AFCI's

Archive Public Archive
21

Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


Ryan Jackson wrote:
Jerry: Explain why there is a fine print note to 200.6 in the 2002 that says gray was an ungrounded conductor if Greg is so wrong.


Ryan,

Welcome to the discussion, however, it seems that you have missed some of my comments.

"This is a case where past practices IN SOME AREAS (it was not done all over) conflict with normal practices (i.e., using gray as a hot instead of a neutral conductor)." and ones like that.

Now, I will change your question around for you.

Explain why gray is an approved color for use as a grounded conductor in 200.6 (not in the unenforceable FPN, but in the enforceable code section).

I went back to my 1935 NEC (the oldest one I have). They use "identified conductor" as the term for our "grounded conductor". The conductor we are discussing.

Ryan, if you would, please explain why, even back then, the code said this about grounded (neutral) "identified" conductors.

602. Rubber-covered wire
f. Single rubber-covered conductors No. 6 and smaller intended for use as identified conductors of circuits shall have the outer covering finished to show a white or natural gray color. (Then it goes on to state that cables with two or more conductors must have the identified conductor be white or natural gray.)

I'm all ears. (Okay, Ross Perot was all ears ![icon_smile.gif](upload://b6iczyK1ETUUqRUc4PAkX83GF2O.gif) I'm just listening for the explanation as to why you and Greg think that some local practices, warned about in the FPN, make it "legal and right" for all installations and gray being used for the neutral and grounded conductor is wrong in all installations, even though that use for gray has been in the NEC going back to AT LEAST 1935.)

--
Jerry Peck
South Florida
22

Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


icon_idea.gif


(Brilliant Idea pops into head.)

![icon_idea.gif](upload://6VKizmOm2U7YYmfXNtFW4XTwFVy.gif)

The term "natural" was dropped from "natural gray" in 2005 because there was no definition of what color "natural gray" is.

I was re-reading my post above and it hit me like a ton of bricks as to what "natural" gray is.

Those old codes were referring to "rubber-covered" wire, and they had to COLOR the "rubber-covering" white, black, or - yep, they could leave it in its "natural" color ... which I'll bet was GRAY!

Mystery of the ages solved.

That is why most of the first automotive tires were off-white / cream / gray ... because that is the "natural" color the rubber was.

Black (carbon black) was added to make the rubber last longer, to resist the deteriorating effects of sunlight.

Thus, "natural gray" was not a color (not in the sense that color was added), it was the compound's "natural color" for those rubber compounds.

Later, when thermoplastics came into being, There was no more "natural gray", just someones idea of what someone else meant by the term "natural gray".

I can see some chemist scratching their head and going "Hmmm ... which of these colors is "natural" gray?" Another chemist walks in and the first chemist asks "Which gray is "natural" gray?" The second chemist ponders that question and asks "Which did you use the least coloring material in? I think that would be the closest one to "natural", don't you?" First chemist says "Yeah, but I could put even less coloring material in, then that would be even closer to "natural", right?" The second chemist thinks about that a minute and says "Yes, but would it still be "gray"?"

So they decide that "that color" is "natural" gray - the color with the least amount of coloring material added, but still has enough to see that it is "gray".



--
Jerry Peck
South Florida

23

Originally Posted By: Greg Fretwell
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


If natural grey is grey why did they change it in 2002? There were about 35 proposals.


I suggest you read all the comments in the ROP about this change before you jump out there and start accusing me of making this up as I go along.


Both sides of the CMP5 debate agree “natural grey” is not a defined color and it was not “grey”. What is “natural” about the pigment in plastic insulation?


I guarantee if you have any CEUs from the 1980’s and 1990’s you heard this in a seminar.

24

Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


Greg,


Did you just miss what I posted above?

The "natural" was taken out for the 2005 Edition, not the 2002 Edition.

I just explained about where *I* think the term "natural gray" came from. And why no one knows what color "natural gray" is.

(bonk, bonk, bonk as I bang my head against my desk if helplessness over trying to get you to read what I posted ... anyone have a 2X4?)

--
Jerry Peck
South Florida

25

Originally Posted By: Greg Fretwell
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


jpeck wrote:
Greg,

Did you just miss what I posted above?

The "natural" was taken out for the 2005 Edition, not the 2002 Edition.

I just explained about where *I* think the term "natural gray" came from. And why no one knows what color "natural gray" is.

(bonk, bonk, bonk as I bang my head against my desk if helplessness over trying to get you to read what I posted ... anyone have a 2X4?)


Hit your head agaist the wall again and look at the 2002 code book. It is "grey". A guy named Patrick White, up the road from you in Pompano bch was one of the lucky winners with proposals 5-17, 5-21, 5-23, 5-28 among about a dozen others.


Since the problem has been gone for the last 3 years we are wasting our time but I gurantee if you used grey as a neutral in residential around here you had about a 50/50 chance of getting a tag before that, depending on how the particular AHJ was reading 200.6.
26

Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


Greg Fretwell wrote:
Hit your head agaist the wall again and look at the 2002 code book. It is "grey".


Actually ... it says ... "gray". ![icon_redface.gif](upload://f7DX2EWhmUfsDapWaYT3oJHMCj1.gif) (Not "grey".)

And, as you pointed out (what I have been point out) is that it says gray. I.e., gray is a proper color to use as a grounded conductor according to the NEC.

If your area is like Florida, that AHJ's inspector is required to write down the code section for rejections.

That would be hard to do, when that code section allows it.

--
Jerry Peck
South Florida
27

Originally Posted By: Greg Fretwell
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


My area IS Florida and as I said, when we were in the Jim Pawley seminar before the 02 code, about half of the AHJ types (chief building inspectors etc) said “natural gray” wasn’t “gray”.


These are the same folks who say you can’t use the molded lug on a ladder cup and you have to add a listed lug to it.

28

Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


Greg Fretwell wrote:
My area IS Florida


Then request the code section.

They should not be rejecting it without providing the code section.

--
Jerry Peck
South Florida
29

Originally Posted By: Greg Fretwell
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


It is the same section we have been yacking about for 3 days 200.6. The argument was gray THHN ain’t “natural”. The roving code mongers were supporting that opinion with varying degrees of conviction.


If it never came up we would not have changed the code.


BTW I know a good inspector will stand up to his rejection and cite the code section but all inspectors are not “good” about it.


That is reality and Florida doesn’t have a monopoly on that.


Part of the problem is, for a builder, it is easier to just make the inspector happy than to start a pissing match that they WILL NOT win.


You may win the immediate battle but the war will still go on.