Are you concerned about posting copyrighted material? (the comment
about 'smoking a turd on purgatory')
If so, you should know that recently, the US Supreme Court refused to
hear an appeal from the 5th Circuit court regarding a copyright
infringement case. The case in question, Veeck vs. SBCCI, came about
when a guy (Veeck) was going to do some remodeling to a building, and
discovered that his municipality (somewhere in Texas) relied upon
codes crafted by a non-profit organization (SBCCI). He bought a copy
of the codes, and thought that he'd be doing the world a favor by
posting a copy of the codes on a website he operated. He felt (and
there is case law to support this) that public law cannot be
copyrighted (i.e., owned) by any one entity. As you might imagine, he
recieved a nastygram from the SBCCI's attorney, and instead of backing
down, decided to fight it. The last ruling (from the 5th Circuit
Court of Appeals) was in his favor, so as it stands right now, you
probably won't be recieving a nastgram from the NFPA (the folks who
publish the NEC every three years).
For more reading about this, try here:
http://www.gtwassociates.com/answers/veeck.htm
or simply search Google for SBCCI and Veeck.
rob
On 04 Nov 2003 22:02:00 GMT, [email protected] (Gfretwell) wrote:
>This is from the 2002 NEC handbook
>I will probablbly be smoking a turd on purgatory for doing this but it is on my
>web site at
>
>http://members.aol.com/gfretwell/subpanel/bdg2subpanel.htm
>
>If I save one life of prevent a fire it is worth in ;-)
Rob Jones, Developer
Lightspeed Systems
www.lightspeedsystems.com
>Are you concerned about posting copyrighted material?
I would defend this as "fair use". It was credited, will only be available for
a limited time and only an excerpt of a small part of the document, relevent to
an ongoing question.
This seems to address a serious enough problem that I will take my chances.
I still would not be surprised to see a cease and desist from NFPA.
BTW it is very common to see NEC passages copy/pasted into newsgroups. You just
don't see the entire document made available.
On 04 Nov 2003 22:02:00 GMT, [email protected] (Gfretwell) wrote:
>This is from the 2002 NEC handbook
>I will probablbly be smoking a turd on purgatory for doing this but it is on my
>web site at
>
>http://members.aol.com/gfretwell/subpanel/bdg2subpanel.htm
>
>If I save one life of prevent a fire it is worth in ;-)
Consider that if you have ANY metallic path between buildings, a
ground at the remote site is inappropriate, and the cable run to the
remote should include a ground (not to be confused with neutral)
properly tied to the grounding bus in both the service and remote box.
This includes phone lines, cable TV, intercoms, etc. There is much
popular confusion on these points.
Greg
>Consider that if you have ANY metallic path between buildings, a
>ground at the remote site is inappropriate,
Read it again.
You still need a grounding system in the 2d building, you just don't reground
the neutral.
"no metalic paths" only comes into play if you are NOT bringing over an
Equipment Grounding Conductor and you DO reground the neutral.
On 05 Nov 2003 04:54:30 GMT, [email protected] (Gfretwell) wrote:
>>Consider that if you have ANY metallic path between buildings, a
>>ground at the remote site is inappropriate,
>
>Read it again.
>You still need a grounding system in the 2d building, you just don't reground
>the neutral.
>
>"no metalic paths" only comes into play if you are NOT bringing over an
>Equipment Grounding Conductor and you DO reground the neutral.
Err... that's what I said. Read it again. ;-)
"and the cable run to the
remote should include a ground (not to be confused with neutral)
properly tied to the grounding bus in both the service and remote
box."
>Err... that's what I said. Read it again. ;-)
>
>"and the cable run to the
>remote should include a ground (not to be confused with neutral)
>properly tied to the grounding bus in both the service and remote
>box."
Perhaps we are just missing each other. This is certainly one of the most
misunderstood articles in the code. I am just saying that you need a ground
electrode at the second building in both cases. (exhibits 250-16, 3 wire feeder
and 250-18, 4 wire feeder, in the handbook).
The only time you don't need the local disconnect in the 2d building and ground
electrode system is in exhibit 250-17 where you have a single branch circuit.
YMMV about getting the exhibit 250-19 exception in a residence. Different
inspectors have different feelings about what "management" means. Some think
that means you need a published lockout/tagout procedure. Others think a man's
home is his castle and he can "manage" turning off the breaker to the shed. If
there are no more than 6 breakers in the sub-panel the whole question is moot
anyway.