In misc.industry.utilities.electric firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
| email@example.com wrote:
|>| The NEC code book is NOT an instruction guide for anyone, it is the
|>| basis for which state/count/local inspectors go from.
|>By that logic, the law is not a guide for how to live your life, it
|>is the basis for which police arrest you when you do break the law
|>you didn't know about.
| It is not a question of logic - it is a question of intent, and it is
| stated in the NEC in article 90-1 (c) (2002 code):
| "(c) Intention. This Code is not intended as a design specification
| nor an instruction manual for untrained persons."
And this just re-enforces my proposal. Since no instruction manual or
design specification can be treated as the code (ever heard of an AHJ
that adopts an instruction manual or design specification?), no one
can possibly be assured that by following any instruction manual or
design specification that they will be in compliance with the code.
Thus they are FORCED to still consult with the code to determine that.
Then what if the code APPEARS to be in conflict with the instruction
manual or design specification because the wording used (for the same
intention) is different, and results in different meanings? If the
instruction manual or design specification differs with the code, then
which do you use?
In cases where the code is poorly written (good intentions that I know
and agree with, but were written wrongly) and the instruction manual or
design specification were written well, someone who sees the conflict
could well choose to go with what the code says (and not what the code
means), just because of the fact that the CODE TRUMPS everything else.
If a homeowner installs something one way, by the book, and the book
clearly says he can, but the inspector finds it not in compliance with
the NEC as adopted by the AHJ, he's going to fail the work, anyway.
The homeowner might dispute it, and the inspector would rightly say
that only the NEC is applicable. So despite 90-1, the EFFECTIVE USE
by inspectors (and there isn't any way around this) is that the code
still has to be used as part of the design specification. I suspect
90-1 is there because they know the code is poorly written for such
a purpose as instruction manual or design specification.
So my proposal stands. I say there needs to be something that actually
an instruction manual (or design specification) that can STAND ON
ITS OWN and be taken AS THE CODE (e.g. AHJ's can adopt it and allow any
use of that instruction manual or design specification and inspection
can then be based on it without any cross interpretation with the code).
I'm not saying this is needed for experienced electricians or for any
commercial or industrial elecrical work. Experienced electricians do
eventually learn what the code MEANS (despite what it says), as do
most inspectors (rumor is that some, especially in large cities, just
prohibit anything they don't understand). The WHOLE POINT of this is
to have ONE BOOK that a DIY homeowner can use to ensure things are done
right, and safe, the first time, with no hassles.
What would YOU do if a DIYer installs a receptacle device rated for
40 amps, with #8 copper wire, and protects it with a 40 amp breaker,
even though the device is configured for 2 NEMA 5-20R outlets? Think
such a device does not exist? I have installed one (but I did it on
a 20 amp circuit because I was smart enough even before ever reading
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
Click to see the full signature.