250V plug wiring question

Circa Tue, 05 Jun 2007 11:00:09 GMT recorded as looks like snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) sounds like:

This is the best example yet of your foundering. Take my words in the first quoted paragraph, and your response below it.

Charlie: "If the NEC is followed, accidents are prevented...."

Doug: "It absolutely is nonsense...."

Charlie: "Incorrect...."

Doug: "IF FOLLOWED. There you go!"

So, is it correct, or is it nonsense? I guess for you, it is either, depending on how confused you are by your own arguments.

Circa Tue, 05 Jun 2007 11:01:48 GMT recorded as looks like snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) sounds like:

A rather pointless exercise in semantics. It is linguistically understood that the written word must be read and adhered to by a human being in order for its words to have effect.

Nobody ever claimed that it did. Note that it is you that has added the "in and of itself" phrase in an effort to defend your defenseless position.

Circa Tue, 05 Jun 2007 11:39:44 GMT recorded as looks like snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) sounds like:

I'm sorry, but Mr. Bowey did not say that the color coding "in and of itself" was sufficient to ensure safety. Far from it. He stated that color coding would alert a worker to a hot wire, which would make the situation of 240V wiring in a junction box less dangerous than if improperly labeled. Specific to this hypothetical situation, it would prevent a competent worker wiring a hot lead to a 120V neutral.

Specific to the actual situation, i.e. wiring a 240V breaker to a 120V circuit, color-code was again ignored, as a competent electrician would never connect a white wire to a hot terminal in the CB panel. The NEC guideline is to always connect the white wire to the ground block. White and green wires are understood to be grounded conductors.

So again, color coding, along with hundreds of other safety guidelines, exists to "prevent people from doing stupid things with electricity."

Circa Tue, 05 Jun 2007 11:07:20 GMT recorded as looks like snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) sounds like:

Message-ID:

"*Following* codes, rules, regulations, and laws prevents misbehavior. And people decide whether to follow or ignore them, as they will."

Circa Tue, 05 Jun 2007 11:43:11 GMT recorded as looks like snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) sounds like:

Do you own a copy of NEC?

So now I have to address your reading comprehension problems, too?

You claimed to have explicitly addressed the problems inherent in connecting a

I have done nothing of the sort, as is readily apparent to anyone with a normal ability to comprehend written English.

You have continually asserted that Code "prevents" unsafe wiring practices, which is manifestly false.

Not in that post, he didn't.

Indeed. Thank you for making my point for me: the provisions of the Code deter unsafe practices only when obeyed; they provide no value, preventive, deterrent, prohibitive, or otherwise, when the installer is ignorant of the Code or determined to ignore it.

it

exist.

Creative snipp>>Code does indeed prevent people from doing stupid things with

electricity,

And **THAT** is what I said was nonsense.

Of course. Do you?

I'm glad you finally understand that.

That is a false statement, and I have already cited at least one instance in which exactly that claim was made.

To the contrary, it is your position that is utterly defenseless, to wit, that the NEC prevents unsafe practices. It does not. It prohibits them -- and it might profit you to pick up a dictionary and acquaint yourself with the differences in the meanings of the two words.

In an oblique defense of Doug's position, consider that, as evidenced by many of the comments in this thread, the NEC creates an "expectation" of compliance. If an electrician assumes compliance with the NEC, he may be done in by an unsafe practice. If he assumes noncompliance, he will spend much more time testing to verify compliance. How likely is it that the mere presumption of NEC compliance will lead to injury? If everyone is expected to test everything for NEC compliance, then the benefit of affixing the tape is second order: who would believe it and why?

FWIW, this is neither an endorsement of, nor an indictment of the NEC.

Chuck

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----

----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Circa Sun, 10 Jun 2007 13:24:18 -0400 recorded as looks like Doug Miller sounds like:

never

Well whip out some prohibitions, then. Chapter and verse.

I have the McGraw-Hill NEC Handbook, 24th edition.

In my opinion, very. Judging from the work done by the previous owners of two of the homes that I have owned, from what I have seen in homes that I inspected when house-hunting (and declined to make purchase offers on), and from what I have seen in the homes of friends and relatives -- there is a

It's not clear to me what the purpose of this is, but, ok, here ya go:

"Types NM and NMS cables shall not be used ... where exposed or subject to excessive moisture or dampness." [2005 NEC, Article 334.12(B)(4)]

It should be clear to any thinking person that this provision does nothing to

Now, it's your turn: cite something that the Code prevents.

That's, what, one rev back? Or two?