (possible) errors in the 2005 |> | NEC? |> | After applying the Errata issued December 24, 2004 I'm still finding |> | some discrepancies. |> | |> | I scanned through the NFPA web site and didn't find a 'bug report' page. |> |> I've run across things I thought were wrong in the NEC. What people have |> told me to do is send in a request to make a change for the 2008 code, |> which closes in November 2005. |> |> What I find are mostly examples of poor language. The rest is more a case |> of difference of opinion. |> |> What kinds of problems are you seeing in it? | | References to nonexistent paragraphs for one thing.

If a reference says "shall be done according to ..." and that paragraph is missing, is it appropriate to assume anything is allowed, or nothing is permitted? Or would you just have to look for where they moved it to and assume that's what they meant?

You'd think when they move a paragraph, they will search the electronic copy and make sure all references are updated.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

[snip]

Post here when your stuff is up and I'll check what I have against your list.

Reply to
Paul Hovnanian P.E.

Actually, you'd think that someone preparing a document like this would use tools that would eliminate this kind of error in the first place.

They probably just use MS Word.

Reply to
Paul Hovnanian P.E.

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 18:50:21 -0700 Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote: | snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: |> |> On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 19:37:01 -0700 Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote: |> | snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: |> |>

|> |> On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 20:05:10 -0700 Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote: |> |>

|> |> | What is the proper procedure for reporting (possible) errors in the 2005 |> |> | NEC? |> |> | After applying the Errata issued December 24, 2004 I'm still finding |> |> | some discrepancies. |> |> | |> |> | I scanned through the NFPA web site and didn't find a 'bug report' page. |> |>

|> |> I've run across things I thought were wrong in the NEC. What people have |> |> told me to do is send in a request to make a change for the 2008 code, |> |> which closes in November 2005. |> |>

|> |> What I find are mostly examples of poor language. The rest is more a case |> |> of difference of opinion. |> |>

|> |> What kinds of problems are you seeing in it? |> | |> | References to nonexistent paragraphs for one thing. |> |> If a reference says "shall be done according to ..." and that paragraph |> is missing, is it appropriate to assume anything is allowed, or nothing |> is permitted? Or would you just have to look for where they moved it to |> and assume that's what they meant? |> |> You'd think when they move a paragraph, they will search the electronic |> copy and make sure all references are updated. | | Actually, you'd think that someone preparing a document like this would | use tools that would eliminate this kind of error in the first place. | | They probably just use MS Word.

Probably.

I noticed an apparent inconsistency in current limitations between 411.2 and 411.6.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

|> I scanned through the NFPA web site and didn't find a 'bug report' page. |>

|> -- |> Paul Hovnanian mailto: snipped-for-privacy@Hovnanian.com | | I have found about 35 errors in the NFPA/IAEI Analysis of Changes to the | 2005 NEC book. Some of them are fairly significant. I will putting these | up at my site electrician.com in the near future.

I'm looking forward to that.

FYI, should I limit current under article 411 to 25 amps per 411.2 or 20 amps per 411.6? Seems a bit inconsistent there. Your thoughts? Of course going with the lower is the safe harbor. But at 12 volts, that makes the difference between 240 watts and 300 watts.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

seems pretty obvious to me

411.2 tells the defination. 411.6 is the install requirements.
Reply to
sandman

:-) Probably. But current versions of MS Word *do* provide for automatically renumbering paragraphs and updating references. It's just a pain to use. I've seen a lot of 'administrative assistants' that still don't know how to create simple tables and such. They insist on hitting the 'spacebar' until things line up, no matter the font/tab-settings/etc...

You have to be smarter than the program you're using ;-)

daestrom

Reply to
daestrom

Right. I'd go with the 411.6 limit (it says 'shall').

411.2 is inconsistent, but all it does is define the system as '25 amperes maximum'. A system that complies with 411.6 still fits this definition. Even if it is confusing.
Reply to
Paul Hovnanian P.E.

Aww,c'mon!

411.2 refers to the current in the low voltage secondary circuit. 411.6 refers to the rating of the branch circuit feeding the primary of the isolating power supply/transformer.

411.5(B) clarifies the meaning of "branch circuit" and "secondary circuit" in this context.

Reply to
BFoelsch

There is no inconsistency. You need to read it more carefully. One is the *branch* circuit (411.6) which must be no more than 20 amps. The definition in 411.2 states "...with one or more *secondary* circuits, each limited to 25 amperes maximum, ..." (emphasis mine)

Ed

Reply to
ehsjr

|> They probably just use MS Word. | | :-) Probably. But current versions of MS Word *do* provide for | automatically renumbering paragraphs and updating references. It's just a | pain to use. I've seen a lot of 'administrative assistants' that still | don't know how to create simple tables and such. They insist on hitting the | 'spacebar' until things line up, no matter the font/tab-settings/etc...

It always worked on mechanical typwriters, so why not :)

| You have to be smarter than the program you're using ;-)

Tables are not hard at all.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

|>FYI, should I limit current under article 411 to 25 amps per 411.2 or 20 |>amps per 411.6? Seems a bit inconsistent there. Your thoughts? Of course |>going with the lower is the safe harbor. But at 12 volts, that makes the |>difference between 240 watts and 300 watts. |>

|> |>

| There is no inconsistency. You need to read it more carefully. | One is the *branch* circuit (411.6) which must be no more than 20 amps. | The definition in 411.2 states | "...with one or more *secondary* circuits, each limited | to 25 amperes maximum, ..." | (emphasis mine)

Do they mean: secondary "system" ... e.g. the isolating transformer can be rated to deliver 25 amps, and you can put 2 branch circuits of not more than 20 amps each, on it?

So how would I wire things up when the power comes from a set of batteries that can deliver 1000 amps at no more than 5% voltage drop? This would be a DC system. Would this just not use Article 411 at all?

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

Please. Try to think about the sections you mentioned. Try to read them carefully and apply them to what they "talk" about.

411.2 does not contain the term "secondary system". It clearly tells you that *secondary circuits* must be limited to 25 amps, maximum. Note that it uses the term "one or more" and refers to circuitS (plural) Note too that "limited" does not necessarily mean that a circuit breaker must be the limiting means. 411.6 refers to *a* branch circuit. *One*

There's a breaker in your service panel and conductors (the branch circuit referred to in 411.6) from the panel to an outlet for the lighting system. That breaker cannot exceed 20 amps. The isolated supply can have more than one secondary, but each secondary must be limited to no more than 25 amps.

You do this (see below) - post a change to the premise under discussion - all the time. It just confuses things. Suggestion: Stick to the premise at hand. Until and unless you understand the original issue, don't confuse things by bringing in more issues. If you want to pursue another issue, move it to another thread to eliminate confusion.

Ed

Reply to
ehsjr

| Please. Try to think about the sections you mentioned. | Try to read them carefully and apply them to what they | "talk" about. | 411.2 does not contain the term "secondary system". | It clearly tells you that *secondary circuits* must be | limited to 25 amps, maximum. Note that it uses the | term "one or more" and refers to circuitS (plural) | Note too that "limited" does not necessarily mean | that a circuit breaker must be the limiting means. | | 411.6 refers to *a* branch circuit. *One*

So are you saying that 411.2 is the limit for _all_ secondary circuits?

| There's a breaker in your service panel and | conductors (the branch circuit referred to in 411.6) | from the panel to an outlet for the lighting system. | That breaker cannot exceed 20 amps. The isolated | supply can have more than one secondary, but each | secondary must be limited to no more than 25 amps.

What kind of limit are you referring to? A short circuit limit?

| You do this (see below) - post a change to the premise under | discussion - all the time. It just confuses things. Suggestion: | Stick to the premise at hand. Until and unless you understand | the original issue, don't confuse things by bringing in more | issues. If you want to pursue another issue, move it to another | thread to eliminate confusion.

The subject says "NEC Errors". It seemed like an error to me. In fact it still does, though now it seems to be a different kind of error ... one of just poor English.

We could always go back to the debate that the NEC isn't intended for the average person to work with (only for trained and experienced electricians and power engineers), yet everyone has to follow it, and how-to books are made for simpler explanation, and most of them have some serious errors or inconsistency with the code, so we still have to consult the code for the _official_ rule, and have to deal with the poor language skills of the code writers (note, not an individual in most cases, but the end result of "hacked" wording accumulated over the many code revisions).

| Ed | |>So how would I wire things up when the power comes from a set of batteries |>that can deliver 1000 amps at no more than 5% voltage drop? This would be |>a DC system. Would this just not use Article 411 at all? |>

|> |>

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.