Kenny Clamp

[retirede]

was his name Kenny?

 

[Fred B]

Never seen this product, and can't see anything in the code that REQUIRES it. But, reading information on the product it appears that if this is used there is not need to land the GEC to a bus. (Not sure I'd agree)
AFA the inspector requiring this product be used, he owns stocks in the company? Another inspector making up his own rules?

 

[jimport]

At least one jurisdiction near me requires them on commercial work, but not residential IIRC.

 

[rambojoe]

was his name Kenny?

Kenny Krause, he lost his house.
It burned down, to the ground.
He also played golf with some ahj's and senators... now every supply house stocks his crap.
All of this because a data guy tek screwed a #12 ground onto a hot buss... what a world.

 

[infinity]

But, reading information on the product it appears that if this is used there is not need to land the GEC to a bus. (Not sure I'd agree)

This cannot be correct?

 

[garbo]

Retired and have not done a 100 or 200 amp service in over twenty years. When I started out helping my dad do services in the early 60's we would just poke out the little round hole in top of panel and run our solid aluminum ground wire to the neutral bar. Our city outlawed aluminum for use as a ground back in 1981. Some times used a two screw ( Ya Romex ) connectors to bring ground wire into panel.When they first required ground rods guys were getting away not using a ground rod as long as then ran a ground to copper water service & hard to believe steel gas line. Think this only lasted a month or so until city owned gas company found out about it. I don't even want to know what a basic 100 amp service with 2 ground rods and outdoor disconnect cost. Back around 1960 my electrician dad & uncle only charged $115 for a 100 amp service for a 12 circuit panel w/o main breaker. Back then the old row homes with 30 amp services usually only had 2 or 3 fuses. Old 60 amp services usually only had 4 to 6 fuses. Good old days .

 

[don_resqcapt19]

There were proposals to require this device or similar ones and they were resolved (rejected) by the code making panel. Without a legally adopted amendment to the requirements of the NEC, the inspector cannot legally require the use of that device.

 

[infinity]

There were proposals to require this device or similar ones and they were resolved (rejected) by the code making panel. Without a legally adopted amendment to the requirements of the NEC, the inspector cannot legally require the use of that device.

Don so you have any documentation that shows this?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Don so you have any documentation that shows this?

Not without doing a bunch of research...the resolved PIs are much more difficult to find with the system they started using for the 2020 code. It is all there but difficult to find as you have to know what section the PI was made to, go to that section in the first draft report and click on a tab that says "PIs".

 

[infinity]

Not without doing a bunch of research...the resolved PIs are much more difficult to find with the system they started using for the 2020 code. It is all there but difficult to find as you have to know what section the PI was made to, go to that section in the first draft report and click on a tab that says "PIs".

I agree with you about the difficulty that's why I asked. They've made the process so user unfriendly that I don't even bother to look anymore. I thought that maybe you had a document or link at hand. No biggie. If this ever came up with an inspector then I would invest the time to find it.

 

[roger]

To further show how a Kenny clamp is unnecessary here is the spec sheet drawing on a SQD meter socket, notice the 5/16" hole noted as "S*", this has been in their (and other manufacturers) info for many many years. A GEC was simply run through the hole, no fitting was ever required and now some misguided inspectors have fallen for the manufacturers false claims that they are.

 

[infinity]

A GEC was simply run through the hole, no fitting was ever required and now some misguided inspectors have fallen for the manufacturers false claims that they are

That's correct. Kenny clamps should say right on them not required by the NEC.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I agree with you about the difficulty that's why I asked. They've made the process so user unfriendly that I don't even bother to look anymore. I thought that maybe you had a document or link at hand. No biggie. If this ever came up with an inspector then I would invest the time to find it.

The only thing that is not user friendly is finding the rejected PIs in the first draft report...I find everything else much more user friendly than the system used prior to the 2017 code.

 

[zbang]

Our AHJ is now requiring the use of a "kenny clamp" for GEC.

Have they cited any code supporting this?

 

[electrofelon]

There were proposals to require this device or similar ones

what were the reasons given?

 

[jimport]

I had heard something about the choke effect passing through the ferrous enclosure.

 

[infinity]

I had heard something about the choke effect passing through the ferrous enclosure.

I don't that the choke effect would matter much because the GEC is connected to the metal enclosure either directly or via the MBJ.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I had heard something about the choke effect passing through the ferrous enclosure.

The impedance of the choke effect is a function of the length of ferrous metal that the single conductor is passing through, and a function of the current. The thickness of the enclosure is the length for the choke effect, and will add very little impedance. Also the GEC is not part of the fault clearing path and very little current will ever flow on the GEC.

 

[RumRunner]

There were proposals to require this device or similar ones and they were resolved (rejected) by the code making panel. Without a legally adopted amendment to the requirements of the NEC, the inspector cannot legally require the use of that device..
....................
Never seen this product, and can't see anything in the code that REQUIRES it. But, reading information on the product it appears that if this is used there is not need to land the GEC to a bus. (Not sure I'd agree)
AFA the inspector requiring this product be used, he owns stocks in the company? Another inspector making up his own rules?
……………..

There is no reason to use a clamp for a GEC except to line the manufacturers pockets, I know that doesn't help with an overzealous inspector or AHJ. Before I would buy a Kenny Clamp that has been deceptively marketed to be a code required item I would sleeve the GEC in PVC.
……………..
Probably the same guy who got fired from his last job and ended up where the op lives. Hahaha.

End of Hyperbole.


My words:

Hyperbole is entertaining and sometimes captures the attention.

Here is an explanation on the need to minimize induced current from improper procedure in terminating EGC from an enclosure.

https://www.ecmag.com/section/codes-standards/guardian-ground

There are many alternatives that will satisfy the expected outcome as a result on the use of KENNY CLAMP.​

The use of Kenny clamp is one way in minimizing the so called “choke effect”. The article explains choke effect and what causes it.
The brand name (Kenny clamp) is just a placeholder name to make it easier to identify and/or assign a particular item for designers, quality control (inspectors) and spec writers what product is needed.
Think CLOROX BAND-AID, KODAK or XEROX.

In science. . . . especially Engineering, members are averse in using brand names when specifying certain items that have no generic nomenclature . . . . lest be accused of “ conflict of interest.”

See list of conducts in Engineers Code of Ethics.

 

[jim dungar]

I don't that the choke effect would matter much because the GEC is connected to the metal enclosure either directly or via the MBJ.

If the GEC is terminated inside of the enclosure there should be no choke effect at all, as it is similar in function to a bonding bushing.