becoming an inter-tie system [RE-wrenches]

[Bill Brooks]

Bob-O and William,

Please check the archives of a week or two ago when Jay Peltz, Drake
Chamberlin, and I were discussing this issue in detail. You may not like the
answers, but it will make some good background reading.

It is unlikely that we will see a change in the 2002 code, but it is worth a
try. I think there needs to be a differentiation for systems below 50 volts
(12 and 24 volt systems--not 48) versus above 50 volts on this issue. There
may also be a differentiation for systems in conduit versus ones using romex
in attics. The trick to making a code change is to have a watertight reason
for changing the requirement. The code making panels do not generally accept
"I don't like it" as reasoning.

Bill.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob-O Schultze, Electron Connection
> [mailto:econnect at snowcrest.net]
> Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 8:14 AM
> To: RE-wrenches at topica.com
> Subject: Re: becoming an inter-tie system [RE-wrenches]
>
>
> William,
> I understand your concern and share it, but I refuse to be blindly
> lead along by the nose. I also refuse to add to the cost of an
> already expensive installation unless it adds a proven reasonable
> safety factor.
> With standard house voltage, GFIs are required only in potentially
> wet areas (bathrooms, kitchens, outside areas, etc, where a greater
> possibility of electrocution exists. Think about it, if GFIs were
> proven to prevent fire, the NEC would require them on EVERY circuit
> of the house. It's just yet another case of the NECs refusal or lack
> of knowledge of the difference between very low voltage and what they
> define as low voltage (<600V) systems. RE is held to a higher
> standard then most of the other technologies. I blame J. Wiles and
> his recycled military/industrial/nuclear cronies at SANDIA for at
> least some of that, ignorance for the rest. Whether Mr. Wiles, etal,
> are acting above their knowledge and experience but in good faith or
> through some other influences is the question, isn't it?
> Bob-O
>
>
> >Pals:
> >
> >Could the GFI be required to protect from fire hazard as well as, or
> >instead of, electrocution?  I try not to second guess Code requirements
> >unless I have some pretty substantial knowledge base, and I
> believe talking
> >a client out of a required device could be a liability nightmare.
> >
> >William
>
> - - - - - - -
> To send a message:
>  RE-wrenches at topica.com
>
> The archive of previous messages:
>  http://www.topica.com/lists/RE-wrenches/
>
> List rules & etiquette:
>  http://www.mrsharkey.com/wrenches/etiquete.htm
>
> To unsubscribe send a message to:
>  RE-wrenches-unsubscribe at topica.com
>
> To check out the other RE-Wrench participants:
>  www.mrsharkey.com/wrenches/index.html
>
> Hosted by Home Power magazine:
>  www.homepower.com
>
> For info contact list moderator by email:
>  michael.welch at homepower.com
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> T O P I C A  -- Learn More. Surf Less.
> Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose.
> http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
>
>

- - - - - - -
To send a message:
 RE-wrenches at topica.com

The archive of previous messages: 
 http://www.topica.com/lists/RE-wrenches/

List rules & etiquette:
 http://www.mrsharkey.com/wrenches/etiquete.htm

To unsubscribe send a message to: 
 RE-wrenches-unsubscribe at topica.com

To check out the other RE-Wrench participants:
 www.mrsharkey.com/wrenches/index.html

Hosted by Home Power magazine: 
 www.homepower.com

For info contact list moderator by email:
 michael.welch at homepower.com

____________________________________________________________
T O P I C A  -- Learn More. Surf Less. 
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose.
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01