Common pool bonding termination?

Status
Not open for further replies.
mark32

mark32

Senior Member
Location
Currently in NJ
I have very limited experience with pools so I was more than happy to lend a good friend (An EC) wire up and bond a pool earlier this year. I noticed that when he terminated the bond to the pool's light external lug, he bent the #8 into itself (Like a U) so it would fit into the lug, therefore, allowing him to continue running the bond on up the the deck box and beyond. There are two wires under that screw, a violation in my eyes but is this a common practice as I see it would save much time.
 
Are there actually two wires, or just 1 wire bent into a "U" ? Might still be an arguable point depending on how the lug is rated, but if it's "U" does that make it two wires ?
 
I just cut a 10' piece of #8 and put it in the lug and leave the rest coiled laying there so they can backfill, then later after all the backfilling is done and it's time to bond the grid, ladders and slide etc....I just split bolt the light wire onto the rest of my grid wire then...
 
augie47 said:
Are there actually two wires, or just 1 wire bent into a "U" ? Might still be an arguable point depending on how the lug is rated, but if it's "U" does that make it two wires ?
Click to expand...

Yes, that would be one wire bent into a very tight U, in turn putting "Two" wires under the same screw.

gotmud said:
I just cut a 10' piece of #8 and put it in the lug and leave the rest coiled laying there so they can backfill, then later after all the backfilling is done and it's time to bond the grid, ladders and slide etc....I just split bolt the light wire onto the rest of my grid wire then...
Click to expand...

gotmud, that sounds like a good idea, I like it.
 
An inspector could, I guess, make a case that the installation, if the lug is not rated for two wires, would be a violation. But, to me, it's an arguable point and would be much to do about nothing.
 
Cavie said:
If it is not cut, it is one wire. No different than bending a hook for solid wire around a receptical screw.
Click to expand...

I agree with ALF, if it's not cut, it's only one wire. It's not arguable. I do not see ANYONE's logic in saying one wire, bent to a certain shape without breaking it, makes it two wires. That's impossible without cutting it, then and only then does it become two wires.
 
I don't see how a loop bent conductor is the same a single wire. If the lug is not designed for two conductors how is it possible that it's designed for one conductor bent in a loop? Regardless of the semantics involved in the one vs. two word debate the lug is tightening down on two pieces of condcutor. The fact that they may be connected together in a loop is irrelevant.
 
infinity said:
I don't see how a loop bent conductor is the same a single wire. If the lug is not designed for two conductors how is it possible that it's designed for one conductor bent in a loop? Regardless of the semantics involved in the one vs. two word debate the lug is tightening down on two pieces of conductor. The fact that they may be connected together in a loop is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I agree, if the lug is not listed for two conductors then it's not legal
 
mark32 said:
I have very limited experience with pools so I was more than happy to lend a good friend (An EC) wire up and bond a pool earlier this year. I noticed that when he terminated the bond to the pool's light external lug, he bent the #8 into itself (Like a U) so it would fit into the lug, therefore, allowing him to continue running the bond on up the the deck box and beyond. There are two wires under that screw, a violation in my eyes but is this a common practice as I see it would save much time.
Click to expand...

Do you mean an 8 solid bent tight against itself and placed under the screw/clamp in a lug or an 8 solid bent in a U around the terminal screw?
 
If it's AROUND a screw I would feel safe in the assumption of a better seat, and better long term bond. Especially when dealing w/ #8 solid.


Doug S.
 
buldogg said:
I agree, if the lug is not listed for two conductors then it's not legal
Click to expand...

I third this line of thinking. I also believe the code has prohibited in other applications (like 312.6) the extreme tight radius that is necessary to make this installation. Yes, I know that section does not directly apply to this, but....
 
lug2.jpg
lug1.jpg


This is what I'm envisioning, both cases have "two" condcutors under a lug rated for only one.
 
A common practice to save time does not constitute a safe, code compliant installation.

The installation needs to be a feed through application if the fixture is not going to be the final destination of the #8 bond.

However

If the lug is rated for 2 #8 copper conductors then it would appear to be a compliant installation.
 
infinity said:
lug2.jpg
lug1.jpg


This is what I'm envisioning, both cases have "two" condcutors under a lug rated for only one.
Click to expand...

No wonder you're arguing,,,,,I agree with you now,,,,,,,but I thought we were talking about a SCREW,,,with the wire WRAPPED AROUND THE SCREW. NOT A LUG, I should have read the op closer. With a screw, IMO it's legal,,,,,with a lug, it's not.
 
Last edited:
I'd hate to hang my hat on the argument that the folded wire constituted two conductors. NO saying it necessarily doesn't , but I have bigger fish to fry.
Which provides the more secure path, the folded conductor or a true single conductor "tapped" by a split bolt or wire nut ?
I'm am the ultimate believer in enforcing the Code, but brought before my peers, I'm not sure what percentage would consider that two conductors.
 
augie47 said:
I'd hate to hang my hat on the argument that the folded wire constituted two conductors. NO saying it necessarily doesn't , but I have bigger fish to fry.
Which provides the more secure path, the folded conductor or a true single conductor "tapped" by a split bolt or wire nut ?
I'm am the ultimate believer in enforcing the Code, but brought before my peers, I'm not sure what percentage would consider that two conductors.
Click to expand...


When looking at the two photo's how is the one with the loop any different than the one without? The contact point (the set screw) in both photo's is performing the same exact function contacting "two" conductors in a lug listed for one conductor.
 
Rob, I fully understand and I certainly don't want to start a P******* contest. All I'm saying is that when you remove the wire (left pic) from the lug and hold it in your hand you have ONE conductor.
It makes it an arguable point in my mind and I personally would discourage such use, but I'd be reluctant to actually reject a job over it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top