My Argument with Iwire

[jwelectric]

I see many different allowances to land anywhere on the grounding electrode system even the extra two feet of a 10 foot ground rod.

I fail to find specific permission to connect to the extra 2' of a ground rod. If you believe this to be assumed, you're halfway to my way of thinking already.

The "business portion of an electrode doctrine" should not have any allowances in it. If I can't connect to rebar stubbed up out of concrete, then I can't connect to a water pipe stubbed up out of earth, and I sure can't connect to a ground rod stubbed up out of the earth either. To believe a Ufer is different than any of the others would be hypocritical.

I fail to find any requirement anywhere that says that the grounding electrode conductor must be attached to the ?business portion of an electrode?. What I do see concerning the attachment for a grounding electrode conductor attachment to the grounding electrode system does not have any requirement that it is to land on the business portion of an electrode as long as there is a path between the electrode and conductor.

Seeing how you are using 250.64(F) for you argument that the conductor must land on the ?business portion of the electrode? explain what is meant by the grounding electrode system in 250.64(D)(2). Can the grounding electrode conductor in this section land on one of the bonding jumpers between two electrodes as this bonding jumper would comprise part of the electrode system? What was that expression again, ?in for an ounce in for a dollar??

A wire connected to another wire by using a means that fuses the pair of wires together to become one wire. Hmm...

Any point on the system comprised exclusively of grounding electrodes and grounding electrode conductors. I don't see "A conductor used to connect the system grounded conductor or the equipment to a grounding electrode or to a point on the grounding electrode system, or an indescriminately selected chunk of something connected in some proximate means to one of the two."

George, those conductors that are connecting electrodes together are bonding jumpers and are not electrode conductors. The connection from the service grounded conductor and the grounding electrode system is the grounding electrode conductor.
The point where the weld took place would be the end of the grounding electrode conductor and from the weld to each electrode would be bonding jumpers.
By the way there is no requirement to keep the bonding jumpers continuous and they can be spliced with split bolts if someone want to do so.

Just as the code panel stated in there comment about the rebar if it is not in contact with earth or in the case of a CEE concrete that is in contact with earth it is not electrode but simply the grounding path to the electrode.

If there is any change needed at all then maybe it should be the inclusion of the word ?system? in 250.64(F)

 

[crossman gary]

I was out of town for a few days and didn't get to participate in the final posts of this thread.

As a possibly final statement, let me say that I agree with Pierre's assessment.

The fact that many different literate and electrically astute individuals can read the exact same words, yet disagree on what those words mean is not an indictment of any of the individuals. It is a failure of the wording. A proper and concise treatise on the requirements would leave little doubt as to its meaning.

As for the literal wording/meaning of the Code - Those who are intimately familiar with the members of CMP-5 and who have had many years of contact with them and the words they have written are possibly at a disadvantage here. For those directly invloved, biases creep in, a certain amount of "protectionism" rears its head, and the "intent" becomes different than what is literally written. On that note, this forum is certainly blessed for having members from widely differing backgrounds and I learn plenty from most everyone. I thank you all for that.

The sections under scrutiny have evolved over many years. Because of this, the sections end up being a jumble of related thoughts with complicated references, unintended consequences, and conflicting precepts rather than a concise and to-the-point treatment. Again, the above is established by the conflicting ideas in this very thread.