|> 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_
| 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.
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
Click to see the full signature.