Breaker on #6 copper

[bud--]

Which one?

Nice description, I quite generally agree. IIRC the chemical industries forced a change from "hazardous" wiring to "classified" wiring. And I think the health care industries forced more significant changes to the chapter on health care facilities. Both examples quite old but there are probably still 'aberrations'. The process in general works pretty well.

A few of the steps for NEC revision:

Proposed changes are submitted by anyone.

A panel makes decisions on the proposals and the results are published in the "Report on proposals" - ROC.

The public makes comments on the proposed changes.

The panel makes decisions using the comments and the results are published in the "Report on comments" -- ROC.

There are a few more steps.

The ROP and ROC are available (when I last looked) on the internet. Reading them can be interesting. You get the logic for the change (and occasionally lack of logic). When a proposed change fails you may get the logic (or lack of logic) for why the code is written as it is.

-- bud--

[Eigenvector]

Well I certainly appreciate the clarification guys. Not attempting to ruffle feathers here, certainly not attempting to flame out the newsgroup. But when I hear something that doesn't make sense to me I ask, its what I do most of the day at the office so it's natural back home. Besides, what I've learned is that asking questions is the best way to understand and correct deficiencies, it might piss people off, might push them outside their safety zones, might even challenge conventional wisdom, but I'll walk away better educated.

[dpb]

...

...

Ages ago now...an IEEE subcommittee pondering details of error evaluation and measurement for instrumentation for nuclear plant applications...

I think that particular Standard has been superseded long since -- but the process remains similar for most standards-writing bodies. As I recall that one subcommittee drug on for over three years alone before the final approval process was completed.

--