"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Twayne"
wrote:
In ,
Doug Miller typed:
In article ,
"Twayne" wrote:
You are under a serious misconception. The NEC et al, is a
set of nationwide MINIMAL requirements

Wrong. The Code describes itself as "contain[ing]
provisions that are
considered necessary for electrical safety." Nowhere does
it describe itself
as a set of minimum standards. Further, the Code
specifically authorizes local
jurisdictions to waive provisions of the Code.

Of course not!, AFAIK, and it should not anyway since NEC is NOT the body
responsible for deciding what is a set of minimal requirements and what is
not. It is, however the MINIMAL requirements for the US fire and personal
safety protection requirements.

It is a set of recommendations. That is all.

It may specify say 8 conductors in a certain
box: no more than 8 in a box can be used and still pass the electrical
code. It is not possible for another body to step in and say BS, I'll
allow
10, or 12, or 21! It can spec a minimal distance between objects, but as
before that distance can NOT be made less but it CAN be more!

False. You completely misunderstand what the Code is.

Any jurisdiction may, if it wishes, adopt the Code in toto or in part, as
law,
and modify it in any way it chooses. The Code has no legal force.
You need to get a grip and actually think about what you're on about
before spewing misinformation to the world, in particular the type that
indicates a final word on a location's requirements can be gotten from
this
newsgroup and be as good or better than going to the local controlling
authority.

Indeed this is good advice; you should consider following it.

What you are trying to say, and failing to do, and only bringing up
confusion for most who are not familiar wth these areas, is that the NEC
comes from a SMALL part of the NFPA - 70 I think? Not sure but if YOU
don't
know, it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

I never said that.

The NEC is a set of "regulations" for protection of personnel and
property safety in electrical installations. Except for heavily more
stringent regulations, NOT weaker. Fiber-optics is one such area, but
nit-picking of that kind only serves to dillute the credibility of your
own
input.

False. The NEC is not a set of regulations at all. It is a set of
recommended
practices to ensure electrical safety. It has no regulatory force
whatever.
That force comes from laws or ordinances that adopt the Code as the
electrical
standard for a particular jurisdiction -- and any jurisdiction is free to
adopt, or not adopt, the Code or any part of it as law as it sees fit.

The NFPA "adopted" NEC and approved by ANSI. I almost defy you to cite
ANY local which has less stringent rules than the NEC unless the artcles
concern something that is Not Applicable to the region. You will find that
even such a case, should it exist, is NOT the end of the line and WILL
have
been approved, usually by ANSI. I don't mention the other 3 because I
don't
want to do your homework for you.

That's easy enough. There are numerous locales that have *no* electrical
code
whatever. That certainly qualifies as "less stringent rules than the NEC".

based on the criteria of many different organizations
all pulled together into NEC (NFPA, etc.).

Wrong. The Code is the product of *one* organization, the NFPA.

Urban Renewals has this short, concise definition:
The accepted standard for installation of wiring and associated devices.
It
is written by a panel of experts and printed by the National Fire
Prevention
Association. Top of Page [Top]

Completely irrelevant. Read what the NEC says about itself.

[irrelevantia snipped]

You claimed that the NEC consists of "criteria of many different
organizations ... (NFPA etc)." That's not true. The NEC is the product of
the
NFPA alone.

The NEC is NOT the NFPA!

Nobody ever said it was.

Two different offices, two different functions in
the overall scheme of things.

Ummm...no. The NFPA is the author of the NEC.

[more irrelevant nonsense snipped]
"




MINIMUM is the operative word
there. Many zoning areas management choose to strengthen
some parts of it as they see fit for the demographics of
any geographical area they serve. They use the NEC as the
basiis for their requirements and adjust it as they
require for their own specifc needs. The NEC requirements
can only be strengthened, never loosened, by local
jurisdiction.

Wrong; as noted above, local jurisdictions are explicitly permitted
under the
Code to waive portions of it if they choose. Further, the Code itself
has no
legal force unless adopted as law by a particular jurisdiction -- and
nothing
at all prevents a jurisdiction from adopting only part of the Code as
law,
should they choose to do so.

The above is so far off base as to make me wonder whether you anything but
a
passing familiarity with NEC, NFPA/NEC, ANSI, UL and the other associated
bodies.

Time to put up, or shut up. Specify what exactly is "off base" in that
statement.

[further irrelevant nonsense snipped]

It would help a lot more if it were true. Perhaps you should stick to
giving
advice on topics you actually know something about, if there are any.
This
isn't one of them.

How can you debate with a guy that pulls all of his "facts" out of his ass.
Nothing he spews has any basis in truth, it's just made up as he goes along.
Has he ever documented anything to back up his nonsense?