Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Equipment Grounding Conductor to Equipment Bonding Conductor

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    6,584

    Equipment Grounding Conductor to Equipment Bonding Conductor

    A set of proposals to change EGC to EBC. Don G made the same proposals in 2005 cycle, some panels liked, but said lets see what CMP 5 says. Same this time.
    Anyone (Hello Don) know what CMP-5 said?

    I am reading thru the proposals during lunch. Haven't gotten to Art 250 yet
    Moderator-Washington State
    Ancora Imparo

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    19,003
    Tom,
    I haven't looked at that yet. When I made my proposals there was a majority of CMP 5 in favor, but was one vote short of the required 2/3s majority. Had CMP 5 accepted, the other panels would have been directed by the TCC to accept the change.
    Don, Illinois
    "It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority." B Franklin

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Easton, Maryland NEC: 2011
    Posts
    7,465
    I am all in favor of calling it a EBC instead of EGC. Way mo' bettah IMO.

    If it does involve dirt/ground than it is bonding. Much simpler.
    "Electricity is really just organized lightning." George Carlin


    Derék

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Mission Viejo, CA
    Posts
    3,986
    Quote Originally Posted by jumper View Post
    I am all in favor of calling it a EBC instead of EGC. Way mo' bettah IMO.

    If it does involve dirt/ground than it is bonding. Much simpler.
    Well get ready to support them in the public comment stage.
    "Bob"
    Robert B. Alexander, P.E.
    "I know that you believe you understand what you think the NEC says, but I am not sure you realize that what you read is not what it means." (Corollary to Charlie's Rule)

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Fort Collins, CO NEC: 2014
    Posts
    15,380
    Basically they said the problem was solved to their satisfaction, and changing the wording further would not overcome what they call "a problem of education" as opposed to verbiage.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Mission Viejo, CA
    Posts
    3,986
    Quote Originally Posted by George Stolz View Post
    Basically they said the problem was solved to their satisfaction, and changing the wording further would not overcome what they call "a problem of education" as opposed to verbiage.
    Unless the source is a "giant in the industry" CMP5 has a very definite Not Invented Here attitiude. Several other CMPs do too.
    "Bob"
    Robert B. Alexander, P.E.
    "I know that you believe you understand what you think the NEC says, but I am not sure you realize that what you read is not what it means." (Corollary to Charlie's Rule)

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Portage, Indiana NEC: 2008
    Posts
    9,732
    Quote Originally Posted by rbalex View Post
    Unless the source is a "giant in the industry" CMP5 has a very definite Not Invented Here attitude. Several other CMPs do too.
    So Don needs to wine and dine them a little more like the big industry lobbyist
    Wayne A. From: N.W.Indiana
    Be Fair, Be Safe
    Just don't be fairly safe

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Easton, Maryland NEC: 2011
    Posts
    7,465
    Quote Originally Posted by jumper View Post
    I am all in favor of calling it a EBC instead of EGC. Way mo' bettah IMO.

    If it does involve dirt/ground than it is bonding. Much simpler.

    If it does not involve dirt/ground than it is bonding. Much simpler.

    Forgot a word.
    "Electricity is really just organized lightning." George Carlin


    Derék

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •