Disappointed in 2005 IAEI analysis

[raider1]

iwire when we disagree, Bob when we agree? :-?

I am Bob. :smile:

Sorry Bob, we don't disagree very often so I kind of got disconBOBulated.

Then I see a need, I still don't see it in the words.

I have struggled with this sentence for quite a while. I have had flash backs to my early childhood Saturday morning cartoons...

Chris

 

[raider1]

I guess what it boils down to is that my understanding of grammer is that a conjuntion such as a the word "and" connects two things together.

So in the sentence "All metal piping systems and all grounded metal parts in contact with the circulating water shall be bonded together..." I see two part that are required to be bonded together.

1st. All metal piping systems

2nd. All grounde metal parts in contact with the circulating water.

Because there is no separation of grounded metal parts and in contact with the circulating water I read the " in contact with the circulating water to only apply to the grounded metal parts.

As I understand it for the term "in contact with the circulating water to apply to both the metal piping system and the grounded metal parts there should be a comma. This is how I feel the sentence should read if it was to require both parts to be in contact with the circulating water.

"All metal piping systems and all grounded metal parts, in contact with the circulating water must be bonded together....."

I have probably beat this subject to death.

Chris

 

[iwire]

Sorry Bob, we don't disagree very often so I kind of got disconBOBulated.

:grin:

Thanks Chris.

I have struggled with this sentence for quite a while. I have had flash backs to my early childhood Saturday morning cartoons...

:grin:

I think you can still get those shows on the Internet.

English was a class I could never do well in.

I kind of hoped one of our word smiths like Mr Beck would jump in to dissect the sentence.

 

[raider1]

I kind of hoped one of our word smiths like Mr Beck would jump in to dissect the sentence.

Me too.

I had my Father, who is a writer, take a look at the sentence and he read it the same way I did. (But he may be bias )

Chris

 

[iwire]

I had my Father, who is a writer, take a look at the sentence and he read it the same way I did.

Well he certainly knows about grammar then I do.

 

[Smart $]

This is not the context I mean?which is "All metal piping systems" vs locally associated "All metal piping systems", where the latter is the correct context [IMSO], regardless of being "in contact with circulating water".

There are no words in the section to support that view.

It may well be the intent but the words are not there to support that.

I say the last sentence of 680.74 supports my view...

View attachment 1224

...And so, apparently, there is a third option,

We will remain in disagreement about that.

Appears so.

 

[iwire]

I say the last sentence of 680.74 supports my view...

I would agee if we were discussing the 2008 NEC, but the subject of this thread is the 2005 NEC and those words are not in the 2005.

 

[Smart $]

I would agee if we were discussing the 2008 NEC, but the subject of this thread is the 2005 NEC and those words are not in the 2005.

Well, I drew the same conclusion even prior to the 2008 NEC. Granted, the words are not explicit in the 2005 NEC. That is why I said you have to consider the context of the article and section (and make a leap of faith in your case).

Chances are, I'll never run into an installation which falls under compliance with the 2005 edition. If you do, I advise you do not run a bonding jumper all the way to your kitchen or garage metal piping systems (unless that is where you install the tub :grin: ). Take this advice FWIW.

 

[sandsnow]

So as an instructor I have to condense all this into about a minute. This is a presentation to building officials. This is what I will tell them;

The bonding in the picture is not required where a double insulated pump motor is used. This is because a double insulated pump motor has no grounded metal parts in contact with the circulating water. The UL standard for pump motors requires this isolation. This was the intent of the Code Panel for the 2005 and is clarified by the 2008 NEC.

 

[raider1]

So as an instructor I have to condense all this into about a minute. This is a presentation to building officials. This is what I will tell them;

The bonding in the picture is not required where a double insulated pump motor is used. This is because a double insulated pump motor has no grounded metal parts in contact with the circulating water. The UL standard for pump motors requires this isolation. This was the intent of the Code Panel for the 2005 and is clarified by the 2008 NEC.

I agree with what you have stated. Either way you want read this section there would be no bonding required if the tub is supplied with a double insulated pump motor.

Chris

 

[iwire]

That is why I said you have to consider the context of the article and section (and make a leap of faith in your case).

Dude, it's legally binding document, there can be no leaps of faith on anyones part,. it says what it says even if what it says is not what it's supposed to say. :smile:

Chances are, I'll never run into an installation which falls under compliance with the 2005 edition.

And I will probably never wire a hydro-massage tub.

 

[Smart $]

Dude, it's legally binding document, there can be no leaps of faith on anyones part,. it says what it says even if what it says is not what it's supposed to say. :smile:

True, but even legally binding documents are subject to interpretation :wink:

You may even have a hard time finding two attorneys that will interpret exactly the same :grin:

 

[electricmanscott]

So as an instructor I have to condense all this into about a minute. This is a presentation to building officials.
.

Just print out this thread and let them decipher it. :wink:

 

[sandsnow]

Just print out this thread and let them decipher it. :wink:

That would save a lot of time.

BTW, put that new signature out there big and bold. I think it's hilarious

 

[George Stolz]

The last time this topic came up, I put up a FAQ on it mere minutes before Chris spoke up with his interpretation of the section, which differed from mine.

Both interpretations are valid, IMO, and the absolute lack of punctuation is the killer on this one. In the last argument, I couldn't come up with anything that told me what a sentence meant that had no commas, just where to put them to make my own sentences clearer.

IMO, the more lenient of interpretations should be chosen to enforce, as this half-hearted, limp-wristed, gimpy attempt at "equipotential bonding" is worthless anyway. Equipotential bonding around pools is a very detailed, concentrated effort, and most of the bases are covered in 680.26.

680.74 is a total waste of ink, IMO. It doesn't accomplish e-bonding, and as that ROP Bob pulled from 2005 pointed out, three years ago they said they weren't trying to do that anyway.

I intend to submit a proposal asking the CMP to either commit or delete it in the next cycle. Commit or delete is a less colorful phrase than the bathroom metaphor that always comes to mind for me when this comes up.
__________________

-George​

6th Year Journeyman: Residential and Commercial
Responses based on the 2005 NEC

Electricmanscott is a sick human being, and should be banned and replaced with a spambot. Preferably, one named Earl.

 

[elohr46]

Bob Is correct. I recently took an 4 hour code seminar on article 680 and that exact question came up during discussion. The instructor said that you do not have to bond to metal water piping in the basement if your hot tub/spa is located on the first or second floor. I will be attending a 2 hour code seminar on art. 680 given by Jeffery Sargent(NFPA) next week, I'll ask that question and report back with his answer.

 

[sandsnow]

Here's what the UL guide info for hydro tubs has:
Quote:
Double insulated pumps are not provided with a pressure wire connector for equipotential bonding.

http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/...n=versionless&parent_id=1073990091&sequence=1

 

[raider1]

680.74 is a total waste of ink, IMO.

I couldn't agree more.

I agree that this needs to be brought up in the 2011 code cycle.

Chris

 

[jwelectric]

680.74 Bonding.
All metal piping systems and all grounded metal parts

Just what is meant by "systems"?

Does it carry the same weight as in 250.104?

 

[jwelectric]

680.74 Bonding.
All metal piping systems and all grounded metal parts

Just what is meant by "systems"?

Does it carry the same weight as in 250.104?

Must have been a hard question as no one has answered!