Talk:National Electrical Code

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

General[edit]

This article was titled National Electrical Code until recently, as I learned in RC. Then, "(U.S.)" was added to its title. Does this mean that National Electrical Code will soon be made into a dis-ambiguation page?? 66.245.124.202 20:12, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

probablly not as i don't think there is anything else well known that is refered to by that name however i think there was still good reason to change the page title. Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. Information that is only relavent to one country needs to be marked as such. If a whole page is nation specific then that information is best conveyed by the title.
also this article could do with sectionalising but im uncomfortable doing that on an article whose subject im not reasonablly familiar with (im british btw) Plugwash 19:23, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The article needs some standardization. I've never seen the term "balance fault interrupter" outside of the Wikipedia(and Google can't find it, whereas it finds thousands of references to GFCI). The device is known in North American practice as a "ground fault circuit interrupter" or GFCI. Where's my round tuit?

I changed the term "BFI" to "GFCI" since it seems that's what it is called in the NEC, and the term "BFI" is not in common use. Rick Burns 17:52, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Many countries have national codes, but "NEC" usually means US NEC. The US code is sometimes adapted by other countries - surprisingly, such as Bermuda, which I would have thought would have followed British practice. --Wtshymanski 15:09, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The National Electric Code may be of American origin, but it has been adopted by many countries. Other national electrical codes that I've read about are known by other names. I think the (US) should be dropped from the title, just like National Pipe Thread, for example. I suggest something more generic, such as electrical code for the disambiguation page.--Yannick 04:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Is this code only for installation in buildings, or also vehicles, like cars or ships? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.47.214.68 (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

spring cleaning[edit]

Tweaks to NFPA ref (see NFPA talk), history, adoption and impact of NEC, moved rationale to second para, tweak and expand NEC structure summary, fix article nomenclature example (although seems pedantic to include it at all), add Handbook ref, add “listed/labeled” discussion, rewrote Art 210 discussion, deleted 12-inch from floor statement (floor outlets are generally allowed), added GFCI requirements, added receptacle spacing refs, clarify GFCI discussion, add NEMA ref to polarized outlet discussion (NEC does not dictate particular outlet pin geometries, but references standards that do), tweaked polarized ref, added GFCI retrofit trick, wikify codify, ref and licensed electrician, fix ref in FS-1037C quote, deleted redundant wikilink to later NFPA refs, add fire safety and NFPA links. Although there is a separate GFCI article (with color photos!), it is very lengthy and it may be worthwhile to leave this two-paragraph synopsis here. Lupinelawyer 02:18, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Discussion about the title of this article and its recent change can be found at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (acronyms)#Changing article titles from XXXXX (US) to XXXXX (United States). Feel free to contribute. -- hike395 16:41, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)


NFPA 70E should be fully cited as, "NFPA 70E (R) Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace (R) 2009 Edition" 69.221.148.155 (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ToC numbering[edit]

Does anyone else see the table of contents numbering going "1,2,1,2"? I've seen this before - I tried to fix it here by deleting two heeadings and restoring them, but it didn't go away. Is this a Wikibug or an editing fix? --Wtshymanski 16:56, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the ToC ran the same erroneous way for me, too, but it's fixed now. The problem was that the first two headers were "second level headers" (===) rather than first-level headers (==). The next headers were proper first-level headers. Now, they all are.
Atlant 19:31, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Next time I see this I'll look for extra "-" in headings. My debugging skills have been weakened by years of using Windows...--Wtshymanski 02:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AFCI added[edit]

It is a nice article. I added info about AFCI's. Lots of stuff on the web. This was from the UL site, referencing a page at CPSC: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/afci.html Kd4ttc 22:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFCIs: Kinkless or not?[edit]

A recent editor added the italicised text to the paragraph below and another editor reverted it right back out again.

They are required on all 15 and 20 amp circuits to bedrooms, where experience has shown most arc fault fires originate. In the future it is likely that all circuits will require their use, even though the manufacturers of such devices have yet to work out all kinks in their design.

But so far as I know, the added statement is still pretty-much true: AFCIs remain an emerging technology but aren't yet as accurate as they could be. Personally, I know that I am not yet ready to retrofit AFCIs into my load center given their current expense, the risk of false trips, and the fact that they can't possibly detect "glow faults" anyway.

Opinions?

Atlant 13:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The web page at http://www.iaei.org/subscriber/magazine/04_d/smittle.htm seems a good discussion on the issue. From this and other sites I added the AFCI bit to the page. I think the current devices are not false trigger prone. I will be adding AFCI's to the two bedroom circuits in my house for a cost of $60 in the near future. The web pages point out the benefit of the AFCI's. What's the big deal on not detecting glow faults? If you get an overheated connection that will eventually cause an open and get fixed, or cause a short and trip AFCI. Kd4ttc 16:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why no link to the full text?[edit]

The supreme court of the US has said that any work that is incorporated by reference into stautory law must be freely available to those under that law.

Why is there no link to the full text of the (now public domain) NEC? It should be transcribed/scanned into the WikiBooks project and linked to here. Gigs 16:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully this violates the SC ruling you mention above, but such transcribing/scanning would appear to violate the NEC's license. ErikHaugen (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully? What's your stake in having it remain a closed elitist publication? The NFPA is like the mob, taking their cut from the common citizen trying to access what should be a fully public statutory document. DMahalko (talk) 01:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand - see the 'but' in my sentence. Currently, the NEC's license says the code is not freely available. You can not scan/transcribe it or use tools other than their dopey reader to read it. I hope that fact violates the SC ruling - the NEC is essentially law and it is upsetting that it can't be freely consumed. Laws shouldn't be proprietary. ErikHaugen (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of people, myself included agree! It seems that you can now make the code available as part of a state code see public.resource.org specifically the US Court of Appeals decision in Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress. Many of these codes are now available at bulk.resource.org. Enjoy! --BenFranske (talk) 02:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a lawyer, but reading the linked ruling stating it is public domain, it looks like the copyright was upheld and the host paid damages. The ruling judge wrote dissent in opinion but it doesn't seem like legal grounds for stating it's public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGogmagog (talk • contribs) 21:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The NFPA is not a government agency, and the NEC, when published, is not statutory. It only becomes law when local jurisdictions adopt that edition of the code as law, and even then they are free to pick and choose what parts of the code become law. Your complaint should be directed at the local AHJ, not the NFPA. The local AHJ is responsible for making sure statutory requirements are freely available. The NFPA has nothing to do with that. Primium mobile (talk) 00:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is up to the government body that incorporates the text into law to make it available. I believe if you locate the section of the Maryland, for example, code that actually is the NEC, it is available online in exactly the same (difficult, paragraph-by-paragraph) way that the other sections of the Maryland code or regulations are.69.72.27.91 (talk) 05:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It really seems like a lot of the discussion above could be stricken per WP:notaforum. In any case though this topic would be a good thing to add to the article. The legal debate on whether public law can be copyrighted and if it can’t be copyrighted, then how an organization like the NFPA could get the funds to develop its standards without taxpayer funding it currently doesn’t receive. Also, the fact that the NFPA does make all of its standards (including the NEC) available for free online if you use the medium on their website. It’s not as convenient as an every day electrical professional would require it but it is available for free online at their website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.225.122.226 (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request warnings for "free" NFPA "references"[edit]

The NFPA online reader-thing worked reasonably a year or two ago when I was here.

When I clicked the link tonight, I noticed nfpa.org now required me to create an account. They required my email, name, address, phone, and included a dozen or so different email (spam?) options. In my enthusiasm to search an online NEC for a simple question, trusting that the reading experience would resemble a year or two ago, I gladly provided the personal info.

The reader did not work at all. 100% CPU, slowly redrawing each page four times in a lame effort to simulate scrolling text, it is useless. And they have my personal info. And they provide no option to Remove my account from their site.

This is such a scam, the site is like a marketing front-end, deceptive advertising really, I totally agree with DMahalko and others above.

By hiding information like this, NFPA makes (inter)national codes (inter)nationally inaccessible; they effectively enhance public ignorance. By enhancing ignorance, they defeat their alleged mission "to reduce the worldwide burden of fire and other hazards." The sense of just being conned after visiting the latest NFPA website suggests a different mission and tarnishes the reputation of honest trades-people.

I request we include a warning to save others from wasting more time. Please let me know your thoughts; I'm not yet "bold" enough to jump in and change this myself. Angry enough though.  ;-)

IDave2 (talk) 07:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Signing up to view the NEC online has another purpose. Once you sign up you will get endless mailed spam and offers from the NFPA, and they will keep hounding you to sign up for a "full membership" for $150 a year. The online coding model is just a hook to reel you in and get you to pay up. Everything about the NFPA is money money money. Pay up for the privilege of accessing safety information.
I see no way to stop the postal mail spam. Email spam can be stopped in their profile preferences but not the mail spam. I suppose I don't mind hurting them a little by wasting their postage and resources this way, however I do find the endless string of letters and catalogs annoying. Good firestarter I suppose.
Even though their signup profile requires a valid state and zip code, there's no reason I have to enter MY address now is there? What is the NFPA's corporate address? Ah yes, "NFPA, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169". I suppose I could enter that as my address on the signup form to view the NEC, and have them mail their spam to themselves. Maybe you can do this too. DMahalko (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

250.53 Grounding Electrode System Installation[edit]

TO THE NEC: IN ARTICLE 250:56 25OHMS IS THE OHMIC VALUE THAT IS REQUIRED WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE EVEN AFTER AN ADDITIONAL ELECTRODE? Doncarl1 (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a Q and A forum. You're much better off asking your local inspector. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
..well, this is not a Q and A forum that the people that run the NEC would ever read or respond to.
Sure this is a 9 month old post, and they probably got their answer, but this seems worth adding somewhere, perhaps to this article.
Basically if you can't get a good enough grounding conduction with one ground rod, you add another ground rod. Still not good enough? Add another ground rod, and repeat.
That code section talks about spacing requirements for multiple-rod installations, because putting the rods too close together won't help much. There is a resistance gradient around the rod like a cylinder, and if too close together the resistance gradient of both rods will overlap, reducing the gain from adding the additional rod.
Why is this necessary? Some soil types are not sufficiently electrically conductive, so a single 8ft grounding rod doesn't have enough surface area for good electrical contact. Adding more rods in parallel increases the contact surface area and so will lower the grounding resistance.
DMahalko (talk) 01:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFCI Information is Old[edit]

Someone familiar with the 2008 and 2011 NEC should update the AFCI paragraph. Miqrogroove (talk) 04:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on National Electrical Code. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

High & Low Voltage rule classification[edit]

I'm not sure enough to make edit seeing as used to ISO rules. However believe NEC now aligns with IEC in that low voltage is 50 to 1000V DC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikequinnhk (talk • contribs) 11:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There never has been a differentiation based on 100 volts in the NEC as far as I know. Which is why I’m perplexed that the page history says a users named User:Butlerblog and user:Binksternet repealed a user who made a correction to this then accused the user of edit warring. Amazing. When did they get their electrical licenses? @Butlerblog: & @Binksternet:, care to explain yourselves? Could you revert your misguided reverts?

NEC has had a differentiation between under/over 600 volts and that has now changed to 1000 volts. OSHA has had rules around 50 volts. Don’t know where someone got 100 volts from but it’s not cited and should likely be stricken. Unless someone here explains why we shouldn’t I likely will strike the 100 volt section soon. PaupaZit (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

D&D[edit]

Please further clarify: In some instances in this article, D&D means 'Decontamination and Decommissioning, in other instances it means 'Deactivation and Decommissioning'. 12.33.223.210 (talk) 18:32, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would be just fine, if you can cite references. Nobody else is going to dig up your reference citations for you. 2605:A601:4515:F400:5C34:9A93:5DFD:E0D9 (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Electrical_Code&oldid=1204201942"