Light Poles Grounding

[gh0st]

Not required. The pole is grounded via the EGC. You should not directly connect an GEC to the EGC, of course they're all connected to the GES.

 

[jap]

No, it is not. The provision that was quoted in a previous post though does refer to connecting the electrical system to ground 250.4(A)(1), and nothing directly to do with the EGC.

You were saying a ground rod had nothing to do with a lightning strike, which in fact, a ground rod at a service is one of the methods used to connect a grounding electrode conductor to the earth for that exact purpose.

All I'm saying is that a ground rod driven at a pole light with a conductor from that rod attached to a metal pole doesn't hurt anything and is not a code violation.


JAP>

 

[jap]

Not required. The pole is grounded via the EGC. You should not directly connect an GEC to the EGC, of course they're all connected to the GES.

The Main Grounding Electrode Conductor is located at the service entrance.

A wire attached to a pole light and extended to a ground rod driven next to the metal pole is not "THE" grounding electrode conductor, it's simply a connection from the metal pole to the earth.

There's nothing wrong with that connection whether it serves a purpose or not.

It's use is for nothing more than to connect a metal pole to the dirt, and, if someone wants to do it, even if not required. let em rock n roll.

Like a said earlier, all it may do is help with getting a surge from a lightning strike in the dirt a little earlier.

JAP>

 

[tom baker]

Not required. The pole is grounded via the EGC. You should not directly connect an GEC to the EGC, of course they're all connected to the GES.

The ground rod at the light pole is called an auxiliary electrode by the NEC, since it’s not required, the rules for connecting it are not as strict, for example no minimum size wire

 

[tom baker]

It’s often done but serves no purpose, and the subject creates substantial discussion.

 

[jap]

I was just thinking of your previous post where you said that Tom,,,, too funny.

JAP>

 

[electrofelon]

What makes you think they don't?

JAP>

Sorry, but logically, the burden of proof is on you to show that it does something beneficial, not somebody else to prove to you it doesnt do anything beneficial. I put wheaties in my gas tank. Prove to me it's not beneficial.

 

[LarryFine]

If there is any benefit to electrodes at poles whatsoever, lightning dissipation would be it.

 

[jap]

Sorry, but logically, the burden of proof is on you to show that it does something beneficial, not somebody else to prove to you it doesnt do anything beneficial. I put wheaties in my gas tank. Prove to me it's not beneficial.

I already did in post 22.

Not required for light poles, but, You can't say a ground rod has nothing to do with a lightning strike in the electrical field when we use them as a means to connect our grounding electrode conductors to the earth.

JAP>

 

[jap]

If there is any benefit to electrodes at poles whatsoever, lightning dissipation would be it.

Or maybe a static equalizer in some cases , who knows.

A light pole doesn't always have the same connection to earth through it's concrete standard as a footing with rebar in it that we attach to for our GES , or. 20 feet or more of bare copper that's layed in the bottom of a ditch before a concrete footing is poured.

JAP>

 

[tortuga]

on existing older caissons

Just curious what do you mean by caisson?
Wen i think of a caisson I think of a bridge or pier foundation in a body of water.

 

[jap]

Sorry, but logically, the burden of proof is on you to show that it does something beneficial, not somebody else to prove to you it doesnt do anything beneficial. I put wheaties in my gas tank. Prove to me it's not beneficial.

Isn't this a contradiction of terms?

In this case I would think the burden of proof would be on you to prove to me that putting Wheaties in your gas tank would be beneficial.



JAP>

 

[electrofelon]

Isn't this a contradiction of terms?

In this case I would think the burden of proof would be on you to prove to me that putting Wheaties in your gas tank would be beneficial.



JAP>

Right. The last sentence was a joke and an example of the flawed logic

 

[jap]

Right. The last sentence was a joke and an example of the flawed logic

Please don't get too technical electrofelon,,,, I haven't had near the schooling that most of the posters on this forum have had.

JAP>

 

[petersonra]

I already did in post 22.

Not required for light poles, but, You can't say a ground rod has nothing to do with a lightning strike in the electrical field when we use them as a means to connect our grounding electrode conductors to the earth.

JAP>

Do you really believe that a light pole struck by lightning would be saved by being wired to a ground rod?

 

[jap]

Do you really believe that a light pole struck by lightning would be saved by being wired to a ground rod?

I don't recall ever saying that.


JAP>

 

[jap]

Do you really believe that a light pole struck by lightning would be saved by being wired to a ground rod?

Do you really believe that a service entrance struck by lightning would be saved by being wired to a ground rod?

JAP>

 

[petersonra]

Do you really believe that a service entrance struck by lightning would be saved by being wired to a ground rod?

JAP>

not in the least. so why is there such a widespread believe that it will be helpful?

 

[jap]

not in the least. so why is there such a widespread believe that it will be helpful?

I guess we'd have to first hear what you think the actual role of a ground rod is.

JAP>

 

[petersonra]

I guess we'd have to first hear what you think the actual role of a ground rod is.

JAP>

The code is quite clear about the role of grounding electrodes in general, of which a ground rod is just one. Protecting light poles from direct lightning strikes is not on the list.