ECN Forum Forums Code Related Discussion NEC & other Code issues Grounding

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?

Steve,

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

I would "guess" 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

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

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!


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).]

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)

Steve,

Glad some of my babbling is doing good
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

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).]

I posted the original Q to consider what kind of trouble i could be creating with a COMPLIANT installation .

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!



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

dumb Q #1-
what could be done to avoid a parralleled nuetral here?

#2-
what job desription(s) in 250 would this assume?

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