Neutrals and ground on the wrong bus.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Smart $ said:
That's where 250.130(A) comes in. It requires EGC connections be made to the grounded service conductor. Once again, if we take this literally, the grounded service conductor ends at its termination to the terminal bus. It is only by stretching the meanings of NEC terminology that we bond to the grounded service conductor using the grounded conductor terminal bus. Note Code specifically permits connection of a GEC using this bus. Where's the specific permission allowing us to use this bus for EGC connections?
Click to expand...

If it's not forbidden by the NEC, it's permitted. If I managed to come up with some Rube Goldberg electrical scheme, you'd have to find an article (or more) saying "you cant do that!" rather that one that permits it.
 
Smart $ said:
Everyone keeps (conveniently) forgetting 250.24(A)(5)
Click to expand...
250.24(A)(5) got addressed a long time ago: 250.24(A)(5)'s "except as otherwise permitted in this article" language, plus 250.130(A).

Smart $ said:
No one has offered any Code section up that specifically repeals the requirements named.
Click to expand...
See above.

Smart $ said:
Quite simply, the Code only permits load-side grounded conductor(s) to be connected to an EGC through the MBJ.
Click to expand...
Wow. No NEC section cited in this thread supports that claim.

Cheers, Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
250.24(A)(5) got addressed a long time ago: 250.24(A)(5)'s "except as otherwise permitted in this article" language, plus 250.130(A).
Click to expand...
250.24(A)(5) Informational Note provides the sections that contain the exceptions. 250.130 is not one of them.
Informational Note: See 250.30 for separately derived systems,​
250.32 for connections at separate buildings or structures,​
and 250.142 for use of the grounded circuit conductor​
for grounding equipment.​
Click to expand...
wwhitney said:
See above.
Click to expand...
Rendered invalid. See above.

wwhitney said:
Wow. No NEC section cited in this thread supports that claim.
Click to expand...
As mentioned, everyone (conveniently) forgets about 250.24(A)(5)... and you do it within a single post. :slaphead:
 
250.130(C) allows non grounding receptacle replacement or circuit extensions to run an EGC to any accessible point on the grounding electrode system - which is supposed to connect the the grounded service conductor at some point or to the grounded service conductor within the service equipment enclosure, other allowed possibilities would potentially be on the load side of the MBJ.

Frames of ranges and dryers can be grounded from the grounded conductor as well.

Of course all of this is dealing with older installations that are no longer compliant with updated requirements if the work were new today.
 
kwired said:
250.130(C) allows non grounding receptacle replacement or circuit extensions to run an EGC to any accessible point on the grounding electrode system - which is supposed to connect the the grounded service conductor at some point or to the grounded service conductor within the service equipment enclosure, other allowed possibilities would potentially be on the load side of the MBJ.

Frames of ranges and dryers can be grounded from the grounded conductor as well.

Of course all of this is dealing with older installations that are no longer compliant with updated requirements if the work were new today.
Click to expand...
And I am certainly not challenging any of those "exceptions", but 250.130(C) does not except connecting a grounded circuit conductor to an EGC. :happyno:
 
Last edited:
Smart $ said:
250.24(A)(5) Informational Note provides the sections that contain the exceptions. 250.130 is not one of them.
Click to expand...
Really?

It is well established that Informational Notes do not have the force of the code. From the 2011 NEC Manual of Style:

3.1.3 Informational Notes. Informational notes contain explanatory information and shall be located directly after the rule they apply to. Informational Notes shall not be written in mandatory language and shall not contain requirements, make interpretations, or make recommendations. If an Informational Note is needed to explain the text of the code, consideration should be given to rewriting the text of the code to make the rule clear.
Click to expand...

Thus the list of references in the 250.24(A)(5) Informational Note in no way limits the "except as otherwise permitted in this article" language in 250.24(A)(5) itself. Limiting the exception to a few specific sections would require enumerating them as Exception 1, Exception 2, etc.

Cheers, Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
Really?

It is well established that Informational Notes do not have the force of the code. From the 2011 NEC Manual of Style:



Thus the list of references in the 250.24(A)(5) Informational Note in no way limits the "except as otherwise permitted in this article" language in 250.24(A)(5) itself. Limiting the exception to a few specific sections would require enumerating them as Exception 1, Exception 2, etc.

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
What my comment means is that if you go to the sections enumerated in the Informational Note, you will discover what is meant by the "except as otherwise permitted in this article" clause. It is not referring to trivial [mis-]interpretations of Code. :happyyes:
 
Smart $ said:
250.24(A)(5) Informational Note provides the sections that contain the exceptions. 250.130 is not one of them.
Click to expand...
Definitely reads to me as "because 250.130 is not listed in the informational note after 250.24(A)(5), it is not an exception to the general prohibition of 250.24(A)(5)".

Smart $ said:
Déjà vu?
Click to expand...
If you've explained in one your posts how 250.130 differs from 250.30, 250.32, and 250.142, please point me to it. To my knowledge, you've offered no code explanation for why 250.130 doesn't fall under the "except as other permitted in this article" provision of 250.24(A)(5).

Cheers, Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
Definitely reads to me as "because 250.130 is not listed in the informational note after 250.24(A)(5), it is not an exception to the general prohibition of 250.24(A)(5)".

If you've explained in one your posts how 250.130 differs from 250.30, 250.32, and 250.142, please point me to it. To my knowledge, you've offered no code explanation for why 250.130 doesn't fall under the "except as other permitted in this article" provision of 250.24(A)(5).
Click to expand...
You are wanting me to explain something that is not there as I see it and everything I have done in an attempt to explain it is rejected by you. So 100+ posts later I'm fairly certain it I'm looking at a no-win uphill battle in the making. :happyyes:
 
Smart $ said:
You are wanting me to explain something that is not there as I see it and everything I have done in an attempt to explain it is rejected by you. So 100+ posts later I'm fairly certain it I'm looking at a no-win uphill battle in the making. :happyyes:
Click to expand...
OK, so what's your position here? 250.130 doesn't meet the 250.24(A)(5) exception language for a reason you can't explain, or the NEC is written wrong and 250.130 should be excluded from the 250.24(A) exception language, or ?

I'm honestly unclear on what you are saying here and honestly believe that the only counterargument you've given to the statement "250.130 meets the exception language in 250.24(A)(5)" is when you referred to the Informational Note. If I'm being dense and you've provided some other explanation, I'd appreciate a recap, or a "see post #X" or whatever.

Cheers, Wayne
 
And remember, the Informational Notes are not code. The exception should stand alone regardless of what the Informational Note does or does not say about.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 
wwhitney said:
OK, so what's your position here? 250.130 doesn't meet the 250.24(A)(5) exception language for a reason you can't explain, or the NEC is written wrong and 250.130 should be excluded from the 250.24(A) exception language, or ?

I'm honestly unclear on what you are saying here and honestly believe that the only counterargument you've given to the statement "250.130 meets the exception language in 250.24(A)(5)" is when you referred to the Informational Note. If I'm being dense and you've provided some other explanation, I'd appreciate a recap, or a "see post #X" or whatever.

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
Make this model fit all your interpretations.
Ideal Model.GIF

Ask about any that you believe does not.

This model fits 250.130(A).
 
Smart $ said:
Make this model fit all your interpretations. Ask about any that you believe does not.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you mean by the above.

Your model is certainly allowed by the NEC. It just isn't the only method allowed, as we have been discussing.

Cheers, Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
I have no idea what you mean by the above.

Your model is certainly allowed by the NEC. It just isn't the only method allowed, as we have been discussing.
Click to expand...
We have not been discussing other models. We've been discussing stretching the requirements. The model depicted is the only 100% NEC compliant model for a grounded service.
 
Smart $ said:
The model depicted is the only 100% NEC compliant model for a grounded service.
Click to expand...
I understand that's your opinion, and I'm looking for an NEC code section that would back that up. Since you seem to have given up on the idea that 250.130 does not meet the exception language of 250.24(A)(5), perhaps you have another citation?

Cheers, Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
I understand that's your opinion, and I'm looking for an NEC code section that would back that up. Since you seem to have given up on the idea that 250.130 does not meet the exception language of 250.24(A)(5), perhaps you have another citation?

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
Dude. Do you suffer short term memory loss?

If you do, please review the last 150+ posts.

If you do not, you may want to get it checked.

In the meantime, please review the last 150+ posts
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top