Would this work?

[inspector_guy]

This may sound nuts, but I will ask anyway. The home I live in was built in the early 50's. All of the original 'romex' type wiring is two wire. Beacuse this house has a brick veneer, what I would like to do is this. With every receptacle that is on the exterior walls, I could drill a 3/16 hole straight through and run a bare (or sheathed) wire of 14 awg from the ground screw of the newer three prong receptacle through the hole to the exterior of the house and then attach that wire to a four foot (or longer) piece of rebar that I had driven into the earth. This may sound crazy, but would that be an 'effective' method of 'grounding' older receptacles instead of pulling all new wire? I am intrested to here what you professionals have to say. These is just one example of some of the crazy things that I think up over my first cup of coffee in the morning!

Tusen takk, Joe B.

 

[pierre]

Re: Would this work?

Joe
It is a good thing that you ask these questions before you do the work as it will in this instance save you time and money. Your intentions are good, your methods are $%&**($$#&&*.
The 'earth' is not a good or reliable conductor. If you were to do this, you would be wasting your time, as it will not acheive what you want, which is an "Effective Ground-Fault Current Path" (250.4(A)(5))via an equipment grounding conductor (EGC). I personally (if I was you) would start methodicaly replacing the wiring over a period of time. It would be a good experience for you as an inspector, as you would gain some insight as to what is involved in this trade.
Good Luck

Pierre

 

[electricmanscott]

Re: Would this work?

Ah, what exactly do you "inspect"?

 

[iwire]

Re: Would this work?

 

[monkey]

Re: Would this work?

Joe,
Are you a home inspector?
Brian

 

[inspector_guy]

Re: Would this work?

For Pierre, I was not planning to do this to my own home, it was mearly a hypothetical idea. All great inventions began with silly notions and ideals that were experimented with. That's why I asked. I appreciate your advice.
yes, I am a home inspector. I have noticed that we are not very well liked. I do not claim to be an electrician. I am like the 'general practicianing doctor'. When I find problems with the electrical systems in homes, which I do on almost every house, I recommend that they have the system surveyed by a licensed electrical contractor. I june I did a re-inspection on a house after the homeowner had paid almost $800 to an electrical contractor who supposedely corrected a number of problems. Only half of the items that were paid for on the list had been corrected. In the crawl space areas there were several wire splices left dangling with the splices connected with only electrical tape. There were splices of romex onto the old knob-and-tube wiring. None of the splices were contained in junction boxes. These folks were promised by the contractor that these things had beeen fixed, and they weren't. Some contractors are more reputable than others, and that's why people who know nothing about building or remodeling call me. I also have a list of tradesman here in Shreveport who I call when I am not sure. And I come here to learn more. Is there anyone who knows everything about everything? There are some who claim to, and I will take them to task every time. I don't know it all, but I sure intend to try.
Takk, Joe B.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: Would this work?

The proposed solution to use a ground rod to correct the lack of an equipment grounding conductor at a receptacle is a result, in my opinion, of the code incorrectly calling this conductor a "grounding conductor". The use of the word "grounding" leads many to believe that we are trying to make a connection to earth. We are not trying to make a connection to earth, and a connection to earth would not be of any benefit in this installation. We are trying to create a fault return path back to the grounded conductor so that, in the event of a ground fault, there is a low impedance path that will permit the maximum flow of fault current. The higher the fault current, the quicker the overcurrent protective device will open the circuit.
The number of people making a connection to earth in place of a fault return path back to the source is one of the reasons that myself and others have proposed that the words "equipment grounding conductor" be replaced with "equipment bonding conductor". These proposals have been rejected in the Report on Proposals. In CMP 5, which has the responsibility for Article 250, a majority of the panel members voted to accept, but the NFPA rules requires a 2/3s majority to accept a proposal. They were only one vote short of the required 2/3s.
Don

 

[chief_insp_cols]

Re: Would this work?

"The earth shall not be used as the sole equipment grounding conductor or effective fault-current path" NEC 250.4(B)(4)

 

[karl riley]

Re: Would this work?

Inspector-guy, I like your open attitude but your lack of basic knowledge is getting scary. How would you know an incorrect grounding situation when you are looking at it if you don't even understand what "grounding" is all about? Yes, the term "grounding" is partly to blame, but if you are going to inspect ANYTHING you need to at least have a basic understanding of what you are looking at. I am not a salesman for Mike Holt, but I repeat you need to order the 2-volume tape set on grounding and enjoy!

Don't loose your attitude, but please, some effort to understand the field.

Karl