Re: Bonding of gas piping
the windmills were news reports that there were these failures. there were active links that seemed substantially true, and if bogus, a very good deception.
As an inspector, i look at the whole package. the integrity of the gas line may be compromised from a source that is not considered in the NEC, but the fix seemed to be provided by bonding at both ends. The arcing was to other metallic systems within the structure. if bonded at both ends, the potential difference was lessened, no arcing.
As an electrician, you depend on the other codes to be done to code and assume for example that framing members are strong enough to support your equipment. The two codes, building and electrical do not interact, but are dependent. With the mechanical code, it defers to the NEC for electrical requirements and actually is interdependent. You may not think that it is the responsibility of the NEC to provide arcing protection, but I did, and argued about it.
It wasn't just windmills, as the CSST industry sent out The Black Night to defeat me. He did by opinions expressed, but after rereading his posts, I became more convinced that he was very good at the jousting, but not correct, nor informative about the CSST problems. If he had answered about the problems, I would have believed him.
anyway, it seems a dead issue at this time. no one has posted more CSST failure links that i know of, and it may be being taken care of at the local level, by the mechanical contractor, or it just never makes the national circuit. It is also possible that it was an over-reaction at the time.
paul
the windmills were news reports that there were these failures. there were active links that seemed substantially true, and if bogus, a very good deception.
As an inspector, i look at the whole package. the integrity of the gas line may be compromised from a source that is not considered in the NEC, but the fix seemed to be provided by bonding at both ends. The arcing was to other metallic systems within the structure. if bonded at both ends, the potential difference was lessened, no arcing.
As an electrician, you depend on the other codes to be done to code and assume for example that framing members are strong enough to support your equipment. The two codes, building and electrical do not interact, but are dependent. With the mechanical code, it defers to the NEC for electrical requirements and actually is interdependent. You may not think that it is the responsibility of the NEC to provide arcing protection, but I did, and argued about it.
It wasn't just windmills, as the CSST industry sent out The Black Night to defeat me. He did by opinions expressed, but after rereading his posts, I became more convinced that he was very good at the jousting, but not correct, nor informative about the CSST problems. If he had answered about the problems, I would have believed him.
anyway, it seems a dead issue at this time. no one has posted more CSST failure links that i know of, and it may be being taken care of at the local level, by the mechanical contractor, or it just never makes the national circuit. It is also possible that it was an over-reaction at the time.
paul