Out standing review on code violations

RNC and RMC, in some places are not correct such as in # 4 I love your wanting to help us. Thanks.

Regarding number 1. The last line of the "example" paragraph is confusing. In the first line, you correctly state that the Main Disconnect is in the garage. In the second to the last line you correctly state that the grounding conductor needs to be run to the garage. But in the last line you seem to call the panelboard in the basement the main disconnect.

Sure looks like Part 2 is just a repeat of the Part 1 list of deficiencies. Should the list have been different, with other deficiencies listed?

Sure looks like Part 2 is just a repeat of the Part 1 list of deficiencies. Should the list have been different, with other deficiencies listed?

As an electrical instructor for 26 years, electrical engineer and master electrican, the NFPA and Local Inspection Authorities over estimate the ability of the average electrican to learn and understand the theory and practical nature of the business. I recognize that no two installations are the same and each and everyone needs to be assessed separately but what the "code experts" need to do is to come up with clear, concise, practical drawings/pictures and place them in the code books. Lets face it, the code although not intended to be an instructional manual, is exactly that! My students are constantly frustrated with being referred from one section to another, only to end up more confused than they need to be. It keeps me employed as an instructor but I can understand how there will be and continue to be, misinterpretations of the intent of the code in installations. I remember someone once saying to me when I was a student "keep it simple" and I understand what they meant. One more thing, if the NFPA expects people to learn and understand the code, please stop changing section numbers and code article numbers. Through my many years, I learn and become able to quote sections only to have the section numbers to change from cycle to cycle with no major change in intent or language! That is frustration! (i.e. 2002 table 430.150 is now 430.250; Table 220.19 is now 220.55)

Mike, I think this stuff is very good information,but most of these topic's were on the last one .Part one.

I tried to cancel the last. Now for one last time. I am convinced that the writers of the NEC have dropped the ball big time and are oblivious to the level of education the average electrician has. But that's beside some of the most ridiculous mistakes the NEC contains. For example, if you look up the definition of power outlet you'll see what I mean. And if you look up the word "neutral" in the index, it will refer you to the definitions where it is not there. The myths and confusion about grounding is also caused by the writers of the NEC. The misleading wording can be found in article 250-1(FPN) in the four codes: of 1981, 1984, 1987, and 1990. That's twelve years of misleading electricians into believing that a connection to the earth will facilitate the operation of the overcurrent device for low voltage distribution systems (systems in almost all buildings). I have a copy of this NEC page for anyone who would like me to send to them by email. You can call me at (972)-238-5682 for me to email this to you. If I would have known that the NEC was as bad as it has been, I would have never chosen to be an electrician and I believe that the NEC frustrates electricians to becoming apathetic towards learning the rules.