This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
A recent editor added the italicised text to the paragraph below and another editor reverted it right back out again.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Someone familiar with the 2008 and 2011 NEC should update the AFCI paragraph. Miqrogroove ( talk) 04:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
A recent editor added the italicised text to the paragraph below and another editor reverted it right back out again.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Someone familiar with the 2008 and 2011 NEC should update the AFCI paragraph. Miqrogroove ( talk) 04:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)