NEC Table 250.122 vs Table 250.66

[don_resqcapt19]

True, but both together provide a lower impedance than either alone. Additionally, a remote path having greater impedance than an EGC is justification for it to be sized not less than the required EGC.

I just don't see that conducutor as a bonding jumper as defined in Article 100 and based on that there is no code rule that address the size of the conductor in question.

 

[Smart $]

I just don't see that conducutor as a bonding jumper as defined in Article 100...

You already said that. Exactly how is it not?

• It is not the EGC.
• It is not a GEC (or electrode bonding jumper).

• It is a grounding conductor.

Please assign it a grounding conductor term...

 

[don_resqcapt19]

You already said that. Exactly how is it not?

• It is not the EGC.
• It is not a GEC (or electrode bonding jumper).

• It is a grounding conductor.

Please assign it a grounding conductor term...

It is in no way a grounding conductor....even the so called EGC is not really a grounding conductor.

It is not a "bonding jumper or conductor" as it is not required to ensure the electrical conductivity. That is done by the code required EGC.

Bonding Conductor or Jumper. A reliable conductor to ensure the required electrical conductivity between metal parts required
to be electrically connected.

I don't see it connecting two or more portions of the equipment grounding conductor so it is not an "equipment bonding jumper".

Bonding Jumper, Equipment. The connection between two or more portions of the equipment grounding conductor.

It is what ever the designer wants to call it. It not required or sized by the NEC. Maybe it is the "superfluous bonding conductor".

 

[Smart $]

It is in no way a grounding conductor....even the so called EGC is not really a grounding conductor.

It is not a "bonding jumper or conductor" as it is not required to ensure the electrical conductivity. That is done by the code required EGC.

I don't see it connecting two or more portions of the equipment grounding conductor so it is not an "equipment bonding jumper".

It is what ever the designer wants to call it. It not required or sized by the NEC. Maybe it is the "superfluous bonding conductor".

You know what I mean when I say grounding conductor. Nitpicking doesn't change the facts.

You cannot deny that it is not a circuit conductor. You cannot deny the fact it is an electrical conductor (i.e. I could see your point if not a recognized electrical building-type wire such as steel wire). You cannot deny it is electrically connected for a bonding purpose, regardless of it not being required.

The fact the NEC does not require it does not change anything. Only required bonding jumpers are [required] to ensure continuity. If I run two such required conductors between same points, which one is required and which one is not? Code does not say only one is required. One satisfies the requirement, but two or more are not prohibited.

Additionally, Code does not say bonding jumpers are not required where an EGC by itself is adequate. It says jumpers are required where necessary to ensure conductivity, and you are rationalizing what is necessary by your personal interpretation?a deduction based on the logic of the NEC (if you actually dare to say Code is logical :blink, but no actual text supports that deduction.