Ground rod jumper?

[LarryFine]

(To?) the grounded service conductor !

I know about the other end. I wasn't sure if I should say 'connected' or 'connected to' is all I meant.

 

[Jaybone812]

That is not a violation. That is explicitly what 250.54 allows.




Unless it's an auxiliary electrode which 250.54 explicitly says does not have to meet the requirements of 250.50.




See previous response.

I’m aware of that that’s not my argument. Did you read the entire discussion. He’s trying to say that he can choose not to bond a grounding electrode described in 250.52(a)(1-7) that is present at the building, to the other grounding electrodes present , so that the available electrode permitted for grounding is not tied into the buildings GES because he wants to use it as a auxiliary grounding electrode . And that violates 250.50 which says all available electrodes described in 250.52(a)(1-7) that are present (available) at the building shall be bonded together to form the GES. If it qualifies as a grounding electrode it must be bonded to the other available electrodes permitted for grounding and to be a part of the GES . He can’t choose not to bond an available electrode that must a part of the GES so he can use it as an auxiliary grounding electrode. Conductors that connect to available grounding electrodes listed in 250.52 must connect to the grounded service conductor to form the GES


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jaggedben]

Yes I did read the whole discussion and it was originally myself who raised the question. (See post #18.) You are not addressing the points.

How can 250.54 permit an auxillary electrode to not follow 250.50 if all electrodes must follow 250.50?
Where does the code limit which types of electrodes can be used as auxillary electrodes?

 

[infinity]

Yes I did read the whole discussion and it was originally myself who raised the question. (See post #18.) You are not addressing the points.

How can 250.54 permit an auxillary electrode to not follow 250.50 if all electrodes must follow 250.50?
Where does the code limit which types of electrodes can be used as auxillary electrodes?

That's it in a nut shell. If you install rods for an auxiliary electrode they are present which makes them no different than a CEE that is present.

 

[Jaybone812]

Yes I did read the whole discussion and it was originally myself who raised the question. (See post #18.) You are not addressing the points.

How can 250.54 permit an auxillary electrode to not follow 250.50 if all electrodes must follow 250.50?
Where does the code limit which types of electrodes can be used as auxillary electrodes?

Maybe I’m saying this wrong. His argument is to this effect . If there is a cold water pipe electrode permitted for grounding present in the building he can choose not to tie that available and present water pipe electrode into the building’s grounding electrode system if he feels like it and instead use it as a auxiliary grounding electrode : my argument is not that certain electrodes are not permitted to be used as a auxiliary grounding electrode, my argument is that by not bonding the available /present water pipe electrode or available /present CEE into the buildings GES then you violate 250.50 .
250.50. Says if there’s grounding electrodes described in 250.52(a)(1-7) are present they must be part of the buildings GES . Has nothing to do not being allowed to be an auxiliary electrode. 250.50 says if the grounding electrode is present it must be a part of the GES


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[infinity]

250.50. Says if there’s grounding electrodes described in 250.52(a)(1-7) are present they must be part of the buildings GES . Has nothing to do not being allowed to be an auxiliary electrode. 250.50 says if the grounding electrode is present it must be a part of the GES

So then an auxillary electrode of any type that is present must be used also as part of the GES?

 

[Jaybone812]

That's it in a nut shell. If you install rods for an auxiliary electrode they are present which makes them no different than a CEE that is present.

The rods aren’t present until you install them dude and they only need to be there to supplement other electrodes or if there aren’t any other grounding electrodes present . The metal underground water pipe , CEE, metal in ground support structures are all present for us we don’t need to install those grounding electrodes there already there , and if they aren’t then we install rods and why do we install them because they aren’t already there for us to connect to . I’m not saying you’re violating any requirements for an auxiliary grounding electrode because you’re not . You’re violating 250.50 by leaving the electrode permitted for grounding that is present and available for you to connect to out of the GES and instead using it as a auxiliary electrode for a piece of equipment


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jaybone812]

So then an auxillary electrode of any type that is present must be used also as part of the GES?

An auxiliary grounding electrode is not even a thing until you install it . If an electrode permitted for grounding is present while your form the GES for the building that grounding electrode must be a part of the building GES . It literally says that word for word in 250.50


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[infinity]

If an electrode permitted for grounding is present while your form the GES for the building that grounding electrode must be a part of the building GES

There is no wording in the NEC to support this. It merely says electrodes that are present must be part of the GES unless they're an auxillary electrode.

 

[Jaybone812]

There is no wording in the NEC to support this. It merely says electrodes that are present must be part of the GES unless they're an auxillary electrode.

Show me where it says unless they are auxiliary electrodes ? 250.50 supports my argument. If grounding electrodes described by 250.52(a)(1-7) are present they must be part of the GES , the words “unless they are auxiliary electrodes “ do not exist in the code rule
Show me where it says they must be part of the GES unless they’re an auxiliary electrode ? This screen shot of 250.50 from nfpa link supports my statements since your argument is based on wording that does not exist in the nec


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jaggedben]

Your interpretation is basically that only electrodes that don't meet the requirements for NEC electrodes (e.g. an unlisted 6ft rod) can be used as auxiliary electrodes. That's an interpretation I've never heard before and I think would strike many as absurd. Go back and watch Mike Holt video I posted earlier where he explains that 250.54 was put in the code to head off conflict between the code and manufacturer instructions that require a grounding electrode for equipment. If the manufacturer instructions require an electrode that meets NEC requirements (or if some dirt worshipping engineer puts one in a job spec for a subpanel), then my understanding is that 250.54 is intended to apply regardless of the characteristics of the electrode.

I'll stick with I can attach any electrode to an EGC by itself because 250.54 plainly says so. That's the whole point of that section. 250.54 explicitly exempts from 250.50 in a way that 250.50 does not explicitly include the electrodes in 250.54.

It's also worth taking a look at 250.60, which is another example of electrodes that aren't considered to be covered by 250.50.

 

[Jaybone812]

Your interpretation is basically that only electrodes that don't meet the requirements for NEC electrodes (e.g. an unlisted 6ft rod) can be used as auxiliary electrodes. That's an interpretation I've never heard before and I think would strike many as absurd. Go back and watch Mike Holt video I posted earlier where he explains that 250.54 was put in the code to head off conflict between the code and manufacturer instructions that require a grounding electrode for equipment. If the manufacturer instructions require an electrode that meets NEC requirements (or if some dirt worshipping engineer puts one in a job spec for a subpanel), then my understanding is that 250.54 is intended to apply regardless of the characteristics of the electrode.

I'll stick with I can attach any electrode to an EGC by itself because 250.54 plainly says so. That's the whole point of that section. 250.54 explicitly exempts from 250.50 in a way that 250.50 does not explicitly include the electrodes in 250.54.

It's also worth taking a look at 250.60, which is another example of electrodes that aren't considered to be covered by 250.50.

That’s not my interpretation at all . 250.50 specifically says all grounding electrodes described in 250.52(a)(1-7) that are present at a structure shall be bonded together forming the GES for the building . (A(1-3) is metal underground water pipe , metal in ground support structures, and CEE, ) then says if none of those electrodes exist one or more of the grounding electrodes specified in A(4-8) shall be installed and used. A(4-8) are Ground ring , rod and pipe electrodes , other listed electrodes, and plate electrodes, and other metal underground systems . We cant install A(1-3) so if any one of those 3 are present they they must be part of the GES, 1-3 have to be part of the GES and only the GES if they are present, uou can not use a metal underground water pipe electrode as a auxiliary electrode because we cant install it and if its present it must be part of the GES same thing does for a CEE and the metal in ground support structures . Any one of the grounding electrodes specified in 250.52(A)(4-8) could be used as either the GES or auxiliary electrode or both . You can have a metal underground water pipe electrode , supplemented by rod type electrode to make up your GES and your gec and or bonding jumpers connect to the grounded service conductor, then you can have a non separately derived system generator and can use another ground rod as a auxiliary grounding electrode that connects to the equipment . But does not tie into the GES . My whole point has been and maybe I’ve worded it incorrectly . If any of the electrodes describe by 250.52(A)(1-3) are present at at building those 3 specific grounding electrodes must be part of the buildings GES when available . You can any of those as auxiliary grounding electrodes because we cant install install any of those 3 types of electrodes . Any of the electrodes specified by 250.52(A)4-8 could be part of the GES and/or used as a auxiliary grounding electrode but say you have a set of ground rods as part of your GES then a seperate ground rod for an auxiliary electrode the connections must remain seperate . Hopefully that’s a better explainstion .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jaggedben]

Sorry but you're being completely illogical. If your reasoning was that 250.50 requires "all grounding electrodes described in 250.52(a)(1-7) that are present at a structure shall be bonded together forming the GES" regardless of 250.54 then you can't just decide willy-nilly that they only meant (1-3) and not (1-7). The only reason the code doesn't require (1-3) to be installed if none are present is that it would be outside of the scope of the electrical code to require a structure to have water service or a concrete or steel foundation. And it is incorrect that you *can't* install (1-3), only that they will not require any if those if the structure doesn't otherwise need them. (It's really an unnecessary distinction, but it's also actually inconsequential.) There is nothing about that distinction that allows you to logically infer that some can be auxiliary electrodes and others can't. If you don't think that following 250.54 (or 250.60) exempts an electrode from 250.50's 'bonded together' requirement, then the only thing that would let an electrode be exempt would be if it wasn't an electrode described in 250.52(A)(1-7).

 

[Jaybone812]

Sorry but you're being completely illogical. If your reasoning was that 250.50 requires "all grounding electrodes described in 250.52(a)(1-7) that are present at a structure shall be bonded together forming the GES" regardless of 250.54 then you can't just decide willy-nilly that they only meant (1-3) and not (1-7). The only reason the code doesn't require (1-3) to be installed if none are present is that it would be outside of the scope of the electrical code to require a structure to have water service or a concrete or steel foundation. And it is incorrect that you *can't* install (1-3), only that they will not require any if those if the structure doesn't otherwise need them. (It's really an unnecessary distinction, but it's also actually inconsequential.) There is nothing about that distinction that allows you to logically infer that some can be auxiliary electrodes and others can't. If you don't think that following 250.54 (or 250.60) exempts an electrode from 250.50's 'bonded together' requirement, then the only thing that would let an electrode be exempt would be if it wasn't an electrode described in 250.52(A)(1-7).

So tell me how you can have can use and metal underground water pipe electrode that is present for anything thing other than a grounding electrode , tell me how you can use a CEE if present for anything other than a grounding electrode. The only way you could use a CEE for an auxiliary electrode is if there are multiple cee’s in a building because 250.52(a)(3) only permits one to be bonded to the GES, same with metal in ground support structures from 250.52(a)(2) , if only one is present it must be bonded into the GES , if there are multiple present one must be part of the GES the other can be a auxiliary grounding electrode .
This entire argument started because there was a comment made that a if a true CEE is present at a building , if you want to use it for an auxiliary grounding electrode instead of a grounding electrode you can . And that’s not true at all . If a CEE is present is must be bonded into the GES . If there’s multiple CEE only one is permitted one could be an auxiliary electrode but one of them must be bonded to the GES . .if there’s only one present it can’t be a auxiliary electrode


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[roger]

Did you read the entire discussion.

Did you?

 

[roger]

If it’s not present already why would you ever go through the trouble of cutting into the foundation to connect to a piece of rebar . Why wouldn’t you just drop a rod

Could be in the case of adding a machine to an existing facility. In a plastic manufacturing plant we worked at a new machine probably 50' to 60' in length was moved from another plant, it involved removing the slab and pouring a new one 12" in depth full of rebar. As far as I can remember it did not require an auxiliary ground but shows why a CEE may be installed at a later time.

 

[jaggedben]

So tell me how you can have can use and metal underground water pipe electrode that is present for anything thing other than a grounding electrode , tell me how you can use a CEE if present for anything other than a grounding electrode.

An auxiliary grounding electrode is still a grounding electrode. My position is that if I connect it to an EGC then I can call it an auxiliary electrode.

Water piping is a special case because 250.104 has additional more stringent requirements for bonding water piping. However if the metal water pipe was just in the ground transitioned to all plastic on entering the building, I would probably say the underground water pipe could be an auxiliary electrode.

The only way you could use a CEE for an auxiliary electrode is if there are multiple cee’s in a building because 250.52(a)(3) only permits one to be bonded to the GES, same with metal in ground support structures from 250.52(a)(2) , if only one is present it must be bonded into the GES , if there are multiple present one must be part of the GES the other can be a auxiliary grounding electrode .

The code simply doesn't say any of that. It says nothing about only using one electrode for the GES when there are multiples of the same type of electrode present.

This entire argument started because there was a comment made that a if a true CEE is present at a building , if you want to use it for an auxiliary grounding electrode instead of a grounding electrode you can . And that’s not true at all . If a CEE is present is must be bonded into the GES .

If any electrode in 250.52(A)(1)-(7) can be used as an auxiliary then a CEE can, because the code doesn't say which electrodes can and can't be used as auxiliary.

If there’s multiple CEE only one is permitted one could be an auxiliary electrode but one of them must be bonded to the GES . .if there’s only one present it can’t be a auxiliary electrode

The code doesn't say that.

 

[Eddie702]

To me it makes sense to run it continuous. I just run it straight through the first acorn if possible. But then making sense has nothing to do with the NEC.

 

[infinity]

To me it makes sense to run it continuous. I just run it straight through the first acorn if possible. But then making sense has nothing to do with the NEC.

I would run it through also but only to save a acorn clamp not becuase it's required to do so.