NEC Errors

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 06:40:40 GMT snipped-for-privacy@bellatlantic.net wrote: | snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: | |>On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 15:56:36 GMT snipped-for-privacy@bellatlantic.net wrote: |>

|>| 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? |> |>

| Maybe this will work if I swear, for emphasis. | Nah. I'll just use the asterics, capitals and put it on | a separate line. Quoting 411.2 | "A lighting system consisting of an isolating power supply | operating at 30 volts (42.4 volts peak) or less, under any | load condition, with one or more secondary circuits, | *EACH* | limited to 25 amperes maximum, supplying lighting fixtures | and associated equipment identified for the use." | | Do you understand the word "each" ? | Did you read the section carefully and try to | understand it as I asked you to do?

Do you understand that _asking_ about the corollary to a statement does _not_ mean that I am making that statement? In this case it was the implication that if 411.6 refers to ONE then 411.2 refers to ALL. But of course I am _not_ going to presume such, which is why I asked. I guess you missed the "?" at the end.

|>| 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 need a dictionary, and a course in english - and you | shouldn't get anywhere near wiring if you don't understand | that.

Don't make such presumptions.

|>| 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". |>

| Yes it does, but the material I quoted and you snipped was | your attempt to bring up a different issue. And you've done | it again (below). Keep it to article 411. Try using a dictionary.

How is it that under "NEC Errors" the discussion should be kept to just article 411? You don't care about the other errors in the NEC?

I understand that you don't get it, and I apologize for my inability to make it clear to you. Bye.

Ed

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 19:26:16 GMT snipped-for-privacy@bellatlantic.net wrote: | snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: | |>On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 06:40:40 GMT snipped-for-privacy@bellatlantic.net wrote: |>| snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: |>| |>|>On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 15:56:36 GMT snipped-for-privacy@bellatlantic.net wrote: |>|>

|>|>| 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? |>|> |>|>

|>| Maybe this will work if I swear, for emphasis. |>| Nah. I'll just use the asterics, capitals and put it on |>| a separate line. Quoting 411.2 |>| "A lighting system consisting of an isolating power supply |>| operating at 30 volts (42.4 volts peak) or less, under any |>| load condition, with one or more secondary circuits, |>| *EACH* |>| limited to 25 amperes maximum, supplying lighting fixtures |>| and associated equipment identified for the use." |>| |>| Do you understand the word "each" ? |>| Did you read the section carefully and try to |>| understand it as I asked you to do? |>

|>Do you understand that _asking_ about the corollary to a statement |>does _not_ mean that I am making that statement? In this case it |>was the implication that if 411.6 refers to ONE then 411.2 refers |>to ALL. But of course I am _not_ going to presume such, which is |>why I asked. I guess you missed the "?" at the end. |> |>

| I understand that you don't get it, and I apologize for my inability to | make it clear | to you. Bye.

Your problem is that you make assumptions, and these lead you to being mixed up.

Ed has it right. Try a real world example...

Lets say we have one of those 'Nightscaping' yard light transformers. You can feed it through a maximum 20 amp circuit.(411.6)

The transformer has 3 'legs' on the secondary winding each protected by an edison base fuse, which can be 25 amps maximum. (411.2)

John

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 03:56:33 GMT John Ray wrote: | | |> |>

|> |>Do you understand that _asking_ about the corollary to a statement |> |>does _not_ mean that I am making that statement? In this case it |> |>was the implication that if 411.6 refers to ONE then 411.2 refers |> |>to ALL. But of course I am _not_ going to presume such, which is |> |>why I asked. I guess you missed the "?" at the end. |> |>

|> |>

|> | I understand that you don't get it, and I apologize for my inability to |> | make it clear |> | to you. Bye. |>

|> Your problem is that you make assumptions, and these lead you to being |> mixed up. |>

| Ed has it right. Try a real world example...

Where Ed has it wrong is assuming my _question_ about how one of his statements impacts another was a _statement_ (it was not) about the other.

| Lets say we have one of those 'Nightscaping' yard light transformers. You | can feed it through a maximum 20 amp circuit.(411.6)

But the code does not say that this limit applies only to the primary side of the transformer. The secondary, which is a separately derived system, is also a circuit that is feeding the system, and it therefore, according to 411.6, most be a maximum 20 amp circuit.

| The transformer has 3 'legs' on the secondary winding each protected by an | edison base fuse, which can be 25 amps maximum. (411.2)

But 411.6 limits all the circuits to 20 amps. It does not say that only the high voltage primary is so limited. While I believe that was their intent, it's not what got written down.

Perhaps Ed got a bit worked up, but we who post in Usenet must always remember that for every layman who posts a question, there are countless lurkers that may attempt to apply what they read. There's (to me anyway) a responsibility that comes with that. Ed obviously takes responsibility for accuracy in the discussions here, and he felt the need to clear things up.

That being said, you can get into alot of trouble trying to interpret individual passages; everything relates. Notice that 411.5b refers 'secondary circuit' being isolated from the 'branch circuit'. Once you read the whole article, the terminology is very clear. 'Separately derived system' doesn't apply here.

It's entertaining in a perverse way to find holes in the code, but I don't believe anyone ever intended it to be a book for Joe Homeowner to read at the library so he can wire stuff up. I'm not saying this applies to you, just that the NEC should be read with some degree of precognition, which makes it an easier read.

John

| Perhaps Ed got a bit worked up, but we who post in Usenet must always | remember that for every layman who posts a question, there are countless | lurkers that may attempt to apply what they read. There's (to me anyway) a | responsibility that comes with that. Ed obviously takes responsibility for | accuracy in the discussions here, and he felt the need to clear things up.

I think he was clearing up the wrong part.

| That being said, you can get into alot of trouble trying to interpret | individual passages; everything relates. Notice that 411.5b refers | 'secondary circuit' being isolated from the 'branch circuit'. Once you read | the whole article, the terminology is very clear. 'Separately derived | system' doesn't apply here.

So are you saying it is not a separately derived system? It certainly is an ungrounded system.

| It's entertaining in a perverse way to find holes in the code, but I don't | believe anyone ever intended it to be a book for Joe Homeowner to read at | the library so he can wire stuff up. I'm not saying this applies to you, | just that the NEC should be read with some degree of precognition, which | makes it an easier read.

There's at least one (probably more) thread on whether the NEC is appropriate for a non-professional to refer to. The arguments pretty much went in a bit circle. It's certainly a daunting read for the non-professional. And much of it is twisted even for professionals. The argument is non-professionals should use one of those HOW-TO books for home wiring. Aside from most of them being junk (well, all that I have seen), they are not official code. So if someone needs to consult the official rule, it's only the NEC (and any local amendments) that works. The book could be wrong (many are). Then the code could be misinterpreted. My suggestion was to have 2 separate codes. One code would be complete as is now. The other code would only cover a subset of applications: single family homes with nothing unusual, up to

400 amps at 240 volts. When work is done by permit on a home, the code to apply would be elected at that time. If the home-only code is elected and it allows something the full code does not, it's still compliant. And in some cases there could even be legitimate reasons to allow it because some things the full code allows would not be an option.

Jesus, man! I now see that it is you who has pushed this thread around in a circle. You seem to have a large chip on your shoulder. I never doubted that you are intelligent, but you seemed unclear on a code article that is pretty clear to most who would actually deal with it. I simply tried to explain it another way, and now you've resorted to picking apart my grammar!? FWIW I did say circuit(s)...sorry if the abbreviation made that unclear for you. It's really rediculous how far you've pushed this simple bit of code. Post a reply if you wish ( I'm SURE you will ). I will post no further on this.

John

ok...everyone all together now....

"PHIL'S A SMART GUY!"

feel better?

So does this group have a EEA(Electrical Engineers Anonymous)? I am thinking about quitting but everyone I work with says quitting doesn't get the job done.

Jesus, man! I now see that it is you who has pushed this thread around in a circle. You seem to have a large chip on your shoulder. I never doubted that you are intelligent, but you seemed unclear on a code article that is pretty clear to most who would actually deal with it. I simply tried to explain it another way, and now you've resorted to picking apart my grammar!? FWIW I did say circuit(s)...sorry if the abbreviation made that unclear for you. It's really rediculous how far you've pushed this simple bit of code. Post a reply if you wish ( I'm SURE you will ). I will post no further on this.

John

ok...everyone all together now....

"PHIL'S A SMART GUY!"

feel better?

| Jesus, man! | I now see that it is you who has pushed this thread around in a circle. You | seem to have a large chip on your shoulder. I never doubted that you are | intelligent, but you seemed unclear on a code article that is pretty clear | to most who would actually deal with it. I simply tried to explain it | another way, and now you've resorted to picking apart my grammar!? FWIW I | did say circuit(s)...sorry if the abbreviation made that unclear for you. | It's really rediculous how far you've pushed this simple bit of code. Post a | reply if you wish ( I'm SURE you will ). I will post no further on this.

When a thread goes around in a circle, it usually means something didn't get answered in the original. But in this case it got diverted because when I posed a question to what seemed like a conflicting statement, attempting to highlight that conflict, someone took the question out of context, made it a statement, and assumed I was asserting that statement. Funny if not so sad.

Maybe I should just go back to the method I used many years ago to get people to answer questions when they would otherwise just ignore them. That method was to just simply pick an answer, whether right or wrong (more often wrong) and just post a statement as such. If I was right, it would be mostly ignored. If I was wrong, there would be a lot of response. It seems people are more willing to attack someone for being wrong than to answer a question that requires the same knowledge. Well, I can understand that reasoning. Sure, my method was a cheap shot, but it worked. I quit doing it a few years ago because someone pointed out that with everything be indexed forever on places like Google, wrong statements posed a danger to people who happen to find that as a web page somewhere. The argument was valid, so I stopped. But now days, questions do seem to get answered more. Trouble is, this isn't even the first case where answer given is to a different question than what was actually asked.

I make that mistake at times too.,

[responding on an issue in a non-specific thread, not the original post or question]

=AEoy

| I make that mistake at times too., | | [responding on an issue in a non-specific thread, not the original post | or question]

Threads do so often take side tracks worse than trying to drill a deep oil well. I do try to stay within the topic in the subject line, which in this case is about "NEC Errors" (rather broad). Of course now THIS post (talking about the behaviour of threads) is going off topic.