upgrading service

Status
Not open for further replies.
iwire said:
I am not following you but the fact remains, all three images that have been posted are NEC compliant without the addition of Exothermic weld, or irreversible listed connection device etc.

You are misinterpreting the the NEC sections.
Click to expand...

I agree completely and it's obvious that rbj will never agree which is his prerogative. The fact remains that the graphics are all code compliant. As with any portion of the NEC you are free to exceed the minimum requirements. If you want to run one continuous conductor and exothermic weld to every electrode go right ahead. This however is not required and for someone else who may be here looking for the correct information Bob and Roger have provided it.

Rbj, we can agree to disagree.
 
gndrod said:
Bob,
I respect your opinion and hope that any apprentice newbie can understand how to wire a residence using industrial illustrated graphics that do not follow code and UL listed requirements with reasonable residential depictions. rbj
Click to expand...

And with all due respect, I would hope that any newbie would follow the authors of the NECH and top instructors when trying to learn, understand, and/or apply the NEC.

FWIW, NC has ammended the 2005 and 2008 wording of 250.50 to read as follows,

AMENDMENT 250.50 (Effective June 1, 2008)
Delete NEC 2008 text and replace with:

250.50 Grounding Electrode System. If available on premises at each building or structure served, each item in 250.52(A)(1) through (A)(6) shall be bonded together to form the grounding electrode system. Where none of these electrodes are available, one or more of the electrodes specified in 250.52(A)(4) through (A)(7) shall be installed and used.
Click to expand...

meaning, even if it's present it doesn't have to be used if it's not available.

Roger

 
infinity said:
I agree completely and it's obvious that rbj will never agree which is his prerogative. The fact remains that the graphics are all code compliant. As with any portion of the NEC you are free to exceed the minimum requirements. If you want to run one continuous conductor and exothermic weld to every electrode go right ahead. This however is not required and for someone else who may be here looking for the correct information Bob and Roger have provided it.

Rbj, we can agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

Thanks Rob.
 
roger said:
And with all due respect, I would hope that any newbie would follow the authors of the NECH and top instructors when trying to learn, understand, and/or apply the NEC.

FWIW, NC has ammended the 2005 and 2008 wording of 250.50 to read as follows,



meaning, even if it's present it doesn't have to be used if it's not available.

Roger

Click to expand...

Accessible would have been a better choice. Still the other electrodes are supplemental at minimum. rbj
 
gndrod said:
Bob,
I respect your opinion and hope that any apprentice newbie can understand how to wire a residence using industrial illustrated graphics that do not follow code and UL listed requirements with reasonable residential depictions.
Click to expand...


My hope is that any person following along has looked up the sections that many of us have posted and figures out for themselves you are misreading the pertinent sections.

The images posted previously are safe, are complete, and fit any type of occupancy. If you don't have a steel frame then eliminate that from the picture, the meaning remains the same.

The impedance buildup through the iron structure alone is a recipe for disaster without reliable permanent bonded GEC's that are portrayed in series through a commercial framework. One loose connection in a dwelling single GEC is a hazard waiting to happen.
Click to expand...

I am not going to 'agree to disagree' I am going to be straight forward and say you are mistaken in your reading of the referenced NEC sections and your predictions of hazards waiting to happen.

I am sorry we were not able to help you understand the NEC sections.
 
iwire said:
My hope is that any person following along has looked up the sections that many of us have posted and figures out for themselves you are misreading the pertinent sections.

The images posted previously are safe, are complete, and fit any type of occupancy. If you don't have a steel frame then eliminate that from the picture, the meaning remains the same.



I am not going to 'agree to disagree' I am going to be straight forward and say you are mistaken in your reading of the referenced NEC sections and your predictions of hazards waiting to happen.

I am sorry we were not able to help you understand the NEC sections.
Click to expand...

Interpretation is all in what is being done for safe installations, that is the main concept put forth by the NEC. Illustrations do not reveal the underlying requirements to apply materials and processes that must be driven by rules. Sometimes the context of language can make intentions obscure.

Bob, I would not be sorry. You make up for your expertise in commercial and I respect that totally. rbj
 
gndrod said:
Interpretation is all in what is being done for safe installations, that is the main concept put forth by the NEC. Illustrations do not reveal the underlying requirements to apply materials and processes that must be driven by rules. Sometimes the context of language can make intentions obscure.

Bob, I would not be sorry. You make up for your expertise in commercial and I respect that totally. rbj
Click to expand...
FWIW, I have to side with Bob, Roger, Infinity, and PeterD. These guys know what they are talking about. Im my short time being a member of this forum I've learned and re-learned stuff that I thought I knew but didn't really fully grasp until now. At least you are civil in your disagreeing, but nonetheless you are incorrect.

I've been incorrecct many times on here arguing with guys and putting my foot in my mouth. But I can admit when I'm wrong as I've done here quite a few times. Don't be scared to eat a little crow and admit you are interpreting something wrong.
 
Hi Steelersman,

Thanks for the vote of confidence. Yeh, I've been wrong many times in the last 50 years of both electronic and electrical experience and I certainly realize how good crow tastes. For some reason I feel that I have fallen into a hornets nest of East Coast wiring methods that have been the norm for many years. The concepts derived from how something must be wired originate from both regional and environmental aspects of what the local AHJ delegates from the NEC rule-making.

In the residential books that I publish and distribute to both inspection companies and the locals from across the US, I get plenty of feedback from everyone and what is demanded from AHJ and White Book standards. I can see where Commercial Industrial sees what they want to interpret from the factory mindset and I do agree most of the time due to my past experiences there. I have had a depth of experience in my own independant inspection company since I retired from the electrical trades in over ten years ago. This experience is precious in that I see where code does not meet the road as far as safety is concerned.

The NEC tries its best to incorporate new technology and methods to improve the product with ultimate safety. I started in 1955 as a wireman for RCA Government service and have seen a lot in the field and on the design board. Wiring a house then was not as complex as now, believe me, I stick up for what is written in the NEC without imbelishment. I appreciate all inputs and still learn from inspections that fail because of improper installations that emanate from faulty writing and illustrated books.

The first illustration I commented on is a case in point. Put that picture into the hands of a first year man as a learning tool to wire houses and I will guarantee costly errors. Unless I am talking to a Chicago resi wireman, Residential electrical grounding and bonding requires additional terminations for stick frame structure installations. Compared to physically and electrically protective INDUSTRIAL-COMMERCIAL conduited facilities, NM cabling requires more preciseness for bonding to both the AC source fault-safety and ground electrode systems. Each residential structure as done per 2008 NEC requirements will fall short of safety for the reasons I gave in all my post in this thread.

It takes years of getting both red-tagged and buyoff approvals in any electrical specialty. I come from that raw experience and have had the opportunity to learn from mistakes and successes. So I salute the participants on this forum for showing me their experience in what is correct or not. I would agree if there was a solid foundation of what an industrial illustration showed in detail of bonding clamps being an approved method for providing a single GEC to a water pipe in an industrial configuration.

Residential interfacing context for Lightning, fault, and electrode systems is not represented in those illustrations. I draw back on both the NJATC and NECA inputs for residential from all the correspondences in the past.

At least you stand your ground from where you come from. I respect that also. rbj
 
Last edited:
gndrod said:
For some reason I feel that I have fallen into a hornets nest of East Coast wiring methods that have been the norm for many years.
Click to expand...
:-?

This has nothing to do with "east coast wiring methods. From the very beginning this discussion has been about the very clear language of the NEC as illustrated in the diagrams posted in this thread.


The first illustration I commented on is a case in point. Put that picture into the hands of a first year man as a learning tool to wire houses and I will guarantee costly errors.
Click to expand...

That is absolute nonsense.

Residential interfacing context for Lightning, fault, and electrode systems is not represented in those illustrations. I draw back on both the NJATC and NECA inputs for residential from all the correspondences in the past.
Click to expand...

I draw on the NEC and the illustrations apply to any occupancy. As far as I know NECA and the NJATC are trade and labor organizations and I'm not quite sure how they have any influence over this discussion.

Furthermore, the pictures show nothing but grounding electrode systems so how can you say "Lightning, fault, and electrode systems is not represented in those illustrations." :confused:
 
roger said:
Actually doing it continuous will save the expense of one connector.

No, the connection to the rod(s) only had to be #6 CU so you were correct



No again, a #6 is all that is required.

Roger
Click to expand...

Poco requirement by me does not allow both rods on same conductor. Just a note to others that may see this
 
RBJ, you're wrong in your interpretation and are trying to argue something you have believed to be true but isn't.

I agree with Peter, it isn't about one area to another, the NEC is the NEC on both sides of the country.

If you are teaching your beliefs to others you are teaching them wrong.

Roger
 
Last edited:
iwire said:
I am not going to 'agree to disagree' I am going to be straight forward and say you are mistaken in your reading of the referenced NEC sections and your predictions of hazards waiting to happen.

I am sorry we were not able to help you understand the NEC sections.
Click to expand...


I was simply tying to be nice. :rolleyes:
 
gndrod said:
Bob, I would not be sorry. You make up for your expertise in commercial and I respect that totally. rbj
Click to expand...

Are you saying that just because Bob is not a residential electrician he does not understand how the rules for grounding electrode systems as they apply to a dwelling unit?

Once again I will point out that there is nothing special about a GES in a dwelling unit, which is what you are so hung up on. The rules are no different whether I have 6 or 7 available electrodes as shown in the illustration or I have only a CEE or a couple of ground rods. Continuous conductor to the first electrode (installers choice based on cost/convenience usually), jumpers to the rest. Properly sized of course. It's really that simple. You are muddying the waters and actually making it more confusing for those who are learning the trade.
 
Thanks Pete, as far as I know Article 250 applies equally to dwellings, non-dwellings and other structures.

grdrod said:
For some reason I feel that I have fallen into a hornets nest of East Coast wiring methods that have been the norm for many years.
Click to expand...

We are not rappers, there is no East coast vs West coast feud going on. :smile:

Us East-coasters follow the same NEC and we have provided all the NEC references needed to prove our point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top