Unique solution to an expensive situation.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jim W in Tampa said:
all you have is a code compliant install as of the date of install.
Jim, this is true of any installation and unless you are going back everyday for the rest of your life to stay on top of it, you won't know what has happened to your work.

Jim W in Tampa said:
NEC keeps upgrading requirements because some things in time were not seen as safe.
Click to expand...
And in these upgrades the NEC has actually lessened certain requirements, and using a metallic raceway is still allowed and is safe with no changes.

Roger
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
roger said:
using a metallic raceway is still allowed and is safe with no changes. Roger
Click to expand...


I really don't think that is the question. Everyone does agree that EMT is allowed as the EGC and that it can be safe.

On a new installation either yourself or someone from your company would verify the mechanical integrity of the conduit and it would also be open for a visual inspection by the authorities.

Now we have someone comming in after the fact and useing a megger to test for continuity as a method to verify mechanical integrity. Either this conduit is visible and open for inspection or the EMT is useless as an EGC.

I can touch two pieces of metal togather and get a zero continuity reading but that doesn't mean it's a properly bonded mechanical connection.

The OP is attempting to verify the work of someone else and he can either do a proper inspection of the conduit run or he can't. If it's not possible to inspect the conduit run then he is taking a chance.

If the OP had run the conduit or could see the connections and could verify the mechanical integrity of the conduit run you would see a difference of opinions from most people about the actual safety of this install.

The one thing that wasn't mentioned was if the local authorities were satisfied with the safety of this install ( the inspection department). He has changed the grounding system for this panel and this really should require an inspection and approval.
 
growler said:
I really don't think that is the question.
Click to expand...
I understand that , if you go back and read all the posts you will see that I was participating in this thread early on and I know what the question was that started it. My last posts were aimed at those bringing the old "the NEC is the minimum" as in some sort of sub standard installation practice in to the ball game.

Roger
 
roger said:
if you go back and read all the posts you will see that I was participating in this thread early on and I know what the question was that started it. My last posts were aimed at those bringing the old "the NEC is the minimum" as in some sort of sub standard installation practice in to the ball game.

Roger
Click to expand...


Sorry Roger, there have been many comments made and everyone is probably looking at things from a different perspective.

Augie47 asked the question first off if the conduit was visible and could be inspected. That's what has been bothering me the whole time. If he had said that the run was visible that would have changed my opinion but I think the megger test mentioned was meaningless. I doubt if the electrical inspector would sign off on this if the can't see the conduit run.

I do agree that minimum code is good enough if you can verify that you do meet the minimum. Sometimes it easier to prove you meet the minimum by going beyond the minimum ( just to make sure ).
 
mivey said:
"What If'd" sounds strangly close to "whiffed" doesn't it? :grin:

Was there an agreement on how the conduit should have been tested/certified?
Click to expand...

There is NO FEASIBLE way to test this, other than visual. You could use a ductor (micro-ohm meter), but you would be measuring all other metallic interconnected components in the facility as part of the grounding path.
 
Last edited:
brian john said:
There is NO FEASIBLE way to test this, other than visual. You could use a ductor (micro-ohm meter), but you would be measuring all other metallic components in the facility as part of the grounding path.
Click to expand...
Feasible being the key word. I figure if anyone would know a feasible way, you would.
 
I have never tested EMT nor have every been required to.

If I had continuity I will, and have used EMT as an EGC.:cool:

Good thing we don't make mountains out of mole hills here. :roll: :grin:
 
readydave8 said:
if the emt was installed to code, shouldn't it be "electrically continuous" (can't think of the right words) whether or not a egc was installed?
Click to expand...
Yes. But what if it were run overhead to and down through the nearest wall, then went underground in PVC. The EGC was run because the EMT on the load side of the PVC has to be bonded (and the panel too :roll:). The EMT is also electrically connected via supporting means to the grounded structural steel. It may very well pass the continuity testing to ground, but it would not be compliant with code for use as an EGC.
 
roger said:
Jim W in Tampa said:
all you have is a code compliant install as of the date of install.
Jim, this is true of any installation and unless you are going back everyday for the rest of your life to stay on top of it, you won't know what has happened to your work.

And in these upgrades the NEC has actually lessened certain requirements, and using a metallic raceway is still allowed and is safe with no changes.

Roger
Click to expand...

And far more was added threw the years. like gfci,afci .grounded receptacles, etc what year would you like to start at ? Where we safe without gfi receptacles ? They were added why ?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
iwire said:
:roll: Lets keep it professional.

I have no wading issues, but if you do not see a huge difference in price between using what is existing and pulling the feeders out only to put them back in with another conductor I don't know what to tell you.

I have no problem spending the customers money, we make more money on more expensive jobs which is great .... if you get the job. Maybe my area is different but I have to keep a very sharp pencil to get the jobs right now.
Click to expand...

Bob your partly right but just where do you draw the line to get a job ? There will always be a better safer way. At some point we cross the line to keep price down. Here i see it as pushing the limit. The inspector (if they pull permit) will not be testing and has no real choice but to pass it. It is not his problem if it fails. As long as what he sees meets code it passes. Liability is all yours.
 
Smart $ said:
Yes. But what if it were run overhead to and down through the nearest wall, then went underground in PVC. The EGC was run because the EMT on the load side of the PVC has to be bonded (and the panel too :roll:). The EMT is also electrically connected via supporting means to the grounded structural steel. It may very well pass the continuity testing to ground, but it would not be compliant with code for use as an EGC.
Click to expand...

Exactly what others are overlooking
 
brian john said:
4 post in a row you sure know how to beat a dead horse. I think it has been proven some will do things one way and others another way. You get 4 electricians in a room and you will get 5 different solutions to the same project.
Click to expand...

Very true and all might be right or wrong. When the horse stops moving it is dead. Still fun.
Is no answer to this post. Legal yes but only if installed correctly and so far that is highly questionable.
Simply another one of them we all are right but do not agree on why.
 
acrwc10 said:
No what I see is the issue of giving they customer a product that is not verified as safe. Maybe the way some sharpen their pencil should include a disclaimer " to get this job we are willing to cut corners". Is it really worth it to not verify the ground path? I would rather not get the job then comprimise the safety of my work.
Click to expand...

Can you give me a code reference on what you call "unsafe"? And can you tell me where did I cut corners? I explained the customer both scenarios. Cutting corners is when you pay for a rolls royce and you get a Yugo.
Last a lot of facts got "poetic licensed" on the way to the 110'th post.
The ground path WAS VERIFIED.
The ground path was visually inspected.
The wire was tested for not being bonded to boxes, etc.
The EMT was tested and it was enough to provide an interrupting on the 150A main.
Last: if I hadn't done it this way, and just tell the customer "it'll cost you 3K to install this receptacle, he'd have laughed in my face and call Joe Handyman who'd have wired the neutral on the ground bar, like a previous handyman did with another receptacle. Would you be happier with that outcome?
 
Jim W in Tampa said:
Bob your partly right but just where do you draw the line to get a job ? There will always be a better safer way.
Click to expand...

Hey, why drive 65MPH? there's always a safer speed? how about 55? But then there's even a safer speed? 45. Don't stop there though, 35 is even safer.
Guess what, people get hurt WALKING into things (not by cars, that's a given), so there's always safer. Like just standing still. But even then you might have an airplane fall on you. So where do you stop? When it costs a billion dollar to install a receptacle? I'm sure even with that, there's a safer way.
All I did ask here if anyone sees a code issue with this. I've been called "cheap", "cutting corners", (indirectly) "not knowing what I'm doing", etc.
I think people who run #10 on a 20A, 20' HR are gougers, how's that?
 
Jim W in Tampa said:
Legal yes but only if installed correctly and so far that is highly questionable.
Click to expand...

Let's see....
On one hand:
Legal = NEC Compliant.
NEC = thousands of highly qualified people in the electrical field putting together a set of rules based on science and proven things.

On the other hand:
Correct = what you feel is right.
Care to elaborate on what SCIENCE you base your correctness?
 
In conclusion.
After reading through all the posts I have one thing to say:
Thank God for structural people not thinking like electricians.
I can just see it: 100' wide foundations for a small house. 2000 yards bridge columns.
After all, there's always safer.
Here's an idea.
If the twin towers were built with 100' thick beams I'm sure they would have never collapsed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top