BX as a ground.

[romex jockey]

Soon we'll not change a light bulb w/o afci's ......~RJ~

 

[mbrooke]

Soon we'll not change a light bulb w/o afci's ......~RJ~

Well of course! What is wrong with that? Did you know, if a hot wire touches the ground wire and the breaker does not trip within 8 half cycles the home will burn down? AFCIs will prevent over 30,000 home fires every year. In fact the CPSC, NFPA, ESFI, Eaton, Schneider, GE, Siemens, NRTLs, and a slew of other agencies all say the this exact same thing. Why put a price on life? For as little as $250 per home thousands of lives will be sparred every year. I work for codes and standards and I know this is true because my superiors told me. You just see the money because you don't understand these devices save lives and its been proven in labs over and over. You are only bashing because you are an electrician who doesn't understand electrical theory, while I as a member of codes & standards do 100%. So please listen to me and me only while I disregard everything you say since you are well beneath me. I will be back, I have a ($$$) meeting to attend with full luncheon.























(kidding folks, I dont work for codes & standards)

 

[al hildenbrand]

Again Al you are entitled to your opinion but many of us do not agree with it and that does not mean we are misquoting anything.

Just as you are entitled to your opinion we are entitled to ours.

As I have said, I'm offering Code. I have also said I am not an expert. I have been learning a lot in the course of this thread. I have been put in mind of Charlie's Rule and been buoyed by the experience in the area I work in.

I went back to the Old Codes and found that my wordsmithing fussiness has created a very real confusion in this thread. Where I have written, in previous posts, "non bonding strip Armored Cable type BX" or something to that effect, I have failed to apply Charlie's Rule.

"BX" was a trade name. "BX" was not the "type" of Armored Cable. Armored Cable installed BEFORE 1959 was type AC.

I followed my Codes back from 1959 for more than Twenty Years ( 20 ) to the 1937 NEC. You can read it yourself. In 1937, there were only two types of Armored Cable - type AC, and type ACL.

2014 NEC 250.118(8) . . .

 

[mbrooke]

So, this thread has inspired me to put the physics aside and view it from purely a code perspective. I must ask, the older NECs, is BX mentioned anywhere as an EGC?

 

[al hildenbrand]

So, this thread has inspired me to put the physics aside and view it from purely a code perspective. I must ask, the older NECs, is BX mentioned anywhere as an EGC?

The term "EGC" or Grounding Conductor, Equipment was first in Article 100 Definitions in the 1968 NEC. It was split out of the earlier Article 100 Definitions term "Grounding Conductor".

 

[mbrooke]

The term "EGC" or Grounding Conductor, Equipment was first in Article 100 Definitions in the 1968 NEC. It was split out of the earlier Article 100 Definitions term "Grounding Conductor".

So the older NECs do not say anything about BX being prohibited as an EGC?

 

[al hildenbrand]

So, this thread has inspired me to put the physics aside and view it from purely a code perspective. I must ask, the older NECs, is BX mentioned anywhere as an EGC?

Also, to work towards better clarity, "BX" isn't mentioned at all in the NEC. Only Armored Cable type AC.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Old non bonding strip Armored Cable, in 1937 and on, IS type AC.

 

[mbrooke]

Also, to work towards better clarity, "BX" isn't mentioned at all in the NEC. Only Armored Cable type AC.

And AC can be used as an EGC in these older NECs?

 

[wwhitney]

Old non bonding strip Armored Cable, in 1937 and on, IS type AC.

No, when the definition of type AC cable changed in 1959, or thereabout, it ceased to be AC cable.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[al hildenbrand]

And AC can be used as an EGC in these older NECs?

In the pre 1968 NEC, the term is "GC" or Grounding Conductor. Yes. I've shown that all the way back to the 1918 NEC in this post

 

[al hildenbrand]

No, when the definition of type AC cable changed in 1959, or thereabout, it ceased to be AC cable.

250.118(8) doesn't specify what you claim.

 

[wwhitney]

In the pre 1968 NEC, the term is "GC" or Grounding Conductor. Yes. I've shown that all the way back to the 1918 NEC

Great. Old ex-AC cable has a (pre-1968) GC.

A grounding-type receptacle today requires an EGC, which ex-AC cable does not have.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[wwhitney]

250.118(8) doesn't specify what you claim.

Sure it does:

a) 320.108 is a construction specification. Ex-AC cable does not meet it, so it doesn't satisfy 250.118(8)

b) Ex-AC cable is not AC cable, per 320.2 and 320.100, so it doesn't satisfy 250.118(8).

Cheers, Wayne

 

[al hildenbrand]

a) 320.108 is a construction specification.

You're wrong. Go read it.

 

[wwhitney]

Umm, part III of article 320 in the (2011) NEC is titled "Construction Specifications". All of sections 320.100, 320.104, 320.108, and 320.120 are construction specifications.

Also, 320.108 references 240.4(A)(5) and 240.4(B)(4). Are you claiming that ex-AC cable actually meets those requirements?

Cheers, Wayne

 

[al hildenbrand]

Are you claiming that ex-AC cable actually meets those requirements?

That is not, and HAS NOT been my point.

Now, reread 250.118(8) as if for the first time.

 

[wwhitney]

250.118(8) Armor of Type AC cable as provided in 320.108.

That tells me that if it is type AC cable, and its armor meets the provisions of 320.108, then it is an EGC.

Ex-AC cable fails on both counts, as (a) it's not AC cable and (b) its armor does not meet the construction specification of 320.108.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[al hildenbrand]

In 1918 the section on Armored Cable also shows no "BX" and, in fact, shows Armored Cable is type AC.

That's more than Forty years ( 40 ) before 1959.

 

[wwhitney]

So the NEC is never allowed to change its definitions?

I'm glad you see now that 250.118(8) doesn't apply to ex-AC cable.

Cheers, Wayne