BX as a ground.

[Netpog]

Actually, it's about the linguistics of code-reading

Actually, it's about the linguistics of code-reading

I argued that 250.130(C) demands that, when replacing a non-grounding receptacle with a grounding one, you must have a modern EGC . But Al quoted the section below, arguing that 250.130(C) applies only when there's no EGC in the circuit, per the text in red. Since the BX was accepted, back in the day, as an EGC, he asserts that 250.130(C) doesn't apply. Take a look:

In using 250.130(C) to substantiate your claim, you have overlooked the first part of that Rule:

VII. Methods of Equipment Grounding

250.130 Equipment Grounding Conductor Connections. [...] For replacement of non–grounding-type receptacles with grounding-type receptacles and for branch circuit extensions only in existing installations that do not have an equipment grounding conductor in the branch circuit, connections shall be permitted as indicated in 250.130(C).

That sentence is ambiguous. Al is, in good faith, interpreting it differently than I am:

Al's reading:
(For replacement {of non–grounding-type receptacles with grounding-type receptacles and for branch circuit extensions}
only in existing installations that do not have an equipment grounding conductor in the branch circuit,)
(connections shall be permitted as indicated in 250.130(C).)

In other words, (C) applies -- to the receptacle replacement and to the branch-circuit extensions -- but only if there's no EGC.

My reading:
(For replacement of {non–grounding-type receptacles with grounding-type receptacles}
and {for branch circuit extensions only in existing installations that do not have an equipment grounding conductor in the branch circuit,}
(connections shall be permitted as indicated in 250.130(C).)

In other words, (C) applies to the receptacle replacement. And it also applies to those branch-circuit extensions that lack an EGC.

I am confident that my interpretation is the intended one. But my goal with this post is only to show the ambiguity that's leading to Al's disregard for 250.130(C), while I think it settles the matter.

 

[iwire]

I am confident that my interpretation is the intended

Well than it's settled. :lol:

 

[iwire]

Or you can stop questioning Al's aptitude as an electrician or his experience working on old wiring.
I don't think that has anything to do with his position he is taking in this thread.

It does not, it's just mbrooke hijacking another thread.

 

[iwire]

As Iwire and other members can stop questioning mine.

A better approach would be to stop claiming you are an electrician in your profile when you are not one. :thumbsup:

 

[mbrooke]

A better approach would be to stop claiming you are an electrician in your profile when you are not one. :thumbsup:

And this is what I had in mind. You know nothing about my past or history nor do you have any proof, so what you claim about me holds no water. Especially when it is based on statements you took out of context when we both knew what I meant. But considering I was being critical of authority (inspectors) it does not surprise me in the least bit.

 

[mbrooke]

It does not, it's just mbrooke hijacking another thread.

To which I see Mr. Holt as been alerted... but, my point being, you are often critical or me. Ok, for knowledge that is fair. However I would still like actual proof supporting the statement old BX is an adequate EGC. Thus I will ask Al what he implies via testing...

 

[iwire]

And this is what I had in mind. You know nothing about my past or history nor do you have any proof, so what you claim about me holds no water.

But I see you did change your profile and have removed the claim of being an electrician.

For that I thank you.

But considering I was being critical of authority (inspectors) it does not surprise me in the least bit.

LMAO, you are really nuts if you think is that was why I have been riding you about claiming to be an electrician.

 

[mbrooke]

But I see you did change your profile and have removed the claim of being an electrician.

For that I thank you.

If the same unwritten rules apply to me as everyone else 1/3 of the guys here would need also need to have electrician removed from their title as they are retired (no longer practicing).

LMAO, you are really nuts if you think is that was why I have been riding you about claiming to be an electrician.

But that is when you brought concern. Of course, if you have proof, such as me asking basic questions like how to wire a receptacle, please show me. However, thank you for admitting to giving this personal attention. I am very well aware of your true motive.

 

[George Stolz]

This is nearly century old Code. You are offering your opinion that the new construction standard of the 2014 NEC retroactively eliminated the grounding means that AC type BX cable has ALWAYS been. Show it in the text of the NEC.

Page 4 of the 2014 NEC:

This edition of NFPA 70, National Electrical Code, was prepared by the National Electrical Code Committee and acted on by NFPA at its June Association Technical Meeting held June 10–13, 2013, in Chicago, IL. It was issued by the Standards Council on August 1, 2013, with an effective date of August 21, 2013, and supersedes all previous editions.

What do I win?

 

[romex jockey]

A position as AHJ , confronted with applying the term 'existing'....

Seriously, methinks the issue would require understanding what carries a fault (an ohm tester really doesn't cut it)

I've posted the relevant code passage a few pages back, which have not changed for 1/2 century

~RJ~

 

[mbrooke]

A position as AHJ , confronted with applying the term 'existing'....

Seriously, methinks the issue would require understanding what carries a fault (an ohm tester really doesn't cut it)

I've posted the relevant code passage a few pages back, which have not changed for 1/2 century

~RJ~

I agree. Peter D did elude to something I feel bears great weight: XL=2piefL or better known as inductive reluctance. This will further limit the current during a fault condition much the same way an unloaded transformer or choke with a 2 ohm primary winding will pass only milliamps when energized.

 

[K8MHZ]

I agree. Peter D did elude to something I feel bears great weight: XL=2piefL or better known as inductive reluctance. This will further limit the current during a fault condition much the same way an unloaded transformer or choke with a 2 ohm primary winding will pass only milliamps when energized.

Just to be persnickity, it's inductive reactance and the formula is X(sub L)=2 Pi f L.

 

[Netpog]

Well than it's settled. :lol:

Yeah, that's not the phrase I should've used! What I most wanted to emphasize was "in good faith".

Please take a look back at my post #66 in this thread. I hope you'll agree that 250.130(C), if it's applicable, demands an EGC as now defined.

So, in the post you laughed at, do you think Al correctly reads 250.130 so that (C) isn't relevant? How do YOU understand the sentence I 'diagrammed'?

 

[mbrooke]

Just to be persnickity, it's inductive reactance and the formula is X(sub L)=2 Pi f L.

:rant: God I hate auto correct. Yes it is reactance. (Not blaming you however)

 

[K8MHZ]

:rant: God I hate auto correct. Yes it is reactance. (Not blaming you however)

Actually, I did consider that. Spell check wants to bounce the word reactance, and reluctance is the second choice on the list of suggested corrections. I could see auto correct making the substitution.

 

[mbrooke]

Actually, I did consider that. Spell check wants to bounce the word reactance, and reluctance is the second choice on the list of suggested corrections. I could see auto correct making the substitution.

I know you did (and thanks)... but I doubt Iwire will

 

[GerryB]

One more old bx style. I have seen some with a copper cap, is that anything to do with grounding or just a different anti short device?

 

[iwire]

Yeah, that's not the phrase I should've used! What I most wanted to emphasize was "in good faith".

Please take a look back at my post #66 in this thread. I hope you'll agree that 250.130(C), if it's applicable, demands an EGC as now defined.

So, in the post you laughed at, do you think Al correctly reads 250.130 so that (C) isn't relevant? How do YOU understand the sentence I 'diagrammed'?

I am on mobile so short answer for now.

To me digraming a code section is a waste of time and only serves as a means to show ones own abilities.

I would be shocked if any CMP has diagramed a code section before adding it to the code.

Bottom line for me is simple this, old BX is not constructed as the present standards require therefore I can not use it for new work / grounding of new work.

I am not saying what is in place has to go, I am simply saying that if I add to a BX circuit I don't have a code compliant ground to use for the new wiring.

 

[wwhitney]

OK, please consider the following:

BX cable without a bonding strip is not type AC cable, per 320.2 and 320.100:

320.2 Definition. Armored Cable, Type AC. A fabricated assembly of insulated conductors in a flexible interlocked metallic armor. See 320.100.

320.100 Construction. Type AC cable shall have an armor of flexible metal tape and shall have an internal bonding strip of copper or aluminum in intimate contact with the armor for its entire length

320.2 incorporates the requirements of 320.100 into the definition of type AC cable. So no bonding strip means it's not type AC cable.

Given that, is BX cable without a bonding strip a recognized Chapter 3 wiring method? If not, then when dealing with it replacement is only the option.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[iwire]

OK, please consider the following:

BX cable without a bonding strip is not type AC cable, per 320.2 and 320.100:



320.2 incorporates the requirements of 320.100 into the definition of type AC cable. So no bonding strip means it's not type AC cable.

Given that, is BX cable without a bonding strip a recognized Chapter 3 wiring method? If not, then when dealing with it replacement is only the option.

Cheers, Wayne

Exactly what I was getting at when I brought up the change in the construction requirements of AC cable