404.2 (C)

Status
Not open for further replies.
don_resqcapt19 said:
Not if the sensor or other device being installed requires a grounded conductor. I am not sure what you mean about "grounding faults". This rule has nothing to do with faults of any type. It is just a requirement to provide easy access to a grounded conductor for devices that require a grounded conductor.
Click to expand...
Due to the no of the sensors which sharing the same wire, the accumulated current may cause an electric shock.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
That would be an identification violation.

There is no specific rule in the NEC that says you can't use the EGC as a grounded conductor. I know that it is not a good idea and it is the intent of the code to not permit that, but there is no specific wording that says that.
Click to expand...

I agree that it does not say "uses not permitted". I think that it is implied by definition.

Grounding Conductor, Equipment (EGC). The conductive path(s) installed to connect normally non?current-carrying metal parts of equipment together and to the system grounded conductor or to the grounding electrode conductor, or both.

250.6 Objectionable Current.
(A) Arrangement to Prevent Objectionable Current. The grounding of electrical systems, circuit conductors, surge arresters, surge-protective devices, and conductive normally non?current-carrying metal parts of equipment shall be installed and arranged in a manner that will prevent objectionable current.
 
jxofaltrds said:
I agree that it does not say "uses not permitted". I think that it is implied by definition.

Grounding Conductor, Equipment (EGC). The conductive path(s) installed to connect normally non?current-carrying metal parts of equipment together and to the system grounded conductor or to the grounding electrode conductor, or both.
Click to expand...
Definitions are not permitted to contain requirements of rules...it is just a definition.

250.6 Objectionable Current.
(A) Arrangement to Prevent Objectionable Current. The grounding of electrical systems, circuit conductors, surge arresters, surge-protective devices, and conductive normally non?current-carrying metal parts of equipment shall be installed and arranged in a manner that will prevent objectionable current.
Click to expand...
Objectionable current is not defined. Clearly UL believes that up to 0.5mA of current per device on the EGC is not objectionable.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
Definitions are not permitted to contain requirements of rules...it is just a definition.


Objectionable current is not defined. Clearly UL believes that up to 0.5mA of current per device on the EGC is not objectionable.
Click to expand...

Fair enough on point one. But then you use that for point two.

UL can not define what objectionable is.
 
jxofaltrds said:
Fair enough on point one. But then you use that for point two.

UL can not define what objectionable is.
Click to expand...
Any code user can define what they think objectionable current is. The strongest interpretation, short of a Formal Interpretation, would be that of the AHJ. I have not read any cases of installations being red tagged because a listed device that uses the EGC as the grounded conductor was installed.
 
ActionDave said:
No. It means you don't have to provide a neutral if you don't need one, ie. not using sensors but rather a single pole switch, as long as you can add one laterTru that.
Click to expand...

404.2(C) Switches Controlling Lighting Loads. Where switches control lighting loads supplied by a grounded general
purpose branch circuit,(Tell me 120v single phase circuit is not described here) the grounded circuit conductor for the controlled lighting circuit shall be provided at the
switch location.
The code only states if you have a grounded branch circuit that supplies a switch lighting load then a grounded conductor shall be in the junction box in which the switch is mounted to. It does not say anything about S1/S3/SD in the wording. Now the exceptions are another conversation plus the commentary in the handbook is directing toward a UL standard with future posiibilities of installing dimmers. Straight up code without exceptions requires the grounded conductor to be present if the bracnch circuit has a grounded conductor.
 
Last edited:
The straight up code varies with cycle on this point. What cycle are you we looking at here?
And is the inspector willing to generously look ahead to [2014]?

Tapatalk!
 
GoldDigger said:
The straight up code varies with cycle on this point. What cycle are you we looking at here?
And is the inspector willing to generously look ahead to [2014]?

Tapatalk!
Click to expand...

2011 until about sept 2014 -- Just read the 2014 and my reaction is "really" as if the code language didn't already have controversy -- almost sounds like my dog ate my homework exceptions -- I'd assume a generous inspector might look ahead
 
Now, how we can provide a separate neutral at this PIR?

IMG_20140319_090214.jpgIMG_20140319_090302.jpg
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20140319_090214.jpg
    IMG_20140319_090214.jpg
    145.9 KB · Views: 0
  • IMG_20140319_090302.jpg
    IMG_20140319_090302.jpg
    145.1 KB · Views: 0
The code does not require a grounded conductor at that device. It is not a switch that controls lights. It is a switch that controls a relay that controls the lights.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top