grounding conductor electrode connections

Status
Not open for further replies.
Right with out splice. So back to what was said just before? If 250.53 (C) is being used for the bases of the splicing or not of bonding jumpers and says it shall be installed as said before by 250.64(A) (B) and (E) and shall be connected in a manner specified in 250.70 which is worded in so many words or less from electrode to electrode. Again where does that section speak of splices? It just isnt mentioned. Nor is an exception listed in the connection
(250.70)
 
rasmithircgov said:
Right with out splice. So back to what was said just before? If 250.53 (C) is being used for the bases of the splicing or not of bonding jumpers and says it shall be installed as said before by 250.64(A) (B) and (E) and shall be connected in a manner specified in 250.70 which is worded in so many words or less from electrode to electrode. Again where does that section speak of splices? It just isnt mentioned. Nor is an exception listed in the connection
(250.70)
Click to expand...

250.53(C) does not prohibit splices in the bonding jumpers connecting electrodes. Therefore if it is not prohibited by the section then it is permissible. If the intent of the code making panel was to prohibit splices in the bonding jumpers of the grounding electrodes they would have included 250.64(C) in the list of requirements for installation of the bonding jumper laid out in section 250.53(C).

I agree with Iwire, you can have multiple connections between electrodes, such as a connection from a ground rod to a water pipe then on to the CEE, so why is a splice in a bonding jumper so bad?

Chris
 
We are just going around in circles.

Bottom line is what Chris pointed out already.

Section 250.64(C) is not one of the sections that is mentioned in 250.53(C) so you don't have to follow that section for a bonding jumper.
Click to expand...

I do not see how there can be any doubt that bonding jumpers can be spliced.
 
Ok so If 250.53 (C) was used as a bases and/or defence for splicing or not, and in that art refers to 250.70. Right? So for the foundation of debate this art 250.53 (C) was being used in its intirity which included 250.70.

Now if you read 250.70 it uses the wording....... shall be connected to the gounding electrode,.............. ground clamps shall be listed for the materials of the grounding electrode,........... not more then one conductor shall be connected to the grounding electrode by a single clamp.

Now just because it doesnt mention you cant splice you can. How can the bases be the connection of bonding jumpers with references to other Art and disreguard the last art in reference, which states clearly in wording listed clamp. exothermic welding etc, etc... all being connections to electrodes and not one mention of splicing. So if not mentioned then not being mention gives approval. I dont see it. Not in the base refered to article nor the one in which it leads us to for its connection. I guess Im along here.
well thats just my opinion. Im just trying to use the code against itself to defend itself and I believe it does. I believe it is very clear.
Thanks for your time.
 
If what you say where true there would have been no reason at all for 250.53(C) to exist.

I will not agree to disagree here, your interpretation is mistaken.
 
rasmithircgov said:
Now if you read 250.70 it uses the wording....... not more then one conductor shall be connected to the grounding electrode by a single clamp.
Click to expand...
I am not sure what is going on here but it seems to be a terminology issue. The article read not more than one conductor to the grounding electrode BY A SINGLE CLAMP. That does not preclude a second clamp being hooked to the grounding electrode and continuing on. If you can accept this then you must accept that it can be splice because you are splicing the conductor when you put that second clamp on. No one is advocating cutting the bonding jumper and putting split bolts on it but rather that the bonding conductors are being spliced through the different clamps as shown in the diagram in an earlier post.
 
It exists with exceptions. I just believe that the code is asking for that conductor to be just that a conductor, complete in nature and allows for this conductor to be welded so that the integrity can be up held to its ump degree. Making sure that it runs from piont to piont being connected with approved fittings at each end to approved electrodes. I will agree to disagree also. The code is a minimum correct, the min is just a continuous piece of wire connected from electrode to electrode unbroken and if broken repaired to "Form a grounding electrode system",( 250.53(C)), and "be made in a manner that that will ensure a permanant and effective grounding path" (250.68, 250.68 (B), 250.70)
 
Dennis Alwon said:
I am not sure what is going on here but it seems to be a terminology issue. The article read not more than one conductor to the grounding electrode BY A SINGLE CLAMP. That does not preclude a second clamp being hooked to the grounding electrode and continuing on. If you can accept this then you must accept that it can be splice because you are splicing the conductor when you put that second clamp on. No one is advocating cutting the bonding jumper and putting split bolts on it but rather that the bonding conductors are being spliced through the different clamps as shown in the diagram in an earlier post.
Click to expand...

You are not splicing the conductor and thats my piont. The conductor is contiuous from electrode to electrode. Thats what Ive been trying to say all along. Sure it is connected numerous times from electrode to electrode. Yes. But the wire the conductor itself isnt spliced. The conductor isnt being spliced it is a whole conductor without splice. unbroken if you will from electrode to electrode.
 
rasmithircgov said:
It exists with exceptions. I just believe that the code is asking for that conductor to be just that a conductor, complete in nature and allows for this conductor to be welded so that the integrity can be up held to its ump degree.
Click to expand...

There are no NEC sections that support that train of thought.
 
You are not splicing the conductor and thats my piont. The conductor is contiuous from electrode to electrode. Thats what Ive been trying to say all along. Sure it is connected numerous times from electrode to electrode. Yes. But the wire the conductor itself isnt spliced. The conductor isnt being spliced it is a whole conductor without splice. unbroken if you will from electrode to electrode.
Click to expand...

I agree with Iwire, there is no code section in the NEC that requires the bonding jumper between electrodes to be continious without a splice.

Chris
 
raider1 said:
I agree with Iwire, there is no code section in the NEC that requires the bonding jumper between electrodes to be continious without a splice.

Chris
Click to expand...


I agree too. For the GEC it's spelled out in black and white. For splicing the bonding jumper(s) the code is silent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top