Spot the violation(s) Texas

Status
Not open for further replies.
:smile:I guess if we all kept our opinions to ourselves and the NEC to our posts, we would have nothing to talk about.:smile:
 
Last edited:
Karl H said:
So your saying I might not be smarter than everyone else on the
crew? I'm going to have to disagree! :D
Click to expand...
If you mean to say you're a Foreman? That doesn't make your "smarter" - right or wrong - that makes you "In Charge", and "Under-paid".... ;) As well as "Stuck in the middle", "Heardin' Cats" - "a Big Dog on a Loose Leash" and a number of other things..... :grin: Or at least thats how I feel often... :rolleyes:
 
e57 said:
IMO there is nothing to imply "One End"
Click to expand...


But more importantly there is nothing that requires both ends or that the conduit must be connected to the neutral twice.

Mark I have a great deal of respect for you but I really think your just stuck on 'we have always done both ends so it must be right' line of thinking.:smile:
 
e57 said:
The wording 250.64E used to be 250.92(A)3 until Mike Holt got a hold of it in the '08 cycle.... His reasoning for moving it was to move it to a location better suited to it - for the application of GEC's.
Click to expand...

Sorry, that proves my point. There is a definite difference in language between the two.

IMO there is nothing to imply "One End"
Click to expand...
It is absolutely implied. The specific requirement to bond both ends of a metallic raceway that encloses a GEC is not present anywhere else.
The more I read it, the clearer it is.
The requirement is to bond. Period. Nowhere does it state "both ends" for service raceways.Therefore, bonding one end is all that is required.

I will also point to the wording of 250.90, and the fact that the first word of 250.92(A)2 is "ALL". As well as the wording of 250.92B - note that the the use of plaruals for raceways, and enclosures. If the meter in this case were a raceway (gutter) it would definatly need to be bonded - would it not? The fact that it has an additional MBJ in it should go back to 250.90 for additional reinforcement.
Click to expand...

Bonding one end still meets the requirement.
 
e57 said:
So which one do you bond it to???? Both have a MBJ. Both are service equipment enclosures.

Anyway - I would really like to know where the "one end" comes from? Nothing in the code to imply 'one end' is acceptable, (Other than a graphic from Mike Holt) or not. Especially, since this conduit or others like it will be current carrying.
Click to expand...

bond any end you like. the meter socket doesn't have a MBJ per se, it's connected directly to the can. Just like the ladder on a pool, both sides don't have to be connected to the pool grid.
 
iwire said:
But more importantly there is nothing that requires both ends or that the conduit must be connected to the neutral twice.

Mark I have a great deal of respect for you but I really think your just stuck on 'we have always done both ends so it must be right' line of thinking.:smile:
Click to expand...
And I too for you Bob, but don't think it is because it is solely because it has been the way I have been doing as a reason. Solely because I do not see how the imposed objectionable current is going to ignore the laws of physics and go the other way on a parallel path. It is going to go through that metalic path no matter how the code is written or how anyone of us interpets it. And I beleive it will be carrying roughly 50% of of the unbalanced neutral current from the main to the meter enclosure - would you disagree with that? And the method of doing that safely is laid out in 250.6 A&B, as well as 250.(A)4 - unless that becomes a non-metalic ot isolated at one end, I do not think that it conducts current safely, or provides a good fault path to the source - that is in the meter.

If anything I think a lot of other people are ignoring that this is current carrying and bonding one end is not going to change the direction of that current - bondint it on both ends is a much safer method of carrying that current - essentially making the enclosures 'one' to handle the current imposed.
 
e57 said:
If anything I think a lot of other people are ignoring that this is current carrying and bonding one end is not going to change the direction of that current - bondint it on both ends is a much safer method of carrying that current - essentially making the enclosures 'one' to handle the current imposed.
Click to expand...

And you are ignoring the fact that this bonding is required to conduct safely any fault current likely to be imposed.

I do see the point you are making. However, I would rather make it more difficult for the neutral current to travel on the conduit. I want it to travel on the neutral conductor.

You do realize that your method increases the neutral current on that conduit? Your method cannot be called safer.
 
JohnJ0906 said:
And you are ignoring the fact that this bonding is required to conduct safely any fault current likely to be imposed.

I do see the point you are making. However, I would rather make it more difficult for the neutral current to travel on the conduit. I want it to travel on the neutral conductor.

You do realize that your method increases the neutral current on that conduit? Your method cannot be called safer.
Click to expand...
You think that bonding one end is going to MAKE current NOT go through it in any way shape or form? It's going weather you like it or not and at the same levels until the resistance of of the connections is changed - since resistance in this case can only go up - a higher resistance connection on this would be shown in the form of heat.... Please take a look at 250.6(B)4 bonding both ends falls into that.... Otherwise get the poco to change metering rules to remove the second ground point, or remove the MBJ, or non-metalic fitting beween the two.
 
e57 said:
You think that bonding one end is going to MAKE current NOT go through it in any way shape or form? It's going weather you like it or not and at the same levels until the resistance of of the connections is changed - since resistance in this case can only go up - a higher resistance connection on this would be shown in the form of heat.... Please take a look at 250.6(B)4 bonding both ends falls into that.... Otherwise get the poco to change metering rules to remove the second ground point, or remove the MBJ, or non-metalic fitting beween the two.
Click to expand...

I agree. I have agreed with most of what you have posted. I disagree with your interpretation of the NEC requirements, and don't agree with your method of installation. You are deliberately lowering the resistance of that conduit to increase the current traveling through it.

I use non-metallic conduit personally whenever possible.
 
e57 said:
You think that bonding one end is going to MAKE current NOT go through it in any way shape or form? It's going weather you like it or not and at the same levels until the resistance of of the connections is changed - since resistance in this case can only go up - a higher resistance connection on this would be shown in the form of heat....
Click to expand...
OK, so if one end is not well bonded and has a high resistance connection, and that connection is in parallel with the well bonded, low resistance connection at the other end, will the high resistance connection carry enough current to cause problematic heating? I think we can treat this as a constant voltage source, unlike a high resistance connection in series, where all the current goes through the high resistance connection. So then P = V^2/R, and the high resistance connection will be dissipating less power than the low resistance connection.

I agree that the best solution is to use a non-conducting raceway between the two enclosures.

Cheers, Wayne
 
This issue could be resolved if those standard locknuts were removed and bonding type Locknuts were installed before the wire went in.
Although not the best way, it is an acceptable means of bonding.
 
wwhitney said:
I agree that the best solution is to use a non-conducting raceway between the two enclosures.

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
Now before I let this thread die its horrible death.

Wayne, I hope you know that the option above is not available to either one of us? (That is if you are really in Berkley California - and I guess you don't do too many services?) PG&E our POCO and all the AHJ in the Bay Area will not allow conductors in anything but RMC. (The NEC and other documents are interpeted differently locally)

And you have to ground the neutral in the meter. See bottom of page 15 & 16 - PG&E requires a grounded neutral connection in their meter enclosure - the NEC also requires it to be in the main disconnect enclosure. So that limits options in 250.6(B) to only 250.6(B)4 which means bonding the ground fault current path - all raceways and enclosures. If you want try one end - let me know how it goes.

Sl?inte (cheers) Mark
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top