I agree I do not see a problem with that and to verify that you still have continuity and between the two points I will perform a continuity test. You can attach a conductor to one end of The Wire and another conductor at the opposite end to see if your metallic flexible conduit establishes connection between the two
You might want to look at the article sections mentioned in earlier posts, especially 250.118
I suspect the reasoning is that although the flex is grounded by its connections to the pipe, the corrugations (I'm imagining the revolutions of BX cable) of the flex aren't good enough as a ground for the entire circuit.
I get that but going back to what we were talking about earlier, if that were the case then how would the flex create a path to ground incase of a short within the flex itself?
The short would travel the spiral of the flex until it hit the coupling(s) to the pipe. Same deal with BX or MC... Unless the 'green wire' is uninsulated, and touches the flex in several places. Run a bare ground from coupling to flex to the other coupling?
My point is that the NEC is saying that the flex is not sufficient as a ground so they say to add an equipment grounding conductor. How does adding an equipment grounding conductor (Insulated) make the flex capable of carrying the fault if the NEC says it is not a ground.
That isn't what it does. I connects the two conduits together, as if the flex was a gap.
of course, but that doesn't make the cable any more capable of clearing a fault. In bx and mc cables there is a small steel or aluminum wire that touches the entire length of the cable.
Probably because the larger sizes (usually) house larger conductors of greater currents.
I’m with you 100%, but if there’s a fault to the raceway, the FMC is still carrying that current to the nearest EGC. So the code book is saying that FMC above 1 1/4” doesn’t have the capacity to serve as the EGC for the higher current circuits, but is still expected to carry fault current from the same high current circuits back to an acceptable EGC (the wire ran inside the raceway and bonded to box or enclosure).
Not a concern just theoretical I guess. I’m not about to petition a code change nor am I trying to fight an inspector. Only curious.
I agree the logic is flawed. If an ungrounded conductor faults to the flex, the flex will carry the fault current to the end(s) of the flex. So the flex is an acceptable EGC for a fault to the flex, but not for other faults? Why isnt the flex required to be an acceptable EGC?
