New Bridgeport fitting = to Kenny Clamp

[don_resqcapt19]

True and I am not debating that. Like I said, the KC was developed to add a redundant connection to the enclosure. It is not used to complete the GEC circuit to the jumper.

So it really doesn't do anything other than close the entry hole.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Go ahead and be 'doubtful'...I can only speak for my company, not for others. PM me and I'll explain further.

I have the same doubts and no explanation will change that. There is no technical reason to use this device...the only reason to use it is so someone can make some money.

It only means something if you are working for one of the AHJ's that are 'requiring' some kind of redundant bond. Look, we didn't 'invent' this need, we are providing an alternative for those who currently use the KC. Period. So go ahead and debate as much as you want about it's application.

Those AHJs would either have to have their requirement in their adopted codes or show me an existing code section that requires this device. Lacking that, if I was doing a large tract development, I would install them and peruse reimbursement via a malicious prosecution suit.

Don't even get me started on Monster Cable "products"....:roll:

I don't see this as being that much different from the hype that Monster uses for their overpriced useless products.

 

[infinity]

So it really doesn't do anything other than close the entry hole.

That's my take on it.

 

[hurk27]

I would like the design if it would slip over the end of a conduit with a set screw on the conduit and a set screw on the GEC, this would simplify the requirement to bond both ends of a raceway enclosing a GEC, otherwise I don't see the need to double bond the GEC at the entrance to the panel when the GEC lands right on the neutral buss?

I get a kick out of inspectors who dont trust the locknuts to bond a conduit to a panel and require bonding bushings, but that is exactly what this thing uses?:-?

 

[LJSMITH1]

I would like the design if it would slip over the end of a conduit with a set screw on the conduit and a set screw on the GEC, this would simplify the requirement to bond both ends of a raceway enclosing a GEC, otherwise I don't see the need to double bond the GEC at the entrance to the panel when the GEC lands right on the neutral buss?

I get a kick out of inspectors who dont trust the locknuts to bond a conduit to a panel and require bonding bushings, but that is exactly what this thing uses?:-?

We were already changing the thread length on the product to be able to use as you described.

As far as inspectors who don't trust locknuts, I have not personally heard that.

 

[LJSMITH1]

I have the same doubts and no explanation will change that. There is no technical reason to use this device...the only reason to use it is so someone can make some money.

I see your point, and I can assure you that we won't make much on this item at all. The fact is that electricians are purchasing the KC, regardless of the technical merit. We were asked by a few customers to come up with an alternative. We think we have a better alternative, and decided to release it along with our other, new, innovative grounding products.

Also, there is no conspiracy theory regarding our involvement on proposing a change to the NEC to require this device (or any other for that matter). That is a fact, and I would know since I am the ONLY one responsible for that kind of activity of my company. I also take exception to your accusatory tone, since I have been nothing but professional here.

If you have no use for the item, then by all means, don't purchase it. Simple as that.

 

[jsmalone1]

more parts?

more parts?

more parts for a trade that has too many parts now. Additionally, the NEC is practically incomprehensible and is impossible to get an interpretation of in so many instances. Just look on this blog for a code opinion/interpretation. Politics and agendas have infected our code like a cancer in my opinion.

 

[macmikeman]

Sometimes you have to have somebody jump in and apply good old horse sense to some subjects. This is where macmikeman comes in. One of them is the truthful fact that the NEC is becoming a place to force new products on the public even if there is no real value in it. Stackers. One word to end it all. While there is no code requirement to force the use of the product, the code got changed to where it becomes the only logical choice to fill a requirement to separate cables that nobody can show any reason that they needed to be separated in the first place. And then to top it off the UL listing makes even a stacker hold hardly more than a few cables at once. By and of itself "Bundling" never created a problem that any jurisdiction can show any evidence of. Overloading of branch circuit wiring- yes, but that has nothing really to do with bundling. Kenny Clamps are imho are about the same as stackers. A solution to "There wasn't any problem to begin with, but they look good installed". No scientific evidence to show need in the first place. Now I am not accusing the makers of the product of trying to force it into the code, obviously they have not done so yet. However the product has become mandatory in some jurisdictions and we all know where that usually ends up leading to. Just remember: Stackers

 

[iwire]

I see your point, and I can assure you that we won't make much on this item at all.

So you are developing and manufacturing a product only because "a few customers to come up with an alternative" and you will not make much on it.

Sorry but that sounds ... well .. struggling to find the right word ... lets go with untrue.

Also, there is no conspiracy theory regarding our involvement on proposing a change to the NEC to require this device (or any other for that matter). That is a fact, and I would know since I am the ONLY one responsible for that kind of activity of my company.

Larry I don't think you personally have some sort of conspiracy going on.

I also take exception to your accusatory tone, since I have been nothing but professional here.

Perhaps that is because there are many instances where the manufactures have pushed code changes to sell products.

If you have no use for the item, then by all means, don't purchase it. Simple as that.

I agree and for those that want them it is good they have some choices but as you said some AHJs are already looking for these so let us not pretend this is not going to be in a code proposal.

 

[iwire]

Don't even get me started on Monster Cable "products"....:roll:

Why is this product any different?

Monster cable products do look good and they do the job they are intended to.
But you can get the job done with much less expensive products.

Look if you designed this new product I can understand that it may be close to you and you feel the need to stand up for it but I don't think you are looking at this with an open mind.

 

[hurk27]

We were already changing the thread length on the product to be able to use as you described.

I was talking no threads like how we use thread less connectors, or EMT connectors with just a set screw.

As far as inspectors who don't trust locknut's, I have not personally heard that.

H'mm then your not filmilure with bonding lock nuts? grounding bushings? they were created for this purpose?

There have been many things brought out into the market place over the years that didn't have a real requirement or purpose that was needed for additional safety, a few of these found their way into code requirements not because of it provided a bigger margin of safety but because no one did any research to see if it added any safety to the existing design of the installation, while this connector could find good use in maybe an installation in an optional robust bonding scheme for lightning protection, and I can see where bonding at the cabinet can prevent arcs of high energy high frequency lightning strikes will give a little more contact to dissipate this current, and maybe prevent damage to the area where a GEC passes through the cabinet but for but for the most part they will not create any extra help for normal current paths or faults, the requirements in the NEC (70) does nothing to very little in lightning protection, as I have posted many times before, and test at camp blanding serve to back up this point of view, I think it was Brian who posted the original camp blanding report on this back in 2006.

 

[LJSMITH1]

I was talking no threads like how we use thread less connectors, or EMT connectors with just a set screw.


H'mm then your not filmilure with bonding lock nuts? grounding bushings? they were created for this purpose?

There have been many things brought out into the market place over the years that didn't have a real requirement or purpose that was needed for additional safety, a few of these found their way into code requirements not because of it provided a bigger margin of safety but because no one did any research to see if it added any safety to the existing design of the installation, while this connector could find good use in maybe an installation in an optional robust bonding scheme for lightning protection, and I can see where bonding at the cabinet can prevent arcs of high energy high frequency lightning strikes will give a little more contact to dissipate this current, and maybe prevent damage to the area where a GEC passes through the cabinet but for but for the most part they will not create any extra help for normal current paths or faults, the requirements in the NEC (70) does nothing to very little in lightning protection, as I have posted many times before, and test at camp blanding serve to back up this point of view, I think it was Brian who posted the original camp blanding report on this back in 2006.

Bonding locknuts (the ones with a single setscrew) were developed for environments with high vibration to prevent the locknut from loosening. Some have pushed them as supposedly having greater current carrying capability. I don't agree. They just make the connection to the cabinet more reliable by preventing the locknut from loosening. I don't know of any AHJ that doesn't 'trust' a properly installed locknut to do its job. However, I am sure there are some out there.

As for bonding bushings, Bounding Bushings were developed back in the late 60's by O-Z/Gedney and other mfr's. In fact, O-Z/Gedney had one of the first iterations of the traditional bonding bushing we see today. Their patent #3,706,959 describes the 'need' below:

Grounding lugs for conduit fittings such as disclosed in the prior Browne U.S. Pat. No. 3,365,693, issued Jan. 23, 1968, are provided primarily for facilitating the grounding of conduit through a conduit bushing threaded onto the end of conduit, as at a service box, where the conduit passes through a wall of the box. Lugs of this type are generally adapted to be secured by a single screw to the periphery of the conduit bushing, and are adapted to receive a ground wire, preferably without requiring the wire to be cut. A clamping screw is provided for securing the wire within the lug. Heavy ground current can flow through the lug under abnormal conditions, as because of phase to ground faults and the like, and thus it is important that the lug provide a low resistance connection from the conduit and service box to a substantially heavy ground wire.

One of the problems encountered with connectors of this type is that the lug may be loosened in insertion and tightening of the ground wire due to rotation of the lug in relation to the bushing. Such turning can also be caused in certain types of bushings having a ground screw at one side of the lug when such ground screw is tightened against a wall of a housing. The tightening of such screw has a tendency to rotate the lug and thus loosen the screw fastening the lug to the periphery of a bushing, resulting in a poor connection between the lug and the bushing.

It has also been found that a loose connection can develop within the lug due to initial cold flow of the wire conductor material caused by plastic yielding of the metal under pressure applied by the clamping screw used to secure the wire within the lug. This problem is accentuated by thermal expansion of the conductor in an unyielding lug body, upon passage of high short-circuit current; the deformation of the conductor then results in a poor connection upon cooling of the two.

An object of the present invention is to provide an improved ground device for a conduit which substantially obviates the disadvantages of the described prior arrangements.

Another object of the present invention is to provide an improved ground device for conduit wherein a grounding lug is positively prevented from rotating relative to its associated bushing.

Another object of the present invention is to provide a grounding device for conduit having spring loaded contacting portions for ensuring maintenance of low resistance connections.

In some switchgear applications, these grounding bushings are specified in the installation because they allow an even greater ground fault current to be passed through from the conduit to the OCPD. A standard conduit and locknut setup only has a certain amount of current carrying capability, which is sometimes limited by workmanship issues such as insufficient torque, poor cleaning of enclosure KO paint, or crooked conduit entry - which does not allow the locknut to sit flat. The bonding bushing takes a lot of the uncertainty and variability away.

Current carrying capability is determined by the total cross-sectional area, impedance of the material, contact area/pressure, and max temperature allowable with a specified current flowing through. By adding these grounding bushings, along with the specified bonding conductor, the effective current carrying capability has been increased, and has not been limited by the enclosure, nor the connection between that and the conduit locknut.

I know in our own internal ground fault current tests, especially with our new MC fitting, we have seen the box fail before the largest size conductor or the fitting. This was due to a large amount of amperage (5500A+ for 9s) and a relatively thin box wall (.062").

In the end, there are so many AHJ's out there that have their own interpretation of what should really be a 'unified' standard. They want what they want, sometimes without support of the NEC. Just look at Chicago and their absolute 'distrust' for any NM, AC/MC, or FMC. It is either an EMT or RMC install - period. It does not matter to them if the rest of the country is wired up in cable.

 

[LJSMITH1]

So you are developing and manufacturing a product only because "a few customers to come up with an alternative" and you will not make much on it.

Sorry but that sounds ... well .. struggling to find the right word ... lets go with untrue.

Sorry again, but that is a fact. We developed this item along with the others shown in our brochure at the same time. We also had them listed at the same time. The overall costs for that one item were relatively minor - especially since its a 100% machined product and there is no tooling to invest in. We have minimal stock and can quickly make more if we sell beyond our modest expectations. We try to develop products that our customers want or need. While you or others may not need this item, others apparently do, and it might have nothing to do with the base NEC, but more of a local requirement.

Larry I don't think you personally have some sort of conspiracy going on.

Thanks. Thats all I could ask for.

Perhaps that is because there are many instances where the manufactures have pushed code changes to sell products.

I am sure that there may be some truth to that, especially with the larger, "more involved", electrical product manufacturers. However, we have not historically been involved in these efforts. We sit on a few UL, NEMA, and CSA Standards Technical Panels or Committees, but have no real involvement in changes to the NEC.

I agree and for those that want them it is good they have some choices but as you said some AHJ's are already looking for these so let us not pretend this is not going to be in a code proposal.

I can't comment for the intent of any AHJ. AHJ's have more input to the NEC than we do. Some do it independently, others are possibly 'connected' to a particular manufacturer. I don't know, and I don't want to speculate.

 

[LJSMITH1]

Why is this product any different?

Monster cable products do look good and they do the job they are intended to.
But you can get the job done with much less expensive products.

Look if you designed this new product I can understand that it may be close to you and you feel the need to stand up for it but I don't think you are looking at this with an open mind.

I TOTALLY agree with you with regards to ANY MONSTER product out there. I am fully aware of their excellent marketing hype machine, and have written a few posts in other forms with regards to their HDMI cables and others. I have a 58" HD Plasma set with 30' $25 Monoprice.com cables and have ZERO picture issues. If you listen to the MONSTER hype, I should barely have a picture....:roll:

As for the MC series product, I was not the lead designer on that item, and I am not close to it. As I said in a previous response, it was developed due to a few requests from customers as an alternativeto the KC. We certainly didn't argue the overall need for the KC in the first place (maybe we should have...). However, our investment in that one particular item was relatively minimal. So, if it makes some EC's installation go smoother and with less aggravation, its worth it.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

...
In the end, there are so many AHJ's out there that have their own interpretation of what should really be a 'unified' standard. They want what they want, sometimes without support of the NEC. Just look at Chicago and their absolute 'distrust' for any NM, AC/MC, or FMC. It is either an EMT or RMC install - period. It does not matter to them if the rest of the country is wired up in cable.

I don't really have an issue with a legally adopted code like Chicago has, but in many cases the inspectors are requiring the use of products, like the one in this thread, without any adopted code to back it up.

 

[tom baker]

Interesting what I started. But once you use a Kenny Clamp, you realize how elegant it is and will never use another romex clamp again.
Mike Holt showed Kenny Clamps in his 2008 Grounding Vs Bonding book graphics.....

 

[roger]

Interesting what I started. But once you use a Kenny Clamp, you realize how elegant it is and will never use another romex clamp again.
Mike Holt showed Kenny Clamps in his 2008 Grounding Vs Bonding book graphics.....

Tom, if you want to use this clamp for aesthetic purposes that's fine, but for functionality it's not needed.

Roger

 

[haskindm]

Actually it decreases the impedance/resistance to the tub. The conductor is continuous from the GEC to the neutral bus.

Contact resistance is directly affected by contact surface area and contact pressure (assuming base material resistance is not a factor). The fitting is specifically designed to maximize the contact pressure and surface area, which lowers the overall impedance of the bond connection between the GEC and the tub. The result is that a more reliable ground-fault path is produced, AND the path is not reliant on a single bond screw from the neutral bus to the tub. This is why the KC was originally developed.

Were there failures or other issues that predicated the development of the KC? I don't know. What I do know is that more local AHJ's want the additional protection of the meter can, or large service equipment enclosures.

I wish you would explain to me how the Grounding Electrode Conductor (GEC) is involved in the clearing of a ground-fault and how the the few Milli-ohms difference in resistance that the use of such a clamp would yield would have a positive effect on clearing a fault.

 

[iwire]

I wish you would explain to me how the Grounding Electrode Conductor (GEC) is involved in the clearing of a ground-fault and how the the few Milli-ohms difference in resistance that the use of such a clamp would yield would have a positive effect on clearing a fault.

We don't get to ask such questions, we just have to accept that the companies making these items are doing it for the good of the world and not for them to make more money.

If we question it is because we just don't care about doing a good job. :roll:

 

[LJSMITH1]

I wish you would explain to me how the Grounding Electrode Conductor (GEC) is involved in the clearing of a ground-fault and how the the few Milli-ohms difference in resistance that the use of such a clamp would yield would have a positive effect on clearing a fault.

From IAEI..http://www.iaei.org/magazine/?p=4009

The primary purpose of the GEC is to maintain the electrical equipment at the earth potential present at the grounding electrode. Another essential function of the grounding electrode is to dissipate over-voltages into the earth. These over-voltages can be caused by high-voltage conductors being accidentally connected to the lower-voltage system such as by a failure in a transformer or by an overhead conductor dropping on the lower-voltage conductor. Over-voltages can also be caused from lightning.

This is from the back of the KC installation sheet:

Kenny Clamp? Compression Connector sizes for Separately Derived Systems, panelboards and enclosures.

The Kenny Clamp? Compression Connector is a new alternative in bonding and grounding separately derived systems, panelboards and enclosures. Advantages of using the Kenny Clamp Compression Connector are:

Eliminates the need for installing lugs on the frame of separately derived systems to bond the frame or to install a main bonding jumper from XO to the transformer can. Most lugs installed today don?t meet the grounding and bonding standards under UL 467.

Standard lugs for terminating current carrying conductors are not listed and labeled for grounding connections.

A listed and labeled grounding and bonding connector under UL 467 ?Grounding and Bonding Equipment? and UL 486A ?Wire Connectors and Soldering Lugs for Use with Copper Conductors?.

The only listed connector for terminating grounding electrode conductors to metal enclosures. The only connector, which provides adequate strain relief for grounding electrode conductors.

As I stated in a previous post, the KC was originally developed as a redundant connection to the factory supplied bond screw between the service chassis and neutral bus. Its inventor insists that its main function is to guarantee a loose bond screw will not cause a safety issue. It also serves as a better bonding point for lightning protection as it can handle much higher currents than the service bond screw - assuming a bonded metal service mast or bonded raceway was hit.

It can certainly be considered a 'strain relief' of sorts to lessen the chance of the GEC loosening in the bus lug due to movement or tugging of the GEC outside the enclosure.

I will also state again that we were certainly not involved in the creation of the KC. We are also not involved in pushing it to AHJ's. We developed our MC series to compete with the KC as it is already being required by many AHJ's around the country.

We think we have a simpler, more user-friendly design. Our largest MC fitting can handle over 8000A - way more than a NM Diecast or steel connector, and in some applications, more than the enclosure itself can handle. Its easier to install, and has a neat appearance.