250V plug wiring question

[Charlie Siegrist]

Circa Tue, 05 Jun 2007 11:09:50 GMT recorded as

You sure seem to be having a hard time grasping this concept.

Possibly because there is no concept behind your semantics?

Code *prohibits* people from doing things like that.

FOLLOWING Code *prevents* people from doing things like that.

You have undertaken a transparent exercise in pretzel logic, in an effort
to disguise the glaringly obvious fact that you are recanting on your major
point of contention. It's comforting to know that now, at least, you
accept the NEC as a hedge against electrical accident.

Now consider that you have failed to list one single example of a
prohibition, *any* prohibition, in NEC, let alone the specific prohibition
you keep talking about, i.e. that there exists in the NEC a prohibition
against stupidity. Thus, your argument re prohibition is empty.

 

[Charlie Siegrist]

Circa Tue, 05 Jun 2007 11:00:09 GMT recorded as

IF FOLLOWED. There you go! You finally got it.

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.

 

[Charlie Siegrist]

Circa Tue, 05 Jun 2007 11:01:48 GMT recorded as

OF COURSE following Code prevents improper wiring. You continue to miss two
important points:

1) Code, in and of itself, does not prevent improper wiring. FOLLOWING Code
prevents improper wiring.

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.

2) Correct color coding, in and of itself, does not remove the hazard.

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.

 

[Charlie Siegrist]

Circa Tue, 05 Jun 2007 11:39:44 GMT recorded as

Then you didn't read carefully enough.

Don Bowey's first post in the thread -- referring to the 120V receptacle
wired onto the 240V circuit -- says, in its entirey:

"If the white wire is to be used as a hot lead, US code requires that it be
taped with black tape to alert workers that it it hot. Certainly that makes
it less dangerous."

Manifestly, the danger remains, until the receptacle is removed, or the
breaker rewired or replaced.

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."

 

[Charlie Siegrist]

Circa Tue, 05 Jun 2007 11:07:20 GMT recorded as

Except that I did *not* concede that in a separate post.

Message-ID: <[email protected]>

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

 

[Charlie Siegrist]

Circa Tue, 05 Jun 2007 11:43:11 GMT recorded as

To the contrary, I've done quite a lot. It's apparent to me that you've never
done any at all, since you completely fail to see what the REAL hazard is
here.

Do you own a copy of NEC?

 

[Doug Miller]

Circa Tue, 05 Jun 2007 11:41:30 GMT recorded as



I cannot rebut a point you do not state and defend. Nor does "you did
nothing of the kind" suffice to rebut a properly stated point of argument.

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

You claimed to have explicitly addressed the problems inherent in connecting a
120V receptacl to a 240V circuit. I assert that you did not.

 

[Doug Miller]

Circa Tue, 05 Jun 2007 11:09:50 GMT recorded as


Possibly because there is no concept behind your semantics?


You have undertaken a transparent exercise in pretzel logic, in an effort
to disguise the glaringly obvious fact that you are recanting on your major
point of contention.

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.

 

[Doug Miller]

Circa Tue, 05 Jun 2007 11:39:44 GMT recorded as


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,

Not in that post, he didn't.

[remainder snipped as unresponsive and irrelevant]

 

[Doug Miller]

Circa Tue, 05 Jun 2007 11:07:20 GMT recorded as


Message-ID: <[email protected]>

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

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.

 

[Doug Miller]

Circa Tue, 05 Jun 2007 11:00:09 GMT recorded as


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.

Creative snipping, there, Charlie. Let's restore the part you clipped
electricity,

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

 

[Doug Miller]

Circa Tue, 05 Jun 2007 11:43:11 GMT recorded as


Do you own a copy of NEC?

Of course. Do you?

 

[Doug Miller]

Circa Tue, 05 Jun 2007 11:01:48 GMT recorded as


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.

I'm glad you finally understand that.

Nobody ever claimed that it did.

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

Note that it is you that has added the
"in and of itself" phrase in an effort to defend your defenseless position.

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.

 

[Chuck]

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

 

[Charlie Siegrist]

Circa Sun, 10 Jun 2007 13:24:18 -0400 recorded as
<[email protected]> looks like Doug Miller

Of course.

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

Do you?

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

 

[Doug Miller]

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?

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
*lot* of dangerous, slip-shod electrical work in the world. Much of it is
retrofits done by homeowners or jackleg contractors, but some appears to have
been done during original construction and is thus presumably the product of
supposedly professional electricians.

 

[Doug Miller]

Circa Sun, 10 Jun 2007 13:24:18 -0400 recorded as
<[email protected]> looks like Doug Miller


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

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
*prevent* such installation.

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

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

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