Grounding Conductor

Status
Not open for further replies.
They also sway the jury with such questions as “to cut costs and not increase safety, you didn’t install a ground wire?” All the jury will hear, right or wrong, you cut corners for profit instead of safety relying only on the continuity of the tubing.
 
hillbilly1 said:
They also sway the jury with such questions as “to cut costs and not increase safety, you didn’t install a ground wire?” All the jury will hear, right or wrong, you cut corners for profit instead of safety relying only on the continuity of the tubing.
Click to expand...
Seems like a simple reference to 250.118 would take care of that. Besides, I worry about getting sued like...well not at all.
 
Facts don’t matter in court anymore, only “feelings” if the lawyers can make the jury use feelings instead of logic and law, they win. You just have to get it to the correct jurisdiction. They say if you are suing a corporation, Alabama is the best place to do it in.
 
hillbilly1 said:
They also sway the jury with such questions as “to cut costs and not increase safety, you didn’t install a ground wire?” All the jury will hear, right or wrong, you cut corners for profit instead of safety relying only on the continuity of the tubing.
Click to expand...
"That is not correct!"
 
infinity said:
I think that it's referenced here:
Click to expand...
Mr Ryan Jackson (post#60 video) seems to be taking his software directly from the Steel Tube institute
GEMI, which can be found on their site>>>


Being Mr J is MH's editor, i sense this may be an offering in the future

I don't see 250.109 being addressed , and i can imagine testing every enclosure on the market a sisyphean event.

before 250.109, where we suppose to bond across them all?

~RJ~
 
Unfuzz me, is there anything in Chp 9 (like Table 9,chp9) that would give us the R per ft for steel/al conduit, so we can do the math ourselves?


~S~
 
romex jockey said:
Unfuzz me, is there anything in Chp 9 (like Table 9,chp9) that would give us the R per ft for steel/al conduit, so we can do the math ourselves?


~S~
Click to expand...
The fact that art 250 allows use of metal raceways for equipment grounding with pretty much no limitations (other than flexible conduits) probably means it has already been determined there is no reason to include such information, it will have less impedance than any conductor you might pull through it as an EGC.
 
kwired said:
The fact that art 250 allows use of metal raceways for equipment grounding with pretty much no limitations (other than flexible conduits) probably means it has already been determined there is no reason to include such information, it will have less impedance than any conductor you might pull through it as an EGC.
Click to expand...
I would say it meets minimum requirements as the reason, remember, code is a minimum standard. Copper is a much better conductor than steel, but steel is sufficient according to code. At long distances, I can see the advantages of steel, because it is not insulated, and if fastened to conductive surfaces, it will have parallel return paths.
 
hillbilly1 said:
I would say it meets minimum requirements as the reason, remember, code is a minimum standard. Copper is a much better conductor than steel, but steel is sufficient according to code. At long distances, I can see the advantages of steel, because it is not insulated, and if fastened to conductive surfaces, it will have parallel return paths.
Click to expand...
Also remember it only has to carry current long enough to allow operation of overcurrent protection. If it were carrying a continuous load things might be different. Most general use applications it is more than sufficient. If you have special needs you are welcome to go beyond code minimums. If you pull a wire type EGC it is still going to be in parallel with the raceway as well as any other conductive surfaces that may be in intimate contact with bonded items.
 
kwired said:
Also remember it only has to carry current long enough to allow operation of overcurrent protection. If it were carrying a continuous load things might be different. Most general use applications it is more than sufficient. If you have special needs you are welcome to go beyond code minimums. If you pull a wire type EGC it is still going to be in parallel with the raceway as well as any other conductive surfaces that may be in intimate contact with bonded items.
Click to expand...
Redundant ground is not a bad thing. I have seen way too many loose locknuts, and equipment and even racking energized because of it.
 
hillbilly1 said:
Interesting, in your area, they can tighten set screw connectors, but can’t install wire nuts?
Click to expand...
Installing a wire nut correctly is much more difficult than tightening a setscrew or locknut. Think about a bundle of say 5 wires with a mix of solid and stranded. ITs really not a trivial task. Being experienced, we often forget how difficult it is. Watch a newby try it and you wil probably think differently.
 
kwired said:
The fact that art 250 allows use of metal raceways for equipment grounding with pretty much no limitations (other than flexible conduits) probably means it has already been determined there is no reason to include such information, it will have less impedance than any conductor you might pull through it as an EGC.
Click to expand...

so how would we then deal with this kwired>>>>?

250.4A(5) Effective Ground-Fault Current Path. Electrical equip‐
ment and wiring and other electrically conductive material
likely to become energized shall be installed in a manner that
creates a low-impedance circuit facilitating the operation of the
overcurrent device or ground detector for high-impedance
grounded systems. It shall be capable of safely carrying the
maximum ground-fault current likely to be imposed on it from
any point on the wiring system where a ground fault may occur
to the electrical supply source. The earth shall not be consid‐
ered as an effective ground-fault current path

~RJ~
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top