GEC entering panel

[peter d]

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

In this case, no, I do not believe that at all.

 

[peter d]

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>>>>






~RJ~

Steve, please stop insisting that using a bonding device is going to mitigate lightning damage. You're embarrassing yourself at this point when you continue to ignore the requirement for a genuine LPS.

 

[mbrooke]

Steve, please stop insisting that using a bonding device is going to mitigate lightning damage. You're embarrassing yourself at this point when you continue to ignore the requirement for a genuine LPS.

You do know that in many parts of the world they ditch grounding electrodes altogether for a structure? Just bonding of the gas, water and concrete if present.

 

[peter d]

You do know that in many parts of the world they ditch grounding electrodes altogether for a structure? Just bonding of the gas, water and concrete if present.

Yes, I am aware. But for some reason we are stuck with grounding voodoo here in the USA. :rant:

 

[mbrooke]

Yes, I am aware. But for some reason we are stuck with grounding voodoo here in the USA. :rant:

$$$$$$$


:rant::rant:

 

[jumper]

Isn't grey mandated when 120/208 is white and 277/480 also present?

No.

 

[mbrooke]

No.

Then how do you keep track of two separate systems?

 

[peter d]

Then how do you keep track of two separate systems?

By using grey. :thumbsup::lol:

 

[peter d]

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~

So your position is that PVC sleeve for the GEC cannot terminate into an enclosure because the bonding requirement is not met.

That is absolutely ludicrous and is not supported by any NEC rules.

 

[mbrooke]

By using grey. :thumbsup::lol:

I need a quote from the code. The one that says systems of different voltage in the same conduit need to be distinctly colored from one another.

 

[peter d]

I need a quote from the code. The one that says systems of different voltage in the same conduit need to be distinctly colored from one another.

I don't have it off the top of my head but it exists. Now in reality you can use whatever colors you want but practically BRBW and BOYG is used. But if you wanted to be different you could use Pink, Purple and Red for 120/208 and Black, Yellow and Blue for 277/480 if you so desired, as long as it was marked and kept consistent throughout the building.

 

[mbrooke]

I don't have it off the top of my head but it exists. Now in reality you can use whatever colors you want but practically BRBW and BOYG is used. But if you wanted to be different you could use Pink, Purple and Red for 120/208 and Black, Yellow and Blue for 277/480 if you so desired, as long as it was marked and kept consistent throughout the building.

But does it apply to the noodle? Meaning if I have a white for 120/208, does the noodle of 277/480 need a different color?

 

[peter d]

But does it apply to the noodle? Meaning if I have a white for 120/208, does the noodle of 277/480 need a different color?

Yes, according to 200.6 (A) only grey and white are permissible colors, so if one is used for one system, you are left with the remaining color choice of the other.

 

[mbrooke]

Yes, according to 200.6 (A) only grey and white are permissible colors, so if one is used for one system, you are left with the remaining color choice of the other.

Thanks-Yup- so grey would indeed be mandated as a neutral. So technically white fixture wire is illegal :blink:

 

[jumper]

Thanks-Yup- so grey would indeed be mandated as a neutral. So technically white fixture wire is illegal :blink:

No grey is not mandated. Identification is mandated.

Read 200.6.

Grey is but one method.

 

[macmikeman]

You can close this thread now. I just read a post over at another site from a representative of Milbank Inc that the small 1/4" hole at the bottom of their meter enclosure's is for GEC entry. Not a water drain. No Kenny Clamp required.

 

[al hildenbrand]

How one quantifies Mother nature escapes me Kwired.

If there is a 780 EE in the forum perhaps some insight could be gained?

In my opinion, the code requires us to mitigate the possibility of any choke effect via parallel path installs, simply because we are not qualified to 'do the math'

~RJ~

In fairness 312.5(C) examples apply to cables (not conductor) entering meters Roger

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.

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?

~RJ~

Romex Jockey, your opinion, above, seems to have no exception when it comes to lightning.

How do you "require" the "parallel path install" for a residential overhead service drop to a Rigid Metallic Conduit (RMC) mast?

The open wiring of the service drop transitions through a weatherhead into service entrance conductors inside a ferrous raceway. . . What fitting do you require at, or near, the weatherhead for the lightning surge arriving on all the conductors of the overhead service drop to mitigate "any" choke effect from the ferrous RMC mast?

 

[peter d]

This just in from Milbank:

From the engineering department: "We have corner notches in the bottoms to drain water. The 1/4" KO is for the grounding wire."

:thumbsup:

 

[peter d]

Romex Jockey, your opinion, above, seems to have no exception when it comes to lightning.

How do you "require" the "parallel path install" for a residential overhead service drop to a Rigid Metallic Conduit (RMC) mast?

The open wiring of the service drop transitions through a weatherhead into service entrance conductors inside a ferrous raceway. . . What fitting do you require at, or near, the weatherhead for the lightning surge arriving on all the conductors of the overhead service drop to mitigate "any" choke effect from the ferrous RMC mast?

Good point Al. But I consider it all moot since the NEC does not address these concerns including the one you just raised. That is why I'm adamant about use of the 1/4" KO for the GEC.

 

[mbrooke]

This just in from Milbank:



:thumbsup:

Just don't tell anyone its called a weep hole


But yahhh- I have no issue with a ground wire going through that and I have no doubt thats what Millbank intends.