Parallel Path

[A/A Fuel GTX]

I'm not sure what you mean, "terminate the GEC". Are you saying the "other system" bonding conductors that land under the #10-32 grounding and bonding screws of the Byer In Line gizmo? Or do you actually mean you want to bond an enclosure with a GEC landed under a Byer In Line terminal screw and the Byer In Line only connected to the enclosure by the 1/2" locknut?

What I'm saying is it would be nice to be able to make the GEC connection to a service via the GEC being terminated under the large in line set screw in the Byer and using the locknut to make the connection to the grounded conductor via the meter base enclosure. I doubt it would be acceptable but is a screw in a neutral bar really any better connection than a tight lock nut?

 

[A/A Fuel GTX]

You are attaching to a meter socket, right? If so there is no parallel path issue, by nature of the code they are required.

There would be a parallel path if a conductor was run from the loadcenter neutral bar to the Byer attached to the meter socket. But after the comments from this thread, I believe the conductor in unnecessary and the locknut/meterbase connection is an adequate intrasystem bonding connection.

 

[al hildenbrand]

I doubt it would be acceptable but is a screw in a neutral bar really any better connection than a tight lock nut?

I think the answer lies in 250.94(6)

The terminals shall be listed as grounding and bonding equipment.

A locknut is not a terminal.

 

[al hildenbrand]

There would be a parallel path if a conductor was run from the loadcenter neutral bar to the Byer attached to the meter socket.

Yes, there is, and that is allowed.

 

[infinity]

There would be a parallel path if a conductor was run from the loadcenter neutral bar to the Byer attached to the meter socket.

Yes, there is, and that is allowed.

IMO that's a direct violation of 250.6.

 

[al hildenbrand]

IMO that's a direct violation of 250.6.

Objectionable Current, eh? Then, the actual GECs in this three house setup should be removed, by 250.6, even though the dwelling water system supplies are metallic?

 

[infinity]

Objectionable Current, eh? Then, the actual GECs in this three house setup should be removed, by 250.6, even though the dwelling water system supplies are metallic?

Your comparison it unfair. We're talking about connecting a conductor in parallel with the neutral that is not required. Yes objectionable current exists in examples like yours because we're required to use the water pipe as an electrode. We do not have the same requirement for running a #6 between the panel and the meter enclosure. In fact 250.6(B) tells us how to fix it.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Your comparison it unfair.

OK, setting aside a "normal" portion of unbalance load current on the GEC, let's look at only connections along and in parallel with a grounded service conductor only between the service disconnect and the meter.

We're talking about connecting a conductor in parallel with the neutral that is not required.

What if I mount a service center with a metal enclosure beside a meter socket, and support them commonly on metal structural channel. Now, I could choose a non-conductive support, but I choose strut. The strut, of course, is conductive and creates a parallel path for current on the grounded service conductor. Is this a violation of 250.6? IMO, no.

Let's say I run the service conductors that go between the service center and the meter in a metallic raceway. This is almost always a design choice, only. The metallic raceway is a parallel path for current on the grounded service conductor. Is this a violation of 250.6? IMO, no.

Let's say the metal strut is mounted to a wall that is framed with metal studs and contains metal ductwork for the HVAC system and the metal ductwork is connected in places to structural building steel that in turn is connected to the earth (as well as the GES) which is connected to the PoCo transformer ground which in turn connects to the grounded conductor at the transformer secondary terminals. There's a nice parallel path here. . . 250.6? IMO, no.

I could continue, but, my point is the current is "objectionable" when it affects "sensitive electronics," not because its one of the many currents in the multitude of parallel paths for a grounded service conductor existing on the line side of the Main Bonding Jumper.

 

[GoldDigger]

I could continue, but, my point is the current is "objectionable" when it affects "sensitive electronics," not because its one of the many currents in the multitude of parallel paths for a grounded service conductor existing on the line side of the Main Bonding Jumper.

An artificial situation perhaps, but for families near that infamous southern California substation, objectionable currents are those that belong to the utility and are flowing through their grounding system from one end to the other because of the steep earth potential gradient in their yard.

 

[kwired]

There would be a parallel path if a conductor was run from the loadcenter neutral bar to the Byer attached to the meter socket. But after the comments from this thread, I believe the conductor in unnecessary and the locknut/meterbase connection is an adequate intrasystem bonding connection.

Why are you running a conductor (besides the grounded service conductor) between the meter and loadcenter in the first place? If you don't think the locknut is sufficient bonding method mount the intersystem bonding device in the loadcenter and run the GEC to the loadcenter and through this device. You said the meter and loadcenter are adjacent to each other so it shouldn't be that big of a deal to do it this way.

 

[Little Bill]

Why are you running a conductor (besides the grounded service conductor) between the meter and loadcenter in the first place? If you don't think the locknut is sufficient bonding method mount the intersystem bonding device in the loadcenter and run the GEC to the loadcenter and through this device. You said the meter and loadcenter are adjacent to each other so it shouldn't be that big of a deal to do it this way.

You can't do that. The innersystem bonding bridge is only for other utilities (phone, cable,etc) to connect to. They couldn't connect to it if it was in the load center!:happyno:

If it wasn't for us having to do half the work for the other utilities, we wouldn't even need the bridge!

 

[kwired]

You can't do that. The innersystem bonding bridge is only for other utilities (phone, cable,etc) to connect to. They couldn't connect to it if it was in the load center!:happyno:

If it wasn't for us having to do half the work for the other utilities, we wouldn't even need the bridge!

Maybe you missed how this installs, through a KO and the intersystem bonding terminals are on the outside of whatever enclosure it is attached to, same people could not connect to it if it was "in" the meter socket either

 

[A/A Fuel GTX]

Maybe you missed how this installs, through a KO and the intersystem bonding terminals are on the outside of whatever enclosure it is attached to, same people could not connect to it if it was "in" the meter socket either

KW.....Lil' Bill is right. The meter socket is outside and the loadcenter is inside. If the Byer was installed at the load center, the device wouldn't be accessible to the other utilities to connect to. Being mounted to the bottom of the meter socket gives unlimited accessibilty.

 

[Little Bill]

Why are you running a conductor (besides the grounded service conductor) between the meter and loadcenter in the first place? If you don't think the locknut is sufficient bonding method mount the intersystem bonding device in the loadcenter and run the GEC to the loadcenter and through this device. You said the meter and loadcenter are adjacent to each other so it shouldn't be that big of a deal to do it this way.

Maybe you missed how this installs, through a KO and the intersystem bonding terminals are on the outside of whatever enclosure it is attached to, same people could not connect to it if it was "in" the meter socket either

No, I didn't miss how it mounts. You said "in" the load center, and I was responding to that! And I didn't say to mount it in the meter socket either!:happyno:

However, the code says to mount it near or on the meter enclosure as one of the methods.

KW.....Lil' Bill is right. The meter socket is outside and the loadcenter is inside. If the Byer was installed at the load center, the device wouldn't be accessible to the other utilities to connect to. Being mounted to the bottom of the meter socket gives unlimited accessibilty.

:thumbsup:

 

[kwired]

KW.....Lil' Bill is right. The meter socket is outside and the loadcenter is inside. If the Byer was installed at the load center, the device wouldn't be accessible to the other utilities to connect to. Being mounted to the bottom of the meter socket gives unlimited accessibilty.

No, I didn't miss how it mounts. You said "in" the load center, and I was responding to that! And I didn't say to mount it in the meter socket either!:happyno:

However, the code says to mount it near or on the meter enclosure as one of the methods.



:thumbsup:

Ok, I understand what we have now.

I think you may be pushing the definition of "adjacent" a little in the OP, if on the opposite side of the wall is considered adjacent.

 

[ActionDave]

I'm confused. Is the service disconnect outside or inside? I would believe that it would be inside if the GEC is being run to it.

 

[A/A Fuel GTX]

I'm confused. Is the service disconnect outside or inside? I would believe that it would be inside if the GEC is being run to it.

Correct, the main breaker is inside.

 

[ghorwood]

Would this work?

Would this work?

Nice device. Since you have all the parts in hand, couldn't you attach the device to the meter can and run a short piece of the #6 from the neutral lug in the can down thru the device? Or do the same except locate it at the loadcenter?

 

[A/A Fuel GTX]

Nice device. Since you have all the parts in hand, couldn't you attach the device to the meter can and run a short piece of the #6 from the neutral lug in the can down thru the device? Or do the same except locate it at the loadcenter?

Meter can, no, as at least around here, the POCO won't allow the connection in the can but you absolutely can at the loadcenter.