grounding vs bonding

[electrofelon]

a quintessential question for this forum category........Say I have a piece of emt in between two pieces of sealtite (LFMC) Say that the sealtite is not an acceptable EGC due to the size/length/circuit OCPD per 250.118 so there is a wire EGC. Is this acceptable? What I am getting it is although we know the sealtite cant be the EGC, can it be the bond for the emt? How do we know? I see 250.96 but it doesnt get into what is an acceptable bonding path.

 

[kwired]

a quintessential question for this forum category........Say I have a piece of emt in between two pieces of sealtite (LFMC) Say that the sealtite is not an acceptable EGC due to the size/length/circuit OCPD per 250.118 so there is a wire EGC. Is this acceptable? What I am getting it is although we know the sealtite cant be the EGC, can it be the bond for the emt? How do we know? I see 250.96 but it doesnt get into what is an acceptable bonding path.

I kind of don't have a problem myself with allowing the flex to bond the sort of isolated raceway as you described.
But if you replaced that raceway in the middle with a metal box, cabinet, etc. it is pretty clear you would need to bond the EGC to that item.

How about something similar? Same LTFMC situation but a conduit body in the middle of a run?

 

[ActionDave]

a quintessential question for this forum category........Say I have a piece of emt in between two pieces of sealtite (LFMC) Say that the sealtite is not an acceptable EGC due to the size/length/circuit OCPD per 250.118 so there is a wire EGC. Is this acceptable? What I am getting it is although we know the sealtite cant be the EGC, can it be the bond for the emt? How do we know? I see 250.96 but it doesnt get into what is an acceptable bonding path.

Is the sheathing on MC any different than your set up? I say no. It's not not an EGC but it is required to be bonded.

250.96 doesn't come into play a all. It only concerns using metal as an EGC instead of wire.

 

[electrofelon]

Is the sheathing on MC any different than your set up? I say no. It's not not an EGC but it is required to be bonded.

I thought about MC where the sheath is not an EGC but is obviously acceptable to bond itself

250.96 doesn't come into play a all. It only concerns using metal as an EGC instead of wire.

but isnt that what we are doing in my example with the LFMC?

So where are the requirements different? Take Kwired's example of a pull box between the LFMC. Need bonding to the wire egc or no?

 

[ActionDave]

So where are the requirements different? Take Kwired's example of a pull box between the LFMC. Need bonding to the wire egc or no?

The difference is your flex/emt arrangement is not an Equipment Grounding Conductor, the wire pulled through it is.

This is one of the reasons I hate the idea of tossing in the word Bonding all around art. 250. It makes the simple idea of making sure there is a way to clear a fault more confusing than it has to be.