Disqus - Latest Comments for TheElectricalGuru

Re: AT&T’s Galaxy S II Gets Maintenance Upgrade to Android 2.3.6

TheElectricalGuru — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 22:38:54 -0000

No one seems to be able to answer my question...how come my samsung will not take the download. I click download and it downloads the update then reboots only to say download interrupted when it reboots and will not accept it....anyone know why?

Re: AT&T’s Galaxy S II Gets Maintenance Upgrade to Android 2.3.6

TheElectricalGuru — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 16:11:23 -0000

it says it is updating and then restarts. Then I get a message saying the update was interupted....could it be an apk on the phone that is blocking it from updating?

Re: AT&T’s Galaxy S II Gets Maintenance Upgrade to Android 2.3.6

TheElectricalGuru — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 16:10:26 -0000

my phone updates then does nothing...stays without the update

Re: Stumped by the Code? February 2011

TheElectricalGuru — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 13:48:38 -0000

Dear Alex Baker,

If you are expanding an existing dwelling and running all new branch circuits to the "expansion" then all new branch circuits governed under section 210.12(A) would apply. If you are modifying or extending any existing branch circuit which is originall supplied by a location specific to those listed in 210.12(A) then you would need to protect the entire circuit with a combination AFCI device in accordance with Section 210.12(B).

I great misconception about the need for AFCI's come from not understanding that we are speaking about the branch circuit itself being modified, extended or altered in some way. For example, if I have an existing bedroom that was supplied by a branch circuit prior to the 1999 NEC, it would not be AFCI protected in any way. If I now install a smoke detector within that bedroom and supply it by a dedicated circuit and did not tap off the existing branch circuit for that room....the only branch circuit required to be AFCI protected is the new one for the smoke detector. Now, if I tap off the bedroom circuit on that same example for the smoke detector I am (under the 2011 NEC) required to protect that entire existing branch circuit with an AFCI device. This is a new requirement for the National Electrical Code and it is one of the few areas of the code where it becomes retroactive .

Hope this was helpful...

Educationally Yours,

Paul W. Abernathy, NEC Code Expert
Founder of : www.TheElectricalGuru.com and www.PaulAbernathy.com

Re: Stumped by the Code? June 2011

TheElectricalGuru — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 13:35:50 -0000

DearBsmith,

If this dishwaster hood assembly is listed as a Type I or II hood that requires suppression then yes any receptacle within its space that supplies use to that equipment would have to shut down. The best location to confirm if the hood is required and if the hood needs some form of suppresson is the International Building Code.

Hope this was helpful

Educationally Yours,

Paul W. Abernathy, NEC Code Expert
Founder of : www.TheElectricalGuru.com and www.PaulAbernathy.com

Re: Stumped by the Code? October 2011

TheElectricalGuru — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 13:22:03 -0000

Dear dstnwst,

Your question is lacking a few details to make it specific to your desired need so i simply select an example of a metal wireway ( Article 376) for my example. The manufacturer of the power block will provide you with the specifications of that block and how it should be installed. The section of the code you should be more focused on would be Section 376.56 in terms of the installation of that power block. They key factor is this, you have to install the product in accordance with the manufactures guidelines for use and begin from there.

Hope this was helpful...

Educationally Yours,

Paul W. Abernathy, NEC Code Expert
Founder of : www.TheElectricalGuru.com and www.PaulAbernathy.com

Re: Code Q&A

TheElectricalGuru — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 13:09:52 -0000

InspectorStu,

We have to remember that if we build a house to the minimum standards of the published code standards all we have done is build the worst house that code allows. Basically, the minimum requriements of any code standard if applied are the bare minimums to meet compliance. The minimum standard is just that....Minimums.

In regards to the fail statement, we do know that a fair percentage of these devices do fail and we also know that in most cases the failed device was never tested by the consumer on a regular basis. We can't fix stupid but we can attempt to guard people against ignorance of actions.

If we combine the relativly new requirements within dwellings for tamper resistant devices specified in Section 406.12 for areas receptacle placement defined by Section 210.52, we are raising the bar slightly higher each cycle. If you strongly feel that we are still not protecting the consumer due to the placements of receptacles within bathrooms then we can only look to Canada for the minimum 3' distance requirement from tubs and shower stalls. I encourage you to get involved and submit a proposal to the next cycle of the NFPA 70 and see where it takes you. We can't complain without first getting involved.

Educationally Yours,

Paul W. Abernathy, NEC Code Expert
Founder of : www.TheElectricalGuru.com and www.PaulAbernathy.com

Re: Stumped by the Code? March 2011

TheElectricalGuru — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 12:46:35 -0000

Dear Clownshoe,

If you are not speaking of a multiwire branch circuit and are simply asking can you bring branch circuit conductors to a device and then continue on from that device to another device via the device itself then the answer is yes it is acceptable. The manufacturers of the device provide for this in the testing of the product. However, if you are talking about a multiwire branch circuit with a shared grounded (possibly neutral conductor) then the rules are slightly different. The use of a common neutral conductor for multiple branch circuits would create a possible hazardous condition if it relied on that device for the imbalanced return current imposed on that grounded conductor. So long story short if you are using multiwire branch circuits then you would be required to install the device in a way that if the device is removed, it would not open up that return path for the imbalanced current which would interupt the continuity of that circuit.

The code sections for you to review are 300.13(B).

Educationally Yours,

Paul W. Abernathy, NEC Code Expert
Founder of: www.TheElectricalGuru.com and www.PaulAbernathy.com

Re: Stumped by the Code? March 2011

TheElectricalGuru — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 12:38:18 -0000

Dear Jmills1967,

In accordance with Section 330.30(A), cable ties are considered as an acceptable manner for securing and supporting of MC Cable. As long as it is supported and secured within the requirements of this section you are fine.

Educationally Yours,

Paul W. Abernathy, NEC Code Expert
Founder of : www.TheElectricalGuru.com and www.PaulAbernathy.com

Re: Stumped by the Code? October 2011

TheElectricalGuru — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 12:29:52 -0000

Dear Mark2b4now,

The emergency lighting circuit in general does not have to be the main lighting circuit within the building. If the building is requried to have emergency lighting for the egress paths by the International Building Code then the NEC only tells us how it should be electrically achieved. Any building designed for emergency lighting has options under Article 700 of the NEC but to keep my response short you could have a seperate supply for all luminaries that are to be emergency luminaries if you wish as that is a design specification. If you are using "BugEyes" or more properly labeled "Unit Equipment" egress luminaries then they should be supplied by the branch circuit serving the general lighting of the specific area to which the "Unit Equipment" is installed...with an exception which allows a seperate individial branch circuit for those "Unit Equipment" egress luminaries if you have them within a seperate and uninterupted area where at least three(3) lighting branch circuits already exist.

For more details on the requirements please read Section 700.12(F) in regards to the "Unit Equipment" provision.

Hope this was helpful....

Educationally Yours,

Paul W.Abernathy,NEC Code Expert
Founder of: www.TheElectricalGuru.com and www.PaulAbernathy.com

Re: Code Q&A

TheElectricalGuru — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 11:58:40 -0000

Hello Deeperwaters,

The National Electrical Code states that if you are using the suspended ceiling grid as the support for your luminaries, you would be required to secure the luminaries to the grid in accordance with Section 410.36(B). If your design is to not support the luminaries via the grid then 410.36(B) would not apply. In many cases an engineer will denote the support of the luminaries seperatly via wires to the structual ceiling and simply lay within the grid system. Since the grid system is not technically supporting the luminaries then while acceptable it would not be required to secure the luminaries to the grid.

One final note of awareness, the grid (if used to support luminaries)has to be designed as such. So before allowing any grid to support a luminaire check with the manufacturer of the grid system to get the specifications of the grid and work from that point on.

Hope this was helpful and good luck with your project.

Paul W. Abernathy, NEC Code Expert
Founder of : www.TheElectricalGuru.com and www.PaulAbernathy.com

Re: Stumped by the Code? June 2011

TheElectricalGuru — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 17:10:49 -0000

Dear William,

The size of the ungrounded conductors would depend on how you plan on paralleling the service conductors. I would install (5) sets of 600 Kcmil AL. That would give you 340A per conductor. Again, the choice of how many paralleled conductors is a design choice.

If you are connecting to a water-pipe ground then use 3/0 CU.....your supplemental to lets say ground rods only need to be 6 AWG.

If you are connecting to a UFER ground then your GEC only needs to be 4 AWG.

If you are wanting to know what your EGC's would be in each of the raceways on the load side (If you have a disconnect that is 1,600 amps and you are feeding a switchboard with the 5 sets of 600 AL then your EGC would need to be 4/0 CU or 350 AL in each raceway.

Hope this was helpful....

Yours truly,

Paul W. Abernathy, NEC Consultant
www.TheElectricalGuru.com

Re: Stumped by the Code? February 2011

TheElectricalGuru — Sat, 11 Jun 2011 16:02:42 -0000

Dear Highleyminister,

We began to see the requirements of AFCI protection in the 1999 National Electrical Code. Since their are no AFCI receptacle type devices out on the market just yet the best solution and really the only one at this point is to find AFCI Devices in the form of breakers to protect the entire circuit from the actual panel enclosure. Hope this is helpful.

Yours truly,

Paul W. Abernathy, NEC Consultant
Founder: www.PaulAbernathy.com and www.TheElectricalGuru.com

Re: Stumped by the Code? April 2011

TheElectricalGuru — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 21:10:56 -0000

Hello Rqueathem,

The short answer is YES it is fine as long as your in compliance with Section 240.4(B).

Hope this was helpful....

Yours truly,

Paul W. Abernathy, National Electrical Code Expert
Founder: www.PaulAbernathy.com & www.TheElectricalGuru.com

Re: Stumped by the Code? April 2011

TheElectricalGuru — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 21:08:12 -0000

Dear Ronjacques,

The National Electrical Code is not a design standard and it is very limited in regards to meter enclosures [Section 312]. You could install the doorway right up to the meter base or mast as long as it does not cause an issue where the meter or mast is subject to physical damage . You may want to check with your local power company as they might have some limitations and clearances that are beyond the scope of the NEC but is well within their standards and guidelines.

Hope this is helpful.....

Yours truly,

Paul W. Abernathy, National Electrical Code Expert
Founder: www.PaulAbernathy.com & www.TheElectricalGuru.com

Re: Stumped by the Code? April 2011

TheElectricalGuru — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 21:03:26 -0000

Dear Raythibodeaux,

The National Electrical Code does not require this compound but does say that if used ( where employed ) it must be of the proper type for the condition of use as directed in Section 110.14. If the manufacturer calls for the installation of this compound as a condition of installation then it is required per Section 110.3(B) but I can tell you that all manufacturers of service equipment test their products without the compound so it would not be required. Is it a good practice....sure and in some cases on specific equipment the manufacturer may require it when AL conductors are used. As always look at the label of the equipment being used for specific instructions.

Hope this is helpful...

Yours truly,

Paul W. Abernathy, National Electrical Code Expert
Founder: www.PaulAbernathy.com and www.TheElectricalGuru.com

Re: Code Quandaries, December 2010

TheElectricalGuru — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 20:56:09 -0000

Dear Dan_wis_27,

I am more than sure this reply will be too late to assist you. However, it may be a good resource for others who read these articles so i will answer this for you. Since you state the dwelling is 3,000 sq ft we will assume you are simply asking for the minimum circuits needed for the general lighting and receptacle circuits. The answer to this question can be found in Section 220.12 and 220.14(J). Since 220.12 directs you to use Table 220.12 and since we are talking about a dwelling unit you will use 3 VA per square foot as directed by the table.

3000 sq ft x 3VA = 9,000 Volt-Amperes is your starting point. Next you would go 9,000 VA divided by 120V = 75A. Your next step is to divide that by 15A which leaves you with a minimum of (5) 15A circuits. Now that is the simple answer but also remember that there are some required circuits under Section 210.11(A) that are also required so keep that in mind.

In closing, I am going to give you some GREAT advice here....since your question only asked for the basic circuit requirements I want to make sure you know that this is only the start of the process. Take a look at Annex D example D1(a) One-Family Dwelling in the National Electrical Code Book for more details on the complete calculation process that goes well beyond your basic question.

Hope this was helpful.....

Yours truly,

Paul W. Abernathy, National Electrical Code Expert
Founder: www.PaulAbernathy.com & www.TheElectricalGuru.com

Re: Code Quandaries, December 2010

TheElectricalGuru — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 20:41:09 -0000

Dear Tsr 2010,

Section 250.122(C) is referring to the EGC being installed in raceways, etc. and is PartVI and Section 250.144 is Part VII and referring to the number of termination/connection points needed when multiple EGC's are provided for termination within a piece of equipment. If a piece of equipment is provided with multiple circuits and happens to have multiple EGC's then they are required to be individually terminated.

Hope this is helpful...

Yours Truly,

Paul W. Abernathy, National Electrical Code Expert
Founder: www.PaulAbernathy.com & www.TheElectricalGuru.com

Re: Code Calculations

TheElectricalGuru — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 20:28:54 -0000

Dear Iplay4one,

Since none of the standard circuit breakers listed in Section 240.6(A) are rated for 130A you are allowed to go to the next size up circuit breaker (* within some limitations of course). This is where the calculations come into play as you need to know what the load calculations are in order to determine if the load is continuous or non-continuous. Long story short, in the examples above the load (even as continuous) is not going to exceed the values given so the 130A rated conductors are protected under a fault condition because the 150A OCPD will easily trip but the load will not exceed the conductors ampacity standards under normal operations due to your accurate calculations of the loads imposed on the system. If the system has long term load over 130A on the conductors then chances are someone did the original calculations of the load incorrectly.

Hope this helps....and yes if the final load is 125A the conductor will be fine and the 150A OCPD will perform it's function.

Hope this was helpful....

Yours truly,

Paul W. Abernathy, National Electrical Code Expert
Founder: www.PaulAbernathy.com & www.TheElectricalGuru.com

Re: Code Q&A

TheElectricalGuru — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 20:09:04 -0000

Dear Vortiz76,

Chances are you have already undertaken this project. However, it is important to answer your question because it could help others understand similar situations. Many (if not all) states have a statewide building code which is the authority . The statewide building code may give you allowances (not grandfathered) that say if the installation was compliant at the time of the original installation and you are not moving it from it's current location that it could stay unless of course it creates a hazard that was not present prior. The best advice I can give on this one is to check with your local building official and try to determine when the original load centers were installed. If they were not code compliant at the time of original installation then it is quite possible your local building official could ask them to be moved. However as stated a site review of the situation is probably warranted by the official.

Hope this was helpful....

Yours truly,

Paul W. Abernathy, National Electrical Code Expert
Founder: www.paulabernathy.com & www.TheElectricalGuru.com

Re: Code Q&A

TheElectricalGuru — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 21:26:12 -0000

Dear Landhome,

Here is a copy of what the 2011 National Electrical Code states:

"210.12 Arc-Fault Circuit-Interrupter Protection.
(A) Dwelling Units. All 120-volt, single phase, 15- and
20-ampere branch circuits supplying outlets installed in
dwelling unit family rooms, dining rooms, living rooms,
parlors, libraries, dens, bedrooms, sunrooms, recreation
rooms, closets, hallways, or similar rooms or areas shall
be protected by a listed arc-fault circuit interrupter,
combination-type, installed to provide protection of the
branch circuit."

Notice that nothing within that section refers to "receptacles". This requirement applies to all 15 and 20 ampere "branch circuits" supplying outlets installed in the given areas. The definition of outlet is shown below:

"Outlet. A point on the wiring system at which current is
taken to supply utilization equipment."

The term "outlet" applies to lighting outlets, receptacle outlets and even smoke detectors installed on ceiling outlet boxes. So as shown a receptacle is simply an outlet among outlets.

Hope this was helpful...

Yours truly,

Paul W. Abernathy, NEC Consultant & Columnist
Founder: www.TheElectricalGuru.com

Re: Whats Wrong Here?

TheElectricalGuru — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 21:19:00 -0000

Mr. Bowers,

As I stated in my previous reply in this thread. There is nothing wrong with wirenuts within a panel enclosure if space is provided by the manufacturer. Many people do service upgrades where the branch circuits are not long enough to extend to the new circuit breaker location. If wirenuts were not allowed within a panel enclosure then this would be a near impossible job to accomplish. It was made clear in the 2011 NEC that as long as space is provided that splices and wirenuts are allowed within the panel enclosure.

Yours truly,

Paul W. Abernathy, NEC Consultant
Founder: www.TheElectricalGuru.com

Re: Code Q&A

TheElectricalGuru — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 00:41:34 -0000

Dear John,

You are correct. Chapter 6 will modify the requirements that are in chapters 1-4 when specifically dealing with the PV versus Non-PV arrangement within raceways. Obviously there will be situations where you have PV systems (micro-inverters for example) that could have an AC component and a DC component of the PV system installed in compliance with Section 690.4(B)(1-4) but as for Mr. Holts example lets be clear that in your reference it is a bit different and it does modify the general rule.

Hope this is helpful,

Yours truly,

Paul W. Abernathy, NEC Consultant & Columnist
Founder: www.TheElectricalGuru.com

Re: Code Q&A

TheElectricalGuru — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 00:15:53 -0000

Dear Ecorral,

The answer is really dependent on the available fault current at the circuit breaker in question. You would need to know the available fault current at the point on the system where the breaker is to be installed. If the AFC is above 10KAIC and you have a bolted fault or worse an fault that can sustain an arc for a longer period of time the incidental energy can be great and cause the breaker to break down with very bad effects on the person working on the equipment at the time of the breakdown. Also be aware that equipment has a rating in SCCR which also important to be aware of as well. Find out what your AFC is at this point and then check that the equipment does not actually state the minimum AIC rating of the breaker to be installed so as not to disregard the possible listing of the equipment.

Hope this was helpful

Yours truly,

Paul W. Abernathy, NEC Consultant & Columnist
Founder: www.TheElectricalGuru.com

Re: Whats Wrong Here?

TheElectricalGuru — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 23:57:51 -0000

Dear Jdean0769,

I believe that within the enclosure to the left you have the service disconnect ( since I do not see any CT meter in this image ) so it would be in accordance with 230.71(A) in that respect. As for the others, they are all valid points and are not shown well enough in the image to comment on.

Yours Truly,

Paul W. Abernathy,NEC Consultant & Columnist
Founder: www.TheElectricalGuru.com