PDF of 2011 National Electrical Code posted

Page 2 of 4  
" snipped-for-privacy@krl.org" wrote:

Which is paid by the manufacturers of electrical devices, and insurance companies.
--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a Band-Aid™ on it, because it's
Teflon coated.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/24/2011 5:06 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Tradesmen don't pay taxes???? News to me.
Amplifying on the other respondent's observation I'd carry it even further--
If you live in or anybody you do business with or whose products you use are located in a jurisdiction which uses NEC as a basis for local code you're a user.
In the US, there's virtually nowhere that doesn't use NEC as a basis for local code but it is not, afaik, formally legislated to be legislative requirement anywhere.
It's pervasive but doesn't actually have an legal standing as law, only as a basis for Code.
--
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So who else shall we subsidize with general tax money? If you read, I write. You can subsidize me, if you're in that mode of thinking.
--
Ed Huntress



Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

GET SOME MORE PARK KEEPERS, GARDENERS AND SANITATION CREWS TO WATCH YOUR KIDS WHILE THEY ARE PLAYING IN THE PARK AND TO BEAUTIFY AND KEEP YOUR DIRTY NEIGHBORHOODS CLEAN WHEN YOUR DIRTY KIDS AND WIVES LITTER THE PLACE ALL UP LIKE THEY'RE FROM THE GHETTO AFTER WORK, SCHOOL AND PLAY.
PAT ECUM
Wow. How about some more people to harvest whatever it is you're smokin' in that pipe?
--
Ed Huntress



Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/25/2011 5:16 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: ...

???
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If we're going to subsidize electricians by making complete files or printouts of the code -- an essential tool of their work -- free, and if we justify that by saying that everyone benefits, then when I write a tutorial on wringing gage blocks or grinding high-speed steel, why shouldn't someone pay for my dictionaries and stylebooks?
In other words, I don't necessarily object to the idea, it's just that I don't think much of the selective nature of the subsidies. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress



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

At least if you wrote an article on wringing gage blocks, you would not add a paragraph every couple of years and require everyone that wanted to wring gage blocks to buy the latest edition.
Well technically you are not required to buy the latest edition of the NEC, but they sure do not sell a slim volume of the pen and ink changes to bring a previous edition up to the current edition. If they did sell something that had the differences in the latest edition it would make understanding the code too easy and the NEC would not be a barrier to reduce competition.
Dan
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 20:56:00 -0700 (PDT), " snipped-for-privacy@krl.org"

That is becoming a common gripe about the NEC. They produce a new cycle every 3 years. The proposal period for changes is only open about a year of that and it usually takes the municipalities more than a year to get the new code adopted. This means that by the time the real users get familiar enough with the new code to find problems it is too late to get it changed for the next cycle. As you pointed out it also generates a lot of money for NFPA being able to sell new books every 3 years. Most of the professionals end up with a code book, a handbook and a summary of changes book ... at least. Now they also want to charge you for the PDF too, even if you bought the book (there were a few early additions with a coupon for a free PDF load included but they stopped that)
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/27/2011 1:24 AM, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

You are responding to a couple people that are presumably at the crosspost at rec.crafts.metalworking but you are not crossposting there.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I served time and gladly for 8 or 9 years as an active member of a standards group multiple committees and the group was under EIA. We met to make standards and get tasks to do for the next meeting - presenting results and suggesting changes to the infant standard. The various member companies paid rather large sums to be active members. They also had specs early on in the design - often changing after every meeting - often only the input and output pins with the core a dummy until the combinatorial logic was sorted out by groups.
I served on memory (e.g. DDR DDR I, DDR II) DIMM (pc modules) SoDim (laptops) and custom modules, motherboards and the I/O spec groups.
The members paid for the joint development, standards got to get us to make the standard and then they maintain them.
One standard that enjoyed a long changing life was USB. Not only levels but physical shape and protocol as well. Members could call a special meeting to start off a spec. Often a large company would have a spec and then work to make it a standard.
Martin IEEE, JEDEC former spec member. And yes specs are down loadable.
On 4/24/2011 12:32 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

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

Great, Bob. Try using Wikipedia as a defense against an infringement suit and see how far that gets you in court.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

Well, I read the case, annotations, commentary and footnotes. It was a 5th Circuit Court of Appeals case heard in 2002 and it reversed an appellate court ruling.
I follow their reasoning, but I liked the dissenting opinion much better. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress



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

Thanks for that bit of information.
My main objection to the NEC is that it is poorly organized. I expect that is intentional to make following the code to be hard and not easily done by homeowners. In Washington State the courts found that homeowners can work on their own property without having a license. The work still has to meet all the requirements. And the building departments of cities and counties will help owners understand what is required.
Dan
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Thanks for that bit of information.

There is another book put out that explains what the code says. Guess that is one way of getting around the 'free' code book.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Furthermore, the Bible talks about sharing one loaf of bread with 5,000 people. I believe that it is a cryptic reference to free software and free information sharing. I am pretty sure that Jesus would disapprove of copyright.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

That's why we have libraries, and why you have legs.
--
Ed Huntress



Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed Huntress wrote:

and reading it at home. ...lew...
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The difference is that having the ability to download it for free eliminates all incentive to buy it. That's the straw that's breaking the back of many niches in publishing. Electrical tradesmen at some level can easily afford to buy it, and their incentive to do so keeps the business of producing it in balance, while still allowing people to read it for free if they make a little effort.
To me, it's the difference between borrowing something and stealing it.
--
Ed Huntress



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

Actually, you can read it at home very much like you can read it at the library. NFPA makes it available online for free. You can read it online via their reader, but you can't download it, for obvious reasons.
Also, I'd say the folks who try to make the case that because it's used by most municipalities as part of their code, that it should therefore be available for free or very low cost. That argument doesn't fly very well because I can show you plenty of municpalities that charge fees similar to what NFPA charges for a copy of their zoning laws, land use rules, EPA rules, etc.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, I pointed that out in an earlier message. Some people think they should be able to download it.

It's the "user should pay" idea that took hold among conservatives when they started cutting support for free services. We've always had some of that. Either the user (the electrical tradesman) pays for what he has to use in his business, or the taxpayer pays. Someone has to pay, in any case.
--
Ed Huntress



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

Site Timeline

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.