25 Ohm Rule

Status
Not open for further replies.
Connection to article and rop

Connection to article and rop

I see no connection to this link and my post.
Zog:

My connection was intended only to call attention to the ground rod history and the NEC ROP.

Your comments are always appreciated.

Please forgive me! :grin:
 

George Stolz

Moderator
Staff member
Never mind. I found it. It is item 5-169a. I just submitted the following comment:
Charlie, my comment was in response to 5-176a.

Joe Tedesco said:
My connection was intended only to call attention to the ground rod history and the NEC ROP.
Given that the thesis is fairly long, would you care to summarize it with a statement of your own? I don't have time to wade through all that. Once again, this isn't a link or picture dump; you do more service to everyone to state an opinion and cite a source than just drop a link.
 

charlie b

Moderator
Staff member
Charlie, my comment was in response to 5-176a.
But I believe the two are tied together. 5-169a was written by the CMP itself, and approved by the CMP itself, as the way to handle several proposals that suggested removing the 25 ohm rule.


Actually, I don't mind the version they offer (except for their incomplete handling of grounding electrode systems of which a rod is but one component). It works in our favor, as I see it. Many members of this forum have said, through the past several years, to just pound the second rod and call it done. For my part, I would have been happy if they changed the rule to simply require the second electrode, and dropped the 25 ohm portion. But that is essentially what they are doing. It now says to pound the second rod, and call it a day. But it gives us the option of saving the cost of the second rod by instead spending the time and effort to take a ground resistance measurement. OK, so not many of us are going to accept that invitation. But at least it is an option that is available to us.

It's not a perfect resolution to the issue. But at least it will be clear that the burden of proof falls on the installer, not on the inspector.
 

jxofaltrds

Senior Member
I wouldn't say that was a nice way of telling.

I figured they might listen to reason if you tape it to a rock and hit them in the head with it - vinegar might work where sugar failed. :)

I read it aloud to my fiance, her eyes got big and she said, "Are you ever going to have to work with these people ever again?"

"I don't work with them now, they are the people that write the code. They can't really touch me."

"You can burn a lot of bridges with that."

As I see it, they basically reject at least 50% of everything that comes their way that makes sense (grounding & bonding terms, the permissive NEC doctrine, etc), so rain on them. They can feel angry, laugh, or whatever they want. I hope they spend a minute and review their stances on it.
Reason? Who uses that?
Someone who might think like me?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top