CEE Rebar Stub Out? I don't think so.

[mivey]

The point here? :smile:

I know I am aware of the history of the Ufer but it is irreverent. :smile: We are talking about what the NEC requires not what we like, not what Mr uffer envisioned, not what Mr Uffer had for breakfast. :smile:

I know it is Sunday but that does not make the history irreverent. The manufacturer's pet has now become a preacher.:grin:

By not implying that the above is in the code - as it is not.

While #193 is not word-for-word, I don't see it as an interpretation of what the code says, just a statement of what was said for clarification. Maybe we do need charlie to diagram the sentence for us.:roll:

You really need to stop using 'yourself' as evidence to the answers here. I love a good debate but need a broader scope of reference for the argument. :roll:

What is wrong with using the NEC as a reference? That is all crossman has done. I don't see where crossman has injected the CEC (Crossman Electric Code) into the discussion. As a matter of fact, he & iwire have tried to restrict the discussion to precisely what is written in the NEC.

[edit: oops I just noticed I missed a page. and since I have 40 posts/page, I'm sure I missed some follow-ups. sorry]

 

[e57]

What is wrong with using the NEC as a reference? That is all crossman has done. I don't see where crossman has injected the CEC (Crossman Electric Code) into the discussion. As a matter of fact, he & iwire have tried to restrict the discussion to precisely what is written in the NEC.

What is wrong is that he, Bob and others have injected intent into it - where words are lacking to support thier position.

 

[tryinghard]

Okay. I am going to do this one more time with the EXACT wording of the rebar requirements of the first sentence of the aforementioned section:

2008 NEC 250.52(A)(3) Concrete-Encased Electrode.

An electrode

encased by at least 50mm (2 in.) of concrete,

located horizontally near the bottom, or veritcially,

and within that portion of the foundation or footing that is in direct contact with earth,

consisting of at least 6.0 m (20 ft) of one or more

bare or zinc galvanized or otherwise conductive coated steel reinforcing bars or rods

of not less than 13mm (1/2 in) diameter,

That is exactly what it says, word for word from the NEC. A rebar CEE must comply with that sentence. Within that sentence, I count six requirements. Nowhere does it say that any of the six requirments can be omitted. I see no way to read it in a manner that we can simply ignore any of the six requirements.

Someone explain to me how we can omit some of those requirments without violating what is required for a rebar CEE. What is the logic behind the omission?

Here?s my explanation:

There is no omission needed! Understanding the 20? rebar electrode is the portion that is at or near the bottom of a footing and surrounded by at least 2? of concrete.

The omission is the fact the NEC leaves out this 20? can be longer and does not morph into a GEC when not surrounded by 2? of concrete rather it is simply longer and therefore can stub into a wall and be connected to by the GEC at that point.

This portion that raises past the ?at or near the bottom of foundation? is literally unaddressed; this enables it to be used. NEC is permissive in this way jsut like a driven rod.

 

[mivey]

As I suspected, my previous post was out of date. But now:

Because 'ceiling wire' is not qualifying as an electrode, or a GEC....

Fine. Show me the NEC section that says exposed re-bar qualifies as an electrode, or a GEC.

 

[iwire]

What is wrong is that he, Bob and others have injected intent into it - where words are lacking to support thier position.

That is simply untrue, I doubt I used the word intent in this thread at all. :smile:

All I have done is pointed out the words that are in the NEC.

You have not brought anything to this thread to support your position that an CEE can exist outside of conditions set forth in .52(A)(3). :smile:

 

[crossman]

What is wrong is that he, Bob and others have injected intent into it - where words are lacking to support thier position.

No injection. Bob and I are reading it exactly as it is written. You are the one injecting intent into the words.... no disrespect intended.

 

[crossman]

Because 'ceiling wire' is not qualifying as an electrode, or a GEC....

Fine. Show me the NEC section that says exposed re-bar qualifies as an electrode, or a GEC.

Bingo. Why doesn't the ceiling wire extended from a qualifying CEE count? What section is it violating? What about a 3/8" rebar stub-up? What section would that violate?

Remember: all six requirements in 250.52(A)(3) have the same weight. If you can use any one of them to say that the ceiling wire extension does not qualify as part of the CEE, then I can use any of the requirements to disqualify the stub-up.

 

[e57]

That is simply untrue, I doubt I used the word intent in this thread at all. :smile:

All I have done is pointed out the words that are in the NEC.

You have not brought anything to this thread to support your position that an CEE can exist outside of conditions set forth in .52(A)(3). :smile:

If not intent - what would you call it? You have pointed to words and are saying you know what they mean - right? What they 'intend' to mean.... And yes there too are no words in 'this' code to support either my points that a portion of the electrode may be exposed - or for that matter yours - that it can not, IMO.... Because this code is describing the electrode - not the connection to it covered by other codes. You're sticking to the wording here because it suits your purpose to defame the stubber.... :smile:

I have also pointed to 250.68(A) many times, as well as its connection 250.70 - just becase they are not in the code in question does not mean that they do not exist in the broader context of this discussion of this code....

 

[crossman]

This portion that raises past the ?at or near the bottom of foundation? is literally unaddressed; this enables it to be used.

And with that logic, a ceiling wire extension from the 20 feet of rebar would be prefectly acceptable. What section would prevent the use of the ceiling wire stubbed up?

 

[chevyx92]

And with that logic, a ceiling wire extension from the 20 feet of rebar would be prefectly acceptable. What section would prevent the use of the ceiling wire stubbed up?

How about 250.53(C).
Edit- I read your question wrong. The article I'm quoting is from the stub to the panel.

 

[crossman]

How about 250.53(C).

That section also disqualifies rebar.

 

[chevyx92]

That section also disqualifies rebar.

2002 NEC does not. You're thinking of a different article.

 

[crossman]

2002 NEC does not. You're thinking of a different article.

250.53(C) says the object under question must comply with 250.64 A, B, and E, and must comply with 250.66, and with 250.70.

It will be quite impossible for a ceiling wire or a rebar to comply with 250.66. It will also be a violation of 250.70 to use tie-wire to connect the stub-up rebar to the rest of the electrode. So 250.53(C) prohibits both ceiling wire and rebar to be used under that section.

Any other tries for what section of the code prohibits the use of ceiling wire as a stubbed-out connection for the CEE? A section that would prohibit ceiling wire, but permit stubbed up rebar?

 

[iwire]

If not intent - what would you call it?

Mark I do not know the intent, never said I did. I have been looking in the ROPs and ROCs trying to learn more but have not learned much.

You have pointed to words and are saying you know what they mean - right?

I do have pretty good grip on English so I can know what the printed words say without having a clue about the intent of the CMP was when they wrote it.

You're sticking to the wording here because it suits your purpose to defame the stubber....

Ah ... I am sticking to the words because that is what the NEC is made of. :smile:

 

[chevyx92]

250.53(C) says the object under question must comply with 250.64 A, B, and E, and must comply with 250.66, and with 250.70.

It will be quite impossible for a ceiling wire or a rebar to comply with 250.66. It will also be a violation of 250.70 to use tie-wire to connect the stub-up rebar to the rest of the electrode. So 250.53(C) prohibits both ceiling wire and rebar to be used under that section.

Any other tries for what section of the code prohibits the use of ceiling wire as a stubbed-out connection for the CEE? A section that would prohibit ceiling wire, but permit stubbed up rebar?

250.52(A)(3) allows the use of rebar. And I would say 250.62 doesn't allow ceiling wire.

 

[crossman]

250.52(A)(3) allows the use of rebar. And I would say 250.62 doesn't allow ceiling wire.

250.62 also doesn't allow rebar. So how can rebar be okay but ceiling wire can't? If we use 250.62, then we have to abandon the rebar stub-up.

So we are back to 250.52(A)(3). If 250.52(A)(3) allows a rebar stub-up, how does it not allow a ceiling wire stub-up?

 

[chevyx92]

If 250.52(A)(3) allows a rebar stub-up, how does it not allow a ceiling wire stub-up?

Read it and you tell me. I'll tell you it doesn't meet the requirements of that section purely based on size.

 

[crossman]

Read it and you tell me. I'll tell you it doesn't meet the requirements of that section purely based on size.

Okay, so far so good. So, essentially, the ceiling wire stub-up must meet the requirements of 250.52(A)(3) and since it is smaller than 1/2 ", it is a violation?

 

[chevyx92]

Okay, so far so good. So essentially, the ceiling wire stub-up must meet the requirements of 250.52(A)(3) and since it is smaller than 1/2 ", it is a violation?

That's what I see.

 

[crossman]

That's what I see.

So the ceiling wire stub-up must meet the requirements of 250.52(A)(3) to qualify as a means of connecting the GEC to the the CEE?