Help me change 680.74

[ryan_618]

I will be submitting (2) changes to article 680.74 for the next cycle and would like your thoughts/opinions on my proposals.

(1) Remove the first sentance of 680.74 and replace it with the following (change in bold) All metal piping systems, metal parts of electrical equipment, and pump motors associated with the hydromassage tub shall be bonded together with a solid bonding jumper , insulated, covered or bare, not smaller than #8 AWG.

Substantiation to #1: If the intent of the code is that a solid conductor is to be used, the existing code text is not enforcible. To state that the bonding jumper is to be not smaller than #8 AWG solid would permit a stranded conductor larger than #8 AWG to be used.

(2) Remove the first sentance of 680.74 and replace it with the following (change in bold) All metal piping systems, metal parts of electrical equipment, and pump motors associated with the hydromassage tub shall be bonded together with a bonding jumper, insulated, covered or bare, not smaller than #8 AWG.

Substantiation to #2: If the intent of the code is that a stranded conductor may be used, there is no reason to include the word "solid" in this article.

[ October 13, 2003, 07:25 PM: Message edited by: ryan_618 ]

 

[bennie]

Re: Help me change 680.74

Ryan: Think; Not smaller than No.#8 solid. No.#8 stranded is not smaller than No.#8 solid.

If this was phrased; a solid conductor, not smaller than a No.#8, shall be used. Then it's a new deal.

Not a thing wrong with the syntax

 

[websparky]

Re: Help me change 680.74

All metal piping systems, metal parts of electrical equipment, and pump motors associated with the hydromassage tub shall be bonded together using a solid copper bonding jumper, insulated, covered, or bare, not smaller than 8 AWG (delete solid from here).Metal parts of listed equipment incorporating an approved system of double insulation and providing a means for grounding internal nonaccessible, non?current-carrying metal parts shall not be bonded.

Hi Ryan,
I think if the word solid was placed here, it would be referring to the copper bonding jumper being solid.

 

[ryan_618]

Re: Help me change 680.74

Originally posted by bennie:
Ryan: Think; Not smaller than No.#8 solid. No.#8 stranded is not smaller than No.#8 solid.

So why have the word "solid" than?

 

[bennie]

Re: Help me change 680.74

Bonding jumpers can be braided copper, flat ribbon copper, bus links, and screws.

The mention of No.#8 solid is a bench mark for sizing what ever material is chosen.

Bonding can, and is performed on both the active line and the ground side of a circuit. For this reason it would be technically improper to use the word any different than at present time.

Don't change definitions to meet the perception, change the perception to meet the definition.

 

[ryan_618]

Re: Help me change 680.74

Once again, why the word "solid"?

I bring this up because everywhere else in article 680, it is made painfullt obvious that a solid bonding jumper be used. That is not the case in 680.74.

If they want you to use a solid conductor they should tell you to use a solid conductor. If they don't care about stranded vs. solid, why is the word solid in the phrase?

 

[bennie]

Re: Help me change 680.74

Ryan: I agree it seems stupid. But how is the best way to explain the size of a bonding jumper when the material is unknown?

The wording should be "The bonding jumper shall not be smaller than the cross sectional area of a No.#8 cu".

I agree the wording is not clear, and should be clarified. However, the answer you will get is; "The present wording is sufficient for explaining the intended purpose" Reject.

 

[ryan_618]

Re: Help me change 680.74

Bennie: Thank you! That kind of response is exactly what I am looking for.

At least I'm not the only person that thinks the wording is at the least a bit strange.

I will continue to tweak with the language of my proposals and see what I can come up with.

 

[pierre]

Re: Help me change 680.74

Lets not forget that the bonding in Art 680 is not the same as bonding in Art 250. The reason for solid in Art 680 is to protect against the degredation of the chlorine environment. The bonding in Art 680 is not for a ground fault current path, but for equipotential plane. How well does the braid or others mentioned hold up to the chlorine environment?
Some clarification here would not hurt, only help and without adding pages to the length of the document.
If they want to permit a larger stranded conductor because it may hold up to the environment as well, then let us know in a language that we can all understand.

Pierre

 

[bennie]

Re: Help me change 680.74

The phrase "Not smaller than" is a perfect example of improper grammar. Double negatives make a positive. Make the description positive at the start, then there is no need of a translation.

[ October 14, 2003, 05:58 AM: Message edited by: bennie ]

 

[Ed MacLaren]

Re: Help me change 680.74

The phrase "Not smaller than" is a perfect example of improper grammar. Double negatives - - -

I don't see any double negative in the phrase "not smaller than".

To me, "shall be not smaller than #8 AWG" is as descriptive, or more so than the alternatives -

"shall be #8 AWG or larger" or,
"shall be a minimum of #8 AWG".

Ed

 

[pierre]

Re: Help me change 680.74

I sent a question to the NFPA about the sizing of the bonding conductor for jacuzzis, and the answer was, if it is larger than 8 AWG solid copper, it could be stranded. I will try and make a copy and post it here.

Pierre