Driver to drive?

[M.Parker]

BURT wrote:

On Jul 11, 11:14 am, "M.Parker" <mpar...@nodomain.com> wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
M.Parker wrote:
For the last few days, I'm confusing a lot about Light.
See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave-particle_duality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave–particle_duality#Einstein.27s_explanation_of_the_photoelectric_effect

In this sub-column,
what makes Einstein to conclude that Light comes as discrete particles.

For those who can't open the web-page here is the extracted portion

[Emphasis as in the original]
______

In 1905, Albert Einstein provided an explanation of the photoelectric
effect, a hitherto troubling experiment that the wave theory of light
seemed incapable of explaining. He did so by postulating the existence
of photons, quanta of light energy with particulate qualities.

In the photoelectric effect, it was observed that shining a light on
certain metals would lead to an electric current in a circuit.
Presumably, the light was knocking electrons out of the metal, causing
current to flow. However, it was also observed that while a dim blue
light was enough to cause a current, even the strongest, brightest red
light caused no current at all. According to wave theory, the strength
or amplitude of a light wave was in proportion to its brightness: a
bright light should have been easily strong enough to create a large
current. Yet, oddly, this was not so.

Einstein explained this conundrum by postulating that the electrons can
receive energy from electromagnetic field only in discrete portions
(quanta that were called photons): an amount of energy E that was
related to the frequency, f of the light by

E = h f,

where h is Planck's constant (6.626 × 10-34 J seconds). Only photons of
a high-enough frequency, (above a certain threshold value) could knock
an electron free. For example, photons of blue light had sufficient
energy to free an electron from the metal, but photons of red light did
not. More intense light above the threshold frequency could release more
electrons, but no amount of light below the threshold frequency could
release an electron.

Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921 for his theory
of the photoelectric effect.

Which wave is the photon in? Electric or Magnetic wave?
And how does it move from one to the other?

Mitch Raemsch
If it(photon) is in the both waves.., what's the problem to you?

Again the question will be the same,
what makes Richard Feynman to say this line..,

"Light is a new kind of object,unlike anything we have ever seen before"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave–particle_duality#Alternative_views
__

Cell biology is the only science in which multiplication means the same
thing as division.

 

[Doug Miller]

In article <jiqi559clj9b84aqnvo0l4m2cicebauo5j@4ax.com>, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 22:46:31 GMT, spambait@milmac.com (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article <mvff555u4afatdqh1l10k8b994er2i6nfs@4ax.com>, =
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:58:02 GMT, spambait@milmac.com (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article <U0T4m.16949$wE4.12720@newsfe02.iad>, "Rich." =3D
rcres@XXcomcast.net> wrote:
I've already posted several links within this thread to show that =3D
licenses=3D20
are required by law.=3D20

Not everywhere, they aren't.

To date you have posted none, nada, zilch, zip to show=3D20
any one place in this country where a license is not required to =
do=3D20
electrical work.=3D20

http://www.licensedelectrician.com/Electrician_License.htm

Some excerpts that you will find educational:

"Please note that where no state agency is listed below, there may be =
=3D
local=3D20
licensing agencies that would have control ..."

"Illinois... no licensing of electricians at the state level, check =
with=3D
local=3D20
jurisdictions"

"Indiana ... no licensing of electricians at the state level, check =
with=3D
local=3D20
jurisdictions"

"Iowa ... The law requires that all individual contractors and =3D
businesses=3D20
performing =3D93construction=3D94 work within Iowa be registered with =
the =3D
Division of=3D20
Labor if they earn at least $2,000 a year from that work."

Kansas -- no state licensing agency listed

Mississippi -- no licensing information listed

"Missouri ... check with local jurisdictions for licensing info"

"New York ... check with local jurisdictions for electrical =
licensing=3D20
requirements"

"Ohio ... licenses commercial contractors ... they do not license =3D
residential=3D20
contractors ..."

"The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has no requirements related to =
the=3D20
registration, certification or licensure of contractors (or their =3D
employees)=3D20
that are engaged in the construction industry. Some of =
Pennsylvania=3D92s =3D
2,565=3D20
municipalities have established local licensure or certification =3D
requirements=3D20
for contractors or construction trades people. ... The Commonwealth =
has =3D
no=3D20
jurisdiction in this matter ... "

So much for your blanket claim that "licenses are required by law." =
They=3D
are=3D20
in many places, sure -- but this ought to make it clear to you that =
they=3D
=3D20
certainly are *not* required everywhere.

You have staked your claim well, but forgot to provide any backup
(links). I will take your position under advisement.

Look again. I posted the link.

It seems that the data could be pried out of it piecemeal. Or maybe
not, i did not spend much time trying. After all it is such an
obvious shill site.

The information is there. Whether you wish to read it or not is of course up
to you.

 

[ATP*]

"Doug Miller" <spambait@milmac.com> wrote in message
newsIb6m.8852$8r.320@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...

In article <uJ96m.1520$nU7.304@newsfe20.iad>, Jamie
jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:
ATP* wrote:

"Jamie" <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote in
message
newsG86m.27$TL.25@newsfe25.iad...

Rich. wrote:


"Thomas" <royalheart39@embarqmail.com> wrote in message
news:Snv5m.26$C82.7@newsfe05.iad...


a foot. With THHN, I can safely install nine #12s in one 1/2" EMT, for
4
_completely independent_ 20A circuits (4 phase conductors, 4 grounded
conductors, and one grounding conductor).


Actually, by code you can have 6 phase conductors, 3 neutrals, and use
the EMT as your ground, giving you 6 circuits instead of just 4.

I would like to know where you have 6 phase service?

I won't go into the use of EMT as a ground source.


A grounding conductor is not a ground source.


I think some people that call them self a electrician should
take a good long look in the mirror.

Physician, heal thyself.

"Ground source" (a term not used by the NEC) and "equipment grounding
conductor" are *not* the same thing, your confusion of the two
notwithstanding.

Exactly. The NEC relies on precise definitions. If they are not understood
by all involved in the conversation, it degenerates into another usenet
pissing contest.

 

[Rich.]

"Jamie" <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote in message
news:uJ96m.1520$nU7.304@newsfe20.iad...

ATP* wrote:

"Jamie" <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote in
message newsG86m.27$TL.25@newsfe25.iad...

Rich. wrote:


"Thomas" <royalheart39@embarqmail.com> wrote in message
news:Snv5m.26$C82.7@newsfe05.iad...


a foot. With THHN, I can safely install nine #12s in one 1/2" EMT, for
4
_completely independent_ 20A circuits (4 phase conductors, 4 grounded
conductors, and one grounding conductor).


Actually, by code you can have 6 phase conductors, 3 neutrals, and use
the EMT as your ground, giving you 6 circuits instead of just 4.

I would like to know where you have 6 phase service?

I won't go into the use of EMT as a ground source.


A grounding conductor is not a ground source.

I think some people that call them self a electrician should
take a good long look in the mirror.

And licensing has nothing to do with what you actually know about
the field. We've had licensed electricians walk in our facility looking
for job and after the interview, I can understand why they are not
employed.

I would say with the majority I have seen here, they wouldn't be getting
a job at our facility, not even a fuse puller..


Really,. there is so much illegal and dangerous drivel taking place
on this subject, it's unbelievable.

I see it too, but I would like to hear what your observations are.

 

[Jamie]

Doug Miller wrote:

In article <8u96m.21306$Il.14829@newsfe16.iad>, Jamie <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:


In article <PG86m.27$TL.25@newsfe25.iad>, Jamie

jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:

I won't go into the use of EMT as a ground source.


EMT is explicitly permitted by the NEC as an equipment grounding conductor.
[2008 National Electrical Code, Article 250.118(4)]

Yes, on the solid run, but not after any couplings, connectors etc..


Not true. The NEC requires bonding only "where necessary to ensure electrical
continuity."


A Greed Wire is to be inserted in the pipe to insure a real grounding
system and each box is to be connected to this ground.


Really? Where in the Code is this supposed requirement found?

You can not use EMT or the like for a grounding source directly,


Nobody ever said that you could.


it
has to have a ground wire in it and the attached equipment in the
circuit also connects to this same ground.


True, but completely irrelevant. We were talking about using EMT as an
equipment grounding conductor -- which is explicitly permitted by the Code --
not using it as part of the grounding electrode system.

As for the article you popped up, I think you'll find it proteins to
the use of EMT as a grounding buss point,


Wrong.

"The equipment grounding conductor run with or enclosing the circuit
conductors shall be one or more of a combination of the following: ...
1) [Cu or Al wire]
2) Rigid metal conduit
3) Intermediate metal conduit
4) Electrical metallic tubing
.."

[2008 NEC, Article 250.118]


meaning, several grounds can
come off this point using ground clamps from a single run with no
couplings how ever, a main ground source must be bonded to this pipe.


Maybe you ought to actually read what the Code says, instead of making stuff
up.

If you truly believe otherwise, then you are practicing very dangerous
habits.


The NFPA (publishers of the NEC) apparently don't think it's dangerous to use
EMT as an equipment grounding conductor. If you believe it is, you're of
course welcome to make your objections known to them, and try to persuade them
to change their minds.

In the meantime, I'll continue to install wiring in compliance with the actual
provisions of the Code, and pay no attention to the unsubstantiated claims of
people who clearly do not know what the Code permits or prohibits.

Haven't you ever heard of galvanetic issues with EMT hardware?


Of course -- and that's why there are places where the Code prohibits its use.

I work in a manufactory facility where we still have a lot of older
machines using the access boxes as the ground sources for attached
equipment with no internal ground wire feed from the main buss. I can
say in the time that I have been there, we have seen several fires from
lose EMT hardware connections


If the EMT connections were actually loose enough to arc, that means they were
improperly installed.

Considering your ignorance of the Code, though, I think it's reasonable to
question your qualifications to determine the cause of either the arcs or the
fires.


causing arcs because the attached
equipment was having ground issues.


The problem obviously is the "ground issues" on the equipment, compounded by
improper installation of the EMT -- not the EMT itself.

With dust,oil and paint that has been apply to these machines, it
makes a nice catalysis for a fire.
Most of the time if your lucky, the lose connects will weld them
self's long enough to force the protection to initiate.


You probably ought to find a job at a place that hires _qualified_
electricians.

Sorry, we have workers that are far above you.

You would never pass the interview let alone pass a electrical
code inspection visit.

 

[Jamie]

Doug Miller wrote:

In article <uJ96m.1520$nU7.304@newsfe20.iad>, Jamie <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:

ATP* wrote:


"Jamie" <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote in message
newsG86m.27$TL.25@newsfe25.iad...


Rich. wrote:



"Thomas" <royalheart39@embarqmail.com> wrote in message
news:Snv5m.26$C82.7@newsfe05.iad...



a foot. With THHN, I can safely install nine #12s in one 1/2" EMT, for 4
_completely independent_ 20A circuits (4 phase conductors, 4 grounded
conductors, and one grounding conductor).


Actually, by code you can have 6 phase conductors, 3 neutrals, and use
the EMT as your ground, giving you 6 circuits instead of just 4.

I would like to know where you have 6 phase service?

I won't go into the use of EMT as a ground source.


A grounding conductor is not a ground source.


I think some people that call them self a electrician should
take a good long look in the mirror.


Physician, heal thyself.

"Ground source" (a term not used by the NEC) and "equipment grounding
conductor" are *not* the same thing, your confusion of the two
notwithstanding.
I'm not confused.

You can twist the NEC rules to your way all you want. fact is, you
obviously do not understand all that you read.

And I say again, with those bad habits in mind, you may find your self
on the failing end of a code inspection.


P.S.
I've forwarded 2 of your post to a colleague of mine which is a
Electrical instructor, State code inspector and he gets together with
those that review the NEC book from time to time.


Needless to say, he's getting a chuckle.

Keep it up please, he just went through a divorce at age 62, this is
cheering him up !.

 

[Jamie]

Rich. wrote:

"Jamie" <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote in
message news:uJ96m.1520$nU7.304@newsfe20.iad...

ATP* wrote:

"Jamie" <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote in
message newsG86m.27$TL.25@newsfe25.iad...

Rich. wrote:


"Thomas" <royalheart39@embarqmail.com> wrote in message
news:Snv5m.26$C82.7@newsfe05.iad...


a foot. With THHN, I can safely install nine #12s in one 1/2" EMT,
for 4
_completely independent_ 20A circuits (4 phase conductors, 4
grounded
conductors, and one grounding conductor).



Actually, by code you can have 6 phase conductors, 3 neutrals, and
use the EMT as your ground, giving you 6 circuits instead of just 4.


I would like to know where you have 6 phase service?

I won't go into the use of EMT as a ground source.


A grounding conductor is not a ground source.


I think some people that call them self a electrician should
take a good long look in the mirror.

And licensing has nothing to do with what you actually know about
the field. We've had licensed electricians walk in our facility
looking for job and after the interview, I can understand why they are
not employed.

I would say with the majority I have seen here, they wouldn't be
getting a job at our facility, not even a fuse puller..


Really,. there is so much illegal and dangerous drivel taking place
on this subject, it's unbelievable.



I see it too, but I would like to hear what your observations are.

Well, first of all, I see that many see the field as just a laboring
job and give little regard as to why some of the rules they follow
even exist. They tend to take short cuts over their careers and end up
doing sloppy dangerous work. When the inspectors tag then, they think
they're getting picked on.

A good electrician will be able to fully understand every article
published in the book and the reason why its there. This is where many
fall short, they don't understand what they're reading and just do it
any ways, well, that can lead to forgetting to do it one day or deciding
it's not important any more and start inventing some of their own rules.

I'll give you an example:

On an interview test, we have a question about installing outlets
at a kitchen counter area for the use of things like electric fry pans,
crock pots etc.. The main part of the question is "Where do you think
the best place would be to install outlets for these appliances at the
counter"
You would be surprised at how many get that wrong, of course in many
cases people would love to have them at the counters edge so that one
could simply drop the cord just over the edge to an under eve outlet how
ever, that is illegal and made that way because of to many child
accidents from little ones pulling on cords of live appliances. Just
think of a crock pot with hot grease in it dumping over a child's head.
It did happen once, it killed the child, that is why that rule has
been in the books for years.

THe problem here is, the NEC book does not give a lot of example
reasons why the rules are there and there for, people decide to use what
ever they understand.

I good electrician will think beyond the book and visually be able to
place scenarios of accidents taking place from not following these
rules. He also understands the real theory of how electricity works and
the reasons why many things are practiced, using correct terminology is
also very important when working with other skilled Electricians. You
can not be using incorrect language in this field where some one else
may pick up where you left off and do something dangerous all because
two or more electricians didn't understand the true meaning of the
terminology in use.. That's a another big problem we've seen in the
coarse of electricians.

This is a major problem of comprehension of following the rules that
were put there for a reason.

You don't need to be license to know this, I've found on the average
that license electricians are the worse offenders after they get a few
hours under their wing.. Many of them never really fully understand,
all they do is pull wire, and connect the dots!

It's shad but true..

 

[Doug Miller]

In article <Jiu6m.71779$S16.66197@newsfe23.iad>, Jamie <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:

In article <uJ96m.1520$nU7.304@newsfe20.iad>, Jamie
jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:

ATP* wrote:


"Jamie" <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote in message
newsG86m.27$TL.25@newsfe25.iad...


Rich. wrote:



"Thomas" <royalheart39@embarqmail.com> wrote in message
news:Snv5m.26$C82.7@newsfe05.iad...



a foot. With THHN, I can safely install nine #12s in one 1/2" EMT, for 4
_completely independent_ 20A circuits (4 phase conductors, 4 grounded
conductors, and one grounding conductor).


Actually, by code you can have 6 phase conductors, 3 neutrals, and use
the EMT as your ground, giving you 6 circuits instead of just 4.

I would like to know where you have 6 phase service?

I won't go into the use of EMT as a ground source.


A grounding conductor is not a ground source.


I think some people that call them self a electrician should
take a good long look in the mirror.


Physician, heal thyself.

"Ground source" (a term not used by the NEC) and "equipment grounding
conductor" are *not* the same thing, your confusion of the two
notwithstanding.
I'm not confused.

Well, then, when the discussion was using EMT as an equipment grounding
conductor, why did you say something about using it as a "ground source"?

You can twist the NEC rules to your way all you want. fact is, you
obviously do not understand all that you read.

Fine -- explain exactly what it was that I failed to understand.

And I say again, with those bad habits in mind, you may find your self
on the failing end of a code inspection.

ROTFLMAO! How will using an equipment grounding conductor that is _explicitly
permitted_ by the Code, cause me to fail an inspection?

P.S.
I've forwarded 2 of your post to a colleague of mine which is a
Electrical instructor, State code inspector and he gets together with
those that review the NEC book from time to time.


Needless to say, he's getting a chuckle.

Keep it up please, he just went through a divorce at age 62, this is
cheering him up !.

You go have a good time with your imaginary friends, y'hear?

 

[Doug Miller]

In article <sRu6m.4928$FS3.483@newsfe01.iad>, Jamie <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:

using correct terminology is
also very important when working with other skilled Electricians.

You mean, terminology like "ground source"?

ROTFLMAO again.

 

[Jamie]

Doug Miller wrote:

In article <Jiu6m.71779$S16.66197@newsfe23.iad>, Jamie <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:


In article <uJ96m.1520$nU7.304@newsfe20.iad>, Jamie

jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:

ATP* wrote:



"Jamie" <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote in message
newsG86m.27$TL.25@newsfe25.iad...



Rich. wrote:




"Thomas" <royalheart39@embarqmail.com> wrote in message
news:Snv5m.26$C82.7@newsfe05.iad...




a foot. With THHN, I can safely install nine #12s in one 1/2" EMT, for 4
_completely independent_ 20A circuits (4 phase conductors, 4 grounded
conductors, and one grounding conductor).


Actually, by code you can have 6 phase conductors, 3 neutrals, and use
the EMT as your ground, giving you 6 circuits instead of just 4.

I would like to know where you have 6 phase service?

I won't go into the use of EMT as a ground source.


A grounding conductor is not a ground source.


I think some people that call them self a electrician should
take a good long look in the mirror.


Physician, heal thyself.

"Ground source" (a term not used by the NEC) and "equipment grounding
conductor" are *not* the same thing, your confusion of the two
notwithstanding.

I'm not confused.


Well, then, when the discussion was using EMT as an equipment grounding
conductor, why did you say something about using it as a "ground source"?

You can twist the NEC rules to your way all you want. fact is, you
obviously do not understand all that you read.


Fine -- explain exactly what it was that I failed to understand.


And I say again, with those bad habits in mind, you may find your self
on the failing end of a code inspection.


ROTFLMAO! How will using an equipment grounding conductor that is _explicitly
permitted_ by the Code, cause me to fail an inspection?


P.S.
I've forwarded 2 of your post to a colleague of mine which is a
Electrical instructor, State code inspector and he gets together with
those that review the NEC book from time to time.


Needless to say, he's getting a chuckle.

Keep it up please, he just went through a divorce at age 62, this is
cheering him up !.


You go have a good time with your imaginary friends, y'hear?

Oh really, have you got a surprise coming.

I will now put you on the ignore list since it appears that you're
incompetent and not worth my time.

 

[Doug Miller]

In article <xqv6m.4945$mc4.3957@newsfe07.iad>, Jamie <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:

In article <Jiu6m.71779$S16.66197@newsfe23.iad>, Jamie
jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:


In article <uJ96m.1520$nU7.304@newsfe20.iad>, Jamie

jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:

ATP* wrote:



"Jamie" <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote in
message
newsG86m.27$TL.25@newsfe25.iad...



Rich. wrote:




"Thomas" <royalheart39@embarqmail.com> wrote in message
news:Snv5m.26$C82.7@newsfe05.iad...




a foot. With THHN, I can safely install nine #12s in one 1/2" EMT, for
4
_completely independent_ 20A circuits (4 phase conductors, 4 grounded
conductors, and one grounding conductor).


Actually, by code you can have 6 phase conductors, 3 neutrals, and use
the EMT as your ground, giving you 6 circuits instead of just 4.

I would like to know where you have 6 phase service?

I won't go into the use of EMT as a ground source.


A grounding conductor is not a ground source.


I think some people that call them self a electrician should
take a good long look in the mirror.


Physician, heal thyself.

"Ground source" (a term not used by the NEC) and "equipment grounding
conductor" are *not* the same thing, your confusion of the two
notwithstanding.

I'm not confused.


Well, then, when the discussion was using EMT as an equipment grounding
conductor, why did you say something about using it as a "ground source"?

You can twist the NEC rules to your way all you want. fact is, you
obviously do not understand all that you read.


Fine -- explain exactly what it was that I failed to understand.


And I say again, with those bad habits in mind, you may find your self
on the failing end of a code inspection.


ROTFLMAO! How will using an equipment grounding conductor that is _explicitly

permitted_ by the Code, cause me to fail an inspection?


P.S.
I've forwarded 2 of your post to a colleague of mine which is a
Electrical instructor, State code inspector and he gets together with
those that review the NEC book from time to time.


Needless to say, he's getting a chuckle.

Keep it up please, he just went through a divorce at age 62, this is
cheering him up !.


You go have a good time with your imaginary friends, y'hear?

Oh really, have you got a surprise coming.

What, you mean you *do* actually know something about the Code after all? That
*would* be a surprise.

I will now put you on the ignore list since it appears that you're
incompetent and not worth my time.

ROTFLMAO! Translation: you're embarrassed because I showed, repeatedly, that
you don't know what you're talking about. That's OK. You can go back to
sweeping the floor now. They'll let you take the Code exam again next year.

 

On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 02:14:57 GMT, spambait@milmac.com (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article <8u96m.21306$Il.14829@newsfe16.iad>, Jamie <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

In article <PG86m.27$TL.25@newsfe25.iad>, Jamie
jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:
I won't go into the use of EMT as a ground source.


EMT is explicitly permitted by the NEC as an equipment grounding conductor.
[2008 National Electrical Code, Article 250.118(4)]
Yes, on the solid run, but not after any couplings, connectors etc..

Not true. The NEC requires bonding only "where necessary to ensure electrical
continuity."

A Greed Wire is to be inserted in the pipe to insure a real grounding
system and each box is to be connected to this ground.

Really? Where in the Code is this supposed requirement found?

You can not use EMT or the like for a grounding source directly,

Nobody ever said that you could.

it
has to have a ground wire in it and the attached equipment in the
circuit also connects to this same ground.

True, but completely irrelevant. We were talking about using EMT as an
equipment grounding conductor -- which is explicitly permitted by the Code --
not using it as part of the grounding electrode system.

As for the article you popped up, I think you'll find it proteins to
the use of EMT as a grounding buss point,

Wrong.

"The equipment grounding conductor run with or enclosing the circuit
conductors shall be one or more of a combination of the following: ...
1) [Cu or Al wire]
2) Rigid metal conduit
3) Intermediate metal conduit
4) Electrical metallic tubing
.."

[2008 NEC, Article 250.118]

meaning, several grounds can
come off this point using ground clamps from a single run with no
couplings how ever, a main ground source must be bonded to this pipe.

Maybe you ought to actually read what the Code says, instead of making stuff
up.

If you truly believe otherwise, then you are practicing very dangerous
habits.

The NFPA (publishers of the NEC) apparently don't think it's dangerous to use
EMT as an equipment grounding conductor. If you believe it is, you're of
course welcome to make your objections known to them, and try to persuade them
to change their minds.

In the meantime, I'll continue to install wiring in compliance with the actual
provisions of the Code, and pay no attention to the unsubstantiated claims of
people who clearly do not know what the Code permits or prohibits.

Haven't you ever heard of galvanetic issues with EMT hardware?

Of course -- and that's why there are places where the Code prohibits its use.

I work in a manufactory facility where we still have a lot of older
machines using the access boxes as the ground sources for attached
equipment with no internal ground wire feed from the main buss. I can
say in the time that I have been there, we have seen several fires from
lose EMT hardware connections

If the EMT connections were actually loose enough to arc, that means they were
improperly installed.

Considering your ignorance of the Code, though, I think it's reasonable to
question your qualifications to determine the cause of either the arcs or the
fires.

causing arcs because the attached
equipment was having ground issues.

The problem obviously is the "ground issues" on the equipment, compounded by
improper installation of the EMT -- not the EMT itself.

With dust,oil and paint that has been apply to these machines, it
makes a nice catalysis for a fire.
Most of the time if your lucky, the lose connects will weld them
self's long enough to force the protection to initiate.

You probably ought to find a job at a place that hires _qualified_
electricians.

EMT may be ALLOWED by code, but It is still not to be RECOMMENDED as
an equipment ground..

You can use it, but I would not.

 

On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 20:14:49 -0400, Jamie
<jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:

Rich. wrote:


"Jamie" <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote in
message news:uJ96m.1520$nU7.304@newsfe20.iad...

ATP* wrote:

"Jamie" <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote in
message newsG86m.27$TL.25@newsfe25.iad...

Rich. wrote:


"Thomas" <royalheart39@embarqmail.com> wrote in message
news:Snv5m.26$C82.7@newsfe05.iad...


a foot. With THHN, I can safely install nine #12s in one 1/2" EMT,
for 4
_completely independent_ 20A circuits (4 phase conductors, 4
grounded
conductors, and one grounding conductor).



Actually, by code you can have 6 phase conductors, 3 neutrals, and
use the EMT as your ground, giving you 6 circuits instead of just 4.


I would like to know where you have 6 phase service?

I won't go into the use of EMT as a ground source.


A grounding conductor is not a ground source.


I think some people that call them self a electrician should
take a good long look in the mirror.

And licensing has nothing to do with what you actually know about
the field. We've had licensed electricians walk in our facility
looking for job and after the interview, I can understand why they are
not employed.

I would say with the majority I have seen here, they wouldn't be
getting a job at our facility, not even a fuse puller..


Really,. there is so much illegal and dangerous drivel taking place
on this subject, it's unbelievable.



I see it too, but I would like to hear what your observations are.


Well, first of all, I see that many see the field as just a laboring
job and give little regard as to why some of the rules they follow
even exist. They tend to take short cuts over their careers and end up
doing sloppy dangerous work. When the inspectors tag then, they think
they're getting picked on.

A good electrician will be able to fully understand every article
published in the book and the reason why its there. This is where many
fall short, they don't understand what they're reading and just do it
any ways, well, that can lead to forgetting to do it one day or deciding
it's not important any more and start inventing some of their own rules.

I'll give you an example:

On an interview test, we have a question about installing outlets
at a kitchen counter area for the use of things like electric fry pans,
crock pots etc.. The main part of the question is "Where do you think
the best place would be to install outlets for these appliances at the
counter"
You would be surprised at how many get that wrong, of course in many
cases people would love to have them at the counters edge so that one
could simply drop the cord just over the edge to an under eve outlet how
ever, that is illegal and made that way because of to many child
accidents from little ones pulling on cords of live appliances. Just
think of a crock pot with hot grease in it dumping over a child's head.
It did happen once, it killed the child, that is why that rule has
been in the books for years.

THe problem here is, the NEC book does not give a lot of example
reasons why the rules are there and there for, people decide to use what
ever they understand.

I good electrician will think beyond the book and visually be able to
place scenarios of accidents taking place from not following these
rules. He also understands the real theory of how electricity works and
the reasons why many things are practiced, using correct terminology is
also very important when working with other skilled Electricians. You
can not be using incorrect language in this field where some one else
may pick up where you left off and do something dangerous all because
two or more electricians didn't understand the true meaning of the
terminology in use.. That's a another big problem we've seen in the
coarse of electricians.

This is a major problem of comprehension of following the rules that
were put there for a reason.

You don't need to be license to know this, I've found on the average
that license electricians are the worse offenders after they get a few
hours under their wing.. Many of them never really fully understand,
all they do is pull wire, and connect the dots!

It's shad but true..



Your spell checker's no smarter than you are when it comes to

spelling, eh? Just yanking your chain - but you have a LOT of
spelling errors.

 

[Joel Koltner]

On an interview test, we have a question about installing outlets
at a kitchen counter area for the use of things like electric fry pans,
crock pots etc.. The main part of the question is "Where do you think
the best place would be to install outlets for these appliances at the
counter"
You would be surprised at how many get that wrong, of course in many
cases people would love to have them at the counters edge so that one
could simply drop the cord just over the edge to an under eve outlet how
ever, that is illegal and made that way because of to many child
accidents from little ones pulling on cords of live appliances. Just
think of a crock pot with hot grease in it dumping over a child's head.

Questions such as "...where's the best place to install outlets..." are poorly
worded, because you're making a lot of uncommunicated assumptions about best
FOR WHAT that the person you're asking might not have in mind. Really, it's
no better than asking, "What's the best car?" -- there's no possibly good
answer available without stating what you value.

BTW, in your specific example... we have a kitchen island, and it has outlets
"just over the edge" -- and I assume the house was built in accordance to NEC
rules. The island is small enough that it wouldn't really be practical to
stick them in the center.

Your interview test would be much better if you just asked people things like,
"What sort of safety concerns do you think there are with outlets mounted
against a wall? How about with those mounted over the edges?" -- They should
be able to come up with something there.
---Joel

 

[krw]

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:10:36 -0400, clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 02:14:57 GMT, spambait@milmac.com (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article <8u96m.21306$Il.14829@newsfe16.iad>, Jamie <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

In article <PG86m.27$TL.25@newsfe25.iad>, Jamie
jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:
I won't go into the use of EMT as a ground source.


EMT is explicitly permitted by the NEC as an equipment grounding conductor.
[2008 National Electrical Code, Article 250.118(4)]
Yes, on the solid run, but not after any couplings, connectors etc..

Not true. The NEC requires bonding only "where necessary to ensure electrical
continuity."

A Greed Wire is to be inserted in the pipe to insure a real grounding
system and each box is to be connected to this ground.

Really? Where in the Code is this supposed requirement found?

You can not use EMT or the like for a grounding source directly,

Nobody ever said that you could.

it
has to have a ground wire in it and the attached equipment in the
circuit also connects to this same ground.

True, but completely irrelevant. We were talking about using EMT as an
equipment grounding conductor -- which is explicitly permitted by the Code --
not using it as part of the grounding electrode system.

As for the article you popped up, I think you'll find it proteins to
the use of EMT as a grounding buss point,

Wrong.

"The equipment grounding conductor run with or enclosing the circuit
conductors shall be one or more of a combination of the following: ...
1) [Cu or Al wire]
2) Rigid metal conduit
3) Intermediate metal conduit
4) Electrical metallic tubing
.."

[2008 NEC, Article 250.118]

meaning, several grounds can
come off this point using ground clamps from a single run with no
couplings how ever, a main ground source must be bonded to this pipe.

Maybe you ought to actually read what the Code says, instead of making stuff
up.

If you truly believe otherwise, then you are practicing very dangerous
habits.

The NFPA (publishers of the NEC) apparently don't think it's dangerous to use
EMT as an equipment grounding conductor. If you believe it is, you're of
course welcome to make your objections known to them, and try to persuade them
to change their minds.

In the meantime, I'll continue to install wiring in compliance with the actual
provisions of the Code, and pay no attention to the unsubstantiated claims of
people who clearly do not know what the Code permits or prohibits.

Haven't you ever heard of galvanetic issues with EMT hardware?

Of course -- and that's why there are places where the Code prohibits its use.

I work in a manufactory facility where we still have a lot of older
machines using the access boxes as the ground sources for attached
equipment with no internal ground wire feed from the main buss. I can
say in the time that I have been there, we have seen several fires from
lose EMT hardware connections

If the EMT connections were actually loose enough to arc, that means they were
improperly installed.

Considering your ignorance of the Code, though, I think it's reasonable to
question your qualifications to determine the cause of either the arcs or the
fires.

causing arcs because the attached
equipment was having ground issues.

The problem obviously is the "ground issues" on the equipment, compounded by
improper installation of the EMT -- not the EMT itself.

With dust,oil and paint that has been apply to these machines, it
makes a nice catalysis for a fire.
Most of the time if your lucky, the lose connects will weld them
self's long enough to force the protection to initiate.

You probably ought to find a job at a place that hires _qualified_
electricians.


EMT may be ALLOWED by code, but It is still not to be RECOMMENDED as
an equipment ground..

You can use it, but I would not.

That may easily be, but the dimwitted "Jamie" is claiming that it's
against code.

 

[Jamie]

krw wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:10:36 -0400, clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:


On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 02:14:57 GMT, spambait@milmac.com (Doug Miller)
wrote:


In article <8u96m.21306$Il.14829@newsfe16.iad>, Jamie <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:


In article <PG86m.27$TL.25@newsfe25.iad>, Jamie

jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:

I won't go into the use of EMT as a ground source.


EMT is explicitly permitted by the NEC as an equipment grounding conductor.
[2008 National Electrical Code, Article 250.118(4)]

Yes, on the solid run, but not after any couplings, connectors etc..

Not true. The NEC requires bonding only "where necessary to ensure electrical
continuity."


A Greed Wire is to be inserted in the pipe to insure a real grounding
system and each box is to be connected to this ground.

Really? Where in the Code is this supposed requirement found?

You can not use EMT or the like for a grounding source directly,

Nobody ever said that you could.


it
has to have a ground wire in it and the attached equipment in the
circuit also connects to this same ground.

True, but completely irrelevant. We were talking about using EMT as an
equipment grounding conductor -- which is explicitly permitted by the Code --
not using it as part of the grounding electrode system.

As for the article you popped up, I think you'll find it proteins to
the use of EMT as a grounding buss point,

Wrong.

"The equipment grounding conductor run with or enclosing the circuit
conductors shall be one or more of a combination of the following: ...
1) [Cu or Al wire]
2) Rigid metal conduit
3) Intermediate metal conduit
4) Electrical metallic tubing
.."

[2008 NEC, Article 250.118]


meaning, several grounds can
come off this point using ground clamps from a single run with no
couplings how ever, a main ground source must be bonded to this pipe.

Maybe you ought to actually read what the Code says, instead of making stuff
up.

If you truly believe otherwise, then you are practicing very dangerous
habits.

The NFPA (publishers of the NEC) apparently don't think it's dangerous to use
EMT as an equipment grounding conductor. If you believe it is, you're of
course welcome to make your objections known to them, and try to persuade them
to change their minds.

In the meantime, I'll continue to install wiring in compliance with the actual
provisions of the Code, and pay no attention to the unsubstantiated claims of
people who clearly do not know what the Code permits or prohibits.

Haven't you ever heard of galvanetic issues with EMT hardware?

Of course -- and that's why there are places where the Code prohibits its use.

I work in a manufactory facility where we still have a lot of older
machines using the access boxes as the ground sources for attached
equipment with no internal ground wire feed from the main buss. I can
say in the time that I have been there, we have seen several fires from
lose EMT hardware connections

If the EMT connections were actually loose enough to arc, that means they were
improperly installed.

Considering your ignorance of the Code, though, I think it's reasonable to
question your qualifications to determine the cause of either the arcs or the
fires.


causing arcs because the attached
equipment was having ground issues.

The problem obviously is the "ground issues" on the equipment, compounded by
improper installation of the EMT -- not the EMT itself.

With dust,oil and paint that has been apply to these machines, it
makes a nice catalysis for a fire.
Most of the time if your lucky, the lose connects will weld them
self's long enough to force the protection to initiate.

You probably ought to find a job at a place that hires _qualified_
electricians.


EMT may be ALLOWED by code, but It is still not to be RECOMMENDED as
an equipment ground..

You can use it, but I would not.


That may easily be, but the dimwitted "Jamie" is claiming that it's
against code.

You're about ignorant as they come.

I hope for the sake of others, you never got involved in projects
that actually involved human contact or any one in the perimeter of your
handy work!.

Seeing that you can not interpret, correctly, what is in the NEC book,
leads me to the conclusion that you may not be fit or was ever fit to be
a member of projects that involved safety with logic and
responsibility in mind.

Yes, I know your kind, make a shit load of mistakes and make sure
there are plenty below you to take the rap for your errors.

You do know that those below only see nothing but assholes when they
look up, well, I'm looking up now and guess what I see?

You may be enjoying your self shitting on those below you, but in the
end, it's you that actually isn't looking or smelling to good.

You give others that make a difference a bad image.

personally, I haven't really seen much out of you that gives me any
indication of you being very intelligent.

Take it for what's worth, it's just my observation.

 

[StickThatInYourPipeAndSmo]

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:18:40 -0400, Jamie
<jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:

krw wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:10:36 -0400, clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:


On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 02:14:57 GMT, spambait@milmac.com (Doug Miller)
wrote:


In article <8u96m.21306$Il.14829@newsfe16.iad>, Jamie <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:


In article <PG86m.27$TL.25@newsfe25.iad>, Jamie

jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:

I won't go into the use of EMT as a ground source.


EMT is explicitly permitted by the NEC as an equipment grounding conductor.
[2008 National Electrical Code, Article 250.118(4)]

Yes, on the solid run, but not after any couplings, connectors etc..

Not true. The NEC requires bonding only "where necessary to ensure electrical
continuity."


A Greed Wire is to be inserted in the pipe to insure a real grounding
system and each box is to be connected to this ground.

Really? Where in the Code is this supposed requirement found?

You can not use EMT or the like for a grounding source directly,

Nobody ever said that you could.


it
has to have a ground wire in it and the attached equipment in the
circuit also connects to this same ground.

True, but completely irrelevant. We were talking about using EMT as an
equipment grounding conductor -- which is explicitly permitted by the Code --
not using it as part of the grounding electrode system.

As for the article you popped up, I think you'll find it proteins to
the use of EMT as a grounding buss point,

Wrong.

"The equipment grounding conductor run with or enclosing the circuit
conductors shall be one or more of a combination of the following: ...
1) [Cu or Al wire]
2) Rigid metal conduit
3) Intermediate metal conduit
4) Electrical metallic tubing
.."

[2008 NEC, Article 250.118]


meaning, several grounds can
come off this point using ground clamps from a single run with no
couplings how ever, a main ground source must be bonded to this pipe.

Maybe you ought to actually read what the Code says, instead of making stuff
up.

If you truly believe otherwise, then you are practicing very dangerous
habits.

The NFPA (publishers of the NEC) apparently don't think it's dangerous to use
EMT as an equipment grounding conductor. If you believe it is, you're of
course welcome to make your objections known to them, and try to persuade them
to change their minds.

In the meantime, I'll continue to install wiring in compliance with the actual
provisions of the Code, and pay no attention to the unsubstantiated claims of
people who clearly do not know what the Code permits or prohibits.

Haven't you ever heard of galvanetic issues with EMT hardware?

Of course -- and that's why there are places where the Code prohibits its use.

I work in a manufactory facility where we still have a lot of older
machines using the access boxes as the ground sources for attached
equipment with no internal ground wire feed from the main buss. I can
say in the time that I have been there, we have seen several fires from
lose EMT hardware connections

If the EMT connections were actually loose enough to arc, that means they were
improperly installed.

Considering your ignorance of the Code, though, I think it's reasonable to
question your qualifications to determine the cause of either the arcs or the
fires.


causing arcs because the attached
equipment was having ground issues.

The problem obviously is the "ground issues" on the equipment, compounded by
improper installation of the EMT -- not the EMT itself.

With dust,oil and paint that has been apply to these machines, it
makes a nice catalysis for a fire.
Most of the time if your lucky, the lose connects will weld them
self's long enough to force the protection to initiate.

You probably ought to find a job at a place that hires _qualified_
electricians.


EMT may be ALLOWED by code, but It is still not to be RECOMMENDED as
an equipment ground..

You can use it, but I would not.


That may easily be, but the dimwitted "Jamie" is claiming that it's
against code.


You're about ignorant as they come.

I hope for the sake of others, you never got involved in projects
that actually involved human contact or any one in the perimeter of your
handy work!.

Seeing that you can not interpret, correctly, what is in the NEC book,
leads me to the conclusion that you may not be fit or was ever fit to be
a member of projects that involved safety with logic and
responsibility in mind.

Yes, I know your kind, make a shit load of mistakes and make sure
there are plenty below you to take the rap for your errors.

You do know that those below only see nothing but assholes when they
look up, well, I'm looking up now and guess what I see?

You may be enjoying your self shitting on those below you, but in the
end, it's you that actually isn't looking or smelling to good.

You give others that make a difference a bad image.

personally, I haven't really seen much out of you that gives me any
indication of you being very intelligent.

Take it for what's worth, it's just my observation.

The putrescence that is the KeithStain stains the group(s) with each
post he makes.

 

[whit3rd]

On Jul 12, 2:59 am, "M.Parker" <mpar...@nodomain.com> wrote:

Again the question will be the same,
                    what makes Richard Feynman to say this line..,

"Light is a new kind of object,unlike anything we have ever seen before"

The most important difference of light versus more familiar
objects (ping-pong balls), is that the light particles are massless.
So, familiar rules (like F = ma) give nonsense results.

The only dynamic rule that works, for light as a massless
particle (NOT light in a medium, where some charges in
the glass/air/whatever are in motion and have mass), is
that it always goes full-speed (the speed of light in a vacuum
is a SPECIAL speed).

That, alone, makes light a very special case in terms of
particles in motion.

 

[Androcles]

"whit3rd" <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:049fc1b2-0e19-4f26-8d78-7051d633c1fc@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 12, 2:59 am, "M.Parker" <mpar...@nodomain.com> wrote:

Again the question will be the same,
what makes Richard Feynman to say this line..,

"Light is a new kind of object,unlike anything we have ever seen before"

The most important difference of light versus more familiar
objects (ping-pong balls), is that the light particles are massless.
So, familiar rules (like F = ma) give nonsense results.

The only dynamic rule that works, for light as a massless
particle (NOT light in a medium, where some charges in
the glass/air/whatever are in motion and have mass), is
that it always goes full-speed (the speed of light in a vacuum
is a SPECIAL speed).
=======================================

--
A: http://tinyurl.com/lv2fl7
B: http://tinyurl.com/njgouh
C: http://tinyurl.com/klkfc9
D: http://tinyurl.com/l6lt4g

Which is/are the correct image(s) ?

 

[krw]

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:18:40 -0400, Jamie
<jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:

krw wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:10:36 -0400, clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:


On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 02:14:57 GMT, spambait@milmac.com (Doug Miller)
wrote:


In article <8u96m.21306$Il.14829@newsfe16.iad>, Jamie <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:


In article <PG86m.27$TL.25@newsfe25.iad>, Jamie

jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:

I won't go into the use of EMT as a ground source.


EMT is explicitly permitted by the NEC as an equipment grounding conductor.
[2008 National Electrical Code, Article 250.118(4)]

Yes, on the solid run, but not after any couplings, connectors etc..

Not true. The NEC requires bonding only "where necessary to ensure electrical
continuity."


A Greed Wire is to be inserted in the pipe to insure a real grounding
system and each box is to be connected to this ground.

Really? Where in the Code is this supposed requirement found?

You can not use EMT or the like for a grounding source directly,

Nobody ever said that you could.


it
has to have a ground wire in it and the attached equipment in the
circuit also connects to this same ground.

True, but completely irrelevant. We were talking about using EMT as an
equipment grounding conductor -- which is explicitly permitted by the Code --
not using it as part of the grounding electrode system.

As for the article you popped up, I think you'll find it proteins to
the use of EMT as a grounding buss point,

Wrong.

"The equipment grounding conductor run with or enclosing the circuit
conductors shall be one or more of a combination of the following: ...
1) [Cu or Al wire]
2) Rigid metal conduit
3) Intermediate metal conduit
4) Electrical metallic tubing
.."

[2008 NEC, Article 250.118]


meaning, several grounds can
come off this point using ground clamps from a single run with no
couplings how ever, a main ground source must be bonded to this pipe.

Maybe you ought to actually read what the Code says, instead of making stuff
up.

If you truly believe otherwise, then you are practicing very dangerous
habits.

The NFPA (publishers of the NEC) apparently don't think it's dangerous to use
EMT as an equipment grounding conductor. If you believe it is, you're of
course welcome to make your objections known to them, and try to persuade them
to change their minds.

In the meantime, I'll continue to install wiring in compliance with the actual
provisions of the Code, and pay no attention to the unsubstantiated claims of
people who clearly do not know what the Code permits or prohibits.

Haven't you ever heard of galvanetic issues with EMT hardware?

Of course -- and that's why there are places where the Code prohibits its use.

I work in a manufactory facility where we still have a lot of older
machines using the access boxes as the ground sources for attached
equipment with no internal ground wire feed from the main buss. I can
say in the time that I have been there, we have seen several fires from
lose EMT hardware connections

If the EMT connections were actually loose enough to arc, that means they were
improperly installed.

Considering your ignorance of the Code, though, I think it's reasonable to
question your qualifications to determine the cause of either the arcs or the
fires.


causing arcs because the attached
equipment was having ground issues.

The problem obviously is the "ground issues" on the equipment, compounded by
improper installation of the EMT -- not the EMT itself.

With dust,oil and paint that has been apply to these machines, it
makes a nice catalysis for a fire.
Most of the time if your lucky, the lose connects will weld them
self's long enough to force the protection to initiate.

You probably ought to find a job at a place that hires _qualified_
electricians.


EMT may be ALLOWED by code, but It is still not to be RECOMMENDED as
an equipment ground..

You can use it, but I would not.


That may easily be, but the dimwitted "Jamie" is claiming that it's
against code.


You're about ignorant as they come.

No, that's your job here.

I hope for the sake of others, you never got involved in projects
that actually involved human contact or any one in the perimeter of your
handy work!.

Oh, look who's lost the handle. You'll hurt yourself, if you're not
careful.

Seeing that you can not interpret, correctly, what is in the NEC book,
leads me to the conclusion that you may not be fit or was ever fit to be
a member of projects that involved safety with logic and
responsibility in mind.

Seeing as how you've been shown to be *wrong* many times here...

Yes, I know your kind, make a shit load of mistakes and make sure
there are plenty below you to take the rap for your errors.

Nope. You're as stupid as DimBulb. You two were made for each other.

You do know that those below only see nothing but assholes when
they
look up, well, I'm looking up now and guess what I see?

You've been looking up all your life. In fact, it's abundantly clear
that there is no down for you.

You may be enjoying your self shitting on those below you, but in the
end, it's you that actually isn't looking or smelling to good.

Well, it's pretty hard not to shit on you. You live in the cess pool.

You give others that make a difference a bad image.

Wrong again (are you really DimBulb?). You don't make a difference to
anyone.

personally, I haven't really seen much out of you that gives me any
indication of you being very intelligent.

You can't possibly know anything about intelligence. You certainly
have shown none - ever.

Take it for what's worth, it's just my observation.

You're worthless, so not much.