Unique solution to an expensive situation.

[hillbilly1]

.........But even then you might have an airplane fall on you....................

That's already happened, a man was jogging on a beach listening to his iPod, and a small plane making a crash landing hit and killed him, talk about bad luck!

 

[brian john]

The ground path WAS VERIFIED.

How did you complete this?

 

[kwired]

Strife - don't let them get to you too much, they can seem to be against you at times but in the middle of what may seem like nonsense something will come up that never occurred to you and you will learn from it.

Only you know what you have and what you did, and as thorough as the comments only you will know if you are in over your head on something.

You ultimately are the one that has assumed any liability for your actions, the more information you get the more or less confident you will be with what you did.

Coming in after someone elses install most times you can tell if the original installer(s) did a good job by just looking around a little. Paying attention to some of the little details will give you some clues of what to expect from things that may be covered up.

 

[mivey]

And can you tell me where did I cut corners?

How could we know? We can only speculate based on the limited amount of information we have

Last a lot of facts got "poetic licensed" on the way to the 110'th post.

I believe it was the lack of facts that led to speculation. Discussing many scenarios is just what happens around here. It is not necessarily a bad thing.

The ground path WAS VERIFIED.

How?

The ground path was visually inspected.
The wire was tested for not being bonded to boxes, etc.

Now we know.

The EMT was tested and it was enough to provide an interrupting on the 150A main.

How?

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?

Don't get so defensive. You are your best judge as you are the one with the best information. We are just kicking thoughts around based on information we have and scenarios we make up. It is just a discussion about an interesting topic.

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.

True enough. "Safe" is a relative term that is judged a lot of times with a money measuring stick.

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 did not perceive it that way. I thought it was a discussion about the different ways things could have been done. We really do not have enough information to judge you specifically, not that that would necessarily be a barrier. :grin:

I think people who run #10 on a 20A, 20' HR are gougers, how's that?

Ok by me.

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

"The EMT was tested and it was enough to provide an interrupting on the 150A main."

Guess i missed that part. How did you do that ?

 

[growler]

can anyone find faults in this solution?

All I did ask here if anyone sees a code issue with this.

The code issue was decided right off, everyone agreed that useing EMT for an EGC was legal.

There are possible faults to the solution or most of the contractors in this country are idiots. There certainly are a lot of grounds pulled and it's not just to support the cable manufacturers. I think a lot of grounds are pulled because contractors understand that conduit isn't always run correctly to provide an acceptable ground path.

You did the job and if it was approved by the local authorities then that's all you need.

There are lots of people that may read these post in the future if they are faced with the same problem. It's good for them to understand there are many different opinions on the subject. Once they read the different opinions it will be up to them to make up their own mind on what they need to do.


You will get many different opinions on which brand of toilet paper is best so don't expect to get some sort of unanimous consensus on EMT as a ground path.

The thing to remember about the NEC is that if it were perfect it wouldn't need to be revised every three years. EMT is legal as a EGC at the present but it may not be in the future for some of the same reasons pointed out on this very forum. On the other hand it may still be legal a hundred years from now because it's considered safe enough.

We haven't all been brainwashed to the point that that we agree with everything we see written in a book.

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

"can anyone find faults in this solution? "
You asked and we told you.
The opinions are just that.
On here if you ask you will usually get, some that you like some that you don't.
Yes your idea saved money for customer. Was it a good idea is what is at issue here.
All we did was point out the possable faults.

 

[brian john]

The EMT was tested and it was enough to provide an interrupting on the 150A main.

Enquiring minds want to know? SERIOUSLY.

 

[acrwc10]

Enquiring minds want to know? SERIOUSLY.

It may take another 109 posts to get to the answer. Way to much info left out of the OP. The real issue here is that the emt could be and was visually inspected. If this is true, No Problem, go for it, you have my blessing ( not that you want or need it )

 

[readydave8]

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.

oh ........................got it, thanks

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

He says he viewed it and tested it to clear faults at 150 amps. Not sure how but if so then i would go with it. Just hope one them couplings ain't just barely touching.

 

[brian john]

He says he viewed it and tested it to clear faults at 150 amps. Not sure how but if so then i would go with it. Just hope one them couplings ain't just barely touching.

You won't be happy till he changes this to fit your method and then receives 50 lashes?

 

[acrwc10]

You won't be happy till he changes this to fit your method and then receives 50 lashes?

Or you till he puts in a transformer.:grin: At least one thing a few of us agree on, do the job to a point YOU KNOW IT'S RIGHT and can stand behind it with mort then a "I thought it was good enough, duh?"

 

[brother]

You won't be happy till he changes this to fit your method and then receives 50 lashes?

Make it 60 lashes, and it will be good.