2011 Egc

Status
Not open for further replies.
ryan_618

ryan_618

Senior Member
Location
Salt Lake City, Utah
I will propose deleting the term "equipment bonding jumper" from the NEC, and replace all occurances of it with EGC.

Is there is any reason that we call these conductors two different names, when there purpose in life is the same? That is, of course, initiating OCPDs.

Any thoughts, good, bad or indifferent?
 
ryan_618 said:
I will propose deleting the term "equipment bonding jumper" from the NEC, and replace all occurances of it with EGC.

Is there is any reason that we call these conductors two different names, when there purpose in life is the same? That is, of course, initiating OCPDs.

Any thoughts, good, bad or indifferent?
Click to expand...

Take a look at 250.36(E). Clearly not referring to an EGC, but rather the connection from the earthed conductor to the EGC system

I did a search. Once or twice the terms are used in the same sentence, leading me to believe they are not referring to the same thing.

It would seem to warrant some clarification.
 
Ryan,
As fas as I am concerned that would be backwards. Delete EGC and replace with Equipment Bonding Conductor or Jumper. Also I think the code does see some differences in the two terms as currently used. In general a bonding jumper is a short jumper between two items where the EGC runs from the grounding terminal at the power source to the equipment.
It is my opinion that the word grounding should only apply to a conductor that is connected to a grounding electrode. All of the other conductors are bonding the equipment to the grounded conductor and the earth, via the main bonding jumper and the grounding electrode conductor.
Don
 
Ryan I am leaving for a few days but I want to address this further when I return. I have a few options I THINK might clarify a few definitions.
 
I'm amazed at all of the forward thinking on this forum. I'm still thumbing through my 2005 NECH, haven't purchased the 2008 because the ink still isn't dry on the 2008 Handbook, and NJ won't adopt the 2008 for almost a year and a half.:rolleyes:


For what it's worth I kind of like Don's take on the subject. But IMO a simple rule change in the NEC will create even more confusion out in the field. A change like Ryan has proposed may help new guys in the future but will make it worse for the old Salt's who are already confused :-? with the terms grounding and bonding.
 
old Salt's who are already confused with the terms grounding and bonding.
Click to expand...

It will not make a bit of difference to the old salts, they have not bothered to figure it out up to this point and they won't do anything different with the changes.

Thinking about changing my log in name to THE CYNIC, I have been following up an too many problem jobs lately.

Cynic: A person whose outlook is scornfully and often habitually negative.
from Answers.com
 
brian john said:
I have been following up an too many problem jobs lately.
Click to expand...

Brian, you need to change your outlook. :smile:

These problem jobs are your job security.

And....this is a big one for me.....it must feel good to be the one that gets called to make it right. Take pride in that, don't worry about the electricians that can't be bothered to do a good job.

They will always exist and worrying about it will only make you bitter....at least thats my opinion.
 
Bob :

I think about that a lot, but in reality I would rather think our peers have a better understanding of what they do and the quality of work was TOP NOTCH. Maybe it is because word of mouth advertising and the quality of work is not slipping but my work load is growing.

The basics of grounding and the code are not that complicated (I am no brain). I think if most guys/gals would draw out a basic transformer and distribution and label the parts it would all fall in place. Now it did not happen for me the first time. I have to read and re-read to comprehend most technical literature (one reason I usually fall asleep), I did the same with the drawings over and over till I got it.
 
petersonra said:
Take a look at 250.36(E). Clearly not referring to an EGC, but rather the connection from the earthed conductor to the EGC system
Click to expand...

That section is no screwed up it has to redefine the defined term in the text!
(E) Equipment Bonding Jumper. The equipment bonding jumper (the connection between the equipment grounding conductors and the grounding impedance) shall be an unspliced conductor run from the first system disconnecting means or overcurrent device to the grounded side of the grounding impedance.
Click to expand...
 
infinity said:
I'm amazed at all of the forward thinking on this forum.
Click to expand...
Really? I'm feeling pretty lazy at this point, because I hadn't really had time to look at the 2008 and get the proposals I had jotted down on a list for the 2011, and see which were still relevant. :)

We've only got 10 months to get our proposals in, and I haven't even gotten started yet! :D
 
georgestolz said:
Really? I'm feeling pretty lazy at this point, because I hadn't really had time to look at the 2008 and get the proposals I had jotted down on a list for the 2011, and see which were still relevant. :)

We've only got 10 months to get our proposals in, and I haven't even gotten started yet! :D
Click to expand...

Mike and I send each other emails as soon as a proposal pops into our mind. We each have a folder in Outlook called "2011 proposals" that we move the emails to. Right now we have a couple hundred. I will probably start writing them in Febuary or March, depending on how fast we get our 2008 books and videos done.
 
Man, looking at my haphazard notes, I'll be lucky to salvage three proposals out of this nonsense:

2011 Proposals

100 - Define a hallway, for pete's sake
100 - Define Grounding Electrode System as all grounding electrodes employed by the electrical system. (Driving a ground rod doesn't bond receptacles.)
210.12 - Protect appliances inside the wall?
210.19(A)(3): Define maximum load to be served as demand load per article 220.
210.xx (new) Smoke alarm requirements
210.11(C)(3) Change to requiring the receptacles required in 210.52(D) to be on this circuit, allowing 15 amp receptacles for other purposes.
210.52(C)(1) Add "Desks permanently installed in Kitchens and Dining Rooms shall not be considered as counter spaces in applying the provisions of this Article." and (FPN to 210.8?)
210.52(C)(4): Add exception: "Sinks and ranges shall not be considered a seperation of counter spaces when the distance between the sink or range is greater than the distance indicated in Figure 210.52." The figure needs more of an explanation for clarity.
210.52(C)(4): Get windows touching the countertop in as a break in "wall counter cpaces."
210.52(C)(4): Get sidewalls out of counterspace.
210.70(A)(3): Add "or requiring eventual replacement" to "Equipment requiring servicing."
225.36: Take another swing at deleting the "service" requirement
250.50 should reference different electrodes of the same type. ( http://www.mikeholt.com/codeForum/viewtopic.php?p=1181269&highlight=proposal#1181269 )
250.50 should reference an electrode of each type (alternate proposal to attain an answer, same problem)
250.53(D)(1) should erase the "bonding of interior piping" requirement. Move to 250.104.
250.6x should allow a conductor for intersystem bonding.
310.10 should prescribe methof for determing ambient temperature. ( http://www.mikeholt.com/codeForum/viewtopic.php?p=1179895&highlight=proposal#1179895 )
310.15(B)(6): Specify 75? terminations in using the table. ( http://www.mikeholt.com/codeForum/viewtopic.php?p=1187339#1187339 )
240.20-iah: Disconnecting means versus OCPD? ( http://www.mikeholt.com/codeForum/viewtopic.php?t=13476&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=proposal&start=330 )
310.15(B)(2)(a): What conductors do they want us to use the table on? ( http://www.mikeholt.com/codeForum/viewtopic.php?p=1179403&highlight=proposals+2011#1179403 )
725.52 (including 725.54 through whatever) : Let's tear down the bunny trail, this is some ******** horrible code!!!
314.28(A) needs the raceway-cable technique in the first portion to apply to all pulls.
250.122(B) needs clarification. 60, 75, 90 degree ratings of conductors change everything, as well as 310.15 vs. 310.16
410.8(A) Definitions? Incandescent (edison base) (Fluorescent)

550.32(A) - "No GEs required at mobile home."
310.11(A) - MC or NM cable inside panelboards? If not, what about a changeover from MC to EMT?
Click to expand...
That, and all my helpful links to remind me what I was talking about don't work anymore, due to forum changes. :roll:
 
Last edited:
don_resqcapt19 said:
Ryan,
As fas as I am concerned that would be backwards. Delete EGC and replace with Equipment Bonding Conductor or Jumper. Also I think the code does see some differences in the two terms as currently used. In general a bonding jumper is a short jumper between two items where the EGC runs from the grounding terminal at the power source to the equipment.
It is my opinion that the word grounding should only apply to a conductor that is connected to a grounding electrode. All of the other conductors are bonding the equipment to the grounded conductor and the earth, via the main bonding jumper and the grounding electrode conductor.
Don
Click to expand...
Hi Don,

Equipment bonding jumper sounds better IMO. What happened to the old term Chassis Ground Strap that differentiated it as a local short connection between rack and panel enclosures? The term equipment has become so generic now that the differentiation is lost.

EGC is okay from the inter-equipment conductor bonding network, but I think 'electrode-ground' terminology would be more appropriate when differentiating ground planes from the electrical load/equipment 'ground-fault' system terminology. Does this make sense?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top