GEC entering panel

Status
Not open for further replies.
jumper said:
Has anyone actually seen one of these doohickey clamps installed in a basic 200A service or such?

I haven't.
Click to expand...

Never. In my area it's done one of the four ways for residential services:

1) Bare GEC through 1/4" hole
2) Bare GEC through metal or plastic romex connector
3) GEC sleeved in 1/2" PVC with PVC terminated directly to meter with terminal adapater
4) GEC sleeved in 1/2" PVC with PVC butted to meter, GEC passes through 1/4" hole.
 
jwelectric said:
Could either of you explain 250.4(A)(1)

250.4(A) Grounded Systems.
(1) Electrical System Grounding. Electrical systems that are grounded shall be connected to earth in a manner that will limit the voltage imposed by LIGHTNING, line surges, or unintentional contact with higher-voltage lines and that will stabilize the voltage to earth during normal operation.
Click to expand...

Limit, not protect- that is key. As is the rod is more of a POCO thing as every rod is more of a benefit to their system then ours.
 
mbrooke said:
jwelectric said:
Could either of you explain 250.4(A)(1)

250.4(A) Grounded Systems.
(1) Electrical System Grounding. Electrical systems that are grounded shall be connected to earth in a manner that will limit the voltage imposed by LIGHTNING, line surges, or unintentional contact with higher-voltage lines and that will stabilize the voltage to earth during normal operation.
Click to expand...

Limit, not protect- that is key. As is the rod is more of a POCO thing as every rod is more of a benefit to their system then ours.
Click to expand...

I agree, Mike. "Limit" is a long way short of "protect." If, say, a lightning imposed voltage of 10,000 Volts arrives at my grounded Premises Wiring (System) and is pulled down to 8,000 Volts by the Grounding Electrode System, then 250.4(A)(1) IS MET, but the Premises is not "protected."
 
al hildenbrand said:
I agree, Mike. "Limit" is a long way short of "protect." If, say, a lightning imposed voltage of 10,000 Volts arrives at my grounded Premises Wiring (System) and is pulled down to 8,000 Volts by the Grounding Electrode System, then 250.4(A)(1) IS MET, but the Premises is not "protected."
Click to expand...
Such lightning event is always pulled down in voltage - eventually to a level that can no longer sustain the arc, then the event is over.
 
romex jockey said:
In fairness 312.5(C) examples apply to cables (not conductor) entering meters Roger
Click to expand...

That is a really weird pivot away from the topic of your own posting of the graphic showing bonding of a GEC to ferrous raceways / enclosures.

romex jockey said:
So for the sake of debate, let's use a simple resi meter , and say we've applied all 7 conditions of 312.5(C)

What we have is an OH ser ent cable entering w/o a bond, and traveling an entire 4" until it's bonded to the meter shell.
Click to expand...
Yes. By all means. Let's take this for the sake of debate. ALL 7 CONDITIONS ARE APPLIED. AND, I would add, also apply the Exception. The Exception is real interesting in that it allows your example of "simple overhead service entrance cable residential meter socket assembly" to have up to a ten foot (10') stick of steel conduit as a SLEEVE with NO BONDING to the Service Entrance Cable.

romex jockey said:
Knowing many strikes come via OH poco lines , do we not have a divided path for service conductors ? Or is it the 'earth return' that is important here?
Click to expand...

The net current in the Service Entrance Cable conductors, on the Line Side of the Main Bonding Jumper, is NOT zero. The net current is equal, and opposite to, the net current in the Grounding Electrode System. . . and 312.5(C) blesses that "unbalance" current in all that steel from the meter socket to the end of the sleeve, unbonded, other than the meter socket grounded service conductor terminal connection to the meter enclosure itself.
 
Hacky said:
...I have someone telling me that the GEC needs to be bonded as it enters a panel. Their substantiation is that the existence of the Kenny clamp proves that it is required for use when a GEC enters the panel. Also, they are using 250.64(E) as substantiation...
Click to expand...

I thinking more specifically about the OP's question:

WHEN did the first Kenny clamp (or other brand of similar device) first become available?

WHEN was that Code section adopted that is being used to claim Kenny clamps are required?
 
peter d said:
So I'm supposed to believe that 2 ground rods and #6 are going to limit this voltage? Are you serious? :huh::lol: Just because the NEC states something does not make it infallible. AFCI's are in the NEC, after all. ;)

Why does an entirely separate NFPA standard exist (as pointed out by mbrooke) for the design and install of LPS? Have you ever seen an installed LPS?
Click to expand...

Like I said I don't write the code I just copy and paste it in this type of debate. 250.4 only gives four reasons for the 8 screws used to connect to earth. I posted the section for benefit of the forum. Lightning is one of the reasons. The electrode is not for clearing faults and math can prove that with ohm's law.

Keep up the good work Romex Jockey
 
jwelectric said:
Like I said I don't write the code I just copy and paste it in this type of debate. 250.4 only gives four reasons for the 8 screws used to connect to earth. I posted the section for benefit of the forum. Lightning is one of the reasons. The electrode is not for clearing faults and math can prove that with ohm's law.

Keep up the good work Romex Jockey
Click to expand...


We will remain in disagreement and I'm not going to use "kenny clamps" or any similar device.

Romex Jockey is not doing good work, he is misinterpreting the code.
 
jwelectric said:
Like I said I don't write the code I just copy and paste it in this type of debate...
Click to expand...
What I find interesting is that we have multiple cases of manufactures ramming products into the code; AFCIs are the most glaring example, but we also have the in use cover, plus the new and improved heavy duty in use cover, oversized conductors on roof tops, larger than needed generators.... but some how Kenny can't get the same kind of code language that makes his clamp clearly required. Why is that?
 
peter d said:
We will remain in disagreement and I'm not going to use "kenny clamps" or any similar device.

Romex Jockey is not doing good work, he is misinterpreting the code.
Click to expand...

Do you think it is possible that someone else could be misinterpreting the code also?

Sometimes we get so involved in our thoughts we cannot see the forest for the trees. A #6 to two ground rods will not do much to dissipate a lightning strike but should that strike hit the high voltage lines just how many rods are involved on that grid?

If a single building receives a strike there is not much that is going to help but this does not change the purpose of the grounding electrode system as outlined in 250.4(A)(1)

Sometimes we get so wrapped up in old wives tales and Standard of Practices that we forget the reality of the truth. An example is the BOY and gray for 480/277. If gray is mandated for the grounded conductor throughout the 277 system we are in trouble with every light fixture that gets wired.

Romex Jockey is not the one who added the word enclosure to 250.64(E) and every panel and meter pan out there encloses the conductors contained inside therefore there is merit to what he is saying no matter the SOP done in the field :)
 
jwelectric said:
Sometimes we get so wrapped up in old wives tales and Standard of Practices that we forget the reality of the truth. An example is the BOY and gray for 480/277. If gray is mandated for the grounded conductor throughout the 277 system we are in trouble with every light fixture that gets wired.
Click to expand...


Isn't grey mandated when 120/208 is white and 277/480 also present?
 
jwelectric said:
Do you think it is possible that someone else could be misinterpreting the code also?

Sometimes we get so involved in our thoughts we cannot see the forest for the trees. A #6 to two ground rods will not do much to dissipate a lightning strike but should that strike hit the high voltage lines just how many rods are involved on that grid?

If a single building receives a strike there is not much that is going to help but this does not change the purpose of the grounding electrode system as outlined in 250.4(A)(1)

Sometimes we get so wrapped up in old wives tales and Standard of Practices that we forget the reality of the truth. An example is the BOY and gray for 480/277. If gray is mandated for the grounded conductor throughout the 277 system we are in trouble with every light fixture that gets wired.

Romex Jockey is not the one who added the word enclosure to 250.64(E) and every panel and meter pan out there encloses the conductors contained inside therefore there is merit to what he is saying no matter the SOP done in the field :)
Click to expand...

And the panel is bonded on entry/exit, whichever you prefer. Clearly in the illustration posted you can see where they bonded away from these entries/exits.
Are you saying this does not meet code?

What about the use of pvc where bonding the entry of a panel is then not required?

Please explain the difference, and enlighten us on what we supposedly are failing to understand?

Sent from my LG-K550 using Tapatalk
 
ActionDave said:
What I find interesting is that we have multiple cases of manufactures ramming products into the code; AFCIs are the most glaring example, but we also have the in use cover, plus the new and improved heavy duty in use cover, oversized conductors on roof tops, larger than needed generators.... but some how Kenny can't get the same kind of code language that makes his clamp clearly required. Why is that?
Click to expand...

I don't believe the NEC has ever published a sole manufacturers proprietory offerings Dave.

But the do seem to have 'back door' methods that could easily be viewed as collusive

When the very same folks occupying CMP's are NRTL's / CSPC /NEMA connected it's easy to ask who watches the watchers

Of all the bureaucrats out there, a small time EC like myself fears the litigant , the judicials . Those who would judge malfeasance being more likely to hear 'deeper pockets' than anything else.

So here's where i'll ask you use a little imagination......lightning, fire, insurance investigation, and off to court>>>>



"Mr Jockey, did you or did you not install a new electrical service for Joe Bag 'O Donuts."?


" Yes sir I did"

" Did you or did you not install a GEC for said install?"


" Yes sir I did"


" Did you or did you not install said GEC in accordance with 250.8, 250.64 E,
312.5A, and 300.15 ?"


"Uhmm, I thought i did....."

" Your honor, may i present exhibit A before the court"
{pix of GEC entering 1/4" hole}

{prosecutor faces jury}

"For want of a $3 part Mr Jockey's install clearly failed to mitigate the lightning strike Mr Donut incurred. Acme Insurance does not cover that which is obviously malfeasance our investigators have proven from their site visit.

Our stance is Mr Donuts claim with us is invalidated , and he will need to pursue restitution from Mr Jockey and or Mr Jockey's business

I rest my case your honor"
Click to expand...


~RJ~
 
As I read it, you claim running the GEC into the panel requires bonding upon entry along with terminating it inside the panel.

So again I ask, if the GEC is ran through pvc to the panel, is it not a compliant install to just terminate it on the ground bar?





Sent from my LG-K550 using Tapatalk
 
300.15 dictates how conductors enter enclosures.

When a conductor enters via raceway it is met

When a conductor enters on it's own outside of a raceway , it needs a connector (yes exceptions exist)

Meeting the entry code requirements of a GEC does not automatically address the bonding concerns

~RJ~
 
MAC702 said:
...GECs are sometimes sleeved in PVC. Even if using a non-ferrous locknut on the PVC connector, we STILL have the KO's steel around the PVC connector that is housing the GEC.

If a Kenny clamp is required for bonding this steel circle around a bare GEC, then bonding is still required even if a PVC connector is also there. Correct?
Click to expand...

Thanks, trentonmakes, for bringing back a question I asked a long time ago. I don't think we got the answer.

I'm also still waiting to hear about my questions about the picture showing the bonding in the middle of the enclosure and several inches away from the end of a ferrous sleeve.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top