Offset Nipple between Meter and Disco

[e57]

What is the UL listing category for an offset nipple? If the category is not one of the wiring methods listed in 230.43, then you can't even use the offset nipple on the line side of the service disconnect.

I did bring this up very early in this thread - a point that seems to have gotten lost, but apparently not the actual question of the OP...

It amazes me that you point to an example that clearly demonstrates that when the Code wants a raceway bonded on both ends that it's clear in doing so as a proof to your belief - it actually proves the exact opposite point.

Lightning is a high frequency event and the GEC is designed to give that event a path to earth. Therefore, ferrous raceways containing a GEC have to be designed to limit that choking effect.

Somehow you think the effects of this type of fault are ONLY going to go through one conduit to one place... On the other ends of the grounded service conductor there are a whole bunch of other grounding electrodes in other building. Are you telling me that this type of fault current is not going to find its way down this path in whole or in part? Care to prove wrong me on that? If not - how is that not different?

It is entirely different than a ground fault, making those provisions at an offset nipple in a service is not necessary, so it's not required.

250.64(E) is explicit that you must bond both sides of that raceway. If they wanted us to bond both sides of a raceway or nipple in service equipment, they would not make any bones about demanding it.

What ignorant power company employees, Frank the Barber down the street, or untrained/belligerent inspectors want to see is not relevant in the discussion. What is relevant is what the NEC requires, and does not require.

It clearly does not require bonding on both sides of this nipple between the meter socket and service disconnect, because if it were required, it would be specifically required the way that 250.64(E) does.

Without making specific exceptions for service risers or laterals (which do not seem to be in the NEC style manual) certain raceways like those to a weather head would need an exception if written that way - 'Both ends - except this and that....'

Glad I was not the only one that thought that.

Look - I know I'm pissing in the wind.... :roll: I have not changed anyones mind here or anywhere else that I know of. (And maybe especially yours... ) And I doubt I will - but why not try... Because it makes a lot of sense to you - it doesn't to me - and yes I think this particular code is flawed. Sure a lot of educated people think its just fine, and fits the wording - I don't...

You have two paths of current (normal operating current, fault current of all kinds) and little way to change that in most of the situations I'm in limited to with RMC - Which is why it is a pet peev of mine. Am I going to roll over and play dead?

One path of current - the neutral is fine, add another path that sucks and does not fit the intent or wording IMO - then they both suck... Is it not a contradiction to 250.06?

(B) Method of Bonding at the Service. [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Electrical continuity at service equipment, service raceways, and service conductor enclosures shall be ensured by one of the following methods: [/FONT][/FONT]

Note: The word "Bonding" is not in the body of the code. "Electrical Continuity" is the 'method of bonding' at three different things... And by one of four different methods to follow... (BTW the grounded service conductor is not mentioned above.)

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman](1) Bonding equipment to the grounded service conductor in a manner provided in 250.8 [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]
"Bonding equipment" - not raceways, or enclosures, but "Bonding equipment" (a verb and a noun) to (a verb) the grounded service conductor. (another noun) Sure - "Equipment" - is a general term, but raceways are not mentioned in the definition... But - It does not say to bond anything else to it, or to use the grounded service conductor for continuity to anything else.

(2) Connections utilizing threaded couplings or threaded bosses on enclosures where made up wrenchtight

Self-explainitory...

(3) Threadless couplings and connectors where made up tight for metal raceways and metal-clad cables

Self-explainitory...

(4) Other listed devices, such as bonding-type locknuts, bushings, or bushings with bonding jumpers

Self-explainitory...

Please note that there is no 5th method. The grounded service conductor is not listed as a method on its own.

Bonding jumpers meeting the other requirements of this article shall be used around, *concentric, or eccentric knockouts that are punched or otherwise formed so as to impair the electrical connection to ground. Standard locknuts or bushings shall not be the sole means for the bonding required by this section.

[/FONT][/FONT]

If the grounded service conductor is not on the list of methods of ensuring continuity - then using regular lock nuts on one side of the conduit is not either IMO.

(*FYI - 'over-sized,' will be added here in '11 NEC to make sure people bond past reducing washers...)

 

[George Stolz]

It amazes me that you point to an example that clearly demonstrates that when the Code wants a raceway bonded on both ends that it's clear in doing so as a proof to your belief - it actually proves the exact opposite point.

Lightning is a high frequency event and the GEC is designed to give that event a path to earth. Therefore, ferrous raceways containing a GEC have to be designed to limit that choking effect.

Somehow you think the effects of this type of fault are ONLY going to go through one conduit to one place... On the other ends of the grounded service conductor there are a whole bunch of other grounding electrodes in other building. Are you telling me that this type of fault current is not going to find its way down this path in whole or in part? Care to prove wrong me on that? If not - how is that not different?

Would you like to encourage the lightning back to the utility and to the neighbors, or would you like to encourage the lightning into the local grounding electrode?

It is entirely different than a ground fault, making those provisions at an offset nipple in a service is not necessary, so it's not required.

250.64(E) is explicit that you must bond both sides of that raceway. If they wanted us to bond both sides of a raceway or nipple in service equipment, they would not make any bones about demanding it.

What ignorant power company employees, Frank the Barber down the street, or untrained/belligerent inspectors want to see is not relevant in the discussion. What is relevant is what the NEC requires, and does not require.

It clearly does not require bonding on both sides of this nipple between the meter socket and service disconnect, because if it were required, it would be specifically required the way that 250.64(E) does.

Without making specific exceptions for service risers or laterals (which do not seem to be in the NEC style manual) certain raceways like those to a weather head would need an exception if written that way - 'Both ends - except this and that....'

Why are you being choosy about which raceways ahead of the service disconnect you think should get this special bonding? If there were a logical point to try to require a lightning-friendly fault path, down a lightning-rod-esque mast on a service would be far more logical than the nipple amid the service equipment itself.

Glad I was not the only one that thought that.

Look - I know I'm pissing in the wind.... :roll: I have not changed anyones mind here or anywhere else that I know of. (And maybe especially yours... ) And I doubt I will - but why not try...

Perhaps because the argument serves to perpetuate myths about bonding?

You have two paths of current (normal operating current, fault current of all kinds) and little way to change that in most of the situations I'm in limited to with RMC - Which is why it is a pet peev of mine. Am I going to roll over and play dead?

One path of current - the neutral is fine, add another path that sucks and does not fit the intent or wording IMO - then they both suck... Is it not a contradiction to 250.06?

"...then they both suck..." - Why does the addition of a second ground fault current path degrade the first?

The only reason to try to get rid of the second path is 250.6. When dealing with 250.6, you have to set aside the conditions of ground faults and lightning events, per 250.6(C). Subsection (C) states flat out that these items are not what they're getting at when discussing objectionable current.

Have you ever seen or heard of a problem with objectionable current causing an injury, fatality, shock, nuisance condition or anything else between a meter socket and service equipment? Have you ever heard of the objectionable current damaging the raceway, causing a hazard?

Does adding a second bonding bushing on the other end of that conduit eliminate the objectionable current? No. So what is your motive for thinking it should be required?

(B) Method of Bonding at the Service. Electrical continuity at service equipment, service raceways, and service conductor enclosures shall be ensured by one of the following methods:

Note: The word "Bonding" is not in the body of the code. "Electrical Continuity" is the 'method of bonding' at three different things... And by one of four different methods to follow... (BTW the grounded service conductor is not mentioned above.)

(1) Bonding equipment to the grounded service conductor in a manner provided in 250.8

"Bonding equipment" - not raceways, or enclosures, but "Bonding equipment" (a verb and a noun) to (a verb) the grounded service conductor. (another noun) Sure - "Equipment" - is a general term, but raceways are not mentioned in the definition... But - It does not say to bond anything else to it, or to use the grounded service conductor for continuity to anything else.

(2) Connections utilizing threaded couplings or threaded bosses on enclosures where made up wrenchtight

Self-explainitory...

(3) Threadless couplings and connectors where made up tight for metal raceways and metal-clad cables

Self-explainitory...

(4) Other listed devices, such as bonding-type locknuts, bushings, or bushings with bonding jumpers

Self-explainitory...

Please note that there is no 5th method. The grounded service conductor is not listed as a method on its own.

Bonding jumpers meeting the other requirements of this article shall be used around, *concentric, or eccentric knockouts that are punched or otherwise formed so as to impair the electrical connection to ground. Standard locknuts or bushings shall not be the sole means for the bonding required by this section.

If the grounded service conductor is not on the list of methods of ensuring continuity - then using regular lock nuts on one side of the conduit is not either IMO.

Help me out here, because it really looks like in the midst of telling me that the raceway needs to be bonded twice, that you're saying it's not "equipment" and therefore is not required to be bonded at all.

And it also looks like you're saying that connecting the neutral to the raceway is illegal? Or that bonding all the service equipment to the neutral conductor as it passes through the various equipment of the service does not guarantee electrical continuity. How can two pieces of equipment bonded to the same conductor not be electrically continuous?

 

[e57]

Would you like to encourage the lightning back to the utility and to the neighbors, or would you like to encourage the lightning into the local grounding electrode?


Why are you being choosy about which raceways ahead of the service disconnect you think should get this special bonding? If there were a logical point to try to require a lightning-friendly fault path, down a lightning-rod-esque mast on a service would be far more logical than the nipple amid the service equipment itself.

Thats my point - odds are - that type of fault energy is most likely going to be on the service conductors... Not head down the rod only... Or even one rod only, odds are it would dissipated across all rods on the system, and every other conductive path...

"...then they both suck..." - Why does the addition of a second ground fault current path degrade the first?

Lightning is a high frequency event and the GEC is designed to give that event a path to earth. Therefore, ferrous raceways containing a GEC have to be designed to limit that choking effect.

Nor am I being choosy about raceways. Is fault energy, or potential have a path out of a single ended raceway? But that is not totally the point either. This is also a path for fault current for short circuits, and everyday current for most of the loads in the structure.

Perhaps because the argument serves to perpetuate myths about bonding?

Maybe so... But I have never met the inspector from NY mentioned in the OP. Or the guy who made the drawing on page 16. Nor do I see any myth involved in what I'm saying. The code doesn't say one end only. And it if I'm saying were that crazy - the code would say "shall not be bonded at both ends" - it doesn't say that either. It says electrical continuity shall be ensured by one of the following methods, and the grounded service conductor is not on the list.... The code as written - is flawed if you say one end only is allowed. And schematically - it makes little sense to make sure a conductive path is real good on one side - and not the other. (Like a properly torqued terminal on one end - and a loosy goosy wire nut on the other.)

The only reason to try to get rid of the second path is 250.6. When dealing with 250.6, you have to set aside the conditions of ground faults and lightning events, per 250.6(C). Subsection (C) states flat out that these items are not what they're getting at when discussing objectionable current.

Note the word "temporary" - the connection at hand will always carry neutral current of the load. And if the connection of the neutral fails - and I'm sure you are aware they do fail from time to time - it will then carry ALL of the current (temporary fault or otherwise) unbeknownst to the user until it too fails...

Have you ever seen or heard of a problem with objectionable current causing an injury, fatality, shock, nuisance condition or anything else between a meter socket and service equipment? Have you ever heard of the objectionable current damaging the raceway, causing a hazard?

Yes - I have... Nearly nearly caused a fire. Was it a meter and main - no. It was a sub-panel that some hack had installed the 'provided' bonding jumper in allowing current through the EMT raceway through a loose nut on a concentric knock-out. Schematically is that any different than the two connections on the meter enclosure and main enclosure bonded to the neutral and a metallic path between them - no...

Does adding a second bonding bushing on the other end of that conduit eliminate the objectionable current? No. So what is your motive for thinking it should be required?

To fit the letter of the code by providing electrical continuity by the methods in 250.92(B) Would I love to eliminate the objectionable current? - yes. However I'm limited to RMC, and there is no fitting I know of to isolate the conduit from the enclosure. Catch 22 for me - which like I said - is why it is one of my pet peeves....

(FWIW I prefer all-in-one meter main combo's - but not always suited or available for the situation... )

Help me out here, because it really looks like in the midst of telling me that the raceway needs to be bonded twice, that you're saying it's not "equipment" and therefore is not required to be bonded at all.

And it also looks like you're saying that connecting the neutral to the raceway is illegal? Or that bonding all the service equipment to the neutral conductor as it passes through the various equipment of the service does not guarantee electrical continuity. How can two pieces of equipment bonded to the same conductor not be electrically continuous?

I think I have explained my position quite clearly... And you do not have to see any merit in what I say - and seems you do not... Really it is not like I'm trying to get you to convert to some crystal healing pipe dream... But to perpetuate the bond one end only mantra as if it were the ONLY ONE TRUE WAY - seems well - against all that is holy... (kidding...)

 

[iwire]

Look - I know I'm pissing in the wind.... :roll: I have not changed anyones mind here or anywhere else that I know of. (And maybe especially yours... )

Right back at you. I cannot recall a time where you have ever changed you're position, that is why I have not really been posting to to this thread. One difference between us is you seem to take it personal where I do not.

I have 'ADD' ... not really, but I am not into 5000 character posts so can you keep it simple.

First question, in your view does the NEC require both ends of service raceways to be bonded?

Question 2 if the above is yes where is the permission to ignore that requirement with risers and masts?

 

[ike5547]

But to perpetuate the bond one end only mantra as if it were the ONLY ONE TRUE WAY...

No one said you are doing it wrong.

Whether you use two short jumpers (one at each end) or one long unbroken jumper that hits everything -- they do the same job.

 

[George Stolz]

Ike, if the ungrounded conductor inside the nipple is damaged, and energizes the nipple, the nipple needs a fault current path that does not rely on concentric knockouts. If you have attached the neutral conductor to that nipple one time, at either end, you have achieved this goal.

That's what we're arguing about. Mark says we have to bond it on both ends, which is generally agreed to be incorrect.

 

[ike5547]

Ike, if the ungrounded conductor inside the nipple is damaged, and energizes the nipple, the nipple needs a fault current path that does not rely on concentric knockouts. If you have attached the neutral conductor to that nipple one time, at either end, you have achieved this goal.

That's what we're arguing about. Mark says we have to bond it on both ends, which is generally agreed to be incorrect.

My take is that you are not limited to one method over the other. I have used, and will continue to use, either method.

*edit*

Of course that appears to be basically what you just said.

 

[George Stolz]

My take is that you are not limited to one method over the other. I have used, and will continue to use, either method.

Right - we're permitted to do either, but not required to bond both ends.

 

[George Stolz]

Would you like to encourage the lightning back to the utility and to the neighbors, or would you like to encourage the lightning into the local grounding electrode?


Why are you being choosy about which raceways ahead of the service disconnect you think should get this special bonding? If there were a logical point to try to require a lightning-friendly fault path, down a lightning-rod-esque mast on a service would be far more logical than the nipple amid the service equipment itself.

Thats my point - odds are - that type of fault energy is most likely going to be on the service conductors... Not head down the rod only... Or even one rod only, odds are it would dissipated across all rods on the system, and every other conductive path...

If the GEC has no choke, but there are chokes permitted on the other paths, then the lightning will favor the unchoked path.

Nor am I being choosy about raceways.

Yes you are - you don't want to bond the service raceway called "mast" twice, but you want us to bond the service raceway called "nipple" twice.

Is fault energy, or potential have a path out of a single ended raceway?

YES, if the raceway is connected to the service neutral.

Perhaps because the argument serves to perpetuate myths about bonding?

Maybe so... But I have never met the inspector from NY mentioned in the OP. Or the guy who made the drawing on page 16.

I addressed that already, here:

What ignorant power company employees, Frank the Barber down the street, or untrained/belligerent inspectors want to see is not relevant in the discussion. What is relevant is what the NEC requires, and does not require.

Let's stay on point.

Nor do I see any myth involved in what I'm saying. The code doesn't say one end only. And it if I'm saying were that crazy - the code would say "shall not be bonded at both ends" - it doesn't say that either.

The Code is a permissive document. If it contains no prohibition, or no specific requirement as to how a task is to be done, then there is no enforcement of a higher requirement without a local amendment. See previous discussion regarding 250.64(E).

It says electrical continuity shall be ensured by one of the following methods, and the grounded service conductor is not on the list....

You've quoted it yourself: 250.92(B)(1). Yes, it does! What else are you bonding this nipple to?

The code as written - is flawed if you say one end only is allowed. And schematically - it makes little sense to make sure a conductive path is real good on one side - and not the other. (Like a properly torqued terminal on one end - and a loosy goosy wire nut on the other.)

Now you're adding more code violations to try to make your case. The locknut on the side of the nipple that does not feature a bonding bushing is required to be electrically continuous and tight by 300.10, 300.12, and 3XX.42 of whatever wiring method you choose.

The only reason to try to get rid of the second path is 250.6...

Note the word "temporary" - the connection at hand will always carry neutral current of the load. And if the connection of the neutral fails - and I'm sure you are aware they do fail from time to time - it will then carry ALL of the current (temporary fault or otherwise) unbeknownst to the user until it too fails...

And all of Article 110 is dedicated to telling us how to do our jobs to ensure that our connections do not fail. In this example, the "official" neutral conductor between the meter socket and the service disconnect would have to fail for the nipple to be carrying the entire neutral current. Who is responsible for these connections? How does bonding the raceway better alleviate our responsibility for making a good "official" neutral connection?

More importantly, where does it say that service raceways must be constructed to serve as a stand-in for the neutral conductor if it fails?

Have you ever seen or heard of a problem with objectionable current causing an injury, fatality, shock, nuisance condition or anything else between a meter socket and service equipment? Have you ever heard of the objectionable current damaging the raceway, causing a hazard?

Yes - I have... Nearly nearly caused a fire. Was it a meter and main - no. It was a sub-panel that some hack had installed the 'provided' bonding jumper in allowing current through the EMT raceway through a loose nut on a concentric knock-out. Schematically is that any different than the two connections on the meter enclosure and main enclosure bonded to the neutral and a metallic path between them - no...

So two bonding connections are required because people violate Article 110, 250.6 and 250.142, and 358.42?

Help me out here, because it really looks like in the midst of telling me that the raceway needs to be bonded twice, that you're saying it's not "equipment" and therefore is not required to be bonded at all.

And it also looks like you're saying that connecting the neutral to the raceway is illegal? Or that bonding all the service equipment to the neutral conductor as it passes through the various equipment of the service does not guarantee electrical continuity. How can two pieces of equipment bonded to the same conductor not be electrically continuous?

I think I have explained my position quite clearly... And you do not have to see any merit in what I say - and seems you do not... Really it is not like I'm trying to get you to convert to some crystal healing pipe dream... But to perpetuate the bond one end only mantra as if it were the ONLY ONE TRUE WAY - seems well - against all that is holy... (kidding...)

I know you're not trying to convert me - the overall message disturbs me. Essentially, "It does not matter what nationally recognized instructors say, it does not matter what the Code actually says. Whatever the POCO/inspector says is what is required."

In the case of the POCO schematic, well, there you go, the POCO has generated a schematic and is as good as law. I can accept that for a given installation. In the case of an inspector, he should have an amendment supporting his case, because the NEC sure doesn't. It's an opportunity for education then, not a prime opportunity to give in and increase the educational gap.

You seem to embrace nonsensical orders from on high that have no basis, I tend to try to get those on high locally on the same page as the rest of the nation when the opportunity presents itself, to help me, to help my fellow electricians locally and to try to help the industry at large.

Have you ever tried to write down all the pet peeves for a given area, between the AHJ and POCO? I know of several people (myself included) that have tried and failed, the book got too big to write. Isn't it better to try to coax them all to same page so you don't have to try to keep track? How? One inspection at a time.

 

[e57]

Right back at you. I cannot recall a time where you have ever changed you're position, that is why I have not really been posting to to this thread. One difference between us is you seem to take it personal where I do not.

I have 'ADD' ... not really, but I am not into 5000 character posts so can you keep it simple.

First question, in your view does the NEC require both ends of service raceways to be bonded?

Question 2 if the above is yes where is the permission to ignore that requirement with risers and masts?

You do not remember - but I do - and I'm not going to go searching through 4000 posts to find the 2-3 times that I have changed my mind and even admitted publicly that I was wrong about something. One that I can remember is a debate with you on CCC's - with you - where I came back to publicly admit I was wrong... I do not take this or any other of the issues here 'personally' - my feelings are not hurt. But there are 2-3 code issues where common interpretation and practice seem unjustified to me - and even wrong - and can not be backed up in the letter of the codes themselves... (The way I see it - and I'm often not completely alone in that, although here there is often a collective school of thought on some issues - like this one. And probably should not list to distract the thread - but I know - that you know what they are.... )

We (you and I) have debated this particular issue to the point of "agree to dis-agree", and I'm fine with that... Does that agreement mean I have changed my mind - no. But since you have some listed the two questions - I'm happy to address them:

1. The code in question says 'electrical continuity' by one of 4 methods... To me that means there is a path of continuity from one adjacent item to the next one. There is a path of 'electrical continuity' between the nipple and the meter pan with two regular locknut that has not gone away by bonding the other end. And one of those 4 methods is not the grounded service conductor itself used as a bonding jumper between the enclosures.
2. There is nothing on the other (weather head ) side of a service riser to have a path of continuity to.

Say there were gutter: riser to a gutter, then meter pan(s) and then main OCP enclosure(s). A common enough install right. IMO the conduit connection to the gutter requires a hub, or listed bonding fitting to the gutter. (Provides electrical continuity to the adjoining item.) The next items are in question here. And here is how I see it:

The nipples between the gutter and meter also need 'electrical continuity' from the gutter - to the conduit, and yes again from the conduit to the meter pan.

And again from the meter pan to the nipple/conduit, and from the nipple/conduit to the main panel(s).

Those in the 'one end' school of thought seem to think that the path of continuity is ensured by the grounded service conductor by pointing to 250.92(B)1 and using the neutral as a bonding jumper per se. IMO the path of continuity at the each end of the conduit has not gone away, and not ensured by any of the listed methods by bonding only one end.

 

[e57]

If the GEC has no choke, but there are chokes permitted on the other paths, then the lightning will favor the unchoked path.

Lightning will favor one path over the other? This is contray to the idea that current will flow on ALL PATHS, and that one of the more likely entrances of this type of energy is on the service conductors themselves. In the case at hand - would be from the mast or service conductors then split at the MBJ in the meter pan, and take BOTH paths to the next enclosure to the MBJ in the meter then split again to all of the connected electrodes. (Or vise versa depending on the type of lightning itself and current direction - from/to...)

Yes you are - you don't want to bond the service raceway called "mast" twice, but you want us to bond the service raceway called "nipple" twice.

As I have mentioned there is nothing on the other end of the service mast to have electrical continuity to. No conductive path... The metallic nipple is a conductive path - like it or not. And continuity on that path would be impaired on one end if not bonded on both ends...

YES, if the raceway is connected to the service neutral.

Is the service neutral a bonding jumper between the enclosures? Then there should be an FPN stating such IMO.

~~~~

Now you're adding more code violations to try to make your case. The locknut on the side of the nipple that does not feature a bonding bushing is required to be electrically continuous and tight by 300.10, 300.12, and 3XX.42 of whatever wiring method you choose.

No - I made an analogy... And in addressing it you point to my exact aurgument on this topic. The other side of the nipple and its continuity is required to be ensured by bonding and standard locknuts are applicable to this section. Auguement of the use of the word "sole". And the use of the grounded service conductor to provide continuity as an alternate path that does not eliminate the other path of continuity.

 

[George Stolz]

Lightning will favor one path over the other? This is contray to the idea that current will flow on ALL PATHS...

Are you serious? Are you unaware of the reason why 250.64(E) requires that ferrous metal conduit to be bonded on both sides? Are you unaware why it is recommended that GECs not be longer or contain more twists and turns than absolutely necessary?

Is the service neutral a bonding jumper between the enclosures? Then there should be an FPN stating such IMO.

What else are you bonding to?

 

[shepelec]

The issue seems to be the lack of understanding as to why something is done.
We all know what the book says and have slightly different interpretations based on our own experiences.

It is not what the code book says but the actual understanding as to why we need to bond and ground in different areas of the service. There is a difference between why we bond a line side nipple and bonding at the main ocp. When you understand the purposes of bonding at these locations the code articles seem to be a bit more clear, notice I said a bit.

I'm not trying to "fuel the fire", just making an observation.

 

[ike5547]

The other side of the nipple and its continuity is required to be ensured by bonding and standard locknuts are applicable to this section. Auguement of the use of the word "sole". And the use of the grounded service conductor to provide continuity as an alternate path that does not eliminate the other path of continuity.

Whether you bond the nipple on one side, or the other, or in the middle, or just left of the middle, the entire nipple is bonded.

You can bond it once or one-hundred times and and the entire thing will still be bonded -- left to right, top to bottom.

I'm not sure if you vs. everyone else are even discussing the same thing here.

Could you enlighten us as to the mechanics of what constitutes a nipple that is only bonded on one side? Where are the connection points that you envision, etc?

This stuff seems very, very, basic to me and I'm baffled over this debate. There must be some kind of miscommunication going on here.

 

[ike5547]

What else are you bonding to?

Maybe he is thinking that you're thinking that we/you/I/they think it's okay to use the neutral conductor itself to bond anywhere we feel like, wherever the neutral happens to be, or whatever the neutral is passing through.

If so, I don't know how one would come to that conclusion.

 

[LarryFine]

Maybe he is thinking that you're thinking that we/you/I/they think it's okay to use the neutral conductor itself to bond anywhere we feel like, wherever the neutral happens to be, or whatever the neutral is passing through.

Up to and including the main disco enclosure, either directly or through a jumper, I do think that.

 

[iwire]

Up to and including the main disco enclosure, either directly or through a jumper, I do think that.

I agree, I am sure ike5547 has something specific in mind.

 

[ike5547]

Up to and including the main disco enclosure, either directly or through a jumper, I do think that.

If all the intervening raceways, cabinets and fittings are metallic there will be neutral current flowing on them. Probably not much, but some. We don't do it that way around here.

 

[iwire]

If all the intervening raceways, cabinets and fittings are metallic there will be neutral current flowing on them. Probably not much, but some. We don't do it that way around here.

The NEC allows this current and in many cases it is unavoidable if you have metallic raceway between the meter enclosure and the service disconnect enclosure.

 

[ike5547]

The NEC allows this current and in many cases it is unavoidable if you have metallic raceway between the meter enclosure and the service disconnect enclosure.

I don't reject that interpretation out of hand. I've never looked in to it from that perspective. Here we only bond the neutral to the equipment at one location. The rest of the bonding is just jumpers from enclosures to fittings and etc.

I thought (assumed) that multiple bonding points between the grounded conductor and equipment was only allowed in the case where the equipment was connected together via PVC or some other non-conductive method.