Talk:National Electrical Code

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Energy
Energy Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, which collaborates on articles related to energy.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within energy.

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] General

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)

[edit] spring cleaning

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)

[edit] ToC numbering

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)

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)
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)

[edit] AFCI added

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)

[edit] AFCIs: Kinkless or not?

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)

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)

[edit] Why no link to the full text?

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)

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)
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)
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)