BX as a ground.

Status
Not open for further replies.
wwhitney said:
I'm glad you see now that 250.118(8) doesn't apply to ex-AC cable.
Click to expand...

Read it carefully, five words, no qualifications in the words:
2014 NEC 250.118
(8) Armor of Type AC cable as provided in 320.108.
Click to expand...


wwhitney said:
its armor does not meet the construction specification of 320.108.
Click to expand...
Come on Wayne, you're better than that. You meant to actually QUOTE the Code, I'm sure, not misquote it.

2014 NEC 320.108 Equipment Grounding Conductor. Type AC cable shall provide an adequate path for fault current as required by 250.4(A)(5) or (B)(4) to act as an equipment grounding conductor.
Click to expand...
 
I just refuse to believe that everything that was at one time referred to as "Armored Cable" must be accepted whenever a current document uses those same words.
In particular, at some point a UL standard for evaluation of what the NEC currently calls Type AC must have come into existence.
 
al hildenbrand said:
Read it carefully, five words, no qualifications in the words
Click to expand...
"As provided in 320.108" is a qualification. That phrase is specifically excluding ex-AC cable, as it does not meet 320.108.

Al, have you actually read the title of Part III of article 320? It is "Construction Specifications". 320.108 is a construction specification, you are reading it like some sort of edict that all cable ever called AC shall be deemed to have an equipment grounding conductor that shall be deemed to meet 240.4(A)(5) or 240.4(B)(4).

In fact, it is the exact opposite. The cable armor of ex-AC cable doesn't meet 240.4(A)(5) or 240.4(B)(4), so it doesn't meet 320.108, and of course doesn't meet 320.100, so it is doubly not AC cable.

Your take on this one is really in left field.

Cheers, Wayne
 
al hildenbrand said:
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) . . .

1937%20NEC%20Armored%20Cable_02_zpsjbn6gs4i.jpg

1937%20NEC%20Armored%20Cable_01_zpswnyetap6.jpg
Click to expand...

Al here is my view.

Up til a few years ago I did not believe BX was ever a grounding means. I changed my postion on that because of you and the information you brought forward back then. You stated your case and I accepted it.

So we agree, BX used to be a grounding means.

It is not a grounding means any more and your steadfast refusal to discuss if we can extend from it suggests to me you know it is not.
 
iwire said:
It is not a grounding means any more and your steadfast refusal to discuss if we can extend from it suggests to me you know it is not.
Click to expand...
.
Bob, I hear your opinion "not a grounding means any more". You are totally in your right to hold that opinion. I am not talking to your opinion.

"Your stead fast refusal to discuss if we can extend from it (old armored cable)" is, again, YOUR opinion of my motive. I have written my motive in this thread. I will discuss extending AC in another thread. That is not refusal, Bob, in spite of your opinion. In this thread I am staying with the Code rules as applied to the OP scenario.

Charlie's Rule of Technical Reading

It doesn't say what you think it says, nor what you remember it to have said, nor what you were told that it says, and certainly not what you want it to say, and if by chance you are its author, it doesn't say what you intended it to say. Then what does it say? It says what it says. So if you want to know what it says, stop trying to remember what it says, and don't ask anyone else. Go back and read it, and pay attention as though you were reading it for the first time.
Click to expand...

In this thread, I am showing with quotes from the Code that the Code cannot actually be used to substantiate one's negative opinion of non-bonding strip Armored Cable type AC as a grounding means. I am not asking you to change your opinion. . .just the substantiation of it.
 
GoldDigger said:
I just refuse to believe that everything that was at one time referred to as "Armored Cable" must be accepted whenever a current document uses those same words.
In particular, at some point a UL standard for evaluation of what the NEC currently calls Type AC must have come into existence.
Click to expand...
I'm not trying to say that "everything that was at one time referred to as 'Armored Cable'" is Type AC. The quotes from the Armored Cable section of the old Codes is intended to show only that "Type AC" was specified, and that today's 250.118(8) also specifies Type AC.

The introduction of "Type AC" obviously pre-dates the 1918 NEC. I will continue to look for more documentation. I've found third hand accounts, but haven't entered them here, as they really are opinion, as we use the term within this Forum.
 
al hildenbrand said:
I'm not trying to say that "everything that was at one time referred to as 'Armored Cable'" is Type AC. The quotes from the Armored Cable section of the old Codes is intended to show only that "Type AC" was specified, and that today's 250.118(8) also specifies Type AC.

The introduction of "Type AC" obviously pre-dates the 1918 NEC. I will continue to look for more documentation. I've found third hand accounts, but haven't entered them here, as they really are opinion, as we use the term within this Forum.
Click to expand...

I found this:

Armored cable (AC) was first listed in 1899 for the Sprague Electric Co. of New York, and was originally called “Greenfield Flexible Steel-Armored Conductors,” after one of its inventors, Harry Greenfield. There were originally two experimental versions of this product, one called “AX” and the other “BX,” with the “X” standing for “experimental.” The “BX” version became the one that eventually got produced, and hence the name “BX” stuck, which also became the registered trade name of armored cable for General Electric, who later acquired Sprague Electric. Armored Cable first appeared in the NEC in 1903. (Source Underwriters Laboratories).

Since BX is a registered trade name, I doubt it was ever mentioned in the NEC.
 
al hildenbrand said:
.In this thread, I am showing with quotes from the Code that the Code cannot actually be used to substantiate one's negative opinion of non-bonding strip Armored Cable type AC as a grounding means.
Click to expand...
We've given you the substantiation many times. 250.118, 320.2, 320.100, 320.108, etc.

al hildenbrand said:
The quotes from the Armored Cable section of the old Codes is intended to show only that "Type AC" was specified, and that today's 250.118(8) also specifies Type AC.
Click to expand...
OK, you've shown that, the same term was used. That doesn't mean they are the same thing (they aren't), or that anything in the 1918 NEC has any relevance in what we do today (it doesn't).

I trust by now you've realized that you were completely misreading 250.118(8) and the construction specification 320.108, as your lack of reply on that topic suggests.

Cheers, Wayne
 
al hildenbrand said:
.
I am not asking you to change your opinion. . .just the substantiation of it.
Click to expand...

250.118 / 320.108 and current UL AC cable standards.

Your request has been fulfilled.

Edit I was going from memory, now that I could look it up I should have posted 320.100
 
Last edited:
Sometimes three simple words "I am wrong" are the hardest words one can utter, especially when it means you have been doing an installation wrong for many years.
 
peter d said:
No, it's actually a fact about human nature. As for the opinion regarding the code, many intelligent and reasonable people have told you you're wrong. That alone should be enough for you to reconsider.
Click to expand...
And, as this thread has included, many intelligent and reasonable people have agreed with me.

And I have a work area of a Metro of 3 millions that reflects my understanding of this aspect of Code.

And the very words of the published and enforced Codes that I've posted, including the 2014, also reflect my statements.

If your "fact" about human nature were a shoe, I think you'll find it a comfortable fit. . . but, that's just my humble opinion.
 
BX was an experiment? wow...

So can we assume there was some testing lab somewhere , under the diligent eye of Harry Greenfield that saw to testing every aspect of it ?

Further, if they left no stone unturned, you just know they faulted it .....

But this was before anything needed a 3 prong grounding receptacle outlet, right? Nothing existed ,at least in the residential arena that required a 'grounding conductor'

Perhaps Harry & co faulted his Xperimental wiring method, being perfectly happy the OCPD (edison fuse) did it's thing

It follows suit because no 'personnel protective' qualities were required then PAST the outlet, that it was a moot issue....

So perhaps the GFP of the branch circuit conductors was the only concern....

Methinks your tenacity and grace under fire have coerced my opinion Al :)

~RJ~
 
al hildenbrand said:
The introduction of "Type AC" obviously pre-dates the 1918 NEC. I will continue to look for more documentation.
Click to expand...
I have found "Except for Armored Cables -- Type letters A. C." entered in the 1913 Supplement to the 1911 NEC as a Heading change to 1911 NEC Rule 50. j.

And in the same 1913 Supplement to the 1911 NEC, Rule 57. Armored Cable being amended to read: Armored Cable and Cord. (Type Letters AC, . . . etc.)

The 1911 NEC does not use "Type Letters" for Armored Cable.

I can provide images of the pages, if any of you wish.
 
peter d said:
As for the opinion regarding the code, many intelligent and reasonable people have told you you're wrong. That alone should be enough for you to reconsider.
Click to expand...

al hildenbrand said:
And, as this thread has included, many intelligent and reasonable people have agreed with me.
Click to expand...


Sounds a lot like religion to me.

Even with the best of written laws there will be a difference of opinion. That's why we have a Supreme Court. They may not be right when they hand down an opinion but that's as high as you can go so you have to accept their decision.

I think that Al has made a good case for his opinion. I don't agree with his opinion because I think that a lack of a proper equipment ground could be a danger to people. If we assume the code was written to protect people and property then this would not be acceptable.

Someone in authority must hand down a ruleing on the matter and if they have decided that Al's opinion is OK in his area then that's good enough for me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top