What is NEC Code For This Grounding Scheme ?

Page 5 of 6  
On Oct 1, 3:35 pm, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

No wonder Doug Miller does not know the code. You still don't comprehend what I posted? Posted was something completely different - that a water pipe earth ground is insufficient for earthing. Even if earthed by the water pipe, building still requires another earth ground to meet post 1990 code requirements. Doug - why do you forget what I posted - and also completely misunderstand paragraphs from the code. Why do you misrepresent what I posted just so you can argue?
At least Doug Miller is conceding that other electrodes - ie underground tanks - need not be connected to breaker box.
It should be obvious to John Ross that your electrical knowledge comes only from reading - not from industry experience. You did not even correctly read what I had posted.
John Ross requires earthing. One earth ground rod close to AND wired directly to his breaker box provides sufficient earthing - would meet code. Any other utility that is also earthed must also connect to this same earthing 'system'. That earthing to provide human safety (as defined by code) also provides surge protection.
Why does the telephone line need earth ground? The telco installed (for free) protector will not provide surge protection without a short connection to earth ground.
Meanwhile, volts500 demonstrates other grounding that are now required for human safety in http://tinyurl.com/hkjq . These simple solutions also should be considered by John Ross. More recommendations that Doug Miller would have conveniently forgotten or not comprehended?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You still don't comprehend that what you posted was a load of nonsense.

You wrote that the metal water pipe is not required to be bonded as a grounding electrode.

True -- but not relevant.

Why are you lying about what you posted?
In this post
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.home . repair/msg/960f7c0fae366943?dmode=source
You wrote "If using any other earthing electrode, then a water pipe earthing electrode is not required."
Remember that this is in the context of an original post which asked about adding more grounding electrodes, _in_addition_to_ the metal water pipe that he already has.
And that metal water pipe is *required* by Code to be bonded as part of the grounding electrode system.

I acknowledged my mistake with respect to the underground tanks. We're still waiting for you to realize, and admit, that you were wrong about everything else.
What part of "all ... that are present ... shall be bonded together..." are you having trouble understanding?
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
w_tom wrote:

Doug and I both answered that. The NEC does not require tanks to be part of the grounding electrode system.

If only you could read and think.
The code requires items in 250.52(A)(1) through (A)(6) be bonded. I realize it is difficult math for you, but 7 is past 6 and so tanks in (A)(7) are not required by the NEC to be part of the grounding electrode system.

Well beyond stupid. Perhaps your meds should be increased. If it is serious point perhaps you could look at the definition of "bonded" in the NEC chapter 100.

Please learn to read. Then learn to think. Then learn the code before lecturing others.
bud--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Actually, it's one through six: 250.52(A)(1) through 250.52(A)(6).

Code *also* demands that all of those electrodes be bonded together.

They must be, per Article 250.50 -- you really ought to read it some time.

False. Code requires the "metal frame of the building or structure" to be bonded to the grounding electrode system. It does not require every individual component of the frame to be so bonded.

False. There is no requirement that it be bonded separately from the pipe(s) it is connected to.

False. Rebar less than 1/2" in diameter, or less than 20' in length, is not required to be bonded. There also is no requirement that individual pieces of rebar be separately bonded to the grounding electrode system; Code specifically permits them to be bonded to _each_other_ "by the usual steel tie wires or other effective means."

False. Again, as with rebar, there are size requirements of which you appear completely ignorant.

Ahh, finally you got one correct.

According to the NEC.

Probably because you, or someone who listened to your ignorant ravings, installed the grounding electrode system.
<Because

Try again, bozo. Yes, one such electrode is sufficient. But if there are *two* such electrodes present, they must *both* be used as grounding electrodes.

Absolutely false. You simply do not have the first clue what you are talking about. Code specifically and clearly says that ALL such electrodes that are present SHALL BE bonded together. If one of those electrodes is present and *not* being used for grounding, that's a clear Code violation.
Now go get yourself a copy of the 2005 Code, read Article 250.50, and STFU.

No, not according to me. According to the National Electrical Code.
Try reading it some time.

False again. Metal water pipe is required to be bonded as part of the grounding electrode system. Water pipe more than 5' from the point at which it enters the building is not permitted to be used as part of the grounding electrode system -- therefore, the bonding must be within the first five feet.

What is most clearly required is for you to read the Code, before you try to talk about what it means.

.. then it's a Code violation: it's present, but it's not bonded.

What part of "ALL ... that are present ... SHALL BE BONDED TOGETHER" are you having such a hard time understanding??
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Miller wrote:

Doug Wrestling with a pig is a waste of time. You'll just get filthy rotten dirty and the pig enjoys it. Or as someone else here has pointed out trolls cannot be shouted down but they can be killed off by starving them of the attention that they crave. -- Tom Horne
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

True enough -- but when the pig is posting things like "If using any other earthing electrode, then a water pipe earthing electrode is not required" the pig *needs* to be shouted down.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
w_tom wrote:

I disagree with Doug on this point. If the connection to the water pipe was code compliant when installed - connection used to be allowed other than within 5 ft - the installation is OK now unless modifications are made that trigger new construction requirements.
And on to the village idiot.

As Doug points out, the village idiot rewrites the code. The code says paragraph *1-6*. Paragraph *1* is water pipe - required by code to be used as a grounding electrode. When reality conflicts with the beliefs of the village idiot, he tries to change reality.

The steel frame of a commercial buildings is one of the lowest earth resistance electrodes. As Doug points out, the frame (generally) must be used as a grounding electrode. It does not apply to each member. Anyone who can read and think could figure that out from the NEC.

Completely idiotic statement. The NEC does not required rebar be used at all - a length of copper wire can be used. And only required for new construction. And does not apply to floor.

If the village idiot would read the NEC, this applies to a plate that is specifically buried to be used as an earthing electrode.

This is paragraph 7". The NEC does not require these items be used as grounding electrodes. Only w_s renumbering includes 7".

Not according to Doug, according to the NEC.

Because w_ is unable to read and understand what the NEC really requires. Truly incomprehensible misrepresentations.

The electrical system needs only one earthing electrode *system* than conforms to paragraphs *1-6*. The NEC says All grounding electrodes... that are present, not just your favorite one.

They are used as earthing electrodes because they improve the connection of the electrical system to earth. It is totally irrelevant whether the 6 electrode types are used by phone or other utilities.

Where did Doug say that? Concrete encased electrode is #4. Water pipe and structural steel the size of the conductor goes up with the service size reflecting their superior connection to the earth.

For those without a mental impairment, water pipe (10 ft ....) is *required* to be used as an earthing electrode.

I never said underground tank must be used as a grounding electrode because the NEC does not say the tank must be used.

To quote w_ "It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be challenged technically, then attack the messenger." Not able to compete on facts, w_ has to try to discredit those who challenge his bullcrap.
Poor w_ seems to have a significant mental impairment. Virtually everything he said was wrong. Perhaps the institution should limit his use of the internet.
- bud--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

IMO local inspection authority is likely to regard the installation of a second grounding electrode as a mod that will trigger new construction requirements -- but the OP should check with local inspection authority.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Miller wrote:

If it does trigger the new code, what are the restrictions in doing this? Can you find where the old wire connected to the pipe and then splice that to new wire and run it to within 5 feet?
-- John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Short answer:
You can splice it, if you do it the right way [see (1) below], or you can connect the existing conductor to a busbar instead of the pipe, and connect a jumper between the busbar and the pipe within 5' of the entrance.
Long answer:
"Grounding electrode conductors shall be installed in one continuous length without a splice or joint, except as permitted in (1) through (4): (1) Splicing shall be permitted only by irreversible compression-type connectors listed as grounding and bonding equipment or by the exothermic welding process. (2) Sections of busbars shall be permitted to be bonded together to form a grounding electrode conductor. (3) Bonding jumper(s) from grounding electrode(s) and grounding electrode conductor(s) shall be permitted to be connected to an aluminum or copper busbar not less than 6mm x 50mm. The busbar shall be securely fastened and shall be installed in an accessible location. Connections shall be made by a listed connector or by the exothermic welding process. (4) [installation req'mts for aluminum busbars]"
[2005 NEC, Article 250.64(C)]
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John Ross wrote:

Only if you splice it by non reversible means such as a crimp connector. -- Tom Horne
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Under 250.64(C)(3), he's also permitted to install a busbar where the old wire connects to the pipe, connect the wire to the busbar instead, and run a jumper from the busbar to the pipe within 5' of the entrance.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Miller wrote:

I'm glad you posted that. I thought busbars only went in panels, so I didn't quite get your first response regarding that.
Do I understand that you are saying that in the crawlspace where the current bonding wire is attached to the pipe, you can install a busbar right there? How would you secure such a thing (can it just be attached to a joist).
If above is correct, then you mean the old wire can be put on the busbar with a clamp (would that be similar to the one's they use to attach to pipe where it just screws on--splitbolt if I recall?). Then take the new wire and also clamp to busbar and then run to withing 5 feet.
As far as Tom Horne's comment about the crimp connector, which method is easier or less labor intensive for electrician? I don't know what a crimp connector is, but it *sounds* like it would be a lot easier than the busbar, but again I am not sure what that involves.
But as far as that busbar method. Would that be considered a permitted connection point to attach the receptacle ground wires? If so, that could be very advantageous to do it that way. -- John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As I read 205.64(C)(3), yes, you can install a busbar right there. There does not appear to be a requirement to have it in a box; it's grounded, after all, so it hardly matters if someone touches it. To attach it, I believe I'd just use wood screws into a joist -- but you might want to run that past your local inspection authority.

Code says connections may be made "with a listed connector" which I assume would include the terminal screws on a busbar -- but probably not a clamp, unless that clamp is listed for use with that bar.

Either one should be fairly easy for an electrician to install.

The receptacle ground wires may, as far as I know, be attached anywhere on the grounding electrode system. That would include a busbar.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Miller wrote:

That is only true if all of the other Grounding Electrode Conductors also come together at that grounding buss bar. I know that the code does not specifically say that but most inspectors will reject it as an unlawful splice if it is not in fact a single common grounding point. -- Tom Horne
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Well, that shouldn't be too hard for him to manage, since right now he just has the one (to the water pipe, more than 5' from the entrance) and he's planning to add one more -- easy enough to tie them together at one point.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Bud promoted for plug-in protector manufacturers. He will not admit that. He follows me everywhere to turn discussions nasty. He will do this here. He has no technical experience. But as long as he can attack, then many will only see the attacks - not see facts. Bud is one of the last people I would want to install wiring. It does not matter what reality is. His purpose here is to attack me. Anywhere I post, he will immediately follow with attacks. He is not honest; he does not have technical experience; but he knows dirty politics. Do you believe a politician - or the facts? Many will make the mistake of listening to the one who insults. Many will make the mistake of confusing credibility with Bud.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
w_tom wrote:

Anyone who corrects w_s bullcrap apparently has an ulterior motive. My only connection with suppressors is I have several. Poor w_ has to try to discredit opponents because he has no valid arguments.

Already covered fuckhead. I am an electrical engineer and master electrician.

It does not matter to w_ what reality is because he has minimal connection with it.

When I see you spreading bullshit I point it out. Your post before last had virtually nothing that was correct. No one agrees with you in this thread. You are always challenged by someone in this newsgroup on your idiotic comments on water pipe.
A whole post full of attacks - no facts. Perhaps you could stick to the facts. That is the real facts, not your delusional facts.
- bud--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Miller wrote:

Doug, I understand what you are saying about current code. My point was that in 1960 they didn't care where on the pipe it was located. As it is now, it IS the ground for the house, but probably nowhere near 5 feet from entrance.
My understanding is that rule was simply because of worry of plastic pipes being used in repairs etc. So what I was saying was that IF they don't require the current code for that if installing a ground rod, I still will have a ground to earth through the pipes since it is still all metal. Someone said there were "other" reasons to do with stray currents in the first 5 feet etc. and you ridiculed him. So I assume that code or no code, just adding a ground rod won't magically make my present pipe earth ground disappear. Agree?
-- John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, but new work needs to be done to current code. Check with your local electrical inspection authority to be sure -- but I imagine they'll construe that to require you to bond the water pipe within 5' of the entrance.

Nope, not me. That was someone else. Better go back and check that again.

Quite true. Just make sure that they *are* bonded together -- preferably within 5' of where the pipe enters the building -- to make sure that they are at the same potential.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.