Warning about the 2005 NEC CD

For a couple months.

| All version including the PDF format is protected from copying and | printing, etc using the highest level 128 bit password encryption. Also, | images captured using print screen, etc cannot be processed using OCR | programs. They have really done it this time. Many of us need the copy and | paste functions to prepare reports efficiently, but the NFPA is so afraid | that someone might steal some parts of their precious code that they have | embalmed it both in the user format that requires the CD to read and in the | PDF format The NEC CD cannot be copied either. | | However, the PDF format can be saved using acrobat professional version 6 | and this format can be save to disk and transported over the Internet. They | screwed up here. So instead of snippets of code being transported expect to | see the entire 4.5 megabyte NEC pdf file being sent to and fro. This will | be especially so since those requiring only small quotes are no longer | afforded this minor benefit. I think their plan is going to backfire.

Does it work on versions of Acrobat Reader before 6?

I'm curious how they make the CD not copiable. If I can mount it as a filesystem in Linux, then I can sector copy it, and copy individual files as well. But they may have done something to make it not even readable as a normal ISO-9660 filesystem.

Do they supply the Acrobat Reader on the CD with it? If so, have you tried the PDF in a downloaded copy of the reader?

Yet another case of someone wearing their tie a bit too tight and losing too much oxygen to think things through. Happens a lot.

CORRECTION

You can copy and paste the code from the CD version. It is only the PDF format that is protected. However, to use the CD it must be in the drive. Sorry about that.

Every electrical store around here has it. It came out about two weeks ago.

Sounds pretty much the same as the 2002 CD. That was sufficient for most 'fair use' copying. The resulting copy was flat text and lost its formatting, making copies of more than a few paragraphs difficult to follow and attempts to copy the entire code this way pretty useless.

[snip]

The print version is available, but the only CD I can find on the NFPA site is the Handbook CD and they are giving a Feb '05 date for that.

\

The 2002 PDF version was on the CD and was not protected. Using acrobat

6.0 you could copy, paste, and edit the pdf file with the highlighter and all. The 2005 PDF version is totally secure. You must have the password to change the settings. There is, however, a service online that willh decrypt the PDF file but they do not retrieve the password. One service is You can save the PDF version to the hard drive using acrobat pro 6.0 and read it with the acrobat reader.

I did copy the CD but the copied version will not run without the original in the cd drive. The 2002 NEC installed completely onto the hard drive and could be installed on several computers and run. The 2005 NEC CD installs a portal onto the hard drive that must have the original CD in the CD drive to run.

The bottom line is I paid a $110 for the CD and can't run the NEC program on my desktop and lap top at the same time. I think this will curtail the coveted internationalizing of the NEC because, frankly, a lot of us are getting fed up with the NFPA, anyway, and I am a member.

They keep justifying changes by saying they make the NEC more user friendly. They keep changing numbers and placing metric first. Why don't they get real. We in the field do not use metric in the USA. We hate it, we lose our intuitive estimating ability using metric. Metric make the NEC more difficult to use and to read. After memorizing locations of key sections they reorganize whole articles, and now we can't find what we are looking for. I admire California and a few other states for sticking with the 1999 NEC.

I agree this code making crap is out of hand. I spend over $1000 a year, just to maintain my license, CEUs, keep up my documentation and maintain my professional memberships.

| The 2002 PDF version was on the CD and was not protected. Using acrobat | 6.0 you could copy, paste, and edit the pdf file with the highlighter and | all. | The 2005 PDF version is totally secure. You must have the password to | change the settings. There is, however, a service online that willh decrypt | the PDF file but they do not retrieve the password. One service is |

You can save the PDF version to the hard drive | using acrobat pro 6.0 and read it with the acrobat reader. | | I did copy the CD but the copied version will not run without the original | in the cd drive. The 2002 NEC installed completely onto the hard drive and | could be installed on several computers and run. The 2005 NEC CD installs a | portal onto the hard drive that must have the original CD in the CD drive to | run. | | The bottom line is I paid a $110 for the CD and can't run the NEC program on | my desktop and lap top at the same time. I think this will curtail the | coveted internationalizing of the NEC because, frankly, a lot of us are | getting fed up with the NFPA, anyway, and I am a member.

Does the CD have the PDF file, or is it a different file?

Why do they need "a program" to "run" if this is just a document. There are already plenty of programs to view documents with, though it might be the case the NFPA is trying to cripple the ability to do that.

| They keep justifying changes by saying they make the NEC more user friendly.

In some ways it perhaps is more user friendly. Obviously in many others it is not. For example, if they require Microsoft Windows just to read it then it will not be user friendly at all for millions of people worldwide. And if they do, then that's going to be my ticket to arguing to stop adoption of it at many governments (and investigate the NFPA and MSFT connection).

| They keep changing numbers and placing metric first. Why don't they get | real. We in the field do not use metric in the USA. We hate it, we lose | our intuitive estimating ability using metric. Metric make the NEC more | difficult to use and to read. After memorizing locations of key sections | they reorganize whole articles, and now we can't find what we are looking | for. I admire California and a few other states for sticking with the 1999 | NEC.

Well, I cannot agree with you on these points. I can certainly see that if you are used to finding passages in certain places that you will have some trouble finding them now with the changes. Maybe you should ge familiar with the keyword search (if the NFPA hasn't broken that already).

And metric (SI) is being used more and more in the USA. Like it or hate it, it is happening (though slower than I would like to see).

| I agree this code making crap is out of hand. I spend over $1000 a year, just | to maintain my license, CEUs, keep up my documentation and maintain my | professional memberships.

Then lets start another code making body, but with specific articles of incorporation that require that none of this crap be done.

On the metric issue. I work in the field. You know like wear Carharts and tools and that stuff. We put in the pipe, we pull the conductors, we do the check out. And Man we do not use Metric. Metric is like Greek. We in the field despise metric. We only buy metric tools when there is no other way. The NFPA may try to push metric down our throats, but all they are going to get is vomit. We ain't going metric in the USA. I suggest they publish two NEC's one in standard and one for the other nations that want to use metric, Hey, Metric encourages outsourcing. Fuck em!!!

| On the metric issue. I work in the field. You know like wear Carharts and | tools and that stuff. We put in the pipe, we pull the conductors, we do the | check out. And Man we do not use Metric. Metric is like Greek. We in the | field despise metric. We only buy metric tools when there is no other way. | The NFPA may try to push metric down our throats, but all they are going to | get is vomit. We ain't going metric in the USA. I suggest they publish two | NEC's one in standard and one for the other nations that want to use metric, | Hey, Metric encourages outsourcing. Fuck em!!!

English measures will be here for quite a while. But lots and lots of things are going metric, and the USA must (and will) go metric in many respects just to be able to keep a part of the world free trade market. And its cheaper to just manufacture one set of sizes instead of two. What will keep metric out of electrical installation work to a great degree is that fact that there is already little interchange between North America and the rest of the world in this regard. Most of the rest of the world has different electrical systems, which pretty much forces different product lines, anyway. But because so many other products will be standardized for the world, most of the rest is going to at minimum have to at least "talk metric". For example a 4x4 box might still be the same size for decades, but it will be referred to at about 10cm.

FYI, I've mentioned a few times when asking about electrical code and other issues that I'm designing a house. It's being designed in metric, though in a way to be compatible with existing materials. The blueprints will specify things like where each receptacle is placed in metric. But they will still be the standard NEMA defined devices (which stll uses English measures but could switch to metric some day).

I'm not going to try to convince you that metric is good for you. But I think you will have to deal with it increasingly more each year whether you like it or not.

you are right on! sammm

connection).

The NFPA might be interested in having their codes adopted by other countries where the metric system is used. Also. much of the equipment we buy is built overseas, where metric measurement rules.

In fact the NEC has adopted "commie metric" as the primary measurement standard. "US archaic" is the one in parentheses

OTOH, it is much easier to do calculations in the metric system, as the units are consistent.

| OTOH, it is much easier to do calculations in the metric system, as the | units are consistent.

If you have to change units, this is true. Unfortunately, you do so often with the English system (inches, feet, yards, miles). At least with meters, one can say "5500 meters" and others can hear "5.5 km" if they want. If they had made only ONE unit (lets say feet, discarding any use of inches, yards, miles, etc), it might work. Then we might say "18 kilofeet" :-)

The units are really arbitrary to the biggest advantage of the SI (metric) system, that it's decimal based (if we had evolved a base 12 system of numbers, then the universal measures would be based on that). But it also has some advantages of coordinated units, such as 1 joule equals

1 watt-second for when you have to switch to a whole different type of unit.