Can I plug my 230V compressor (NEMA 6-20P) into a dryer (NEMA 10-30R) receptacle?

Page 4 of 4  
Probably something that you ALL know but here goes: The folks that publish the very techie, boring NEC also publish a "handbook" with lots of pictures and explanations of the NEC. Appears to be designed more for the common man / DIYer / pathetic newsgroups junkie, etc.
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| Probably something that you ALL know but here goes: | The folks that publish the very techie, boring NEC also publish a "handbook" | with lots of pictures and explanations of the NEC. Appears to be designed | more for the common man / DIYer / pathetic newsgroups junkie, etc.
But, where the handbook and the code differ, does the DIYer still have to consult the code anyway? See, what I want is for the answer to that question to be "NO". E.g. that would mean that whatever the handbook says can be done, is allowable if the DIYer did things according to the book (and that may well mean having done nothing else that went beyond what the book says).
My whole point is for the DIYer to have exactly ONE resource which allows them to get it right and passable the first time without having to consult the code, and that resource be so good that no inspector will ever fail it unless the inspector is at fault or the publisher will cover all costs to modify the project up to passable.
And yes, I know there will be some DIYers that are too dense to follow any book no matter how well written. So it may well be an unachievable goal. Perhaps it might be easier to get the NEC to reword their poorly worded sections so at least those sections can be used as a guide, even though they say the whole code shouldn't be used as a guide. I just want there to be some resource that literally says what it means and can be used to get any home (not commercial or industrial) installation passable the first time if followed to the letter.
The fact that (as another poster reported) some work styles being unpassable in one area, but passable in another, makes me wonder if the inspectors can be consistent with the code itself, at least for homeowner DIY work. If a local area wants to restrict things to a specific way, they should put that in their local code, clearly. And if the DIY homeowner needs to follow it, it damned well better be clear. Take no excuses from bureaucrats.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12 Nov 2004 21:28:15 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net

NO. The Handbook contains the code, plus explanations and rationale.
sdb
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In misc.industry.utilities.electric Sylvan Butler
| On 12 Nov 2004 21:28:15 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net
|> |>| Probably something that you ALL know but here goes: |>| The folks that publish the very techie, boring NEC also publish a "handbook" |>| with lots of pictures and explanations of the NEC. Appears to be designed |>| more for the common man / DIYer / pathetic newsgroups junkie, etc. |> |> But, where the handbook and the code differ, does the DIYer still have to |> consult the code anyway? | | NO. The Handbook contains the code, plus explanations and rationale.
If the explanation is going to be clear enough that following it alone would result in a safe installation, then why is a copy of the code itself needed? By including that code, and especially if there is a statement saying that in cases of conflict the code prevails, then it all goes back to having to understand the code. And if the code can be understood and is complete, then the rest isn't needed. But if the code cannot be 100% understood by this target market, why is it included?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

"handbook"
designed
to
would
needed?
The handbook is also rather technical and not meant for the DIYer. It is meant to assist professional electricians in their interpretation of the NEC. The code itself contains warnings to the effect that it is not a guide for the proper installation of electrical systems. A certain amount of experience and knowledge of good workmanship and design are assumed on the part of the reader.
WRT why a copy of the code is needed, for the same reason that law school texts cite the law or literary criticism quotes works of literature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| The handbook is also rather technical and not meant for the DIYer. It is | meant to assist professional electricians in their interpretation of the | NEC. The code itself contains warnings to the effect that it is not a guide | for the proper installation of electrical systems. A certain amount of | experience and knowledge of good workmanship and design are assumed on the | part of the reader.
Here is the code.
Now here is what it really means.
Oh, but if there is any conflict, the code prevails.
Then what good is the handbook.
It's fine if someone reads the code and can't understand any meaning at all and the handbook explains it. But why not just write the code that way (more clearly) in the first case?
| WRT why a copy of the code is needed, for the same reason that law school | texts cite the law or literary criticism quotes works of literature.
The legal system in many cases has the very same problems where what is written in the law is wording that says something entirely different than lawyers and judges understand it to mean. I just think that by trying to write things clearly (what perhaps was attempted in the handbook) in the code itself, much of these troubles can be overcome. And I have in fact worked the same goals at the federal government level and in a couple cases have succeeded in getting some changes.
Of course the "ultimate prevailing law" has to be there. My whole point is we need it to be more readable.
I will be posting sometime in the next few days or weeks some very specific questions, perhaps with hypothetical situations, about specific areas of the code I think need to be reworded.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

guide
the
I think that is the goal of the NFPA and so far they've done a pretty decent job with a complex subject. Membership is open to all kinds of interested parties and you could probably join one of the groups that recommends revisions to the NEC. If not, there is no doubt some way you could forward comments to the appropriate groups.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| I think that is the goal of the NFPA and so far they've done a pretty decent | job with a complex subject. Membership is open to all kinds of interested | parties and you could probably join one of the groups that recommends | revisions to the NEC. If not, there is no doubt some way you could forward | comments to the appropriate groups.
Overall I do think they have done an excellent job. But what is this about membership? Would that mean paying money to join? I don't think that would be a good way just to provide feedback that gets to the right people if it costs money. Perhaps there is a way to forward comments. But I have not found it, yet, and I take it you have not, either.
What I think would be good would be a group of online open forums for just such feedback. The topics would be various areas of the code and how that code could be changed. It would not necessarily be the official area to discuss it, but it should at least have someone from NFPA reviewing it all and bringing relevant excerpts to those who do make the decisions. But having at least some of those who make the decisions participating so they see the "full world view" ... and we see their view (for example reasons why a suggested change is a good idea or a bad idea) ... would be valuable.
I am familiar with the process used by the federal government for changes in regulatory agency code (such as the FCC). I've participated before the internet was big (and before there was a web to make it easier). Now it can be done online for some agencies. I think this should be a model for all industry specifications writers which get adopted as "law" in various jurisdictions. It's not a "public gets to vote", but it is definitely a "public gets to input knowing it will be read" model.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You don't actually need to talk to the code-writing people at all. What you need is to find one or more people who can read and understand the code, and write at the same time. Then you can put together your own document that is easy to understand, and describes how to do things in ways that are code compliant.
Anyone who follows the rules in YOUR book will have an installation that's code-legal, and YOUR book will be easy to read and follow. It's true that people who buy, read, understand, and follow the actual code-book will be able to do things that people who restrict themselves to your book won't, but that's one of the consequences of being an amature.
*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".
--Goedjn
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Contents of "HIS BOOK"
"wire good!"

about
would
it
not
just
that
all
amature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| You don't actually need to talk to the code-writing people at all. | What you need is to find one or more people who can read and | understand the code, and write at the same time. Then you can | put together your own document that is easy to understand, | and describes how to do things in ways that are code compliant. | | Anyone who follows the rules in YOUR book will have an installation | that's code-legal, and YOUR book will be easy to read and follow. | It's true that people who buy, read, understand, and follow the actual | code-book will be able to do things that people who restrict themselves | to your book won't, but that's one of the consequences of being an amature.
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"?
| *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".
Those things do cross over. Consider, for example, wire insulation color. We all know it has no effect on how the electrons travel. They don't pick which wire to go on by the insulation color. The insulation does not effect the capacity very much (if any at all). Yet we must use green for ground, etc. It's like a standard. But it's a safety issue. Someone who works with the circuit later on would know the green wire is the ground wire if 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.
Standards are for things like sizes to make sure we don't have excessive costs in materials and labor when building, and that replacement parts are readily available. For example, the cutout shape for a duplex receptacle plate is a standard (defined by NEMA). The box sizes are standards. The spacing between where screw holes go are standards. Stuff like that.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The book doesn't need to be to code. The resulting _WORK_ needs 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.

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.
--Goedn
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
|> 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_ needs | 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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.