>I believe that he knows that but is just in it for the argument.
Wrong again. Like most people, I am here to learn. I think I asked a valid "why" question. And it has lead to another.
Why does the water line have to be used as an electrode? If some inspectors require this, that's fine. But does the NEC require this?
Because that water main is not a dedicated electrode and could be dug up and replaced with non-metallic, I prefer not to count it as an electrode. Instead, I use two rods bonded with #4. I don't expect anyone to dig up my ground rods and replace them with plastic.
Now I would like to know whether I should be using #4 for the water main or if #6 is okay even when the pipe has at least 10' in earth contact...
I think I have good questions. Naturally, I am going to try to defend my point of view. But that doesn't mean that I am looking for an argument. I am looking to learn the truth.
If the largest branch circuit that could energize the water main is 50 A, then I think that the existing #6 bonding it is adequate.
But of course you still must bond to the interior piping with a #4 at some readily accessible place(s).
[This message has been edited by Dspark (edited 06-05-2001).]
