$500.00 ground rod

Status
Not open for further replies.
Brady Electric said:
Hear we go again not reading or understanding what others are saying in there post. Picking out certain portions of the post and cutting down the Electrician that post it.
ITS GETTING WE NEED A LAWYER TO POST HERE ANYMORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
Brady, I sure don't want you or Bulldog to leave, and I'd wager that Roger and Bob don't either. Picking out a sentence or two might seem malicious, but it's necessary in order for a discussion to take place about 100% of the topic.

If someone in this discussion were to leave next week and not return to the conversation due to pressing concerns of life outside the forum, I'd feel a little bummed if we had this opportunity and let that person escape with 70% of the story right. I'd rather get someone's message 100% right. Therefore, picking the controversial 30% is not "picking a sentence or two" to attack, but to focus on the portions that seem either wrong or indicators of another wrong underlying belief.

So, everybody, take a deep breath - we're all on the same side, the side of safety.

We all need to remember that about two thousand others read these postings and will probably not ever post a reply because they don't won't to have to defend there thoughts.
Click to expand...
I know what you're saying, and I hope that those people either join in knowing we're all on the same side, or at least continue to read the conversation through to the end.

I'm gonna go get Bryan's opposing proposals now, and then I'll be back to pick apart these posts. :)
 
roger said:
Asking for backup or substaiation and / or correcting a myth is not bashing people.
Click to expand...

If Iwire ( Bob ) does it then it would not be considered bashing but may be considered Badgering.
 
growler said:
If Iwire ( Bob ) does it then it would not be considered bashing but may be considered Badgering.
Click to expand...

Well, you do have a point there. :grin:

Roger
 
I was going to find them and repost them, but then realized I might find them doing a search, because I know I've posted them before. Would anyone who believes that we are required to pound ground rods into the earth until they achieve 25 ohms, you need to read this post.

These are two proposals that opposingly try to increase and delete the requirement. Read the CMPs statement.

Now I'm getting booted off this computer, so I'm gonna have to submit this before I start picking people apart, dang it. :D
 
Posts

Posts

"As far as bashing some one, If asking for back up or pointing out someones incorrect statement or belief constitutes bashing, then hang on for dear life because it's not going to stop with this thread. You either have your Ducks in a row or some one will line them up for you."

This is why I use this forum, to get my ducks in a row. .

I have made correct references to code and theory throughout these postings. Because I spoke of an aspect of grounding and electricity you didn't understand or agree with, does not mean you are qualified to correct it. Or tell me in substance I dont know what is going on. In the reference to the decisions of the code making panel's actions, I believe that they did that to make sure grounding was enforced in a reasonable manner. Or else some inspector somewhere could, if he was having a disagreement with a particular electrician, require, say, 2 or 3 hundred ground rods until the 25 ohm requirement was met. They do not use verbage that states this is sufficient. Only that your ground rod requirement stops at 2. Show me where it is printed in the code "O.K. two is good enough, go have coffee now" that is what you have implied. I am not here to argue this into infinity. I dont have the time. I am sure your next post in response will tear me apart again. I will not respond. I need to say that my views were not conjured up in my own head. I have discussed this at length with several other professionals ( inspectors, electricians, teachers, Etc..) and they have the same views. I hold 2 degrees in electronics and understand electricity quite well. I have been in the field since 1986, which includes time in the residential, commercial, communications, and alarm fields. I primarily do residential and light commercial work. But I have not seen or done it all. And will continue to learn as my career progresses.
 
Last edited:
bashed

bashed

Bulldog, I came into this late and I don't really want to read all 7 pages this morning, but I would say most of us (definitely myself) occasssionly feel "bashed" when our opinions are questioned (although I suspect a few here thrive on it), but hang in there with us. It really is a educational place to be and just keep in mind much of what you read is opinion....
when it's all done you might change yours, you might change ours, or neither, but if you stay with us, we all can learn a bit.
and..remeber most here will occasionly poke with a stick for fun...
 
Bulldog1401 said:
Only that your ground rod requirement stops at 2. Show me where it is printed in the code "O.K. two is good enough,
Click to expand...

250.56 Resistance of Rod, Pipe, and Plate Electrodes
A single electrode consisting of a rod, pipe, or plate that does not have a resistance to ground of 25 ohms or less shall be augmented by one additional electrode of any of the types specified by 250.52(A)(2) through (A)(7). Where multiple rod, pipe, or plate electrodes are installed to meet the requirements of this section, they shall not be less than 1.8 m (6 ft) apart.
Click to expand...

It says "shall be augmented by one additional electrode" nothing more.

It does not say "shall be augmented by additional electrodes untill 25 ohms can be measured" does it?


Bulldog1401 said:
go have coffee now" that is what you have implied.
Click to expand...

I believe I will, thanks. :wink:

Roger
 
Posting

Posting

O.K. I lied... after reading my last post and those of George stotz, I needed to state one more thing... please don't read into my posts that I don't have respect for my more senior electricians, forum members, or the moderators. It is exactly the contrary. I will continue to observe the forums and learn from it's material.

I interpet that the one additional electrode had better be able to supply 25 ohms to ground, so you are required to use at least one more, multiple if you choose, but if you only choose one style it is O.K. Then just make sure it is effective. Don't just say good enough, and walk away. There are products available to treat the soil in the immediate location of the electrode to achieve this reading.

I see after reading the code making panels actions provided by Mr. Stoltz that there is confusion all the way up the line on the requirements. Time to overhaul this section. By the way, the code changes every three years not to sell books, but to address issues such as this. We are constantly fine tuning our understanding of the dynamics of electricity. And we havent perfected it yet. We also are presented with new applications for electricity, and those must be addressed in a safe manner as they present them selves. ( receptacles near bathroom sinks were once unheard of, then became commonplace, and then we developed the GFCI to help make it safer. Then they became required by code because they are safer, and cause no harm).


Thank you all.
 
Last edited:
Bulldog1401 said:
Not a tool to say it is so because I said so, and I know better than you because I am a moderator.
Click to expand...

Bulldog if you can find one place where I have said or implied 'it's so' because I am a moderator I will be more then surprised.

Keeping in mind you had questioned if I had read Article 250 I did point out that someone with 16000 + posts has probably looked at the NEC. :)

Do you read the ROPs or ROCs?
 
Bulldog1401 said:
It seems that some here are fixated on fault current.
Click to expand...
I say that you indicate to me that you are aware that fault current doesn't travel through grounding electrodes to get back to it's source - you indicate that you are aware fault current returns to the bonding jumper, then to the neutral and back to it's source. So I agree with you there.

Bulldog, Click here and here for an overview on quoting people, if you'd like. Here is something on ettiquette. I'm just attempting to be helpful, not pick on you in any way. :)

Bulldog said:
Roger said:
And that is not being questioned even if it's more of an ethical issue than an electrical issue. As an aside, if I were driving a 10' rod and cut 2' off, do you think there is a violation?
Click to expand...

Is the 10 foot rod UL listed at 10 feet? It would be listed to have a specific resistance to ground at 10 feet. Then cutting it down would void its listing. Violation.
Click to expand...
It is arguably a listing violation if the rod were listed - but no rod could be physically listed to provide a given resistance to ground at any length. As Brady pointed out, soil conditions dictate our resistance to earth, not just the rod's composition.

Bulldog said:
I said that code rules have a purpose, and changing them to fit our needs or to be more convenient can be dangerous. You may not know the purpose, but those wiser (and it seems that some forum members here can't concieve that there is anyone wiser than them) do know what can go wrong if you don't follow the rules.
Click to expand...
Bulldog, I daresay I do not believe the Code Making Panel knows the reason for this rule, but is afraid to change it for tradition's sake. Bryan, the guy who submitted both versions of the proposals to change the 25 ohm rule, has spent a lot of time researching the requirement, as has Mike Holt. They have not turned up much - it is an old rule, and it's origins still aren't clear.

Bulldog said:
Or else some inspector somewhere could, if he was having a disagreement with a particular electrician, require, say, 2 or 3 hundred ground rods until the 25 ohm requirement was met. They do not use verbage that states this is sufficient. Only that your ground rod requirement stops at 2. Show me where it is printed in the code "O.K. two is good enough, go have coffee now" that is what you have implied.
Click to expand...
Man, you can't have it both ways - either you stop pounding rods at two rods, or you pound them until you see 25 ohms resistance - which do you believe are the minimum requirements of the NEC?
 
Bulldog1401 said:
I interpet that the one additional electrode had better be able to supply 25 ohms to ground, so you are required to use at least one more, multiple if you choose, but if you only choose one style it is O.K. Then just make sure it is effective. Don't just say good enough, and walk away. There are products available to treat the soil in the immediate location of the electrode to achieve this reading.

I see after reading the code making panels actions provided by Mr. Stoltz that there is confusion all the way up the line on the requirements. Time to overhaul this section.
Click to expand...

So are you saying even the CMP does not understand the need for 25 ohms?
 
Bulldog, use the preview feature to look at your posts before submitting them.

Please, for all of us....stop changing posts that have already been responded to....it just makes things more confused.
 
Folks this is my opinion on the matter.
The National Electric Code is not a Bible or design manual but a set of Minimum, repeat Mimimum acceptable standards. If any electrician or engineer feels the need to go beyond code for job specs. then they are free to do so. It's really up to the professional electrician to decide what is in the best interest of his company and the customer but it's up to the inspector to make sure that Minimum requirements have been met.

The original post stated that certain contractors have been fined for using 4 ft. ground rods. They should be because they have not met the minimum requirements. The code book is not the answer to all electrical problems it only keeps contractors from doing whatever they feel like. If we didn't have and follow rules then we would all just be " handy men ".
 
Hey Bob,

Do you have the story on the telegraph system, where the 25 ohm requirement first came from? Too lazy at the moment to do a big internet search, but that's it's basis...
 
cmp

cmp

I believe that I agree with Mr. Stolz in that they seem unclear as to thier intent, and invite change. Theier not understanding the purpose of requiring 25 ohms, instead of say 30 ohms, is possible. But the current standard is 25, and it has not harmed anyone. Raising the bar because it is easier to achieve could result in injury or death. We cant at that point just say oop's, oh wel, back to 25 ohms. I stated that the section may need overahuling. This I hope would include research and a clarification of what is a useful ohm's reading in the real world.
 
Bulldog, do you agree or disagree with the following statement: Under the existing code language, we can drive two ground rods and no inspector can fail them for being 2500 ohms resistance to earth?
 
Rockyd said:
Hey Bob,

Do you have the story on the telegraph system, where the 25 ohm requirement first came from? Too lazy at the moment to do a big internet search, but that's it's basis...
Click to expand...


That is still up in the air.

Both Mike Holt and bphgraviity have put in a lot of effort trying to find out why 25 ohms.

Even if we can pin it down to the old telegraph system we have to ask why 25 ohms?

And if 25 ohms was chosen out of the blue in the 1800s is it still a relevant standard today?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top