ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat
Recent Posts
UL 508A SPACING
by ale348 - 03/29/24 01:09 AM
Increasing demand factors in residential
by tortuga - 03/28/24 05:57 PM
Portable generator question
by Steve Miller - 03/19/24 08:50 PM
Do we need grounding?
by NORCAL - 03/19/24 05:11 PM
240V only in a home and NEC?
by dsk - 03/19/24 06:33 AM
New in the Gallery:
This is a new one
This is a new one
by timmp, September 24
Few pics I found
Few pics I found
by timmp, August 15
Who's Online Now
1 members (ale348), 302 guests, and 14 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
#76959 04/05/01 08:15 PM
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,392
S
sparky Offline OP
Member
I'm bored of doing the same old grounding, so here's what i propose. I'd like to solicit some opinons here, NEC or otherwise;


Make the Gounding Electrode conductor on with the neutral at the point of connection to a service, (weatherhead(s))

Run the GEC down to 2 rods, continue on into the structure, bonding all as i go with the same GEC, and end at the H2O pipe.


what say you?

[Linked Image]

Stay up to Code with the Latest NEC:


>> 2023 NEC & Related Reference & Exam Prep
2023 NEC & Related Reference & Study Guides

Pass Your Exam the FIRST TIME with the Latest NEC & Exam Prep

>> 2020 NEC & Related Reference & Study Guides
 

#76960 04/06/01 01:49 AM
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,723
Likes: 1
Broom Pusher and
Member
Steve,

Like your thoughts here!! Keep up the good work!!

I would "guess" [Linked Image] that the only cons to this would be:

1: Grounding on the "Line" side of the meter,

2: Not a single point to bond the grounded conductor, the service equipment and the equipment grounding conductors to the Grounding Electrode System,

3: Point to disconnect the GEC from the Grounded conductor ["Neutral" Disconnect Link] would not be easilly done if that test was needed.

These items would be the ones to start flame throwers and Napalm going, but to me, I think you're on to something!!
But you know me, I'm very controversial on the whole Grounding Electrode situation [Linked Image]

Would be great to get a "Grounding Electrode Design Thoughts" thread going - maybe it will take off!!

Scott SET

P.S.: Love that intro!! "I'm bored with the same old grounding" - Rampant boredom like this will make jack a dull boy [Linked Image]


Scott " 35 " Thompson
Just Say NO To Green Eggs And Ham!
#76961 04/06/01 06:54 AM
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,392
S
sparky Offline OP
Member
well to be honest Scott, it's been posters like you that have got me off the "auto-pilot" grounding mentality we tradesmen seem to cultivate.
and all your points are very valid, and appreciated, stay tuned!

[Linked Image]
so let's say for the sake of NEC arugement that i have managed to convince the local utility to make on my GEC at the nuetral by pointing out that it is allowed per 250-142, being that the grounded(nuetral) conductor is allowed dual-usage up to the main disco.

the continuos GEC is simply because i'm too cheap to supply any termination strip or enclosure.



[This message has been edited by sparky (edited 04-06-2001).]

#76962 04/06/01 07:56 AM
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,148
R
Member
Why not do it right and have only one grounded to grounding connection...at the utility transforemer and require all services to bring an EGC in with the hots and grounded conductors?
Don(resqcapt19)


Don(resqcapt19)
#76963 04/06/01 10:54 AM
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,723
Likes: 1
Broom Pusher and
Member
Steve,

Glad some of my babbling is doing good [Linked Image]
I'll add some stuff later tonight [I only have a few minutes to check things this morning until I'm off to work..

Don,

I like your idea. Let's expand some more on these items tonight and maybe this weekend.

Scott SET


Scott " 35 " Thompson
Just Say NO To Green Eggs And Ham!
#76964 04/06/01 08:24 PM
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,044
Tom Offline
Member
I like Don's reply best of all. I can see some real advantage to this system (besides saving the aching muscles from driving ground rods).

It'll be a cold day in Hell before the utility companies would pay for the extra conductor (and probably the extra liability).

Tom

[This message has been edited by Tom (edited 04-06-2001).]


Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example.
#76965 04/07/01 06:48 AM
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,392
S
sparky Offline OP
Member
I posted the original Q to consider what kind of trouble i could be creating with a COMPLIANT installation .
[Linked Image]
the definitions of what conductor does what job follow suit, which should be even more fun given Don's suggestion, it should be expanded on here!

Tom;
utilities are a trip! in my area at one time, all lateral installations were scrutinized by utility engineers, had to meet their approval..
In later years all laterals were "customer owned" , they would actually give out a one page pictoral to DIY'ers!
Recently, after many incidents of DIY'ers essentially creating bombs, they have revised their approach.

thanks!

[Linked Image]

[This message has been edited by sparky (edited 04-07-2001).]

#76966 04/07/01 07:00 PM
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,392
S
sparky Offline OP
Member
dumb Q #1-
what could be done to avoid a parralleled nuetral here?

[Linked Image]

#76967 04/07/01 07:02 PM
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,392
S
sparky Offline OP
Member
#2-
what job desription(s) in 250 would this assume?
[Linked Image]

#76968 04/07/01 07:49 PM
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 75
G
Member
Don,

In response to your post on this thread dated 04-06-2001 07:56A.M. , if you have a 1995 ROP , check proposal 5-32 , the substantiation and the CMP comment.

There were about 50 related proposals ( in all Sections where "grounding" was mentioned )that needed to be altered if the 5-32 proposal was accepted. See proposal 1-71 on page 14 as one of the, 50 or so, of related proposals.

Glenn

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5