250.90

[jwelectric]

Article 250 is in 10 parts with Part 5 addressing the bonding requirements.

Part 5 has 10 subsections which address different items that are to be bonded.

Just what does .90 address?

If a heating system is installed that has duck heaters and the duck has nonmetallic vibration suppressors installed in the duck work does this mean that the metal duck work is to be bonded around the nonmetallic parts?

Does this sound familiar?

 

[iwire]

Poultry is outside the scope of the NEC

 

[augie47]

 

[augie47]

Altough only loosley related to ducks, you might find the FPN 250.104(D) concerning ducts of interest ('08 Code)
'

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Article 250 is in 10 parts with Part 5 addressing the bonding requirements.

Part 5 has 10 subsections which address different items that are to be bonded.

Just what does .90 address?

If a heating system is installed that has duck heaters and the duck has nonmetallic vibration suppressors installed in the duck work does this mean that the metal duck work is to be bonded around the nonmetallic parts?

Does this sound familiar?

250.90 General. Bonding shall be provided where necessary to ensure electrical continuity and the capacity to conduct safely any fault current likely to be imposed.

That is one of those very vague sections and only the AHJ knows what it means. The wording really should be changed as, in my opinion, it is so vague as to make it unenforceable.

It can be read as requiring bonding in your example, if some one has determined that the ducts are likely to become energized. If the non-metallic sections isolate the rest of the duct system from the section with the electric heat, are those isolated sections likely to become energized? I think not.

 

[jwelectric]

Poultry is outside the scope of the NEC

All through life we do things without thinking that we can look back on and have a good laugh.

When I first read your reply I thought, just what is he talking about but then the next thread had me totally confused.

When I read the third thread I wondered just what was going on so I went back and started reading my original thread whereby the laughter started and still has not stopped.

Even though I was serious with the question one would have to say that this is one of the funniest post in some time.

Born on a mountain and raised in a cave, proper grammar is not something I crave. But it does look like I could at least get the word right.

 

[augie47]

The FPN (or Informational Note) has been there for so long I have been surprised that bonding of duct work has not been made a specific requirement. Apparently no one has documented a fatality.

 

[wirebender]

Altough only loosley related to ducks, you might find the FPN 250.104(D) concerning ducts of interest ('08 Code)
'

250.104(B)

 

[augie47]

250.104(B)

Still just a FPN (Informational note) so not a "requirement"

 

[102 Inspector]

jwelectric- it is always nice when we can step back and laugh, even if it is at our own expence sometimes. Glad for the sence of humor. Leave it to this group to point out the mistake and gain up on the offender.