Green Wirenuts

[LarryFine]

With UL467 sanctifying the Greenie as an allowed EGC bonding termination, how many greenies are needed to bond four switches in a 4gg box without looping a single EGC to all four switch bond screws?

Okay, how about this: each incoming cable's EGC first lands on one switch, and then they all join in one greenie. Don't even need the hole.

 

[gndrod]

greenie backwards

greenie backwards

Okay, how about this: each incoming cable's EGC first lands on one switch, and then they all join in one greenie. Don't even need the hole.

Larry, Now that is creative. rbj

 

[electricmanscott]

Some guys that work for me are taking a code class and the instructor has told them that you must use a green wirenut for splicing grounds. He says that anything used for grounding must be listed for grounding. He says it has been in the code since 1999 and is just now beginning to be enforced. Has any one heard of this?

I'd get my money back. If this guy can't get this pretty minor bit of info correct do you really want to "learn" actual important information from him?

 

[gndrod]

110.3(B). Check out this thread.

Thanks George,

That brings back old memories. I never commented then for the reason is that the 410, 210 as it is a Listed MS and NAS part for the purpose of conductor connections. This goes back to the Electrical HD-4 military handbook and UL has not followed those Listed specifications.

UL doesn't List many things that are electrical that are used in the industry. Old pros like using the Buchanan crimper for bonding. It is a high standard for reliable installation far above NEC, NEMA, IEEE, IEC....etc that don't have a clue about quality control.

BTW, conversely the Mil standards have not accepted UL as a Hi-rel qualifier. So using 'Listed' as a qualifier for the 410 sleeve is compliant by ART.100 definition. UL is not the only test organization that NEC deems as a source 'Lister'. Is this incorrect or am I being a troublemaker? :] Ben

 

[K8MHZ]

Thanks George,

That brings back old memories. I never commented then for the reason is that the 410, 210 as it is a Listed MS and NAS part for the purpose of conductor connections. This goes back to the Electrical HD-4 military handbook and UL has not followed those Listed specifications.

UL doesn't List many things that are electrical that are used in the industry. Old pros like using the Buchanan crimper for bonding. It is a high standard for reliable installation far above NEC, NEMA, IEEE, IEC....etc that don't have a clue about quality control.

BTW, conversely the Mil standards have not accepted UL as a Hi-rel qualifier. So using 'Listed' as a qualifier for the 410 sleeve is compliant by ART.100 definition. UL is not the only test organization that NEC deems as a source 'Lister'. Is this incorrect or am I being a troublemaker? :] Ben

You are correct. UL is the most popular but CE is also pretty much universally accepted. The definition leaves it up the the AHJ whether or not to accept the listing entity.

 

[jim dungar]

...but CE is also pretty much universally accepted. The definition leaves it up the the AHJ whether or not to accept the listing entity.

CE is not an independent listing agency. CE is a standards group more like NEMA+IEEE than it is like UL.

 

[gndrod]

CE is not an independent listing agency. CE is a standards group more like NEMA+IEEE than it is like UL.

Jim has hit upon an important subject concerning listing agencies. There is a fine line recognizing qualified testing laboratories and private industry setting 'approved' requirements for their own product compliant specifications. This creates sole sourcing for a couple of reasons.

The NEC is a perfect example that represents a group of agendized process and industry factions for material acceptance of particular control and product distribution. The UL is the main recognizable agency for specifying qualifying identified conditions applicable to the NFPA driven safety goals.

The ART.100 "Listed" definition implies services like UL for qualification of products being acceptable to the AHJ and as further reference to installation [ART.110] applicable per manufacturer instructions suitable for the cited purpose.

The main distraction from 'listed' products is that code making entities do not recognize other established organizations as considered acceptable. So goes old standards that are in some cases better than the new colorful GREENIE coated approved parts.

The underlying question for new 'qualified inspectors' is how much do they know about what they are looking at and what is the reality of acceptable goods. The sad part is that old inspectors do not want to spend what little time they have left on this planet to justify arguments as trivial as qualified crimp methods. That is where good reliable ways get lost.

Is there anyone willing to invest time to improve the rules? If there are, a comment with some good suggestions for future 2011 proposals is welcome. rbj

 

[Karl H]

Green Wire Nuts!!! Not only do I hate to have walk all the way to the truck to get ONE wire nut.Now, I'm gonna have to walk all the way back to the truck Again cause I forgot to get ONE green wire nut. That's it there's too much stress in electrical work! :grin:

 

[POWER_PIG]

I always thought the greenie was designed for the resi guy that allmost always deals with bare gec's. I work commericial and have never ever used a greenie and have never failed an inspection because of it. If you can't pull a wad of green wires out of the box with a red nut on em' and know they are grounds then you need to get the heck out of that box and call an electrician!

 

[POWER_PIG]

For cryin' out loud

 

[don_resqcapt19]

If you can't pull a wad of green wires out of the box with a red nut on em' and know they are grounds then you need to get the heck out of that box and call an electrician!

The controversy has nothing to do with the identification of the grounding conductors. It has to do with the listing of the wire connector. The greenie is the only wire nut that is listed as a grounding and bonding connection. That is not a real issue because the code does not require the use of connectors listed for grounding and bonding for EGCs. Any listed pressure connector is permitted by the code rules. Standard wire nuts are listed pressure connectors.

 

[e57]

Where is the listing for "Greenies"?




Ideal grounding and bonding file
Guess what in there???? These

Where are these in there?????

Or these????

 

[jerm]

commercial for 3m products

commercial for 3m products

Sign me up in the "never used one of those green ones, never been turned down because of it" camp.

We've switched from reds to red-tans (3M Performance Plus Wire Connector T/R+). Bigger range, (they replace yellows, reds, and tans) and only a penny or two more expensive when you buy them in quantity.

They don't seem any larger than reds when you're using them. We also use blue-orange (pdf) to connect whips to lumenaires, even though the T/R+ will work down to 2 #18's.

But, no, sorry, no greenies. I thought they were for resi guys. :|

 

[e57]

Also a big 3M user.... I dont think they make a green nut?

 

[infinity]

The controversy has nothing to do with the identification of the grounding conductors. It has to do with the listing of the wire connector. The greenie is the only wire nut that is listed as a grounding and bonding connection. That is not a real issue because the code does not require the use of connectors listed for grounding and bonding for EGCs. Any listed pressure connector is permitted by the code rules. Standard wire nuts are listed pressure connectors.

The controversy has nothing to do with the identification of the grounding conductors. It has to do with the listing of the wire connector. The greenie is the only wire nut that is listed as a grounding and bonding connection. That is not a real issue because the code does not require the use of connectors listed for grounding and bonding for EGCs. Any listed pressure connector is permitted by the code rules. Standard wire nuts are listed pressure connectors.

I agree and find the entire argument rather silly for the reason that Don gave in post #19. Besides how do you splice 5 or 6 #10 stranded EGC's with a standard "greenie"?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

e57,
Did you check the top wire nut in your post to see if it is also lised as a standard pressure connector? If not it can't be used for circuit conductors.

 

[sandsnow]

There was a proposal that would have required the use of pressure connectors that are listed for grounding to be used on the EGC, but that proposal was rejected.

That's as close as you will get to a Formal Interp. on the subject. Good enough for me.

Don, any chance you have the number handy? Was that for the 2008 NEC?

Thanks

 

[sandsnow]

Actually the instructor has a very good source of information, and he is correct...somewhat.

Good job on the research.

 

[e57]

e57,
Did you check the top wire nut in your post to see if it is also lised as a standard pressure connector? If not it can't be used for circuit conductors.

No.... (wait - yep it is ....) But I cant find the listing for all the 'greenies' either....

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Larry,
Yes, it was for the 2008 cycle, but I don't have the proposal number handy.