jumper
Senior Member
- Location
- 3 Hr 2 Min from Winged Horses
So, what did the inspector say? Inquiring minds wanna know.Let's not do that and continue the fun
For Our Inspectors...
- Thread starter 1793
- Start date
- Status
- Occupation
- wire pulling grunt
:? I thought we were talking about connecting the inter-system bonding grid to a piece of #6 going to a ground rod instead of directly to the service enclosure.
Is the question under discussion about hooking the inter-system bonding device right, smack on the ground rod?
Is the question under discussion about hooking the inter-system bonding device right, smack on the ground rod?
jumper
Senior Member
- Location
- 3 Hr 2 Min from Winged Horses
This is correct, the problem is that the #6 is not the GEC. The rod in question does have the GEC attached though.
texie
Senior Member
- Location
- Fort Collins, Colorado
- Occupation
- Electrician, Contractor, Inspector
Yes, that was my comment in post #2.
- Occupation
- wire pulling grunt
Ok, went back and read over the posts.
So we have a #6 GEC from the main down to a ground rod, then we have a second #6 coming back up from the ground rod and the inter-system terminal is attached. Am I right?
So we have a #6 GEC from the main down to a ground rod, then we have a second #6 coming back up from the ground rod and the inter-system terminal is attached. Am I right?
jumper
Senior Member
- Location
- 3 Hr 2 Min from Winged Horses
Yep.
- Location
- Massachusetts
maybe if the connection to the rod is irreversible
texie
Senior Member
- Location
- Fort Collins, Colorado
- Occupation
- Electrician, Contractor, Inspector
I think your way definitely meets 250.94(4). I think iwire was saying if it is a seperate clamp then maybe irreversible connection to the rod would be OK.
- Location
- Massachusetts
I just misunderstood what he was describing.
I thought he was being cute and trying to call the rod itself a 'GEC'.
1793
Senior Member
- Location
- Louisville, Kentucky
Passed with no problem. Nothing more said about it.
Yes
Yes that is the setup
Yes. The ground rod was existing to a Service. I upgraded the Service but did not have to touch the original GEC from the GR to the main panel, indoors. There was no slack on the original GEC so I added a 2nd clamp on the GR and ran my #6 to the IBT just under the Meter
I have done that in the past but would not work for this situation.
Who did you think was calling the rod itself a GEC?I just misunderstood what he was describing.
I thought he was being cute and trying to call the rod itself a 'GEC'.
- Occupation
- wire pulling grunt
Glad it passed. While I misread your OP, I still agree that the install is ok. Is a acorn clamp inferior to a split bolt seems to be the only issue left to debate.
- Location
- Massachusetts
The install as it was done is a code violation regardless of it passing or working fine.
K8MHZ
Senior Member
K8MHZ
Senior Member
I have to agree with Bob. We use bonding bars connected to the gec like the pic of the one above. No fuss, no muss.
1793
Senior Member
- Location
- Louisville, Kentucky
Thanks for the input, next time I'll make sure I connect the IBT correctly :happyyes:
The device I used was like the one pictured. The problem, the GEC is too low and there was not enough room to connect the IBT and attach it to the House.
K8MHZ
Senior Member
OK, now I understand why you did what you did. We may be running into a similar situation. Upgrade a panel in the basement that has underground feed. The top of the panel will be lower than the top of the ground rods.
Fortunately, the inspectors here actually use common sense and work with us in situations like this.
Now, here is my question. If you make the conductor long enough to go a few feet farther than the last electrode, is that last few feet still a GEC?
- Location
- Massachusetts
Just to be clear I think what you did is perfectly safe and meets the intent of the code it just does not meet the actual words in the code.
- Status